The VFF Test is On!

[tsig]

Yeah, yeah yeah, life goes on and people hook up. I have yet to meet Anita.

She got her moment in the sun but it was not a steller performance.

 

[Empress]

Wow this is a long thread...
Would anyone care to summarize what happened here since October?
Maybe even start a new thread for those of us who refuse to read 40 pages.

Thanks in advance.

Essentially:

VisonFromFeeling:

MASSIVE FAIL

VisionFromFeeling:

 

[Moochie]

Anita, in the light of the IIG Demonstration, would you care to review and comment on the following statements?

I was pleased to find that not only do the perceptions work if I see the person from behind, but that I would actually prefer that. I learned that I only need a few seconds to form and conclude on the perceptions.

Linky

Hmm... 27 minutes in VfF time?


M.

 

[TSR]

.
Your lies, obviously.
.

.
And who has said that you were?
.

.
No, you were told by the IIG that he was, after that trial.
.

.
Nothing, which is why I did not make that claim.

But if trial two was disqualified, you didn't get a single hit.

So. what is to be tested again?
.

.
Yes -- you do recall being suspended here, and why, right?
.

.
If you aren't lying about this "rule," please cite it.
.

.
So, saying you were going to file suit isn't a threat? What court, exactly, would take a case of supposedly violating a Uni's rules which were not illegal?
.

.
And then got banned here for your "repeated use of threats."

The rest of us remember this, I'm sorry your re-writing of your personal version of your memory has brought you into conflict with reality.
.

.
Well, just in this post you have lied about not being told after the test and before Bookitty mentioned it that her friend was in trial 2, and that you hadn't made threats to forum members.

I can cite many, many more if you want me to, from other posts...

Furthermore, I am going to assume your assertion about school regulations against a university staff member making personal insults against the appearance of university students is another lie until you prove differently by citing this rule.

Ditto your claim that you contacted that faculty member and confirmed that of course you were not.

You see, once you lie, your burden of proof is higher. You've made a rather public bed, and it's always someone elses' fault that you have to lay in it.
.

.
Ummmm ... Anita?
.

 

[Maia]

I think that it would probably be a good idea for everyone to be more careful about making sure that they always qualify their statements as personal opinions. I'm very cautious about this. That being said, people do have a right to express their own opinions on any subject when they are clearly being stated as such. Finding a "clever and acceptable use of the word whore" does not fall into that category, and neither does going around telling everyone that another forum member has a diagnosed mental disorder. This thread was supposed to be about the original test, and if the results had been faced up to honestly by Anita in the first place, it never would have disintegrated to the point it has.

 

[GeeMack]

Luckily, I have done nothing that could be construed as being unlawful, offensive, or inappropriate.

... other than soliciting to practice medicine in California without a license, crapping on hundreds of volunteers who invested time and effort into helping you with the IIG show, and ignoring the very real, very well evidenced possibility that some sort of mental illness is involved in your hallucinations and delusions. And that's just a few examples which are directly related to the topic of this thread. But nothing has stopped you from your apparent compulsion to lie before, so it doesn't surprise anyone that you're at it again.

 

[Locknar]

I have temporarily placed this thread into Moderated status. After a review and culling, the good news is it will be reopened. The bad news is, it will be subject to the same strict Moderation that that Bigfoot Threads (for example) are being held to.

More to follow.

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

ETA: I've gone through the last few pages...those that were off-topic but otherwise appropriate were moved to the "General" thread. Those that were off-topic, or did not meet the criteria of a Moderated thread have been moved to AAH.

Posts in a Moderated thread must stand on their own; that is to say there must be no Membership Agreement breaches. If a post has to be edited (for example) - it does not meet the criteria.

More to follow.

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

ETA2: Thread returned to unmoderated status.

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

 

[Uncayimmy]

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

You know, just in case anybody forgot.

 

[volatile]

You know, just in case anybody forgot.

Hey, why stop there, Jim? We can go back to her first ever post here and see the effect time has had in diminishing Anita's amazing molecular-zoom, never-wrong xray superpowers!

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hey, why stop there, Jim? We can go back to her first ever post here and see the effect time has had in diminishing Anita's amazing molecular-zoom, never-wrong xray superpowers!

No need to do that here; he has a site for that.

 

[Jonquill]

A selection of quotes from the StopVFF chat log about VFF during the IIG test.

UncaYimmy She's got a big ass
UncaYimmy Sorry, but that's a big ass.
UncaYimmy Her hips look wider than her shoulders.
UncaYimmy It's like two pigs fighting under a blanket.
UncaYimmy She's wearing a waist necklace.
UncaYimmy But she has no waist.
UncaYimmy I pick the chick in the white dress with a fat butt.
UncaYimmy But...her butt? Her least flattering feature?
UncaYimmy And the pantie lines

I don't think most people would like to read comments like this about themselves.

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/LiveChat/LogAnitasDemonstration/tabid/446/Default.aspx

 

[Uncayimmy]

An approach you strongly supported.

Again, you are being deliberately misleading. I strongly protested moderator intervention that it was harassment and thus subject to the membership agreement. I clarified my position here. At no point did I state whether I believed the person took a course of action that I personally agreed with. What I did do was share my personal knowledge of that person's intentions and argued strongly that their intent was not harassment. Mostly, though, I argued that such conduct was not covered by the membership agreement.

At no point did I ever strongly, weakly, mildly or in any way support her approach. In fact, tsig wrote, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. Henry David Thoreau." I replied, "Point taken."

Thank you for your time. It is appreciated.

 

[Uncayimmy]

A selection of quotes from the StopVFF chat log about VFF during the IIG test.

UncaYimmy She's got a big ass
UncaYimmy Sorry, but that's a big ass.
UncaYimmy Her hips look wider than her shoulders.
UncaYimmy It's like two pigs fighting under a blanket.
UncaYimmy She's wearing a waist necklace.
UncaYimmy But she has no waist.
UncaYimmy I pick the chick in the white dress with a fat butt.
UncaYimmy But...her butt? Her least flattering feature?
UncaYimmy And the pantie lines

I don't think most people would like to read comments like this about themselves.

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/LiveChat/LogAnitasDemonstration/tabid/446/Default.aspx

I've never claimed to be a saint. I agree, most people would not want to read such things, but that's the price you pay when you seek publicity. I stand behind those statements and do not regret making them. The chat room during her IIG test was a catharsis for many people, myself included. We had about 90 people there at one point, many of them drinking. There was quite a bit of banter, and people were making all sorts of jokes and rude comments. Some people regret them. I don't.

FYI, those comments were made long after she was banned from my website for threatening lawsuits and police action. I felt good to say what I did. If you're implying that those comments somehow inspired six months in advance to harass me by telephone, that's interesting.

 

[lionking]

A selection of quotes from the StopVFF chat log about VFF during the IIG test.

UncaYimmy She's got a big ass
UncaYimmy Sorry, but that's a big ass.
UncaYimmy Her hips look wider than her shoulders.
UncaYimmy It's like two pigs fighting under a blanket.
UncaYimmy She's wearing a waist necklace.
UncaYimmy But she has no waist.
UncaYimmy I pick the chick in the white dress with a fat butt.
UncaYimmy But...her butt? Her least flattering feature?
UncaYimmy And the pantie lines

I don't think most people would like to read comments like this about themselves.

http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/LiveChat/LogAnitasDemonstration/tabid/446/Default.aspx

Thanks Jonquill. Skepticism at it's best.

 

[Sean84]

I've never claimed to be a saint. I agree, most people would not want to read such things, but that's the price you pay when you seek publicity. I stand behind those statements and do not regret making them. The chat room during her IIG test was a catharsis for many people, myself included. We had about 90 people there at one point, many of them drinking. There was quite a bit of banter, and people were making all sorts of jokes and rude comments. Some people regret them. I don't.

FYI, those comments were made long after she was banned from my website for threatening lawsuits and police action. I felt good to say what I did. If you're implying that those comments somehow inspired six months in advance to harass me by telephone, that's interesting.

So, you're completely unapologetic and fixated on your excuses?

Interesting...

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, you're completely unapologetic and fixated on your excuses?

Interesting...

Am I unapologetic for making comments about her personal appearance in a chat room? Yes, that is correct. Call me a cad if you'd like. I really don't care. I'm not going to pretend that I've never made comments like that about people before or pretend that I never will again. To apologize for it would be insincere and imply that I would never do such a thing again. You should hear what I say about the contestants when I watch American Idol.

Have I tried to excuse it? No. That's your own invention. I have outlined a pattern of harassment that has lasted over a year and for which several people have publicly expressed concern for the safety of myself and my family. That stands on its own.

Are you arguing that my comments after she repeatedly threatened lawsuits and police action somehow retroactively justify her actions? If not, then please explain your point.

If you want to call me an *******, go right ahead. I really don't care. Just don't pretend that a few off-hand comments about her appearance somehow justify her harassment before or after.

 

[Sean84]

Am I unapologetic for making comments about her personal appearance in a chat room? Yes, that is correct. Call me a cad if you'd like. I really don't care. I'm not going to pretend that I've never made comments like that about people before or pretend that I never will again. To apologize for it would be insincere and imply that I would never do such a thing again. You should hear what I say about the contestants when I watch American Idol.

You are being disingenuous. I did not call you a cad.

Have I tried to excuse it? No. That's your own invention. I have outlined a pattern of harassment that has lasted over a year and for which several people have publicly expressed concern for the safety of myself and my family. That stands on its own.

That is not my invention. You have have built a massive strawman (as far as my argument is concerned). Well done.

Are you arguing that my comments after she repeatedly threatened lawsuits and police action somehow retroactively justify her actions? If not, then please explain your point.

I made a comment about your actions, not hers.

If you want to call me an *******, go right ahead. I really don't care. Just don't pretend that a few off-hand comments about her appearance somehow justify her harassment before or after.

I did no such thing. But I will let you win the argument.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You are being disingenuous. I did not call you a cad.

I never said you did. I said you can call me one if you like for commenting on her appearance. I accept that. If you don't want to call me one, that's fine, too.

That is not my invention. You have have built a massive strawman (as far as my argument is concerned). Well done.

I made a comment about your actions, not hers.

You split up related points. I specifically asked you to explain if I am misrepresenting your point. That's not creating a straw man. I know you made a comment about my actions. I'm trying to figure out the relevance. I don't deny my actions. I didn't give any excuses for them. I said it felt good to make them. I said an apology would be insincere.

What I don't understand is how it fits. You're welcome to bring it up, though

I did no such thing. But I will let you win the argument.

Again, I never said you did any such thing. I said you were welcome to do it. You're welcome not to. Just like everyone else, including VFF, I am many things to many people. That I am seen by many to be an arrogant SOB is nothing new to me (not that you said that).

 

[chillzero]

I've never claimed to be a saint. I agree, most people would not want to read such things, but that's the price you pay when you seek publicity. I stand behind those statements and do not regret making them. The chat room during her IIG test was a catharsis for many people, myself included. We had about 90 people there at one point, many of them drinking. There was quite a bit of banter, and people were making all sorts of jokes and rude comments. Some people regret them. I don't.

I'm sorry, but you gave Jeff a hard time about how poorly he represented the JREF, and how he needs to be mindful of his position at JREF when discussing issues of skepticism on public platforms.

You put yourself in the public eye by generating a site with a purpose, and by naming it as you did you align it with the excellent example set by Robert Lancaster. You may disagree, but just as you argued that Jeff ought to represent the JREF in all matters skeptical, you ought to uphold the values of the 'Stop'website brand and conduct yourself accordingly in all matters related to that site or its subject. It's a very poor show indeed for you to sully it with such unprofessional behaviour, and worse to just brush it off by saying you're no saint.

You ought to regret those remarks as a very poor reflection on the 'Stop'website branding.

 

[Moochie]

As deeply skeptical as I am of VfF's claims, I feel she deserves as much respect as I would expect, were I in her shoes. I agree very much with what Chill has said here, while at the same time appreciating UY's efforts. It's a matter of degree, I think. By all means shine a light, but it needs to illuminate -- not blind.


M.