Audio Critic

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Darat
Perhaps he meant the longest thread pertaining directly to the JREF? ;)

I meant to say that it's the longest thread in the history of the Challenge section of the JREF forum that I am personally aware of but I may be wrong and I often am wrong because I'm only human and if I am wrong about such an utterly trivial thing I absolutely must humbly beg you to forgive me and implore you to try your best NOT to hold it against my descendents and of course I must never forget to beg the forgiveness of (and prostate myself before) any nitpicky forum members who need to go out and GET A LIFE.

That's what I ought to have said.

You re-define the word TROLL, Beleth. You really do.

Revising history, eh? How the hell will I get to sleep tonight if I can't stop laughing?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
This thread would be a heckuvalot shorter, at least in screen real estate, if some people wouldn't have 7/8 of the post in their signature.

I'm just sayin'.

Hey now

I only have 7 inches to my sig now.

[Winny]

Originally posted by KRAMER
snipped stuff Congratulations on securing the 1000th reply to this thread. Please select any toy from the third row.

Winny

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I meant to say that it's the longest thread in the history of the Challenge section of the JREF forum that I am personally aware of but I may be wrong and I often am wrong because I'm only human and if I am wrong about such an utterly trivial thing I absolutely must humbly beg you to forgive me and implore you to try your best NOT to hold it against my descendents and of course I must never forget to beg the forgiveness of (and prostate myself before) any nitpicky forum members who need to go out and GET A LIFE.

Wow.


What can I say but...


"prostrate".



And also that for someone with such high standards for written communication from others, you sure get tetchy when others hold you to a similar standard.


Revising history, eh? How the hell will I get to sleep tonight if I can't stop laughing? Make yourself a nice hot cup of chamomile tea,
play an Enya CD,
and reconcile what Randi says at the beginning of chapter 13 of FLIM-FLAM! regarding how many applicants have passed the Challenge's preliminary test with what the official JREF position is now.

That should get you to stop laughing.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
This thread would be a heckuvalot shorter, at least in screen real estate, if some people wouldn't have 7/8 of the post in their signature.

I'm just sayin'.

I don't even see the signatures... not even my own.

I wonder how it would go over if I quoted any one of PianoTeacher's posts in my sig.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
This thread would be a heckuvalot shorter, at least in screen real estate, if some people wouldn't have 7/8 of the post in their signature.

I'm just sayin'.

I'm thinking of removing mayday's quotes, anyway... s/he's become such an obvious troll it's not as much fun as when I could take her/him semi-seriously. :)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by jmercer
I'm thinking of removing mayday's quotes, anyway... s/he's become such an obvious troll it's not as much fun as when I could take her/him semi-seriously. :) While you're at it, there's no evidence that Edmund Burke ever said that or wrote it.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by BPSCG
While you're at it, there's no evidence that Edmund Burke ever said that or wrote it.

That's the first time I've heard that, but it doesn't really matter to me. He's widely credited with the remark... no matter who said it, it's still an important statement to make.

mayday's commentary is now gone, though. :D

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Beleth
...and reconcile what Randi says at the beginning of chapter 13 of FLIM-FLAM! regarding how many applicants have passed the Challenge's preliminary test with what the official JREF position is now. That should get you to stop laughing.

Do you know how to read, or did you just think I wouldn't research your stupid accusation and let it go unanswered?

Go back to school and study basic reading and comprehension.

Nowhere does it state that anyone has "passed the Challenge's preliminary test", as you so conveniently (and falsely) paraphrase it in support of your own mindless, intellectually impoverished agenda.

The "preliminaries" Randi refers to at the beginning of Chapter 13 of FLIM-FLAM are the preliminary stages of the negotiations, meaning that the 54 applicants refered to actually succeeded in communicating what they claim to be able to do, and how they will demonstrate it. No mention was made of the Challenge's premliminary test. It would behoove you to put some effort into the task of learning how to read. There are special schools out there than can help you with that, if you even care.

I don't know if you're stupid or just a liar (which is worse?), but either way, you won't get any more of my attention, no matter how much you lie. Your effluvium splashes off me and runs down into the gutter from this point forward.

No one has EVER passed the Challenge's Preliminary Test. This is a statement of FACT.

FACT. Look it up.

p.s. I'm still laughing.

[jmercer]

Ouch - angry.

[Winny]

Does somebody out there want to post what Randi says at the beginning of chapter 13 of "FLIM-FLAM!"? The suspense is killing me...

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Winny
Does somebody out there want to post what Randi says at the beginning of chapter 13 of "FLIM-FLAM!"? The suspense is killing me... "During a radio panel discussion back in 1964, I was challenged by a parapsychologist to 'put your money where you mouth is,' and I responded.... In response to that challenge, over 650 persons have applied as claimants. Only 54 (as of this writing) ever made it past the preliminaries, and none of them ever got a nickel." -- Fifth printing, 1986 (1982 copyright)

If you want more, you can always buy the book... :)

[Sherman Bay]

"...54...made it past the preliminaries..." It sounds to me that Randi was saying that 54 applicants passed the preliminary test, but Kramer says that "the preliminaries" is the preliminary negotiation stage, not a test of any kind.

I would not have interpreted the text that way, although that might have been Randi's intention.

[KRAMER]

Kramer didn't say it. Randi said it, and I then offered it here as clarification, at least for those reasonable enough to accept it. I knew for certain that at least one forum member would reject it.

The explanation came directly from Randi. The sentence in question in FLIM-FLAM made no reference to the preliminary test, and although his use of the word "passed" may today seem to be potentially misleading (as a test is either passed or failed), only a woo-woo would continue to argue about this after a clarification was offered, especially since everyone knows that no one has ever passed the preliminary test.
To accuse Randi of lying or "revising history" based upon semantics is just stupid, and I called it just that.

"Why are you asking me this, Kramer? You know perfectly well that no one has ever passed the preliminary. It's common knowledge."

Perhaps Randi ought not to have used to word "preliminary", or should have used the term "preliminary stage of the negotiations" instead, but he did not. When I told him my reason for asking (and of the debate in the forum), he looked at me blankly for a moment, and then turned back toward his computer and the work at hand.

I deserved that, just as Beleth deserved my nasty admonition.

Most importantly perhaps is the simple fact that FLIM-FLAM was written prior to the Million Dollar Challenge, and prior to any so-called preliminary test. At the time of FLIM-FLAM there was only a $10,000 prize, and there was no preliminary test. So the discrepency in nomenclature is, I think, entirely understandable. Except of course to a woo-woo.

Without the existence (at the time the sentence in question was written) of any preliminary test, the use of the word "preliminary" is no crime, and is certainly not misleading in any way.

The clarification offered here ought to put an end to this. I hope it does.

In case you need more...from Randi's Personal Challenge FAQ:

(3) To date, how many persons have been tested for the million-dollar prize offered by JREF?

That's not a simple question to answer. Many hundreds have applied, and most have had to be instructed to reapply — sometimes several times — because they did it incorrectly or incompletely. There are, at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered, but from experience we know that the vast majority will drop out even before any proper preliminary test can be designed. Of those who get to the preliminary stage, perhaps a third will actually be tested, and some of those will quit before completion. To date, no one has actually passed the simple preliminaries and arrived at the formal test stage, though a couple hundred have completed and failed the preliminaries. So, no one has been formally tested for the big prize, though we're ready and willing.

[webfusion]

Beleth, who apparently (and this FAQ adopted by JREF is evidence) can both read and write clearly enough.

Now, I have a real question for KRAMER.

Was Mr Anda notified by eMail that his Challenge Application was rejected? I asked the Applicant directly here, but he was suspended, so the issue remains up in the air.

Just curious.


[[[[[[ ETA --- I am just wondering if notification in the Forum is sufficient, or does a personal communication need to be made to make things "official"? ]]]]]]]

[jmercer]

Originally posted by webfusion
Beleth, who apparently (and this FAQ adopted by JREF is evidence) can both read and write clearly enough.

Now, I have a real question for KRAMER.

Was Mr Anda notified by eMail that his Challenge Application was rejected? I asked the Applicant directly here, but he was suspended, so the issue remains up in the air.

Just curious.


[[[[[[ ETA --- I am just wondering if notification in the Forum is sufficient, or does a personal communication need to be made to make things "official"? ]]]]]]]

Is notification by email a requirement? I don't recall seeing that, but I may have missed it.

He was told here in the forums by Kramer in the massive thread... plus his application was closed over in the Apps sub-forum. Even if no email was issued, that's a pretty clear shutdown to me.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by webfusion
Now, I have a real question for KRAMER.

Was Mr Anda notified by eMail that his Challenge Application was rejected? I asked the Applicant directly here, but he was suspended, so the issue remains up in the air.

Just curious.

Yes.

Although there is no rule regarding a requirement for any notice in writing to be submitted by the JREF to an applicant notifying them that their claim is being rejected, Mr. Anda is aware that his claim was rejected, as evidenced here in his MY STRUGGLE thread. There is no doubt that he is aware. None.

All we really need do is be sure that the applicant knows of it.

And he knows it.

We are not required to submit a rejection letter to him via post or email, if that's what you are asking, but we always do, regardless.

[Wellfed]

How've you all been?

I am not a profane person, but let me state in my first post back from vacation (which I did in fact enjoy) that I sincerely apologize for my use of profanity. I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule. Had I been, I would have behaved myself appropriately. I simply view myself as having followed precedent.

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

[-42-]

Originally posted by Wellfed

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

Guess you didn't read the threads where you spammed profanity, huh?

Or did you go such on a profanity spree you don't even recall the number of posts that you suddenly used it in?

[webfusion]

Hey, Anda, can you please find another euphemism for your profanity? It bothers me to see you bringing one of the most lovable and innocent characters of cartoondom into this discussion as a substitute for a "curse word" ----
http://faculty.tcu.edu/jlovett/images/bullwinkle.gif

Gee, Rocky, when do ya think that Wellfed will come to realize that he isn't going to be tested? He even got the eMail telling him so! What a maroon!

[Moose]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule. Had I been, I would have behaved myself appropriately.

It's been a while since I've registered, but I seem to remember having to agree that I've read the posting rules as a condition for getting my account. Rule 8 is the relevant one, and I also see Darat smacked you for a breach of rule 6 as well.

If you weren't cognizant, you darn well should have been.

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary.

I think we now see who the liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=24) is.

Originally postedy by Darat wielding his moderator's attitude readjustment tool:

I have had to edit several of your posts to remove the profanity you have used that is not allowed as per your Membership Agreement. Further breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions.

So what do you do? You break the rules yet again and get yourself suspended for it.

Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

Just for the record, you've just finished burning through what little remaining benefit of my doubt you've had.

It's now entirely clear that you're the liar.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Moose
...


I think we now see who the liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=24) is.



So what do you do? You break the rules yet again and get yourself suspended for it.



Just for the record, you've just finished burning through what little remaining benefit of my doubt you've had.

It's now entirely clear that you're the liar.

Do you honestly believe that "Cease and desist" orders attached to postings I was unlikely to review in a timely manner constitute a fair warning? This practice does reek of "JREF logic" though, I shouldn't be surprised. FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
Hey, Anda, can you please find another euphemism for your profanity? It bothers me to see you bringing one of the most lovable and innocent characters of cartoondom into this discussion as a substitute for a "curse word" ----
http://faculty.tcu.edu/jlovett/images/bullwinkle.gif

webfusion, I did pause to consider not implicating our beloved icon to simply support my crazed profanity obsession. The pull was just too strong.


Originally posted by webfusion
Gee, Rocky, when do ya think that Wellfed will come to realize that he isn't going to be tested? He even got the eMail telling him so! What a maroon!

What email might that be? Can I assume Kramer is playing games with your head again if he has given you reason to believe such an email exists? Perhaps you simply dreamt that one up in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway).

[Moose]

Originally posted by Wellfed
FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.

Liar. I just quoted it.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Moose
Liar. I just quoted it.

You quoted what? BTW, did you read my statement about not not having received any "Cease and desist" orders?

[Moose]

Originally posted by Wellfed
You quoted what? BTW, did you read my statement about not not having received any "Cease and desist" orders?

Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

[marcchem]

Originally posted by Moose
Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

Moose:

What I think Wellfed is implying is that when Darat started with the "Rule 8" notifications on the forum that an e-mail was not sent to Wellfed stating he was in violation. Since I don't remember the specifics of the rule agreement we all agreed to when we became forum members, its possible that rule violations are only noted within the forum. I'll PM Darat and ask him (or her) if this is the case or not.

Wellfed:

This is still yet another case of "splitting hairs" you seem to be so fond of. Most forums have rules of conduct including the use of profanity. You should have known better when you started to cuss even if YOU think it was justified. You should keep an eye on your postings, I know I tend to check to see if nothing else whether I mis-typed something. Its not like its hard to miss a big grey box in each offending posting.

Also, frankly, you just need to shut up. You've already dug yourself a nice big hole, I'd work on getting out rather than digging deeper. JREF has decided to terminate your application, period. Its their game, you play by their rules. Before you whine "I didn't know the rules" it behooves you to ASK. If you don't know, ask! Kramer gave you plenty of warnings. Again frankly I think you deserve what you got.

I already gave you some good advice earlier:
0) Get your act together. You claim that you can identify CDs treated with the GSIC? Great! But only certain discs work well? Are you SURE you can do this 100% of the time? I'd still be impressed by 70 or 80% success if the test is properly designed DBT. Get over your concern about double blind testing - you are doing things the JREF way.
1) Make a protocol - ask CSICOP or other skeptics to help you. There are some good starting points in these forums, build on those. Ask Piano Teacher for help, you have about 9 months to whip something up.
2) Learn some humility - "My Struggle"? Seriously, dude! Pick a protocol and plan out the time from next March until the end of the year. No "Weekends are no good". MAKE the time if you are serious!
3) Stop boring us - use the time to test yourself instead. Really!

Finally, good luck - with the way you are wandering around, I think you'll need it!

Marc

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Moose
Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

Moose, how often do you go back and re-read your previous postings? Even if you were to do so hourly I can tell you that I don't. I have of course re-read the record many times to get a handle on Kramer's various deceptions, this is typically done considerably after the fact. If you think posting warnings where they are unlikely to be read in a timely manner is sensible practice, so be it. You will never convince me of its sensibility. In fact, given JREF operating principles, I could easily consider the practice devious.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by marcchem
Moose:

What I think Wellfed is implying is that when Darat started with the "Rule 8" notifications on the forum that an e-mail was not sent to Wellfed stating he was in violation. Since I don't remember the specifics of the rule agreement we all agreed to when we became forum members, its possible that rule violations are only noted within the forum. I'll PM Darat and ask him (or her) if this is the case or not.

Wellfed:

This is still yet another case of "splitting hairs" you seem to be so fond of. Most forums have rules of conduct including the use of profanity. You should have known better when you started to cuss even if YOU think it was justified. You should keep an eye on your postings, I know I tend to check to see if nothing else whether I mis-typed something. Its not like its hard to miss a big grey box in each offending posting.

Also, frankly, you just need to shut up. You've already dug yourself a nice big hole, I'd work on getting out rather than digging deeper. JREF has decided to terminate your application, period. Its their game, you play by their rules. Before you whine "I didn't know the rules" it behooves you to ASK. If you don't know, ask! Kramer gave you plenty of warnings. Again frankly I think you deserve what you got.

I already gave you some good advice earlier:
0) Get your act together. You claim that you can identify CDs treated with the GSIC? Great! But only certain discs work well? Are you SURE you can do this 100% of the time? I'd still be impressed by 70 or 80% success if the test is properly designed DBT. Get over your concern about double blind testing - you are doing things the JREF way.
1) Make a protocol - ask CSICOP or other skeptics to help you. There are some good starting points in these forums, build on those. Ask Piano Teacher for help, you have about 9 months to whip something up.
2) Learn some humility - "My Struggle"? Seriously, dude! Pick a protocol and plan out the time from next March until the end of the year. No "Weekends are no good". MAKE the time if you are serious!
3) Stop boring us - use the time to test yourself instead. Really!

Finally, good luck - with the way you are wandering around, I think you'll need it!

Marc

One of the very first posts I made at the JREF Forum was to inquire what (Rule 8) referred to. I was told and responded that I thought that to be a good rule. Had I known that the term ************ was seriously frowned upon it would not have found its way into my postings. It seems that people have picked up a fondness for quoting that line because of the Penn & Teller usage for challenging suspected frauds. I used the term in the very same sense. I consider the JREF Challenge to be a fraudulent enterprise. I will now use the phrase "Bullwinkle! Just test me." instead to express my challenge to JREF. If you were to do a search for the offending term you will find many instances of its use in unadulterated form.

Edited for the purpose of making sense. ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...snip...

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

That misrepresents what occurred. You were warned twice, after I had to edit several of your posts, about breaching Rule 8. You were told twice to "cease and desist" breaching your Membership Agreement, and since those warnings were ignored you were suspended. This is the list of all the Moderation actions and posts in which they occurred:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870879782#post1870879782

Edited for breach of rule 8.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870883208#post1870883208

48 repetitions of the 3 line paragraph above.

Your post was in breach of your Membership Agreement, Rule 6: "You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870882511#post1870882511

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870884725#post1870884725

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870884735#post1870884735

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

I have had to edit several of your posts to remove the profanity you have used that is not allowed as per your Membership Agreement. Further breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870884751#post1870884751

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

This is your last warning regarding a breach of Rule 8, any further breaches will result in an immediate 3 day suspension.

Despite this second “cease and desist� notification you again beached Rule 8 and as per my warning I immediately suspended you.

[Moose]

Originally posted by Wellfed
In fact, given JREF operating principles, I could easily consider the practice devious.

I have no doubt you would. The rest of the net, however, realizes that the JREF forum operates just about like any other forum out there.

Neither forum admin nor the JREF have any obligation to hold your hand, especially when you've neglected to read the forum rules before posting.

Quit whining already.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Do you honestly believe that "Cease and desist" orders attached to postings I was unlikely to review in a timely manner constitute a fair warning? This practice does reek of "JREF logic" though, I shouldn't be surprised. FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.

You did receive two "cease and desist" warnings as can be seen in my post above. It is your responsibility to ensure your posts here are in line with your Membership Agreement.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Darat
You did receive two "cease and desist" warnings as can be seen in my post above. It is your responsibility to ensure your posts here are in line with your Membership Agreement.

I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Moose
...

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

There is one. Here's what he has to say. This is posted with Steve's express permission. I have formatted text that Steve responds to in italics. I have also edited Steve's post for (Rule 8). You can also read the commentary where originally posted, there is a link to this posting at the bottom.

Originally posted by Steve Eddy at Audio Asylum Discussion Forum
Let me say that while I've been as skeptical and critical of the GSIC as anyone (and still am), I've always had the utmost respect for Wellfed. When he decided to take up the JREF challenge I let him know that I would support him in any way I could. He took me up on my offer and I've been following this whole saga both online at the JREF forums as well as via EMail and telephone conversations with Wellfed. So I'm not someone who's jumped into the fray here late in the game.

Having said that...


I read through all twenty pages of that thread and all I saw them doing is going out of their way to accomodate you and your waffling...over and over again. It was obviously something they had never done with anyone else before and I thought they were being quite patient with you. I thought for a minute they would have agreed to give you a gilded chair to sit on during the test if you'd asked. They started out very open minded and accomodating with you and it was only after you started the "I can't do THIS because of THAT" routine over and over that they began to loose patience with you. I'm amazed they played along as long as they did.

I don't know what you read, but after reading what I have (which encompasses several different threads on the Million Dollar Challenge forum), I concluded just the opposite.

In my opinion, KRAMER is an absolute prick who I think should have no business being involved in the challenge whatsoever. His role according to JREF is that of what they call a "facilitator." What a f*cking joke. "Antagonist" would be a much more suitable title.

And accommodating? I saw little or no evidence of that.

Right from the start they rejected the original protocol that Wellfed had proposed, without ever giving any particular reason for it so that any differences might be worked out.

Wellfed wanted to do the listening in his own home with his own system, which is the environment he'd been experiencing the differences all along. They didn't like that.

He also wanted to use the Walker Vivid on his discs, just as he'd been doing all along. They shot that down for no apparent reason.

And on and on.

And while this is going on, KRAMER persistently denegrated and insulted Wellfed.

The guy's a f*cking joke.

And in a post by KRAMER from yesterday, in a new thread regarding some new claimant, he wrote:


The strictest protocol will be in place for this test, based upon the original "Steven Howard Protocol" which was submitted by Mr. Anda and then, upon unconditional acceptance by Randi, withdrawn by the applicant for reasons that will, with any luck, forever remain a mystery.

This is just absolute bullsh*t. The only mystery here is how KRAMER can say this with a straight face.

Some time back, someone named Steven Howard posted a suggested protocol. Wellfed said that he liked the suggested protocol in general, but not entirely and wanted some slight changes made to it.

He sent KRAMER a paste of Steven Howard's protocol along with the changes he wanted made to it.

Then KRAMER posts that Randi had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol EXACTLY AS POSTED BY STEVEN HOWARD with NO changes or addenda.

When Wellfed said that that that's not what he had agreed to, KRAMER went on one of his smear campaigns against Wellfed, much as he does in what's quoted above, even though Wellfed was on record numerous times prior to this stating that he was only agreeable to the Steven Howard protocol WITH CHANGES.

I pointed this out on one of the threads and KRAMER instead of addressing the issue, went into this obfuscational, self-righteous indignation routine.

I found it rather ironic as his behavior was strikingly similar to that of frauds and charlatans when they're exposed for what they are.

He went into a similar self-righteous indignation routine when Wellfed requested that he have is own observer(s) for the test as if cheating on JREF's part was somehow an absolute impossibility.


ALL you had to do is try to identify whether a disk was treated or untreated. That's it...period...and you could have been an instant millionaire.

Not so simple.


They certainly didn't seem to me to be trying to deceive anyone. They were just trying to set down some solid ground rules and good controls, most obviously not to your liking.

Why should everything necessarily be to JREF's liking to the exclusion of Wellfed?

Look, Wellfed's claims with regard to his perceiving differneces with the Chip have only been within the context of the environemnt and conditions of his own home with his own system, etc.

All he's ever really wanted was to be able to do his listening under conditions as close to that as possible. Which I believe is a more than reasonable request and one in which I think there can be a suitable protocol to accommodate.

However JREF seems to want to make the conditions of his listening tests as different from those upon which he's made his claims as possible.

Bottom line I've little or no reason to believe that KRAMER and/or JREF are acting in good faith.

When Wellfed telephoned me last night and told me he was going to withdraw his claim, I understood completely why he would be compelled to do so.

se



Link to Audio Asylum Post (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/11178.html)

[Sherman Bay]

A question for Darat or other mod.

The problem here seems to come from the precedure used to issue a warning. Is a "cease & desist" warning: Posted only with the offending post in a thread Emailed to the offender Both Other?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.
If you look in the post a few above the one you quoted you will see the two "cease and desist" notices you did receive.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.

Hahaha! This is hilarious! I'm amazed how some people seem to be so dumbfounded as to how this statement can be perfectly true.

I guess they were sleeping in science class when they did that old "If a tree falls in a forest..." thing. :)

And just how stupid is it to put the warnings in the posts themselves? I mean who the hell routinely goes back and re-reads their previous posts?

The Member Agreement reads:

When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs.

It says that warnings will be issued in the thread where the violation occurs, not in the post where the violation occurs. I don't think most people reading the agreement as worded would take that to mean they have to keep looking over their shoulders at their previous posts to make sure they haven't been given any warnings.

Why not post the warnings in the thread as a separate post where the violator will be most likely to see it rather than in their previous posts where they're least likely to see it?

se

[Darat]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
A question for Darat or other mod.

The problem here seems to come from the precedure used to issue a warning. Is a "cease & desist" warning: Posted only with the offending post in a thread Emailed to the offender Both Other?

This is covered in the Membership Agreement:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42936

“…When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs…�

Wellfed was treated as per the Membership that he, you and me all agree to abide by.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Hahaha! This is hilarious! I'm amazed how some people seem to be so dumbfounded as to how this statement can be perfectly true.

I guess they were sleeping in science class when they did that old "If a tree falls in a forest..." thing. :)

And just how stupid is it to put the warnings in the posts themselves? I mean who the hell routinely goes back and re-reads their previous posts?

The Member Agreement reads:

When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs.

It says that warnings will be issued in the thread where the violation occurs, not in the post where the violation occurs. I don't think most people reading the agreement as worded would take that to mean they have to keep looking over their shoulders at their previous posts to make sure they haven't been given any warnings.

Why not post the warnings in the thread as a separate post where the violator will be most likely to see it rather than in their previous posts where they're least likely to see it?

se

Wellfed received the "cease and desist" notice as his Membership Agreement stated it would be done. Please note irregardless of where or when a particular warning was made by posting the profanity he did he had already breached his Membership, however we have an attitude of trying to err on the side of not taking action (if we can) therefore his first few breaches were merely edited. However his repeated breaching of the rules he agreed to post by resulted in further warnings and when those warnings were ignored he was as per the last warning to “cease and desist� suspended.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
If you look in the post a few above the one you quoted you will see the two "cease and desist" notices you did receive.

He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Just because you have sent something doesn't mean it has been received. And unless you have some proof that he in fact saw them, I think he's owed an apology.

se

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Just because you have sent something doesn't mean it has been received. And unless you have some proof that he in fact saw them, I think he's owed an apology.

se

I issued the warnings as per the Membership Agreement; it is not my responsible beyond that point. If you wish to state he did not "receive" the warnings then we have a point of disagreement that we will have to agree to disagree on since Wellfed certainly did receive warnings as per his Membership Agreement.

[Steve Eddy]

You know, there's not just a Member Agreement in force here that members are expected to abide by. There's also a Moderator Agreement which one would assume moderators are also expected to abide by.

From the Moderator Agreement:

You have the responsibility to ensure requests and warnings are issued in an appropriate manner. You may chose to make a warning or a request to a Member private via a PM or email or you may chose to make the request or warning public as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread.

Ya get that? AS A POST IN A THREAD. Your warnings to Wellfed were NOT issued as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread. They were issued as a note within an existing post made by someone else.

In Wellfed's case you have clearly failed in your responsibility to ensure that requests and warnings were issued an appropriate manner as detailed in the Moderator Agreement which you agreed to abide by when you became a moderator.

Oh, there's also this:

Moderator actions are subject to appeal. The appeal will be handled by a Moderator and an Administrator not involved in the action (if possible). The decision of the appeal is final.

I think Wellfed should file for an appeal, and an apology.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
I issued the warnings as per the Membership Agreement; it is not my responsible beyond that point.

Moderators don't issue warnings as per the Memeber Agreement. Moderators issue warnings as per the Moderator Agreement. The Member Agreement applies to members and their actions. The Moderator Agreement applies to moderators and their actions. The Member Agreement doesn't empower you to issue warnings. The Moderator Agreement does.

And you most certainly did not issue your warnings as per the Moderator Agreement.

se

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
You know, there's not just a Member Agreement in force here that members are expected to abide by. There's also a Moderator Agreement which one would assume moderators are also expected to abide by.

From the Moderator Agreement:

You have the responsibility to ensure requests and warnings are issued in an appropriate manner. You may chose to make a warning or a request to a Member private via a PM or email or you may chose to make the request or warning public as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread.

Ya get that? AS A POST IN A THREAD. Your warnings to Wellfed were NOT issued as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread. They were issued as a note within an existing post made by someone else.

In Wellfed's case you have clearly failed in your responsibility to ensure that requests and warnings were issued an appropriate manner as detailed in the Moderator Agreement which you agreed to abide by when you became a moderator.

Oh, there's also this:

Moderator actions are subject to appeal. The appeal will be handled by a Moderator and an Administrator not involved in the action (if possible). The decision of the appeal is final.

I think Wellfed should file for an appeal, and an apology.

se

You do not seem to have read the complete Moderator Agreement, it also states (red added to highlight):

Editing Posts:

Moderators:
Posts may only be edited to remove or alter content that is in violation of the Membership Agreement.

Edits should be clearly marked by using the “Edit Box�. (Ensure that your name and the reason for the edit is clearly stated.) As a general policy the edit box should appear in the same place as the edited content was removed, the exception to this (at your discretion) is when a word has been “asterisked� under Rule 9 – “No profanity�, then the edit box may appear at the end of the post. If you need to post further comments, such as a warning then you should use “Moderator’s Box� in conjunction with the “Edit Box(es)�.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Moderators don't issue warnings as per the Memeber Agreement. Moderators issue warnings as per the Moderator Agreement. The Member Agreement applies to members and their actions. The Moderator Agreement applies to moderators and their actions. The Member Agreement doesn't empower you to issue warnings. The Moderator Agreement does.

And you most certainly did not issue your warnings as per the Moderator Agreement.

se

You are mistaken. As I posted above the warnings were made as the Moderator and Membership Agreement state they will be (also they were in line with the customary practice).

[Steve Eddy]

There's also this:

The general guideline is that if the request or warning will serve a purpose beyond addressing an issue with a specific Member then it should be made public.

Since you chose to make the warnings public, what was the purpose beyond addressing Wellfed's actions that you thought making it public would serve?

se

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
There's also this:

The general guideline is that if the request or warning will serve a purpose beyond addressing an issue with a specific Member then it should be made public.

Since you chose to make the warnings public, what was the purpose beyond addressing Wellfed's actions that you thought making it public would serve?

se

None. If you wish to continue a discussion about the Moderation of this forum I suggest you start a thread in “Forum Management� an area set aside for these types of discussions.
((Edited to add) You've misunderstand that part of the agreement, it is in place as a guideline to the Moderating Team so that something that may effect more then one Member is made public e.g. if a Member was being warned about using a word that wasn’t previously covered by Rule 8 that should always be made a public warning. It does not mean that that a warning should only be made public if it effects more then one Member.)

(Edited for earned to warned.)

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
You do not seem to have read the complete Moderator Agreement, it also states (red added to highlight):

Editing Posts:

Moderators:
Posts may only be edited to remove or alter content that is in violation of the Membership Agreement.

Edits should be clearly marked by using the “Edit Box�. (Ensure that your name and the reason for the edit is clearly stated.) As a general policy the edit box should appear in the same place as the edited content was removed, the exception to this (at your discretion) is when a word has been “asterisked� under Rule 9 – “No profanity�, then the edit box may appear at the end of the post. If you need to post further comments, such as a warning then you should use “Moderator’s Box� in conjunction with the “Edit Box(es)�.


Ah, so a technicality in the editing etiquette section trumps the specific means mentioned in the Requests and Warnings section?

How sleazy.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
You are mistaken. As I posted above the warnings were made as the Moderator and Membership Agreement state they will be (also they were in line with the customary practice).

Then all I have to say is that your customary practice, which expects posters to routinely go back and re-read their own posts is just plain idiotic.

se

[Moose]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Tell you what, Steve. You try a little experiment.

You pick any highway whose speed limits are enforced by photo radar. Speed on it. When you get the ticket in the mail, don't open the envelope. Then try to contest the ticket using your statement above verbatim as a defense and see exacty how far that gets you.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
None. If you wish to continue a discussion about the Moderation of this forum I suggest you start a thread in “Forum Management� an area set aside for these types of discussions.

Nah, I've said all I have to say. I'll just recommend Wellfed file for an appeal.

se

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Moose
Tell you what, Steve. You try a little experiment.

You pick any highway whose speed limits are enforced by photo radar. Speed on it. When you get the ticket in the mail, don't open the envelope. Then try to contest the ticket using your statement above verbatim as a defense and see exacty how far that gets you.

Bad analogy. A better one would be that in the above scenario the ticket was delivered by being fastened to the speed camera you had already passed.

Issuing warnings solely by editing past posts does seem to be a method prone to delivery failure.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Thumbo
Bad analogy.

Yes. Very bad. Even if you don't open the envelope, you know that you've been sent something by your local law enforcement agency.

A better one would be that in the above scenario the ticket was delivered by being fastened to the speed camera you had already passed.

Yeah. Or perhaps better still, if the ticket was sent to an old address, and they expect you to keep going back to your old home to make sure nothing's been sent to you there.

Issuing warnings solely by editing past posts does seem to be a method prone to delivery failure.

Yes. I'm at a complete loss to see the sense in it. I've not encountered another forum which does it this way. Warnings are either issued as separate posts, via private EMail or both in order to assure that the warning gets through to the violator.

And while it may be the "custom" here to do it that way, that custom isn't detailed in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement that would lead any reasonable person to believe that they need to keep going back re-reading their previous posts in order to avoid missing a warning.

Like I said, it's just idiotic.

se

[Gulliver]

I have to agree, to a point, that posting warnings in a previous post does seem to violate the letter of the Moderator Agreement.

However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence. Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Second, given Wellfed's insistence that the forum members provide specific quotes and that the members reread the pages of his posts, he should have reviewed these threads enough to see the highlighted boxes involved.

Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions. We each know that JREF is an educational foundation. We each know that children can access this forum. We each should know that children do access this forum.

Finally, to Wellfed, I need to be frank again. Please listen carefully. An apology, especially a sincere apology, must never be followed by "but it's your fault, not mine." Your attack on Kramer is misplaced and inappropriate in the context of an apology. I apologize for being so forward. I do care about you and your claim. Please understand I mean this in a way to help.BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Gulliver
I have to agree, to a point, that posting warnings in a previous post does seem to violate the letter of the Moderator Agreement.

However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence. Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Second, given Wellfed's insistence that the forum members provide specific quotes and that the members reread the pages of his posts, he should have reviewed these threads enough to see the highlighted boxes involved.

I doubt highly that I've ever insisted anyone re-read any of the record. The truth however does lie in the record and I would highly recommend anyone that wants to know the truth to search the record.



Originally posted by Gulliver
Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions. We each know that JREF is an educational foundation. We each know that children can access this forum. We each should know that children do access this forum.

My apology was sincere as was my ignorance. I would not have used a profanity had I not believed that this particular term had been deemed acceptable practice.

Originally posted by Gulliver
Finally, to Wellfed, I need to be frank again. Please listen carefully. An apology, especially a sincere apology, must never be followed by "but it's your fault, not mine." Your attack on Kramer is misplaced and inappropriate in the context of an apology. I apologize for being so forward. I do care about you and your claim. Please understand I mean this in a way to help.

My apology was issued to Forum members in particular, not Darat or Kramer. Like Steve Eddy, I view the warning mechanism to be idiotic. I wasn't told the reason for my suspension even after writing JREF for an explanation. I have no need to make an issue of it any longer, I have been reinstated and nothing is going to change history. I simply hope they will choose to use their noggins the next time a warning needs to be issued to anyone. BTW, I truly appreciate "forward" when presented in a civil way.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Gulliver
However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence.

But members here aren't asked to agree to the "established procedures" they're asked to agree with the Member Agreement.

And as I said, the "established procedures" aren't clearly laid out in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement which would lead a reasonable person to believe that they must routinely go back and re-read their own posts in order to keep from missing any warnings that may be issued in those posts.

Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Why?

Wellfed was ultimately suspended not for using bad language, but for allegedly ignoring the warnings that were issued within his previous posts.

Since the "established procedures" are not made clear in the Member Agreement and the Member Agreement gave Wellfed no reasonable expectation that he must continually re-read his previous posts in order to avoid missing any warnings, I would argue that the failure here was ultimately on JREF's part, not Wellfed's.

Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions.

Certainly. And I'm not arguing that Wellfed shouldn't be responsible for his actions and I don't believe he would make such an argument either.

But as I said previously, the action taken against Wellfed was ultimately for his alleged inaction, i.e. ignoring the warnings.

And in that regard, the idiotic "established procedures" which are not made clear in the Member Agreement nor reasonably expected by any reasonable reading of the Member Agreement allows JREF to set people up to be blindsided.

"Oh look! An eagle!"

*THWAP!*

se

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
This thread would be a heckuvalot shorter, at least in screen real estate, if some people wouldn't have 7/8 of the post in their signature.

I'm just sayin'.
Sherman, turn off sigs (and avatars) using the cp and your screen will clear up better than an application of the GSIC. :)

[webfusion]

The three-day forum suspension Wellfed received has caused a considerable stir here, like it was some big deal. It was not.

What is more important is the JREF rejection of the CLAIM.
Let's get back to that, shall we?

****** Bullwinkle (image) posted by webfusion ******

Gee, Rocky, when do ya think that Wellfed will come to realize that he isn't going to be tested? He even got the eMail telling him so! What a maroon!

Then comes ANDA's reply:

What email might that be? Can I assume Kramer is playing games with your head again if he has given you reason to believe such an email exists? Perhaps you simply dreamt that one up in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway).

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

Let's be straight here.

Michael Anda knows that his claim was rejected.
He knows that because he read the Challenge Application thread where it clearly says so, and he acknowledged it in this very thread, as well as in his My Struggle thread.

I suspect (and still do) that the only reason Michael Anda even entered the Million Dollar Challenge in the first place was to form a basis for a lawsuit. The more I read of his remarks, the firmer my belief is.

We shall see...


Originally, I asked about the "official notification" of his rejection in a posting made to Wellfed directly:

posted by webfusion
subject: The LostAngeles Test Will Proceed

Mr Anda indicates:
"My offer remains open as well."

No, it most certainly doesn't. Your claim was rejected.
Didn't you get an eMail about that?

If you received such communication, the record you posted here is incomplete.
Please clarify with the JREF, if you have not gotten an eMail that officially rejects your claim.
from page 2 of the thread My Struggle

This was ignored totally by the Former Applicant Known as Wellfed.
I assumed it was because he had me on his "ignore list" (an assumption that proved to be incorrect, as Wellfed later admitted that he indeed wasn't ignoring me during this particular time frame).
Even Beady chimed in then and asked "What part about 'the train has left the station' don't you understand?"
(BTW, May 3rd, the day of these exchanges, was when Wellfed started getting hot under the collar and repeatedly cursed the JREF and repeatedly had his posts edited by the admin. for breaches).


KRAMER replied, after jmercer and myself kept asking if Wellfed has "officially received" the notification of his claim being terminated :::: "Yes."
(He went on to clarify that Wellfed, by means of his reading the threads, has indeed been notified)

In fact, the reply by KRAMER went on to state:
Although there is no rule regarding a requirement for any notice in writing to be submitted by the JREF to an applicant notifying them that their claim is being rejected, Mr. Anda is aware that his claim was rejected, as evidenced here in his MY STRUGGLE thread. There is no doubt that he is aware. None.

All we really need do is be sure that the applicant knows of it.

And he knows it.

We are not required to submit a rejection letter to him via post or email, if that's what you are asking, but we always do, regardless.


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

Anda keeps hammering away:
"JREF's credibility is currently the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned."

and this:
"Now I am simply intent on exposing JREF misdeeds."

and finally:
"I have not broken any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE and am entitled to testing under its provisions."


Now, let's see what Wellfed then says, in his very first posting after the brief suspension was lifted.
Here are his exact words, which appeared directly below that very post about his notification of being a Rejected Applicant (the explanation as KRAMER offered it):

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

What is amazing, skeppers, is that Wellfed is now accusing me, webfusion, of "simply dreaming up (this stuff) in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway)" >>>>
===================================

Notice the similarities of the argument that is being vigorously pursued by Wellfed, regarding his suspension on the forums, as if he did not "receive" the notifications from the moderator, nor any notifications from KRAMER.

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

The rules say that "If necessary a member will be banned from the forum."

Has Wellfed reached that point, yet?
Not quite, but he is certainly getting awfully close.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
But members here aren't asked to agree to the "established procedures" they're asked to agree with the Member Agreement.

And as I said, the "established procedures" aren't clearly laid out in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement which would lead a reasonable person to believe that they must routinely go back and re-read their own posts in order to keep from missing any warnings that may be issued in those posts.

(Snipped yadda, yadda, yadda)

se

Oh, LOOK! Another "new member" that appears out of nowhere to champion poor Mr. Anda! Someone who suddenly rides in on their white horse, wearing shining armor... who apparently, in 22 posts, has become an expert on JREF, the JREF forums, the poor persecuted Mr. Anda's plight, and Darat's apparent failings!

My, my, my... we are getting a rash of these, aren't we? Not that I'd draw any conclusions from that, of course. :D

[webfusion]

It was already acknowledged that Mr Anda and Mr Eddy have an ongoing relationship outside of these forums.


I first asked about that on April 6th.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870847701#post1870847701
(I was curious about Mr Anda having mentioned a Steve Cortez when this new "Steve" suddenly materialized here)

Re: any connection?

quote:Originally posted by webfusion
Is "steve eddy" really Steve Cortez at Audio Asylum?


No.

"steve eddy" is not really Steve Cortez at Audio Asylum. "steve eddy" is really Steve Eddy at Audio Asylum.

quote:What about it, 'se' ? Do you have a prior familiarity with Mr Anda that prompted you to join this discussion?



Yes.

I've been a regular user on Audio Asylum for the past five years (in fact yesterday was my fifth "anniversary") and had participated in some of the threads there about the Chip. I've also corresponded with Mr. Anda via EMail and we've had a number of telephone conversations.

That answer your questions?

se

I thanked him for the information at that point and dropped it.

The fact that Mr Eddy is now pursuing the suspension issue so diligently, seemingly on behalf of Anda, really irks me (even after Darat specifically asked it not be further discussed in this thread at all).

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by jmercer
Oh, LOOK! Another "new member" that appears out of nowhere...

Yeah? Where is it that I should have appeared from? Where exactly did you appear from back in January?

Mr. Anda! Someone who suddenly rides in on their white horse, wearing shining armor... who apparently, in 22 posts, has become an expert on JREF, the JREF forums, the poor persecuted Mr. Anda's plight, and Darat's apparent failings!

And how many posts will it be before you get around to addressing anything I've actually said instead of just flailing your arms?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by webfusion
It was already acknowledged that Mr Anda and Mr Eddy have an ongoing relationship outside of these forums.

Guess he didn't get the memo.

The fact that Mr Eddy is now pursuing the suspension issue so diligently, seemingly on behalf of Anda, really irks me (even after Darat specifically asked it not be further discussed in this thread at all).

It was offered as a suggestion, not a demand.

se

[webfusion]

Fair enough.

One quick question that goes to the heart of the matter with Wellfed as I have viewed it for a long while now:

Do you have any indication that Mr Anda is contemplating a full-fledged lawsuit? You have seen that I have my suspicions, but am I totally off-base in that regard?

I am waiting for that shoe to drop...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
...snip...

Wellfed was ultimately suspended not for using bad language, but for allegedly ignoring the warnings that were issued within his previous posts.

...snip...

This is incorrect, Wellfed was suspended for breaking Rule 8 of his Membership Agreement.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I sincerely apologize for my use of profanity. I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule. Had I been, I would have behaved myself appropriately.OK, now I know that Wellfed is lying.

I saw one of the offending posts before Darat edited it. In fact, it was I who reported that particular offence, at the time unaware that it was one of many. The reason I reported it wasn't simply that the BS word was used (which I don't think is so obscene, and I think banning it is a bit OTT), but because it was obvious that there had been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the forum's automatic censorship script.

Some months ago we had a conversation in the Forum Management section about the automatic censorship, specifically that it was editing perfectly innocent words just because they contained a letter string that made up a banned word. Mishit, Scunthorpe and snigger were the three I remember being highlighted. This bug was eventually fixed. However, during the conversation someone pointed out that it was possible to circumvent the automatic censorship by including either html or vB code in the middle of the word to break up the letter string.

Obviously, this could be used to force the genuinely banned words to display, too. Darat remarked that anyone doing that would clearly be deliberately trying to break the membership agreement with conscious intent, and that this would attract censure.

Thus, when I saw the BS word in clear in a post of Wellfed's, with the "i" in the word appearing in bold font, it was perfectly clear to me that he was deliberately using this loophole to post a forbidden word in defiance of the automatic censorship. (In fact it was one word of a two-word post, which now, apart from the mod boxes, reads "Bullsh****t Sherman.")

So don't come it, Wellfed. "I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule," my eye. Why go to the trouble of fiddling with the font of the banned word if you didn't know it was banned and didn't know that that was a way of getting it to show up anyway in defiance of the ban?

Considering this, I now don't believe you that you never noticed any of the warnings Darat posted in the offending posts. You clearly knew you were breaking a rule, and you clearly took steps to frustrate the forum's automatic editing programme designed to enforce the rule. So less of the injured innocent act.

Rolfe.

[Moose]

Originally posted by Rolfe
OK, now I know that Wellfed is lying.

[...]

So don't come it, Wellfed. "I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule," my eye. Why go to the trouble of fiddling with the font of the banned word if you didn't know it was banned and didn't know that that was a way of getting it to show up anyway in defiance of the ban?

Of course he knew. In his own words:

Originally posted by Wellfed
One of the very first posts I made at the JREF Forum was to inquire what (Rule 8) referred to. I was told and responded that I thought that to be a good rule.

[alfaniner]

So Wellfed, you call it a vacation, as if it was your choice and you "decided" to take some time off from the forum.

Right.

With all that time off, did you make an effort to do a decent simple, double-blind self-test? (One trial is not sufficient).

No?

I didn't think so.

Carry on...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Yeah? Where is it that I should have appeared from? Where exactly did you appear from back in January?


Where-ever I came from, I didn't march in and start accusing people of things. :)


Originally posted by Steve Eddy
And how many posts will it be before you get around to addressing anything I've actually said instead of just flailing your arms?

se [/B]

I don't know, Steve - how many posts will you be writing before you do one with substance instead of accusations? :D

[edthedoc]

For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by edthedoc
For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

FWIW - while I don't think Mr. Anda has much remaining crediblity (if any) regarding his self-created fiasco a' la GSIC - I can't really see a single email from the product producer as "support". (Unless you're going to count morale-boosting as support.) If they were funding his costs, advising him on the protocols, providing him with legal or technical assistance, or giving him free products - now that would be a different story.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
So Wellfed, you call it a vacation, as if it was your choice and you "decided" to take some time off from the forum.

Right.

With all that time off, did you make an effort to do a decent simple, double-blind self-test? (One trial is not sufficient).

No?

I didn't think so.

Carry on...

Vacation is Kramer's word for my suspension, he somehow knew I would enjoy it, proving himself prophetic on this one. I had plenty to do on my vacation, DBT's not being on the list, that will have to wait.

BTW, would you mind letting Rolfe know that you were the one that taught me that Bullsh*t formatting technique? Let him know too that I never saw those (Rule 8) "cease and desist" orders.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by webfusion
Fair enough.

One quick question that goes to the heart of the matter with Wellfed as I have viewed it for a long while now:

Do you have any indication that Mr Anda is contemplating a full-fledged lawsuit? You have seen that I have my suspicions, but am I totally off-base in that regard?

Have you asked Wellfed this question? If not, why are you asking me instead of him?

se

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Moose
Of course he knew. In his own words:

It appears that the bulk of you folks are pretty pathetic.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Darat
This is incorrect, Wellfed was suspended for breaking Rule 8 of his Membership Agreement.

You miss the point.

Had he seen and heeded the warnings, he'd have not been suspended, in spite of his having violated Rule 8.

se

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by edthedoc
For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

It's not worth much edthedoc, and no, I won't take the time to respond to your request. Reference my last posting to this thread.

[tim]

Originally posted by Wellfed
It appears that the bulk of you folks are pretty pathetic.

Why thank you, Wellfed! It's nice to be appreciated. I've just read through this thread and all the rubbish I've seen coming from your neck of the woods makes me want to go somewhere quiet and bang my head against a wall.
Carry on.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by tim
Why thank you, Wellfed! It's nice to be appreciated. I've just read through this thread and all the rubbish I've seen coming from your neck of the woods makes me want to go somewhere quiet and bang my head against a wall.
Carry on.

Sorry tim, you didn't make it into that classification.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
You miss the point.

Had he seen and heeded the warnings, he'd have not been suspended, in spite of his having violated Rule 8.

se

If he had not broken Rule 8 he would not have been suspended from the forum. Wellfed was only suspended because he broke his Membership Agreement. It was his actions (in choosing to repeatedly break his Membership Agreement) that caused his suspension.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wellfed
BTW, would you mind letting Rolfe know that you were the one that taught me that Bullsh*t formatting technique? Let him know too that I never saw those (Rule 8) "cease and desist" orders. Rolfe is perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

If you knew you had to use sneaky reformatting to get round the automatic censorship programme, seems to me to be perfectly obvious that you knew you were breaking a rule.

You've consistently denied that you knew you were breaking a rule, even in the face of conclusive evidence that you did know. So why should anyone believe you when you say you didn't notice even one of those big, obvious mod boxes scattered over your posts?

Rolfe.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rolfe is perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

If you knew you had to use sneaky reformatting to get round the automatic censorship programme, seems to me to be perfectly obvious that you knew you were breaking a rule.

You've consistently denied that you knew you were breaking a rule, even in the face of conclusive evidence that you did know. So why should anyone believe you when you say you didn't notice even one of those big, obvious mod boxes scattered over your posts?

Rolfe.
Because he doesn't go back and read his own posts. If one were of a cynical nature, one might believe this facilitates his contradicting himself. But we have no evidence of that.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rolfe is perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

If you knew you had to use sneaky reformatting to get round the automatic censorship programme, seems to me to be perfectly obvious that you knew you were breaking a rule.

You've consistently denied that you knew you were breaking a rule, even in the face of conclusive evidence that you did know. So why should anyone believe you when you say you didn't notice even one of those big, obvious mod boxes scattered over your posts?

Rolfe.

I wasn't conscious at the time that I was breaking any rule. I have since admitted that despite breaking (Rule 8) in ignorance I did in fact commit the crime, I have since done my time, and have also offered a sincere apology to those here at the Forum that I offended.

I don't make a practice of reviewing my submissions so shortly after they are penned. I'd be curious to find out if anyone else does. I did happen to see Darat's edit and warning about another rule violation.

I really have difficulty understanding the frenzy this matter has generated. Can you explain this phenomenon to me?

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...
BTW, would you mind letting Rolfe know that you were the one that taught me that Bullsh*t formatting technique? Let him know too that I never saw those (Rule 8) "cease and desist" orders.

No, but you saw the following post at the top of page 25, which was posted (and Darat's edits having been done at this point) several hours before your suspension, and responded to by you, and you had the time to make several more posts and perhaps take responsibility for what you did before your suspension. I would think you'd be curious as to how my post was edited, since you took your formatting from same, or to see if your messages remained in their original form while mine did not.

But then, curiosity is not one of your attributes, is it?

Originally posted by alfaniner
As an aside, I apologize to the Forum members for getting the "BS!" ball rolling. Even before the start of page 24, I notified Darat that in all fairness, my strongly worded post on the previous page should be edited for Rule 8 (since it was too late to do it on my own after I slept if off...) even though no one had reported it as far as I know. And he did, thank you.
...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I really have difficulty understanding the frenzy this matter has generated. Can you explain this phenomenon to me?

There's no mystery. People are amazed at the brazen way you're conducting yourself here.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Hitch
Because he doesn't go back and read his own posts. If one were of a cynical nature, one might believe this facilitates his contradicting himself. But we have no evidence of that.

Do you have evidence of me contradicting myself? I can take your last sentence more than one way. I suspect however that you believe that you can support an allegation that I have contradicted myself.

I do go back and re-read postings occasionally, typically not my own, but Kramer's postings involving Challenge negotiations. This of course hasn't been the case recently as my file has been closed at JREF and there have no longer been any negotiations.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Rolfe
The reason I reported it wasn't simply that the BS word was used (which I don't think is so obscene, and I think banning it is a bit OTT)...

You know what's really over the top? That "bullsh**t" apparently doesn't violate the rules here. That leaves about as much to the imagination as a woman in a thong bikini. Two little asterisks make all the difference in the world.

...but because it was obvious that there had been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the forum's automatic censorship script.

Well yeah, because he'd seen it done by others apparently without consequence and figured it wasn't any big deal.

So don't come it, Wellfed. "I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule," my eye. Why go to the trouble of fiddling with the font of the banned word if you didn't know it was banned and didn't know that that was a way of getting it to show up anyway in defiance of the ban?

Well let me ask ya, if you see others doing something and doing it apparently without any consequence from the moderators as far as rule violations, would it be unreasonable to assume that what you were doing didn't constitute a rule violation in the eyes of the moderators?

You seem to overlooking the fact that this all took place within the context of the idiotic practice of putting notes and warnings in peoples' posts rather than as separate posts which comes with the even more idiotic expectation that people keep going back and re-reading that which they've already read.

Do the moderators here assume that members here are either neurotic or, irony of ironies, psychic?

In its proper context, I've no reason to believe Wellfed is being anything less than sincere when he says he wasn't cognizant that he was breaking any rule.

se

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
...

But then, curiosity is not one of your attributes, is it?

Why would you say that? I'm curious. ;)

Think what you like, I did not consciously violate (Rule 8), I unconsciously violated (Rule 8). I don't think myself above anyone's rules, had I been conscious of my offense I would have restrained myself, pure and simple.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by jmercer
There's no mystery. People are amazed at the brazen way you're conducting yourself here.

With regard to the Bullwinkle word specifically?

[LTC8K6]

I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product.

Why would a company thank an anonymous web poster by email out of the blue like that? Very early in the debate, too.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The "preliminaries" Randi refers to at the beginning of Chapter 13 of FLIM-FLAM are the preliminary stages of the negotiations, meaning that the 54 applicants refered to actually succeeded in communicating what they claim to be able to do, and how they will demonstrate it.]Thank you. That's all I was asking for.

When the same word ("preliminary") is used to mean different things in regards to the same subject (the Challenge), it's understandable that there would be some confusion. Now that you have explained it, I withdraw my objection to it.


As to the rest of your post:
Originally posted by KRAMER
Do you know how to read, or did you just think I wouldn't research your stupid accusation and let it go unanswered?

Go back to school and study basic reading and comprehension.

Nowhere does it state that anyone has "passed the Challenge's preliminary test", as you so conveniently (and falsely) paraphrase it in support of your own mindless, intellectually impoverished agenda.

It would behoove you to put some effort into the task of learning how to read. There are special schools out there than can help you with that, if you even care.

I don't know if you're stupid or just a liar (which is worse?), but either way, you won't get any more of my attention, no matter how much you lie. Your effluvium splashes off me and runs down into the gutter from this point forward.

p.s. I'm still laughing. ... none of it is worth responding to.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Wellfed
With regard to the Bullwinkle word specifically?

Partially - it's a bit more than that. The "Bullwinkle" denial situation is simply an indication of how you have lost all your crediblity here due to your ongoing pattern of deceptiveness.

In example, you claimed Kramer and JREF lied to you and deliberately misled you. You were asked for proof, but failed to produce any supporting documents. Not one person - not even your staunchest defenders - so much as suggested you were right once you posted your "proof".

You were told in this very thread by Kramer that your application was closed. Subsequently, you went on a rampage while denying that JREF had closed your application - which was manifestly and demonstrably a lie to all interested parties in this forum.

These actions of yours (among other actions) are solely responsible for your current status.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Think what you like, I did not consciously violate (Rule 8), I unconsciously violated (Rule 8). I don't think myself above anyone's rules, had I been conscious of my offense I would have restrained myself, pure and simple. So, you just unconsciously took the trouble to put the "i" in the BS word in bold font, because you unconsciously thought it looked pretty like that or something?

Gimme a break!

Rolfe.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...
Think what you like, I did not consciously violate (Rule 8), I unconsciously violated (Rule 8). I don't think myself above anyone's rules, had I been conscious of my offense I would have restrained myself, pure and simple.

Very well. Yet there had to be some conscious decision in using special formatting for one particular word. That should have been a clue.

From one of your previous posts:
Edited by Darat: 48 repetitions of the 3 line paragraph above.

In my opinion, 48 repetitions of the same paragraph hardly qualifies as "restraint". (Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this is exaggeration on Darat's part or not).

(edited to note: Cross-post with Rolfe expressing the same thing).

[jmercer]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Why would a company thank an anonymous web poster by email out of the blue like that? Very early in the debate, too.

Probably more due to the controversial debate that went on in the Audiophile forums where Mr. Anda wrote a glowing review. After all, the Audiophile forum is where Golden Sound's products are "judged". Mr. Anda standing up for their product when all others are condemning it would single him out for that kind of email.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Why would a company thank an anonymous web poster by email out of the blue like that? Very early in the debate, too.

I took a look at the correspondence in question and realized that I was mistaken. It turns out that I was on the Cc: line of some correspondence from another GSIC enthusiast to the US importer. I mistakenly believed that the reply text was directed to me, it wasn't. Wow, I've held an erroneous belief since 2/9/05. Now I must brace myself for the editorializing.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
... Wow, I've held an erroneous belief since 2/9/05...

No further comment required...

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Beleth
...

As to the rest of your post:
... none of it is worth responding to.

How do you excercise such discipline? I COULD have saved us a lot of trouble around here apparently. ;)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
No further comment required...

Pretty much settles the whole matter doesn't it. ;)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Rolfe
...
Gimme a break!

Rolfe.

You can go ahead and take a break Rolfe, you need one right about now.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wellfed
You can go ahead and take a break Rolfe, you need one right about now. And would you mind explaining on what you base that conclusion?

Now, about the part of my post you snipped, how come you just unconsciously decided to put the "i" in the BS word in bold font? Didn't even occur to you that you might be violating a rule?

Rolfe.

[LTC8K6]

Wellfed had already seen the inside of a GSIC and had already done a test with 35 cd's by early February.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/364206.html

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/365383.html

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Very well. Yet there had to be some conscious decision in using special formatting for one particular word. That should have been a clue.

From one of your previous posts:


In my opinion, 48 repetitions of the same paragraph hardly qualifies as "restraint". (Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this is exaggeration on Darat's part or not).

(edited to note: Cross-post with Rolfe expressing the same thing).

I didn't count 'em, but Darat was probably correct. I was highlighting my point which was to say maybe I needed to repeat myself more often.

I was responding to Hitch had made the following comment in response to my having announced that I had correctly identified the chip used to treat my subject disc in the only blind test that I've conducted to date.

He states

See there? You're batting 1.000 If you'd gone gone ahead and agreed to a protocol and taken the challenge, you'd be $1,000,00 richer!

I don't see what the problem is.

I respond

I have agreed to two officially submitted protocols. JREF has agreed to zero. Can't ANYBODY see this. How can I be $1,000,000 richer unless I am tested by JREF. It is absolutely insane what filters people around here TRY and see through.

Maybe I just need to repeat myself more often.

I then copied this same text and pasted it 48 times, assuming Darat to be correct, within the body of the same posting for effect.

I did not consciously choose to violate any of the Forum rules. I think you folks are getting pretty anal with this subject which I is within your rights, except that it may perhaps violate the spirit of the flooding rule. Better check yourselves, I am warning you. ;)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...
I have agreed to two officially submitted protocols.

"I agree to the protocol, except for (added conditions)" holds the same veracity as "I apologize for what I did, but it's not my fault."

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
"I agree to the protocol, except for (added conditions)" holds the same veracity as "I apologize for what I did, but it's not my fault."

If you say so. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately it's time to edit my ignore list. Perhaps you'll be happier by doing the same.

[Darat]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Very well. Yet there had to be some conscious decision in using special formatting for one particular word. That should have been a clue.

From one of your previous posts:


In my opinion, 48 repetitions of the same paragraph hardly qualifies as "restraint". (Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this is exaggeration on Darat's part or not).

(edited to note: Cross-post with Rolfe expressing the same thing).

The 48 repetitions were not an exaggeration, since I was removing content from a post I carefully counted the number of phrases I was removing. (Obviously I may have miscounted and it was 47 or 48 but certainly in that region.)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Darat
The 48 repetitions were not an exaggeration...

As I thought, but since I did not have the "evidence", I had to hedge my bet lest we get another round of nitpicking.

"There were only 47 repetitions, not 48!!"

"Nevertheless, you spammed."

"But you lied. 47! 47, I tell you! Liar, liar!"

"I may have miscounted."

"Lies! Lies!! Test me now!"

And so on...

[tim]

Do you people know how much time you're wasting on this stuff? Does nitpicking silly arguments make any difference? No. Go out and enjoy your lives a bit more.
Or if your idea of fun is this - please, carry on. Bye!

[tim]

P.S. Darat, is it ok to use the word anal?
:D :D :D

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And would you mind explaining on what you base that conclusion?

I think that after having obsessed over this single detail, at length, you deserve a break. You asked for one.

Originally posted by Rolfe
Now, about the part of my post you snipped, how come you just unconsciously decided to put the "i" in the BS word in bold font? Didn't even occur to you that you might be violating a rule?

Rolfe.

Surprisingly it did not occur to me. I was on a mission apparently.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Surprisingly it did not occur to me. I was on a mission apparently. It didn't occur to you that you were breaking a rule when you chose to use fancy formatting, which apparently had no purpose at all but to defeat the automatic censorship programme?

Really?

You wouldn't care to explain to us why you did choose to bold the "i" in the BS word, if the thought that it might have something to do with breaking a rule simply didn't occur to you?

(Sorry, Tim, some of us have unusual ideas of fun.)

Rolfe.

[alfaniner]

or a really slow time at work...

[LTC8K6]

Since the GSIC can apparently work from 6+ feet away, I'd like to get a GSIC-30 and take it out of it's case in a room with 30 untreated CD's going at once and see if the thing explodes. :D

Geoff Kait:
I have noticed even at distance of 6 feet or more the chip can be "activated" if taken out of the plastic box while a disc is playing.

[Darat]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Since the GSIC can apparently work from 6+ feet away, I'd like to get a GSIC-30 and take it out of it's case in a room with 30 untreated CD's going at once and see if the thing explodes. :D

Geoff Kait:

From my understanding of how it works distance is no problem... ;)

[Gulliver]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Do you have evidence of me contradicting myself?

Sir,
You do contradict yourself. Here's an hour's research on just your commitment to do a DBT. In particular, I note that you used the volunteer resources of the Forum Members to development your DBT protocol and then never used that protocol.

Regards,
Gulliver

The evidence:
Originally posted by edthedoc 03-30-2005 04:38 AM, Page 5 of Audio Critic Thread
Wellfed, it would be so easy for you to do a simple double blind trial in the comfort of your own home. It would save everyone a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment. Please think about doing this before you go any further.
Originally posted by Wellfed 03-24-2005 11:14 AM, Page 5 of Audio Critic Thread, quoting and referring to edthedoc’s post above
Thanks, now that I have a methodology I will do just that. I have to wait for another GSIC to arrive which will happen early next week.
Originally posted by Wellfed 03-30-2005 09:55 PM, Page 5
For those interested, I will definitely have performed some type of DBT with the GSIC by April 10.
Originally posted by Wellfed 03-31-2005 04:35 PM, Page 6
I will be doing my own DBT sometime next week, presumably on the weekend, and will report my results on Monday April 11th, or sooner. At that time I will be in contact with the recommended local observer to set up a test for August 2005
Originally posted by Wellfed 04-04-2005 10:32 AM, Page 8
On another note, as you know I plan to do some blind testing on myself this coming weekend. This presupposes to some degree assistance from family members. Since they have little patience for my audiophile pursuits can you give me any suggestions for testing myself with minimal assistance by others? My intent is to return with the results of my own test on Monday, April 11th. I don't have the luxury of multiple GSIC's to work with. I have one unspent chip along with two spent devices.
Originally posted by Wellfed, 04-09-2005 02:28 PM, Page 10
Due to the turmoil of recent events I have decided to postpone the self-testing I proposed for this weekend. I have found that the agitation of mind has become so great at this time as to disallow for a valid result. View the complete record regarding my claim if you are curious as to why I would choose the following course.

I am going to take a few weeks off and then, with the assistance of Steve Eddy, submit to testing in a valid and fair environment, free of distraction and contention. I will be submitting a protocol proposal to Kramer by midweek as originally planned. I have no plans to view JREF Forum content until the testing with Steve Eddy has been completed.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Gulliver
Sir,
You do contradict yourself. Here's an hour's research on just your commitment to do a DBT. In particular, I note that you used the volunteer resources of the Forum Members to development your DBT protocol and then never used that protocol.

Regards,
Gulliver

The evidence:

Is it a contradiction if a family has a reunion planned at a local park and a severe thunderstorm warning causes them to cancel their intended event? I don't think so. I publicly stated my plans to test myself twice. Both events were cancelled due to crap Kramer threw my way at those precise times. His timing was impeccable in this regard.

I do appreciate your research however Gulliver. If you care to do some more, how about trying to find some waffling on my part within the public record?

[prewitt81]

Ok, there are at least seven threads dedicated to this guy on the first page of MDC alone. He's already had his application denied and shows no signs of ever wanting to do a DBT. Is there really anything else we can accomplish by further posting?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I was recently locked out of the JREF for 5 days and therefore unable to respond to some of the comments made about me. This proved very unsettling, so much so that I could feel its effect on my listening sensitivity.

Aw. Poor baby.

[webfusion]

wellfed remarks: I really have difficulty understanding the frenzy this matter has generated. Can you explain this phenomenon to me?

Paul Carey (naughtyrasputin) explains it HERE:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870883305#post1870883305

'Hello all,
keep it coming,
it is beautiful quackery..."

Bullwinkle, test me.

See ya.

[Perpetual Notion]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Aw. Poor baby.

C'mon Kramer. You knew what you were doing. You and Randi have all that money stacked up in a big pile in his office and you spend your afternoons rolling around in it, smoking cigars and laughing about how noone's ever gonna get tested. Yep, we know it goes down like that. :D

[Gulliver]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Is it a contradiction if a family has a reunion planned at a local park and a severe thunderstorm warning causes them to cancel their intended event? I don't think so. I publicly stated my plans to test myself twice. Both events were cancelled due to crap Kramer threw my way at those precise times. His timing was impeccable in this regard.

I do appreciate your research however Gulliver. If you care to do some more, how about trying to find some waffling on my part within the public record?

Yes, it is a contradiction. Absolutely!

Now, you have a point. We all must change based on events. At times, we must break our promises. It would be wrong to subject children to the danger of thunderstorm because of a promise you made.

You fail however in your reasoning. Staying with the children and the park example, the correct approach would be to tell the children of your decision and to take responsibility for it. You should not invoke gods or demons. One example of incorrect behavior would be to say, "The Devil has prevented me from taking you to the park today by creating the bad weather."

Your excuse is also a problem. Staying with the analogy, you should not use an excuse like Aunt Martha called and upset me. I strongly suggest that your excuse is intangible at best, fraudulent at worst. "I can't do the test because someone upset me." That's very different than a thunderstorm. I can see a storm. I sure can't see your state of mind. Too often we encounter excuses like these when dealing the paranormal. Many failures are blamed (lamely) on there simply being skeptics in the room.

Of course, a caring father would also mitigate the effect of the broken promise. For example, you could promise to go to the park on the next sunny day or Aunt Martha's house after the storm--and then follow through.

You must step to the plate and back your promises. You've had plently of time and lots of support from Forum Members. Do the DBT. Accept my generous offer. Mitigate your broken promise, and stop blaming Kramer.

Regarding the addditional research, I've already documented your waffling in a previous post. I hope it's not too much trouble for you to review all the various threads to find it.

Regards,
Gulliver

[webfusion]

I strongly suggest that your excuse is intangible at best, fraudulent at worst. "I can't do the test because someone upset me." That's very different than a thunderstorm. I can see a storm. I sure can't see your state of mind.

Wellfed's State of Mind (an actual MRI image of his brain)
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/maple/waffle.jpg


Yeah <<< Sure, I've posted this before, but this thread is now a joke anyway, so I'll throw it in here once again for maximum comedic effect since I'm on Wellfed's ignore list anyway.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by webfusion
Wellfed's State of Mind (an actual MRI image of his brain)
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/maple/waffle.jpg


Yeah <<< Sure, I've posted this before, but this thread is now a joke anyway, so I'll throw it in here once again for maximum comedic effect since I'm on Wellfed's ignore list anyway.

/Start Homer

Mmmmmmm.....waffles......slobber

/End Homer

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Wellfed
How do you excercise such discipline?It comes from experience. This is not the first time KRAMER and I have exchanged words.

I posed a question to KRAMER that he wasn't sure of the answer to, so he asked Randi for confirmation. Randi dressed KRAMER down for asking, so KRAMER felt it necessary to dress me down for asking as well.

His flame - not "admonishment" - about my lack of reading comprehension takes on a whole new perspective when you realize that a similar "admonishment" went on between Randi and KRAMER beforehand.

I have to admit that I do wonder who on these forums he thought would reject his clarification...

[KRAMER]

I'm hoping that you might accept an apology from me on this issue (for the nasty tone I employed in my response), and that we can surrey forth on better terms.

That said, you DID come forward with something more like an accusation than a question. Wouldn't you admit that?

Wouldn't you also admit that you basically stated that Randi was lying? And wouldn't you be understanding of how that might make me upset?

I have promised elsewhere in the forums that I would refrain from posting when angry, and I shall hold myself to that, but I do believe that you were calling Randi a liar. Please correct me if I am mistaken, or if that is not what you meant when you said what you said.

Also, I was not "unsure of the answer" to your question. I was entirely sure, and that prompted my response. I am the Challenge guy. Tell me that you're not seriously suggesting that I was unaware of just how many applicants passed the preliminary test.

The only thing I was unsure of was how Randi would explain that sentence in FLIM-FLAM, not recalling that it was written before the Challenge became official, back when it was more informal, and for much less money.

Again, I apologize for suggesting that you couldn't read. That was quite unneccesary.

[Beleth]

Thank you, KRAMER.

I was couching the terms of yesterday in the definitions of today and came to an erroneous conclusion. "Passing the preliminary" means something entirely different today than it did when FLIM-FLAM! was written, and there was no way for me to know that before I asked about it.

It's like when I describe my grandmother as a computer. When she was in the work force, a computer was defined as "a person who computes", and that's what she was. The meaning of that word is different now, and so it's easy to get a humorous mental image.

I have learned from experience that there is no way to ask a question on the Internet without the possibility of someone interpreting it as an accusation. I have asked questions (on other boards) in the politest terms, surrounded by glowing praise for the abilities and honor of the person I was asking the question of, and it still got misinterpreted as being an accusation to promote some "agenda" I supposedly had. So I basically don't waste time stepping on eggshells any more. Especially when the person I'm asking has said that they are laughing so hard at me that they won't be able to sleep at night.

Likewise with calling Randi a "liar". He said one thing in FLIM-FLAM! that, using the terminology of today, was at odds with what he was saying today. It's impossible for me to phrase that in such a way that someone won't interpret it as me calling Randi a liar.

And now it's lunchtime, so I am going to cut this one short.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Aw. Poor baby.

What might your nefarious agenda be with this little gem. :rolleyes:

[patchbunny]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
/Start Homer

Mmmmmmm.....waffles......slobber

/End Homer But.. but... they're not Homer's patented Moon Waffles!

--Patch

[webfusion]

I am trying to figure out why these particular waffles have no syrup on them... it must be a Fargo idiosyncracy (http://www.rolldabeats.com/artist/aural_imbalance)

[KRAMER]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56940

[Powa]

Personally, I'm glad that this is over. What a sordid tale it had become. :(

[jj]

I like waffles on Saturday mornings, when I have time to make them!

[Gr8wight]

Noooooooo!

j.j., how could you? How many pages deep did you have to go to ressurect this thread? There should be a punishment for that.

[alfaniner]

Well, since there's an update... (and sorry for bumping this thread, but it's for all you who missed it the first time around).

Update to the Challenge communications (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36074)

[hellaeon]

Edit: hahaha just noticed the LAST of the thread discussion between the applicant and randi etc.
withdrawing message!