I find these threads, and your contributions in particular, humorous. Clear enough?By that do you mean that you find these threads humorous or that you prefer not to contribute to skepticism and critical thinking? You have about 127 posts in GS&P in the last year and max out humor at 275. I'm confused?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy
- Thread starter Uncayimmy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
If that quoted snippet is the extent of the "spin" she can put on the interview, then I rest my case as successful; that's a near-meaningless statement with some token name-dropping.
You know, I thought about just linking the "butthurt" image here one more time, but perhaps it's time for an occasional piece of serious commentary. Let's try it and see what happens.
First, I'll open with two questions. Do you think Sylvia has ever linked to Robert's website and called it a "fan" site? Why do you think that is?
I think it's partly because you are, indeed, making rookie mistakes. First, you said that you've logged over 100,000 words with Anita in chat logs (inherently private) and Skype chats (inherently private). Do you think Robert's even had 1,000 words of private discussion with Sylvia? Frankly, when you have that much personal contact with a person you're setting up an "anti-" website about, it starts to call into question your motivations, regardless of what you say about it.
Second, take a look at Robert's site again. He spends all his time directly (and calmly, somehow) attacking her predictions -- not her person, not her mindset, and he doesn't spend any effort trying to "cure" her, "fix" her, or force her to admit she's wrong. He provides a repository to precisely what Sylvia cannot abide: concrete, irrefutable proof that her predictions (and therefore her livelihood) were wrong. She wouldn't dare link to his website and try to spin it; anyone looking at that site would come away with the impression "wow, she's wrong a lot". Don't underestimate the importance of the subtext there, though -- by ignoring her as a person, he successfully conveys the impression that there is nothing personal about his interest in her, he is simply attempting to stop what she's doing. You, on the other hand, have taken far too much interest in Anita both as a person and personally for your cause, to the point of linking your own perception of your "skeptical success" to whether or not your site receives the acclaim you think it deserves. That isn't skepticism, that's self-promotion. If that's what you want to do, fine, but don't think that the whole pile of critical thinkers around you can't see it as painfully obvious.
Now, given the above, let's consider why you might not have been invited as a guest 'expert' on RA. You certainly know plenty about Anita, so that's not it. Perhaps it was because, as stated elsewhere, the goal was to try to explore the mindset of a person who had been tested and failed the test... rather than grill that person yet one more time and try to get them to admit that they're just making it up. My impression of you, based on your posts here, website, and other tidbits, is that you simply do not have the emotional self-control required to interview Anita in anything other than an adversarial format; that you intend to confront her aggressively at every opportunity about her claims and try to force her to 'admit' something. I think this is an unproductive approach, personally, and damages your credibility... with results such as we saw with RA.
Repairing that credibility? If I were you I'd remove the entire forum section from your website or make it private for your 'secret room' members only, so you can have a place to discuss her without providing her the ability to point her followers to a place dedicated entirely to talking about her. I'd refocus your articles to be more objective, rather than written from the obvious personal slant, and I'd try to be as dry as possible. I'm not sure you can do anything about the extensive personal contact you've had with her already, but that's all water under the bridge now.
It's your choice, really. But your actions so far have led you up to this not-altogether-unpredictable scenario. You can either respond to this with the standard "your input is not valuable to me" and other dismissive remarks based on who is telling you this, or you can sit down and do some self-examination about how you're handling the whole "Stop VFF" cause, and compare it to one that's remarkably successful.
Oh, yeah. Two other thoughts. I think I'm supposed to be offended by your signature somehow, but I can't think of a better quote offhand I'd like associated with me. To me, that's precisely what the JREF is about, and what "skepticism/critical thinking" should be about -- see claim, test claim. If a test comes back positive, examine controls and retest. If it keeps coming back positive, we all win -- if it keeps coming back negative, when the testers say "enough is enough", that's when the tests stop.
Also, Jeff is mostly correct in his statement that "skepticism is about exploration, not debunking", but I think it should be clarified: Only PART of skepticism is about debunking. Some claims can be directly disproven ("there was no holocaust") by evidence, and that should happen when possible. But claims that are of the "needs testing" nature should be approached from the attitude of "OK, show me" rather than "You can't do that".
Think about it.
You know, I thought about just linking the "butthurt" image here one more time, but perhaps it's time for an occasional piece of serious commentary. Let's try it and see what happens.
First, I'll open with two questions. Do you think Sylvia has ever linked to Robert's website and called it a "fan" site? Why do you think that is?
I think it's partly because you are, indeed, making rookie mistakes. First, you said that you've logged over 100,000 words with Anita in chat logs (inherently private) and Skype chats (inherently private). Do you think Robert's even had 1,000 words of private discussion with Sylvia? Frankly, when you have that much personal contact with a person you're setting up an "anti-" website about, it starts to call into question your motivations, regardless of what you say about it.
Second, take a look at Robert's site again. He spends all his time directly (and calmly, somehow) attacking her predictions -- not her person, not her mindset, and he doesn't spend any effort trying to "cure" her, "fix" her, or force her to admit she's wrong. He provides a repository to precisely what Sylvia cannot abide: concrete, irrefutable proof that her predictions (and therefore her livelihood) were wrong. She wouldn't dare link to his website and try to spin it; anyone looking at that site would come away with the impression "wow, she's wrong a lot". Don't underestimate the importance of the subtext there, though -- by ignoring her as a person, he successfully conveys the impression that there is nothing personal about his interest in her, he is simply attempting to stop what she's doing. You, on the other hand, have taken far too much interest in Anita both as a person and personally for your cause, to the point of linking your own perception of your "skeptical success" to whether or not your site receives the acclaim you think it deserves. That isn't skepticism, that's self-promotion. If that's what you want to do, fine, but don't think that the whole pile of critical thinkers around you can't see it as painfully obvious.
Now, given the above, let's consider why you might not have been invited as a guest 'expert' on RA. You certainly know plenty about Anita, so that's not it. Perhaps it was because, as stated elsewhere, the goal was to try to explore the mindset of a person who had been tested and failed the test... rather than grill that person yet one more time and try to get them to admit that they're just making it up. My impression of you, based on your posts here, website, and other tidbits, is that you simply do not have the emotional self-control required to interview Anita in anything other than an adversarial format; that you intend to confront her aggressively at every opportunity about her claims and try to force her to 'admit' something. I think this is an unproductive approach, personally, and damages your credibility... with results such as we saw with RA.
Repairing that credibility? If I were you I'd remove the entire forum section from your website or make it private for your 'secret room' members only, so you can have a place to discuss her without providing her the ability to point her followers to a place dedicated entirely to talking about her. I'd refocus your articles to be more objective, rather than written from the obvious personal slant, and I'd try to be as dry as possible. I'm not sure you can do anything about the extensive personal contact you've had with her already, but that's all water under the bridge now.
It's your choice, really. But your actions so far have led you up to this not-altogether-unpredictable scenario. You can either respond to this with the standard "your input is not valuable to me" and other dismissive remarks based on who is telling you this, or you can sit down and do some self-examination about how you're handling the whole "Stop VFF" cause, and compare it to one that's remarkably successful.
Oh, yeah. Two other thoughts. I think I'm supposed to be offended by your signature somehow, but I can't think of a better quote offhand I'd like associated with me. To me, that's precisely what the JREF is about, and what "skepticism/critical thinking" should be about -- see claim, test claim. If a test comes back positive, examine controls and retest. If it keeps coming back positive, we all win -- if it keeps coming back negative, when the testers say "enough is enough", that's when the tests stop.
Also, Jeff is mostly correct in his statement that "skepticism is about exploration, not debunking", but I think it should be clarified: Only PART of skepticism is about debunking. Some claims can be directly disproven ("there was no holocaust") by evidence, and that should happen when possible. But claims that are of the "needs testing" nature should be approached from the attitude of "OK, show me" rather than "You can't do that".
Think about it.
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Yep. She played him like a cheap fiddle. There must be at least a little comfort in knowing that you're not representing a fairly prestigious skeptics organization when you get duped so thoroughly.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's not even close to the extent of it. Lacking certain insights, you may not know this.
You can, of course, rest your 'case' whenever you wish. Its success, however, will never be yours to call. That's where the judge and jury bit comes in and neither the prosecutor nor the public defender are involved in deliberations leading to the final verdict. You know this.
One man's near-meaningless statement with some token name-dropping is another man's (or Arcturan's) entrée into the woo economy. You ought to know this also.
You apparently believe this to be the totality of the problems that some of us foresee. It is not.
Last edited:
Geek Goddess
Hot enough to melt 4" rebar
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,940
Being on RA had nothing to do with the JREF, the JREF forum, or what volunteer work I may provide here. I was asked to be on to discuss a specific topic, something that is not normally looked at via a skeptical thought process, and on which I have specific detailed knowledge and experience. This is why RA invited me. I mention RA, not "Jeff" because Jeff doesn't run RA.
Also, I can carry on a conversation about a wide range of topics, and don't have a rant about any one particular thing. This may or may not have contributed to why the RA people invited me to be on their show. I'm rather well read on a great variety of current events, especially as related to science and skepticism. Not an expert, but able to discuss intelligently and with an informed opinion.
I can't speak for Kittynh, but she has a website and a particular subject matter interest in UFO 'abductees' and a rather unique way of dealing with them. She's respected for her techniques in being kind. Her kindness opens doors to work with the people and helped them realized their delusions. She doesn't make fun of them or call them names.
In fact, I personally witnessed a couple give her a very nice donation to help with her work, and they told her that it was *because* of her approach in dealing with deluded people. I believe that is why RA picked her - not because of her posts at the JREF forum, but because of what she does elsewhere. Also, she can carry on a conversation, and is informed about a wide variety of skeptical issues.
Seriously, you think RA counts posts? Posting in General Skepticism, Community, or any other area? Why on earth would they care? Nigel and Brian have nothing to do with the JREF, and IIRC, they started the podcast before Jeff later came on the show. If having a high post count means that you have some credibility, we're in trouble.
I don't post in in this thread because wading through all the chaff to find the wheat hasn't been enjoyable or a good use of my time, especially taking time away from my work, and I have other outlets for my skepticism. I post in Community primarily as a means to stay in touch with all the people I've met at the various TAMs, JREF cruises, and TAM London.
Just guessing, but perhaps it's because you seem to have only one horse to beat. Personally, I wouldn't listen to a podcast where the speaker wanted to rail about a particular person for an hour, especially about a person who is largely unknown.
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
Rather a big assumption to make, don't you think? Just because you've not seen him discuss much else means nothing about what he knows.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Remirol,
Jeff said earlier in this thread that the purpose was to let VfF explain her beliefs.
But if you feel there was exploring of said mindset done on that show, could you please explain how this was done? And what was the result of this exploration?
Thank you.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
From what I remember, the "OK, show me" thing is exactly what has been done multiple times in the beginning by a number of skeptics here, including UncaYimmy. Even without VfF's claims showing any objective need for testing.
Geek Goddess
Hot enough to melt 4" rebar
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,940
I was going under the assumption that he wanted to be on RA specifically to talk about VFF. He didn't mention anything else, but I didn't intend to imply that he did not have a background in other issues.
The quote on her page is one that I made, and one I stand by. I wish it would appear on more pages, with or without my attribution.
As for why you haven't been invited on the show... you represent a brand of "skepticism" that I find antithetical to the cause. And I don't think it would be interesting. It would just be you ranting about VFF for an hour, and then I'd have to have her back on so she could rant about you... and I just don't see the point. My co-hosts agree.
Also, I don't think we've ever had a guest who has asked to be on the show, as you have. VFF sure didn't.
I'm not interested in "holy wars." I'm interested in exploring and getting to the truth of the matter. You may very well have good and important information about VFF, and information that could inform skepticism. But if so, it's wrapped up in vitriol and manipulative wording to such an extent that the value is lost.
This is just my opinion of course, and I know that many disagree with me. Disagreement is a good thing, so long as the parties disagreeing are searching for the truth and not simply trying to prove they're right.
As for why you haven't been invited on the show... you represent a brand of "skepticism" that I find antithetical to the cause. And I don't think it would be interesting. It would just be you ranting about VFF for an hour, and then I'd have to have her back on so she could rant about you... and I just don't see the point. My co-hosts agree.
Also, I don't think we've ever had a guest who has asked to be on the show, as you have. VFF sure didn't.
I'm not interested in "holy wars." I'm interested in exploring and getting to the truth of the matter. You may very well have good and important information about VFF, and information that could inform skepticism. But if so, it's wrapped up in vitriol and manipulative wording to such an extent that the value is lost.
This is just my opinion of course, and I know that many disagree with me. Disagreement is a good thing, so long as the parties disagreeing are searching for the truth and not simply trying to prove they're right.
I read some early VFF threads, but quite soon concluded this was either a seriously deluded individual or someone doing an outstanding impersonation of one.
I did not know until this thread that she / he/ it? came from Arcturus and was 350 years old. This raises an interesting question: Are these Earth years or Arcturan (planet) years? If the former, what is the equivalent conversion to the latter (ie what is the orbital duration of it's home planet and at what distance does it orbit the star?)
I ask merely out of curiosity.
FWIW-(Probably not much. I stress I am one of those Uncayimmy and others have criticised for not reading much of the data. A small sample was quite enough for me to form my opinion). I feel that if Jeff Wagg is announced on the RA broadcast as "JREF manager / coordinator / whatever" , then it is disingenuous to suppose his JREF role would be perceived, by any listener, as irrelevant to or disconnected from the content of the broadcast. (ETA I stress "if" I have never listened to RA.)
I feel encouraging someone who appears to be deluded to the extent documented in JREF threads to expound on her delusions in a public broadcast, is unwise. I cannot see how it helps her and it is self evident that most, if not all, her claims must be false. Possibly someone can tell by some means that another person has lost a kidney; they cannot do so by looking through the person . This does not require testing. It's just silly.
Having said that; with great respect to Uncayimmy and others for the work they have done in tracking this person's obsessions, I find myself agreeing with some of what Remirol and Geek Goddess have said- primarily that it may be time to back off; to avoid any personal interaction and stick to a purely observational / documentative role along the lines of "Stop Sylvia Browne" . It's possible- indeed it sounds from this thread rather likely- that Anita is a charismatic and attractive sort in her way and that Jeff and others on the RA show allowed her charm to affect their objectivity; but it seems equally possible (to me as an admittedly cursory observer) that she may be having as harmful an effect (or worse) on those who have learned not to be so affected. It seems those who come close to her are initially attracted closer, but there comes a point where a repulsive force takes over.
It all sounds ...unhealthy for all concerned.
This , I repeat is pure opinion based on this thread and early VVF posts. I have not read Stop VVF, as I don't honestly think I need to.
I did not know until this thread that she / he/ it? came from Arcturus and was 350 years old. This raises an interesting question: Are these Earth years or Arcturan (planet) years? If the former, what is the equivalent conversion to the latter (ie what is the orbital duration of it's home planet and at what distance does it orbit the star?)
I ask merely out of curiosity.
FWIW-(Probably not much. I stress I am one of those Uncayimmy and others have criticised for not reading much of the data. A small sample was quite enough for me to form my opinion). I feel that if Jeff Wagg is announced on the RA broadcast as "JREF manager / coordinator / whatever" , then it is disingenuous to suppose his JREF role would be perceived, by any listener, as irrelevant to or disconnected from the content of the broadcast. (ETA I stress "if" I have never listened to RA.)
I feel encouraging someone who appears to be deluded to the extent documented in JREF threads to expound on her delusions in a public broadcast, is unwise. I cannot see how it helps her and it is self evident that most, if not all, her claims must be false. Possibly someone can tell by some means that another person has lost a kidney; they cannot do so by looking through the person . This does not require testing. It's just silly.
Having said that; with great respect to Uncayimmy and others for the work they have done in tracking this person's obsessions, I find myself agreeing with some of what Remirol and Geek Goddess have said- primarily that it may be time to back off; to avoid any personal interaction and stick to a purely observational / documentative role along the lines of "Stop Sylvia Browne" . It's possible- indeed it sounds from this thread rather likely- that Anita is a charismatic and attractive sort in her way and that Jeff and others on the RA show allowed her charm to affect their objectivity; but it seems equally possible (to me as an admittedly cursory observer) that she may be having as harmful an effect (or worse) on those who have learned not to be so affected. It seems those who come close to her are initially attracted closer, but there comes a point where a repulsive force takes over.
It all sounds ...unhealthy for all concerned.
This , I repeat is pure opinion based on this thread and early VVF posts. I have not read Stop VVF, as I don't honestly think I need to.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
On the podcast:
... [52:30]because I think uhm there are an awful lot of skeptics now who are very uhm they're dogmatic for lack of a better word. They are convinced that none of these things are real and they won't discuss them with any openmindedness at all.
And while I am pretty sure these things aren't real, I am willing to discuss them as a possibillity
The "I am a better skeptic than you" brand of skepticism does in my opinion nothing to assist in getting to the truth of the matter.
I agree, which is why I never say that.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Excellent.
Did you criticize (even if offline) that brand of skepticism as well?
But then why the "you represent a brand of "skepticism" that I find antithetical to the cause."?
This appears to me of the same brand, except it's now "my brand of skepticism...etc"
Do I see this wrong, and if so why?
Last edited:
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,333
Soapy Sam,
Despite your claim that you have not read every post in every VisionFromFeeling thread (I have) and despite your claim that you have never listened to Rational Alchemy (I have), I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Your analysis of how she was treated by the RA folks and how she's treated by the "lifers" here seems spot on to me. I suspect others will disagree.
Ward
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
I don't disagree, but what is a "lifer"? The only other time I've heard that term was to refer to someone doing a life sentence in prison.
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
I've also heard it used in reference to someone serving a life-long stint in the armed forces. I assume it was used above as a jesting reference to long-time forum posters.
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
I agree utterly. (Though there is the irony that you're giving her more attention and a teensy bit of publicity just by this thread.)
I think at least any time she is mentioned here it should be pointed out that she has been proven to be a lying fraud and there is nothing special or unique about her among the many many lying frauds who make paranormal claims.
ETA: Dang it! I did it again. I posted to a thread I thought was brand new only to realize there are already 240 posts in it! I'll try to catch up.
Last edited: