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
webfusion
Thinker

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 236

brainiac with an internet connection

quote:
Seriously, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you apologize.

Ugh, I need to go count to ten or something.


Count to a million or something!

I'm not apologizing for anything, not to mr peebrain and not to you. This isn't about me, or what my 'take' on the JREF challenge is ----- this is about one particular case of someone (Sean Connelly) failing miserably to accept the answer given and persisting to annoy. He was and still is full of sh*t -- no less than hundreds of others who beat a path to the Amazing Randi thinking that they are "gonna show him a thing or two"

Well, newsflash, Randi knows it ain't gonna happen! He is 100% confident the money will remain forever in that bank vault and KRAMER is going to continue to post stuff that offers the optimum amount of smiles!

Serious pursuit of the paranormal?
Yeah, like the Yellow Bamboo.
Or TC Albin.

Give me a break. Get serious yourself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 09:58 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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

Rebecca, Shera, Beleth - I think you need to consider this from a somewhat different perspective. So far, you've only looked at it from Sean's point of view. Let's take a look at it from JREF's perspective, shall we?

The money is a matter of public record and has been recorded in legal instruments with the IRS. The contract is a legal instrument that requires unconditional disbursement of one million dollars (less $10,000) to a winner of the challenge. These are facts that have been in the public domain for years, and setting this up was a non-trivial effort on Randi's and JREF's part.

JREF has been falsely accused multiple times by high-profile so-called psychics of not having the funds for the prize. This is their excuse for not taking up JREF's challenge. Much effort has been put into debunking those false claims, which were essentially attacks on Randi and JREF's reputations.

Given this, it's hardly unreasonable for Randi and Kramer to react strongly when some unknown person contacts them with an apparent first priority of getting financial details about the funds that are both irrelevant and private to the organization.

Could Kramer have been more polite? Certainly. Was Sean entitled to a polite response? Perhaps... but the answer would still have boiled down to "None of your business."

Now ask yourselves this question - Did Sean have any valid business justification for his questions about the funds?

Absolutely not. He hadn't even submitted a claim, and so wasn't even in the process of conducting business with JREF in any way. He simply sent them an email asking for detailed financial information about the million that he has no right to have or demand.

If Sean believes the JREF prize offer is fraudulent, all he needs to do is file a complaint with the appropriate government agency. They'll do the investigation if it's warranted, and they'll determine if the funds exist or not. Contacting JREF and trying to solicit private financial information for no apparent justifiable reason is utterly inappropriate.

__________________
"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

Old Post 02-08-2005 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
Lisa Simpson
Graduate Poster

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Irk
Posts: 1529

I completely agree with you, jmercer. Sean got a copy of the financial statement. That is all the JREF has to do. If he thinks it's a scam, that is his problem, not Kramer's or Randi's.

__________________
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

Old Post 02-08-2005 10:26 AM
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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

Re: brainiac with an internet connection

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion
Count to a million or something!



Zing!

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion

I'm not apologizing for anything, not to mr peebrain and not to you.



I recommended you apologize for yourself, not for Sean and not for me. I don't require an apology. You make me sad, but the only person you've really managed to insult is yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion
This isn't about me, or what my 'take' on the JREF challenge is ----- this is about one particular case of someone (Sean Connelly) failing miserably to accept the answer given and persisting to annoy. He was and still is full of sh*t -- no less than hundreds of others who beat a path to the Amazing Randi thinking that they are "gonna show him a thing or two"



Actually, this is about you. This is about you being rude and it's about me being unable to condone your behavior by remaining silent.

Also, I see nothing Sean's behavior that suggests he is "gonna show [Randi] a thing or two." Perhaps I missed it, so could you please just copy and paste the relevant text for me? Thanks.

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion
Well, newsflash, Randi knows it ain't gonna happen! He is 100% confident the money will remain forever in that bank vault and KRAMER is going to continue to post stuff that offers the optimum amount of smiles!



The following quote comes from this URL: http://www.ghostvillage.com/legends/2003/legends21_06282003.shtml

quote:

I asked Randi for his definitions of "skeptic" and "debunker." Randi said of the skeptic, "Someone who doubts in absence of evidence. A debunker is someone who goes into a situation with the attitude that 'This isn't so, and I'm going to prove it to be not so.' That's why I don't accept the term 'debunker' to define myself."



Randi admits to being prejudiced against the claimants, of being confidant that his money is safe, but he understands that the work he does requires that he overcomes that prejudice in order to accurately apply the scientific method to these claims.

quote:
Originally posted by webfusion
Serious pursuit of the paranormal?
Yeah, like the Yellow Bamboo.
Or TC Albin.

Give me a break. Get serious yourself.



Ouch! I am left quivering and defenseless in the face of your clear, concise, and logical argument.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 10:35 AM
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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer
These are facts that have been in the public domain for years, and setting this up was a non-trivial effort on Randi's and JREF's part.



Of course. But does that mean that a person can't ask for a bit of clarification? The bond thing would confuse me, too. If I were going to put forth the time and effort to apply, I would want to make damn sure that I was applying for a million dollars cash, as opposed to bonds. Fine print can be very tricky. A polite letter to the organization is perfectly reasonable. You would rather this:

quote:

If Sean believes the JREF prize offer is fraudulent, all he needs to do is file a complaint with the appropriate government agency. They'll do the investigation if it's warranted, and they'll determine if the funds exist or not. Contacting JREF and trying to solicit private financial information for no apparent justifiable reason is utterly inappropriate.



That's just silly. If I'm entering a sweepstakes for a million dollars and I have a few questions about how the prize money is rewarded, I'm not going to start a federal investigation without first contacting the company.

quote:

JREF has been falsely accused multiple times by high-profile so-called psychics of not having the funds for the prize. This is their excuse for not taking up JREF's challenge. Much effort has been put into debunking those false claims, which were essentially attacks on Randi and JREF's reputations.



This was not an attack, this was a polite request for clairification.

quote:

Given this, it's hardly unreasonable for Randi and Kramer to react strongly when some unknown person contacts them with an apparent first priority of getting financial details about the funds that are both irrelevant and private to the organization.



We disagree. I do believe it's unreasonable for an organization to respond in that manner.

quote:

Could Kramer have been more polite? Certainly. Was Sean entitled to a polite response? Perhaps... but the answer would still have boiled down to "None of your business."

Now ask yourselves this question - Did Sean have any valid business justification for his questions about the funds?



Um. Yes?

quote:

Absolutely not. He hadn't even submitted a claim, and so wasn't even in the process of conducting business with JREF in any way. He simply sent them an email asking for detailed financial information about the million that he has no right to have or demand.



Oh. We disagree again -- I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 10:44 AM
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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer
Rebecca, Shera, Beleth - I think you need to consider this from a somewhat different perspective. So far, you've only looked at it from Sean's point of view. Let's take a look at it from JREF's perspective, shall we?



Also, please don't assume the perspective from which I'm viewing things. I understand the types of people the JREF deals with. I also understand that Sean may turn out to be a troublemaker who has no desire to take the challenge. I still believe that he made a reasonable request and he deserves a polite response.

I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, and with many of the people we deal with here, it's all too easy.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 10:50 AM
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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Also, please don't assume the perspective from which I'm viewing things. I understand the types of people the JREF deals with. I also understand that Sean may turn out to be a troublemaker who has no desire to take the challenge. I still believe that he made a reasonable request and he deserves a polite response.

I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, and with many of the people we deal with here, it's all too easy.



Hmm... my apology. It was inappropriate to assume that you hadn't considered it from JREF's perspective.

__________________
"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

Old Post 02-08-2005 11:01 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
athon
Graduate Poster

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

I was initially a little embarrassed to disagree with some of the comments made so far. I feel that we sometimes forget that we're a skeptic organisation and subsequently feel our role is to debunk claims.

For whatever reason, I see Sean's point of asking. Arguably he went about it the wrong way (though I don't think so), but I do feel that Randi could have simply said 'the bonds will be converted immediately and the $1,000,000 is guarenteed, hence the nature of the bonds is irrelevant'. As much as Randi is a hero of mine, and I do understand where his brusque nature might come from, I feel that some of the responses are unnecessarily antagonistic.

So what if he is or is not wanting to take the challenge? I agree that the forms of the bonds are irrelevant, but only when you take into account the fact that it is not up to the successful applicant to change them into a form they can use. As it's been pointed out, the information initially comes across as if the prize is in the form of bonds, not cash. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would think it is perfectly reasonable to question the nature of the prize.

The goal of the JREF as I see it is not to destroy woo-woo's all over the world, but to encourage people to consider a methodology by which we can explore paranormal claims. We encourage people to ask questions when something seems odd. Does that mean encourage people...unless it has something to do with us?

It must indeed be frustrating dealing with some people who lack communication skills, or simply have a loose grasp of reality (tell me about it! I'm a teacher!). But as Shermer said at TAM3, a smile and being polite is often the best way of dealing with people who wish to attack what you stand for.

I'm glad I've been reminded that agreeing with a cause does not immediately mean I have to agree with others who also agree with that same cause.

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)

Last edited by athon on 02-08-2005 at 11:21 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 11:17 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

If it's Tuesday, this must be The JREF

Mr. Moneybags has been busy all weekend sending more email complaints. My lack of response does not seem to have any effect upon him.

=============================================

Hello,
You have completely sidestepped my valid questions and points. Where on your website does it say that only people with intention to apply are allowed to ask questions about the Challenge? You are right, in a sense: if the bonds are worthless, and the Challenge is unfair, then I have no intention of applying.

My intentions of applying do not relate to the validity of the
questions I have asked. Do my questions not make sense? Is my line of reasoning illogical? The burden of proof lies on the claimant - YOU CLAIM to offer $1million dollars. So PROVE it.

- Sean Connelly


=============================================

Whatever.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 11:53 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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

I do wish this forum provided automatically nested quotes... I'm sorry, I wish I had the time to cut & paste things so everything was in context. However, I don't right now, so please bear with me.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Of course. But does that mean that a person can't ask for a bit of clarification? The bond thing would confuse me, too. If I were going to put forth the time and effort to apply, I would want to make damn sure that I was applying for a million dollars cash, as opposed to bonds. Fine print can be very tricky. A polite letter to the organization is perfectly reasonable. You would rather this:



The time, effort and cost for applying is minimal at worst. I've recently had to fill out more complex documents that were subsequently notarized. The cost to me was 50 cents for the notarization, and 3 dollars to mail the document by registered mail so I knew it arrived and was accepted. That and my time, of course.

Asking for clarification isn't offensive, but that doesn't mean the person asking is entitled to receive that information, no matter how many times they ask or how badly they want it. Repeated requests for information once you've been told "no" is somewhat offensive, though. (Perhaps not enough to deserve an angry response... on the other hand, I'm not hammered by kooks about stuff on a daily basis, either.)

What bonds the organization has bought, the interest rates, maturity dates, etc., are no one's business but JREF's. If JREF (or an anonymous donator) derives an income from interest earned on a million bucks sitting in an account, that's their business. If the bonds are government bonds, ditto. All an applicant needs to know is that a million dollars is guaranteed to be paid to them if they win, and that affirmation is already in the public domain.

I should also point out that by his own admission elsewhere in this thread, Sean's main motivation was in questioning the existence of the funds, which - at least to me - indicates a suspicion of fraud.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
That's just silly. If I'm entering a sweepstakes for a million dollars and I have a few questions about how the prize money is rewarded, I'm not going to start a federal investigation without first contacting the company.



Of course not, and neither would I. But I must point out that like JREF, a sweepstakes organization is under no obligation to disclose anything more than what is required by law to anyone. If the potential gambler doesn't like that, they're free to not participate. He who has the money has the right to make the rules for giving it away - including non-disclosure of the use of the funds in the interim.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
This was not an attack, this was a polite request for clairification.

We disagree. I do believe it's unreasonable for an organization to respond in that manner.

Oh. We disagree again -- I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.



I don't believe I suggested that Sean's emails were an attack. I merely pointed out that Kramer and Randi have had to deal with such attacks for years, and are probably highly sensitive to any such queries. It's understandable that they would have a strong reaction to them. And I'm certainly not going to debate about "politeness" requirements for Kramer and JREF.

Consider this, however:

Sean was given his reply (shown at the top of this thread) by Randi in a short and succinct email before he started posting in this forum - "Immediately convertible into money." Please explain to me the justification for pursing the issue further after being told that the bonds are liquid by the founder of the organization? (Unless fraud is suspected. In which case, call the cops, like I said.)

The contract clearly states in plain english that the winner is going to receive a million dollars within 10 days after winning. Not a million dollars in bonds - a million dollars.

After all of this, what right does Sean have to insist on further information about the financial details of the organization?

Also, given his most recent email to JREF (above), and considering all the information in this thread... your willingness to give Sean some more rope seems to be very justified.

(edited to remove redundant comment)

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

Last edited by jmercer on 02-08-2005 at 12:06 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-08-2005 12:00 PM
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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

quote:
Originally posted by athon
For whatever reason, I see Sean's point of asking. Arguably he went about it the wrong way (though I don't think so), but I do feel that Randi could have simply said 'the bonds will be converted immediately and the $1,000,000 is guarenteed, hence the nature of the bonds is irrelevant'.



He did - he sent a short reply that stated "Immediately convertible into money.". Pretty cut and dried statement from my perspective, although - as you noted - a bit brusque.

__________________
"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

Old Post 02-08-2005 12:03 PM
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
athon
Graduate Poster

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

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer
He did - he sent a short reply that stated "Immediately convertible into money.". Pretty cut and dried statement from my perspective, although - as you noted - a bit brusque.


Ok, but this would confuse me as well, and in reference to the original query regarding the award of bonds, it doesn't really tell me anything. I would already assume that if you were given bonds they would be immediately convertible. But Randi's reply still implies that you could be given bonds and not cash.

Imagine I was giving a $1 million prize which I advertised as keeping in a vault as gold bullion. If somebody's fear was that this gold could drop suddenly in value, they might have a cause for concern if they were a successful applicant and that day saw a crash in the price of gold. Now, we know that is not the case here as the Foundation is giving a cash prize of $1,000,000, and not the equivalent in gold or bonds. But where's the hassle in asking if this is the case?

I handle stupid questions every day, where I have to repeat the same answer or request twenty times. Is it frustrating? Hell yes. Do I ever lose my cool? Sometimes, sure. So I'm not having a go at either Kramer or Randi; I understand the frustration. But I also don't think I've ever been right in responding to ignorant kids in the way I did; it did nothing to serve my purpose.

Neither Randi nor Kramer are teachers and as such don't have an obligation to teaching people through role modelling behaviour, hence are within their rights to respond to inquiries as they see fit. But, IMHO, I also think situations like these are best handled with a clear, polite, if brief, answer that does not make the inquirer feel like they are imposing.

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 02-08-2005 12:51 PM
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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

Athon's response covers most of my own reply, concerning why it is within Sean's right to ask about the bonds. I'll just add the following:

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer
I should also point out that by his own admission elsewhere in this thread, Sean's main motivation was in questioning the existence of the funds, which - at least to me - indicates a suspicion of fraud.



Of course, his motivation is irrelevant, and guessing at it in order to justify a rude response is a bit pointless.

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer

Of course not, and neither would I. But I must point out that like JREF, a sweepstakes organization is under no obligation to disclose anything more than what is required by law to anyone. If the potential gambler doesn't like that, they're free to not participate. He who has the money has the right to make the rules for giving it away - including non-disclosure of the use of the funds in the interim.



And this is the crux of the problem. JREF does not need to reveal any information concerning the prize. However, there is no reason to hide the answer to Sean's questions. Giving him a brusque answer can only raise the suspicions of an already suspicious crowd. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather give off an air of openness, friendliness, and professionalism. Let's not give frauds more ammo to use against us.

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer

Also, given his most recent email to JREF (above), and considering all the information in this thread... your willingness to give Sean some more rope seems to be very justified.



Indeed.

I'd also like to mention that as opposed to Athon, I do think that Randi and Kramer have an obligation to be professional and patient. It is an obligation to the skeptical community that they represent. After all, they are our public figures, the ones who are at the forefront of the fight for rationality, and as such I believe they have the onus of always watching their step. No one is perfect, but mistakes like this hurt us all.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 01:08 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shera
"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account."

[Note: As of February 6th, that sentence was no longer on that web page. Apparently someone else also agreed it was confusing.


Yes. That was me. Let's hope it reduces the confusion about the prize funds, or (at least) minimizes the excuses some people will use for NOT APPLYING.

The application, once signed, is a contract. Period.

That's all any reasonable person needs to know. We refuse to coddle inquirers.

Actual applicants with fair questions? Sure.

Inquirers who repeat the same questions again and again while refusing to accept the words, "We will not answer any more of your questions about the prize fund"?

Hell no. We know where it leads; NOWHERE.

APPLY OR DON'T APPLY is exactly what we mean, so that's exactly what we say. No sincere applicant would be bothered by it. In fact, if I myself were considering submitting an application, I'd hear those words as A CHALLENGE, and that's exactly what this is: A Challenge.

I'd rise to it, too (if I sincerely wanted to make a paranormal claim, that is).

We challenge you. Apply, or don't. People who make Peabrain accusations about the prize funds never apply. They just waste our time. This is always the case. Not just most of the time, but ALWAYS.

I deal with a few applicants (sometimes not even one per week), and TONS of email inquiries that never ever ever result in a formal application. Randi pays me to deal with The Paranormal Challenge and its' applicants. I won't waste JREF funds by spending inordinate hours exchanging emails with flakes who (experience tells me) will never apply. My history here re-confirms this over and over and over again, until I'm blue in the face. The air is stifling enough around my desk. I don't need more smoke added to it. I'm not an idiot. Once I start to choke, I get up and walk away.

Do you folks really think I've posted every such inquiry here? I've received hundreds of them, if not thousands, and I've only posted a small few here on the forum, so that anyone who so desires might peek into the true nature of a fair sampling of our overall correspondence. A fly-on-the-wall perspective, if you will, which I for one would gather great insight from. It is to this end that I include all emails, warts intact - even the ones in which I lose my composure and withdraw any respect initially offered (as is JREF protocol) to the inquirer.

Every inquirer deserves respect, right up until the moment he starts tossing accusations around or (for some other reason) causes it to be rescinded, and PeaBrain has arrived at that place in flying colors. Accusations about the validity of the Challenge don't wash very well here.

Randi's ideal was to post the Challenge applications and data about actual tests (which are few and far between). My ideal goes a little bit further. I'm not satisfied to simply give you data and statistics. I also want you to have an opportunity to gleam a more human, emotional sense of what goes on here. Like a good documentary, I want you to come away from the forum with feelings and a sense of experience, as well as the all-vital data.

I want you all more involved.

I've wasted more than enough time on this one. If Peabrain cannot comprehend what has been explained to him by both myself and by the forum members in this thread, it is most likely due to one of the following three things:

A- He doesn't WANT to comprehend...
B- He is not CAPABLE of comprehending...
C- He has NO CLAIM.

I vote "C".

And, despite the direct question being put to him so often here, he will not reveal his claim. Isn't that curious.

Perhaps he has yet to dream one up. Or perhaps he won't apply until his patent comes through. Or perhaps the JREF isn't worthy of being chosen by him to reveal his great powers to the world at large. What next? The money is "tainted"? Been there, heard that.

It's an old, old song. I know it well enough by now to have no further need of repeated listening. It's in my head, forever. I can whistle it in my sleep.

Whatever the reasons for Peabrain's refusal to divulge his lofty claim, this has been a complete waste of my time, right from the start, and it continues to be so. It's sole value lies in what forum members are learning about some applicants, their possible motives, their excuses for not applying, and their Peabrain antics.

I say what I think, and I make no apologies for that.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Last edited by KRAMER on 02-08-2005 at 02:33 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 01:17 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

quote:
Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
So it begins to look like the woos a right and the challenge is a sham or trick.


Gee. Really? Well, I have a simple solution for the Woo Woo Clan:

Chose one amongst yourselves (one of the millions, that is) who can most easily provide PROOF of your paranormal ability,
DEMONSTRATE that proof, and see what happens. Go ahead. Submit a claim, PROVE it, and find out for yourselves once and for all if the JREF Challenge is a "sham". Idiots. Contractual law is not difficult to understand, and this is Contractual Law 101 -

WHAT IS A CONTRACT? Please don't take our word for it.
Google it. Ask a lawyer. Ask any bonehead in law school.

Is the JREF Challenge a sham? Show us that you can actually DO what you CLAIM to be able to do, and let's find out. Right now.

Funny that in 20 years, no one has seen fit to do that.

It really is as simple as "COME AND GET IT!"

I wonder why no one has. Gee whiz. Duh. Doy doy. Doy doy.

Don't ask me. I only work here.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 01:29 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
MRC_Hans
Illuminator

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: 55 47.62N 12 30.34E
Posts: 4427

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

__________________
Physics gets you every time. -SkepticJ

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 01:42 PM
MRC_Hans is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MRC_Hans Click here to Send MRC_Hans a Private Message Visit MRC_Hans's homepage! Find more posts by MRC_Hans Add MRC_Hans to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

WRONG !!!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
...we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right?


WRONG. Where did you read that? If you actually heard that from someone, you were most sadly misinformed.

I will quote Randi verbatim on this:

"Both myself and the JREF have no objective other than to determine the TRUTH."

Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once. We're not parrots. Enough was enough.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 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
Orangutan
Scholar

Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 54

KRAMER, being a relative newbie here I hope you don't mind my 2 cents....

Email is too easy. The crackpots will continually harass you while it takes no effort on thier part.

Somebody mentioned earlier that you could provide a:

"...copy of a statement from the independant financial institution holding the fund.."

So, request that anyone wanting this information send >you< a stamped-addressed envelope so you can send them a copy of the statement.

This requires some effort and at least 2 first class stamps. And while the effort is also increased on your part, you need to make photocopies. That should cut down the number of enquiries you get.

O.

Edits for spelling.

Last edited by Orangutan on 02-08-2005 at 04:09 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 02:20 PM
Orangutan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Orangutan Click here to Send Orangutan a Private Message Find more posts by Orangutan Add Orangutan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.


Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?

To my knowledge, sending a falsified letter would not only open the JREF to immediate closure by the IRS and the Feds, but would also make Randi himself (or whomever was directly responsible for having falsified the letter, and then mailed it - which is called MAIL FRAUD) personally liable and a good candidate for incarceration.

Peabrain received our respect and courtesy right up until he made it clear that said verification just wasn't good enough for him. Had he deigned to share his claim with us, or, dare I say it, submit an application, things would not have ended as they did.

And he can [I]still[/I submit an application. Anyone can. That would change everything.

But will he?

Nah.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 02:21 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Let's not give frauds more ammo against us.


I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.

The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense. This isn't about defense.

It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 02:32 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
Lisa Simpson
Graduate Poster

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Irk
Posts: 1529

Re: WRONG !!!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once.


I just don't get a lot of this thread. Peebrain was sent the letter from Goldman Sachs. Is it the JREF's problem that he either can't understand it or he thinks there is some vast conspiracy between the JREF and Goldman Sachs?

BTW, Kramer, it's peebrain. Peabrain implies a brain the size of a pea. Peebrain implies...well, a brain made of...you know.

__________________
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 02:53 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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

Re: WRONG !!!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
WRONG. Where did you read that? If you actually heard that from someone, you were most sadly misinformed.

I will quote Randi verbatim on this:

"Both myself and the JREF have no objective other than to determine the TRUTH."

Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once. We're not parrots. Enough was enough.



Maybe I was unclear . . . I was referring to the fact that as an organization dedicated to skeptical thought, the JREF is in search of evidence for paranormal claims and is not in the business of "debunking." As to where I read that, well, I read that all the time from Randi. You'll get no objection from me that the JREF is concerned with determining the truth.

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?



Well, I guess I was conveniently excluding that data because you never mentioned it. He had a question about the bonds, and the response was neither clear nor polite.

quote:

Peabrain received our respect and courtesy right up until he made it clear that said verification just wasn't good enough for him. Had he deigned to share his claim with us, or, dare I say it, submit an application, things would not have ended as they did.



I didn't read that the verification wasn't good enough. I read that he had a clarifying question about it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 02:54 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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Athon's response covers most of my own reply, concerning why it is within Sean's right to ask about the bonds. I'll just add the following:

Of course, his motivation is irrelevant, and guessing at it in order to justify a rude response is a bit pointless.



Rebecca, I've enjoyed your posts and I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point of view. I also respect what your saying. However, please don't link my post about motivation to your point about rudeness - I'm not trying to either endorse or condemn JREF's response to Sean, and it's a bit unfair of you to try and make it appear that I'm doing so. In context of the discussion, I just feel that it's irrelevant. My point was that Sean's initial motivation was related to a suspicion of deceit on the part of JREF, and that JREF is not required to respond by disclosure of private financial details simply because Sean is suspicious.

Nor am I guessing at Sean's motivation:

quote:
Originally posted by peebrain
I still question the existance of the money, but I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money. It's still possible it's a scam, but it's "unlikely" the scam would include worthless bonds.



Given the above and that his entire premise for starting the emails with JREF concerned the disposition of these funds, I think it's painfully clear that he doubted the existence of the money from the start.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
And this is the crux of the problem. JREF does not need to reveal any information concerning the prize. However, there is no reason to hide the answer to Sean's questions.



There may very well be perfectly valid, reasonable and legal reasons for not disclosing information about these bonds. Perhaps there's a previous agreement with the donor of the money that requires JREF to disclose nothing else about the bonds other than their existence and purpose.

The point is that you are assuming that JREF's refusal to disclose confidential financial details is an arbitrary decision as opposed to a considered policy. As a career businessperson, it seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me to not provide unnecessary information about organizational finances to a stranger upon demand.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
Giving him a brusque answer can only raise the suspicions of an already suspicious crowd. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather give off an air of openness, friendliness, and professionalism. Let's not give frauds more ammo to use against us.



I'm not sure I agree that any "no" response in any format would have satisfied Sean, although I understand your point about presenting a professional image.

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I'd also like to mention that as opposed to Athon, I do think that Randi and Kramer have an obligation to be professional and patient. It is an obligation to the skeptical community that they represent. After all, they are our public figures, the ones who are at the forefront of the fight for rationality, and as such I believe they have the onus of always watching their step. No one is perfect, but mistakes like this hurt us all.


I fully understand your point. I would only say that from the information available on these forums, it appears to me that Randi and Kramer are professional except when provoked.

__________________
"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 02-08-2005 03:01 PM
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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.

The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense. This isn't about defense.

It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.



I think this illustrates the central problem -- you guys aren't marketing people. You can organize these claims and figure out the right way to test them and provide a great learning tool for the public, but you're not a customer service person (nor should you be). I'm wondering if the JREF has ever considered hiring someone to take charge of the PR and really perfect the image that they're exhibiting. I think it could be a much needed aid to getting the message out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 03:06 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
Beleth
Graduate Poster

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

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.

Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud?

You are certainly treating him like you consider him a fraud. For the life of me, I don't know why. All he's doing is asking some basic pre-contractual questions ahead of time before he considers signing it.

quote:
The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense.
A position with no defense is a flimsy position indeed. If you let the attackers roll all over you, or only put up a "how dare you not trust us" defense, you just look bad.

This started out with Sean asking about how the prize will be disbursed, and getting some, frankly, ambiguous answers. The prize is being held in bonds right now, right? Sean understood (incorrectly) that the prize will be disbursed while still in bond form, and so asked questions pertaining to that misunderstanding. The answer he got back - "immediately convertible into money" - doesn't really answer his question, now does it? Immediately convertible by whom into money? In fact, the answer he received is most reasonably interpreted as the opposite of what was intended; that he'll be handed bonds which he can then immediately convert into money himself.

As far as what everyone else has been saying, I agree with rebecca 100%, especially in regards to her responses to jmercer and webfusion.

quote:
It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 03:11 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

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer
Rebecca, I've enjoyed your posts and I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point of view. I also respect what your saying. However, please don't link my post about motivation to your point about rudeness - I'm not trying to either endorse or condemn JREF's response to Sean, and it's a bit unfair of you to try and make it appear that I'm doing so. In context of the discussion, I just feel that it's irrelevant. My point was that Sean's initial motivation was related to a suspicion of deceit on the part of JREF, and that JREF is not required to respond by disclosure of private financial details simply because Sean is suspicious.



I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your argument, and if I did, I apologize. I'm sure you're right, that Sean feels the money may be a scam. However, he asked a valid question.

quote:
Originally posted by jmercer

There may very well be perfectly valid, reasonable and legal reasons for not disclosing information about these bonds. Perhaps there's a previous agreement with the donor of the money that requires JREF to disclose nothing else about the bonds other than their existence and purpose.

The point is that you are assuming that JREF's refusal to disclose confidential financial details is an arbitrary decision as opposed to a considered policy. As a career businessperson, it seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me to not provide unnecessary information about organizational finances to a stranger upon demand.



Okay, I think the problem here is that you are assuming one correct answer to Sean's question, and I'm assuming another. Sean asked a lot of questions about the nature of the bonds because he was under the impression that he would receive those bonds as the prize. I agree that there is no reason for the JREF to reveal financial details about the bonds. The answer that I would have furnished to Sean would be, "The prize money is held in bonds, but we convert them to cash so that if you win, you will definitely receive exactly $1 million cash. Therefore, the nature of the bonds is irrelevant."

As has been suggested by other posters, this is a simple response that can be used as a form letter for the next person to come along with the same question. It saves time and headaches.

Now, that being said, I imagine that Sean would continue to ask questions regarding the existence of the money. I say, keep sending form letters. Yes, eventually his behavior may devolve into simple harassment, at which point JREF ceases contact. But up to that point, no one could claim that they didn't give him all the info he needed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 03:15 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

quote:
Originally posted by Beleth
Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud? You are certainly treating him like you consider him a fraud. For the life of me, I don't know why.


Form your own opinion from Sean's latest email:

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


Gee. I guess we won't be seeing any Challenge application from this guy who made such a big deal out of the million bucks, and how it doesn't exist, or it's in junk bonds, or the prize is a sham.

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

Well, there's nothing like having your ass kissed by someone like Peebrain. I've received a helluva lot of disingenuous emails since my arrival here, but this one beats them all.

Maybe I know just a little bit more about my job than you do, Beleth...just maybe?

Or maybe you'll choose instead to take me to task for not granting his request to remove his emails from the forum. Go ahead.

Only a forum administrator can do that, and I posted THIS last email (I hope it's the last, anyway) in order to bring closure to a most contentious debate, whose bottom line is and has always been, DO YOU HAVE A CLAIM, OR DON'T YOU?"

The answer is now abundantly clear. Total hogwash, from head to toe. A complete waste of time, both yours and mine.

Peebrain is a forum member. He himself can request the removal of this thread. I will post no further emails from him, unless of course they are of a threatening or aggressive nature.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Last edited by KRAMER on 02-08-2005 at 04:01 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 03:53 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
AmateurScientist
JREF Kid

Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1620

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I think this illustrates the central problem -- you guys aren't marketing people. You can organize these claims and figure out the right way to test them and provide a great learning tool for the public, but you're not a customer service person (nor should you be). I'm wondering if the JREF has ever considered hiring someone to take charge of the PR and really perfect the image that they're exhibiting. I think it could be a much needed aid to getting the message out.


KRAMER,

I don't know you from Adam's housecat, and I suspect you don't know me either. Nevertheless, I will chime in too. You, of course, are free to tell me to stuff it.

Rebecca and several others in this thread have offered you some excellent suggestions and constructive criticism. It might be beneficial for you and all the others in this thread simply to step back, take a few deep breaths, and regain your composure about the matters discussed in this thread.

Several persons have expressed concern in this thread about the image that Randi and the JREF put forth to the public at large. That is a valid concern, as the JREF is by definition and according to its stated purposes an educational organization. In order to educate, one must first gain the trust and respect of the persons one hopes to educate.

I admire and respect Randi, and I suspect that I would like him if I met him in person. On the other hand, for what it's worth, my impression is that Randi himself can be a prickly bastard prone to curt retorts. That's okay, and I understand that propensity all too well, as in certain circles I am known as a prickly bastard too. In my profession, I can work that to my advantage. Randi does not enjoy the same luxury. He has assumed the role of an ambassdor of skepticism and critical thinking to the public at large. That role carries with it a great deal of responsibility.

Image is very important in public matters. Diplomacy is a valuable currency in public. It must be exercised even when dealing with crackpots and adversaries. I would argue that its use is required especially when dealing with one's adversaries. Being an adversary is part and parcel of my profession, and my approach has always been to try to disarm my opponents by killing them with kindness. Being polite requires little effort, and never harms the one being polite. Often, it earns rewards. In any event, it costs nothing.

The main advice you have been given here is to try to be more polite. That advice seems to have offended you. That's fine; you're human like the rest of us. It's unfortunate that you seem to have taken it that way, however. I believe it was offered sincerely and with the best of intentions. The posters offering it here are on your side, for goodness' sake. These persons are skeptics, and most of them are Randi fans and supporters of his cause. They want Randi and the JREF to enjoy good reputations within the larger community, not just among fellow skeptics.

My impression is that skeptics in general have a reputation for being dour, unhappy, and maladjusted. If we are to reach other persons with the message that critical thinking is beneficial to everyone in all aspects of life, then we must combat that reputation. Few persons will be receptive to our message if we wrap it in snappy, rude, or brash soundbites. We might as well preach to the choir.

Patience, manners, and diplomacy are the tools with which to deliver the message of the JREF in the most effective manner, in my opinion. I would sincerely hope that JREF and its board members, officers, employees, and other agents would feel the same and use their best efforts to employ those tools as much and as often as is reasonably possible. That means even to those you believe to be crackpots.

AS

Last edited by AmateurScientist on 02-08-2005 at 04:02 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 03:59 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
jmercer
Critical Thinker

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 412

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your argument, and if I did, I apologize. I'm sure you're right, that Sean feels the money may be a scam. However, he asked a valid question.



Thanks - I didn't think you were doing it intentionally, but I needed to make sure we were clear on it. Things have been getting a bit hot in here, and there's too much room for misunderstandings.

__________________
"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 02-08-2005 04:11 PM
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

Offended?

quote:
Originally posted by AmateurScientist
The main advice you have been given here is to try to be more polite. That advice seems to have offended you.


Not at all.

I'm not offended in the slightest. I simply disagree with those who feel that each and every applicant be treated with kid gloves after the point at which my experience tells me that my courtesy is being wasted.

Yes, there has been some excellent advice here, and some of it (like removing the line in the Challenge Application about the "negotiable bonds") has been quickly acted upon. Other such technical advice regarding the Challenge application was not put into action because we deemed it wholly unnecessary. The application makes perfect sense to anyone with a high school education, and the wording was composed by our attorney, who feels that every word is vital to the circumstances. Removing or altering anything more will diffuse its enforceability.

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.

Regardless of our "appearance", the woo woo's go to work on us.
I'm far too busy here to be overly concerned with how we look to the woo woo's. I've got a job to do, and it's not an easy one.

Should the JREF have a PR person who can assist us in such matters? Oh YES, absolutely.

Can we afford one? No. Sorry. If we can hire one more person, it'll be a fundraiser who can help us to move into 2006 without shutting our doors, and not a PR person who will make the woo woo's all touchy feely and happy happy.

We really don't care what they think of us, as they will think what they will, and no PR person can have much affect on that, I promise you.

The Peebrains should go away, as quickly as possible, in my opinion, so that we can spend our limited time working our butts off to help sincere applicants get tested.

No, my friend, you'd need to go miles and miles further to offend me. I regret that the responses I offered gave the appearance that I had been offended, and reading back on them, I can see how they might do just that. But nothing could be further from the truth. Advice is my bread, and criticism is my butter.

Or is it...Criticism is my bread, and advice is my...ah skip it.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 04:20 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
rebecca
Bad Mamma Jamma

Registered: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1022

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Advice is my bread, and criticism is my butter.

Or is it...Criticism is my bread, and advice is my...ah skip it.



Jelly is my . . . favorite . . . thing to put on bread. I'm not good with metaphor.

Anyway.

I'm not sure that this:

quote:

. . . and not a PR person who will make the woo woo's all touchy feely and happy happy.



is what I had in mind. I understand what you're saying about believers never changing their minds. However, they are out there recruiting people who are on the fence about this stuff . . . people who never really considered whether or not it's plausible that someone could bend a spoon with his mind. Those are the people we're losing when someone like Sean posts that e-mail exchange on his site. A PR person would not be concerned with coddling people like Sean. He would be concerned with making sure that the overall image presented by JREF is unimpeachable. Sean will probably always be disappointed, because he is looking for proof that the money is fake. But there are ways to deal with these people that will, like AS posted, increase JREF's standing in the greater community. And I think that's really, really important.

So important, in fact, that I'd be willing to help out pro bono, if I could. I'm in marketing, and I think other people around here are, too. I know there's not a lot that someone can do without being a full-time employee or consultant, but if you can see what I'm saying and you agree that it's important, too, well . . . maybe the people on this forum can work to improve the organization.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 04:38 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
Beleth
Graduate Poster

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

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
quote:
Originally posted by Beleth
Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud?
Form your own opinion from Sean's latest email:
Okay, I admit it, it was a trick question of the False Dilemma kind.

The correct answer was "None of the above - since he hasn't applied, he's not officially an applicant, so we can't tell whether he's a sincere one or not; and since we can't tell whether his claim is fraudulent or not, we can't call him a fraud either."

quote:
Gee. I guess we won't be seeing any Challenge application from this guy who made such a big deal out of the million bucks, and how it doesn't exist, or it's in junk bonds, or the prize is a sham.

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

He expressed concerns. Nothing more. He never implied that the million bucks doesn't exist, or how it's in junk bonds; you inferred that from his questions.

He's dotting his i's and crossing his t's before he enters into a contract worth a million dollars. Is that a difficult action to understand?

quote:
Maybe I know just a little bit more about my job than you do, Beleth...just maybe?
What does any of this have to do with your job? It's not about your job; it's about your demeanor.

quote:
Or maybe you'll choose instead to take me to task for not granting his request to remove his emails from the forum. Go ahead.
Um... no. You will not be bullying me into doing anything, KRAMER.

quote:
I posted THIS last email (I hope it's the last, anyway) in order to bring closure to a most contentious debate, whose bottom line is and has always been, DO YOU HAVE A CLAIM, OR DON'T YOU?"
Actually, the bottom line has always been "In what form is the prize disbursed in?" But if you haven't realized that yet....

quote:
The answer is now abundantly clear... A complete waste of time, both yours and mine.
Only because you and Randi have treated him as such from square 1. Rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 04:46 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
Beleth
Graduate Poster

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

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
But there are ways to deal with these people that will, like AS posted, increase JREF's standing in the greater community. And I think that's really, really important.
Abso-doodly-lutely.

quote:
So important, in fact, that I'd be willing to help out pro bono, if I could. I'm in marketing, and I think other people around here are, too. I know there's not a lot that someone can do without being a full-time employee or consultant, but if you can see what I'm saying and you agree that it's important, too, well . . . maybe the people on this forum can work to improve the organization.
I do a lot of technical writing, and I try to make it as accessible to the average person as possible. While the wording of the Challenge is, as KRAMER mentioned, precisely worded by a lawyer, legalese is commonly understood to be difficult to wade through by the average person.

What I'm getting at is this: The Challenge could benefit greatly by having a FAQ, and I'm willing to write it (pro bono) if you want.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 04:55 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

GREAT!

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.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 05:20 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
Beleth
Graduate Poster

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

Woo hoo! Coolness!

I'll get the outline done and PM it to you by the end of the week.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 05:29 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

You're kidding, right?

quote:
Originally posted by rebecca
However, they are out there recruiting people who are on the fence about this stuff . . . people who never really considered whether or not it's plausible that someone could bend a spoon with his mind. Those are the people we're losing when someone like Sean posts that e-mail exchange on his site.


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?

Really? One more time, just to be sure, please.

Are you saying that someone on the fence will go to the sloppy side because of an email exchange he reads?

Cuz that's what it sounds like you're saying, and you know what?
If that's actually true, let 'em go.

We need more crticial thinkers, not more sloppy thinkers, and anyone who can be convinced about what is plausible and what is not as the result of their assessment of an email exchange, well, that's not someone I'd want on my team.

Some people will play with just about anybody.

We need to strengthen our ranks. We do NOT need to see them thinned to a homeopathic dillution by people so easily swayed.
They wouldn't remain in our camp for long, anyway.

I'd rather just have a 5-man ball club than a 9-man club with 4 blind guys.

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.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 05:31 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
KRAMER
challenge facilitator

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

Careful, now...

quote:
Originally posted by Beleth
...he hasn't applied, he's not officially an applicant, so we can't tell whether he's a sincere one or not..."


You can't, but I can.

He withdrew his interest without ever revealing his claim. Doesn't this tell you anything?

Come on, now. The whole thing may have been a ruse, devised solely to draw the kind of responses he received. I now think that that's a lot more possible than him having been sincere.

The whole thing just stinks, if you ask me. I can smell it. He never had a claim. If he did, give me one good reason for him having refused to divulge it?

Careful. Think hard before you answer. You might be getting ready to step into whatever it is I'm smelling right now.

p.s. I just spoke with Randi and he's very anxious to see the FAQ.
This was a great idea. I wish I'd thought of it.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Last edited by KRAMER on 02-08-2005 at 05:46 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 05:37 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
Beleth
Graduate Poster

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

Re: Careful, now...

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
He withdrew his interest without ever revealing his claim. Doesn't this tell you anything?
I can infer a lot from it, but it doesn't really tell me anything, no.

Here is a true story.

I was at a fast food restaurant. I had just finished eating and had to go to the bathroom. I got up and went to the bathroom door. I turned the handle. It was locked.

A very irritated voice on the other side of the bathroom door yelled "I SAID, IT'S OCCUPIED!"

I was so startled that I didn't know what to do. So I left the restaurant and found another bathroom.

Now, obviously the person in the bathroom mistook me for someone else who had tried the doorknob earlier. There might have been quite a few people before me who had tried the doorknob. I had no way of knowing, and I had no way of knowing that the person in the bathroom was going to be so angry.

What was the person in the bathroom thinking? Probably something along the lines of "Not again! How many times do I have to go through this? Whoever that is on the outside of the door is just trying to annoy me."

Now eventually, that person had to have come out of the bathroom. They didn't see me, or anyone else, standing there waiting to use the bathroom. What are they to think?

The analogous thought to your situation with Sean is "bah, they didn't have to go to the bathroom after all." But is that likely? Is that reasonable?

I would say that it is not the most reasonable conclusion to draw, no. And it is certainly not the truth; let me assure you that I did indeed have to go to the bathroom.


quote:
Come on, now. The whole thing may have been a ruse, devised solely to draw the kind of responses he received. I now think that that's a lot more possible than him having been sincere.
Or maybe he simply had no idea how many people had tried the bathroom doorknob before him.

quote:
The whole thing just stinks, if you ask me. I can smell it. He never had a claim. If he did, give me one good reason for him having refused to divulge it?
I've given you my good reason in a previous post: that he wants to dot his i's and cross his t's before he gets involved in a million-dollar contract.

quote:
Careful. You might be getting ready to step into whatever it is I'm smelling right now.
Must resist temptation to continue the bathroom analogy...

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 06:03 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
exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: beyond redemption
Posts: 4633

Coming into the discussion after most has been said already, but I want to emphasize this bit:

quote:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?

People posting in this thread didn't know this yet, so this was new information. But for me it put Sean's questions in perspective.

At this point I'd take Beleth's tennant/landlord metaphor and transform it into an employee/employer situation. The potential employee has been told that he will be paid X amount of money after completing a month's work. Insisting that the employer provides proof that he can actually pay the wages before even being hired is ... well ... strange. Especially after already having received a letter from the employers bank basically saying there's enough money in the account anyway.

How the employer has his money stored - whether it's stuffed in a pillow case, stored in the basement in the form of Picasso paintings or just a big cardboard check in the back of someone's car - is really not important.
So if the employer tells the employee to sod off after being asked the same stupid question a number of times is, while perhaps being a tad rude, not at all unexpected.
Or as both Kramer and Randi put it: sign the contract and you can see a lot more documentation, until then, who are you to question us like that.


So while I agree with rebecca, and everyone else who raised some questions about how the JREF responds to applicants, I think Kramer has a point too when he doesn't want to drag on an e-mail exchange that he knows will lead nowhere.

I think a FAQ would be a very useful addition, and might reduce the number of stupid questions people ask the JREF, or at least make the response as easy as "Check http://www.randi.org/challenge/FAQ.html for an answer to your question".

__________________

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 02-08-2005 06:58 PM
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
webfusion
Thinker

Registered: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 236

wow -- so much verbiage, so little revealed

quote:
Rebecca and several others in this thread have offered you some excellent suggestions and constructive criticism.


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!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

New Post 02-08-2005 07:04 PM
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
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