 | | | | | | | |  | 
|
|
UncaYimmy posted on September 17, 2009 01:32  One symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings. You can see for yourself in the tens of thousands of words that Anita has written that she doesn't seem to care about other people. She has repeatedly ignored the help skeptics have offered and continues to blame them for not helping her. However, I have a more personal story to share. I have noted in the past that Anita has harassed me by phone, calling my cell number repeatedly despite my specific requests that she not (she got the number from my business website). On Skype (instant messaging) she will at times send message after message without any response from me. Sometimes I am there; other times I am not. There have been several times now where I asked her politely to stop sending messages. After refusing to do so, I had to block her account from sending me IMs. After a few days or even a couple of weeks, I unblock her account in the hopes that she will behave herself. Just this week it happened again. Since I told Anita that I claim the right to publish her messages with me, I can now let you see for yourself what it's like dealing with her. The utter lack of respect for my wishes is astounding. [9/14/2009 7:26:07 PM] Anita Ikonen: Jim, what could I do to make either of the tests happen sooner? Have I not done everything I can? What more do you think I could do.
[9/14/2009 7:26:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Insert no reply here _______________________
[9/14/2009 9:29:49 PM] Anita Ikonen: Hooray!! The IIG just sent me the test protocol!!! :D
[9/14/2009 9:30:02 PM] Anita Ikonen: Want a peek of it? I know you want to.
[9/14/2009 9:31:08 PM] Jim Carr: No, I don't want a peek.
[9/14/2009 9:31:28 PM] Anita Ikonen: Not even a little one? Ok. No peek.
[9/14/2009 9:31:48 PM] Anita Ikonen: Is your wife right there?
[9/14/2009 9:31:56 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yes or no.
[9/14/2009 9:32:17 PM] Jim Carr: My wife is asleep and rarely comes in my office when she's awake.
[9/14/2009 9:32:28 PM] Anita Ikonen: Ok. Never mind.
[9/14/2009 9:33:29 PM] Anita Ikonen: It's a very long e-mail. I haven't read it yet. How exciting.
[9/14/2009 9:33:54 PM] Anita Ikonen: I sincerely hope that I can agree to it and thus the test can FINALLY HAPPEN! I will do my best to accept the protocol.
[9/14/2009 9:36:16 PM] Anita Ikonen: Yay! They are suggesting the original test protocol with three trials with one in ten persons who is missing a kidney rather than the ten people and not being told how many are missing a kidney! That makes it much better!
[9/14/2009 9:37:03 PM] Anita Ikonen: Three trials with ten people each, in each trial one person is missing a kidney. :)
[9/14/2009 9:40:06 PM] Jim Carr: What part of "No, I don't want a peek" didn't you understand?
[9/14/2009 9:40:07 PM] Anita Ikonen: IIG: "The Applicant may not pass on a trial or any of the test segments. A pass will be considered a “miss”."
[9/14/2009 9:46:39 PM] Anita Ikonen: I've got to share this with you: "Once per trial before the Applicant makes her final selection, she may dismiss any number of Subjects that she feels are not the Target." I'm very happy they have included that in the protocol!
[9/14/2009 9:46:52 PM] *** Jim Carr blocked Anita Ikonen *** You might think it was harsh of me to block her, but this has happened several times before. Despite my explicit statement and restatement that I wasn't interested in hearing what she had to say, she continued. It's like I wasn't even there. Read the link on NPD and tell me it doesn't make you wonder. Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:01 AM
And she is not discussing this on the JREF thread devoted to the subject because... ?
Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:43 AM
Yep, just checked the JREF and she hasn't posted a thing about it.
Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:21 PM
I wonder why she wanted to know if your wife was there.
Friday, September 18, 2009 7:28 AM
are we to see all her messages? derardi
Friday, September 18, 2009 2:48 PM
Anita asked about my wife because perhaps she thinks that our periodic flirting has given her some sort of advantage she can use to manipulate me. Right. Like my wife doesn't know that I'm a flirt. As for posting all of her messages, I will post them at my discretion.
Friday, September 18, 2009 5:10 PM
Flirting, done properly with no thought of reward, is wonderful. Flirting to get your way is manipulative, especially under these circumstances. Since we're playing google psychologist, this might be interesting: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=84 It's a brief rundown on the fantasy prone personality. Of the14 signs, Vff displays 11, the other 3 are unverifiable but interesting. Sorry if this has been brought up before. There's a lot of words in this saga!
Friday, September 18, 2009 5:38 PM
I was going to bring it up myself. You should create a new thread about it.
 Saturday, September 19, 2009 1:43 PM
Lies, and wrong assumptions, UncaYimmy. I wrote to you about the test because based on our past history of talking for almost a year now you were always interested in the test and now that I finally had some info I wanted to share with you. So that you won't have to speculate about it but would have some facts. The reason I called in the past was to ask you to stop the racist thread where I am portrayed as some racist against black people when all I had said was that I find the perceptions of their tissues much more healthy and beautiful than perceptions from white people and racism is a strong word and stands for things that utterly disgust me and upset me and I did not want to see that word being thrown around so lightly or to be targeted against me. I was very upset about the thread calling me a racist and had to ask you to stop. And that is the only time I have called, and the only reason I have called. And as for asking about your wife, it was because I thought I saw an image of her and wondered whether it might have been because she was there. It had got nothing to do with flirting. And as far as people know me I am a very compassionate and caring individual and I am not narcissistic. I can get an official diagnose from a licensed expert if you all are interested.
Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:12 PM
No lies anywhere, Anita. That's your schtick, not mine. 1) You asked me if I wanted a peek. I said no. It should have ended there. You claim this is an open investigation, so you should post the correspondence so everyone, myself included, can see. I don't need or want advance notice. 2) You called me on at least one other occasion despite my wishes. 3) If you don't like what people say here, then you should post as much. You were out of line for repeatedly calling my cell phone simply because you don't like a thread. 4) I don't believe you had an "image" of my wife being there. 5) Yes, I would love for you to see a mental health professional because many of us believe you are mentally ill. Being mentally ill is not something to be ashamed about. Refusing to get yourself checked out despite dozens of people suggesting you do *is* something to be ashamed about. Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:08 PM
Regarding #5, my dear old dad has a saying "If three people tell you you're drunk, it's time to sit down." I find it interesting that in the gazillions of posts about and to VFF, not one person has sided with her and nearly everyone theorizes that she is some version of mentally ill. As an argument, this doesn't hold up. Appeal to popularity and all. But it seems strange that VFF hasn't taken it seriously before this.
Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:29 PM
"...when all I had said was that I find the perceptions of their tissues much more healthy and beautiful than perceptions from white people..." No, that is not ALL you said. Anita, you are an outright liar. http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Discussion/tabid/294/aff/2/aft/72/afv/topic/Default.aspx
Saturday, September 19, 2009 10:54 PM
I'm wondering why Anita hasn't posted the IIG protocol on her website or mentioned on the JREFF Forums that she's received it. I thought this was an open investigation.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Once again, I have not lied, but simply because you find yourself unable to believe in me you assume that I've lied and you believe in your false assumptions, and then when I don't respond accordingly or adjust my perspective to fit your chosen one, you turn that against me and accuse me of being mentally ill and what not. I don't mind checking my mental health, if someone pays for it. And no I would not think it shameful to have a diagnose of any illness. Meanwhile I know that I have not lied about things, and if the reason you see a problem is because of your own inaccurate assumptions, then there is no problem here. I absolutely did ask about your wife because I had an image of her and wanted to know whether it was because she was there. The fact that you still insist that I was flirting with you is only showing what goes on in your head, not mine.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:54 PM
I didn't insist that you were flirting with me. I said that we had flirted in the past, which would explain why you asked about my wife AFTER you asked me if I wanted a peek at the protocol and received no for an answer. But, hey, if you'd rather people think that you had some "vision" from 3,000 miles away about who was in the room with me, go for it. That's definitely strange. At least the flirting thing is what a normal person would do.
Monday, September 21, 2009 10:27 AM
What do you mean it would "explain why you asked about my wife AFTER you asked me if I wanted a peek at the protocol". What's that supposed to mean? You're trying to draw conclusions from everything and it is just becoming strange. And yes, I think it is strange that I thought I saw an image of her and that is why I didn't elaborate and that is why you assumed that I was flirting with you. When I wasn't flirting with you. If I were flirting with you, you would know about it.
 Monday, September 21, 2009 1:26 PM
I am so glad you are responding to this blog, Anita Ikonen of UNCC. Your comments here are a microcosm of how you conduct yourself. You're ignoring what people tell you and once again you are picking up on a new word (strange) and adopting it for your own. It's creepy. I NEVER said you were flirting with me in the exchange. Can't you read? How many times do I need to say it? I said we have flirted in the PAST. I believe you brought up my wife because you took my dismissive "no" to mean that something at the time was keeping me from discussing it with you. In your mind there was no way that I wouldn't want to hear all about your e-mail from the IIG. That's why you asked about her and gave me the option of a quick yes or no. You never said anything about having an "image" of her being around. In fact you have never mentioned anything like that ever before. You have mentioned my wife before. Remember when you said, "Then you don't mind if I post that you want to see me naked and stuff? Your wife would like that won't she. Nah, don't worry I would never do that. Because no matter what, I won't try to hurt you or anything. You know I'm a good person." You can claim whatever you want. Repeating yourself, which is your typical practice, is not going to convince me otherwise.
Monday, November 02, 2009 11:30 AM
UncaYimmy: The only part of this whole issue that confuses me, and makes me shake my head, is why you feel the need to unblock her at all, ever. I have never felt the need to unblock someone I had blocked, just to see if they would self-regulate themselves. I have no problem keeping someone blocked forever, and I don't understand why someone wouldn't feel the same. I would love to hear your reasoning for doing this.
Friday, November 06, 2009 2:06 PM
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, Canuck. The answer is pretty simple: Anita is the best source of information about Anita. I learn something about her in each exchange. Sometimes she just won't shut up, so she needs some help because she's so immature socially.
 Monday, November 09, 2009 4:35 PM
I am new to this conversation, and chiming in with a totally anecdotal story, but one that I think you should hear. I lived with a person for 12 years who suffered from NPD/BPD. Now, I'm no doctor (didn't even play one on TV) and nobody can diagnose mental illness without the proper medical education, certainly not from a brief look at a website. That said, when I went to this young lady's homepage and saw her photo, the first creepy impression I got was of someone suffering from borderline/narcissistic personality disorder. Then I started to read her posts. The impression intensified with the intelligent-seeming, cool, aloof tone was like reading one of my ex's papers. Now I'm reading your posts and your impressions of her and I'm concerned. Read the book "Stop Walking of Eggshells" for a visceral description of this illness. Especially the list at the beginning that asks you "Do you live with someone who . . . " A local sheriff deputy told me that this book may have saved my life. Then there's the psychic claim. Borderlines (and those around them) are frequently convinced that they are "sensitive" or psychic. This is due to a form of hypervigilance that is often PTSD induced (usually from having a Borderline parent themselves). My ex was a neuromuscular therapist and bodyworker who made a six figure living from working with the wealthy and injured. His clients were totally devoted to him. He told me that the only time he felt like he was "there" was when he was in session. He was a master anatomist and then used his "gift" to inuit where emotions were trapped in the body. He was a totally uncanny hot and cold reader. Sadly, he began to decompensate toward the end of our relationship and the usual cycles of depression and mania began to end in paranoia and violent outbursts. If this person does suffer from this terrible illness, this is not to be taken lightly. You could be playing with some fixated, bunny-boiler here. For your own safety and hers, don't push her. If she has any family, they need to keep an eye on her after she is proven to be just a regular person and not a psychic. That could lead to decompensation and self harming on her part. Yeah, this kind of came out of nowhere, and as a skeptic you have to take it with a grain of salt, but please, be careful. And good luck with the challenge.
| |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |