VFF and the Diaphragm Test

[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.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.)

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?