UY, your approach is predicated on people (the "hoi polloi") believing VfF's claims. What makes you think she's any more believable than anyone else making such claims? Is she charismatic? Does she have any evidence?
1) Of course it's based on people believing her. Why did you feel the need to point that out?
2) Why does have to be
more believable? She's as believable as
Brent Atwater, whom she has referenced numerous times.
3) Yes, she is charismatic. Quite so, actually.
4) Does Sylvia have any evidence? Do any of them?
My take is that were VfF to go the SB route, she would gain some followers, sure, but who are we to prevent that from occurring? I really don't think that we can, to be honest.
I'm unsure about your use of
we above. I can't physically stop her from doing anything nor am I trying. I have a website that counters her claims and demonstrates how she deals with people. If she doesn't try to create a following, nobody finds the site. If she goes for some press coverage (RA excluded), people doing their basic due diligence will find my site.
You see, a "4.0" science student "investigating" the "apparent accuracy" of her Vibrational Algebra
TM who has been investigated by the IIG and has quotes from the JREF's General Manager on her site in bold letters along with an interview where he suggests she deserves further testing just might make her "legitimate" enough for coverage in the local news or to be accepted by a Meetup group to treat their migraines.
When they type
Anita Ikonen into Google, my site comes up first. That's when they get the other side of the story. This is where they learn about the multiple failed tests, the lies, the misleading statements, and threats against those who point those things out. This is where they learn this "science student" believes she is a 350 year old alien in human form who talks to ghosts, can live on air, is immune to alcohol, can smell urine inside the body, sense your most recent meal, and can perform about 20 other scientifically impossible feats.
If you don't think having such a resource is of any value, that's your choice. I know for a fact it played a factor when Anita contacted the migraine sufferer's Meetup group. I know her university newspaper quoted from the website.
I think a better tack to take would be the RSL method of calmly, methodically debunking the patently silly claims VfF makes and letting people make up their own minds -- which they will anyway. After all, most people are more likely to ignore VfF if they, themselves, do the necessary debunking once they've received the information that will help them do that.
I invite you to go to my site and show me where I have not calmly and methodically debunked her claims. The fact is my site offers discussion, which means things will get heated, but at least it allows dissenting points of view, something I consider important to my brand of skepticism.
What has complicated matters is the personal vendettas in which VFF has engaged. She has been masterful at playing the victim.
* Have I ever received an infraction here for personally attacking Anita? No. Has she received them for personally attacking me and others? Yes, and she's been suspended multiple times for it.
* Have I ever called her on the phone? No. Has she harassed me on the phone against me expressed wishes? Yes.
* Have I threatened a lawsuit or police action against her? No. Has she done the same to me? Yes.
* Have I ever contacted her against her wishes? No. Has she ever contacted me against my wishes? Yes. Repeatedly. Dozens of times.
* Have I ever brought her family into it? No. Has she? Yes. She posted here,
"Oh, so adultery is fine in your eyes, as long as it is done by someone who thinks of themselves as a skeptic. I hope Jim Carr's children won't be embarrassed about their dad when they grow up." Just yesterday she commented on my wife and family on my YouTube, just a day after I told her I was looking to a civil no-contact order.
And yet I am repeatedly accused of obsession and bullying. If you want to compare RSL's reactions to mine, you can start with his direct interactions with Sylvia. When they reach the level of mine and contain the same public comments about my family in various places on the web, harassing phone calls and e-mails, and threats of lawsuits and police action, then we'll talk.
You do a good job of providing that information, but, as others are at pains to point out, you come across as somewhat overbearing.
Yes, I do come across as overbearing. I refer you to the list of actions directed at myself above and ask yourself who is
actually the overbearing one?
Allow people to find out and decide for themselves. Your site can be invaluable in providing the information people will need to do that, but only if readers feel you're clearly on their side.
That's certainly one approach, but it's not the approach I've chosen to take. I'm an advocate of a position. That's my style. We can argue until the cows come home about what's more effective, but neither of us will have concrete evidence. That people listen and respond to those who argue with passion is evident to anyone who watches the various cable channels or listens to political radio. That's not to say people don't also listen to NPR, but I don't think you are anyone has the basis to say that my techniques are without merit. You may not
like them, but that's another matter.
In the end I do not care what happens to Anita personally, and she's the only possible "victim" of my website. There is nothing on my site that is untrue. There is nothing not in response to information she put forth publicly. I'm doing nothing unethical or illegal. Nobody, and I mean
nobody else could possibly be hurt by my site.
Can you say the same for the woman who was telling people that apricot seeds, which are poisonous, can cure cancer?
She is probably already writing her responses, so she can just copy and paste them into the editor ready for posting. 
