KRAMER challenge
facilitator
Registered: Apr 2004 Location: Broward County,
FL. Posts: 531 |
Funny...
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T. Speaking in
general terms, and not specifically to Sean's case, I would
say that if someone is enquiring about the million dollars,
they are demonstrating the very skepticism JREF is trying to
promote.
Agreed, unconditionally.
And we
instantly oblige their requests for supporting data that
confirms the existence of the funds by mailing them the
Goldman Sachs confirmation letter. When the inquirer continues
on into belligerence, however, well, that's not skepticism
anymore. It's something else entirely. Call it what you like.
I have my own term for it, but I'm trying not to be rude from
now on, so I'll refrain from stating it.
The Goldman
Sachs confirmation letter is all any reasonable person should
require in order to confidently submit a Challenge
application. I've reviewed this question extensively as a
direct result of this thread, and I am quite sure that Randi
is right; there is no need to spoonfeed anyone on clarifying
what is clear and concise in the Challenge rules. If an
inquirer cannot understand them, they should certainly ask for
help, but not from the JREF. We've done our job in this regard
by putting the effort we did into the compostion of the
Challenge application and rules, and I assure you it was not
composed overnight, or scribbled on the back of a drink
coaster during Happy Hour at Flannigan's.
There's
something that's really been nagging at me since this debate
became heated. I'd like to share it now with you all...
It's curious to me how some of us here share such
dissimilar definitions for the word Skepticism. Isn't
Skepticism supposed to be conducted within the bounds of
REASON? Isn't that part of the very definition of the word? I
mean, a rose is a rose is a rose, right? How much inquiry is
really needed to confirm that?
As an example...if I'm
skeptical that an orange is really an orange, shouldn't it be
sufficient to peel the skin and take a bite?
Isn't
sending it to the lab for molecular analysis going just a tad
too far? And wouldn't that be a clear sign to any observer
that something is definitely amiss in how I manifest my
skepticism? Conversely, could it not also possibly be a
sign that I'm not really trying to find out if it's really an
orange? Wouldn't it make one wonder what I was really up to?
And wouldn't such a notion be the most solid proof of a truly
skeptical mind?
Whoever said here that Peebrain should
be "...applauded for his skepticism" has, in my opinion, gone
way off the deep end. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T. It should not be
automatically assumed the enquirer is a whacko who has a
paranormal claim just because the last 20 enquirers
were.
It's NOT automatically assumed. NOTHING
is automatically assumed. Each inquirer is assessed via
careful examination of his/her continuing correspondence. I
arrive at a certain conclusion eventually, though, when
accusations about the validity of the Challenge continue past
the point I think most people would consider
reasonable.
My correspondences always begin with total
courtesy. I was not prepared to offer this courtesy
off-the-bat to Peebrain, however, because he had already
significantly harrassed Randi, so my job wasn't so much to
begin anew with him. My job, at that point, was to attempt to
decipher whether or not his inquiries were a precursor to him
making a paranormal claim and the subsequent submission of a
Challenge application, and if so, to encourage him to do so.
I did that to the best of my ability at the time, but
I recognize my failings in this instance and will endeavor
from this point forward to maintain a persona more consistent
with the integrity of what everyone here seems to agree is
what is required in representing both the JREF and the
skeptical community as a whole.
That said, I think that
a great many forum members here did their very best to treat
him as they felt he should be treated, and as they felt JREF
neglected to treat him, but should have, offering him the data
that he - for some reason - felt he didn't receive from the
JREF. That's fine, but I promise you all that I will, from now
on, do my very best to make future such efforts by forum
members wholly unneccesary.
Despite that courtesy and
effort, however, he STILL has not offered insight into his
paranormal claim, and has been most suspiciously secretive
about the entire matter. Why? I wonder.
A million
bucks says he just doesn't have a paranormal claim, and
thusly, if I am right, he deserves not one millisecond more of
our attention.
As promised, I'll continue to be
polite, or, at the appropriate time, I'll simply stop
responding.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T. I agree with
everyone in this topic who said being rude to Sean was a
mistake.
Being rude to Sean WAS a mistake. I'm not
sure how much longer I can keep on admitting to that.
I should have simply said "APPLY OR GO AWAY" until I
became convinced that it was useless to continue doing so, and
then I ought to have just ignored his subsequent
emails.
Or is "APPLY OR GO AWAY" rude, too? I predict
you'll say that it was.
But, I don't think so. Such a
conviction on my part, however, does not preclude me from
making protocol changes that need to be made, for whatever
reasons. I'm not proud.
Since I feel strongly that this
has gone on long enough, how about this? From this point
forward, I will say nothing in response to similar "inquiries"
(regardless of what my experience tells me about their true
nature) except the following:
Please feel free to
submit a duly executed JREF Paranormal Challenge application
at any time, should you feel that you have a paranormal claim
that you can successfully demonstrate."
I will
respond to nagging, unreasonable inquiries with this single
sentence 3 or 4 times, and then, if the same questions persist
persist, I will simply stop responding.
Does this sound
fair, and, more importantly, POLITE?
This is not to say
that Randi himself won't continue to say "APPLY OR GO AWAY",
of course. He will say what he feels without regard for any
debate that swirls around my desk, and far be it from me to
suggest to him that he respond otherwise.
Oh and by the
way, if Peebrain states that he didn't receive the Goldman
Sachs letter, well, I've heard that before,
too.
Regardless...if he wants us to send him another
one, we will do so once again, immediately upon request, and
we do not demand that he first tell us if he has a paranormal
claim or not. We don't care anymore. We'd also be happy to
oblige his request by faxing it to him, if he so
desires.
Sure. Why not. I'll bend over backwards 6
times until Sunday for Peebrain. Yeah. Heck. Why don't I just
stop all the work I'm doing for applicants, indefinitely, and
deal fulltime with Peebrain and his oh-so-reasonable requests
and all the other non-applicants who, for whatever motive, are
just wasting my time?
Hey, I never said I wouldn't
personally and professionally resent them? I'm just promising
to no longer express it to them in my correspondences. It's
part of being professional, and I regret having lost sight of
that on those rare occasions, and having stirring such
controversy as a result.
I can alter the way I behave,
but I can hardly alter the way I think when it comes to this
kind of crap, and I don't feel that anyone should expect me
to, or require me to. We're all freethinkers here.
Right?
Well, most of us are.
I don't need to
drink the whole glass of milk to know that it's sour.
A
sip will do just fine.
__________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal
Claims Dept.
Report
this post to a moderator | IP: Logged |