VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Farencue]

GeeMack, I'm pretty sure you are nothing but a Meanie, why would they be interested in you? Now stop trying to garner attention for yourself and concentrate on Anita please. That is where it is at.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Let the inquisition begin...

I'm sorry you feel that performing your duties as the Communications and Outreach Manager for the JREF feels like an inquisition. Perhaps it is time to step down and let someone with a more suitable disposition take over. It's understandable - we all get tired after a while.

It was on Skype at my apartment. I have no office at the JREF.

What I'm driving at is whether you would you say she was contacting you in your official capacity or a personal capacity. I assumed you had an office at the JREF since your bio says that your daily duties include "battling server problems and exorcizing misbehaving computer hardware." I was unaware that you were not physically present.

Now I don't know what you're talking about. If you mean Rational Alchemy, we were recording it. If you mean the call she recorded, my permission for her to record it is in the recording.

The recording is not on her website or I have missed it, which is why I was asked.

Assuming you don't mean the radio show, I was just me.

I'm just trying to get a handle on this dichotomy you explained to us about who you represent. It's obviously ambiguous. I, for example, would assume that if I used the contacts listed on the forums where you are listed as a staff member that I am contacting you in your capacity with the JREF rather than personally regardless of where you may be sitting at the time.

You are misinformed. I am the liaison between the JREF and the forum. I do not make decisions regarding suspensions or bannings except under unusual circumstances, none of which VFF has been involved in. I did not research her history on the forum before the interview.

It's interesting that you call me "misinformed" in this regard since you regularly tell us what a wonderful job the moderators do, how there is no bias whatsoever, and that they work really, really hard. I don't want to derail this into a discussion of forum management issues - I offer this only to go to my state of mind and to rebut the notion that you consider me misinformed. I will start a thread in FM if whoever is in charge of making these decisions decides this is not the right place to debate it further. I'll take your lead.

Again going to my state of mind, given your sometimes heated defense of the admins, I assumed that you were informed about their major actions. That you would be unaware of someone on their fourth suspension I find surprising, even if you're not directly involved in the decision making process. After all, it's just a matter of looking at the public notices - hardly a major burden of time.

A liaison is defined as "the contact or connection maintained by communications between units of the armed forces or of any other organization in order to ensure concerted action, cooperation, etc." Your SWIFT bio reads, "Jeff also manages the JREF forum." I know from personal experience that you have the authority to command admins to ban a member. It's also been implied that you have the authority to dismiss either of the admins.

If I am misinformed, then I think as Communications and Outreach Manager you may want to consider how you're portrayed. That aside, that you did not bother to perform your due diligence before asking her to be a guest I find less than comforting. That's a reflection on RA Jeff, not JREF Jeff.

I'm not sure what decision you're talking about, or what evaluation you're referring to.

Why, the decision to invite a suspended member of the JREF Forums to be a guest on a podcast where one of the cast members is the manager/liaison to the JREF Forums. What other decisions were we discussing?

We do want guests who can carry on a conversation, yes.

That I understand. I asked if that was the standard. Seems pretty low to me.

That's a dishonest question. I did not and do not know that she's "dishonest" or "deluded." I think she's likely deluded. It's possible she's lying, and I know she's seeking attention, though anyone with a website or podcast is also seeking attention. I am, you certainly are, and I don't see that as a bad thing unless that is the sole goal of one's activities. I don't know if it is for her or not. She says it's not, and I have to take her at her word.

I see. So, you know I am dishonest, but you do not know that VisionFromFeeling, whose lies have been documented repeatedly on this forum, is dishonest.

And, no, Jeff, you do not have to take her word for it. You have been on the StopVFF website. There's plenty of contradictory evidence. Skeptics just don't take somebody's word for it when there is a mountain of evidence to be examined. Furthermore, GeeMack has given you the other side of the story, so at the very least you have contradictory opinions. One from a skeptic and the other from someone who claims to be an alien in human form. So, please don't tell me that you "have" to take her word for it. You chose to.

I only watched part of it, and I missed the beginning.

Is this the typical level of research for your program? On my website and in this forum are numerous places where the test was analyzed, so it's not like you had to sit through three hours of video.

The opportunity was there, and I took it. We did this instead of a current events show. I've done the same with a few other interviewees as well, and will likely do so again.

That's good to know.

I am loosely familiar with your website, and I have considered having you as a guest, but have decided against it.

You are loosely familiar with it enough to e-mail me and demand that I "correct" something in my blog. I would think that RA Jeff would have done some basic research in order to ask informed questions.

And thanks for considering having me as a guest. I'm honored, even if I didn't make the cut and VFF did. I will work on being able to carry on a conversation so perhaps in the future you can reconsider your decision.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I'm sorry you feel that performing your duties as the Communications and Outreach Manager for the JREF feels like an inquisition. Perhaps it is time to step down and let someone with a more suitable disposition take over. It's understandable - we all get tired after a while.

Sorry, answering these questions is not part of my responsibilities.

What I'm driving at is whether you would you say she was contacting you in your official capacity or a personal capacity. I assumed you had an office at the JREF since your bio says that your daily duties include "battling server problems and exorcizing misbehaving computer hardware." I was unaware that you were not physically present.


The recording is not on her website or I have missed it, which is why I was asked.


I'm just trying to get a handle on this dichotomy you explained to us about who you represent. It's obviously ambiguous. I, for example, would assume that if I used the contacts listed on the forums where you are listed as a staff member that I am contacting you in your capacity with the JREF rather than personally regardless of where you may be sitting at the time.

Sure, good assumption. And not what VFF did.

It's interesting that you call me "misinformed" in this regard since you regularly tell us what a wonderful job the moderators do, how there is no bias whatsoever, and that they work really, really hard. I don't want to derail this into a discussion of forum management issues - I offer this only to go to my state of mind and to rebut the notion that you consider me misinformed. I will start a thread in FM if whoever is in charge of making these decisions decides this is not the right place to debate it further. I'll take your lead.

If you have incorrect information, you are misinformed.

Again going to my state of mind, given your sometimes heated defense of the admins, I assumed that you were informed about their major actions. That you would be unaware of someone on their fourth suspension I find surprising, even if you're not directly involved in the decision making process. After all, it's just a matter of looking at the public notices - hardly a major burden of time.

It's not my concern unless there's a special reason for it to be. I have no idea how many times you've been suspended, for example.

A liaison is defined as "the contact or connection maintained by communications between units of the armed forces or of any other organization in order to ensure concerted action, cooperation, etc." Your SWIFT bio reads, "Jeff also manages the JREF forum." I know from personal experience that you have the authority to command admins to ban a member. It's also been implied that you have the authority to dismiss either of the admins.

If I am misinformed, then I think as Communications and Outreach Manager you may want to consider how you're portrayed. That aside, that you did not bother to perform your due diligence before asking her to be a guest I find less than comforting. That's a reflection on RA Jeff, not JREF Jeff.

Yes, you've said that a few times now. I understand that you're displeased.

Why, the decision to invite a suspended member of the JREF Forums to be a guest on a podcast where one of the cast members is the manager/liaison to the JREF Forums. What other decisions were we discussing?

I have no idea. Why does her status on the forum have anything to do with whether she should be on Rational Alchemy?

That I understand. I asked if that was the standard. Seems pretty low to me.

Your displeasure is again noted. We do want people who can carry on a conversation. That is not the only criterion, of course.

I see. So, you know I am dishonest, but you do not know that VisionFromFeeling, whose lies have been documented repeatedly on this forum, is dishonest.

I know that you've asked at least one dishonest question.

And, no, Jeff, you do not have to take her word for it. You have been on the StopVFF website. There's plenty of contradictory evidence. Skeptics just don't take somebody's word for it when there is a mountain of evidence to be examined. Furthermore, GeeMack has given you the other side of the story, so at the very least you have contradictory opinions. One from a skeptic and the other from someone who claims to be an alien in human form. So, please don't tell me that you "have" to take her word for it. You chose to.

Actually, I do. I was referring to a specific statement she made, and only one. You seem to be asking questions the way Bill O'Reilly does, without the ability to shout someone down, thankfully.

Anyway, she said she's not doing this just for the attention. I don't believe that's a disprovable claim.

Is this the typical level of research for your program? On my website and in this forum are numerous places where the test was analyzed, so it's not like you had to sit through three hours of video.

There was no research, nor did I pretend that there was. The purpose of the interview was not to grill her. It was to let her explain her beliefs. I understand that you disapprove.

That's good to know.


You are loosely familiar with it enough to e-mail me and demand that I "correct" something in my blog. I would think that RA Jeff would have done some basic research in order to ask informed questions.

As you know, I didn't "demand" anything. I sent you corrected information, and suggested that you put it on your site. And again, I understand you didn't like the interview.

And thanks for considering having me as a guest. I'm honored, even if I didn't make the cut and VFF did. I will work on being able to carry on a conversation so perhaps in the future you can reconsider your decision.

That would be great. Maybe you could listen to some of our past guests and consider how they treat skepticism, and do something similar.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

I agree with your points. I agree with Skeptic Canuck that a gentler, less confrontational approach seems to be in order. To achieve that, I'm happy to sit back, keep mum, and let those with a less confrontational style work with Anita. Granted, I doubt it will get you any further...but who knows?

Wow, someone actually agrees with me? That almost qualifies as a paranormal event in its own right! There must be a planetary alignment or something.

As well, when Anita admitted that she guessed throughout the IIG demonstration, and Jeff Wagg said she still should have been given credit towards having a paranormal ability because she guessed half right in trial 3...what exactly does that accomplish for a show dedicated to rational thinking? It's actually, no offense, nonsensical.

The show is called Rational Alchemy. Based on the pseudoscience and lack of critical thinking in this interview, I am guessing that this was the "alchemy" part of the show? Fitting, given that the subject of the interview has been just as discredited as a paranormal claimant as Alchemy has been discredited as a branch of science.

All in all, I thought Anita was very well spoken, especially for someone whose first language is not English, but I heard nothing that she hasn't already spouted here since the IIG test was performed.

 

[bookitty]

Wow, someone actually agrees with me? That almost qualifies as a paranormal event in its own right! There must be a planetary alignment or something.



The show is called Rational Alchemy. Based on the pseudoscience and lack of critical thinking in this interview, I am guessing that this was the "alchemy" part of the show? Fitting, given that the subject of the interview has been just as discredited as a paranormal claimant as Alchemy has been discredited as a branch of science.

All in all, I thought Anita was very well spoken, especially for someone whose first language is not English, but I heard nothing that she hasn't already spouted here since the IIG test was performed.

There might be many people who are aware that IIGWest had tested a claimant but are completely unaware or uninterested in the JREF boards. To them, the interview would be nothing more than the peek into the mind of someone who goes to the trouble of being tested for a paranormal claim.

In that case, the interview was a success. There were some interesting aspects to the challenge that were addressed, the discussion was engaging and all parties carried themselves well.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry, answering these questions is not part of my responsibilities.

That you would proclaim unequivocally that answering questions from JREF Forum members in this thread is not part of your duties as JREF Communications and Outreach Manager and manager/liaison of the forums speaks volumes for the disregard the JREF exhibits towards the board and membership at large.

Sure, good assumption. And not what VFF did.

How did she get your Skype address? I assumed it was from the contact information listed below your avatar.

If you have incorrect information, you are misinformed.

I don't believe I have incorrect information. I believe you are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst in trying to justify this blunder and disassociate it from the JREF. You are being deliberately evasive.

It's not my concern unless there's a special reason for it to be. I have no idea how many times you've been suspended, for example.

That's interesting, Jeff, because we exchanged e-mails just recently where you assured me that there was absolutely no bias whatsoever in how I have been treated by the admins. It seems that perhaps you are also not performing your due diligence in your capacity as manager of the forums if you have "no idea" how many times I have been suspended.

I have no idea. Why does her status on the forum have anything to do with whether she should be on Rational Alchemy?

If she has repeatedly proven to be incapable of restraining herself from personal attacks, threatening the admins, and spamming an admin while on suspension, wouldn't that be something to consider for the sake of the show? You're not a shock jock, are you?

Then there's the membership and the public at large to consider (where I come from, that's what Communication and Outreach Managers do). Like it or not, no matter how finely you split the hair, there will be the perception that you are representing the JREF at least in some fashion or another. It's kind of a slap in the face that the manager of the forums would invite a member under suspension (again) to have essentially a bully pulpit. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

I know that you've asked at least one dishonest question.

But, Jeff, I give you my word, and you must take me at my word that it was not dishonest.

Actually, I do. I was referring to a specific statement she made, and only one. You seem to be asking questions the way Bill O'Reilly does, without the ability to shout someone down, thankfully.

You're as elusive as Sylvia Browne.

Anyway, she said she's not doing this just for the attention. I don't believe that's a disprovable claim.

Clever choice of words there, Jeff. "Just" for the attention. It has been demonstrated repeatedly with overwhelming evidence that attention seeking is a major driving factor. Of course, since you didn't do your due diligence, you wouldn't know this.

There was no research, nor did I pretend that there was. The purpose of the interview was not to grill her. It was to let her explain her beliefs. I understand that you disapprove.

Please do not lie. There was most certainly research. This is not some person you pulled off the street and started questioning. You knew who she was and the claims she has made. You spoke with her before inviting her on the show. That's research. It was grossly insufficient, but don't lie and say "no research" when it's so obviously otherwise.

As for letting her "explain" her beliefs, the RA website says "Rational Alchemy is an hour-long show that covers skepticism, science, technology and critical inquiry..." How exactly does letting her explain her beliefs fit in that mission statement? She already has a website for explaining her beliefs.

That would be great. Maybe you could listen to some of our past guests and consider how they treat skepticism, and do something similar.

Based on what I've read from the two cast members who have participated in this thread, I don't think I will waste my time. Perhaps when you have raised the standards, I will reconsider.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

That you would proclaim unequivocally that answering questions from JREF Forum members in this thread is not part of your duties as JREF Communications and Outreach Manager and manager/liaison of the forums speaks volumes for the disregard the JREF exhibits towards the board and membership at large.

Because Rational Academy is NOT A JREF function. You know, the incredibly obvious answer.

How did she get your Skype address? I assumed it was from the contact information listed below your avatar.

That.. that would involve the forum how?

I don't believe I have incorrect information. I believe you are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst in trying to justify this blunder and disassociate it from the JREF. You are being deliberately evasive.

...
"I believe"

That's interesting, Jeff, because we exchanged e-mails just recently where you assured me that there was absolutely no bias whatsoever in how I have been treated by the admins. It seems that perhaps you are also not performing your due diligence in your capacity as manager of the forums if you have "no idea" how many times I have been suspended.

Hmm. Maybe because (And this is just a shocker) he looked at each incident, but doesn't count them as that's not relevant?

If she has repeatedly proven to be incapable of restraining herself from personal attacks, threatening the admins, and spamming an admin while on suspension, wouldn't that be something to consider for the sake of the show? You're not a shock jock, are you?

Then there's the membership and the public at large to consider (where I come from, that's what Communication and Outreach Managers do). Like it or not, no matter how finely you split the hair, there will be the perception that you are representing the JREF at least in some fashion or another. It's kind of a slap in the face that the manager of the forums would invite a member under suspension (again) to have essentially a bully pulpit. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

.... Because only a few people here see that. And if Jeff has to act as to how others perceive him, then he might as well do nothing, because dammed if you do, dammed if you don't..

But, Jeff, I give you my word, and you must take me at my word that it was not dishonest.


You're as elusive as Sylvia Browne.


Clever choice of words there, Jeff. "Just" for the attention. It has been demonstrated repeatedly with overwhelming evidence that attention seeking is a major driving factor. Of course, since you didn't do your due diligence, you wouldn't know this.

Equivocation (...), Poisoning the Well. I'm not touching the third one, because I make it a policy in most circumstances to avoid the swamp that is a long discussion on VfF matters. However, even if she *is*, IIRC, Jeff was interested in how her belief ticks.

Please do not lie. There was most certainly research. This is not some person you pulled off the street and started questioning. You knew who she was and the claims she has made. You spoke with her before inviting her on the show. That's research. It was grossly insufficient, but don't lie and say "no research" when it's so obviously otherwise.

.... I think you mean "study".

As for letting her "explain" her beliefs, the RA website says "Rational Alchemy is an hour-long show that covers skepticism, science, technology and critical inquiry..." How exactly does letting her explain her beliefs fit in that mission statement? She already has a website for explaining her beliefs.

Based on what I've read from the two cast members who have participated in this thread, I don't think I will waste my time. Perhaps
when you have raised the standards, I will reconsider.

Oooh, insult (But IIRC, not an ad hom, although it's pretty close.). Also, missing point, go go go! (Seriously, if Jeff wants Anita to explain her beliefs, I imagine it has to do with why she holds then, which is a valid subject of either critical thinking or skepticism.)

 

[desertgal]

There might be many people who are aware that IIGWest had tested a claimant but are completely unaware or uninterested in the JREF boards. To them, the interview would be nothing more than the peek into the mind of someone who goes to the trouble of being tested for a paranormal claim.

I guess. I fail to see how encouraging Anita's faith in her beliefs by allowing her to reiterate them for the thousandth time helps her. Granted, criticism hasn't helped her, either, but, at least, it isn't intended encourage her to continue living in her fantasies.

 

[bookitty]

I guess. I fail to see how encouraging Anita's faith in her beliefs by allowing her to reiterate them for the thousandth time helps her. Granted, criticism hasn't helped her, either, but, at least, it isn't intended encourage her to continue living in her fantasies.

I'm sorry, I wasn't really talking about Anita, just the radio show itself. But given my comments in this thread, it's easy to see how that could get mixed up.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

That you would proclaim unequivocally that answering questions from JREF Forum members in this thread is not part of your duties as JREF Communications and Outreach Manager and manager/liaison of the forums speaks volumes for the disregard the JREF exhibits towards the board and membership at large.

My title is Communications and Outreach Coordinator, though I'm sure it's still listed as manager in places. And your conclusion is simply false.

How did she get your Skype address? I assumed it was from the contact information listed below your avatar.

Nope, I gave it to her over Facebook chat in fact, where she friended me a long time ago.[/quote]


I don't believe I have incorrect information. I believe you are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst in trying to justify this blunder and disassociate it from the JREF. You are being deliberately evasive.[/quote]
Sorry, you're wrong again. I have no idea what you think I'm evading... I've answered all of your questions.

That's interesting, Jeff, because we exchanged e-mails just recently where you assured me that there was absolutely no bias whatsoever in how I have been treated by the admins. It seems that perhaps you are also not performing your due diligence in your capacity as manager of the forums if you have "no idea" how many times I have been suspended.

Not sure the relevance of this, but you're just one of many cases I've had to deal with. I don't remember, and I don't think I actually had to look anything up regarding you as the issues were apparent.

If she has repeatedly proven to be incapable of restraining herself from personal attacks, threatening the admins, and spamming an admin while on suspension, wouldn't that be something to consider for the sake of the show? You're not a shock jock, are you?

Your second question does not follow from your first. Also, what goes on in the JREF forum has nothing to do with the show. Rebecca Watson is banned from the forum, but I've been on her show, and she may well be on mine someday. It's not a factor.

Then there's the membership and the public at large to consider (where I come from, that's what Communication and Outreach Managers do). Like it or not, no matter how finely you split the hair, there will be the perception that you are representing the JREF at least in some fashion or another. It's kind of a slap in the face that the manager of the forums would invite a member under suspension (again) to have essentially a bully pulpit. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

You don't, actually. I think any reasonable person would realize that I'm allowed to have a life outside my employment. Even Randi doesn't speak for the JREF all the time, and he mentions this.

But, Jeff, I give you my word, and you must take me at my word that it was not dishonest.

No, I don't. The wording of the question was dishonest. It was phrased like "when did you stop beating your wife?"

You're as elusive as Sylvia Browne.


Clever choice of words there, Jeff. "Just" for the attention. It has been demonstrated repeatedly with overwhelming evidence that attention seeking is a major driving factor. Of course, since you didn't do your due diligence, you wouldn't know this.

Oh, I know this and have said it. I just don't see the relevance. Do you do stopvisionfromfeeling.com JUST for the attention? Maybe. Does that mean the site is worthless? No.

Please do not lie. There was most certainly research. This is not some person you pulled off the street and started questioning. You knew who she was and the claims she has made. You spoke with her before inviting her on the show. That's research. It was grossly insufficient, but don't lie and say "no research" when it's so obviously otherwise.

If you want to call talking to her "research," then yes, I did research. I did not spend hours on the web looking into her history.

As for letting her "explain" her beliefs, the RA website says "Rational Alchemy is an hour-long show that covers skepticism, science, technology and critical inquiry..." How exactly does letting her explain her beliefs fit in that mission statement? She already has a website for explaining her beliefs.

It fits in quite nicely, actually. It's part of skepticism.

Based on what I've read from the two cast members who have participated in this thread, I don't think I will waste my time. Perhaps when you have raised the standards, I will reconsider.

Well, you've nothing to reconsider, as you haven't been invited.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

There might be many people who are aware that IIGWest had tested a claimant but are completely unaware or uninterested in the JREF boards. To them, the interview would be nothing more than the peek into the mind of someone who goes to the trouble of being tested for a paranormal claim.

In that case, the interview was a success. There were some interesting aspects to the challenge that were addressed, the discussion was engaging and all parties carried themselves well.

Yep. I agree completely. I was merely stating that from my own personal perspective, there was nothing new. However, I did actually enjoy listening to the interview.

I also agree with Jeff that one can have an interview with a woo without having to rake them over the proverbial coals in the process. Sometimes the same effect can be had by simply being friendly, and giving them all the rope they need to hang themselves. This didn't necessarily happen overtly in this interview, but there were some interesting nuggets in there to make a listener wonder what she is smoking to believe the things she believes. Any woos listening to the podcast would naturally take her side anyway, so the format will affect them not at all. It is the fence-sitters who hopefully will hear what she says, in her own words, scratch their heads in puzzlement, and then head here or to StopVfF to learn more. Again, I am nothing if not optimistic.

 

[Uncayimmy]

First, congratulations, Rika, for making your 20th post in General Skepticism and the Paranormal and the first in over a year. I was hoping you would contribute more here.

Because Rational Academy is NOT A JREF function. You know, the incredibly obvious answer.

I'm going to assume that you didn't bother to read the entire thread because the answer is not at all as obvious as you think it might be. Jeff seems to believe that there's some bright line between JREF Jeff and RA Jeff whereas some of us see it as far more blurry. Several of us have pointed out that no matter what there will be a perception that RA Jeff's public activities regarding skepticism will reflect on JREF Jeff and vice-versa. Many of my questions dealt specifically with JREF Jeff issues.

Nice try, though.

That.. that would involve the forum how?

When you're on the company website with "Company Staff" under your name and use that login to conduct company business, then if somebody uses the contact methods associated with that account, it's reasonable to assume it is business related. Do you understand now or should I explain it yet again?

Hmm. Maybe because (And this is just a shocker) he looked at each incident, but doesn't count them as that's not relevant?

Your input regarding the matter is not considered valuable to me, but I thank you for your uninformed conjecture nonetheless. In the future, though, understand that Jeff is capable answering for himself and doesn't need anyone to speak on his behalf.

.... Because only a few people here see that. And if Jeff has to act as to how others perceive him, then he might as well do nothing, because dammed if you do, dammed if you don't..

People are always perceived by other people. That's called life, so I really have no idea what point you're failing to make. If a person is going to step into the public eye, then they should be prepared to deal with the public eying them critically. One must learn to deal with perceptions and accept the consequences.

Equivocation (...), Poisoning the Well. I'm not touching the third one, because I make it a policy in most circumstances to avoid the swamp that is a long discussion on VfF matters. However, even if she *is*, IIRC, Jeff was interested in how her belief ticks.

Gee, if only there were a forum where skeptics and VFF discussed her beliefs at length, Jeff could have learned all about how she ticks. The JREF should really start one, don't ya think?

Oooh, insult (But IIRC, not an ad hom, although it's pretty close.). Also, missing point, go go go! (Seriously, if Jeff wants Anita to explain her beliefs, I imagine it has to do with why she holds then, which is a valid subject of either critical thinking or skepticism.)

It's an insult to say that the quality of the content of the podcast is not very good? Well, if you think so, then be sure to report my post.

The best way to understand why someone believes what they do is to challenge those beliefs, and to do that effectively, one must understand those beliefs. More importantly, you must also understand the context around those beliefs.

It's one thing for someone to claim, as Anita has done, that she's had compelling accuracy (never been wrong) that has forced her to investigate her perceptions scientifically. It's quite another to learn that she's been making these same claims for many years without investigating it all but instead toured Poland as Alenara the Breatharian giving lectures that included testimony about seeing inside the body and identifying chemical structures via ESP.

It's one thing for someone to claim, as Anita has done, that she's a pre-med, science student and skeptic conducting an investigation into a seemingly unexplainable phenomenon. It's quite another to learn that she believes she is a 350 year old alien in human form who talks to ghosts, can live on air for 8 days straight with absolutely no ill effects, can communicate via ESP with bigfoot, and heal the sick by transmitting light from her brain.

What you don't do is give somebody a microphone and let them control the conversation without addressing these points in some way. Well, maybe you do, but many of us here would not. What would interesting is not to hear a repeat of what's on her website but to hear a one-on-one interview where these points were addressed.

But, hey, maybe it's just me.

 

[godofpie]

When we as skeptics start to take the claims of believers personally, we have lost the battle. I have been with VfF from the beginning and I understand the frustration of those that still engage with her. So that begs the question, why? I have not given Anita time to discuss her claims during our normal meeting time, 6-8 PM on the 3rd Wednesday of the month, in over a year. We proved to our own satisfaction that Anita did not have paranormal abilities. I personally have not discussed her alleged abilities with her since our simple tests, yet we have had pleasant conversations on a variety of topics. How can we possibly change the minds of those that disagree with us if we don't engage them respectfully? And don't give me that "well, she said this or she did that." What are we, 12? I am responsible for my actions and the words that come out of my mouth, and mine alone.
And on a side note, does anyone have a record of the chat that went on during the IIG test? You will clearly see that I accurately predicted all this drama. Million dollars, please.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Thank you for your time, Jeff. It is appreciated.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

First, congratulations, Rika, for making your 20th post in General Skepticism and the Paranormal and the first in over a year. I was hoping you would contribute more here.

I.. I will be candid and admit that GS&P threads often move too fast for me to really follow and argue much (I don't do a good job as is, I'm afraid - or at least, I don't do a job I really like.) in the past, but I'm trying detox from the CT and Politics forums (what led me to sign up to these forums begin with)

I'm going to assume that you didn't bother to read the entire thread because the answer is not at all as obvious as you think it might be. Jeff seems to believe that there's some bright line between JREF Jeff and RA Jeff whereas some of us see it as far more blurry. Several of us have pointed out that no matter what there will be a perception that RA Jeff's public activities regarding skepticism will reflect on JREF Jeff and vice-versa. Many of my questions dealt specifically with JREF Jeff issues.

I did, actually. I can see the distinction, but that is largely because I act different as much as possible at work from how I normally act, largely because my work is customer service focused. And I'm normally a cynic. And therefore I can see how the two are seperated.

When you're on the company website with "Company Staff" under your name and use that login to conduct company business, then if somebody uses the contact methods associated with that account, it's reasonable to assume it is business related. Do you understand now or should I explain it yet again?

Somewhat and somewhat not. IIRC, VfF posted in the publicly available sections. However, I can understand your viewpoint. (I just don't agree that it matters - however, turns out I assumed wrong, as I thought I would.

Your input regarding the matter is not considered valuable to me, but I thank you for your uninformed conjecture nonetheless. In the future, though, understand that Jeff is capable answering for himself and doesn't need anyone to speak on his behalf.

I.. I would be worried if he did. I simply guess at these to see how well I can gauge arguments (or, really, because I simply hate skipping arguments unless they address a point that I can't even begin to comment on. Didn't do a good job here of that.)

People are always perceived by other people. That's called life, so I really have no idea what point you're failing to make. If a person is going to step into the public eye, then they should be prepared to deal with the public eying them critically. One must learn to deal with perceptions and accept the consequences.

Reasonable perceptions, anyway. There seriously comes a point when you can't satisfy everyone and still do what you want to do (or, relevantly, what you should do, but that's a different topic and one that's OT to this thread.)

Gee, if only there were a forum where skeptics and VFF discussed her beliefs at length, Jeff could have learned all about how she ticks. The JREF should really start one, don't ya think?

Yes, I know, you have a forum on StopVFF. I am aware of this, however, I am also aware of why Jeff may want to also talk to the person directly instead of having other people offer commentary on the person. It really comes down to what the RA podcast wants, and in this case, I imagine they'd rather have the guest.

It's an insult to say that the quality of the content of the podcast is not very good? Well, if you think so, then be sure to report my post.

It's not against the MA but that was NOT what I intended.

The best way to understand why someone believes what they do is to challenge those beliefs, and to do that effectively, one must understand those beliefs. More importantly, you must also understand the context around those beliefs.

It's one thing for someone to claim, as Anita has done, that she's had compelling accuracy (never been wrong) that has forced her to investigate her perceptions scientifically. It's quite another to learn that she's been making these same claims for many years without investigating it all but instead toured Poland as Alenara the Breatharian giving lectures that included testimony about seeing inside the body and identifying chemical structures via ESP.

U.. No? I can understand why people act and behave at work just fine by paying attention to how they interact. That said, while what you say does put context into what she's doing, I still cant' really say that Jeff's approach is really wrong since it's really focusing on the IIG Test and why she acts like she does.

It's one thing for someone to claim, as Anita has done, that she's a pre-med, science student and skeptic conducting an investigation into a seemingly unexplainable phenomenon. It's quite another to learn that she believes she is a 350 year old alien in human form who talks to ghosts, can live on air for 8 days straight with absolutely no ill effects, can communicate via ESP with bigfoot, and heal the sick by transmitting light from her brain.

What you don't do is give somebody a microphone and let them control the conversation without addressing these points in some way. Well, maybe you do, but many of us here would not. What would interesting is not to hear a repeat of what's on her website but to hear a one-on-one interview where these points were addressed.

But, hey, maybe it's just me.

Sure, I'd probably approach it differently were I to interview her. (I need to do that let's play on a total tangent..) but I'm still not really seeing how that's worth all the scorn here. Sure, it was a subpar interview. So?

 

[desertgal]

I'm sorry, I wasn't really talking about Anita, just the radio show itself. But given my comments in this thread, it's easy to see how that could get mixed up.

My fault. I guess I still have a little hope that Anita will see the light of reason-if only because she has so much to lose if she continues with the woo. I know I'm bitchy and cantankerous and suspicious - but I also have kids Anita's age. I hate to see any young person with potential throw it away like this. I think I lost my objectivity way back as a result of that.

Yep. I agree completely. I was merely stating that from my own personal perspective, there was nothing new. However, I did actually enjoy listening to the interview.

I also agree with Jeff that one can have an interview with a woo without having to rake them over the proverbial coals in the process. Sometimes the same effect can be had by simply being friendly, and giving them all the rope they need to hang themselves. This didn't necessarily happen overtly in this interview, but there were some interesting nuggets in there to make a listener wonder what she is smoking to believe the things she believes. Any woos listening to the podcast would naturally take her side anyway, so the format will affect them not at all. It is the fence-sitters who hopefully will hear what she says, in her own words, scratch their heads in puzzlement, and then head here or to StopVfF to learn more. Again, I am nothing if not optimistic.

Thank you. I hadn't considered this perspective. I was looking from the viewpoint of helping Anita towards critically examining her own claims. No, I didn't think she should have been raked over the coals, but I had hoped for a little prodding in that direction. That's why I was disappointed with the interview.

Promoting Anita as a paranormal claimant just encourages her delusions. It is inevitable.

 

[Uncayimmy]

When we as skeptics start to take the claims of believers personally, we have lost the battle. I have been with VfF from the beginning and I understand the frustration of those that still engage with her. So that begs the question, why? I have not given Anita time to discuss her claims during our normal meeting time, 6-8 PM on the 3rd Wednesday of the month, in over a year. We proved to our own satisfaction that Anita did not have paranormal abilities. I personally have not discussed her alleged abilities with her since our simple tests, yet we have had pleasant conversations on a variety of topics. How can we possibly change the minds of those that disagree with us if we don't engage them respectfully? And don't give me that "well, she said this or she did that." What are we, 12? I am responsible for my actions and the words that come out of my mouth, and mine alone.
And on a side note, does anyone have a record of the chat that went on during the IIG test? You will clearly see that I accurately predicted all this drama. Million dollars, please.

Can you give an example of someone taking her claims personally? I don't take her claims personally. I take being accused of adultery personally. I take being threatened with lawsuits and police action personally. But I don't take the claim of her being able to detect full bladders or the smell of urine inside the body personally. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do. If you can demonstrate that these personal issues somehow color my interpretation of the evidence before me, please do.

As for changing VFF's mind, is that your goal? I, more than anyone else involved, worked very hard both publicly and privately to help Anita see things objectively. As I said before, I have probably 100,000 words from her in Skype chats. I went around and around with her about her beliefs and lack of evidence. I discussed very seriously with her issues of mental health and know things about her life that have not been revealed publicly. To this day she says she "misses" me and wants to engage in "girl talk" with me again, but I refuse because of the repeated threats.

What's abundantly clear is that nothing has come remotely close to changing her mind. In fact, she has stated categorically that she doesn't want to take any medications that might affect her "perceptions" because she is "entitled" to them - she's had them in some form or another since childhood, and they make up who she is. To admit they are not real would mean one of two things. First, they might just disappear. If not, then it would mean that they are based in fantasy, and that for most of her childhood and all of her adult life she has been unable to distinguish reality from imagination.

Could you give that up? I very seriously doubt I could. I might stand a chance if I could see the harm it was causing me, but if I, like her, believed it made me special (a 350 year old alien in human form), there's not a snowball's chance in hell I could give it up. I'd probably rationalize just like she does.

Have you ever looked at it that way? How about you, Bookitty? Have you ever considered the emotional and psychological pain she would have to suffer to give it all up? We're not talking about dowser here. Her claims are widespread and go very deep into the very core of her being. Do you even realize what you're asking of her?

In some ways I agree that these beliefs really don't hurt Anita all that much. She gets good grades. People find her articulate and charming. The only real problems her beliefs create for her stem from trying to convince others they are real and that she's not crazy. What concerns me is the harm she can do to others. Read this story (it's on page 3) about DG's father to see what kind of harm harmless woos like VFF can do. Or just use your imagination to see how an articulate, intelligent, charming woman who believes she can diagnose and heal people via ESP might harm others. That's all StopVFF is about when it comes down to it.

As for the chat log, the one on my site can be found here: http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/LiveChat/LogAnitasDemonstration/tabid/446/Default.aspx. However, I don't see GodOfPie anywhere. Were you on the IIG chat room? I don't have that chat log.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Thank you for your time, Rika. It is appreciated.

 

[Tumblehome]

Perhaps if the discussions were only carried out by people who actually read the threads concerned before adding their own contributions, things would stay a bit more rational?



ETA: I'll just reiterate that I in no wise mean to single out Tumblehome here for criticism. For reasons which elude me, every single Vision from Feeling thread has this almost-defining characteristic - everyone seems to want to dive in and join the fray without feeling the slightest need to figure out what the thread is actually about.

Kudos to the folks like zooterkin who ask some pertinent questions first.

I read enough to form an opinion on them, and that opinion is that they're long, tortuous exercises in futility. All the logic in the world won't get VFF to admit to any wrongdoing. Even if UncaYimmy and the others are justified in their outrage, they're wrestling the metaphorical pig, and I think the metaphorical pig is enjoying it. I'm sure she's waiting anxiously for the next thread dedicated to her.

 

[Akhenaten]

I read enough to form an opinion on them, and that opinion is that they're long, tortuous exercises in futility. All the logic in the world won't get VFF to admit to any wrongdoing. Even if UncaYimmy and the others are justified in their outrage, they're wrestling the metaphorical pig, and I think the metaphorical pig is enjoying it. I'm sure she's waiting anxiously for the next thread dedicated to her.

I can't really argue with that mate. It is indeed a hard slog, and I can't really fault anyone for not wanting to wade through every post in every VfF thread. I've done it myself, and it's made me as mad as a March Hare.

My excuse and I'm stickin' to it.

I'm sure you're right about VfF's anticipation of her next thread, and I can't help but note the irony of the fact that the star of our little show here still has two weeks worth of suspension to serve before she can enjoy it. There's something significant that could probably be said about that state of affairs, but I don't think I'll say it.

Cheers