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

[KRAMER]

Here's another email exchange I've just stopped participating in, from someone who refuses to apply because when he wins, "the bonds might be worthless". He refuses to even state his claim, and continues to demand information on the prize fund.

...and he just keeps comin' at me...

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

Hello,
On your website, it states:
"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special
investment account."

>and=

"At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be
placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail."

My questions surround the form the money is in, and how it will be
delivered. The $10,000 will be delivered in check, which means I
will have access to use it all once the check clears; is this correct?
The bonds I will not have access to, on the other hand... Where do the bonds come from (what corporations issued the bonds), what are the interest rates on the bonds, and when is the maturity date on the bonds? I.e., When will I have access to the $1mil, and how much money can I expect on a monthly basis generated from interest?

Thank you. - Sean Connelly

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

Randi's reply...

Immediately convertible into money.

That's all I'm going to get involved in.

Apply, or don't apply.

James Randi.

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

Hello,

There is no problem, just a lack of understanding. You are the one making the offer, so I want to be clear on what you are offering. I'm not asking for consolation - I'm just asking for clarification. You state that you are offering 1 million dollars, in the form of negotiable bonds. It is a logical step to ask about the bonds. The questions aren't aimed for consoling me, they are aimed at getting more specific detail about the bonds. Who issued the bonds? What are their annual fees/rates? And when is the maturity date? Anyone who is serious about the challenge would ask these questions. I believe they are fair questions, and relevant to the challenge.

- Sean Connelly

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

At this point, Randi told the guy that he would not divulge any further data regarding the prize fund, and to "deal with Kramer".

I wrote to introduce myself, and got this in return...

Hello,
Randi said the negotiable bonds were "Immediately convertible into money.". I'm trying to figure out the actual WORTH of the bonds. Normal bonds are issued by corporations or the government, and have an anual fee that the issuer will pay the person who owns the bonds, and they have a maturity date for when the issuer is required to pay the principal. For example, if the bonds principal totals to $1mil, but they don't mature for another 40 years, then they're almost worthless to me. So technically Randi COULD say the bonds are worth $1mil, but in reality they are pretty worthless. However, I doubt that's the
case. I was trying to get some actual facts and numbers to work with.

I assume the $10,000 delivered in check can be immediately cashed. I'm wondering who issued the bonds (what corporations), what the anual fee is, and when the maturity date is. Like I said, I think these are very relevant to the challenge. If my reward is a bunch of worthless bonds, then it's pointless. Do you see my perspective?

Thanks for offering your help.- Sean Connelly

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

My reply:

So far, sir, you're just full of baloney. That's OUR perspective.

Apply or go away. We don't have to prove anything to you. The Challenge application, once signed, becomes a contract. If you understood what a contract is, you wouldn't be needling us about your fears over not getting the million dollars.

If you really have a claim, you'll apply.

Do you have a paranormal claim, sir?

More emails like this one and we'll just be convinced you're not serious about the Challenge. Let us know if you have any intention whatsoever of actually applying. Otherwise, you can just stop these emails right now, as we will NOT be responding
to any more of your diatribes about the prize fund.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

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

Hello,
I don't understand what I did to make you angry. All I'm doing is
asking questions about the bonds. I haven't CLAIMED anything, and I'm only asking questions. The definition of what a "bond" is can be found on the internet. If I really have a claim, and the bonds are worthless, why would I apply? I really don't care whether you believe my claims or not, and I really don't care
whether I can convince you. I care about the money. Your
organization is offering the money, and your organization parades
around like it would be so easy for someone with real paranormal
abilities to get the money. What sort of attention did you expect? I am asking about the bonds. This is a logical series of questions.

You are not offering 1 million cash - you are offering 1 million in
negotiable bonds. Who issued the bonds, what are the rates, and when do they mature? Usually the skeptic is suppose to wait until the crazy person actually makes a paranormal claim before telling them they're full of it. I'm not talking about the paranormal - I'm talking about money.

- Sean Connelly

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

Exactly. You haven't even submitted a claim. We don't even know what you do, except that you're obsessed with the Million Dollars' very existence. The answers to all your questions about the bonds is this: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The Challenge states that One Million Dollars will be awarded to
anyone who proves the existence of paranormal phenomenon. That's all you need to know. The Challenge application is a contract. So show some respect for the Challenge and its assurances, and you'll begin to get some respect from US in return, and maybe even some respect for your claim, should you ever choose to submit one.

I'm not answering any more questions about the funds. APPLY, or go away.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

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

Hello,

I would like to have respect for the Challenge and it's assurances,
except that I've researched the history of the Challenge, and the
skeptics of the Challenge bring up valid points. Randi is quick to
instruct others to read things carefully, think with a skeptical mind,
and research until all the facts are present. But once that same
level of scrutiny is focused on him, he immediately turns to insults
and ultimatums. Yes, I am skeptical if the money is accessable in
cash form. The same way you're skeptical if I can demonstrate anything paranormal. The cure is to research and investigate - which is what you are doing with JREF - and it's what I am doing by e-mailing you and asking you questions.

With everything that JREF, Randi, and yourself have presented, it is very possible that the bonds have very low rates, are backed up by unstable corporations, and won't mature for another 40 years. If I somehow won them, they could liquidate in a week, and I would be left with LESS money. You have provided me with nothing to make me think otherwise. Therefore, I am skeptical of YOUR claims. But "skeptical" doesn't mean I secretly judge something, then front a public image to make myself sound balanced. "Skeptical" means I investigate before making a decision. So that's what I'm doing by asking questions about
the bonds. I'm investigating.

If this is a fair challenge, and you aren't hiding any tricks,
loopholes, or backdoors, then my request for information wouldn't be a big deal. Instead you reply with "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS", and "Apply or go away"... now what am I suppose to think? Basically, you're telling me you won't divulge any information until I sign my name on the very application I skeptical of.

YOU are offering the challenge. So I'm asking for clairification on
what YOU are offering. If you don't want this kind of attention, then stop parading the challenge around publically and implying that it proves paranormal phenomenon don't exist. I am open to the idea of applying, but I refuse to apply if the bonds are worthless. I do not know if the bonds are worthless or not. The only thing I have gotten from these e-mails is that they are "convertiable to money", and that I should have "respect for the Challenge and it's assurances".

You have an extraodinary claim that you will give $1mil to the person who proves paranormal phenomenon exist. I am asking for some extraodinary evidence to back that up. Is this not what you preach?

- Sean Connelly

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

Sir, you clearly have no intention of applying, and never did.
Goodbye.

-Kramer, JREF

[IXP]

Kramer,

He does have a point in that the present value of the bonds could fall dramatically if interest rates were to suddenly increase, a situation which is very likely in the near future.

I think it is a valid question of whether the prize, when awarded, will consist of bonds with a present value of $1M or whether that would be the value at maturity, meaning that the present value would be dependent on the maturity date, the rating and the interest rates of the bonds.

IXP

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by IXP
Kramer,

He does have a point in that the present value of the bonds could fall dramatically if interest rates were to suddenly increase, a situation which is very likely in the near future.

I think it is a valid question of whether the prize, when awarded, will consist of bonds with a present value of $1M or whether that would be the value at maturity, meaning that the present value would be dependent on the maturity date, the rating and the interest rates of the bonds.

IXP

No. He doesn't have a point. The prize is a cash (dollars) prize. The form that cash takes while still in the possession/control of Randi is not relevant.

The Challenge states that One Million Dollars will be awarded to anyone who proves the existence of paranormal phenomenon.

That's a contract. If someone manages to win the prize, Randi owes him the million.

[CFLarsen]

I think I'll withdraw a bit, and keep the rest in bonds...

[KRAMER]

Here is Rule #8 of the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (not the JREF "MAYBE" ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE, or the JREF "NEGOTIABLE BONDS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WORTH ONE MILLION DOLLAR" CHALLENGE, but the real and actual JREF ONE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE)...

At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail.

Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend, and accept?

The Challenge will pay the claimant "...the reward, for a total of $1,000,000."

Where does it state that the claimant will get bonds instead of a million bucks?

We're awarding One Million Dollars. Nowhere does it state that the winner will receive bonds of any kind. The reference to bonds was a miserably failed attempt to communicate the validity of the fund's existence. Instead of offering confidence to the applicant, as was its' sole intention, it has most often served only to draw suspicion and contempt.

Curious, too, that 99% of it comes from people who never submit an application, don't you think?

Ya know what I think, folks? I think this is all a bunch of crap.

The prize is for One Million Dollars. The prize is NOT for One Million Dollars in bonds.

I just can't figure a way to make it any more plain than that.

If you don't believe that you'll get the Million Dollars, don't apply.
We feel no obligation whatsoever to jump through hoops to convince the applicant that the million bucks exists. We send our most current fund confirmation letters from Goldman Sachs to any applicant who requests one.

And guess what? Of the 100 or so potential applicants who requested them since I've been here, not one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON who received the Goldman Sachs letter, then sent in an application. A paltry few summoned the fortitude to send me emails stating that they STILL don't believe the money exists, but by and large, once we send the confrimation letters, we never hear a peep from them again.

Now THINK: What does this tell us?

Here's what it tells ME: NONE of these people will ever be satisfied, NONE of these people will actually apply, FEW (if any) of them are sincerely interested in participating in a controlled experiment that might verify their claim, and ALL of these people are wasting my time, bar none.

So, for me, I've arrived at the exact same place Randi has been since the earliest days of the Million Dollar Challenge: APPLY, or go away.

We prefer you'd APPLY, but we won't play endless email games in an effort to convince you to do so.

[IXP]

Sorry Kramer, I concede, I was wrong.

This, however, is the source of the confusion:

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account.

Perhaps it should be rephrased as: "... we offer a one-million-dollar cash prize..." "the prize money is held in the form..."

After all how many times have you gotten this one?

"You have won one of the following prizes...", the least of which is "a $2000 vacation at one of our resorts". Did you expect that you would be able to collect $2000 in cash, or would it be a 2-week off-season stay in a condo that they couldn't rent (transportation not included)?

Sorry again, I should have looked further into the rules.

IXP

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend, and accept?

...

Now THINK: What does this tell us?

Misdirection. The classic tactic of the deceiver.

I think that they do comprehend and accept it. They just want to divert attention from their own claims. They don't want to apply, because they know that if they are tested properly, they will lose. They know it, Kramer.

They only want to talk about their ability in broad terms, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty, they start realizing that they will never be able to pass any properly designed test, be it JREF's or not.

That's why John Edward, before he agreed to be "tested" by Schwartz, made damn sure that he only had to perform better than the average person - that is, someone totally unskilled in cold reading. Of course John Edward can perform better than those people!

But not with JREF. So, they use the money to come up with excuses, because the money is such a promenint factor in the JREF challenge.

"The money's not there." Oh, yes, it is. What can you actually do?

"The money's in bonds." No, it isn't. What can you actually do?

"The money's tainted." Rubbish. What can you actually do?

And so on, and so forth.

It's misdirection, nothing else. They understand the money perfectly.

Top Excuses for not taking the Randi Challenge (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

[peebrain]

I outline in my first e-mail the source of the "confusion":

"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special
investment account."

and

"...James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York..."

That does not say CASH, that says BONDS. Negotiable bonds. Bonds. Not cash. There IS a difference. If it is cash, then change the rules on the challenge page to say CASH.

~Sean

[peebrain]

Also,
I just noticed that you edited the emails I sent you before posting them on here. Do you do this with all the emails? For the skeptics out there who are interested in the exact conversation, without Kramer butting in with his two cents explaining why I'm an idiot, and why he is right (which of course, he never did in the emails to me), I've uploaded a literal transcript:

http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

Compare that to the image he's protraying on this forum.

~Sean

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by peebrain
Also,
I just noticed that you edited the emails I sent you before posting them on here. Do you do this with all the emails? For the skeptics out there who are interested in the exact conversation, without Kramer butting in with his two cents explaining why I'm an idiot, and why he is right (which of course, he never did in the emails to me), I've uploaded a literal transcript:

http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

Compare that to the image he's protraying on this forum.

~Sean

I'm not sure what you complain about. It's been explained to you. You - apparently - don't have a paranormal claim you want tested.

So......?

[peebrain]

What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail. Hell, he could have just copy/pasted what he wrote on the forum into the e-mail... or he could have linked me to the forum pages that explain it. Instead, he tells me I'm full of sh*t (which he edited out of the emails he posted), and ignores me because I have no intention of applying - which again, isn't relevant to the questions I presented. Notice how none of YOU have intention of applying, yet he answers your questions.

Apparently I used the wrong channel of communication - I should have publically asked the questions, instead of privately.

~Sean

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peebrain
What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail. Hell, he could have just copy/pasted what he wrote on the forum into the e-mail... or he could have linked me to the forum pages that explain it. Instead, he tells me I'm full of sh*t (which he edited out of the emails he posted), and ignores me because I have no intention of applying - which again, isn't relevant to the questions I presented. Notice how none of YOU have intention of applying, yet he answers your questions.

Apparently I used the wrong channel of communication - I should have publically asked the questions, instead of privately.

~Sean
Well, here you are in a very public forum. Ask away. And since you're here, I wonder if you would mind answering a simple question. Do you have a paranormal claim?

I may be wrong, but the only reason I can see why you would ask these questions if you don't have a claim is because you wish to imply that Randi is somehow being dishonest. You would not be the first to do that.

And has already been explained, the contract specifically states that if a claimant wins the challenge they will win a million dollars. If Randi breaks the contract, the claimant could sue him into poverty. The point of showing what form the million dollars is in is simply to provide an easily provable way that the money does in fact exist. Obviously it would be financially idiotic to keep that amount of money in a simple savings account.

Kramer's job (as I understand it) is to respond to claimants, not to answer financial questions. It is a waste of his time to respond to endless questions about money from someone who has no intention of applying for the money.

[CFLarsen]

What Tricky said.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Tricky
I may be wrong, but the only reason I can see why you would ask these questions if you don't have a claim is because you wish to imply that Randi is somehow being dishonest. You would not be the first to do that.

Just to play... I've read on these forums that a number of people that claim to have paranormal abilities have refused to take the challenge claiming that the money doesn't exist or that JREF won't actually pay out $1 million even if you win. If I see a woo claim this, I might be skeptical and decide to check it out. So I might send an email to JREF asking about the prize, and ask some question about the bonds to make sure that there isn't some trick like the woos claim.

So I would be asking not because I wish to apply or to imply that Randi is dishonest, but toverify the woo's claim about the challenge being a trick of some sort.

So if Randi and Kramer refuse to answer these questions, I might begin to believe that the woo is right and there is some trickery involved. And the responses also support the woo's claims that the challenge is a sham because, as Sean put it, the JREF replies with "insults and ultimatums" and stonewalling, etc. So it begins to look like the woos a right and the challenge is a sham or trick.

Originally posted by Tricky
Kramer's job (as I understand it) is to respond to claimants, not to answer financial questions. It is a waste of his time to respond to endless questions about money from someone who has no intention of applying for the money.

It seems Randi and Kramer could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble by simply replying, "The bonds are kept to make sure that there is money available to pay a prize winner, JREF will actually pay the prize winner a total of US $1 million." Or, at the very least, direct the person to a web page that addresses the questions. Wouldn't that have been much less of a waste of time?

[Beleth]

What DevilsAdvocate said.

Why assume the questioner has a hidden agenda to make the Foundation look bad, and then jump through so many hoops in the answer that you end up making the Foundation look bad yourself?

"The prize will be paid in cash.
Until the prize is won, it's being stored as bonds. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is that it's easier for an independent entity to confirm that bonds exist than it is to confirm that the cash exists."

Does that sum it up?
If it does, why not just say that instead of all this "apply, or go away" righteous indignation malarkey?

[jmercer]

Well, since the JREF agreement states that payment will be made (sans the actual word "cash") in clear, unequivacal language... I would assume that any questions about the veracity of the funds being available are generated by:

1) Someone that didn't read the agreement
2) Someone that doesn't trust the agreement/organization
3) Someone that's looking to find a way to raise doubt about the funds
4) Someone incapable of lucid thought

Besides, the agreement states that the applicant that wins will be paid $1,000,000. Period, the end. I'd take that in cash, negotiable bonds, check, gold bullion, etc. Who cares what the medium is? (pun intended ;))

Truthfully, the VERY last thing I'd want is a million in cash or negotiable instruments handed to me. I'd insist on an electronic transfer of funds.

(edited to add last sentence.)

[jmercer]

Which, by the way, sidetracks me and brings me to another point I've been meaning to raise. Posters keep saying things like "If the medium doesn't want the money, they can simply donate it back to JREF or a charity."

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are tax implications to receiving a million bucks that donation of the entire amount wouldn't solve. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I' m not.

Anyone know?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by peebrain
What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail.

I agree. Treating with respect ANY person who ask questions would be imperative. Granted, after, perhaps, several hundreds of people asking the same, one gets tired. But thats not the problem of the one who is asking, but a problem of etiquette from both Kramer and Randi.

Being nice doesnt hurt. :D

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by jmercer
Which, by the way, sidetracks me and brings me to another point I've been meaning to raise. Posters keep saying things like "If the medium doesn't want the money, they can simply donate it back to JREF or a charity."

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are tax implications to receiving a million bucks that donation of the entire amount wouldn't solve. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I' m not.

Anyone know?

I"m not a tax expert, nor do I play one on TV. However, I think it would cause you big problems. With most non-profits--including the JREF--, you can donate 50% of your adjusted gross income. So if you won the million (I'm just using the million, not any income the winner would have also had, nor any deductions the winner would normally take) you could donate $500,000 and not pay taxes on that money. If you donated all 1 million, you'd still have to pay taxes on the other $500,000.

[Keri]

I can clear up a couple of things about non-profit donations and the financial transparency of the JREF Challenge. I work at a good sized non-profit in fundraising specializing in gifts that require long term financial planning, so I know quite a bit about the IRS and the ins and outs of charitable giving.

1) Charitable Donations:
It is true that you can only deduct cash charitable donations made to qualified non-profits up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI). (Gifts of stock or other property are usually only deductible up to 30% of your AGI). However, if you wanted to take the challenge and donate the prize you could easily do so with no negative tax consequences. You are only taxed on income that you actually take possession of. If you wanted to donate the prize, you would just ask JREF to transfer the prize money not to you, but directly to the charity of your choice. JREF is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization so there would be not negative tax consequences for JREF, you never received any money so no taxes consequences for you either.

2) The form the money is held in. I agree that people who hound JREF for details on how the prize is being held are trying (in a very poor manner) to trip JREF up. JREF is a tax exempt org. So they are required by law to have a level of financial transparency. That means that the public can request things like an annual report and copies of JREF's 990 (the tax return non-profits file). Got to http://atgdata.fdncenter.org/990search/search.php to look up JREF's 990. Contained within these types of documents is enough information to verify that the organization does indeed have enough assets to cover the prize if necessary. The contract between the claimant and JREF is binding enough that JREF has to pay the prize if someone wins it. As a savvy consumer all you need to do is verify that the organization holds enough assets to cover the prize. Also, if JREF was not able to hold up its end of the bargain the IRS would likely investigate and possibly pull JREF's tax exempt status. Rest assured the money is there.

3) For Sean (aka pea-brained) About Bonds:
The JREF prize seems to be held in a way that is similar to an endowment fund. Non-profits often create reserves of assets called endowments to build up enough money to take care of the organization in the case of bad financial times, or to save up money for a project down the road, like building a new facility or starting a large new program that would require a lot of capital. Endowment funds are held separately from the other money coming in and out of an organization. For example, The JREF prize money is being held separately from the general operating funds of the organization. This prevents JREF from accidentally spending the prize money on the light bill. It is never a good idea to just let large sums of money sit in a savings account for years and years, so most non-profits invest their endowment funds. The way they invest it is really not important. JREF invests in bonds which is fine. If they have to pay someone they will liquidate 1 million in bonds and pay the claimant. I know you are going to ask "What if the bonds cannot be easily liquidated?" Well, that would be incredibly stupid on JREF's part. No one would invest in illiquid assets if they knew they may need to get to the money quickly. If JREF did not pay a winning claimant in a reasonable amount of time they would be open to a law suit for breech of contract. Non-profits do not like getting involved in law suits so you can bet the assets can be easily liquefied. The claimant will be paid. JREF states that the funds are held in bonds so that a claimant can feel at ease about the ability of JREF to pay. That JREF will do so id going above and beyond the requirements of the law and the generally accepted practices of good responsible non-profits. It is an enormous act of good faith on JREF’s part.

While I certainly cannot speak to the specific of JREF’s fundraising and financial practices, I can speak to general questions about non-profit business administration. Sean, I would be happy to provide you with any other info on non-profit financials you would like.

[peebrain]

Awesome, thanks :-D.

So, your understanding of how JREF is functioning, is that when someone wins, the claimant won't win the bonds, but JREF will liquidate the bonds into cash and pay the claimant with the cash. Is this correct, Kramer?

I was under the impression that the prize was the BONDS themselves.

~Sean

[jmercer]

Keri, that was masterfully put, and an education to me. :)

Peebrain, I don't know where you got the idea that the bonds would be the prize, but the quote (provided by YOU) reads:


One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds.


You will be paid if you win - that's why it's being held as "surety" by a third party, that's why it's a contract, and that's why there's a public financial disclosure of assets available. Asking for more detail is utterly irrelevant.

As has been asked before in this thread:

What is your claim?

[Lisa Simpson]

Let me add my thanks, Keri.

I got 501 (c)(3) status for the PTO of my son's elementary school, but no one ever donates much to us, so I didn't really know the rules for donation. :(

[peebrain]

Originally posted by jmercer
You will be paid if you win - that's why it's being held as "surety" by a third party, that's why it's a contract, and that's why there's a public financial disclosure of assets available. Asking for more detail is utterly irrelevant.

As has been asked before in this thread:

What is your claim?

Right; all of that is clear now that we've discussed it in this thread. It wasn't so clear before when I was emailing Randi and Kramer, and they told me to "Apply or disappear", etc... And actually, it still isn't completely clear because neither Kramer nor Randi have confirmed what others have said. I do feel a little more at ease though :-).

Why is my claim so important? Perhaps it's important because I am raising valid points, and instead of dealing with the points that I've raised, you'd rather write me off as another whacko. The easiest way to do this is to listen to my wild and crazy claim, and then laugh at me and ignore my questions. Like I've continued to say - my claim isn't relevant to the validity of my questions.

Thankfully, there exists people surfing this forum who know what they're talking about, and are willing to help me answer my valid questions. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with me, and helped me to understand the inner workings.

~Sean

[Keri]

So, your understanding of how JREF is functioning, is that when someone wins, the claimant won't win the bonds, but JREF will liquidate the bonds into cash and pay the claimant with the cash. Is this correct, Kramer?

I want to be clear, I do not work for JREF, sit on their board of directors, or sit on their finance committee. I do not know for sure what they would or would not liquidate to pay a winner. However, I do know from looking at their 990 they have over a million in assets, a million of which is restricted (presumably restricted for prize winners) and that if a claimant fulfilled their end of the contract (i.e. won the prize). JREF would both be legally required to pay and have the ability to do so.

Again though, I would like to stress that while it may seem hostile to not answer your questions, JREF really only has to provide materials like their 990. They are not responsible for explaining them to every individual. You must obtain the education necessary to understand them yourself, (or seek the advice of someone who has that education to help you understand them). This may seem stand-offish. But consider that non-profits always have more work to do than time and money to do it with. Sometimes that means prioritizing and saying that they are going to focus their attention on the most important matters before them. Explaining the financial intricacies of a prize you are not eligible for (because you have not made a claim and filled out the appropriate paperwork) is not likely at the top of their list. Please try to be respectful of their time. A good way to do this is to do some research on your own first before asking the president of an organization to help you. It shows that you are not just trying to be a nuscience. JREF told you right up front that they would divulge more about the prize if you showed you were serious about winning it by submitting a valid application. This is reasonable because the only people who should be really concerned about the financial state of the prize, are people who may be able to win it.

I am glad that you are interested in learning more about things you are skeptical about (the prize). I am happy to answer any questions I can. But just incase your motives are not pure, I would like to stress (in an effort to protect JREF), that I do not work for them or have any knowledge about how they run their organization that is not available to the public. Please do not, at any time, try to claim I speak for JREF. That would be disrespectful to me, and JREF. I just know a lot about how non-profits work in general but the only non-profit that I can speak for is the one I work for. To be clear, I do not represent JREF.

[jmercer]

That's about what I thought would happen.

[peebrain]

Originally posted by Keri
...Please try to be respectful of their time. A good way to do this is to do some research on your own first before asking the president of an organization to help you. It shows that you are not just trying to be a nuscience...

...To be clear, I do not represent JREF.

Yes, I understand you don't represent JREF. I was asking if Kramer could confirm what you were saying, and I wasn't trying to imply that you represented them.

I think I was (and still am) being respectful. If Kramer doesn't have time to answer my questions - fair enough. But then how does he have enough time to post edited versions of our emails in the forum, and answer my question in the forum "behind my back" (in a sense) - but not in our emails. Copy/pasting takes all of 20 seconds. Just as long as it takes to type "You're full of ****, Apply or go away". *shrug*

I still question the existance of the money, but I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money. It's still possible it's a scam, but it's "unlikely" the scam would include worthless bonds. Again - thanks for your help and patience. I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless Kramer posts with useful accurate information about JREF.

~Sean

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by peebrain


I still question the existance of the money, but I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money. It's still possible it's a scam, but it's "unlikely" the scam would include worthless bonds. Again - thanks for your help and patience. I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless Kramer posts with useful accurate information about JREF.

~Sean

Why do you question the existence of the money?

Why do you think it's a scam?

What does the JREF gain by not having the money except public disgrace should the challenge be won?

Do you think the bank holding the bonds is in on the scam?

[Keri]

peebrain wrote:
I still question the existance of the money

I know you will not be posting further, but I cannot resist providing this information. Please click on http://12.39.246.46/650/650649443/650649443_200312_990.pdf JREF's 990 from 2003. (Their 2004 990 will be due to the IRS the 15th day of the 5th month after their 2004 fiscal year ends).

If you look at page 3 of the 990 you will see:
Line 59 column B (end of the year) Assets ($ they have) = $1,878,457.00
Line 66 column B (end of the year) Liabilities (debt they must pay) = $8,391.00
Line 74 column B (end of the year) Net Assets (money they have minus what they owe in debt) = $1,878,457.00

So you can clearly see they have well over $1 million dollars. If they are lying they are lying to the IRS and then are stupid enough to file that tax return with at least two organizations that act as watch dogs to weed out bad charities (guide star and the foundation center). Also, I do not know the state laws of Florida, but in most places an organization with finances over $25,000.00 would be highly encouraged if not required to have their financials audited by an independent accounting firm on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. Since JREF receives grants (and most grant making foundations require an audit). I am almost certain that the numbers provided to the IRS have been audited. You can be about as sure that JREF has the money as you are that the bank has yours.

[webfusion]

The easiest way to do this (call me a 'wacko') is to listen to my wild and crazy claim, and then laugh at me and ignore my questions.

No, the easiest way to see you are a nuisance and a wacko, is to have you participate on these forums and make post after post of nonsense, in the middle of which, what do we see:

"I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money." - posted by peebrain, who is finally, at last, revealing that he is really interested in the money, and has a paranormal ability that will manifest itself shortly in a Challenge Application, notarized and official?

OK, peebrain, here's my humble opinion:
You really were given the best answer possible under the circumstances, originally by the Amazing Randi himself.

Apply or go away.

You did neither, unfortunately.
Now, let's see if you live up to your last comment:

"I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless Kramer posts with useful accurate information about JREF."

Kramer is not going to post a word further to you, that's my prediction!

Next case.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, since the JREF agreement states that payment will be made (sans the actual word "cash") in clear, unequivacal language...So why not make it even more clear and unequivocal by adding the word "cash"? It'd take, what, about ninety seconds of KRAMER's time.

I would assume that any questions about the veracity of the funds being available are generated by:

1) Someone that didn't read the agreement
2) Someone that doesn't trust the agreement/organization
3) Someone that's looking to find a way to raise doubt about the funds
4) Someone incapable of lucid thoughtOf those, only #2 doesn't assume some incompetence or maliciousness on the part of the questioner, so only #2 is one I would consider reasonable. The questioner might be incompetent or malicious, but up until now, we have no reason to believe so.

So, that said, why would the questioner trust the JREF? That's why there are contracts - to minimize the amount of trust required between two parties. Certainly the JREF doesn't trust any applicant; why should the JREF expect any applicant to trust them?

Besides, the agreement states that the applicant that wins will be paid $1,000,000. Period, the end. I'd take that in cash, negotiable bonds, check, gold bullion, etc.Well, okay, but you are not every applicant.

[webfusion]

beleth remarks:Well, okay, but you are not every applicant.

From the very first contact with this guy, the point has been made over and over and over (and in more ways than one):

JREF will not enter into this discussion just to satisfy people's "curiosity" -- Apply or don't.

Sean did not apply. He is not anyone with "standing" and he got the attention he deserved --- all in all, Sean has been treated pretty well considering he's being a major pain in the a$$. What he did is drag this out in public, and I for one am more convinced than ever before the guy is a loser.
I hope he does apply, then we can really laugh at him!

Who wants to guess what his paranormal claim is going to be now? It should be a doozy.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beleth
So why not make it even more clear and unequivocal by adding the word "cash"? It'd take, what, about ninety seconds of KRAMER's time.

Because by citing a disbursement, JREF has to comply with that specific method unless they can get permission from the winner. The way it's written now, they can hand over a check, wire the money, you name it. It would be a very unusual step to explicitly require a disbursment in cash.

Regarding the rest of your comments... well, that's why I made them multiple choice. Everyone gets to choose their own interpretation of Kirk's motivation. :)

And thank goodness I'm not an applicant in any form. :D

[Beleth]

Originally posted by webfusion
From the very first contact with this guy, the point has been made over and over and over (and in more ways than one):

JREF will not enter into this discussion just to satisfy people's "curiosity" -- Apply or don't.
Which is a very arrogant position to take.

Imagine you're apartment-hunting. You go to a particular rental office and they have a sign on the door that says "We will not show you an apartment just to satisfy your 'curiosity' -- Rent from us or don't."

Would you ever even consider renting from a place like that? You probably wouldn't even open the door and set foot inside. Even if you did, that sign certainly sets a very bad first impression for any discussion you might have with the landlords!

Sean did not apply. He is not anyone with "standing" and he got the attention he deservedUm... what?

Since when do you need "standing" to be treated civilly?

Is the JREF only really interested in talking to Sylvia and Geller? Are all these other applicants and potential applicants just fleas to be annoyed with and squashed as quickly as possible?

I guess I have no idea what you mean by that comment.

all in all, Sean has been treated pretty well considering he's being a major pain in the a$$. What he did is drag this out in public, and I for one am more convinced than ever before the guy is a loser.
I hope he does apply, then we can really laugh at him!No. He has not been treated very well at all. He asked a valid, if nit-picky, question, and his only responses have been curt and uncivil.

It saddens me that this is how well-respected members of the skeptical community treat people we know nothing about.

[Kaylee]

I think Sean asked legitimate questions. I don't think that it was clear as to how the prize, if awarded, would be paid.

Here's why:

1) Originally, on the web page: http://www.randi.org/research/

it said that:

"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account."

right after the sentence:

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. "

[Note: As of February 6th, that sentence was no longer on that web page. Apparently someone else also agreed it was confusing.]

2) On this web page: http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
in rule 8 it states:

"At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail."

It would be clearer if the words "by check" were added. For example:

"within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the US$1,000,000 reward by check, for US$990,000."

Between the information on the above two web pages it isn't clear if the prize would be paid to the winner by check or by transferring ownership of the bonds.

--

Several people in this thread had suggested that no one has the right to ask questions about the prize until they have signed the application. That makes no sense. The application is an agreement that requires the applicant to give up legal rights and take on additional and potentially very expensive obligations.
See rule 6 on web page http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html:

"All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs."


Why would anyone give up legal rights and take on a potentially expensive obligation when they still have questions about the challenge?

Several people in this thread tracked down the JREF's 990s and provided convincing evidence that the bonds are probably not junk bonds. But before they did so … consider this:

In a *worse case scenario* these could have been junk bonds where the issuer had already defaulted on the interest payments and was in no position to make good on the face value of the bonds when they matured. In that scenario, it may not have been worth it for an applicant to:

* take the time off from work and give up income to prepare for and take the challenge
* pay for all the "challenge related expenses"

This could very well have added up to be more than the value of the junk bonds. As I'm sure all the readers of this thread had noticed, there appears to be no limitation in the application as to how much the "challenge related expenses" can add up to, nor any indication that the applicant would have any control or say over the expenses.

Lastly, if Randi and his associates really do not want any questions from people until they have already signed the application ( a legal agreement where they give up certain legal rights and take on certain obligations (like all "challenge related expenses") ) then they should say so on the web site. Instead they say, as per "rule 8" on http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html:

"Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail."

They don't mention that only people who have already signed the application can ask questions, do they?

And when the JREF did get a question, instead of just taking literally 60 seconds to answer it, simply by saying that the prize, if awarded, would be paid out by check in US dollars payable to the bearer … they must have wasted at least an hour playing head games.

Nothing wrong with looking before you leap. I think Sean asked some smart questions.

I respect the JREF's mission in most of the cases they describe on their web site -- but I don't think they served their cause well by how they treated Sean.

Shera

[rebecca]

I agree with Beleth and shera (welcome to the forum, by the way). Sean deserved a better answer than what he got.

A lot of unbalanced people apply for the million, or pester the foundation and the forum with stupid questions, but let's not forget the whole point of all this. We're not here to debunk a bunch of crazies, we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right?

So how come when someone asks a few legitimate questions in a very polite manner, he's told he's full of baloney (or $hit, maybe) by the person who he's been told he is to deal with. And when he turns to this forum for clarification (and perhaps to defend himself), webfusion calls him a "major pain in the a$$" and a "loser?" Seriously, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you apologize.

Ugh, I need to go count to ten or something.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Shera

Lastly, if Randi and his associates really do not want any questions from people until they have already signed the application ( a legal agreement where they give up certain legal rights and take on certain obligations (like all "challenge related expenses") ) then they should say so on the web site. Instead they say, as per "rule 8" on http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html:

"Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail."

They don't mention that only people who have already signed the application can ask questions, do they?




Sean contacted the foundation, and was provided with a copy of a statement from the independant financial institution holding the fund. That is the standard response due him as per the website's stated rules. After receiving this statement, Sean wanted more proof of the money's existence. He was told that more proof could be provided if and when he became an applicant. Until that time, the statement copy he had already received fulfilled the foundation's obligations to any casual request.

The main point here is that Sean has not applied for the challenge. It is entirely likely that Sean will never apply for the challenge. Certainly, most people here believe he never had any intention of applying for the challenge. At this point, the ball is in his court. His only method of returning it is via a notarized application.

[webfusion]

... let's not forget the whole point of all this. We're not here to debunk a bunch of crazies, we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right?

Well, allow me to say -- I am most certainly here to see the debunking and laugh myself silly and ridicule the woo woos!!!

At a certain level, yes, being a skeptic means being open-mided to the possibility of paranormal. However, being a rational, thinking and educated human also requires us not to get carried away too far into that realm. Kramer can go over in that area, Randi can, that's their chosen profession. I'm just a guy with a keyboard, who comes in here for laughs.

Why? Because there is no paranormal and those who bring forth their claims into the harsh light of day are only the tip of the planet's woo woo iceberg ------- The million dollars isn't going to be paid EVER, in my opinion. Yeah, it is available, but won't be claimed, because the applications for the Challenge are ludicrous, each one more funny than the next!

Sean didn't even apply (yet) and I'm perfectly comfortable sitting here laughing at him! The whole thing about the money was (and is) hilarious enough. I happen to agree that "apply or go away" was about the best advice offered in response to his entire train of thought.

It took Randi all of two seconds to deal with this guy peebrain.
And it took Sean all of a million words to get to the same point he started at --- sitting around in front of his computer trying to figure out what to do next! Go for it, Sean, apply!!!

Here's the money -- Randi has it stashed away in that vault !!!
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/bankvault.jpg

Let's see your Application, OK? We need the entertainment, this week has been slow for woos.

===============================
Shera, Rebecca, Beleth are waiting for evidence of the Paranormal? Get yourselves real lives...

Go watch a movie or something to chill out --

BOOGEYMAN I hear is a really wild ride!!!

[rebecca]

Originally posted by webfusion
Well, allow me to say -- I am most certainly here to see the debunking and laugh myself silly and ridicule the woo woos!!!


Wow. I'm sure that Randi and Kramer are thrilled that they've dedicated their lives to delivering a few yucks to some brainiac with an Internet connection as opposed to serious education of the public concerning science and pseudoscience. I'm sure they'll print out your little posting and hang it on the wall to give them hope when they're bogged down under a mob of ignorance.

Regardless of how you get your jollies, the JREF is a serious organization with good people who are trying to make a difference in the world. As someone who supports that mission, it is my ethical duty to help in whatever way I can. In this case, that means showing believers of the paranormal that skepticism
is about thinking critically about the world around you, not about mocking them. Also, it is cases like this which can help show the average believer that skepticism is not a blind devotion to other skeptics. I value this board because it promotes a level of discourse that forces us all to rethink our attitudes and beliefs. Well, by "us" I mean those of us who are prepared to "think" in the first place, let alone "rethink."

Originally posted by webfusion
At a certain level, yes, being a skeptic means being open-mided to the possibility of paranormal. However, being a rational, thinking and educated human also requires us not to get carried away too far into that realm. Kramer can go over in that area, Randi can, that's their chosen profession. I'm just a guy with a keyboard, who comes in here for laughs.


Yes, it's best not to "get carried away" so far that we're polite to people. I mean, really, what has the world come to when we can't beat someone down a bit? All people who apply are obviously frauds who are out to steal our delicious treasure and make us look silly, right? Oh, sure, some may genuinely believe they have some sort of power but are uneducated in the ways of critical thinking, but they should be mocked for that. It's the best way to enlighten someone -- I'm pretty sure that's how most elementary schools teach the multiplication tables these days. Ah, and some applicants may be mentally unstable, of course, but studies show they respond best to being called "woos" and laughed at. Particularly before you hear what they have to say.

Originally posted by webfusion
===============================
Shera, Rebecca, Beleth are waiting for evidence of the Paranormal? Get yourselves real lives...

Yes, thank you, the three of us will take your advice and go get real lives. I'll start by taking your lead (I assume you mean that you have one of these "real lives") by insulting a stranger on the Internet for my own entertainment. Like you, I'll choose someone who I believe is a mentally deficient troll (though I do have a bit more evidence for my belief, so I hope that still qualifies). So! Webfusion, you have the intelligence, grace, and tact of a malfunctioning toaster oven. We're all a little stupider for having read your posts.

Hey, you're right! It feels great to have a life. And to think, I was going to go outside today and interact with people face to face! Thank you, webfusion.

[webfusion]

Seriously, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you apologize.

Ugh, I need to go count to ten or something.

Count to a million or something!

I'm not apologizing for anything, not to mr peebrain and not to you. This isn't about me, or what my 'take' on the JREF challenge is ----- this is about one particular case of someone (Sean Connelly) failing miserably to accept the answer given and persisting to annoy. He was and still is full of sh*t -- no less than hundreds of others who beat a path to the Amazing Randi thinking that they are "gonna show him a thing or two"

Well, newsflash, Randi knows it ain't gonna happen! He is 100% confident the money will remain forever in that bank vault and KRAMER is going to continue to post stuff that offers the optimum amount of smiles!

Serious pursuit of the paranormal?
Yeah, like the Yellow Bamboo.
Or TC Albin.

Give me a break. Get serious yourself.

[jmercer]

Rebecca, Shera, Beleth - I think you need to consider this from a somewhat different perspective. So far, you've only looked at it from Sean's point of view. Let's take a look at it from JREF's perspective, shall we?

The money is a matter of public record and has been recorded in legal instruments with the IRS. The contract is a legal instrument that requires unconditional disbursement of one million dollars (less $10,000) to a winner of the challenge. These are facts that have been in the public domain for years, and setting this up was a non-trivial effort on Randi's and JREF's part.

JREF has been falsely accused multiple times by high-profile so-called psychics of not having the funds for the prize. This is their excuse for not taking up JREF's challenge. Much effort has been put into debunking those false claims, which were essentially attacks on Randi and JREF's reputations.

Given this, it's hardly unreasonable for Randi and Kramer to react strongly when some unknown person contacts them with an apparent first priority of getting financial details about the funds that are both irrelevant and private to the organization.

Could Kramer have been more polite? Certainly. Was Sean entitled to a polite response? Perhaps... but the answer would still have boiled down to "None of your business."

Now ask yourselves this question - Did Sean have any valid business justification for his questions about the funds?

Absolutely not. He hadn't even submitted a claim, and so wasn't even in the process of conducting business with JREF in any way. He simply sent them an email asking for detailed financial information about the million that he has no right to have or demand.

If Sean believes the JREF prize offer is fraudulent, all he needs to do is file a complaint with the appropriate government agency. They'll do the investigation if it's warranted, and they'll determine if the funds exist or not. Contacting JREF and trying to solicit private financial information for no apparent justifiable reason is utterly inappropriate.

[Lisa Simpson]

I completely agree with you, jmercer. Sean got a copy of the financial statement. That is all the JREF has to do. If he thinks it's a scam, that is his problem, not Kramer's or Randi's.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by webfusion
Count to a million or something!


Zing!

Originally posted by webfusion

I'm not apologizing for anything, not to mr peebrain and not to you.


I recommended you apologize for yourself, not for Sean and not for me. I don't require an apology. You make me sad, but the only person you've really managed to insult is yourself.

Originally posted by webfusion
This isn't about me, or what my 'take' on the JREF challenge is ----- this is about one particular case of someone (Sean Connelly) failing miserably to accept the answer given and persisting to annoy. He was and still is full of sh*t -- no less than hundreds of others who beat a path to the Amazing Randi thinking that they are "gonna show him a thing or two"


Actually, this is about you. This is about you being rude and it's about me being unable to condone your behavior by remaining silent.

Also, I see nothing Sean's behavior that suggests he is "gonna show [Randi] a thing or two." Perhaps I missed it, so could you please just copy and paste the relevant text for me? Thanks.

Originally posted by webfusion
Well, newsflash, Randi knows it ain't gonna happen! He is 100% confident the money will remain forever in that bank vault and KRAMER is going to continue to post stuff that offers the optimum amount of smiles!


The following quote comes from this URL: http://www.ghostvillage.com/legends/2003/legends21_06282003.shtml


I asked Randi for his definitions of "skeptic" and "debunker." Randi said of the skeptic, "Someone who doubts in absence of evidence. A debunker is someone who goes into a situation with the attitude that 'This isn't so, and I'm going to prove it to be not so.' That's why I don't accept the term 'debunker' to define myself."


Randi admits to being prejudiced against the claimants, of being confidant that his money is safe, but he understands that the work he does requires that he overcomes that prejudice in order to accurately apply the scientific method to these claims.

Originally posted by webfusion
Serious pursuit of the paranormal?
Yeah, like the Yellow Bamboo.
Or TC Albin.

Give me a break. Get serious yourself.

Ouch! I am left quivering and defenseless in the face of your clear, concise, and logical argument.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by jmercer
These are facts that have been in the public domain for years, and setting this up was a non-trivial effort on Randi's and JREF's part.


Of course. But does that mean that a person can't ask for a bit of clarification? The bond thing would confuse me, too. If I were going to put forth the time and effort to apply, I would want to make damn sure that I was applying for a million dollars cash, as opposed to bonds. Fine print can be very tricky. A polite letter to the organization is perfectly reasonable. You would rather this:


If Sean believes the JREF prize offer is fraudulent, all he needs to do is file a complaint with the appropriate government agency. They'll do the investigation if it's warranted, and they'll determine if the funds exist or not. Contacting JREF and trying to solicit private financial information for no apparent justifiable reason is utterly inappropriate.


That's just silly. If I'm entering a sweepstakes for a million dollars and I have a few questions about how the prize money is rewarded, I'm not going to start a federal investigation without first contacting the company.


JREF has been falsely accused multiple times by high-profile so-called psychics of not having the funds for the prize. This is their excuse for not taking up JREF's challenge. Much effort has been put into debunking those false claims, which were essentially attacks on Randi and JREF's reputations.


This was not an attack, this was a polite request for clairification.


Given this, it's hardly unreasonable for Randi and Kramer to react strongly when some unknown person contacts them with an apparent first priority of getting financial details about the funds that are both irrelevant and private to the organization.


We disagree. I do believe it's unreasonable for an organization to respond in that manner.


Could Kramer have been more polite? Certainly. Was Sean entitled to a polite response? Perhaps... but the answer would still have boiled down to "None of your business."

Now ask yourselves this question - Did Sean have any valid business justification for his questions about the funds?


Um. Yes?


Absolutely not. He hadn't even submitted a claim, and so wasn't even in the process of conducting business with JREF in any way. He simply sent them an email asking for detailed financial information about the million that he has no right to have or demand.


Oh. We disagree again -- I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by jmercer
Rebecca, Shera, Beleth - I think you need to consider this from a somewhat different perspective. So far, you've only looked at it from Sean's point of view. Let's take a look at it from JREF's perspective, shall we?


Also, please don't assume the perspective from which I'm viewing things. I understand the types of people the JREF deals with. I also understand that Sean may turn out to be a troublemaker who has no desire to take the challenge. I still believe that he made a reasonable request and he deserves a polite response.

I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, and with many of the people we deal with here, it's all too easy.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by rebecca
Also, please don't assume the perspective from which I'm viewing things. I understand the types of people the JREF deals with. I also understand that Sean may turn out to be a troublemaker who has no desire to take the challenge. I still believe that he made a reasonable request and he deserves a polite response.

I believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves, and with many of the people we deal with here, it's all too easy.

Hmm... my apology. It was inappropriate to assume that you hadn't considered it from JREF's perspective. :)

[athon]

I was initially a little embarrassed to disagree with some of the comments made so far. I feel that we sometimes forget that we're a skeptic organisation and subsequently feel our role is to debunk claims.

For whatever reason, I see Sean's point of asking. Arguably he went about it the wrong way (though I don't think so), but I do feel that Randi could have simply said 'the bonds will be converted immediately and the $1,000,000 is guarenteed, hence the nature of the bonds is irrelevant'. As much as Randi is a hero of mine, and I do understand where his brusque nature might come from, I feel that some of the responses are unnecessarily antagonistic.

So what if he is or is not wanting to take the challenge? I agree that the forms of the bonds are irrelevant, but only when you take into account the fact that it is not up to the successful applicant to change them into a form they can use. As it's been pointed out, the information initially comes across as if the prize is in the form of bonds, not cash. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would think it is perfectly reasonable to question the nature of the prize.

The goal of the JREF as I see it is not to destroy woo-woo's all over the world, but to encourage people to consider a methodology by which we can explore paranormal claims. We encourage people to ask questions when something seems odd. Does that mean encourage people...unless it has something to do with us?

It must indeed be frustrating dealing with some people who lack communication skills, or simply have a loose grasp of reality (tell me about it! I'm a teacher!). But as Shermer said at TAM3, a smile and being polite is often the best way of dealing with people who wish to attack what you stand for.

I'm glad I've been reminded that agreeing with a cause does not immediately mean I have to agree with others who also agree with that same cause.

Athon

[KRAMER]

Mr. Moneybags has been busy all weekend sending more email complaints. My lack of response does not seem to have any effect upon him.

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

Hello,
You have completely sidestepped my valid questions and points. Where on your website does it say that only people with intention to apply are allowed to ask questions about the Challenge? You are right, in a sense: if the bonds are worthless, and the Challenge is unfair, then I have no intention of applying.

My intentions of applying do not relate to the validity of the
questions I have asked. Do my questions not make sense? Is my line of reasoning illogical? The burden of proof lies on the claimant - YOU CLAIM to offer $1million dollars. So PROVE it.

- Sean Connelly

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

Whatever.

[jmercer]

I do wish this forum provided automatically nested quotes... I'm sorry, I wish I had the time to cut & paste things so everything was in context. However, I don't right now, so please bear with me.

Originally posted by rebecca
Of course. But does that mean that a person can't ask for a bit of clarification? The bond thing would confuse me, too. If I were going to put forth the time and effort to apply, I would want to make damn sure that I was applying for a million dollars cash, as opposed to bonds. Fine print can be very tricky. A polite letter to the organization is perfectly reasonable. You would rather this:


The time, effort and cost for applying is minimal at worst. I've recently had to fill out more complex documents that were subsequently notarized. The cost to me was 50 cents for the notarization, and 3 dollars to mail the document by registered mail so I knew it arrived and was accepted. That and my time, of course.

Asking for clarification isn't offensive, but that doesn't mean the person asking is entitled to receive that information, no matter how many times they ask or how badly they want it. Repeated requests for information once you've been told "no" is somewhat offensive, though. (Perhaps not enough to deserve an angry response... on the other hand, I'm not hammered by kooks about stuff on a daily basis, either.)

What bonds the organization has bought, the interest rates, maturity dates, etc., are no one's business but JREF's. If JREF (or an anonymous donator) derives an income from interest earned on a million bucks sitting in an account, that's their business. If the bonds are government bonds, ditto. All an applicant needs to know is that a million dollars is guaranteed to be paid to them if they win, and that affirmation is already in the public domain.

I should also point out that by his own admission elsewhere in this thread, Sean's main motivation was in questioning the existence of the funds, which - at least to me - indicates a suspicion of fraud.

Originally posted by rebecca
That's just silly. If I'm entering a sweepstakes for a million dollars and I have a few questions about how the prize money is rewarded, I'm not going to start a federal investigation without first contacting the company.


Of course not, and neither would I. But I must point out that like JREF, a sweepstakes organization is under no obligation to disclose anything more than what is required by law to anyone. If the potential gambler doesn't like that, they're free to not participate. He who has the money has the right to make the rules for giving it away - including non-disclosure of the use of the funds in the interim.

Originally posted by rebecca
This was not an attack, this was a polite request for clairification.

We disagree. I do believe it's unreasonable for an organization to respond in that manner.

Oh. We disagree again -- I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.

I don't believe I suggested that Sean's emails were an attack. I merely pointed out that Kramer and Randi have had to deal with such attacks for years, and are probably highly sensitive to any such queries. It's understandable that they would have a strong reaction to them. And I'm certainly not going to debate about "politeness" requirements for Kramer and JREF. :)

Consider this, however:

Sean was given his reply (shown at the top of this thread) by Randi in a short and succinct email before he started posting in this forum - "Immediately convertible into money." Please explain to me the justification for pursing the issue further after being told that the bonds are liquid by the founder of the organization? (Unless fraud is suspected. In which case, call the cops, like I said.)

The contract clearly states in plain english that the winner is going to receive a million dollars within 10 days after winning. Not a million dollars in bonds - a million dollars.

After all of this, what right does Sean have to insist on further information about the financial details of the organization?

Also, given his most recent email to JREF (above), and considering all the information in this thread... your willingness to give Sean some more rope seems to be very justified. :)

(edited to remove redundant comment)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by athon
For whatever reason, I see Sean's point of asking. Arguably he went about it the wrong way (though I don't think so), but I do feel that Randi could have simply said 'the bonds will be converted immediately and the $1,000,000 is guarenteed, hence the nature of the bonds is irrelevant'.


He did - he sent a short reply that stated "Immediately convertible into money.". Pretty cut and dried statement from my perspective, although - as you noted - a bit brusque. :)

[athon]

Originally posted by jmercer
He did - he sent a short reply that stated "Immediately convertible into money.". Pretty cut and dried statement from my perspective, although - as you noted - a bit brusque. :)

Ok, but this would confuse me as well, and in reference to the original query regarding the award of bonds, it doesn't really tell me anything. I would already assume that if you were given bonds they would be immediately convertible. But Randi's reply still implies that you could be given bonds and not cash.

Imagine I was giving a $1 million prize which I advertised as keeping in a vault as gold bullion. If somebody's fear was that this gold could drop suddenly in value, they might have a cause for concern if they were a successful applicant and that day saw a crash in the price of gold. Now, we know that is not the case here as the Foundation is giving a cash prize of $1,000,000, and not the equivalent in gold or bonds. But where's the hassle in asking if this is the case?

I handle stupid questions every day, where I have to repeat the same answer or request twenty times. Is it frustrating? Hell yes. Do I ever lose my cool? Sometimes, sure. So I'm not having a go at either Kramer or Randi; I understand the frustration. But I also don't think I've ever been right in responding to ignorant kids in the way I did; it did nothing to serve my purpose.

Neither Randi nor Kramer are teachers and as such don't have an obligation to teaching people through role modelling behaviour, hence are within their rights to respond to inquiries as they see fit. But, IMHO, I also think situations like these are best handled with a clear, polite, if brief, answer that does not make the inquirer feel like they are imposing.

Athon

[rebecca]

Athon's response covers most of my own reply, concerning why it is within Sean's right to ask about the bonds. I'll just add the following:

Originally posted by jmercer
I should also point out that by his own admission elsewhere in this thread, Sean's main motivation was in questioning the existence of the funds, which - at least to me - indicates a suspicion of fraud.


Of course, his motivation is irrelevant, and guessing at it in order to justify a rude response is a bit pointless.

Originally posted by jmercer

Of course not, and neither would I. But I must point out that like JREF, a sweepstakes organization is under no obligation to disclose anything more than what is required by law to anyone. If the potential gambler doesn't like that, they're free to not participate. He who has the money has the right to make the rules for giving it away - including non-disclosure of the use of the funds in the interim.


And this is the crux of the problem. JREF does not need to reveal any information concerning the prize. However, there is no reason to hide the answer to Sean's questions. Giving him a brusque answer can only raise the suspicions of an already suspicious crowd. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather give off an air of openness, friendliness, and professionalism. Let's not give frauds more ammo to use against us.

Originally posted by jmercer

Also, given his most recent email to JREF (above), and considering all the information in this thread... your willingness to give Sean some more rope seems to be very justified. :)


Indeed.

I'd also like to mention that as opposed to Athon, I do think that Randi and Kramer have an obligation to be professional and patient. It is an obligation to the skeptical community that they represent. After all, they are our public figures, the ones who are at the forefront of the fight for rationality, and as such I believe they have the onus of always watching their step. No one is perfect, but mistakes like this hurt us all.

[KRAMER]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shera
"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account."

[Note: As of February 6th, that sentence was no longer on that web page. Apparently someone else also agreed it was confusing.

Yes. That was me. Let's hope it reduces the confusion about the prize funds, or (at least) minimizes the excuses some people will use for NOT APPLYING.

The application, once signed, is a contract. Period.

That's all any reasonable person needs to know. We refuse to coddle inquirers.

Actual applicants with fair questions? Sure.

Inquirers who repeat the same questions again and again while refusing to accept the words, "We will not answer any more of your questions about the prize fund"?

Hell no. We know where it leads; NOWHERE.

APPLY OR DON'T APPLY is exactly what we mean, so that's exactly what we say. No sincere applicant would be bothered by it. In fact, if I myself were considering submitting an application, I'd hear those words as A CHALLENGE, and that's exactly what this is: A Challenge.

I'd rise to it, too (if I sincerely wanted to make a paranormal claim, that is).

We challenge you. Apply, or don't. People who make Peabrain accusations about the prize funds never apply. They just waste our time. This is always the case. Not just most of the time, but ALWAYS.

I deal with a few applicants (sometimes not even one per week), and TONS of email inquiries that never ever ever result in a formal application. Randi pays me to deal with The Paranormal Challenge and its' applicants. I won't waste JREF funds by spending inordinate hours exchanging emails with flakes who (experience tells me) will never apply. My history here re-confirms this over and over and over again, until I'm blue in the face. The air is stifling enough around my desk. I don't need more smoke added to it. I'm not an idiot. Once I start to choke, I get up and walk away.

Do you folks really think I've posted every such inquiry here? I've received hundreds of them, if not thousands, and I've only posted a small few here on the forum, so that anyone who so desires might peek into the true nature of a fair sampling of our overall correspondence. A fly-on-the-wall perspective, if you will, which I for one would gather great insight from. It is to this end that I include all emails, warts intact - even the ones in which I lose my composure and withdraw any respect initially offered (as is JREF protocol) to the inquirer.

Every inquirer deserves respect, right up until the moment he starts tossing accusations around or (for some other reason) causes it to be rescinded, and PeaBrain has arrived at that place in flying colors. Accusations about the validity of the Challenge don't wash very well here.

Randi's ideal was to post the Challenge applications and data about actual tests (which are few and far between). My ideal goes a little bit further. I'm not satisfied to simply give you data and statistics. I also want you to have an opportunity to gleam a more human, emotional sense of what goes on here. Like a good documentary, I want you to come away from the forum with feelings and a sense of experience, as well as the all-vital data.

I want you all more involved.

I've wasted more than enough time on this one. If Peabrain cannot comprehend what has been explained to him by both myself and by the forum members in this thread, it is most likely due to one of the following three things:

A- He doesn't WANT to comprehend...
B- He is not CAPABLE of comprehending...
C- He has NO CLAIM.

I vote "C".

And, despite the direct question being put to him so often here, he will not reveal his claim. Isn't that curious.

Perhaps he has yet to dream one up. Or perhaps he won't apply until his patent comes through. Or perhaps the JREF isn't worthy of being chosen by him to reveal his great powers to the world at large. What next? The money is "tainted"? Been there, heard that.

It's an old, old song. I know it well enough by now to have no further need of repeated listening. It's in my head, forever. I can whistle it in my sleep.

Whatever the reasons for Peabrain's refusal to divulge his lofty claim, this has been a complete waste of my time, right from the start, and it continues to be so. It's sole value lies in what forum members are learning about some applicants, their possible motives, their excuses for not applying, and their Peabrain antics.

I say what I think, and I make no apologies for that.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
So it begins to look like the woos a right and the challenge is a sham or trick.

Gee. Really? Well, I have a simple solution for the Woo Woo Clan:

Chose one amongst yourselves (one of the millions, that is) who can most easily provide PROOF of your paranormal ability,
DEMONSTRATE that proof, and see what happens. Go ahead. Submit a claim, PROVE it, and find out for yourselves once and for all if the JREF Challenge is a "sham". Idiots. Contractual law is not difficult to understand, and this is Contractual Law 101 -

WHAT IS A CONTRACT? Please don't take our word for it.
Google it. Ask a lawyer. Ask any bonehead in law school.

Is the JREF Challenge a sham? Show us that you can actually DO what you CLAIM to be able to do, and let's find out. Right now.

Funny that in 20 years, no one has seen fit to do that.

It really is as simple as "COME AND GET IT!"

I wonder why no one has. Gee whiz. Duh. Doy doy. Doy doy.

Don't ask me. I only work here.

[MRC_Hans]

Not that you need to bother about my opinion, but if you should ask me, I'd say that you should handle this in a more professional, and less emotional way. Shure, you have a lot of crackpots at your hands, but why get your panties all in a knot over that? Make yourself a bunch of template answers for all that crap, and give them that. Would take less time, too.

So, if somebody asks about the bonds, write an answer, send it, and file it, for the next idiot.

You know, it is a question about image; you cannot change the minds of the crackpots, but when they cite your answers to more cool heads, make shure those heads recognize who are the crackpots and who are not.

Just my 10c (or whatever it is).

Hans

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by rebecca
...we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right?

WRONG. Where did you read that? If you actually heard that from someone, you were most sadly misinformed.

I will quote Randi verbatim on this:

"Both myself and the JREF have no objective other than to determine the TRUTH."

Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once. We're not parrots. Enough was enough.

[Orangutan]

KRAMER, being a relative newbie here I hope you don't mind my 2 cents....

Email is too easy. The crackpots will continually harass you while it takes no effort on thier part.

Somebody mentioned earlier that you could provide a:

"...copy of a statement from the independant financial institution holding the fund.."

So, request that anyone wanting this information send >you< a stamped-addressed envelope so you can send them a copy of the statement.

This requires some effort and at least 2 first class stamps. And while the effort is also increased on your part, you need to make photocopies. That should cut down the number of enquiries you get.

O.

Edits for spelling.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by rebecca
I believe that as a potential applicant, a person has a right to make a simple request for clarification. A clear response would not have used up much of JREF's valuable resources. A polite response would not have killed anyone, and it would go miles toward improving the PR of the organization.

Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?

To my knowledge, sending a falsified letter would not only open the JREF to immediate closure by the IRS and the Feds, but would also make Randi himself (or whomever was directly responsible for having falsified the letter, and then mailed it - which is called MAIL FRAUD) personally liable and a good candidate for incarceration.

Peabrain received our respect and courtesy right up until he made it clear that said verification just wasn't good enough for him. Had he deigned to share his claim with us, or, dare I say it, submit an application, things would not have ended as they did.

And he can [I]still[/I submit an application. Anyone can. That would change everything.

But will he?

Nah.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by rebecca
Let's not give frauds more ammo against us.

I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.

The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense. This isn't about defense.

It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once.

I just don't get a lot of this thread. Peebrain was sent the letter from Goldman Sachs. Is it the JREF's problem that he either can't understand it or he thinks there is some vast conspiracy between the JREF and Goldman Sachs?

BTW, Kramer, it's peebrain. Peabrain implies a brain the size of a pea. Peebrain implies...well, a brain made of...you know. :D

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KRAMER
WRONG. Where did you read that? If you actually heard that from someone, you were most sadly misinformed.

I will quote Randi verbatim on this:

"Both myself and the JREF have no objective other than to determine the TRUTH."

Both Randi and myself offered Peabrain the truth about the prize funds, more than once. We're not parrots. Enough was enough.

Maybe I was unclear . . . I was referring to the fact that as an organization dedicated to skeptical thought, the JREF is in search of evidence for paranormal claims and is not in the business of "debunking." As to where I read that, well, I read that all the time from Randi. You'll get no objection from me that the JREF is concerned with determining the truth.

Originally posted by KRAMER
Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?


Well, I guess I was conveniently excluding that data because you never mentioned it. He had a question about the bonds, and the response was neither clear nor polite.


Peabrain received our respect and courtesy right up until he made it clear that said verification just wasn't good enough for him. Had he deigned to share his claim with us, or, dare I say it, submit an application, things would not have ended as they did.


I didn't read that the verification wasn't good enough. I read that he had a clarifying question about it.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by rebecca
Athon's response covers most of my own reply, concerning why it is within Sean's right to ask about the bonds. I'll just add the following:

Of course, his motivation is irrelevant, and guessing at it in order to justify a rude response is a bit pointless.


Rebecca, I've enjoyed your posts and I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point of view. I also respect what your saying. However, please don't link my post about motivation to your point about rudeness - I'm not trying to either endorse or condemn JREF's response to Sean, and it's a bit unfair of you to try and make it appear that I'm doing so. In context of the discussion, I just feel that it's irrelevant. My point was that Sean's initial motivation was related to a suspicion of deceit on the part of JREF, and that JREF is not required to respond by disclosure of private financial details simply because Sean is suspicious.

Nor am I guessing at Sean's motivation:

Originally posted by peebrain
I still question the existance of the money, but I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money. It's still possible it's a scam, but it's "unlikely" the scam would include worthless bonds.


Given the above and that his entire premise for starting the emails with JREF concerned the disposition of these funds, I think it's painfully clear that he doubted the existence of the money from the start.

Originally posted by rebecca
And this is the crux of the problem. JREF does not need to reveal any information concerning the prize. However, there is no reason to hide the answer to Sean's questions.


There may very well be perfectly valid, reasonable and legal reasons for not disclosing information about these bonds. Perhaps there's a previous agreement with the donor of the money that requires JREF to disclose nothing else about the bonds other than their existence and purpose.

The point is that you are assuming that JREF's refusal to disclose confidential financial details is an arbitrary decision as opposed to a considered policy. As a career businessperson, it seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me to not provide unnecessary information about organizational finances to a stranger upon demand.

Originally posted by rebecca
Giving him a brusque answer can only raise the suspicions of an already suspicious crowd. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather give off an air of openness, friendliness, and professionalism. Let's not give frauds more ammo to use against us.


I'm not sure I agree that any "no" response in any format would have satisfied Sean, although I understand your point about presenting a professional image.

Originally posted by rebecca
I'd also like to mention that as opposed to Athon, I do think that Randi and Kramer have an obligation to be professional and patient. It is an obligation to the skeptical community that they represent. After all, they are our public figures, the ones who are at the forefront of the fight for rationality, and as such I believe they have the onus of always watching their step. No one is perfect, but mistakes like this hurt us all.

I fully understand your point. I would only say that from the information available on these forums, it appears to me that Randi and Kramer are professional except when provoked.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.

The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense. This isn't about defense.

It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.

I think this illustrates the central problem -- you guys aren't marketing people. You can organize these claims and figure out the right way to test them and provide a great learning tool for the public, but you're not a customer service person (nor should you be). I'm wondering if the JREF has ever considered hiring someone to take charge of the PR and really perfect the image that they're exhibiting. I think it could be a much needed aid to getting the message out.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I have a better idea:

Let's not give frauds ANYTHING. Let them wallow in it.

The frauds both deserve and receive my contempt. Sincere applicants with verifiable claims will always receive, to the very best of my ability, our absolute courtesy.Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud?

You are certainly treating him like you consider him a fraud. For the life of me, I don't know why. All he's doing is asking some basic pre-contractual questions ahead of time before he considers signing it.

The best defense against frauds is no defense at all. I won't lower myself to their level by building a defense.A position with no defense is a flimsy position indeed. If you let the attackers roll all over you, or only put up a "how dare you not trust us" defense, you just look bad.

This started out with Sean asking about how the prize will be disbursed, and getting some, frankly, ambiguous answers. The prize is being held in bonds right now, right? Sean understood (incorrectly) that the prize will be disbursed while still in bond form, and so asked questions pertaining to that misunderstanding. The answer he got back - "immediately convertible into money" - doesn't really answer his question, now does it? Immediately convertible by whom into money? In fact, the answer he received is most reasonably interpreted as the opposite of what was intended; that he'll be handed bonds which he can then immediately convert into money himself.

As far as what everyone else has been saying, I agree with rebecca 100%, especially in regards to her responses to jmercer and webfusion.

It's about a concise and visible offense, and that offense holds all the ammo we need; TRUTH.Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by jmercer
Rebecca, I've enjoyed your posts and I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point of view. I also respect what your saying. However, please don't link my post about motivation to your point about rudeness - I'm not trying to either endorse or condemn JREF's response to Sean, and it's a bit unfair of you to try and make it appear that I'm doing so. In context of the discussion, I just feel that it's irrelevant. My point was that Sean's initial motivation was related to a suspicion of deceit on the part of JREF, and that JREF is not required to respond by disclosure of private financial details simply because Sean is suspicious.


I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your argument, and if I did, I apologize. I'm sure you're right, that Sean feels the money may be a scam. However, he asked a valid question.

Originally posted by jmercer

There may very well be perfectly valid, reasonable and legal reasons for not disclosing information about these bonds. Perhaps there's a previous agreement with the donor of the money that requires JREF to disclose nothing else about the bonds other than their existence and purpose.

The point is that you are assuming that JREF's refusal to disclose confidential financial details is an arbitrary decision as opposed to a considered policy. As a career businessperson, it seems perfectly normal and reasonable to me to not provide unnecessary information about organizational finances to a stranger upon demand.


Okay, I think the problem here is that you are assuming one correct answer to Sean's question, and I'm assuming another. Sean asked a lot of questions about the nature of the bonds because he was under the impression that he would receive those bonds as the prize. I agree that there is no reason for the JREF to reveal financial details about the bonds. The answer that I would have furnished to Sean would be, "The prize money is held in bonds, but we convert them to cash so that if you win, you will definitely receive exactly $1 million cash. Therefore, the nature of the bonds is irrelevant."

As has been suggested by other posters, this is a simple response that can be used as a form letter for the next person to come along with the same question. It saves time and headaches.

Now, that being said, I imagine that Sean would continue to ask questions regarding the existence of the money. I say, keep sending form letters. Yes, eventually his behavior may devolve into simple harassment, at which point JREF ceases contact. But up to that point, no one could claim that they didn't give him all the info he needed.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Beleth
Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud? You are certainly treating him like you consider him a fraud. For the life of me, I don't know why.

Form your own opinion from Sean's latest email:

Dear Kramer,

I was unaware that you were posting messages. I do not wish to pursue this matter further.

Incidentally,after looking around your site, I find your work very interesting, and I wish you luck with refuting claims that are not valid. A great deal of progress that has been made in our world has been made from people such as yourself who have said "No. That is not true. That is absurd." There are certainly a lot of off the wall things being said on your website.

Would you kindly take my messages off of the internet? I thought that the messages were going to be kept private. I see that you are very tough with people who cannot back up their claims, and I respect you for it. The world needs someone like you bury kooky ideas and claims.

Please e-mail me to confirm that you have taken the messages off.

Good luck in your endeavors to refute the absurd!

-Sean

Gee. I guess we won't be seeing any Challenge application from this guy who made such a big deal out of the million bucks, and how it doesn't exist, or it's in junk bonds, or the prize is a sham.

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

Well, there's nothing like having your ass kissed by someone like Peebrain. I've received a helluva lot of disingenuous emails since my arrival here, but this one beats them all.

Maybe I know just a little bit more about my job than you do, Beleth...just maybe?

Or maybe you'll choose instead to take me to task for not granting his request to remove his emails from the forum. Go ahead.

Only a forum administrator can do that, and I posted THIS last email (I hope it's the last, anyway) in order to bring closure to a most contentious debate, whose bottom line is and has always been, DO YOU HAVE A CLAIM, OR DON'T YOU?"

The answer is now abundantly clear. Total hogwash, from head to toe. A complete waste of time, both yours and mine.

Peebrain is a forum member. He himself can request the removal of this thread. I will post no further emails from him, unless of course they are of a threatening or aggressive nature.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by rebecca
I think this illustrates the central problem -- you guys aren't marketing people. You can organize these claims and figure out the right way to test them and provide a great learning tool for the public, but you're not a customer service person (nor should you be). I'm wondering if the JREF has ever considered hiring someone to take charge of the PR and really perfect the image that they're exhibiting. I think it could be a much needed aid to getting the message out.

KRAMER,

I don't know you from Adam's housecat, and I suspect you don't know me either. Nevertheless, I will chime in too. You, of course, are free to tell me to stuff it.

Rebecca and several others in this thread have offered you some excellent suggestions and constructive criticism. It might be beneficial for you and all the others in this thread simply to step back, take a few deep breaths, and regain your composure about the matters discussed in this thread.

Several persons have expressed concern in this thread about the image that Randi and the JREF put forth to the public at large. That is a valid concern, as the JREF is by definition and according to its stated purposes an educational organization. In order to educate, one must first gain the trust and respect of the persons one hopes to educate.

I admire and respect Randi, and I suspect that I would like him if I met him in person. On the other hand, for what it's worth, my impression is that Randi himself can be a prickly bastard prone to curt retorts. That's okay, and I understand that propensity all too well, as in certain circles I am known as a prickly bastard too. In my profession, I can work that to my advantage. Randi does not enjoy the same luxury. He has assumed the role of an ambassdor of skepticism and critical thinking to the public at large. That role carries with it a great deal of responsibility.

Image is very important in public matters. Diplomacy is a valuable currency in public. It must be exercised even when dealing with crackpots and adversaries. I would argue that its use is required especially when dealing with one's adversaries. Being an adversary is part and parcel of my profession, and my approach has always been to try to disarm my opponents by killing them with kindness. Being polite requires little effort, and never harms the one being polite. Often, it earns rewards. In any event, it costs nothing.

The main advice you have been given here is to try to be more polite. That advice seems to have offended you. That's fine; you're human like the rest of us. It's unfortunate that you seem to have taken it that way, however. I believe it was offered sincerely and with the best of intentions. The posters offering it here are on your side, for goodness' sake. These persons are skeptics, and most of them are Randi fans and supporters of his cause. They want Randi and the JREF to enjoy good reputations within the larger community, not just among fellow skeptics.

My impression is that skeptics in general have a reputation for being dour, unhappy, and maladjusted. If we are to reach other persons with the message that critical thinking is beneficial to everyone in all aspects of life, then we must combat that reputation. Few persons will be receptive to our message if we wrap it in snappy, rude, or brash soundbites. We might as well preach to the choir.

Patience, manners, and diplomacy are the tools with which to deliver the message of the JREF in the most effective manner, in my opinion. I would sincerely hope that JREF and its board members, officers, employees, and other agents would feel the same and use their best efforts to employ those tools as much and as often as is reasonably possible. That means even to those you believe to be crackpots.

AS

[jmercer]

Originally posted by rebecca
I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your argument, and if I did, I apologize. I'm sure you're right, that Sean feels the money may be a scam. However, he asked a valid question.


Thanks - I didn't think you were doing it intentionally, but I needed to make sure we were clear on it. Things have been getting a bit hot in here, and there's too much room for misunderstandings. :)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
The main advice you have been given here is to try to be more polite. That advice seems to have offended you.

Not at all.

I'm not offended in the slightest. I simply disagree with those who feel that each and every applicant be treated with kid gloves after the point at which my experience tells me that my courtesy is being wasted.

Yes, there has been some excellent advice here, and some of it (like removing the line in the Challenge Application about the "negotiable bonds") has been quickly acted upon. Other such technical advice regarding the Challenge application was not put into action because we deemed it wholly unnecessary. The application makes perfect sense to anyone with a high school education, and the wording was composed by our attorney, who feels that every word is vital to the circumstances. Removing or altering anything more will diffuse its enforceability.

But, overall, my impression of the advice (from some) is that the JREF's PR appearance is more important than the work we endeavor to accomplish. It is not.

Regardless of our "appearance", the woo woo's go to work on us.
I'm far too busy here to be overly concerned with how we look to the woo woo's. I've got a job to do, and it's not an easy one.

Should the JREF have a PR person who can assist us in such matters? Oh YES, absolutely.

Can we afford one? No. Sorry. If we can hire one more person, it'll be a fundraiser who can help us to move into 2006 without shutting our doors, and not a PR person who will make the woo woo's all touchy feely and happy happy.

We really don't care what they think of us, as they will think what they will, and no PR person can have much affect on that, I promise you.

The Peebrains should go away, as quickly as possible, in my opinion, so that we can spend our limited time working our butts off to help sincere applicants get tested.

No, my friend, you'd need to go miles and miles further to offend me. I regret that the responses I offered gave the appearance that I had been offended, and reading back on them, I can see how they might do just that. But nothing could be further from the truth. Advice is my bread, and criticism is my butter.

Or is it...Criticism is my bread, and advice is my...ah skip it.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Advice is my bread, and criticism is my butter.

Or is it...Criticism is my bread, and advice is my...ah skip it.

Jelly is my . . . favorite . . . thing to put on bread. I'm not good with metaphor.

Anyway.

I'm not sure that this:


. . . and not a PR person who will make the woo woo's all touchy feely and happy happy.


is what I had in mind. I understand what you're saying about believers never changing their minds. However, they are out there recruiting people who are on the fence about this stuff . . . people who never really considered whether or not it's plausible that someone could bend a spoon with his mind. Those are the people we're losing when someone like Sean posts that e-mail exchange on his site. A PR person would not be concerned with coddling people like Sean. He would be concerned with making sure that the overall image presented by JREF is unimpeachable. Sean will probably always be disappointed, because he is looking for proof that the money is fake. But there are ways to deal with these people that will, like AS posted, increase JREF's standing in the greater community. And I think that's really, really important.

So important, in fact, that I'd be willing to help out pro bono, if I could. I'm in marketing, and I think other people around here are, too. I know there's not a lot that someone can do without being a full-time employee or consultant, but if you can see what I'm saying and you agree that it's important, too, well . . . maybe the people on this forum can work to improve the organization.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER Originally posted by Beleth
Which is Sean? Do you consider him a sincere applicant, or do you consider him a fraud?Form your own opinion from Sean's latest email:Okay, I admit it, it was a trick question of the False Dilemma kind.

The correct answer was "None of the above - since he hasn't applied, he's not officially an applicant, so we can't tell whether he's a sincere one or not; and since we can't tell whether his claim is fraudulent or not, we can't call him a fraud either."

Gee. I guess we won't be seeing any Challenge application from this guy who made such a big deal out of the million bucks, and how it doesn't exist, or it's in junk bonds, or the prize is a sham.

I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!He expressed concerns. Nothing more. He never implied that the million bucks doesn't exist, or how it's in junk bonds; you inferred that from his questions.

He's dotting his i's and crossing his t's before he enters into a contract worth a million dollars. Is that a difficult action to understand?

Maybe I know just a little bit more about my job than you do, Beleth...just maybe?What does any of this have to do with your job? It's not about your job; it's about your demeanor.

Or maybe you'll choose instead to take me to task for not granting his request to remove his emails from the forum. Go ahead.Um... no. You will not be bullying me into doing anything, KRAMER.

I posted THIS last email (I hope it's the last, anyway) in order to bring closure to a most contentious debate, whose bottom line is and has always been, DO YOU HAVE A CLAIM, OR DON'T YOU?"Actually, the bottom line has always been "In what form is the prize disbursed in?" But if you haven't realized that yet....

The answer is now abundantly clear... A complete waste of time, both yours and mine.Only because you and Randi have treated him as such from square 1. Rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by rebecca
But there are ways to deal with these people that will, like AS posted, increase JREF's standing in the greater community. And I think that's really, really important.Abso-doodly-lutely.

So important, in fact, that I'd be willing to help out pro bono, if I could. I'm in marketing, and I think other people around here are, too. I know there's not a lot that someone can do without being a full-time employee or consultant, but if you can see what I'm saying and you agree that it's important, too, well . . . maybe the people on this forum can work to improve the organization. I do a lot of technical writing, and I try to make it as accessible to the average person as possible. While the wording of the Challenge is, as KRAMER mentioned, precisely worded by a lawyer, legalese is commonly understood to be difficult to wade through by the average person.

What I'm getting at is this: The Challenge could benefit greatly by having a FAQ, and I'm willing to write it (pro bono) if you want.

[KRAMER]

A FAQ is a great idea. You go ahead and do that, and I will submit it to Randi and try to convince him that it would do some good to post it alongside the Challenge application.

[Beleth]

Woo hoo! Coolness!

I'll get the outline done and PM it to you by the end of the week.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by rebecca
However, they are out there recruiting people who are on the fence about this stuff . . . people who never really considered whether or not it's plausible that someone could bend a spoon with his mind. Those are the people we're losing when someone like Sean posts that e-mail exchange on his site.

OK, let me get this straight before I strongly disagree with you:

Are you actually saying that reading an email exchange between myself (or any JREF representative who takes a position similar to mine) and a beliggerent applicant, will actually cause someone (who hasn't considered the plausibilty of whether or not a spoon can be bent via the powers of the mind) to be "lost" to his own delusions?

Really? One more time, just to be sure, please.

Are you saying that someone on the fence will go to the sloppy side because of an email exchange he reads?

Cuz that's what it sounds like you're saying, and you know what?
If that's actually true, let 'em go.

We need more crticial thinkers, not more sloppy thinkers, and anyone who can be convinced about what is plausible and what is not as the result of their assessment of an email exchange, well, that's not someone I'd want on my team.

Some people will play with just about anybody.

We need to strengthen our ranks. We do NOT need to see them thinned to a homeopathic dillution by people so easily swayed.
They wouldn't remain in our camp for long, anyway.

I'd rather just have a 5-man ball club than a 9-man club with 4 blind guys.

I hope that we can agree to disagree here, and that you will not take offense at my language, as no offense whatsoever was intended.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Beleth
...he hasn't applied, he's not officially an applicant, so we can't tell whether he's a sincere one or not..."

You can't, but I can.

He withdrew his interest without ever revealing his claim. Doesn't this tell you anything?

Come on, now. The whole thing may have been a ruse, devised solely to draw the kind of responses he received. I now think that that's a lot more possible than him having been sincere.

The whole thing just stinks, if you ask me. I can smell it. He never had a claim. If he did, give me one good reason for him having refused to divulge it?

Careful. Think hard before you answer. You might be getting ready to step into whatever it is I'm smelling right now.

p.s. I just spoke with Randi and he's very anxious to see the FAQ.
This was a great idea. I wish I'd thought of it.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
He withdrew his interest without ever revealing his claim. Doesn't this tell you anything?I can infer a lot from it, but it doesn't really tell me anything, no.

Here is a true story.

I was at a fast food restaurant. I had just finished eating and had to go to the bathroom. I got up and went to the bathroom door. I turned the handle. It was locked.

A very irritated voice on the other side of the bathroom door yelled "I SAID, IT'S OCCUPIED!"

I was so startled that I didn't know what to do. So I left the restaurant and found another bathroom.

Now, obviously the person in the bathroom mistook me for someone else who had tried the doorknob earlier. There might have been quite a few people before me who had tried the doorknob. I had no way of knowing, and I had no way of knowing that the person in the bathroom was going to be so angry.

What was the person in the bathroom thinking? Probably something along the lines of "Not again! How many times do I have to go through this? Whoever that is on the outside of the door is just trying to annoy me."

Now eventually, that person had to have come out of the bathroom. They didn't see me, or anyone else, standing there waiting to use the bathroom. What are they to think?

The analogous thought to your situation with Sean is "bah, they didn't have to go to the bathroom after all." But is that likely? Is that reasonable?

I would say that it is not the most reasonable conclusion to draw, no. And it is certainly not the truth; let me assure you that I did indeed have to go to the bathroom.


Come on, now. The whole thing may have been a ruse, devised solely to draw the kind of responses he received. I now think that that's a lot more possible than him having been sincere.Or maybe he simply had no idea how many people had tried the bathroom doorknob before him.

The whole thing just stinks, if you ask me. I can smell it. He never had a claim. If he did, give me one good reason for him having refused to divulge it?I've given you my good reason in a previous post: that he wants to dot his i's and cross his t's before he gets involved in a million-dollar contract.

Careful. You might be getting ready to step into whatever it is I'm smelling right now. Must resist temptation to continue the bathroom analogy...

[exarch]

Coming into the discussion after most has been said already, but I want to emphasize this bit:Originally posted by KRAMER
Excuse me, but you are conveniently exclusing some vital data, as follows:

A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request.
Was this not a "clear, polite response"?People posting in this thread didn't know this yet, so this was new information. But for me it put Sean's questions in perspective.

At this point I'd take Beleth's tennant/landlord metaphor and transform it into an employee/employer situation. The potential employee has been told that he will be paid X amount of money after completing a month's work. Insisting that the employer provides proof that he can actually pay the wages before even being hired is ... well ... strange. Especially after already having received a letter from the employers bank basically saying there's enough money in the account anyway.

How the employer has his money stored - whether it's stuffed in a pillow case, stored in the basement in the form of Picasso paintings or just a big cardboard check in the back of someone's car - is really not important.
So if the employer tells the employee to sod off after being asked the same stupid question a number of times is, while perhaps being a tad rude, not at all unexpected.
Or as both Kramer and Randi put it: sign the contract and you can see a lot more documentation, until then, who are you to question us like that.


So while I agree with rebecca, and everyone else who raised some questions about how the JREF responds to applicants, I think Kramer has a point too when he doesn't want to drag on an e-mail exchange that he knows will lead nowhere.

I think a FAQ would be a very useful addition, and might reduce the number of stupid questions people ask the JREF, or at least make the response as easy as "Check http://www.randi.org/challenge/FAQ.html for an answer to your question".

[webfusion]

Rebecca and several others in this thread have offered you some excellent suggestions and constructive criticism.

Yeah, and it boils down to "be more polite" ---
Which BTW, was the exact same criticism offered in another thread, about TC Albin (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51620&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) where a guy was telling Kramer he could make it snow in July in Kansas (then changed his mind and decided it would be easier to make it snow in Oakland on July 27th).


What is this, 'be nice' forum?

Bleah!
http://www.danesheriff.com/images/angry.gif

[Beleth]

Rough FAQ outline sent. It's just twenty questions so far, with no answers. I'm sure more questions will arise, and the answers will come after that.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KRAMER
OK, let me get this straight before I strongly disagree with you:

Are you actually saying that reading an email exchange between myself (or any JREF representative who takes a position similar to mine) and a beliggerent applicant, will actually cause someone (who hasn't considered the plausibilty of whether or not a spoon can be bent via the powers of the mind) to be "lost" to his own delusions?


Um. No. I'm saying that there are people in the world who don't come equipped with a knack for critical thinking and inherent knowledge and trust of the JREF. I'd like to show those people how to think critically, and let them know that the JREF challenge is an honest one. When a bit of Googling shows the JREF treating believers like crap and dismissing people out of hand, they're going to wonder who the good guys are.

You can't really care that little about how the general populace views the skeptical community, can you?

Originally posted by KRAMER
I hope that we can agree to disagree here, and that you will not take offense at my language, as no offense whatsoever was intended.

I'll let you know when I'm offended. Wait, do I get offended? I don't think so.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by webfusion
Yeah, and it boils down to "be more polite" ---
Which BTW, was the exact same criticism offered in another thread, about TC Albin (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51620&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) where a guy was telling Kramer he could make it snow in July in Kansas (then changed his mind and decided it would be easier to make it snow in Oakland on July 27th).


What is this, 'be nice' forum?

Bleah!
http://www.danesheriff.com/images/angry.gif

Ha. You have no idea how ironic that is to ask me that, of all people, given my history of posts on this forum (OK, not recently, but I've severely curtailed the quantity and substance of my posts in the last year and a half).

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by rebecca

I'll let you know when I'm offended. Wait, do I get offended? I don't think so.

Content removed.

There. Good enough for you?

AS

Several posts in this exchange have been reported. If this goading is in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame. If not, consider this a warning to be more civil, and to clean up the language.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Content removed.

There. Good enough for you?

AS

Ha ha ha, actually it's funny, I was just trying to think, "Has anyone on this forum ever actually offended me?" And then it hit me, yes. That bastard AmateurScientist managed to do it once. Once. Though technically it wasn't on THIS forum.

And I'm pretty sure you could never do it again.

[IXP]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Content removed.


There. Good enough for you.

I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP

[rebecca]

Originally posted by IXP
I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP

I know this was not directed at me, but . . .

Who are you?

By the way, you spelled your three letter name wrong on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870774986#post1870774986) just a few minutes ago. I thought you would want to know.

Originally posted by IXP
Kramer,

This is a great idea. Offer them $1000 just to go through the test, BUT, require that the post the results a link to JREF if they fail. Bet it won't cost you a penny.

IPX

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by rebecca
Ha ha ha, actually it's funny, I was just trying to think, "Has anyone on this forum ever actually offended me?" And then it hit me, yes. That bastard AmateurScientist managed to do it once. Once. Though technically it wasn't on THIS forum.

And I'm pretty sure you could never do it again.

I love it when you call me bastard. Now, go eat a baloney sandwich.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by IXP
I know this was not directed at me, but...

I am a fan of John Waters and Frank Zappa. Nothing you could do could offend me. Why don't you try to impress me instead? So far, you have not earned the right be offensive.

IXP

Ha. I've paid my dues here and I've offended nearly everyone in the process, especially the powers that be, except for Darat and Diezel. I have no interest in impressing you and I couldn't give a sh*t what you think of me. F*ck off.

I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wickedly funny.

AS

edit: thanks Lisa

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wicky funny.

AS

Wicky funny?

John Waters guest starred in one of my favorite Simpsons episodes. The gay steel mill is classic.

[IXP]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love John Waters and Zappa too. Most pop music is toothpaste. Waters delights in tacky kitch. He's wicky funny.

AS

And you, my friend, are not.

IXP

[IXP]

Originally posted by rebecca
I know this was not directed at me, but . . .

Who are you?

By the way, you spelled your three letter name wrong on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870774986#post1870774986) just a few minutes ago. I thought you would want to know.

Alas Rebecca, I shall cease and desist in defending thy virtues. Oh, the trials to which the pure of heart is subjected, one typo and I am cast into fiery abyss. Sigh...

IPX

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by IXP
And you, my friend, are not.

IXP

Whatever, man. As you don't know me, I suggest you don't try to be funny to me without getting me. You don't.

AS

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Not that you need to bother about my opinion, but if you should ask me, I'd say that you should handle this in a more professional, and less emotional way. Shure, you have a lot of crackpots at your hands, but why get your panties all in a knot over that? Make yourself a bunch of template answers for all that crap, and give them that. Would take less time, too.

So, if somebody asks about the bonds, write an answer, send it, and file it, for the next idiot.

You know, it is a question about image; you cannot change the minds of the crackpots, but when they cite your answers to more cool heads, make shure those heads recognize who are the crackpots and who are not.

Just my 10c (or whatever it is).

Hans

I totally agree with you, Hans.

Randi should just have a standardized email explaining in sufficient details how the $1 million is kept, how this can be verified, and how it might be distributed to applicants. If that, for whatever reason, is insufficient, then I'd feel more comfortable calling the person out as a crank and a waste of time.

I don't know how many times, in my former job, I would re-send emails on common topics, and my job didn't even include dealing with the public. It usually saved time, bridged understanding gaps, and kept my explanations consistent. It was always to my benefit.

To reiterate, a standard FAQ like Beleth is making:

- saves time
- clears up misunderstandings
- keeps information consistent

*Cheers for Beleth*

Beleth, if you are drafting/editing any responses, do include the great information Keri posted in this thread earlier regarding financial transparency and the IRS forms available for publc view.

[IXP]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Whatever, man. As you don't know me, I suggest you don't try to be funny to me without getting me. You don't.

AS
I know this much: Your contribution to this thread is inconsequential. I am not the one trying to be funny, you are, and you are failing miserably. Please crawl back into your back issues of Scientific American.

IXP

[Zep]

Now now, no bickering necessary.

And as usual, I'm late to comment...

KRAMER,

While I appreciate that some of these people emailing you are apparently just pests, I endorse the comments about being careful who you may offend. Not because we don't want to offend the poor widdle woo-woos, but because any rudeness to ANYONE will redound badly many-fold on JREF. I agree with Rebecca - there is a large component of PR required in some responses. Woos are very good at generating smoke-screens about confronting their claims, and rudeness on JREF's part simply adds fuel to their flames, not clarity to the situation.

Of course, with a little thought, you can certainly pen the most polite of brief responses that still leave little doubt to the reader that they have clearly been told to put up or shut up. It's just HOW you say that. Here's a draft form letter which I would send in response to any enquiries about the prize. No more needs to be said after this.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your enquiry has been received and processed. Via the internationally reputable banking firm Goldman Sachs, we attach certified documentary proof of the available assets to immediately fund the JREF Challenge prize, should it ever need to be awarded.

The JREF Challenge rules are a legally binding contract for both JREF and any applicants. When awarding the prize, these assets will be used to fund the US$1,000,000 prize in a form the prize winner will accept. JREF will award the prize money to any recipient(s) the Challenge winner nominates.

We look forward to your application, should you wish to take the JREF Challenge to win this prize.

Yours sincerely, etc.Any further silly questions - send the same letter again, sans Goldman Sachs documents.

Note that this does NOT say you have not given peebrain sufficient information with which to make a reasoned and informed decision. But do please remember that some of these people also have trouble finding the same bus-stop each day. So expecting them to implicitly know and appreciate that the Challenge is indeed a contract and that legal consequences therefore follow is like expecting me to understand jokes in Russian - it's so forlorn a hope as to be a lost cause.

I, too, have read the Challenge rules many times, and I would comment that the wording does indeed support what you say about the prize holding and awarding and so on. HOWEVER it is also rather subtle in how that conclusion is reached, and it CAN also be fairly reasonably interpreted as peebrain actually did. Therefore, in a LEGAL sense, the possibility of intepretation in a certain sense means it CAN be read that way, which opens up avenues that JREF really does not want opened, I imagine. In other words, the Challenge section about the prize holding and awarding really needs to be completely unambiguous and expressed in simple words of one syllable or less for the dummies. No doubt there are US legal types here who can pen something suitable rather quickly.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I love it when you call me bastard. Now, go eat a baloney sandwich.

AS

I think you mean ribs. Content removed.


Originally posted by PIX
Alas Rebecca, I shall cease and desist in defending thy virtues. Oh, the trials to which the pure of heart is subjected, one typo and I am cast into fiery abyss. Sigh...

IPX

Please. My virtue (like a soul, its existence is suspect) needs no defense. You know not of what you post.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by IXP
I know this much: Your contribution to this thread is inconsequential. I am not the one trying to be funny, you are, and you are failing miserably. Please crawl back into your back issues of Scientific American.

IXP

Ummm...except for what I posted on Page Two and to which KRAMER responded substantially. I appreciate his doing do, and I consider our exchange to be meaningful and not inconsequential.

I have two things to say to you. One, know who you are talking to before you butt in on an inside joke and make some irrelevant and foolish remark. Two, don't be a dick.

Good day to you. Oh, and lighten up, Francis.

AS

[Beleth]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Beleth, if you are drafting/editing any responses, do include the great information Keri posted in this thread earlier regarding financial transparency and the IRS forms available for publc view. I absolutely plan to. I'm still just in the question-writing phase, but I plan on spending quite a bit of space answering the question "Does the money really exist?"

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by rebecca
I think you mean ribs. Content removed.




Oh, go throw some snow in some innocent kid's face, will ya?

AS

[IXP]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Oh, go throw some snow in some innocent kid's face, will ya?

AS

AS, Rebecca,

Don't you two have a car?

IXP

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by IXP
AS, Rebecca,

Don't you two have a car?

IXP

At least one of us does, I believe. That's a better response. Thanks.

Beers now?

AS

[IXP]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
At least one of us does, I believe. That's a better response. Thanks.

Beers now?

AS
I think I need something stronger.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Gee. Really? Well, I have a simple solution for the Woo Woo Clan...I really don't understand the hostility. I started putting together quotes from the thread, but I don't really want to get into a nit-pick argument. That isn't the point. It seems to me that in the initial correspondnce Sean was polite and clear and that he was not making a claim but just asking some questions about confusing information on the JREF site because his research of the challenge indicated that the challenge may not be ligitimate. If a preson reads that the JREF challenge is a scam and they don't believe it, what should that person do? He states that his questions were based on concerns raised from resaerch of the Challenge and that he had looked carefully at the JREF site (both the Challenge rules and other informaion on the JREF site) and discovered a questionable sentence and asked for clarification. This has resulted in something--removal of the questionable sentence that was the foundation of Sean's whole concern and a possible FAQ.

Sheesh! It seems to me that Sean should have been congratulated on his skepticism, critcal thinking, and discovery of an inacurate statement on the website that even Randi, Kramer. or other JREF staff responsible for the sentence had overlooked. ;)

One of the things that turned me off of woo-woo belief is that they refused to answer questions, were hostile to anyone that did not agree with them, turned people words around against them, etc. Woo-woos HAVE to do that, otherwise people will find out the truth. Truth seekers don't HAVE to do that because they can just provide the truth. Of course there is a point where you have to say that you won't respond to somone because they are playing these games--but you do that AFTER you have answered people's questions and don't resort to the same games. I just get irritated when truth-seekers get caught up in the same games as woos. Enough from me on that.

On the FAQ: I previously said in this thread that Kramer should have answered the questions or directed the person to a website that addressed the questions. I though about adding in that JREF should make a FAQ that they could point to since they seem to get so many questions about the money, but then decided against it. The reason is that if people already nit-pick at the Challenge rules and application, then a FAQ would just be more language, and probably in more vague terms, that people just looking for something to nit-pick at can go after. So you might end up getting more (rather than less) emails questioning the language of the FAQs, which is even more further removed from the purpose of the Challenge. It will be interesting to see what the FAQ looks like. If there is anything left to question in the rules and applicantion, then why not just revise the rules and application rather than expanding the clarifications into a FAQ which can then be questioned as to its controlling authority of the rules?

I've done this before found that sometimes a FAQ works and sometimes it backfires. My guess is that you will see a backfire, but I'd have to see the FAQ. I didn't see any point to a FAQ in this case because the Challenge rules very clearly and unquestionably describe how the funds will be awarded. The root and cause of the problem was a sentence outside of rules and application contract that "summarized" or "described" the challenge rules. A FAQ would probably be a summary, description, or clarification of the Challenge rules. My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules. If there had not been the "summary" or "description", then Sean would have only looked at the Challenge rules and would not have found any discrepancies and would not have raised this whole thread. Sean should have been told from the very get-go that the statement about "the prize being bonds" was just an attempt at a brief summary of the Challenge which is not completely accurate and will be fixed, and that the controlling authority of the Challenge is the Challenge rules which explicitly state that the prize winner gets US $1 million.

I'd rather see JREF go toward the opposite of a FAQ, and say "here are the rules and here is the application". That is it. That is the challenge. The rules are the rules. If anyone raises valid objections to the clarity of the rules or the application, JREF should address the questions or recognize that the rules or application need revision and do so. The rules are the rules. Period. Simple. :)

[SezMe]

Originally posted by KRAMER
But, overall, my impression of the advice (from some) is that the JREF's PR appearance is more important than the work we endeavor to accomplish. It is not.
Jumping in here late, Kramer, this is a false impression. The proponents are not (to imitate 1inC) arguing that PR is "more important" than your work, they are arguing that it is part and parcel of your work. It's not an either/or thing.

Appearance, impressions, and attitude can make a huge difference in way you may never know about. You surely know this.

I thought of the FAQ about page 2 as well, but I think you, Kramer, are going to have to play a very large role in it. You should think of every question you have gotten and generalize it to one that covers the point and then provide the answer. I don't see how an outsider without your experience can do it.

And when it is up and available, when you tell a pest for the hundredth time to go read the FAQ, say "please" every last time.

[PixyMisa]

Feh.

A FAQ is a good idea.

But for the pests, simply say "Dear (whomever), your question has been answered. Until we receive a notorised application, all further email from you will be blocked by our spam filter."

Um, and then block them with your spam filter.

There are infinitely many idiots and we each have only a finite amount of time to appreciate the wonders of the world. Cut one idiot off, right up front, and you'll have time to eat one more flower (or whatever floats your particular boat).

[athon]

Originally posted by SezMe
Jumping in here late, Kramer, this is a false impression. The proponents are not (to imitate 1inC) arguing that PR is "more important" than your work, they are arguing that it is part and parcel of your work. It's not an either/or thing.

Appearance, impressions, and attitude can make a huge difference in way you may never know about. You surely know this.

I thought of the FAQ about page 2 as well, but I think you, Kramer, are going to have to play a very large role in it. You should think of every question you have gotten and generalize it to one that covers the point and then provide the answer. I don't see how an outsider without your experience can do it.

And when it is up and available, when you tell a pest for the hundredth time to go read the FAQ, say "please" every last time.

I was trying to come up with a way of addressing this, but see that SezMe has already put my feelings into words rather well.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I assume that the core goal of the JREF is educating the public. Thinking critically is unforutnately not a natural thing to do and most people don't have our ability to see why some belief might be incredible. We often take that for granted and think that any person who sees ghosts in their television screen is a certified whacko with all of the trimmings.

This in itself is not helpful to anybody. The 'us vs. them' mentality is too easy to develop, but is misleading in the least and pure nonsense in the most. Again I think that short, but polite, statements (even repeated over and over again, if it needs be) will give the higher ground and while it might not always do a lot of good, it never does any harm.

I always come up against people who want to find the stupidest things to argue about. They find irrelevant points to nit-pick and defend, all in order to post-pone an outcome (usually a detention). Some are downright hostile, and very rarely do they use any form of manners or politeness. I feel that as an educator, my role is not just to teach that one kid (which is indeed often impossible), but to demonstrate to all those watching the dispute that my position is not based on emotion but is based on a principle.

I like to hope that by not showing my frustration that those who see my behaviour are paying more attention to what I'm saying more than just how I'm saying it.

Maybe I'm just being elitist, but I think it is very important that we see that our behaviour goes a long way to influencing how our cause is perceived, whether we like it or not.

Athon

[jmercer]

You know, I told myself I was done with this thread... but I can't just let the most recent set of posts go unanswered. I work in a customer-service oriented industry, and grew up in a resort town where all the jobs were pretty much customer service in nature. I fully understand the points made here about politeness, professionalism, etc. In fact, I practice them daily.

However, Kramer is not selling a product. He is not providing a service that people pay for. He is not soliciting participation in anything, attempting to get donations, or providing educational information to the public. He is, of course, acting as a contact for JREF, and should conduct himself professionally... which the vast majority of the time is true. And when he acts less than politely, it appears to me that he usually has justification for his actions.

Perhaps a brief recap of what happened (in semi-chronological order) will help clarify this entire event.

Sean began his dialogue with JREF questioning the financial structure, availability and soundness of the million-dollar prize. He did so without submitting a claim, and refused to confirm or deny his intentions regarding submitting a claim. In other words, he simply questioned them about the money without any other justification for his queries than an apparent desire to know about the funds.

JREF's immediate (and apparently standard) reaction was to have Goldman-Sachs send him a letter verifying the availability of the funds. (This action was cited in Kramer's second post in this thread.) Additionally, the founder of the organization (Randi) assured Sean via email that the bonds were immediately convertible into money.

This apparently didn't satisfy Sean and he continued to pressure Kramer and Randi for more information. Apparently, it was at this point that both Randi and Kramer - based on their experience - determined that they were once again being jerked around by someone intent on wasting their limited time.

Kramer became curt - and yes, even somewhat rude - during his correspondence with Sean after this realization. However, from Kramer's perspective and experience, this was an utter dead-end, time-wasting discussion that had nothing to do with the primary purpose of Kramer's job - that of handling and processing claims.

Kramer then started this thread as an example of the types of non-claim nonsense that comes in for him to handle, and how some of these people simply demand attention and time from JREF without any intention of making a claim.

Sean, utterly gratis, joined the forum as "peebrain" - a vulgar reference obviously designed to get attention and sympathy about how he felt he was treated - and immediately posted about his confusion concerning bonds vs. cash. (Failing, I note, to mention anything at all about the letter from Goldman-Sachs and why it was insufficient to answer his questions.)

Following that post, Sean also launched a diatriabe against Kramer, accusing him of modifying the emails listed to show himself and Randi in a better light, etc. When he didn't get the reaction he wanted, he then complained that Kramer provided the answer to his questions in the forum, but refused to do so to him in email.

(Which, of course, was not true. There was nothing in the forum post that wasn't both in the emails and available in the agreement that Sean himself had cited during his private emails to JREF.)

He then claimed that his confusion was that he (Sean) thought the bonds were the prize. (So why didn't he simply ask the question "Are the bonds the prize, or do you pay out in cash?" instead of asking all sorts of detailed questions about the bonds themselves?)

When a number of posters began to respond to Sean's comments by asking about what his claim is, he provided completely evasive answers - just as he did to Randi and Kramer.

Keri then did a wonderful job of explaining to Sean how the financial aspect of using bonds as liquid assets normally works. Sean thanked her, but also responded by saying he still doubted the existence of the funds. (There's a big "Aha!" right here in my opinion.)

Keri posted a link to JREF's 990 from 2003. Sean ignored that post (in fact, he never posted here again) and sent Kramer a private email accusing him of evading Sean's questions. Kramer posted that email in this thread.

Sean then sent Kramer this (apparently) final email:

From Sean (peebrain) to Kramer
Dear Kramer,

I was unaware that you were posting messages. I do not wish to pursue this matter further.

Incidentally,after looking around your site, I find your work very interesting, and I wish you luck with refuting claims that are not valid. A great deal of progress that has been made in our world has been made from people such as yourself who have said "No. That is not true. That is absurd." There are certainly a lot of off the wall things being said on your website.

Would you kindly take my messages off of the internet? I thought that the messages were going to be kept private. I see that you are very tough with people who cannot back up their claims, and I respect you for it. The world needs someone like you bury kooky ideas and claims.

Please e-mail me to confirm that you have taken the messages off.

Good luck in your endeavors to refute the absurd!

-Sean


If I've misrepresented the intent of Sean's posts or emails, please correct me.

When you look at all of this in context, Sean wasted Randi's time; Kramer's time; ignored all the information he was given; attacked Kramer and JREF; wasted OUR time in the forums; created an internal furor over JREF and Kramer; outright lied about some things (see above) and apparently never intended to submit a claim! And to create all this confusion, all he did was ask a valid question - then continually refused to accept the responses given.

(Personally, I'm glad this jerk was given short shrift - he deserved it.)

If anything good came out of this, it's that the wording of the prize was made less confusing, and there may be a FAQ made available that will allow Kramer and Randi to simply say "Go and look at this FAQ, then come back if you have any questions."

This, of course, is simply my interpretation of the events... but I thought it would appropriate to provide a summary version of this week-long debacle.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by rebecca
You can't really care that little about how the general populace views the skeptical community, can you?

I care so much it's killing me. Believe me.

I placate myself with the personal conviction that within that general populace you refer to are those who CAN be swayed, and those who cannot. Those who cannot are already on the sloppy side, and and are more than likely doomed to remain there. Those who CAN, however, will not be swayed toward the sloppy side by something as tertiary as me getting testy with one or two applicants out of 100. If they wish to be selective about what they focus on - meaning the one or two outweighing the 98, in their vision - then those are precisely the people I cannot focus on. Such thinking is most often set in stone, if not reinforced steel.

Please understand that I have no time piece on my desk that rings when it's OK for me to get pissy with an applicant. It happens quite naturally, and always as a result of legal threats.
It's a personality flaw of mine that I am not proud of. Some people go ballistic when they're channel surfing and happen upon Chris Hitchens. Me? I go ballistic when people I'm trying to assist start talking about their "legal counsel". What can I say, other than that I recognize it as indefensible. Understandble? I think so.
Defensible? No, I do not think so, try as I might.

Would it help any if I said that I agree with most of the criticism leveled against me here, and that I will strive harder to be more "polite" with ALL applicants, regardless of their tone and timbre?

This is not unlike turning the other cheek, you know. I just don't have an abundance of cheeks to turn to.

As regards this specific applicant, though, really, Randi told him "I won't go into it any further with you."

If the applicant had any sense of decorum at all, he'd have respected that statement, and simply made his decision about whether or not to apply (if he did indeed have a claim, which I doubt) without harrassing us as he did.

He had the right to inquire. He also had to the right to ignore our insistence that we would not discuss it any further. That, however, does not mean that the JREF had an obligation to continue engaging him in a debate that we did not wish to partake in.

Was my decision on how to deal with this matter to be based upon how the JREF looks to the skeptical community (and those "on the fence"), or was it to be based upon common sense, protocol, and Randi's wishes?

I kind of think that Randi has every right to dictate procedure on such matters, don't you?

[webfusion]

excellent recap, jmercer --- a million words, a million insults hurled, a million bucks waiting to be claimed --- all-in-all this was another perfect thread to show anyone who has any doubts about the pure million $$$ entertainment value of these forums (and the million laughs they generate).


Beleth who is trying to make a F A Q herself actually showed why the F A Q is useless --
"Rough FAQ outline sent. It's just twenty questions so far, with no answers. I'm sure more questions will arise, and the answers will come after that."

ipso facto F ^ < K the FAQ .

Devils Advocate neatly summed up (on Feb 8th) the downside for a set of extra questions and answers, both from a legal standpoint and from a linguistic standpoint as well:
"...My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules themselves..."
Just as DA said:
The rules are the rules. Period. Simple.

Words to live by ------- "apply or goodbye"
My Way or the Highway...
==============================

(edited to add) : KRAMER, we love you, man!

see ya.....

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by KRAMER
A FAQ is a great idea. You go ahead and do that, and I will submit it to Randi and try to convince him that it would do some good to post it alongside the Challenge application.

I am absolutely sure I suggested a FAQ for the challenge a year or two ago. Unfortunately, "FAQ" is under the minimum search requirements for number of letters, so I can't find it. Or else it was eaten by the reorganization of the Forum...

Beleth, perhaps you should start a thread asking for FAQ submissions. I'm sure more bodies could come up with a lot that you don't happen to think of.

[Phil]

Several posts in this thread have been reported, and I have removed some of the reported material. If you are goading another member in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame, especially if your inside jokes are not consistent with the topic of the thread. Please be civil, and keep the language within the guidelines of the Membership Agreement.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Phil
Several posts in this thread have been reported, and I have removed some of the reported material. If you are goading another member in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame, especially if your inside jokes are not consistent with the topic of the thread. Please be civil, and keep the language within the guidelines of the Membership Agreement.

Oh for the love of.....!

"There are millions of Africans starving right now. You don't even *********** care. You're more offended I sad ***********, than you are about the starving people."

[athon]

I guess it comes down to a simple disagreement, once again. Personally if it is a making basic choice of using several words on the back of a curt but informative statement to make it more polite, or saying 'Apply or Goodbye', then I feel the former would be my choice.

I say this because in my experience, it is not as cut and dry as having two sides of the fence; the unconvincable whacko's and those who will be eventually pursuaded by good reason. We're all human and can be influenced easily by emotion over reason.

It's all too easy to take the higher ground here and act like we're above people because we have the ability to think critically. Not everybody has that ability, and not because they are stupid or angry or retarded or even insane. Basically it's not something people do naturally.

A FAQ could be useful if Kramer feels that some questions are answered over and over again. He could simply refer them to the page and say, 'Please note, you'll find all of the information you need to apply here. I can assist further if you have an application.' If they write further, ignore them. Simpler than getting the blood pressure up, surely.

Ultimately I don't think this is really a massive, significant issue, and is not really a big criticism meant to change the way anybody goes about their business. But I do fear that a hard-a*sed attitude of 'My way or the Highway' does nobody any favours. And makes us sound like a mob of stuck-up twats.

Athon

[exarch]

Originally posted by KRAMER

[...]

As regards this specific applicant, though, really, Randi told him "I won't go into it any further with you."

[...]
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a boilerplate e-mail basically saying "We have nothing further to talk about." in a polite, friendly way, that you can keep sending to pesky people who continue harassing you. They should get the idea after having received it two or three times ...

[CptColumbo]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Oh for the love of.....!

"There are millions of Africans starving right now. You don't even *********** care. You're more offended I sad ***********, than you are about the starving people."

What does that have to do with the subject being discussed. There are thousands of paraplegics in the world that aren't being discussed. There are millions who have cancer, there are millions who can't read, there are millions who have no shoes, there are millions who thought Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of the Clones was a great movie, and millions of DUI accidents a week. If you care about any of those subjects, I'm sure there is a forum for you. Otherwise, if you wish to continue to write on this forum there are rules. You just have to be more creative with your use of colorful metaphors.

[KRAMER]

OK, I'm not posting any more correspondences with people who haven't officially applied yet. When I thought of doing so, I puffed up like a rooster with pride, and thought myself a brilliant forum innovator. Every forum member a fly-on-the-wall. Genius. Duh.

I was wrong.

These people are NOT applicants. They're something else. I used to call them "potential applicants", but now, after almost a year here at JREF, I know they're not even that, as each and every one of them declined to actually apply. Their motives shouldn't interest me, although I have expressed great curiosity over such notions here in the forum. Such curiosity is best kept close to my breast, I now believe. It's just not productive.

I suppose that calling them "inquirers" is the best thing to do, but most who inquire in the same fashion as the man who sparked this controversy have secret motives that we can only surmise about. Without even the slightest inkling of what their claim might be, we are left to wonder.

I've accomplished what I wanted to by offering a glimpse into the daily influx of doggy doo that rolls my way. I've stated those goals here previously, so I won't re-state them.

It seems a judgement has been handed down that suggests that this is how the JREF deals with Challenge applicants, and I believe that this is quite unwarranted. Many simply will not submit an application, and I can see them coming very clearly... "Clear as an azure sky of deepest summer, Alec, my boy."

Randi doesn't want potential applicants spoonfed. I agree with him. Every possible question is answered in the Challenge rules, if one is capable of - or willing to - understand them. Hence, the proposed FAQ has been deemed unnecessary, as it merely re-words answers to questions that need not be asked, IF one has carefully read the Challenge rules. Perhaps those unable to understand the rules, as concise as they are, should not apply.

Yes - perhaps understanding the rules is a prerequisite for applying.

So, I'm quite through with this thread, and through with posting inquiries and exchanges I share with potential applicants.
Not that I am frustrated, or saying "I'm done with this" in any way. Hardly.

I'm simply stating that my goal in submitting these posts has been acheived in spades, sparked the debate I knew it might, and reached a kind of closure that many here might consider adequate. Anyone who disagrees can certainly feel free to carry on.

I humbly thank all of you who think I'm doing my best, and I also thank all those who offered sincere criticisms, which have inspired considerable examination and self-reflection. I am enriched as a result, and have nothing but gratitude for all who chose to take part in this thread, which I consider to be one of the most thought-provoking debates to date in the Challenge section of the forum.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by KRAMER
And guess what? Of the 100 or so potential applicants who requested them since I've been here, not one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON who received the Goldman Sachs letter, then sent in an application. A paltry few summoned the fortitude to send me emails stating that they STILL don't believe the money exists, but by and large, once we send the confrimation letters, we never hear a peep from them again.

Now THINK: What does this tell us



There was somethign that bothered me about this attitude, and I realized just recently what it was.

When my mother looks into buying a computer, which she does every once in a while, she often has me look over the specifications of something that was purported to be a good deal. She's also asks me to look up what is available and for what prices, based on what I thought she needed.

When my father-in-law died, my wife had me do his taxes for the next 2 years (until his estate was closed), because she neither had the time nor the familiarity with filling out the tax forms.

In other words, I am sometimes asked by people to research information that is within my competency.

The fact that someone inquires about the monetary nature of the JREF $1 Million does not mean that they intend to apply. It may mean that they are researching this for someone else's benefit.

Considering that major "psychics" like Sylvia and Alison DuBois contest the reality of the million (regardless of the facts), some unknown person, aware that there might be a controversy over the existence of the million, so this person might ask someone competent to do the research.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
What does that have to do with the subject being discussed. There are thousands of paraplegics in the world that aren't being discussed. There are millions who have cancer, there are millions who can't read, there are millions who have no shoes, there are millions who thought Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of the Clones was a great movie, and millions of DUI accidents a week. If you care about any of those subjects, I'm sure there is a forum for you. Otherwise, if you wish to continue to write on this forum there are rules. You just have to be more creative with your use of colorful metaphors.

Thanks! I wasn't aware that there are other forums. Or rules! Darn it I never knew there were rules! By ED why didn't anyone tell me there were rules?? Oh Admins, Admins... how? Not Kitty, or Darat, or Paul, or Mercutio... not a single one of you told me about rules! It took someone on the OUTSIDE of your admin abilities to tell me about these things!

I need a lawyer... no one told me anything about ...anything! Cuz, you know, the whole potential for misunderstanding is just too great...

[AmateurScientist]

Several posts in this exchange have been reported. If this goading is in fun, perhaps you might move to Flame. If not, consider this a warning to be more civil, and to clean up the language.

This is not directed at you, Phil.

This is directed at the "reporter(s)."

Grow up. Grow a sense of humor. Study some Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, David Cross, or Penn and Teller.

AS

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Considering that major "psychics" like Sylvia and Alison DuBois contest the reality of the million (regardless of the facts), some unknown person, aware that there might be a controversy over the existence of the million, so this person might ask someone competent to do the research.
Piffle.

Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone.

It's not a case of dealing with mostly honest customers and a few bad apples. First, these aren't customers, they are people who want JREF to give them something. Second, none of them, not one, have anything to offer.

A large part of Kramer's job seems to be separating the deluded-but-otherwise-honest applicants from the frauds and timewasters (and the out-and-out loonies).

The frauds and timewasters should be told to take a hike. They deserve no more, and probably less.

[jmercer]

Oh, my goodness, Pixy... I have to take lessons from you in brevity. :D

(writes down notes)

Well said!

[peebrain]

Originally posted by KRAMER
A verification letter from Goldman Sachs was sent immediately to this potential applicant, the very day we received his request

Where was this letter sent? To my email address? The only letters I received where the emails between Randi, and you, Kramer. A log of exactly what I have received is here:
http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

I have not received anything in my email account from "Goldman Sachs", and I haven't given you my home address, so I highly doubt you're mailing me a letter.

~Sean

[kittynh]

Look if posts get reported we have to treat those reports with respect. Seriously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kramer, does this mean you AREN'T going to post my recent PM to you?

You will be to blame if the million dollars just goes without any warning before hand. Keep an eye on the mail, that heavenly glowing package is from ME! You have my address right? Remind me to send you my legal name for the check.

I resent the implication that everyone that contacts Kramer about the prize is delusional or a fraud.

I haven't been delusional since I last oil painted without opening a window(it was winter....)

Fraud, ha! I gave that up after the whole, "Van Gogh did not use Sharpies" disaster.

[PixyMisa]

Da Vinci, I told her. You know where you are with da Vinci. But did she listen? No, had to be van Gogh.

[peebrain]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Form your own opinion from Sean's latest email:

[B]Dear Kramer,

I was unaware that you were posting messages. I do not wish to pursue this matter further.

Incidentally,after looking around your site, I find your work very interesting, and I wish you luck with refuting claims that are not valid. A great deal of progress that has been made in our world has been made from people such as yourself who have said "No. That is not true. That is absurd." There are certainly a lot of off the wall things being said on your website.

Would you kindly take my messages off of the internet? I thought that the messages were going to be kept private. I see that you are very tough with people who cannot back up their claims, and I respect you for it. The world needs someone like you bury kooky ideas and claims.

Please e-mail me to confirm that you have taken the messages off.

Good luck in your endeavors to refute the absurd!

-Sean

I did not send you this email. If you have received this email, then it is a fraud posing as me. These are not my words, I never wrote anything like that. Someone is lieing. The exact transcript of what I have sent is located at:
http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

THAT is all I've sent, and THAT is all I've received. I will keep a public copy of everything I have written so you can check to see if I truly wrote it. Again: I did NOT write the message above. If you have received that in your email, then it is a fraud. Perhaps we can check the message headers.

~Sean

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Piffle.

Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone.


I don't understand. I think the Challenge has to be credible, or it is useless, utterly useless. Even if everyone who applies or inquires are delusional or frauds.

In order to verify its credibility, you have to apply to the Challenge or else be brushed off by two curmudgeonly people?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by kittynh
Look if posts get reported we have to treat those reports with respect. Seriously.



What if I reported this post, Kitty? Do you think it should be afforded respect?

I have little to no respect for inappropriately delicate sensibilities. In this instance, the person or persons doing the reporting weren't even the posters ostensibly insulted. Why should the report of kidding around be treated with respect?

I don't get it at all. I loathe tattletelling. It deserves no respect, period. Seriously.

AS

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I don't understand. I think the Challenge has to be credible, or it is useless, utterly useless. Even if everyone who applies or inquires are delusional or frauds.

In order to verify its credibility, you have to apply to the Challenge or else be brushed off by two curmudgeonly people?
No.

But incessant questioning of the credibility of the Challenge fully merits a curmudgeonly brush-off.

[peebrain]

jmercer has posted a summary. I'm sorry for making multiple posts, but I'm sort of reading the latest updates as I'm going along, and commenting on each post as I come across it. I'll try to put the quotes from jmercer in italics.

Sean began his dialogue with JREF questioning the financial structure, availability and soundness of the million-dollar prize. He did so without submitting a claim, and refused to confirm or deny his intentions regarding submitting a claim. In other words, he simply questioned them about the money without any other justification for his queries than an apparent desire to know about the funds.

I agree.

JREF's immediate (and apparently standard) reaction was to have Goldman-Sachs send him a letter verifying the availability of the funds. (This action was cited in Kramer's second post in this thread.) Additionally, the founder of the organization (Randi) assured Sean via email that the bonds were immediately convertible into money.

No, I disagree. I first sent an email to Randi, and his immediate response was "I know nothing about your personal financial situation, which would dictate the answers to your questions...". Then I replied, and he replied with "If that's your problem, I can't take the time to console you. Apply, or go away." This was the intial contact. A log of this contact is available on the same place I keep referencing:
http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

This apparently didn't satisfy Sean and he continued to pressure Kramer and Randi for more information. Apparently, it was at this point that both Randi and Kramer - based on their experience - determined that they were once again being jerked around by someone intent on wasting their limited time.

I continued to pressure Randi, yes. Because at the time I felt he sidestepped my question, or didn't understand it. It is my understanding that Randi passed me off to Kramer. The first contact I had with Kramer was when Kramer emailed me saying that I should direct all questions to him, instead of Randi. This, again, can be seen in the email log.

Kramer became curt - and yes, even somewhat rude - during his correspondence with Sean after this realization. However, from Kramer's perspective and experience, this was an utter dead-end, time-wasting discussion that had nothing to do with the primary purpose of Kramer's job - that of handling and processing claims.

Kramer was immediately curt. In his reply from my first email to him, he told me I was full of sh*t.

Kramer then started this thread as an example of the types of non-claim nonsense that comes in for him to handle, and how some of these people simply demand attention and time from JREF without any intention of making a claim.

I agree.

Sean, utterly gratis, joined the forum as "peebrain" - a vulgar reference obviously designed to get attention and sympathy about how he felt he was treated - and immediately posted about his confusion concerning bonds vs. cash. (Failing, I note, to mention anything at all about the letter from Goldman-Sachs and why it was insufficient to answer his questions.)

Wrong. "Peebrain" has been my internet handle for 9 years. If this becomes a serious point, I can provide proof, but it's kind of silly in general. Actually, I had been a member from before, as you can check my Join date from my posts (July 2004 I think my join date is). I failed to mention the "Goldman Sachs" mail because I didn't receive it. Where is this? Did I miss it while reading the posts?

Following that post, Sean also launched a diatriabe against Kramer, accusing him of modifying the emails listed to show himself and Randi in a better light, etc. When he didn't get the reaction he wanted, he then complained that Kramer provided the answer to his questions in the forum, but refused to do so to him in email.

He DID modify the emails. If you compare what Kramer wrote on the forums, to what I have been subject to in private, it is a significant difference.

(Which, of course, was not true. There was nothing in the forum post that wasn't both in the emails and available in the agreement that Sean himself had cited during his private emails to JREF.)

I disagree. There was NO conversation about my questions in the emails, other than "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS".

He then claimed that his confusion was that he (Sean) thought the bonds were the prize. (So why didn't he simply ask the question "Are the bonds the prize, or do you pay out in cash?" instead of asking all sorts of detailed questions about the bonds themselves?)

This confusion came as a realization AFTER this thread was created. My initial question was based on the assumption the bonds where the prize. This assumption is an honest mistake, which is understandable enough for Kramer to edit the Challenge page.

When a number of posters began to respond to Sean's comments by asking about what his claim is, he provided completely evasive answers - just as he did to Randi and Kramer.

Again, I don't see how my paranormal claims relate to the relevance of my questions.

Keri then did a wonderful job of explaining to Sean how the financial aspect of using bonds as liquid assets normally works. Sean thanked her, but also responded by saying he still doubted the existence of the funds. (There's a big "Aha!" right here in my opinion.)

Yes, I still question it. Kramer didn't confirm any information Keri provided. Keri was not a representative of JREF, or connected to the Challenge in any way. She did a wonderful job presenting useful information - I agree.

Keri posted a link to JREF's 990 from 2003. Sean ignored that post (in fact, he never posted here again) and sent Kramer a private email accusing him of evading Sean's questions. Kramer posted that email in this thread.

I disagree. The last email I've sent Kramer is logged on my private website. It is dated "Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:20:03 -0500". The post of myself stating that I wasn't going to reply is dated: "02-07-2005 04:05 PM". Clearly, my post came AFTER my last e-mail.

Sean then sent Kramer this (apparently) final email:

Completely disagree. I did NOT write that e-mail. I don't know who did.

If I've misrepresented the intent of Sean's posts or emails, please correct me.

Which is the intention of this post. I'm sorry if this is a long read :-/.

When you look at all of this in context, Sean wasted Randi's time; Kramer's time; ignored all the information he was given; attacked Kramer and JREF; wasted OUR time in the forums; created an internal furor over JREF and Kramer; outright lied about some things (see above) and apparently never intended to submit a claim! And to create all this confusion, all he did was ask a valid question - then continually refused to accept the responses given.

This is not true. What did I lie about? I have interest in submitting a claim, but after this fiasco, I'm a little unsure. Still, my point is, which I keep repeating: I don't believe my claim is relevant to my questions.

(Personally, I'm glad this jerk was given short shrift - he deserved it.)

I believe you are judging that based on a scewed perspective. I have corrected the parts I found inaccurate in your summary. Perhaps you can re-evaluate my questions and intentions.

~Sean

[kittynh]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
What if I reported this post, Kitty? Do you think it should be afforded respect?

I have little to no respect for inappropriately delicate sensibilities. In this instance, the person or persons doing the reporting weren't even the posters ostensibly insulted. Why should the report of kidding around be treated with respect?

I don't get it at all. I loathe tattletelling. It deserves no respect, period. Seriously.

AS



We're talking about treating people that apply for the million dollars with respect. If you reported my post, believe it or not there is a system for dealing with it. Even if we disagree with your report, you deserve the respect of us looking at it. You have to ability to complain, or to report the people reporting you. The right to report any post you feel needs reporting is an option for any forum member. Even tattletales.

Cleo, hey, don't I have a retainer with you?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by peebrain
jmercer has posted a summary. I'm sorry for making multiple posts, but I'm sort of reading the latest updates as I'm going along, and commenting on each post as I come across it. I'll try to put the quotes from jmercer in italics.

[snipped a lot of stuff]

I believe you are judging that based on a scewed perspective. I have corrected the parts I found inaccurate in your summary. Perhaps you can re-evaluate my questions and intentions.

~Sean

Thanks for replying. It'll be interesting to see what everyone thinks as they look at the thread and compare my interpretation to yours. :D

[webfusion]

Sean, You certainly are persistent, dude.

We all are thrilled to see your defense, and the point-by-point continuation of a non-discussion by a non-applicant who is trying (still) to prove, what, exactly?

Why are you taking this to the next level? Do you think that anyone here really gives a damn at this point where you stand or what you did or did not write? You have ZERO credibility, you know that right? It doesn't matter now if the famous 'phony' resignation letter was sent from Mars, also it doesn't matter anymore what was said, when it was said and by whom.

What only should matter to you now is the following and the following only:

Apply or leave.

What part of that don't you understand?
I find it incredible to the extreme that you're posting more and more and more, it's totally beyond comprehension what you are seeking to prove now!

For your benefit, in case you missed my post way back from the first page of the thread to you:
Here's the money -- Randi has it all stashed away in that vault !!!
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/bankvault.jpg

Let's see your Application, OK? We need the entertainment, this week has been slow for woos.
Once the application is registered, you can take all the time you need in the forums to defend, explain, critique, deny, lie, review, examine, rebuke, whatever you want.

Until then - - shut up already!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by kittynh
We're talking about treating people that apply for the million dollars with respect. If you reported my post, believe it or not there is a system for dealing with it. Even if we disagree with your report, you deserve the respect of us looking at it. You have to ability to complain, or to report the people reporting you. The right to report any post you feel needs reporting is an option for any forum member. Even tattletales.

Cleo, hey, don't I have a retainer with you?

Ah Kitty, luv, luv, it's one thing to respond to it; going through the motions helps keep the peace. But responding to it the way it has been dealt with...perhaps the complainer has a valid point, but fail to see even that in this thread.

I have been under the impression, so long as I have known this forum, that threads can and do take on a life of their own; tangents occur and maybe they take over, maybe they fade. The flexibility is part of makes JREF forums so appealing, to me anyway.

[kittynh]

this is so going to be an after school special.

(grim music)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
No.

But incessant questioning of the credibility of the Challenge fully merits a curmudgeonly brush-off.

We apparently have 2 versions of the story line here:

One in which Kramer or Randi forwards a letter from Goldman-Sachs.

One is which it wasn't.

If Sean had received that letter, maybe his next question to Randi was "incessant questioning", maybe. Opinions can differ on that, and maybe, maybe through experience, it's OK to write him off after that question.

If he hadn't received it, well, then, both Randi and Kramer's ire seems a bit premature.

Regardless, when is it appropriate for a JREF representative to say to a member of the public that they're "full of sh*t" or "full of baloney"? What someone might deserve is often drastically different than what one should actually do.

[kittynh]

well, and I imagine you get some seriously mentally ill people applying. I know the people I do volunteer work with would possibly all have some good claims. God talks to them through the radio, things like that. To them, it IS real. Of course, I work on explaining things as well as I can, and I have to say the professionals that volunteer there are just the best.

I really wouldn't know about these applicants. Kitten mentioned someone that stopped by (and I don't think I can share the details) but I will say that this man was treated with respect, and if I remember a cup of coffee. I was touched by the kindness JREF showed. He could easily have been one of the people I work with. Only, perhaps they haven't written a book proving their delusions.

[jmercer]

What I find is the most ironically funny is that Sean isn't even an applicant. And he's not just refused to discuss his claim - he completely avoids the question of whether he even has a claim. :D

[Zep]

I agree that the majority of actual applicants for the Challenge are likely to be either woefully ignorant, or somewhere between quietly disturbed and straight out barking mad. And in all cases I think they should be treated with at least respect they deserve, initially. We have seen a number of examples of these people here on this forum already.

But the problem that has become obvious here in this thread is that not all ENQUIRIES about the Challenge are necessarily from applicants. Nor is all correspondence about the Challenge about enquiries or applications - obviously some are straight out pests bent purely on getting a rise out of Kramer and/or Randi for their own nefarious purposes.

And herein lies the problem. The very people you really do NOT want spreading any bad word about JREF and co. is this last class. They will gleefully take back to their snickering mates all the muck on JREF they can possibly rake. So my question is: Why give them any muck to rake at all? Better to treat all correspondence with pleasant demeanour...like a good head waiter or hotel concierge. Then no-one can take offense. What doesn't fly well IN PUBLIC are the "apply or shove off" responses, no matter how provoked the receiver - does a good waiter say "eat or shove off" if asked about the menu?

Equally clearly Kramer can't deal endlessly with the malcontents and the obsessives and hope to stay sane (and I'd say he is close to the edge now! :)). What he obviously needs instead are tested mechanisms that satisfactorily and permanently deflect these malcontents with aplomb, perhaps give the disturbed people a push in a helpful direction, and filter IN the genuine applicants. All without causing Kramer and Randi and others ongoing nuisance.

I believe the FAQ idea does have merit as a first line of enquiry. No doubt many questions will get answered there, and it may reduce the overall volume of emails Kramer gets anyway.

The second line should be a set of general purpose template responses (i.e. form letters) that spell out in clear detail the Rules and Operation of the JREF Challenge, including the above discussion of the Prize funding. Maybe even just one good one will do. All wording to be pleasant and neutral in stance, not offensive at all. A nice PDF format document, including the latest Goldman Sachs letter, should be easy to create. It might even be downloadable off this website, and could also contain an official application form for the Challenge!

The next line should be a process of filtering, which Kramer does already. Persistent pesterers get the repeated letter treatment - just keep responding with the PDF doc alone until they give up. They can't say they haven't been informed or have been insulted. The assorted weirdos might get a more personal treatment (and it may be worth JREF finding a genuine psychiatrist they can refer these people to for ongoing action - certainly JREF or this forum aren't the right places for this). This leaves the genuine applicants, of whom I expect very few will ever turn up at all.

Thus the majority of Kramer's time will be in sorting out the enquiries into: (1) pests and pesterers, interested folks who are not applicants, etc; (2) the mentally disturbed; and (3) the (scarce) genuine, reasonably sane applicants. Each can be dealt with easily, once they are sorted.

The summary is that JREF presents a professional and equitable face, provides fully disclosed details to all enquirers no matter who, and maintains the PR upper hand all the time. And Kramer gets to keep his marbles.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Zep

And herein lies the problem. The very people you really do NOT want spreading any bad word about JREF and co. is this last class. They will gleefully take back to their snickering mates all the muck on JREF they can possibly rake. So my question is: Why give them any muck to rake at all? Better to treat all correspondence with pleasant demeanour...like a good head waiter or hotel concierge. Then no-one can take offense. What doesn't fly well IN PUBLIC are the "apply or shove off" responses, no matter how provoked the receiver - does a good waiter say "eat or shove off" if asked about the menu?

...edited for brevity...

The summary is that JREF presents a professional and equitable face, provides fully disclosed details to all enquirers no matter who, and maintains the PR upper hand all the time. And Kramer gets to keep his marbles.

I agree. This is the point I was trying to get at when I originally commented in the TC Albin thread. If the purpose of the JREF really is, as stated, "to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas," then they must be vigilant about presenting the right face to the public and media.

Saying that all you are doing is brushing off a few loonies is disingenuous. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, many of these loonies are simply looking for fodder for their Randi bashing websites. While we might give no credence to such a website, a member of the general public, who has no knowledge of the foundation or its reputation may form an opinion based on something he reads there. And, if Randi claims that he isn't bothered by that, then the mission statement I quoted above is questionable.

All I am saying is stop handing your attackers a knife.

[Luke T.]

Speaking in general terms, and not specifically to Sean's case, I would say that if someone is enquiring about the million dollars, they are demonstrating the very skepticism JREF is trying to promote. It should not be automatically assumed the enquirer is a whacko who has a paranormal claim just because the last 20 enquirers were.

I agree with everyone in this topic who said being rude to Sean was a mistake.

It looks to me like some very informative posts were made explaining how the financial aspect of the Challenge works in this topic. Some good links and explanations. Sounds like an excellent opportunity for someone to collate all the data, start a new topic putting it in easy-to-understand format, and getting it placed in the Forum Spotlight for easy reference for all future enquirers.

[CFLarsen]

Sean,

As I understand it, you have contacted Randi several times, and have continued conversation with Kramer. They seem to have answered your questions about the money, but I'm a little fuzzy re. your grievances with JREF.

Could you - for clarification purposes - list them? Just briefly.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Keri
I know you will not be posting further, but I cannot resist providing this information. Please click on http://12.39.246.46/650/650649443/650649443_200312_990.pdf JREF's 990 from 2003. (Their 2004 990 will be due to the IRS the 15th day of the 5th month after their 2004 fiscal year ends).

If you look at page 3 of the 990 you will see:
Line 59 column B (end of the year) Assets ($ they have) = $1,878,457.00
Line 66 column B (end of the year) Liabilities (debt they must pay) = $8,391.00
Line 74 column B (end of the year) Net Assets (money they have minus what they owe in debt) = $1,878,457.00



Actually, I don't know what more information could possibly be needed by anyone beyond Keri's post here. I'm not an accountant or CPA, but I just looked at the form and even discovered the nature of the bonds back in 2003.

So I too would like to hear from Sean what further information he needs about the money. (Since he's just stated in his last post that he still doubts the existence of it.) And while we're on the topic... I'd like to simplify my previous question to Sean:

Sean - do you have a paranormal claim?

(This is a simple "yes or no" answer, Sean. I am not interested in your opinion on the relevance of having a claim to this discussion.)

[kittynh]

ohhh, now this should get interesting!

Claus:cool:

[CFLarsen]

Clarify, clarify, clairfy...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by kittynh
ohhh, now this should get interesting!

Claus:cool:

Perhaps even more so. I did a search on "peebrain", and got a lot of hits... including this one from the "Parapsychological Practitioners Society":

http://ppsociety.com/w_profile.php?id=60

Is this you, Sean?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by jmercer
Perhaps even more so. I did a search on "peebrain", and got a lot of hits... including this one from the "Parapsychological Practitioners Society":

http://ppsociety.com/w_profile.php?id=60

Is this you, Sean?

Why don't you just look at peebrain's profile on this forum?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Why don't you just look at peebrain's profile on this forum?

What makes you think I didn't? :)

[peebrain]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sean,

As I understand it, you have contacted Randi several times, and have continued conversation with Kramer. They seem to have answered your questions about the money, but I'm a little fuzzy re. your grievances with JREF.

Could you - for clarification purposes - list them? Just briefly.

I have not had contact with Kramer or Randi since my last email on February 4th (unless you count this thread as contact with Kramer... but Kramer hasn't responded to anything I've written on this thread). The last contact I had from Kramer was Feb 4th, and the last contact I had from Randi was Jan 31st. These dates are extracted from this log: http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html

My main grievance is their hypocritical nature, of preaching that they search for truth, but in practice they search for nothing. They already assume they have found truth, and now project this self-righteous truth on others. This is not healthy skepticism. On top of that, Kramer (and possibly Randi) seems to have an "end justifies the means" attitude. The edits Kramer made in the emails weren't a big deal, but obviously Kramer thought they were a big deal (or he wouldn't have edited them). He purposly edited the content - which is in direct conflict with presenting the truth.

And now this false email has sprung up, which is very suspiscious. I emailed Kramer from a private account, that NO ONE knows about. I X'd out my email in the public logs. For someone to fake the email, it would require them to know my email address - and this information isn't available to ANYONE except myself, Kramer, and Randi. I haven't used that particular email account for anything else.

I also have other grievances, but this is my main one, at this point.

As for my paranormal claim - fine, I give in, YES I have a few claims actually, and I have a few friends who have claims too. I do not plan on applying for the Challenge yet, although I might in the future once I have enough resources. You may begin the name calling, secret chuckling, pseudo-skepticism, and onslaught of attacks on my credibility. Again, as I've tried to stress, my questions are legitimate questions FOR JREF. We are not investigating ME, we are investigating THEM. Unfortunately, I believe giving up this piece of information will flip the skeptic switch in everyone's head on this forum (which is normal and logical), and the focus will shift from investigating JREF, to investigating my claims.

At this point, I do not want to engage in skeptics - I have better things to do than sit around and convince them. (Even though I have been persistant in this thread, I do have a life - my persistance exists because of the magnitude of the Challenge... I could honestly care less what the average skeptic thinks about me).

And for everyone who now thinks "Well, if he has something paranormal, he should apply and take the million", keep in mind that this thread is evidence that it isn't that simple. Randi wants everyone to think it's that simple, but when the gears start to get put in motion, and some logical preliminary questions are asked, it turns into this mess... "simple" wouldn't be the adjective I would use.

I will try to stop replying to this thread unless I notice something grossly inaccurate (like the false email). I believe I have presented my case, and expressed myself accurately up until this point. Anything else I have to say would be mostly redundant. Thanks for taking the time to see my perspective, and I'm sorry this has turned into such an ordeal.

~Sean

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by peebrain
My main grievance is their hypocritical nature, of preaching that they search for truth, but in practice they search for nothing. They already assume they have found truth, and now project this self-righteous truth on others. This is not healthy skepticism.

This is patently wrong. Randi has many times expressed his willingness - eagerness, even - to give up the money, if only he could see a genuine paranormal phenomenon.

Originally posted by peebrain
On top of that, Kramer (and possibly Randi) seems to have an "end justifies the means" attitude. The edits Kramer made in the emails weren't a big deal, but obviously Kramer thought they were a big deal (or he wouldn't have edited them). He purposly edited the content - which is in direct conflict with presenting the truth.

We have your word against Kramer's.

Originally posted by peebrain
And now this false email has sprung up, which is very suspiscious. I emailed Kramer from a private account, that NO ONE knows about. I X'd out my email in the public logs. For someone to fake the email, it would require them to know my email address - and this information isn't available to ANYONE except myself, Kramer, and Randi. I haven't used that particular email account for anything else.

We only have your word that the account was private.

Originally posted by peebrain
As for my paranormal claim - fine, I give in, YES I have a few claims actually, and I have a few friends who have claims too.

So, you did not play with open cards. This does not help you one little bit.

Originally posted by peebrain
I do not plan on applying for the Challenge yet, although I might in the future once I have enough resources. You may begin the name calling, secret chuckling, pseudo-skepticism, and onslaught of attacks on my credibility. Again, as I've tried to stress, my questions are legitimate questions FOR JREF. We are not investigating ME, we are investigating THEM. Unfortunately, I believe giving up this piece of information will flip the skeptic switch in everyone's head on this forum (which is normal and logical), and the focus will shift from investigating JREF, to investigating my claims.

You don't need to have more resources. Since you are claiming something paranormal, all you need to do is apply. It's that simple.

Originally posted by peebrain
At this point, I do not want to engage in skeptics - I have better things to do than sit around and convince them. (Even though I have been persistant in this thread, I do have a life - my persistance exists because of the magnitude of the Challenge... I could honestly care less what the average skeptic thinks about me).

To convince us, all you need to do is prove that your claim of paranormal powers are real. It's that simple.

Originally posted by peebrain
And for everyone who now thinks "Well, if he has something paranormal, he should apply and take the million", keep in mind that this thread is evidence that it isn't that simple. Randi wants everyone to think it's that simple, but when the gears start to get put in motion, and some logical preliminary questions are asked, it turns into this mess... "simple" wouldn't be the adjective I would use.

Excuse me, but judging from your own claims on your own site, it is very simple. You do paranormal stuff all the time, you meet people who do paranormal stuff all the time.

Originally posted by peebrain
I will try to stop replying to this thread unless I notice something grossly inaccurate (like the false email). I believe I have presented my case, and expressed myself accurately up until this point. Anything else I have to say would be mostly redundant. Thanks for taking the time to see my perspective, and I'm sorry this has turned into such an ordeal.

The reason why this has turned into such an "ordeal" is solely because you do not play with open cards.

What it comes down to is this: The money is there. You have a paranormal claim.

The question is: Why don't you just apply?

I think the answer is very simple.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by peebrain
(snipped)
This is not healthy skepticism. On top of that, Kramer (and possibly Randi) seems to have an "end justifies the means" attitude. The edits Kramer made in the emails weren't a big deal, but obviously Kramer thought they were a big deal (or he wouldn't have edited them). He purposly edited the content - which is in direct conflict with presenting the truth.

(snipped)

~Sean


Hm... is he talking about the ones the admins chose to edit?

[jmercer]

For those of you who are interested in visiting what appears to be Sean's site (based on announcements on some of the pages by peebrain as administrator):

http://www.psipog.net/welcome.php

I suggest you take a good look at the Help page:

http://www.psipog.net/help.php

Especially the item titled: "Can I see a demonstration of your skills?"

:)

(Edited to remove wrong title)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Hm... is he talking about the ones the admins chose to edit?

I think he's referring to the one that Kramer last posted, where it appears that Sean backed way off and asked for all of his posts to be deleted from the forum. Now he's denying he wrote that email, and is insinuating that it's a forgery. By parties unnamed, but it seems to me he's pointing his finger at Kramer or Randi... like they need to do something like that to defend themselves!

:dl:

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking in general terms, and not specifically to Sean's case, I would say that if someone is enquiring about the million dollars, they are demonstrating the very skepticism JREF is trying to promote.

Agreed, unconditionally.

And we instantly oblige their requests for supporting data that confirms the existence of the funds by mailing them the Goldman Sachs confirmation letter. When the inquirer continues on into belligerence, however, well, that's not skepticism anymore. It's something else entirely. Call it what you like. I have my own term for it, but I'm trying not to be rude from now on, so I'll refrain from stating it.

The Goldman Sachs confirmation letter is all any reasonable person should require in order to confidently submit a Challenge application. I've reviewed this question extensively as a direct result of this thread, and I am quite sure that Randi is right; there is no need to spoonfeed anyone on clarifying what is clear and concise in the Challenge rules. If an inquirer cannot understand them, they should certainly ask for help, but not from the JREF. We've done our job in this regard by putting the effort we did into the compostion of the Challenge application and rules, and I assure you it was not composed overnight, or scribbled on the back of a drink coaster during Happy Hour at Flannigan's.

There's something that's really been nagging at me since this debate became heated. I'd like to share it now with you all...

It's curious to me how some of us here share such dissimilar definitions for the word Skepticism. Isn't Skepticism supposed to be conducted within the bounds of REASON? Isn't that part of the very definition of the word? I mean, a rose is a rose is a rose, right? How much inquiry is really needed to confirm that?

As an example...if I'm skeptical that an orange is really an orange, shouldn't it be sufficient to peel the skin and take a bite?

Isn't sending it to the lab for molecular analysis going just a tad too far? And wouldn't that be a clear sign to any observer that something is definitely amiss in how I manifest my skepticism?
Conversely, could it not also possibly be a sign that I'm not really trying to find out if it's really an orange? Wouldn't it make one wonder what I was really up to? And wouldn't such a notion be the most solid proof of a truly skeptical mind?

Whoever said here that Peebrain should be "...applauded for his skepticism" has, in my opinion, gone way off the deep end. Sorry.

Originally posted by Luke T.
It should not be automatically assumed the enquirer is a whacko who has a paranormal claim just because the last 20 enquirers were.

It's NOT automatically assumed. NOTHING is automatically assumed. Each inquirer is assessed via careful examination of his/her continuing correspondence. I arrive at a certain conclusion eventually, though, when accusations about the validity of the Challenge continue past the point I think most people would consider reasonable.

My correspondences always begin with total courtesy. I was not prepared to offer this courtesy off-the-bat to Peebrain, however, because he had already significantly harrassed Randi, so my job wasn't so much to begin anew with him. My job, at that point, was to attempt to decipher whether or not his inquiries were a precursor to him making a paranormal claim and the subsequent submission of a Challenge application, and if so, to encourage him to do so.

I did that to the best of my ability at the time, but I recognize my failings in this instance and will endeavor from this point forward to maintain a persona more consistent with the integrity of what everyone here seems to agree is what is required in representing both the JREF and the skeptical community as a whole.

That said, I think that a great many forum members here did their very best to treat him as they felt he should be treated, and as they felt JREF neglected to treat him, but should have, offering him the data that he - for some reason - felt he didn't receive from the JREF. That's fine, but I promise you all that I will, from now on, do my very best to make future such efforts by forum members wholly unneccesary.

Despite that courtesy and effort, however, he STILL has not offered insight into his paranormal claim, and has been most suspiciously secretive about the entire matter. Why? I wonder.

A million bucks says he just doesn't have a paranormal claim, and thusly, if I am right, he deserves not one millisecond more of our attention.

As promised, I'll continue to be polite, or, at the appropriate time, I'll simply stop responding.

Originally posted by Luke T.
I agree with everyone in this topic who said being rude to Sean was a mistake.

Being rude to Sean WAS a mistake. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep on admitting to that.

I should have simply said "APPLY OR GO AWAY" until I became convinced that it was useless to continue doing so, and then I ought to have just ignored his subsequent emails.

Or is "APPLY OR GO AWAY" rude, too? I predict you'll say that it was.

But, I don't think so. Such a conviction on my part, however, does not preclude me from making protocol changes that need to be made, for whatever reasons. I'm not proud.

Since I feel strongly that this has gone on long enough, how about this? From this point forward, I will say nothing in response to similar "inquiries" (regardless of what my experience tells me about their true nature) except the following:

Please feel free to submit a duly executed JREF Paranormal Challenge application at any time, should you feel that you have a paranormal claim that you can successfully demonstrate."

I will respond to nagging, unreasonable inquiries with this single sentence 3 or 4 times, and then, if the same questions persist persist, I will simply stop responding.

Does this sound fair, and, more importantly, POLITE?

This is not to say that Randi himself won't continue to say "APPLY OR GO AWAY", of course. He will say what he feels without regard for any debate that swirls around my desk, and far be it from me to suggest to him that he respond otherwise.

Oh and by the way, if Peebrain states that he didn't receive the Goldman Sachs letter, well, I've heard that before, too.

Regardless...if he wants us to send him another one, we will do so once again, immediately upon request, and we do not demand that he first tell us if he has a paranormal claim or not. We don't care anymore. We'd also be happy to oblige his request by faxing it to him, if he so desires.

Sure. Why not. I'll bend over backwards 6 times until Sunday for Peebrain. Yeah. Heck. Why don't I just stop all the work I'm doing for applicants, indefinitely, and deal fulltime with Peebrain and his oh-so-reasonable requests and all the other non-applicants who, for whatever motive, are just wasting my time?

Hey, I never said I wouldn't personally and professionally resent them? I'm just promising to no longer express it to them in my correspondences. It's part of being professional, and I regret having lost sight of that on those rare occasions, and having stirring such controversy as a result.

I can alter the way I behave, but I can hardly alter the way I think when it comes to this kind of crap, and I don't feel that anyone should expect me to, or require me to. We're all freethinkers here. Right?

Well, most of us are.

I don't need to drink the whole glass of milk to know that it's sour.

A sip will do just fine.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The Goldman Sachs confirmation letter is all any reasonable person should require in order to confidently submit a Challenge application.

And that's the sniff test.

All people have to do is contact Goldman Sachs and ask if the confirmation letter is real.

If it is, the money is there. If it is not, then JREF is history, shamed, shown to be liars, fakes and crooks.

It's such a simple thing to do: Just contact GoldmanSachs and verify.

Yet, people don't. I think the reason is very simple.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by KRAMER

I don't need to drink the whole glass of milk to know that it's sour.

A sip will do just fine.

Can a Kramer post be nominated in the language thread? Because this quote is a keeper. :)

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by peebrain
...and the focus will shift from investigating JREF, to investigating my claims.

Well, at least Peebrain admits now that this WAS all about "investigating JREF".

Someone needs to tell him that the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge IS about investigating his claim. He doesn't believe anything I say, so I'm not going to be the one to tell him.

Unreal.

Absolutely unreal.

Oh, and I need to make a confession here:

I DID tell him he was "full of sh*t", and I DID regret it the moment after I sent it, and I WAS personally embarrassed for having written it in the first place, and I DID edit that out from the forum posting, and I AM ashamed to admit it, although I've been wanting to do so from the start.

And if that makes my entire ouvre suspect from this point onward, I deserve it, and so be it. The truth is far more important than my own reputation. If I've lost any respect for having done so, I have no one but myself to blame. It was a big mistake and there is no forgiving it. I apologize to Sean here and now for all to see, on behalf of myself, The JREF, and the skeptical community we hope to represent.

And I did NOT edit anything else out, EVER, from ANY emails I have posted here, not EVER, and I DID send him the Goldman Sachs letter, and I DID receive that email from him that he says was sent "by someone else".

And you know what I think should be the end to all this?

The fact that Peebrain (and each and every one of his "friends" who also have claims) is still free to apply. He has a claim. We're very interested to hear what it is, and anxious to begin protocol negotiations asap. With any luck, it will actually qualify for the Challenge.

Wow. We're actually getting somewhere. Peebrain says he has a paranormal claim. Now if we can only get him to divulge it.

Send it to my attention, Peebrain. No rush. Take your time.

We're not going anywhere. You can be sure of that.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by KRAMER
(AS: edited for brevity and to highlight pertinent points)
As promised, I'll continue to be polite, or, at the appropriate time, I'll simply stop responding.

Being rude to Sean WAS a mistake. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep on admitting to that.

Since I feel strongly that this has gone on long enough, how about this? From this point forward, I will say nothing in response to similar "inquiries" (regardless of what my experience tells me about their true nature) except the following:

Please feel free to submit a duly executed JREF Paranormal Challenge application at any time, should you feel that you have a paranormal claim that you can successfully demonstrate."

I will respond to nagging, unreasonable inquiries with this single sentence 3 or 4 times, and then, if the same questions persist persist, I will simply stop responding.

Does this sound fair, and, more importantly, POLITE?



Sounds fair and polite to me, KRAMER.

It takes a big man sometimes to admit his mistakes publicly. That's very cool of you to do so here. It's also nice to see that you are heeding our gentle advice about being more polite, even to kooks.

Thanks.

AS

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
All people have to do is contact Goldman Sachs and ask if the confirmation letter is real. If it is, the money is there. If it is not, then JREF is history, shamed, shown to be liars, fakes and crooks.

And then, we'd all go to jail. It's called FRAUD.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
And then, we'd all go to jail. It's called FRAUD.

Exactly.

Anyone want to nail JREF? If they are right about the money not being there, all they got to do is pick up the phone.

It's far simpler than to write lengthy emails and posts on various message boards. But they don't.

"Tomme tønder buldrer mest".
"Empty barrels make the most noise".
Danish proverb.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by KRAMER
And then, we'd all go to jail. It's called FRAUD.

"Sylvia Brown"

[Keri]

For those of you who are interested in visiting what appears to be Sean's site (based on announcements on some of the pages by peebrain as administrator)

I suggest you take a good look at the Help page:

http://www.psipog.net/help.php

Especially the item titled: "Can I see a demonstration of your skills?":

Jmercer you beat me too it! I was going to mention that peebrains website gives a pretty good idea of what his claim might be.

Peebrain is part of a student group that believes they and others have psychic abilities. No more mystery.

Sean, I know you have gotten mixed responses from other forum members to your posts. Regardless of how you perceive your treatment from Kramer, Randi or others, I think you would have to agree that I have made every attempt to treat you with respect and answer your questions to the best of my ability.

So I am asking you do the same for me. I am not trying to harass or intimidate you. I don't think you should have to leave these boards if you don't apply for the challenge. But I would like you to explain to me if you believe that your psychic abilities can be demonstrated and tested. And perhaps you could explain in more detail what your abilities are.

I know posting on a board full of people who disagree with you is difficult. I cannot guarantee that you will not be made fun of. However, if you really do have demonstrable psychic or other abilities, it is worth blowing off some mean comments to demonstrate something that would really change the nature of science. I assume you think that your abilities have positive uses that can benefit others. If you can show this it could be studied and perhaps could lead to helping many others.

I do not want to mislead you. I do not think you will be able to demonstrate your abilities in a conclusive manner. I don’t doubt you personally; I just think that if such power existed with any sort of frequency, someone would have demonstrated it to JREF or any number of other valid scientific institutions by now.

But perhaps I am wrong. I strive to have the best most accurate knowledge I can. I try to have the best informed opinions I can. I try not to be dogmatic; I do change my opinions when I am shown that I was wrong. I encourage you to open up the line of dialogue.

[specious_reasons]

Here's a rhetorical question: How would you or Randi handled this differently if this were a reporter confirming that the $1 million is completely legitimate? Would you request that the reporter apply or go away?

Originally posted by KRAMER

[...snip...]
Or is "APPLY OR GO AWAY" rude, too? I predict you'll say that it was.
[...snip...]
From this point forward, I will say nothing in response to similar "inquiries" (regardless of what my experience tells me about their true nature) except the following:

Please feel free to submit a duly executed JREF Paranormal Challenge application at any time, should you feel that you have a paranormal claim that you can successfully demonstrate."

I will respond to nagging, unreasonable inquiries with this single sentence 3 or 4 times, and then, if the same questions persist persist, I will simply stop responding.

Does this sound fair, and, more importantly, POLITE?
[...snip...]


I think the sentiment behind "APPLY OR GO AWAY" is correct for people who persist, but it's not polite. I'm confused that this isn't obvious.

The second statement is better, but it probably doesn't get to the same point.

How about?

The JREF considers the Challenge rules sufficent to explain the Challenge process to a non-applicant. Please feel free to submit a duly executed JREF Paranormal Challenge application at any time,
should you feel that you have a paranormal claim that you can successfully demonstrate.

From my perspective, it's saying "APPLY OR GO AWAY" without it sounding like a command.

If they are only inquiring about the validity of the $1 million:

The JREF considers the Goldman Sachs letter sufficient confirmation of the existence and validity of the Challenge funds. If you wish to receive this letter, [insert brief instructions to receive the letter].

Just my $0.02 on what should be said, I'm sure others could provide more elegant text.

[jmercer]

In Sylvia's case, you'd have to prove she's lying when she makes a prediction. Subjective evidence, to say the least. In the JREF's case, the claim about the funds is an objective statement. Either the funds exist as stated or they don't.

[CFLarsen]

specious_reasons,

Again, it's so simple.

If you have a paranormal claim, apply. Here's the application form, complete with instructions.

If you want to know if the money is there, here's the statement from Goldman Sachs. Any reporter worth his salt will check it.

Everything else is male bovine manure.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Here's a rhetorical question: How would you or Randi handled this differently if this were a reporter confirming that the $1 million is completely legitimate? Would you request that the reporter apply or go away?

Having a background in newspaper and magazine publishing, I've known a lot of reporters. A professional reporter (as opposed to a muckraker) would probably have accepted the Goldman Sachs letter as sufficient proof for purposes of the interview.

They might have independently contacted Goldman Sachs to confirm that the letter wasn't forged after the interview, but it's highly unlikely that they would have ignored the letter and persisted in challenging JREF on the subject once it was presented.

(Edited to change "certainly" to "probably" in the first paragraph.)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
specious_reasons,

Again, it's so simple.

If you have a paranormal claim, apply. Here's the application form, complete with instructions.

If you want to know if the money is there, here's the statement from Goldman Sachs. Any reporter worth his salt will check it.

Everything else is male bovine manure.

Isn't that the same thing as I said? What I'm primarily concerned about here is that my experience says that it's more beneficial to be polite yet firm when dealing with people who are potential cranks.

Most reporters would identify themselves, unless, possibly, they were told beforehand that people from JREF are rude and abrasive when asked about matters concerning the veracity of the $1 million....

...and you have higher confidence in any reporter's fact-checking than I do. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
...and you have higher confidence in any reporter's fact-checking than I do. :)

Well, I did say "worth his salt".. ;)

[specious_reasons]

I'd like to make it clear that I'm trying very hard to be constructive in my criticisms of KRAMER here. So are many of the other people who have taken him to task here. It doesn't always sound like it, I know.

From what he's said, it sounds like he's considered the best criticism and taken some of it to heart, and I'll applaud him for that.

Can we get you to consider taking up Rebecca's offer for better marketing of JREF?

[KRAMER]

Can we get you to consider taking up Rebecca's offer for better marketing of JREF?

This is not an area in which I am involved. You flatter me. I do not possess the powers you ascribe to me.

If, however, I was running this place, an experienced fundraiser would be the first person I'd hire, and I may just hire a 2nd fundraiser (or an assistant for the fundraiser) before I hire a PR person. If I could pay a staff of ten, a PR expert would most certainly be within that mix.

I think that in our line of work, PR can only acheive so much, and we have to prioritize our goals here. Our first goal is to keep our doors open and stay in business. If we fail in that, well, you know.

Which is more important; the work we do, or the manner in which we are perceived whilst doing it?

It's all moot, though. We're on a shoestring here, folks.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Which is more important; the work we do, or the manner in which we are perceived whilst doing it?

I realize you meant this as a rhetorical question, but I think this may be something worth examining. (Although perhaps not here.)

I suspect that both are equally important.

[kittynh]

I'm just thinking how I and others use the "million dollar prize". It's something to have in your back pocket. Someone might win it. I mean for goodness sake, if you have a paranormal claim, present it. If you drag big Foot into JREF, dead or alive, or how about some Big Foot DNA, especially alien Big Foot DNA, you are going to get way more than the million dollars! You will be on the cover of every science magazine. (Or alien Big Foot will be).

If any of these claims tests positive, honestly positive ( for instance I score 100% on all my exams because I can read the teachers mind, or anyone's mind) it is worth more than a million dollars. You can bend spoons with your mind? Really, without touching it? From across a room? or even a table? Geez, the military would be interested in that. Industry and medicine would study it. But it has to be clear. Honestly, bending a spoon with your mind while stroking it isn't much a clear savings for mankind over just bending the darn thing.

I say to people that make claims for the healing powers of "touch therapy", well how good is it? I get a "claim" from them. A recent claim was "people with cancer that include healing touch therapy live longer and have a higher cure rate!" I then follow with, "wow, where is your data for this? Is there a study?" In this case, there WAS. I then tell them about the million dollar prize. This is to a healing therapist that is trying to get into a better office space. she was complaining about the costs. If she won the million dollars I point out, she would be doing mankind a great favor, letting them know about the healing powers AND get a bigger office. Heck, she could buy a whole building and would be sending away the patients.

The fudging begins. When she first explained it, it was a straight forward study that PROVES healing touch works. And if it DID work like she says, she would have 2 or 3 million in profits. But she points out that the study is "subjective". That the medical industy doesn't want the drug companies that supply them with all their money....blah de blah de blah.....

In other words, even though doctors KNOW healing touch works, they would rather see people suffer and die than lose any money. Oh she has proof of this also. Well, it's subjective.

I like to pull the million dollars out of the hat to see if they go, "wow, I"m interested." or start fudging. I brought this up in a group. As soon as she started in on the doctor conspiracy she lost almost everyone that she had been impressing. Often the fishy smell comes to your nose as soon as you mention the claim.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by jmercer
I realize you meant this as a rhetorical question, but I think this may be something worth examining....I suspect that both are equally important.

The work we do is completely under our control.

Our appearance to others is not. Not in the least.

Hence, we concentrate our energies accordingly.

[jmercer]

Well... not to quibble, but I think JREF's appearance is under it's control and does matter. What you can't control is how people choose to interpret that appearance.

Where it makes a difference is for individuals like myself, who didn't know what to expect when we wander into JREF's website. If I'd thought that JREF was just interested in trashing paranormal believers - sort of a "Rush Limbaugh" to psychics, I probably would have never come back after my first browse.

I got a different impression, so I stayed and eventually got involved. "Believers" are going to trash JREF no matter what you say or do - I agree. But you don't want to alienate people who don't know squat about the subject or about JREF. If you do, they'll never even look at the work you do. :)

Just my opinion, of course.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by kittynh
If any of these claims tests positive, honestly positive ( for instance I score 100% on all my exams because I can read the teachers mind, or anyone's mind) it is worth more than a million dollars. You can bend spoons with your mind? Really, without touching it? From across a room? or even a table? Geez, the military would be interested in that. Industry and medicine would study it. But it has to be clear. Honestly, bending a spoon with your mind while stroking it isn't much a clear savings for mankind over just bending the darn thing.

Right on.

The million bucks is a mere pittance, when you consider the groundbreaking consequences of any paranormal phenomenon being proved real.

One million dollars? That will be your take each second, if you can teleport something, read people's minds or even heal any sick persons.

Still, nobody steps up to the plate and collects the first million, immensely easier to claim than the rest of the money, because you don't have to do it in a repeated experiment, subjected to the harsh conditions of science.

All you gotta do is show that you can do it. You don't have to explain it, you don't have to tell us the reasons why it works.

Just do it. Just do what you do, what your customers pay you to do.

Under controlled conditions, of course.

The money's there. Just. Do. It.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The work we do is completely under our control.

Our appearance to others is not. Not in the least.Sure it is. When Randi gives a speech or an interview, does he show up in Aquaman Underoos and pink bunny slippers, or does he show up in a suit and tie?

Of what value is your work if it, and you, are not respected by your audience? Your appearance is part and parcel of your work.




(I apologize for that mental image.)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by KRAMER
This is not an area in which I am involved. You flatter me. I do not possess the powers you ascribe to me.


You're right - that's above and beyond your responsibilities.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beleth
Sure it is. When Randi gives a speech or an interview, does he show up in Aquaman Underoos and pink bunny slippers, or does he show up in a suit and tie?


(I apologize for that mental image.)

You should. I have to go home and sleep tonight, and if I have a nightmare about Randi, it'll be your fault... ;) :D

[roger]

Here (http://www.psipog.net/show.php?id=18) is a trivially testable claim offered by peabrain (I'm assuming that the peabrain on that site is the same as our poster here - I recognize I may be incorrect in that assumption):One of my favorite things to do is to make a psi ball, visualizing it as a ball of fire.... I would make a hot construct and throw it at a thermometer from across the room then watch the degrees rise.
Those are somewhat widely separated sentences, but I didn't want to quote extensively to avoid copyright infringement. But the claim is simple. He creates psi balls (how to do that is explained by him here (http://www.psipog.net/show.php?id=8), makes it hot, and tosses it at a thermometer which registers a temperature rise.

Easy peasy to test. For $1M dollars.

I, with complete seriousness, with no bashing of him intended, hope that Sean submits an application.

[kittynh]

Wow, that's an easy claim to test. Heck don't bother testing it! Go out and market it. Can you warm up a room? How large a space? Can you teach this to others? If it REALLY works I can think of lots of applications.

Easy million!!! Millions!!!

You know, it's kind of odd how things that really work catch on and make money. like the lightbulb. "I can flick a switch and light comes on instantly!" Caught on pretty quick because IT WORKS.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well... not to quibble, but I think JREF's appearance is under it's control and does matter. What you can't control is how people choose to interpret that appearance.

That's what I meant to say.

Our appearance IS under our control, but how we are perceived, is NOT. Hence, there is only so much that we can do, especially with such a limited staff and budget.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by roger
I, with complete seriousness, with no bashing of him intended, hope that Sean submits an application.

Me, too. So is Randi.

And we mean it.

I guess if he believes in what he claims to be able to do, he will.

Again - why wouldn't he?

[Kaylee]

The reason why this has turned into such an "ordeal" is solely because you do not play with open cards.

No. The reason this has turned into an ordeal is because Sean's original and logical assumption that the winner gets bonds and not cash was not corrected by either Randi or Kramer in the very beginning.

If either Randi or Kramer had simply told Sean that the prize was CASH I am willing to bet there would have been a total of two e-mails between Sean and the JREF and this thread (179 posts as of now) would never have happened.

Here is Sean's first e-mail (as both per Sean's log at http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html
and per Kramer's post (first post in this thread)):


From: XXXX <XXXX@XXXX.com>
To: randi@randi.org
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:04:28 -0500
Subject: 1million Challenge Questions

Hello,
On your website, it states:

"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special
investment account."

and

"At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed
in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the
event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and
conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the
claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation
will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of
US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an
investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational
Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of
this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the
Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail."

My questions surround the form the money is in, and how it will be
delivered. The $10,000 will be delivered in check, which means I will
have access to use it all once the check clears; is this correct? The
bonds I will not have access to, on the other hand... Where do the
bonds come from (what corporations issued the bonds), what are the
interest rates on the bonds, and when is the maturity date on the
bonds? I.e., When will I have access to the $1mil, and how much money
can I expect on a monthly basis generated from interest?

Thank you.

- Sean Connelly



--

Sean's e-mail could have been answered as so:
--
Hello,

The prize is in the form of U.S.A cash paid by check or electronic funds transfer. The winner does NOT get bonds. Since there are no bonds awarded -- there are no bond issuers, maturity dates or interest rates for a winner to be concerned about.

The winner gets a check made out to him or her for USA$10,000.00 immediately upon the conclusion of the formal test. The balance of the award, USA$990,000.00 will be paid to the winner within the following 10 days by either check, EFT or in another agreed upon cash equivalent form.

The present form of the award money is in the form of bonds for our convenience only. We are attaching a copy of a statement from Goldman & Sachs that verifies the existence of the funds. Alternatively you can look up our information return ( 990 ) filed with the IRS for the year 2003 at [ web site address here] to verify that we do have the funds. The 990 was filed by our certified public accountant and agrees with our audited financial statements.

--

That took me less than 2 minutes to write.

--
We have your word against Kramer's.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peebrain
And now this false email has sprung up, which is very suspiscious. I emailed Kramer from a private account, that NO ONE knows about. I X'd out my email in the public logs. For someone to fake the email, it would require them to know my email address - and this information isn't available to ANYONE except myself, Kramer, and Randi. I haven't used that particular email account for anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We only have your word that the account was private

No, we have more than words available to us. As Sean suggested the e-mail headers can be compared. Some of an e-mail header information is forgeable, but not all of it, I believe.



Shera

[KRAMER]

Greetings and welcome to the forum, Shera.

Might I inquire, just out of curiosity (a skeptical curiosity akin to Sean's skepticism regarding the prize funds, that is)...

I see that you are a new forum member, having only just joined.

Are you perhaps a member of Sean's "student group"?

Just curious.

Needless to say, you don't have to answer if you don't feel that the answer would prove "relevant", as was Sean's assertion when asked repeatedly whether or not he actually had a paranormal claim.

Carpe Diem.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Shera
The reason this has turned into an ordeal is because Sean's original and logical assumption that the winner gets bonds and not cash was not corrected by either Randi or Kramer in the very beginning.


You know, a good portion of this could have been avoided by asking the question in a simpler manner.

i.e:

I read the rules of the challenge, but something wasn't clear: Is the prize money distributed in cash or as bonds with a cash value of $1 milllion?

To me, the above question is entirely reasonable, because it wasn't clear in the rules.

At that point, it would be far more productive to talk to a Goldman Sachs representative to inquire about the bonds. I don't know how much involvement Randi has in the operation of the trust fund, but I doubt he or Kramer has the time and willingness to research the answers to the rest of his questions. Nor should they.

[Kaylee]

Greetings and welcome to the forum, Shera.
Thank you Kramer.

Are you perhaps a member of Sean's "student group"?
Yes, I'm registered at Psipog.

Needless to say, you don't have to answer if you don't feel that the answer would prove "relevant",

The question does appear to be off topic. However, I tend to be very curious myself. So, as one curious person chatting with another -- I answered your question.

I do suspect however that because I did answer your question that quite a few people posting to this thread will now dismiss the points I brought up -- simply because I said that I'm registered at Psipog and for no other reason.

Cheers,
Shera

[jmercer]

Well, I hope you don't count me among those people. I disagreed with your points before this post. :)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Shera
[B]No. The reason this has turned into an ordeal is because Sean's original and logical assumption that the winner gets bonds and not cash was not corrected by either Randi or Kramer in the very beginning.


I beg to differ... there is nothing logical in Sean's assumption that the successful claimant will get bonds in lieu of cash. The plain fact is that the rules say that the winner gets $1,000,000.00. Not securities, stocks, bonds, or a secret gold mine valued at $1,000,000.00.

$1,000,000.00. The logical assumption would be that the money would come to the claimant in the form of a check or perhaps an electronic transfer.

Nothing in the language of the rules that I have read suggests otherwise. That the money is for the moment in bonds is not only not surprising, but also to be expected. This is common in both business and government - one does not leave cash just laying around in bank vaults....

Frankly, my initial reaction to Sean's question was that he was trying to yank Randi's chain. I could not fathom that someone would be so, well, challenged as to not understand what was, and is, quite plain:

Win the challange, walk away with $1.000,000.00.

What is so complicated about that?

[kittynh]

I wonder if there are any kind of tax rules. Just thinking about people that hit the lottery. Though, as I've pointed out, if a claim works, then more than likely the applicant would have to worry about taxes on millions and millions of dollars.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Shera
Thank you Kramer.

(snipped)

I do suspect however that because I did answer your question that quite a few people posting to this thread will now dismiss the points I brought up -- simply because I said that I'm registered at Psipog and for no other reason.

Cheers,
Shera

How "polite" and what a judge of character... what a soul to bring forth the effort though that one feels the battle is one that will be lost before it starts... ah, how very much like "To Kill A Mockingbird."

Though, now that that statement was made (Shera's, not mine), it is the statement Shera can fall back on, if he doesn't like the level of debate, it will be because he's already on "Psipog" and so the forum folks here are already prejudiced against that.

How convenient. A million dollar challenge, with the most open of applications, the most negotiable of terms, and the potential for the greatest of rewards, and yet quite a few people will dismiss a new poster's posts, simply because they believe?
It's up to those who believe to take up the Challenge, and less claim the million, and more prove that the ardent passion felt for their belief system has some merit that warrants further investigation.

Apply apply apply. There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
And do add to your belief system that to prove the skeptics wrong here would be a most wonderful educational experience for those of us who are skeptics.

As for the rewarding of the prize: why not find out by getting a statement from Goldman and Sachs? Straight from the horse's mouth and all that.

...besides, isn't it NOT about the money and more to benefit mankind?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by kittynh
Wow, that's an easy claim to test. Heck don't bother testing it! Go out and market it. Can you warm up a room? How large a space? Can you teach this to others? If it REALLY works I can think of lots of applications.

Easy million!!! Millions!!!
If he can do that he'd most likely be violating either the first or second law of thermodynamics.

That would be worth trillions. Seriously.

If he can do that, arguing about the JREF million is like someone with an attic full of (authentic) van Goghs washing windscreens for spare change. Absurd.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
How "polite" and what a judge of character... what a soul to bring forth the effort though that one feels the battle is one that will be lost before it starts... ah, how very much like "To Kill A Mockingbird."

Dang, that was almost poetic!

:th:

[Metullus]

C'mon, get smart!

Its the Tequila Mockingbird!

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Metullus
C'mon, get smart!

Its the Tequila Mockingbird!

You mean it's a direct quote from it? :( Haven't read that book in... hm... 34 years? OUCH!

[Metullus]

Originally posted by kittynh
I wonder if there are any kind of tax rules. Just thinking about people that hit the lottery. Though, as I've pointed out, if a claim works, then more than likely the applicant would have to worry about taxes on millions and millions of dollars.

You are absolutely right, the taxes would be significant. Makes the whole effort seem hardly worth the trouble, doesn't it?

I guess I won't apply.

Unless JREF will cover the taxes for me.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
You mean it's a direct quote from it? :( Haven't read that book in... hm... 34 years? OUCH!

Actually, I would not know a literary quote from a dispeptic goat, but I do know my 60's television. :)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jmercer
You mean it's a direct quote from it? :( Haven't read that book in... hm... 34 years? OUCH!

No, I really do make my own long-winded statements from my own meandering brain pan.

Hey, if someone does win the million, give the rest to charity. Make a big show of it, like you're this great spiritual enlightened guru. The world will watch this exchange, and flood to you in even more droves than if you kept the million. It would be a wise invenstment, pal, since you'd make back that million and then some!

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I should have simply said "APPLY OR GO AWAY" until I became convinced that it was useless to continue doing so, and then I ought to have just ignored his subsequent emails.No, no, no. You should have said, "The statement in our website that "the prize is in the form of negotiable bonds" is perhaps not clear. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This language will be reviewed possible changes.

As stated in the challenge rules, the bonds act as surety; JREF will actually pay the prize winner a total of US $1,000,000. If you wish to apply, please submit an application in accordance with the challenge rules."

I don't think I'm off the deep end in suggesting that you should thank someone for pointing out (apparently agreeably) unclear language on a website. I think Sean (no matter his motives) had good questions, and JREF (eventually) made changes to their website because he raised good questions.

This was an isolated incident where some guy actually pointed out something that was quite right. So acknowledge it, fix it, and move on. That shouldn't be a cause for JREF or Kramer to completely change procedures. People that are belligerent about these issues (and at last initially, I see no evidence that Sean was) should not be given form letters, FAQs, or endless responses: they should be given the ol' heave ho. I'm convinced Kramer has a much better sense of this than I do (and I'd like it if Kramer continued to post more of these types of things so that I could pick up more on that sense).

The only red flag here is that the guy actually had a point about the language not being clear (at least that is how I read the guy's initial correspondence; I think he later did get a bit belligerent), and the questionable language was later changed or removed, but the initial responses from Randi and Kramer completely dismissed the guy's (legitimate) concern about the prize being paid in the form of negotiable bonds. That red flag is whether Randi and Kramer actually read and understand what applicants, potential applicants, enquirers, or whatever have to say before giving the heave ho.

I certainly don't want to see spoon-feeding, or even FAQs or form letters. Or even politeness. Rudeness has its place. I don’t think there should be any change to the way Randi and Kramer handle challenge other than to pause and understand what someone is saying before dismissing it outright. That is all. I'll leave with a quote:

Originally said by Davy Crockett
Be sure you are right, then go ahead." ;)

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Metullus
I beg to differ... there is nothing logical in Sean's assumption that the successful claimant will get bonds in lieu of cash. Yes. There is something. Or at least there was. In the guy's very first communication he said:

On your website, it states:
"The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special
investment account."That would allow for a logical assumption that the successful claimant will get bonds. The questionable sentence doesn't exactly say that, but you could interpret the sentence to mean "The prize is bonds". It is just not a very clear sentence. It is missing some implied words: "The surety for the prize...", "The money is held...", etc. Not a big deal. It should have been simply cleared up a long time ago. And JREF should have recoginzed the little problem of the wording and fixed it and moved on.

[Beth]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Piffle.

Everyone who applies for the challenge is either delusional or a fraud. Everyone.

People here wonder why JREF gets so few serious claimants. I think this quote sums it up nicely. This attitude is pervasive in JREF. Anyone who applies is considered to be either delusional or a fraud and it treated as such - not a pleasant experience. Brusqueness, which is often perceived as rudeness, is typical. People with high sensitivity to the emotions of others (which is typical of those who are earnestly exploring psychic phenomena) are repelled by such treatment and often go away rather than continue the process. I know, via private correspondence, of at least one claimant who felt that way and withdrew her claim.

Those who are concerned about the appearance of the challenge and its legitimacy to those unfamiliar with it have a valid point.

Beth

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Metullus


Unless JREF will cover the taxes for me.

Can't do it. The amount of the tax they pay for you counts as income to you. You then have to pay tax on that amount too.

AS

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson

"Anyone who applies is considered to be either delusional or a fraud and it treated as such - not a pleasant experience."

Beth,
from reading through the thread about your claim I got the impression that most posters answered you in a polite way and were sincerely trying to be helpful. I honestly don't think people tried to ridicule you at all.
But how do you expect people here to react to somebody displaying a) malicious intent or b) a vast amount of stupidity? (As I don't see any other reasons for Seans behavior - jmercer summarised it neatly a couple of pages ago)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
People here wonder why JREF gets so few serious claimants. I think this quote sums it up nicely. This attitude is pervasive in JREF. Anyone who applies is considered to be either delusional or a fraud and it treated as such - not a pleasant experience. Brusqueness, which is often perceived as rudeness, is typical. People with high sensitivity to the emotions of others (which is typical of those who are earnestly exploring psychic phenomena) are repelled by such treatment and often go away rather than continue the process. I know, via private correspondence, of at least one claimant who felt that way and withdrew her claim.


Beth - you've made an outright statement that JREF gets very few "serious claimants" because of the way claimants are treated.

Good - that's a point that can be debated, at least to some extent. Unfortunately, you've provided neither context nor evidence to support your claim (other than a single anecdote), so you need to clarify the basis for your assertion.

Are you claiming that Kramer's emails are the source of your stated issue? If so, please go through the 60-plus threads in the Challenges section and identify which threads support your position so we can have a meaningful discussion.

If you're claiming it's the forum posts, your argument is utterly without merit . Claimants don't even have to look at the forums, let alone participate in them. The only correspondence they need to deal with are between themselves and JREF. They can completely ignore our existence if they wish, still be tested, and still win 1,000,000. (Not to mention fame, glory, and residuals from their subsequent book publishings and TV appearances, and the worship & thanks of psychic believers everywhere!)

Regarding your comment about "high sensitivity to the emotions of others" as a justification for avoiding proving their claims... your assertion is that we don't get serious claimants at all due to this sensitivity. That means that these "serious claimants" are avoiding making a claim in anticipation of being offended!

Now that's sensitive. :D

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Originally posted by Beth Clarkson

"Anyone who applies is considered to be either delusional or a fraud and it treated as such - not a pleasant experience."

Beth,
from reading through the thread about your claim I got the impression that most posters answered you in a polite way and were sincerely trying to be helpful. I honestly don't think people tried to ridicule you at all.
But how do you expect people here to react to somebody displaying a) malicious intent or b) a vast amount of stupidity? (As I don't see any other reasons for Seans behavior - jmercer summarised it neatly a couple of pages ago)

Welcome to the forums!

[athon]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Does this sound fair, and, more importantly, POLITE?



My final little say here; you have retained my complete respect through all of this, Kramer. You examined what's happened, taken everything into account and evaluated how you'll do things again in the future. That's all anybody can do.

The JREF is only stronger for it. This is one of those few threads where an argument has arisen and all parties have benefited from it (well, maybe not necessarily Sean...but it's still a win-win situation).

Athon

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by jmercer
Welcome to the forums!

Thanks for the welcome :)

[Beth]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Originally posted by Beth Clarkson

"Anyone who applies is considered to be either delusional or a fraud and it treated as such - not a pleasant experience."

Beth,
from reading through the thread about your claim I got the impression that most posters answered you in a polite way and were sincerely trying to be helpful. I honestly don't think people tried to ridicule you at all.
But how do you expect people here to react to somebody displaying a) malicious intent or b) a vast amount of stupidity? (As I don't see any other reasons for Seans behavior - jmercer summarised it neatly a couple of pages ago)

Thank you sir. For the most part, people have been quite polite and helpful to me. That's true, btw, not just on this forum, but throughout my life. Being polite to others will generally elicite polite behavior back. Even when it doesn't, I strive to remain civil rather than responding in kind. Everyone loses his or her cool occasionally, and responding politely allows them a chance to regain it, while responding in kind generally degrades the interaction irrepairably.

However, people who have been quite reasonable in their initial inquiries have been treated with less than the most civil of responses. Sean is one example. The snow in July guy is another. The claimant I have corresponded with privately is a third. I don't feel that any of them exhibited a malicious intent or a vast amount of stupidity (though I do realize others may disagree on that point :) )

Now, Kramer, Randi and the entire staff of JREF is free to treat any inquiries of any sort in any manner they wish. It's their challenge and their money. But for those who wonder why they don't see more challenge applications from people who are neither frauds nor seriously mentally ill, I think that is a major contributing cause. Treating everyone with the assumption that they they are one or the other (you might note that Kramer came right out and said that I was delusional) is going to repell a lot of the potential claimants who are neither, both from applying in the first place and from working with JREF to design a mutually acceptable test protocol after they've applied.

Now, if that's not a concern to JREF, that's okay. As I said, it's their challenge; they can run it as they see fit. But if they want more applications from claimants who are neither mentally ill or fraudulant...well, enough has already been said in both this thread and one on the california weatherman regarding that.

Beth

[Beth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jmercer
Beth - you've made an outright statement that JREF gets very few "serious claimants" because of the way claimants are treated.

I didn't intend that to come across as a debateable point. I haven't conducted a scientific survey, attempted to measure all posted correspondence regarding 'civility and tone' nor have I corresponded with legions of potential applicants to discover why they don't apply. I've just formed an opinion based on my own experiences and the correspondence that's been posted between JREF and claimants in this section of the forum. If you don't agree, that's okay.

Beth

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
Thank you sir. For the most part, people have been quite polite and helpful to me. That's true, btw, not just on this forum, but throughout my life. Being polite to others will generally elicite polite behavior back. Even when it doesn't, I strive to remain civil rather than responding in kind. Everyone loses his or her cool occasionally, and responding politely allows them a chance to regain it, while responding in kind generally degrades the interaction irrepairably.

However, people who have been quite reasonable in their initial inquiries have been treated with less than the most civil of responses. Sean is one example. The snow in July guy is another. The claimant I have corresponded with privately is a third. I don't feel that any of them exhibited a malicious intent or a vast amount of stupidity (though I do realize others may disagree on that point :) )

Now, Kramer, Randi and the entire staff of JREF is free to treat any inquiries of any sort in any manner they wish. It's their challenge and their money. But for those who wonder why they don't see more challenge applications from people who are neither frauds nor seriously mentally ill, I think that is a major contributing cause. Treating everyone with the assumption that they they are one or the other (you might note that Kramer came right out and said that I was delusional) is going to repell a lot of the potential claimants who are neither, both from applying in the first place and from working with JREF to design a mutually acceptable test protocol after they've applied.

Now, if that's not a concern to JREF, that's okay. As I said, it's their challenge; they can run it as they see fit. But if they want more applications from claimants who are neither mentally ill or fraudulant...well, enough has already been said in both this thread and one on the california weatherman regarding that.

Beth

*emphasis mine*

I agree with most of what you're saying but the way Sean acted doesn't strike me as very polite. He received legal verification just after inquiring, what he did after that seems like harassment to me. But there's really no point in discussing this as everything has already been said. Furthermore I think KRAMER made it quite clear that being rude to potential applicants is not part of JREF policy and that they're taking the concerns you (and others) stated very seriously. He even made a public apology to Sean, which -in my opinion- takes a lot of integrity to do.

edit: spelling

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
Originally posted by jmercer
Beth - you've made an outright statement that JREF gets very few "serious claimants" because of the way claimants are treated. [/B]

I didn't intend that to come across as a debateable point. I haven't conducted a scientific survey, attempted to measure all posted correspondence regarding 'civility and tone' nor have I corresponded with legions of potential applicants to discover why they don't apply. I've just formed an opinion based on my own experiences and the correspondence that's been posted between JREF and claimants in this section of the forum. If you don't agree, that's okay.

Beth

Fair enough. I'll drop the issue, since it's just an opinion rather than an assertion. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. :)

I do have a suggestion for you, in all seriousness. I can understand why you would have this perception given the examples you've cited. I probably would have too - except when I started in the forums I started going through the Challenge Applications threads out of curiosity.

Once I got a decent cross-section of exchanges between Kramer and applicants (setting aside Kramer's private comments in the threads themselves), I came to the conclusion that most would-be applicants are treated courteously until it becomes apparent that they have reached the point where they should have already put in their application. Most of the time, Kramer simply cuts off the conversation with an 'apply or leave us alone' comment of some type.

Fairly frequently, people are informed in the kindest way that their claim will not be processed, the reason for the decision, and the suggestion that they seek professional help. This is a bit controversial in the sense that it may or may not be JREF's place to suggest such a thing; but there's no question that continuing the process with some people would be a disservice to them.

Take a look at the threads. You may find yourself adjusting your viewpoint to some degree.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Yes. There is something. Or at least there was. In the guy's very first communication he said:

That would allow for a logical assumption that the successful claimant will get bonds. The questionable sentence doesn't exactly say that, but you could interpret the sentence to mean "The prize is bonds". It is just not a very clear sentence. It is missing some implied words: "The surety for the prize...", "The money is held...", etc. Not a big deal. It should have been simply cleared up a long time ago. And JREF should have recoginzed the little problem of the wording and fixed it and moved on.

That is Sean's version of what the website says. I think that the actual challange language is a lot clearer:

“…James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail.�

The meaning is clear:

1. Prize is $1,000,000.00 United States Dollars.
2. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held as surety for the prize funds.

It does not say that the prize money is in the form of bonds, neither does it say that the prize money is being held in the form of bonds; in fact, it does not even say that the bonds will be the source of the prize money. It says that bonds are held as surety for the prize funds. A guarantee that the funds will be available if the prize is claimed, no more – no less.

If the second sentence read ‘Two million pounds of Polish sausage is being stored in a freezer in Krakow, Poland, in the “James Randi Education Foundation Prize Account�…’ would anyone argue that the language even implies that payment would be in the form of Polish sausage?

Were I to have responded to Sean’s initial query I too would have said that the precise nature of the bonds are not relevant – bear in mind that Sean’s first missive made no mention of his belief that the bonds were the prize. Only later does it become apparent that he was operating under such a misapprehension.

While I would hope that my correspondence would be less acerbic than was Kramer’s, I could not guarantee it would be so; Kramer deals with pen pals that go out of their way to misinterpret the most simple sentence every day, all day. In this case, I think the language is clear and I would wager that Kramer is (and was) of the same opinion.

Sean’s initial misunderstanding may well have been genuine, but it is not, I think, the fault of the JREF language. Frankly, I found some of Sean’s questions just a little bit unnecessarily argumentative, particularly when he suggested a payoff over 40 years as being a concern. That is tantamount to calling James Randi a fraud and JREF’s challenge a scam – at that point I would certainly have taken umbrage.

Actually, I think that that with which we are dealing here is what Spider Robinson calls “rupture� – two people using similar words, but speaking two very different languages.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Metullus
That is Sean's version of what the website says.

The line Sean originally quoted that caused the confusion was a direct quote from the JREF site, from the introduction provided under the link to the challenge. This line has subsequently been removed because it DID imply (incorrectly) that the bonds were the prize.

This entire ordeal was caused by two misunderstandings:

Sean mistakenly thought that the bonds would be awarded as the prize. His question did not directly address that, but was rather about the nature of the bonds, based on his misconception.

Randi and Kramer's early responses did not clarify this misconception. In fact, Randi's second response "immediately convertible into money" seems to confirm it. I believe they missed the fact that Sean misundertood how the prize would be awared. If they had understood this and corrected it, I suspect Sean would have gone away satisfied, and we would now be having a lot of fun proposing protocols for fire-ball throwing tests.

[Beth]

Take a look at the threads. You may find yourself adjusting your viewpoint to some degree. [/QUOTE]

Thank you for the suggestions, but I've already read through a good deal of the correspondence posted, not just the ones I mentioned. Not all, and primarily the more recent ones, but a large enough sample to capture the general tone that comes through. (I'll probably read more as I have time. They are rather interesting.)

I agree, Kramer has been reasonable and polite in the beginning of most such conversations. However, even when he starts out politely, the general tone and civility seem to degenerate rather quickly and frequently in my opinion. Perhaps reasonably so, perhaps not; when the point of dropping civility ought to be reached has been debated here at length already.

Regarding the additional comments that he posts. Even if not part of the actual correspondence, they might well be read by the claimants and other potential claimants. I'm certainly not the only one to have done so. Thus, I do include those in my evaluation of how JREF treats claimants. To post some of the comments I've seen posted here is, well, impolite in my opinion. It doesn't reflect well on JREF and I think it would discourage people from applying. I'm not including posts made by other participants in the forum in my assessment as they are not representatives of JREF.

Now, they aren't running JREF for my benefit; he can post whatever he likes. But I do think that those who have expressed concern about the image that it projects have a valid point. I, and presumably others, will base our opinion of JREF on the content of such correspondence and posts.

Beth

[Beth]

Take a look at the threads. You may find yourself adjusting your viewpoint to some degree. [/QUOTE]

Thank you for the suggestions, but I've already read through a good deal of the correspondence posted, not just the ones I mentioned. Not all, and primarily the more recent ones, but a large enough sample to capture the general tone that comes through. (I'll probably read more as I have time. They are rather interesting.)

I agree, Kramer has been reasonable and polite in the beginning of most such conversations. However, even when he starts out politely, the general tone and civility seem to degenerate rather quickly and frequently in my opinion. Perhaps reasonably so, perhaps not; when the point of dropping civility ought to be reached has been debated here at length already.

Regarding the additional comments that he posts. Even if not part of the actual correspondence, they might well be read by the claimants and other potential claimants. I'm certainly not the only one to have done so. Thus, I do include those in my evaluation of how JREF treats claimants. To post some of the comments I've seen posted here is, well, impolite in my opinion. It doesn't reflect well on JREF and I think it would discourage people from applying. I'm not including posts made by other participants in the forum in my assessment as they are not representatives of JREF.

Now, they aren't running JREF for my benefit; he can post whatever he likes. But I do think that those who have expressed concern about the image that it projects have a valid point. I, and presumably others, will base our opinion of JREF on the content of such correspondence and posts.

Beth

[Beth]

Sorry about the double post. My computer got hung up and I thought it didn't go through.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by athon
My final little say here; you have retained my complete respect through all of this, Kramer. You examined what's happened, taken everything into account and evaluated how you'll do things again in the future. That's all anybody can do.


I second this opinion. We all of us lose our cool at times.

Beth

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
Sorry about the double post. My computer got hung up and I thought it didn't go through.

Beth

I don't think it's your computer - the forum seems slow. I think it's all the traffic over the ABC show last night. It seems to be a very popular thread.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
Take a look at the threads. You may find yourself adjusting your viewpoint to some degree.

Thank you for the suggestions, but I've already read through a good deal of the correspondence posted, not just the ones I mentioned. Not all, and primarily the more recent ones, but a large enough sample to capture the general tone that comes through. (I'll probably read more as I have time. They are rather interesting.)

Beth [/QUOTE]

Ah, ok... thanks. I got the impression that you hadn't really been looking at stuff other than the recent controversial threads. Fair enough, then. :)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by peebrain
What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail. Hell, he could have just copy/pasted what he wrote on the forum into the e-mail... or he could have linked me to the forum pages that explain it. Instead, he tells me I'm full of sh*t (which he edited out of the emails he posted), and ignores me because I have no intention of applying - which again, isn't relevant to the questions I presented. Notice how none of YOU have intention of applying, yet he answers your questions.

Apparently I used the wrong channel of communication - I should have publically asked the questions, instead of privately.

~Sean

What the hell do you care? The winner of the challenge get a million dollars. Is there any way to make that clearer? Even if it wasn't EXACTLY a million (which it is) what do you care? Nevermind the fact that if you can do anything paranormal (which you can not) you would become the most famous man in history having been the only person ever to successfully and authentically demonstrate a paranormal ability of any kind at all. You could make countless millions of dollars if you had any paranormal ability, what on earth are you fretting about Randi's piddling million for?

[Metullus]

I use my psychotic - I mean, psychic - abilities for the good of mankind and the whales, which is the only reason I have not applied for the prize. And marsupials, I really like marsupials.

Considerations of mere money are far beneath me. But if I was interested in the money - which I am not because I am a spiritual type person - I would read the bleeping contract before I started bugging people with questions about what denomination the money is in! If, after reading the relevant portions of the application / contract, I had questions, I would ask them.

But then I read the owner's manual before I call technical support.

[kittynh]

When I win I want it all in commemorative states quarters. Heavy on the Minnesotas.

[webfusion]

Un-freakin-believable, this thread is still humming along?

Sean, the paranormal wanna-be who got the details he sought, more than once, through various channels including the well-versed participants on this respected and informative forum, said that he was now
"satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money" -- when was this said? Hmmmmmm, back on Feb 7th, right here in this thread.
Badda Bing, Badda Bam.

Where was there a mistake made? Not by James Randi, (who wears Spongebob Square Pants underwear, I have it on good authority), the very guy that runs a little thing called the Million Dollar Challenge for everyone's general amusement (or education, or scientific advancement, or whatever, see video of Yellow Bamboo).

You all remember The Amazing Randi, who is standing right there in front of the vault (I love that photo so much, I reproduced it on this thread early-on, 'cause as they say, one picture is worth a million dollars) -- well, Randi right off the bat saw this guy Sean was a loser. Randi has this uncanny ability, not paranormal, just an ability, to sniff out the sh*t right from the get-go. He wrote Sean, buzz off Bozo, and you saw that his right-hand man, KRAMER pretty much has the ol' snifferoo in tune, too. They make a great tag-team, working in synchronicity to stop guys like this cold. Full stop. Their initial emails said it all. Really.

So, where did this all go horribly wrong?
Right here:
"Do you have a paranormal claim, sir?"

That one little sentence opened the floodgates. It was beyond polite, it was actually an engraved invitation for Sean to step into the open gaping hole and begin his flubber and fluff routine and start creating Dagwood-sized 'baloney' sandwiches!

Too bad KRAMER issued the empty threat that followed, saying he would stop answering him if he continued to ask about the millon bucks.


OK, so Sean admitted on Feb 7th that he was now
"satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money" --

Well, I'm not satisfied, dammit. I want Sean to put his notarized signature on the JREF Application, and that's all we all wanna see with his name on it, from this point forward. Enough commentary. Let's cut to the chase.

To quote the guy overlooking things with his steely gaze from up there on the Forum Header:::::::::::::::::::
A-P-P-L-Y or G-0 A-W-A-Y

Bottom Line.
_____________________________________

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by kittynh
When I win I want it all in commemorative states quarters. Heavy on the Minnesotas.

Actually, the Wisconsins might be a bit more valuable. There is a printing flaw in some them, making them instantly valuable to collectors. :p

[webfusion]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-02-10-quarter-usat_x.htm

Extra cornstalk leafs. Sheesh! What I wanna know, who ate that slice of cheese?

247,500 = twenty four thousand seven hundred fify rolls
of chump change.

[princhester]

Here we go again.

[TheBoyPaj]

I know this is opening a whole can of worms, but I was watching the video lecture mentioned on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52666) and Randi definitely said "you win a million dollars in negotiable bonds".

The thing is, I just tried to go back to confirm what I heard and the page has gone!

:confused:

[jmercer]

Hm... well, even so. A million dollars in liquid funds is still a million bucks. Heck, cash is just a bunch of certificates based on the current value of gold. So when you get right down to it, even a million dollars in cash isn't a fixed value, especially on an international basis. :)

I worked for a number of international companies, and exchange rates were always studied and used in order to make money. In fact, there are traders that make their money playing the international money exchange marketplace.

[CFLarsen]

Exactly.

Look at the value of the dollar. Wouldn't you rather have bonds instead??

[Metullus]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I know this is opening a whole can of worms, but I was watching the video lecture mentioned on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52666) and Randi definitely said "you win a million dollars in negotiable bonds".

Given the number of times that Randi speaks and likely mentions the prize I would be surprised if he did not make such a reference; I would expect that it would happen not infrequently. That he did make such a comment does not change or even define the nature of the prize: there exists a contract that spells out quite clearly what the prize is.

One million dollars U.S.

Period.

[webfusion]

in the USA, this statement is incorrect:

"Heck, cash is just a bunch of certificates based on the current value of gold."

President Richard M. Nixon took the American currency off the gold standard: (The Bretton Woods system) ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed". The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time.

http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

FYI.

[KRAMER]

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html (http://)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by webfusion
in the USA, this statement is incorrect:

"Heck, cash is just a bunch of certificates based on the current value of gold."

President Richard M. Nixon took the American currency off the gold standard: (The Bretton Woods system) ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed". The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time.

http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

FYI.

Ooops! I stand corrected, and I thank you for that!

[kookbreaker]

Bad link Kramer.

The text works, however.

[Kaylee]

Per the official FAQ, the prize is mostly BONDS not cash.
See http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.3:

OFFICIAL FAQ
"3.3. If I pass the formal test and win the Challenge, how will I be paid?
The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules, immediately upon the successful demonstration of their claim. The prize money is held in the form of bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist. These immediately convertible bonds will be awarded to the Challenge winner within 10 days of passing the formal test. The manner of transfer of these bonds will be at the discretion of the JREF and the Challenge winner, in accordance with acceptable legal standards."

Compare that to the draft version of the FAQ in the thread The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52707

DRAFT FAQ
"3.3. If someone wins, how will they be paid?
Although the prize money is held in bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist, the bonds will be converted to US dollars before being paid. The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well."


I added the bold text in the body of the FAQ paragraphs.

Since the PRIZE is BONDS and NOT CASH , I predict (no special abilities needed ;)) that the JREF will once again be asked in the future about the nature of the bonds (e.g. who the issuer is, what type and grade they are, maturity dates, and etc) from someone considering signing a legal contract with them BEFORE they sign a legal contract with them. And the challenge application is a legal document. I don't say so, the JREF says so in the FAQ, paragraph 1.1
(See http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#1.1):

"The Challenge application, once signed by you, is a legally binding contract between yourself and the JREF. "

I complemented Beleth in the other thread, "The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ",
and I do so again. It’s a great FAQ and Beleth did a wonderful job in an unbelievably short period of time.

Shera

[shanek]

I posted this on another thread on this same subject, but it looks like it should go here, too.

All quotes are from his site:

Bonds are certificates of debt.

No, they aren't. The dollar bills you hold are "certificates of debt." A bond is an investment, a contract.

That means that a bond is basically an IOU.
Only insomuch as a contract is an IOU.

So they go to a rich guy and say, "Hey, if you give us $10,000, we'll pay you $100 every month for 24 months, then we'll give you your $10,000 back to you". This is appealing to Bob's Bakery because they can get their company started, and once it gets going, they'll start making money. From their profits, they'll take $100 each month and give it to the rich guy.

It's not only "rich guys" who have bonds. It's also little old ladies with their retirement accounts.

Also, they don't make out the entire debt to just one guy. They might issue 10 $1,000 bonds, or 100 $100 bonds, or whatever.

(Of course, I'm simplifying this entire situation just to get the point across; in reality it's a little more complicated).
Yes, and the devil, as we shall see, is absolutely in the details.

Where is the problem? Well, what if Bob's Baker doesn't succeed, and goes bankrupt? What happens to the $10,000? Basically: it's lost. Rich guy doesn't get his $100 a month, and rich guy loses out on $10,000.
Yes, it's called "risk." In this case, it's a startup business which is highly risky. In order to encourage people to invest, they will increase the interest rate. These are called "high yield" bonds, also known as "junk bonds" precisely because of the risk of the issuer going under. High risk/high yield investments are a part of any decent portfolio, but only an idiot will put the entire high risk portion of his portfolio into a single company.

You can also buy much safer bonds in established companies. These bonds might only pay, say, 5% instead of 15%, but you're basically getting the same thing in the long run. If you invest in a whole bunch of high-risk bonds, over the long haul you'll get about the same amount as you would with a safer bond (because the money you get from the bonds that don't go under make up for the ones that do and you're left with basically the same return on investment). This is that whole "market equilibrium" thing again.

This guy does not go into interest rates at all, making his analysis worthless.

Since the prize money is in the form of bonds, then it is possible that the bonds are worthless.
No, it isn't. It's possible that some of the bonds might be worthless someday.

For example, maybe a lot of the bonds are from corporations that are on the verge of going bankrupt?

In which case, Goldman-Sachs (or whoever is managing their fund) will pull out the money from those bonds and invest them elsewhere. This is because of the "negotiable" thing I mention below.

Or maybe the corporations don't have to pay off the bonds for another 40 years?

See if you can get this: long-term bonds GOOD. Long-term bonds WORTH MORE. Person who wait until long-term bond have less than 10 years left IDIOT.

Why? Because when you go to sell the bond you're likely to get more money for it. The person who buys the bonds from you will not only get the original amount when it matures, but will also get the interest payments until then as well. So a $1000 bond at 5% with 15 years left is worth a lot more than a $1000 bond at 5% with 5 years left.

If Randi awards the prize of a bond that doesn't mature for 40 years, then legally I do have a million dollars... but I can't USE the million dollars until the bonds mature!

Completely, utterly, pathetically, and laughably wrong. They're called "negotiable bonds" for a reason. In your example, rich guy #1 might sell his $10,000 bonds to rich guy #2. Then Bob's Bakery pays him the interest rates and gives him the original principal back when it matures.

The prize money is in negotiable bonds. It can be converted into cash at any time.

The next logical step is to find out what the bonds are really worth. To do that, I e-mailed Randi at the address he provided on his website. I politely pointed out where it said the prize was in bonds in the Challenge rules, and then I asked what corporations issued the bonds, what the interest rates were, and when the maturity dates are. These are the main factors at determining if the bonds are worthless or not.

Except that Randi didn't purchase the bonds himself. Goldman-Sachs (or whoever manages their fund) did. Randi has invested in a fund, which means that Randi's money, along with the money of a ton of other investors, is put into bonds of some kind. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL BONDS DO. The people managing the fund take care of all of that, and Randi still has his money.

(Point not mentioned in my post on the other thread:) By the way, when you deposit money into even a regular savings or checking account at your bank, most of the money is loaned out again, maybe as bonds, maybe as a mortgage, or whatever. Are you worried about your savings accounts going belly-up? There's actually a much greater chance of this than there is of Randi's bond fund being devalued. It's called a "run."

Obviously that doesn't answer my question at all. Immediately convertible into how much money?

$1 million.

Convertible through who?
Goldman-Sachs.

So I'm the idiot, right?

Sounds like the first thing you've said right.

[edge]

Who cares if you win the challenge then you will be a multi-millionaire.
I'll take the bonds! It’s about creditability too.
You have to start somewhere.
There's the Nobel who knows what else?

[Gr8wight]

Dudes.

Two year old thread!

[strathmeyer]

Everything old is new again.

Besides, it's nice to see a title you remember.

Aaaah, 2005 was a good year...

[Pro7]

Negotiable Bonds is classified under Fundamentals of Property Law.

Negotiable Bonds is a representation of CASH itself. It is form of CASH, but as in legality of which the investment is issued.

[Klaymore]

Hey, so does this Peebrain dude have a paranormal claim, or what? Maybe he could have looked into the future and predicted that, two long years after he first started this whole thing, we would still be discussing what a "bond" is...

Wait, I predict that, two years from now, people will still be claiming that the money isn't really there. Now give me my ******* million... in cash!

[OXEL]

Hello. As I am tired right now, I will try to keep the sentences short.

As you may see, I'm new here. Why am I here? Because I love the idea of JREF and the 1 Mio. Paranormal Challenge. I want to make use of it. Many sceptics do. We all know that. You talk to people with paranormal claims and the Challenge is a great argument.

Now I am severely disappointed. I read this whole thread. It took me a heck of a time. But I wanted to know what the fuss is all about. Why? Beacause while talking about the Challenge I had to face the accusation, that JREF is not serious about the money.

Now it appears that all this time we were being ******* at by the JREF. This is absolutely inacceptable behavior for a company with such claims. Where are all the sceptics condemning JREF?

From my point of view it is like this: They made us believe the price is money. As was stated in the FAQ, it is not. How on Earth do you explain such a behavior to a sceptic??? And there was no fuss about it after the official FAQ was released or was it discussed in another thread?

I am very disappointed.

[Jeff Wagg]

I didn't understand that at all.

Hello. As I am tired right now, I will try to keep the sentences short.

As you may see, I'm new here. Why am I here? Because I love the idea of JREF and the 1 Mio. Paranormal Challenge. I want to make use of it. Many sceptics do. We all know that. You talk to people with paranormal claims and the Challenge is a great argument.

Now I am severely disappointed. I read this whole thread. It took me a heck of a time. But I wanted to know what the fuss is all about. Why? Beacause while talking about the Challenge I had to face the accusation, that JREF is not serious about the money.

Now it appears that all this time we were being ******* at by the JREF. This is absolutely inacceptable behavior for a company with such claims. Where are all the sceptics condemning JREF?

From my point of view it is like this: They made us believe the price is money. As was stated in the FAQ, it is not. How on Earth do you explain such a behavior to a sceptic??? And there was no fuss about it after the official FAQ was released or was it discussed in another thread?

I am very disappointed.

[Freethinker]

Hello. As I am tired right now, I will try to keep the sentences short.

As you may see, I'm new here. Why am I here? Because I love the idea of JREF and the 1 Mio. Paranormal Challenge. I want to make use of it. Many sceptics do. We all know that. You talk to people with paranormal claims and the Challenge is a great argument.

Now I am severely disappointed. I read this whole thread. It took me a heck of a time. But I wanted to know what the fuss is all about. Why? Beacause while talking about the Challenge I had to face the accusation, that JREF is not serious about the money.

Now it appears that all this time we were being ******* at by the JREF. This is absolutely inacceptable behavior for a company with such claims. Where are all the sceptics condemning JREF?

From my point of view it is like this: They made us believe the price is money. As was stated in the FAQ, it is not. How on Earth do you explain such a behavior to a sceptic??? And there was no fuss about it after the official FAQ was released or was it discussed in another thread?

I am very disappointed.

Did you have a point?

[Terry]

The prize is money.

[Gravy]

How on Earth do you explain such a behavior to a sceptic???
What behavior?

I'm with Jeff. Your post does not make sense to me. There is a cash prize. Do you have an issue with, or question about, the JREF paranormal challenge?

[colin]

OXEL, you appear to be very tired indeed. Perhaps you should post again after you’ve had some rest.

[OXEL]

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. See here:

http://psipog.net/art-beware-pseudo-skepticism.html

"It turns out the prize IS THE BONDS."


I would be very happy if a JREF staff member could confirm that the price is the money and not the bonds.

Less important but still interesting would be the question why the last FAQ was altered the way that it told the price was the bonds.

[zooloo]

For all practical purpose the bonds are money.

[OXEL]

For all practical purpose the bonds are money.
This neither answers my question not is it relevant. Bonds are not money.

[Beleth]

Bonds are not money.
In what way that matters are they different?

[Terry]

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.