Vision From Feeling

[Hokulele]

When I do make a claimed perception, then that becomes available to be checked for accuracy, and if I make an incorrect perception then I have provided evidence against an ability of detecting health information that is considered undetectable to ordinary human senses.

Pretty much every time you have made an incorrect perception in this thread, you have left yourself an out. For example, look at what you wrote regarding Wayne's shoulder. If he did have shoulder problems, you would have proclaimed this a hit. Since he didn't, you refuse to count it as a miss, but try to hand-wave away the significance of your observation ("'left shoulder tired', but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention"). Why do you state it was insignificant only after it was shown to be a miss?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:

OK. Asking you multiple questions was always a losing move on my part, given your highly-developed Selective Reply™ ability

See if you can snip this to avoid answering:

Why does your account of your meeting with FACT differ from the one given by Jim (godofpie)?

#1654

Start with this:

No I did not have a copy of any health questionnaire, and nor did he.

I once again had UncaYimmy's suggested test available but she declined to use it.

Jim never showed me any questionnaires, so how am I supposed to know that he had them.

UncaYimmy:

Well, I really (really) wanted to the first time, and yesterday on the second meeting I really wanted to again, but they never have any time for me!

Dr Carlson once again suggested that we perform her first study using members of our group and how much easier that would be ( Wayne would now be excluded) but she declined and said that she would rather do it at the mall. We do have members that are willing to help her conduct the study in this manner but it is up to her to make the arrangements.

It is a combination. I did not have my forms ready and with me, and also they did not have time. After I had viewed Wayne everyone was getting ready to leave. Even if I had wanted to view another person I couldn't have. #1654

I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us.

She sat facing Wayne at the table. They were out of ear shot from us but I could tell that there was a conversation going on.

What I meant was "no talking during the viewing". See what was actually said between me and Wayne at #1654.

Anita, you should address the questions in the moderated thread where I ask you to demonstrate why anyone should take the time to test you.

Because I have had compelling experiences of perceiving accurate health information in people, information that should not be available to cold reading and in cases where I do not know what cold reading could have been available. I am thus arranging to have the study which will hopefully provide with some documented examples of what I claim that I am able to do.

Pup:

What he said. The pill test was a fail. You couldn't do what you said you could do. The test with Wayne was a fail. You couldn't "see" the scar--something that a person with normal vision would notice if it was visible to them.

I have not failed the pill test. I have detected clues about the pill samples but I want more time with them before I post my conclusions. If you think I should put your pill test before my studies then you are just wrong. I am not going to stare at some powdered pills when I should be reading. And when I do have time to not study I am working on arranging the paranormal study regarding my medical perceptions. The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim. I have never claimed to detect ailments in each case in which they occur. How do you know that the two cases of scars were not significantly different on the level at which I would detect them? The bypass surgery scar I detected by virtue of the cartilagenous tissue that formed at the place of incision, and after that feeling an image was then constructed in my mind. It is called Vision from Feeling, Pup. Not Vision from Vision.

It's now obvious, if it wasn't already, that you're stretching hard to try to keep alive the idea that you're getting real information from your "vision from feeling," when in fact it's a subjective experience created by your own mind from non-paranormal clues.

Stretching hard to keep alive the idea? I have not made incorrect perceptions. Wait what happens when I claim to see a scar again. What non-paranormal clues? I've experienced cases where I do not know what non-paranormal clues would have been available.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

As Forum member Miss Kitt brilliantly pointed out, since I've experienced good or perfect accuracy in the past, it should be enough for me to simply state what I experience and to base a test on that.

I can't speak for Miss Kitt, of course, but, if she is unaware of this, she may wish to request that Anita remove that misleading statement about her.

From page 24 post #923,

If she has been infallible to date, then if she sees it she should consider it testable.

 

[desertgal]

You guys are right, she takes peoples words and phrase and makes them her own. Now she's doing the TM thing? This is very strange behaviour.

I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it. I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.

She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind.

Exactly. It's all delusional nonsense, back pedaling, hallucinations, flights of fancy, evasions, attention seeking, and outright lies.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
From page 24 post #923,

Read the whole post, you liar. You took Miss Kitt's one statement out of context when you quoted her on your website. Totally unethical behavior, again. She made it very clear in that post that the only question she had left about you was "is she lying to us or simply herself?"

Furthermore, you shouldn't be quoting any member here on your website without asking their permission first. It's called courtesy-something else you seem to be completely unfamiliar with.

Jaysus, can't you be honest about anything?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Vision From Faking, "The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim."
Yes, you failed to find a scar. That was a miss, or an inaccurate perception. You failed and falsified your claim. You have done this before, way back in Post #250 or so. If you miss, this is not evidence against your claim.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:

EDIT: And to add, to say that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I could do that all day. I have my confirmation that she's a goddamn liar and manipulator.

I've already made it very clear that what ever accuracy appears to result in the study does not provide evidence for any kind of ability since cold reading might have been available. The study is intended to gather insight into what my claim is and to try out various test conditions, such as "do I have perceptions if the person is behind a screen?" And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation. Of course saying that something isn't wrong with someone means nothing. I've stated that all along. But it's interesting that according to my perceptions he is in perfect health and exercises, and in fact he is in perfect health and exercises.

There are no lies or manipulation. I did not detect the scar, but that's ok. Let's just wait and see what happens when I actually claim to detect a health problem. You guys are gonna love that.

Chimera:

She's definitely been proven deceitful. With this last study and GodofPie's conflicting story, we've seen her purposely hide the truth. I think we're done.

#1654

TheSkepticCanuck:

To be fair, I don't think Anita is stupid. Delusional, maybe, but not stupid. Therefore, to suggest that she'd have a co-conspirator in the meeting, have him write done one thing that was wrong with him, and then not mention that one thing that could be proven by Wayne opening his shirt to show the scar, is false. I'm sure that if she had planted a "volunteer" into the group, she'd have done a better job of having the volunteer write down an interesting list of ailments, and then "accurately" describe them. Thus, the evidence does not support your claim very well.

Thank you. If I had said this I'd been called a delusional liar again.

I also like how Anita always has the out of "I don't say I can detect everything wrong with a person" to negate a miss. So, if she doesn't see something she should, it doesn't count, for some reason. However, if I am looking at a picture, and told to count the number of red items, and write down the answer, I couldn't claim a perfect score if I only found 3 of the 20 red items, simply because those 3 I did find were all red. She doesn't seem to understand this. Or else, she just refuses to.

Then your claim would be to be able to count all items regardless. My claim is not the same. My claim is to accurately detect health information that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception. If you counted blue items as red that would be a miss. My claim is not to count. My claim is to describe.

 

[desertgal]

Let's just wait and see what happens when I actually claim to detect a health problem.

You already HAVE claimed that. Multiple times. All delusional lies.

TheSkepticCanuck:
Thank you. If I had said this I'd been called a delusional liar again.

Because you ARE a delusional liar. Again.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You never learn, do you? "And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation."
A statistically significant significant amount of inaccurate guesses would be interesting, but irrelevant. You must show statistical significance or your results will be deemed to be a result of chance, and that would falsify your claim.
This basic misunderstanding of how hypothesis testing works, which has been pointed out before, makes me question the level of instruction concerning the scientific method you have been able to grasp. With your 4.0 average, I would expect more.

Once again, for someone who apparently needs redundancy in communication: You need to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between your guesses and chance to support your contention. If the results are not statistically significant, your contention is falsified. Any demand that the results need to be significantly inaccurate is evidence of complete misunderstanding of how science works.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

Anita makes many unverified claims.

I have made one paranormal claim: accurate medical perceptions from people I see in person, where ordinary senses of perception and cold reading should not be available.

Anita offers to formally test one of those claims, some sort of medical diagnosis. The specifics of the medical claim are never explained in a tightly defined way.

The study works to make the claim more specific.

She declines to formally test any of the other claimed abilities formally even though they would all be better to test.

From my perspective they are not better to test. Their perceptions occur too infrequently.

Anita claims casual studies will help her narrow down the specifics of her claim while not actually really being proper tests.

True.

She attempts to identify symptoms on this thread via photographs - an ability she has previously claimed.
It fails.

I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.

She attempts a chemical identification test via video.
It fails.

I've never claimed chemical identification over the internet.

She conducts a 'survey' at the mall.
She does not even speak of this again, claiming only that the details will be revealed 'eventually'.

Give me your mailing address and I will send you photocopies of my notes from the survey immediately. I haven't had the time to type up the notes.

She vists a skeptic group. She tries to get health information from a subject. She instantly breaches the test protocol she had described by talking to the subect, something she had claimed repeatedly she would not do in testing.
But ayway again she fails.

I made no incorrect perceptions and so I did not fail this.

She also claims amazing ability to identify crystals (as she has elsewhere). Testing is again suggested.
She declines.

I did not "claim" it. I was describing how my perceptions started when I was asked. I suggested testing it. I did not decline testing it. #1654

We now have MUCH more information regarding this claim to form a conclusion from than we did at the start. And it's all pointing one way.

Please do share with me what MUCH more information we have regarding my claim of medical perceptions. I don't think there's been that much yet.

Of course whether Anita will accept the logical conclusion is something else.
"I have an amazing ability that I would like to test to see if it is real"
is so much more interesting a story than
"I thought I had an amazing ability, but it turned out I was fooling myself."

I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed.
The lack of experience is what's bugging you guys.

It's getting a bit tricky now for Anita to claim success when other people are involved.

Nope. I am in fact happier to claim success when skeptics can witness when it happens. It makes things much easier.

So... what's next?

The study.

Asm:
Your post proves that you guys don't actually care about what I really think and feel about my paranormal claim or -experiences. All you believe is only based on your preconceived ideas about what a paranormal claimant would think.

Anita will eventually say something like "It's been nice talking to you my skeptics (group hug!), however I have to leave the forum now for good beacuse of school. I still believe I have an ability and I will continue to perceive accurate health information."

Group hug, perhaps, but I am not leaving my investigation until I reach a conclusion. A conclusion may become that the claim is not testable, but either way I am far from reaching a conclusion yet and vision plenty of work ahead of me, the study for instance. I do not believe that I have an ability. I believe that when I look at people I perceive medical perceptions and that their actual accuracy and source have not been determined. I will, though, continue to perceive apparently accurate health information.

Anita will continue to claim psychic abilities.

I am not claiming psychic abilities.

She will claim skeptics and scientists were stunned. She will refer to her internet appearance and the enourmous amount of posts on the JREF forum as proof.

No I will not.

She will claim she is a skeptic and member of a skeptic group.

True.

She will be debunked over and over.

We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

(Locknar is still the one in the middle)​

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

It has been, and you can't accept it.

You are lying or delusional.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Ashles:
I have made one paranormal claim: accurate medical perceptions from people I see in person, where ordinary senses of perception and cold reading should not be available.
The study works to make the claim more specific.
From my perspective they are not better to test. Their perceptions occur too infrequently.
True.
I've never claimed to detect health information from pictures over the internet.
I've never claimed chemical identification over the internet.
Give me your mailing address and I will send you photocopies of my notes from the survey immediately. I haven't had the time to type up the notes.
I made no incorrect perceptions and so I did not fail this.
I did not "claim" it. I was describing how my perceptions started when I was asked. I suggested testing it. I did not decline testing it. #1654
Please do share with me what MUCH more information we have regarding my claim of medical perceptions. I don't think there's been that much yet.
I can not say that I was fooling myself until incorrect perceptions are revealed.
The lack of experience is what's bugging you guys.
Nope. I am in fact happier to claim success when skeptics can witness when it happens. It makes things much easier.
The study.

Asm:
Your post proves that you guys don't actually care about what I really think and feel about my paranormal claim or -experiences. All you believe is only based on your preconceived ideas about what a paranormal claimant would think.
Group hug, perhaps, but I am not leaving my investigation until I reach a conclusion. A conclusion may become that the claim is not testable, but either way I am far from reaching a conclusion yet and vision plenty of work ahead of me, the study for instance. I do not believe that I have an ability. I believe that when I look at people I perceive medical perceptions and that their actual accuracy and source have not been determined. I will, though, continue to perceive apparently accurate health information.
I am not claiming psychic abilities.
No I will not.
True.
We'll see. If my paranormal claim becomes debunked then I don't mind.

(Locknar is still the one in the middle)​

Well, in the words of the Nature Boy Ric Flair

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Thats the "bottom line"

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Chimera:

Isn't it possible that the crushed tablets are being identified at a lab at her school right now, for which she will later take credit?

I could definitely do conventional chemical analysis on the medical samples in order to obtain the results. But all I can say is that I wouldn't. In fact being a B.S. Chemistry major, I can already think of a few chemical procedures that I could do at home with household chemicals to provide clues as to the chemical structure of the compounds. I am not interested in cheated accuracy, because if I did this I would end up finding myself sitting by a table with crushed pill samples and Mr. Randi would be there, and you know how he looks at paranormal claimants I would be so nervous, and when I get nervous I start giggling a lot. Let's not go down that road.

Ashles:

Anita enjoys talking about her 'ability' much more than properly testing it, because the whole fantasy screeches to a halt if it is ever properly tested. That's why she continually delays having real testing... apparently for ever.

Actually, most of the time I hate coming here to post. Most of the time I do not enjoy visiting this thread at all. But I know that this thread and you guys are very useful in my investigation. I am not delaying having real testing. It was suggested to me by the local skeptics group that I conduct the study before we approach having a test, and that is what I am doing. The study is planned to be held on January 31 and February 1. The only thing that hasn't been arranged for the study for next weekend is the location since I have not yet received a reply from the representative of the mall that was my first choice for location. I e-mailed him the material late in the afternoon on Friday so we can't expect an answer until at least Monday, which is tomorrow. Monday I will also begin arranging for other locations in case this one is not possible.

The easiest way to delay the testing? Never give anyone a specific description of what you can do and under what circumstances.

I thought I knew, but what is an everyday experience is not specific enough to apply to a test. That is why I have the study to make a more specific claim. I don't have as much experience with the perceptions as everyone (and that includes me) who is involved in the investigation would like.

Diogenes:

All that to say " My claim cannot be verified . "

If in a controlled test setting I make correct perceptions of ailments that are not detectable to human senses of perception then the claim can be verified.

skeen:

I find it amusing her thinking that not disproving a magical ability lends to the possibility she has it.

I find it worrying that you are thinking that I was thinking this. You aren't reading my posts are you? Your head is just filled with what you would like me to be saying to conform with what you think a paranormal claimant would be like. I have consistently said that the study can not provide evidence for the claimed ability, regardless of how accurate the perceptions may seem. All I have concluded was that I have failed to falsify the claim.

I also have not disproved that I have ESP, or anything else, but that doesn't mean its unreasonable to suggest I don't have said magical ability which has never, ever been proven to even exist.

I've had compelling experiences that make me interested in having a paranormal investigation. So far the claim appears to be testable and falsifiable, so I have no reason to stop right here.

She fails at extremely basic logic. It simply evades her. It's as if there's no logical mechanism in her mind.

If you had witnessed when I've made accurate perceptions you would be curious too. Unless of course you wouldn't.

Hokulele:

Pretty much every time you have made an incorrect perception in this thread, you have left yourself an out. For example, look at what you wrote regarding Wayne's shoulder. If he did have shoulder problems, you would have proclaimed this a hit. Since he didn't, you refuse to count it as a miss, but try to hand-wave away the significance of your observation ("'left shoulder tired', but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention"). Why do you state it was insignificant only after it was shown to be a miss?

Not true! I did not make an incorrect perception with Wayne. I wrote that I sensed a tired shoulder and that it was a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most) which was too insignificant to note as an answer. If he had said something about his shoulder I would have said that I was wrong because I wrote that it was insignificant. I stated that it was insignificant in my notes and I stated that it was insignificant before it was shown that he did not feel a tired shoulder. You are misinterpreting. I was simply recording my perceptions, even the ones of insignificant information, and those that were weak I recorded that they were weak and insignificant, ie. not to be counted for or against. I mean for goodness sake, I recorded that I felt the man's adam's apple!

desertgal:

Exactly. It's all delusional nonsense, back pedaling, hallucinations, flights of fancy, evasions, attention seeking, and outright lies.

Not at all.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack:
I have experienced apparent accuracy but in everyday experience when skeptics and the sort were not present to witness it or make it into evidence that can be shared.

In other words, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim. You know an honest person would simply come out and say it.

But based on what I have experienced I am compelled to arrange for the study.

No, you're not compelled to arrange for a study, a test, or whatever it is you're calling what you're trying to avoid this time. You're only compelled to say you're compelled.

You don't seem able to understand that I've detected vasectomy, that a person was taking large quantities of Lactobacillus supplement, very significant case of cysts of the internal reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar after bypass heart surgery, that the scull and brain had been crushed in the past, a significant and recurring feeling of strain and contraction just below the sternum, and more, in cases where I do not know what cold reading might have been available.

And you don't seem to understand that you're only saying you've detected all those things. Although you may believe what you're saying is true, you've demonstrated time and again to the readers of this forum that it isn't true.

I have reason to proceed in this investigation.

You have a reason to say that, but you clearly don't really want to proceed with anything that might pop the bubble which is your fantasy.

I am open to falsifying the paranormal claim.

No, Anita. No, you're not.

I am looking forward to having the study together with skeptics, and if I fail to fail the study then I look forward to having the test that will show once and for all what's going on.

Let's just say for a moment that you are so deluded you don't even realize you're lying to us, don't you even wonder about your own lack of honesty with yourself when you say things like, "if I fail to fail?"

I'm not giving up on my paranormal claim or investigation until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions or pass the tests.

Stop it! Anita! You haven't experienced accurate medical perceptions. "Until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions," indeed!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jeff Corey:

Vision From Faking, "The test with Wayne was not a fail. I did not provide inaccurate perceptions and thus failed to falsify the paranormal claim."
Yes, you failed to find a scar. That was a miss, or an inaccurate perception. You failed and falsified your claim. You have done this before, way back in Post #250 or so. If you miss, this is not evidence against your claim.

My claim is not to detect ailments in each case in which they occur. All scars are not made equal, and how should I know where the dividing line goes for my paranormal claim? The only misses that will be counted against the hypothesis is when I make inaccurate perceptions. Inaccurate perception means that I say that a person has a scar and they don't have the scar. I did not fail, and my claim has not been falsified. But that's right, if I miss (ie. do not detect something that was considered to be there), this is not evidence against my claim. You're right about that.

You never learn, do you? "And if a statistically significant amount of inaccurate perceptions are revealed on the study then that could terminate the investigation."
A statistically significant significant amount of inaccurate guesses would be interesting, but irrelevant. You must show statistical significance or your results will be deemed to be a result of chance, and that would falsify your claim.
This basic misunderstanding of how hypothesis testing works, which has been pointed out before, makes me question the level of instruction concerning the scientific method you have been able to grasp. With your 4.0 average, I would expect more.

You never learn, do you? If I have a study and it proves that the perceptions that I make are inaccurate, then I will have reason to conclude that there is no point in proceeding toward a real test that would conclude the same. If I can not pass a study then there is no way I can pass a test which is even harder to pass. If inaccuracy is revealed at the study then that is valid reason to terminate the investigation and to conclude "no ability".

Once again, for someone who apparently needs redundancy in communication: You need to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between your guesses and chance to support your contention. If the results are not statistically significant, your contention is falsified. Any demand that the results need to be significantly inaccurate is evidence of complete misunderstanding of how science works.

And that's what I said. I've not misunderstood anything. You have.

desertgal:
I see no reason in replying to you. You misinterpret everything I say, and your comments are not trustworthy. There is no evidence of delusions. My perceptions of all forms have consistently appeared to correlate to actual real world information.

Diogenes:

It has been, and you can't accept it.

When was my paranormal claim of medical perceptions falsified? Please do tell and if it was then I will gladly accept it. *waiting with great anticipation*

You are lying or delusional.

Lying or delusional about what? *waiting with great anticipation*

LONGTABBER PE:
In what way was my post #1670 a representation of woo? Please do tell. *waiting with great anticipation*

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele:
Not true! I did not make an incorrect perception with Wayne. I wrote that I sensed a tired shoulder and that it was a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most) which was too insignificant to note as an answer. If he had said something about his shoulder I would have said that I was wrong because I wrote that it was insignificant. I stated that it was insignificant in my notes and I stated that it was insignificant before it was shown that he did not feel a tired shoulder. You are misinterpreting. I was simply recording my perceptions, even the ones of insignificant information, and those that were weak I recorded that they were weak and insignificant, ie. not to be counted for or against. I mean for goodness sake, I recorded that I felt the man's adam's apple!

2 out of 5 is insignificant? What is 1? Why bother even listing it unless you were fishing for hits (i.e. cold reading)? Without access to your notes from the meeting, I can only judge by your words on the website, which imply that "left shoulder tired" was in your notes (hence the quotes), but none of the other verbiage.

And this is exactly what I mean about making hits out of misses. You tried to claim there was something wrong with his throat. When it was shown there was nothing wrong with his throat, you started claiming it was his adam's apple. You simply cannot admit to being wrong.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have never failed to work together with the skeptics group. They are working with me and the study. It is not clear from the start that the study at the mall would fail.

1) It was clear from the start that doing the study with the skeptics group would succeed. There was no need to revise the plan. Period.
2) I told you that the study at the mall was very likely to fail and why. You continue to ignore the advice of those who know far more than you.

You are a classic example of why scientists should never test themselves. You should put your claims in the hands of someone else to be tested. In a way you have by coming here. Only you ignore what EVERYONE is telling you. And I thought *I* had a big ego.

I did not mean to imply that you are supporting my claim. I have changed the text on my webpage. You were working with me, UncaYimmy. Very much. But since you have changed your mind, that has been reflected on the changes made on my website.

In my very first two posts I completely debunked your theory about Vibrational Information^TM. I asked if it worked with photos. You said yes, sometimes. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your theories to be true. A picture does not capture any information except light from the surface of the subject.

Following that simple critical path (that's what scientists do) it is clear that whatever theory you have must work in all areas in which the observation is made: photos, videos, and living persons. There is one thing that explains it all: Imagination. And yet you persist with your silly claims about sensing information at the subatomic level.

It doesn't matter what your "main claim" is. You have had the same experiences with photos, videos, living beings. Your theory must encompass all of those things. It doesn't. And it gets no simpler than that despite the tens of thousands of words you have written.

From the very beginning, I have *not* worked "with" you but against you. I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe in your abilities in the least. I have stated that I do not believe they are worth testing for their scientific importance. The only reason I think a test is in order is to prove to YOU and ONLY YOU that you are mistaken at best and delusional at worst.

Nobody reading your website even now gets that impression about my involvement. Nobody would ever guess that I have publicly and privately asked you to seek the help of a mental health professional.

You are a manipulator, that much is clear.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I find this odd. In both VfF's and GodofPie's account of last week's meeting, they both seem to indicate a lack of interest on the part of the skeptics. Both versions agree that VfF was at a table some distance away while the skeptics were enjoying conversation and perhaps pizza. I would think that a group of skeptics (no matter how flawed the test) would eat this test up with the biggest spoon they could find, but they seemed remarkably uninterested.

Anyone who was there know why this happened? Perhaps they did not trust that Wayne (whom they'd never met before) was not a shill. Perhaps VfF did something to alienate everyone, maybe her friend did. Maybe they were just starving. She portrays herself as a victim of their lack of interest. This is not surprising, but GodofPie seems to agree that there was a lack of interest (the victim part is something else entirely).

If I'd been there, I think I'd have been right at that table with VfF and Wayne watching everyone's smallest move. I think. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, so something must have happened to make everyone so uninterested.

I dunno.....

Ward

P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is being deliberately deceitful here. I just think there's a missing piece to the story.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:

In other words, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim. You know an honest person would simply come out and say it.

But Honeybunches! I've said this so many times by now! I've always said that I have no formal evidence, but that my past anecdotal experiences (that were not documented in a way to transform them into formal or shared evidence) were compelling to me since I witnessed them! I also know that that is not evidence to me *either*, but I find reasons to conduct this investigation. I've said it many times! (And don't tell me not to call you Honeybunches. Anyone who misses what I've been consistently and very clearly saying here I can call Honeybunches.)

No, you're not compelled to arrange for a study, a test, or whatever it is you're calling what you're trying to avoid this time. You're only compelled to say you're compelled.

Really? Then why did I arrange a study for next weekend? Why is that? *waiting with great anticipation*

And you don't seem to understand that you're only saying you've detected all those things. Although you may believe what you're saying is true, you've demonstrated time and again to the readers of this forum that it isn't true.

Interesting. How did I demonstrate to the readers that my past experiences of accurate perceptions aren't true? *waiting with great anticipation*

You have a reason to say that, but you clearly don't really want to proceed with anything that might pop the bubble which is your fantasy.

Now who's delusional!

No, Anita. No, you're not.

Yes I am. I am open to falsifying the claim. Only inaccurate perceptions can do that.

Let's just say for a moment that you are so deluded you don't even realize you're lying to us, don't you even wonder about your own lack of honesty with yourself when you say things like, "if I fail to fail?"

"If I fail to fail the study" was pretty neat. It should show that I am actually trying to fail!

Stop it! Anita! You haven't experienced accurate medical perceptions. "Until I experience inaccurate medical perceptions," indeed!

Apparently accurate perceptions! Plus, I did accurately perceive that Wayne had an adam's apple.

Hokulele:

2 out of 5 is insignificant? What is 1? Why bother even listing it unless you were fishing for hits (i.e. cold reading)? Without access to your notes from the meeting, I can only judge by your words on the website, which imply that "left shoulder tired" was in your notes (hence the quotes), but none of the other verbiage.

To me, 1 would be nothing, 2 would be insignificantly some, 3 would be there's something there but not really much, 4 is there's definitely something there, 5 is there's absolutely something there. What is 1? 1 is that there is nothing there. I was not fishing for hits. I was recording my perceptions. On the study my perceived extent of health information will be clearly noted, and if I state that something is insignificant then it can not be counted for or against what so ever.

And this is exactly what I mean about making hits out of misses. You tried to claim there was something wrong with his throat. When it was shown there was nothing wrong with his throat, you started claiming it was his adam's apple. You simply cannot admit to being wrong.

No, I claim that I felt something in his throat, and that I figured out that it was the adam's apple and that this is not something wrong. I concluded that it was his adam's apple long before I announced my results and long before the actual health of this person was made available. Stop lying about me, Hokulele. It is ok to suspect me of doing this, but to word it as if you already believe that I did so is just silly. I did no such thing, you know. I wasn't wrong! You are!

 

[Akhenaten]

The trademark insignia is done using the SUP tag. So, Trademark^TM would be done as Trademark[ S U P ]TM[ / S U P ] with the spaces in the tags removed.

Pharaoh is lazy and just holds down the ALT key while typing "0153" on the numeric keypad. The result is slightly different to the tagged method, as follows:


Tagged^TM
ALT Numpadded™