Vision From Feeling

[desertgal]

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

I dunno. This one:

a) I was really nervous and felt a lot of pressure being in front of skeptics and the well-respected Dr. Carlson. Even though what I sensed wasn't worth mentioning, I did anyway because I felt like I should say something.

To me, that would very likely be something that a delusional person would feel and do, even if they didn't acknowledge it to themselves or other people, if they were trying to convince others of an extraordinary claim. Remember, many delusional disorders CAN differentiate the difference between reality and delusional reality, even though they avoid doing so. This, to me, would be just that: an avoidance tactic, generated by nerves and fear of exposure, to perpetuate the delusional reality in the face of a confrontation with reality. Not rational, of course, but then delusional behavior rarely is.

Just another version of "It's not ME. It's YOU."

I'll agree that they probably wouldn't vocalize it as an excuse, though.

Maybe that one should be a 5?

 

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by Moochie View Post
I suppose that next you will tell me that "unmisinterpretation" isn't a word, thereby revealing your diseducation.
M.

I' impressed: with a vocabulary like that, are you a former president of the USA?

Shrub!

 

[Ashles]

I thus nearly choked when I got to Ashles's brilliant observation, "She is as self-centered as a gyroscope."

To be fair I think I remember reading that somewhere.

This whole grade thing is fascinating - Anita treats her course like she does her testing.
Some course didn't go her way, she describes appalling abuse (Physical violence? In a classroom? On students? In fornt of others? And no complaints? Yeah right...) and redefines everything until it somehow is to be ignored.

If she comes across a course that is harder or she can't cope with I guess she just quits it and then claims that course didn't count.

This is one young lady very unprepared for real life.

 

[tsig]

Oh, I see. I apologize, then. I thought the "last updated" date indicated that that list reflected GPA's for the semester immediately preceding the current one.

Sorry, UncaYimmy. You were right. Technically, she does not have a current 4.0., and she was lying when she said that she did during the last few months of posts.

As for:


Give it a rest, Anita. You opened the door by mentioning your GPA. Your whole "It's only okay for discussion as long as it plays up what a remarkable, extraordinary, superior being I am" schtick is bogus and pathetic. If you don't want a topic discussed, don't introduce it.

And do stop saying that your university is not "involved". You handed three professors the burden of knowing about your irrational claims, so you have already involved them, whether they did anything about it or not. (Unless, of course, that tale was a lie, which wouldn't surprise any of us.) You are proposing to involve other students in your...ahem...study. If, by some bizarre chance, you do manage to pull off a...ahem....study, are you really so oblivious to think that word won't get around that selfsame university that you took a bunch of students into a park and pretended to peer into their bodies, while requesting them to share highly personal health information, and came up with zero results?

Oh, yeah. You're not delusional. Not at all.

Why do you give her a break? She started out lying has continued to lie and yet you act as though she is truthful. Her first statement here was a lie and all of her posts have been a lie.

 

[desertgal]

Oh, I see. I apologize, then. I thought the "last updated" date indicated that that list reflected GPA's for the semester immediately preceding the current one.

Sorry, UncaYimmy. You were right. Technically, she does not have a current 4.0., and she was lying when she said that she did during the last few months of posts.

As for:


Give it a rest, Anita. You opened the door by mentioning your GPA. Your whole "It's only okay for discussion as long as it plays up what a remarkable, extraordinary, superior being I am" schtick is bogus and pathetic. If you don't want a topic discussed, don't introduce it.

And do stop saying that your university is not "involved". You handed three professors the burden of knowing about your irrational claims, so you have already involved them, whether they did anything about it or not. (Unless, of course, that tale was a lie, which wouldn't surprise any of us.) You are proposing to involve other students in your...ahem...study. If, by some bizarre chance, you do manage to pull off a...ahem....study, are you really so oblivious to think that word won't get around that selfsame university that you took a bunch of students into a park and pretended to peer into their bodies, while requesting them to share highly personal health information, and came up with zero results?

Oh, yeah. You're not delusional. Not at all.

Why do you give her a break? She started out lying has continued to lie and yet you act as though she is truthful. Her first statement here was a lie and all of her posts have been a lie.

Huh? Where in the quoted post did I "give her a break"?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I dunno. This one:


To me, that would very likely be something that a delusional person would feel and do, even if they didn't acknowledge it to themselves or other people, if they were trying to convince others of an extraordinary claim. Remember, many delusional disorders CAN differentiate the difference between reality and delusional reality, even though they avoid doing so. This, to me, would be just that: an avoidance tactic, generated by nerves and fear of exposure, to perpetuate the delusional reality in the face of a confrontation with reality. Not rational, of course, but then delusional behavior rarely is.

Just another version of "It's not ME. It's YOU."

I'll agree that they probably wouldn't vocalize it as an excuse, though.

Maybe that one should be a 5?

I am really just thinking about what Anita has verbalized versus what we might expect to be hear. Might a delusional person think that without saying it? Oh, yeh. Might another delusional person verbalize it? Sure, but it depends on the circumstances. My scale is intended to be specific to Anita.

In Anita's case, she won't accept anything less than perfection. We will. If she's a fraud, her gullible target audience will. But she won't, and that's who she is trying to convince. That's why I rank that one at the fraud end of the scale.

 

[Uncayimmy]

From Anita's website...

Study with the FACT Skeptics as volunteers, February 8 2009
If all goes well, the 1st larger scale study into my paranormal claim will take place on Sunday February 8 2009 with the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) Skeptics as the volunteers that I look at to form medical perceptions. Here is the study procedure specifically designed by me for this particular study,
Study Procedure - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009
And here is the study health form (questionnaire) specifically designed by me for this particular study. Note that in this Scribd.com uploaded version some of the tables in this document appear to be cut off across individual pages of the document, whereas in the original Word document this is not the case. And the Form ID #9087 is just an example of a number and each form pertaining to one particular volunteer will have its own randomly generated number.
Study Health Questionnaire - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009

Update: The FACT Skeptics are not arranging a study with me on Sunday February 8.

Desertgal, this is your cue:

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Altogether now:

 

[Moochie]

[sings] Always look on the bright side . . . of life... [/sings]


M.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.


I disagree. Both are also very much something a delusional person would do - interpret things in ways that nobody else does. Any con artist worth her salt will, when faced with incredible opposition, back down from a stance and use another.

Thus from my perspective, a con artist will most likely come out with the first two. They make the most sense, and we've seen the Uri Geller's of the world do it. A delusional person would never use the first two. And we've never seen Anita use either approach.

If a con artist tried the second two, I wouldn't think it would be a good choice unless it were one-on-one where personal influence would be a major factor. It would be a bad idea to try it with an audience, especially a hostile one. And if the fraud did try it and met the resistance Anita has met, then dropping back to #1 or #2 would be the best course of action. Starting with #3 and moving on to #4 makes little sense.

Meanwhile, a delusional person would come out with #3 or #4 first, and jump from one to the other without even considering #1 or #2.

Thus, I rank #3 and #4 on their own as being no higher than 5. When I see both being used, I put it as a 3.

This is the heart of my argument. I keep seeing way too many things that land on the delusional side of the scale but could still be fraudulent. Meanwhile, I don't see her doing things that are clearly on the fraud end of the scale and not delusional.

Frauds and deluded persons will twist things around.

A fraud will twist things to get me to believe what she wants me to believe.

A deluded person will twist things to permit herself to believe what she already believes.

>>>Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

Thats just how we referred to it back in the day- basically jargon

>>>I disagree. Both are also very much something a delusional person would do - interpret things in ways that nobody else does. Any con artist worth her salt will, when faced with incredible opposition, back down from a stance and use another.

Not at all, a con that gets caught "switching gears" has admitted they are frauds. Its normal for them to act aloof and simply disregard counter commentary and continue on their course. Especially in a case like this where there is no accountability.

>>>Thus from my perspective, a con artist will most likely come out with the first two. They make the most sense, and we've seen the Uri Geller's of the world do it. A delusional person would never use the first two. And we've never seen Anita use either approach.
If a con artist tried the second two, I wouldn't think it would be a good choice unless it were one-on-one where personal influence would be a major factor. It would be a bad idea to try it with an audience, especially a hostile one. And if the fraud did try it and met the resistance Anita has met, then dropping back to #1 or #2 would be the best course of action. Starting with #3 and moving on to #4 makes little sense.

I'm not saying that the methods of both dont frequently cross over

>>>This is the heart of my argument. I keep seeing way too many things that land on the delusional side of the scale but could still be fraudulent. Meanwhile, I don't see her doing things that are clearly on the fraud end of the scale and not delusional.

That may be and as i said before I'm looking at this thru my experience and I see nothing out of the ordinary from scams I have investigated and I see nothing that any court would accept as evidence of mental defect if this were a criminal matter.

>>>Frauds and deluded persons will twist things around.

so do criminals, cons and scam artists

>>>A deluded person will twist things to permit herself to believe what she already believes

Heres the thing. We dont know "what" she believes but if her "experiences" are as she accounts- its odd that never before has she ever gone "public" or tried to test them before now ( and in such a public venue). Something motivated her to do it "now" as opposed to say 5-10 years ago.

Also, she wanted publicity because she started her self promoting website and came here. She didn"react" to skeptics, she sought them out.

Theres an agenda and a plan here. Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.

I dont see deludsional here at all.

 

[desertgal]

Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.

No. With the exception of schizophrenia, "delusional" does not fit within the M'Naughton rule. They do know the difference between right and wrong. (Not arguing, just pointing that out. There are any number of cases that set that precedent.)

 

[desertgal]

Desertgal, this is your cue:

Altogether now:

Singing! I love singing!

"If I had a million dollars,
Well, I'd buy you a monkey..."

Oh, wait. Wrong page.

"It's not ME. It's THEM."

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

No. With the exception of schizophrenia, "delusional" does not fit within the M'Naughton rule. They do know the difference between right and wrong. (Not arguing, just pointing that out. There are any number of cases that set that precedent.)

Actually, it can

>>>M'Naughton Case (10 Cl.2nd F. 200; 1849)

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

>>>From Moore

3. They are delusionally ignorant or mistaken about quality and quantity of acts, or that act is legally or morally forbidden

An example from the ABA Journal

>>>Joy Baker 31-year old women shot and killed her aunt. She became increasing agitated during the days before the shooting and fearful that her dogs, children, and neighbors were being possessed by the devil. On the day of the shooting, she had a pistol and carried it around. Worried in particular about her children being possessed. Her aunt arrived unexpectedly and was trying to get into the house through the back door when Joy shoot her. Severely wounded, she asked Joy why she had hurt her; Joy replied that she had come to do Joy harm. Then Joy shot her a second time, killing her, explaining later that since the aunt was in pain she wanted to end her suffering. She was acquitted under the MPC rule.

I dont see VFF being "delusional" by the standard accepted tests.

 

[desertgal]

Actually, it can

>>>M'Naughton Case (10 Cl.2nd F. 200; 1849)

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

>>>From Moore

3. They are delusionally ignorant or mistaken about quality and quantity of acts, or that act is legally or morally forbidden

Wasn't aware of this, thanks.

An example from the ABA Journal

>>>Joy Baker 31-year old women shot and killed her aunt. She became increasing agitated during the days before the shooting and fearful that her dogs, children, and neighbors were being possessed by the devil. On the day of the shooting, she had a pistol and carried it around. Worried in particular about her children being possessed. Her aunt arrived unexpectedly and was trying to get into the house through the back door when Joy shoot her. Severely wounded, she asked Joy why she had hurt her; Joy replied that she had come to do Joy harm. Then Joy shot her a second time, killing her, explaining later that since the aunt was in pain she wanted to end her suffering. She was acquitted under the MPC rule.

This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit.

 

[Uncayimmy]

>>>Who calls it playing the pressure card? I ask because the phrase only appears six times in Google.

That aside, I agree that the first two are clearly 10s.

Thats just how we referred to it back in the day- basically jargon

Thanks. I was hoping to find some use of that jargon, but if it was "back in the day" that would explain why I didn't see it.

Not at all, a con that gets caught "switching gears" has admitted they are frauds. Its normal for them to act aloof and simply disregard counter commentary and continue on their course. Especially in a case like this where there is no accountability.

But that's not what she did. In fact Anita seems to be one of those people who can't let it go.

I'm not saying that the methods of both dont frequently cross over

Neither am I. That's why this is so difficult.

That may be and as i said before I'm looking at this thru my experience and I see nothing out of the ordinary from scams I have investigated and I see nothing that any court would accept as evidence of mental defect if this were a criminal matter.

Actually, that's not quite true. There is something HUGE that you are missing: the actual scam. We don't have any victims nor have we seen her even approach a likely victim. No money has exchanged hands. The only "offer" is an off-hand comment about selling her one and only drawing (her hand) for $5. And there's not even a way to buy it if you wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, of course, but your investigations started with the scam. I'm guessing you weren't asked to investigate some woman who swore she was married to Davey Jones but never actually got within 100 feet of the guy.

Heres the thing. We dont know "what" she believes but if her "experiences" are as she accounts- its odd that never before has she ever gone "public" or tried to test them before now ( and in such a public venue). Something motivated her to do it "now" as opposed to say 5-10 years ago.

Nobody really knows what anybody believes. We can certainly identify inconsistencies between stated beliefs and actions, but sometimes that is nothing more than hypocrisy, a sin for which we could all be convicted.

You do bring up a good point about why she didn't "investigate" the claims before now. This, too, could be explained by a delusion. For all we know the delusion really didn't take hold until 18 months ago. Or maybe it escalated, which, as I understand it, is not all that uncommon. Maybe she's just retrofitting her delusion to things in her past or even making up stories. Or maybe her need for attention wasn't being met when she started school - it can be hard making friends in a new place. So she decided to branch out.

Also, she wanted publicity because she started her self promoting website and came here. She didn"react" to skeptics, she sought them out.

Publicity or attention? It's consistent with certain personality disorders to seek out only those the person judges worthy.

Theres an agenda and a plan here. Also, just going by some of what you said ( which I see your points) almost everyone i ever arrested would be "delusional" and probably innocent by mental defect.

Your prediction, then, is that an actual money-making scam is going to take place sometime in the future. And she will stop dealing with skeptics or students and instead approach the gullible of this world for fun and profit, claiming her ability is real.

As for innocence, I never meant to imply any such thing. If I see Anita parlaying this into a money making operation, my opinion will change dramatically.

I dont see deludsional here at all.

To be quite honest, I find that unfathomable. I could understand a 90-10 split in favor of fraud, but not 100-0, especially when no actual fraud has been committed.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

I'm no lawyer, but I think the key here is that the delusion itself has to include the belief that the action is not a crime. Assume for the sake of argument that in the state of North Carolina it would be considered a crime for Anita to accept $50 in exchange for telling someone that she can see his heart is clogged with fat and that he must stop eating peanut oil.

Her delusion is that she believes this to be 100% accurate information. Her delusion is not that she has a medical license that entitles her engage in that activity. Therefore, her delusion would not be a defense.

Now, if she believed she was a doctor, that would be a completely different story. She would probably be involuntarily committed because she would be considered a harm to others.

On a side note I have contacted the North Carolina Attorney General in regards to the apparent fraud Brent Atwater. She has disclaimers saying that she's not a doctor, but it seems to me that even if you're not a doctor, you can't act like one. You can't say, "Brent's distinguished peer reviewed and respected international medical intuitive diagnosis, medical intuitive readings and energy healing work has client results and is documented and published" and then claim what you are doing is not medical in nature.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

All this talk about M'Naughton is a little pointless. With homicide for example, most people who were mentally ill (and delusional) at the time of the offense will NOT get a verdict of insanity. The vast majority will get (in the UK, I don't know what the US equivalent is) section 2 manslaughter which is to do with diminished responsibility.

 

[desertgal]

All this talk about M'Naughton is a little pointless. With homicide for example, most people who were mentally ill (and delusional) at the time of the offense will NOT get a verdict of insanity. The vast majority will get (in the UK, I don't know what the US equivalent is) section 2 manslaughter which is to do with diminished responsibility.

Thank you. That answers my question.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

Wasn't aware of this, thanks.

This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit.

>>>Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

By the literal letter, thats correct and from the legal perspective- thats the easiest to"prove" ( actual diagnosis, treatment plans and a verifiable history of same) BUT its not the only definition. ( always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done)

The law also allows for strong belief ( delusions based on religious beliefs etc), actions taken under duress ( doesnt really apply in this case, mentioned just for reference) and other variants.

Also, "the law" allows for a juror to "believe" a person was acting under a delusion and even tho act was committed- the "intent" to commit a crime wasnt there. ( Its in the judges instructions) ( you wont see that in any scientific journal, thats a jurors right)

>>>This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit

I had the journal and read the whole account. That was an excerpt I found online because I had to research that one once. This woman had no mental disorder ( defined as injury/disease or prior treatment) Her belief was fostered by a far off "unvonventional" church ( the snake handler type who find demons from everything.

So, even tho she was "normal" in every legal/medical sense, her "belief" was so deep and ingrained that it qualified.

 

[desertgal]

>>>Doesn't "from disease of the mind" indicate, though, that the defect of reason must be proven to manifest from a mental disorder, before the suspect could hope to win an acquittal under M'Naughton?

By the literal letter, thats correct and from the legal perspective- thats the easiest to"prove" ( actual diagnosis, treatment plans and a verifiable history of same) BUT its not the only definition. ( always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done)

The law also allows for strong belief ( delusions based on religious beliefs etc), actions taken under duress ( doesnt really apply in this case, mentioned just for reference) and other variants.

Also, "the law" allows for a juror to "believe" a person was acting under a delusion and even tho act was committed- the "intent" to commit a crime wasnt there. ( Its in the judges instructions) ( you wont see that in any scientific journal, thats a jurors right)

>>>This is interesting, but it doesn't indicate if the woman was suffering from any mental disorder-so it's unclear what else, if anything, might have been going on with her to lead the jury to acquit

I had the journal and read the whole account. That was an excerpt I found online because I had to research that one once. This woman had no mental disorder ( defined as injury/disease or prior treatment) Her belief was fostered by a far off "unvonventional" church ( the snake handler type who find demons from everything.

So, even tho she was "normal" in every legal/medical sense, her "belief" was so deep and ingrained that it qualified.

Thank you-that answers my question, as well.

And "always remember, when quoting a law, you also need to research state and federal interpretations, prior decisions and all allowances as well as "loopholes" available to see what can really be done" - excellent advice, and I will definitely remember that before quoting a law again. I'm not trained in criminal law or justice - merely a researcher - I should remember that I don't know as much as I think I do before typing.