VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[GeeMack]

The best part of tonight's show was when Jeff Wagg was chastising journalists for not doing their research on a subject before doing a story about it. It gave me a good chuckle.

So good journalists don't just pick someone to interview because that person can hold up their end of a conversation. Well that's good to know.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Jeff Wagg was chastising journalists for not doing their research on a subject before doing a story about it.

Thanks for freeing up this podcast's duration of time for better things.

 

[LightinDarkness]

The best part of tonight's show was when Jeff Wagg was chastising journalists for not doing their research on a subject before doing a story about it.

Oh the delicious irony of it all...

 

[tsig]

It's quite simple: Anita correctly identified two of the three persons who were missing a kidney, when the most likely chance outcome was that she would identify none of the three. So, either: (1) The test was flawed; (2) She got lucky; or (3) She has a paranormal ability.

(4) You didn't understand the terms of the test.

 

[wardenclyffe]

She's inviting others to interview her now.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/interview.html

Ward

 

[bookitty]

She's inviting others to interview her now.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/interview.html

Ward

Well, that should be interesting.

 

[Uncayimmy]

She's inviting others to interview her now.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/interview.html

That's pretty close to what she described to me when she discovered she had accidentally become unblocked from sending me IMs on Skype. It's funny reading that page, though. I've never seen a subject of an interview invite people to interview her and then allow her to control and distribute the contents of the interview.

Of course, none of this is about attention, right? It's like it says on her newly updated website "A skeptical investigation into a paranormal claim" - 'cause, ya know, she said it was. That big picture of her face that takes up half the page is integral to the investigation. The home page is all clearly about self-promotion - Hear Me, See Me, Listen to Others Talk About Me. Oh, and the very first thing is a link to this new interview request page. That's all part of the skeptical investigation.

What I said in the opening post of this thread has come true with a vengeance: The interview is "just the type of thing that can be exploited." It's like she's starting all over again.

 

[Rodney]

(4) You didn't understand the terms of the test.

Are you arguing that, because Anita did not pass the IIG test, she therefore does not have a paranormal ability?

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you arguing that, because Anita did not pass the IIG test, she therefore does not have a paranormal ability?

She failed to demonstrate a paranormal ability at the IIG demonstration because she doesn't have a paranormal ability.

Duh.

 

[GeeMack]

What I said in the opening post of this thread has come true with a vengeance: The interview is "just the type of thing that can be exploited." It's like she's starting all over again.

Thanks Jeff and Nigel for all your encouragement and support.

 

[GeeMack]

Are you arguing that, because Anita did not pass the IIG test, she therefore does not have a paranormal ability?

Rodney, she didn't pass the IIG test because I knew the correct missing kidneys and I transmitted the wrong answers into her head. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

She's inviting others to interview her now.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/interview.html

I just read that page, my first impression was that it was the most manipulative and self-serving thing I have seen in quite some time. It appears that her manipulation abilities are getting a good workout, even if the skill is still in development. Once she masters the ability to manipulate the skeptics and critical thinkers here, manipulating the woo crowd ought to be pretty easy in comparison.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks Jeff and Nigel for all your encouragement and support.

Give 'em a break, GeeMack. It's not their fault that they aren't as good at being sceptical as Anita is.

 

[Akhenaten]

I just read that page, my first impression was that it was the most manipulative and self-serving thing I have seen in quite some time. It appears that her manipulation abilities are getting a good workout, even if the skill is still in development. Once she masters the ability to manipulate the skeptics and critical thinkers here, manipulating the woo crowd ought to be pretty easy in comparison.

Exactly.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

I just read that page, my first impression was that it was the most manipulative and self-serving thing I have seen in quite some time.

And what was your second impression?

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

And what was your second impression?

My second impression was that it was interesting that she wanted to let others do interviews with her, but she wanted to keep control of the editing and primary distribution channel (her site), and have the interview be jointly owned by both parties. If a media outlet does an interview with someone, the media outlet owns the interview, not the interviewee. But apparently things work differently in the Arcturian sectors of space. Again, more control and manipulation techniques at work.

Now, if she was to simply be willing to make herself completely available for interviews, with no strings attached, with the interviewer owning the interview footage, then that might seem to be a bit more sincere. As the page is currently worded, I do not feel any sincerity on her part.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Now, if she was to simply be willing to make herself completely available for interviews, with no strings attached, with the interviewer owning the interview footage, then that might seem to be a bit more sincere. As the page is currently worded, I do not feel any sincerity on her part.

There already exists an interview thread on this board. People, I think, tend to forget it exists and what was said in it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131343

For the first few exchanges, she responded in a reasonable amount of time. Then, as I asked the hard questions, she disappeared from that thread. She stayed busy in the other threads and used that as an excuse. You see, she needed deal with all of those other posts, so she didn't "have time" to get back to it. Right. From January 10 to March 5, I had several posts unanswered. On March 5 is when I posted again pointing out that since the moderated VFF thread was closed, she now "had time" <cough> to answer the questions.

On May 9, five months later, she finally addressed one of my unanswered posts. I followed up a day or so later. We are going on a year now without a response even though I have periodically reminded her about it.

Personally, I think she just wants to rehash the entire thing. What's left for her to tell us that we haven't heard time and again?

 

[Susan Gerbic]

What did VfF do to get suspended for 3 weeks? And as this is off-topic, could you please PM me?

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

What's left for her to tell us that we haven't heard time and again?

Not much at all, actually. However, I was referring to her sincerity versus her need to be manipulative and control the message and distribution of the message. The fact that we would likely learn little that is new or surprising is irrelevant to that. Kind of like the difference between her methods and intentions when she does a test / demonstration / study, versus the actual outcome of said test. We know there is little likelihood of an amazing outcome of the test, based on past performances, so the only thing left to discuss is the protocol of the test, her motivations, her excuses, etc. In other words, the whats and whys of the process itself are far more interesting than the inevitable outcome will be.

It is getting a bit late, so I hope that is at least somewhat coherent to others.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not much at all, actually. However, I was referring to her sincerity versus her need to be manipulative and control the message and distribution of the message. The fact that we would likely learn little that is new or surprising is irrelevant to that. Kind of like the difference between her methods and intentions when she does a test / demonstration / study, versus the actual outcome of said test. We know there is little likelihood of an amazing outcome of the test, based on past performances, so the only thing left to discuss is the protocol of the test, her motivations, her excuses, etc. In other words, the whats and whys of the process itself are far more interesting than the inevitable outcome will be.

It is getting a bit late, so I hope that is at least somewhat coherent to others.

I didn't mean to direct my "what else is there?" comment towards you. It was a general statement. She's probably written a million words about herself at this point and has engaged dozens of people in Q&A bull sessions about her claims. Why would anybody want to interview her at this point anyway?

More importantly, why does it need to be recorded, cleaned up, edited and posted on her website? Is there a demand for this that I've missed?