I was thinking that perhaps you didn't give folks enough credit to see through the nonsense being promulgated by VfF.
I mean no disrespect to your points, Moochie, but I'm just going to respond from here rather than point by point because I think it encapsulates our very different perspectives.
The important thing to understand is that the
members of this forum are not my target audience. I have no doubt nearly every skeptic here thinks her claims are bunk. Even the resident "woos" thinks she full of it. My website's target audience is the reader who has encountered
Anita Ikonen, Alenara or VisionFromFeeling through sources where
she entirely or mostly controlled the flow of information. About the only time I send people from here to my site is when they have some facts wrong, and I don't want to repeat them. I don't think I've ever sent a "believer" from here to StopVFF in order to convince them.
Note: The reason I throw in links like the above are for SEO (Search Engine Optimization) purposes. It's no accident where my site ranks for those keywords.
I'm not after the hardcore believers either. I doubt very seriously that anybody stands much of a chance of changing their minds. What I'm after is what I believe is the majority of the world who believe that the paranormal in some fashion is real. They believe that mixed in among the deluded and scam artists are "genuine" people with "real" abilities. The relative percentages vary, but most "regular" believers I know acknowledge the existence of deliberate fakes and the self-deluded.
I'm not interested in giving them a mini-lesson in skepticism. The reporter doing research for an article, the Meetup group organizer looking into a "healer" who contacted her, and businesses/universities doing their due diligence aren't coming to my site for a lesson. If they go to her site, they find a "4.0" science student "investigating" her "apparent accuracy" with seemingly tacit endorsement from a prominent skeptics group (the JREF) saying she deserves more testing.
When they come to my site they see a 350 year old alien in human form who believes she can live on air and light alone, talk to ghosts, detect your most recent meal, identify chemicals in sealed steel containers, and get high from looking at cannabis under an electron microscope. They see someone who has failed multiple tests, many of which she never mentions on her site. They also see someone who is apparently vindictive towards others. If they follow the "fan site" link from her website, they hopefully think, "She thinks
this is a fan site?"
If they reach the conclusion that VFF is either deluded and/or a scam artist, then I've accomplished my job. I don't care what they think of me. I don't care what self-described skeptics think of me. I'm not asking anybody to pat me on the back and tell me how much I've contributed to skepticism because I'm not trying to contribute anything. I'm trying to keep one person from getting into a position where she can do even more harm.
I'm not "bullying" her because people need to find my site on their own. If they're not researching her, they don't find my site. If she never pursues a career in woo, then my site doesn't get used. The only loss is my time.
In an effort to be fair, my site offers discussion. I allow feedback on my blog posts. Without a doubt some of the discussions have gotten personal. That's a good thing because I think it shows VFF in her true light. It also lends credibility that a one-way lecture site does not. I know it runs the risk of alienating some people, but that risk outweighs the benefits.
As for paying attention to her here, look at the moderated VFF thread. In the last three months I made 11 posts, and almost every one was correcting her lies, misleading statements, or omissions of fact. I simply set the record straight and disengaged. By contrast she has made 32 posts despite being on suspension for 25% of the time.
I started this thread because of the ridiculous RA interview. That it has somehow become about me personally is not surprising. I'm pretty sure that if VFF and I had reversed genders, the situation would be viewed quite differently. If a man continued to send a woman repeated e-mails after she repeatedly told him not to (and blocked him on Skype and Facebook and told him he was risking a restraining order), people would be up in arms. If one of those e-mails said in effect, "I think I'm dying. If I suddenly stop posting, it's because I'm dead. Just know I LOVE YOU!" I bet people would be very concerned.
If a man repeatedly and publicly commented about a woman being an adulterer and wondering what her husband and children thought, people would get pretty pissed. If later that same man, despite being told never to contact her again, went to her YouTube account and left a comment about how wonderful her husband and children seemed, you'd be telling her to change the locks on her doors.
So, yeh, I'm most definitely a little testy about being called the aggressor here. I get a little riled up when people say that *I* am the one who is not reliable enough to be interviewed on a pre-recorded podcast. But at the end of the day, none of it really matters because my site does what I set out to do. That some people here despise me is irrelevant.
That people like you offer sincere suggestions for improvement is much appreciated. Please feel free to jump over to the StopVFF site or contact me personally to make specific suggestions about articles or blogs you think could be done better. As The Meanies
TM will attest, I have no problems taking constructive criticism or having my ideas questioned.
