Dear Anita,
Officially, I speak only for myself when I write this. As I refer to skeptics (or we, us) understand that I am speaking only in general terms with the reasonable belief that there are many who have thoughts on this similar to mine. With that said...
You must be as tired of this as the rest of us. It is time for you to consider very seriously the path you are on, because at this point it doesn't look like it's having a positive impact on your life. I am weary, and I know others are tired, frustrated and even disgusted by all of this. Let's look at this in the simplest terms possible.
First, as far as your claims go, it is pointless to continue trying to convince us there is any merit to them. We have been over the same ground countless times. The IIG protocol was barely acceptable in terms of standards of evidence (we discussed the protocol at length in another thread). Any "evidence" you offer that is below that standard, which is everything else you have presented, will be by default considered unacceptable. No amount of arguing will persuade us otherwise. Likewise, no quantity of anecdotes or informal videos will convince us of anything.
So, please stop trying. There is nothing to be gained. When you have actually passed a test at least as stringent and well-documented as the IIG test, then we'll pay attention. If you can arrange such a test, don't even tell us about it beforehand. If you pass, come share your story. If you fail and it turns out to be the straw that finally breaks the woo-camel's back, come share your story. Otherwise, please don't bother.
Second, why do you need our "support" or whatever anyway? Why do you spend so much time trying to convince us that you have really good reasons for not calling your claim "falsified." It's a rhetorical question, so please don't answer. My point is that you already know our standards for accepting any such claim - they are the same for all other claims. Obviously, your standards differ.
Third, by my estimation you have written over a million words about yourself and your claims. Everything new you tell us will be compared to what you have said before. Every seeming contradiction will be pointed out. Why? Because we have no other evidence to work with. Look, if you took the MDC and demonstrated twice under controlled conditions that you could make purple monkeys fly out of your butt, then we skeptics would have no choice but to say, "Anita can make purple monkeys fly out of her butt."
All of your anecdotes about how sometimes the monkeys were blue or how they don't always fly out of your butt or how sometimes you think they are but they were just ordinary farts won't matter one damn bit. Nobody will talk about any of that stuff because the evidence will speak for itself.
What you have to stop doing is speaking for the evidence.
As for your alleged journey to skepticism, many of us don't buy it. Like with the purple monkeys metaphor, we'll believe it when we see it, so don't try to convince us with mere words. Hell, even if you perform a complete transformation to Full Blown Skeptic and go on tour with Penn & Teller, it's going to take a while for people to be convinced. By your own admission you have a lifetime of woo beliefs tightly integrated into your being, and that's not easily undone. You can't force us to be believe your transformation because the transformation will speak for itself.
What you have to do is stop speaking for the transformation.
There is nothing left for you to gain from the skeptics. We have given you countless tests for you to attempt, so go do them. We have described in painful detail just how you should approach your claims, so take that information and run with it. We have nothing new to tell you. Nothing. And most of us are too tired and frustrated to repeat it all again.
You are now a member of two skeptic groups, and you're dating one of the officers of the IIG. You don't need to do any of this publicly. You should, like countless millions have done before you, approach this privately and thoughtfully. Obviously, this public spectacle sucks up enormous amounts of your time and accomplishes nothing. If you want to document your experiences, go right ahead. Like any good documentarian (that's somebody who creates documentaries rather than lives on them instead of food and water), don't publish anything until you're done. Organize the information in a meaningful way and share your story. Let the events speak for themselves.
What you have to do is stop speaking for the events.
There's nothing left to be said here. We know the claims. You know our stance on them. You know what evidence we would find satisfactory. There's nothing you can tell us that will change any of that.
So, just go about your skeptical transformation in private, because it is a private thing. If you continue with this publicly, there will be no escaping the accusations of exhibitionism, which is what this really is. Document it if you feel compelled, but like with any good story, don't share it until it's done.
The reason is simple: Everything new you share is the last chapter. That means we skeptics will rip it to shreds because we don't want people believing this nonsense. However, if you don't publish until it's done, then what choices do you leave us? I see two:
1) You've proven your claims. We skeptics who scoffed will have to accept the evidence. There will be no need to tear apart your anecdotes because we will have to strongly consider that your ability, not chance or other mundane factors, was at work.
2) You've become a hardcore skeptic who has rejected her beliefs. Again, there will be no need to tear apart your anecdotes because we know how the story ends. It will all be part of a valuable lesson.
What you are doing now, however, is putting yourself in the center of a public spectacle that has resulted in personal attacks, threats of lawsuits, threats of police actions, accusations of harassment, threats to get people fired, accusations of mental illness, fraud, and lying. It could all have been avoided had you simply engaged a few trusted people to privately explore your claims.
It seems to me you are now in a perfect position to explore things privately. Take your websites down with an explanation that in the best interests of everyone involved you will only share your story when the claims are confirmed or falsified. That's how real scientists work. Scientists don't publish as they go along. They document, then when they are done, they spend a tremendous amount of time finding a way to present the information logically, thoroughly and concisely. Then, and only then, do they submit it for peer review.
Do that, and you will earn the grudging respect of a lot of people, myself included. If you continue down this path, I see little good that came come from it.
