Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.

That doesn't baffle me at all. I've seen it countless times. Brilliant students are brilliant at being students. What baffles me is that so many people assume this will always translate into the world outside of academia. How many scientific studies have we seen that were royally screwed up even though they were executed by people with advanced degrees? How many "expert" scientists were fooled by Uri Geller?

I see nothing unusual with how Anita is behaving. It's not how I believe a scientist should behave, but she's not a scientist. She's a college student with paranormal beliefs. In that sense her behavior is expected. If a dog has three legs and you decide to call his tail a leg, how many legs does he have? Three. Just because you call his tail a leg it doesn't mean it is one.

Many of us have run out patience, but that doesn't mean we are impatient. We, including Anita, seem to agree that she needs to 1) come up with a testable claim and 2) test it. I say let's not worry anymore about why it hasn't happened yet and offer our assistance to make it happen ASAP.

How about it, team? Let's win one for the old Gipper!

And even if we win, if we win, HAH! Even if we win! Even if we play so far above our heads that our noses bleed for a week to ten days; even if God in Heaven above comes down and points his hand at our side of the field; even if every man woman and child held hands together and prayed for us to win, it just wouldn't matter because all the really good looking girls would still go out with the guys from Mohawk because they've got all the money! It just doesn't matter if we win or we lose. It just doesn't matter.

Sorry...I was channeling Tripper Harrison again...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

The Incredible Wall O'Text

Alright everyone. I am now working on designing the study and would value your participation. We finally have things to talk about directly relating to our investigation. But first let me respond to your latest comments in my usual way. Here's a wall o'text in response to y'alls wall o'text:

Locknar:

As you've mentioned you claim to have done this [detected vasectomy] one time; hardly impressive. More on this below.

And that is why I plan to have a study to gain more experience with specific health information.

You have made vague medical "perceptions" and then interpret them to fit reality; just as you have done here and been wrong (ie. the "small intestine" discussion).

Of course if I were to be perceiving medical information there will be both vague as well as specific medical information. The tests will involve only specific, yes/no health information. I was specificly asked to document examples of the everyday perceptions that I have, and that is what the observations page www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html is for. It is not intended as evidence, or necessarily as substance for future tests. All they are are examples.

No room for interpretation? Hardly true; "medical issues" are rarely cut and dry (where the "cereal test" would be) but I think you realize this and are using the "wiggle" it introduces as a buffer.

While a lot of medical information involves a combination of details, and vagueness due to the nature of them, there are still many simple yes/no ailments to test for. There will be no wiggle on an actual test, I assure you. No one would agree to such a test, not even me.

On the topic of vascetomy...lets say, for the sake of argument, your campfire story (ie. YOUR recounting of a uncorroborated event based on YOUR perception) actually happened. Vasectomy is a rather generic term applying to a number of surgical/medical techniques to sterilize a man.

It did happen, although you are unable to believe me because the occurrence was not documented in a way to make it evidence, and the only thing we derive from it is that I gained another specific aspect to my claim, and a very testable one at that. Well, even if vasectomy were a general term, my perception was specific. I saw that portions of the vas deferens had been removed on either side, and thus vasectomy was correctly concluded.

These procedures include no-scalpel (keyhole) vasectomies, "open ended", "normal" (which has several variations such as the use of stitches, heat, clamps, section removal, etc.).

Thank you for pointing that out, it is very important. Luckily my perceptions are more specific than "there was a surgical procedure done in that area", or even "the man has been sterilized". I can describe what I see, so that should alleviate some of this concern.

Exactly what kind of vasectomy did he have, what exactly did you "see" that lead you to conclude a vasectomy had occurred? This is a rhetorical question, as anything you say now is well after the fact.

I saw the type of vasectomy where a portion of the vas deferens had been surgically removed on both left and right sides and where there was visibly a gap. I am sure that if we have men who have had any type of vasectomy, or just this type of vasectomy, on the test, and then ones who have had no procedures of sterilization, it should be a testable health information.

You mentioned heart bypass surgery; so you would NOT include angioplasty, stents, high blood-pressure, heart attacks, pace makers, heart transplant, or any other medical issue related to the cardio-vascular system?

I hope to find out in the upcoming study whether I detect and distinguish these other types of heart conditions also. I don't think it is acceptable to test for simply "heart condition" as that is very common, affects most people to varying extent, and is too vague. Luckily I think I can be more specific than that.

As with "vasectomy", "heart bypass" is a generic term used to describe a wide array of procedures - specifically what would you claim to be able to "see", specifically what would you claim as a "hit" or "miss"?

With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected. With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision. I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery.

Lastly...on the topic of your anecdotes/campfire stories. You persist in claiming they are (in effect) 100% accurate; this is simply not possible and I think you know this.

When I checked these perceptions they were accurate. However this does not imply that they were cases of accurate ESP. They were accurate perceptions, but that does not say whether they were derived from cold reading or from ESP. Some of them I do not know how one would cold read them! And that is why we approach a study and then a test.

Your anecdotes are based on YOUR perception of events - by default YOUR perception taints the anecdote. This is why real scientists keep logs/diaries, corroborate events, etc.

And, somewhat, that is what the observations page is: a log of perceptions. The anecdotes are based on what happened. Better documentation, and with reliable skeptics as witnesses, will be available at the upcoming study. So we can actually agree on the unreliability of past anecdotes and take them only as examples of the specifics of my claim, and look forward to properly documented examples up ahead.

For all you know...people have been forewarned of your "power" (ie. "my friend things she can "see" medical issues...just play along"), and are doing just that - playing along.

Locknar, your comments are very valuable, but listen to me. I've accurately described medical information in people who were not forewarned about me. I've perceived information that was later confirmed as accurate by means other than me presenting what I saw. I've accurately detected information that no one could simply play along with, like the vasectomy and the heart bypass surgery, information that can be verified as accurate by the presence of marks or scars. There really are reasons to proceed toward tests.

Of course you'll vehemently deny this, but without corroboration, specifics, etc. you can not summarily rules this out.

Of course I do not rule out cold reading effects as possible causes for some of the perceptions when cold reading could have taken place. However remember that there have been cases where cold reading did not seem to be possible. And that all we conclude is to proceed toward tests. Well-documented examples will be provided shortly. Patience. And then you can apply your excellent skepticism (no pun intended!) to these.

If you want your anecdotes to carry any weight above "campfire story" you need to include specficis...WHO are these people (or have they all conveniently asked you not mention their names)....for example.

I will not reveal their identities because they are friends and family to me. I don't want the anecdotes to be taken as anything more than anecdotes. All I've asked us to conclude based on them is that they are a) examples of the specifics of what I claim, and b) examples of the reasons I have for proceeding toward tests.

desertgal:

You are missing the point. At this point, it doesn't matter to most people here whether you take the test or not. Your credibility is gone. Your claims are fantasy. As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, nearly everything you claim to do with this sooper power is equivalent to what most of us can do without a sooper power. A test will not reveal anything that most people here don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

We are not here to discuss who I am as a person, what my beliefs and experiences are or what I do besides talk to you guys. This thread involves the paranormal investigation of possible psychic medical diagnose, and whether I have credibility or not should not alter how this investigation is handled. My claims are not fantasy. So everyone can do this? Can you look at a man and confidently say that you see that he's had his vas deferens cut on? Or the major vertical cargilagenous tissue of a major chest surgery? Or the big dark brown patch in the field of vision of the right eye to the lower right side? I seriously doubt that most people can derive health information such as these. I really really have, and that is why I proceed toward a test. If you feel that you have lost your ability to take part in this investigation, I would hate to lose you because I'm sure you're a contribution. At this point there has been no real evidence for you yet, but there has been to me. If the credential for a person to be eligible for a paranormal investigation is that they behave credibly and do not reveal certain personal information then the JREF would have never happened.

Why should "we" focus on YOUR claim and YOUR test, when it is apparent to most of us that your claim is nothing more than imagination gone wild? We've offered suggestions, we've offered protocols - and you've ignored them all. Proving YOUR claim in any direction is YOUR responsibility. Frankly, again, as evidenced by a multitude of posts, I don't think anyone here cares much anymore whether you get tested or not. As I already said, any test will not reveal anything most people here don't already know, and the test/study/survey protocols you keep coming up with, while ignoring everyone else's, are ones that give you plenty of wiggle room to continue perpetuating your fantasy. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone in this Forum. If this is how you feel then I accept that. If everyone here feels the way you do then that would be unfortunate but they each make their own decision. No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild. And I am here to prove it. I'm working on having the study and will provide documented examples. And the claim I want to test is medical perceptions from live people. When I do chemical identification tests I get a really bad headache and nausea because I am forced to make tens of perceptions that normally take place like once a month. Medical perceptions are easier and more comfortable.

The purpose of the survey is to prepare a list of what I claim to perceive. The purpose of the study is to also prepare a list of what I claim to perceive, and to check for accuracy, and to give a non-ability the chance to be revealed as such at an earlier stage, and to try out various test conditions. The test will not have any wiggle room in its design. It will be straight-forward. I am not ignoring everyone's suggestions about how to test my claim of medical diagnose from live subjects. I listen very carefully to every single comment on this thread and I learn a lot. And again, some members here might probably think that you do not speak on behalf of everyone here.

The problem here seems to be a combination of impatience since it's taken so long without much progress in my investigation, and also some of the other comments I've made that are irrelevant to this investigation in the first place.

But, most people here don't care anymore how the study and the tests are carried out. That's YOUR responsibility. YOU are the only one here who wants answers-and I think the only answer you will find acceptable is that your sooper power truly exists. Most of US don't expect that a test will reveal anything we don't already know. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

Most of you here don't care anymore how the study and the tests are carried out? Of course you do, you all want to ensure that they are carried out properly. And I suspect that you don't speak on behalf of everyone here, so try to refrain from that. And in all honesty, as always, my objective is not to prove ESP. The perceptions remain unchanged no matter what label they get from the outcome of the test. I have experienced good accuracy in the past, yet I am prepared that I might encounter inaccuracy up ahead.

Are you a psychiatrist? Are you a psychologist? How do you know? You are having a wide variety of fantasies and hallucinations, which is a pretty good indication that something isn't right. I'm not suggesting that you need to see a doctor to be cruel, Anita, but out of concern. I'm twice your age, I've learned a few things along the way that college doesn't teach you and I think you need help. I would say exactly that to any one of my kids if I heard them making the same outrageous claims that you have.

I perceive medical information and that in itself is not a health problem. They are a separate aspect of my mind and I do not perceive them as reality. They are just images, and impressions, that's all. They are not even projected in the world but only in my mind. And they've just happened to represent accurate health information in people. There's no reason to be concerned because I have these medical perceptions. They do not interfere with my life, I do not share them with others unless in a carefully and responsibly carried out study, and I would never blindly believe in them, I always place conventional information first.

As for my experiences of haunted sites, they have also been confirmed as possibly reality-based and never indicated any concern of otherwise. I've accurately described crime-scenes, I've accurately described specific historical details, others have experienced the same things as I on same sites and independently of my experience. There is nothing that indicates any reason for concern, besides our investigations into haunted sites will be done with the intention of entertainment. Not facts or truth.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.

So? That doesn't mean they aren't a manifestation of cumulative stress.

We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.

No. According to you, and you only, "they" seem to accurately depict health information. The fact is, "they" are, most likely, as UncaYimmy has pointed out, NOT the source of your conclusions. So, what is the point of discussing it any further? We are at an impasse.

That's right, according to me I've experienced good accuracy. Of course you can not take that as truth, and I've never expected you to. I'm just saying what I've experienced and why we're moving toward a study, tests, and some well-documented cases of perceptions. Well, since I've experienced medical perceptions that were accurate and where I can not imagine how they'd be derived from cold reading, I will proceed toward tests. And that's that.

To what purpose? You've shown a complete disregard to opinions, and suggestions, and protocols from everyone here that you have shared this alleged ability with. You appear to be only interested in proving that your alleged ability is what you already believe it is. Why share them with the world at all, since nothing will change your mind that this alleged ability exists?

I consider every comment stated on this thread. You're making an incorrect conclusion again. My objective is not to prove ESP. I do not believe that I have ESP. I believe that I have medical perceptions that so far have appeared to be accurate. And I believe that a test can establish the actual accuracy in a proper test setting. And I believe that I may encounter incorrect perceptions up ahead, and I believe that ESP might be falsified and is falsifiable. And I believe that no matter what the outcome of the test, I will be happy because after all I get to keep the perceptions just like they are.

You HAVE spoken in that manner to me. Did I run and cry to a moderator? No. If you come on here and spin a fantasy, and then shoot down any and all opinions about it, then you have to expect a certain amount of exasperation in response. People don't have a lot of patience when it comes to being expected to feed someone else's fantasies.

I've spoken to you in a hostile manner? When? I also want to make clear that I accept and consider all opinions expressed in this thread and the reason I contacted a Moderator was not because I did not agree with certain opinions or did not want to hear them, the reason was because I did not agree with the way they were expressed.

This is a very good point, and, also, playing along can happen even without forewarning.

Of course a person might be inclined to simply agree with my medical statements, and that is why I've already stated that the reliability of my friends in the anecdotes is not good enough. Therefore people who do not know me, as well as skeptics, will be the volunteers up ahead. Can't wait to meet Pup, by the way. However I've had plenty of (anecdotal!!) experiences where the accuracy was confirmed in ways where a person's agreeing with me could not have been the cause. Usually when I read a person I throw in statements that I did not perceive, and I've asked the person to tell me whether they agree or not, and they disagree with those things. Of course that's nowhere near scientific quality, but the idea of doing this kind of thing is scientific. The study and test will also do this. My perceptions will be mixed in with things that I did not see and a person will be answering to this on a piece of paper without me present. I'm really trying, I am.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

If you accept those theories as being on the table, then I will understand why you accept ESP as being on the table and stop bugging you about it.

Alright, then. The objective of the test is to determine whether the accuracy of my medical perceptions is statistically high enough to be determined as "accurate perceptions" when tested with health information that is not considered detectable by human perception. Whether there is ESP involved or not will not be discussed. (Even though shouldn't it be defined as ESP what ever it is I have or do, if I pass the test?)

So... if ESP has not been proven to exist, how come it then has been proven to not exist? Because some of you here say that you believe/know that I do not have ESP? Is that what you've said? Why is it wrong of me to say that ESP hasn't been proven to exist, and that it hasn't been proven to not exist? A flying pig has not been proven TO exist, but it has also not been proven TO NOT exist, so shouldn't we remain unconcluded? Of course we may say that we do not think flying pigs exist, but we can not say that we have concluded or that we know that they in fact do not exist. What's wrong with being open? No one has proven in a laboratory test that God exists, but no one has proven in a laboratory test that God does not exist? ... When did you prove that I do not have ESP? Simply by stating that ESP has not been proven to exist?

Of course we can say that we don't expect me to have ESP because it hasn't been proven before, but to say that you know, believe and conclude that I absolutely do not have ESP doesn't seem right. I do understand of course that we can start with the assumption that I do not have ESP, it can be the hypothesis (the main expected outcome of a test), but then the null hypothesis would be that I do have ESP.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So... if ESP has not been proven to exist, how come it then has been proven to not exist?

I have only stated that is has not been proven to exist. I have *repeatedly* stated that ESP cannot be proven not to exist. No one test can be devised to conclude that it doesn't exist.

But here's something that every scientist must understand: Each test that confirms the theory being tested adds to the confidence in that theory. Relativity has been subjected to countless tests, so we are very confident in its accuracy. Thus we have a practical certainty. However, we do not have an absolute certainty. There is no such thing in science.

Conversely, every test that fails to confirm a theory adds to our confidence that the theory is wrong. At some point we end up with a practical certainty that our theory is wrong. We cannot have an absolute certainty.

Practical certainty is something upon which we can rely. For example, if a GPS unit is failing, that doesn't mean we should reexamine relativity. It means we should look elsewhere.

ESP, whether you like it or not, has repeatedly failed to be scientifically confirmed despite thousands of years of testing. If you dispute that, start another thread and present your evidence.

Because we have a practical certainty that it does not exist, it is not on our radar of possible explanations for a phenomenon. A good scientist will look to explanations that are known to have a practical certainty to see if they can also explain what she observes.

She will then devise a test to eliminate that explanation as the cause. If she repeatedly fails to eliminate that explanation, then she will have a practical certainty.

Using my "making an object move without touching it" example, the first explanation might be magnetism. To prove it is NOT magnetism, she will make me move a piece of wood. There would be no sense in making me move a piece of iron.

If I could still move the piece of wood, she will eliminate magnetism and perhaps move on to air. So she makes me perform my "trick" inside of a vacuum chamber. Aha! It doesn't work! We repeat this several times, and I always fail. So, without changing anything else, she puts air in the chamber. I still can't do it. So she removes the chamber. Bam! I can do it.

So, now she has refined the phenomenon to be that I can make an object move in the presence of air and if there's no barrier surrounding my hand and the object. Her next step is try to figure out how I am making the air move enough to move the object.

The process will be the same: Look for explanations that have a practical certainty, then try to eliminate them one by one.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I do understand of course that we can start with the assumption that I do not have ESP, it can be the hypothesis (the main expected outcome of a test), but then the null hypothesis would be that I do have ESP.

Nope. That's called a false dichotomy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma for more details.

You don't understand the null hypothesis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis for more details.

If you pass the tests with flying colors, at best you will only have eliminated several possible theories and give cause to explore alternatives. Considering the extraordinary nature of your claim and the lack of an explanatory mechanism, the next logical step would be to re-examine the protocol. Many a faulty protocol has been uncovered this way.

So, please, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I guarantee you that if you ace a test based on a protocol developed and approved by the skeptics here, you will attract a large amount of attention. Every Tom, Dick and Jane on this board will chime in telling us (not you) what we did wrong in the protocol. I can't speak from Mr. Randi, but I'd be willing to bet he would sit up and take notice.

If you ace the revised test, I bet you'll get press coverage and become eligible for the Million Dollar Challenge. I'll even offer my marketing services to help you in this regard. The protocol will be revised again. Mr. Randi would definitely be involved.

But remember, time is running out on the MDC, so time is of the essence. Let's get that first protocol together ASAP.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

I have to say this is why I asked the questions about Anita's degree. She is in her third year yet has demonstrated little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant.
Her answers have not struck me as different from someone who had read a little science on the internet and remembered a few buzzwords.

Is that so? It's a little different testing one's own claim. I'm still mostly in the stage of trying to establish understanding into my perceptions, to better know how to adapt this into a test, because that's what we're working on with the IIG and also with the local skeptics group. How to take an phenomenon from its environment and into a test environment. Isn't that what a scientist does? Collects samples and observations before doing tests on them? I hug myself for staying here.

skeen:

Yes, I have to say that given not only her ridiculous claims, her inability to think logically seriously, seriously calls into question whether she is studying Science. I conclude that she has not.

And why is my claim ridiculous? I think it is a fascinating and very worthy topic to engage in investigation.

What woo woo's often do, is invent lies to reinforce their credibility, because they think that because what they're claiming is real (in their own minds), it won't hurt. But it is these little lies that, when taken apart, leave absolutely nothing.

I haven't invented lies, so that doesn't apply to me. But yes I do think that what I claim is real. What I claim is that I perceive medical perceptions, and, yes I do. And I claim that so far the accuracy has seemed to be good, and yes, it has. Hm, a lie would definitely hurt. How embarassed I would be if I were caught in a lie! Little lies... where? The absolutely nothing part is right though, no lies that is.

Look at the way Anita has copped out of proving anything. She refuses to grasp that she is literally the most incredible person in the entire world, if what she is saying is true. I tell her that she should just merely ask anyone she walks into, if she can see through them, tell them what she sees.

I have? I thought I was going to have a study soon, with skeptics as reliable witnesses to document the results and the accuracy of perceptions! I thought that was going to prove something! Can I really ask any person to let me attempt psychic medical diagnose with them? I really wish I could, I would like nothing more than to be surrounded with willing volunteers!

She retorts with asking about the legality in doing this! That's just mental! She is performing a supernatural feat that will turn the entire world on its head. If I could fly, I won't worry about no-fly zones, and use that as an excuse not to just walk the hell outside, and show people that I can fly! Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to mind that I am invading airspace!

So, I can just approach a perfect stranger and ask if they would let me try to detect what health problems they have? What if that is considered disturbing or violating? Skeen, wish you were here, you could come with me and we could blame it all on you if they don't like it! I don't want to break the law or disturb people. Come here, skeen, we could blame it all on you!

It's as if there's some kind of second personality in her mind, steering her away from inevitable defeat. As reasonable, rational people, we all know there is no possible way she can pass the test, which makes her steering all the more transparent to everyone but herself.

I'm steering toward a test. I just don't want to disturb people by asking them to share personal information with me. That is why I want to advertise for volunteers instead. So that they come to me.

It's really a kind of psychological marvel, and if she is being serious in all of this, she desperately needs help. I would venture to say she hasn't told us an ounce of truth in this entire thread, and that would be a very reasonable conclusion to come to.

I need help to carry out the tests! Come help me skeen! We need you! It has all been the truth though, and I'll show it on the upcoming study with repeated examples.

I am curious about the people who met her at the skeptics meeting. How did she come off? Woo woo's have that "look" about them, like Callahan and Geller, you can tell immediately tell there's something not quite right about them.

That is a good idea. I would love for Forum members godofpie and ecarlson to answer this. Of course I would not take it personally and would allow any comments. I try to look at my investigation from an outside point of view together with skeptics. Besides it is my claim that is under question. Not me. I have now sent both of them a PM asking them to offer their comments about me here.

desertgal:

That said, why she "demonstrates little to no knowledge of robust experimentation, statistical analysis, logical assumption or really anything relevant" baffles me as well. Especially for an "absolutely brilliant" student.

Tell me what I should be doing right now toward testing my claim besides everything I'm doing already now.

skeen:

Well, this is highly baffling to me as well. Her train of thought is that of a 10 year old. What she said about not being able to conclude there's no ESP is crazy.

So, when did we prove that I do not have ESP? That's like saying you've proven that God does not exist.

I believe that if any single one of us skeptics here had this ability, we could find a million ways to prove it in a heartbeat! I could prove the ability right now. Anita seems completely oblivious to common sense, even!

And what would you do to prove it right now? Can I really just go out there and approach people and ask them to share personal health information? And no more comparisons with the ability of flying, my claim just isn't that simple, it involves people, and health problems, possible legal and moral complications. It is testable, but care must be taken.

I can't imagine she's doing well in that class. That is, if it is her. Perhaps she just stole someone's name? If not, then she has a very, very, very serious psychological issue that desperately needs to be examined.

Straight A student. 4.0 GPA.

Or, she's just a liar. I'm sure it's a bit of both. Maybe she's a compulsive liar, and she desperately seeks attention or something like that? It's not uncommon. Either way, she clearly needs therapy and I don't think this thread is helping.

Not a liar. Not here for attention. No need for therapy. And this thread is supposed to be all about my paranormal investigation.

EDIT: I've searched for Anita on Google, and have come across a few scientific publications that cite her as being an assistant to lab work, and whathaveyou. If this is her, it is at least who she is claiming to be, then she certainly has a psychological disorder. Pretty creepy to be honest.

No! That is another person by my name! Those scientific publications are definitely not mine! And, why if that were me would that mean that I certainly have a psychological disorder? Explain?

desertgal:

I think what I find most baffling is her continued insistence that many of her conclusions could not be reached by any other means than her alleged ability. Yet, even though she is a scientist, she keeps no diary of these events, or, as Locknar pointed out, no record of variables, controls, etc. I mean, as you say, it would be simple common sense to do so. If she can't rule out other sources for her information, then how can she possibly say it was ALWAYS her alleged ability?

I do not have an alleged ability. What I say is that I have medical perceptions. And that these seem to have a good accuracy. And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website. Even though I was not making enough of notes in past cases. I haven't said that it was always an alleged ability. I've said that I've always appeared to be accurate, but that this does not imply to conclude what the source of these perceptions were. I have said however that I've had many accurate perceptions where I do not know how cold reading could have concluded them. How does cold reading conclude vasectomy?

As UncaYimmy points out in the interview thread, he can do pretty much what she claims to be able to do. Yet, in his case, it the result of proven techniques, and, in her case, it is ALWAYS the result of her sooper power. Makes no sense.

Really? How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery? Vasectomy? How? I have not concluded that the accuracy of my perceptions is due to a power. All I have said is that I have medical perceptions and that the accuracy is good.

She simply recites anecdotes from memory and insists they are absolutely correct and she was 100% accurate each time. It's almost laughable. Human memory is one of the most fallible mechanisms on this planet, and she keeps no records for reference or to refresh her memory - yet her memory is ALWAYS correct and her conclusions are ALWAYS accurate? As my teenagers might say, no freakin' way.

I do remember these cases well. I know that human memory is questionable, but especially the recent anecdotes from the observations page were recorded immediately after they happened. I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived, and that their accuracy is what compels me to have an actual test where cold reading and memory problems can not account for the accuracy.

 

[Akhenaten]

And what would you do to prove it right now? Can I really just go out there and approach people and ask them to share personal health information? And no more comparisons with the ability of flying, my claim just isn't that simple, it involves people, and health problems, possible legal and moral complications. It is testable, but care must be taken.

You haven't noticed at all, have you, that people here have time and again rejected this legal and moral smokescreen that you're trying to create?

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASK PEOPLE TO SHARE PERSONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION TO TEST THIS ABILITY.


Is that more noticeable?


I can't tell you how to prove YOUR ability, because I don't share it, but here's how I'd go about testing an ability that I DO possess:

I believe I can detect redheads. I can test this by going to a public place and counting all the european people as they pass me, and noting the number of redheads that I perceive. If I achieve a figure of around 4% then I'll have some basis for continuing to believe my ability.

Now, I wouldn't claim to be infallible with my ability, since I accept that gray hair, hats, hair dye and wigs can fool my vision, but I'm sure I could still get within a bull's roar of the statistically correct answer.


That's what I'd do, alrighty.

 

[Locknar]

I saw the type of vasectomy where a portion of the vas deferens had been surgically removed on both left and right sides and where there was visibly a gap.

This goes back to the issue on YOUR interpretations.

For the sake of arguement, lets assume that you did indeed "see" there was a visable gap in the vas deferens. You make no mention of scar tissue or being able to see any in the case of vasectomy - thus you would have no way of knowing the key question - why. Perhaps he was born that way, perhaps he had suffered a injury, perhaps perhaps perhaps.

With vasectomy I would claim to at least be able to detect that a portion of the vas deferens has been removed and that there are two ends of it that are disconnected.

See above. There are any number of reasons the vas deferens could be "disconnected". So...given the above definition of your claim, if there were ANY OTHER reason for the vas deferens being "disconnected" as you've described you would be wrong, or would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?

With heart bypass surgery I claim to have detected the large and significant vertical scar on the chest by virtue of the cartilagenous scar tissue that formed inside the chest along the site of the incision.

See above. There are any number of reasons someone may have a "vertical scar on the chest"...heart transplant, pace maker, injury, etc.

"large and significant" is ambiguous, so in that list you could also include stents, angioplasty, etc.

Same question as above...if someone has a "large and significant vertical scar" on their chest, but did NOT have bypass surgery....would you "wiggle" and argue it was close enough to count as a hit?

I would think that both vasectomy and heart bypass are specific and non-vague ailments to include on a test. A man has either had or not had any type of vasectomy. And a person either has had or has not had heart bypass surgery.

You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious.

When I checked these perceptions they were accurate.

Wrong; that is your perception of events and nothing more; they could have just as eaisly "played along." Or, did these people under go medical testing to verify your claim?

Locknar, your comments are very valuable, but listen to me. I've accurately described medical information in people who were not forewarned about me.

This is a assumption on your part. You have no way to prove or validate your contention that in every case people were not forewarned or were not otherwise just "playing along."

I've perceived information that was later confirmed as accurate by means other than me presenting what I saw.

Exactly what "means" were used to verify your claims? See above, you can not summarily rule out that people are just "playing along."

I've accurately detected information that no one could simply play along with, like the vasectomy and the heart bypass surgery, information that can be verified as accurate by the presence of marks or scars.

So you independently verified the presence of "marks or scars" wrt the vasectomy, specifically how did you do this?

Meaning...did you ask him and he said "yes" (and perhaps was just "playing along"), did he under go medical exam immediatly after your "vision", did he show you the scar, did others vouch for him having had this procedure (and perhaps were just "playing along"), etc.?

Of course I do not rule out cold reading effects as possible causes for some of the perceptions when cold reading could have taken place.

Cold reading could have taken place in EVERY incident you have described. In fact, everything you have described can be attributed to cold reading and a over active imagination.

However remember that there have been cases where cold reading did not seem to be possible.

Based on YOUR perception, which does not make it so.

I will not reveal their identities because they are friends and family to me.

So? Have you asked them, and they all declined? How odd that everyone you have used your "power" on feels health information so private they'd decline to be mentioned.

I don't want the anecdotes to be taken as anything more than anecdotes.

Which is why you've carried on about how accurate they are?

My claims are not fantasy. So everyone can do this? Can you look at a man and confidently say that you see that he's had his vas deferens cut on? Or the major vertical cargilagenous tissue of a major chest surgery? Or the big dark brown patch in the field of vision of the right eye to the lower right side?

You have yet to even remotely validate that YOU can do this, let alone "everyone." See above; cold reading, people playing along, over active imagination can account for EVERYTHING you have described.

Medical perceptions are easier and more comfortable.

You claim to have a ability/"power" nobody else on the planet has ever had. Wouldn't a bit of discomfort be worth conclusively proving this ability, rather then carry on (since 2007) about your vague and ambiguous claims with no proof?

This could be over and done with...your local skeptic group (for example) could have already conducted the "cereal test", and you could be well on your way to collecting the $1M from the MDC (for example).

Given the context as you have outlined it is more accurate to say "medical perceptions" are vague and otherwise ambiguous (especially in the context you have outlined), and allow more "wiggle" to feed your belief.

 

[Gmonster2]

Crystals!!

Let me be the 1st to call BINGO!

This is a direct quote from the VFF site.

I was born with this ability, but at the age of 14 I came across a store where I saw a quartz crystal for the very first time. I was immediately drawn to it without knowing what they were and it was love at first sight. I bought one and a book that taught how to use crystals. One of the exercises described how you can increase your sensitivity to crystals by spending time holding the tip of the quartz crystal over the palm of your hand until you feel something. I practised for many days, until suddenly one day I felt and saw a cool, blue beam coming from the tip of the crystal. I got other types of crystals of different colors and spent time holding them in my hands, and developed a sense of feeling that was distinct for each of them. Eventually I was so good at feeling the different crystals that I no longer felt a need to hold them, I would feel all of them just by knowing where they were.


My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions.

 

[skeen]

Oh gee. So, Anita admits that her "perceptions" don't even enter into reality, but are merely in her mind. Well, we knew that already, but that she knows it rules out any possibility that she's going to realize what she's doing - fantasizing.

Gmonster2, crystals, eh? In learning more about Anita, I am actually disappointed by just how much the same she is as other woo's. Spirits, crystals, vibrations, quantum things. Tut.

Yimmy, I think you raised a good point when you said good students are good at being students. You're right. You can learn Science, but learning how to think like a Scientist is something entirely different.

By what has been posted, Anita has clearly been involved in woo ever since she was little, and over many years has convinced herself that these things exist, and it has helped to shape her world. This is why, for instance, dowsers are unable to let go even when proven wrong.

I revoke what I said about her having psychological issues. I just think she's silly. And she does not have synaesthesia. Anita just needs to grow up. She's clearly the type of woman who hangs out in Arizona looking for "vortexes".

And I still believe no test will ever be performed.

EDIT: Just to add: I love her false sense of concern about going out and "perceiving" medical information in other people. As has been pointed out, she doesn't need to ask people to share their personal information with her. She can perform a simple yes or no. If she is correct, which she believes she will be, no-one is going to mind.

Also, she expressed this same silly concern when she claimed she knew medical information about celebrities through watching them on TV! But, of course, this ability was debunked, and she has since claimed this is not her "main" ability. So what then? These perceptions of celebrities are now wrong? Or they're still right, as we're unable to confirm them?

 

[desertgal]

This goes back to the issue on YOUR interpretations. <snip>

Thank you. You said everything I would have responded with, so you saved me a bunch of typing.

Except:

We are not here to discuss who I am as a person...

Didn't I say I don't care who you are as a person? I'm pretty sure I did.

...what my beliefs and experiences are, or what I do besides talk to you guys

Well, then, why are we here at all? Why did you start this thread, if not to discuss your "beliefs and experiences"? If you want to limit this conversation to the sole fact that you talk to us guys, then here you go: You talk to us guys. Thread over.

YOU brought these beliefs and experiences and your other activities to this forum. We didn't ask you. YOU threw it all on the table, and now you want to dictate what parts of it all we can discuss and what parts we can't. Rubbish to that.

I seriously doubt that most people can derive health information such as these...

I seriously doubt you are right.

...I really really have.

Oh, well, if you really really have, then it must be true.

I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone in this Forum.

Show me where I said I did.

I said "most people". It's not an unfounded opinion. Read back through every page of this thread and you will see it for yourself. Many posters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over your fantasies and quit this thread. By comparison to the total number of folks who began with this thread, the remaining posters are a small number. Hence, "most people".

No, my claim is not "obviously" imagination gone wild.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is. And it is very obvious.

I've accurately described crime-scenes

Well, what does this mean? I've visited a large number of crime scenes in my work - and I can accurately describe any of them while I am there. I can accurately describe the room I am sitting in, too, while I am sitting in it. Doesn't mean I have a sooper power.

If, though, you are saying that you have accurately solved crimes through ESP while you visited crime scenes as a child, then I am here to say that is total fantasy.

And one I take serious issue with. I've worked with a great many excellent law enforcement officers over the years, and your statement is a thumb of the nose to these fine men. They spend years honing their investigative skills. They collect and analyze evidence, they conduct endless interviews, and they often work round the clock for weeks at a time to solve crimes. You have no clue about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes hand in hand with investigating a crime.

That you claim to have walked into a crime scene, as a child and beyond, and solved instantly what grown men dedicate months upon months to solving is an absolute fantasy-and you should be ashamed of yourself for making that claim. And please don't respond to this. Whatever defense you might offer up won't change the fact that you said it, you meant it, and it is false. It may be a result of your endless fantasies, but it is still false.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.

Total fantasy.

We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.

Rubbish.

I consider every comment stated on this thread.

That isn't what I said.

And I believe that no matter what the outcome of the test, I will be happy because after all I get to keep the perceptions fantasies of ESP just like they are.

I've spoken to you in a hostile manner? When?

Post #904: "Are you just stupid or what?"

 

[desertgal]

Yimmy, I think you raised a good point when you said good students are good at being students. You're right. You can learn Science, but learning how to think like a Scientist is something entirely different.

I agree, that's a very good point.

My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability.

I know many humans are lacking in common sense, to varying degrees. It still baffles me when I run headlong into one, though.

 

[skeen]

My confusion comes from this, and perhaps I didn't say it well: One doesn't have to think like a scientist to apply simple common sense, and Anita doesn't appear to have that ability.

I know many humans are lacking in common sense, to varying degrees. It still baffles me when I run headlong into one, though.

Indeed. And almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:

I concur regarding what she said about crime scenes. It's disgusting, and distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

As for my experiences of haunted sites, they have also been confirmed as possibly reality-based and never indicated any concern of otherwise. I've accurately described crime-scenes, I've accurately described specific historical details, others have experienced the same things as I on same sites and independently of my experience. There is nothing that indicates any reason for concern, besides our investigations into haunted sites will be done with the intention of entertainment. Not facts or truth.

As for my mention of Arcturian origins, there are many who feel that the concept of "Star People" fits with how they understand themselves, that it gives them a sense of identity that matches with their feelings, thoughts, experiences, personality. And again, there is nothing to be concerned of with this. If I didn't have this as part of my life I wouldn't be here today.
We can of course speculate on many possible sources of the perceptions, but earlier in this thread it was agreed that we shouldn't.

<snip>

I think I've figured it out -- "Anita" is actually one of the writers of Lost!


M.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

I got other types of crystals of different colors and spent time holding them in my hands, and developed a sense of feeling that was distinct for each of them. Eventually I was so good at feeling the different crystals that I no longer felt a need to hold them, I would feel all of them just by knowing where they were.

My question is why not test this claim? Pull a random crystal from a set of 10 and determine what it is, simple test no? I realise that post-it notes are like kryptonite to the Vff sooper powers , but surely some method could be devised to cover them.

If you didn't realise this VFF its a million dollar claim , no need to harass people in the street about medical conditions.

Better yet, have an assistant set up 10 paper cups upside down and place a crystal you can "feel" beneath a random cup. If you can deduce which cup the crystal is underneath in three or four consecutive trials you will have demonstrated a paranormal ability.

No legal hassles, no worrying about bacteria needing to be "activated", nothing, just a quick simple test. I'm sure that offering such a test would speed up negotiations with IIG considerably.

Of course, if an empty paper cup does not "feel" any different to a paper cup with a piece of quartz underneath it your assistant could place different crystals beneath each cup with your test being to deduce which cup contains the quartz.

Then again, could it be that what your crystal feeling ability really amounts to is that, when you know that you are looking at a piece of quartz, you are able to imagine a colour that you associate with quartz?

That would be rather less impressive.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

Straight A student. 4.0 GPA.

<snip>

My, how standards have fallen...


M.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gord checking in for progress.

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

Nope nothing yet.

I'll be back later.

 

[Femke]

*delurking*
Hi Anita,

This thread continues to interest me, and I find you great, for sticking around despite everything. Although I would urge you not to feel attacked. Most people are sincerely trying to help; your (views on your) perceptions are fascinating, and I for one would really like to see a test being designed to see what they are.
You cannot blame us for wondering among us, how this can be true.

However, and please do not feel attacked, there is something that was asked before and you have as far as I know not answered:

You are a third year student in two Science subjects, and yet you do not seem to have had any training in statistics or the scientific method.
This puzzles me. In my first year in college (I am a biologist) we had courses in History of Science and Filosophy of Science, as well as Statistical Analysis. (Maybe more, but it has been a while. ) These courses taught us to distinguish between apparent correlations and statistical correlations, and showed basically how science works. And they were compulsory.

How come you do not seem to apply these basic subjects to your protocols? You must have gotten excellent grades on them, judging by your average.

Femke

 

[Moochie]

Gord checking in for progress.

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

<change page>

<auto scroll>

<read read read>

Nope nothing yet.

I'll be back later.

You're missing all the drama, the tragedy, the pathos and bathos, the sheer comedic witlessness...


M.

 

[Old man]

By observing symmetry, it is often possible to describe health information that I encounter for the first time. Had I never seen teeth before, and there was a perfect row of teeth but suddenly one is missing on one side, then based on the asymmetry I would be tempted to speak out about something being unusual in that part of the body.

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
These two go together. You are making judgments about what is normal in terms of stomach shape and kidney size. It begs the very simple question: How do you know what is normal? Please answer on what basis you are making judgments as to what is normal or not.

My definition of "normal" in this case refers to the perceptions I have made in people and the general average of what I have seen. In this is also weighed in any references that I encounter in for instance literature or television.

What about fiddler crabs, then, or flounder? Would you see them as ‘abnormal’? You’ve made repeated claims that you almost invariably detect only ‘abnormalities’.

I was upset because Forum members were being very impatient. It had only been a few days after the questions were posted and Christmas of all things.

Anita, we’re just a bunch of nerds/geeks who don’t have real lives, and can’t understand people who do!

The study will begin taking place in the exact same way as my everyday experience is. I will then change one condition at a time toward an acceptable test protocol, and if my ability fails I will know what test condition caused it.

Good. I’ve been trying right along to get you to do this. Now if you’d just DO it…

But those tests are exhausting to me and cause headache and nausea…

Could it be that the stress of impending failure is causing those symptoms?

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy
What progress, if any, have you made regarding checking to see if you can detect circumcisions and breast implants from behind?

I am arranging a study in which I will get to view volunteers who I have not met before.

But, have you done ANY checking ON YOUR OWN?

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, please, stop exaggerating.

Plenty of health information, such as in this hypothetical case, bad eyesight, discomfort from swallowing, an injury to the right shoulder which makes some specific movement painful, slow heartbeat, past case of asthma, the presence of certain medical derivatives in the liver, enlarged prostate, bad knees... I also detect plenty of less interesting information that I never even mention, plenty of details which, if I told them, would "prove" nothing since everyone has them to some extent, like if I said "mild vitamin A deficiency". When it comes to significant health information that could be useful for a test, I do not detect plenty of those in all persons, maybe that's what you meant.

“I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…”
“I do not detect plenty of those (medical information) in all persons…”
If your second statement is true, then does it not follow that the first is, at best, an exaggeration?

Originally Posted by Old man
Anita, I mentioned your use of hyperbole in an earlier post. Maybe DG is trying to get you to TELL THE TRUTH, without all of YOUR exaggerations!

Whoa!! When on earth did I exaggerate! Give me ONE example! My statements might be unusual or outrageous, but I'm not exaggerating.

See above. There are plenty more.

Originally Posted by Old man
And, your exaggerated claims are sometimes nonsensical, too.

How rude. Give me one example.

"extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star"

Originally Posted by Old man
Maybe we’re making progress. Are you admitting that it’s possible that your anecdotes might be just a little, (oh, how should I put this?) exaggerated?

No that is not possible. My anecdotes are absolutely not exaggerated. Not even a little.
They've happened exactly as I said.

Saying that you were “absolutely correct” about the small intestine ‘diagnosis’ was an exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Old man
No, you had a high probability of guessing right.

What are the odds of guessing a 0.0006 m2 affected area out of the entire 1.9 m2 average surface area of a man? Is it about 1 in 3100? What about guessing the type of discomfort experienced there, out of all possible discomforts? One in many many. If it was a guess, it was a very good one.

Anita, if I walked up to any middle-aged, slightly paunchy man, and said “Sometimes you have pain/discomfort just behind/below the sternum” I’d be right more times than I’d be wrong, and my ‘location’ would be ‘amazingly’ accurate. You did that ONE time.

Originally Posted by Old man
Here, I’ll save you some time. Just quote this - “I’ve NEVER, EVER, met ANYONE who was suffering from this!11!!” (And - never listened to the radio, never saw a TV commercial, never saw any ads for antacids, blah, blah, blah.)

What? How would that be useful in a paranormal investigation? I know this is probably pun, but try to refrain from it to keep things clear here.

RE: vasectomy. It’s the excuse you used that time.

Originally Posted by Old man
When I get a few minutes, sure, I could right up a protocol.

No. I meant set up the test for me. Participants and all. That's the real work involved.

Maybe. Are you willing to spend a few days in the lovely Finger Lakes region of New York?

Originally Posted by Old man
But, you know damned well that I meant in person, don’t you? Stop the ‘silly little airhead girl’ act, OK? You’re ‘brilliant’, remember? You’re a ‘serious scientist’. Act like one.

Do you realize that you're insulting a real person here?

Do you realize that deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ a legitimate, on-topic question in order to avoid answering it is also insulting? Or am I not a “real person”?

Maybe because this is all taking place over the internet and in typed words it somehow doesn't seem real to some of you, but I'm a somebody here who came to get some help in discussing how to arrange a test for a paranormal claim, and there's been too many hostile and negative comments, accusations, and personal attacks. What on earth makes you say such negative things? What's wrong with you?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m TRYING to get you to THINK about what your saying! Really, Anita, I’ve written up a protocol, I’ve respectfully asked questions, and I’ve defended you and your position. I’m on your side.

Why do I feel like I'm being under attack?

Because you keep making bold, contradictory statements, and give the impression that you’re just stringing us along.

Would you really speak to me like this in person?

Probably. My friends are pretty tough, ego wise.

I never express my medical diagnose in the way you suggested. I NEVER say TRUST ME, I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG.

But you DO say it here, in this thread, ALL the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that we find it hard to believe that you don’t say the same thing in other situations?

I ALWAYS say, that "Although I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG…

So, you do say “I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG” to your ‘patients’, don’t you? Why can’t you see the above as contradictory?

Originally Posted by desertgal
As well, if we claim this super ability, and we test it on people with the primary objective of proving it exists, as opposed to the interest of their health being the primary objective, isn't that also irresponsible? Whether the perception is accurate or not, and whether they sign a waiver or not, the person may still have the anxiety and worry over a negative 'diagnosis' until they can get to a doctor and confirm it either way.

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”.

…You are not a human. You are an alien who is able to present human DNA, but in reality you have a special organ capable of detecting vibrational information. This organ is located in your sinuses, but is undetectable by human technology.

Umm, she IS an "extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star", you know.

I also want to make clear that I accept and consider all opinions expressed in this thread and the reason I contacted a Moderator was not because I did not agree with certain opinions or did not want to hear them, the reason was because I did not agree with the way they were expressed.

I’m assuming that I’m part of the ‘contacting the Moderator’ situation. I don’t intend to be ‘mean’, or ‘rude’. Like I’ve repeatedly said, I’m on you side in this. I’d like to see you properly tested.

…And I do keep a diary of these events, that is for instance the observations page on my website. Even though I was not making enough of notes in past cases.

This is pertinent to the question I posted here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4302382#post4302382. Could you address it, please?

You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious.

Is that like, Spangolish for ‘friendly’?

…almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/qimg]

Yea, me too.