TC Albin, California weatherman [Archive]

Gr8wight

25th January 2005, 07:49 AM

In reading Kramer's correspondence in general, and specifically in the thread regarding TC Albin, I am continually struck by the level of belligerence in his missives. I understand that he is bombarded daily by wackos with outrageous claims that test his patience, but his flippant, and sometimes outright rude replies can do nothing but give enemies of the JREF ammunition against it. If I were Randi, one of the requirements for Kramer's job, one written in stone, would be that every correspondence that leaves the JREF offices be polite, and 100% professional in tone. It is one thing to inform a person that their claim is being rejected and that no more correspondence will be entered into. It is quite another to accuse someone of being deceptive or call them stupid or self deluded. I hate it when I stumble across a website that accuses the JREF of dealing in bad faith, but I can see how sometimes that opinion can appear to be supported by the tone of some of the e-mails Kramer has reproduced.

That's it, I'm out of pennies.

CptColumbo

25th January 2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
In reading Kramer's correspondence in general, and specifically in the thread regarding TC Albin, I am continually struck by the level of belligerence in his missives. I understand that he is bombarded daily by wackos with outrageous claims that test his patience, but his flippant, and sometimes outright rude replies can do nothing but give enemies of the JREF ammunition against it. If I were Randi, one of the requirements for Kramer's job, one written in stone, would be that every correspondence that leaves the JREF offices be polite, and 100% professional in tone. It is one thing to inform a person that their claim is being rejected and that no more correspondence will be entered into. It is quite another to accuse someone of being deceptive or call them stupid or self deluded. I hate it when I stumble across a website that accuses the JREF of dealing in bad faith, but I can see how sometimes that opinion can appear to be supported by the tone of some of the e-mails Kramer has reproduced.

That's it, I'm out of pennies.

I have to say he/she has a point. I can only imagine how frustrating it is to deal with some of the applications you receive, and occasionally you want to bite into them, but take a minute to see how it will reflect the JREF's image. I worked most of my life in retail, and there are many times everyday I would like to bite into a customer, but I don't because while I'm at work I represent that company. If I treat someone with contempt everytime they ask a stupid question ("How many are in the three-pack?"(I'm not kidding)), word will get around that my company is full of jerks. At the end of the day I go out with friends and we all spout about the idiots we encountered that day and exorcise those demons, until the next day.

Granted we on the forum only see the worst of the worst, and hopefully most of your correspondences are straightforward and to the point. Use the forum as a venting point, your with friends (for the most part).

thatguywhojuggles

25th January 2005, 10:46 AM

http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=724930&refer=&units=us

Oakland, CA
Average Temperature for July: 62 F
Average Low Temperature for July: 55 F
Average Precipitation for July: 0 inches

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KOAK/2005/7/27/DailyHistory.html

Lowest recorded temperature for July 27th in Oakland: 47 F

KRAMER

26th January 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by CptColumbo
Granted we on the forum only see the worst of the worst, and hopefully most of your correspondences are straightforward and to the point. Use the forum as a venting point, your with friends (for the most part).

Yup. I lost my patience, and I often do when talk of lawyers arises. I really get pissed off when people with claims like these bring talk of lawyers into the mix. Perhaps it's my highly negative personal experiences with lawyers that have helped me to evolve into such a creature. You want details? No, believe me, you don't.
I'm still picking up the pieces of my life after what one Esquire in NYC did to me (at the hands of a very wealthy enemy).

I think that anyone can see by the Challenge section that 99% of my correspondences are straightforward and to the point, as you rightly state they should be.

But this guy made me crazy, and one key reason I got so nutty with him is that he made a claim about making it snow in Kansas on July 27, and then backed down, insisting upon California.

Does every lunatic applicant deserve the same level of respect, courtesy and patience from me?

Yeah. I'm quite sure that they do. I have digressed.

I look at my emals, and my files, and all the letters I've written, and I see that in one year, the tone of my correspondence has reflected the loss of patience I have so very often felt only once or twice.

Should I have kept my anger to myself? Yup.

Is it a major transgression for which I should be taken to task?

Well, I guess that's really up to you all to decide.

I'll apologize to you in the forum for disappointing you, but not to this applicant.

Lisa Simpson

26th January 2005, 11:23 AM

Edit:

Humph...I just read the thread in the Challenge Application forum. Oakland. Snow in my city would have been better. Grumble, grumble, grumble.

KRAMER

26th January 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
In reading Kramer's correspondence in general, and specifically in the thread regarding TC Albin, I am continually struck by the level of belligerence in his missives.

I regret the fact that you feel this way. However...

I don't think you can quote more than a very few instances in which I am guilty of what you are accusing me of here, though I am most certainly guilty when it comes to TC ALBIN. Although it doesn't affect his claim or how I am consigned to deal with it, I must say that if there were a list of claims that I would call A COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, his would be right at the top.

I also cannot see how my insisting that applicants follow the Challenge rules, if that's one of the things you're referring to (after repeatedly and gently reminding them to do so), counts a belligerence. What's belligerent about insisting that the rules be adhered to?

And by the way, by signing the application, the applicant agrees to adhere to those rules. It says that right there in the contract, in black & white. Why should I ignore it? As a courtesy? No way!

The Challenge has rules. Anyone committed to ignoring them should not apply. A big part of my job here is comprised of reiterating those rules over, and over, and over again, until it can be repeated no more.

I'd much prefer to spend my limited time with sincere applicants who truly believe that they have a viable claim worth testing. I waste far too much time dealing with people whose only real interest is to demand that their way is the only way, despite the Challenge rules.

I am reminded of an experience I once had with a police officer in NYC after I had been assaulted by a neighbor. Now, we all know that an assault is a crime, but this lazy-ass cop refused to arrest the guy, saying that I should bring a civil suit. He admitted that a crime had been committed, but he didn't care. He refused to arrest him.

"Excuse me, but a policeman's job is not to give legal advice. A policeman's job is to investigate a report and make the appropriate arrests if he finds that a crime had been committed."

He then called me belligerent, got back into his car, and drove off.

I got to police headquarters before he did, and his supervisor was waiting for him. I don't know what ensued, but the supervisor sure was pissed.

I'm not being belligerent. I'm insisting that protocol be followed, and I am wholly within my rights in doing so.

And don't tell us what you CAN'T do. Tell us what you CAN do.
That's right there in the Challenge rules, too.

princhester

27th January 2005, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
In reading Kramer's correspondence in general, and specifically in the thread regarding TC Albin, I am continually struck by the level of belligerence in his missives. I understand that he is bombarded daily by wackos with outrageous claims that test his patience, but his flippant, and sometimes outright rude replies can do nothing but give enemies of the JREF ammunition against it. If I were Randi, one of the requirements for Kramer's job, one written in stone, would be that every correspondence that leaves the JREF offices be polite, and 100% professional in tone. It is one thing to inform a person that their claim is being rejected and that no more correspondence will be entered into. It is quite another to accuse someone of being deceptive or call them stupid or self deluded. I hate it when I stumble across a website that accuses the JREF of dealing in bad faith, but I can see how sometimes that opinion can appear to be supported by the tone of some of the e-mails Kramer has reproduced.

Exactly. I just don't really see where Kramer gets off with all the attitude and mindless aggression.

It's not as if he has a safe ordinary job in a bank and gets sick of having to deal with unexpected wackos and flakes, is it? I mean the whole point is that it's a challenge for people who think they can do impossible things. What did you think when you took the job, that it'd be challenges from people who were predicting hot weather in the Sahara?

You're like a man who takes a job as a butcher then whinges furiously when they discover they have to deal with raw meat.

Kramer your aggression gets in the way of your english comprehension, frankly. Albin offered Kansas as an example. He also offered San Francisco as an example. He also said he had to be where the weather was going to take place. If you stopped raging, you might have seen this. He didn't say he was actually going to be in both of those places, he was just giving an example of the crazyarse things he could do.

When you aggressively raged at him about Kansas he just said I'm not in Kansas, how about Oakland (perfectly reasonably) which you have accepted so clearly you think Oakland is entirely equivalent , yet you've gone on and on about bloody Kansas as if he'd completely backed away his claim, when in no meaningful sense has he done so.

And now in your last post, you raise a total straw man about telling people the rules. Which never has Albin not followed, yet you're raging at him as if he has.

Seeing your examples of how you respond to claimants has been a real eye opener. I'm not nearly the fan of the JREF Challenge that I was. It's still interesting and useful, but I no longer have much respect for how it's run.

KRAMER

27th January 2005, 08:10 AM

Well, I regret that you feel this way, but you seem to be totally ignoring several key facts:

Firstly, that this is NOT my way of dealing with people, and that my attitude toward Albin was a digression which I have admitted was wrong of me. So what's your problem?

It's as though you're just ignoring the great majority of the emails I've posted in which I did NOT lose my cookies at the applicant.

Randi grades me at about a 98, and I'm happy with that, but hardly satisfied. I'm still shooting for 100.

Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

There are other points, too, but I'm thinking now that you're not prepared to hear them. There's a difference between what you refer to as "rage" and what I think most others can perceive as a "strong response". But, if you're looking for rage, I guess you'll find it, or something close enough to call.

I will also disagree strongly with your assessment of the language contained in the claim in question, and Randi agrees with me on this: When the applicant states, "For example, I can make it snow in Kansas on July 27th", well, sorry to tell you, but, THAT'S A CLAIM. It's a statement about what he can do. Prefacing it with the words "for example" doesn't mean he was just kidding, or that he wasn't really saying he could do it. He's dead serious, and it was definitely part of his claim.

And you know it. So enough baloney on THAT. You're really spinning. Bringing a debate about semantics into this is just silly.
The man's claim was quite clear, and making it snow in Kansas on July 27th was part of it, by ANY reasonable interpretation. In fact, interpretation doesn't even enter into the matter. It's right there in B&W in his claim letter.

I comprehended the man's claim perfectly. He made a claim about making snow in Kansas, with a built-in escape portal; "I'm not IN Kansas". I predicted exactly what he would say, and he said it.

Just how much hogwash do you insist we accept? If people are so committed to looking like complete and utter fools, why should I allow the JREF to be dragged head-first into it? We'll keep our heads above the muck, thank you.

And it IS about the rules, which at least 50% of applicants attempt to ignore, but I won't let them. That's part of my job. So you're spinning there, too. Lots of spin in an effort to weave an untenable position out of your dissapointment: "I've lost respect for the Challenge."

Whatever.

Mindless aggression, you say? When an applicant brings up talk of "lawyers", THAT'S aggression. I was responding to that, but I've admitted that my defense was an aggressive one, and that it was wrong. Again, however, you mind and ears are shut.

Respect goes two ways, Princhester. You've found your needle in the haystack, and now all you see is more needles.

By ignoring the facts (and the facts are that this has happened once or twice in a year) you're becoming a woo-woo. Think about that, please, as I have carefully thought about how wrong I was in going off at this guy in the first place.

jmercer

27th January 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
I look at my emals, and my files, and all the letters I've written, and I see that in one year, the tone of my correspondence has reflected the loss of patience I have so very often felt only once or twice.

Should I have kept my anger to myself? Yup.

Is it a major transgression for which I should be taken to task?

Well, I guess that's really up to you all to decide.

I'll apologize to you in the forum for disappointing you, but not to this applicant.

Speaking for myself, I wasn't disappointed, and I don't think this was a major transgression in any sense of the word.

The guy made a claim. He reneged, and you called him on it. He started threatening JREF - you lost your patience and told him off. This is a perfectly reasonable and very human reaction.

I also don't see any reason why you (or anyone) should have to passively put up with abuse and threats, and it's not like you escalated the situation by "upping the ante" in any way.

Gr8wight

27th January 2005, 09:10 AM

I understand, believe me I do. My concern is only for the view the general public has of the JREF. How many websites are out there claiming the million dollar challenge is a fraud, or that the JREF deals in bad faith? Quite a few. Now, you, and by extension we, know that these people are complete kooks, but the general, web-surfing public only see the copies of e-mails with condescending or insulting tones.

I recommend you set up a couple of basic form letter e-mails. For example:

Dear Sir/Madam
We are in receipt of your correspondence. To date we have not received an official challenge application from you. The challenge application can be found here (provide link). If you wish to apply for the JREF one million dollar challenge, go to the above linked page and follow the instructions there. For your convenience, here are the challenge rules (provide link). I suggest you read them carefully before submitting an application. Please be advised that no further correspondence will be entered into until such time as we have received an official challenge application from you.

regards,

Kramer

or:

Dear Sir/Madam
We are in receipt of your correspondence. Your application for the JREF one million dollar challenge does not comply with the challenge rules, as stated here (provide link). Specifically, your application does not meet the requirements of rule(s) number(s)___ (enter specific rule number(s)) Please be advised that we cannot move forward on this matter until we are in receipt of a challenge application which conforms to the challenge rules.

Regards,

Kramer.

Whenever you get e-mails from these wackos that start your blood to boiling, count to ten, let out a deep breath, and simply click 'forward form letter #x' and go make yourself a cup of herbal tea. (No caffeine)

If they keep sending you e-mails, keep sending them the exact same form letter over and over again until they either comply, or go away. By entering into discussion or debate with them, you are giving them exactly what they want: attention.

jmercer

27th January 2005, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by princhester
It's not as if he has a safe ordinary job in a bank and gets sick of having to deal with unexpected wackos and flakes, is it?
...
Albin offered Kansas as an example. He also offered San Francisco as an example. He also said he had to be where the weather was going to take place.

Kramer doesn't need defending, but there were a couple of comments I wanted to make about your point of view.

There's nothing safe about working in a bank, and I have the digital video to prove it. (Can't share it for legal reasons - you'll just have to trust me on it.) Any place that has a lot of money in it is a dangerous place to work, and wackos, flakes and sickos are encountered constantly by people who deal with the public in just about any business.

That doesn't mean that the employees have to put up with threats of any kind by a customer. Such actions are universally considered to be unacceptable actions on the part of a customer.

Nor do employees have to passively accept legal threats, sexual innuendo (or open sexual remarks), etc., just because they're working in a public service position. Losing one's temper when presented with such disgusting behavior isn't encouraged or endorsed, but just about everyone understands that it happens from time-to-time.

Regarding Albin's "example" of Kansas, etc... the man is applying for a million-dollar prize. I would think that choosing his words carefully (if he's capable of that) in his application would be of critical importance to him. He supposedly retained an attorney to review the terms of the agreement, etc., so he can't be all that incapable of making good decisions. So I'd say that by citing snow in July in Kansas as a possible demonstration is a bit more than an "example". It's an offer to demonstrate. If he didn't want to do it outside of California, he should have just said San Francisco.

Gr8wight

27th January 2005, 09:51 AM

An example from THE GOD THREAD:

Dear Kirk,

If you can suggest a test protocol that can scientifically verify the existence of god (or his "powers"), we'd like to hear about it. The reason such claims are now excluded from the JREF Challenge is that they are NOT verifiable under controlled conditions. There is nothing inconsistent about our application of the scientific method of inquiry. I hope this satisfies you, but, I sincerely doubt that it will.

Sir, you are entirely free to maintain your religious beliefs, but the JREF will not entertain any demands made upon us in support of them. Also, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of the JREF Challenge. We do not "invest" in developing a winner, nor will we ever. The onus of proof is upon the applicant. Read the Challenge rules again, and again, if you fail to comprehend this.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If I had proof read this before you sent it, I would have recommended that you stop after 'I hope this satisfies you.' By adding, 'but, I sincerely doubt that it will,' you have made the step from fact to opinion; from communication of information to personal attack.

I think a part of it may be that you want to demonstrate to these people that they are being silly. You want to be able to 'save' them from their own folly, to show them reason. You must remember that you are dealing, for the most part, with people who have a strong belief in something that, we know, they cannot demonstrate. You will never convince these people. I'm sure that Randi will tell you, that even when faced with dismal failure in a test of their 'abilities,' these people go away still believing; finding some reason why the test failed; blaming the test, or the testers. As these people believe despite reason, reason cannot convert them.

drkitten

27th January 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I understand, believe me I do. My concern is only for the view the general public has of the JREF. How many websites are out there claiming the million dollar challenge is a fraud, or that the JREF deals in bad faith? Quite a few. Now, you, and by extension we, know that these people are complete kooks, but the general, web-surfing public only see the copies of e-mails with condescending or insulting tones.

I recommend you set up a couple of basic form letter e-mails. For example:

[snip]

Whenever you get e-mails from these wackos that start your blood to boiling, count to ten, let out a deep breath, and simply click 'forward form letter #x' and go make yourself a cup of herbal tea. (No caffeine)

If they keep sending you e-mails, keep sending them the exact same form letter over and over again until they either comply, or go away. By entering into discussion or debate with them, you are giving them exactly what they want: attention.

I can see some advantages to this approach, but also some substantial disadvantages. Part of the problem with sending the same form letter over and over is -- well, let's be honest here. A lot of the people applying for the challenge seem to be at least a taco short of a combination plate, and a few seem to be at the stage of "a single grain of rice and an unrefried bean." If they don't understand the form letter when it's sent to them the first time, they're unlikely to suddenly achieve enlightenment when they get it for the fourth.

Let's suppose I apply and send a letter to KRAMER that "I can vergule my snorzwacker." (This isn't that far from the actual claim of one of the yogis in another thread : "I can [...] raise the kundalini to the head centre.")

KRAMER's response to the yogi was perfectly appropriate -- we can't test this until we understand what it means. Given the sort of applicants he spends most of his time dealing with, I think this sort of personal attention is near mandatory.

jmercer

27th January 2005, 10:30 AM

Hell, if I were going for a million bucks and were about to become the hero/heroine of the psychic world, I know that I'd expect something more than a form-letter. :)

(Incidently, Lisa - if you really want snow, I'll pack some up and send it to you. I've got 'way more than I can use. ;) )

KRAMER

27th January 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I understand, believe me I do. My concern is only for the view the general public has of the JREF...Whenever you get e-mails from these wackos that start your blood to boiling, count to ten, let out a deep breath, and simply click 'forward form letter #x' and go make yourself a cup of herbal tea. (No caffeine)

Good advice, and I must say that I should never have said, "becoming a woo woo". I should have said, "veering dangerously close to resembling a woo woo". Either way, this was
probabley unwarranted. Sorry about that.

As regards form letters, I don't like them. They dehumanize the application process, and, in my opinion, they'd give the real woo-woo's a big shot of what they actually want; something to harp about, as in..."They don't even read the claims. They just send out form letters, and then, if you don't tell them what they want to hear, they send the same form letter out again."

That's not how I'd like to do things. I read each and every claim letter from beginning to end, and respond to specific points as best I can. Many of my responses will look similar, but no two will be identical. I want every applicant to know that by submitting an application (or making an inquiry), they have my undivided attention. It's only fair, and I personally feel it's the minimum courtesy we can offer them.

By the way...tea is a specific plant. I'm a tea nut so I'm always up for correcting people who say "herbal tea" instead of the proper term ,"herbal infusion". Big deal, right? I know, I know, but just so you know...and I gotta have that caffiene, which seems to have no effect on me, as I can drink an entire pot of FTGFOP Namring Estate Darjeeling at midnight and be asleep 10 minutes later. Strange.

KRAMER

27th January 2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Gr8wight
An example from THE GOD THREAD:This is exactly what I am talking about. If I had proof read this before you sent it, I would have recommended that you stop after 'I hope this satisfies you.' By adding, 'but, I sincerely doubt that it will,' you have made the step from fact to opinion; from communication of information to personal attack.

You're absolutely correct. It IS my opinion, and I have a personal obligation to offer it, while the JREF has a moral and professional obligation to do the very same, when we see fit.

I'm not an automaton. I'm a human being. This example that you have cited is usually characteristic of the 3rd, 4th or 5th email I send to an applicant who is either purposefully not listening, or seemingly incapable of understanding. At that point, my service to him, as I see it, is to go a step further, and to try to point out that they are deluded. If that is not part of our job, then what are we doing here? Whom are we educating, or trying to educate? Should we not, while trying to run the Challenge, make best efforts to help whomever we can to see that something may be terribly wrong?

If I can convince one deluded person out of 100 - or even one mentally ill person out of 1,000 - to seek psychiatric help, or to consider the possibility that they are following a path of delusion and wasting their lives, then haven't I done something good...something more, perhaps, than just opening envelopes and emails and sending out cold responses, each one identical to the last?

One cannot put a real value on a human life. A life wasted wallowing in delusion, or spent permanently mired in mental illness, is something I see every day in this job. Over and over and over again, I see the saddest things a man can see, and I see it up close. Only war itself is a worse thing to witness, I think.

Am I really doing something so wrong, or so bad, when I anty up my tone a bit, in an attempt to get the attention of some of these poor individuals?

Randi's position on this is identical to mine. The best way to show someone that you don't give a damn about them is to maintain a stoic, rigid, impersonal textbook kind of tone, regardless of what they put forth.

Well, we DO care about people. We care enough that, once we are convinced that they are suffering from a mental illness, we try to advise them so. We always do that, unless we think they are dangerous. Indeed, no expression of humanism is worth eternal meditation next to a tire iron.

Randi and I both consider it to be not just their right to know this,
but also the JREF's obligation. Definitely so. We have an obligation as human beings to try to help people we think may be very ill, despite knowing full well that, as you have so rightly put it, they will go right on believing what they believe, following their delusions until heck freezes over.

Personally, I will not turn my back on people so quickly. Whether it be a dear friend or a complete stranger, I care.

99% of the time, we eventually HAVE to turn away. There's just no other choice. Then our contact with them has meant nothing to either of us. So what good did we do? I ask you.

Anytime I see the opportunity to strive a bit harder to help a person make a positive change in their life, I'm going to grab it.

That's WAY more important than your concerns about how our puny little Million Dollar Challenge looks to the outside world, or what the woo-woo's will say about it, regardless of how we run it.

You want a machine to do this job - a computer program that scans applications and gives patent responses without engagement on any human level. I cannot disagree with you more. I'll do what I can, when I can, to help in opening the real world up to those who have neglected to see it. And it IS a form of neglect that this results from, namely the neglect of one's fellow man to care enough to try.

Penn Jillette once said to me, "If you really love him, you'll tell him he's wrong, and if you don't give a f**k, you won't".

He's absolutely right.

Gr8wight

27th January 2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER
Good advice, and I must say that I should never have said, "becoming a woo woo". I should have said, "veering dangerously close to resembling a woo woo". Either way, this was
probabley unwarranted. Sorry about that.

As regards form letters, I don't like them. They dehumanize the application process, and, in my opinion, they'd give the real woo-woo's a big shot of what they actually want; something to harp about, as in..."They don't even read the claims. They just send out form letters, and then, if you don't tell them what they want to hear, they send the same form letter out again."

That's not how I'd like to do things. I read each and every claim letter from beginning to end, and respond to specific points as best I can. Many of my responses will look similar, but no two will be identical. I want every applicant to know that by submitting an application (or making an inquiry), they have my undivided attention. It's only fair, and I personally feel it's the minimum courtesy we can offer them.

By the way...tea is a specific plant. I'm a tea nut so I'm always up for correcting people who say "herbal tea" instead of the proper term ,"herbal infusion". Big deal, right? I know, I know, but just so you know...and I gotta have that caffiene, which seems to have no effect on me, as I can drink an entire pot of FTGFOP Namring Estate Darjeeling at midnight and be asleep 10 minutes later. Strange.

I guess, in the final analysis, the woo woo's will say whatever the heck they want, regardless of the facts, because, that's basically what their claims are anyway. My thought was only that if a guy is chasing me with a gun, I want to avoid handing him fresh ammo.

princhester

27th January 2005, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER
I will also disagree strongly with your assessment of the language contained in the claim in question, and Randi agrees with me on this: When the applicant states, "For example, I can make it snow in Kansas on July 27th", well, sorry to tell you, but, THAT'S A CLAIM. It's a statement about what he can do. Prefacing it with the words "for example" doesn't mean he was just kidding, or that he wasn't really saying he could do it. He's dead serious, and it was definitely part of his claim.

You entirely miss the point.

If I say "I can jump over a tall building like the Empire State Building" and then you challenge me to do it, and I say "well actually I live in Chicago, not New York, so do you mind if I jump over the Sears Tower instead" and then you go on and on about me somehow "failing' or "backing down" or "reneging" you look like a prat.

It's that simple.

When I fail to actually jump over the Sears Tower, that is the moment when I make myself look like a prat and that is the moment for you to point out my failure, not before.

And it IS about the rules, which at least 50% of applicants attempt to ignore, but I won't let them. [q/uote]

And so you were raging at a guy who didn't fail to follow the rules why, exactly?

[QUOTE]Good advice, and I must say that I should never have said, "becoming a woo woo". I should have said, "veering dangerously close to resembling a woo woo". Either way, this was
probabley unwarranted. Sorry about that.

Translation: "Don't criticize my method of attempting to achieve a particular goal, because if you do then you will resemble someone who doesn't support the achievement of that goal"

Manipulative, intellectually bankrupt baloney. You're wasting electrons, Kramer.

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I understand, believe me I do. My concern is only for the view the general public has of the JREF. How many websites are out there claiming the million dollar challenge is a fraud, or that the JREF deals in bad faith? Quite a few. Now, you, and by extension we, know that these people are complete kooks, but the general, web-surfing public only see the copies of e-mails with condescending or insulting tones.

Exactly. And seven out of ten non-sceptics would see an exchange like that one with Albin and take away only the message that the JREF are a bunch of closeminded obnoxious ********.

(Post edited by tim to remove expletive 20.00gmt 01/28/05)

Originally posted by jmercer
The guy made a claim. He reneged, and you called him on it. He started threatening JREF - you lost your patience and told him off. This is a perfectly reasonable and very human reaction.

I also don't see any reason why you (or anyone) should have to passively put up with abuse and threats, and it's not like you escalated the situation by "upping the ante" in any way.

Read the exchange again and tell me (1) who started with the obnoxiousness (2) where the "abuse" was , and (3) where the threats are made.

I'll give you a little clue: saying "I'm copying my lawyer in" is not a threat to anyone who has no intention of doing anything wrong.

Albin was in fact meticulously polite.

DevilsAdvocate

27th January 2005, 11:02 PM

If I were in Kramer's position, I would make it goal to have as many applicants as possible tested under an agreed upon protocol, or failing that to have the applicant willingly withdraw the application. What more than failure at an agreed upon test would convince someone that they are wrong? And if Kramer does everything possible to help the applicant form an agreed upon protocol and the applicant says that it won't work, then what can the applicant believe but that their claim is false - that it won't work when tested?

Kramer says that he acts as he does to help people see the light. But his actions are not actions that are supportive of investigating their claims, but actions of defense and aggression to the legitimacy of their claims. This puts the applicants on the defensive. This results in the applicant being pushed into a position to more firmly believe their claim in order to defend against the aggression. So, of course no protocol will agreed upon and the applicant will end up believing more in their delusions (which Kramer kinda sorta says he is trying to get them out of) and go raving about how unfair the challenge is and I'm calling my lawyer. So really it just distances the woos from the non-woos and serves to push the woos to "more firmly believe their claim" and "rave about how unfair the challenge is and call lawyers".

Kramer seems to take this more aggressive approach in almost every claim posted in the Challenge forum section. Of course it is a "Challenge", and has $1 million at stake. So simply insisting that people figure the rule and protocol and what they can do and all that for themselves is a perfectly acceptable attitude. You want one million bucks? Fine. You figure out the nuts and bolts of what you "claim" then we'll talk. Perfectly acceptable.

But that attitude means that you are defending the challenge. It doesn't mean that you are helping the applicants discover the errors of their ways. In fact, you are doing the opposite.

Rather than see Kramer blather on about "you are not following the rules and are wasting my time you deluded person" I would rather see "here's how we could change your protocol to work within the rules, if that is not acceptable offer alternatives within the limitations set." One way is acting to "work" towards proving or disproving the claim, the other is acting "against" proving or disproving the claim.

Acting "against" proving or disproving the claim serves to defend the challenge, but don't tell me that this is in any way helping the applicants or anyone else change their beliefs. It serves to prove that the applicant cannot or will not prove their claim under the conditions imposed by the JREF challenge. It in now way demonstrates to the applicant or anyone else WHY they cannot prove their claim. If you get people to understand "why" instead of "no", then they will learn rather than become more faithful believers and belligerent towards skepticism.

Ooh, wow. I wrote a lot of stuff here. I was never really bothered by Kramerâ€™s attitude because I figured that he was defending the Challenge, which meant (by his approach) putting people off unless they could really put up or shut up. That is wholly understandable. â€œYou want a million bucks? Fly to Kansas in July and make it snow. Itâ€™s yours.â€ If I could do that, Iâ€™d fly anywhere in the world to collect the $1 million. No question. That attitude serves to defend the challenge. But when Kramer says this will actually help the applicants (or really anybody else), then I just donâ€™t see how this attitude is actually going to help anybody (aside from the help anybody gets from just knowing that the challenge is defended and unclaimed). :)

jmercer

28th January 2005, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by princhester
You entirely miss the point.

If I say "I can jump over a tall building like the Empire State Building" and then you challenge me to do it, and I say "well actually I live in Chicago, not New York, so do you mind if I jump over the Sears Tower instead" and then you go on and on about me somehow "failing' or "backing down" or "reneging" you look like a prat.

It's that simple.

When I fail to actually jump over the Sears Tower, that is the moment when I make myself look like a prat and that is the moment for you to point out my failure, not before.

No, you're missing the point, and you're adding a condition that wasn't in the initial offer.

If I say "In example, I can jump over the Empire State Building. I can also jump over the Sears Tower instead. Of course, I have to be at the actual location to do it.", you are offering to do either. Then when the other person says "Fine. The test will be for you to jump over the Empire State Building." and you refuse because you don't want to travel to NYC, you are reneging.

If they'd said "In example, I can jump over the Empire State Building. I can also jump over the Sears Tower instead. Of course, I have to be at the actual location to do it, so I want to use the Sears Tower because I live in Chicago.", you'd be 100% right.

Kramer had no way to know that this guy wouldn't go to the location he cited. Some of these applicants are willing to fly to Florida from out of the country, for crying out loud - sometimes he has to tell them that they can be tested locally.

Originally posted by princhester

Read the exchange again and tell me (1) who started with the obnoxiousness (2) where the "abuse" was , and (3) where the threats are made.

There's no doubt that Kramer lost his temper and told the guy off. ("Abuse" is too strong a word, though.) However, the initial "threat" was made by Albin - he implied legal action if Kramer didn't accede to his wishes. (see below).

Originally posted by princhester

I'll give you a little clue: saying "I'm copying my lawyer in" is not a threat to anyone who has no intention of doing anything wrong.

But what he actually said was:

TC Albin
Also, you should know that I will be sending all communications, including this one, to my legal counsel from this point forward.
[

Let me give you a little clue: in business correspondence, people don't mention attorneys in that way except as a warning they are considering legal action against you. (Usually an empty threat - when they're serious, the first notice you usually get is from said attorney.)

When having an attorney review an agreement, most people send a copy with a simple "cc: Dewey, Cheatem and Howe, Attorneys at Law" at the bottom of the note, if they even bother to tell you that they're doing it at all.

This guy was clearly implying that if Kramer didn't accede to his demand, the next step would be legal action. And if you review the letters, that's when Kramer really started to get angry.

(Edited for sp)

princhester

28th January 2005, 06:26 AM

What a load of balderdash, jmercer.

The guy said he could change the weather. That's what he claimed his paranormal power to be. The location was incidental, other than it had to be somewhere that the type of weather he was going to cause (!) had to be unseasonal in order to show he was causing it.

He said he'd accept a challenge to do that, and he did.

Get over it with the reneging crap. Reneging would be if he refused to accept a challenge to change the weather.

His renege on location was irrelevant except to point scoring defensive pedants.

The lawyer thing was a tad childish, but like I said, if you're not doing anything wrong, why so defensive about knowing a lawyer is listening in on the exchange.

And why was the guy talking about lawyers? Perhaps because he was getting nothing but contempt and sneer from you know who?

jmercer

28th January 2005, 07:08 AM

I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree here. By the way, I'm forwarding a copy of our exchanges to my attorneys. ;)

In all frankness, everyone here - including Kramer - acknowledges that losing his temper was inappropriate. It seems that several people feel that rudeness and inappropriate responses are Kramer's preferred modis operandi, though.

If so, it's worthy of discussion, and it should be fairly simple to establish. All that has to be done is that someone needs to go to the "Challenge Applications" section and identify applications where they feel that Kramer acted rudely.

There are a total of 58, if you go from the beginning. So let's see what percentage of those people feel were handled poorly; identify them by using links; discuss them to determine if people agree with the assessment; and from that, we should be able to see if rudeness really is Kramer's standard approach.

(Edited to add an afterthought.)

webfusion

28th January 2005, 09:44 AM

I was intrigued to see princhester comment: The location was incidental, other than it had to be somewhere that the type of weather he was going to cause (!) had to be unseasonal in order to show he was causing it.

Objectively, there are two things that stand out in the original claim.

1. "Finally, if I am in a town that is threatened by a tornado of hurricane, I can make the tornado or hurricane go around or miss the town." -- Why is this included, if the applicant has to be only located in the city of Oakland in Alameda County? (or neighboring Contra Costa or Marin counties)? In this part of the claim, he wasn't saying he can cause hurricanes or tornadoes, he says that he can divert their naturally occuring paths. You might have to wait a heck of a long time in California to be threatened by a tornado! Years, even. (Leaving aside the fact nobody has ever been killed in these little dust-ups, so the term 'threatened' is over-reaction and drama when talking about the tornado activity in California generally)
IIRC, there were only three skimpy F-zero tornadoes that occurred there since 1880 (http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/catorn.htm)
3 recorded Alameda County Tornadoes
MAR 29, 1982
DEC 17, 1992
APR 25, 1994
so the inference is he must go somewhere else, like Kansas (everyone remembers the Wizard of OZ, right?) or Florida, since by definition, a hurricane is fierce rotating storm with an intense centre of low pressure that only happens in the tropics. Oakland is not "the tropics" DUH.

2. "I need about a week in advance to make seasonal changes in the weather." Well, this flies directly in the face of what you think he said, princhester. Also, in this opening section, he uses San Francisco as "an example" so what happened to his example subsequently with the introduction of Kansas? Why bring another locale into this claim all, especially since he says he has to be "in the area" for this stuff to work? Location is incidental?

Hardly, as Kramer rightfully predicted he would make location a primary issue...

=============================

My vote is with Kramer for the way he deals with the Challenge Applications. It is my favorite part of the website, and provides me with tons of smiles! This stuff is even better than the Daily Show with Jon Stewart...

Rock-on Kramer! Give 'em more of the replies you're giving! Randi is getting his Million Dollars' Worth in spades, by NOT giving it away...

KRAMER

28th January 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
If I were in Kramer's position, I would make it goal to have as many applicants as possible tested under an agreed upon protocol, or failing that to have the applicant willingly withdraw the application. What more than failure at an agreed upon test would convince someone that they are wrong? And if Kramer does everything possible to help the applicant form an agreed upon protocol and the applicant says that it won't work, then what can the applicant believe but that their claim is false - that it won't work when tested?

This is precisely what I do whenever possible, but I temper this protocol with my year-long experience regarding which applicants are likely to agree to an acceptable protocol, and which applicants are making claims that fall within the boundaries of even the most remote possibilities (and weather-altering claims are NOT among those that fall into this category). Snow in Kansas in July, inded. Does it really not even matter what the actual claim is? This is where the process begins.

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Rather than see Kramer blather on about "you are not following the rules and are wasting my time you deluded person"

Excuse me, but when exactly did I write this?

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
...I would rather see "here's how we could change your protocol to work within the rules, if that is not acceptable offer alternatives within the limitations set."

This, on the other hand, I say very, very often, if not in precisely these words.

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
...It serves to prove that the applicant cannot or will not prove their claim under the conditions imposed by the JREF challenge.

And what, may I inquire, is wrong with THAT, especially as it regards claims such as these, which comprise the great majority of applications we receive.

Why would you insist/require that I spend countless hours on people whose claims are the fruits of their delusions (or worse, as is the case with perhaps half the claim letters I read), rather than spending my time helping a more reasonably-minded applicant in mutually defining a protocol that just might, just MIGHT, lead to an actual test, of which I've seen less than 5 in the year that I've been here? Please answer me this. I'm asking.

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
...Acting "against" proving or disproving the claim serves to defend the challenge, but don't tell me that this is in any way helping the applicants or anyone else change their beliefs.

I won't tell you that it WILL help, but I'll tell you that I feel in my heart that it MIGHT, and may have an equal chance of acheiving that goal as an endless stream of emails in which I engage the applicant on the subject of WHY their claim doesn't meet the Cdhallenge requirements. So I kind of go 50/50 on responses to such applicants, thinking I might hit paydirt someday.

To date, I think I only have once. Even the lady who thinks she can alter the movement of a candle-flame surely still thinks she can do it, despite my offerings, and the offerings of numerous forum members made directly to her after she joined the forum.

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
...It serves to prove that the applicant cannot or will not prove their claim under the conditions imposed by the JREF challenge.

Again, I ask you, what is wrong with this?

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
...It in now way demonstrates to the applicant or anyone else WHY they cannot prove their claim. If you get people to understand "why" instead of "no", then they will learn rather than become more faithful believers and belligerent towards skepticism.

Within this paragraph is much food for thought. It also perhaps answers my question "What is wrong with this", but as I measure one protocol against the other, I'm not sure you've convinced me of anything except for the obvious fact that if you were running the Challenge instead of me, you'd be spending as much time on the ludicrous claims that can never even be tested, as you would be spending on the moderately reasonable and remotely possible claims that may actually result in an actual test.

And if you mean what you said about "trying to do everything in your power to see that as many claims as possible are tested" (I'm paraphrasing here), then your present feelings about how YOU would run the Challenge directly contradicts your stated goal - to see more actual tests.

You're outside looking in, my friend, and I can assure you that once you've been here for a year, as I have, you'd be doing things differently than you had been upon your idealistic arrival, just as I am.

I want to see as many claims as possible tested. I've seen it so rarely that I cannot even recall if the number is one, or two. One, I think.

I'll keep adjusting the way I do things here in an effort to reach my stated goal (which is identical to yours), until the day I depart the JREF and its hallowed walls of fundom. Keep tweaking, and tweaking, and tweaking, until I get somewhere.

KRAMER

28th January 2005, 12:32 PM

And if Kramer does everything possible to help the applicant form an agreed upon protocol and the applicant says that it won't work, then what can the applicant believe but that their claim is false?

They can believe that the JREF refused to test them because:

1- The JREF knows it will lose the million bucks...
2- The JREF knows the applicant really does possess paranormal ability...
3- The JREF are afraid to allow them to provide a demonstration that will definitely validate their claim...
4- The JREF Challenge is a hoax and all claims go untested because we don't want this fact exposed...
5- The JREF Challenge is real but the million bucks doesn't exist and testing their obviously authentic claim will expose the JREF and James Randi as frauds...
6- The JREF knows that paranormal ability exists but admitting to that would betray their evil agenda...
7- The JREF this, the JREF that, the JREF whatever...ad infinitum.

Believe me, it's NEVER because their claim is false, or empty.

It's always the JREF's fault that their claim isn't tested. Always.

The lady who claims to be able to alter the movement of a candle flame seems receptive to the notion that she does not possess the power she thinks she does, but how would you like to wager that she will, in the end, continue to believe in herself, and blame the JREF for not agreeing to test her?

By and large, the applicant will never find a single fault in their claim, but always manage to invent something to explain away WHY the JREF didn't test it. The fault never, in their mind, lies with them, or with their claim, which if they didn't believe in 100%, would never have been submitted.

You'd know this if you worked here.

princhester

28th January 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by jmercer
I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Well you should be agreeing that you are wrong. Because unless you are actually going to argue that the key point of the guy's paranormal claim was that he would cause unseasonal weather in Kansas (as opposed to unseasonal weather somewhere such as Kansas), you are dead, flat wrong.

And before you attempt to argue to the contrary, consider once again that firstly he used the actual words "such as" (ie Kansas was only an example) and secondly Kramer accepted a challenge that the guy make an unseasonal change to the weather in Oakland, so even Kramer does not, ultimately, consider Kansas to be crucial.

Deal.

By the way, I'm forwarding a copy of our exchanges to my attorneys. ;)

I'm glad you said that, because it gives me an opportunity to say this: so what?Originally posted by webfusion
2. [b]"I need about a week in advance to make seasonal changes in the weather." Well, this flies directly in the face of what you think he said, princhester.

Only if you are being so one eyed about the matter that you rave on for two paragraphs about parts of the guy's description of what he said he could do that neither myself nor Kramer were talking about, and completely ignore the part where he says:

Also, if given 5 months in advance I can cause unseasonal changes in the weather, such as snow in the early morning on July 27th in Kansas.

Putz.

Also, in this opening section, he uses San Francisco as "an example" so what happened to his example subsequently with the introduction of Kansas? Why bring another locale into this claim all, especially since he says he has to be "in the area" for this stuff to work? Location is incidental?

Because it's where he lives, junior. He has to be there (he says) for five months to make this change (yeah right).

The guy said he'd accept a challenge to make an unseasonal change to the weather, Kramer wrongly predicted he'd back out of it, and he didn't. Kramer nonetheless saw fit to crow about him not agreeing to Kansas, as if that mattered given that the guy had offered Oakland (which even Kramer agrees is equivalent, given that he accepted the protocol). It's that simple.

IXP

28th January 2005, 03:13 PM

Come on guys, it all depends on what JREF wants to do with the Challenge.

If it is intended to ridicule the applicants, jmercer and Kramer, on his worst behavior, is right.

If the idea is to show the world that such claims simply do not hold up to scientific investigation, I side with pinchester.

The reality is that the applicants seem to divide themselves pretty well into two classes deserving of each of the above treatments. I would still tend to believe that polite questioning and one or two attempts to get a clear statement from each applicant should be the rule. And, if they continue to spout nonsense, just stop responding.

jmercer

31st January 2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by princhester
Well you should be agreeing that you are wrong.

Why would I do that? I don't believe I am wrong.

Originally posted by princhester
I'm glad you said that, because it gives me an opportunity to say this: so what? [/B]

And that's because you're not taking the remark about "forwarding to my attorneys" seriously. And - of course - in this context, you shouldn't. :)

But what if our correspondence were concerning a contract - such as the JREF testing dialogue between Kramer and any applicant essentially is? When negotiating the terms of a contract - especially one that's controversial to start with - citing the involvement of legal representation during the discussion (while disagreeing!) is both a threat and an escalation. If you can't understand that, then obviously your mind is made up, and there's no point in continuing this part of the discussion.

Also, as I said in my earlier post - the implication on your part (and some others) is that this is Kramer's and JREF's preferred modis operandi. I proposed a simple and effective way for you to start a fact-based discussion about that, and I await your response.

jmercer

31st January 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by IXP
Come on guys, it all depends on what JREF wants to do with the Challenge.

If it is intended to ridicule the applicants, jmercer and Kramer, on his worst behavior, is right.

If this is a pattern, then there may indeed be an issue. If there is no pattern, then there isn't one, IMHO.

I've reviewed almost all the applications and I don't see an abusive pattern developing. I have seen where Kramer's responded sharply to applicants who have become increasingly unreasonable and/or threatening, but I've not seen him instigate or escalate the situation.

Case in point- Siegfried Verbeke, Belgian Suicidal. (In fact, given what Verbeke stands for, I'm surprised that Kramer was able to be as reserved as he was at the end.) At the end, Kramer had to forcefully tell this individual - in no uncertain terms - that JREF would not lend itself to furthering his sick agenda.

On the opposite side of things, there's Jim Dunn, who was treated with complete courtesy, failed in his demonstration, and started faxing "evidence" contradicting the obituaries that proved his failure. Kramer simply ignored this at the end, rather than responding to him... when he could as easily sent a sharp response. But since it served no purpose, he chose not to do so.

There's Carina Landin, who's been treated with the utmost courtesy; Ms. Enquist (I AM NOT HUMAN), likewise; ANDY ZWIERZYNA, Confused PSYCHIC, who was apparently is "intimidated" by a polite and clear response; J PODY, Anthony Chadwell, etc., etc. These were all handled professionally and politely - and there are many more examples available.

There's no negative pattern here, other than the negativity some of these people initiate. Since Kramer has to deal with a lot of negative (and irrational) people, some of these are always going to turn out badly in the end.

(edited for spelling and clarification of phrasing)

Beth

31st January 2005, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
The lady who claims to be able to alter the movement of a candle flame seems receptive to the notion that she does not possess the power she thinks she does, but how would you like to wager that she will, in the end, continue to believe in herself, and blame the JREF for not agreeing to test her?

Just for the record, being the lady in question, I do not blame JREF for not agreeing to test me. The protocol I proposed was extensive and time-consuming. I had hoped you would be willing to test me despite that, but I cannot fault you for refusing for that reason. I would have appreciated it if you would have been willing to discuss protocol with me prior to my submitting an application, but JREF gets to make those rules. I can't complain about that if that's how you choose to run your challenge.

As far as what I believe - until I can devise and run better tests, I remain open to different explanations. I did, btw, find the suggestions of participants on this forum very helpful, but have not had time and resources to make any definitive improvements yet. It remains a hobby of mine to explore such things, but it is not a high priority goal.

Beth

webfusion

31st January 2005, 09:28 AM

Only if you are being so one eyed about the matter that you rave on for two paragraphs about parts of the guy's description of what he said he could do that neither myself nor Kramer were talking about, and completely ignore the part where he says:

quote:"Also, if given 5 months in advance I can cause unseasonal changes in the weather, such as snow in the early morning on July 27th in Kansas."

{{{ expletive deleted }}}
===============================

That's strawman fallacy argument against me, (especially the ad hom expletive) and misrepresents what I wrote.

I say strawman, because I am clearly not ignoring the Kansas part. On the contrary, I see all that leads up to it a direct support of his true intention to actually make it snow in Kansas. Only later did he realize his error and fulfilled Kramer's predictions to a T ------

If the location of the weather pattern alterations only had to be "where he lived", why did he go off on those tangents about hurricanes (not naturally occuring in Oakland), tornadoes (rare, as to be essentially non-existent in Oakland) and then snow in Kansas? Why didn't he come right out and say, "or snow in San Francisco" (a continuation of everything else he had been saying up to that point, regarding the location where he lived)...

If this claimant said he can make changes in weather (both seasonal and unseasonal, as well as changing the course of fast-rotating moving-path storms, that is his claim. Which is why Kramer ultimately accepted his revised declaration of snow in Oakland, just to help prove this guy is a major fraud, despite his omni-directional protestations and legal threats to the contrary.

My "rave" as you so call it, princhester, refers to inconsistencies his letter and points out where the claimant is talking BS >>>>

especially the part about his even mentioning snow in Kansas! That was the straw that broke the camel's back, but there were a whole load of other straws piled on there to begin with!!!

and I personally think you are also now talking BS, and I am placing you directly onto my "ignore list" for the duration. Have a snowy day.

princhester

1st February 2005, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by webfusion
I am placing you directly onto my "ignore list" for the duration. Have a snowy day.

How would you describe someone who announces they are going to put their hands over their ears and shout "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"?

"Not worth talking to" would be perhaps the least inflammatory description.

Originally posted by webfusion
On the contrary, I see all that leads up to it a direct support of his true intention to actually make it snow in Kansas.

Parse "such as".

princhester

1st February 2005, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by jmercer
Why would I do that? I don't believe I [b]am wrong.

Because you are not able to offer a cogent explanation as to why you are right.

And that's because you're not taking the remark about "forwarding to my attorneys" seriously. And - of course - in this context, you shouldn't. :)

As shouldn't Kramer. You know, that guy who is a professional at coping with woos?

Also, as I said in my earlier post - the implication on your part (and some others) is that this is Kramer's and JREF's preferred modis operandi. I proposed a simple and effective way for you to start a fact-based discussion about that, and I await your response.

Well between holding down a full time job, renovating a house and being a father I may find the time to do this, it's a good idea. Don't hold your breath!

Carn

1st February 2005, 03:13 AM

Applicant:
"Also, if given 5 months in advance I can cause unseasonal changes in the weather, such as snow in the early morning on July 27th in Kansas.
Finally, if I am in a town that is threatened by a tornado of hurricane, I can make the tornado or hurricane go around or miss the town.

I must be in the area the weather is intended for to change that area's weather."

Now afaik english, the above says, that with 5 months preparation snow in Kansas can be caused on 27th of July and that somehow at some time beforehand, the applicant has to be in Kansas.
When i first read it, i thought "Does he has tobe the whole 5 months in Kansas or is the week before 27th of July enough?"

Simply, the applicant is imprcise.
But his explicit mentioning of Kansas,27th july, implies, that maybe he could actually do this, how is the reader supposed to know, if its possible for him to stay long enough in Kansas.
If he wanted to give just a extreme theoretical example, he could have mentioned +40 degree celsius on peak of Mt. Everest or southpole, then the following statement of "i have to be there" would have obviously clarifierd that Mt. Everest is just a theoretical possibilty.

So Kramer was right in first asking for that.

But it also shows Kramer's dire mistake:

He assumes that the applicants actually mean, what they write and check their letters for being sensible and without contradicting statements and implications.

That assumption is of course totally wrong, i mean, if people do write about a serious issue, that could have a big impact upon their further live, it is reasonable to assume, that they take a close look about at what they have written.
But here that's not the case, i mean just one million dollar at stake, world wide fame and a place in history books to gain, nothing that is important enough to read a letter or mail twice and spell check it, after all people do not do that with job applications or tax declarations.;):p ;)

Seriously, KRAMER, some of the applicants do have mental problems, so you should try to at least not take it personally, when they write partly or fully contradicting statements and nonsense.

Carn

princhester

1st February 2005, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by Carn
So Kramer was right in first asking for that.

As nobody has denied. What Kramer has been criticized for is then writing as if the applicant "reneged" when all they did was accept an equally impossible equivalent challenge because it was more convenient to them than Kansas.

And your whole Everest thing is ridiculous. It seems to be based on a bizarre theory that if one, when giving an example, does not choose to make it the most extreme example possible, then one only has oneself to blame if others don't understand that it is just an example, even when one explicitly uses the words "such as", which mean (and only mean) "I am giving an example".

Of course, Albin's mistake (besides his mistake in being a silly woo) is that he didn't realise that a pageful of apologists would be attempting to pick apart his comments to try to find some post hoc way to read them as meaning something they don't.

Carn

1st February 2005, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by princhester

And your whole Everest thing is ridiculous. It seems to be based on a bizarre theory that if one, when giving an example, does not choose to make it the most extreme example possible, then one only has oneself to blame if others don't understand that it is just an example, even when one explicitly uses the words "such as", which mean (and only mean) "I am giving an example".

His mistake was mainly not to add, "if i stay the 5 months beforehand in Kansas", my everest thing was just an example, where the add "if i did stay the 5 months beforehand on Everest" would have been unnecessary, as it would have been obvious.
But when referring to Kansas, the applicant left the impreciseness, whether or not this is actually a thing he is able to do.

Therefore he is partly to blame, that he got misunderstood, he could have avoided either by clearly stating that Kansas is not the best test area, due to the "being there for 5 months" requirement or choosing an example, where everybody can be certain it is not what he is going to demonstrate.

KRAMER obviously has no much merit in thinking about all possible interpretations and choosing the nicest for the applicant.

Carn

princhester

1st February 2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Carn
KRAMER obviously has no much merit in thinking about all possible interpretations and choosing the nicest for the applicant.

Pardon?

webfusion

1st February 2005, 09:09 AM

English, gotta love English! So imprecise, so confusing.

Define "snowfall"!!! (which Kramer also had to do --- saying "the meterological kind, not from under your hat")

Lexicon:
such(a), such as â€” of a kind specified or understood

"animals such as tigers and lions are carnivorous"

And with that, I leave you all with some choice words of the JREF Challenge Admin, such as:
"Bringing a debate about semantics into this is just silly."
http://www.sillyfaces.net/graphics/logo.gif

princhester

2nd February 2005, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by webfusion
Lexicon:
such(a), such as â€” of a kind specified or understood

"animals such as tigers and lions are carnivorous"

And so if I was to say that a shark was carnivorous, you presumably wouldn't try to suggest that I was wrong because it wasn't a tiger or a lion would you?

"Bringing a debate about semantics into this is just silly."

Indeed. The guy offered a challenge, Kramer accepted. The guy did not renege. Kramer suggested he did. The rest isn't worth arguing about.

jmercer

2nd February 2005, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by princhester
Because you are not able to offer a cogent explanation as to why you are right.

Well, that's strictly a matter of opinion. Which is why I posted "We'll just have to agree to disagree", if you'll recall. :)

Originally posted by princhester
As shouldn't Kramer. You know, that guy who is a professional at coping with woos?
[/B]

Nope. Professional or not, he was responding to a threat of potential adverse legal action during contract negotiations that could have led to a disbursement of 1 million dollars - a signficant sum of money. This would instantly spell the end of negotiations in almost any other business context. Don't believe me - contact anyone who's been involved in 7 figure contract negotiations, and ask them what they would do if this kind of threat was made during a dispute on setting contract terms.

Originally posted by princhester
Well between holding down a full time job, renovating a house and being a father I may find the time to do this, it's a good idea. Don't hold your breath! [/B]

Good luck with the house... I've never done anything on that grand a scale. I know how time-consuming the rest is, though, so I can only imagine what renovation would add to that.

However, I hope you understand that making very negative public assertions that attack someone's reputation - and then failing to justify those assertions by refusing to do even simple research - seriously undermines your credibility. At least, with me. I can't speak for others here, but I'd be surprised if some of them don't feel the same as I do.

And there are others in this thread that made similar assertions, who could also do the research. If they don't do it, I'll certainly feel that their credibility is compromised as well.

(edited for spelling and grammar)

princhester

4th February 2005, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, that's strictly a matter of opinion. Which is why I posted "We'll just have to agree to disagree", if you'll recall. :)

Frankly, your "we'll have to agree to disagree" comment is just a face saving attempt to walk away without admitting you're wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of reason and logic. You can't take your position any further based on that, so you're copping out.

Nope. Professional or not, he was responding to a threat of potential adverse legal action during contract negotiations that could have led to a disbursement of 1 million dollars - a signficant sum of money. This would instantly spell the end of negotiations in almost any other business context. Don't believe me - contact anyone who's been involved in 7 figure contract negotiations, and ask them what they would do if this kind of threat was made during a dispute on setting contract terms.

Just did. Me. You're wrong. My office deals with this sort of thing day in, day out. Only milksops end negotiations at the mention of lawyers. Anyone who deals in this sort of thing is entirely used to the idea.

Further, you have it backwards. The bigger the deal, the more it is considered routine that lawyers will be involved.

Still further, when someone backs away at the mere mention of lawyers, that means they are not serious. Serious dealmakers know they have nothing to hide or be afraid of.

Yet further, anyone who sees the mere mention of lawyers being copied in as any serious "threat of potential adverse legal action" in the absence of any knowledge on the part of that person that they have done anything potentially actionable, is beyond milksop.

In fact, if you check out Kramer's last few comments, you will see that he didn't even actually believe Albin was copying lawyers in.

However, I hope you understand that making very negative public assertions that attack someone's reputation - and then failing to justify those assertions by refusing to do even simple research - seriously undermines your credibility. At least, with me. I can't speak for others here, but I'd be surprised if some of them don't feel the same as I do.

Go back and read what I wrote. It's 99% about this particular challenge, about which I am as informed as I can be.

My overall disappointment is based on reading this and a fair few other exchanges. The only thing I have not done is a comprehensive survey.

jmercer

4th February 2005, 09:12 AM

I wrote a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to this. After I wrote it and was reviewing it, I realized that your post was pretty much a subtle personal attack by indirectly impugning my character with labels directed at some of my previous postings. ("milksop", "copping out", "face-saving attempt", etc.)

You can take this as you want, but I'm done with this particular discussion between us.

KRAMER

4th February 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by princhester
It's 99% about this particular challenge, about which I am as informed as I can be.

The only thing I have not done is a comprehensive survey.

And you see no fundamental contradiction in these two above statements?

Or perhaps "as informed as I can be" really means "...as informed as I wish to be.

If you truly possessed even the slightest interest in deciphering whether or not your position was right or wrong, you'd take the time needed to do that survey.

princhester

7th February 2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER
And you see no fundamental contradiction in these two above statements?

No, Kramer there is no contradiction. If I wasn't clear, what I meant was that I am as informed as I can be about "this particular challenge" ie the Albin one, because I've read all that you have published about it.

I have not done a comprehensive survey of all that you have written about all other applications.

Or perhaps "as informed as I can be" really means "...as informed as I wish to be.

If you truly possessed even the slightest interest in deciphering whether or not your position was right or wrong, you'd take the time needed to do that survey.

How wrong you are. How upside down you have it.

Have a search through these boards. Have a look over on the SDMB (you'd need to sign up to search, though).

I have very good credentials as a defender of and promoter of the challenge and Randi. I have been fighting a fierce battle against Peter "the unspeakable cad" Morris over the challenge and Randi for over 12 months now, although I haven't seen him post in a while.

I wish to be informed that there is not an element of truth to what he says about the challenge. If I have a nagging worry about doing a comprehensive survey of challenge applications, it is that it will confirm Morris' position to some extent, not the opposite.

The strawmen, the afterthought justifications, the logical fallacies, the excuse making that can be seen in this thread in attempts to deflect anything that might be perceived as criticism of the way the challenge is run are a cause for worry precisely because I do not want the challenge to be discredited.

Lisa Simpson

3rd June 2005, 09:29 AM

So...case closed? No snow in Oakland?

Bummer.

KRAMER

3rd June 2005, 10:22 AM

Had the applicant replied in a civil tone, without yet another threat regarding legal action, we'd have kept the file open.

The JREF will not deal with litigious people who enter the Challenge with such aggression. I spoke with Randi about this and he agrees wholeheartedly, and I quote him verbatim when I say...

Bring on the legal action. Goodbye.

As regards snow in S.F. (or Kansas) in July, it is not the JREF who will invalidate it. The claim will invalidate itself with no help from us.

Hitch

3rd June 2005, 10:30 AM

Regardless of your refusal to accept his claim, I think he should still make it snow in Oakland California on July 27, 2005 just to spite you. It would probably enhance his case of legal action against you if he could demonstrate that he legitimately did perform as claimed despite your refusal to accept his challenge.

KRAMER

3rd June 2005, 10:55 AM

We never refused to accept his claim. I'll admit that I personally derided him for it (an oft approach to such claims which I have since abandoned), but we never refused to accept it.

We asked for final clarification of the terms, and received nothing in response but continued threats of legal action. We are not compelled to deal with such persons. It is not within the spirit of the Challenge. The Challenge is about the testing of paranormal claims. It is not about lawyers and threats.

And if Mr. Albin sends us an email anytime between now and July 26 expressing his regret for his previous litigious tone and requesting that we re-open his file, we will do so, gladly.

The only thing we are rejecting is the notion that the JREF must deal with people like this.

rwguinn

4th June 2005, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by IXP
Come on guys, it all depends on what JREF wants to do with the Challenge.

If it is intended to ridicule the applicants, jmercer and Kramer, on his worst behavior, is right.

If the idea is to show the world that such claims simply do not hold up to scientific investigation, I side with pinchester.

The reality is that the applicants seem to divide themselves pretty well into two classes deserving of each of the above treatments. I would still tend to believe that polite questioning and one or two attempts to get a clear statement from each applicant should be the rule. And, if they continue to spout nonsense, just stop responding.
What balderdash!
What all you folk criticising Kramer about are upset with is the JREF Position:
Here are the rules. Follow them.
If you don't follow the rules, there will be consequences. Your application will be rejected.
Amazing. cause and effect are rigidly connected. A lot of folks don't like that.
All of them tend to the "Woo" philosophy.
"Thunder. Lightning. What an amazing coincidence!" (I said that)

Marian

5th June 2005, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
We never refused to accept his claim. I'll admit that I personally derided him for it (an oft approach to such claims which I have since abandoned), but we never refused to accept it.

We asked for final clarification of the terms, and received nothing in response but continued threats of legal action. We are not compelled to deal with such persons. It is not within the spirit of the Challenge. The Challenge is about the testing of paranormal claims. It is not about lawyers and threats.

And if Mr. Albin sends us an email anytime between now and July 26 expressing his regret for his previous litigious tone and requesting that we re-open his file, we will do so, gladly.

The only thing we are rejecting is the notion that the JREF must deal with people like this.

Was there any comment about legal action or lawyers beyond (jist) 'I'll be forwarding this and future coorespondance to my attorney'?

Here's why I DON'T see that as threatening or even litigious.

Let's pretend you believe you have some special ability. There's absolutely no doubt in your mind that you can do a specific thing, like alter the weather. You find there's an organization that will pay you a million bucks to just do that thing. Hey, easy money. You write them and let them know about it. You're not welcomed with open arms (obviously) and there's also some rules. You look around on the internet and discover there's people claiming that this organization will set you up so you can't win the million bucks. And your coorespondance already seems to be going wonky.

You believe you can do it. You believe there's a million bucks waiting for you. Why wouldn't someone involve a lawyer to make sure that they're not going to get screwed over? Or to make sure they're not trapped by some clever word game? Or to make sure that the terms of the contract are correctly done?

That's one of the reasons people use lawyers, not just to sue people.

And btw Kramer, I'm not saying I don't understand your position on it. And I'm not saying that your viewpoint on it is wrong a majority of the time, it's probably not. It's probably used by a majority of applicants as a 'threat' tactic, and most of them probably aren't bcc'ing an attorney but they're raising the spectre of 'oooo legal oooo lawsuit ooo' as a pressure tactic to try to either get their way or further demand attention.

But, I'll bet it's not all of them. And there may be some very benign and reasonable reasons why someone does it.

And as I said, perhaps I missed it and he made some threats, but if it was just the reference that he was going to be forwarding all coorespondance in the future also to his attorney, I don't see that as threatening let alone anything one should have to apologize for.

And if JREF doesn't want lawyers involved in some or all aspects of the Challenge, then perhaps the rules need to be amended to state that. I think it would severely hurt the credibility of the Challenge, but that's just my opinion.

Beady

5th June 2005, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Marian
And if JREF doesn't want lawyers involved in some or all aspects of the Challenge, then perhaps the rules need to be amended to state that. I think it would severely hurt the credibility of the Challenge, but that's just my opinion.

I do see your point. $1 million is a lot of money and, having had to consult an attorney in the past, I can say it's a great comfort having someone watching your legal interests while you concentrate on the main issue.

However, I'm not sure such a rule would be legal. Is it even possible, under the law, to write a contract whereby you breach the contract by accessing the legal system? Come to think of it, I don't think it would be possible for JREF to refuse an applicant who *only* contacted them through an attorney, right on up to the demonstration.

There may be a way, though: In Vermont, and I imagine in several other states, there's something called a "tripwire clause" that is routinely inserted into wills. Essentially, any heir that legally challenges any provision of the will, and loses his challenge, is completely disinherited. Perhaps something similar is what you mean: "Any applicant/claimant who either threatens legal action without actually initiating such action, or who initiates a legal challenge to a JREF ruling and loses that challenge, shall have any present application denied and is forever barred from making any additional applications."

Hastur

5th June 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Beady
Is it even possible, under the law, to write a contract whereby you breach the contract by accessing the legal system? [/B]

Alternative dispute resolution clauses. Rather than court litigation, the parties agree to resolve disputes through another method (arbitration, mediation, etc.). But there is still a possibility for standard courtroom litigation if the alternative fails to provide an adequate solution.

Hitch

5th June 2005, 09:53 AM

I would like to think that the JREF would not object to a lawyer being involved if their function was simply to make sure all the forms are being filled out correctly and the claimant understands all the terms and conditions of the protocol. In my (admittedly short) time here, I've never seen a claimant bring up using an attorney simply for their understanding and comfort. But I've seen several jump straight to threatening lawsuits -- and in this case, I read "Any attempt to invalidate my claim before 7/27/05 will be interpreted as a breach of contract and I will take legal action in response." as a threat of a lawsuit.

As to my use of the phrase "refusal to accept his claim" I did not mean that Kramer or the JREF refused to accept a properly presented claim from this, or any other, applicant. But that Kramer refused to accept the vague, poorly worded statements as a proper claim.

And when I said he should go ahead and make it snow, that was because I have a high degree of certainty that he couldn't. Of course, now when it doesn't snow, he'll say without the $1 million there was no reason for him to make it happen.

KRAMER

5th June 2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Marian
Was there any comment about legal action or lawyers beyond (jist) 'I'll be forwarding this and future coorespondance to my attorney'?

From just a few days ago...

"Any attempt to invalidate my claim before 7/27/05 will be interpreted as a breach of contract and I will take legal action in response."

We've had numerous such threats from applicants (and even some from people who never even applied), and most often, when they come, the applicant's file is immediately closed. Mr. Albin took this tone from the start, and I tolerated it because I felt that I was aggressive in my initial tone in response to his claim. That was wrong of me. I behaved poorly. I've also addressed the issue, and made sure that it won't happen again.

As a result of my tone in my initial dealings with him, I felt that I owed him some leeway. So, I cut him some slack, kept his file open, and requested one last confirmation from him regarding the specifics of his claim. I received no response.
I also asked for the name of his law firm, and received no response. Whatever.

Upon notifying him that we were closing his file last week, he resumed his litigious tone without hesitation, and that was enough for me, and for Randi.

When an applicant comes to us in good faith with a paranormal claim he wishes to see tested, we never see them resort to such nonsense. Mr. Albin took a litigious tone with me soon after I responded to his application.

The JREF couldn't possibly have any objection to an applicant having a lawyer by his side through the application process, or through the testing of his claim. It is an individual's right to do so. Why would we object? They are welcome.

However, when the applicant makes it abundantly clear from the get-go that potential litigation is forthcoming should The JREF disappoint them in any way, well,
there is no need for us to saunter into such an environment with eyes wide shut.

We want nothing to do with such applicants. Non-aggressive, good faith dealings are what we seek and strive for. Applicants who enter into the Challenge with sharpened fangs can find another outlet for their anger.

Wanna see your claim tested? Submit a duly exexcuted application, adhere to the Challenge rules, and then just behave yourself. That's all. Litigious applicants will be warned once to desist from legal threats, and if they chose to persist in such language, they can expect to see their claim rejected with no hope of having any future claims considered.

Talk talk talk. We've heard more than enough of it, and seen nothing backing it up.

Gotta paranormal claim? Don't talk about it. Just demonstrate it.

Gotta lawsuit? Don't cloak it in threats veiled or unveiled. Just bring it on.

Threaten Randi or The JREF, and we're done with you. It's that simple.