$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[OXEL]

In what way that matters are they different?
Who defines ways that matters? Whatever, can you go to a supermarket and pay with bonds?

You know, I don't really want to be a pain in the ass here. But this has to be absolutely clear. Or else, people will use it against JREF and the Challenge argument will be weaker that necessary.


If you win the prize, JREF will sell the bonds and send you a check for $990,000 - this plus Randi's personal check for $10,000 constitutes the million. If JREF don't raise a million by selling the bonds, that's their problem.
This seems to be a very logical und reasonable statement. However, it's not only their problem, but the problem of the winner as well. BTW, I would be satisfied, if the new FAQ states it exactly like that (without the last sentence). Of course, as long as it is the true plan.

[Gravy]

The $10,000 you get immediately, handed to you when you win. The rest within ten days. If that's unacceptable to you, you can sit on your paranormal hat and spin.

[Gravy]

You know, I don't really want to be a pain in the ass here.Yes you do, which is why you made an uninformed accusation rather than ask a simple question. That's rude.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This neither answers my question not is it relevant. Bonds are not money.

OXEL, please go back and read the first page or so of this thread--especially Keri's post which is #20.

The prize is not the bonds.

The prize is one million U.S. dollars.

How the money is held by JREF is not in itself information that JREF has to disclose. Claimants should rightly be concerned with JREF's ability to pay, and their publicly accessible paperwork makes that clear.

The information about the bonds was included to reassure people that JREF has the ability to pay.

[Beleth]

It's in bonds because it'd be nuts to store it in any other form.

If it were in stocks, it could decrease in value.

If it were in cash, it would actually be more open to doubt than bonds. If someone says "I don't believe the money exists", how would they prove they had a mil in cash? What's the JREF going to do, have a steel suitcase full of Benjamins sitting around in the office somewhere, and have folks fly themselves down to gape at it?

Since it's in bonds, it can be checked on 24/7 by going to the Goldman Sachs Web page and checking on the JREF's account balance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was referring to this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=924195#post924195

There were no negative answers to this post, for example "no, it isn't right" so it seemed peebrains accusation was right.

The accusation made in the post you reference here had already been addressed on page 1 of the thread (and in the Challenge rules themselves). Again, I refer you to Keri's fine answer in post #20.

As Keri pointed out, the JREF has no responsibility for explaining these matters to you or anyone else, yet they've made at least reasonable attempts to do so.

This is why the folks that run the Challenge get tired of replying to these inquiries. You don't even take the time to check into things yourself before making the same accusation again and again and again. Then, you read assent into the lack of yet another denial.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Reading through this thread made me realize one thing:

I miss KRAMER.

[OXEL]

The $10,000 you get immediately, handed to you when you win. The rest within ten days. If that's unacceptable to you, you can sit on your paranormal hat and spin.
1. I did said nothing about the ten days were a problem.
2. I didn't sais I want to apply.
3. Do you really think it's gonna help to accuse people of having a paranormal hat without knowing anything about them?

Yes you do, which is why you made an uninformed accusation rather than ask a simple question. That's rude.
I have made an uninformed accusation??? I read the whole thread for God's sake! Can you tell me the reason the last FAQ was written the way it was?


OXEL, please go back and read the first page or so of this thread--especially Keri's post which is #20.
I did read the whole thread as I stated above.
Keri is not a staff member or at least she wasn't at that time. She did explain how things works in general though. That's nice. But that's not the question.

The prize is not the bonds.

The prize is one million U.S. dollars.
Awesome. I would like to hear that from a staff member and have it in the new FAQ.

How the money is held by JREF is not in itself information that JREF has to disclose. Claimants should rightly be concerned with JREF's ability to pay, and their publicly accessible paperwork makes that clear.

The information about the bonds was included to reassure people that JREF has the ability to pay.
That's absolutely fine.


It's in bonds because it'd be nuts to store it in any other form.

If it were in stocks, it could decrease in value.

If it were in cash, it would actually be more open to doubt than bonds. If someone says "I don't believe the money exists", how would they prove they had a mil in cash? What's the JREF going to do, have a steel suitcase full of Benjamins sitting around in the office somewhere, and have folks fly themselves down to gape at it?

Since it's in bonds, it can be checked on 24/7 by going to the Goldman Sachs Web page and checking on the JREF's account balance.
I have absolutely nothing against their strategy to leave it in bonds for security reasons. This was not my point.

[strathmeyer]

This neither answers my question not is it relevant. Bonds are not money.

We can use seashells for money, if you'd like. What would you prefer?

[OXEL]

The accusation made in the post you reference here had already been addressed on page 1 of the thread (and in the Challenge rules themselves). Again, I refer you to Keri's fine answer in post #20.

As Keri pointed out, the JREF has no responsibility for explaining these matters to you or anyone else, yet they've made at least reasonable attempts to do so.

This is why the folks that run the Challenge get tired of replying to these inquiries. You don't even take the time to check into things yourself before making the same accusation again and again and again. Then, you read assent into the lack of yet another denial.
You seem to not understand. It was about the FAQ. At the time page one was written, there wasn't even a FAQ!

I am no making any accusations! I want the formulation about what the price is to be absolutely exact. That's all. I don't care what bonds JREF has their money in. This is none of my buisiness. But only as long as the price is being given as money! Do you get my point now?

[OXEL]

We can use seashells for money, if you'd like. What would you prefer?
I prefer keeping this issue serious.

Although if I was an aspirant for the challenge, I would prefer Euros. But that's not the point here.

[zooloo]

Who defines ways that matters? Whatever, can you go to a supermarket and pay with bonds?

You know, I don't really want to be a pain in the ass here. But this has to be absolutely clear. Or else, people will use it against JREF and the Challenge argument will be weaker that necessary.
Perhaps not a supermarket but there are places that would accept a bond a payment.

A one dollar note is worth one dollar, a five dollar note is worth five dollars, a one million dollar bond is worth one million dollars.

[OXEL]

Perhaps not a supermarket but there are places who would accept a bond a payment.

A one dollar note is worth one dollar, a five dollar note is worth five dollars, a one million dollar bond is worth one million dollars.
Some people just don't want to mess around with such things. They want the money. They don't want to learn how to sell bonds.

Whatever. The price is money, isn't it? Maybe we should just wait until some staff member answers this simple question?

[The Pig]

So you're asking the forum whether the prize is awarded in bonds, but you don't want an answer from non-staff forum members.

You should have shouted your question out of your bathroom window.

[OXEL]

So you're asking the forum whether the prize is awarded in bonds, but you don't want an answer from non-staff forum members.

You should have shouted your question out of your bathroom window.
I don't see your point.

1. Jeff Wagg was so kind to leave a comment to my first posting in this thread. He is obviously a staff member. I am looking forward to him coming again to this thread because my other postings should have made my questions clear.

2. I don't have anything against non-staff forum members. The problem is that their word doesn't count to people that question the Challenge and JREF.

[The Pig]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=924195#post924195

There were no negative answers to this post, for example "no, it isn't right" so it seemed peebrains accusation was right.

I don't have anything against non-staff forum members. The problem is that their word doesn't count to people that question the Challenge and JREF.Their word seemed to matter to you earlier.

[OXEL]

Their word seemed to matter to you earlier.
Yes, in another context.

[zooloo]

Some people just don't want to mess around with such things. They want the money. They don't want to learn how to sell bonds.

Whatever. The price is money, isn't it? Maybe we should just wait until some staff member answers this simple question?

You don't get the bond you get a cheque from the bank holding the bond.

YES it is real money, proper cash, stuff you can spend in a supermarket.

If you want a suitcase full of money rather than a cheque, in principle you can.

There may be some tax/security/legal issues but no different to anyone who wanted a million dollars in a suitcase from the bank.

Yes the money is there
Yes it is real money
Yes you can spend it

[OXEL]

You don't get the bond you get a cheque from the bank holding the bond.

YES it is real money, proper cash, stuff you can spend in a supermarket.

If you want a suitcase full of money rather than a cheque, in principle you can.

There may be some tax/security/legal issues but no different to anyone who wanted a million dollars in a suitcase from the bank.

Yes the money is there
Yes it is real money
Yes you can spend it
That's great. Do you have any idea, why the previous FAQ stated otherwise? Maybe there was some background-information this thread is missing.

However, I'm just asking myself whether this is an issue that should be addressed to Randi. Because the FAQ page states you should send him questions. On the other hand, this issue should be very self-evident to address in the FAQ.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am no making any accusations! I want the formulation about what the price is to be absolutely exact. That's all. I don't care what bonds JREF has their money in. This is none of my buisiness. But only as long as the price is being given as money! Do you get my point now?

Is English your second language? Maybe this is just a communication issue. (Your use of "price" for "prize" and "no" for "not" is why I say this.)

I didn't say you made an accusation. I said the accusation that you referred to had already been addressed long before. You claimed that the lack of yet another denial of the assertion "the PRIZE is BONDS and NOT CASH" was some sort of tacit assent. In your words,
There were no negative answers to this post, for example "no, it isn't right" so it seemed peebrains accusation was right.

Do you get my point now?

As Keri pointed out, JREF has done more than they are required to do. That the website FAQs were down for a while when the Challenge rules were changed is irrelevant.

The reason people on this forum keep asking whether you have a paranormal claim is that the excuse given by would-be claimants, such as Sylvia Browne, is very often the lie that the money doesn't exist or won't be paid.

The point of the Challenge is to test supernatural/paranormal claims. Not to go over the minutia of the finances.

The fact is that anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural claim (except for those that would necessarily risk harming someone) under controlled circumstances can easily claim the $1 million prize.

Do you disagree with my last statement? If so, why?

[OXEL]

Is English your second language? Maybe this is just a communication issue. (Your use of "price" for "prize" and "no" for "not" is why I say this.)
Actually, it's my third. I mentioned in my first post on this forum that English is not my mother language, but of course I'm not stating this every time I post. Maybe I should state this in my signature? I just thought it would make a crappy sig. :-/

I didn't say you made an accusation. I said the accusation that you referred to had already been addressed long before. You claimed that the lack of yet another denial of the assertion "the PRIZE is BONDS and NOT CASH" was some sort of tacit assent. In your words,


Do you get my point now?
I see. But the way I got it, this was a new type of accusation. You can see that faster by reading peebrains accusation-page. In chronological order:

1. Peebrain asks questions about bonds because he thinks that the prize is bonds.
2. People tell that the prize is money and suggest the creating of a FAQ.
3. A FAQ is being developed on the forum. It contains a statement that the prize is money.
4. The official FAQ is released. It states that the prize is bonds.

Number 4 was entirely new and got me. You see my point?

As Keri pointed out, JREF has done more than they are required to do. That the website FAQs were down for a while when the Challenge rules were changed is irrelevant.
Regarding information about the existance of money that is there to pay potential winners - I fully agree. They have done so. All I miss is a little sentence in the FAQ that tells: "Prize is being awarded in the form of money." That's all. And as the FAQ is being recreated now, I thought about raising this issue to make sure the new FAQ contains such an information. This is important, because some people find the rules not absolutely clear in that regard. (You can argue that but we shouldn't.) I don't think, that this little but important bit of information is too much to ask for.

The reason people on this forum keep asking whether you have a paranormal claim is that the excuse given by would-be claimants, such as Sylvia Browne, is very often the lie that the money doesn't exist or won't be paid.
I know that. ;) No problem for me.

The point of the Challenge is to test supernatural/paranormal claims. Not to go over the minutia of the finances.
Sure it's not what the Challenge is about. But regarding the fact that the claimants have to pay the expenses of the tests, such an important question whether the prize is money or bonds isn't too much to ask for. I didn't ask for any details on the bonds as peebrain did.

The fact is that anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural claim (except for those that would necessarily risk harming someone) under controlled circumstances can easily claim the $1 million prize.
That's what I want to promote. :)

[Little 10 Toes]

I don't see your point.

1. Jeff Wagg was so kind to leave a comment to my first posting in this thread. He is obviously a staff member. I am looking forward to him coming again to this thread because my other postings should have made my questions clear.

2. I don't have anything against non-staff forum members. The problem is that their word doesn't count to people that question the Challenge and JREF.

Not to sound rude, but I will. Why don't you direct your questions to the staff (since you want a staff answer) instead of asking us non-staff members and posting here?

[OXEL]

Not to sound rude, but I will. Why don't you direct your questions to the staff (since you want a staff answer) instead of asking us non-staff members and posting here?
Well I thought it was a place to communicate for all interested persons including stuff members so I can ask here too. And by providing an answer here, you could always link to it in case someone questions the form of the prize again.

BTW I didn't want to sound rude to all the non-staff members. Maybe my limited language skills made me write more offensive posts than they were meant to be.

Of course all the members are important in discussing the issue. I just wished to have a statement from the staff additionally.


In case there should be no answer in the next timespan I might try it via PM.

[Beleth]

You seem to not understand. It was about the FAQ. At the time page one was written, there wasn't even a FAQ!
Indeed, this very thread is a large part of the reason I wrote the FAQ in the first place. I understand this thread very, very well.

I am no making any accusations! I want the formulation about what the price is to be absolutely exact. That's all. I don't care what bonds JREF has their money in. This is none of my buisiness. But only as long as the price is being given as money! Do you get my point now?
"Prize".

Yes, I see your point. Rather, I see the misunderstanding your point follows from. It is a common misunderstanding. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what "bearer bonds" are.

[OXEL]

Yes, I see your point. Rather, I see the misunderstanding your point follows from. It is a common misunderstanding. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what "bearer bonds" are.
I now did look up bearer bonds. But I have absolutely no clue regarding financing instruments and my limited language skills aren't helping either. Was it your point that it doesn't make a difference? I mean, it's not an answer to my question and as far as I can see there are two options: 1. JREF transforms the bonds into money and gives the money to the winner. 2. JREF gives the winner the bonds.

I don't like the second one. It only leads people into questioning the bonds, asking details you don't want to give and my guess is that not many people really know exactly "how bonds work". It's a possible target for people that claim the Challenge is a fraud. Even though I have no reason to believe the bonds could make any problems, a simple statement that you win the prize in money would make things a lot easier.

Maybe you could explain a bit more what you mean by adressing bearer bonds?

[strathmeyer]

Maybe you could explain a bit more what you mean by adressing bearer bonds?

Maybe you could explain how somebody could win the JREF challenge, a legally binding agreement, and not be able to obtain one million dollars cash money United States currency?

[Beleth]

I don't like the second one. It only leads people into questioning the bonds, asking details you don't want to give and my guess is that not many people really know exactly "how bonds work".
That's exactly right. Bearer bonds work very much like cash. They are worth a certain amount, and if you go to a financial institution that can handle them they will give you that amount of cash for them.

Yes, they are an extra step. But that extra step protects both the JREF and the winner of the Challenge. It's as close to cash as you can have and still have a clear paper trail of its transference.

It's a possible target for people that claim the Challenge is a fraud. Even though I have no reason to believe the bonds could make any problems, a simple statement that you win the prize in money would make things a lot easier.But it's not given in cash (which is what I assume you mean when you say "money"). It's given in bearer bonds. This is not to defraud anyone, but to make it as obviously not a fraud as possible. People who think bearer bonds lead to fraud simply do not understand the nature of bearer bonds, which is why I suggested that you read up on them.

[OXEL]

Beleth, thank you for this clarification!

There are two things of interest that might be a possible point to attack for some people. At least two I can think of now.

1. The value of money can vary. But some currencies like US-Dollar do have an acceptable loss due to inflation. Now for laymen, financial instruments can have a risk. Their value can vary very rapidly. You can lose a lot in a very short amount of time. Is there a way for us to know how high the risk of this bonds is? Isn't it a legitimate fear people have to get those bonds and loosing most of their value befor getting paid at their bank?

2. Some things are not allowed to be transformed into money immediately. Luckily, James Randi did state that those are immediately convertible into money.

Don't you agree that it would be great to have this information in the new FAQ and by that at last bringing this discussions about JREFs money to an end? I just can't decide, whether someone with such limited abilities in this subject is the right one to address this issue to Randi.

[Cuddles]

Don't you agree that it would be great to have this information in the new FAQ and by that at last bringing this discussions about JREFs money to an end?

The discussions were at an end until you started repeating exactly the same nonsense that has already been answered already in this thread. Bonds are money. They are exactly as valid as a case full of little green notes. If you, or applicants, don't understand that it is not the JREF's problem. Questioning the value or validity of bonds is exactly the same as questioning the basis of the entire financial world. If you accept the existence of money and the existence of modern economics then it doesn't just not matter whether something is cash or bonds, they are effectively the same thing.

[Beleth]

Beleth, thank you for this clarification!
You're welcome.

There are two things of interest that might be a possible point to attack for some people. At least two I can think of now.

1. The value of money can vary. But some currencies like US-Dollar do have an acceptable loss due to inflation. Now for laymen, financial instruments can have a risk. Their value can vary very rapidly. You can lose a lot in a very short amount of time. Is there a way for us to know how high the risk of this bonds is? Isn't it a legitimate fear people have to get those bonds and loosing most of their value befor getting paid at their bank?These are bonds, not stock. There is no risk. No, it is not a legitimate fear. People who worry about this need to understand what bearer bonds are. Once they do, they will not worry about this.

The value of the bearer bonds is one million dollars. When the winner goes into a financial institution with the bearer bonds and says "I'd like to exchange these for cash, please", the financial institution will give them one million dollars in cash. No matter what day or what year it is.


2. Some things are not allowed to be transformed into money immediately. Luckily, James Randi did state that those are immediately convertible into money.Yes.

Don't you agree that it would be great to have this information in the new FAQ and by that at last bringing this discussions about JREFs money to an end? I just can't decide, whether someone with such limited abilities in this subject is the right one to address this issue to Randi.This subject is covered well in the FAQ. It is my belief that any further elaboration of the subject in the FAQ, such as the definition of "bearer bonds", is outside the scope of the FAQ and is better handled by consulting outside sources.

And no, if I were to put my "realist" hat on, I do not believe that any amount of elaboration in the FAQ on this subject will bring the discussions about the JREF's money to an end.

[OXEL]

The discussions were at an end until you started repeating exactly the same nonsense that has already been answered already in this thread. Bonds are money. They are exactly as valid as a case full of little green notes. If you, or applicants, don't understand that it is not the JREF's problem. Questioning the value or validity of bonds is exactly the same as questioning the basis of the entire financial world. If you accept the existence of money and the existence of modern economics then it doesn't just not matter whether something is cash or bonds, they are effectively the same thing.
That is wrong! They may be "effectively the same", but that doesn't mean you don't have to name it right. The issue was not clear when I started posting in this thread! And my accusations regarding behaviour where right!

However, I don't think we should continue the quarrel. I guess we see each others positions.

[Marcus]

I don't get it. Why didn't you simply google "bearer bonds", you could have learned all about them without requiring the people here to educate you.

[OXEL]

I don't get it.
Read more carefully and pay more attention. The discussion was not revived because of bearer bonds. Until that point, they weren't even mentioned.

Why didn't you simply google "bearer bonds", you could have learned all about them without requiring the people here to educate you.
1. I did, after the first time it was mentioned by Beleth. After that, the issue was pretty much done.
2. As I explained earlier, it is not that easy for some or even most people, including me, to just google for complicated things while having a language handicap.

All in all, you missed the point.

[robinson]

I would say that a claim about a million dollars is extraordinary.

Hence it requires extraordinary proof.

So if somebody claims they will give you a Million dollars if you win, they should offer extraordinary evidence that this is true.

[OXEL]

I would say that a claim about a million dollars is extraordinary.

Hence it requires extraordinary proof.

So if somebody claims they will give you a Million dollars if you win, they should offer extraordinary evidence that this is true.
What do you mean by "extraordinary"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the point you are trying to make.

My impression is that JREF does setup thoughtful rules and protocols. :) They make sure no cheating is possible and minimize the chance to win by chance to an extremely low degree. I would describe a successful demonstration of a paranormal claim under such terms as extraordinary. The opposite "ordinary proof" is the one you can see at various paranormal shows. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

They make sure no cheating is possible


Are you saying it is impossible for experimenters to cheat?

[robinson]

What do you mean by "extraordinary"? I'm sorry, but I don't see the point you are trying to make.

I'm hoping somebody will explain it to you.

[vexed]

I wouldn't even respond without him presenting a claim. What's the point, if you have no powers then the money isn't yours anyways!!

[robinson]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
-- Carl Sagan

I was saying that claiming you have a Million Dollars Cash to give somebody, is an Extraordinary claim. Extraordinary proof should be required for such a claim.

And now, just because ...

Perhaps the greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics' attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about anomalies are true is characterized as a case not proven. A skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been disproved. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty or innocent, and not proven.) Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that "there is no evidence supporting a claim" when in fact it is merely inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case. Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions that it falls below some threshold of what science should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who invokes such criteria.
~Marcello Truzzi

[drkitten]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
-- Carl Sagan

I was saying that claiming you have a Million Dollars Cash to give somebody, is an Extraordinary claim. Extraordinary proof should be required for such a claim.

Fortunately, such extraordinary proof is easy to get. Just write Goldman-Sachs and they will be happy to provide such "proof" to you.

[zooloo]

The proof is as extraordinary as the claim.

The bank it's held at can provide recognised authentication that the money is available.

I don't know what the process is, I think you just ask the bank in question.

[OXEL]

Are you saying it is impossible for experimenters to cheat?
No. As a matter of fact, I like to remark that nothing is impossible. ;)
But cheating can be very near to being impossible.

I wouldn't even respond without him presenting a claim. What's the point, if you have no powers then the money isn't yours anyways!!
That's an ignorant way of thinking. You want the MDC to be taken seriously, don't you?

[...]
I was saying
[...]
Aaah.
Are you unsatisfied with the information you can get from Goldman-Sachs?

And now, just because ...
~Marcello Truzzi
A very good text. :)

[Marcus]

Read more carefully and pay more attention. The discussion was not revived because of bearer bonds. Until that point, they weren't even mentioned.


1. I did, after the first time it was mentioned by Beleth. After that, the issue was pretty much done.
2. As I explained earlier, it is not that easy for some or even most people, including me, to just google for complicated things while having a language handicap.

All in all, you missed the point.

I fail to see the point in reading your posts carefully. All I see is useless diatribes by someone who is not even an applicant.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would say that a claim about a million dollars is extraordinary.

Hence it requires extraordinary proof.

So if somebody claims they will give you a Million dollars if you win, they should offer extraordinary evidence that this is true.

I disagree that JREF's ability to pay the $1 Million Prize is an extraordinary claim.

I'm quite sure that when Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," that he would define such a claim as being one that is extremely unparsimonious. An extraordinary claim is one that would require changing current paradigms or even wholesale revision of entire branches of science.

That a non profit can raise and hold in liquid assets one million dollars is hardly even noteworthy, much less extraordinary.

The documents that are publicly available are more than sufficient to prove that JREF can pay the prize.

As far as the claim that JREF will pay, that is spelled out in the Challenge itself. If your application is accepted, then JREF is legally bound to pay if your demonstration is successful. At that point, it wouldn't even matter if JREF suddenly became unwilling to pay. You know that JREF has the money, and you'd have an airtight legal claim to that money.

[OXEL]

I fail to see the point in reading your posts carefully.
That's a pity. What now? Do you want me to explain again?

All I see is useless diatribes
Well, I see that from you. My postings are substantiated criticism.

by someone who is not even an applicant.
Is that of interest? Does that make someone "unworthy" to ask questions or make legitimate accusations?


Unless you really want me to roll up the whole issue again, I suggest you to continue your unfounded rant against me and/or my posts via PM for the sake of this thread.

[drkitten]

I disagree that JREF's ability to pay the $1 Million Prize is an extraordinary claim.

"Extraordinary" is not a simple binary choice, and to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. If I tried to buy your million-dollar house and offered you a check for it, you'd want some indication that the check was good before you started moving your furniture out. That's simple common sense.

In that sense, it's "extraordinary" for anyone to have a million bucks. But it's equally extraordinary for anyone to be able to get a world-renowned financial institution to state that they have a million bucks. So the evidence is just as extraordinary as the claim.

[Beady]

That's weird. When I click on "OXEL" in the Most Recent Post column of the New Posts list, it takes me to drkitten's profile. When I click on OXEL's drop-down menu, here in the thread, I'm taken to OXEL's profile.

[OXEL]

That's weird. When I click on "OXEL" in the Most Recent Post column of the New Posts list, it takes me to drkitten's profile. When I click on OXEL's drop-down menu, here in the thread, I'm taken to OXEL's profile.
Thats only a guess, but knowing a bit about how software works, it may be a good one:
The drop-down menu is static. It always takes you to the same places. The Recent Post function is dynamic and probably got irritated because it was created when my post was the last in this thread, but by the time you clicked, drkitten managed to be the last. So the pointer may have changed while the site was not up to date and was still showing my nickname.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

That's weird. When I click on "OXEL" in the Most Recent Post column of the New Posts list, it takes me to drkitten's profile. When I click on OXEL's drop-down menu, here in the thread, I'm taken to OXEL's profile.
ZOMG CONSPIRASY!!11!one!
;)

[William Smith]

ZOMG CONSPIRASY!!11!one!
;)

:D

[T'ai Chi]

'I always have an out'

comes to mind.

[Mercutio]

'I always have an out'

comes to mind.

If only the context in which it was said also came to mind.

It really is too bad that psychoanalysis has been shown to be baseless; you could have been thesis material for several people.

Just for fun, TC, could you put the sentence you quote into its full context so that others can see what you did? Do you have the cojones for that? Just wondering...

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Extraordinary" is not a simple binary choice, and to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. If I tried to buy your million-dollar house and offered you a check for it, you'd want some indication that the check was good before you started moving your furniture out. That's simple common sense.

In that sense, it's "extraordinary" for anyone to have a million bucks. But it's equally extraordinary for anyone to be able to get a world-renowned financial institution to state that they have a million bucks. So the evidence is just as extraordinary as the claim.
I would call the check claiming to be worth a million dollars and the common sense verification of the check are both in the realm of the ordinary (claim and evidence). The hypothesis that the check is good and the proof necessary are parsimonious in that you can prove or disprove the claim without having to revise or explain any other phenomena.

Extraordinary claims generally raise more questions than they purport to answer, so we are extra picky about the evidence used to support them. Ordinary claims can be proven or disproven without that baggage. (If the bank tells you the check is bad, you won't need to toss out or even revise the laws of thermodynamics, for example.)

[CFLarsen]

It's not a question of context, but of deliberately leaving out the pertinent part.

T'ai Chi is fully aware of what is meant, yet he keeps lying about it.

[Tricky]

You want the MDC to be taken seriously, don't you?
Nobody takes the MDC seriously.


...oops.

I thought you meant this guy (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=812).
http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar812_22.gif

[OXEL]

Nobody takes the MDC seriously.


...oops.

I thought you meant this guy (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=812).
http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar812_22.gif
;)

Did learn about this guy in a later thread of mine:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89106

Will use this abbreviation more cautious in the future. :)