VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[desertgal]

Thank you for speculating, UncaYimmy, however you only represent part of the story. What is failed to mention is also that the professor liked to hit students with papers and on one occasion attacked me simply because he thought I was sitting in the wrong chair when I wasn't.

YOU said you weren't sitting in the wrong chair.
HE said you were.
HE made up the seat assignments.
'Nuff said.

He yelled at students, insulted them frequently, called students stupid, said that he hates them and that he is going to murder them, and yelled at students who he did not like to get out of his classroom and to withdraw, and that he doesn't want to see them again....

Oh, that's just ridiculous. God only knows what he actually said, but I think most of us can trust that you have blown whatever it was completely out of proportion.

I never struggled with the coursematerial itself, in fact I make high A's in the exams with other professors. What this story should say about me, above all, is that I do not appreciate or tolerate anger, insults, or harassment, and you all know that of me by now.

Actually, what we know is that you don't tolerate reality intruding on your make believe world.

I have merely represented the truth about the professor, his rudeness affected my studying, I have not misrepresented or exaggerated my description of his behavior toward students in the least bit.

Right.

Those students who were personally not mistreated by the professor think highly of him, of course. He only picked on some of the students, including me, who he did not like.

As for the incident where I wanted to review the stereochemistry table before an exam. I was yelled at for asking such a "stupid question". Two seconds later, one of his favorite students - who obviously thought it was a good idea to review the stereochemistry - asked us to do such a problem on the board, and she was given praise and the professor was delighted to review these problems.

Right.

I have only described this the way it was. The consequence was that I stopped attending his second course. And that is the only reason I received an F. My only non-A grade on my entire transcript. If you would please apply your skeptical minds... would a straight-A student really be likely to struggle with a course so badly that she actually earns an F on the tests and fails a course? Or is it more likely that something happened, what ever it was, and she chose to stop attending the course and to not take the exams, and therefore failed?

See Cuddles' post above.

It is sad that you always try to spin things into seeming that I would have lied. I have told the truth. I did not appreciate being called stupid, hit with papers, and insulted by a professor. He did this to several of the students. Other students he treated exceedingly well. And that is why I stopped attending his course. And that is why I have an F.

Right.

Please think about it. Just in case it happened, just in case I did not exaggerate. I think this professors behavior is despicable, and it is he, not me, who shames the Chemistry Department.

Right.

 

[Paul2]

What is failed to mention is also that the professor liked to hit students with papers and on one occasion attacked me simply because he thought I was sitting in the wrong chair when I wasn't. He yelled at students, insulted them frequently, called students stupid, said that he hates them and that he is going to murder them, and yelled at students who he did not like to get out of his classroom and to withdraw, and that he doesn't want to see them again.

Is there anyone else (another student in the class) who could verify this, as an eyewitness?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Thank you for speculating, UncaYimmy, however you only represent part of the story.

Actually, the full story as given by you to me is posted here.

What is failed to mention is also that the professor liked to hit students with papers

I don't recall you ever stating that he hit other students with papers.

I never struggled with the coursematerial itself, in fact I make high A's in the exams with other professors. What this story should say about me, above all, is that I do not appreciate or tolerate anger, insults, or harassment, and you all know that of me by now. I have merely represented the truth about the professor, his rudeness affected my studying, I have not misrepresented or exaggerated my description of his behavior toward students in the least bit.

Actually, you first told us he hit you. Then it was the he hit you with papers and that this was a crime. It later came out that his actions didn't even hurt you physically.

I have only described this the way it was. The consequence was that I stopped attending his second course. And that is the only reason I received an F. My only non-A grade on my entire transcript.

This is another blatant lie. As you told me (see the link above) you received a B in another course, then retook the course and got an A. According to UNCC policy, both grades remain on your transcript even though the second grade is the only one that counts in your GPA.

If you would please apply your skeptical minds... would a straight-A student really be likely to struggle with a course so badly that she actually earns an F on the tests and fails a course?

It actually makes perfect sense that someone obsessed with grades would lie about the circumstances when struggling with a course. This allows the to make excuses and convince the administration to let them retake a course when they received a B. Since you told me that you were in therapy for a year because of your depression over losing your GPA, an exaggerated story is actually the most likely explanation.

Or is it more likely that something happened, what ever it was, and she chose to stop attending the course and to not take the exams, and therefore failed?

Makes sense to me. You probably knew the administration wouldn't let you retake another course with only a B, so you needed to fail the course because that leads to you automatically being able to use the grade replacement policy. You also told me that this is the fourth time you have taken the course - you dropped the "do-over" twice.

BTW, how many courses have you signed up for and dropped during the time period where it's permitted without affecting your transcript? I've seen "4.0" students surf courses like that. Are you a surfer?

Please think about it. Just in case it happened, just in case I did not exaggerate. I think this professors behavior is despicable, and it is he, not me, who shames the Chemistry Department.

Unfortunately, the administration and your fellow students seem to disagree.

 

[Christian Klippel]

He yelled at students, insulted them frequently, called students stupid, said that he hates them and that he is going to murder them, and yelled at students who he did not like to get out of his classroom and to withdraw, and that he doesn't want to see them again.

Wow. If i were you, i would be really, really carefull with such accusations. At least on my side of the pond, what you just said here gives grounds for involving the authorities. No, not against the teacher, but against you. Accusing someone of openly making threads to murder someone is not to be done for fun. Over here that, together with the other accusations, could put you in front of a court in no time.

Also, it is very unlikely that your accusations are true. If he would show such behavior towards other students, they would surely press charges against him. It is simply unbelievable that he does that and gets away with it.

Which bears the question: Are you telling the truth? I would think you don't.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Jeff Corey]

If is true that he is a Professor Emeritus, then it is highly unlikely that he behaved in any of the inappropriate ways Anita described.

 

[desertgal]

If is true that he is a Professor Emeritus, then it is highly unlikely that he behaved in any of the inappropriate ways Anita described.

Professor Emeritus aside, it's highly unlikely that he behaved in any of the inappropriate ways Anita described, simply because Anita is the one doing the describing. She does have that tendency to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear so she can play the victim.

Ironic that she chides UncaYimmy for only telling half the story, when all she has to offer is her version.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Well, I've told the truth, and as a science student I am taught by my university to abide by the truth no matter how difficult. I would never lie about a professor. He is solely responsible for his actions and the way that he treated students, and I was not the only one affected. He is obviously proud of his behavior or he would have apologized. My personal sense of morals does not allow for the type of treatment that he did and that is why I respectfully declined to attend his lectures. I do not tolerate students being hit with papers or being insulted like that. I am proud of my decision to not attend his class, and I will not be silenced about it either.

If some of you think you can make a scandal out of this, it just shows your boredom at times like these when we are not discussing some paranormal claim. Get a life, or move on to another paranormal claimant. I am not the next Sylvia Browne, nor will I ever be. You are attacking a science student who was investigating an interesting experience and who hoped to engage skeptically minded individuals in its test design and discussion. I think we are done with that, and I would respect it if you could all stop prying into what is my personal and professional life. I came here to discuss my paranormal investigation, not to have my whole life attacked by you. Please leave me alone.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I came here to discuss my paranormal investigation, not to have my whole life attacked by you.

If that was the truth, you wouldn't spread out your personal life in great detail here.

Please leave me alone.

Funny. You spout a lot of things here, and then don't like that people respond to that. In turn, you want these people to leave. Here's a hint for you: If you don't like what is discussed here, don't give us a reason to discuss it. You could start with being honest, for one. Then, you could stop blaming others for your failures.

If then you still can't take it, well, frankly, it is you then who needs to leave. Not us.

 

[LostAngeles]

If you're going to, "abide by the truth, no matter how difficult," then will you admit to having failed to IIG test?

 

[Pantaz]

...I came here to discuss my paranormal investigation, not to have my whole life attacked by you. Please leave me alone.

My recommendation: Delete your website.

 

[TheDaver]

Please leave me alone.

Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for you to just leave, rather than try to dictate how people behave toward you here?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If that was the truth, you wouldn't spread out your personal life in great detail here.

I don't spread my personal life here, but I do defend myself when others spread hurtful lies about me.

Funny. You spout a lot of things here, and then don't like that people respond to that. In turn, you want these people to leave. Here's a hint for you: If you don't like what is discussed here, don't give us a reason to discuss it. You could start with being honest, for one. Then, you could stop blaming others for your failures.

I have been entirely honest about everything. I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us about it. All I have done is be honest, but you people disbelieve it so much you can not even imagine that it may be the truth.

If then you still can't take it, well, frankly, it is you then who needs to leave. Not us.

I will defend myself against lies about me.

If you're going to, "abide by the truth, no matter how difficult," then will you admit to having failed to IIG test?

What's wrong with you? I have wholeheartedly admitted that I failed the IIG test. Find a quote where I supposedly say that I didn't fail the test. Stop spreading lies about me, and check your facts.

 

[GeeMack]

What's wrong with you? I have wholeheartedly admitted that I failed the IIG test. Find a quote where I supposedly say that I didn't fail the test. Stop spreading lies about me, and check your facts.

You considered the protocol for the test to be perfect. Perfect means without flaw. You had every opportunity before the show to express your concern about any elements of the protocol which you weren't comfortable with. You never mentioned a thing. Given that you were very specific in your intentions, we're still waiting on your announcement that having failed the test your paranormal medical perception claims have been falsified. There was this and many more messages like it...

I am tremendously pleased with the test protocol. From my perspective it is absolutely perfect, and it contains no elements that I worry could reduce my performance. I have confidence in my single past experience of detecting that a left kidney was missing, and am willing to let this specific claim represent the entirety of the medical perceptions claim. And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified.

Your reluctance to make that announcement is why some feel you've crapped on all the people who helped you. That statement above, as well as several others where you said virtually the same thing, can be seen as an agreement between yourself and all the people who participated in discussions to help you whittle down the protocol, the people who encouraged you to participate in the show, the people who invested their effort to make the show happen, etc. Everything everyone did was to help you determine the scientific truth of your claim. And you don't even acknowledge that.

And it wasn't just the IIG folks, Anita. It was dozens upon dozens of people, a few dozen from right here on the JREF Forum. And the fact that you aren't willing to honor your agreement to abandon your paranormal medical perceptions claim is a serious expression of ingratitude and disrespect to all those people. You're spitting on them. You owe everyone a thank-you for helping you, and you owe them an apology for failing to carry through with your stated intention. It's been over 5 weeks now, and we're still waiting.

 

[Paul2]

"And so if I fail this Preliminary test with the IIG, I will be happy to announce my paranormal claim as falsified."

This bears re-posting.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I wish it were that simple. First of all, I did detect that Dr. Carlson was missing a left kidney before he told us. And it was the most compelling medical perception I had had. Again, the reason I did not write it down, was because I was logically convinced that it could not be true, which makes the whole thing even more interesting since it was true after all. My logical thinking and my perceptions of health information are two entirely different things. And at the IIG test I was confident in knowing the accuracy of each trial immediately after each trial, being confident that trials 1 and 3 would be wrong and trial 2 correct.

My answer in trial 2 of the IIG test was so compelling, that I declared right there and then that if it were incorrect then that would be the time to falsify the claim. From 1 hour 38 minutes into Part 1 of the test I said that the perception for trial 2 was so compelling that if it were incorrect I would know without doubt that the claim is falsified. The claim would have been over with right there and then.

I learned that it takes me longer to see through larger persons and that three trials was far too much and I was affected by fatigue and my claim stopped working in trial 3. I did document my fatigue on the draft papers and also told IIG staff about it well before the results were established.

I will arrange to have another test, and hopefully it will be able to settle my curiosity more conclusively. Sorry about that if you don't like it.

Besides. It is better to have another test, because if I make incorrect perceptions that I thought would be correct, that will be able to better falsify the claim. I have so many woos contacting me telling me that the IIG tricked the test and all other sorts of nonsense, and if I fail more conclusively, then it should make an even better example to all the woos out there. My goal is to falsify the claim if there is nothing to it, but, that can not be done yet with the data that is available so far. Another test will be helpful.

 

[Paul2]

I wish it were that simple.

What's simple is that you changed what you said would falsifying the claim, comparing before the IIG test (if I fail, it's falsified) to now (your most recent post in this thread).

This simple fact of this change is one reason why no one believes you. You're moving the goalposts.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Well, this new ability should be easy enough to test. Take a test of random trivia questions, answer each in 5 seconds, for example, and then state which questions you got right and which you got wrong. Do this with 100% accuracy with however many sets of questions need to be used to get something statistically significant, and away you go. A new "paranormal" ability, and a new test to go with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My answer in trial 2 of the IIG test was so compelling, that I declared right there and then that if it were incorrect then that would be the time to falsify the claim.

I don't remember you saying any such thing.

At any rate, I know for sure that you said before the test that if you failed the test you would admit that it you claim will have been falsified. You did indeed fail the test, and yet now you refuse to admit that you don't have this x-ray vision power.

So why should we care what you said during Trial 2? Before the test you agreed what defined success and failure. Getting one right was defined as failure. You're trying to re-define it as success.

You claimed the ability to do your thing any time and immediately and that you are never wrong. This test showed that you do not have this ability. Why do you still refuse to admit it?

I think it's because you're simply a fraud following in the long tradition of frauds making these kinds of paranormal claims. There's nothing special or unique about your claims or your behavior when confronted with the evidence.

 

[desertgal]

The only reason I ever called you was when I was upset about being called a racist all because I had said that my perceptions of black people are that they are healthier and because racism makes me very upset.

But, that isn't ALL you said, was it? Considering that it was factually incorrect doesn't make it any less racist.

Well, according to my perceptions I perceive that in general and among what I have been exposed to, black people would have better health than white people. I don't make conclusions based on that, this is simply what I perceive. Alright, here it is:

I perceive that the bodies of black people would react very differently to having an open flesh-wound than would white people. That they have a much stronger system that produces the sticky yellow liquid that washes, seals, dries, and protects a wound.

I perceive that black people have much fewer different types of chemicals in the body than do white people. Enzymes, perhaps. The variety of chemicals in white people's blood and tissues is much more diverse. According to my perception.

I hate to say it but I perceive that black people in general would have a shorter lifespan.

I hate to say it but I perceive a much larger variety of health problems and also of genetic problems and structural abnormalities in white people than I do in black people. Thus black people being healthier with this regard.

I perceive that black people would be more prone to ankle arthritis or ankle problems, whereas white people would be more prone to wrist arthritis or wrist problems.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4539711&postcount=92

Note: I confirm that black people are harder. They have fewer health problems and their tissues & internal chemicals chemistry etc. is different. I'm less experienced

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

 

[wardenclyffe]

Well, this new ability should be easy enough to test. Take a test of random trivia questions, answer each in 5 seconds, for example, and then state which questions you got right and which you got wrong. Do this with 100% accuracy with however many sets of questions need to be used to get something statistically significant, and away you go. A new "paranormal" ability, and a new test to go with it.

That test would be far too easy for her to pass, as would any similar test, including a new kidney test. All she would have to do is try to fail. She could deliberately answer the ALL trivia questions incorrectly and then predict that she missed them all and she would have 100% accuracy.

With a new kidney test, it would be a little more difficult, because she might be accidentally right (again) in one trial. Still, the odds are much better of her prediction of being wrong 100% of the time, and she could predict as much and would look like she had special predictive powers.

It's a lot like when she chose "left" as the missing kidney in every case at the IIG test. The odds were that left was the most likely answer in each case since a donated kidney is usually the left kidney.

Besides, who's going to set up a test like that for her?

Ward