VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Uncayimmy]

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.

You told us already that you did not research VFF. It is quite clear from the incompetent manner in which the interview was handled that you lacked even the most basic information about her claims. You told us that you are only "loosely" familiar with my StopVFF website. How, then, were you able to conclude that I would simply "rant" about her? It seems you are just as willingly uninformed about me as you were about VFF.

While you may not like whatever "brand" of skepticism you think (based on a lack of research) I practice, understand that what you're doing doesn't even come close to being called skepticism. I'm not actually sure what it's called.

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.

Are you lying again, Jeff? I did not ask to be on the show. You considered me on your own and rejected the notion. I asked if you considered me. I also told you that I am not interested in being on a show with cast members so willingly uninformed about their subjects. My post about what it takes to be invited was not a request.

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.

I find it absolutely amazing that you consider both myself and VFF for your show and reject me because of manipulative wording and vitriol. That's just too funny.

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.

To be clear, this is RA Jeff's opinion, right?

 

[wardenclyffe]

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.

Exactly. It was meant in a jesting way, not a pejorative one. I probably meant it more in the prison sense than the armed forces sense. It has a greater feeling of punishement that way. desertgal's a lifer. UncaYimmy's a lifer. I'm a lifer. Wouldn'cha like to be a lifer, too?

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

In other words, you willingly chose not to read the thread before replying. You lacked the context to understand the situation but chose to respond anyway.

I asked if Jeff, on his own, considered me for the show. He said he did and rejected the notion. I have repeatedly expressed that I find the show to be of poor quality and that I'm not interested in being on it. In the post to which you responded, I superficially examined the only four people I am familiar with that RA considered for their show. Three were invited and one, myself, was rejected. I publicly pondered possible reasons for it in a manner I felt was within the bounds of the membership agreement.

I'm a married heterosexual. If a gay man hits on a few of the guys in my band but not me, I'm entitled to wonder why them and not me even if would rather not be hit on in the first place.

 

[desertgal]

Exactly. It was meant in a jesting way, not a pejorative one. I probably meant it more in the prison sense than the armed forces sense. It has a greater feeling of punishement that way. desertgal's a lifer. UncaYimmy's a lifer. I'm a lifer. Wouldn'cha like to be a lifer, too?

Ward

Okay. I didn't mean any offense...just askin'.

 

[Geek Goddess]

In other words, you willingly chose not to read the thread before replying. You lacked the context to understand the situation but chose to respond anyway.

Actually, I did wade through every post before I replied. I do not lack context, I lack popcorn. I'm not the only one who thinks that thou dost protest too much. You express interest in why you have not been invited. If you don't care, and didn't want to be on the show, and would not be on it if asked to appear, what is the exercise for?

I'm sorry. Maybe when I stop making rookie mistakes Jeff will reconsider inviting me as a guest on Rational Alchemy. Quite frankly, I'm puzzled as to why I was considered and rejected. After all, VFF was wanting to chat with me anyway, and nobody (no offense to the Meanies^TM) knows more about her than I do.

I do have a Stop website under my belt, but I believe Kittynh and Geek Goddess have their own skeptical websites/blogs as well. And Anita claims to be a skeptic on her website, so that's not it either.

Now, Jeff and I have had our differences, but that was with JREF Jeff, not RA Jeff, so that can't be a factor either.

As I said, I'm puzzled. I'll keep plugging away, though, and prove I am worthy of being invited as a guest.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

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?

I don't see where you're coming from, sorry.

There are many people who call themselves "skeptics" who have completely different ideas from one another. I believe skepticism is about exploration, and is best served dispassionately. Many disagree with me. As for the radio show I'm on, my preference would be not to have the "holy warrior" type of skeptic on.

Do I think my way is better? Of course, otherwise I would choose another way. Does it have faults? Yes. It takes more time that could possibly be better spent on other things. It gives some people the false impression that your supporting them, which you're not. And, in some cases, a more vehement and emotionally charged response is called for, such as with people like Sylvia Browne and John Edward.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question or not, but I hope so.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

You told us already that you did not research VFF. It is quite clear from the incompetent manner in which the interview was handled that you lacked even the most basic information about her claims. You told us that you are only "loosely" familiar with my StopVFF website. How, then, were you able to conclude that I would simply "rant" about her? It seems you are just as willingly uninformed about me as you were about VFF.

All I see from you is ranting, so that's how I came to my conclusion.

While you may not like whatever "brand" of skepticism you think (based on a lack of research) I practice, understand that what you're doing doesn't even come close to being called skepticism. I'm not actually sure what it's called.

I disagree.

Are you lying again, Jeff? I did not ask to be on the show. You considered me on your own and rejected the notion. I asked if you considered me. I also told you that I am not interested in being on a show with cast members so willingly uninformed about their subjects. My post about what it takes to be invited was not a request.

Again with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of questions. You can do better. I did not lie, and am not lying now.

Asking if I considered you, and your follow up posts are the equivalent of asking to be invited on the show.

I find it absolutely amazing that you consider both myself and VFF for your show and reject me because of manipulative wording and vitriol. That's just too funny.

It's also accurate, but I didn't consider the two of you together. I considered VFF first, and then you. If you find that fact "amazing," you're quite unaware of how you're coming across.

To be clear, this is RA Jeff's opinion, right?

No, that's Jeff's opinion. If it was Rational Alchemy's opinion, or the JREF's opinion, I would have stated it that way.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[jhunter1163]

Let me see if I am following this correctly.

Jeff Wagg, after some consideration, decides to have VfF on Rational Alchemy. RA, being a skeptical show after all, needs someone to carry the "skeptic" banner.

UncaYimmy, who believes himself (not without reason) to be the foremost skeptic on all things VfF, is considered to appear opposite VfF on the program, but is rejected as the wrong brand of skeptic (i.e., the "holy warrior".) Mr. Wagg decides to carry the skeptic banner himself.

However, as Mr. Wagg is not versed in VfF lore, the program is something of a failure. VfF gets the attention she desires so fervently, and skeptics everywhere wonder why she was treated with such deference.

Is that about it?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Let me see if I am following this correctly.

Jeff Wagg, after some consideration, decides to have VfF on Rational Alchemy. RA, being a skeptical show after all, needs someone to carry the "skeptic" banner.

UncaYimmy, who believes himself (not without reason) to be the foremost skeptic on all things VfF, is considered to appear opposite VfF on the program, but is rejected as the wrong brand of skeptic (i.e., the "holy warrior".) Mr. Wagg decides to carry the skeptic banner himself.

However, as Mr. Wagg is not versed in VfF lore, the program is something of a failure. VfF gets the attention she desires so fervently, and skeptics everywhere wonder why she was treated with such deference.

Is that about it?

Except for the part about the show being a failure and "skeptics everywhere wondering," yes.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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" .

This is one of those times where I get frustrated because of the lack of background. Even within this thread I have pointed out that more than once that when Anita goes quiet, StopVFF and the VFF threads here go quiet. We don't bring her up - she brings herself up. Since her failed IIG test, most of the "regulars" have taken to being dismissive when she does that saying in effect, "You failed. There's nothing to see. Quit seeking attention." This, of course, doesn't stop her, and it doesn't stop other people

Ignoring her doesn't stop other skeptics from jumping in and saying such incredibly stupid things like, "She beat incredibly difficult odds [1 in 40] and got two people right, so she should be tested again!" Are you suggesting that we should let that stand uncontested? Even if "we" do keep quiet, she won't. And somebody else is going respond. It always happens.

I have a suggestion: How about people stop commenting on the people who are engaging VFF? I'd say half of the posts in this thread have been made by people defending themselves from criticism on how they deal with her. What happens is this:

Me: I don't think it was a good idea give VFF a bully pulpit because she will exploit it.

Bob: Expoit? Harsh words. Why the animosity?

Me: Threats of lawsuits and police action. Accusations of adultery. It's all be pointed out before.

Jane: You can't expect me to read all those threads.

Dick: Yeh, and what's with the website? Are you obsessed with her?

Me: Read the harassment thread, folks. She's the one who won't stop contacting me.

Joe: So what? She's harmless.

Me: Harmless? Blah blah blah.

Desertgal: And what about when she blah blah?

Janet: Why are you guys so mean and biased?

Akehenaten: I'm not biased. I am basing my opinion on blah blah blah.

Me: We're mean? Apparently you are unaware of blah blah blah.

Nicole: I think she should get another test. There might be something there.

Me: Are you kidding me? Have you read the protocol? My blog? The prior discussions?

Nicole: Why the animosity? I can't be expected to read billions of pages. Besides, she says she's a skeptic conducting an investigation.

Me: You do understand she thinks she's a 350 alien in human form, right? And that she toured Poland as Alenara the Breatharian. And she can talk to ghosts.

Andy: What's with the obsession, dude? If she wants another test, give her another test.

Me: She's had a bunch of tests already, and she's crapped on everybody who has helped her and refuses to accept the results. She just uses it to spin her story.

Lionel: This is frigging hilarious!

Nicole: Crapped on? Those are harsh words. She's just a nice girl.

Desertgal: Oh, let me tell you about this girl you think is so nice.

VFF: <crickets because she's on suspension>

Soapy: You guys should really just ignore VFF.

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.

If you think ignoring Anita will slow her down, then you need to read StopVFF.

 

[jhunter1163]

Except for the part about the show being a failure and "skeptics everywhere wondering," yes.

I based that comment on posts earlier in this very thread. The gist of those posts was indeed that the program was something of a failure and several people wondered why VfF was treated so deferentially.

If VfF was to be confronted by a skeptic, UncaYimmy would be the obvious choice. The comparison was made earlier between UncaYimmy/VfF and Robert Lancaster/Sylvia Browne. If UncaYimmy was felt to be too confrontational, couldn't it have been suggested to him that he moderate his tone for the purposes of this program?

 

[bookitty]

I based that comment on posts earlier in this very thread. The gist of those posts was indeed that the program was something of a failure and several people wondered why VfF was treated so deferentially.

If VfF was to be confronted by a skeptic, UncaYimmy would be the obvious choice. The comparison was made earlier between UncaYimmy/VfF and Robert Lancaster/Sylvia Browne. If UncaYimmy was felt to be too confrontational, couldn't it have been suggested to him that he moderate his tone for the purposes of this program?

Do you have any evidence to suggest UncaYimmy would be capable of moderating his tone?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I based that comment on posts earlier in this very thread. The gist of those posts was indeed that the program was something of a failure and several people wondered why VfF was treated so deferentially.

If VfF was to be confronted by a skeptic, UncaYimmy would be the obvious choice. The comparison was made earlier between UncaYimmy/VfF and Robert Lancaster/Sylvia Browne. If UncaYimmy was felt to be too confrontational, couldn't it have been suggested to him that he moderate his tone for the purposes of this program?

The posters in this thread have their opinions of course, but that doesn't mean the show was a failure. None of us on the show think it was. I see no comparison between UncaYimmy and Robert Lancaster other than a very superficial one. Robert is motivated by compassion, and I don't get that impression from UncaYimmy. I also don't think VFF is a Sylvia Browne.

 

[Uncayimmy]

All I see from you is ranting, so that's how I came to my conclusion.

I think you reversed cause and effect there. I think you meant, "I came to the conclusion that all you do is rant, so that's all I see."

Again with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of questions. You can do better. I did not lie, and am not lying now.

You lied earlier in the thread when you claimed you did no research. You then redefined "no research" to mean something else. I wonder if you'll do the same here?

Asking if I considered you, and your follow up posts are the equivalent of asking to be invited on the show.

Well, smear me up with Wesson oil and put me on a Twister board! Look at that. You redefined "asking to be on the show" to mean "wondering if an expert was considered as a guest and then upon learning he was considered and rejected, examining the qualifications of other guests." I've dealt with someone else who does that kind if spin, but the name escapes me now.

Again, Jeff, thank you for your attention in this matter. It is appreciated.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Do you have any evidence to suggest UncaYimmy would be capable of moderating his tone?

I have never once received an infraction in a VFF related thread or even an infraction outside of the Forum Management forum. Meanwhile, VFF has received numerous infractions for personal attacks and been suspended from this site multiple times as a result. She was also banned from my site for repeated threats and harassment.

So, explain to me why it is incumbent upon me or anyone else to demonstrate that my tone is not a point of concern?

 

[bookitty]

I have never once received an infraction in a VFF related thread or even an infraction outside of the Forum Management forum. Meanwhile, VFF has received numerous infractions for personal attacks and been suspended from this site multiple times as a result. She was also banned from my site for repeated threats and harassment.

So, explain to me why it is incumbent upon me or anyone else to demonstrate that my tone is not a point of concern?

Anita is responsible for her own actions, as are you.

Your actions have resulted in suspension. It might not have been related to VFF but if you are counting the JREF board as an indication of temperament, the evidence remains.

The idea that you are confrontational in regards to VFF is not new to this thread. I am not the only person to express concern. Of course, you don't need to address it. It is nearly impossible to prove/disprove a state of mind or to predict how someone will act in the future or under different circumstances. Perhaps judging solely in response to your posts on the JREF board is a bit narrow.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Here's another bit for you to consider about my tone, Bookitty. Long before Jeff and the RA cast decided to give VFF a platform to explain her beliefs, I did it here. The mods granted me special permission to have a moderated thread where only VFF and I were allowed to participate. It may be the only time it was ever done here - it certainly hasn't been done since.

At the time many people were concerned that I would allow VFF to have a platform to present her views uncontested. There was very real concern that it would be as counterproductive as the RA interview turned out to be. Anyone who is concerned about my tone should go read that thread. I was exceedingly polite yet I still challenged her with very difficult questions, and she ultimately dropped out of the thread.

So, to imply that I am incapable of exhibiting the "proper" tone is a position born of deliberate ignorance. That one thread consolidates VFF's claims in the most concise manner anywhere, and that includes my website. It's "required reading" for anyone who wants to understand what makes VFF tick. Furthermore, like everyone else, my tone changes according the circumstances. The Chi video with my children displays my silly side. My business website demonstrates a more formal side. The StopVFF site demonstrates another tone I take. And anyone can view my posts on this board to see the variety of ways in which I conduct myself. It is highly insulting of you insinuate that I am somehow incapable of adopting the appropriate tone.

That Jeff may be concerned about how I conduct myself in the interview is understandable. That applies to all guests. The exchange could have gone like this:

Jeff: I'd like to have you on the RA show to discuss VFF. I understand the animosity you have towards. Can you keep that animosity in check?

Jim: Yes.

Jeff: RA is in control of the interview. If we feel you are getting out of line or going in a direction we don't want to, we will interrupt you and ask you to get back on track. If you refuse, we will terminate the interview. Is that acceptable.

Jim: Yes.

Jeff: You and I have had our differences, but that's not part of the show. Let's not go there, okay?

Jim: Yes.

Jeff: The show will be edited for broadcast, so due to time constraints, some of what you say may be edited out, but we will do our best to ensure that the meaning of what you say is not altered. Is that acceptable.

Jim: Yes.

Jeff: Do you have experience in this type of thing?

Jim: Yes. I've done quite a bit of public speaking in my career and fielded questions from the audience, sometimes ones that attacked my position. I have been on panels at technical conventions debating others in front of an audience. I've never had an issue keeping my tone in check.

Jeff: Sounds good.

Obviously, if I answered "no" to any of those questions, he wouldn't do the interview. Since I would have to answer yes, the only conclusion I can draw is that you think I would be lying. After all, I've already established that I am capable of many different tones. Do you have evidence of me lying?

 

[bookitty]

Obviously, if I answered "no" to any of those questions, he wouldn't do the interview. Since I would have to answer yes, the only conclusion I can draw is that you think I would be lying. After all, I've already established that I am capable of many different tones. Do you have evidence of me lying?

Wait, what? Do I have evidence that you are lying because of an interview that never took place? Nope, I certainly do not.

 

[Moochie]

<snipped -- see post #223 for full text.>

Think about it.

Now, see, at this place, you could say what you really think.


M.

 

[Moochie]

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.

All I will add is that it's a pity your expansiveness doesn't apply to more areas of your experience.


M.