ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Anita Ikonen

Reply
Old 29th March 2010, 09:06 PM   #1
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

I saw this on VisionFromFeeling's website:

Quote:
www.VisionFromFeeling.com
I will be making a guest appearance on the Radio Show at the Rational Alchemy, starring Skeptics Jeff Wagg, Brian Walsh, and Nigel Aves. We discuss my IIG test for an entire hour!
I can't see how this type of interview advances skepticism. In my mind once a claimant fails the test, they should be granted no more publicity at the expense of skeptics. We've seen post hoc rationalizations from VFF and pretty much every claimant who has failed a test. The idea behind these challenges is to get them to stop talking and start proving. On the rare occasion we get one to step up to the challenge, what good can come from giving them a platform for talking again?

Her IIG test has been talked to death. The video tape is there for those who missed it. The IIG has been interviewed about it. What is the purpose of giving her a platform, especially when the interviewees seemingly don't participate in the discussions here? That's just the type of thing that can be exploited.

What are your thoughts on this?

Last edited by Uncayimmy; 29th March 2010 at 09:50 PM.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 10:32 PM   #2
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,634
I honestly don't understand why she is being interviewed on a skeptics program especially one that involves Mr. Wagg. IMO that is playing right into Ms. Ikonen's new modality of being a premier skeptic. This is a woman who has advocated and given lectures about Breatharian principles and who peddled this woo on a website and YouTube videos. This person failed the IIG test and yet broke her promise to falsify the claim if she failed. She's also broken her promises to the posters on this board who spent a large amount of time helping her with writing a protocol (which she blithely discarded) This is a person who posted private information about members, harassed an admin and several posters via PM and, to top it all off, put a fake link in her signature which would have meant instant banning on many other forums. At the moment Ms. Ikonen is suspended again. I really have to wonder why anyone would want to promote her and her failed ideas. Sorry for the rant but I find this whole situation ludicrous.
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 10:35 PM   #3
likelystory
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy View Post
I saw this on VisionFromFeeling's website:



I can't see how this type of interview advances skepticism. In my mind once a claimant fails the test, they should be granted no more publicity at the expense of skeptics. We've seen post hoc rationalizations from VFF and pretty much every claimant who has failed a test. The idea behind these challenges is to get them to stop talking and start proving. On the rare occasion we get one to step up to the challenge, what good can come from giving them a platform for talking again?

Her IIG test has been talked to death. The video tape is there for those who missed it. The IIG has been interviewed about it. What is the purpose of giving her a platform, especially when the interviewees seemingly don't participate in the discussions here? That's just the type of thing that can be exploited.

What are your thoughts on this?
It seems the more they fail her the more they hail her
likelystory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 10:40 PM   #4
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
Interviewing the IIG people who ran the test I could see.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 10:53 PM   #5
likelystory
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
VFF will surely benifit from Jeff Wagg's presence.His acceptance to debate openly with her on Radio convinces outsiders that VFF is maybe worthy of celebrity status.
likelystory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 11:18 PM   #6
Empress
Piggish
 
Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Blandings Castle
Posts: 2,210
At first blush, I must say this news royally ****** me off. Giving her yet another platform for her nonsense only implies a sense of legitimacy to any listeners who are unaware of her history. It could be that they are planning to confront her in an attempt to convince her that her claim has been completely falsified. But anyone who has followed the train wreck that is Anita Ikonen on these pages knows such attempts are worthless. Why have her on? Why not just speak about the test, and how clearly she failed?

I am open to changing my mind given proper explanations as to why she is appearing, but I confess at the moment I cannot think of any rational reason for this, and I find this news infuriating.
__________________
One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse

Last edited by Empress; 29th March 2010 at 11:26 PM. Reason: The Empress can't spell.
Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2010, 11:54 PM   #7
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
I don't know the reason she is on. I have a suspicion, however. Despite my repeated requests to only contact me through a lawyer (she has threatened lawsuits and police action over my website), she again e-mailed me. Somehow, this time it ended up in my spam folder, so I didn't see it until after I posted this.

In this e-mail she asked me to speak with her over Skype (I have refused all such requests to speak with her and told her never to ask again) to explain to her why her claim was falsified. She wanted to record the conversation, which she implied would be interview style, so she could post it on her website. She's made noises about being willing to listen and that since everybody is telling her she's wrong, maybe she is wrong.

Of course, there were key phrases that indicate to me that this is nothing more than an attempt to prolong discussing her claim. She told me, "TELL ME the truth! Show me the evidence!" What have we all been doing for the last 18 months? What was the point of the test? And notice that burden is on me to present evidence that something doesn't exist.

She tried to manipulate me by writing, "Isn't that what you're trying to do? With your website? To "stop" me? Well, now is one of those times when that could happen." You see, if I would only talk to her so she could record it and post it on her website, "Everyone who stumbles upon my website would thus for sure have access to your opinions about my claim."

The reason I am confident this relates to the interview is that she told me that she has already had a similar conversation with Jeff Wagg and recorded it. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put two and three together.

I am also confident that is just another grab for attention. Last year in one of our early Skype chats she asked me, "Do you really think I am mentally ill?" I had just made a long post going symptom by symptom listed in the DSM-IV and giving examples of her behavior. Did she think I was joking? The conversation went nowhere. She insisted she had no money to get professional help (the school has free counseling) and didn't need it anyway. Several months later I learned from her that these statements were far more misleading than I first imagined.

Then over the holidays I received an e-mail from her (again, long after being told not to contact me) saying in effect that if she disappears on-line it's because she is dead. She told me she was being checked for heart problems at the hospital, but they could find nothing wrong. They said it was a panic attack, but she knew it wasn't. She felt obligated to express her appreciation and love for me in case she died.

I see this latest request from her as nothing more than the same. She's acting like she's going to come around on her claims, but let's not forget she said the IIG test would "falsify" her claims if she failed. If you watch the video, she failed on the very first trial. However, she conveniently had in her notes that two people might be missing a kidney. She was very excited and began telling the audience that she actually did get it right because of her other guess. That is, until it was pointed out that the target was actually a third person and not her alternate.

This is why I don't believe it's a good idea to interview her. It's going to be more of the same old routine where she pays lip service to falsifying her claims. Noticeably absent from her request for an interview with me is what she would do if I convinced her (as if I have anything new to add). There was no offer to take down her site or post a retraction. The offer was what she would want - to post my voice for the world to hear.

And, of course, there was no indication of what it would take to convince her. As skeptics we should always be able to offer a scenario of "if you show me this evidence, I will change my position." She made no such offer. I was just invited to give my opinion and allow her to respond. Having dealt with her extensively, it was quite transparent.

She desperately wants to keep talking about her claims. It's been almost a decade now since she started with Alenara. Nothing has changed.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 01:39 AM   #8
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Sounds like Jeff Wagg's ready to have JREF give her a do-over. I can't wait!

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 03:10 AM   #9
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Audible Click View Post
This is a woman who has advocated and given lectures about Breatharian principles and who peddled this woo on a website and YouTube videos.
And still is. That website remains up, despite Anita's claim that she has "begun taking it down". (Begun taking it down? She either takes it down or she doesn't. It's not an extensive procedure.)

Heck, she tried to peddle breatharianism here, even before the 'Alenara' information came to light, by reviving a five year old thread.

Originally Posted by Empress View Post
At first blush, I must say this news royally ****** me off. Giving her yet another platform for her nonsense only implies a sense of legitimacy to any listeners who are unaware of her history. It could be that they are planning to confront her in an attempt to convince her that her claim has been completely falsified. But anyone who has followed the train wreck that is Anita Ikonen on these pages knows such attempts are worthless. Why have her on? Why not just speak about the test, and how clearly she failed?

I am open to changing my mind given proper explanations as to why she is appearing, but I confess at the moment I cannot think of any rational reason for this, and I find this news infuriating.
Ditto here. I'm not holding my breath for an explanation, though.

Originally Posted by Audible Click
IMO that is playing right into Ms. Ikonen's new modality of being a premier skeptic...
Yep. Unless Jeff Wagg and the others on the program intend to make the point that Ms. Ikonen's new modality as a premier skeptic would only have validity after she performs a detailed critical examination of all her own claims. But, I'm not holding my breath for that, either.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 03:59 AM   #10
skeen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 255
Anita, get help. You really do need it.
skeen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 04:02 AM   #11
Moss
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,212
The episode is up at the Rational Alchemy website. Listening now.
Moss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 04:33 AM   #12
Farencue
Critical Thinker
 
Farencue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Moss View Post
The episode is up at the Rational Alchemy website. Listening now.
I got 40 odd minutes into it.

This is what Anita told Jeff Wagg:

"I recently had an experience where I tried to heal a man who is having devastating migraines, and he thinks it worked so now I'm having to investigate whether I'm a healer"

Jeff Wagg didn't pull her up on it, he wanted her to tell him about her ghosts claim. I don't know if he said anything about her above statement later, because I stopped listening in disgust.

Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.

What would James Randi say?

Last edited by Farencue; 30th March 2010 at 04:35 AM.
Farencue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 04:40 AM   #13
Farencue
Critical Thinker
 
Farencue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy View Post

snipped

This is why I don't believe it's a good idea to interview her. It's going to be more of the same old routine where she pays lip service to falsifying her claims.

She desperately wants to keep talking about her claims. It's been almost a decade now since she started with Alenara. Nothing has changed.
I know you aren't so stupid as to "interview" her.
She refers to the radio gig as "starring Jeff Wagg".
Says it all really.
Farencue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 04:55 AM   #14
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Farencue
Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.


She should be given credit towards her claimed paranormal ability for admittedly guessing half right?
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 30th March 2010 at 06:45 AM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 05:04 AM   #15
Farencue
Critical Thinker
 
Farencue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 309
Oh, and Nigel thought it "unfair" she failed on Trial 3.

WTF?
Farencue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 05:09 AM   #16
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Well, heck, they should just give her credit for Trial 2, then. I mean, she guessed wrong, but, hey, one of the subjects was missing a kidney.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 05:13 AM   #17
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
 
LightinDarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,583
When will the circus ever end?

Anita has FAILED every single test. She has harassed and threatened forum members and has made several attempts to practice her woo that clearly violate multiple ethical guidelines.

The podcast describes her as a paranormal claimant - NO - her claims have been debunked. Why anyone would give her the time of day by putting them on a podcast amazes me. The interviewer was not even the least critical and asked no hard hitting questions. Nothing even as simple as "Did you consider alternatives to your medical perceptions powers - like that you may have mental images that are the product of your imagination?"

Last edited by LightinDarkness; 30th March 2010 at 05:16 AM.
LightinDarkness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 05:28 AM   #18
Farencue
Critical Thinker
 
Farencue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
When will the circus ever end?
Reminds me of a quote:
"Just because the monkey is off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town"
Farencue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 05:33 AM   #19
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Farencue View Post
Reminds me of a quote:
"Just because the monkey is off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town"
I was thinking more along the lines of "Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 06:02 AM   #20
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,938
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
Why anyone would give her the time of day by putting them on a podcast amazes me. The interviewer was not even the least critical and asked no hard hitting questions.
Is she pretty?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 06:12 AM   #21
Empress
Piggish
 
Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Blandings Castle
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Farencue View Post
I got 40 odd minutes into it.

This is what Anita told Jeff Wagg:

"I recently had an experience where I tried to heal a man who is having devastating migraines, and he thinks it worked so now I'm having to investigate whether I'm a healer"

Jeff Wagg didn't pull her up on it, he wanted her to tell him about her ghosts claim. I don't know if he said anything about her above statement later, because I stopped listening in disgust.

Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.

What would James Randi say?
Oh christ on a popsicle stick! They played right into her mentally ill hands. This crap isn't good for anyone--including Anita.

I appreciate your posting this, Farencue. Now I know not to listen to it.
__________________
One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse
Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 06:41 AM   #22
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,538
Very disappointing. Even if there's not enough time for the management to spend their time on the forum, you'd think Jeff would at least do some basic research before going on a public broadcast. It's not like it's hard to find the discussions about Anita's failures.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 06:48 AM   #23
Lisa Simpson
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,250
It's really a dreadful interview.
Lisa Simpson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 07:14 AM   #24
Grimes
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 79
edit: gah, wrong website entirely. Darn tabs.
Grimes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 07:38 AM   #25
likelystory
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
The interviewers really sounded like they are encouraging Anita to take more tests. Anita must be a pretty young woman from how the men spoke such nice over polite words to her.

Where's the scrutiny in the interview?
likelystory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 07:43 AM   #26
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by likelystory View Post
Where's the scrutiny in the interview?
You heard it. There wasn't any.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 08:27 AM   #27
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Farencue View Post
Jeff Wagg also thinks Anita should be given credit for guessing (and Anita calls it guessing) the correct person in Trial 3.

Jeff obviously didn't read and/or understand the protocol for the IIG show. If he did he would have known the same thing everyone else here knows (except Anita and maybe a few of her lust-struck defenders), and that is the objective of the test was to determine if she could see missing kidneys, not to determine which person was missing a kidney.

This can't be stressed enough. The test was not a guessing game to pick the person missing a kidney. What was being tested was Anita's claim that she can see inside people, right through their skin and flesh. And using that ability she was to determine, with that never-fail accuracy which she had so often claimed, specifically which kidneys were missing.

Anita failed the moment she didn't see the first missing kidney in the first round of the test. She got an "F" as sure as if she had wussed out on a college class. There was no sliding scale involved. See through people's cotton shirts, skin, and flesh, and spot the three missing kidneys, or not. She did not.

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson View Post
It's really a dreadful interview.

It certainly was. Maybe Jeff Wagg will apologize to Mr. Randi and the JREF for poorly representing the organization by being so ill prepared. And the whole thing seemed a far cry from Jeff's previously stated position on the matter...

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
VFF is allowed to be dishonest, just like everyone else. Having dealt with more challenge applicants than just abut anyone else, I'm familiar with people like her. She's most likely deluded, lying, or both. She's probably doing all this to get attention. And she's allowed to do all those things so long as she's staying within the rules of the forum.

So, "She's most likely deluded, lying, or both," eh? Given the opportunity to express those sentiments, it's a shame he let it slip away.

Originally Posted by Farencue View Post
What would James Randi say?

Maybe he'd say he hired the wrong guy to go out in the world as a spokesman for one of the world's most respected, preeminent skeptics' organizations? Maybe he'd tell Jeff to study up a bit before he gets involved in similar interviews and discussions in the future? Or maybe he wouldn't say anything if he isn't paying any attention either.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 08:47 AM   #28
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,350
Wow.....wtf. I mean....wow.

So Jeff Wag and some other guys give what is basically an internet troll that had 15 minutes of fame a while ago an interview.

Something seems up, april fools is coming up here soon, let's hope its that.

Can we get any commentary from Jeff on this one, this just seems very .....strange.
sadhatter is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:01 AM   #29
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Wow.....wtf. I mean....wow.

So Jeff Wag and some other guys give what is basically an internet troll that had 15 minutes of fame a while ago an interview.

Something seems up, april fools is coming up here soon, let's hope its that.

Not likely. It's just that in this case, Jeff was wholly ill prepared. The JREF certainly should have sent someone to do the interview who actually knows something about the claims, the claimant, the protocol, the test, and the results. Too bad they didn't.

Quote:
Can we get any commentary from Jeff on this one, this just seems very .....strange.

I'm doubting that will happen, either. It's probably rather embarrassing for him.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:05 AM   #30
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
I notice on the listen/download page there are links to IIG west and Anita's own site, no link to the jref forums.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:11 AM   #31
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Not likely. It's just that in this case, Jeff was wholly ill prepared. The JREF certainly should have sent someone to do the interview who actually knows something about the claims, the claimant, the protocol, the test, and the results. Too bad they didn't.




I'm doubting that will happen, either. It's probably rather embarrassing for him.
Isn't that one of the main points about being a skeptic though, admitting when you have been wrong? If Jeff avoids the issue completely i will not exactly have soaring confidence in the man.

This just seems like such a clustermug , i almost have trouble believing there isn't some kind of joke going on here i mean i am no VFF veteran, but even i could tell that this is the type of thing that would look good on her resume but not on jeff's.
sadhatter is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:27 AM   #32
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Is she pretty?
Not so much, but she flirts a lot.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:38 AM   #33
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,682
Originally Posted by Audible Click View Post
I honestly don't understand why she is being interviewed on a skeptics program especially one that involves Mr. Wagg. IMO that is playing right into Ms. Ikonen's new modality of being a premier skeptic. This is a woman who has advocated and given lectures about Breatharian principles and who peddled this woo on a website and YouTube videos. This person failed the IIG test and yet broke her promise to falsify the claim if she failed. She's also broken her promises to the posters on this board who spent a large amount of time helping her with writing a protocol (which she blithely discarded) This is a person who posted private information about members, harassed an admin and several posters via PM and, to top it all off, put a fake link in her signature which would have meant instant banning on many other forums. At the moment Ms. Ikonen is suspended again. I really have to wonder why anyone would want to promote her and her failed ideas. Sorry for the rant but I find this whole situation ludicrous.


I can't improve on this, Your Audibleness, so I hope you don't mind me simply echoing your words.

What an absolute disgrace this entire situation is.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:44 AM   #34
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Jeff Wagg says he wants to go ghost hunting with her. Does he post here under the name Senex?

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 09:49 AM   #35
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,682
Originally Posted by likelystory View Post
The interviewers really sounded like they are encouraging Anita to take more tests. Anita must be a pretty young woman from how the men spoke such nice over polite words to her.


30-ish. The other bit is, of course, subjective, but the consensus is "Ooh my wordy lordy no".


Originally Posted by likelystory View Post
Where's the scrutiny in the interview?


Same place as the references to the thousands and thousands of man-hours that members of this Forum have put into trying to put and end to this fiasco.

Considered, at least by the JREF, to be completely worthless.


Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Originally Posted by Farencue View Post
What would James Randi say?


Maybe he'd say he hired the wrong guy to go out in the world as a spokesman for one of the world's most respected, preeminent skeptics' organizations? Maybe he'd tell Jeff to study up a bit before he gets involved in similar interviews and discussions in the future? Or maybe he wouldn't say anything if he isn't paying any attention either.


Maybe he'd say 'Jeff, I think the Forum is surplus to our requirements. Can you think of a way to make it go away without us actually closing it down like they did with Richard Dawkins' Forum."
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 10:00 AM   #36
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,682
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Jeff Wagg says he wants to go ghost hunting with her. Does he post here under the name Senex?

Ward




Geeze I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that thought.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 10:35 AM   #37
TheSkepticCanuck
Thinker
 
TheSkepticCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 224
Jeff should get a shot at the MDC. He predicted in advance that he would get a lot of flack over the interview, and he was 100% correct. He also stated that he didn't believe she had any paranormal abilities, but he was willing to have a conversation with her, and keep an open mind, just in case he is wrong. I think he clearly showed the difference between a skeptic and a cynic. Many of us here have been more cynical than skeptical, myself included. That being said, I don't believe she has the slightest paranormal ability. I do however believe she has a fantastic imagination.
__________________
The plural of anecdote is NOT evidence!

Please help to Stop Sylvia Browne, Jenny McCarthy, and Anita Ikonen

Please check out The Reality Check, Canada's premier podcast dedicated to science and skepticism.
TheSkepticCanuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 10:45 AM   #38
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Originally Posted by TheSkepticCanuck View Post
Jeff should get a shot at the MDC. He predicted in advance that he would get a lot of flack over the interview, and he was 100% correct. He also stated that he didn't believe she had any paranormal abilities, but he was willing to have a conversation with her, and keep an open mind, just in case he is wrong. I think he clearly showed the difference between a skeptic and a cynic. Many of us here have been more cynical than skeptical, myself included. That being said, I don't believe she has the slightest paranormal ability. I do however believe she has a fantastic imagination.
I have no criticism of Jeff offering her a platform, nor do I have a criticism of Jeff making nice with her. I just think it's odd that he seemed willing to have the JREF test her (when he must know that she does not have the academic affidavits) and that he seemed so excited about the idea of ghost hunting with her.

She is a rare bird in that she seems to be so willing to engage with the skeptical community. Maybe that's the attraction.

Also, the whole panel's reaction to the IIG test seemed a bit strange. Maybe they're trying to lure her into something.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 10:56 AM   #39
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,938
Originally Posted by TheSkepticCanuck View Post
Jeff should get a shot at the MDC. He predicted in advance that he would get a lot of flack over the interview, and he was 100% correct. He also stated that he didn't believe she had any paranormal abilities, but he was willing to have a conversation with her, and keep an open mind, just in case he is wrong.
Where did he say all this? The first I've seen about this podcast was this thread, but I've not been following VfF closely.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2010, 11:07 AM   #40
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,634
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Where did he say all this? The first I've seen about this podcast was this thread, but I've not been following VfF closely.
I've been wondering the same thing. This situation makes me feel that Ms. Ikonen has hijacked skepticism and, with the help of Mr. Wagg, twisted it into an unrecognizable shadow of it's former self. Put simply, I feel betrayed and I don't think I'm alone in this feeling.
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.