Did Sylvia Browne sign?

[scoman]

Looking at the terms and conditions of the application,

"All applicants must agree to the rules set forth here before any formal agreement can be entered into. Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule. "

would infer to me that unless Sylvia Browne actually signed the agreement, which is my question, she should not be termed an applicant. Verbally agreeing on any number of talk shows does not equate to signing and notorising this application. Also, if she is not an official applicant, she has not waivered any claims to 'serious embaressment'.

Did she sign?

[gnome]

I don't think she is considered an applicant. Just someone that agreed to a proposed testing protocol and has avoided contact about the matter ever since.

[scoman]

" I don't think she is considered an applicant. Just someone that agreed to a proposed testing protocol and has avoided contact about the matter ever since. " - it's hardly surprising is it, if you get this amount of 'mickey taking' just for a verbal agreement. I can't imagine what would be instore if she had waivered all her rights by signing the agreement!

I find the warnings such as the following (re advising the applicant to double check their claim before applying) "Some persons who failed to do this, have undergone serious embarrassment and emotional stress, as a result" particularly amusing! I can't imagine a serious piece of scientific research ever threatening 'serious embarrassment' to it's subjects - then again this isn't scientific research is it!

[gnome]

Originally posted by scoman
It's hardly surprising is it, if you get this amount of 'mickey taking' just for a verbal agreement. I can't imagine what would be instore if she had waivered all her rights by signing the agreement!

What the heck is "Mickey-talking"...? I may be unfamiliar with the slang. She could have avoided the whole problem by just stating, "I don't wish to be tested." without giving excuses that are easily refuted.

And what rights is she "waivering" that she needs in order to prove her claim and nail Randi to the wall?

I find the warnings such as the following (re advising the applicant to double check their claim before applying) "Some persons who failed to do this, have undergone serious embarrassment and emotional stress, as a result" particularly amusing! I can't imagine a serious piece of scientific research ever threatening 'serious embarrassment' to it's subjects - then again this isn't scientific research is it!

This isn't scientific research... basically, it's a high-priced, mostly one-sided wager. I think that the advice you scoff at is very good. It indicates to me that JREF really would rather NOT people show up just to be embarassed, especially if by running a test themselves they can predict the outcome of any test setup by JREF.

[scoman]

Sorry, 'mickey taking' refers to making fun of someone/thing, e.g. the playground term 'grubbies'.

"She could have avoided the whole problem by just stating, "I don't wish to be tested." without giving excuses that are easily refuted." - if she had offered that answer, the usual sceptic response would be to claim that she is scared to be tested - it's a lose lose situation for her.

"And what rights is she "waivering" that she needs in order to prove her claim and nail Randi to the wall?" - er, the ones that randi has stipulated that an applicant has to waiver (see application!).


"This isn't scientific research... " - that's true.

"basically, it's a high-priced, mostly one-sided wager. I think that the advice you scoff at is very good. It indicates to me that JREF really would rather NOT people show up just to be embarassed, especially if by running a test themselves they can predict the outcome of any test setup by JREF" - fair enough, that's what it indicates to you. It indicates to me that Randi is given carte blanche and can say anything embarressing about the person being tested - not, in my opinion, a very tempting offer for a potential applicant (see weekly jibes at Sylvia Browne, John Edward etc etc for examples).

Scott

[gnome]

Originally posted by scoman
Sorry, 'mickey taking' refers to making fun of someone/thing, e.g. the playground term 'grubbies'.

Thanks. New word! :)

if she had offered that answer, the usual sceptic response would be to claim that she is scared to be tested - it's a lose lose situation for her.

There are two ways for her to "win":

1. Stop claiming her powers are reliable enough to be tested. It seems to me that Randi is principally interested in those who claim to be able to call upon their powers at will. It is the point of the challenge that this is the best outcome that a fake can hope for.

2. If she's the real thing, accept the challenge and win. How is that a lose for her? Can you name one condition of the test that would prevent her from doing her thing?

er, the ones that randi has stipulated that an applicant has to waiver (see application!).

You didn't answer... why are these rights that they waiver necessary to win the challenge?

fair enough, that's what it indicates to you. It indicates to me that Randi is given carte blanche and can say anything embarressing about the person being tested - not, in my opinion, a very tempting offer for a potential applicant (see weekly jibes at Sylvia Browne, John Edward etc etc for examples).

He doesn't have to say a WORD for them to be embarassed... simply losing in front of so much attention is likely to be embarassing, and he is warning them to avoid that by testing themselves first.

But I'll bite... what kind of rule do you think should be in force here? What right should they have that they don't?