Greeting MD Claimants [Archive]

UncaYimmy

21st January 2009, 12:42 PM

chillzero

21st January 2009, 12:51 PM

Let's start one, with your post. I'll get it split. :)

jmercer

21st January 2009, 01:24 PM

Split as per request.

Myriad

21st January 2009, 01:44 PM

Some comments:

1. Re the OP: Hear, hear!

2. This thread was split from the CONNIE SONNE, Dowser (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132871) thread. The posts by chillzero that the OP refers to are between posts 105 and 111 in the original thread, which with default post-per-page are on page 3 of the thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132871&page=3)

3. This thread is for discussing discourse between members and MDC claimants. Naturally, specific claimants and claims are likely to be mentioned as examples, but please try not to let the thread get derailed by these. It would be best to take extended discussion of any specific claimant or claim back to the appropriate original MDC Challenge thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

jimtron

21st January 2009, 01:50 PM

Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants? I think you make a number of good points that are not specific to Connie. Mocking claimants is like shooting fish in a barrel - I don't know why some people feel like they have accomplished something by doing so.

More importantly I don't think it's productive, but that's because I may have a different definition of productive. I want the claimant to learn on his or her own the flaws in their thinking. If the environment is too hostile, they might just take their ball and go home. To me that's an opportunity lost. How does anyone benefit by that?

In the grand scheme of things we should want applicants to take the test rather than get ticked off and leave. I would much rather be able to say that 500 claimants took a test and failed than to day that 500 applied, but 495 never got tested. Of course, if we can get a claimant to test themselves first, that's great, too. It would be even better if they shared the results of their self-testing with us. We need to provide an environment where they feel like they can do that.

If you want to move this post somewhere else and/or cite me for being off-topic, that's fine.

I agree that diplomacy is important. Apparently, the majority of people in the U.S. believe in stuff like angels, and ghosts and talking to the dead. If we mock them or are too quick to discount what they say, I believe we're hurting our own cause. IMHO we should be bend over backwards to be respectful when a potential applicant or other believer in woo participates in the forum. Preaching to the choir doesn't help the cause.

I'm not saying that we should agree with their woo beliefs of course, just that it will help our case if we're polite and tolerant. I would rather engage in a discourse with these folks then scare them away. Of course it's not so easy, as there are people that come here who have an axe to grind, or have ridiculous arguments, don't listen, etc. But personally I'd like to err on the side of not alienating people.

GzuzKryzt

21st January 2009, 02:56 PM

If an applicant is sincere - e.g. Achau Nguyen - he should be treated with utmost respect; which I think is exactly what happened in this forum.

If an applicant in on the fence - deluded to some extent but willing to listen, e.g. Beth Clarkson (forum name: Beth) - s/he should also be treated with respect.

If an applicant behaves ignorant and says things like You must also know, that NOTHING can keep me away from what I`m doing, eventhough someone are trying to convince me, that I`m wrong! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4352157#post4352157), there is nothing one can do to enlighten them. Forum member edge comes to mind.

By enlighten I mean: Point them to evidence - ideomotor effect, cold reading, blind testing - not act as a missionary. If they refuse to at least look at it: Game Over.

I am always willing to look at new evidence from properly done tests.

Cavemonster

21st January 2009, 03:23 PM

One thing that comes to mind, I know that the difference between the official JREF and MDC on one hand and the Forum members on the other is presented to applicants. I'm not sure if the distinction sticks.

Even though we can talk about the best way to approach claimant threads, this is a diverse community, and people will post what they like within the limits of the MA (and sometimes breaking it)

It might be useful to bend over backwards to make it very, very clear to applicants that posters in this forum in no way speak for Randi, the MDC or the JREF. It could be easy for a claimant, not familiar with any of this, to lump everything together into "those skeptics".

Maybe an official mod box disclaimer could be added to MDC threads, maybe claimants can be sent an email specifying the distinction (I don't know what information they already receive privately)

UncaYimmy

21st January 2009, 07:57 PM

If an applicant behaves ignorant and says things like You must also know, that NOTHING can keep me away from what I`m doing, eventhough someone are trying to convince me, that I`m wrong! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4352157#post4352157), there is nothing one can do to enlighten them. Forum member edge comes to mind.

What if we look at Dann's first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4348223#post4348223)to Connie? His greeting was to accuse her of self deception and to call her delusional. Fundamentally, I don't disagree with Dann's assessment. But I have a simple question:

What good does it do to greet someone by saying those things in such a confrontational manner? Eventually it's probably going to lead to something like what you quoted, which came about 40 posts later. And then where does that lead? Oh, I know. A bunch of "Can not!" "Can so!" Can NOT" "CAN SO" posts.

I'm sure with some claimants it's going to head that direction anyway. But if it's going to be a peeing match, let the claimants pee first and give them a couple of chances to zip up for joining them.

Does anyone (Dann?) think something productive is going to come from such an aggressive greeting? If so, what? Any examples? I'm genuinely curious.

Czarcasm

21st January 2009, 08:34 PM

UncaYimmy

21st January 2009, 09:04 PM

Are members of this message board supposed to act as ambassadors for the MDC, even if we hold the opinion that a particular potential claimant is a freakin' nutcase? Now, I get it that we should treat serious potentials that have a viable claim with a degree of respect, but not everyone is going to have the same opinion as to which potentials should be treated with respect and which should be treated otherwise.

If the JREF felt that we were supposed to act as ambassadors, this wouldn't be an open forum with a thread discussing how claimants are greeted. Nobody is telling anybody how to behave...yet! :D Seriously, I'm not suggesting that the JREF come up with specific guidelines we must follow.

I am saying that once the thread takes on an aggressive and disrespectful tone, the chances for enlightenment are greatly diminished. Not only that, it's pretty hard to get the thread back to being "productive" once it reaches that point. In a sense it is disrespectful to fellow members taking a diplomatic approach when other members call a claimant out on the carpet. Is it permitted within the terms of the membership agreement? Absolutely.

It's also permissible to suggest that as a group we at least give a claimant the opportunity to engage us openly and critically before backing them into a corner, so to speak. Where that line is can be hard to determine, but I think that the topic of this thread tells us where the line is not: Greeting MD Claimants.

Czarcasm

21st January 2009, 09:06 PM

UncaYimmy

21st January 2009, 10:50 PM

How long should we keep up a charade of respect for someone who says she/he is a claimant, but gives us a constant runaround and/or treats questioners with obvious disdain and/or (through simple research) can be shown to be jerking us around through comments on other websites?

For me, at least, I don't have to have respect for someone to treat them with respect. Conversely, I have treated people I respect disrespectfully. I doubt I'm alone on the second one. Sometimes I've not been proud of doing so. Other times I did it deliberately because I believed it was the only way to get through to them.

In a way I think you've answered your own question. If someone is obviously giving us the runaround or treats us with disdain without provocation, that's usually a pretty good indicator that things aren't going to get better. If they are clearly jerking us around, that, too, is an indicator that things are going into the crapper.

But as I said, there's no clear line. Personally, I would prefer to err on the side of engaging someone too long. Calling them delusional or ridiculing their claims is incredibly easy. If it wasn't, there would be no MDC in the first place. I can start hounding them at any time. Once I do that, though, there's not much chance of turning back. Actually getting through to someone is difficult and time consuming. I want to give that a fair chance.

Again, personally I don't see the point of even engaging the type of people you describe if there's no chance of enlightenment. Obviously others do. Or maybe there's no point other than a sense of what goes around comes around. I happen think the best way to aggravate those people is to stay respectful and focused on the message. I prefer to be the guy kicking the fence rather than the dog who is barking.

But it's all subjective. Everything is a situation. In terms how I would prefer to behave (reality is another matter), if I see someone pursuing a diplomatic approach with a claimant, I'd let them keep going, even if I had my own diplomatic approach I'd like to take. If the claimant had really ticked me off and I felt I needed to fire a salvo, I'd like to think I would wait until the diplomats had given up. Even money says that I would probably fire my salvo when I think the diplomat should have given up.

Let me ask you this: How important is it to you for a claimant to either take the MDC or test themselves? To me it is extremely important. I want to take steps to make that happen. If I can't do that, I at least don't want to take steps that get in the way of that happening. I think in most cases, but certainly not all, calling someone delusional from the get-go isn't going to help.

Czarcasm

21st January 2009, 11:08 PM

Let me ask you this: How important is it to you for a claimant to either take the MDC or test themselves? To me it is extremely important. I want to take steps to make that happen. If I can't do that, I at least don't want to take steps that get in the way of that happening. I think in most cases, but certainly not all, calling someone delusional from the get-go isn't going to help.It is important to me for a serious claimant who shows a willingness to at least try understand and follow the rules of the MDC to get a decent chance. It is also important to me not to give easily identifiable jerks an open forum and protected status to show their friends how easy it is to jerk our chains, because(as I think has been shown just recently, IMHO) their buddies will come in and do the same thing if given half a chance. Such people should get as much respect as they give.
I believe there are honest contenders for the MDC, and I also believe they shouldn't have to stand in the same line as those who are here just to have fun at our expense.

rjh01

22nd January 2009, 12:36 AM

I think the forum has an important role. We should give them rope. As much as they can use. If they use it to hang themselves then we have done the job. However if they use it to demonstrate their powers then they should take the MDC.

To put it another way. We should ask them questions like

1. What can they do?
2. Media exposure.
3. Experience?
4. Do they make money from their powers?
5. Life story in relation to their powers.

Their answers should be enough to expose most people who do not have a real ability. I cannot remember any person who has come onto this forum actually then taking the test (edge maybe is an exception?). This would have saved JREF and the applicants a lot of time and expense.

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 01:46 AM

I think the main thing to be certain we do not do, is to drive any claimants, or potential claimants, away from the test, due to intimidation or rudeness here. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be for the JREF to put all the required effort into ensuring an applicant is serious about taking the challenge and is able to respond to the JREF in some form of recogniseable language and grammar, only for them to sign up here and (apart from being immediately on the defensive anyway) have any inclination to deal with the test removed beause they are accused of being either fraudulent or insane / delusional. Some are clearly new to internet forum interaction, and aren't really given a chance to discuss their claim and protocol in a reasonable manner. They have a large batch of skeptics picking carefully into every tiny detail of their claim and overloading them with questions. Perhaps we could give them more of a chance.

There was a suggestion raised before that this section be fully moderated, and/or restricted to a small group of 'representative' members who would engage with claimants. I'm in two minds about such restriction, but if claimants are being continually harrassed, then I'd support it. After all, what is the point of a forum section actually working against the goals the JREF are trying to acheive with the MDC? There used to be criticism of the tone Kramer sometimes took with claimants, and yet now we have RemieV being impeccably polite and clear in dealing with them, and the forumites are often aggressive.

As the MDC will be ending, this is maybe moot anyway, but I think criticism of claimants should be witheld for as long as possible. We ought to be supporting the JREF and the MDC, not frustrating their activities.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 02:10 AM

People should expect the claims to be scrutinized, regardless of whether or not they have come to this forum, or whether or not they have applied for the Challenge.

Nobody is forcing them to make their claims.

Nobody is forcing them to apply for the Challenge.

Nobody is forcing them to sign up here.

On this forum, claims are scrutinized, and the consequences of those claims are pointed out. It has always been like that.

If members are being continually harrassed, then it is a matter of applying the rules as they are today. Just because a member happens to be an applicant does not mean that that member should get preferential treatment.

It is a very bad idea to start making up rules about whose claims we can scrutinize, when we can do it, and how we should do it.

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 02:41 AM

Nobody is saying their claims shouldn't be scrutinised. Only that such scrutiny should be done in a respectful and polite manner.

And yes, actually, claimants do deserve some preferential treatment. They are not here as standard members. They are here as guests of the JREF, in a way, as claimants for the very public MDC, and as such our interactions with them should be beyond reproach. Each claim, claimant, and the progress of each claim plays a large part of the JREF's history - perhaps of world history should someone someday pass the MDC (unlikely as that may seem to most of us). Our comments should ensure that this is a positive experience and event, and no one should be able to legitimately say that forumites were the whole cause of them not undertaking the challenge in the end.

rjh01

22nd January 2009, 02:42 AM

I agree with CZ. People who are on the fence may come here later and read what is here. If they see that the applicant made a fool of himself in some way AND we were polite and trying to help then they will then know the facts. If they see we are rude to them then they may believe the excuses of the applicant.

That is why I say give the applicants rope. I think this does include giving them a little slack with the rules. No special rules, but anything marginal should go in their favor. Of course if they clearly break the rules then yes, put their name in public notices, but leave the post in situ for the world to see. Then the whole world can see what the applicant really is like.

Does anyone have any examples of the members treating any applicant badly? Enough to discourage him from continuing. This is without him being exposed for what he is first?

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 02:44 AM

After all, if it weren't for the MDC, this forum may not have been here at all. This section deserves to be handled differently for that fact alone.

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 02:48 AM

Does anyone have any examples of the members treating any applicant badly? Enough to discourage him from continuing. This is without him being exposed for what he is first?

It's hard to say when often the first post to them - or about them before they join - accuse them of fraud or delusion. Who knows how differently any of these claims may have gone if that had not been the case?

However, cases such as The Professor are used by them and other detractors to demonstrate a hostile environment here. Yes, often they have to stretch the truth, but it would be even better if some of the quoted posts hadn't been made in the first place. If there was abolutely no ammo they could use against the JREF (not against us, remember) then bad publicity for the JREF and MDC would be tougher for them to compile.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 03:18 AM

First, it is imperative that we all remember that it has always been very, very clear that JREF was not responsible for what members of the forum posted. I do believe this is still the case.

If it is a matter of being uncivil, we already have a rule about that. Simply apply that, instead of making up new rules that favor certain members.

Whenever such favoritism has been suggested in the past, it has always been met with the very sensible answer: All members should be treated equally. No special rules for anyone.

Abandon that principle, and you open up a can of worms. Who gets preferential treatment next? Who gets unfavorable treatment?

Darat

22nd January 2009, 03:26 AM

As Admin:

Just as a "FYI" - when the last lot of changes were made to the Membership Agreement the Mod Team were told to be strict about applying the changes to this section, so it is treated slightly differently than other sections especially in regards to moving off-topic material.

Also the Mod Team have been given specific instructions from the JREF regarding some applicants, for instance when The Professor was still in the frame for applying for the MDC he was allowed to breach his Membership Agreement to a certain extent.

If we can try to keep this discussion away from, if you like, the "official" rules and just concentrate on making suggestions as Members I'd appreciate it, otherwise the discussion will end up in Forum Management.

H3LL

22nd January 2009, 03:33 AM

The MDC is a challenge.

Not tea and biscuits with the vicar.

Respect is earned not given.

An MDC applicant should expect sustained scrutiny of their claim and protocol. Gentle discussion is for other places on the forums.

As CLF said, no one is forcing them and if they think that coming here is going to be an easy ride and massage their egos, they are more deluded than usual.

They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches.

It is a hostile environment and known to be so for those without evidence to support their claims. Scrutiny is almost guaranteed.

This "nicey-nicey, softly-softly" approach to trolls and now MDC applicants is becoming a little nauseating.

The bright light of good evidence reveals all.

If they don't like it - they shouldn't be here.

Finally, when the day comes that who I show respect to and my actions are guided by fear from the likes of repugnant characters such as The Professor and his activities - Please shoot me - - - Twice.

Zep

22nd January 2009, 03:35 AM

If there is going to be preferential treatment for some posters over others that is going to be enforced by "rules" then you can ban my account immediately. You can stuff that.

I fully advocate that good manners and tolerance be strongly encouraged, especially to newly arrived visitors. But once you start enforcing a rule-based caste system, the spiral will go inwards around the plug-hole, not upwards to the stars. Count me OUT.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 03:42 AM

I really don't think that anyone in their right mind would ever claim that the entire membership here consisted of a homogeneous group of skeptics who spoke as one voice. Nor that it should.

Sure, we have heard such claims from some woos, who really wanted to paint us as a monolithic force.

Not true. Here, we have all sorts of people. It's one of the good things about this forum. Always has been.

Now, we are all supposed to march in line, singing the same song? This herd of cats? Yeah, right. Try to make that happen... :D

Darat

22nd January 2009, 03:43 AM

As Admin:

Let me repeat what I said:

If we can try to keep this discussion away from, if you like, the "official" rules and just concentrate on making suggestions as Members I'd appreciate it, otherwise the discussion will end up in Forum Management.

Also:

There are no current plans nor has the JREF raised it as an issue that we should look into making any changes to the rules in this or any other section.

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 04:07 AM

They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches.
Or perhaps they have chosen to accept the MDC, and are simply looking for assistance in going through the process. There should be no 'enemy' here. I'll repeat that I view claimants as guests of the JREf, and a large part of why this forum exists at all, and as such we should endeavour to treat them the way the JREF lead by example. I see that as with utmost politeness and patience.

It is a hostile environment <snip>
Why?
Why should it be?

I'll point you to the banner here, that states it's a place for discussion "in a friendly and lively way". I see nothing there about hostility.

As an example, we all know Randi himself can be hostile and sarcastic. However, watch how he handled the 'baby mindreader'. When it comes to the challenge, he is calm, patient and respectful. I think that should send an important message.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 04:16 AM

I view claimants as people with claims that should be scrutinized.

It should be remembered that all forum members are guests of JREF. Not just those members who are also applicants.

H3LL

22nd January 2009, 04:26 AM

Chillzero, what part of the word "Challenge" is giving you trouble?

They are not "guests", they are here to directly challenge Randi's position on the paranormal etc. and take his money.

These are not "guests" I want at any of my parties.

Using critical thinking and sound methods, Randi is also going to challenge their claim and protocol.

Any challenge is inherently hostile - How could it be anything else.

The level of hostility can be very different. Chess and boxing are both hostile challenges, rules dictate the level of that hostility.

I would agree 100% with Zep above that the level of control on hostility here is way more than sufficient already.

Reno

22nd January 2009, 04:33 AM

As an example, we all know Randi himself can be hostile and sarcastic. However, watch how he handled the 'baby mindreader'. When it comes to the challenge, he is calm, patient and respectful. I think that should send an important message.

Not according to Ogilvie and I'll bet every woo who saw the documentary. To Ogilvie, Randi was cold and hostile and out to make things as difficult and stressful as possible. He also, according to Ogilvie, didn't give Ogilvie a chance and the whole test was tilted to ensure that Ogilvie failed.

It really doesn't matter all that much how respectful and pleasant we are to the woo claimants here because they're all going to cry boo-hoo nasty closed-minded skeptics as soon as it becomes clear that their claim is either untestable due to no possible agreement on a protocol, or that their claimed ability just doesn't exist. To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 04:50 AM

Not according to Ogilvie and I'll bet every woo who saw the documentary. To Ogilvie, Randi was cold and hostile and out to make things as difficult and stressful as possible. He also, according to Ogilvie, didn't give Ogilvie a chance and the whole test was tilted to ensure that Ogilvie failed.
But it's easy to see this as a lie.

It really doesn't matter all that much how respectful and pleasant we are to the woo claimants here because they're all going to cry boo-hoo nasty closed-minded skeptics as soon as it becomes clear that their claim is either untestable due to no possible agreement on a protocol, or that their claimed ability just doesn't exist. To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.
But why feed the flames? Why make it any easier for them to make such claims?

H3LL

22nd January 2009, 05:03 AM

But why feed the flames? Why make it any easier for them to make such claims?

This is suggesting that the existing rules are ineffective at preventing such behaviour.

Where, within the current rules, are you unable to moderate inappropriate behaviour to an MDC applicant, such as insults or off topic comments?

Why do you think MDC applicants deserve special favour?

Cuddles

22nd January 2009, 05:26 AM

This is suggesting that the existing rules are ineffective at preventing such behaviour.

Where, within the current rules, are you unable to moderate inappropriate behaviour to an MDC applicant, such as insults or off topic comments?

Why do you think MDC applicants deserve special favour?

As has been repeated several times already, this is nothing to do with the rules, it is to do with how people think people should behave. You may be as nasty as you like to applicants, within the bounds of the membership agreement. The point that UncaYimmy, Chillzero and others are making is that there is no good reason to act like that, and plenty of reasons not to.

If you want to discuss the forum rules then, as Darat already said, please take it to Forum Management.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 05:44 AM

Let's discuss how such restrictions on discussions about claims pertaining to an application for the MDC would work.

What are the qualifications for a member to be accepted in the group of "representative" members to carry out the discussions?

Who decides what these qualifications are?

Who decided who can make that decision?

Cuddles

22nd January 2009, 05:59 AM

Any discussions about rules will be taken to Forum Management section. Final warning.

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 06:23 AM

New thread about the qualifications for "representative" members to discuss with applicants here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133609).

Czarcasm

22nd January 2009, 06:29 AM

As far as treating prior claimants we have no easily found previous bad history on with respect, I say certainly, but the ones that refuse to even read the rules of the MDC or can be shown to be jerks with a prior(or current, in the case of a couple of recent cases) bad faith history should be jerked out of this forum a lot sooner than is currently the habit, in my opinion. Yes, we do somewhat represent JREF, but do we really want to be used to show the outside world that any type of woo should be treated with respect?

CFLarsen

22nd January 2009, 06:40 AM

Members do not represent JREF in any way. The membership consists of all kinds of people, from all parts of the world.

jmercer

22nd January 2009, 08:32 AM

Members do not represent JREF in any way.

Claus, I disagree to an extent with your position on this; while The JREF officially has stated that they are not responsible for the content of the posts in the forum, the forum itself bears their name, is paid for by them, and is ultimately managed by them. While we may not officially represent The JREF, what we say and do reflects on The JREF (and skepticism in general) if we claim to be skeptics that support the goals of the JREF. Yes, we don't represent The JREF. but anything posted here that's hostile toward a claimant may be held up by them as "proof" that The JREF does NOT operate in good faith with claimants - even if that's utter nonsense. Better to not give them an excuse to point to us as the cause of their failure.

The refutation of a claim is inherent in its failure when tested; no further rhetoric is needed when that elegant and irrefutable proof is rendered. We should be doing everything in our power to help these people reach the point of testing... because that's the definitive, public, documented and successful approach to disprove their claims.

Darat

22nd January 2009, 08:42 AM

...snip... To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.

I agree with what you say but why act in a way that panders to their distorted perception? Why not act in a polite and rational manner in our interactions, it costs us nothing, may in fact sway some fence sitters and lurkers that "we" aren't the nasty ones?

chillzero

22nd January 2009, 10:33 AM

While we may not officially represent The JREF, what we say and do reflects on The JREF (and skepticism in general) if we claim to be skeptics that support the goals of the JREF. Yes, we don't represent The JREF. but anything posted here that's hostile toward a claimant may be held up by them as "proof" that The JREF does NOT operate in good faith with claimants - even if that's utter nonsense. Better to not give them an excuse to point to us as the cause of their failure.

The refutation of a claim is inherent in its failure when tested; no further rhetoric is needed when that elegant and irrefutable proof is rendered. We should be doing everything in our power to help these people reach the point of testing... because that's the definitive, public, documented and successful approach to disprove their claims.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Very well said.

UncaYimmy

22nd January 2009, 11:41 AM

The MDC is a challenge.

Not tea and biscuits with the vicar.

<snip>

That's all justification for taking an aggressive and adversarial position. For me, at least, that position is stipulated.

But here's the question I'd like to see answered: What will you accomplish by taking such a stance immediately with a claimant? Or more broadly what do you personally hope to accomplish when engaging a claimant?

CriticalThanking

22nd January 2009, 11:57 AM

To me, one of the exciting parts of this particular subforum is to help applicants refine a potential protocol. Pointing out that a particular protocol step helps prevent self-delusion is one thing. Suggesting the applicant test him/herself first to see if there is some self-delusion going on is great. I do not see calling someone deluded as helpful in any way towards developing a protocol. What percentage of people do you know that learn well being told they are deluded/nuts/stupid?

I have always been in awe of posters like JackalGirl, Jimtron, and others who remain helpful to the last possible moment. One vote for each of us being personally responsible for being as helpful as possible to those that do not attack first.

CT

Moochie

22nd January 2009, 12:36 PM

That's all justification for taking an aggressive and adversarial position. For me, at least, that position is stipulated.

But here's the question I'd like to see answered: What will you accomplish by taking such a stance immediately with a claimant? Or more broadly what do you personally hope to accomplish when engaging a claimant?

UncaYimmy, there are folks here with decades of experience in seeing what a person is actually doing, as opposed to what they claim to be doing. Some will call "shenanigans" earlier than others. I think it just comes with the territory.

That said, I would hope that claimants are treated with civility and respect, whatever their peccadilloes, and that they are given every opportunity to express themselves clearly and fully.

M.

UncaYimmy

22nd January 2009, 01:48 PM

UncaYimmy, there are folks here with decades of experience in seeing what a person is actually doing, as opposed to what they claim to be doing. Some will call "shenanigans" earlier than others. I think it just comes with the territory.

I don't disagree. But what is the goal calling shenanigans in this particular forum where we're dealing with an applicant? It's a sincere question. I'm interested in understanding the various goals and discussing the best way to reach those goals.

Darat

22nd January 2009, 01:58 PM

UncaYimmy

22nd January 2009, 03:14 PM

I can think of a few examples when calling "shenanigans" would be appropriate. For instance if there was an applicant stating that they were genuine and someone then finds that on another forum the were actually claiming that they are not genuine in their application I can't see how that would be wrong to call them out on that type of "shenanigans". Likewise if a Member here discovered that the applicant had lied about something.

Let me rephrase my question because I'm not sure I'm being clear. I have no issues with calling out someone who is clearly lying or not being genuine in their application. What I'm driving at is how best to approach the situation. What might you say?

For example, somebody could say, "Liar! Check out this link. You're just another shyster woo artist scamming people just like all the other psychics." Somebody else might say, "What you have claimed here seems to be in direct contradiction to what you said on this website. I see no need to proceed any further with you until you have addressed this contradiction."

What I'd like to see is the collective "us" as not being ruffled by the cranks. Not only doesn't it hurt "us" when dealing with future non-cranks and the fence sitters, it also gives the cranks exactly what they are after: attention and vitriolic reactions.

rjh01

23rd January 2009, 12:21 AM

If an applicant posts something that undermines their case there is no need to call them liars. Just post the link and an excerpt and leave it up to everyone to come to their own conclusions. After all there may be an innocent explanation.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 01:25 AM

Am I missing something?

It seems Zep is too.

Is this thread about preferential treatment of MDC applicants or not?

If not, it's just a condescending thread on how to be nice to people.

I can't mention rules, but as suggested before, there is more than sufficient moderation already in place to prevent overly rude responses to MDC applicants.

What exactly is the issue here?

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 01:42 AM

The bottom line is this:

The forum is owned by the JREF.
The priority of the JREF is not to pander to members, but to get applicants through the testing process.
The JREF banner states "friendly and lively", not "hostile and aggressive" (I note there's been no response to this being pointed out before).
Applicants rarely come here for the same reasons skeptics do - they do not usually come for debate and discussion. They usually just want assistance/guidance with getting through the MDC process and are only interested in their own case. Most of them seem incredibly internet naive, and often have less of a grasp of english than most members, and it's like throwing a chick to the wolves here.
The JREF lead by example, as can be seen by Randi's restraint and politeness with Derek Ogilvie, or by Jeff's patience and politeness with Rosemary Hunter as well as other examples. Several applicants who made it to the test have remarked that although disappointed with the failed results, they were impressed with the professionalism and respect shown by the JREF staff.
Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

Why any member here would think it is right for them to deliberately defy the simple and clear requests of those who run the forum is beyond me. It seems to be an act of sheer disrespect toward the JREF, who so many claim to be here to support.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 02:39 AM

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 02:51 AM

Cuddles

23rd January 2009, 02:51 AM

Expecting some MDC applicants that come here with claims that make some member's blood boil and hoping that all members are going to be nicey-nicey is naive in the extreme.

The problem isn't with those "some". While I agree with UncaYimmy in general, when someone is clearly being deliberately dishonest I have no problem with calling them out. The problem is that many people call out every single person, regardless of their actual behaviuor and attitude. Expecting everyone to be nice may be naive when people come along with certain claims, but it would be nice if we could expect everyone to behave like mature adults the rest of the time.

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 02:57 AM

Darat

23rd January 2009, 03:17 AM

That's assigning motivation to people rather unfairly Chill, many folk will just disagree with (for example) your interpretation that they are being aggressive or attacking, they may think that they are "plain speaking" and so on.

Rather then attack ;) motives I think a better route is to try and explain why a different approach will be better for all.

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 03:24 AM

You're probably right, Darat, although I feel that the reasoning for a different approach has been pretty much covered. I wasn't meaning to assign motivation to all and sundry, but on reading some comments (long before this thread actually), it's a question that often perplexes me.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 04:51 AM

Why do some people feel it is so much more important to be able to protect their ability to attack others, than to ensure the JREF can acheive their goals of getting people into tests?
Each test is part of a bigger picture whether it's a fail or not, and that's important to remember.

Now I'm completely confused.

And, apparently, we're attacking the poor little chicks now.

Yet again, what are the issues you are trying to discuss here?

Are they:

Asking all members to be nicer to MDC applicants? This is all well and good and very nobel ... but it's not going to happen. That's pretty much self evident.

New rules to to force members to be nice? - Not needed, we have enough rules that seem to work just fine, IMHO and apparently this is the wrong place for rule discussion.

Special status for MDC applicants? - Unless there is an intention to 100% mod their threads to protect their poor, delicate feelings (borderline acceptable), this stinks BIG time. We have enough religious "special pleading" in RL without having to tolerate it from all manner of woo-woo in this haven.

If the intention of this thread is to educate members on how to be polite and respectful, it's an education that, I for one, neither require nor desire and will leave you all to it.

If a Silvia Brown wannabe comes in as an MDC applicant, I'm well aware of how to be polite and respectful and may choose to be polite but there is not a snowflakes chance in hell that I will have even the tiniest smidgen of respect for the repugnant bottom-feeder and don't take too kindly to anyone that suggests for one minute that I should.

As said before, the MDC is a challenge. Members should be able to challenge them as agressively and with as much hostility as they choose (within the rules). The existing rules are quite sufficient to control "bad" behaviour.

If they choose to gently educate them, that is also their choice.

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 05:00 AM

Perhaps you missed my response to Darat's comment on this. I withdraw it for this thread, although it does make me wonder from time to time on the forum in general.

I personally had hoped people would respond to the previous posts though.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 05:15 AM

I personally had hoped people would respond to the previous posts though.

Did you mean this bit:

I would also suggest that if you think the JREF are wrong to make such simple requests, and that members on their forum should not have to comply with their wishes, you take that up with Jeff.

on referring to this bit:

....Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

(My bold) - I think I did.

Never going to happen with me for some applicants and I suspect other members may feel the same way.

Respect is earned, not given.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 05:29 AM

Would you be so kind as to address the points that are confusing me:

Yet again, what are the issues you are trying to discuss here?

Are they:

Asking all members to be nicer to MDC applicants?.......<snip>

New rules to to force members to be nice?.....<snip>

Special status for MDC applicants?..........<snip>

If the intention of this thread is to educate members on how to be polite and respectful......<snip>

Just so that I know whether to aggressively attack you with much hostility or politely leave the thread to avoid muddying the water further. :D

Cuddles

23rd January 2009, 05:49 AM

Would you be so kind as to address the points that are confusing me:

Just so that I know whether to aggressively attack you with much hostility or politely leave the thread to avoid muddying the water further. :D

Perhaps the opening post of the thread may help you there. You know, this one:

Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants? I think you make a number of good points that are not specific to Connie. Mocking claimants is like shooting fish in a barrel - I don't know why some people feel like they have accomplished something by doing so.

More importantly I don't think it's productive, but that's because I may have a different definition of productive. I want the claimant to learn on his or her own the flaws in their thinking. If the environment is too hostile, they might just take their ball and go home. To me that's an opportunity lost. How does anyone benefit by that?

In the grand scheme of things we should want applicants to take the test rather than get ticked off and leave. I would much rather be able to say that 500 claimants took a test and failed than to day that 500 applied, but 495 never got tested. Of course, if we can get a claimant to test themselves first, that's great, too. It would be even better if they shared the results of their self-testing with us. We need to provide an environment where they feel like they can do that.

You did read it, right?

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 06:40 AM

You did read it, right?

Cheeky. :D

Yes, and UncaYimmy said:

"Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants?" ...followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric. You did read it, right? :p

Rule discussion is not allowed in this thread.

Moderated thread options are not allowed to be discussed here.

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Two things got me going: The implication that MDC applicants should get some special status, eloquently commented on by Zep and the whole respect nonsense.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

So where is the thread going?

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

chillzero

23rd January 2009, 08:01 AM

Respect is earned, not given.

Well, I tend to start with the opposite premise. I'll give anyone respect until they do something to remove it. *shrug*

In the case of the MDC, applicants have a slight additional amount of respect because they - in the midst of all the howls from skeptics of "put up or shut up" - make an attempt to 'put up'. They make a decision to try and prove what they claim, and place themselves in the hands of the JREF to do so. I'll treat them with respect until they do something to remove it; such as lie about the progress of their claim on another forum, for example.

Even if I didn't start from that point, the very fact that the JREF want them to be treated with respect would further compel me to do so. It's their show and I wouldn't want to do anything to muddy the waters.

Cuddles

23rd January 2009, 08:24 AM

followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric.

Because a thread on a public discussion forum asking for people's opinions and thoughts actually containing some opinions and thoughts is such a terrible thing to happen.:rolleyes:

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Yes, you were. A thread discussing how members think other members should treat some more other members has nothing to do with the official rules.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

And here we get to the heart of the problem - it seems a disturbing number of people consider politeness to be "condescending twaddle" and "naive".

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

So despite your many posts in this thread, and having just not only replied to a post which quoted UncaYimmy but also definitively answered yes when asked if you'd bothered reading it, you apparently still haven't actually bothered reading either that post or any of his others, where he clearly states his opinion and says nothing whatsoever about with giving applicants to the MDC special status. As for Chillzero, who is the only person to have actually mentioned giving applicants special status, if you'd bothered paying any attention to her posts you would have noticed that she was merely noting that such an idea had been raised in the past, but rejected. Given that you apparently have absolutely no interest in this thread or what anyone posting in it has to say, I have to ask why you are bothering to post here?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

Yes, it's sadly clear that you, and several other members, have no interest in politeness. Oddly enough, the question of why this is, which is what UncaYimmy, among others, asked in the first place has yet to be answered.

GzuzKryzt

23rd January 2009, 08:42 AM

As far as I can see, only Czarcasm and I did bother to name specific examples of (wanna-be) applicants.
My first post was meant to be brief, obviously this issue has far more range than I outlined.

Perhaps you, my good forumites, could use a specific (wanna-be) applicant as an example for the points you raise. Not as a pillory, but as something where we can tie our points up on and beat them against each other.

Well?

Um, Zep? You should start saying good-bye to the forum members you like. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4077825#post4077825) Please don't kill the messenger.

UncaYimmy

23rd January 2009, 11:12 AM

Rather then attack ;) motives I think a better route is to try and explain why a different approach will be better for all.

It would be helpful to understand what the more aggressive or "plain speaking" folks are trying to accomplish in the first place. Since we don't seem to be getting answers, I'll go first.

I'm no saint nor do I pretend to be. I've spent 15 years on Usenet. I've done many things there that would get me thrown off this board in heartbeat. Why? Because the other guy ticked me off so much it gave me pleasure to verbally grind him to a pulp. I wanted to humiliate the person publicly. I wanted to see him exposed for the jerk he really was even though he had already demonstrated that so clearly that I didn't need to say a thing. Hell, sometimes I was just in a bad mood or felt like playing devil's advocate.

When it comes to this particular forum, I feel there's something bigger at stake. The most effective way to educate the claimant and other fence sitters is to see the test actually be taken so that that the results can speak for themselves. Rather than say, "liar, liar, pants on fire" I'd rather say, "can you resolve this apparent contradiction?" I believe that advances the goals of the MDC.

Someone else mentioned that this thread seems to be condescendingly telling people how to be nice. I disagree. I'm sure everyone here knows there are different ways to say the same thing. The questions really are should people voluntarily agree on the best approach and if so, what is that approach?

UncaYimmy

23rd January 2009, 12:10 PM

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

I'll answer for UncaYimmy: No.

That said, I would prefer that members treat MDC applicants in this forum in a way that is most effective at leading them to take the test, doesn't discourage others from testing/exploring their claims critically, and gives fair-minded fence-sitters the impression that education is more important than say humiliation. How that might be accomplished should be discussed, but if there's no consensus on the goals, then what's the point?

Does that mean that applicants get "preferential" treatment? You might say that - I wouldn't. I see it as giving the "E" in JREF preferential treatment because the "feelings" of the applicant aren't really a consideration - selfishly staying focused on our "goals" is the only consideration.

People have brought up obvious schemers, liars, and hostile combatants as examples of those who may not "deserve" decent treatment. I argue that "decent" treatment is merely a tool to advance our goals. It's all about furthering our agenda. Decent treatment is a weapon, not a concession.

But if humiliation is your goal, look at this way. If some deluded claimant comes here expecting to encounter a bunch of rude, close-minded people who will use tactics to keep a fair test from taking place, what's the best way to humiliate them? I say it's to prove them wrong every step of the way. Then, when they fail the test, it's the ultimate failure. And we've got a real feather in our collective cap.

If we treat them rudely, dismiss everything they say, and engage in petty arguments instead of developing a protocol, then who wins when they walk away without taking a test? Certainly not us, but hey, at least we can hold our heads high that we weren't "nice" to them, right?

Ofiuco

23rd January 2009, 02:02 PM

rjh01

23rd January 2009, 03:57 PM

dann

23rd January 2009, 04:34 PM

Why do some people feel it is so much more important to be able to protect their ability to attack others, than to ensure the JREF can acheive their goals of getting people into tests?

I'm a little confused now. Is that the goal of the JREF - in the "bigger picture"? Merely "getting people into tests"?

Each test is part of a bigger picture whether it's a fail or not, and that's important to remember.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and maybe I am, but I thought that the purpose of the MDC, the bigger picture, was to expose the frauds for what they are, a purpose that it does not accomplish since the frauds simply stay away.
Instead the MDC is full of the self-deluded. The scammers simply stay away, even (or especially) the ones who, at one point or another, publicly agreed to be tested.
So the purpose actually served by the MDC is to get up the hopes of the deluded that they are not only gifted with supernatural powers but may also become millionaires! And thus it also serves the purpose of parading these deluded persons in front of a bunch of people with the delusion that they are intellectually superior to the former because they are able to see through their delusions.

And now people like Darat and chillzero want this self-deluded 'elite' to give up fulfilling their need to demonstrate their imaginary superiority in order to secure that as many as possible of the 'supernaturally deluded' go through with their tests - even though they know that not a single one of them will ever win the prize. (Not because the JREF are cheaters but because there is no such thing as supernatural powers.) Now that is idealism, pure and simple.

It sounded like a fun idea at the start, the MDC, but I, for one, actually look forward to its expiration date.
The people who defend it as a tool to help enlighten the superstitious who believe in their own supernatural powers ought to know that it does not actually serve that purpose. A simple pamphlet (or maybe one for each alleged power) along the lines of "How to test if you have the supernatural power of ...." might serve that purpose. I don't think that the MDC does.

UncaYimmy

23rd January 2009, 04:43 PM

I have just checked out some recent threads. I could not find examples of bad behaviour by members in any thread about a specific application. That is apart from the professor's threads. He could not behave himself very well. So he deserved everything he got.
Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.

So is bad behaviour a major issue on this forum or is it just in certain people's imagination? Because I cannot find any thread where the applicant was not rude and was treated badly by several members.
It's not really about "bad" behavior so much as choosing a behavior that benefits the goals of the MDC and the JREF *or* debating whether those goals should even be a consideration at all in how we voluntarily treat an applicant within the confines of the membership agreement.

Until people give examples of such threads I cannot see any point in having this discussion.

From the first page of Sonne applicant's thread:

The dowsing claim is somewhat off from her other claimed abilities. I wonder what - or who - made her apply. After all, she must be pretty sure of her abilities, ... which is rather sad!

Was there any reason add the comment about her confidence being sad? It's not "bad" behavior but it is certainly condescending and not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test.

...
Judging by your command of the English language, I think that your understanding of this field might also benefit from reading a couple of articles in Danish, in particular James Randi’s article Sådan virker ønskekvisten (http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm), but the following articles may also help you understand the delusion of dowsing: beviser for ekstraordinære påstande (http://www.skeptica.dk/1999/gracely.htm) and alternative energier (http://www.skeptica.dk/bibliotek/bav_bogen/bav_05.htm#Ydre%20p%C3%A5virkninger)
[/url]
Since you don’t seem to mind spending a lot of time and money travelling to other parts of the world, in this case Florida, to prove your alleged powers, I recommend that, at least to begin with, you save some money by restricting yourself to going to Fåborg next Tuesday, January 20, for this lecture by Ole J. Knudsen on [url=http://www.folkeuniversitetet.dk/Default.aspx?PageType=3&ID=532288]moderne overtro og myter ( http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvistgang).

If you still decide to go ahead with your plans of having your dowsing powers tested, I think that you may receive help with your project from these guys, Dowsing Danmark (http://www.dowsing.dk/), but you should be aware that they appear to share your delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion)!

I highlighted the use of the word delusion. While I do not argue the accuracy of the term, I offer that it is not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test. It also discourages others from working *with* skeptics to think critically. This lady could reasonably say to others, "I tried to take a test with the JREF, but right off the bat they started calling me delusional. How can I expect fair treatment from people who slander me?"

And once people talk about her beliefs being sad and delusional, do you think any other members stand a chance of engaging in constructive dialogue? It's hard to be diplomatic and constructive. It's easy to be rude and destructive.

Obviously the behavior is acceptable since the moderators have not intervened. Everyone has the right to attack the applicant's claim as aggressively as the MA permits. I'm discussing what we should do since we clearly have a choice. At this point I think I am probably done explaining how I think we should behave and why.

Perhaps other can explain why they choose to say the things they do or at least why they think others should say the things they do. Hopefully the answer will be something more than "because they can."

One of the first threads I participated in here was someone (not GMB) claiming that the Theory of Relativity was fundamentally flawed from a logical standpoint. My contribution was limited to just offering that the OP should make more an effort to understand it before refuting it. Several other members, most notably Sol Invictus, chose to deal with this person very patiently. Over a thousand posts later the OP saw the error of his ways. Several times it could have gotten nasty and aggressive, but it didn't because education was more important than ridicule. Had he been called delusional or told that his strongly held beliefs were sad, I doubt he would have been enlightened. And I wouldn't have learned so much more about relativity.

Cavemonster

23rd January 2009, 04:45 PM

dann-

Exposing frauds may have been one of the reasons the MDC was set up, but fostering an understanding of critical thinking also plays into it.

In my short time in the forum, I've seen a few people come with wooish ideas and come to understand, through interacting here, why they were wrong. Chillzero came here as an applicant and is now a passionate advocate for critical thinking.

There is a great benefit to treating applicants respectfully in spreading critical thinking.

Exposing frauds is great in that it gets press for the cause and for the idea of embracing rigorous logic. But exposing Uri Geller didn't end his career or correct all his fans beliefs. The best actions of the JREF serve that end goal, to promote skepticism, which in the forums is better served by treating the "self deluded" respectfully.

H3LL

23rd January 2009, 04:53 PM

Because a thread on a public discussion forum asking for people's opinions and thoughts actually containing some opinions and thoughts is such a terrible thing to happen.:rolleyes:

The first sentence you missed out was a direct question - The rest was not. Your sarcasm suggests I have said something I have not. Not appreciated.

Yes, you were. A thread discussing how members think other members should treat some more other members has nothing to do with the official rules.

(My bold) It was "deal with" not "treat". I happen to disagree and feel that "dealing with" applicants could be a rules/mod issue. Irrelevant anyway, as I've already been warned off and acknowledged I was wrong.

And here we get to the heart of the problem - it seems a disturbing number of people consider politeness to be "condescending twaddle" and "naive".

Niether said nor implied. Lessons on politeness is what I do not require and I suspect few here do and stated such more than once I believe. What you are saying is made up.

Who are these "disturbing number of people"?

So despite your many posts in this thread, and having just not only replied to a post which quoted UncaYimmy but also definitively answered yes when asked if you'd bothered reading it, you apparently still haven't actually bothered reading either that post or any of his others, where he clearly states his opinion and says nothing whatsoever about with giving applicants to the MDC special status. As for Chillzero, who is the only person to have actually mentioned giving applicants special status, if you'd bothered paying any attention to her posts you would have noticed that she was merely noting that such an idea had been raised in the past, but rejected.

Asking and suggesting members deal with MDC applicants in a different manner is asking for special treatment for them. Don't you see that?

Are you sure it's me that's not reading the posts?

Yes, it's sadly clear that you, and several other members, have no interest in politeness. Oddly enough, the question of why this is, which is what UncaYimmy, among others, asked in the first place has yet to be answered.

This is something made up out of your own head again. Lessons, it's lessons in politeness I don't care for.

Who are these "several other members" that have "no interest in politeness"?

Given that you apparently have absolutely no interest in this thread or what anyone posting in it has to say, I have to ask why you are bothering to post here?

Yes, I'm wonder why I'm bothering too, but for completely different reasons.

Czarcasm

23rd January 2009, 04:56 PM

Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.I'm saying The Professor and his ilk, given the incredible amount of information we have on him about his true purpose on posting here, should have been never have been given a thread in this forum to screw with us. This isn't censorship or discourtesy-this is common sense. At the very least, he should never have been given the extra latitude he was given. People that are here to gum up the works should be shown for what they are, period.

pavel_do

23rd January 2009, 05:33 PM

well.. sorry guys but UncaYimmy right in many points.. been there,, done it as they say.. I had from “Calling me names” about my knowledge of English to telling that I am waisting everyones time etc.... some post not really encouraging you know..(Ill be honest with you (as always was here) a few times I felt like saying. F#ck it.. all of you go to hell with your challenge out of my self respect and dignity I am not engaging with your gang and bunch of morons who have no respect to any one who might think different from you and same time calling yourself open minded..) and I tell you why.. cause most of talking happening on forum cause from JREF you get some times 1 letter in a few months if you lucky enough.. so the rest of time applicant talking (if he does:)) on forum and from forum and it members he makes his opinion about JREF as such..
as I use to say before.. who ever smart DO IT your self! Show it everyone that for example my claim is worthless cause its chance odds.. coin tossing as it was called.. DO it prove it!.. no one does.. just jump on applicant.. when I say DO it.. there is one excuse.. I am not claiming your claim..why should I..

UncaYimmy

23rd January 2009, 10:37 PM

I'm saying The Professor and his ilk, given the incredible amount of information we have on him about his true purpose on posting here, should have been never have been given a thread in this forum to screw with us. This isn't censorship or discourtesy-this is common sense. At the very least, he should never have been given the extra latitude he was given. People that are here to gum up the works should be shown for what they are, period.

I will say that the JREF would have been better off had The Professor not come along because, quite frankly, he got the best of the skeptics through unscrupulous tactics. After reviewing the thread, I would say that had it only been Jeff Wagg and TP, it would have played out at worst as a draw and in a LOT fewer posts.

You say people like TP should be shown for what they are. I agree and he was, very early on. Despite that he took control and milked it for all it was worth. Quite frankly I found some of his tactics masterful. People were so focused on getting him to do what they wanted that they played right into his hand.

Note: I'm not saying everybody played into his hand or that I would have done better. I'm saying that overall he managed to turn many responses to his advantage and managed to evade many important issues because of all the noise.

One of the key tactics in any negotiation is not saying anything you don't absolutely need to say. It's also important to remember what the other guy wants and use it to your advantage. That's exactly what he did and what we, the skeptics, did not do. He wanted the attention - the money was a red herring. Let me rephrase that, the money was to come from the attention, not winning the challenge or even taking the test. We just handed it over on a silver platter and gave him plenty of other things to work with. We got diddly squat.

All that said, his example is not directly related to what prompted me to bring up this issue. I didn't see people calling him delusional or ridiculing his beliefs. And most of what I consider mistakes occurred after he was greeted. This thread is about greeting applicants - first contact, if you will, and keeping a sincere applicant moving forward.

Maybe a "How to Handle People Like TP" thread is in order.

rjh01

23rd January 2009, 11:46 PM

Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.

Once the professor had revealed what sort of person he was the MDC was irrelevant. Anyone reading the thread would know he could not even say what paranormal thing he could do. I think he was well treated by people. See post 76 for what I mean.

It's not really about "bad" behavior so much as choosing a behavior that benefits the goals of the MDC and the JREF *or* debating whether those goals should even be a consideration at all in how we voluntarily treat an applicant within the confines of the membership agreement.

From the first page of Sonne applicant's thread:

Was there any reason add the comment about her confidence being sad? It's not "bad" behavior but it is certainly condescending and not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test.

I highlighted the use of the word delusion. While I do not argue the accuracy of the term, I offer that it is not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test. It also discourages others from working *with* skeptics to think critically. This lady could reasonably say to others, "I tried to take a test with the JREF, but right off the bat they started calling me delusional. How can I expect fair treatment from people who slander me?"

And once people talk about her beliefs being sad and delusional, do you think any other members stand a chance of engaging in constructive dialogue? It's hard to be diplomatic and constructive. It's easy to be rude and destructive.

If a person cannot handle a fact no matter how unpleasant that is their problem not ours. The bit in bold is correct or even understated. I do not see such isolated posts as being a problem. They can be ignored by all.

See also post 75. He is right in that anyone who has any ability need not come to the forum or even to JREF. They can earn heaps of money by using their ability. Yet the people who do come here mostly do not state that they earn such money from their abilities.

GzuzKryzt

24th January 2009, 12:36 AM

Finally we are getting to some examples. The easy ones, but still.

Besides The Professor and pavel_do - I recommend any critic to read the threads dealing with pavel_do, seriously, read them - do we have other specific examples where forum members dealt with applicants?

Do we understand that (wanna-be) applicants have the possibility to ignore destructive posts?

Do we also understand that pointing them to things they should have done before posting - reading the Challenge Rules, the FAQs, related threads - should not be regarded as criticism?

Please, anyone: Before you respond to pavel_do's post in this thread, read the threads dealing with him. I would very much like to learn from that experience. Please also consider that we are dealing with real-life situations here, not ideal lab conditions. Thank you.

Off to work. Back later.

rjh01

24th January 2009, 03:18 AM

I did have problems finding other threads. Here is another thread where the applicant was participating. It is rather old.

RYAN WHISLER, Yo-Yo Dowser (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50499)

But I am glad someone is seeing things my way.

Edit. I am sure there are other threads where people say they are going to apply but never do. I ignored those.

pavel_do

24th January 2009, 03:30 AM

Do we understand that (wanna-be) applicants have the possibility to ignore destructive posts?

Do we also understand that pointing them to things they should have done before posting - reading the Challenge Rules, the FAQs, related threads - should not be regarded as criticism?

Off to work. Back later.

Well.. ye ye.. I need to learn English better etc... but some of th Challenge Rules, FAQs not really clear you know and not only for me, so people intend to try to clarify it.. and when you try to get clarification from JREF directly they don't have time for it, so I my self same as many others I'm sure, understood better and learned better from FORUM a as you said from POINTING.. and explaining.. That I appreciate. But the topic here is RESPECT
And you said..the destructive posts can be ignored.. Ill tell you, even tough U always posted that for exact clear answer you should write to JREF officials etc.. BUT 90% applicants and just visitors of the forum, DONT make differences from JREF officials and opinions that is on forum..If you understand what I mean... so when you read thread when some one told shut up or put up or don't waist any one time, or what ever “encouraging” posts... that not really make you more confident in applying and joining JREF some how..
so every person have to be respected here, if you think some on is delusional than ignore him, but not jump on him and try to put him in his place by humiliating posts.. Ignore it.. cause you know, some people really sensitive emotional, some of the even mentally disturbed, but still genuinely believe in reality of there “gift” so let the person understand that he is wrong or delusional or what ever but not try to bash it in to his had by offending him. No every one strong and smart enough to understand and say you know what you now one..I don't care I am dealing with JREF not with you..:) So to make it short. JREF forum whether you like it or not. Whether yu understand it or not but still in some way FACE of the JREF it self.. if not..that it should be pout of JREF web site saying this is has nothing to do with JREF and members and there opinions is not the JREFS ones.. So.. as it is on JREF official web site.. than all of you have to understand that in a way you represent it too.. and it means Respect other if you don't want people think that your “family” is just a bunch of morons who think they they always write even if they wrong.. NO one alts has write for any other opinion..:)
SORRY if I offended any one in any way.
Cheers guys, have a nice weekend.

UncaYimmy

24th January 2009, 08:34 AM

Once the professor had revealed what sort of person he was the MDC was irrelevant. Anyone reading the thread would know he could not even say what paranormal thing he could do. I think he was well treated by people. See post 76 for what I mean.
I will disagree that posts in the MDC forum directly concerning a MDC claimant are irrelevant to the MDC simply because somebody is exposed as being insincere.

If a person cannot handle a fact no matter how unpleasant that is their problem not ours.
I used to say that, too. Then my voice changed, and I grew hair in new places. Suddenly I realized how childish it was.

I do not see such isolated posts as being a problem. They can be ignored by all.
It's funny. Someone in this thread called Chillzero an idealist.

But, still, not one person has actually answered the question of what good these "isolated" posts do. Nor have you actually addressed whether you think the goals I outlined are important or not.

See also post 75. He is right in that anyone who has any ability need not come to the forum or even to JREF. They can earn heaps of money by using their ability. Yet the people who do come here mostly do not state that they earn such money from their abilities.
I don't disagree with what you say - I just don't see how it relates. The best possible outcome in the MDC is a test. The proof is, as Darat pointed out, is elagant. It speaks louder than 10,000 posts by skeptics explaining why failure is imminent.

I don't see the MDC as a lure to bring in people so we can tell them they are delusional or that they have no abilities. MDC applicants, to put it bluntly, are a means to an end - the test and subsequently, elegant proof.

dann

24th January 2009, 11:51 AM

"elegant proof" sounds very worthwhile, the pinnacle of the search for solutions to problems in mathematics, for instance, but ...
Many people in this thread have mentioned a larger context, and I tend to agree with that, so ... What exactly is supposed to be the point of your alleged "elegant proof", unless you consider elegance in itself to be the point? Let's say that you already have 25 tests of dowsers, what is the point of the 26th? Isn't it merely, yet again, the proof of the same old thing, to be put on top of the pile?
If only the tests served to convince the individual dowsers of their lack of dowsing powers, well, then they would be useful to that extent, but according to James Randi, they very rarely do, Miss Kitt apparently being one of the exceptions:

“Each dowser goes away from any trial of their powers, dismayed by their failure, puzzled at the reasons for the failure, but always capable of coming up with a reasonable to them excuse. That excuse may be any one of many. It may be an unfortunate arrangement of the planets, improper temperature or humidity, a problem of indigestion, too much ambient noise or too much silence or a poor attitude on the part of the observers. These are not invented excuses; they are all drawn from my personal experience in testing these folks.
I must say that of all those who have ever tried to win the Pigasus Prize, and of those who I have otherwise tested in every part of the world, no claimants even approach the dowsers for honesty. These are persons who are genuinely, thoroughly, self-deceived. In only two instances one in Australia and the other in the U.K. did I ever encounter any cheating being tried by dowsers. And those cases were easily solved and immediately terminated.
I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid. And I know full well that you, as a dowser, will refuse this advice and believe that, for you, such a procedure is not necessary. I base this conclusion on my many years of handling dowsing claimants.“
Sådan virker ønskekvisten (http://www.skeptica.dk/2005/randi01.htm) / The Matter of Dowsing (http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/)

So why not simply replace the MDC with a catalogue of designs for self-test protocols? (Which, I guess, is probably what will happen anyway when it is terminated.)
In the meantime I don’t think that people applying for the test should be abused. Telling them that they are either frauds or self-deceived, however, is not abuse. If they are at all willing to be undeceived, it is usually quite easy for them to come up with a way of testing themselves. If they aren’t, it is their problem.

rjh01

24th January 2009, 01:15 PM

There is something more important than a test. It is exposing to the world what sort of person they are. This includes to themselves as well. That can only be done via this forum. A test only shows that the person could not perform on the day.

I found a few references to goals on this thread, but no one has made a list. Or have I missed it?

If a person can earn money from their powers then the only people who would accept the challenge are
1. People who already have made their money and just want the recognition. They will not need our help on the forum. Nor do they need the money.
2. People who do not have powers.

So far the only people we have seen are in the 2nd group. Some of the tests they claim to want to do would never have been done before by them so how would they know they can pass?

UncaYimmy

24th January 2009, 01:16 PM

What exactly is supposed to be the point of your alleged "elegant proof", unless you consider elegance in itself to be the point? Let's say that you already have 25 tests of dowsers, what is the point of the 26th? Isn't it merely, yet again, the proof of the same old thing, to be put on top of the pile?

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these forums at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

This is an age-old war. It started before either of was born and will continue long after our deaths. There are fresh battles being fought every day. I don't blame anyone for growing tired of it, but that's no reason to treat a battle any differently.

So why not simply replace the MDC with a catalogue of designs for self-test protocols? (Which, I guess, is probably what will happen anyway when it is terminated.)
I think that's an excellent idea.

In the meantime I don’t think that people applying for the test should be abused. Telling them that they are either frauds or self-deceived, however, is not abuse. If they are at all willing to be undeceived, it is usually quite easy for them to come up with a way of testing themselves. If they aren’t, it is their problem.
Anybody who's ever tried to pick up a gal/guy in a bar or maintain a happy marriage knows that how you say something is often the determining factor in how things go. It's about diplomacy.

"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age."

In terms of dealing with applicants, I like these quotes:

“A real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbor's throat without having his neighbor notice it.”

"Diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way. "

As for it being "their" problem, then why say anything at all?

GzuzKryzt

24th January 2009, 05:48 PM

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these forums at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.
...

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high? Isn't it merely, yet again, another body to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these conversations at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

dann

25th January 2009, 12:01 AM

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high?

Well, you have to be very careful about the way you tell him to self-test! :)

dann

25th January 2009, 12:11 AM

If a person can earn money from their powers then the only people who would accept the challenge are
1. People who already have made their money and just want the recognition. They will not need our help on the forum. Nor do they need the money.
2. People who do not have powers.

You seem to equate supernatural powers with the ability to make money. I don't think this assumption is correct. If a person claims to be able to feel colours, i.e. to determine the colour of a thing without using vision, I cannot think of a way to use this ability to make an awful lot of money fast, so MDC should still appeal to this imaginary person. And one million US dollars for a couple of tests would still appeal to people who were able to earn, say, two or three hundred thousand dollars a year using their (alleged) supernatural powers, so the premise is false: It isn't very likely (well, actually, it's impossible) that somebody is hiding supernatural powers merely because they have so much money that it would be a waste of time to take the MDC. Bill Gates?!

So far the only people we have seen are in the 2nd group. Some of the tests they claim to want to do would never have been done before by them so how would they know they can pass?

They wouldn't. But it would be stupid to claim to be able to do something and not try it out yourself. And the latest applicant, Connie Sonne, claims that she just doesn't need to test her alleged powers because she just knows that she has them, so she isn't even one of the overwhelming majority dowsers who have been 'seduced' by the very compelling ideomotor effect. She does not even appear to have bothered trying!

Like I said before, I'm not one of the guys who tend to think that trying to offend the self-deceived serves a purpose - other than making the idiots who do so feel smug or superior.
However, I also don't think that it serves a purpose to help them deceive themselves. We are all capable of deceiving ourselves (but not necessarily about supernatural powers), which is why we should not be offended if somebody tries to point it out to us.

dann

25th January 2009, 12:19 AM

Why bother to point out that someone is deluded or a fraud? Isn't it merely, yet again, the same old thing to be put on top of the pile?

To them it isn't necessarily so. To them it may be a new thing if they are new to the JREF forum, which would be the point of offering them a self-test protocol. Or maybe even a self-test kit - there might even be a little money in this - as an alternative to the how-to-convince-yourself-that-you-have-paranormal-powers offers.

Cavemonster

25th January 2009, 10:16 AM

Why bother to tell the guy you're tripping with that he can't fly, that he's just high? Isn't it merely, yet again, another body to be put on top of the pile? Why bother to have these conversations at all? There's rarely anything being said that hasn't been said before.

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

GzuzKryzt

25th January 2009, 10:50 AM

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

That and some gentle but firm enough holding.

rjh01

25th January 2009, 03:45 PM

The gentle but firm enough holding will do the trick. The
"You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!" will add nothing.

dann

25th January 2009, 04:05 PM

UncaYimmy

25th January 2009, 08:03 PM

However, the sentence you got from Cavemonster is a strawman. Nobody's suggested that "fraud" or (not and!!!) "deluded" replace a proper argument. I don't see the problem with any of the words in the right context - even when addressing an applicant for the MDC. If they are frauds, call them frauds. If they are self-deceived, call them self-deceived:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4374020#post4374020
But without the explanation of, for instance, relevant concepts such as the ideomotor effect (or in the case of flyboy: gravity and aerodynamics), the words are useless.

The reason I am hesitant to call someone a fraud in this forum is that it helps the Other Guy (OG) more than it helps you. OG accuses you of libel or slander. OG makes a big deal about how you resort to name calling and won't address the issues at hand. We call him a liar and accuse him of evasion. We've all seen it.

I'd rather just say, "Statements A and B appear to be in direct contradiction. Please resolve that contradiction." Lather, rinse and repeat. That keeps OG on the defensive. TP was a fantastic example of a claimant who took control of just about every exchange.

Accusing someone of self-deception is likely to evoke an emotional response. Nobody wants to hear it, especially those who deep down suspect it. I'd rather say, "This is what we have learned from similar claims. We know this to be true because <whatever>. How do you differentiate what you do from what these other people have done?"

Of course, we'll likely end up with OG not really being able to explain himself in a way that makes sense. Eventually (or pretty quickly) it will be come obvious that no amount of words will change OG's mine. That's when you stop because beyond that point you have nothing more to gain and something to lose. That something? OG taking the test.

Have you ever worked in sales? One thing you learn is that once you're ready to close the deal, shut up and close the deal. Don't keep talking because you just might screw it up. It's the same thing the interventionists advise on that show, Intervention.

Along those lines, I'm sure there are times when the harsh words are just the ticket. But as I have said before, once you go there, there's no turning back. As much as people think that the OG should just "ignore" it, that just doesn't happen in the real world. I recommend holding back until the last possible moment, and when you do let loose, do it in a way that doesn't make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks. Like it or not, people will lump us all together.

tsig

25th January 2009, 10:11 PM

The reason I am hesitant to call someone a fraud in this forum is that it helps the Other Guy (OG) more than it helps you. OG accuses you of libel or slander. OG makes a big deal about how you resort to name calling and won't address the issues at hand. We call him a liar and accuse him of evasion. We've all seen it.

I'd rather just say, "Statements A and B appear to be in direct contradiction. Please resolve that contradiction." Lather, rinse and repeat. That keeps OG on the defensive. TP was a fantastic example of a claimant who took control of just about every exchange.

Accusing someone of self-deception is likely to evoke an emotional response. Nobody wants to hear it, especially those who deep down suspect it. I'd rather say, "This is what we have learned from similar claims. We know this to be true because <whatever>. How do you differentiate what you do from what these other people have done?"

Of course, we'll likely end up with OG not really being able to explain himself in a way that makes sense. Eventually (or pretty quickly) it will be come obvious that no amount of words will change OG's mine. That's when you stop because beyond that point you have nothing more to gain and something to lose. That something? OG taking the test.

Have you ever worked in sales? One thing you learn is that once you're ready to close the deal, shut up and close the deal. Don't keep talking because you just might screw it up. It's the same thing the interventionists advise on that show, Intervention.

Along those lines, I'm sure there are times when the harsh words are just the ticket. But as I have said before, once you go there, there's no turning back. As much as people think that the OG should just "ignore" it, that just doesn't happen in the real world. I recommend holding back until the last possible moment, and when you do let loose, do it in a way that doesn't make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks. Like it or not, people will lump us all together.

How about you do it your way and leave others to theirs. If you don't like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks there is a simple solution.

Funny we've been told time and again that our opinions do not represent JREF. Now you say they do.

Darat

25th January 2009, 11:45 PM

If the language you use is "You're a fraud, you can''t really fly, you're deluded!"

Do you really think that'll convince him not to jump off of something?

(To carry to the analogy to splat point.)

No but it may convince someone else who was about to follow their lead to have second thoughts.

rjh01

26th January 2009, 12:13 AM

That warning does not apply to me. I can fly. I am not a fraud. See me fly off this tall building.

(No I am not going to do this. Not until I am deluded and not know it.)

dann

26th January 2009, 02:57 AM

See me fly off this tall building.

That had better be the title of a YouTube clip! :)

Czarcasm

26th January 2009, 04:27 AM

UncaYimmy

26th January 2009, 10:42 AM

How about you do it your way and leave others to theirs. If you don't like being lumped in with a bunch of jerks there is a simple solution.

I never called anyone a jerk. You're either delusional or a fraud for saying that.

Funny we've been told time and again that our opinions do not represent JREF. Now you say they do.

If by now you can't understand the difference between official representation of the foundation and the casual association people will make with the members here posting in-line with the JREF, then I find it sad that you won't open your eyes and see the truth in front of you. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just a fraud.

Moochie

26th January 2009, 11:15 AM

If you want to discuss moderation of this section, as previously mentioned that should be done in the Forum Mgt section.

I would also suggest that if you think the JREF are wrong to make such simple requests, and that members on their forum should not have to comply with their wishes, you take that up with Jeff.

Are you referring to "simple requests" to treat MDC applicants deferentially beyond mere compliance with the MA? Then I disagree. If such special treatment is required, then it should be mandated in the MA, in my opinion. Other than that, moderating those particular threads in the MDC Challenge subforum seems like a good idea.

M.

Moochie

26th January 2009, 11:31 AM

I've enjoyed reading the MDC files from time to time for quite a while now. On the few occasions that I venture further into the forums to see what's going on, I am consistently surprised and disappointed at how forum members treat applicants. You may not be representatives legally of the JREF, but you are representatives of the group you claim membership in - skeptics, or, perhaps, 'the enlightened'. And based on what I've read here, if that's what being enlightened means, then I don't want to be enlightened any time soon.

Many of you seem to say that by coming on the forums, MDC applicants open themselves to your behavior, that they are, in essence, 'fair game'. Well, think about it this way. If I invited you over to my house and then I started calling you names, whose fault is that? Well, you didn't have to come over to my house, now did you? It's really too bad. I come here hoping for an interesting read, but usually all I get is an eyeful of vitriol.

The problem with this kind of post, for me in any case, is that we have no idea of what constitutes "good behavior" or "bad behavior" towards applicants to the MDC, or anyone else, for that matter, in the mind of its author. Personally, I think if the MA is adhered to when responding to claimants' or anyone else's posts, that should suffice.

Having said that, it doesn't escape me that in general, claimants who appear here are not in full possession of any number of their faculties, and that in some very real way they are entertained by the JREF more as a source of entertainment than anything else -- a happenstance that in itself could be rightfully criticized, and is a reason why, I think, the entire enterprise of the MDC should be euthanized.

ETA: As another poster has pointed out, there is nothing to compel applicants for the MDC to post here at all, so suggestions that they be treated deferentially if they do so are quite unwarranted, in my opinion.

Come on, the communications between claimants and forum regulars, frivolous or not, form a valued part of the tapestry claimants must traverse on their journey to obscurity. :D

M.

chillzero

26th January 2009, 11:59 AM

Are you referring to "simple requests" to treat MDC applicants deferentially beyond mere compliance with the MA? Then I disagree.

I'm not talking about moderation issues at all. I'm talking about - as I would have thought obvious by now - simple politeness and good manners.

I'll refer you back to post 50 in case of any further confusion, most specifically:
Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

tsig

26th January 2009, 12:10 PM

I never called anyone a jerk. You're either delusional or a fraud for saying that.

If by now you can't understand the difference between official representation of the foundation and the casual association people will make with the members here posting in-line with the JREF, then I find it sad that you won't open your eyes and see the truth in front of you. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just a fraud.

UncaYimminy:
"make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks."

So we just look like jerks.

I find it sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Guess it's only MDC challengers that get the good treatment from you.

The last person that wanted me to open my eyes and see the truth was a woo, are you?

Is fraud your new term for liar?

chillzero

26th January 2009, 12:15 PM

Perhaps the point was simply that calling people frauds is not really conducive to reasonable discussion, because no-one likes it, do they?

dann

26th January 2009, 01:15 PM

Frauds are not really conducive to reasonable discussion, which is why it is necessary to distinguish between the self-deceived and the frauds.
The frauds probably don't like being called frauds, and they hate to be exposed as frauds.

chillzero

26th January 2009, 01:20 PM

But just how quickly some people jump to the conclusion that the person involved is a fraud ... without much evidence, or any interaction.... can be surprising and disappointing.
And calling them delusional instead is also not very conducive to discussion. If they are self deceived, as I was when I first came here, aggression is not the way to encourage them to look deeper into the matter.

I'd like to consider the way Rosemary Hunter was talked about here - I'm thankful for her sake she didn't join up - compared to how the JREF handled her at her test. As I said - the JREF lead by example, and I find it a shame some are so reluctant to follow that example; particularly when requested to by the site owners.

tsig

26th January 2009, 01:31 PM

Perhaps the point was simply that calling people frauds is not really conducive to reasonable discussion, because no-one likes it, do they?

Are you really trying to claim that what he posted was supposed to be an object lesson for me?

chillzero

26th January 2009, 01:37 PM

I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pondering.

tsig

26th January 2009, 01:49 PM

chillzero

26th January 2009, 01:53 PM

I'm not in this thread as a moderator. Report anything you think is a breach of the MA. Good idea to stay on topic here.

tsig

26th January 2009, 02:11 PM

I'm not in this thread as a moderator. Report anything you think is a breach of the MA. Good idea to stay on topic here.

Posted new thread in FM called "MDC challenge"

As for reporting, well " I try to get by with a little help from my friends"lol

UncaYimmy

26th January 2009, 02:34 PM

UncaYimminy:
"make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks."

So we just look like jerks.

I find it sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Guess it's only MDC challengers that get the good treatment from you.

The last person that wanted me to open my eyes and see the truth was a woo, are you?

Is fraud your new term for liar?

I think I just proved my point about how ineffective it can be to call someone a fraud or delusional. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

GzuzKryzt

26th January 2009, 02:45 PM

Does someone have something to say about any other specific applicants of the past years and about the constructive or non-constructive behaviour of forum members towards them? Forum nickname in brackets.

Mike Guska? (edge)
Ryan Whisler? (batman)
Adam Hugo? (supernaturalbeing)
Michael Anda? (Wellfed)
Ali Seifoori? (Ali)
Paul Carey? (naughtyrasputin)
JAK Keeran? (JAK)
Nicole Spiese? (nicolespiese)
Achau Nguyen? (Achau Nguyen)

Thank you for your continued interest.

UncaYimmy

26th January 2009, 02:46 PM

I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pondering.

And you were correct.

It just goes to show how normally clear thinking skeptics who usually consider all the variables will have a knee jerk reaction to being called a fraud or delusional. C'mon, like I'm gonna write thousands of words about how counterproductive those terms can be, then choose to use them myself. The fact that it didn't even cross his mind that an object lesson was a possibility demonstrates my point better than any argument I could have written.

It's sort of like how getting a claimant to take the test is far more powerful than any amount of logical reasoning.

tsig

26th January 2009, 05:23 PM

I think I just proved my point about how ineffective it can be to call someone a fraud or delusional. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

Now do you have any proof that was your intention?

If you posted with the intent to deceive then you are a fraud.

In the future how is one to tell whether your posts are real or some artful ploy?

UncaYimmy

26th January 2009, 06:23 PM

Now do you have any proof that was your intention?

Nope. Chillzero figured it out, though.

If you posted with the intent to deceive then you are a fraud.
Okay.

You'll never know for sure, though, will you? I could have just lost my temper. Either way, my point was still demonstrated.

In the future how is one to tell whether your posts are real or some artful ploy?
Same way you always have for me and for everyone else.

tsig

26th January 2009, 06:34 PM

Nope. Chillzero figured it out, though.

Okay.

You'll never know for sure, though, will you? I could have just lost my temper. Either way, my point was still demonstrated.

Same way you always have for me and for everyone else.

The point demonstrated is that you will lie in your posts. You either lied to prove a point or lied about proving a point.

Your temper doesn't matter, what you post does. You intended to deceive and seem rather proud of that fact. Since I can't take anything you say at face value I see no way to communicate.

UncaYimmy

26th January 2009, 09:55 PM

The point demonstrated is that you will lie in your posts. You either lied to prove a point or lied about proving a point.

Your temper doesn't matter, what you post does. You intended to deceive and seem rather proud of that fact. Since I can't take anything you say at face value I see no way to communicate.

I apologize for my error in judgment. I didn't actually believe that you would take me so seriously and not even consider that I was baiting you to prove a point. Lesson learned. For the record, I do not think you are delusional or a fraud.

Zep

17th February 2009, 07:06 PM

Cheeky. :D

Yes, and UncaYimmy said:

"Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants?" ...followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric. You did read it, right? :p

Rule discussion is not allowed in this thread.

Moderated thread options are not allowed to be discussed here.

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Two things got me going: The implication that MDC applicants should get some special status, eloquently commented on by Zep and the whole respect nonsense.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

So where is the thread going?

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

I never asked for special status for MDC applicants...once they become applicants.

I asked for an initial show of politeness for people who just walked in the room. They may turn out to know nothing at all or have the whole idea of skepticism and the MDC utterly wrong, but they at least have the balls to turn up here and start.

Zep

17th February 2009, 07:18 PM

Um, Zep? You should start saying good-bye to the forum members you like. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4077825#post4077825)I am doing so, but not for this reason at all.

If you read what I wrote, you will see I asked for an initial show of politeness, until the poster became known and made their position clear. An "evaluation period", if you will.

Your link referenced the thread where The Professor is being discussed. He has long since become well-known on this forum and is well out of his evaluation period. He has made his position re the MDC crystal clear.

I'll be blunt: He's a utter self-promoting twat and pathetic at it to boot. His MDC challenge attempt was not even up the the level of a joke. Clearly he had an agenda, a transparently juvenile agenda - I don't think anyone missed that, did we? So why we even bother to reply to him any more is beyond me, but I'm not everyone else here nor a mod.

So have I made my position plain?

OK, Cya.