VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

[GeeMack]

She seems completely irrational.

It's a virtually unanimous opinion.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Do you have a link to the posting where she made that claim? I tried to find it, so I could quote it exactly and link to it for others, but I was unable to find it in a quick search. Unless someone else supplies it, I will try to locate it later, so that her exact words can be directly quoted and cited. She has typed so many walls of text that finding any specific thing she said can be challenging.

There's a thread on StopVFF about her claims of being a star person. It has a number of quotes. Take your pick.
http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Discussion/tabid/294/aff/2/aft/2/afv/topic/Default.aspx

But if you really want to see some crazy stuff, check out this interview she did as Alenara the Breatharian (second page of this thread) where you will find Farencue's translation with gems like, "Incarnation in an earthly life can be multiplied. But, what I experienced on other planets is of great importance to me. I can see it in detail, as if happened yesterday. I was a man of Orion. I worked as ambassador to the spaceship, I met representatives of different civilizations, helped them find a common path, and make friends. It was a very important mission, because all of the universe will, sooner or later, be searching for a common path."

 

[bookitty]

For those who are new to the VFF saga:

The girl is a mess. Worse, she's smart enough to create some pretty big messes. She's incredibly stubborn, has zero impulse control and is bullet-proof when it comes to logic. She's got nearly two years of contentious history with this forum and StopVFF. Much of that spent writing mile long posts filled with pretty fairy-tales, casual but cutting insults, self-aggrandizement, and petty quarreling. There's so much damming evidence there.

Everyone here tried to help her at some point and had their efforts rewarded with attacks or more stories. This creates an odd situation. Because of this history, the people who are most involved are usually the most antagonistic. They have given up even the pretense of impartiality. Her every move is judged far more harshly than it would have been two years ago.

Make no mistake, she brought this on herself. I am not excusing her behavior. I am only pointing out that the information you're getting is biased.

 

[GeeMack]

Make no mistake, she brought this on herself. I am not excusing her behavior. I am only pointing out that the information you're getting is biased.

Not biased. Fully informed. There's quite a difference. Some of the best informed may have set aside tact and conciliatory diplomacy. But it's important to understand that Anita has treated a lot of people like crap, people who treated her well, attempted to help her, and were way more than patient with her for a very long time. This is not a biased comment. It is documented, in thousands of words right here in these JREF forums. The fact that the frustration and disappointment has caused a lot of people to discard tact and diplomacy doesn't indicate bias. It indicates a loss of patience and loss of concern for being all nicey-sweety.

She's a full grown adult human being, responsible for her own actions. Consequently she long ago gave up the privilege of being patted on the head and treated like a school kid who doesn't know any better. If you, bookitty, or anyone else believes there is some sort of bias in the comments coming from those who are most fully informed, and if you think you can offer some less biased, more balanced commentary, you're certainly welcome to add it.

 

[bookitty]

If you, bookitty, or anyone else believes there is some sort of bias in the comments coming from those who are most fully informed, and if you think you can offer some less biased, more balanced commentary, you're certainly welcome to add it.

That hasn't ended well in the past. Folks are a might touchy 'round here.

But here is a small for instance: Anita contacted a migraine group and offered to heal everyone. The group was private, intended only for migraine sufferers. She told UY, he contacted the group, they discovered that VFF was looking to help herself and not them. The group went private and VFF was thoroughly castigated.

The wanna-be migraine healing has been brought up as an example of her predatory ways.

What never gets mentioned: That was a year ago. Since then she has not contacted any migraine group. She has offered to treat individuals with the skeptical community and even toyed with the idea of a migraine test but she has kept it local. Although she never offered a full mea culpa, she did learn from this experience.

Another example is the recent demonstration at TAM. Nobody seems inclined to examine it within context. Most people discuss the demonstration as if it was the only thing that happened on that stage. It wasn't, it wasn't even the most important.

There is a huge difference between being tactless and distorting the facts, either by omission or exaggeration.

 

[desertgal]

For those who are new to the VFF saga:

The girl is a mess. Worse, she's smart enough to create some pretty big messes. She's incredibly stubborn, has zero impulse control and is bullet-proof when it comes to logic. She's got nearly two years of contentious history with this forum and StopVFF. Much of that spent writing mile long posts filled with pretty fairy-tales, casual but cutting insults, self-aggrandizement, and petty quarreling. There's so much damming evidence there.

Everyone here tried to help her at some point and had their efforts rewarded with attacks or more stories. This creates an odd situation. Because of this history, the people who are most involved are usually the most antagonistic. They have given up even the pretense of impartiality. Her every move is judged far more harshly than it would have been two years ago.

Make no mistake, she brought this on herself. I am not excusing her behavior. I am only pointing out that the information you're getting is biased.

I'm baffled.

Anita claims to be a 300+ year old alien reincarnation from a white dwarf star near Arcturus. She claims to be able to see into the body at a molecular level. She claims to be able to identify chemicals through steel and through cereal boxes. She claims that she can subsist on light, without food or water for days at a time. She claims that she came to the USA to study osteopathic medicine, but changed her major. She claims to have a 4.0 grade average, but does not. She blames a professor for that, and alleges that he abused her, both physically and emotionally, contrary to statements from other students in the class. She openly accuses her university of a 'cover up', and also openly states that she petitioned to have this same emeritus professor dismissed from his position on charges of abuse. She claims to see and talk with famous ghosts, infamous ghosts, and unknown ghosts. She claims to telepathically solve crimes. She claims to have telepathically communicated with European Bigfoot. She claims to have healed a lifelong pattern of migraine in one person. She claims that several skeptics have continually sexually harassed her, even to the point that she was sexually harassed at TAM because one gentleman refused to pose for a picture with her. And the list goes on, and none of it is supported by evidence.

Regardless of contentious interaction between her and other members of this forum and the Stop VfF website, these are all her publicly stated claims. How is presenting them here or anywhere else "biased"?

 

[bookitty]

I am not bringing this up to cause a quarrel. Please review the first paragraph. I agree.

The reason I mention it is because, to me, this is the most interesting thing about VFF. That she is so polarizing. Something about her makes people respond differently when the subject comes up. They become quite passionate about the subject. Even, or rather especially, those who are dispassionate on nearly every other subject.

There have even been discussions in which people suggest that this irresponsible and immature girl will tear apart the skeptical community.

Why is that? How does she do it? There is nothing about her claims, her response to failure, or her faux-humble braggadocio that is any different from the psychics that have come before her. Yet, she's been given some strange anti-celebrity by the same people who want nothing more than to have her vanish forever.

 

[GeeMack]

That hasn't ended well in the past. Folks are a might touchy 'round here.

But here is a small for instance: Anita contacted a migraine group and offered to heal everyone. The group was private, intended only for migraine sufferers. She told UY, he contacted the group, they discovered that VFF was looking to help herself and not them. The group went private and VFF was thoroughly castigated.

The wanna-be migraine healing has been brought up as an example of her predatory ways.

What never gets mentioned: That was a year ago. Since then she has not contacted any migraine group. She has offered to treat individuals with the skeptical community and even toyed with the idea of a migraine test but she has kept it local. Although she never offered a full mea culpa, she did learn from this experience.

I'm afraid I don't see how it's biased to fail to mention that she learned from some experience when this is what she learned: She got busted for treating people badly one way, so she moved on to treating people like crap in other ways. Meh. Like I said, she gave up the privilege of having her little head patted with a rousing round of, "Oh poor baby," a long time ago. If you want to coddle her like a little kid, go for it. It's not a sign of bias that other people aren't so optimistic or sympathetic.

Another example is the recent demonstration at TAM. Nobody seems inclined to examine it within context. Most people discuss the demonstration as if it was the only thing that happened on that stage. It wasn't, it wasn't even the most important.

There is a huge difference between being tactless and distorting the facts, either by omission or exaggeration.

Seems there's been some pretty thorough descriptions of the events at TAM, certainly within the sub-context of Anita's failed demonstration and her subsequent attention whoring and lying about the event. If there are relevant distortions, omissions, or exaggerations, nobody is preventing anyone from telling it like it is.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Make no mistake, she brought this on herself. I am not excusing her behavior. I am only pointing out that the information you're getting is biased.

If you believe a particular statement is "biased" then you should address that statement and provide whatever other information you believe is required. Your post, unfortunately, was little more than an effort to discredit everyone posting about VFF - an attack on the arguers and not the arguments.

 

[godofpie]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[godofpie]

I am not bringing this up to cause a quarrel. Please review the first paragraph. I agree.

The reason I mention it is because, to me, this is the most interesting thing about VFF. That she is so polarizing. Something about her makes people respond differently when the subject comes up. They become quite passionate about the subject. Even, or rather especially, those who are dispassionate on nearly every other subject.

There have even been discussions in which people suggest that this irresponsible and immature girl will tear apart the skeptical community.

Why is that? How does she do it? There is nothing about her claims, her response to failure, or her faux-humble braggadocio that is any different from the psychics that have come before her. Yet, she's been given some strange anti-celebrity by the same people who want nothing more than to have her vanish forever.

QFT

 

[GeeMack]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That hasn't ended well in the past. Folks are a might touchy 'round here.

But here is a small for instance: Anita contacted a migraine group and offered to heal everyone. The group was private, intended only for migraine sufferers. She told UY, he contacted the group, they discovered that VFF was looking to help herself and not them. The group went private and VFF was thoroughly castigated.

The wanna-be migraine healing has been brought up as an example of her predatory ways.

What never gets mentioned: That was a year ago. Since then she has not contacted any migraine group. She has offered to treat individuals with the skeptical community and even toyed with the idea of a migraine test but she has kept it local. Although she never offered a full mea culpa, she did learn from this experience.

Actually, I consider this a most excellent example of your own bias in favor of Anita. I am the one who "mentioned" that story. It was in a larger article with other examples of similar behavior. To isolate it like you've done paints an incomplete picture, and that is something I consider bias.

But let's focus on that one incident as you presented it:

* Not only did Anita tell me that she contacted the migraine support group, she asked me in advance if I thought it would be okay if she ignored their explicit request that people like her not contact them. This contradicts your notion that she lacks "impulse control" and furthers my position that she knows what she's doing and doesn't care.

* You do not know if she has not contacted any other migraine groups. You only know that she hasn't publicly announced doing so. Perhaps the lesson learned was, "keep it quiet." And, yes, I know for a fact that she can keep things quiet when it works to her advantage.

* There's only one migraine support group in her area and only a handful in the whole country, so it's not like she's had much opportunity. If she hasn't contacted another group, it's probably just logistics.

* It is misleading to say that she has "offered to treat" skeptics without also mentioning that at least one person here was so frustrated with her refusal to take "no!" for an answer that he had to publicly chastise her to get her to stop. She also bugged me to meet her at the airport during a layover to let her "treat" me even though I had explicitly stated several times that I was not interested in any such thing.

* On a grander scale (not limited to migraines), since this incident of contacting people who explicitly do not want to be contacted, she has repeated the same behavior in other ways. She had one of her suspensions here extended by a week for harassing the moderators by PM. And her repeated e-mails and IMs to me are well documented in the referenced blog.

I stand by my assessment that contacting the migraine group was part of a larger pattern of behavior where she disregards the wishes of others. There is zero evidence that she has learned anything from the incident. Furthermore, I stand by my assessment that your post was biased in favor of Anita by omission and commission.

Another example is the recent demonstration at TAM. Nobody seems inclined to examine it within context. Most people discuss the demonstration as if it was the only thing that happened on that stage. It wasn't, it wasn't even the most important.

Everyone whom I've read is well aware of the context of the demonstration. The video is there for all to see. Just because you draw a different conclusion about it does not mean everyone else is failing to see the context. I stand by my blog entry on the TAM demonstration.

There is a huge difference between being tactless and distorting the facts, either by omission or exaggeration.

Once again, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Your one example so far shows that you are the one demonstrating bias, not others.

 

[desertgal]

I am not bringing this up to cause a quarrel. Please review the first paragraph. I agree.

I did review the first paragraph. You said...

The girl is a mess. Worse, she's smart enough to create some pretty big messes. She's incredibly stubborn, has zero impulse control and is bullet-proof when it comes to logic. She's got nearly two years of contentious history with this forum and StopVFF. Much of that spent writing mile long posts filled with pretty fairy-tales, casual but cutting insults, self-aggrandizement, and petty quarreling. There's so much damming evidence there.

...which is pretty much what several people here have said to a recent newcomer, and would likely say to anyone else new to the VfF saga. It pretty much encapsulates the entire saga. Please explain how it is biased.

You use the migraine support group incident as an example of how Anita has "learned" from her experiences. Although, without any evidence, neither you nor I could possibly say that Anita has not contacted other support groups, but, for the sake of argument, we'll agree that she hasn't. When introducing someone to the VfF saga, should we cherry pick the evidence of just how far Anita is willing to take her belief in her claims? In that instance, she was willing to treat strangers, despite the many, many times she has insisted-and continues to insist-that she "only treats family and friends and Skeptics". It points to her credibility. For a newcomer, is her credibility not an issue? For that matter, she didn't learn much, since she's diagnosing cocaine addictions in LA bar bunnies.

The reason I mention it is because, to me, this is the most interesting thing about VFF. That she is so polarizing. Something about her makes people respond differently when the subject comes up. They become quite passionate about the subject. Even, or rather especially, those who are dispassionate on nearly every other subject.

There have even been discussions in which people suggest that this irresponsible and immature girl will tear apart the skeptical community.

Why is that? How does she do it? There is nothing about her claims, her response to failure, or her faux-humble braggadocio that is any different from the psychics that have come before her. Yet, she's been given some strange anti-celebrity by the same people who want nothing more than to have her vanish forever.

Why is she polarizing? Perhaps it is the very duality of her behavior. Sweet, shy, immature girl on one hand-and I have no doubt those are true aspects of her character-versus the infinitely arrogant, obtuse, attention junkie-also no doubt those are true, if less admirable, facets of her character-on the other.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why is that? How does she do it? There is nothing about her claims, her response to failure, or her faux-humble braggadocio that is any different from the psychics that have come before her. Yet, she's been given some strange anti-celebrity by the same people who want nothing more than to have her vanish forever.

I have heard this claim that she's no different than others before her several times and from several sources besides you. I have yet to see the evidence. So, specifically to whom are you comparing her? In your response, please keep in mind what I consider to be major differences.

* How many have actually submitted to rigorous testing such as the IIG $50K Challenge or the MDC? That makes it a short list.

* How many have been given the opportunity by at least three skeptical organizations (F-A-C-T, IIG, JREF) to demonstrate their abilities and failed each time?

* How many have done other testing (including self-tests), publicly reported failing results, and then continued to claim their abilities deserved further testing? (read more about all her tests here).

* How many have been featured on skeptical podcasts?

* How many have threatened lawsuits, police action, and/or tried to get people fired from their jobs for commenting on her claims?

* How many are science students with high GPAs claiming to want to pursue careers related to their claims?

* How many have such a wide range of claims ranging from being an alien incarnation to healing to telepathy to speaking with ghosts to finding medical cures to smelling urine inside the body to being a human MRI?

* How many have written literally a million words about themselves on the Internet?

* How many actively engage multiple skeptical organizations and write all about them on their websites?

* How many have had Jeff Wagg of the JREF say that their claims were "interesting" and worthy of further investigation after failing multiple times to demonstrate their ability?

* How many have written seemingly racist comments based on their abilities?

* How many had former identities as experts in another form of woo, gave lectures about it, were quoted in books, and even had a YouTube channel created about them?

* How many of these claimants after being debunked by another skeptical organization took the stage at TAM or any other skeptical convention?

* How many claimants after being tested ended up dating the skeptic who organized the test?

You see, I argue that while she shares some similarities with other claimants, she's set herself apart in many different ways. Most other claimants fade away after their public failures and maybe only do a few of the things listed above. Anita has not faded away, and she's done a number of unprecedented things.

It's also what makes her the type of "executive psychic" that Mark Edward wrote about it in his blog.

Of course, if you can provide evidence of others following similar paths, please do so.

 

[Maia]

How many claimants after being tested ended up dating the skeptic who organized the test?

Oh, dear Loki.

(insert morbid curiosity smilie)

Do I want to know?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Oh, dear Loki.

(insert morbid curiosity smilie)

Do I want to know?

It's not a secret. Spencer Marks was in charge of recruiting subjects for her IIG test. After the test, the two began a long distance relationship, and apparently she's been out to visit him and attend at least one IIG meeting. I have no idea of the status of the relationship now.

I really don't care about her love life unless it relates somehow to her claims. For example, I knew very early on that her fiance at the time was 43 years her senior, but I advised her to keep that fact quiet since it would only be a distraction. She eventually brought him up because she allegedly healed his shoulder and he was allegedly the witness to her miracle migraine cure. She chose to reveal his age as part of her explanation of being 350 years old (it explains her attraction to older men).

In the context of my post, it makes her far more interesting that most claimants. Also, one would suppose that a skeptic organizing a test for a paranormal claimant and who was most likely aware of her manipulative nature would keep a cordial and objective distance in their dealings. Apparently that wasn't the case, and in my mind it's another demonstration how unusual she is.

Mark Edward wrote a blog about Sex in the Seance Room where Anita Ikonen chimed in (starting at Comment #4) assuming the article was about her. This is where we first heard about it.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

It's not a secret. Spencer Marks was in charge of recruiting subjects for her IIG test. After the test, the two began a long distance relationship, and apparently she's been out to visit him and attend at least one IIG meeting. I have no idea of the status of the relationship now.

I really don't care about her love life unless it relates somehow to her claims. For example, I knew very early on that her fiance at the time was 43 years her senior, but I advised her to keep that fact quiet since it would only be a distraction. She eventually brought him up because she allegedly healed his shoulder and he was allegedly the witness to her miracle migraine cure. She chose to reveal his age as part of her explanation of being 350 years old (it explains her attraction to older men).

In the context of my post, it makes her far more interesting that most claimants. Also, one would suppose that a skeptic organizing a test for a paranormal claimant and who was most likely aware of her manipulative nature would keep a cordial and objective distance in their dealings. Apparently that wasn't the case, and in my mind it's another demonstration how unusual she is.

Mark Edward wrote a blog about Sex in the Seance Room where Anita Ikonen chimed in (starting at Comment #4) assuming the article was about her. This is where we first heard about it.

I believe I read in one of her postings somewhere that she also attended TAM8 with him as well. I believe she mentioned it as part of her explanation of the harmlessness of her flirting there, stating that he was close by at the time, so it must have been merely harmless flirting, and that the two of them were together for most of TAM8. However, as you said, irrelevant to the testing or assessments of her claims.

 

[bookitty]

Everyone whom I've read is well aware of the context of the demonstration. The video is there for all to see. Just because you draw a different conclusion about it does not mean everyone else is failing to see the context. I stand by my blog entry.

Although that is an example, it wasn't was I was talking about. Actually, none of this is about you. Your relationship with Anita is just too strange to be used as an example. It's sort of its own thing.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Although that is an example, it wasn't was I was talking about. Actually, none of this is about you. Your relationship with Anita is just too strange to be used as an example. It's sort of its own thing.

In the post you quoted, I referenced other people, not just me. I've seen several people express varying levels of disagreement with inviting Anita on stage at TAM, and every one of those people seemed to understand the context. At the same time I've seen their arguments dismissed with the claim that they did not understand that context. You can see examples in the comments from Mark Edward's blog.

From my perspective I wouldn't have had a problem if they had refused her entry to TAM. While these forums do not constitute the entirety of what the JREF does, it's by far their most significant presence on the web (twice as much activity as the main site). Anita demonstrated gross disrespect for the organization and was banned from the forums.

I think the JREF would have been well within their ethical rights to say, "You have demonstrated a lack of respect for our organization and our volunteers, so we are not allowing you to attend TAM." Then again, I can understand why they might choose to let her attend. To me it's no different than someone being disruptive at an event and being told not to return.

Where I and others have major objections is that she was asked to be part of a presentation. Every objection I have seen understands the context surrounding it. In fact, I would argue that those who approve don't fully understand the context surrounding Anita herself, which is what made this such a bad decision. Considering the JREF's continued silence on the matter, we don't know what, if any, reasoning we might be missing.