Navigate the JREF Website Join Now
James Randi Educational Foundation

JREF Forums Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Registration is free! Calendar Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Home  
JREF Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.5 JREF Forums > JREF Topics > ***Million Dollar Challenge*** > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 » Go to first unread post first unread  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Beleth
Graduate Poster

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Sylvia Browne's back yard
Posts: 1265

Rough FAQ outline sent. It's just twenty questions so far, with no answers. I'm sure more questions will arise, and the answers will come after that.

__________________
"uh oh, I've gone mad with power again." --Hal

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 07:31 PM
Beleth is online now Click Here to See the Profile for Beleth Click here to Send Beleth a Private Message Find more posts by Beleth Add Beleth to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
OK, let me get this straight before I strongly disagree with you:

Are you actually saying that reading an email exchange between myself (or any JREF representative who takes a position similar to mine) and a beliggerent applicant, will actually cause someone (who hasn't considered the plausibilty of whether or not a spoon can be bent via the powers of the mind) to be "lost" to his own delusions?



Um. No. I'm saying that there are people in the world who don't come equipped with a knack for critical thinking and inherent knowledge and trust of the JREF. I'd like to show those people how to think critically, and let them know that the JREF challenge is an honest one. When a bit of Googling shows the JREF treating believers like crap and dismissing people out of hand, they're going to wonder who the good guys are.

You can't really care that little about how the general populace views the skeptical community, can you?

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
I hope that we can agree to disagree here, and that you will not take offense at my language, as no offense whatsoever was intended.


I'll let you know when I'm offended. Wait, do I get offended? I don't think so.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 07:57 PM
rebecca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for rebecca Click here to Send rebecca a Private Message Find more posts by rebecca Add rebecca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: wow -- so much verbiage, so little revealed

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion
Yeah, and it boils down to "be more polite" ---
Which BTW, was the exact same criticism offered in another thread, about TC Albin where a guy was telling Kramer he could make it snow in July in Kansas (then changed his mind and decided it would be easier to make it snow in Oakland on July 27th).


What is this, 'be nice' forum?

Bleah!



Ha. You have no idea how ironic that is to ask me that, of all people, given my history of posts on this forum (OK, not recently, but I've severely curtailed the quantity and substance of my posts in the last year and a half).

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:08 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca

I'll let you know when I'm offended. Wait, do I get offended? I don't think so.



Edited by Phil:  Content removed.


There. Good enough for you?

AS

Posted by Phil:
Several posts in this exchange have been reported. If this goading is in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame. If not, consider this a warning to be more civil, and to clean up the language.

Last edited by Phil on 02-09-2005 at 11:13 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:09 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Edited by Phil:  Content removed.


There. Good enough for you?

AS



Ha ha ha, actually it's funny, I was just trying to think, "Has anyone on this forum ever actually offended me?" And then it hit me, yes. That bastard AmateurScientist managed to do it once. Once. Though technically it wasn't on THIS forum.

And I'm pretty sure you could never do it again.

Last edited by Phil on 02-09-2005 at 11:50 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:12 PM
rebecca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for rebecca Click here to Send rebecca a Private Message Find more posts by rebecca Add rebecca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Edited by Phil:  Content removed.



There. Good enough for you.



I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Last edited by Phil on 02-09-2005 at 11:14 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:20 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP



I know this was not directed at me, but . . .

Who are you?

By the way, you spelled your three letter name wrong on another thread just a few minutes ago. I thought you would want to know.

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
Kramer,

This is a great idea. Offer them $1000 just to go through the test, BUT, require that the post the results a link to JREF if they fail. Bet it won't cost you a penny.

IPX

Last edited by rebecca on 02-08-2005 at 08:31 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:27 PM
rebecca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for rebecca Click here to Send rebecca a Private Message Find more posts by rebecca Add rebecca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Ha ha ha, actually it's funny, I was just trying to think, "Has anyone on this forum ever actually offended me?" And then it hit me, yes. That bastard AmateurScientist managed to do it once. Once. Though technically it wasn't on THIS forum.

And I'm pretty sure you could never do it again.



I love it when you call me bastard. Now, go eat a baloney sandwich.

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 08:53 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP



Ha. I've paid my dues here and I've offended nearly everyone in the process, especially the powers that be, except for Darat and Diezel. I have no interest in impressing you and I couldn't give a sh*t what you think of me. F*ck off.

I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wickedly funny.

AS

edit: thanks Lisa

Last edited by AmateurScientist on 02-08-2005 at 09:15 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:02 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Lisa Simpson
Graduate Poster

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Irk
Posts: 1529

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wicky funny.

AS



Wicky funny?

John Waters guest starred in one of my favorite Simpsons episodes. The gay steel mill is classic.

__________________
The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with Hail Satan--Bart Simpson

If I didn't have inner peace, I'd completely go psycho on all you guys, all the time.-Carl Carlson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:05 PM
Lisa Simpson is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Lisa Simpson Click here to Send Lisa Simpson a Private Message Find more posts by Lisa Simpson Add Lisa Simpson to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wicky funny.

AS



And you, my friend, are not.

IXP

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:06 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I know this was not directed at me, but . . .

Who are you?

By the way, you spelled your three letter name wrong on another thread just a few minutes ago. I thought you would want to know.



Alas Rebecca, I shall cease and desist in defending thy virtues. Oh, the trials to which the pure of heart is subjected, one typo and I am cast into fiery abyss. Sigh...

IPX

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:11 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
And you, my friend, are not.

IXP



Whatever, man. As you don't know me, I suggest you don't try to be funny to me without getting me. You don't.

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:14 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
specious_reasons
Muse

Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 789

quote:
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Not that you need to bother about my opinion, but if you should ask me, I'd say that you should handle this in a more professional, and less emotional way. Shure, you have a lot of crackpots at your hands, but why get your panties all in a knot over that? Make yourself a bunch of template answers for all that crap, and give them that. Would take less time, too.

So, if somebody asks about the bonds, write an answer, send it, and file it, for the next idiot.

You know, it is a question about image; you cannot change the minds of the crackpots, but when they cite your answers to more cool heads, make shure those heads recognize who are the crackpots and who are not.

Just my 10c (or whatever it is).

Hans



I totally agree with you, Hans.

Randi should just have a standardized email explaining in sufficient details how the $1 million is kept, how this can be verified, and how it might be distributed to applicants. If that, for whatever reason, is insufficient, then I'd feel more comfortable calling the person out as a crank and a waste of time.

I don't know how many times, in my former job, I would re-send emails on common topics, and my job didn't even include dealing with the public. It usually saved time, bridged understanding gaps, and kept my explanations consistent. It was always to my benefit.

To reiterate, a standard FAQ like Beleth is making:

- saves time
- clears up misunderstandings
- keeps information consistent

*Cheers for Beleth*

Beleth, if you are drafting/editing any responses, do include the great information Keri posted in this thread earlier regarding financial transparency and the IRS forms available for publc view.

__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:21 PM
specious_reasons is offline Click Here to See the Profile for specious_reasons Click here to Send specious_reasons a Private Message Find more posts by specious_reasons Add specious_reasons to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Whatever, man. As you don't know me, I suggest you don't try to be funny to me without getting me. You don't.

AS


I know this much: Your contribution to this thread is inconsequential. I am not the one trying to be funny, you are, and you are failing miserably. Please crawl back into your back issues of Scientific American.

IXP

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Last edited by IXP on 02-08-2005 at 09:31 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:22 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Zep
Philosopher

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 9123

Now now, no bickering necessary.

And as usual, I'm late to comment...

KRAMER,

While I appreciate that some of these people emailing you are apparently just pests, I endorse the comments about being careful who you may offend. Not because we don't want to offend the poor widdle woo-woos, but because any rudeness to ANYONE will redound badly many-fold on JREF. I agree with Rebecca - there is a large component of PR required in some responses. Woos are very good at generating smoke-screens about confronting their claims, and rudeness on JREF's part simply adds fuel to their flames, not clarity to the situation.

Of course, with a little thought, you can certainly pen the most polite of brief responses that still leave little doubt to the reader that they have clearly been told to put up or shut up. It's just HOW you say that. Here's a draft form letter which I would send in response to any enquiries about the prize. No more needs to be said after this.

quote:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Your enquiry has been received and processed. Via the internationally reputable banking firm Goldman Sachs, we attach certified documentary proof of the available assets to immediately fund the JREF Challenge prize, should it ever need to be awarded.

The JREF Challenge rules are a legally binding contract for both JREF and any applicants. When awarding the prize, these assets will be used to fund the US$1,000,000 prize in a form the prize winner will accept. JREF will award the prize money to any recipient(s) the Challenge winner nominates.

We look forward to your application, should you wish to take the JREF Challenge to win this prize.

Yours sincerely, etc.

Any further silly questions - send the same letter again, sans Goldman Sachs documents.

Note that this does NOT say you have not given peebrain sufficient information with which to make a reasoned and informed decision. But do please remember that some of these people also have trouble finding the same bus-stop each day. So expecting them to implicitly know and appreciate that the Challenge is indeed a contract and that legal consequences therefore follow is like expecting me to understand jokes in Russian - it's so forlorn a hope as to be a lost cause.

I, too, have read the Challenge rules many times, and I would comment that the wording does indeed support what you say about the prize holding and awarding and so on. HOWEVER it is also rather subtle in how that conclusion is reached, and it CAN also be fairly reasonably interpreted as peebrain actually did. Therefore, in a LEGAL sense, the possibility of intepretation in a certain sense means it CAN be read that way, which opens up avenues that JREF really does not want opened, I imagine. In other words, the Challenge section about the prize holding and awarding really needs to be completely unambiguous and expressed in simple words of one syllable or less for the dummies. No doubt there are US legal types here who can pen something suitable rather quickly.

__________________
Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist. Phillip K Dick
...as if we did not have trouble enough with underdeveloped countries becoming nuclear powers, we now have to watch nuclear powers become underdeveloped countries. MRC_Hans
Somehow, every time the magic of fol-de-rol tried conclusions with the magic of science, the magic of fol-de-rol got left. Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:24 PM
Zep is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Zep Click here to Send Zep a Private Message Find more posts by Zep Add Zep to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love it when you call me bastard. Now, go eat a baloney sandwich.

AS



I think you mean ribs.
Edited by Phil:  Content removed.



quote:
Originally posted by PIX
Alas Rebecca, I shall cease and desist in defending thy virtues. Oh, the trials to which the pure of heart is subjected, one typo and I am cast into fiery abyss. Sigh...

IPX



Please. My virtue (like a soul, its existence is suspect) needs no defense. You know not of what you post.

Last edited by Phil on 02-09-2005 at 11:15 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:26 PM
rebecca is offline Click Here to See the Profile for rebecca Click here to Send rebecca a Private Message Find more posts by rebecca Add rebecca to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
I know this much: Your contribution to this thread is inconsequential. I am not the one trying to be funny, you are, and you are failing miserably. Please crawl back into your back issues of Scientific American.

IXP



Ummm...except for what I posted on Page Two and to which KRAMER responded substantially. I appreciate his doing do, and I consider our exchange to be meaningful and not inconsequential.

I have two things to say to you. One, know who you are talking to before you butt in on an inside joke and make some irrelevant and foolish remark. Two, don't be a dick.

Good day to you. Oh, and lighten up, Francis.

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:31 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Beleth
Graduate Poster

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Sylvia Browne's back yard
Posts: 1265

quote:
Originally posted by specious_reasons
Beleth, if you are drafting/editing any responses, do include the great information Keri posted in this thread earlier regarding financial transparency and the IRS forms available for publc view.
I absolutely plan to. I'm still just in the question-writing phase, but I plan on spending quite a bit of space answering the question "Does the money really exist?"

__________________
"uh oh, I've gone mad with power again." --Hal

Last edited by Beleth on 02-08-2005 at 09:38 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:35 PM
Beleth is online now Click Here to See the Profile for Beleth Click here to Send Beleth a Private Message Find more posts by Beleth Add Beleth to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I think you mean ribs.
Edited by Phil:  Content removed.






Oh, go throw some snow in some innocent kid's face, will ya?

AS

Last edited by Phil on 02-09-2005 at 11:16 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:36 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Oh, go throw some snow in some innocent kid's face, will ya?

AS



AS, Rebecca,

Don't you two have a car?

IXP

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 09:40 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

quote:
Originally posted by IXP
AS, Rebecca,

Don't you two have a car?

IXP



At least one of us does, I believe. That's a better response. Thanks.

Beers now?

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 10:00 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
IXP
Thinker

Registered: Oct 2004
Location: The most liberal state in the U.S. and proud of it!
Posts: 132

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
At least one of us does, I believe. That's a better response. Thanks.

Beers now?

AS


I think I need something stronger.

__________________
"When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 10:02 PM
IXP is offline Click Here to See the Profile for IXP Find more posts by IXP Add IXP to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
DevilsAdvocate
Scholar

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 105

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Gee. Really? Well, I have a simple solution for the Woo Woo Clan...
I really don't understand the hostility. I started putting together quotes from the thread, but I don't really want to get into a nit-pick argument. That isn't the point. It seems to me that in the initial correspondnce Sean was polite and clear and that he was not making a claim but just asking some questions about confusing information on the JREF site because his research of the challenge indicated that the challenge may not be ligitimate. If a preson reads that the JREF challenge is a scam and they don't believe it, what should that person do? He states that his questions were based on concerns raised from resaerch of the Challenge and that he had looked carefully at the JREF site (both the Challenge rules and other informaion on the JREF site) and discovered a questionable sentence and asked for clarification. This has resulted in something--removal of the questionable sentence that was the foundation of Sean's whole concern and a possible FAQ.

Sheesh! It seems to me that Sean should have been congratulated on his skepticism, critcal thinking, and discovery of an inacurate statement on the website that even Randi, Kramer. or other JREF staff responsible for the sentence had overlooked.

One of the things that turned me off of woo-woo belief is that they refused to answer questions, were hostile to anyone that did not agree with them, turned people words around against them, etc. Woo-woos HAVE to do that, otherwise people will find out the truth. Truth seekers don't HAVE to do that because they can just provide the truth. Of course there is a point where you have to say that you won't respond to somone because they are playing these games--but you do that AFTER you have answered people's questions and don't resort to the same games. I just get irritated when truth-seekers get caught up in the same games as woos. Enough from me on that.

On the FAQ: I previously said in this thread that Kramer should have answered the questions or directed the person to a website that addressed the questions. I though about adding in that JREF should make a FAQ that they could point to since they seem to get so many questions about the money, but then decided against it. The reason is that if people already nit-pick at the Challenge rules and application, then a FAQ would just be more language, and probably in more vague terms, that people just looking for something to nit-pick at can go after. So you might end up getting more (rather than less) emails questioning the language of the FAQs, which is even more further removed from the purpose of the Challenge. It will be interesting to see what the FAQ looks like. If there is anything left to question in the rules and applicantion, then why not just revise the rules and application rather than expanding the clarifications into a FAQ which can then be questioned as to its controlling authority of the rules?

I've done this before found that sometimes a FAQ works and sometimes it backfires. My guess is that you will see a backfire, but I'd have to see the FAQ. I didn't see any point to a FAQ in this case because the Challenge rules very clearly and unquestionably describe how the funds will be awarded. The root and cause of the problem was a sentence outside of rules and application contract that "summarized" or "described" the challenge rules. A FAQ would probably be a summary, description, or clarification of the Challenge rules. My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules. If there had not been the "summary" or "description", then Sean would have only looked at the Challenge rules and would not have found any discrepancies and would not have raised this whole thread. Sean should have been told from the very get-go that the statement about "the prize being bonds" was just an attempt at a brief summary of the Challenge which is not completely accurate and will be fixed, and that the controlling authority of the Challenge is the Challenge rules which explicitly state that the prize winner gets US $1 million.

I'd rather see JREF go toward the opposite of a FAQ, and say "here are the rules and here is the application". That is it. That is the challenge. The rules are the rules. If anyone raises valid objections to the clarity of the rules or the application, JREF should address the questions or recognize that the rules or application need revision and do so. The rules are the rules. Period. Simple.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 10:54 PM
DevilsAdvocate is offline Click Here to See the Profile for DevilsAdvocate Click here to Send DevilsAdvocate a Private Message Find more posts by DevilsAdvocate Add DevilsAdvocate to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SezMe
Muse

Registered: Dec 2003
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 579

Re: Offended?

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
But, overall, my impression of the advice (from some) is that the JREF's PR appearance is more important than the work we endeavor to accomplish. It is not.

Jumping in here late, Kramer, this is a false impression. The proponents are not (to imitate 1inC) arguing that PR is "more important" than your work, they are arguing that it is part and parcel of your work. It's not an either/or thing.

Appearance, impressions, and attitude can make a huge difference in way you may never know about. You surely know this.

I thought of the FAQ about page 2 as well, but I think you, Kramer, are going to have to play a very large role in it. You should think of every question you have gotten and generalize it to one that covers the point and then provide the answer. I don't see how an outsider without your experience can do it.

And when it is up and available, when you tell a pest for the hundredth time to go read the FAQ, say "please" every last time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 10:58 PM
SezMe is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SezMe Click here to Send SezMe a Private Message Find more posts by SezMe Add SezMe to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
PixyMisa
Muse

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 977

Feh.

A FAQ is a good idea.

But for the pests, simply say "Dear (whomever), your question has been answered. Until we receive a notorised application, all further email from you will be blocked by our spam filter."

Um, and then block them with your spam filter.

There are infinitely many idiots and we each have only a finite amount of time to appreciate the wonders of the world. Cut one idiot off, right up front, and you'll have time to eat one more flower (or whatever floats your particular boat).

__________________
mu.nu - Always crunchy and full of goodness! Now with added yeast!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 03:26 AM
PixyMisa is online now Click Here to See the Profile for PixyMisa Click here to Send PixyMisa a Private Message Visit PixyMisa's homepage! Find more posts by PixyMisa Add PixyMisa to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
athon
Graduate Poster

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: agar plate no. 9
Posts: 1427

Re: Re: Offended?

quote:
Originally posted by SezMe
Jumping in here late, Kramer, this is a false impression. The proponents are not (to imitate 1inC) arguing that PR is "more important" than your work, they are arguing that it is part and parcel of your work. It's not an either/or thing.

Appearance, impressions, and attitude can make a huge difference in way you may never know about. You surely know this.

I thought of the FAQ about page 2 as well, but I think you, Kramer, are going to have to play a very large role in it. You should think of every question you have gotten and generalize it to one that covers the point and then provide the answer. I don't see how an outsider without your experience can do it.

And when it is up and available, when you tell a pest for the hundredth time to go read the FAQ, say "please" every last time.



I was trying to come up with a way of addressing this, but see that SezMe has already put my feelings into words rather well.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I assume that the core goal of the JREF is educating the public. Thinking critically is unforutnately not a natural thing to do and most people don't have our ability to see why some belief might be incredible. We often take that for granted and think that any person who sees ghosts in their television screen is a certified whacko with all of the trimmings.

This in itself is not helpful to anybody. The 'us vs. them' mentality is too easy to develop, but is misleading in the least and pure nonsense in the most. Again I think that short, but polite, statements (even repeated over and over again, if it needs be) will give the higher ground and while it might not always do a lot of good, it never does any harm.

I always come up against people who want to find the stupidest things to argue about. They find irrelevant points to nit-pick and defend, all in order to post-pone an outcome (usually a detention). Some are downright hostile, and very rarely do they use any form of manners or politeness. I feel that as an educator, my role is not just to teach that one kid (which is indeed often impossible), but to demonstrate to all those watching the dispute that my position is not based on emotion but is based on a principle.

I like to hope that by not showing my frustration that those who see my behaviour are paying more attention to what I'm saying more than just how I'm saying it.

Maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think it is very important that we see that our behaviour goes a long way to influencing how our cause is perceived, whether we like it or not.

Athon

__________________
"There is a mask of theory over the face of nature." William Whewell

"Fact I know; and Law I know; but what is this Neccessity, save an empty shadow of my own mind's throwing?" - T.H. Huxley, 'On the Basis of Physical Life', (1870)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 07:58 AM
athon is offline Click Here to See the Profile for athon Click here to Send athon a Private Message Find more posts by athon Add athon to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

You know, I told myself I was done with this thread... but I can't just let the most recent set of posts go unanswered. I work in a customer-service oriented industry, and grew up in a resort town where all the jobs were pretty much customer service in nature. I fully understand the points made here about politeness, professionalism, etc. In fact, I practice them daily.

However, Kramer is not selling a product. He is not providing a service that people pay for. He is not soliciting participation in anything, attempting to get donations, or providing educational information to the public. He is, of course, acting as a contact for JREF, and should conduct himself professionally... which the vast majority of the time is true. And when he acts less than politely, it appears to me that he usually has justification for his actions.

Perhaps a brief recap of what happened (in semi-chronological order) will help clarify this entire event.

Sean began his dialogue with JREF questioning the financial structure, availability and soundness of the million-dollar prize. He did so without submitting a claim, and refused to confirm or deny his intentions regarding submitting a claim. In other words, he simply questioned them about the money without any other justification for his queries than an apparent desire to know about the funds.

JREF's immediate (and apparently standard) reaction was to have Goldman-Sachs send him a letter verifying the availability of the funds. (This action was cited in Kramer's second post in this thread.) Additionally, the founder of the organization (Randi) assured Sean via email that the bonds were immediately convertible into money.

This apparently didn't satisfy Sean and he continued to pressure Kramer and Randi for more information. Apparently, it was at this point that both Randi and Kramer - based on their experience - determined that they were once again being jerked around by someone intent on wasting their limited time.

Kramer became curt - and yes, even somewhat rude - during his correspondence with Sean after this realization. However, from Kramer's perspective and experience, this was an utter dead-end, time-wasting discussion that had nothing to do with the primary purpose of Kramer's job - that of handling and processing claims.

Kramer then started this thread as an example of the types of non-claim nonsense that comes in for him to handle, and how some of these people simply demand attention and time from JREF without any intention of making a claim.

Sean, utterly gratis, joined the forum as "peebrain" - a vulgar reference obviously designed to get attention and sympathy about how he felt he was treated - and immediately posted about his confusion concerning bonds vs. cash. (Failing, I note, to mention anything at all about the letter from Goldman-Sachs and why it was insufficient to answer his questions.)

Following that post, Sean also launched a diatriabe against Kramer, accusing him of modifying the emails listed to show himself and Randi in a better light, etc. When he didn't get the reaction he wanted, he then complained that Kramer provided the answer to his questions in the forum, but refused to do so to him in email.

(Which, of course, was not true. There was nothing in the forum post that wasn't both in the emails and available in the agreement that Sean himself had cited during his private emails to JREF.)

He then claimed that his confusion was that he (Sean) thought the bonds were the prize. (So why didn't he simply ask the question "Are the bonds the prize, or do you pay out in cash?" instead of asking all sorts of detailed questions about the bonds themselves?)

When a number of posters began to respond to Sean's comments by asking about what his claim is, he provided completely evasive answers - just as he did to Randi and Kramer.

Keri then did a wonderful job of explaining to Sean how the financial aspect of using bonds as liquid assets normally works. Sean thanked her, but also responded by saying he still doubted the existence of the funds. (There's a big "Aha!" right here in my opinion.)

Keri posted a link to JREF's 990 from 2003. Sean ignored that post (in fact, he never posted here again) and sent Kramer a private email accusing him of evading Sean's questions. Kramer posted that email in this thread.

Sean then sent Kramer this (apparently) final email:

quote:
From Sean (peebrain) to Kramer
Dear Kramer,

I was unaware that you were posting messages. I do not wish to pursue this matter further.

Incidentally,after looking around your site, I find your work very interesting, and I wish you luck with refuting claims that are not valid. A great deal of progress that has been made in our world has been made from people such as yourself who have said "No. That is not true. That is absurd." There are certainly a lot of off the wall things being said on your website.

Would you kindly take my messages off of the internet? I thought that the messages were going to be kept private. I see that you are very tough with people who cannot back up their claims, and I respect you for it. The world needs someone like you bury kooky ideas and claims.

Please e-mail me to confirm that you have taken the messages off.

Good luck in your endeavors to refute the absurd!

-Sean



If I've misrepresented the intent of Sean's posts or emails, please correct me.

When you look at all of this in context, Sean wasted Randi's time; Kramer's time; ignored all the information he was given; attacked Kramer and JREF; wasted OUR time in the forums; created an internal furor over JREF and Kramer; outright lied about some things (see above) and apparently never intended to submit a claim! And to create all this confusion, all he did was ask a valid question - then continually refused to accept the responses given.

(Personally, I'm glad this jerk was given short shrift - he deserved it.)

If anything good came out of this, it's that the wording of the prize was made less confusing, and there may be a FAQ made available that will allow Kramer and Randi to simply say "Go and look at this FAQ, then come back if you have any questions."

This, of course, is simply my interpretation of the events... but I thought it would appropriate to provide a summary version of this week-long debacle.

__________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 10:17 AM
jmercer is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jmercer Click here to Send jmercer a Private Message Find more posts by jmercer Add jmercer to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Broward County, FL.
Posts: 506

Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
You can't really care that little about how the general populace views the skeptical community, can you?


I care so much it's killing me. Believe me.

I placate myself with the personal conviction that within that general populace you refer to are those who CAN be swayed, and those who cannot. Those who cannot are already on the sloppy side, and and are more than likely doomed to remain there. Those who CAN, however, will not be swayed toward the sloppy side by something as tertiary as me getting testy with one or two applicants out of 100. If they wish to be selective about what they focus on - meaning the one or two outweighing the 98, in their vision - then those are precisely the people I cannot focus on. Such thinking is most often set in stone, if not reinforced steel.

Please understand that I have no time piece on my desk that rings when it's OK for me to get pissy with an applicant. It happens quite naturally, and always as a result of legal threats.
It's a personality flaw of mine that I am not proud of. Some people go ballistic when they're channel surfing and happen upon Chris Hitchens. Me? I go ballistic when people I'm trying to assist start talking about their "legal counsel". What can I say, other than that I recognize it as indefensible. Understandble? I think so.
Defensible? No, I do not think so, try as I might.

Would it help any if I said that I agree with most of the criticism leveled against me here, and that I will strive harder to be more "polite" with ALL applicants, regardless of their tone and timbre?

This is not unlike turning the other cheek, you know. I just don't have an abundance of cheeks to turn to.

As regards this specific applicant, though, really, Randi told him "I won't go into it any further with you."

If the applicant had any sense of decorum at all, he'd have respected that statement, and simply made his decision about whether or not to apply (if he did indeed have a claim, which I doubt) without harrassing us as he did.

He had the right to inquire. He also had to the right to ignore our insistence that we would not discuss it any further. That, however, does not mean that the JREF had an obligation to continue engaging him in a debate that we did not wish to partake in.

Was my decision on how to deal with this matter to be based upon how the JREF looks to the skeptical community (and those "on the fence"), or was it to be based upon common sense, protocol, and Randi's wishes?

I kind of think that Randi has every right to dictate procedure on such matters, don't you?

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Last edited by KRAMER on 02-09-2005 at 11:43 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 10:36 AM
KRAMER is offline Click Here to See the Profile for KRAMER Click here to Send KRAMER a Private Message Find more posts by KRAMER Add KRAMER to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
webfusion
Thinker

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 236

yep, that just about covers it all

excellent recap, jmercer --- a million words, a million insults hurled, a million bucks waiting to be claimed --- all-in-all this was another perfect thread to show anyone who has any doubts about the pure million $$$ entertainment value of these forums (and the million laughs they generate).


Beleth who is trying to make a F A Q herself actually showed why the F A Q is useless --
"Rough FAQ outline sent. It's just twenty questions so far, with no answers. I'm sure more questions will arise, and the answers will come after that."

ipso facto F ^ < K the FAQ .

Devils Advocate neatly summed up (on Feb 8th) the downside for a set of extra questions and answers, both from a legal standpoint and from a linguistic standpoint as well:

    "...My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules themselves..."

Just as DA said:
The rules are the rules. Period. Simple.

Words to live by ------- "apply or goodbye"
My Way or the Highway...
==============================

(edited to add) : KRAMER, we love you, man!

see ya.....

Last edited by webfusion on 02-09-2005 at 11:07 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 10:55 AM
webfusion is offline Click Here to See the Profile for webfusion Click here to Send webfusion a Private Message Visit webfusion's homepage! Find more posts by webfusion Add webfusion to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
alfaniner
Muse

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 824

Re: GREAT!

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
A FAQ is a great idea. You go ahead and do that, and I will submit it to Randi and try to convince him that it would do some good to post it alongside the Challenge application.


I am absolutely sure I suggested a FAQ for the challenge a year or two ago. Unfortunately, "FAQ" is under the minimum search requirements for number of letters, so I can't find it. Or else it was eaten by the reorganization of the Forum...

Beleth, perhaps you should start a thread asking for FAQ submissions. I'm sure more bodies could come up with a lot that you don't happen to think of.

__________________
Praying for people and leaving things up to God is exactly the same as doing nothing.

If the Universe was designed, why is it necessary that there was only one designer?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:19 AM
alfaniner is offline Click Here to See the Profile for alfaniner Click here to Send alfaniner a Private Message Find more posts by alfaniner Add alfaniner to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Phil
Master Satirist

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 2509

Posted by Phil:
Several posts in this thread have been reported, and I have removed some of the reported material. If you are goading another member in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame, especially if your inside jokes are not consistent with the topic of the thread. Please be civil, and keep the language within the guidelines of the Membership Agreement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:21 AM
Phil is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Phil Click here to Send Phil a Private Message Find more posts by Phil Add Phil to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Suezoled
Illuminator

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: New York, upstate
Posts: 3777

quote:
Originally posted by Phil
Posted by Phil:
Several posts in this thread have been reported, and I have removed some of the reported material. If you are goading another member in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame, especially if your inside jokes are not consistent with the topic of the thread. Please be civil, and keep the language within the guidelines of the Membership Agreement.




Oh for the love of.....!

"There are millions of Africans starving right now. You don't even ****ing care. You're more offended I sad ****ing, than you are about the starving people."

__________________
"We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." -priest guy from Boondock Saints

Homeopathy= Anything described as "homeopathic" that is given to a patient before a medical improvement -Badly Shaved Monkey

Well, I know if I were an undead, immortal lord of the night Domino's Pizza is where I would work- Craig the Rampant Scottsman. Rar!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:31 AM
Suezoled is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Suezoled Click here to Send Suezoled a Private Message Find more posts by Suezoled Add Suezoled to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
athon
Graduate Poster

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: agar plate no. 9
Posts: 1427

I guess it comes down to a simple disagreement, once again. Personally if it is a making basic choice of using several words on the back of a curt but informative statement to make it more polite, or saying 'Apply or Goodbye', then I feel the former would be my choice.

I say this because in my experience, it is not as cut and dry as having two sides of the fence; the unconvincable whacko's and those who will be eventually pursuaded by good reason. We're all human and can be influenced easily by emotion over reason.

It's all too easy to take the higher ground here and act like we're above people because we have the ability to think critically. Not everybody has that ability, and not because they are stupid or angry or retarded or even insane. Basically it's not something people do naturally.

A FAQ could be useful if Kramer feels that some questions are answered over and over again. He could simply refer them to the page and say, 'Please note, you'll find all of the information you need to apply here. I can assist further if you have an application.' If they write further, ignore them. Simpler than getting the blood pressure up, surely.

Ultimately I don't think this is really a massive, significant issue, and is not really a big criticism meant to change the way anybody goes about their business. But I do fear that a hard-a*sed attitude of 'My way or the Highway' does nobody any favours. And makes us sound like a mob of stuck-up twats.

Athon

__________________
"There is a mask of theory over the face of nature." William Whewell

"Fact I know; and Law I know; but what is this Neccessity, save an empty shadow of my own mind's throwing?" - T.H. Huxley, 'On the Basis of Physical Life', (1870)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:36 AM
athon is offline Click Here to See the Profile for athon Click here to Send athon a Private Message Find more posts by athon Add athon to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: beyond redemption
Posts: 4633

Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER

[...]

As regards this specific applicant, though, really, Randi told him "I won't go into it any further with you."

[...]

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a boilerplate e-mail basically saying "We have nothing further to talk about." in a polite, friendly way, that you can keep sending to pesky people who continue harassing you. They should get the idea after having received it two or three times ...

__________________

Naturalhealth: Helios are one of the largest homeopathic pharmacies in England. They have their reputation to consider, so it is just not worth their while doing anything that would destroy that. Rest assured, all their remedies are exactly what they say they are. There are also ways of testing the remedies too, so that you could distinguish them from just pure tap water.
QAman: How can this be done? I presume you mean testing of the lower dilution remedies?
Naturalhealth: No. This can be done for all remedies.

__________________

Luciana is perhaps one of the sweetest people I've ever met. I will stand behind her till I drop dead. If you want to **** with her, you better understand you have to go through me first -- MoeFaux

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:44 AM
exarch is offline Click Here to See the Profile for exarch Click here to Send exarch a Private Message Find more posts by exarch Add exarch to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CptColumbo
Thinker

Registered: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 166

quote:
Originally posted by Suezoled
Oh for the love of.....!

"There are millions of Africans starving right now. You don't even ****ing care. You're more offended I sad ****ing, than you are about the starving people."



What does that have to do with the subject being discussed. There are thousands of paraplegics in the world that aren't being discussed. There are millions who have cancer, there are millions who can't read, there are millions who have no shoes, there are millions who thought Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of the Clones was a great movie, and millions of DUI accidents a week. If you care about any of those subjects, I'm sure there is a forum for you. Otherwise, if you wish to continue to write on this forum there are rules. You just have to be more creative with your use of colorful metaphors.

__________________
I don't believe God put me on this planet to watch TV and write messages on forums, he put me here to collect specimens and return them to my alien masters on the planet Zarbooglie. --Mark Bailey

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 11:49 AM
CptColumbo is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CptColumbo Click here to Send CptColumbo a Private Message Find more posts by CptColumbo Add CptColumbo to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Broward County, FL.
Posts: 506

OK OK OK

OK, I'm not posting any more correspondences with people who haven't officially applied yet. When I thought of doing so, I puffed up like a rooster with pride, and thought myself a brilliant forum innovator. Every forum member a fly-on-the-wall. Genius. Duh.

I was wrong.

These people are NOT applicants. They're something else. I used to call them "potential applicants", but now, after almost a year here at JREF, I know they're not even that, as each and every one of them declined to actually apply. Their motives shouldn't interest me, although I have expressed great curiosity over such notions here in the forum. Such curiosity is best kept close to my breast, I now believe. It's just not productive.

I suppose that calling them "inquirers" is the best thing to do, but most who inquire in the same fashion as the man who sparked this controversy have secret motives that we can only surmise about. Without even the slightest inkling of what their claim might be, we are left to wonder.

I've accomplished what I wanted to by offering a glimpse into the daily influx of doggy doo that rolls my way. I've stated those goals here previously, so I won't re-state them.

It seems a judgement has been handed down that suggests that this is how the JREF deals with Challenge applicants, and I believe that this is quite unwarranted. Many simply will not submit an application, and I can see them coming very clearly... "Clear as an azure sky of deepest summer, Alec, my boy."

Randi doesn't want potential applicants spoonfed. I agree with him. Every possible question is answered in the Challenge rules, if one is capable of - or willing to - understand them. Hence, the proposed FAQ has been deemed unnecessary, as it merely re-words answers to questions that need not be asked, IF one has carefully read the Challenge rules. Perhaps those unable to understand the rules, as concise as they are, should not apply.

Yes - perhaps understanding the rules is a prerequisite for applying.

So, I'm quite through with this thread, and through with posting inquiries and exchanges I share with potential applicants.
Not that I am frustrated, or saying "I'm done with this" in any way. Hardly.

I'm simply stating that my goal in submitting these posts has been acheived in spades, sparked the debate I knew it might, and reached a kind of closure that many here might consider adequate. Anyone who disagrees can certainly feel free to carry on.

I humbly thank all of you who think I'm doing my best, and I also thank all those who offered sincere criticisms, which have inspired considerable examination and self-reflection. I am enriched as a result, and have nothing but gratitude for all who chose to take part in this thread, which I consider to be one of the most thought-provoking debates to date in the Challenge section of the forum.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 01:55 PM
KRAMER is offline Click Here to See the Profile for KRAMER Click here to Send KRAMER a Private Message Find more posts by KRAMER Add KRAMER to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
specious_reasons
Muse

Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 789

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
And guess what? Of the 100 or so potential applicants who requested them since I've been here, not one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON who received the Goldman Sachs letter, then sent in an application. A paltry few summoned the fortitude to send me emails stating that they STILL don't believe the money exists, but by and large, once we send the confrimation letters, we never hear a peep from them again.

Now THINK: What does this tell us




There was somethign that bothered me about this attitude, and I realized just recently what it was.

When my mother looks into buying a computer, which she does every once in a while, she often has me look over the specifications of something that was purported to be a good deal. She's also asks me to look up what is available and for what prices, based on what I thought she needed.

When my father-in-law died, my wife had me do his taxes for the next 2 years (until his estate was closed), because she neither had the time nor the familiarity with filling out the tax forms.

In other words, I am sometimes asked by people to research information that is within my competency.

The fact that someone inquires about the monetary nature of the JREF $1 Million does not mean that they intend to apply. It may mean that they are researching this for someone else's benefit.

Considering that major "psychics" like Sylvia and Alison DuBois contest the reality of the million (regardless of the facts), some unknown person, aware that there might be a controversy over the existence of the million, so this person might ask someone competent to do the research.

__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 02:22 PM
specious_reasons is offline Click Here to See the Profile for specious_reasons Click here to Send specious_reasons a Private Message Find more posts by specious_reasons Add specious_reasons to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Suezoled
Illuminator

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: New York, upstate
Posts: 3777

quote:
Originally posted by CptColumbo
What does that have to do with the subject being discussed. There are thousands of paraplegics in the world that aren't being discussed. There are millions who have cancer, there are millions who can't read, there are millions who have no shoes, there are millions who thought Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of the Clones was a great movie, and millions of DUI accidents a week. If you care about any of those subjects, I'm sure there is a forum for you. Otherwise, if you wish to continue to write on this forum there are rules. You just have to be more creative with your use of colorful metaphors.


Thanks! I wasn't aware that there are other forums. Or rules! Darn it I never knew there were rules! By ED why didn't anyone tell me there were rules?? Oh Admins, Admins... how? Not Kitty, or Darat, or Paul, or Mercutio... not a single one of you told me about rules! It took someone on the OUTSIDE of your admin abilities to tell me about these things!

I need a lawyer... no one told me anything about ...anything! Cuz, you know, the whole potential for misunderstanding is just too great...

__________________
"We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." -priest guy from Boondock Saints

Homeopathy= Anything described as "homeopathic" that is given to a patient before a medical improvement -Badly Shaved Monkey

Well, I know if I were an undead, immortal lord of the night Domino's Pizza is where I would work- Craig the Rampant Scottsman. Rar!

Last edited by Suezoled on 02-09-2005 at 02:29 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 02:27 PM
Suezoled is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Suezoled Click here to Send Suezoled a Private Message Find more posts by Suezoled Add Suezoled to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

Re: Re: Re: You're kidding, right?

Posted by Phil:
Several posts in this exchange have been reported. If this goading is in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame. If not, consider this a warning to be more civil, and to clean up the language.



This is not directed at you, Phil.

This is directed at the "reporter(s)."

Grow up. Grow a sense of humor. Study some Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, David Cross, or Penn and Teller.

AS

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-09-2005 02:56 PM
AmateurScientist is offline Click Here to See the Profile for AmateurScientist Click here to Send AmateurScientist a Private Message Find more posts by AmateurScientist Add AmateurScientist to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 05:40 PM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - James Randi Educational Foundation >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright 2003 James Randi Educational Foundation - All Rights Reserved