Challenge ? [Archive]

jmercer

21st March 2005, 09:53 AM

Well... it could be open to interpretation:

The Challenge

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. (snipped other stuff for brevity)

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

My personal intepretation of item 6 is "JREF isn't going to pay for your time, transport, etc.". However... in light of item 5, I can see how this could be interpreted as "If we need to have someone travel to see this, you have to pay for it."

I would have worded it this way if my personal intepretation is correct:

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

KRAMER

21st March 2005, 10:30 AM

All JREF investigators work as volunteers. The applicant is NOT charged for their expenses. Randi has NEVER asked for his expenses to be covered when a test is performed.

All test materials are provided by the applicant. Nowhere does it state that Randi must be flown to the test site at the applicant's expense.

This is just another tiny example of the numerous excuses used by people claiming paranormal ability when invited to take the JREF Challenge. The song never ends.

Beleth

21st March 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
All JREF investigators work as volunteers. The applicant is NOT charged for their expenses. Randi has NEVER asked for his expenses to be covered when a test is performed.

All test materials are provided by the applicant. Nowhere does it state that Randi must be flown to the test site at the applicant's expense.

This is just another tiny example of the numerous excuses used by people claiming paranormal ability when invited to take the JREF Challenge. The song never ends.

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

That provision is crystal clear that the applicant will indeed have to pay for the investigator's costs. "Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs" means just that. Any of the costs. Including their own.

If that is not the intent, then the wording must be changed.

KRAMER

21st March 2005, 11:58 AM

No applicant has EVER been asked to foot any of Randi's expenses. This thread was started because someone refused to take the Challenge saying that Randi would want to be flown into town and have it paid for by the applicant. That is false.

The only time in which an applicant is asked to pay for Randi's travel expenses is when the applicant INSISTS on Randi being present at the test, as in...

"I'm not taking the test unless you are present, Randi."

"OK, but you have to pay my expenses if you want me there."

Additionally, the potential applicant in question, like so many hundreds of others, never contacted us to ask for clarification on this. More proof that the Challenge is of no interest to them. So you go right on touting stuff like this on behalf of deluded people with flimsy claims who'll never bother to apply but will always have a lame excuse for not doing so.

I say enough complaints about the wording of the Challenge rules and let's start seeing some serious applicants submitting their claim to testing. Anyone who truly wishes to see their claim tested wouldn't bother with such inane nonsense.

drkitten

21st March 2005, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER

I say enough complaints about the wording of the Challenge rules and let's start seeing some serious applicants submitting their claim to testing. Anyone who truly wishes to see their claim tested wouldn't bother with such inane nonsense.

I quite understand your frustration and impatience with the endless rounds of misunderstandings and complaints. On the other hand, I think many of the concerns are still justified.

In particular -- if I were interested in applying for the JREF challenge, I wouldn't have bothered to "ask for clarification" about the expense questions. (I consider myself to have reasonably good reading comprehension, and it's rather hard to misread a statement like "All expenses are the sole responsibility of the applicant.")

... AND I also have an idea of how much it can cost to set up a "scientific" test. If I didn't know that most of the JREF tester were volunteers (and probably local to where I was), I might well be scared away even from applying by an expectation that the costs would be well above my means.

In some regards it's like a restaurant that doesn't bother to put prices on its menu. I don't even want to ask how much it will cost, because the intended clientele obviously don't care --- and therefore I'm not part of the intended clientele.

Beleth

21st March 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER
No applicant has EVER been asked to foot any of Randi's expenses. This thread was started because someone refused to take the Challenge saying that Randi would want to be flown into town and have it paid for by the applicant. That is false.Where do you think they got that notion, then? Is it possible that they got that notion from the statement "All expenses ... are the sole responsibility of the applicant"?

The only time in which an applicant is asked to pay for Randi's travel expenses is when the applicant INSISTS on Randi being present at the test, as in...

"I'm not taking the test unless you are present, Randi."

"OK, but you have to pay my expenses if you want me there."I understand that it's a roadblock the JREF puts in place so as to not have to frivolously fly Randi all over creation. That's fine.

Additionally, the potential applicant in question, like so many hundreds of others, never contacted us to ask for clarification on this. More proof that the Challenge is of no interest to them.You certainly put them in a lose-lose situation.

If they ask questions, it's because they just want to waste time and are not interested int he Challenge. If they don't ask questions, it's because they are not interested in the Challenge.

So you go right on touting stuff like this on behalf of deluded people with flimsy claims who'll never bother to apply but will always have a lame excuse for not doing so.Ed Dammit, KRAMER, I'm on your side. What do I have to do to convince you of that? And yet here you go, talking down to me - again - like I have the reading comprehension of a third-grader.

The simple fact is that nowhere in the Challenge rules does it state that anything will be paid for by anyone except the applicant. It is clear that every expense will be paid for by the applicant. That is why no one asks about it - it's already clear as day.

Just because the clear message is not what the JREF intends doesn't make it any less clear. It just makes it a roadblock that the applicants see but the JREF doesn't.

I say enough complaints about the wording of the Challenge rules and let's start seeing some serious applicants submitting their claim to testing. Anyone who truly wishes to see their claim tested wouldn't bother with such inane nonsense.I say enough complaints about the complaints and let's start having the rules say what they are supposed to say! The addition of three little words - the ones jmercer added in his post above - would solve this issue entirely.

Only after the rules are understood to mean the same thing by both parties can serious applicants get on with the business of testing claims. And that, after all, is what everyone wants.

dinosaur_knight

21st March 2005, 02:21 PM

Considering the prize, footing the bill for a few meager expenses hardly seems objectionable. I'd happily spring for an airline ticket and a hotel room if I stood to gain $1,000,000.

Lisa Simpson

21st March 2005, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by dinosaur_knight
Considering the prize, footing the bill for a few meager expenses hardly seems objectionable. I'd happily spring for an airline ticket and a hotel room if I stood to gain $1,000,000.

Yeah, but lots of people don't have that kind of cash up front.

I agree with Beleth and jmercer. Those three little words make things much clearer.

T'ai Chi

21st March 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by KRAMER
No applicant has EVER been asked to foot any of Randi's expenses.

That is true from all accounts. However, the wording of the official rules allows for that possibility, right? I guess that it was Lisa was trying to get at.

Additionally, the potential applicant in question, like so many hundreds of others,...

Numbers are often brought up in relation to the challenge prelim. It would be nice if actual data was easily accessible to interested parties.

Metullus

21st March 2005, 02:46 PM

I don't see the language as being particularly unreasonable.

If logistical considerations require that the Applicant travel to the test it is not unreasonable that the Applicant foot the bill.

If the Applicant insists upon the test coming to her, then she should be willing to cover the costs involved.

If the protocol is agreed upon, but it will require a significant financial investment by the Applicant, she can either back out for financial reasons (which I, for one, would understand and respect), or try to raise the funds required. I submit that if the Applicant truly has a demostarble and testable psi ability it would be not terribly difficult to raise the required funds (investors?)

Whatever the case, she is not asked to pony up money up-front.

Beleth

21st March 2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by dinosaur_knight
Considering the prize, footing the bill for a few meager expenses hardly seems objectionable. I'd happily spring for an airline ticket and a hotel room if I stood to gain $1,000,000. So would I, if I were assured of gaining it.

But the charlatans know they have no chance, so they don't even try. And the deluded... well, who knows what or how or why the deluded think the way they do.

It's why I don't play the lottery either. If I knew I would win $38,000,000 just by buying a measly $1 ticket, well, then, I would. Heck, I might even buy two.

Vikram

21st March 2005, 03:33 PM

I personally think the rules should not be changed. Suppose someone in a very rural area in the middle of nowhere applies for the challenge. The JREF of course would offer to test them at the nearest city where the nearest skeptics organization is present. A reasonable and genuine applicant would certainly be willing to travel the distance for a million dollars. But looking at the track-record of applicants - reason doesn't seem to be a very prominent trait. In fact, a number of applicants seem like they don't intend to be tested at all - they are simply trying to teach Randi a lesson by making him waste his time and money.

What if an applicant says that the test HAS to be performed at his home hundreds of miles from the nearest city? And that the test would take two days to complete? Why should the JREF foot the bill for the travel and lodging that would be required? I can imagine Sylvia Brown putting someone up to a prank like that simply so that she could have a good laugh.

The option should be given for the claimant to be tested at the nearest large city. If they insist on being tested at a specific location, they should certainly be asked to pay for the travel and lodging of the tester.

If applicants find that the JREF is asking them to pay for unnecessary expenses, then it's fine for them to complain. But if someone starts by looking for an excuse in the rules, then we know that that person has no intention of applying and going through the test at all. I don't think the rules should be modified for something like this. Applicants should be told that all expenses would have to be borne by them. That would prevent them from designing tests with inordinately ridiculous and expensive clauses.

Beleth

21st March 2005, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Vikram
Applicants should be told that all expenses would have to be borne by them. That is what they're being told. But KRAMER is saying in this thread that that isn't necessarily true.

Vikram

21st March 2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Beleth
That is what they're being told. But KRAMER is saying in this thread that that isn't necessarily true.
I was referring to what the rules currently say and should, IMHO, continue to say. It's better that the rules be succinct and simple and closed to exploitation rather than complex and loaded with legalese and modifiers.

Perhaps a point could be added to the FAQ explaining the position of the JREF on expenditure and explaining how the JREF would cover all reasonable travel and other expenses for the tester and the test, but that the definition of 'reasonable' would be decided upon by the JREF. If the JREF were to feel that the applicant's conditions for the test required unreasonable expenditure on the part of the JREF or the testing agency, the JREF would retain the right to ask the applicant to pay for those expenses.

Kramer, do you think adding something like this to the FAQ (and leaving the rules untouched) might help clear any confusion that might exist in reference to this?

Hastur

22nd March 2005, 04:41 AM

IMO, it would be better just to add the point to the FAQ than changing the rules, again. The clause denying claims that could lead to injury/death was proper in that it prevented future claims against JREF. This is just semantics games. If anyone complained that according to the rules, it looks like the claimant is footing the bill for everything, the JREF could always point to its course in dealing with claimants and say "Not so, we only ask the claimant pay for whatever he needs to perform the test and any special considerations he demands."

TjW

22nd March 2005, 09:53 AM

Well, it seems to be fairly difficult to get potential candidates to read the rules and FAQ, so I hesitate to suggest adding yet another thing to read.

But I have eased my workload in tech support by writing "walkthroughs" -- a step by step description of how to accomplish a particular task.

This isn't necessarily different information than is already contained in the rules and FAQ, it would just be organized differently. In fact, sections 4 and 5 of the FAQ are pretty much a walkthrough, if a potential applicant reads down that far. I think it could be written a little more encouragingly, but the information is there.

Other points that might be added:

It is in the best interests of JREF to have reasonable requirements, since the skeptical point of view is that information is gained through testing, and facilitating testing is one of the things the Challenge is for.

Although the challenge process is adversarial, it does not need to be antagonistic.

A test is not necessarily expensive for the applicant.

The transparency of the process -- having everything published on the Web -- protects _both_ sides from claims of unreasonable requirements in the testing.

KRAMER

22nd March 2005, 11:21 AM

It seems to me, at this point, that the complaints about the Challenge, its rules, and the FAQ will just never end.

Randi and I both feel that the rules should not be changed. We also feel that the FAQ answers all questions the potential applicant might have. So did everyone here in the forum only a few short weeks ago, and that pleasure has now turned to more intensified criticism and scrutiny.

I've asked that the first sentence of Rule #6 be changed to say "All of the APPLICANT's expenses".

You think that'll make the applicant in question sit up and say,
"Oh, GREAT. NOW I'll apply!!!"

Come on.

Enough already. It's Randi's Challenge, he makes the rules.

A forum member initiated the FAQ, which we then amended and adopted. Everyone was pleased to death. Until now.

Here's the bottom line:

Anyone who thinks they can prove the existence of the paranormal but doesn't like the JREF Challenge doesn't have to send in an application, and skeptics who don't like the wording of the Challenge rules can start their own Challenge.

We've gone a long way to make things better. We won't keep tweaking it until the cows come home. It's fine the way it is.
And as Randi so eloquently puts it, we will NOT spoonfeed applicants. Apply, or don't apply.

Sorry, but I guess we just can't please everyone.

And all this over someone who just won't apply regardless of what the rules or the FAQ says, and you KNOW it.

Hastur

22nd March 2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
It seems to me, at this point, that the complaints about the Challenge, its rules, and the FAQ will just never end.

Randi and I both feel that the rules should not be changed. We also feel that the FAQ answers all questions the potential applicant might have. So did everyone here in the forum only a few short weeks ago, and that pleasure has now turned to more intensified criticism and scrutiny.

I've asked that the first sentence of Rule #6 be changed to say "All of the APPLICANT's expenses".

You think that'll make the applicant in question sit up and say,
"Oh, GREAT. NOW I'll apply!!!"

Come on.

Enough already. It's Randi's Challenge, he makes the rules.

A forum member initiated the FAQ, which we then amended and adopted. Everyone was pleased to death. Until now.

Here's the bottom line:

Anyone who thinks they can prove the existence of the paranormal but doesn't like the JREF Challenge doesn't have to send in an application, and skeptics who don't like the wording of the Challenge rules can start their own Challenge.

We've gone a long way to make things better. We won't keep tweaking it until the cows come home. It's fine the way it is.
And as Randi so eloquently puts it, we will NOT spoonfeed applicants. Apply, or don't apply.

Sorry, but I guess we just can't please everyone.

And all this over someone who just won't apply regardless of what the rules or the FAQ says, and you KNOW it.

Kramer,

An attorney with the best education money can buy and a lifetime of experience can draft a will, contract, or a statute that would be crystal clear to even the dullest layperson and there would still be people arguing over the text and asking questions as to its meaning. It's the way people are. For what the opinion of a third-year law student with 2 months left until he is awarded with a Juris Doctor is worth, I think the rules are all right as is. The applicant can always seek clarification from JREF if there are questions.

Metullus

22nd March 2005, 11:40 AM

KRAMER:

What in the world makes you think that mayday won't apply?

I mean, gee whiz! This gal has an ubelievable arsenal of abilities! Of course she'll apply.

When she gets the time, of course. You see, evidently she has a life...

CFLarsen

22nd March 2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
It seems to me, at this point, that the complaints about the Challenge, its rules, and the FAQ will just never end.

Of course not. When people are threatened by reason, it is far easier to complain than actually do something about it - e.g, apply for one cool million bucks.

Originally posted by KRAMER
We've gone a long way to make things better. We won't keep tweaking it until the cows come home. It's fine the way it is. And as Randi so eloquently puts it, we will NOT spoonfeed applicants. Apply, or don't apply.

Oh, no. It's even simpler than that: All they need to do is pick up the bloody million. What could be easier?

(sound of crickets)

Originally posted by KRAMER
Sorry, but I guess we just can't please everyone.

Oh, it's not as if the JREF is here to please anyone. JREF is here to light a couple of candles in the dark, and to challenge those who claim to do something paranormal. Put your money where your mouth is. JREF does that - but very few Superstitious are willing to do that.

The JREF Challenge is a fine example of how to lay it on the line just who is fooling who.

Originally posted by KRAMER
And all this over someone who just won't apply regardless of what the rules or the FAQ says, and you KNOW it.

Here's a suggestion: Only those who actually apply can make suggestions to change the rules. Hm? That ought to cut down on the complaints.... ;)

And I'm only half-kidding....

jmercer

22nd March 2005, 12:22 PM

Kramer... I think the intent is to eliminate as many excuses as possible. This way anyone who cites a weasally reason they can't or won't participate is exposed for what they are - liars.

People are trying to be helpful, not derogatory...

Lisa Simpson

22nd March 2005, 12:23 PM

Amending the FAQ to clear up the money issue costs the JREF nothing. Even the US Constitution, a document of slightly more importance than the JREF FAQ, gets amended every once in a while. Yes, everyone likes the FAQ, but that doesn't mean that things can't be added, deleted or amended to it.

I plan on frequently asking mayday if she's applied. :D

KRAMER

23rd March 2005, 09:51 AM

The words "of the applicant's" have been added to Rule #6 of the Challenge, as per your suggestions herein.

I know you're on our side. I just wish we had something in place that can make everyone happy. I hope the new addition brings us all closer to that elusive place we might call "mutual satisfaction", at least on the matter of the Challenge rules.

And I'm definitely ALL FOR eliminating all possible excuses, but we all know that those who are afraid to be tested (aka; all those who know they cannot pass any test of their alleged "powers") will always dream up some new excuse.

That's what I'm against: constantly amending the rules (or the FAQ) whenever some brainless bah-bah dreams up a new one.
It gives them what they want; attention.

If they want attention, let them APPLY. Until then, they deserve no more than a peripheral glance.

We should not be catering to anything here but the truth.

"Weekends are a No-Go."

Whatever.

drkitten

23rd March 2005, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
The words "of the applicant's" have been added to Rule #6 of the Challenge, as per your suggestions herein.

I know you're on our side. I just wish we had something in place that can make everyone happy. I hope the new addition brings us all closer to that elusive place we might call "mutual satisfaction", at least on the matter of the Challenge rules.

And I'm definitely ALL FOR eliminating all possible excuses, but we all know that those who are afraid to be tested (aka; all those who know they cannot pass any test of their alleged "powers") will always dream up some new excuse.

For what it's worth, KRAMER, the excuses are at least getting recognizably lamer (at least from my outsider's perspective), and to that extent, I think that the changes in the rules and the input from the JREF are Good Things. In fact, part of the reason I spoke up is because mayday's misinterpretation struck me as one of the few legitimate confusions I've seen in a while. (By contrast, I haven't seen the "JREF doesn't really have the money" legitimately expressed since you put up the Goldman-Sachs account number....)

For what it's worth, I think this can be viewed as an extension of the discussion you alluded to on a different thread:

Randi and I disagree strongly on this. I want no treatment of the discs other than the application of the chip. Randi insists it's OK.

I'd have liked to toss everything that isn't mutually agreed to as absolutely necessary, but Randi wants the applicant to have all possible comforts. I can see why, but it still bugs me.

I think that it's possible, and indeed desirable, for the applicant to have all possible comforts that can reasonably be provided for them, starting with the application process itself. I think rewriting the challenge rules to clear up areas of legitimate confusion is part of that comfort. If nothing else, that helps illustrate the difference between legitimate misunderstands and willful ignorance in the service of providing a lame escape.

Ashles

23rd March 2005, 11:29 AM

It is ironic that this revision has happened as a result of comments by Mayday of all people, who, as far as I can tell, is abaout as likely to genuinely apply as Sylvia Browne.

But I think New Drkitten has a good point - if people are resorting to extremely minor confusions about points they could easily clarify in about 2 seconds flat, then it seems like on the whole the challenge is now pretty well clear to all.

Anyone who doesn't apply has no excuse (well, except for the obvious...)

jmercer

23rd March 2005, 11:36 AM

Yep. And I have to say that Kramer is correct about not catering to every nitpicking thingie people object to. However, I think we're probably at the point where (as dr k put it) applicants are using "recognizably lamer" excuses.

And it's a really good feeling to know that both Randi and Kramer take our concerns seriously, too. Thank you, both of you.

Skeptical Greg

23rd March 2005, 11:44 AM

I think this is great!

Kramer: " You won't apply because of ' what part of the rule you don't understand ' ? "

" O.K. We fixed that . Now what is the reason you won't apply ? "

CFLarsen

23rd March 2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER
The words "of the applicant's" have been added to Rule #6 of the Challenge, as per your suggestions herein.

No, no! You can't do that!! You have to ignore all input from people! Sheeesh, don't you realize that you are destroying this image of close-mindedness??

Originally posted by KRAMER
That's what I'm against: constantly amending the rules (or the FAQ) whenever some brainless bah-bah dreams up a new one.
It gives them what they want; attention.

If they want attention, let them APPLY. Until then, they deserve no more than a peripheral glance.

Oh, they want attention, that's for sure. But they don't want real attention, because that also brings on the spotlight of reality.

What they want is to be able to go back to their acolytes and say "Hey, I challenged the Amazing Randi, and he chickened out!". And the believers will believe.

What they don't want is the harsh scrutiny of the real world. They will do anything to avoid that. They know that their scams work beautifully within a relatively small group of people, and they are quite happy with that.

Originally posted by KRAMER
We should not be catering to anything here but the truth.

Hear, hear.

Achau Nguyen

24th March 2005, 07:18 AM

Honestly, I dont understand all this hamajab about understanding the rules of the challenge. I myself, with only up to a highschool education already knew and pretty much understood all the rules, before anything was changed or modified to it. And for the people who don't have the money, ask your friends and family to help you out, show them whatever powers you have so they'll know that you can do it and win the prize, give them interest if you have to, I mean it is a million dollars, whats a little interest to a million you knows?? if they dont believe you, than maybe you dont have the powers?? i dont knows..

BTW: if there's any skeptics on the forums from the state of Hawaii or plan on going to Hawaii for trip any time soon, im still looking for people to participate/help out on my preliminary testing. Contact me or Kramer if you would be available. If you do decide to help me out I promice you, you won't be forgetted if I do win the prize, ;) , thanks

jmercer

24th March 2005, 10:19 AM

Hey, Achau -

The problem isn't actual understanding of the language. (Mostly, anyway.)

The major issue is that the pseudo-applicants create excuses to decline taking the challenge by deliberately misinterpreting the challenge wording.

KRAMER

24th March 2005, 10:38 AM

Hiya James,

Yes, I'm going to kill myself.

But its not as bad as that. As to quote Monty Python "I'm getting better"!!!

In actuallity, I have decided to finally attempt to impelement a simple study into the phenomena of the Near Death Experience. In order to do this, I will render myself, and other volounteers clinically dead, through by cooling thier body temperature, using a process called Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest. This ensures minimal damage to the brain while the patient is clinically dead. It is a remarkably safe proceedure and is used fairly often in medical practice.

Once the patient is revived they are then interviewed about events that took place while they where "dead" in order to determine if they witnessed anything that they shouldn't have been able to. Check out the attatched document for an outline of the process.

The beauty of this, of course is that such an experimental design is repeatable, and should work, irrespective of the person being flatlined, or where it is being done.

Needless to say, I'm not going to go to all the trouble of doing this, and putting my life on the line unless I can get onboard some expertise, that will make sure that the whole experimental proceedure is watertight and not open to fraud in any way shape or form. Because of this, I would be wanting yourself, or a representative present if and when I can get the ball rolling.

Given that I have no resources to pull off a project such as this, I am still barely on the drawing board. I'm in the process of putting together a web page, and then will need to try and raise the funds for the project from scratch.

However, knowing that you, or your organisation would be prepared to oversee the experiement would be a great relief to me.

Thanks!!

G. Kasarik

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

I really can't decipher whether this guy is kidding or not.

I told him to not even bother applying. I told him the protocol was definitely too dangerous and could never be accepted. I also directed him to some scientific and medical data about the so-called NDE phenomenon, which I am quite certain he will neglect to read.

drkitten

24th March 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by KRAMER

I really can't decipher whether this guy is kidding or not.

I told him to not even bother applying. I told him the protocol was definitely too dangerous and could never be accepted. I also directed him to some scientific and medical data about the so-called NDE phenomenon, which I am quite certain he will neglect to read.

I think this was the plot of the old Kiefer Sutherland movie Flatliners, wasn't it?

Lisa Simpson

24th March 2005, 11:11 AM

There's this guy I've talked to a couple of times at the gym. Yesterday, I saw waving his hands around a woman, about 6 inches over her skin. So today, I asked him about it. Touch therapy, he says. We talk briefly about that, then I tell him about the challenge and this website. He said he'd look into it (from our few briefs talks while ellipticalling, he's a true believer in quite a lot of paranormal things). I seriously doubt he will apply, he had excuses ready. "Sometimes, these things can't be measured by science as we know it." But if we get a touch therapy claim from Orange County, CA--it could be him.

Ashles

24th March 2005, 11:14 AM

It's very dangerous what that guy is trying.

He could well get chased around and beaten up by a kid with a hockey stick.

Still I don't think we should worry too much - it sounds like this is a thought that has popped into this guy's head and when he starts actually trying to organise it and sees how complicated it's all going to get I think he'll give up.
In order to do this, I will render myself, and other volounteers clinically dead,
I hope he remembers that he might need at least one more person to revive them all again.