[Merged]Does Randi Needs to Apologize or What?

[The Professor]

Critical Thinkers

On August 18th My Application for the MDC was received at the JREF headquarters. I am told this is Randi's office and I've spoken with him on the phone there. It was mailed US Postal Service Certified Mail. It has been confirmed and is the truth. Certified Mail Receipt 7007 2560 0000 9957 6717

On August 31st James Randi denies that David Koenig has applied in front of 800 witnesses and a small video camera. It was captured on video tape and is the truth. The pertinent conversation begins at about 2:50 and goes for about 40 seconds. Although interesting, the rest of the video does not apply directly to this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMrgr1yR3k0

On August 31st Alison Michelle Smith corrects James Randi and tells him that David Koenig in fact HAS applied. It has been confirmed on the video above and by eye witnesses.
( It is reported that the video will be release on the internet)
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=273024&forum=15&start=0

On Sept. 3rd Alison Michelle Smith posts on the JREF site that the Application from David Koenig has been received. It is available to all to see.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607

On Sept. 4th Jeff Richards reports that in a personal phone call with James Randi, he is told that David Koenig has not applied. He wants answers!
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=273024&forum=15&post=5723154

On Sept. 5th in an interview with Justin Robert Young of Itricks, James Randi denies it again. "A Pack of Lies" Here is the link.
http://itricks.com/randishow/?p=28

How do I get a fair shake here on this site when James Randi himself denies I've even applied?

Critical Thinkers Only

Please note that I have not called any names and I simply want to know "why all the denials" when Alison Michelle Smith herself told Randi I had indeed applied.

Thanks
Dave

[Chris H]

This is a joke, right? Might I suggest that you spend more time working on your protocol, than attempting to mount a smear campaign against Randi? You've been told over and over (an over) again that Randi has no knowledge of your application until it is complete. As yet, your application is not complete, as you have failed (consistantly) to present a testable protocol.

So...Randi is not lying, nor should he apologise.

Chris

[Doubt]

You want Randi to apologize for not knowing about you?

[Smackety]

What

[learner]

So you are able to turn all of science on its head, win yourself a Nobel prize, earn countless millions as a result, but you cant complete your application.
It must be so frustrating for you. I feel for you. I feel sorry for you.

[MattC]

In re Sept. 5th, it seems that the comment "a pack of lies" refers to Mr. Callahan and not yourself.

It seems as though you're thinking of this as personally challenging Mr. Randi himself. If you want to do so, don't expect to win the JREF's million - they are not the same thing. You applied to the JREF's challenge, to win you will need to play by their rules.

Judging by what I saw on the video, it seemed that Mr. Randi himself was unaware of your challenge - this seems to be completely germane with the JREF's normal procedures for handling challenge complaints. It seems rather egotistical to expect the supervisor of a staff to completely cut his staff out of the equation purely on your personal account. It seems from the video that the owner of a business saw that his trusted employees had the matter well in hand and completely forgot about the issue, trusting their judgment as he must to retain them on salary.

It seems that what you and Mr. Callahan are really angry about is the idea that Mr. Randi does not seem to care about answering every random challenge that people throw at him. If you really wanted him to take your challenge, take and pass his first - force him to notice you by beating him at his own game.

~ Matt

[IMST]

Perhaps you should worry about making a testable claim.

[SimonD]

Or what

[Pogo]

Sounds like somebody has striped their gears.

[The Professor]

Funny how everyone wants to DRINK THE KOOL-AID :)
Just ignore it if the leader of the JREF can't understand what Alison Michelle Smith tells him in public. Then ignore him when he tell folks on the phone and on "Recoreded Podcasts" that it isn't so. Is that why all of you are only changing the subject?

Perhaps it isn't Randi?
Then who is it?

Logically, as a critical thinker someone here is wrong.
Alison Michelle Smith says that I've applied and James Randi says that I haven't. Which one is telling the truth and which one isn't?
Logically, one of the JREF isn't telling the truth, but no one here wants to face up to it. So you try to change the subject.
Who on the JREF is not telling the truth?
James or Alison?

[The Professor]

In re Sept. 5th, it seems that the comment "a pack of lies" refers to Mr. Callahan and not yourself.

It seems as though you're thinking of this as personally challenging Mr. Randi himself. If you want to do so, don't expect to win the JREF's million - they are not the same thing. You applied to the JREF's challenge, to win you will need to play by their rules.

Judging by what I saw on the video, it seemed that Mr. Randi himself was unaware of your challenge - this seems to be completely germane with the JREF's normal procedures for handling challenge complaints. It seems rather egotistical to expect the supervisor of a staff to completely cut his staff out of the equation purely on your personal account. It seems from the video that the owner of a business saw that his trusted employees had the matter well in hand and completely forgot about the issue, trusting their judgment as he must to retain them on salary.

It seems that what you and Mr. Callahan are really angry about is the idea that Mr. Randi does not seem to care about answering every random challenge that people throw at him. If you really wanted him to take your challenge, take and pass his first - force him to notice you by beating him at his own game.

~ Matt

Mr. Randi has a Million reasons to try to "Forget" that I've accepted the challenge :)

Alison told him point blank that I had applied!
Between the live attendees and the video there are thousands of witnesses.

[Czarcasm]

Mr. Randi has a Million reasons to try to "Forget" that I've accepted the challenge :)

Alison told him point blank that I had applied!
Between the live attendees and the video there are thousands of witnesses.
Folks, let me tell you what he is trying to do here.
He would like some notoriety for his act by being able to (falsely)claim that the JREF dropped his application for the Million Dollar Challenge out of fear that he was T*H*E R*E*A*L T*H*I*N*G!! He made sure that his protocol was nowhere near what was required in hopes of speeding his being refused. Instead, the JREF was extremely cooperative, giving him chance after chance to work out a proper protocol(which he had no intention of doing in the first place, of course).
What he is doing now is trying another way to get his "protocol" rejected..by trying, through insult and innuendo, to get the JREF mad enough to kick him out.
I can't wait to see what step #3 is going to be.

[The Professor]

Trying to change the subject I see. Nice one :)
Nope.
You must stay on track.
Which one of the JREF is not telling the truth?

Or just drink the Kool-Aid :)

[Czarcasm]

No protocol.
No paranormal ability.
No apology.
Nobody believes you.

So sad.

[autumn1971]

Funny how everyone wants to DRINK THE KOOL-AID :)
Just ignore it if the leader of the JREF can't understand what Alison Michelle Smith tells him in public. Then ignore him when he tell folks on the phone and on "Recoreded Podcasts" that it isn't so. Is that why all of you are only changing the subject?

Perhaps it isn't Randi?
Then who is it?

Logically, as a critical thinker someone here is wrong.
Alison Michelle Smith says that I've applied and James Randi says that I haven't. Which one is telling the truth and which one isn't?
Logically, one of the JREF isn't telling the truth, but no one here wants to face up to it. So you try to change the subject.
Who on the JREF is not telling the truth?
James or Alison?

Okay, the first mistake is, and I am speaking as one who only follows such things tangentially, James Randi is no longer the president of the JREF.
Second, and much more revealing as to the Professor's intent, James Randi is not personally responsible for knowing about the MDC, he has appointed others to oversee the MDC, and it is only those directly involved with the administration of the MDC who have up-to-date knowledge of applicants.
Really, Prof, it's a large orginisation, learn whom to speak to about things. I've never once whined because my postman didn't know the status of my parole hearing.

[jimtron]

Dave:

Yes, Randi may have made a mistake. But not to worry, because your application has been officially noted here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607

If you're sincere about taking the challenge, then go ahead and supply what has been asked of you (at that thread linked to above). You seem to be holding things up by not supplying a testable, self-evident claim. The JREF is not holding things up.

[Chris H]

These little smiling emoticons after references to drinking Kool-Aid are growing tiresome, and are somewhat offensive. I can only presume you are insinuating that we are part of some closed minded cult, such as Heaven's Gate. I'm politely requesting that you cease using the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)

It would be simple enough to write an e-mail to Mr. Randi and ask him about this. Infact, I did just that...and then I deleted it, because I figure that attention is what you want.

We have told you several times that Randi is made aware of the applications once they are complete. I suggest you complete yours before throwing about accusations and trying to divert attention away from your frivolous and incredibly boring MDC "application".

Chris

[The Professor]

Dave:

Yes, Randi may have made a mistake. But not to worry, because your application has been officially noted here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607

If you're sincere about taking the challenge, then go ahead and supply what has been asked of you (at that thread linked to above). You seem to be holding things up by not supplying a testable, self-evident claim. The JREF is not holding things up.

I agree. I think that the claim is ready to pass the JREF inspection. There are a few people who would like to peruse it before I email it in tomorrow but I am pretty happy with it as it looks now. I've tried to comment about how everything is coming together on my Challenge thread but it is moderated so you won't get to see it until they work on it.
Perhaps I could PM it to you for your examination if you wish before I submit it to the JREF?


Enough distraction.
Back to the topic!

[SimonD]

I agree...

So no need for Randi to apologise then as you where in the wrong and did not provide the information requested.

I hope your 'powers' are stronger then your ability to follow direction

[The Professor]

These little smiling emoticons after references to drinking Kool-Aid are growing tiresome, and are somewhat offensive. I can only presume you are insinuating that we are part of some closed minded cult, such as Heaven's Gate. I'm politely requesting that you cease using the reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)

It would be simple enough to write an e-mail to Mr. Randi and ask him about this. Infact, I did just that...and then I deleted it, because I figure that attention is what you want.

We have told you several times that Randi is made aware of the applications once they are complete. I suggest you complete yours before throwing about accusations and trying to divert attention away from your frivolous and incredibly boring MDC "application".

Chris

First you said I wouldn't apply ... You were Wrong!
Then you said I DIDN'T apply. .. You were Wrong again.
You even said you'd help me if I ever did apply ... Wrong again!
You said I'd never pass the media reqirement ... Wrong again!
Then you said I'd never pass the Accredation stipulation .... Wrong an additional time.
On and On and On ...
Now you are saying that I won't make a Paranormal claim .... Don't you get tired of being WRONG?

Wake Up!!! I'm in it for the long haul!

Bottom Line, and to get back on track.
I DO need people to believe I've applied!
I DON'T need people saying I haven't!

[The Professor]

So no need for Randi to apologise then as you where in the wrong and did not provide the information requested.

I hope your 'powers' are stronger then your ability to follow direction

Brilliant Critical Thinking! :)

Here's your Kool-Aid :) (Just kidding :) )
:cool::cool:

Alison says "He's Applied!" ... Get it?

[SimonD]

Brilliant Critical Thinking! :)

See, it's not so hard.

Did you fill out the forms yet?

[Hokulele]

Brilliant Critical Thinking! :)

Here's your Kool-Aid :) (Just kidding :) )
:cool::cool:

Alison says "He's Applied!" ... Get it?


Two things:

It was Flavor Aid (not Kool-Aid).

And who are you?

[Cuddles]

Just ignore it if the leader of the JREF can't understand what Alison Michelle Smith tells him in public.

Randi is not the leader of the JREF. Perhaps you should try to focus less on lying and more on not making yourself look like a complete idiot.

[lionking]

Randi is not the leader of the JREF. Perhaps you should try to focus less on lying and more on not making yourself look like a complete idiot.
Now that would be worthy of the MDC,:)

[Jackalgirl]

I believe that JR didn't know about your claim -- as I posed in our profile conversation, I don't think he finds out about Challenges until they reach a sufficiently "interesting" point (i.e., a workable protocol is presented and needs to be vetted by him). Why he didn't consult with his staff before stating that you hadn't applied...well, I don't know. Maybe he just assumed. But I'm absolutely sure that the JREF isn't somehow afraid of you, or trying to suppress you, as you have suggested.

The best way to stick it to JREF, if that is your goal, is to actually demonstrate that something paranormal is going on -- by following the JREF's own rules, focusing on the claim, controlling for all trickery, and in general behaving like a paladin throughout.

[Pantaz]

"On August 31st James Randi denies that David Koenig has applied in front of 800 witnesses and a small video camera. It was captured on video tape and is the truth. The pertinent conversation begins at about 2:50 and goes for about 40 seconds."

Here is what I consider the relevant portion of that video:

02:09 Audience Member: "(Unintelligible) there's an individual online, uh, that you may be aware of, who has posted, uhm, you know, his claim and his stipulation to his test and"

02:20 Stage*: "What's his name?"
* "Stage" refers to anyone I can't identify that is speaking from the stage.

02:21 Audience Member: "Jim Callahan. And, and..." (multiple voices) "... and it seems as though you will not take his challenge." "And he has it, and he's had it posted for a long time online."

02:28 Stage: "He's never contacted us."

02:30 Audience Member: "But it's posted online."

02:31 Multiple speakers on stage: "(Unintelligible)"

02:33 James Randi: "He's not answered our challenge."

02:35 Audience Member: "But you said he, you get to write the protocols."

02:37 Stage: "No, he does."

02:38 Audience Member: "Right."

02:39 Stage: "He has not applied."

02:40 Audience Member: "He's written a protocol."

02:41 Stage: "He has not applied for the challenge."

02:42 Audience Member: "And he's challenged you because of the, the quality of the test that you present."

02:48 James Randi: "But he has not applied! He has to fill out the application. He knows where we are!"

02:53 Audience Member: "And what about Slim King, Dave Koenig? I believe he's applied, and you've not responded to him either?"

03:00 James Randi: "No, no, no, these are things that people are saying they have done, these are not things they have done."

03:04 Audience Member: (talking over James Randi) "I think (multiple voices - unintelligible) She smiled when"

03:06 Stage: "We know who Dave Koenig is, he's a friend of Jim Callahan."

03:08 Audience Member: "And so you haven't responded in(?) days, and he has applied, so"

03:11 Stage: "That's not true."

03:12 James Randi(?): "There's nothing to respond to he hasn't applied."

03:13 Alison Smith(?): "We have his", "He has been speaking with Dave actually. He did apply. We have been back and forth communicating with him. He's on his honeymoon right now. We can't negotiate a protocol with him."

03:23 Audience Member: "Mmm, okay, you just hadn't contacted him, from what I understand."

03:26 James Randi(?): "Well, you're wrong." "We're telling you we contacted him." "We'll hold the documentation, and it's, it's free to be seen anytime you want to see it."

03:34 Audience Member: "Right, okay"

I included the 44 seconds preceding the mention of you in order to illustrate the stream of the conversation. Once Mr. Randi was informed of the existence of your application (at 3:13) he corrects himself (at 3:26).

On Sept. 5th in an interview with Justin Robert Young of Itricks, James Randi denies it again.
At 12:48, paraphrasing the query made at DragonCon, James Randi says, "Well, Jim (unintelligible) has taken your challenge..." -- just before the "pack of lies" quote you used.

At no time during that interview is the name "David Koenig" uttered.

[Soapy Sam]

Sounds to me lthat at worst there was a failure of communications somewhere.

This has been known to happen before in the world.

Or it may simply be that JR himself doesn't deal with MDC applications. Never having been to FLorida, I have no knowledge of how the office is organised, but I had the impression MDC applications are mainly handled by volunteers.
In case there exists any confusion, let's repeat the oft-stated fact that the JREF forum and JREF are not the same thing and queries about JREF must be addressed to JREF (though there's no obvious reason they can't be reported / copied here).

I take it "The Professor" and David Koenig are the same person?

[Doubt]

Funny how everyone wants to DRINK THE KOOL-AID :)
Just ignore it if the leader of the JREF can't understand what Alison Michelle Smith tells him in public. Then ignore him when he tell folks on the phone and on "Recoreded Podcasts" that it isn't so. Is that why all of you are only changing the subject?

Perhaps it isn't Randi?
Then who is it?

Logically, as a critical thinker someone here is wrong.
Alison Michelle Smith says that I've applied and James Randi says that I haven't. Which one is telling the truth and which one isn't?
Logically, one of the JREF isn't telling the truth, but no one here wants to face up to it. So you try to change the subject.
Who on the JREF is not telling the truth?
James or Alison?

Bolding by me.

You sir, are not a critical thinker. If you were, you would be familiar with logical fallacies. One of them is called false dichotomy.

But since this thread is nothing more than a smoke screen intended to wast time, that is not a surprise.

[MattC]

Mr. Randi has a Million reasons to try to "Forget" that I've accepted the challenge :)


The first one being that so far your claim is completely indistinct from any of the thousands of other random ones that get sent in. Putting it a slightly different way, until a protocol is actually agreed upon, you are no more important to them than any of the other hundreds of people who've applied for the test in the past, and then have been unable to properly define what they can do. RemieV has given you some preferential treatment due to the time frame you specified, so at the moment the score looks like you owe them one. (due to your preference for adding emoticons, I think I'll try out this one: :cool:)


Alison told him point blank that I had applied!
Between the live attendees and the video there are thousands of witnesses.

There are even more witnesses who are waiting for you to get to work on this claim of yours. I still hold out some faith you'll get a testable one.

The claim is your ultimate trump card here, Mr. Koenig. So far the betting seems to be that it will never be tested. Beat the odds in this regard and you'll shut up the vast majority of the disbelievers here (or at least make them find other ways to complain). Until about that point, the impression one gets is more of a fish out of water rather than someone with a serious claim.

~ Matt

[Don At Work]

From that transcript, I can see how you could misconstrue (I won't say twist. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.) what was said.

[RoboTimbo]

The Professor, you owe Randi and everyone on this forum and everyone at JREF an apology, particularly Alison. Very likely you owe everyone in the world an apology. You need to apologize to each and every person in the world individually. You may start now.

You are a disingenuous charlatan. I think what you're doing here is no better than trolling. Your "claim" reads as being no better than a stage trick. Your "protocol" is non-existant. You refuse to acknowledge suggestions for a properly worded claim or protocol.

You attribute this to Alison in reference to your claim:

I believe your words were ..... "the claims put forward, quite honestly, friggin' ridiculous."
trying to give the impression that she was calling YOUR claim "friggin' ridiculous", when you knew that wasn't true. CZ responded with the correct quote in context. Refer back to the challenge thread for it. Well, never mind, you don't seem to refer to it for much of anything except repeating your non-claim and hand waving.

Stop hand waving:), stop posturing:), stop throwing up more obstacles:), stop whining:), stop strawmanning:), stop starting new threads:), stop putting smilies after every sentence:).
Start working on your claim, start working on your protocol. You'll be much more productive.

[Chris H]

First you said I wouldn't apply ... You were Wrong!


You're not particularly well schooled in playground etiquette are you David? I also recall saying that should you ever apply, I expected you to take every opportunity to dodge the challenge, and that your intention was to use the MDC as a publicity stunt. So far, the majority of the people on this forum seem to agree with me, and you've done nothing to change our mind. Infact I'd go as far as to say that with every day that goes past without a testable protocol, you are proving my point.


Then you said I DIDN'T apply. .. You were Wrong again.


Nope...read the title of your MDC protocol thread that I started. "Psychic Samurai Applies For MDC...apparently...". Never said you hadn't applied, but on several occasions asked you to provide evidence of your application, before the JREF had acknowledged it.


You even said you'd help me if I ever did apply ... Wrong again!


You haven't asked me for any help, so hardly wrong. What do you need?


You said I'd never pass the media reqirement ... Wrong again!


Incorrect. I said I personally didn't believe you had met the required media presence for the JREF MDC. Like has been said time and time again, JREF forum members do not speak for the JREF. Even now I'm inclined to believe that your "performances" on radio as a "mentalist" (your wording) aren't adequate, and the JREF is merely cutting you some slack


Then you said I'd never pass the Accredation stipulation .... Wrong an additional time.


Nope...again. I said that you hadn't met the accreditation requirements, not that you wouldn't.


On and On and On ...
Now you are saying that I won't make a Paranormal claim .... Don't you get tired of being WRONG?


Nope...AGAIN. I said that you hadn't submitted a testable protocol, which is merely echoing what RemieV and the JREF Forum members have said.


Wake Up!!! I'm in it for the long haul!


No you're not. You're in it for the publicity. This event will happen on October 31st with or without the JREF's involvement. But the event will be by no means paranormal. Your application for the JREF MDC is designed to fail so that you can claim that they were scared to test you. I predicted it on the first page of your protocol thread. All I have to do is sit back and wait for November 1st for my prediction to come true.

Chris

[RoboTimbo]

whine whine whine
You even said you'd help me if I ever did apply ... Wrong again!
whine whine whine


The irony is palpable.

[jimtron]

Perhaps I could PM it to you for your examination if you wish before I submit it to the JREF?

You're welcome to if you like. And/or, post it on the PS applies for MDC thread.

[Piscivore]

Funny how everyone wants to DRINK THE KOOL-AID :)

Sure. (http://somethinghappens.net/d/20080521.html)

[Loss Leader]

I DO need people to believe I've applied!
I DON'T need people saying I haven't!


Why do you need people to believe that you've applied?

Whether people believe you or not, you have sent in an application. You haven't offered a protocol (which, to me, means that you have not applied) but so what? When you do offer a protocol, negotiate changes and sign it with the JREF, you will have applied. You will be tested when you do these things. You will win a million dollars when you pass the test after you negotiate the protocol you have yet to submit.

None of that hinges on anyone believing you applied.

So why do you need people to believe you have?

Is it because the publicity is more important to you than the results of a properly controlled test?

[Piggy]

I think the 2nd post pretty much covers it.

Prof sent in a partial application, staffers were in communication with him about it -- it turned out to be an untestable claim, btw -- but there was no reason for Randi to be aware of it, even if he were still head of the JREF, because it hadn't yet passed muster (and still hasn't).

Even now, Prof does not have a submitted claim which can be considered for the Challenge.

So although some of the staffers knew about his partial application at the time, there was absolutely no reason for it to be on Randi's radar, or Phil's.

[Bob Klase]

First you said I wouldn't apply ... You were Wrong!
Then you said I DIDN'T apply. .. You were Wrong again.
You even said you'd help me if I ever did apply ... Wrong again!
You said I'd never pass the media reqirement ... Wrong again!
Then you said I'd never pass the Accredation stipulation .... Wrong an additional time.
On and On and On ...
Now you are saying that I won't make a Paranormal claim .... Don't you get tired of being WRONG?

I'm surprised you're not running for president. You put both McCain and Obama's campaigns to shame when it comes to looking for any sentence, in or out of context, that you can twist to make it look like something it isn't.

I DO need people to believe I've applied!

What difference does it make what "people" believe? It makes no difference how many people believe you've submitted an application, or how many believe that you can actually win the challenge. The only thing that counts is getting your challenge accepted and getting a protocol together that you and the JREF agree to. And those seem to be about the only two things you're not concerned about.

I DON'T need people saying I haven't!

Why not? People saying that you haven't doesn't change anything. Randi saying that you haven't doesn't change anything- he's not personally involved with your challenge at this point.

If you were serious you'd be spending more time getting your application written and getting protocols done and much less time whining on internet forums.

[Sherman Bay]

The only possible leeway I can give the Prof is that Randi may have said JREF hadn't received the app when he might have been more accurate in saying he hadn't been personally informed of it. That's all. No biggie, and I'd have to scrutinize the videos and other records better than I have to even support that theory. It's certainly not worth anyone's time.

So, Professor, why don't you just concentrate on winning the big bux? Then you can afford to take out a huge billboard in Fort Lauderdale and trumpet your claims: that you won, and that Randi is a big fat liar. Nyaah, nyaah, nyaah.

And you'll be able to fund the lawyers when you get sued.

[Lrrr]

To answer the OP, I think the answer is "no". Should The Professor apologize for creating a smoke screen to a dubious application by turning that what appears to be an issue of timing (Randi had not yet been informed of his application) into a paranoid conspiracy theory that he is not getting fair treatment? Let's discuss. GO!

[not daSkeptic]

This sort of thing is exactly why JREF publicizes the details of MDC applications. Let the applicants whine and complain all they want. The court of public opinion will decide.

[jenski]

Funny how everyone wants to DRINK THE KOOL-AID :)
Just ignore it if the leader of the JREF can't understand what Alison Michelle Smith tells him in public. Then ignore him when he tell folks on the phone and on "Recoreded Podcasts" that it isn't so. Is that why all of you are only changing the subject?

Perhaps it isn't Randi?
Then who is it?

Logically, as a critical thinker someone here is wrong.
Alison Michelle Smith says that I've applied and James Randi says that I haven't. Which one is telling the truth and which one isn't?
Logically, one of the JREF isn't telling the truth, but no one here wants to face up to it. So you try to change the subject.
Who on the JREF is not telling the truth?
James or Alison?

Still not working on that protocol I see.

[firecoins]

I think Randi should apologize. Whe does he allow these morons to apply for the million dollars?

[Azrael 5]

Attention seeking stops when you are what 6 years old? You have already posted this garbage on Magic Cafe,no-one took any notice then so you thought you'd try here.

Publicity for a magic trick on some crappy radio show.James Randi is a legend that is a fact well documented.You and Callahan are just 3rd rate magicians and want notiriety via Randi and JREF because you have an inability to achieve any status on your own.

You are pathetic.

ETA: It's the tick tock game and time is running out.
Run Slim run!

[Azrael 5]

Forgot to add something that I think is revealing.I have heard various radio shows TP has done,heard his demonstration of mentalism and predictions(the famous terrible bigfoot one is a doozy)and they are basic effects out of "13 Steps to mentalism".Derren Brown he aint!
So why not do the old voices from nowhere thing on radio,wouldn't this be a better effect than a variation of sealed envelope/box thing? This would freak out everyone to be sure!

Couldn't be because he cannot do it surely?

[PingOfPong]

Wait a minute Prof, are you Koenig of this Koenig device (http://www.worlditc.org/c_04_s_bridge_19.htm)?

I'm an electrical engineer. Would you be willing to post circuit diagrams containing part numbers? I could run a full simulation on the device and demonstrate step by step exactly how it works.

If your not willing, I'm still going to proceed by using ideal values for components. I'll try to complete a thorough analysis over the next week when I have time. Koenig, I'm going to be a little legal savy here. Do I have your permission to post my results? You're welcome to criticize my work of course. If you say no, I'm going to try and check with a lawyer to ensure that I'm not violating any trade secret laws etc.

[Cuddles]

Wait a minute Prof, are you Koenig of this Koenig device (http://www.worlditc.org/c_04_s_bridge_19.htm)?

I'm an electrical engineer. Would you be willing to post circuit diagrams containing part numbers? I could run a full simulation on the device and demonstrate step by step exactly how it works.

If your not willing, I'm still going to proceed by using ideal values for components. I'll try to complete a thorough analysis over the next week when I have time. Koenig, I'm going to be a little legal savy here. Do I have your permission to post my results? You're welcome to criticize my work of course. If you say no, I'm going to try and check with a lawyer to ensure that I'm not violating any trade secret laws etc.

The "Professor" is David Koenig. That appears to be a different, much older, Koenig.

[Sherman Bay]

The "Professor" is David Koenig. That appears to be a different, much older, Koenig.Amazing how similar they appear to be, though. Maybe there has been a reincarnation?

[PingOfPong]

Amazing how similar they appear to be, though. Maybe there has been a reincarnation?

That's what I thought. There's a Koenig making EVP claims for the MDC and here's another Koenig creating EVP machines. I was thinking that perhaps David is a stage name or that the device was made by a close relative.

[Ron_Tomkins]

More or less what I expected.

This is basically the argument I saw in the first video:

Accuser: So there's this person who wanted to take the test and you guys didn't respond to him
JREF: We didn't test him because he didn't fill the application
Accuser: But he said he did
JREF: Well, he did not
Accuser: So isn't it strange that every time you guys set up a test, the applicant doesn't show up? Who should we believe?
JREF: Maybe you should ask the people who decided not to show up. And it's not every test. There are many cases where people did show up and failed. Would you like to see these examples?
Accuser: Aha! So now you're trying to change the subject.


Oh yeah. They totally got the JREF. They caught them in their own little web of lies..

*sigh* This lack of coherent thinking explains why this people don't even apply in the first place.

[The Professor]

Keep marching in line :)

[Piggy]

Keep marching in line :)

Oh, put a sock in it.

Nobody's buying your line here.

You've been acting like a kindergartener since you showed up.

Still are.

Instead of attempting to write up an acceptible application, you're whining about irrelevancies, then accusing everyone here of, I dunno, being Stepford wives or something.

The rules are transparent. They are fair. You've been treated more than fairly, even been put on a fast track because of a special request of yours that doesn't seem to have any real purpose, then repaid JREF by slandering the staff.

We have a saying where I'm from: Fish or cut bait.

All this schoolyard jawboning is doing nothing for you.

[DJM]

That's what I thought. There's a Koenig making EVP claims for the MDC and here's another Koenig creating EVP machines. I was thinking that perhaps David is a stage name or that the device was made by a close relative.

Yes, they are related. Dave has described it as "family tradition." :rolleyes:

[paximperium]

Keep marching in line :)

Why don't you do something constructive and work on the protocol. Your whining is getting tiresome.

We're still waiting for the protocol.

[JoeTheJuggler]

First you said I wouldn't apply ... You were Wrong!
Then you said I DIDN'T apply. .. You were Wrong again.
You even said you'd help me if I ever did apply ... Wrong again!
You said I'd never pass the media reqirement ... Wrong again!
Then you said I'd never pass the Accredation stipulation .... Wrong an additional time.
On and On and On ...
Now you are saying that I won't make a Paranormal claim .... Don't you get tired of being WRONG?

The rules for making application are very clear. Among other things, they specify that the claim must be testable and that the results of the test must be self-evident (not judged so there is doubt as to whether or not it was successful).

That you attempted to apply but completely ignored these application requirements is not the same thing as you completing the application process.

You admit as much now:
I agree. I think that the claim is ready to pass the JREF inspection. There are a few people who would like to peruse it before I email it in tomorrow but I am pretty happy with it as it looks now.

ETA: Interesting that BEFORE you mail in the revised claim and protocol which is part of the application, you started a thread claiming that Randi's statement that you've failed to complete your application is a lie.

If you had already sent in a valid application, there would be no need for this back and forth and you needing to send in a revised claim (and hopefully a protocol to test that claim whose results will be self-evident).

You're complaining that Randi is holding up your Challenge application, but in fact it is YOU who have failed to submit a complete and valid application.

My prediction is even after you've mailed in your revised claim (and protocol??) that you will still have failed to present a testable claim and a protocol whose results are self-evident. You'll complain that JREF or Randi himself is holding things up.

[RoboTimbo]

I know what it is now. I know why The Professor :) is so fixated. The Professor :) holds Randi in great awe since he is, after all, the AMAZING RANDI, and David Koenig :) is just a little polliwog in a big mud puddle. I think The Professor becomes weak-kneed at the thought of Randi even knowing he exists. No wonder he was so perturbed at Randi not even knowing he had sent in an application!

No wonder he wants Randi to be there, he would swoon if Randi even looked at him.

"David Keonig :) who?" That would have to sting.

[Locknar]

It is simply unreasonable to expect that Randi have a complete, up to date, working knowledge of everyone that has ever sent in a application for the MDC.

His personal lack of knowledge of your application/claim has no bearing on your working with the JREF on developing an acceptable protocol and then proving your claim.

As pointed out by others, you are not considered to have "applied" UNTIL all parties have signed off on an agreed claim and testing protocol. But of course, you already knew this.

But please, continue to throw out "red hearings" to distract folks from the obvious - you have yet to complete your application; that is to say you have yet to develop an acceptable protocol.

[jenski]

Keep marching in line :)

:)So...that :)protocol:) coming along yet? :)

[Azrael 5]

The Professor is a "sheep",,Jim Callahan plays the tune and he taps his feet.You don't think Koenig came up with this scam-oops sorry official application on his own surely? Jeez ,he's not that bright :) No Callahan through his own cowardice attcks Randi via YouTube Magic Cafe forum or Dave Koenig all because Randi dissed his numerology book!
Koenig of course goes along with this as his "fame" isn't quite to the level-albeit not a particularly high level-of Callahan's.So hoping to gain some notiriety of his own agrees to try apply for MDC.
Problem is he didn't take into account JREF members and Staff are rather intelligent,having been dealing with real woos for many years! So now he's stalling and back pedalling,insulting staff trying to trip everyone up.Clinging on to a vain hope Jeff Wagg gets sick of him and declares test null and void so he can go onto some internet radio show and boost his lame act some more. :)

[Senex]

I have to admit I was disappointed to learn the challenge was going to end. You hate to lose the ability to dismiss someone by saying "if you can do that you should easily win a million."

However threads like this make it clear why the challenge will end. Rascals like the Professor are much more interested in complaining than winning. He has endless energy to state he has applied but not one sentence about what his ability is and how he is going to win.

Professor, what makes you special? What law of thermodynamics can you break or what dead people can you speak with? Enough with the complaints, let's have some action :rolleyes:

[chran]

Keep marching in line :) You will fail in your application :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

...Rascals like the Professor are much more interested in complaining than winning.

Or they have a variation on Sylvia, etc.'s "where's the money" and ask for crazy stuff like writing a check to a third party blah blah.

Claim to be able to do X.
Demonstrate an ability to do X.
Collect your million.
It's that simple folks.

[Gravy]

Randi is not the leader of the JREF.He will be very, very surprised to hear that!

[chran]

He will be very, very surprised to hear that! Possibly, but then he'll remember that it's Phil Plait that's the president of the JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120328). :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

He will be very, very surprised to hear that!

To add to chran's response, he's really moved to emeritus status when it comes to the Foundation. He's more than earned a retirement where he still can show up at work every day and no employee would dare ask to see his ID card. :)

[Terry]

Possibly, but then he'll remember that it's Phil Plait that's the president of the JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120328). :)

Randi is chairman of the board though, isn't he?

[chran]

Randi is chairman of the board though, isn't he? I don't know.

[Iconoclast08]

The videos, tapes and other ITC recordings will be examined for Paranormal Evidence. Basically a straight forward Paranormal investigation. If the Entity or Entities give their name and answer intelligently, then the test is a success. If the entity actually gives a prediction that verifiably comes true (And I am in no way promising this) that would put the whole thing "Over the Top" ... it's happened before. END QUOTE: THE PROFESSOR

Professor:

1. As the research assistant pointed out to you, this is an uncontrolled environment that you would have access to before the JREF test. So how do we know that you wouldn't alter the environment in some way (e.g., get there early and plant a tape recorder with voices on it under some dirt close by)? We don't... so you need to do it in a controlled environment. Doesn't this make sense to you? Wouldn't you make sure that it wasn't a rigged game if you were Randi?

2. Just a suggestion: why couldn't you run the test in a sound-proof room (or a room well insulated from outside sound interference), do your summoning (invoke a known deceased person by name, perhaps), and turn on a tape recorder? A microphone would need to capture any particular grunts or utterances from YOUR mouth, of course, in case you happen to be a good ventriloquist...but perhaps then JREF may be in a slightly better position to establish a form of inter-rater reliability for judging whether or not "voices" manifested on tape and whether or not they are intelligible.

However, as the RA alluded to, even if there WERE voices, we can't just automatically conclude that they are from the "dead". What leads you to believe this? What is your evidence?

I'm genuinely trying to push my own limits here and not just laugh this off, honestly. But it's tough. I'm not sure this is a truly testable claim, mainly because you are claiming these voices to be from "the dead", which is just too much of a stretch.

[Jeff Wagg]

Randi's new title is Founder. Basically, all that's happened is that Phil has been asked to take over running the day to day operations of the JREF as President, and Randi is now free to do what he does best, which at this time, is writing a couple of books.

As for this ridiculous thing about Randi saying that Koenig never applied.. it's simply because he didn't know about it. Jackalgirl is right.. we don't involve Randi until we need to. This challenge application is no where near ready to involve Randi.

Randi could have added "to the best of my knowledge" to his statement, but it was implied.

To suggest that the JREF is hiding something is rather silly, as it's all posted right here.

[De_Bunk]

Randi has not got to apologise...

1. Because he didnt know about it...

2. Because the applicant is a complete and utter loon or a liar...

I dunno...

Things are so much simpler in my world...

DB

[Azrael 5]

The videos, tapes and other ITC recordings will be examined for Paranormal Evidence. Basically a straight forward Paranormal investigation. If the Entity or Entities give their name and answer intelligently, then the test is a success. If the entity actually gives a prediction that verifiably comes true (And I am in no way promising this) that would put the whole thing "Over the Top" ... it's happened before. END QUOTE: THE PROFESSOR

.

Bolding mine.To the Professor ,I have asked this before,please show evidence of a prior experiment of this nature and when and where it happened before.And not a fairy story from the bible this time.:)

[Azrael 5]

Oh shoot forgot to mention Koenig has a friend who "predicted" snow in Florida and also has claimed his daughter is akin to an indigo child(has special abilities of some sort).
:)

[chillzero]

I have moved some off topic and less civil responses to AAH. Please try to discuss the matter at hand, and not let another thread fall under the requirement for moderated status. Be civil and polite, and post on topic please.

Particularly so in the sections of the JREF, and the MDC - these should be showcase sections for the forum.

[jj]

To add to chran's response, he's really moved to emeritus status when it comes to the Foundation. He's more than earned a retirement where he still can show up at work every day and no employee would dare ask to see his ID card. :)

He earned his retirement long, long ago.

But I'm glad he's still busy...

[xinit]

Keep marching in line :)

What, to drink the koolaid and eat the pudding in our matching new sneakers and sweat pants?

Don't you have a CLAIM to write so that your application may be processed?

[Roadtoad]

Forgive my silly little question, (and perhaps Jeff can answer it, when, and if he has some bonafide free time):

Has Professor Dave actually read the rules for the challenge? It seems odd to me that many others have actually managed to go the distance, to challenge Randi for the big bux, but this guy can't seem to find his gluteus maximus with both manual extremities. It's not that hard: Tell Randi in your application what you can do, tell him how under controlled, double blind conditions a testable result can be called a "hit," then do it. Simple, no?

Since Jeff has made it clear that Randi isn't bothered with this until it's necessary, it tells me something is off kilter, here. Either there's a lack of clarity of what's being tested, what protocols establish a hit, or perhaps there's some other conditions that someone is trying to impose, (and on that last one, I'd lay it at the steps of Dashing Dave.)

The rules have been posted from the day Randi.Org went online. They have not changed in the entire time I've been posting here. It is a challenge! The onus is on the applicant to 1.) make a valid application in line with the rules, and 2.) prove beyond reasonable doubt that the "power"/"ability"/whatever exists. In other words, tell Randi what you can do, tell him how it will be proven, then do it! It is by its very nature an adversarial relationship, particularly since the sum that's being taken is $1,000,000. Even in today's money, that's a chunk of change.

IIRC, when Kramer was doing some of the testing, the protocols were pretty straightforward. From what I'm reading, most of the valid challenges are. In other words, if I say, "I'm telekinetic," I should at least be able to say, "And to prove it, I'll move a quarter one inch on a plain formica table top, using nothing more than my thoughts. My hands will be in plain sight on the arms of my chair the whole time, and I will be able to do this within five minutes of the test's administrators giving me the go ahead." Anything more than that, and it sounds to me like you're trying to fudge. At that point, you're wasting everyone's time.

This isn't "drinking Kool-Aid," it's adherence to some pretty basic rules and principles. And if you can't do something that simple, then, no, I not only don't think James Randi owes an apology, I think if anything, it's Randi who's owed an apology.

And, no, I don't speak for Randi, but if a busted-up mutt trucker can figure out the rules which have been established from the time the prize was $1,000, I'd think someone like "Professor" Dave ought to be able to, particularly since the prize is now considerably larger.

[Jeff Wagg]

Forgive my silly little question, (and perhaps Jeff can answer it, when, and if he has some bonafide free time):

Has Professor Dave actually read the rules for the challenge?<SNIP>

Well, since he signed the application, the assumption is that he has. I will say that other challenges have gone much more smoothly.

[The Professor]

Randi's new title is Founder. Basically, all that's happened is that Phil has been asked to take over running the day to day operations of the JREF as President, and Randi is now free to do what he does best, which at this time, is writing a couple of books.

As for this ridiculous thing about Randi saying that Koenig never applied.. it's simply because he didn't know about it. Jackalgirl is right.. we don't involve Randi until we need to. This challenge application is no where near ready to involve Randi.

Randi could have added "to the best of my knowledge" to his statement, but it was implied.

To suggest that the JREF is hiding something is rather silly, as it's all posted right here.

So You admit that Randi omitted the truth!
Implied ... Right! Baloney!

[The Professor]

Randi has not got to apologise...

1. Because he didnt know about it...

2. Because the applicant is a complete and utter loon or a liar...

I dunno...

Things are so much simpler in my world...

DB

If he didn't know he should have said I DON'T KNOW ...
Drink the Kool-Aid! :)

[Roadtoad]

If he didn't know he should have said I DON'T KNOW ...
Drink the Kool-Aid! :)

No, his answer to you was accurate. And it was far more polite than you deserve.

I've spent a couple of days reading and re-reading the posted correspondence with JREF. Would you please indicate in your application where you have suggested anything that could be tested, where anything could be considered a hit under objective, observable conditions.

Until you've done that, (and this has been made clear to you from the start), I think if anyone is owed an apology, it's James Randi. And quite frankly, I think you're extremely arrogant and rude to expect Randi to drop everything until you've even attempted to do that.

If anyone's a liar, you are.

[Profwag]

Mr. Koenig,
Please steer me in the right direction as I'm very confused. If you haven't submitted an application that has been approved, then you haven't submitted an application--just as Mr. Randi said at that conference. He was obviously telling the truth at that time and unless something has happened behind the scenes I'm unaware of, is still a true statement to this day.
Also, please don't tell me to "drink the Kool-Aid" (whatever that means). I'm trying hard to live healthy and Kool-Aid has too much sugar in it for me. Thanks
Professor Wag...

[Lrrr]

If he didn't know he should have said I DON'T KNOW ...
Drink the Kool-Aid! :)

And here you are wasting time instead of answerting the question: What is your paranormal claim?

[Pogo]

If he didn't know he should have said I DON'T KNOW ...
Drink the Kool-Aid! :)

edited for civility

[chillzero]

Folks, please keep it civil, and keep this thread on topic - it isn't about the challenge.
ETA: To clarify - it's not about the specifics of the claim, which are under discussion in the MDC thread.
Thank you.

[Roadtoad]

Excuse me, Chill, but Pogo's been quite civil. The Professor is the one accusing Randi of being a liar, when there's clearly ZERO evidence of that.

1.) RemieV in her posted replies to Professor made it clear his application was unacceptable. She made it clear WHY it was unacceptable. She also made it plain that Randi would not be involved until it was.

2.) The basic rules for the Challenge make it clear that Randi won't be involved until an acceptable application has been made. Just doing some basic math as to how many applications have been received by JREF will reveal that if it were just Randi, he'd have no time to do much of anything else. It would seem to me, given the painstaking efforts to establish clarity in the rules to PREVENT this sort of thing, that once it was clear the Professor had no intention of complying with the rules for the challenge, his application should have been round-filed. Period.

I'm not a professional magician, I'm not a scientist. I'm a truck driver. But I could read the rules and this -- person's -- application, and realize IT WASN'T GOING TO FLY! Trying to accuse James Randi of lying is slanderous, especially when you realize that it's been made clear that his application was lacking, and that Randi wouldn't be informed of it until it was acceptable under the rules.

3.) Since the failure of his application, The Professor has embarked on an ill-advised effort to slander Randi. This either indicates malice or brain damage. Sorry. Pogo's question (which has since been deleted) is more than reasonable. Clearly, if The Professor is lacking something upstairs, he should have taken the advice in the FAQ regarding the Challenge to pay a visit to his family doctor and make sure he was in his right mind. No one wants to see anyone humiliated, and if The Professor is truly deluded, it's an act of cruelty to see him proceed with the Challenge.

If anything, I think Pogo's response is overdue.

[chillzero]

[as mod]
I don't consider that civil, and you know similar comments are regularly moderated throughout the forum.
The Professor's challenge is still ongoing. It has not, as you claim, failed.

The challenge is being discussed in the appropriate place, and should not be discussed here.

We all need to support the JREF in enabling this test to take place. That means maintaining the high road, being the height of civility and calm, and not responding emotionally to any flame baiting.

I understand how difficult many of you are finding this current situation. So are the mods. But, the JREF are aware of all of this, and we are acting as best we can under their guidance.

We should not provoke, insult, or bully. I know this is tough, but I appreciate the participation of all of you in these efforts as much as possible.

Apart from this response that I think the posters in this thread need to see, any further moderation issues should be discussed in forum mgt.

[Roadtoad]

Understood. And I will do so.

[The Professor]

Please call the DragonCon people for the full story before you say something you may regret as those guys did about the Counterfeiting( Now with egg on their faces) :)

Email: dragoncon@dragoncon.org

Telephone: 770-909-0115
(M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST)

FAX: 770-909-0112

Postal Mail: Dragon*Con
PO Box 16459
Atlanta, GA 30321-0459

[xinit]

Please call the DragonCon people for the full story before you say something you may regret as those guys did about the Counterfeiting( Now with egg on their faces) :)

"Those guys about the counterfeiting"? Which guys said what to end up with egg on their faces?

Did the Secret Service show up to haul James Randi off to jail and I missed it?

[DJM]

I think Dave is still annoyed that Phenomenon didn't choose him for the show, so he's looking for "fame" somewhere else.. Like on YouTube videos (some of his videos are there somewhere, among millions of other videos by little kids), on Randi's forum (a place known for attracting hundreds of trolls and attention seekers throughout the years, not really good for promotion), and an unknown internet Podcast (heard by 30 people).

If he's lucky enough, maybe next time he will try to approve his chances at fame by getting himself a new Myspace page!

[rjh01]

I do not think anyone ended up with egg on their face over the video. The forum members (and others) showed that no crime was committed so they do not have egg on their face. James Randi did nothing wrong so he does not have egg on his face. Jim is doing things for entertainment purposes only so he did not have egg on his face, so who else is left?

[DevilsAdvocate]

...if a busted-up mutt trucker can figure out the rules which have been established from the time the prize was $1,000, I'd think someone like "Professor" Dave ought to be able to, particularly since the prize is now considerably larger.Classic. Roadtoad, you are the bestest! Have you written a book? I'd love to read one by you.

[Azrael 5]

Please call the DragonCon people for the full story before you say something you may regret as those guys did about the Counterfeiting( Now with egg on their faces) :)

Email: dragoncon@dragoncon.org

Telephone: 770-909-0115
(M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST)

FAX: 770-909-0112

Postal Mail: Dragon*Con
PO Box 16459
Atlanta, GA 30321-0459

It was stated by a JREF member in the other thread that no-one had contacted Dragon Con-you and Callahan are obsessed with that convention-maybe you and him can share the costs and go next year?!

Even the folks on Lake Parker Drive know DragonCon is above reproach.

[Jeff Wagg]

So You admit that Randi omitted the truth!
Implied ... Right! Baloney!

Randi was unaware of the truth. He couldn't omit it. Also, I believe it's possible that Randi has Koenig and Callahan mixed up, and I can see why.

[Azrael 5]

Randi was unaware of the truth. He couldn't omit it. Also, I believe it's possible that Randi has Koenig and Callahan mixed up, and I can see why.

I often wonder if they are one and the same person.Totally unoriginal however you look at it.

[Roadtoad]

I object.

More and more, this is becoming a slanderous assault on the character of James Randi.

I respectfully request a moderator review this thread and others.

[The Professor]

If Randi is Mixed Up, then I guess he needs to apologize as I've suggested.

If Randi, Simply Lied, then I guess it's time he Apologized as suggested.

If Randi was Misinformed or just Ignorant of the truth, then I guess he needs to apologize as suggested.

If Randi is STILL insisting that I HAVEN"T APPLIED then he needs to apologize.... Right Away :) (Or get some counseling :))

What you don't know but I will now reveal is that Itricks was notified of this video and sent a link BEFORE Randi called it all a "Pack of Lies" on the Podcast ... :)

He played right into it!

Will you follow blindly?

[Azrael 5]

If Randi is Mixed Up, then I guess he needs to apologize as I've suggested.

If Randi, Simply Lied, then I guess it's time he Apologized as suggested.

If Randi was Misinformed or just Ignorant of the truth, then I guess he needs to apologize as suggested.

If Randi is STILL insisting that I HAVEN"T APPLIED then he needs to apologize.... Right Away :) (Or get some counseling :))

What you don't know but I will now reveal is that Itricks was notified of this video and sent a link BEFORE Randi called it all a "Pack of Lies" on the Podcast ... :)

He played right into it!

Will you follow blindly?

Make a sentence of the following words:

Protocol.Have.One.Yet.Got.You.?

That's all were interested in hearing. :)

[ravdin]

If Randi is Mixed Up, then I guess he needs to apologize as I've suggested.

If Randi, Simply Lied, then I guess it's time he Apologized as suggested.

If Randi was Misinformed or just Ignorant of the truth, then I guess he needs to apologize as suggested.

If Randi is STILL insisting that I HAVEN"T APPLIED then he needs to apologize.... Right Away :) (Or get some counseling :))

What you don't know but I will now reveal is that Itricks was notified of this video and sent a link BEFORE Randi called it all a "Pack of Lies" on the Podcast ... :)

He played right into it!

Will you follow blindly?

Actually, Randi doesn't have to do any of those things. You don't have to have anything to do with Randi, if you are dissatisfied with the way he has responded to you.

Here's a shocking notion: you don't have to prove anything to Randi! You can continue to make your claims (although here's a hint: you might want to start by actually making a claim), and it doesn't matter whether or not Randi believes you or even wants to talk to you. Randi is not an all knowing, final authority on whatever abilities you may or may not have and if he won't hear you out, maybe someone else will.

Or, you can continue to whine and call Randi a liar, which is what I suspect you'll end up doing. Good luck to you, either way.

[Pogo]

Make a sentence of the following words:

Protocol.Have.One.Yet.Got.You.?

That's all were interested in hearing. :)

This applicant will never produce an acceptable protocol. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever.

[Azrael 5]

This applicant will never produce an acceptable protocol. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever.

I'm shocked at your pessimism.;)

Tell us it ain't so Dave F Koenig.[In the appropiate thread]:)

[Pantaz]

What you don't know but I will now reveal is that Itricks was notified of this video and sent a link BEFORE Randi called it all a "Pack of Lies" on the Podcast ... :)
As I have pointed out before [1] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051902&postcount=27), [2] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4058788&postcount=615), when Mr. Randi used the phrase, "pack of lies", he was not talking about you, or any specific person. In context, he was talking in general terms about people claiming to be rejected for the MDC when they have never filed an application.

[Azrael 5]

I did a search on Itricks website and lo and behold no reference to Slim King, The Professor or DragonCon.
Plenty of ref to how great Randi is though ;)

[chillzero]

Further circumvention of the claim thread's moderation will result in this thread being placed on moderated status.

[Roadtoad]

Further circumvention of the claim thread's moderation will result in this thread being placed on moderated status.

Oh, please. Please. Please...

Waaaaay overdue.

[The Professor]

If Randi is Mixed Up, then I guess he needs to apologize as I've suggested.

If Randi, Simply Lied, then I guess it's time he Apologized as suggested.

If Randi was Misinformed or just Ignorant of the truth, then I guess he needs to apologize as suggested.

If Randi is STILL insisting that I HAVEN"T APPLIED then he needs to apologize.... Right Away :) (Or get some counseling :))

What you don't know but I will now reveal is that Itricks was notified of this video and sent a link BEFORE Randi called it all a "Pack of Lies" on the Podcast ... :)

He played right into it!

Will you follow blindly?

No one will even try to answer this question.
Randi needs to apologize.

Randi was corrected by Alison Michelle Smith and NOW by ME!

Even Jeff Wagg thinks he is mistaken! And Jeff may be right!
Bottom line.... Randi is wrong!

And even more disturbing ... does he STILL calim that I have not applied?
If so, you need to quit following.

Critical thinkers must think.

[Cavemonster]

Prof,
Imagine a man runs a bustling candy store.

One day, while the man is not in the shop, little Billy comes in and buys a great big strawberry sucker and leaves.
The next day, while he IS at the shop, someone asks the man if that Billy kid every comes in.

"Nope" answers the man.

Billy hears about this and storms into the shop screaming "Apologize! Apologize!"

That about right?

[Roadtoad]

No one will even try to answer this question.
Randi needs to apologize.

Randi was corrected by Alison Michelle Smith and NOW by ME!

Even Jeff Wagg thinks he is mistaken! And Jeff may be right!
Bottom line.... Randi is wrong!

And even more disturbing ... does he STILL calim that I have not applied?
If so, you need to quit following.

Critical thinkers must think.

Reported.

[Pogo]

The Professor has got to be the hungriest troll I've ever seen. It seems like an obvious suggestion but, perhaps not feeding him will compel him to take his appetite elsewhere?

[Doubt]

I see your grandstanding continues.

No one will even try to answer this question.
Randi needs to apologize.

There is no question there to answer. In the above quote, you stated that Randi need to apologize. Your opening post was worded as a question and it was answered. You have ignored it because you don't like the answer.

In the post of yours that you quoted, the only question was "Will you follow blindly?"

The answer is no, but since you don't like it you will evade dealing with that answer just as you have the original question that you failed to restate properly in this most recent post.


Randi was corrected by Alison Michelle Smith and NOW by ME!

Even Jeff Wagg thinks he is mistaken! And Jeff may be right!
Bottom line.... Randi is wrong!

Is or was? You have a context problem. If this was an isolated statement, you may be excused for sloppy sentence construction. (Something I do a lot.) But you continued below:


And even more disturbing ... does he STILL calim that I have not applied?
If so, you need to quit following.

For him to continue to claim that you have not applied, he would have to make statements to that effect. Now a thinking person here would ask himself one simple question: Whom would he be making the statement of denial to? You? The trees? Some unknown to us audience? Between this statement and the one above it becomes apparent that what we have here in not a failure to write well but a failure to present a rational position.

The notion of this being disturbing is rather odd (but not disturbing) in light of the subsequent irrational statement.


Critical thinkers must think.

Indeed! Those you can do. You do not. See the following and consider the long term results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=psychic+samuri&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You posts here will follow you.

[DevilsAdvocate]

If Randi was Misinformed or just Ignorant of the truth, then I guess he needs to apologize as suggested.
Why do you guess?

And why does Randi need this?

Will you follow blindly?No one will even try to answer this question.I will even try to answer. No. Unless you mean answer the question in the thread title, in which case I answer “No” or “What” depending on whether the conjunction was intended as a rhetorical compound proposition or a separator of distinctive alternatives.

Glad to help you out.

[snoop_doxie]

Why do you guess?

And why does Randi need this?

I will even try to answer. No. Unless you mean answer the question in the thread title, in which case I answer “No” or “What” depending on whether the conjunction was intended as a rhetorical compound proposition or a separator of distinctive alternatives.
Glad to help you out.

Wow, DevilsAdvocate, (great screen name BTW)
I think I felt a little light headed when I read the bolded part above.

Whether you helped the Professor or not, I certainly learned something! :blush:

<checking to see if my tenses match> :)

Are you some kind of kung fu english master? :D

[xinit]

Guys; It seems that it's long past time to stop feeding this troll. He has work wo do on writing a protocol, and we're keeping him from it by playing these silly games. We don't want to keep The Professor from showing us how wrong we have been with regard to his Powers, now do we?

That said, it's almost as if Dave holds Randi to some insane level of knowledge akin to godhood; assuming that the man should be all knowing.

[xinit]

The Professor has got to be the hungriest troll I've ever seen. It seems like an obvious suggestion but, perhaps not feeding him will compel him to take his appetite elsewhere?

We're keeping him from his homework... he has a proposal to write.

[RoboTimbo]

If memory serves, Randi brought a libel suit against some other punk. He generously didn't pursue it after the kid groveled enough. As far as Randi needing to apologize? See ya in court! I believe calling someone a 'felon' when they aren't would be grounds for a libel suit.

Keep up the good work, :)!

[The Professor]

So now you threaten lawsuit ...a good way to avoid the question :)
Where is the proof that Randi has acknowledged the Claim?
Is he still confused?

[ravdin]

So now you threaten lawsuit ...a good way to avoid the question :)
Where is the proof that Randi has acknowledged the Claim?
Is he still confused?

You seem to be the one who is confused here. Posters on this forum aren't speaking on Randi's behalf, any more than you are.

[Azrael 5]

So now you threaten lawsuit ...a good way to avoid the question :)
Where is the proof that Randi has acknowledged the Claim?
Is he still confused?

Who is lawsuit? Are they a member? I don't see a username matching.Why are they being threatened?
Where is the proof Randi hasn't acknowledged the claim.Do you assume Randi should post on here just to appease you and your agenda? Do you know wether he has emailed Jeff Wagg for example? Or RemieV? I would think he is fully aware of your partial application.As many people on this forum are,do you wish for every member to post here that they see you have applied?
No.I think your ego cannot take the fact Randi just ignores you.It eats away at you doesn't it? How you slag him off ,accuse him of various misnomers yet he respectfully keeps quiet.
To most that speaks a lot louder than any of your beligerent posts.

There are numerous questions awaiting your reply in claim thread.Go.:)

[xinit]

So now you threaten lawsuit ...a good way to avoid the question :)
Where is the proof that Randi has acknowledged the Claim?
Is he still confused?

Why would you expect the top guy to acknowledge your claim? Should he call you up and go for lunch? Or maybe, the new president of the JREF, Phil Plait is the new one you'd like to hear from?

Do you expect the president of a bank to know about or acknowledge every loan application, or to apologize for not knowing that Mr. and Mrs. Koenig applied for a home equity loan?

Please, use those critical thinking skills that you suggest we use.

[Doubt]

So now you threaten lawsuit ...a good way to avoid the question :)
Where is the proof that Randi has acknowledged the Claim?
Is he still confused?

Show me where you have been threatened with a law suit.

Your previous question has been answered.

Why is it necessary that Randi acknowledge you claim? Your claim has been accepted by the JREF. There is no requirment anywhere in the rules for Randi to state that he personally accepts your claim.

All else is irrelevant as is your latest question. I await your latest hand waving.

[The Professor]

If Randi says i HAVEN"T APPLIED and I HAVE then what is that? :)

If he is corrected and then does it AGAIN ... What is that?

Then he does it AGAIN on a Magic Podacast .... What is that?

Honestly, you guys look more and more like the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinkers and more like mindless followers every day.

[The Professor]

If Randi says I HAVEN"T APPLIED and I HAVE then what is that? :)

If he is corrected and then does it AGAIN ... What is that?

Then he does it AGAIN on a Magic Podacast .... What is that?

If he continues on .... What is that?

Honestly, you guys look more and more like the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinkers and more like mindless followers every day.

[ravdin]

Honestly, you guys look more and more like the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinkers and more like mindless followers every day.

Hey, that hurts my feelings! :cry1

I give up. Randi owes you a big fat apology and a basket of flowers. Just don't call me a "mindless follower" again. I couldn't bear it!

[not daSkeptic]

If Randi says i HAVEN"T APPLIED and I HAVE then what is that? :)

If he is corrected and then does it AGAIN ... What is that?

Then he does it AGAIN on a Magic Podacast .... What is that?

I would say it's a sign of a person who, owing to delegation of authority, is unaware of every last miniscule detail of their organization. I would say it's a sign of an organization whose procedures, owing to limitations in the laws of physics, do not permit real-time dissemination of every last scrap of data to all corners of the enterprise. I would say these points are completely reasonable and entirely consistent with the conventions of the business world.

[Roadtoad]

If Randi says I HAVEN"T APPLIED and I HAVE then what is that? :)

If he is corrected and then does it AGAIN ... What is that?

Then he does it AGAIN on a Magic Podacast .... What is that?

If he continues on .... What is that?

Honestly, you guys look more and more like the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinkers and more like mindless followers every day.

You haven't provided protocols for the challenge. Period.

It's been explained to you: Until protocols have been provided, and accepted, you have accomplished nothing, and Randi has not been informed. You have been told this. Failure to accept this is not Randi's fault. It's yours.

No lawsuit has been threatened. An example was cited from past experience. However, should you continue to attempt to smear James Randi, if you're really grooving on being sued, I'm sure at some point, someone will indulge you.

[SimonD]

No lawsuit has been threatened. An example was cited from past experience. However, should you continue to attempt to smear James Randi, if you're really grooving on being sued, I'm sure at some point, someone will indulge you.Let the professor say what he wants. It all gets recorded. No evidence better then the written word

[Azrael 5]

Dave F Koenig could it be Randi knows all about you and Callahan and your smear campaign on YouTube(laughs)and is giving you two the Rope you so love to talk about? Or maybe he doesn't give a rat's ass about your application,as judging on posts here and Magic Cafe he sees right through you?

James Randi has been in the trickery business a good 60 years or more,is rightly considered a legend.You have been on a tin pot internet radio show.

Bitter much? :D

[Locknar]

If Randi says I HAVEN"T APPLIED and I HAVE then what is that? :)

If he is corrected and then does it AGAIN ... What is that?

Then he does it AGAIN on a Magic Podacast .... What is that?

If he continues on .... What is that?What is that? That is you not understanding the answer you've been given; you are not considered to have "applied" until your claim & protocols have been agreed to by ALCON. The JREF has acknowledged they received your initial application...but you already knew all of this.

Randi's statement's have exactly ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with your claim...but you already knew this as well.

So "What is that?" It is you trying to deflect attention from you and your inability to complete the application process.

In other words, it is you being intellectually dishonest.


Honestly, you guys look more and more like the OPPOSITE of Critical Thinkers and more like mindless followers every day.Taunting...always the mark of a truly honest person.

[The Professor]

You blindly follow.
Is Randi still saying I didn't apply when even Jeff says he's probably confused (And there are over a thousand posts on the JREF Forum about it) ???? :)) Alison corrected him in front of 800 people! Itricks new I'd applied BEFORE they even spoke with him :) He'd received phone calls from fellow mentalists :)
Follow onward critical thinkers :)

[chillzero]

You blindly follow.
Is Randi still saying I didn't apply when even Jeff says he's probably confused (And there are over a thousand posts on the JREF Forum about it) ???? :)) Alison corrected him in front of 800 people! Itricks new I'd applied BEFORE they even spoke with him :) He'd received phone calls from fellow mentalists :)
Follow onward critical thinkers :)

Have you any evidence that he is currently denying your application?

[Roadtoad]

Okay, one more time:

First, it needs to be understood that you are entering an adversarial relationship with the James Randi Educational Foundation. You are coming before JREF, and attempting to take from the organization One Million Dollars. Even today, that is a chunk of change. That is money which was donated specifically for the challenge, to provide an incentive for those who claim to have paranormal powers to attempt to prove the same.

The money exists, contrary to the claims of people like Sylvia Browne. It is held by the firm of Goldman Sachs, and is available to the claimant once there is proof of the paranormal power. The Internal Revenue Service says the money is there. Further claims by anyone that the prize does not exist are slanderous. Rather than making James Randi look bad, it makes those who deny the existence of the money look like fools.

Since this is the case, in order for someone to lay claim to the One Million Dollars, there must be a test of the abilities claimed. I'm sure it would be great fun if I could say, "I can see through a sheetrock wall," and be able to walk away with a million bucks. That'll buy a lot of beer. I know this, James Randi knows this. It's actually pretty basic.

Therefore, in order to prevent that from happening, and in order for James Randi to continue to hang onto his million, a test must be taken and evidence provided that the powers claimed do exist. In order for this to work, there must be protocols established which make it possible for the claimant to be able to declare he's proved his assertions, or for James Randi to say said powers as claimed do not exist, at least as far as the claimant is concerned.

To further illustrate, I'll use the example cited above:

If I claim I can see through a sheetrock wall, I have to propose a means of testing that. I have to state in my proposal to JREF:

In order to test my claimed ability of being able to see through a sheetrock wall, I will ask someone to place fifteen photographs of well known individuals from the 20th Century. These photographs will be randomly selected from multiple sources, chosen by the James Randi Educational Foundation. They will be limited to individuals who were alive between 1900 and 2000. I will then identify each individual by name, or, failing that, at least be able to provide a specific description of each individual in the appropriate photographs.

In other words, I've now provided a description of the test, how it will be carried out, and a basic idea of source material.

But as the man on TV says: But wait! There's MORE!

My claim shall be determined to be successful if I can identify or describe at least 10 of those individuals pictured in the photographs. If I cannot do so, the test shall be declared a failure, and I will forfeit any claim to the One Million Dollar prize.

In short, not only does there need to be a means of testing to determine if I have the Ability, but there needs to be some means of assessing if I have won. It's not enough to say, "I can do this," but there needs to be some means of providing evidence which is incontrovertible. I can't just say I can do it. I have to DO it.

Keep in mind: A twelve year old figured this out.

JREF may not be a large organization in terms of manpower, but they do have a broad reach. James Randi is busy, as an author, as a skeptic, as a lecturer. No, he may not perform regularly as a magician these days, but I'm sure he gets a number of requests for him to do so in his daily mail. As such, the staff of JREF, such as it is, handles the requests for him. As it has been explained to you by Remie V, once you have provided to James Randi your proposal, and declared a set of protocols which make it possible to support your claim of being in contact with the dead, he will be advised. Until such time as you do, any information he has on this is incidental. His knowledge of it is limited. This is, in part, for your protection, and his. It means that neither one of you can pull a fast one.

Like I said: A twelve year old figured this out.

Once your protocols have been approved, and you both agree on what counts as a hit, then there's a preliminary test. It's unlikely that James Randi will administer that test; in the past, it's sometimes been handled by others. But, the upshot is that if you can make it past the preliminaries, all you have to do is perform the test one more time, and do so successfully. At that point, you've got your million.

Remember: A twelve year old figured this out.

To date, no one has ever made it past the preliminary test. But, there have been people who have tried. A record exists on the Forum which is available for your perusal. If you're having trouble figuring out how to write up your protocols, take a look at how it has been done before. Perhaps a science teacher at your local Community College can help you with this. There are any number of ways to work this out. However, the failure to come up with protocols which can provide evidence of your claimed ability is not James Randi's. It is yours. The resources are out there, at your local public library, at your local schools, in bookstores, and no doubt among your neighbors and friends.

If I haven't said so before, I'll repeat it here: A twelve year old figured this out.

What this comes down to is that if you want to take a shot and win a million dollars, you have to play by the rules, just like everyone else. You have to figure out how JREF will know if you can actually hear the dead. You must provide a means for JREF and others to see the evidence of your claimed ability. If you cannot do this, even with the resources available to you, it is not James Randi's fault. Others have not had the difficulties you're claiming, nor have others tried to smear James Randi. They made their proposals, made their attempts, and when they failed, they accepted their limitations, or simply shut up. They didn't, for the most part, slander anyone. They acted like the adults they were. Including the 12 year old.

And just so you know: The twelve year old didn't make it past the preliminaries, either.

[Roadtoad]

I note that several posts have been sent to AAH.

If we were honest, we'd do the same with this thread.

[Darth Rotor]

Does Randi Needs to Apologize or What?
1. What.

In order that my reply is understood, I used "what" in the same sense one uses it when one exclaims, in an interrogative sense, "WTF" (What The F{rule something}) is going on here?"

(The correct response for this thread, to that interrogative, is troll kicking.)

DR

[The Professor]

I am waiting for the apology!

For someone to call my application a PACK OF LIES as Randi did on Itricks is totally unfounded.

I know that Jeff Wagg thinks and has stated on this thread that Randi may be confused, and I think that Jeff is correct on this one, but why doesn't Randi own up to the confusion and apologize?

It is also on video that Alison Smith TOLD HIM that I'd applied!

Why would Randi perpetuate the notion that I haven't applied and I'm just Lying to everyone about my accepted claim?

If it's to discourage me from coming for the Million (If that's what's left) then that just isn't Fair is it now?

That would suggest that he protects the Million by this type of behavior.

You'll love the protocol!!!!!

[Roadtoad]

You know, Prof, I feel sorry for you.

You obviously have no life.

You clearly have no perspective on this.

You keep talking about a protocol, but you've yet to produce it.

Such a sense of self-importance smacks of someone who's not completely connected upstairs. A couple of tacos short of a combination plate.

Therapy. If you aren't already in it, consider starting.

Oh, and don't quit those meds.

[MattC]

You'll love the protocol!!!!!

I'm going to make a paranormal prediction!! :cool:. I want to state in advance that this is completely paranormal and in no way influenced by logical deduction nor past history. Any replies to the contrary will be flat-out ignored on this forum and relentlessly mocked by myself and my paranormal peers upon message boards that your shoddy not-so-critically-thinking minds have never heard of, providing a relentless source of amusement for us at your expense. This mockery will be extreme. I will also continue to support my good friend Him in his endeavors to enlighten you forumites and the YouTube masses as to the truly paranormal nature of the world and the illegitimate nature of the Million-Dollar Challenge by posting unrelated manifestations of thought laced with my trademark emoticon (I am sure your skeptical minds know which one I refer to! :cool:).

HERE'S THE PREDICTION!!! The same bickering and debate will continue about this new protocol, whenever it may be presented. It will do very little to change this forum's opinion of Mr. Koenig, and several forum members will come forward with serious objections. I myself will probably chip in with a comment or two about the language employed by the protocol. Mr. Wagg will most certainly have his objections to the proposed protocol, I'm getting that impression from the spirits quite strongly.

I look forward to being proven right!! :cool::cool:

~ Matt :cool::cool:

(EDIT: I highly encourage others in communication with spirits who have information about this protocol to reply with their own paranormal predictions about this matter. :cool:)

[rjh01]

Here is my prediction about the protocol - The final version will never be produced.

[chillzero]

I am waiting for the apology!



You seem to have missed my earlier question:
Have you any evidence that he is currently denying your application?

As for the end of your post, and the other posts since,
[as mod]
any further avoidance of the moderated status on the existing protocol thread will see this thread closed.

The final warning on this was given already on the previous page.

[Pantaz]

For someone to call my application a PACK OF LIES as Randi did on Itricks is totally unfounded.

This is the FOURTH TIME* I have corrected you on this point! Please PAY ATTENTION!
At no time during the Itricks interview is the name "David Koenig" (or any of your pseudonyms) uttered. The term "pack of lies" was about people claiming to be rejected for the MDC when they have never filed an application.


I know that Jeff Wagg thinks and has stated on this thread that Randi may be confused, and I think that Jeff is correct on this one, but why doesn't Randi own up to the confusion and apologize?

It is also on video that Alison Smith TOLD HIM that I'd applied!

... And moments after she told him, he corrected himself. (transcript (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051902&postcount=27))


Why would Randi perpetuate the notion that I haven't applied and I'm just Lying to everyone about my accepted claim?
You are making yet another baseless claim. The only time James Randi has mentioned your MDC claim was at DragonCon, and once he was made aware of it, he even stated that your application is, "...free to be seen anytime you want to see it." [1] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051902&postcount=27)


You'll love the protocol!!!!!
What we (participants on this forum) think about the protocol is irrelevant. If you do not submit a protocol directly to Jeff Wagg then you are just playing a game.


* See [1] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051902&postcount=27), [2] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4058788&postcount=615), [3] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4085865&postcount=103)

[Roadtoad]

You've hit it, Pantaz. The Prof is playing a game.

Removed for off-topic, but allowing the rest of the post

Randi did not lie. Claiming he did is ultimately going to bring legal action. It will also bring an end to this silly charade on the Professor's part, and will probably result in his being banned. All of the information provided will remain, as will his bogus claims. It will remain on the Internet forever, and the world will see what a silly, childish individual the Professor is.

And they will tell him to go to his room. :D

[The Professor]

He said that my application was a PACK OF LIES !!!!
Is this some way of trying to get me to QUIT?

If so, then the integrity of the JREF is in question here.

Please show me where James has come to his senses and admitted the mistake!

Even Jeff Wagg thinks he is confused.

[Azrael 5]

He said that my application was a PACK OF LIES !!!!
Is this some way of trying to get me to QUIT?

If so, then the integrity of the JREF is in question here.

Please show me where James has come to his senses and admitted the mistake!

Even Jeff Wagg thinks he is confused.

Just to remind you Dave,it seems maybe you didn't notice this post:

As I have pointed out before [1] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4051902&postcount=27), [2] (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4058788&postcount=615), when Mr. Randi used the phrase, "pack of lies", he was not talking about you, or any specific person. In context, he was talking in general terms about people claiming to be rejected for the MDC when they have never filed an application.

If this is untrue please provide proof.Nothing else,just proof.

[The Professor]

Since JR has hung up on me when questioned about this over the phone, I've taken this to Youtube !!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page

Which is it?
Ignorant or Lying?
:cool::cool:

[Patricio Elicer]

Can you produce a scan of the application form you sent?

I may have missed it, but could you please explain what your claim is?

[Doubt]

Since JR has hung up on me when questioned about this over the phone, I've taken this to Youtube !!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page

Which is it?
Ignorant or Lying?
:cool::cool:

Neither.

Now maybe if you did not use so many aliases, you would not have such problems.

But then, you don't really care anyway. Time to get a new act. Your current efforts at getting some publicity are a miserable failure.

Now you could try to go back and talk about your former claim, but you already reveled here that you never believed in it. So I guess this is all that you have left. And it still won't make you famous or make you any money.

Time for some new ideas. Let's start with coming up with an act somebody wants to watch. You know what I mean. Learn to do a few good tricks with proficiency and then start performing them in public. Beats making a lot of noise and not doing anything but talking. Even David Blaine has more of an act.

[The Professor]

Can you produce a scan of the application form you sent?

I may have missed it, but could you please explain what your claim is?

Randi has stated that such things are a matter of public record and they are free for anyone to see.
Perhaps you should ask him?
Or just READ :)

Not only do I have a claim but also I've submitted TWO VERIFIABLE PROTOCOLS (Which the JREF has Refused to agree to)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page

[jj]

My goodness. Why don't you just show us the evidence yourself?

[TSR]

Not only do I have a claim but also I've submitted TWO VERIFIABLE PROTOCOLS (Which the JREF has Refused to agree to)


/
... for certain values of the terms "protocol" and "claim".

Both "protocols" amounted to "I will spout some mumbo-jumbo, and something neat will happen. I don't know what, but it'll be neat. Really really neat. But it can only happen at one time and place. Okay, another time, but the same place. But the only way I can get permission to the place is to lie about what I'm going to be doing -- so no one tell, okay? And we'll have all these recorders, see? They're to record the really neat stuff I can't actually say will be there. I promise they won't be rigged or anything, and you can trust me, right? Ummmm, did I mention the mumbo jumbo? It was written by a whole team of writers but they all walked away from a paying gig because I told them it was all a scam. But it'll be really really spooky and neat."

Which is why you no longer even have an active application, let alone a claim.

/
/

[Improbable Joe]

Since JR has hung up on me when questioned about this over the phone, I've taken this to Youtube !!!!!!!
Which is it?
Ignorant or Lying?
:cool::cool:

If you had any evidence for your stupid claims, you would just present them and let the evidence speak for you. Attacking James Randi might make you feel better, and make your victims believe your nonsense, but the rest of us would be convinced if you actually had anything to convince people with.

You want to "take it to YouTube"? Why not go further, and show everyone your evidence?

[Jackalgirl]

Oh boy, it's on YouTube! It must be true!

[Improbable Joe]

Oh boy, it's on YouTube! It must be true!

So, if there are more videos starring Randi, then he must be more legitimate than each individual critic?

[fromdownunder]

Randi has stated that such things are a matter of public record and they are free for anyone to see.
Perhaps you should ask him?
Or just READ :)

Not only do I have a claim but also I've submitted TWO VERIFIABLE PROTOCOLS (Which the JREF has Refused to agree to)




Haven't had our attention whore fixes lately, have we?

Just post your two "verifiable" protocols here. What does "verifiable protocol" even supposed to mean?

Never mind, I know the source. If you cannot, or do not, post your supposed protocols then you are a liar. Simple really - just do it and post them.

The truth shall set you free.

Norm

[Jackalgirl]

So, if there are more videos starring Randi, then he must be more legitimate than each individual critic?


You know, there once was a guy who claimed that you could establish the validity of one claim vs another by comparing the number of Google hits. That is, if you had two opposing ideas, the one with more hits had to be the true one. For the life of me, I couldn't remember who it was. It was such an outrageously stupid claim, though, that it took the Forum body a page or two to understand that this was, in fact, what the person was claiming.

TP, your attempts to smear Randi are just getting sad. They're such pathetic attempts to stretch and twist and redefine what's going on to fit your agenda, and they're so obvious. Why are you so desperate to go after Randi? What on earth do you hope to achieve? Do you honestly think that behaving this way will bring you any kind of real recognition?* If you were to spend half as much energy on simple, honest, self-promotion, you'd probably be a lot farther along the road you're seeking to travel. This quest of yours against Randi is just concrete around your feet.

*Right now, your efforts in trying to smear Randi make you look like an idiot. I know that you do not intend, by any stretch of the imagination, to come off like an idiot. But your arguments are just so plain stupid that it's getting harder and harder, with every succeeding post, to not come to the conclusion that you, too, are simply stupid. What's even more stupid is the fact that any person with the ability to read can go read through your previous correspondence here, see very quickly that you came to the MDC in bad faith to begin with, and probably draw the conclusion that you are acting like an idiot.

Why don't you just start over, forget Randi, and re-imagine yourself as a whatever-it-is-you-want-to-be from the ground up? It worked for Peter Popoff; surely you can pull it off?

[Improbable Joe]

You know, there once was a guy who claimed that you could establish the validity of one claim vs another by comparing the number of Google hits. That is, if you had two opposing ideas, the one with more hits had to be the true one. For the life of me, I couldn't remember who it was. It was such an outrageously stupid claim, though, that it took the Forum body a page or two to understand that this was, in fact, what the person was claiming.

TP, your attempts to smear Randi are just getting sad. They're such pathetic attempts to stretch and twist and redefine what's going on to fit your agenda, and they're so obvious. Why are you so desperate to go after Randi? What on earth do you hope to achieve? Do you honestly think that behaving this way will bring you any kind of real recognition?* If you were to spend half as much energy on simple, honest, self-promotion, you'd probably be a lot farther along the road you're seeking to travel. This quest of yours against Randi is just concrete around your feet.

*Right now, your efforts in trying to smear Randi make you look like an idiot. I know that you do not intend, by any stretch of the imagination, to come off like an idiot. But your arguments are just so plain stupid that it's getting harder and harder, with every succeeding post, to not come to the conclusion that you, too, are simply stupid. What's even more stupid is the fact that any person with the ability to read can go read through your previous correspondence here, see very quickly that you came to the MDC in bad faith to begin with, and probably draw the conclusion that you are acting like an idiot.

Why don't you just start over, forget Randi, and re-imagine yourself as a whatever-it-is-you-want-to-be from the ground up? It worked for Peter Popoff; surely you can pull it off?I can imagine a half-dozen famous stupid/dishonest/fraudulent people off of the top of my head. In all of those cases, I can disprove what they say with the facts behind their lies, without mentioning them at all. It is true that some of those people are sexual predators, or have covered up for sexual predators. Some of them are Neo-Nazis, or apologists for Hitler.

None of that matters. Their claims either hold up, or they don't. If the guy who invented a vaccine to save my life was a terrible husband or father, it doesn't change that his vaccine worked. Someone who is trying to bolster their claim here by attacking Randi falls into the same fallacy. Smear Randi all you want... you still have to present your evidence. Proving that James Randi is a bad person doesn't mean that your claim has any merit.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Which is it?
Ignorant or Lying?
:cool::cool:

:deadp

[Jackalgirl]

I can imagine a half-dozen famous stupid/dishonest/fraudulent people off of the top of my head. In all of those cases, I can disprove what they say with the facts behind their lies, without mentioning them at all. It is true that some of those people are sexual predators, or have covered up for sexual predators. Some of them are Neo-Nazis, or apologists for Hitler.

None of that matters. Their claims either hold up, or they don't. If the guy who invented a vaccine to save my life was a terrible husband or father, it doesn't change that his vaccine worked. Someone who is trying to bolster their claim here by attacking Randi falls into the same fallacy. Smear Randi all you want... you still have to present your evidence. Proving that James Randi is a bad person doesn't mean that your claim has any merit.

At this point, I don't think that TP is doing it to bolster support for his claim. I think he just wants fame as "the guy who brought down James Randi". It doesn't matter to him that demonstrating that Randi was wrong about one thing doesn't make him wrong about all things. He just wants the attention. But James Randi is relatively unknown except among certain circles. I mean, it's not as if you say "James Randi" and every person in America goes "wow, James Randi!". Honestly, exactly how much fame would it bring someone, assuming that that someone actually had arguments that didn't appear to be so patently idiotic?

[rjh01]

If the professor had made a good claim as per rule 16

16. This notarized form must be accompanied by a brief, two-paragraph description of what will constitute the demonstration. Upon a protocol being developed, that description may be extended.
then he would have posted it on the thread that was created for him. He did not do so. His abilities were clearly demonstrated, in that thread, as being nothing but a figment of his imagination. Everything else is irrelevant and not worth discussing.

[Azrael 5]

Just to remind you Dave,it seems maybe you didn't notice this post:



If this is untrue please provide proof.Nothing else,just proof.

Maybe scroll up Dave and answer that question which you conviently forgot about.
And

Since JR has hung up on me when questioned about this over the phone, I've taken this to Youtube !!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=channel_page)

Which is it?
Ignorant or Lying?
:cool::cool:

Yes you also "took it to" the Magic Cafe where upon the thread was deleted.

121 views! Oh boy you really stuck it to Randi there! :D

Edited for moderated thread

[The Professor]

If the professor had made a good claim as per rule 16


then he would have posted it on the thread that was created for him. He did not do so. His abilities were clearly demonstrated, in that thread, as being nothing but a figment of his imagination. Everything else is irrelevant and not worth discussing.
You are 100% WRONG!!!!
The Claim WAS posted.
You need to do some reading before you spout off in ignorance.
The claim was accepted AND TWO PROTOCOLS were also submitted!

[Mojo]

You know, there once was a guy who claimed that you could establish the validity of one claim vs another by comparing the number of Google hits. That is, if you had two opposing ideas, the one with more hits had to be the true one. For the life of me, I couldn't remember who it was. It was such an outrageously stupid claim, though, that it took the Forum body a page or two to understand that this was, in fact, what the person was claiming.


You're not thinking of Kumar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1014169#post1014169), are you?

[steenkh]

You are 100% WRONG!!!!
The Claim WAS posted.
You need to do some reading before you spout off in ignorance.
The claim was accepted AND TWO PROTOCOLS were also submitted!
I think I remember that after much wrangling, you practically had the JREF write the claim for you, because you were unable to come up with one yourself. You then presented one or more protocols that were clearly intended to fail, because the flaws were pointed out to you, but you just increased the number of superfluous elements, but you did never include essential elements such as no need for judgement.

This was rejected, but you were graciously allowed to reapply for next year.

Have you thought of a workable protocol in the meantime, or are you intending to fail to produce one for next year's show also?

[Jackalgirl]

You're not thinking of Kumar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1014169#post1014169), are you?

Yes! That's him! And the very post. Thank you!

[William Smith]

...
This was rejected, but you were graciously allowed to reapply for next year.
...

Technically, every applicant may reapply 12 months after a failed test or a rejection of his application.

[Roadtoad]

You are 100% WRONG!!!!
The Claim WAS posted.
You need to do some reading before you spout off in ignorance.
The claim was accepted AND TWO PROTOCOLS were also submitted!

And neither protocol was accepted because they did not, and never would, conform to certain scientific standards. There was no evidence cited which could qualify as a valid "hit," as nothing written in the protocols submitted could be said to be "self-evident."

So, no. RJH is not "100%" wrong. And, while we're discussing this, the protocols ask for a BRIEF TWO PARAGRAPH description, which, by the way, many members actually offered to help you write. That, Sir, is FACT.

Your "abilities" are FICTION.

[The Professor]

I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

[aggle-rithm]

I have several questions for James Randi. I know he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation ... So a video response would be preferred.

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

Send him an e-mail, you'd be much more likely to get a response.


ETA: By the way, your questions are irrelevant because you have no magic powers.

[Cavemonster]

You know, when I want to ask someone a question, I generally don't use a forum where that person never posts, that's just me.

[The Professor]

I called Randi directly and he did what many would call "dodging" the questions by hanging up. :) I was crushed.

I am taking the questions to the public in an effort to get a response to these timely questions. Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)

I want James Randi to quit dodging these questions. It's only fair!!!!!

[Roadtoad]

I called Randi directly and he did what many would call "dodging" the questions by hanging up. :) I was crushed.

I am taking the questions to the public in an effort to get a response to these timely questions. Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)

I want James Randi to quit dodging these questions. It's only fair!!!!!

No, he probably hung up because you were wasting his time. You have demonstrated time and again that you have no interest in pursuing the MDC with anything that indicates good faith. Had you done so, he might have been willing to talk to you. As it is, he probably saw it as pointless, as do the rest of us.

[lionking]

Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)



Huh? He posts here as "Randi" if that's what you're asking. 0.02 posts per day, so what cavemonster said.

[Cleon]

I called Randi directly and he did what many would call "dodging" the questions by hanging up. :)

Many more would call it "giving you the response you deserve."

[rjh01]

Worse than the above, the videos have got hostile headings such as

James Randi Lying or just Ignorant 2 ?

You had your chance, when you applied for the MDC and you showed your true colours. Now people should not take you seriously.

[NobbyNobbs]

Sunglasses? Indoors?



Really?

[BTMO]

Uh... Professor - what exactly is it that you claim you are able to do, and how can it be tested objectively?

[learner]

Uh... Professor - what exactly is it that you claim you are able to do, and how can it be tested objectively?

He thinks he has super powers. He hasnt. Its so frustrating.
It can be a long slow road to realisation and growing up.

[Blackadder]

Is that your mums basement?

Pirates! Yarr!

[rjh01]

Uh... Professor - what exactly is it that you claim you are able to do, and how can it be tested objectively?

From his claim he says he has the ability to talk. Need I say more?

[The Professor]

Uh... Professor - what exactly is it that you claim you are able to do, and how can it be tested objectively?


There is a thread here with close to 50,000 views on the subject.

Perhaps you should see where they've buried it :)

[The Professor]

Worse than the above, the videos have got hostile headings such as



You had your chance, when you applied for the MDC and you showed your true colours. Now people should not take you seriously.


The JREF MDC is afraid to test me ....They still are.

But back to the questions at hand.

Why are you trying to derail this thread?

Why no answers?

[RoboTimbo]

deleted

[Roadtoad]

1.) JREF is not afraid to test you. You have repeatedly failed to provide the necessary protocols which would make a test possible. Period.

2.) If someone wants to wade through that thread, all they'd need to do is run a search.

3.) What answer would satisfy you? You've made it clear, you will not act in good faith. Therefore, there is no applicable answer.

[aggle-rithm]

I am taking the questions to the public in an effort to get a response to these timely questions. Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)

I want James Randi to quit dodging these questions. It's only fair!!!!!

I have a question for you:

Are you deluded in your belief that you have super powers, or are you lying about having super powers?

(Notice "I actually have super powers" is not an option, since super powers do not exist.)

So, which is it? Lying or deluded? Lying or deluded?

Come on, man! We're waiting for an answer to these timely questions!

[Roadtoad]

The JREF MDC is afraid to test me ....They still are.

But back to the questions at hand.

Why are you trying to derail this thread?

Why no answers?

You get no answers when it becomes clear that no answer will suffice.

[Mojo]

There is a thread here with close to 50,000 views on the subject.


The number of views (or indeed posts) a thread has is not necessarily an indication that the subject matter of the thread has any real merit.

[MattC]

There's a thread with about 50,000 views with questions for David Koenig too.

~ Matt

[Cleon]

The JREF MDC is afraid to test me ....They still are.


No, that's a lie.


But back to the questions at hand.

Why are you trying to derail this thread?

Why no answers?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Why no answer?

[ravdin]

I'm confident you will get all the attention from Randi that you deserve.

[Roadtoad]

I'm confident you will get all the attention from Randi that you deserve.

You mean he hasn't already? :D

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Professor,
Can you restate your paranormal claim in one paragraph?

If you do have a paranormal talent of some kind, it would be best to verify the talent with real scientists first. As far as I know the JREF is not a scientific establishment even though they intend to work based on the scientific method. If you've detected discrepancies and think they are lacking in the quality of their work then this should tell you to seek verification elsewhere.

If you come with proper scientific verification of your claim, backed up by reputable scientists within any field relevant to your claim, and make sure that you bring to the JREF an already well investigated claim and come as a fully prepared claimant, I am quite sure that the JREF and James Randi would pose no complications.

The JREF is in my opinion not the best place to begin scientific verification of a paranormal claim. The JREF seems to be an organization offering a challenge and a prize. Think in terms of validation first. Then money.

1) A true paranormal talent should in my opinion be verified and discovered at a scientific establishment and not at the JREF. Once already verified it can then be entered to the JREF Challenge successfully.
2) The JREF have limited resources for paranormal applicants and challenges and should be allowed to focus their work and time on their other very valuable assignments of informing the world about skepticism and rational thought and protecting people from harmful woo, and sadly, unprepared claims take away from that.
3) If there is a verified paranormal talent then it could gather money, and that would be more than the JREF Million dollars.

I am your fellow claimant so I am on your side but I am also a Skeptic and I greatly value the JREF and their work. I would like to say, do not bother the JREF or get caught up with issues with them. A paranormal claim should be treated as a scientific hypothesis. Prove your claim elsewhere first, then I am sure things will go more agreeably between you and the JREF. I am sure the challenge is real but you don't seem to be ready for that stage yet.

[aggle-rithm]

3) If there is a verified paranormal talent then it could gather money, and that would be more than the JREF Million dollars.


If it's money you're after, then fakery is definitely the way to go. Successful charletons make a lot more money than successful scientists.

[VisionFromFeeling]

aggle-rithm,
By the way, your questions are irrelevant because you have no magic powers. This comment discredits you a bit I think. Provided that he did indeed witness the discrepancies in question, the Professor's questions are most relevant coming from any person regardless of whether he is a claimant or not. I think his questions could just as well have been asked by a good skeptic. Your comment is very familiar to this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4603909&postcount=3). It just doesn't make for good skepticism.

[chillzero]

VfF, you need to go do some research on The Professor's threads here before you start lecturing people on how to respond.

[aggle-rithm]

aggle-rithm,
This comment discredits you a bit I think. Provided that he did indeed witness the discrepancies in question, the Professor's questions are most relevant coming from any person regardless of whether he is a claimant or not. I think his questions could just as well have been asked by a good skeptic. Your comment is very familiar to this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4603909&postcount=3). It just doesn't make for good skepticism.

The questions are intended to goad Randi into paying attention to someone who doesn't deserve his attention. Clearly.

If the questions are honest, good faith requests for information, then they aren't very interesting. It's much more likely that Randi is mistaken rather than lying (notice how "mistaken" sounds so much less pejorative than "ignorant"?).

He has no reason to lie, because the Professor HAS NO MAGIC POWERS.

Neither do you, nor does anyone else.

If you disagree, then you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor,
Let me offer you some advice one claimant to another. Do not get caught up with the JREF Forum members. They are a suspicious bunch who won't let themselves be deceived. Some are hostile and negative, but overall they are a great resource because they can spot many of the flaws and issues with a paranormal claim and you do need that in order to arrive at a workable test protocol.

I would recommend that you not argue about James Randi. Read about the harm that some woo cause and then review some of the wonderful work Randi has done in revealing and ending fraud and see if you can have a positive opinion about him after all, discrepancies or not.

Science and test protocols are your friend. Think about it, if you do have a paranormal talent, a scientific test will be the thing that can prove it. Set up practice tests at home and try to make the test as difficult as possible to make it as test-like as possible. If I knew what your claim was, I could suggest some options for you.

And I want to say, if your claim turns out to not be what it seemed to be, or to not be what you had hoped for it to be, don't worry about this. Some Skeptics will obviously cheer when a paranormal claim is falsified, but if you take on a scientific approach and an impersonal view on your claim, you can be happy with what ever the conclusion is with your claim.

As for the Million dollars, don't put your hopes on it. Play the lottery if you're after that kind of excitement. The JREF won't be fooled with a fraud claim. If you do believe in your claim, then do all you can in starting to bring it to the test-level. Properly. I would love to help you out. I am a paranormal claimant myself so that gives me some useful background. I am also a skeptic and science student so maybe I can combine the two worlds that don't always want to be combined.

[jimtron]

Prof:

Go to the media and/or a university or whatever and demonstrate your paranormal ability (in a way that rules out magic tricks, mentalism effects, show biz shtick, etc). Then when the world sees that you truly have paranormal ability, come back here and show us and Randi how wrong we were.

Unless you don't really have a paranormal ability...

[BTMO]

There is a thread here with close to 50,000 views on the subject.

Perhaps you should see where they've buried it :)

Yeah - I tried to read it - but I couldn't find a claim, so I thought I would just ask. It seemed easier...

[jimtron]

Yeah - I tried to read it - but I couldn't find a claim, so I thought I would just ask. It seemed easier...

I was involved in the thread, and I'm pretty sure there was never a specific testable claim made--but perhaps Dave/Prof can prove me wrong. What he did describe could have been done with a hidden tape recorder--or actually, a non-hidden tape recorder. He never got into the specifics, and how trickery or merely non-concealed technology would be ruled out.

[Lrrr]

I believe there was a testable claim made - after someone from JREF (Jeff Wagg?) wrote it for The Professor.

Getting a testable protocol from TP was a whole different story.

Edit: fixed spelling in second sentence.

[Roadtoad]

Yeah - I tried to read it - but I couldn't find a claim, so I thought I would just ask. It seemed easier...

The claim was rather veiled, but IIRC, Dave was alleging he could speak with dead spirits, and that these contacts could be recorded. However, he failed to produce a reasonable protocol which was self-evident and could provide the necessary verification of a hit or miss. When he was called on it, he turned petulant, especially when people showed him FROM THE RULES THEMSELVES what was required, and how his missives to JREF failed to meet the standards.

Remie was quite patient with him, and if he'd complete the assembly of his feces, he might still get a chance at it. As things stand, until he meets the basics, it's not going to happen, and his continual spamming of the JREF board, as well as others, only continues to suggest that he has no intention of meeting those requirements. It's continued bad faith, in my book, though Remie and others might disagree, (and for the record, I do not speak for JREF, and never have.)

That Mr. Randi chose to take a call from David Koenig in the first place should be a strong indication as to who's acting in good faith. I'm sorry that David can't get it, that his "questions" have already been answered ad nauseum, and his berating people who have actually tried to help him demonstrates a lack of common sense, but realities are what they are. Either he can come up with appropriate protocols and make his attempt, or he can continue to behave as he has. His choice.

[Roadtoad]

I believe there was a testable claim made - after someone from JREF (Jeff Wagg?) wrote it for The Professor.

Getting a testable protocol from TP was a whole different story.

Edit: fixed spelling in second sentence.

You know, I don't remember off the top of my head who wrote that for him, but if I remember it correctly, all he had to do was cut and paste, and voila! Protocols! Why he didn't do that is simply beyond me.

Further, the rules state that what Randi didn't want was the hows and whys, all he wanted was: Here's what I can do, here's what qualifies as a hit, and then, all he had to do was DO IT. It could have been done with one page, but David insisted on his little show.

Oh, well. So it goes...

[RoboTimbo]

You know, I don't remember off the top of my head who wrote that for him, but if I remember it correctly, all he had to do was cut and paste, and voila!

**cough (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4070806#post4070806)**

[thaiboxerken]

Talk with dead spirits?! HA HA HA HA!!!! That's utterly stupid!! What kind of superpower is that anyway?! Professor, go back and re-roll your character and see if you can get a better power.

[BTMO]

**cough (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4070806#post4070806)**


Ah HAH!

Thank you!

I appreciate that.

[BTMO]

Talk with dead spirits?! HA HA HA HA!!!! That's utterly stupid!! What kind of superpower is that anyway?! Professor, go back and re-roll your character and see if you can get a better power.

LOL!!

Incidentally, talking to dead spirits isn't hard, or particularly uncommon.

It is getting answers - that anyone living outside of your head can hear - that is the trick...

[The Professor]

Hi everyone!!!!
I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

[Roadtoad]

Hi everyone!!!!
I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

He is not dodging the questions. You are not asking them in an appropriate manner.

This is not the place for your questions. At all. Ever.

He has provided the truth to all who have asked, and you have called him a liar for doing it.

Since you cannot ask them fairly, and you cannot ask them in good faith, why would he answer questions here, and answer them factually, only to have you call him a liar again? If you were doing that to me, I sure as hell wouldn't waste MY time.

Quite frankly, if this were brought before a judge, I think you'd find your case tossed out of court simply on the merits alone, let alone on the basis of your lack of good faith.

In other words, David, if you wanted answers, there were better ways to get them.

[jimtron]

Let's see, he's a member of the forum, and he's been notified--looks like he doesn't want to respond.

[RoboTimbo]

Hi everyone!!!!

Hi Dr. Nick!!

I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

Nobody better than you for keeping a thread on topic.

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He always answers important questions from people who matter.

He is a member here on the forum.

Marking my calendar, you told the truth.

He has been notified.

Evidence?

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Because they're dishonest and pointless?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

Dr. Nick, heal thyself.

[ravdin]

You win, TP. Randi is clearly afraid to answer your questions.

Now that you've had the satisfaction, why don't you go away?

[The Professor]

So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!

[The Professor]

You win, TP. Randi is clearly afraid to answer your questions.

Now that you've had the satisfaction, why don't you go away?

Yes ... You'd love for me to deny the TRUTH as the rest of you do :)

But the Questions remain!!!!!

If Randi does not fear the truth then he should have no trouble explaining away these discrepancies?

[aggle-rithm]

So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?




Honestly, you are not worth his time. You can continue to complain, or you can deal with it.

[Roadtoad]

So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!

We did. You refused to accept the answers.

Refusal on your part to accept the facts as they are does not constitute deception or willful ignorance on ours.

Continuing to attempt to defame Mr. Randi on his own Forum further reveals your lack of good faith.

[Drudgewire]

He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?


Maybe because responding on the forum isn't exactly his top priority. I mean, the fact he last posted here 17 months ago (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1995938) just might be a tip-off.

[Wowbagger]

I'll give you an honest answer, Mr. Professor!

A lot of those questions seem to stem from misunderstandings in what was said. For example:

For the "part 2" video: Ms. Hunter chose to have the test take place at JREF headquarters. But, if she insisted on having it at another location, administered by a third party, Randi would have complied.
You have the OPTION of having the test administered by a third party, that both parties agree to. You are NOT required to have the test taken by JREF nor on JREF property.

As for "Part 3": The demo at D*C08 was ONLY meant to be a demonstration, NOT an actual test. When Randi mentioned how some test recipients "did not show up", he was referring to someone other events, (such as the test that was supposed to take place during TAM 5.5, but there are others.) Context is the key, to this one. If you listen to the whole presentation, this becomes clearer.

(Yes, I ripped these off of the YouTube comments, but they were my own words, anyway. So, I have only myself to sue for plagerism.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

I didn't bother watching any of the videos. Send me a complete transcript of each one and maybe I'll read them.

[BTMO]

But the Questions remain!!!!!


Try this. Rather than rant and run to hyperbole, try actually complying with the rules of the challenge.

For a start, fill in this quiz. It will only take you 2 minutes and will make life easier for everyone.

1. What is your claim. Please - no more than one short 1 sentence.

2. How do you propose to demonstrate your claim. No more than 1 short paragraph.

3. What equipment do you need? Provide a list.

4. What consititutes a successful demonstration of your claim? 1 sentence.

5. What constitutes an unsuccessful demonstration of your claim? 1 sentence (which should, logically be the reverse of point 4)

If you find yourself using the word "because" in any of your answers, try again.

Here is an example, based on what I have gleaned from the multiple threads about your claim...

1. What is your claim?

"I claim that I can cause voices to appear on a previously blank audio cassette, purely by paranormal means"

2. How do you propose to demonstrate your claim. No more than 1 short paragraph.

"I propose to use a blank, unopened audio cassette. The cassette will be handed to an objective observer, who will open the wrapper, and play the cassette into a machine. The observer will confirm the tape is blank. The observer will then rewind the tape, remove it from the machine, and place it onto a table that has been examined by the observer, and is clear of magnets, or other items that might affect the tape. I will then, over a period of 10 minutes, cause clearly spoken words to appear on the tape without resorting to mechanical, electrical or magnetic means. I, or no one else will touch the tape. When the time is up, the observer will place the tape back into the tape player, and play the tape."

3. What equipment do you need?

"A blank, unopened cassette tape, a tape recorder, a table, a clean, dry place to perform the test".

4. What consititutes a successful demonstration of your claim?

"Recognisable, clear, human speech will appear on the tape."

5. What constitutes an unsuccessful demonstration of your claim?

"Recognisable, clear, human speech will not appear on the tape"

Please note - this is NOT a complete test protocol, but it is a starting position that should be acceptable and get your attempt underway. However, note that no interpretation of the result is required - it is either clear, human speech, or nothing. Static doesn't work, neither does you claiming to hear it and no one else.

[hcmom]

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

<snip>

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

Perhaps if you weren't phrasing the question to be a multiple-choice where neither of the choices you offer are the answer, it would be much less abrasive.

[prewitt81]

Going through past cases in the MDC section, one can see this played out many times. Subject applies for the challenge. Subject negotiates in bad faith until the JREF is done wasting time with them. Subject then starts a crusade to expose the "misdeeds" of the Foundation. What never happens is a demonstration of the subject's supposed powers. I've wondered why this never happens, as it sure would show us evil skeptics a thing or two.

Point is, this has all been done before. It's unoriginal. Dime a dozen.

[thaiboxerken]

You know what, The Professor, instead of actually following the rules of the challenge and making a legitimate attempt, you should just evade the challenge and whine about how unfair it is to be excluded............................. Grow up, child! You do not have superpowers.

[jenski]

I called Randi directly and he did what many would call "dodging" the questions by hanging up. :) I was crushed.

I am taking the questions to the public in an effort to get a response to these timely questions. Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)

I want James Randi to quit dodging these questions. It's only fair!!!!!

Given your well-earned reputation for deceptive tactics, evasion and outright falsehoods, I'd say you got off easy. I might have been inclined to use some colorful metaphors about your parentage before hanging up.

[chillzero]

Maybe because responding on the forum isn't exactly his top priority. I mean, the fact he last posted here 17 months ago (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1995938) just might be a tip-off.
and he hasn't even logged onto the forum in over a year.

[Gebrecca]

People like you make me lose faith in humanity.=(

[KarlG]

From an interview with Dustin Hoffman with IF magazine:

Q. Why do you think you're still doing this job, of acting?

A. Hoffman: Well, one day as I was working with Lawrence Olivier, I asked him that question: "Why do we do this?" and he replied many times: "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!" I got goose bumps. But that's true, it's all about being somewhat the center of attention, this is why I love doing interviews, meeting people - look at me.


Seems to me to be similar to TP's method, although at a very low level. He's just an attention seeker with no substance. Where he differs from Hoffman and Sir Lawrence is that they actually have talent and are willing to prove it.

[Twiler]

After an in-depth conversation with The Professor (which totally happened), I have been able to reduce his world-view down into a serious of axioms:

1. Anything that didn't happen where it couldn't be seen not happening can be said to have happened.

2. Anything that did happen can be denied.

3. Ghosts can be perceived by the open-minded, which in this context refers to the capacity to lie.

4. Statements proclaiming TRUTH are actually coded messages to the Vorticons calling for the elimination of anyone who attempts the use of the dread force of reason.

5. The Vorticons will break into your houses and steal your vacuum cleaners, joysticks, car batteries and cleaning fluids, unless you comply with the Professor's demands, which are written on the insides of your eyelids in invisible ink.

6. When the Professor refers to posts as 'mockery', and 'off-topic' he is expressing great respect.

[Spektator]

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep!

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

-Shakespeare, 1 Henry IV, III.i.

[dafydd]

People like you make me lose faith in humanity.=(

Why? Because I won't accept the existence of alleged super powers without proof?

[prewitt81]

Why? Because I won't accept the existence of alleged super powers without proof?

Not sure that was pointed at you, dafydd.

[Lrrr]

So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!

He DID answer your question when he hung up on you. His answer amounts to "I am not interested in engaging in a conversation with you. Good day sir.".

My critical thinking says he chose not to answer your questions as he sees them for what they are - an attempt by someone with a chip on his shoulder attempting to trap him in an endless and pointless conversation where no answer given to him will suffice.

That also answers your question, so I believe it is time to move on.

[Gebrecca]

Why? Because I won't accept the existence of alleged super powers without proof?
Who are you?
I was talking to The Professor.:rolleyes:

[Cleon]

He DID answer your question when he hung up on you. His answer amounts to "I am not interested in engaging in a conversation with you. Good day sir.".


I'm not sure of that. I agree with the first sentence, but I rather think the second wasn't "Good day sir" so much as a short, two-word sentence where the second word was "off."

[Lrrr]

I'm not sure of that. I agree with the first sentence, but I rather think the second wasn't "Good day sir" so much as a short, two-word sentence where the second word was "off."

I agree with you, but I have my "politeness undies" on today.

[not daSkeptic]

Seems to me to be similar to TP's method, although at a very low level. He's just an attention seeker with no substance.

Notice how the conversation has continued in seeming ignorance of your post?

[Gr8wight]

I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

Oh, Dog, not this again. You've been here, how long, David? Can't you come up with some new questions? These ones have all been answered several times. Just because you didn't like the answers doesn't change the fact that they were, in fact, the answers.

[jch]

The person who calls himself "The Professor" appears to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). It's very frustrating to attempt to reason with such people; they seem to have the powers of reason yet they remain irrational. The combative nature, the refusal to listen to reasonable replies, and the feeling that he has special powers are big clues. A diagnosis of NPD is made by looking at a list of symptoms, or traits, and seeing if the person who is having problems fits the description of the syndrome; this is done with many psychological disorders. If you look up NPD you might come to the same conclusion about this person.

A person with NPD thinks that they are special and that the world is out to get them. To question them is to invite an attack. You cannot be reasonable with them, as they know they're right, and if you disagree then you are inferior, not to mention one of "them".

There is no cure for this. Please check that on your own; there is no cure. From what little I know of this disorder, and of this person, I would suggest that you're wasting time in responding to him. He will bait you, to no end, and when you get tired of him and take the bait, he'll use that as evidence that he's a victim and you're just out to get him, like everyone else.

Please note that there seems to be no restraint displayed by those people with NPD. Explaining things to them won't help them to "get the point". You'd do just as well if you talked to the wind. I mean, four videos asking the same loaded questions? I'd say that shows a lack of any real social restraint.

I imagine that if this thread was closed, he'd just take it up somewhere else.

If anyone else has made these points, I apologize for the redundancy.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

:dl:

Well, hello Mr Presley!

[The Professor]

I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!

[Roadtoad]

So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!

No, we've never BEEN off topic. There wasn't any topic worth discussing. You simply aren't interested in the answers because they aren't answers you want. Too damned bad.

You GOT an honest answer. You didn't like it. So you're trying to force an answer you like. That's dishonest, but I don't expect anything better from you.

[aggle-rithm]

I am still waiting for an honest answer ...

Clearly this is an alternate meaning of the word "honest" of which I am unaware.

[catbasket]

Dave, your comedy routine is getting a little old hat. I used to be a big fan of your fantasist humour ... but now, meh! Another one for Thread Tools/Ignore This Thread.

Wake me up when you've got some new material. Yawn.

zzzzzzzz

[aggle-rithm]

So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!

I just went back and did a little research about the history of your application, and all I have to say is...

You've got a lot of nerve, buddy.

Why should anyone waste their time with you when you flat out REFUSE to follow the rules of the challenge?

Who are you to dictate terms when you lack the ability and/or willingness to state simply and clearly what you can do that any second-rate magician can't?

[Wowbagger]

I am still waiting for an honest answer ...

I tried to give you one, in Post #216

I'll give you an honest answer, Mr. Professor!

A lot of those questions seem to stem from misunderstandings in what was said.....

Read the rest of that post, where I give examples as to why.

[Cleon]

So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!

If you want an honest answer, you should try asking honest questions.

[steenkh]

I am still waiting for an honest answer ...
The honest answer is that you will not get an answer because you have already shown that you are acting in bad faith, and that you are just trying to waste the JREF's time. You are too insignificant to waste more time on.

Except here, of course, where you are a part of the entertainment.

[Azrael 5]

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=273024&forum=15&start=30

September 3rd 2008 15 posts down JREF/Magic Cafe member Garette explains it all to you Dave. It has been explained on here before, in particular the itricks allegations you make.
I have yet to see proof Randi said "Dave Koenig has not applied". My take on the dragoncon nonsense is Randi was referring to Jim Callahan-let's not forget that was the name uttered by the buffoon in the audience. Plenty of cross talk, he likely never heard your name mentioned.

But regardless no-one on YouTube agrees with you, only two members on Cafe agreed and no-one on hear agrees as we aren't stupid.
Funny how you call people on here for following blindly and yet you are doing what most failed applicants do-complain and whine about invisible injustices.

[The Professor]

Of course I won't just lie down and take the abuse and name calling from the JREF Forum. I have always stood up for myself Edited for moderated thread.

HOWEVER ..Randi owes me an apology or an explanation as to why he is dodging me.

He has plenty of equipment at the JREF to make a video response but he has failed to do so.

Why??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE

[Klimax]

Of course I won't just lie down and take the abuse and name calling from the JREF Forum. I have always stood up for myself Edited for moderated thread.

HOWEVER ..Randi owes me an apology or an explanation as to why he is dodging me.

He has plenty of equipment at the JREF to make a video response but he has failed to do so.

Why??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE

Hm. Is that that he no longer thinks you are relevant at all?
Maybe he thinks that it is not neccessary to respond by any means to attention seeker,not-sincere claimant and bad magician?

As for responses here on this forum,you are regarded as any other troll,conspiracy theorist,Edited for moderated thread.(for more about "The Proffesor" see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124640 , http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135038 , http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121157 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122607),woo,...

Through out many threads here (some where linked) you demonstrated lack of many things like being truthfull,sincere and such. I am afraid that many people would not bother with making any reply knowing your history.

Klimax

[Roadtoad]

Of course I won't just lie down and take the abuse and name calling from the JREF Forum. I have always stood up for myself Edited for moderated thread.

HOWEVER ..Randi owes me an apology or an explanation as to why he is dodging me.

He has plenty of equipment at the JREF to make a video response but he has failed to do so.

Why??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE

1.) Randi does not owe you an apology.

2.) Randi is not obligated to record a video response to you.

3.) Randi has not dodged you. You have not fulfilled the requirements to take the Challenge.

4.) When you fulfill the requirements to take the challenge, then, and only then, will you have the right to say anything more.

5.) Your continued spamming of this board and others will likely get you banned, if not immediately, then eventually.

Edited for moderated thread.

[Azrael 5]

Of course I won't just lie down and take the abuse and name calling from the JREF Forum. I have always stood up for myself Edited for moderated thread.
Edited for moderated thread.
HOWEVER ..Randi owes me an apology or an explanation as to why he is dodging me.

No he doesn't and no he isn't.

He has plenty of equipment at the JREF to make a video response but he has failed to do so.

Why??????
Probably because he'd rather stick pins in his eyes? ;)
You have no application ongoing anymore so Randi has no reason to know of your existence anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE

Two can play that game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKxbzz8f86g :rolleyes: