www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[Uncayimmy]

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

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

Not:

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

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

 

[Moochie]

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

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

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


M.

 

[logical muse]

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

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

Not:

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

That's not accurate.

From Robert's stopsylvia site:

Given all that, I firmly believe that Sylvia Browne has not shown that she has "real psychic powers", and that she should either prove them, or stop pretending she has them.

http://stopsylvia.com/home/

Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of RSL, his sites, his approach, everything about him and what he does. What you've done though, is misrepresent him.

Your Step 1 of the second scenario applies.

 

[eirik]

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

 

[Darat]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Akhenaten]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why yes! It does. Imagine that.

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

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


Cheers,

Pharaoh

 

[Akhenaten]

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

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

Not:

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

Yeah, but you know what's even better?

SSB and SVfF are two different sites, authored by different people, and did you realise . . . you can actually choose which of the two sites you visit? Or neither . . . or even both !?eleven!

Nice and simple, isn't it?


Pharaoh

 

[Akhenaten]

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


M.

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[desertgal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moochie]

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

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


M.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip for brevity only>

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

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

 

[Ashles]

Perhaps we are all upset because my lifespan as a paranormal claimant has exceeded the usual, maybe because I am really being sincere about my experience, and there has come up nothing to falsify it yet?

Well without running any tests and the fact any protocols you suggest specifically exclude a falsification scenario then that is hardly surprising.
There is no 'usual' length of a claim... if someone refuses to ever have proper testing then it is very easy to keep a claim going indefinitely.

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

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

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

 

[GzuzKryzt]

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

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



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

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

 

[Ashles]

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

Try the original claim thread. It was like that for a while.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GeeMack]

Regarding www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com...

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

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

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

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

If she doesn't have the super powers, and understands that she doesn't, then she's a liar.

No human has ever been verified to have extra-sensory super powers before, none of the six billion plus alive today nor any of the billions who have come and gone before. So it is reasonable to assume that she does not possess the powers, especially given the complete lack of evidence to support Anita's claim. And given her steadfast insistence that she is indeed superhuman, it pretty much begs for speculation as to the rationale behind her insistence and behind her absolute refusal to provide supportive evidence.

Now here's the rub: The reasons why she would claim to have the powers and why she would work so desperately to avoid testing her claim aren't especially flattering. Well some people aren't too keen on straightforward comments like, "Since you are unable in any way to substantiate your claim of having supernatural powers, the best supported, most likely explanations for your claiming that are (a) you are mentally ill and/or (b) you are a liar." And you can only couch such comments in wishy-washy diplomacy for so long before someone drops the pretense and just tells it like it is. Then the thread gets chopped up into AAH or gets put under moderator oversight.

So if UncaYimmy's site offers an opportunity to discuss Anita's problem without having to tip-toe around to avoid an infraction of someone's sense of decorum, I say good for you, UncaYimmy. And good luck with it.

 

[desertgal]

Well said, GeeMack.

 

[Rairun]

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

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.

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

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't create any rules. My point was that if you expect your average reader to take you seriously, it's a good idea to address the points the other person is actually making. If they're contradicting previous posts of theirs, you're better off pointing that out instead of giving imprecise answers, which may be ultimately right, but don't address their latest statements properly. If someone is constantly shifting positions, you have to pin them down.

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

Strawman. If I say someone has the right to do something, it doesn't mean I'm granting them that right. It's a statement of fact, not a performative utterance.

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

Check my response to you on the other thread. I falsified your proposition that "I don't know what I'm talking about." I haven't said anything about what I didn't read.

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

I see you are a little dense. My point is that there are thousands of people who believe they have powers out there. Some people believe there is such a thing as the power of prayer. They think that if they pray for their sick daughter before going to bed, maybe it will help her to get better (while taking her medication, obviously). Maybe it will help their wives to find a job after being fired.

I don't know if it's a real practice--I learned about it in a novel--but apparently there is an old Greek custom that allows a person to divine a child's gender by dangling a spoon over the mother's pregnant belly. It's a delusion, of course. We all know it is. Still, do we really have to promote a campaign against a poor old grandmother who believes in it?

Again, I have no power to stop anyone from doing that. No one needs my permission to do what they want. This is just my opinion.

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

Why yes! It does. Imagine that.

Even ignoring the fact that you completely made this up, you're still wrong. Anita hasn't taken advantage of anyone. At the very most she wasted your precious hours on a message board--if you regret that, a simple solution would be not to get involved. Give up on helping her out. Again, Anita is not Sylvia Browne. Quite frankly, she is a no one. Nobody knows her outside this forum. She hasn't founded a religious cult.

As much as UncaYimmy says that the name of the site doesn't matter, I beg to differ. If he wanted to have a similar URL, he could have easily picked something like www.debunkvisionfromfeeling.com. Saying that we should "stop" Anita makes her sound like a dangerous criminal. I honestly don't know how any of you can deny that. I might be willing to do some corpus analysis to show you this if you're that stubborn.

There is also the fact that this kind of cheapens similar named sites against people who actually need to be stopped.

Anita may be delusional. I'm perfectly okay with that conclusion. I wouldn't think the site was a lousy idea if it was just a venue to debunk her claims. UncaYimmy claims it is, but I'm sorry, the site's name is the very first thing people will see. It sets the tone for the whole project.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.

It's threads, plural. Literally thousands of posts. Just to be clear how much context you're missing.

As much as UncaYimmy says that the name of the site doesn't matter, I beg to differ. If he wanted to have a similar URL, he could have easily picked something like www.debunkvisionfromfeeling.com. Saying that we should "stop" Anita makes her sound like a dangerous criminal. I honestly don't know how any of you can deny that. I might be willing to do some corpus analysis to show you this if you're that stubborn.

There is also the fact that this kind of cheapens similar named sites against people who actually need to be stopped.

Anita may be delusional. I'm perfectly okay with that conclusion. I wouldn't think the site was a lousy idea if it was just a venue to debunk her claims. UncaYimmy claims it is, but I'm sorry, the site's name is the very first thing people will see. It sets the tone for the whole project.

I will do my best to make sure the STOP part is made clear. Here's the thing. You claim she is a nobody. If she's a nobody, then my site will be a nobody as well. My site's usefulness will increase if her popularity increases. That's the only way people are going to find it. If that happens, then she would need to be "stopped" in your book.

You are wrong to say that she is unknown outside of this forum. She's known elsewhere including:
* IIG West (multiple mentions in their newsletter)
* UK Skeptics
* Answers.Yahoo.com
* Meetup.com
* The Doctor and Psychics Dreambook

On top of that she's contacted local government officials and the owner of a local mall. She has contacted professors and asked to involve fellow students. She is planning to go out into the streets and start soliciting volunteers to be read. She is doing this with the "help" of the local skeptics group (FACT). It is my opinion that she is using them to give herself an air of legitimacy. That aside, the fact remains is that she is taking this thing to the general public. And she's documenting it all on her website.

It's no bigger than what I have made it out to be, but it's a lot bigger than you seem to believe.

 

[Akhenaten]

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the part I was commenting on, obviously.

Therefore you lack context. Hence my earlier comments to you.

I see you are a little dense.

That's what I want you to see. Later on, when it's much too late, the awful truth will be revealed.

or . . .

I see you are a little dense.

Is this your Main Claim™ or can you see other stuff inside bodies as well?



Please choose one.