VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Uncayimmy]

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

Oh, please! Stop being so disingenuous. It's really rather simple.

RA does not (and rightfully so) want to waste time on an interview that ends up not being broadcast because the guest did not conduct himself appropriately.

You claim my tone is inappropriate, but I provided a mountain of evidence that a significant if not majority of the time my tone is perfectly acceptable. In a formal interview setting (did you read it?) my tone was exceptional, even if I do say so myself.

Therefore, you and RA must know that I am capable of adopting the proper tone.

RA, before having me on the show, will interview me to go over the ground rules. I must accept those ground rules to be on the show, and that includes adopting the proper tone.

If I do not agree, I would not be allowed on the show.

Therefore, the only possible concern you or RA could have about my "tone" is that I would lie about how I would conduct myself.

Therefore, I am asking you to provide evidence demonstrating that I have lied in the past.

If I missed something, please tell me.

 

[bookitty]

Oh, please! Stop being so disingenuous. It's really rather simple.

RA does not (and rightfully so) want to waste time on an interview that ends up not being broadcast because the guest did not conduct himself appropriately.

You claim my tone is inappropriate, but I provided a mountain of evidence that a significant if not majority of the time my tone is perfectly acceptable. In a formal interview setting (did you read it?) my tone was exceptional, even if I do say so myself.

Therefore, you and RA must know that I am capable of adopting the proper tone.

Because of something you posted after the fact? And why should RA take the time to do an in-depth background check on you?

The IIG has no long-term presence on this board. Individual members have posted but official responses have been minimal. The test of VFF was the work of dedicated members of the IIG. This board may have been helpful (or not, according to you) but they did the work.

IIG tested the claimant known as VFF. There are many interesting things about this claimant - she is a physics student, a medical dowser, a member of another skeptical group, and (incidentally) has posted many times on the JREF board.

After the test, which the claimant failed, there were a few interesting side-notes. The claimant had done better than chance, her results could be interpreted in different ways and the claimant herself had (against all odds) NOT blamed the test or the IIG. She was actually dabbling in skepticism in a sort of non-committal way.

For someone who has tested many claimants with the JREF and keeps track of those tested by the IIG, these little details might make for an interesting interview subject.

Of less interest for the purpose of this interview was the fact that she has posted many times on the JREF board and gained enough notoriety to inspire a "Stop VisionFromFeeling" website. There was some consideration of inviting the webmaster of that site to the interview. Eventually they decided not to.

RA, before having me on the show, will interview me to go over the ground rules. I must accept those ground rules to be on the show, and that includes adopting the proper tone.

If I do not agree, I would not be allowed on the show.

Therefore, the only possible concern you or RA could have about my "tone" is that I would lie about how I would conduct myself.

Therefore, I am asking you to provide evidence demonstrating that I have lied in the past.

If I missed something, please tell me.

The point.

 

[jhunter1163]

The hypothetical exchange in post #258 is about what I had in mind.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. UncaYimmy is far better equipped to oppose VfF on a skeptical radio program than Jeff Wagg, me, Bookitty, or anyone else. He's studied her claims, put in the time, and has interacted with VfF to the tune of 100,000 words. The reason that he wasn't permitted to was Jeff Wagg's belief that UncaYimmy wasn't able to moderate his tone.

To me that smacks of a cop-out. Jeff should have allowed UncaYimmy to do the show, and if Jeff at any point didn't like UncaYimmy's tone, Jeff should have had the option to trash the whole thing and do the show himself. I think UncaYimmy would have agreed to that. It's also hard for me to escape the feeling that the history between UncaYimmy and Jeff played a role in Jeff's decision.

 

[bookitty]

The hypothetical exchange in post #258 is about what I had in mind.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. UncaYimmy is far better equipped to oppose VfF on a skeptical radio program than Jeff Wagg, me, Bookitty, or anyone else. He's studied her claims, put in the time, and has interacted with VfF to the tune of 100,000 words. The reason that he wasn't permitted to was Jeff Wagg's belief that UncaYimmy wasn't able to moderate his tone.

To me that smacks of a cop-out. Jeff should have allowed UncaYimmy to do the show, and if Jeff at any point didn't like UncaYimmy's tone, Jeff should have had the option to trash the whole thing and do the show himself. I think UncaYimmy would have agreed to that. It's also hard for me to escape the feeling that the history between UncaYimmy and Jeff played a role in Jeff's decision.

UncaYimmy's tone was probably not the issue. People on this board have questions that they would like VFF to answer. For those questions, UncaYimmy would be the hands-down absolute best source of information. He might even be the absolute best person to ask those questions.

For people outside this board, VFF's history here is far less interesting. They might not care if she has accused the guy who runs the StopVFF site of adultery. Even if they came here, few of them would be interested in reading the entire saga or getting as personally invested as some of the forum lifers.

The interview with Jeff Wagg addressed the test, the results, her thoughts on the matter and her emerging interest in skepticism. If there was a claimant for the MDC who never made it to the boards, a post-interview would probably follow those same topics.

 

[GeeMack]

Because of something you posted after the fact? And why should RA take the time to do an in-depth background check on you?

No kidding. They clearly didn't do an in depth background check on the person they did choose to interview. Hell, they barely did a check at all. They knew so little about her that they were flat out wrong in some things they said, and they believed her when she said things that were commonly known, among those familiar with the situation, to be lies.

The IIG has no long-term presence on this board. Individual members have posted but official responses have been minimal. The test of VFF was the work of dedicated members of the IIG. This board may have been helpful (or not, according to you) but they did the work.

IIG tested the claimant known as VFF. There are many interesting things about this claimant - she is a physics student, a medical dowser, a member of another skeptical group, and (incidentally) has posted many times on the JREF board.

A physics student who refuses to apply even the most rudimentary scientific rigor to testing or studying any of her claims of having a variety of magical powers. So as far as being a science student, she pretty much sucks at one of the most important elements of it. It's like saying she's interesting because she dabbles in watercolors. It may be interesting, and it is irrelevant.

After the test, which the claimant failed, there were a few interesting side-notes. The claimant had done better than chance, her results could be interpreted in different ways and the claimant herself had (against all odds) NOT blamed the test or the IIG. She was actually dabbling in skepticism in a sort of non-committal way.

She did better than chance just exactly like if you held one hand behind your back holding up some fingers and your pal guessed how many. Big deal. It was only compelling or interesting to the few people that don't understand the claim, the protocol, the test, and the results.

She didn't blame anyone for her failure? Again, big deal. (She does blame other people for her own failures in her educational experience. Adamantly refusing to accept responsibility for her failure, to the point of lying about it, is not foreign to her.) But more importantly, other than in a few sound bites, she hasn't even accepted that she failed. She has been wholly dishonest in her reaction to the test and the results. She created an elaborate line of ad hoc BS to try to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And she's still spinning that particular line of crap. She fed a few spoonfuls to Jeff and Nigel on the podcast, and they unskeptically lapped it up. Nigel staunchly declared earlier in this thread that she's not making excuses for failing. (Because everyone knows how hard it is to see kidneys right through the skin and flesh of a heavy person. )

What may be more interesting than the fact that she unequivocally failed to demonstrate her claim of having magical powers is the fact that she has actually convinced a few gullible souls, Jeff Wagg, Nigel Aves, and you for example, that she actually did something interestingly better than a kids' guessing game.

For someone who has tested many claimants with the JREF and keeps track of those tested by the IIG, these little details might make for an interesting interview subject.

Interesting, sure. If, as we've come to find by listening to the interview and reading Jeff and Nigel's replies in this thread, if there was a pretty pisspoor job of understanding the claimant, the claim, the protocol, the test, and the results. Not terribly interesting to those who know the truth of those matters. Oddly enough, the listening audience still doesn't know because the interviewers were so poorly prepared that they were unable to discuss the issues intelligently.

 

[tesscaline]

To go back to talking about what actually happened on the podcast program:

I was quite disappointed with the way it went.

Firstly -- The issue about Jeff representing (or not) the JREF on the show. While it may not have been Jeff's intention to represent the JREF while on the show, Jeff's involvement in the JREF was referred to more than once. At one point, Jeff even spoke about the JREF in the first person saying "we" instead of "the JREF" or "they". This sort of thing, while seemingly inconsequential, can have a very definite impact upon a listening audience. It gives the impression that Jeff is indeed representing the JREF on the show. I feel that the overlap in such roles, especially in regards to this specific interview, does the JREF a disservice.

Secondly -- the statistics of the IIG test. Jeff and Nigel both mangled the statistics horribly. Yes, Jeff admitted to not being a statistician, but that's simply no excuse for bungling the statistics in such a manner. If one is not educated enough to understand the statistics involved, one should refrain from commenting on them. One should, instead, get someone who does understand them to do the commenting. The lack of research that went into the program was blatantly apparent to those of us who were actually familiar with the test and the methodology that it was based upon. Pretty much the entire conversation about the IIG test, and the results of that test, was sickeningly ill informed. If you are going to interview someone, and publish that interview for public consumption, you have a duty to do the research required to represent the situation properly. That duty was not fulfilled.

Thirdly -- The lack of questioning in regards to Anita's claims. Anita contradicted herself on the show. She did so quite obviously, stating at first that she wanted the test to fail so that her claim would be falsified and then later saying how happy she was that she got phase two correct. Why would she be happy about getting an answer right if she really did want to fail the test? These sorts of inconsistencies in her statements were never addressed, and they weren't even mentioned. Instead of addressing these incongruous statements, she was openly praised and encouraged by the interview team as being open, honest, and worthy of respect.

Fourthly -- "True skeptics" statements. I found the statements both by Jeff and Nigel about what "true skeptics" are, or are not, quite disturbing. It smacked of a "we're better than you" sort of attitude, and reeked of egotism and judgement that is simply uncalled for. Especially when you "true skeptics" were so busy fawning over Anita with glowing praise that you didn't even bother trying to question her claims. If you want to openly insult your listeners, fine. But just be aware that that IS what you're doing, and fallaciously as well (the "no true scotsman" fallacy, to be specific).

Fifthly -- open ended questions. Asking someone "tell me about some of the other woo beliefs you have" is an open ended question. You have no idea where the other person will go with it, and it basically hands control of the conversation over to them. This is a bad thing to do when conducting interviews. Instead, something more to the effect of "so, I understand that you have some other wooish beliefs. For example, you think you can speak with ghosts. Would you tell us a bit about that?" retains control of the conversation, and directs it where you want it to go without seeming that you're grilling the person.

I understand the technique of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. I'm a fan of such an approach actually. However, being able to do that requires in depth research and asking the right questions. These things were not done. As a result, yes, it did seem like all the interview did (or was intended to do) was provide Anita with a soap box and free publicity.

If you want to see an example of a non-confrontational interview that actually provides insight into the mind of a woo, and does it without making them seem like some sort of gift to humanity, check out Shatner's interview with John Edward on Raw Nerve.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Because of something you posted after the fact? And why should RA take the time to do an in-depth background check on you?

Huh? What is this that I posted after the fact? The interview? That's been a link on the front page of StopVFF since Day One, which is over a year now.

You seem to be jumping all over the place. On one hand you criticize myself and others for our beliefs even though we have presented overwhelming evidence to justify them claiming we're just not looking hard enough for that needle in the haystack. On the other you're defending an opinion based on virtually no research whatsoever and excusing the lack of initiative to do that research.

Here's the deal. In doing their due diligence to be informed about their guest, they would have run across my writings. If they felt there was too much to read, they could have shot me an e-mail saying, "We don't have the time to look at thousands of posts. Can you point us to some sources that concisely hit the high points?" Had they taken this rudimentary step, they would have seen the interview thread.

And who said anything about an in-depth background check? They would have seen me in action just researching VFF, so no extra work was needed. If they wanted to consider me as a guest by myself, they should have reviewed my website rather than just claiming to be "loosely" familiar with it.

I don't know about your brand of skepticism and critical thinking, but my brand requires much more diligence before reaching an opinion. I'm not criticizing their decision. I'm criticizing their pathetic methods for reaching that decision.

The IIG has no long-term presence on this board. Individual members have posted but official responses have been minimal. The test of VFF was the work of dedicated members of the IIG. This board may have been helpful (or not, according to you) but they did the work.

I'm not understanding the relevance. Anyway, the IIG was aware of her presence here and my StopVFF site. I know because I e-mailed them about her even before the negotiations for the kidney test started. I have also exchanged a few e-mails with them privately.

After the test, which the claimant failed, there were a few interesting side-notes. The claimant had done better than chance,

You don't seem to understand what "better than chance" means. We use "chance" as a measuring stick for things that are difficult to quantify otherwise. If there's a 1 in 40 chance of guessing correctly, then that means on average about 2 out of every 100 people will be able to do it by sheer luck. That means if we tested the entire planet, 167,300,756 people would get the same results that Anita did. If we stuck them all in the same country, it would be the 7th most populous country in the world.

So, when somebody claims to be able to that which we believe scientifically impossible and merely demonstrates it by doing what over 100,000,000 people could do via luck, we dismiss it. If that same person also claims to be an alien in human form, we don't consider, "Gee, maybe aliens can do it but humans can't." Instead we just shake our heads.

Remember, the IIG test was a preliminary test. The 1 in 1,728 odds were what she had to meet in order to justify even having a second test, which would have required higher odds to get the $50K. This 1 in 40 thing is like attaching significance to winning at roulette.

The point.

Please stop with the hand waving. It's tiresome.

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess "sine ira et studio" might be an appropriate quote at this point...

You have my tacit agreement.

<polite snip to retain focus>

It all sounds ...unhealthy for all concerned.

This, I repeat is pure opinion based on this thread and early VFF posts. I have not read Stop VFF, as I don't honestly think I need to.

Nor do I. Your experience from way back when has served you well, and you certainly seem to have the gist of the matter.

Anyone who knows that Ms Ikonen believes herself to be a 350-year-old Arcturan has a pretty good handle on how ridiculous this all is.

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

Akhenaten is a loser. I was a lifer in the Service, and now I'm a lifer in this VfF nonsense. I need to find a proper hobby. Do you know where I can find some untilted windmills?

Ward, I honestly can't recall, but I have a vague feeling that I gave you a hard time somewhere recently, probably in this thread.

My apologies

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

As I said to Ward, I can see a disturbing pattern in my own behaviour. Damn.

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


M.

Hmm.

Their membership is just about to increase by one.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Ward, I honestly can't recall, but I have a vague feeling that I gave you a hard time somewhere recently, probably in this thread.

My apologies

If I kept track of everyone who ever gave me a hard time, I wouldn't have time to give others a hard time. I don't recall if you owe anyone an apology, but if you owe me one, I accept it.

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

To me that smacks of a cop-out. Jeff should have allowed UncaYimmy to do the show, and if Jeff at any point didn't like UncaYimmy's tone, Jeff should have had the option to trash the whole thing and do the show himself. I think UncaYimmy would have agreed to that. It's also hard for me to escape the feeling that the history between UncaYimmy and Jeff played a role in Jeff's decision.

That option belongs to anybody who records a show in advance. Of course, I would agree to those conditions even on a live show. The person hosting the show has the right to control how it goes. The guest, and they are called guests for a reason, should not go on the show if they don't like the conditions. If they agree to them, they should honor them.

As for the last part of your paragraph, I would have absolutely no qualms with Jeff or anyone else choosing for personal reasons not to have me or any other guest no their show for any damned reason they want including "I just don't like you." I would just hope that on a show about skepticism and critical thinking one would be forthright about it.

There's always the option, of course, to recuse oneself. After all, there are two other cast members on RA that I've never interacted with. If a personality conflict got in the way of presenting an opposing or interesting opinion, that's disappointing. There are also a number of other people just as familiar with the public persona surrounding VFF who would have made excellent choices.

The issue is not "why not UncaYimmy?" but really "why not have somebody knowledgeable?"

 

[jhunter1163]

If a personality conflict got in the way of presenting an opposing or interesting opinion, that's disappointing.

Seconded.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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.

I didn't say he did. Was he the one who invited you or did RA contact you separately? Did they learn of your expertise on their own and use Jeff's connection to contact you?

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.

That's wonderful! I encourage you to post more in the public forums of the board. The forums where I spend the majority of my time are GS&P, Science, and Social Issues (and, of course, Forum Management). When I saw your name being mentioned as a guest on RA, it didn't ring a bell. I did a search, and in the last year you had a total of 10 posts in those three forums. It's no wonder I didn't know who you were.

I also checked out your blogs (http://www.ngener.blogspot.com/ and www.naomisbrainfuzz.blogspot.com). They seem to be oriented towards your personal life rather than skepticism, which is cool. Personal blogs are fun. I'm curious, though, how did RA become aware of your particular expertise and your general knowledge of science and skepticism?

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 all fairness, Kittynh did write, "Sylvia Browne is either the most evil atheist or the most evil theist." In this post she calls a psychic a loser then a jerk. In this post she says, "One thing I do is to, with respect, keep pushing the hard core believer until they get into what I like to call the "Idiot Zone " or "Just Plain Silly Zone". In this post said, "Aliens are answering questions? Cool. What are the questions? Please oh please don't be the stupid trite stereotype ones. How about things like what is the secret coke recipe." And in this post she said, "I don't really like TAPS, but they don't usually bring in some stupid psychic to "talk" to the dead people (or do they now?) I find that really annoying and how do you disprove a psychic?

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of that. I do, however, have a problem with you not spending the two minutes to perform a search to make sure you're actually making accurate statements. I'm sure Kittynh, like most people, takes different approaches with people depending on the situation.

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.

I don't believe anyone said otherwise.

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.

Yes, I agree that having a high post count would not be a good thing to consider. I looked at that as a possibility and dismissed it. I do think that published writings (and that includes posts on a forum) are a good source of information about a guest. Wouldn't you agree?

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.

If you actually participated in the areas for which you proclaim to have expertise, you would see that I am more than a one-trick pony. It seems that once again you have failed to perform even the most basic research before making claims.

If VFF is an unknown, why was she on RA? Why is she on BadPsychics.com? ParanormalReview.com? Paranormala.com? MonsterScaryMonster.com? HollywoodRealityCheck.com? If you search for Anita Ikonen in Google you will see that she's actually becoming quite known, thanks in large part to the IIG test. Before that she was Alenara the Breatharian. If you visit breatharian sites, you will see her name mentioned quite a bit. For a long time someone had a YouTube channel devoted to Alenara, which included videos of her lectures when she toured Poland.

And if you had read the OP, you would know that my point was that she should never have been on the show in the first place. The only reason having me on the show came up was because the cast members were woefully uninformed about her. I never once suggested that I should go on the show alone and discuss her. Before this interview, that would have been a stupid idea. At this point, I think RA listeners deserve to hear a correction of some sort.

Seems to me like your base of knowledge on this subject is quite meager and demonstrative of an unwillingness to perform basic research.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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?

It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

* VFF should not have been on the show without someone familiar with her claims to present a skeptical point of view.

* There is no debate that I am the most qualified in terms of knowledge to present a skeptical point of view.

Are you disputing either point? If you're disputing the first one, I'd love to hear you defend the notion of conducting an interview on a skeptical podcast without a skeptic familiar with the guest's claims.

Now, I'm not saying it's unreasonable to question my motives. Did you read my OP? I said she shouldn't be on the show in the first place. After listening to the interview, many people criticized it. GeeMack said, " The JREF certainly should have sent someone to do the interview who actually knows something about the claims, the claimant, the protocol, the test, and the results. Too bad they didn't." Many others criticized the lack of preparedness and skepticism in the show.

It was until after the interview was widely criticized that I wrote, "I certainly would have appreciated the opportunity to have participated in such a discussion considering that I don't think anyone is more familiar with her and her claims than me." Jeff later said that he considered and rejected the notion. Would you not be curious as to why?

To recap: I didn't want the interview to take place at all. I expressed no desire before the show to be on it either by myself or with VFF. After the show I said that I don't consider it good enough for me to be on it. After the show, I said that it would have been better had I been there with VFF because it was so poorly done. That's not, as Jeff said, asking to be on the show.

Since you don't participate here, you wouldn't know this about me, but I'm not one to be shy about things. If I wanted to be on the show, I would say so. I'm not going to play games by hinting and pretending that I'm not really interested. It's amusing to me that you seem to think that my in your face tone makes me a poor candidate as a guest, yet you think I would hide my true intentions and actually deny them outright.

What I find quite disappointing is that despite the resounding criticism of the show, neither Jeff nor Nigel has even conceded that it might have been a good idea to have somebody familiar with her claims there. Instead, they have steadfastly defended their factual mistakes and lack of a critical approach. And their website still doesn't include a link to mine but they include a link to hers. There's no link to this thread either.

I guess that's just not their brand of skepticism.

 

[lionking]

I guess that's just not their brand of skepticism.

Or perhaps they felt your obsession would not make for a good interview.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Or perhaps they felt your obsession would not make for a good interview.

And yet they interviewed my "obsession" nonetheless. Funny thing that.

Do you think it was a good interview? Do you think it was a wise decision to be so ill prepared about their guest? Surely you have more to contribute to this thread than calling VFF threads humorous, commenting on the "emotional investment" of myself and others, and saying that I have an obsession.

 

[lionking]

And yet they interviewed my "obsession" nonetheless. Funny thing that.

Do you think it was a good interview? Do you think it was a wise decision to be so ill prepared about their guest? Surely you have more to contribute to this thread than calling VFF threads humorous, commenting on the "emotional investment" of myself and others, and saying that I have an obsession.

As you don't own this forum, I think I will decide how and when to post here, if that's okay with you.

 

[Daylightstar]

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.

Well, my post was a bit clumsily done, I have to say.
It stems from the attitude from that show that they are the better skeptics/their brand of skepticism is so much better together with your remarks about a brand of skeptic towards UnvaYimmy.

And since they have false (which they don't know yet) impressions, there's going to be some talk about it, all unnecessary really.

It's also possible to show some scepticism by challinging a person who believes all kinds of stuff, just a little bit. It may give them something to think about.

Anyway, yes you answered my question. Thank you.

 

[remirol]

The issue is not "why not UncaYimmy?" but really "why not have somebody knowledgeable?"

I think we can dispense with the disingenuousness at this point, don't you? The entire reason you're so invested in this particular thread is because you weren't selected to provide a contrasting viewpoint in this interview, and you have got a mountain of butthurt on about it. Probably because you've spent a huge amount of time promoting VFF as a paper tiger for you to conveniently demolish and establish yourself as a Famous Skeptic, and now you feel you're not getting the fame you deserve.

You claim my tone is inappropriate, but I provided a mountain of evidence that a significant if not majority of the time my tone is perfectly acceptable.

If you actually participated in the areas for which you proclaim to have expertise, you would see that I am more than a one-trick pony.

And here we come to a second problem. You're spending a huge amount of time writing thinly-veiled antagonistic posts to a number of people trying to prove to them their opinion is wrong. This has never worked. Ever. Not only hasn't it ever changed anyone's opinion, your very posts in this thread are the only evidence necessary to demonstrate that you are, in fact, unable to moderate your tone when you get worked up about something.

Ignoring that for the moment, how do you think these people formed their opinion of you in the first place? Do you think they have, perhaps, had no interaction whatsoever with UncaYimmy? Some interaction? Perhaps have browsed a great deal of what UY has written and done, but have come to different conclusions than UY does about himself? (Hardly unusual, after all; how we perceive ourselves is so rarely how others see us.)

Simply put, you're selling UncaYimmy as a brand here. You should know, being an Experienced Marketeer™, that it isn't good enough to have your brand only display certain characteristics some of the time. The way you make a brand stick in people's perceptions is to have it be the exact same, all the time, regardless of what it actually is. And the reality is that you're not the same all the time. Sometimes you openly lose control of your temper. Sometimes you become obsessed with a single issue and can't let it go. This thread is an excellent example of both. And when the brand changes day-to-day, or depending on the circumstances, you risk people perceiving the brand as something other than you'd like them to see it as.

This is what has happened here; you've gotten yourself too involved in too many other issues and diluted your own brand. It's far from irreversable, but if you don't even really understand what's going on, then it'll never change. In the end, you've got to be what you want people to see you as all the time. If you can't do that, you should maybe just accept that you are what you are, and quit trying to present yourself as something you're not. There's a place for aggressive, confrontational skepticism, and a place for exploratory, open-minded skepticism. The two can coexist. But trying to pretend that the former can be the latter is silly.

 

[Geek Goddess]

I didn't say he did. Was he the one who invited you or did RA contact you separately? Did they learn of your expertise on their own and use Jeff's connection to contact you?

I am not sure but I assume the latter - Jeff contacted me, but he has my contact information, so that was likely the easiest way for them to get hold of me. I spoke about things I had published in a couple different locations.

When I saw your name being mentioned as a guest on RA, it didn't ring a bell. I did a search, and in the last year you had a total of 10 posts in those three forums. It's no wonder I didn't know who you were.

Why would you? I don't consider the JREF forum to be an optimum method of being 'known'. There are many prominent skeptics who never come here, and there are people like me who do, for entertainment. I don't post to be known, I lurk for information. I know who you are only because I periodically look at who has been suspended or banned since my last login.

I also checked out your blogs. They seem to be oriented towards your personal life rather than skepticism, which is cool. Personal blogs are fun. I'm curious, though, how did RA become aware of your particular expertise and your general knowledge of science and skepticism?

I have another blog for skepticism that I post under occasionally, I run a skeptics group, I have written for SWIFT a few times. Many people know what I do for a living and what my expertise is there. I've spoken at technical conferences as well as on a few podcasts, and on skeptical panels. All by invitation, except for one time when I responded to a call for papers. I run a business, so don't have huge amounts of time to spend writing on forums.

In all fairness, Kittynh did write...blah blah blah...(snip)
Personally, I don't have a problem with any of that. I do, however, have a problem with you not spending the two minutes to perform a search to make sure you're actually making accurate statements. I'm sure Kittynh, like most people, takes different approaches with people depending on the situation.

I am making very accurate statements. She treats the people she deals with very kindly, and with concern for their issues. A lot of people really believe they've been abducted, and it has changed their lives. They are traumatized. They may have mental issues. She counsels them to seek help for their trauma, and offers them other explanations of what they *think* they have experienced. Her comments on the forum don't have anything to do with her other project. She is quite passionate about dealing with these people with respect and kindness.

And since I know Kitty personally, have shared cabins on JREF cruises with her, been to four TAMS with her, and had many long talks with her, I feel confident I am making accurate observations about how she deals with the abductees. And it's not at all like you deal with your...interest. If I did not respect her attitude and how she treats people, we would not be friends. I make that last statement because some people will say 'she's your friend so you defend her' because it's 'I am her friend because of the kind of person I found her to be.'

Yes, I agree that having a high post count would not be a good thing to consider. I looked at that as a possibility and dismissed it. I do think that published writings (and that includes posts on a forum) are a good source of information about a guest. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe. Personal knowledge and acquaintance with a person might also be. Access to their writings that aren't necessarily published on public forums (ie, from technical conferences unrelated to skepticism).

Personally, I don't think of postings on a forum to be 'publishing'.

If you actually participated in the areas for which you proclaim to have expertise, you would see that I am more than a one-trick pony. It seems that once again you have failed to perform even the most basic research before making claims.

Do you know what areas I am claiming expertise for?

I don't have a website dedicated to one person. I have an broad and eclectic interest in skepticism, but most of my reading and research is directed towards junk science and promoting the use of science.

If VFF is an unknown, why was she on RA? Why is she on BadPsychics.com? ParanormalReview.com? Paranormala.com? MonsterScaryMonster.com? HollywoodRealityCheck.com? If you search for Anita Ikonen in Google you will see that she's actually becoming quite known, thanks in large part to the IIG test. Before that she was Alenara the Breatharian. If you visit breatharian sites, you will see her name mentioned quite a bit. For a long time someone had a YouTube channel devoted to Alenara, which included videos of her lectures when she toured Poland.

I have never read any of those web sites. I don't see her on TV, in the news, in my paper. She's known by a niche. She's either deluded or a scam artist. She's not raking in millions by harming people like Sylvia Browne.

That does not make me 'uninformed' BTW. I just look at bigger and more important issues.

And if you had read the OP, you would know that my point was that she should never have been on the show in the first place.

But you hate the show so why do you even care? That's my point. You are all worked up about some podcast with low downloads and only one year-old review? If this were on any other topic, you probably would NOT care.

My 'basis of knowledge' is just fine. I happen to disagree with your opinion that RA should not have interviewed her. I would have asked different questions, but I guess I could get my OWN podcast if I wanted things my way.

 

[Moss]

Maybe something for another topic but: it would be immensely good if this discussion leads to a discussion about how to interact with believers. Including a reality check of what can be achieved with what techniques.