Put a Fork in her she's done! VfF

[Robo Sapien]

I've already done more for you than anyone on this board should, I gave you sincere advice in your best interest. You can listen to it or not, but I told you what will happen if you continue like this. I don't give a rat's ass about your powers, and I will not fall into the semantics trap by providing you examples of your bad logic, only to have it fall on deaf ears.


I will, however, point out the fact that you contradicted yourself with two statements in the very same post above:

I will NOT falsify this claim until I make inaccurate perceptions.
And investigating an interesting topic does not make me less of a future scientist, simply because of the controversy of this topic.

And 3 paragraphs later...

I keep coming back to Skeptics because as the claimant I am not reliable to conduct my own investigation.

Despite my very mean blog post about you, I actually do like you. You are completely wrong on a great number of things, but I sort of admire your relentlessness. Speaking of which, have you ever read Moby Dick?

 

[Farencue]

There is a really sad, sad event unfolding in front of us at the moment.
I'm sure the IIG would be extrememly interested in it and who knows, maybe even Jeff himself would be interested.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Well what am I supposed to do? All I need is one good clear perception of health information, to state my confidence in it, and to find it to be inaccurate. This has not happened yet. And I need that to happen before the claim can be falsified. I want the claim to be falsified.

 

[godless dave]

Don't be silly, all of my health perceptions, whether anecdotal or documented, have been either confirmed accurate or unable to confirm accuracy/inaccuracy of.

I said your claim was unsupported. Where is this documentation? Where is the evidence that your perceptions (at least the ones you were felt were accurate) were accurate?

You just saying so isn't good enough.

 

[LashL]

2008: "My ability works on its own without any effort from me, just like when you see a page with written text you read the words whether you choose to or not and it is hard not to read it."

...

"In the human body, some of what I can see... Eyes/Vision - I can see through others eyes and identify exactly what their vision is like, if it is blurry, grainy, loss of color vision and to what extent, and compare left and right eyes and identify blindness."


2010: She doesn't even notice that the fellow she's spent several hours with and then "scans" at length is nearly blind in one eye.


Yawn⁴

 

[Farencue]

Trip trap who is that
Trip trapping across my bridge?

oh, it's Anita the troll.

ETA: oh look at the false flattery in the ETA from the troll, more baiting perhaps?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I did not look at Mark's eyes. If I have a checklist that says eyes and I specifically answer that they are ok, then that is evidence against the claim.

 

[Trent Wray]

There really is nothing that one can fall back on, in these circumstances. That kind of fantasy world is built up for exactly that reason, that everything else in their life is unsatisfactory. I had lots of family that would have supported me, but there is no way I would have shared my shame with them.

I think it all boils down to alienation. In my case, it was the fact that I was adopted by my grandparents, so all of my brothers were really uncles, and I was just the black sheep. I felt different and excluded, and it shone. Because of that, I never made a single friend in elementary school, I just kept to myself and read books.

Human nature has an inclination to seek providence, so we imagine patterns where none exist (Michael Shermer writes about this a lot). A person who grows up feeling alienated ends up believing they are somehow different from everybody else, so they seek justification for that and will end up creating one if nothing legitimate exists. In creative people, this usually manifests itself in the form of some elaborately constructed fantasy existance where they have unique abilities or states of being. I see this in people who pretend to be vampires, they will commune with each other but never accept a status quo, each one of them always trying to out-vampire the others.

That fantasy existance cannot hold up against reality forever, and will eventually come crashing down. Waking up to reality is a slow process, and a very painful experience, leading to a long period of introspection. It takes a while to re-learn how to exist in the real world.

I don't expect Anita to come around any time soon, and the "black out" idea isn't going to work, even if you somehow got the everyone here on the same page (not f'king likely). And the more everyone tears down her statements, the more alienated she becomes and thus the nonsense ensues. Every time somebody calls her out on X fallacy or Y inconsistency, she just comes right back with more rationalizations because we are adding to the shame she will eventually have to face.

I am less concerned with Anita's claims of perception, and more about her perception of herself. She just needs people to talk to her, and not about all this "ability" rubbish. Just normal topics that normal people talk about. If she realizes that she's not different-in-a-bad-way, she won't need to justify it the way she does.

Thanx for the excellent response. Hmmm ..... something to think about .....

The saga and all the players therein go on and on and on and on and on. Doomed, metaphorically speaking, to forever circle the toilet bowl. A tangible pile of ***** that won't go away and has now sullied our toilet brush, feculent chunks of it sticking in some places.

Or to put it another way. Lets not put a fork in out, how about a sock?

We need some Calgon up in this futherducker

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Read and consider carefully

It all comes down to this:

And I come back to you guys because you would never help me cheat to win a test so you are reliable in paranormal test situations, specifically for the type of resentment that we see here. I can not set up a test for myself, well, because I would already know the answers. Anybody have a local Skeptics group? Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus? Care to set up a simple test for me? Could be the topic of your next meetup, unless you'd rather talk about other skeptical events. Falsifying VFF should be kind of fun for a skeptical get-together? And then let me do a quick reading on each of the Skeptics to see if something I say is inaccurate? What say you?

 

[Farencue]

see ya Troll

Spencer really is a very lucky man!

 

[desertgal]

I've already done readings on them as volunteers and extracted what I could have learned from that. And none of them seem to know any additional persons who are missing a kidney or uterus. They have one of each persons in their group, but unless we figure out a clever way of blinding the volunteers, persons could not be used a second time once I know the identities of who is missing what.

So, once again, you want skeptics to get a bunch of volunteers together to test an unspecified claim (uterus? kidney? which?) on the basis of a bunch of unverified, undocumented, unsupported anecdotes, AND a failed test where you immediately thereafter crapped all over the skeptics who put considerable time and effort into helping you.

A claim, by the way, that posters on this thread, almost to a man, believe has already been falsified.

Yeah. That'll happen.

Oh, and...

And I am not a charlatan. If I were I would be out there charging $2,000 for a psychic reading...

...before you deny being something, you might actually want to look up ALL the meanings of the word.


char·la·tan

–noun
a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

 

[Robo Sapien]

Don't be silly, all of my health perceptions, whether anecdotal or documented, have been either confirmed accurate or unable to confirm accuracy/inaccuracy of.

Let me try to explain this in computational logic, which is about as cold and simple as it gets. Being in college, I'm sure you understand what an expression is. An expression can either return TRUE or FALSE. Variables within that expression either have a value (TRUE), or they have no value (0 or FALSE). Null values are neither true nor false, they are considered incalculable. Incalculable, btw, is also known as untestable. So what happens in an expression when it encounters a null value? That expression returns FALSE. Why? Because it is incalculable.

Expressions are processed hierarchically and from left to right, and each step in the expression will be calculated until a TRUE statement is encountered, the rest of the expression is discarded. However, if the expression reaches the end and still has not resolved a TRUE statement, the expression returns FALSE. If a null value exists before a TRUE statement is resolved, the expression cannot proceed and therefore returns FALSE.

I'll give you an example..

Variables:

A = 3
B = 5
C = Null (Anita's untestable/unconfirmable claim)


Expressions:

(A) = TRUE
(B) = TRUE
(C) = FALSE
(A + B = 8) = TRUE
(B - A = 2) = TRUE
(A * B = 15) = TRUE
(A * C * B = 15) = FALSE
(A + C = 5) = FALSE
(B + C = 5) = FALSE
(A * 2 = 10) = FALSE
(A * 1 = A) = TRUE
(B * 1 = B) = TRUE
(C * 1 = C) = FALSE



See a pattern yet? Every expression that contains the variable representing your claim automatically returns FALSE when tested. There is no bias there, machines can't lie.

 

[Chimera]

I did not look at Mark's eyes. If I have a checklist that says eyes and I specifically answer that they are ok, then that is evidence against the claim.

You knew you were looking at kidneys in the IIG test, and you still failed it. That is evidence against your claim.

Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus?

No.

 

[kerikiwi]

Provide me with an example of an inaccurate perception that I made where I stated confidence in the perception before the accuracy was established.

Oh I get it.
You make a statement, withholding any claim to its accuracy,wait until it is verified, then claim success. When it is not verified you say you didn't claim to be accurate, therefore you are still right.
Excuse me while I go teach my parrot how to mimic hysterical laughter...

 

[kerikiwi]

Provide me with an example of an inaccurate perception that I made where I stated confidence in the perception before the accuracy was established.

It is not necessary for you to add a rider that you are 'confident' for a particualar claim to be wrong.
You make a statement, for example you see a kidney. The kidney is not there. You are wrong, whether or not you stated confidence in your statement.
Pretty simple really.
Excuse me while I go and buy a parrot...

 

[desertgal]

It all comes down to this:

And I come back to you guys because you would never help me cheat to win a test so you are reliable in paranormal test situations, specifically for the type of resentment that we see here. I can not set up a test for myself, well, because I would already know the answers. Anybody have a local Skeptics group? Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus? Care to set up a simple test for me? Could be the topic of your next meetup, unless you'd rather talk about other skeptical events. Falsifying VFF should be kind of fun for a skeptical get-together? And then let me do a quick reading on each of the Skeptics to see if something I say is inaccurate? What say you?

Ashles Standard Answer #1:

Do some reliable testing. Come back when you get positive results
Anita has not succeeded in any of her claims in any test observed by anyone.
She has wasted a lot of skeptics time in the process of failing these tests.
Howvever what is particularly annoying is that Anita has refused to accept the tests as failures and is trying to twist them into some sort of 'research sessions' designed solely to find out more about what circumstances the ability works/doesn't work under.
Only problem is that Anita came with a claim that apparently had no such restrictions.
And these tests were supposed to be tests just to demonstrate whether Anita had the abilty or not.
So no further testing can proceed now that it is clear that no test will yield any useful conclusion. A failed test just means Anita tweaks something slightly then requests more testing. Well that's fine if it's just her own time she is wasting, but not when skeptical testing is at a premium of time and effort.
Sorry Anita - in your own time develop a claim and a test that you can carry out reliably, and only then approach the skeptics with it. You have wasted too much time now.

(Hey, those are handy. Thanks, Ashles.)

 

[Susan Gerbic]

There is a really sad, sad event unfolding in front of us at the moment.
I'm sure the IIG would be extrememly interested in it and who knows, maybe even Jeff himself would be interested.

What am I missing?

 

[desertgal]

I will say it again. I have several cases of synesthesia. When I look at people I feel vibrational patterns that become images.

That isn't synesthesia.

Yawn⁸

 

[Resume]

It all comes down to this:

And I come back to you guys because you would never help me cheat to win a test so you are reliable in paranormal test situations, specifically for the type of resentment that we see here. I can not set up a test for myself, well, because I would already know the answers. Anybody have a local Skeptics group? Could you ask around in your next meetup if in your extended network of friends and acquaintances there is a person missing a kidney or a uterus? Care to set up a simple test for me? Could be the topic of your next meetup, unless you'd rather talk about other skeptical events. Falsifying VFF should be kind of fun for a skeptical get-together? And then let me do a quick reading on each of the Skeptics to see if something I say is inaccurate? What say you?

How much attention is enough?

 

[likelystory]

Anita,if you can't convince the Skeptics here on the forum ,then you got ''Buckley's Chance'' of convincing the Scientists.

JREF Skeptics are the hardest to break....Your better choice would be to hang out with people at the movies.