Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[William Smith]

The word of the Amazing is final. There will be no update.

It might not be "File Reopened", but simple decency suggests there should be some kind of JREF statement.

[William Smith]

It's been three and a half weeks since Pavel said he sent the letter to the JREF. I asked RemieV and Jeff for an update.

I repeated my request for said update.

I repeated my request for said update.

[fromdownunder]

I repeated my request for said update.

Do we even know if Pavel has contacted the JREF (apart from his email to Randi himself) since his file was closed? If I missed something, I am sorry, but AFAIK, his last email to JREF was the request that his file be closed, so the JREF has nothing further to go by or respond to. Randi's response was quite specific. Take it up with the JREF.

If he has not done this, there is nothing further to respond to.

Norm

[William Smith]

Do we even know if Pavel has contacted the JREF (apart from his email to Randi himself) since his file was closed? If I missed something, I am sorry, but AFAIK, his last email to JREF was the request that his file be closed, so the JREF has nothing further to go by or respond to. Randi's response was quite specific. Take it up with the JREF.

If he has not done this, there is nothing further to respond to.

Norm

Here you go:

To Mr. James Randi,
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA




I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my fail, with th reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”

The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.

This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:

1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.

3. From your response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.

The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to you.

The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable. So the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!

I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!

There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel Ziborov

FYI: I have merged the To Mr. James Randi thread into this one.

The point of my inquiry to the JREF is an acknowledgement of said letter and a response.

It's been almost seven weeks. Is it unreasonable to expect at least a simple "We have received Pavel Ziborov's inquiry on the xx of yyy. We have determined that zzz." in Pavel's Challenge Application thread?

[Czarcasm]

So the answer is no, he did not contact JREF directly.

[pavel_do]

So the answer is no, he did not contact JREF directly.


I did not contact JREF directly if you mean by that if I went to their office and knocked the door..

But I have sent email DIRECTLY to RANDI ( to which he replayed - "Do not write to me. Alison handles these matters.") I emailed same letter to Alison and copy to StartZ as always. From reply of RANDI u can see he got it.. I am sure Alison got it too, same as copy have arrived to Startz...
Plus as u all know I posted letter on forum in new tread that been than merged by moderators (out of everyone sight) to the current forum.

If some one doubt that I sent emails to JREF.. please call them or email and ask.. I cant prove it seems like..
But here if FULL copy of letter from RANDI including BODY letter from me..

where u can see RANDI sent copy of his reply also to 2 more addreses, I made it bold so u can see...

"RE: James Randi Educational Foundation: Unfair decision and misspresenting the facts!
...
From:
James Randi <jrefrandi@gmail.com>
...
To: Pavel Ziborov <pavel_do@yahoo.com>
Cc: jeff@randi.org; Philip Plait <philplait@randi.org>


Do not write to me. Alison handles these matters.

James Randi
-----Original Message-----
From: Pavel Ziborov [mailto:pavel_do@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:16 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: James Randi Educational Foundation: Unfair decision and
misspresenting the facts!

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.randi.org/site/ from:
Pavel Ziborov <pavel_do@yahoo.com>

To Mr. James Randi,

201 S.E.

12th Street Ft Lauderdale

Florida 33316

USA


I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my file, with th
reason - " In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel
was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined,
and his Challenge file has been closed."

The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and
presenting me in false light.

This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the
protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able
to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making
it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be
reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options.
The JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test
the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would
only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I
claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable,
and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the
facts:

1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked
with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He
did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would
give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed
ability.

3. From your response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a
20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all
the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about
costs.

The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally
understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1
in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear
the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The
protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind
enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process.
The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that
it was deemed suitable for final presentation to you.

The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year
period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being
unreasonable and unacceptable. So the sudden letter limiting the test and
offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider
as unfair!

I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even
fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in
a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions
for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute
false and lie!

There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test
or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to
cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons
for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask
of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent
the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people
who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not
familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.


Sincerely yours,

Pavel Ziborov "


p.s. U can argue that I have asked them to close file and bla bla bla.. so that is why they ignore it.. But they present me in FALSE LIGHT on APPLICANTS PAGE.. and its also ignored... They are not BOTHERED even to make this clear...

Ok me.. I been ignored for months even before, so its no news that they ignore "pest" like Pavel.. But even request from Forum Member "GzuzKryzt" has been ignored for soon 2 month... Why?? Too busy?? Ok.... good excuse..

What can I say.. Courtesy and respect even in replying to letters and Questions its not about JREF.. So no point to expect any reply and more than that FAIR handling negotiations with any other applicant!

[fromdownunder]

I emailed same letter to Alison

Thank you. This answers my question. I already knew from this thread that you had contacted Randi personally, and got a response, I was just not aware until now that you also contacted Alison (the JREF) at the same time.

Just so as I can be clear, the events are (leaving aside the direct email to Randi have been:

1. JREF asked you to redo your protocol with only 20 photos in the test or your file would be closed.
2. You emailed JREF telling them to close your file, as you could see no way to fulfil a protocol with only 20 photos.
3. You later decided to appeal the closure and emailed JREF with the same letter you sent Randi (reproduced above).
4. You have recieved no response to that letter from the JREF.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Norm

[pavel_do]

Thank you. This answers my question. I already knew from this thread that you had contacted Randi personally, and got a response, I was just not aware until now that you also contacted Alison (the JREF) at the same time.

Just so as I can be clear, the events are (leaving aside the direct email to Randi have been:

1. JREF asked you to redo your protocol with only 20 photos in the test or your file would be closed.
2. You emailed JREF telling them to close your file, as you could see no way to fulfil a protocol with only 20 photos.
3. You later decided to appeal the closure and emailed JREF with the same letter you sent Randi (reproduced above).
4. You have recieved no response to that letter from the JREF.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Norm


1. YES here is the letter from them ( by the way that is the last letter I ever got from JREF side..(leaving a side answer from Randi)

"Testing
...
Thu, August 20, 2009 4:09:07 AM
From:
Alison Smith <alison@randi.org>
...
To: Pavel <pavel_do@yahoo.com>

Pavel,

Thank you for your continued patience. Now that the TAM dust has cleared, we can again take a look at your protocol. As I said before, I asked other JREF staff to weigh in on whether or not they believed your proposed protocol was workable.

Mr. Randi said:

Suggest that he merely identify for us which of two photos are in an envelope, 20 times. We cannot satisfy each and every whim, and it’s too expensive.

I’d say, if he refuses, he’s refused to be tested.

***

What do you think of simplifying the protocol to that level? Is that a possibility?

If not, I will do as Mr. Randi has suggested, and close your file.

Kindest regards,

Alison Smith
Research Assistant
James Randi Educational Foundation"

2. YES.

3. YES ( appeal also against the fact that they present me in False light on applicants page)

4. YES. No reply what so ever ( beside 1 line from Randi)

[fromdownunder]

OK, given Paval's reply immediately above, the time that he put into his application, and the time that JREF spent in dealing with the application, I believe that in principle, the JREF owes Pavel a response a little less terse than Randi's personal one liner, which I actually find OK - Randi was quite possibly, as others have said, not aware of the effort both sides, and members from this Board had put into developing a potential protocol.

So, GzuzKryzt, I admire your persistance. Mayber Alison of somebody else from JREF does read the Boards occasionally (or their own email accounts) and will respond eventually.

Norm

[William Smith]

...

So, GzuzKryzt, I admire your persistance. Mayber Alison of somebody else from JREF does read the Boards occasionally (or their own email accounts) and will respond eventually.

Norm

I sent my inquiries via PM to Jeff Wagg and RemieV. Barring some three time software glitch, one can assume they got the messages.

[jsfisher]

I emailed same letter to Alison


I don't mean to split hairs, here, but I feel this is important. Did you send exactly the same letter to Alison as the one to Randi you posted here, or did you re-address so it was clear to Alison you were writing to her and no simply copying her on your message to Randi?

[dropzone]

(A father who was a federal judge, a brother who was an attorney general, and another brother who is a successful trial lawyer? I'm opting out of this one based on hairs too-spit for reason, so weekday dinners were educational.)

To make sure we are ALL talking about the same thing, shouldn't ALL previous letters be discarded?

[jsfisher]

(A father who was a federal judge, a brother who was an attorney general, and another brother who is a successful trial lawyer? I'm opting out of this one based on hairs too-spit for reason, so weekday dinners were educational.)

You don't treat an email differently when it is addressed to you versus when it is addressed to someone else? The former usually requests a response while the latter simply provides information.

To make sure we are ALL talking about the same thing, shouldn't ALL previous letters be discarded?

Why would you think so?

[pavel_do]

I don't mean to split hairs, here, but I feel this is important. Did you send exactly the same letter to Alison as the one to Randi you posted here, or did you re-address so it was clear to Alison you were writing to her and no simply copying her on your message to Randi?

I think you are split hairs here... Any way.. I sent Alison the same letter as to James Randi, with subject "Attention to Mr.James Randi.." I am sure if I would address it to Alison than it would be other splitting hair..as Alison decides nothing there and I should have write to the one who in charge... Its clear that they received my letter, and as you can see from Randi's letter he forwarded it to other chaps in charge there.. and still no reaction... why?? You have to be blind not to see the point in my letter and treat it like "wimp" using Randi's word... Any way.. maybe soon again some one will be called here Barking dog and maybe there will be some reply and clear explanations from JREF side.. but to be honest I am not holding my breath for it or any fair action from JREF, maybe offensive letter making them right and me wrong... just as from Applicants page.. its mispresents facts in Alison statements.. and I am finding it unfair why I am the applicant cant write anything there?? cause I would post the same letter there, so who ever read my application page could see that JREF not exactly correct in there statement!

[jsfisher]

I think you are split hairs here... Any way.. I sent Alison the same letter as to James Randi, with subject "Attention to Mr.James Randi.." I am sure if I would address it to Alison than it would be other splitting hair..as Alison decides nothing there and I should have write to the one who in charge... Its clear that they received my letter, and as you can see from Randi's letter he forwarded it to other chaps in charge there..

Ok, you wrote to Randi and provided a copy to Alison (and some others).

...and still no reaction... why??

You did get a reaction. Randi responded directly to you. You addressed the email to Randi; Randi answered.

Now, if you are looking for more information from, say, Alison, then compose an email to her with your specific concerns. Don't whine; don't gripe; focus on the questions you'd like answered.

You continue to accuse Randi specifically and the JREF in general of treating you unfairly. I'm having trouble seeing it through the cloud of misdirection and misrepresentation you are creating.

[Czarcasm]

In short, you did not address a letter to JREF directly(as you've been asked to do many times)-you sent a copy of your letter to James Randi to them, giving them the very reasonable assumption that you wanted a response from Mr. Randi, not them.
Just send a letter directly to JREF so that there is no question who is being talked to and who is supposed to respond. Do not address Mr. Randi, and do not CC him.

[pavel_do]

Guys you talking like kids.. In short.. You guys splitting hair even more!
Do you think it will make any difference?? So naive.. Well I had to follow Randi letter and address it to Alison?? Volunteering secretary (I am not trying to offence any one)? great.. but I doubt Alison would be much of helps as she does what she told.. Randi told her close my file if i refuse 20 trials.. she done it.. Beside Alison when she got my email and I am sure she got it.. same as other chaps who got forwarded letter from Randi, could simply get in touch with me and say where and to whom I should apply even out of courtesy if there is any in JREF.. Or some one from them could reply to GzuzKryzt's letter with suggestions where I should apply.. NO? I don't make any sense again?? No.. than you will keep splitting hair even if will write to Alison and she will ignore it... than I will have to write to a cleanign lady there??

[fls]

In short, you did not address a letter to JREF directly(as you've been asked to do many times)-you sent a copy of your letter to James Randi to them, giving them the very reasonable assumption that you wanted a response from Mr. Randi, not them.
Just send a letter directly to JREF so that there is no question who is being talked to and who is supposed to respond. Do not address Mr. Randi, and do not CC him.

This is a bizarre criticism. Who exactly is this "JREF" you are referring to? Do we really need to assume that Alison is so dumb that she cannot figure out that forwarding her an e-mail that says "Alison handles these matters" followed by the matter that she is supposed to handle is wholly beyond her ability to comprehend?

Linda

[jsfisher]

Guys you talking like kids.. In short.. You guys splitting hair even more!
Do you think it will make any difference?? So naive.. Well I had to follow Randi letter and address it to Alison?? Volunteering secretary (I am not trying to offence any one)? great.. but I doubt Alison would be much of helps as she does what she told.. Randi told her close my file if i refuse 20 trials.. she done it..

No, you told them to close your file, and they did.

Beside Alison when she got my email and I am sure she got it.. same as other chaps who got forwarded letter from Randi, could simply get in touch with me and say where and to whom I should apply even out of courtesy if there is any in JREF..

Why should any of those people reply to you? You sent an email addressed to Randi. Randi replied. If you want a response from someone else, address an email to that someone else.

Or some one from them could reply to GzuzKryzt's letter with suggestions where I should apply.. NO? I don't make any sense again?? No.. than you will keep splitting hair even if will write to Alison and she will ignore it... than I will have to write to a cleanign lady there??

You aren't all that good at pretending to be the victim. Please stop. Stop assuming you know something you don't know; stop assuming you know how someone will react to an action you refuse to take.

Either write the letter to Alison, or don't, but stop condemning people with your presumed outcomes from hypotheticals.

[pavel_do]

No, you told them to close your file, and they did.



Why should any of those people reply to you? You sent an email addressed to Randi. Randi replied. If you want a response from someone else, address an email to that someone else.



You aren't all that good at pretending to be the victim. Please stop. Stop assuming you know something you don't know; stop assuming you know how someone will react to an action you refuse to take.

Either write the letter to Alison, or don't, but stop condemning people with your presumed outcomes from hypotheticals.


Kinder garden... No comments...

[jsfisher]

Kinder garden... No comments...

And, yet you commented anyway.

[fromdownunder]

Guys you talking like kids.. In short.. You guys splitting hair even more!
Do you think it will make any difference?? So naive.. Well I had to follow Randi letter and address it to Alison?? Volunteering secretary (I am not trying to offence any one)? great.. but I doubt Alison would be much of helps as she does what she told.. Randi told her close my file if i refuse 20 trials.. she done it.. Beside Alison when she got my email and I am sure she got it.. same as other chaps who got forwarded letter from Randi, could simply get in touch with me and say where and to whom I should apply even out of courtesy if there is any in JREF.. Or some one from them could reply to GzuzKryzt's letter with suggestions where I should apply.. NO? I don't make any sense again?? No.. than you will keep splitting hair even if will write to Alison and she will ignore it... than I will have to write to a cleanign lady there??


Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

[Klimax]

Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

And just to add,if you wish to send an email to multiple addresses ,you just specify them in field "To:" .

[William Smith]

Pavel, I am afraid you are missing the point. When people work in a beaurocracy (even a relatively small one such as the JREF) a cc of a letter, or an email is purely "for information", not a request to respond. And people are busy. Before I retired, I rarely even carefully looked at cc emails, and certainly never responded. There was no need - I did not have the time, they were for information to be conveyed to me if I was interested.

It is not splitting hairs. Busy people do not go out of their way to create work for themselves, and you really need to understand that the JREF does not rotate about your personal world.

If you wish to reopen your file, the specifically write to the appropriate people, not with a cc, but a specific request to the person who was handling your challenge, and WHOM YOU PERSONALLY TOLD TO CLOSE YOUR FILE.

Norm

Good point with the cc, Norm. I had completely forgotten that.

All of these issues could have been avoided though if the following points would have been adhered to:

1. Send a registered letter.
2. Address is to the Challenge Administrator or his deputy.
3. In the letter, ask the recipient to forward the letter if improperly addressed.



Pavel, I think you could still do that.

And you haven't voted on your poll yet. ;)

[pmurray]

I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:

* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".

The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains

Ziborov's test:

* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)

Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.

Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.

[William Smith]

I like the idea of using blank photos. How about this:

* 20 photos suitable for the test. All photos to be physically identical - same paper, same size.
** by "suitable", we mean that Ziborov agrees that the image in the photo is not blank
** Either Ziborov to supply the photos, in which case JREF must be satisfied that they are physically identical, or JREF to supply 30 photos and Ziborov to select 20 of them on test day.
* 20 blank photos physically identical to the 20 photos.
* 40 opaque envelopes big enough to fit a photo, labelled "1" through "40".

The blanks and the photos are put at random in the envelopes.
* the pile of photos is shuffled.
* for each envelope, a tester decides by coin toss whether to place a blank or a photo in it
* when either the pile of 20 blanks or the pile of 20 photos is exhausted, the remaining envelopes are filled with whatever remains

Ziborov's test:

* all envelopes start as "undetermined"
* a round proceeds as follows:
** the tester presents each undetermined envelope to Ziboriov
** Ziborov (does whatever he does) and states "photo", "blank", or "not sure"
** If "photo" or "blank", then tester records the envelope number and the determination and the envelope is "determined" and is put into a "determined" pile.
** if "not sure", then the envelope remains undetermined and is put into the "undetermined" pile (to be presented again in the next round, if there is one)
* (time limits? limit to number of rounds? Breaks?)

Marking:
* Each envelope is opened. For each one:
** If the photo within is blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "blank", then that is counted as as success.
** If the photo within is not blank, and Zabirov determined that it was "photo", then that is counted as as success.

Zabirov passes the test if he achieves ?? successes or more out of 40.

Obviously being unaware of the previous discussion: 0.02 $

Typing useless protocol: 0.43 $

Using three different names: Priceless.

[pmurray]

Obviously being unaware of the previous discussion: 0.02 $
Typing useless protocol: 0.43 $
Using three different names: Priceless.
Exactly what we've all come to expect. Blockquoting the entire post - well, maybe not proceless, but certainly good value.

[pavel_do]

Dear Guys, boys and girls, Lady's and gentleman's!:)

I know my post will be a bit premature but I am not sure I will be on line on Xmas day so I do it in advance:)

I would like to tell you all Merry Christmas and Happy new year! Wishing you all, all the best to have a great time with loads of love, light, positive energy and what ever you all would wish to yourselves for new year!!

Sincerely yours,

Pavel
XXX

p.s.
Small update..
So far I still have not received ANY reply from JREF, even though following some suggestions from forum,I have addited and sent another letter to Alison

"
From: Pavel <pavel_do@yahoo.com>
To: Alison Smith <alison@randi.org>
Cc: Dick Startz <startz@u.washington.edu>
Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 7:24:54 PM
Subject: Please respond.


James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA


To whom it may concern:


I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my file, with the reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”

The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.

This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF (James Randi) imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:

1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.

2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.

3. From James Randi's response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.

The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to James Randi.

The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable. So the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!

I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!

There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.

Sincerely yours,

Pavel Ziborov "

Its been a month and also OF COURSE no reaction whatsoever.. I suppose GzuzKryzt did not received any as well.. That unfortunately proofs ones again DECENCY and respect its not about JREF..

Its not about whether I am wright or they wrong.. I did not said in my letter they all wrong and being rood or something demanding 1.000.000$ or something..
I just sent my point.. asked them at least, EXPLAIN there decision as from my point of view its unfair, I have asked to amend record on applicants page that present me in false light ( that is true) .. Any reply would be appreciated from them and it simple decency of suppose to be dicent organization that claims to be truth seekers....

All the best!

[William Smith]

...
I have addited and sent another letter to Alison


Hi Pavel. Good to hear from you. Have you sent a letter - via so-called snail mail - to Alison Smith or did you send an e-mail?

I strongly recommend you send a registered letter to the JREF Headquarters using this address:

James Randi Educational Foundation
PO Box 21652
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335-1652

U.S.A.



I also recommend you simply ask politely for a re-opening of your MDC application file. I would not ask the JREF for a statement or a clarification concerning their past actions, or any explanation at all. Just the re-opening.

You still have not voted on your poll. ;)

Close to 31% of participants have voted for you. That's way more than I expected.
Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a vote of confidence for your claimed ability, but simply a statement from JREF forum members that your MDC file should be re-opened.

[pavel_do]

Hi Pavel. Good to hear from you. Have you sent a letter - via so-called snail mail - to Alison Smith or did you send an e-mail?

I strongly recommend you send a registered letter to the JREF Headquarters using this address:

James Randi Educational Foundation
PO Box 21652
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335-1652

U.S.A.



I also recommend you simply ask politely for a re-opening of your MDC application file. I would not ask the JREF for a statement or a clarification concerning their past actions, or any explanation at all. Just the re-opening.

You still have not voted on your poll. ;)

Close to 31% of participants have voted for you. That's way more than I expected.
Keep in mind that this is not necessarily a vote of confidence for your claimed ability, but simply a statement from JREF forum members that your MDC file should be re-opened.


Yes it was EMAIL.. not sighned letter...

:) I shell do so maybe.. BUT to be honest with you.. I am sure it will make NO difference...

Re to vote in poll... its closed.. I cant vote there... tried a few times.. forgot to tell u..

[William Smith]

Yes it was EMAIL.. not sighned letter...

:) I shell do so maybe.. BUT to be honest with you.. I am sure it will make NO difference...

Re to vote in poll... its closed.. I cant vote there... tried a few times.. forgot to tell u..

About the poll: I forgot that I only ran it for 90 days. Sorry, Pavel.

About the letter: Perhaps it would not make a difference. But if you had a piece of paper in your hand to document to the world that the JREF received your letter - remember, I am from Germany and a sucker fpr bureaucracy - you would at the vey least ensure a moral victory.

I will walk you up the stairs of said victory:

Ground floor: Request denied in a statement of the JREF; official or in a letter to you. You would have fought for your right to have your file re-opened. You would have failed, but fighting is not too shabby.

First floor: Request denied with no response at all. You would not get a chance to compete for the prize but you would have scored a significant moral victory.

Second floor. Request granted.

Are there more floors? I do not know. You will need to show us, Pavel.

[Uncayimmy]

Watching from the sidelines, I'd like to say that I think the MDC thing is a dead end, but that's not a dead end to proving the claims. There are plenty of avenues available. Hook up with a local skeptics group and put together your own demonstration - no prize money needed. If you do that and by some freak chance succeed, you will have a lot of leverage over the JREF in the court of public opinion because not only will you have demonstrated that you can agree to a protocol but that there might actually be something there worth looking at.