Posted By UncaYimmy on 23 Feb 2010 04:06 PM
I'm having some serious trouble following your logic, Bookitty. 99.99999% of woos never subject themselves to any testing. Skeptics challenge them to test after test, but rarely can get them to commit. Finally, after nearly a decade of making claims, Anita agrees to a formal, controlled test for just one narrow claim. She fails it, yet it doesn't change her claim. Now for a mere $20, she has ensured that it will never again be possible for the IIG to test any of her claims.

And you call this progress? How is giving herself yet another excuse for not being tested progress?

Seriously, Bookitty, have you have some private contact with her recently? You wouldn't be the first.

Anita has been asking for another test in order to prove her intellectually dishonest "I know I'm right" theory.  She is now showing signs of giving up on that idea.  That seems like progress to me.  I could be wrong.

I'm a bit confused, Jim.  You seem to have lumped me in with Senex.  Someone who dotes upon Anita for personal reasons.  If you read what I have posted in this thread, it is obvious that I am still critical of her claims.   If I were trying to court favor, this would not be the way.

There are more options than blanket disapproval.  My decision to treat Anita as flawed but still a fellow human being is not based on a personal relationship but on my own moral code.

Posted By bookitty on 23 Feb 2010 04:26 PM

Anita has been asking for another test in order to prove her intellectually dishonest "I know I'm right" theory.  She is now showing signs of giving up on that idea.  That seems like progress to me.  I could be wrong.

Giving up on the idea of another test for her "I know I'm right" theory MIGHT be considered progress, BUT she isn't showing any signs of giving up on the initial claim-that she can access health information by some form of extrasensory perception, that she has many examples of proven accuracy, and that she is investigating the claim objectively and scientifically. None of those are true. As well, she's still trying to solicit people to participate in her 'migraine treatment'. Now, if she were backing off all those claims, then, yes, that would be progress. I don't expect her to do a complete turnaround in a day, but she appears to be clinging even more tightly to the original delusions in the wake of her IIG failure.

There are more options than blanket disapproval.

True, but the blanket disapproval is born of month after month of many people trying to deal with this woman honestly and forthrightly, and being stymied at every turn by her arrogance, her ingenue/kid schtick, and, for UY, I'm sure, her continued harassment. It's tiresome and exasperating. And, since she refuses to relinguish the intiial "health perceptions",  "migraine healer", and "breatharian" claims, she still poses the same nuisance/danger to those who might fall for her spin.

In fairness, I did objectively dismantle some of her claims.  Granted, it didn't change her mind about the validity of those claims, but it isn't just a matter of my calling her delusional without backing it up. 

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, although I do understand your position that it could be done more gently.

Posted By desertgal on 23 Feb 2010 02:41 PM

Posted By Daylightstar on 23 Feb 2010 01:22 PM 
...
Makes me wonder, how did she enter the USA?

Anita has said in the past that she is here on a student visa. I have no doubt that it is a valid visa, since she wouldn't have been allowed to enroll at UNCC without a visa, and she wouldn't have been allowed  t obtain a visa without being enrolled at UNCC (or any college).
...

Obviously she must have the required paperwork. I was thinking that she might have have been less than honest in supplying information to obtain the visa. Anita's conduct just makes me wonder about it.
 

Posted By Daylightstar on 23 Feb 2010 05:16 PM

Obviously she must have the required paperwork. I was thinking that she might have have been less than honest in supplying information to obtain the visa. Anita's conduct just makes me wonder about it.
 

Fair enough.

However, Anita came here after 2001, and INS has grown more cautious in checking out the information supplied for visas and work permits. My husband is a resident alien, and, as I remember, the last time he renewed his permit, they followed up on his application pretty thoroughly, despite the fact that he had been living in the States for nearly 40 years at the time. And given that she was likely in her early/mid 20's when she applied, I doubt there was much for her to lie about, beyond her breatharian nonsense, which wouldn't have been relevant to her visa application. Breatharianism is a mind numbingly stupid practice, but not an illegal one.

ETA: I went to UC Berkeley in the mid-70's, and, even so, the most i could have confessed to the INS by my mid-20's was a couple of recreational pot busts and, well, the whole Roger Waters/Pink Floyd//air pig debacle, which was still HIS fault.

Jim, It is incredibly rude to suggest that my opinion is nothing more than a symptom of being manipulated.  God forbid I think for myself?  

Can you please point to a single instance in which screaming "You are wrong, you stupid lying attention whore!!  Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" at someone has provided some positive benefit.   You have said that you don't care about Anita or her response to this site.  I understand, she has treated you horribly.   But if you don't care, than you are wasting a lot of energy for a very limited reward. 

I am still interested in this saga, so obviously I care about it.  Since I am investing my time in it, I would like to think that some good may eventually come of it.   Although I am not quite sure how to go about doing that, I do know that previous efforts and tactics have failed.   So I'll have a go at objectivity. Perhaps I am on to something.  Or perhaps I will be brutally betrayed and Anita will once again type something at me on an anonymous internet chat board.  Quelle horreur!

Although it is none of your business,  Anita and I were in contact briefly before her Breatharian claims came out.  As you may recall, she mistakenly blamed that on me.  Since then our communication has been extremely limited.  So no, that is not it.    And anyway, it doesn't take Dr. Freud to see that she is far more interested in what she gets from communicating with you. 

This is someone who can't afford a few OTC pills, and she has money to fly to LA? On a day when someone's being tested? And she scams some man (I'm sure it was a man, probably a much older one) into paying her fees? Thus killing 2 birds with one stone, because now she has an iron-clad excuse why IIG can never test her again, so she can make new claims and then sigh " but the place that tested me before ~sigh~ I can't go back."

And what about the schoolwork that keeps her so busy?

And the lies! Who goes out in a strange city with no money, credit cards, or ATM card? I believe she did that, all right; I just don't believe the reason she gave.

This is transparent and sleazy even for a sleazebag like Anita. And major-league attention whoring. Talk about a pro. Someone who's this insane and yet still functional is more frightening than someone who's drooling and babbling to herself in a cardboard box on the sidewalk.

On another note, and I might start a thread on this, anyone seen her videos on YouTube? OH.MY.GOD.

Posted By Farencue on 01 Mar 2010 08:17 PM
Christa, do you mean the Alenara videos?

Alas, no. I mean Anita's own brand spanking new YouTube station.  I won't spoil the rest of the surprise for you:

http://www.youtube.com/user/VisionFromFeeling

Posted By bookitty on 23 Feb 2010 03:13 PM

Anita may feel that the people of the IIG understand her. They were willing to take her seriously which, from her perspective, is more than she gets from the JREF forum.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with this. Many people have taken Anita seriously for many months on the JREF forum - seriously enough to spend significant time generating protocols, analysing data, suggesting robust tests...
 

It really is totally unfair to throw away comments such as "They were willing to take her seriously which, from her perspective, is more than she gets from the JREF forum."

It is also completely incorrect. I have had PMs from Anita in which she has asked my advice on testing protocols and data analysis. I also spent some considerable time modifying a (very poor) protocol of Anita's to allow her to have a falsification scenario which she claimed to want. She then ignored my suggestions for a while, then decided she didn't want a falsification scenario at all any more.

And to be honest as far as I can tell even Anita has never claimed that she has not been taken seriously on the JREF - she wouldn't have spent so long there if she felt that. So I am not sure why you have said that - is the kind of comment that misrepresents the skeptic/VFF interactions on the JREF.

Ashles, I am so sorry.  That was incredibly poor phrasing on my part.   I was addressing Anita's perception of the IIG vs the JREF board.  Not the attitudes of the people on JREF, or the countless hours of work that many members have put in.  Her interaction with the IIG has included face-to-face discussions which are generally more civil.  Because of this, she may feel that the IIG are more sympathetic. 

Posted By bookitty on 04 Mar 2010 06:23 PM

Ashles, I am so sorry.  That was incredibly poor phrasing on my part.   I was addressing Anita's perception of the IIG vs the JREF board.  Not the attitudes of the people on JREF, or the countless hours of work that many members have put in.  Her interaction with the IIG has included face-to-face discussions which are generally more civil.  Because of this, she may feel that the IIG are more sympathetic. 

Fair enough.

I'm a little grumpy on Anita's whole attitude towards skepticism at the moment (as displayed on the JREF) and any misrepresentation she makes towards how she has been treated by skeptics, and how she mistakenly perceives herself as a skeptic (even to the bare faced cheek of believing she can give advice on how skeptics/non-skeptics should interact).

With Anita I feel like I'm watching someone to whom it has been demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that a table is white, yet still they point to it, claiming it is black. The crowd stands round her repeatedly explaining the table is white. Some explain patiently, some lose their temper, some just watch in disbelief that she still denies the whiteness of the table. But all are agreed the table is white.

And deep down you are actually pretty sure the individual does know the table is white, but there's such a lovely crowd around them, and the moment they admit it is white, the lovely crowd will disappear...

Posted By bookitty on 04 Mar 2010 06:23 PM

Ashles, I am so sorry.  That was incredibly poor phrasing on my part.   I was addressing Anita's perception of the IIG vs the JREF board.  Not the attitudes of the people on JREF, or the countless hours of work that many members have put in.  Her interaction with the IIG has included face-to-face discussions which are generally more civil.  Because of this, she may feel that the IIG are more sympathetic. 

 

Face-to-face, eh?  Yeah, I suppose that's part of it, at least.

Regardless of what Anita thinks, I would have thought that it would have been more important for the IIG to be independent than sympathetic.  I always get those two mixed up though.