Vision From Feeling

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

This is another example of why I believe you are delusional or perhaps a masterful con artist trying to convince us you are. It has been repeatedly explained to you why the type of reading you did was unacceptable. I created a two-page form for you to use where you either check something or not. There's no rating things on a scale. Either it's a problem or not. There's no interpretation involved in the analysis of your accuracy.

But I already know that the reading with Wayne was not acceptable by test standards! As I explained in my post #1654 I chose to have my reading with Wayne follow along the line of the study, and I consciously designed it so that it is not like a test. I am gradually taking what my everyday experiences with the perceptions were and changing one detail of the circumstances at a time toward a proper test design. It was a fully conscious choice. Because that is the careful and gradual approach that a scientist science student is fully entitled to.

Of course my reading with Wayne was unacceptable from a test point of view. And that is because my reading with Wayne was fully acceptable from the study point of view. And I learned the things I wanted to learn from the experience, I learned that I can write down my perceptions instead of speaking them, and that the volunteer can be turned around and not facing me, and these new insights will be implemented on all future viewings. So I am gradually approaching the test design.

My forms will be used in the upcoming study. And I disagree and feel that the extent of the ailment as perceived by the volunteer and as perceived by me could be on the form. At least I am curious. Then, if a member of the skeptics group tries to extract some results based on the study forms then they may choose to disregard the extents entirely if that is the most appropriate thing to do. I am however conducting this study so that I can learn more about my claim, and therefore the extent will be included on the forms. This is not a test it is a study.

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer. Let me research this.

You chose not to bring the form with you. You refused to use the form when it was offered to you. And yet you are, I hate to use this word but I will, foolish enough to proceed with a reading and try to sell it to us like it has any meaning whatsoever. How could you possibly believe this was a good idea?

I won't be using your forms UncaYimmy! Mine will be better adapted for this particular study! As I said in #1654, Wayne had already written down his ailments on a piece of paper and since he had not used a form I thought I would not use one either. And also I am taking the gradual approach toward test design. Just let me do that. Before you know it I will be looking at people who are behind a screen, surrounded by skeptics, video recorded, writing my answers down on check-box forms, and all other kinds of test conditions that will leave even you speechless.

Besides the forms were not offered to me when I was at the skeptics meeting. Get your facts straight before you get upset with me. The experience with Wayne had plenty of meaning in the intent of a study. If you can't extract any meaning from it then just disregard it entirely, dear UncaYimmy. I am approaching proper test design, so just hang in there.

And I know that I will be heavily criticized for saying this, and called delusional and what else, but when a scientist science student is investigating a subject they change only one parameter at a time and then observe what effects that had on the results. If too many things are changed at once then the results might be meaningless since we don't know why the experiment failed for instance, and would have to go back again to try to figure it out. This way I ensure that I don't have to work backwards at any point.

By the way, you have repeatedly told us that you sense medical problems because of their "vibrational dissonance." Why are you suddenly describing things that are not medical problems? Why would you sense an Adam's apple if there weren't a problem?

I sensed vibrational dissonance because of the adam's apple, but that does not mean that it is a disease. I sense what people feel. I've already claimed many times in the past to have detected health information that is not a health problem, such as Lactobacillus supplement or pregnancy for instance. It is all consistent with my claim.

What's really sad is that you cannot even concede how what you're doing could be reasonably considered problematic. Further proof of your delusional nature.

Alright. Stop calling me delusional. I already know that my reading with Wayne was not going to be according to test procedures. I had intentionally made a very conscious choice to add the experience to the study in order to learn more about what I can and can not do and how the perceptions work. It was a learning experience. The reading with Wayne could have provided evidence against my claim had I made incorrect perceptions, but it could not have provided evidence for my claim since it did not implement necessary test conditions. Just let me take this gradual approach toward a test protocol. It is called a study, and I was told to do it and I agree that it needs to be done.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature. I have clearly stated that I decided to do it in the way of a study. #1654 And if you think that my choice of reducing the reading with Wayne to study-quality is indication of delusional behavior, then I would have to correct you on that since it is according to how I believe a scientific approach could be carried out in the case of this investigation.

Are you playing dumb? A successful test is not one that proves your abilities. Geez. What an ego.

What? So if I pass a test that implements all the required test conditions and proves that I have some form of extrasensory perception then that is not considered a "successful" test? Ego? What?

A successful test is one that actually takes place and gives reliable results. The test with the skeptics would most likely be successful. The mall test will never even get off the ground. If it does, good luck getting people to share medical info with some strangers in the mall and stand around for 15 minutes being gawked at.

And of course I know that. The reading with Wayne is considered part of the study, as I pointed out already in #1654. You know, some of your confusion regarding what I actually intend with what I've done could be resolved if you actually read my posts. The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.

Oh so the mall test will not even get off the ground? Did you read that in the same crystal ball that told you that I could absolutely not procure four skeptics for the study, now that I actully have six? Where can I get one of those fortune-telling things that you're using?

Well, the fact is that the volunteers share personal health information anonymously. You designed this, remember? We'll just have to find out. If no volunteers are found then I can start working on some plan B. This is a pessimistic attitude, UncaYimmy. Let's just see what happens and go from there. Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.

You are choosing to go down a path that will most likely not produce anything useful. You are doing despite EVERYONE else advising you to take a more reliable path.

I am choosing the path that was suggested to me by both skeptical groups that I am involved with, and I agree with having the study. No Hon, everyone, as in people who are actually working with this investigation, is advising that I take the study.

As for your mall (or wherever) study, if you want us to have any faith in the results, name your volunteer skeptics. Ask them to register here and visit this thread. Do you even have four helpers yet?

I will absolutely not name the skeptics unless I have their specific permission to do so. You've just proven that you do not read my posts, UncaYimmy, so why am I even responding to your questions when you won't read my answers? As I've already said many times before that there are six skeptics now. Please read my posts so that you don't have to hallucinate about what you think that I might have said.
(Sorry to sound harsh, I'm just using the same language that is used on this thread lately.)

 

[desertgal]

Before you know it I will be looking at people who are behind a screen, surrounded by skeptics, video recorded, writing my answers down on check-box forms, and all other kinds of test conditions that will leave even you speechless.

Alright. Stop calling me delusional.

Truth hurts.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature.

The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.

Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.

Please read my posts so that you don't have to hallucinate about what you think that I might have said.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

desertgal:

But, interestingly enough, that isn't what the student conduct and counseling centers at your university say. This isn't a game, Anita. If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice. Electing to dispense erroneous information to people about their medical and mental health is something else altogether-and it IS totally erroneous, since your alleged ability is nothing more than delusions. It is completely unethical-and there are ethical standards every student must adhere to. As well, universities don't take mental instability lightly. It is my sincere hope that an intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. As I said before, whether you believe your claims, or this is all just a scam-a hard dose of reality won't hurt you.

When I look at people I perceive visual and felt perceptions of their health. I place no belief in the perceptions and they are not part of my reality, and in fact often the perceptions contradict with what my logical beliefs and assumptions would be. They are impressions, they are not overwhelming or distracting to me (unless I perceive that someone has liver worms or something else that is highly unusual or a serious health problem) and do not take away from my functioning or quality of personal or professional life.

I do not dispense medical information to people, other than in carefully controlled study or test circumstances that are intended to try to establish the correlation between my perceptions and actual health information. The accuracy of my perceptions has also been confirmed by means other than me expressing what I perceived to persons. I have no intentions of beginning to dispense medical information to people regardless of how accurate I may seem, as I perfectly understand that I am not qualified to do so as well as the possible harm to persons.

The perceptions in themselves are not interesting to me. What compels me to have this investigation is the apparent accuracy that has been experienced in the past. I hold two things in mind as I proceed in this investigation, 1) the actual accuracy may not be as high as the apparent accuracy has been in the past, for instance if a person was lying to me about their health or simply mistaken about their health making it appear that there was correlation when there was not, and 2) if there is actual accuracy it may very well be due to some unintentional cold reading of available symptoms. Either case I am interested and I feel that I am approaching this in a proper, even if careful and gradual, manner.

My statement that I have experienced correlation between my perceptions and with actual health information of people, is not based on my personal preference or choice. The statement of apparent accuracy is based on actual experience whose results were not due to my own interpretation. If the study and tests show that there is no correlation between my perceptions and actual health information then I will be able to conclude that the explanation to this phenomenon is not to be found in the outside world and I will terminate this investigation.

Since I do not hold belief in the perceptions, since the perceptions are not overwhelming or disturbing to my way of life, and since I make no attempts of taking my experienced perceptions out into what is our real, mutual world, there is no reason for concern of my mental health with regard to these perceptions. If however I still wish to learn more after concluding from the investigation that my perceptions are not based on real world information, then in that case I can speak to mental health professionals who can explain more about how the mind processes information and creates impressions.

Really, there is no reason for concern.

As for the perceptions and impressions I have when I visit historical sites, the fact that I have interest in spending time at haunted sites and discussing my impressions is not reason for concern. I will clearly state that it is done for fun and entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken as truth or evidence, and is not much different from when a person visits a museum and talks about what kind of things they see or feel when they look at a painting or a sculpture.

 

[skeen]

@desertgal: I concur.

EDIT: Anita is really trying to have her cake and eat it, too, isn't she? She makes these claims, but at the same time says her visions or whathaveyou don't enter into her reality. So, what she's saying is it's in her imagination, but she wants it to be more than that.

Anita, you're either having delusions or you're not. If you're not, then you're admitting you're just making all of this up in your mind. All you've been doing is playing with words. There's no difference between you and anyone else, except that you're obviously a bit crazy.

It should be noted, Anita, that you have not dismissed "no craziness". You should pursue further study there.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup:
The conclusion I gave when I presented my perceptions to Wayne was that I found nothing wrong with his health. I mentioned that all I sensed was a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent, and that I had sensed his adam's apple, both of which I said were not answers. My conclusion was that nothing was wrong. I did not present inaccurate perceptions.

Diogenes:
I perceive health problems but also things that aren't a problem, such as Lactobacillus supplement in the stomach, or pregnancy. It is hard to generalize about what I can and can't do. I detected a scar in one case, and in another case I didn't. Even I can't generalize about my claim at this point. I need more experience and that is what the study is for. Let's just see what happens when the time comes that I actually claim to perceive something. Then you guys can have a field day if that claimed perception turns out to be inaccurate, and, frankly, after all I've put you through here, I would let you have it.

I expect to make plenty of claims of perceiving health information of a significant extent on the upcoming study. There will then be plenty of material to analyze.

 

[skeen]

Yes yes Anita, the proof is just around the corner. One day we'll all hang our heads in shame for doubting you, while you're raking in literally billions of dollars, and are hailed as the most intelligent and incredible person in the history of the world, saving the lives of hundreds of millions.

Your groundbreaking quantum, vibrational, spiritual, alien research will change the world forever, proving once and for all that all things woo are in fact true.

You will wear the finest silk, and own the biggest diamonds, and will be adored by all. Rainbows will ascend behind you, and the sun will smile down on you as you walk on rose petals.

It's all just right around the corner. I'm sure it will come, just hang in there. We're nearly there. You'll show us. We'll see.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

In this study you have complained about the undesirable noise of the location, of the temperature, not having the right forms, the jacket the subject was wearing... and then you try to see how the reading is from the side? Since you didn't detect anything, how do you know whether this helped or not?

No, Ashles, seeing the volunteer from the side wasn't going to help the perceptions at all. I was simply conforming to another test condition. On a test it is better if I see the volunteers from behind and not front, since eye contact definitely needs to be disallowed. That is what I was doing.

My starting point in this investigation was what I call my "everyday experience" with the perceptions. This means that I look at the person and have eye contact with them, that I tell the person what I see as soon as I see it. Well, some of my past experiences took place under circumstances that are more test-appropriate than that, but this is the worst possible starting point in which I know that the perceptions supposedly took place. I then started with that and have begun changing one condition at a time toward what is to be proper test conditions. I already know that I can write down my answers and present them in full at the end of the viewing, and that I do not require eye contact in order to have the perceptions. That is what I am doing, and that is why I asked the volunteer to turn around.

If you mentioned it as a perception, it WAS an answer. You had an actual perception.

No, Ashles. I wrote down plenty of perceptions and impressions that I had that I was not going to consider to be health problems that would be significant enough to have checked for accuracy. I wrote that I saw that his heart was healthy and nice and orange pink, that his liver was smaller than average, that his left shoulder was slightly tired, and that I felt his adam's apple. But when I presented the conclusions, I stated that I find no health problems what so ever. Because the shoulder and the throat were insignificant.

Firstly you DID mention it. It's simply stupid to say you would never mention it when you actually did.

To not mention it as an answer. I perceived it, but I perceived that it was insignificant and that it was not an answer that I would want to be checked for accuracy.

(And we all know full well that had Wayne declared a shoulder injury you would have counted it as a hit. A giant one.)

Hm. Hopefully not, since I declared that I perceived that it was insignificant. I do realize the issues you are raising, and the study will be done differently to avoid these questions.

And I really cannot fathom the business about the adam's apple other than the weakest attempt to rationalise a failure away so far.

I concluded that it was the adam's apple before I announced my answers. How's that.

Your whole claim now revolves entirely around when you actually make positive diagnoses (and those have sure decreased in frequency).

Of course there was a low frequency of perceptions of health problems in my viewing with Wayne! He declared himself to have perfect health! Ashles!

I have not been incorrect. I declared that I sensed a slightly tired left shoulder and I declared clearly that it was insignificant and was not my answer. My answer and conclusion after the reading was that I found no health problems and that according to my perceptions all was very healthy and healthier than average people. The thing I sensed in the throat was the adam's apple. No incorrect perceptions were made in this experience. Maybe you don't like that.

(By the way, I have absolutely no intention of providing you my e-mail address, as you would have known - but since you clearly have your notes electronically, you could, of course, easily add them as an extra page on your website. You don't even have to link to it from the main page - just add an extra page and provide us the URL. I look forward to hearing why you won't be able to do that either).)

Well Ashles because I asked for your mailing address so that I could send photocopies. I do not have an electronic copy.

Old man:

Well, I got the distinct impression that Anita wanted a little 'privacy' for her 'reading', so it's not implausible that the other members tried to not disturb her during that time.

No, it was very loud. I had to move away. And no one seemed to be wanting to 'not disturb me'. I'm not criticizing, I'm just explaining.

 

[desertgal]

desertgal:
When I look at people I perceive visual and felt perceptions of their health. <snipped for brevity>...Really, there is no reason for concern.

I have no further interest in any of your deceptive explanations. You might not find reason for concern-I do. So have many people here. The student conduct and counseling centers at your university concur. Again, it is my sincere hope that a direct intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. Delusion or scam - it makes no difference.

As for the perceptions and impressions I have when I visit historical sites, the fact that I have interest in spending time at haunted sites and discussing my impressions is not reason for concern. I will clearly state that it is done for fun and entertainment purposes and not intended to be taken as truth or evidence, and is not much different from when a person visits a museum and talks about what kind of things they see or feel when they look at a painting or a sculpture.

What part of "If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice" did you not understand? I couldn't care less, except where those claims relate to your credibility and your apparent mental instability-and it is out of my hands to judge that at this point.

 

[GeeMack]

Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.

Come on, Anita. Responses like this verge on raw stupidity. Here's the deal. Evidence against ESP already exists in abundance, by nature of the fact that it has never been shown to be a genuine, real phenomenon. Science, based in reality, says that until we have some kind of tangible support for its existence, we can accept that ESP doesn't exist. Your job, if you're not just the idiot that you sometimes appear to be, is to demonstrate that you do have some heretofore unproven ability. All your silly pretending that not proving you wrong somehow supports the possibility that your fantasy is true only shows your real skill is in wallowing in world class ignorance.

All your messing around, stalling for time, twisting words, and playing childish games makes you look like you're either intentionally avoiding an honest confrontation with the situation, or that you're mentally ill and can't tell the difference between reality and delusion, or that you're just too stupid to understand. I'd venture to guess that most people who are still following this thread are simply curious to find out which of those is behind your apparent lunacy. I can assure you that nobody here believes you might have any kind of special extra-sensory ability.

Oh, and your desperation is wearing on you. You're losing that pleasantness you had when you first arrived here, and you're beginning to look more like a condescending jerk with each new post.

 

[Chimera]

Oh, and your desperation is wearing on you. You're losing that pleasantness you had when you first arrived here, and you're beginning to look more like a condescending jerk with each new post.

You think she's condescending, "hon"?

 

[Pup]

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer.

Did Wayne write on the paper beforehand that he had some minor shoulder issue? If he didn't, the 2 would be a miss. Right?

I sensed vibrational dissonance because of the adam's apple, but that does not mean that it is a disease. I sense what people feel.

So did Wayne write beforehand that he had some kind of abnormal sensation about his normal adam's apple? If not, that would be a miss also, right?

Did he even say that these things fit afterwards?

The reading with Wayne could have provided evidence against my claim had I made incorrect perceptions,...

Which you did, as noted above. That's what we're seeing, which you're not. That's why the word "delusional" keeps popping up.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Jeff Corey:
Well since I haven't taken statistics courses yet would you please explain the issue with my reasoning? After all, I am here on the JREF Forum for help with test design and especially with statistics. What is wrong with the approach that if I have a study that by its design can not provide evidence in favor of ESP but can provide evidence against ESP, then if the results indicate no ESP why is it wrong to conclude that there is no ESP ability? Why then would we have to proceed to have a real test that would only conclude the same? Would you please explain rather than just question my intelligence. I really want to know.

Because you know nothing about statistics, it will be necessary to explain this in detail so that you will know it and not make the mistakes you have made now many times before. You will have to read carefully because since you have not understood what I have said before, you must be confused or possibly unable to understand what I am saying or have said before.
Statistics is comprised of two different areas, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.We are only concerned with inferential statistics at this point in time.
Inferential statistics allows us to calculate the probability of some outcome occurring by chance, or randomly. For example, me being able to toss a coin and get more heads than chance. This yields a binomial distribution. One correct, p= .5. Five correct, p = .03. Statistically significant at less than the .05 level. Worthy of further investigation.
Three correct and 2 not, not significant, not worthy of further investigation.
But you insisted on two different posts that you had to obtain results that were significantly below chance to abandon your delusion. That is so wrong, that is like saying I would have to get 0 out of five tosses of the coin right to be convinced I could not control it.
As I said before, you never learn.

 

[desertgal]

Let's just see what happens when the time comes that I actually claim to perceive something.

That time has come and gone. We know what happens.

Then you guys can have a field day if that claimed perception turns out to be inaccurate, and, frankly, after all I've put you through here, I would let you have it.

That, too, has already happened, and all you did was deny, evade, excuse, distort, and cherry pick any and all remarks that pointed to the inaccuracies.

Can't you be honest about anything?

 

[wardenclyffe]

A couple of things.

First, I'm having trouble accessing page 43(!) of this thread, so I think it was Moochie who said it sounded like GodofPie's and VfF's descriptions of last week's meeting were scipted. I want to make it clear, that I believe GodofPie and eCarlson are real people and real skeptics. I don't believe that there's any chicanery going on with them. These are my beliefs from looking at the Winston-Salem Skeptics meet up page. That whole page could be a fake and the wool is being pulled over my eyes, but I don't think so.

I'm assuming that most skeptics who belong to groups like this forum or the Winston-Salem Skeptics enjoy watching paranormal claimants do their thing---even under bad test conditions it's still fun to watch. That's why it seems weird that while VfF was conducting her exam of Wayne, the skeptics were laughing it up and enjoying pizza across the room. Maybe it was boring. Maybe they were hungry. I don't know. It just seems weird.

Second, desertgal, you mentioned student conduct and counseling a couple of times. Did I miss where this came up originally? Again, I'm having trouble w/page 43, so maybe it was there. Has VfF had some sort of run-in with the powers that be at school?

Ward

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
But I already know that the reading with Wayne was not acceptable by test standards!

First, you eliminated a potential person from your study. Second, you lied about how it happened. Third, you told everyone here about it KNOWING the reaction you would get, and then spent hours defending it.

And what did you stand to gain? Zero. Nada. Zilch. Not a smooth move, Ex Lax.

Of course my reading with Wayne was unacceptable from a test point of view. And that is because my reading with Wayne was fully acceptable from the study point of view.

If by acceptable you mean completely goes against the study protocol you wrote, then I agree.

My forms will be used in the upcoming study. And I disagree and feel that the extent of the ailment as perceived by the volunteer and as perceived by me could be on the form.

Everybody is telling you what a bad idea it is. Are you a control freak or something? We're not easily manipulated here.

Let's say I answer that a person has a "5" in shoulder pain, but they report only a "1" or a "2". Then even though the shoulder pain was a match, I would personally have suspicion against my claim of being able to perceive the extent of an ailment as it is perceived from the perspective of the volunteer.

You say you want advice, but you refuse to take it. You are once again adding complexity that will only serve to muddy the waters. It's funny, you never needed this scale before when you came up with your 100% never been wrong claim.

Besides the forms were not offered to me when I was at the skeptics meeting.

I believe GodOfPie. He told me he had the forms at the first meeting and at this meeting. Of course, you could have printed them yourself.

I am approaching proper test design, so just hang in there.

I gave you one on a silver platter. You ruined it and continue to do so.

Alright. Stop calling me delusional.

Nobody has ever called you delusional! Where are you getting that from? You must be imagining things.

The fact that you honestly believe that I would somehow claim that my reading with Wayne was according to test procedures and non-problematic shows that you have some delusional nature.

Nice try, but that's not what I said. I can't imagine why you thought presenting it to us and adding it to your website would result in anything but what has just happened: Thousands of words, all of which damage what little credibility you have left.

Foolish, I would say.

The fact that you consistently ignore what I've said and make stuff up is perhaps indication of delusional behavior, since you seem to hold belief in things that aren't true or consistent with reality.

I'm a man, not a woman, so stop being so nasty.

Oh so the mall test will not even get off the ground? Did you read that in the same crystal ball that told you that I could absolutely not procure four skeptics for the study, now that I actully have six? Where can I get one of those fortune-telling things that you're using?

You have six volunteers who will come out with you and spend several hours shuffling forms? That's wonderful. I don't believe you, but I like the fantasy.

Some of your pessimistic predictions have already been proven false.

Such as?

I am choosing the path that was suggested to me by both skeptical groups that I am involved with, and I agree with having the study. No Hon, everyone, as in people who are actually working with this investigation, is advising that I take the study.

Yes, you are being told to take the study to prove to you that you are delusional. Not a single person believes you have any ability whatsoever. Nobody thinks you are special.

I will absolutely not name the skeptics unless I have their specific permission to do so.

Funny, you have no problems naming me on your website without my permission.

You've just proven that you do not read my posts, UncaYimmy,

I admit, sometimes I fade in and out because you ramble on and on and on. Since you repeat yourself constantly, I figure I'll catch it in a re-run.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Oh Unca Yimmy, you are such a chameleon, a while ago you were the excellent research person, and now you don't even read her posts.
Do you remember what I said about a thousand or so posts ago? I don't, exactly, and I am not going to try to find it. That private thing won't work. Did it?

 

[desertgal]

A couple of things.
First, I'm having trouble accessing page 43(!) of this thread, so I think it was Moochie who said it sounded like GodofPie's and VfF's descriptions of last week's meeting were scipted. I want to make it clear, that I believe GodofPie and eCarlson are real people and real skeptics. I don't believe that there's any chicanery going on with them. These are my beliefs from looking at the Winston-Salem Skeptics meet up page. That whole page could be a fake and the wool is being pulled over my eyes, but I don't think so.

Moochie said: "Yeah, I have the uncanny feeling of a poorly written script. Have done so since the beginning."

I think he was referring to everything VfF has said here, there, and everywhere, and didn't intend to imply that you believed GodofPie and eCarlson were up to chicanery. I certainly didn't take your statement that way-don't think anyone else did, either.

I'm assuming that most skeptics who belong to groups like this forum or the Winston-Salem Skeptics enjoy watching paranormal claimants do their thing---even under bad test conditions it's still fun to watch. That's why it seems weird that while VfF was conducting her exam of Wayne, the skeptics were laughing it up and enjoying pizza across the room. Maybe it was boring. Maybe they were hungry. I don't know. It just seems weird.

Weird, yes. But, it was the end of the meeting, so perhaps they were trying to give Anita privacy. Or have followed this thread, and are as exhausted as the rest of us by her delusions, etc. Or just wanted to eat their pizza while it was hot. Hard to say.

Second, desertgal, you mentioned student conduct and counseling a couple of times. Did I miss where this came up originally? Again, I'm having trouble w/page 43, so maybe it was there. Has VfF had some sort of run-in with the powers that be at school?

Not yet.

Anita said:

desertgal: I see no reason in replying to you.You misinterpret everything I say, and your comments are not trustworthy.

I replied:

Uh-huh. Coming from the Queen of Delusional Liars, that means nothing.

But, interestingly enough, that isn't what the student conduct and counseling centers at your university say. This isn't a game, Anita. If you want to go off chasing ghosts and communing with "star people", that's your choice. Electing to dispense erroneous information to people about their medical and mental health is something else altogether-and it IS totally erroneous, since your alleged ability is nothing more than delusions. It is completely unethical-and there are ethical standards every student must adhere to. As well, universities don't take mental instability lightly. It is my sincere hope that an intervention will prompt you to seek the help from a mental health professional that you obviously need. As I said before, whether you believe your claims, or this is all just a scam-a hard dose of reality won't hurt you.

(Don't worry, mods, I made it very clear that I do not represent the JREF in any way, shape, or form.)

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

 

[desertgal]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

And yet another disingenuous post. So tiresome.

Why in the world should anyone here help you at this point, after all your delusions, lies, distortions, evasions, cherry picking, arguing, and condescension for 43 pages? Give us one good reason.

Design your own page.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I intend to have a sign at the site where the study is held that briefly introduces the study and and asks for volunteers. Those who are interested are given an information page, which is stapled on top of the volunteer's health form. The information page will be not more than one page long and provides the important information about the study.

Since everyone is spending so much time, energy and creativity in here why don't we all focus on the design of this page for now? What should be written on the information page? What needs to be told to the volunteers about this study, and how should it be said? A skeptic will be available at the location at all times to answer more of the volunteers' questions but all the valuable information should be available on this information page.

First off, you've never done anything briefly.

Second, and more importantly, why should anyone help you? You never take our advice. You always change things around until we're dissatisfied with it.

Third, what did the person at the mall say? Is it a go? If not, where is it going to be held?