The Sylvia Clock [Archive]

JimTheBrit

23rd November 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
I just noticed that the "Sylvia Clock" shows two different numbers: 992 and 811 days, as of now.

How´s that?

All here, dude:

"(The more observant reader will perhaps be struck by the fact that 395+ days have passed since the date (March 6, 2001) that Sylvia first agreed to take the JREF test, and not the 214+ listed on Ms. Browne's clock. This is explained by the fact that her acceptance on March 6, 2001- which was also made live, on internationally-viewed TV — was made before I'd had a chance to formulate the exact rules for a test, which would have to be done before Ms. Browne would know whether she'd like to take the test. We have since communicated that protocol to her — on September 3, 2001 — and the clock was started on that date.)" Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/040502.html)

Al_Spielman

1st December 2003, 02:36 PM

amazing...

psy kick

1st December 2003, 06:36 PM

Thats odd.
Sylvia predicted it would be 665 days....

Scarude

9th December 2003, 05:55 PM

Who cares how long its been! Sylvia obviously changed her mind about taking the preliminary test. This, folks, is called free will and she has every right to exercise it.

I personally am a bit taken aback by Mr. Randi's taunting of Sylvia and his juvenile clock. Give it up and let her be. Live and let live.

Maybe somebody should take a poll. Enough childness.

Zep

9th December 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Scarude
Who cares how long its been! Sylvia obviously changed her mind about taking the preliminary test. This, folks, is called free will and she has every right to exercise it.

I personally am a bit taken aback by Mr. Randi's taunting of Sylvia and his juvenile clock. Give it up and let her be. Live and let live.

Maybe somebody should take a poll. Enough childness. Why? Why let her back out on her promises? She needs reminding of this shortcoming constantly. It is hardly juvenile at all - the JREF quest is exceedingly serious, $1,000,000 worth of serious, Sylvia is not.

Buck buck buckaw, perhaps?

geni

9th December 2003, 06:07 PM

Beanbag

9th December 2003, 08:34 PM

I think it should be chalked up as a "win", filed away for future reference, and the foundation should move on to the next applicant. Rubbing a cold-feet applicant's nose in it simply makes the foundation look petty and vindictive.

Look at it this way -- if somebody really does have a testable form of ESP or paranormal ability, the LAST thing we should want to do is scare them away by roasting those who tried and didn't succeed, or lambasting those who are reluctant to step up to the bar (for whatever the reasons). JREF's perceived adversarial stance works against it's appearance of objectivity. It's like we've already made up our mind that the paranormal doesn't exist, and we'll sneer at those who come in and waste our time (yet again) with their claims that they've got some abilities.

I'm an atheist, dyed in the wool, don't believe in the existance of God(s). I'm quite comfortable with this position. That doesn't stop me from looking for God. I keep searching for evidence with an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. If I find any evidence of a God or Gods, then I'll gladly re-evaluate my position, and I'll share it with you. Right now, though, I just haven't found any. But I'll keep an eye out, just in case. You never know what you might stumble across.

edited to add:
Serious? Damn straight it's serious. Despite the regular stream of negative results from testing the applicants to the JREF challenge, have you stopped to think about the ramifications of just ONE positive result? We're talking about more than just JREF's million. That lurch you would feel is a lot of foundations being yanked out from under a few edifices (no pun intended). The potential impact of just one positive is too important to spend time going Nyah Nyah ne Nyah Nyah.

Never thought I'd spell that one.

Regards;
Beanbag

Scarude

10th December 2003, 08:15 AM

Beanbag, thanx for the input and agreement. You make some strong statements and sense. You articulate better than I can.

Maybe the JREF should re-evaluate its position on Sylvia's clock. I'm tired of seeing it every time I log on. Just not that professional.

DVFinn

10th December 2003, 08:28 AM

I agree that the point the clock made has been established and it should go away, but let's not forget the context. Sylvia made bold statements on national television about accepting the challenge. She promised to take the test.

When JREF first tried to contact her she ignored them and then had the gaul to claim they hadn't contacted her. Then there was a certified letter, signed for by her staff, that she claimed no knowledge of.

She didn't fail the test, she ducked the test. The clock is up not to humiliate someone who failed, but to chatise someone who boldly lied and continues to lie. How long after it comes down will she again agrees to take the challenge and start claiming that she was never contacted?

Psychics can be grouped into 2 basic categories

[list=1]
Self deluded
Predatory scam artists
[/list=1]

Which one does Sylvia belong to? Hmmmm... I wonder.

Diogenes

10th December 2003, 09:02 AM

NoZed Avenger

10th December 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Beanbag
Look at it this way -- if somebody really does have a testable form of ESP or paranormal ability, the LAST thing we should want to do is scare them away by roasting those who tried and didn't succeed, or lambasting those who are reluctant to step up to the bar (for whatever the reasons).

The one difference -- which may or may not make a differecne for your point -- is that Sylvia was not "reluctant" to take the test. She announced that she was going to take it on national television. From that "acceptance," she gained a benefit: namely, her supporters or people on the fence were able to say "Aha, she's willing to be tested. That proves something."

Except that she never actually got around to following up on her promise. If she declined the test or never made a comment, that is one thing. Accepting the test and then running away, however, is something else again.

Perhaps the clock has run long enough. On the other hand, Sylvia just recently appeared on LKL - the same venue where she "accepted" the testing protocals, and the same venue where LKL stated that he would be involved to help make the tests happen - without any mention of it.

If she announces that she simply changed her mind and will not take the test, then I would be more inclined to your view. While disappointing to have her go back on her agreement, it would at least be straightforward. However, she has not done that.

Beanbag

10th December 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

If someone really does have a testable ability, they would be a million dollars richer by now..

What's to be scared of?

I know a few world-class musicians and vocalists who don't perform in public. I've been fortunate enough to witness their skills. When quietly urged to perform to a larger venue, they decline. Why? Some have doubts about their abilities, and don't want to put themselves up before an unknown audience where they might "fail". Some just don't want the bother that goes with the recognition. And some do it just for the pure pleasure of sharing among the people they know.

The JREF Challenge is marketed as just that -- a challenge. It would appeal to those with something to prove, who would enjoy a good competition ( think ego). Quieter types would tend to back away, even with a million bucks in the offing.

Frankly, if I could move rocks just by thought alone, or influence magnetic fields, or see a few minutes or days into the future, a million dollars would not be worth the disruption in my life if it became known to the public. I would go from being a "normal" person to an exploitable asset. Think celebrities have no private life? They'd be considered cloistered, compared to the circus that would surround a genuine ESPer of some sort. It would be the way economists hang on every word that Alan Greenspan utters, trying to read every nuance or inflection for something of meaning, only with much more intensity.

No, the JREF challenge will most likely get either the supremely confident or the totally deluded for the majority of the applicants. The more interesting types would probably avoid all the noise.

Regards;
Beanbag

Beanbag

10th December 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by DVFinn

Psychics can be grouped into 2 basic categories

[list=1]
Self deluded
Predatory scam artists
[/list=1]

You're assuming a true psychic doesn't exist.

I personally dont think there are genuine psychics, based on the lack of credible data or proof. I think the odds are against it. But I keep a critical eye out for some evidence that there MIGHT be such a thing as a psychic.

Probabilities and what's likely to be found are wonderful guidelines for allocating resources for research -- you look where things appear most likely to be found. The unlikely things are often of greater interest. I believe it was Lord Rutherford and some of his associates who were shooting streams of charged particles at gold foil and seeing how the scattered when passing through the foil to get some insight as to the nature of the atom. Most passed straight through, a small percentage deflected from their original path by a few degrees, and a certain precious few deflected straight back to the particle source. Rutherford's quote was something to the effect that he would have been less surprised if he'd fired a four inch naval gun at a sheet of tissue paper and had the shell bounce back. It gave them the clue that most of the mass of the atom was concentrated in the center, and the rest was mostly empty space.

Regards;
Beanbag

Diogenes

10th December 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Beanbag

I know a few world-class musicians and vocalists who don't perform in public. I've been fortunate enough to witness their skills. When quietly urged to perform to a larger venue, they decline. Why? Some have doubts about their abilities, and don't want to put themselves up before an unknown audience where they might "fail". Some just don't want the bother that goes with the recognition. And some do it just for the pure pleasure of sharing among the people they know.

Regards;
Beanbag

Did you offer them a million dollars ( ... to perform in public )?;)

Did you ever read Randi's anecdote about the Violinist who refused to play the Violin?

And it's not about fame and money, it's about changing the world as we know it... ( which is what a genuine paranormal phenomenon would do.... )

BillyJoe

11th December 2003, 03:45 AM

Is there anything in the rules that precludes anonymity for challengers for The Million Dollar Prize?

Garrette

11th December 2003, 05:02 AM

Beanbag,

Sylvia has already voluntarily made herself an 'exploitable asset.' She markets herself. She sells herself. She has created a religion. She goes on Montel frequently. She goes on Larry King Live frequently. She shills for customers.

Winning the JREF challenge would not disrupt her life a bit.

Drooper

11th December 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
Winning the JREF challenge would not disrupt her life a bit.

Au contraire.

First of all she would be one million smackers richer.

But that would pale into insignificance against the many more millions she could then earn around the world as the ONLY truly validated psychic.

Larry King would have to stand in line and pay her an extremly tidy sum to have her appear on his show. She wouldn't need him any more.

NoZed Avenger

11th December 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Beanbag

I know a few world-class musicians and vocalists who don't perform in public.

. . . And this would apply to Sylvia, how?

She has just finished a TV tour that included Montel and LKL. She is not a shy and retiring person who prefers to avoid performing in public. Or if so, she manages to hide it everywhere else.

DVFinn

11th December 2003, 07:16 AM

You're assuming a true psychic doesn't exist.

True, I am making that assumption. I am, however, completely open to evidence proving me wrong. We all operate on assumptions to some degree and I feel pretty safe with this one.

BillyJoe

12th December 2003, 02:43 AM

andycal

12th December 2003, 06:55 AM

I personally am a bit taken aback by Mr. Randi's taunting of Sylvia and his juvenile clock. Give it up and let her be. Live and let live.

Sorry lads, bit late to the party, but...

This sort of thing riles me bad. "Live and let live"?? and "Childish" being levelled towards the foundation?

This is one of the few sensible, level-headed sites on the the net. If you want to see an example of childish then go to Silvia's site. And if you want to level "Live and let live" at someone, please tell Silvia to keep her nose out of grieving families lives.

These people need to be hassled until they are revealed as the frauds they are, locked up and made to pay for all the hurt they've caused.

geni

12th December 2003, 07:20 AM

It does have the benefit that if you run a google image search on "Sylvia Browne" that clock is the first thing that comes up.

DrMatt

15th December 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Scarude
Who cares how long its been! Sylvia obviously changed her mind about taking the preliminary test. This, folks, is called free will and she has every right to exercise it.

I personally am a bit taken aback by Mr. Randi's taunting of Sylvia and his juvenile clock. Give it up and let her be. Live and let live.

Maybe somebody should take a poll. Enough childness.

Sylvia is still giving out medical advice as if she were licensed to do so. She is still at large, still pretending to have special skills worthy of the enormous amount which her groupies invest in her, still wreaking havoc on people's lives. The perpetual taunting of people like Sylvia and educating of "on-the-fence" people about the truth about her is EXACTLY the kind of thing for which the JREF exists and for which I send them money every year. DEAR JREF: DON'T STOP NOW. Thanks.

DrMatt

15th December 2003, 02:04 PM

Beanbag

15th December 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
Beanbag,

Sylvia has already voluntarily made herself an 'exploitable asset.' She markets herself. She sells herself. She has created a religion. She goes on Montel frequently. She goes on Larry King Live frequently. She shills for customers.

Winning the JREF challenge would not disrupt her life a bit.

Sylvia and her ilk are not an exploitable asset -- they are the EXPLOITERS. The assets thay are exploiting are the gullible folks. I have little or no sympathy for the exploiters.

What I'm concerned about is all the hoopla and jeering going on over Sylvia's avoidance of the challenge. I wouldn't want it to discourage someone who might actually have a confirmable, testable "paranormal" ability from coming forward for fear that they wouldn't be treated with at least a little respect. It's probably a good thing that the number of people who actually get to participate in the challenge is closely controlled. Some of the attitudes I've seen expressed by folks on this forum would cause me to leave with a "you and the horse you rode in on" comment, even if I was there to demonstrate my special skills in thumb twiddling (which I'm very good at).

I don't think the challenge should be meant as a sort of ordeal or trial by fire. I think an applicant should be treated politely on arrival and during the session, and politely thanked afterwards, regardless of the success or failure.

Of course, it should also be understood that the applicant should behave in a polite manner as well, regardless of the outcome. That pretty much leaves out a few well-known professed psychics previously mentioned in this thread.

I regard the challenge as a type of laboratory instrument, sort of like a microscope. It's a way to get a clearer look at what might be out there. It's not a sword or a club to beat the test subjects with.

Regards;
Beanbag

Beanbag

15th December 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

. . . And this would apply to Sylvia, how?

She has just finished a TV tour that included Montel and LKL. She is not a shy and retiring person who prefers to avoid performing in public. Or if so, she manages to hide it everywhere else.

Why don't we agree that Sylvia's pretty much a lost cause. No point in beating that horse any more. Most of the "known" psychics strike me as a poor place to look for any kind of ability. They're all pretty much from the same mold. They've developed a carnival banter that draws in the pigeons and are making a good living from it, though I wonder how they can look themselves in the mirror.

Why waste resources and the foundation's credibility continually harangueing what's pretty much a dead group as far as finding a true ability? Yeah, I think their tree should be shaken from time to time, just to let them know somebody's still watching. They thrive on the publicity, good or bad.

A quieter tone would be less likely to spook the larger pool of applicants where something just --might-- be found.

Regards;
Beanbag

Beanbag

15th December 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by DVFinn

True, I am making that assumption. I am, however, completely open to evidence proving me wrong. We all operate on assumptions to some degree and I feel pretty safe with this one.

I'm comfortable with the assumption that there are no psychics, too. The issue for me is: just what exactly is the JREF Challenge for? Investigative tool? Pillory? Trial by ordeal?

For the moment, the JREF Challenge appears to be the tool most suited for looking for paranormal abilities. It is entirely dependant on people stepping up and making their application, however. It's a little counterproductive to keep razzing those who don't want to take part, even if they originally said they would. It unsettles the rest of the potential applicant pool.

This leads to some interesting questions. I think I'll take this to a new thread. After all, this thread is about the Sylvia clock, and just about everyone here starts frothing at the mouth when her name is mentioned.

Now, if I can just figure out --how-- to start a new thread. RTM, I guess.

Regards;
Beanbag

BillyJoe

16th December 2003, 02:41 AM

DrMatt,

Originally posted by DrMatt
I personally have no preference either way [about whether a true psychic exists]--but SHOW US THE GOODS already. Enough talk! It's not a matter of preference.

It's a question of evidence....
If there is no evidence for psychics, you asume they don't exist.
(But, at the same time, you remain open to examining any evidence that may come to light in the future)

BillyJoe

DVFinn

16th December 2003, 11:30 AM

It's a question of evidence....
If there is no evidence for psychics, you asume they don't exist.

I have to qualify that a bit. It is not always correct to assume something is false when there is no evidence, specifically when there is an equal likelyhood of for either truth. For example, if I made the statement that I have a pen in my pocket, and you cannot observe whether this were true, and assuming you are equally unaware of my tendency to be truthful or full of s**t, the sensible position would be neutral. There is no reason to disbelieve me or to believe me.

You may of course then ask me to prove it, at which point I can present the pencil if I indeed have it.

It is the extrordinary claims which contradict physical laws as we currently understand them which require evidence even to be worth neutral consideration. Psychic powers are such a claim. There is no evidence and were they genuine they would contradict a great deal of what we currently hold as factual concerning human physiology and the way in which the physical world works. They are, under most circumstance, testable, however noone has yet demonstrated that they exist. The sensible position is not neutral, it's disbelief.

This is the key that a great deal of believers fail to grasp, and a reason why they fail to understand why skeptics don't take a more neutral position. It's not that we must automatically reject everything that can't be proven; some things we can hold a neutral position on until they can be tested. The differences is that some claims are, quite simply, very very stupid, and require at least some evidence to even merit consideration.

andycal

16th December 2003, 11:58 AM

For example, if I made the statement that I have a pen in my pocket, and you cannot observe whether this were true, and assuming you are equally unaware of my tendency to be truthful or full of s**t, the sensible position would be neutral. There is no reason to disbelieve me or to believe me.

You may of course then ask me to prove it, at which point I can present the pencil if I indeed have it.

I believe you've just inadvertently shown another trait of the 'mystic'.

You said you'd got a pen, then you produce a pencil and claim you were right....

DVFinn

16th December 2003, 12:50 PM

Oops.

BillyJoe

17th December 2003, 02:35 AM

DVFinn,

Yes, excuse my shorthand. I was trying to keep it simple. I was responding to DrMatt's use ot the word "preference" suggesting that is should be not be a matter of "preference" but a matter of "evidence".

You are right. If the claim is extraordinary - contradicts physical laws - and there is no evidence for it, then you assume it doesn't exsist until such evidence is forthcoming. (This is why I specifically mentioned "psychics" in my sentence)

And I agree that if the claim is not extraordinary - does not contradict physical law - and there is no evidence for or against it, then my stance is neutral except in the following circumstances.....

If there has been no evidence in support of the claim despite a search for evidence by many individuals over an extended period of time, then I revert to the assumption that it doesn't exist - but keeping an open mind for any evidence that may be forthcoming in support of the claim. (eg Bigfoot)

BillyJoe

delusionworld

15th August 2005, 09:12 AM

from the clock page...
It has been days since Ms. Browne publicly accepted this latest phase of the challenge.
That has been bugging me for a while. Seems like something is missing between 'been' and 'days', or is it my browser?

Bronze Dog

15th August 2005, 09:58 AM

My quick comment about any alleged inappropriateness about the Sylvia clock:

I'm one of those people who believes that if you accept a challenge on national television and then back out, you deserve any and all mockery you receive as a result.

Jeff Wagg

15th August 2005, 05:36 PM

The clock has been changed from days to weeks. And honestly, I botched the job the first time. It should make sense now. If not, please let me know.

BillyJoe

16th August 2005, 07:22 AM

Does anyone else read one of their old posts and not remember ever having written it?

....still, it was two years ago!

BJ

delusionworld

16th August 2005, 08:01 AM

It has been ______ days since Ms. Browne

marksman

16th August 2005, 09:10 AM

I also think the Sylvia Clock should be removed entirely, or at least given a less prominent place on the website. Right now, the Sylvia Clock is one of eight regular entries on the website, and is given more prominence that the Encyclopedia.

I think that makes JREF look a bit obsessed with Browne.

At most, the clock should be relegated to the bottom of the website at this point. Otherwise, JREF runs the risk of looking like the anti-Browne society and a one-trick pony.

tracer

16th August 2005, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
The clock has been changed from days to weeks. And honestly, I botched the job the first time. It should make sense now. If not, please let me know.
And right now, as I write this, the little picture in the Sylvia Clock blurb reads "207 weeks," but the text says it's been 231 weeks.

Kiless

16th August 2005, 08:44 PM

I found it very useful when in Paltalk and I've had a non-skeptic wander in. When they ask questions, I usually direct them to that clock and then discuss with them 'what has Sylvia to lose by taking up the challenge?'.

I've yet to have a person say to me 'blah blah, that's unprofessional, how mean' et al - most of the time they laugh with incredulity and say how it kind of makes sense that she is scared to try or has something to hide... after all, how difficult could it be, considering how often they hear her on the news, doing interviews et al where she's claiming all sorts of things - all she has to do is present it for a test... and she SAID she'd do so!

So, I like it. :)

Jeff Wagg

17th August 2005, 07:02 AM

And right now, as I write this, the little picture in the Sylvia Clock blurb reads "207 weeks," but the text says it's been 231 weeks.

Yes, that is correct. There is a difference between when she first agreed to the test and then later agreed on the protocols.

jmercer

17th August 2005, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by marksman
I also think the Sylvia Clock should be removed entirely, or at least given a less prominent place on the website. Right now, the Sylvia Clock is one of eight regular entries on the website, and is given more prominence that the Encyclopedia.

I think that makes JREF look a bit obsessed with Browne.

At most, the clock should be relegated to the bottom of the website at this point. Otherwise, JREF runs the risk of looking like the anti-Browne society and a one-trick pony.

I disagree. :)

First - the situation between Browne and JREF is a far from passive one. Ms. Browne - prior to her public acceptance of the Challenge - continually and openly attempted to attack JREF's credibility on TV and radio. I won't bother citing the details - they're available to anyone who reads the background and Randi's commentary.

The clock serves multiple purposes, in my opinion:

1) It prevents Ms. Browne from continuing her attacks on JREF without damaging HER crediblity.

2) It directs attention to a person who is arguably the most well-known "celebrity" for this class of frauds who prey upon the desperate and emotionally distraught.

3) It serves as a unique focal point to begin a dialogue about these predators, getting attention drawn to the subject by it's controversial approach and openly saracastic message.

4) Since Ms. Browne refuses to "prove" her powers, its arguably the only way JREF can show she's a fraud and a bunko artist. :)

Personally, I like the clock; I like the crickets; and I would have known nothing about Ms. Browne since I don't follow "psychics" - having dismissed their crediblity long before JREF - if it were not for the clock. :)

One-trick pony? That's a valid concern. Let's fix it by having a page of clocks of all the organizations and people that Randi has invited to take the challenge (like PEAR and Geller), but who have declined. :D

Santa666

17th August 2005, 08:07 AM

A page of clocks is an excellent idea. Perhaps set up in similar fashion to the challenge log, where you can click on a particular individual and see the countdown information as well as links to correspondence Randi and the JREF has had with them as well as references to them in his commentary. It would also help others who wish to find information specifically about certain "psychics" or "others" without searching through the commentary or threads.

marksman

18th August 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by jmercer First - the situation between Browne and JREF is a far from passive one. Ms. Browne - prior to her public acceptance of the Challenge - continually and openly attempted to attack JREF's credibility on TV and radio. I won't bother citing the details - they're available to anyone who reads the background and Randi's commentary.

Of course it's not passive. Browne is very passionate about maintaining her charlatan profession. But giving the Browne clock so much prominence runs the risk of giving the illusion of "parity." I.e., Browne accuses the JREF of being biased, JREF dedicates an eighth of its website to taunting Browne. The clock is not helping.

1) It prevents Ms. Browne from continuing her attacks on JREF without damaging HER crediblity.

And yet all the other frauds who badmouth the JREF can do so with impunity?! There is no need for the Browne clock to be as prominent as it is. The clock has as much deterrent effect at the bottom of the page as it does in the middle.

2) It directs attention to a person who is arguably the most well-known "celebrity" for this class of frauds who prey upon the desperate and emotionally distraught.

And yet there is no Uri Geller clock. Or Scientology clock. Or Christian Scientist clock. This web page is not a fraud-watch, at least not primarily. There is no reason Browne should become the white whale to JREF's Ahab.

3) It serves as a unique focal point to begin a dialogue about these predators, getting attention drawn to the subject by it's controversial approach and openly saracastic message.

You are the only person I've ever heard who thinks sarcasm is a bona fide way to open a dialogue. If you really want to convince people of open minds that Browne is a fraud, sarcasm is counter-productive.

Sarcasm is good when preaching to the choir because it elicits the response of "Right on!" from the converted. It does not entice people on the fence to believe that JREF has an open mind. In fact, the hostility plays into Browne's accusations of bias.

4) Since Ms. Browne refuses to "prove" her powers, its arguably the only way JREF can show she's a fraud and a bunko artist.

There's no need for that showing to be the center of its website. Browne is only a small part of what the JREF does, but the website makes it look like humiliating her is one of the main purposes of the organization.

One-trick pony? That's a valid concern. Let's fix it by having a page of clocks of all the organizations and people that Randi has invited to take the challenge (like PEAR and Geller), but who have declined. :D

I think that is a great idea. A link from the website to the "Challenge Clocks" would be great. It would de-emphasize Browne. It would emphasize the JREF's role in exposing all frauds. It would make the JREF seem more evenhanded. It would keep the onus on the claimants to come forward. A Challenge CLock page would solve all of my concerns with the current prominent display of the Browne Clock.