Challenge E-mail Blog

[RemieV]

Recently, there have been a lot of discussions regarding the Challenge, its discontinuation, and its effectiveness.

I think a certain amount of transparency regarding the Challenge e-mail would give an interesting outlook for further discussions.

I have asked for, and obtained, permission to blog about the Challenge e-mail. The blog will be available through randi.org, and will cover interesting pieces of Challenge e-mail we have received lately.

The blog will be launched in the next couple of days, and will feature a new piece of Challenge e-mail at least every week (if not every day) without any editorializing whatsoever. If you visit, you will be treated to an uncut e-mail copied directly from the inbox of Challenge@randi.org (although the identity of the sender will be masked).

Keep in mind that almost all Challenge e-mail receives a response of some kind as you are invited to take a look behind MDC doors and see what it's all really like.

If you're interested, please return to this thread in the next few days for a URL to the blog.

Thanks!

~RemieV

[saizai]

Sounds like a good idea if done well.

To prevent taking things out of context and implying inaccuracies, will you be posting whole conversations (including JREF responses)? Perhaps highlighting the parts you find interesting...

[RemieV]

The Challenge E-mail Blog has launched here (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/157/94/).

[IMST]

*clicks link, prepares to snicker at someone else's expense*
Thanks, RemieV!

ETA: oh, wow. I did not snicker. That was more frightening than I was expecting.

[rjh01]

I am the first to leave a comment.

[Fnord]

The Challenge E-mail Blog has launched here (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/157/94/).


"You need to understand the universe was BUILT BY ME so that YOU ALL WOULD SEE HOW RETARDED YOU WERE IN TRYING TO PROCLAIM YOU'D FIGURED IT ALL OUT AS A BUNCH OF LITTLE RETARD HUMANS!"

Mere words fail to express my chagrin. :(

[Cuddles]

Wow. I always thought the applicants posted in this section of the forum were nuts, now I see that they were only posting the more sane ones.

[Darat]

I've had the dubious pleasure of seeing a few of the many "applications" for the Challenge thanks to some people sending their enquires to the Forum's "Contact Us" address and I'd have to say so far the ones posted are not the most er... not-quite-attached-to-reality applications I've seen!

Perhaps now you can see why the scissors and all other sharp tools are kept under lock and key at JREF HQ?

[Tressa]

Well, if I weren't home sick already, I'd be sick.

[catbasket]

Holey pants, Batman!

[Loss Leader]

Reading these, it makes my own challenge letter to the JREF seem downright reasonable. And that one was a joke.


Which they never published


even though it was funny


to me.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think the concept of showing transparency is great. But I think it might be nice to have some sort of general disclaimer urging people with potential mental illness to seek medical help. Otherwise, the blog could unintentionally appear to be poking fun at possible schizophrenics and the like.

SWIFT sometimes straddles this line, and I'd argue it's better to appear too touchy-feely than too cold and unfeeling. No?

[William Smith]

I think the concept of showing transparency is great. But I think it might be nice to have some sort of general disclaimer urging people with potential mental illness to seek medical help. Otherwise, the blog could unintentionally appear to be poking fun at possible schizophrenics and the like.

SWIFT sometimes straddles this line, and I'd argue it's better to appear too touchy-feely than too cold and unfeeling. No?

If one behaves "yellow" one should expect to be called (on) behaving "yellow".

A transparent/honest/unfiltered documentation provides a great tool to learn. The E in JREF stands for what again?

[chillzero]

If one behaves "yellow" one should expect to be called (on) behaving "yellow".


But what about cases where the 'behaver' has no control over such behaviour? I believe that's what was being alluded to.

I agree that it is ok for Randi to be so vitriolic with people who shamelessly defraud people, and come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid being proven as frauds, but many of these less public cases are not in that category. Is it ok to be seen to be rude to people who have serious delusions, and honest beliefs in insane things? There should maybe be a line drawn somewhere, but I doubt it is easy to define.

[Ryan O'Dine]

If one behaves "yellow" one should expect to be called (on) behaving "yellow".

A transparent/honest/unfiltered documentation provides a great tool to learn. The E in JREF stands for what again?


Not sure I understand your objection. The blog isn’t calling anyone on anything. And my concern is purely about perception.

The JREF, by its nature, inadvertently attracts a lot of people with questionable mental health. That’s not it’s purpose, but it is an unavoidable, unintended consequence. Why not show a sincere compassion, and make that explicit?

[FSM]

I think this was an excellent idea Remie. Whatever you guys get paid ain't enough.

So, who'll be writing the Neo protocols? Can I be in on that? Wow.

Reading the emails made me want to thank Edge for his down-to-earth, reasonable behavior.


And Loss Leader: Did you post your letter anywhere on the forum? How's about a linky so I can read it?

[William Smith]

Not sure I understand your objection. The blog isn’t calling anyone on anything. And my concern is purely about perception.

The JREF, by its nature, inadvertently attracts a lot of people with questionable mental health. That’s not it’s purpose, but it is an unavoidable, unintended consequence. Why not show a sincere compassion, and make that explicit?

But what about cases where the 'behaver' has no control over such behaviour? I believe that's what was being alluded to.

I agree that it is ok for Randi to be so vitriolic with people who shamelessly defraud people, and come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid being proven as frauds, but many of these less public cases are not in that category. Is it ok to be seen to be rude to people who have serious delusions, and honest beliefs in insane things? There should maybe be a line drawn somewhere, but I doubt it is easy to define.

Behaving rude to people would of course not be ok.

But: If one lives on one's own, one is responsible for oneself. Simply document what one writes or does.

[Robaato]

This could prove interesting, in a scary sort of way...

You might want to be careful about inserting images into the e-mails, though. Some might consider that to be "editorializing..."

[Mr. Skinny]

Remie,

I noticed that it said in order to leave a comment, you had to register. When I hit the "Register" link, it took me to a page for registering for TAM 6.

Might wanna look into that...

[Gr8wight]

Remie,

I noticed that it said in order to leave a comment, you had to register. When I hit the "Register" link, it took me to a page for registering for TAM 6.

Might wanna look into that...

So...you didn't register, then?

[SezMe]

If you keep adding to the single blog page and the comments keep coming, it will become increasingly difficult to know which comments belong to which e-mail. I suggest each e-mail have its own page.

[Mr. Skinny]

So...you didn't register, then?
Didn't register for TAM6, no.

Didn't register so I could post comments either. Maybe next time. Does JREF forum registration allow you to post comments to the blog and Randi's weekly commentary page?

[Hindmost]

Seems paranormal to me...

glenn:boxedin:

[rjh01]

Works OK for me. When I clicked on the register button it went here http://www.randi.org/joom/component/option,com_registration/task,register/

If you have registered to leave comments for Swift then no need to register again.

[The Atheist]

Looks just like my inbox!

Be interesting to see whether the e mails start to dry up or increase once it's widely known that they're being published.

[RemieV]

Thanks everyone for all the responses! Is the 'registration' button working properly now? If not, I'll drop an e-mail to the proper place and ask what's up.

As for the e-mails themselves - they are not an attempt to be funny. They are being reposted for informational purposes only. If people *find* them funny, I suppose that's their business. But anyone who believes they were posted for humour value is incorrect.

And the pictures within the posts - I thought hard about whether or not that would be considered editorializing. I also wondered whether or not they would be considered an attempt to poke fun at the individuals who sent the e-mails.

However, I honestly think they aren't. In every case, they are photos that go with what is being said. Precisely. If I were to repost an article on dogs and show a photo of a German Shepherd with the article, it wouldn't be editorializing. It would be an example of exactly what was meant.

Someone who says they believe they created the world? The perfect image to express that (in my opinion) is Michelangelo's Hand of God.

Someone who wants to expose the matrix? The perfect picture to go with it is a screencap from The Matrix.

And coming up either tonight or tomorrow (depending upon whether or not I can get some advice on what I'm posting) a screencap of the Zapruder film with an alien spacecraft in the background is the perfect image. But only because I am disinclined to photoshop images of the World Trade Center. I'm willing to be talked into it, though, as it does fit better.

And as to whether or not these individuals are mentally ill - that is not for me to say. I am not a psychiatrist, and I certainly do not attempt to diagnose anyone. Again, the blog is strictly for informational purposes, and to increase the transparency regarding Challenge operations.

I do like the idea of posting the responses these individuals receive, and will do so in future, if a response was warranted.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback! And keep an eye out for the next edition.

[RemieV]

The second edition is up, but we're going to have to wait on that one I mentioned in my previous post ;)

Until then, welcome to the Perpetual Motion Parade (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/158/2/).

[rjh01]

Instead of having to come to this page you can go the this page to find the blog.
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/category/1/23/2/

[saizai]

Could you add a complete RSS feed just of this blog?

Fixing the Randiblog RSS feed would also be appreciated; currently it only gives lots of stubs, not the actual full article, which makes it basically useless.

I much prefer using RSS feeds to keep track of this sort of thing; easier to have everything in one place and not need to click a bunch of links.

Thanks!

[brettDbass]

Jeepers! :jaw-dropp

I thought I got some extreme stuff over at MySpace (mild plug ;) ) but this takes the cake, the icing, the yummy jam filling and the plate it was served on!

:aaa!

[rjh01]

There has been a member recently banned (several times) that claimed he won the MDC. However when you look at his 'evidence' it is not much better than this.

[Hellkat9940]

I couldn't even tell what the two applicants in the first post were trying to prove.

[rjh01]

That is common in initial applications.

[RemieV]

Daniel's interest in alien abductions has been added:

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/161/2/

[rtalman]

To whom it might concern,

I am a enthusiastic conspiracy theorist, aware of the cover-up of extraterrestial 911-truther, believer in monotheistic belief-systems, enemy of public display and other abuses of religion and strongly aversive towards rabid atheists and rightwing neoconservatives.Wow, nothing like a lazy hanging curve right down the wheelhouse.

[RSLancastr]

I think that the images included in the blog are editorializing, as are the titles you are giving people ("The Universe Builder," "The Matrix Shower"). And, I think it will be all too easy for that editorializing to become more and more pronounced as time goes on (the titles of Kramer's posts regarding the MDC entries are an example of this, if memory serves).

I understand the desire/need to visually break up what would otherwise be just a mass of text. Perhaps a larger font, bolded pullquote from the email would accomplish that, and lend itself less to charges of editorializing.

Just a thought.

[RemieV]

I think that the images included in the blog are editorializing, as are the titles you are giving people ("The Universe Builder," "The Matrix Shower"). And, I think it will be all too easy for that editorializing to become more and more pronounced as time goes on (the titles of Kramer's posts regarding the MDC entries are an example of this, if memory serves).

I understand the desire/need to visually break up what would otherwise be just a mass of text. Perhaps a larger font, bolded pullquote from the email would accomplish that, and lend itself less to charges of editorializing.

Just a thought.

I stand by it being the equivalent of a photo of a German Shepherd in an article about dogs.

The only reason it seems like editorializing, from my perspective, is because it seems unbelievable *to us*. As the individuals who wrote actually referred to themselves as being able to show the Matrix (The Matrix Shower) and the one who built the universe (The Universe Builder) these descriptions are *not* editorializing. They are a summary of the actual claim.

Perhaps a definition of 'editorializing' is in order.

1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.

Please point out the expressed opinion that is not the opinion of the author of the e-mail.

[saizai]

RemieV, I think that while your current ones could accurately be described as mere summations from their own words... take a look at the MDC log subforum, which as RSL said, has tended to get more and more snide over time.

It's basically a slippery slope argument.

You won't always have a convenient set of words to accurately quote; eventually you'll be making an analytical summary if you do it every time - and that'd be editorializing.

[RSLancastr]

Please point out the expressed opinion that is not the opinion of the author of the e-mail.In the first letter, I see no mention of the author considering himself Jehovah, or that he reached out and touched the hand of Adam to give him life. By using a clip from that famous work of art, you are implying that this is the author's claim.

In the second letter, I see no mention of the Matrix films, which your image is either from, or is based on. The author mentions a matrix (which can mean a whole lot of things), but does not say that he is referring to the matrix as it is defined in those films.

Also, giving these people titles such as "The Matrix Shower" and "The Universe Builder," whether they accurate reflect the claims or not, are also a form of editorializing. They imply that these people have claimed these titles, which they have not.

Pull quotes, such as:

"You need to understand the universe was BUILT BY ME..."

and

"I want to show the matrix. To prove solutions and cures are withheld."

... accurately express what the person is claiming, and are far less open to charges of mockery or editorializing, both of which are going to be leveled at the JREF for publishing these.

My two cents' worth.

Just my two cents' worth.

[Cuddles]

I have a question about copyright. On the forum, we're told that everything is copyright as soon as it's written, which includes emails. Surely this is true for all emails, which includes those sent to the challenge address? This particularly struck me in the recent alien abductions post, where removing the Wiki entry for copyright was in fact removing the only part of the email which wasn't copyrighted.

[Darat]

Yes those emails are copyright - but just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean you can't reproduce it. You probably should start a new thread if you want to pursue the issue of copyright of emails.

[saizai]

I have a question about copyright. On the forum, we're told that everything is copyright as soon as it's written, which includes emails. Surely this is true for all emails, which includes those sent to the challenge address? This particularly struck me in the recent alien abductions post, where removing the Wiki entry for copyright was in fact removing the only part of the email which wasn't copyrighted.

It is copyrighted, yes.

However, by emailing it to someone, you implicitly relinquish certain rights (like the right to control reproduction and privacy), because they are an essential part of how email functions. (E.g., to get to its intended recipient, that email has to be copied across several servers.)

I suspect it'd be more iffy if one tried to make money off it, especially without crediting the authors, giving them choice to opt in, and compensating them... but dunno. There's surely a site about this; perhaps the USPTO has a page? (IIRC it does have a section on copyrights...)

[rjh01]

From the application (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/)

4. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the setup, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.

They are applying for the $1m prize so this means JREF can publish their emails.

Eidt Again from the FAQ (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/47/37/)
4.6 How much of my application is confidential?

It isn’t. The JREF reserves the right to publish any and all materials regarding the Challenge.

[rjh01]

How about adding a link to the blog on this page http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

I know it is on the left hand side but I think it should be under this line
The Log of Applicants

[Coveredinbeeees]

So, what happened to the challenge blog idea? I quite enjoyed it but it seems to be stretching the definition of "often" when it comes to its updates.

[rjh01]

It was very popular reading. But the last one was in February.