KRAMER, you are the wrong person for the job.

[Sherman Bay]

This is an open letter to Mr. James Randi.

Kramer is JREF's liason to the outside world, at least for challenge applications. It's a hostile world, to say the least.

Kramer's presence, attitude, statements, and even education and background all become part of JREF's appearance. Not everyone in the world knows what he goes through, what he has to put up with and how difficult it is.

Someone in his position needs the following attributes: Knowledge of the scientific method Knowledge of conjuring Knowledge of how frauds are conducted Knowledge of psychiatry, or how people can fool themselves Ability to communicate in a meaningful way with almost anyone from anywhere Ability to get the job done with greatest amount of positive publicity and the least amount of negative press Infinite patience, even with crooks and idiotsTaking the last three or four means, above all diplomacy. Sure, these are idiots. Don't treat them like idiots! Sure, they are deluded, but how diplomatic is it to tell them so in an insulting manner? Sure, the possibility of passing the Challenge is slim, but the way you tell them is very important. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

Kramer, you may quality for my requirements from 1..4. And please note that I'm sure we agree on what these people are and what they are trying to do. What we disagree on is your treatment of them. It makes me cringe to read your posts.

Let me 'splain it another way. If I see two parties fighting, trading tit for tat, both making little sense, I don't see a clear winner. But if one party can keep his head, post clearly and with restrained emotion, sticking to the subject instead of tossing barbs, that party has the upper hand. In negotiations, this tactic works and makes the organization behind it stand out as the more noble, reasonable and civilized. But if you are only trying to drive away an applicant, not negotiate, by all means, continue.

It does no good for the JREF cause to have a caustic, insulting liason officer on the front lines. I'm afraid, Kramer, that based on your continuing record such as in the Audio Critic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829) thread, you are not the right person for this job. I urge JREF to seriously consider a replacement immediately.

[T'ai Chi]

Sherman,

With regards to the hostility, they've said that what they do is a challenge. From the faq

"It's a dare. It's not at all a friendly agreement. It's an adversarial arrangement, and ..."

So I personally wouldn't expect any cooperation, and that goes for applicants as well as interested parties to have easy access to the cumulative database for analysis.

As far as you know who, he lost me with the whole "bone cancer" thing. I noticed he has a "Hate" section on his website, with, among others, pictures of John Edward and James Van Pragh, so I am somewhat skeptical that someone coming to the JREF with a psychic claim is going to get treatedly kindly and fairly in an unbiased manner.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
This is an open letter to Mr. James Randi.

Kramer is JREF's liason to the outside world, at least for challenge applications. It's a hostile world, to say the least.

Kramer's presence, attitude, statements, and even education and background all become part of JREF's appearance. Not everyone in the world knows what he goes through, what he has to put up with and how difficult it is.

Someone in his position needs the following attributes: Knowledge of the scientific method Knowledge of conjuring Knowledge of how frauds are conducted Knowledge of psychiatry, or how people can fool themselves Ability to communicate in a meaningful way with almost anyone from anywhere Ability to get the job done with greatest amount of positive publicity and the least amount of negative press Infinite patience, even with crooks and idiotsTaking the last three or four means, above all diplomacy. Sure, these are idiots. Don't treat them like idiots! Sure, they are deluded, but how diplomatic is it to tell them so in an insulting manner? Sure, the possibility of passing the Challenge is slim, but the way you tell them is very important. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

Kramer, you may quality for my requirements from 1..4. And please note that I'm sure we agree on what these people are and what they are trying to do. What we disagree on is your treatment of them. It makes me cringe to read your posts.

Let me 'splain it another way. If I see two parties fighting, trading tit for tat, both making little sense, I don't see a clear winner. But if one party can keep his head, post clearly and with restrained emotion, sticking to the subject instead of tossing barbs, that party has the upper hand. In negotiations, this tactic works and makes the organization behind it stand out as the more noble, reasonable and civilized. But if you are only trying to drive away an applicant, not negotiate, by all means, continue.

It does no good for the JREF cause to have a caustic, insulting liason officer on the front lines. I'm afraid, Kramer, that based on your continuing record such as in the Audio Critic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829) thread, you are not the right person for this job. I urge JREF to seriously consider a replacement immediately.

You should raise a million and offer your own prize. Then you could hire whomever you wanted.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by jzs
With regards to the hostility, they've said that what they do is a challenge. From the faq

"It's a dare. It's not at all a friendly agreement. It's an adversarial arrangement, and ..."

So I personally wouldn't expect ANY cooperation.Sure, the "bone cancer" thing was over the top, and Kramer apologized. But this was only a symptom of his whole attitude, which needs some adjustment if JREF wants to take the upper hand, and not just be another mongrel in a scrappy fight.

Those lines in the FAQ probably aren't helping the situation, either (although, if you check, you will find that the FAQ was not originally a JREF staff document). And I don't find anything in the official challenge that requires this sort of treatment to applicants. You should be firm and definative, yes, but temper the attitude with some courtesy, respect and infinite patience. It looks much better to others.

Mr. Randi, and I count myself as one of his biggest fans, is a terrific lecurer and conjuror, but can be unpleasant to talk to if he thinks you are on the side of the Woos. He needs someone as a go-between to the public. But Kramer is acting as a Randi extension when he should be a Randi buffer.Originally posted by Rob Lister
You should raise a million and offer your own prize. Then you could hire whomever you wanted.I wish I could. But there's nothing wrong with an opinion or an observation in this matter is there? Isn't that what these forums are all about?

Why don't you tell us if you agree? Should Kramer stay or go? Do you feel his attitude is OK or should be tempered?

[webfusion]

This was a subject that was thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly) covered in agonizing detail in the $$$$$$$$$$ thread. It even spawned the FAQ.

KRAMER is cool. He understands this whole gig is for fun & entertainment. The Challenge stands to ridicule people who think they can pass it. That's the bottom line. It's not a real thing, since there is no paranormal to begin with. Randi's Million ain't going to anyone. Ever.

James Randi has the perfect "out" ---- the paranormal does not exist. It's that simple.

<< 30 >>

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by webfusion
This was a subject that was thoroughly (and I mean thoroughly) covered in agonizing detail in the $$$$$$$$$$ thread. It even spawned the FAQ.I was part of that thread, I believe, and I don't recall anyone calling for Kramer to actually be tossed. I am. It's reached the breaking point.KRAMER is cool.Not by my definition. I'm sure Kramer & I could be the best of friends IRL, but I wouldn't put him on the front desk in the Customer Relations Dept.He understands this whole gig is for fun & entertainment. The Challenge stands to ridicule people who think they can pass it. That's the bottom line. If that's true, then I am sadly misinformed. I thought the Challenge was a serious attempt to call out those who make outrageous claims and to force them to "put up or shut up" rather than spreading untruths and lies.It's not a real thing, since there is no paranormal to begin with. Randi's Million ain't going to anyone. Ever. James Randi has the perfect "out" ---- the paranormal does not exist. It's that simple.And that's exactly what we need to show, isn't it? Saying "there is no paranormal" is exactly what leads to claims of closed minds.

What a difference to say, "I know of no paranormal event, but I am willing to be shown"? If the $Mil is so darn safe (and I'm sure it is, don't get me wrong), what have we got to lose?

We (I mean skeptics) do not need another accusation of being closed minds. It doesn't help the cause of fighting ignorance to be ******** or even mildly unpleasant, and it is not required in order to educate the world. It just makes enemies. Let's make friends instead.

[Gr8wight]

I, also, have previously expressed my reservations about Kramer's attitude toward applicants and prospective applicants. Most recently, in the Audio Critic thread, Kramer sounds like he is actively trying to piss the applicant off and make him go away.

Is that the case, Kramer? Are you trying to drive Mr. Anda away so that he will never take the challenge? If you have nothing to fear from this applicant, why can you not just answer the man's questions?

Perhaps you have been subjected to too many whack jobs to recognise that Mr. Anda does not fall into that category. Mr Anda, as an extreme audiophile, is a geek. He is a geek in exactly the same way as someone who can name every character who has ever appeared in any Star Wars movie, TV show, novel, comic book, or video game is. His original protocol proposal, and his desired ammendments to the new proposal are needlessly complex not because he is trying to weasel out of the test, but because that is what geeks do. They add needless complexity to everything they do.

If I were Kramer, I would be working very hard to educate the applicant in why the simplest possible test is desirable, and why the strict controls are necessary, in as diplomatic a manner as possible. Kramer said it himself. Randi is very interested in seeing this test go forward. He (Randi) is eagerly licking his lips and is already beginning to compose his commentary for the week after the test. Kramer, I would submit that if you do manage to scare Mr. Anda off, Randi will be somewhat unhappy with you.

[webfusion]

"Apply or go away."

Randi himself offered this advice.
There are no applicants out there who have any chance whatsoever of demonstrating the paranormal.
You know it, everyone here knows it.
KRAMER knows it.

Four words. Simple and to the point.
Everything else is commentary and fun and games.
You want to delude yourself into actually seeking the paranormal? KRAMER is not, he is just playing along with the game as it's set up by the boss. If you don't see that, then you're missing the point.

Have a nice day.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by webfusion
"Apply or go away."

Randi himself offered this advice.
There are no applicants out there who have any chance whatsoever of demonstrating the paranormal.
You know it, everyone here knows it.
KRAMER knows it.DIPLOMACY: When you can tell someone go to hell in such a way that he actually looks forward to the trip.
-- (various authors credited)

DIPLOMACY: The art of saying ''Nice doggie!'' till you can find a rock.
-- Will Rogers and others

DIPLOMACY: The art of letting someone have your way.
-- Daniele Vare and others

[webfusion]

I enjoy the caustic and acerbic and harsh.

I like the insulting, in-your-face style.

I prefer the sarcasm & attitude.

I happen to love the put-downs and the hostility.

Keep it coming, KRAMER.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by webfusion

James Randi has the perfect "out" ---- the paranormal does not exist. It's that simple.


Dude, no one of any scientific mindset will just take your word for it that something does or doesn't exist just because you say so.

These things must be studied in a scientific manner, even if you don't agree about their possible existance, or worth, to even approach a statement like you made above.

[Doberman]

I'm also of the opinion that the manner in which Kramer handles interaction with the applicants is often inappropriate.

Yes, most of us think they're foolish. Yes, most of us have no belief in the paranormal. Yes, most of us believe that the $1,000,000 will never be awarded. Yes, most of us see the fun & humor in belittling the deluded applicants.

It's totally fine if Kramer feels that way. I certainly do. I can't see much that Kramer's said which I really disagree with, or wasn't thinking already.

Is that really the face that JREF wants to be putting forward though?

If the goal of the JREF is truly to "[Create] a new generation of critical thinkers..." etc., as stated on the Mission Statement page (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html) then it should be done in a professional manner. Being looked on as condescending intellectual elitists doesn't do the Foundation any good.

I've seen unprovoked attacks on the claimants, which Kramer has explained away with "Do you know how many ridiculous claims like this I get every day?" Isn't it his job to field those claims? If they've personally attacked him first, I'm prepared to expect a little heat sent back, but some of the unwarranted attacks from honest claimants (no matter how deluded they may be) are over the line, IMO. This is not how a professional organization handles itself. Seems a little too much like how the opposition works to me.

Please note that I'm not in any way questioning Kramer's competence, qualifications, or ability to do his job. This shouldn't be construed as any sort of personal attack on him, per se. Just an observation about how he comports himself when dealing with some of the applicants.

Just my $.02

[webfusion]

Dude, no one of any scientific mindset will just take your word for it that something does or doesn't exist just because you say so.

Sure they will. Because I'm right, Dude.

I'm not the guy looking for answers, BTW.
The day will never come where anything approaching "evidence" is going to be shown supporting the paranormal. So, I'm not going to waste my time hoping for it to happen.

If you want to play "scientist" and search for answers, that's your business. I'm here for laughs. And KRAMER provides them, by the bushel. He could have his own TV show, with that skewering style.

See ya.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
I enjoy the caustic and acerbic and harsh.

I like the insulting, in-your-face style.

I prefer the sarcasm & attitude.

I happen to love the put-downs and the hostility.

Keep it coming, KRAMER.

Can I assume you find "pro" wrestling to be as good as it gets?

[Metullus]

Originally posted by webfusion
Sure they will. Because I'm right, Dude.

I'm not the guy looking for answers, BTW.
The day will never come where anything approaching "evidence" is going to be shown supporting the paranormal. So, I'm not going to waste my time hoping for it to happen.

If you want to play "scientist" and search for answers, that's your business. I'm here for laughs. And KRAMER provides them, by the bushel. He could have his own TV show, with that skewering style.

See ya.
Dood,

If you keep beating around the bush we're never gonna know what you think... :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by webfusion
Sure they will. Because I'm right, Dude.


Oh, you're right, well nevermind then. :rolleyes: I guess I don't really have much faith in people merely declaring they are right and expecting me to believe them.


If you want to play "scientist" and search for answers, that's your business. I'm here for laughs.


Since science is the most reliable way of learning about the state of the world, I'll continue to think that way. If you only want comedy, feel free to enjoy the laughs.. but also expect to get some for ignoring science when it suits you.

[webfusion]

Wellfed, how do you have the time to even watch pro-Wrestling? You have "so much on your plate" and no opportunity to do the Challenge, but plenty of opportunity to sit there at your computer and make snide comments and start bizarre new threads? Go listen to some CD's and stop bugging me, Something doesn't add up with you.

[[[edited to add link: ]]]
http://www.killerkowalskis.com/trainers/w4.jpg

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
Wellfed, how do you have the time to even watch pro-Wrestling? You have "so much on your plate" and no opportunity to do the Challenge, but plenty of opportunity to sit there at your computer and make snide comments and start bizarre new threads? Go listen to some CD's and stop bugging me, Something doesn't add up with you.

[[[edited to add link: ]]]
http://www.killerkowalskis.com/trainers/w4.jpg

Originally posted by webfusion
I enjoy the caustic and acerbic and harsh.

I like the insulting, in-your-face style.

I prefer the sarcasm & attitude.

I happen to love the put-downs and the hostility.

Keep it coming, KRAMER.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the fact that you only welcome this type of behavior coming from Kramer. I won't pay any additional attention to you in the future. Enjoy the show.

[webfusion]

Nope. It's OK coming from you, too, wellfed, but I have other issues with your overall style here that preclude me from enjoying the barbs you are throwing.

Like what issues? For starters, I believe you are a fraud, based on what you have shown everyone here (which ain't much, brother).

KRAMER does not appear to be anything except who he is.

Have a nice day.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
These things must be studied in a scientific manner, even if you don't agree about their possible existance, or worth, to even approach a statement like you made above.

Originally posted by jzs
Since science is the most reliable way of learning about the state of the world, I'll continue to think that way.

And what do we find, when we test scientifically for the paranormal?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And what do we find, when we test scientifically for the paranormal?

"we"... ? Are you claiming that you and/or JREF actually do science? :D

Basically the people who actually test such things in a scientific manner in a lab environment find a lot of examples of no evidence, and some examples of suggestive evidence.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Sherman,

If I could suggest a way for you to strengthen your arguement: Go through the emails sent to Kramer, and write you own responses to them (the way you feel it should be done.) Answer ALL of them. Post your answers here for us to read. By answering ALL the emails, imagining that these people are talking to you, I imagine you could start to get an idea of what Kramer's job is like.

I too think that Kramer comes off as a bit too aggressive, but I can't say what I would be like if I had to deal with these people.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
...and some examples of suggestive evidence.

Like what?

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
...I too think that Kramer comes off as a bit too aggressive, but I can't say what I would be like if I had to deal with these people.

I also give him the benefit of the doubt with this regard, but I have to say from personal experience that his invective is not terribly productive to the facilitating process, it is in fact contrary to that aim for all practical purposes.



I forgot to mention that I really like that Winston Churchill quote.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
If I could suggest a way for you to strengthen your arguement: Go through the emails sent to Kramer, and write you own responses to them (the way you feel it should be done.) Answer ALL of them. Post your answers here for us to read. By answering ALL the emails, imagining that these people are talking to you, I imagine you could start to get an idea of what Kramer's job is like. An excellent suggestion, and one I considered before starting this thread. Although ALL of them might be overkill unless I were applying for Kramer's job. Perhaps I will pick out a few to illustrate when I get some time.

Kramer, I would like to hear from you when you have a moment. Is the edgy attitude you project a deliberate attempt to provoke applicants, a "natural" way (for you) of communicating, specifically requested by Randi, or what? Can you justify it as compared to a more diplomatic approach?

[NiallM]

I've been flying the same flag for some time now.

The problem is that Kramer's job is specifically designed to deal with assorted woo-woos, delusionals, and frauds.

Frm the JREF membership page:

"Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. "

Reaching out necessarily involves persuasion, which precludes rudeness.

From what I've seen, however, it's Randi that sets the tone in JREF. It's probably a tone that develope behind the scenes, and, indeed, may reflect contempt borne out by long experience.

It's not a tone that I think should find its way into correspondence, though - no matter what tone is adopted by the claimants.

It would surely be to the JREF's benefit to show the public that it is rigourously professional, calm and polite in ll of its dealings.

I would never advocate sacking Kramer, though. As fas as I can see, he's merely doing his job as instructed.

[thatguywhojuggles]

One of the biggest problems I notice is that the people who apply usually have no idea of how to design a proper scientific test. They know nothing of double blind testing, or statistics, or the placebo effect, etc.

It would be cool if we selected a few forum members who could be in charge of both educating the claimant, and helping them set up a test.

Here is how it would work:

Claimant: "I can make butterflies fly out of my butt."

Kramer: "That is very interesting. Now before you can take the JREF Challenge, you need to set up a protocol for your test. Go present your claim to the JREF Forum and our team of protocol designers will negotiate with you and help you set up the test."

(Claimant then goes, explains what he/she can do, and the forum "Protocol Design Team" helps them set up a protocol.)

(Claimant returns to JREF with their "ready" test. Kramer then can make a final decision regarding the protocol.)

-----
I know this is allready being done to some degree... but we should make it official. Elect a few forum members who both want to do this, and have shown a knowlege of the scientific method.

This would save Kramer a lot of headache. All he has to do is just redirect the claimant to the protocol design team. He may not hear from them again at this point because when shown the proper way of testing something scientifically, many of the applicants will probably back out.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Like what?

A lot of small p-values in RNG experiments and the Ganzfeld experiments.

Keep in mind I said suggestive evidence before you go on your usual rant/tangent/bullying.

[webfusion]

Here is how it would work:

Claimant: "I can make butterflies fly out of my butt."

Kramer: "That is very interesting. Now before you can take the JREF Challenge, you need to set up a protocol for your test. Go present your claim to the JREF Forum and our team of protocol designers will negotiate with you and help you set up the test."

(Claimant then goes, explains what he/she can do, and the forum "Protocol Design Team" helps them set up a protocol.)

(Claimant returns to JREF with their "ready" test. Kramer then can make a final decision regarding the protocol.)
----
I know this is allready being done to some degree... ....... posted by
thatguywhojuggles


Some degree? It was done exactly like that with Wellfed, who agreed that the Steven Howard Protocol was fine, and then sent it to KRAMER, for approval, which he and Randi accepted, and now Wellfed is waffling and talking about "re-opening negotiations" and how he "never agreed to the Steven Howard Protocol" and continues to tell us that his personal life is so jam-packed that he can't go forward at this time (but is willing to do a Quickie Challenge, using special audio cables to prove how he can discern output differences, and wants to set up THAT protocol instantly, and actually claimed he is ready right now to do a preliminary test and a final test in the same day).

Or how about Beth Clarkson, who had forum input of the Nth magnitude about her protocol? She may not have "vanished" in the true sense of the word, but her Application sits in the JREF file drawer, collecting dust.

Let's not even talk about the aid provided by several forum members to Carey, who may not be a typical applicant (we can only hope) yet he couldn't grasp the basic concepts.

No, I am of the opinion that a "Forum Design Team" is useless. In fact, it is worse than useless, since the Applicant now has an ongoing audience to further his/her delusions/imaginings/feelings that they have paranormal abilities. No, if they want to join the forum to get ideas, they must expect to be ridiculed and insulted as they may deserve, as well as being offered some sage and sound advice. To give them "the benefit of the doubt" is reaching pretty far beyond the spirit of the Challenge.

What was it that Mr Randi always says? ---
''We will not spoonfeed these people"

KRAMER, I think you can properly disregard the idea of an Official Design Team. And keep after Wellfed, he needs to be straightened out.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
A lot of small p-values in RNG experiments and the Ganzfeld experiments.

So, despite of your previous statements, you now think that there is "suggestive evidence" of a paranormal phenomenon.

What made you change your mind?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, despite of your previous statements, you now think that there is "suggestive evidence" of a paranormal phenomenon.

What made you change your mind?

Nice try.

I've always said there is suggestive evidence, but in the form of small pvalues, not in the form of "paranormal phenomenon" that you are attempting (rather obviously and badly) to attach to me.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
One of the biggest problems I notice is that the people who apply usually have no idea of how to design a proper scientific test. They know nothing of double blind testing, or statistics, or the placebo effect, etc.

It would be cool if we selected a few forum members who could be in charge of both educating the claimant, and helping them set up a test.

...

I know this is allready being done to some degree... but we should make it official. Elect a few forum members who both want to do this, and have shown a knowlege of the scientific method.

This would save Kramer a lot of headache. All he has to do is just redirect the claimant to the protocol design team. He may not hear from them again at this point because when shown the proper way of testing something scientifically, many of the applicants will probably back out.

From an Applicants perspective I think you bring up a good point. While my original protocol was well regarded by many, including Mr. Randi, the subsequent negotiation to come to a "mutually agreeable" protocol is where I fell short, IME JREF fell short in this area as well.

[webfusion]

What a crock.

Michael Anda sent the JREF the Howard Protocol, with some minor comments about it (the entire eMail can be viewed in the Audio Critic discussion thread, as posted by Anda himself). Those comments and reservations are so minor as to be irrelevent.

What Anda is attempting to do is signal his intention not to do the preliminary because of JREF's perceived failings (and he opens a new thread about a Qucikie Challenge that he's "ready to do this afternoon" as a new way to 'prove' how JREF is not giving him the attention he deserves).

Mr Anda, these forums are not designed for protocol negotiations. You cannot direct your comments and ideas on what changes need to be made to us here in the public area, and then say "JREF isn't agreeable" ----- none of us represent JREF >>>>>>

After you finish the DB, then write to KRAMER, who is anxious to get you tested. You have been the one to prevaricate, not him. You are the one we presume to be a fraud, not him. You are the one who comes across as a bit of a priss, not him.

[Wellfed]

webfusion,

When did you gain the ability to read minds?

If you think the public record supports your view, I suggest you re-read the matter. And remember, what you say here also belongs to the record.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
One of the biggest problems I notice is that the people who apply usually have no idea of how to design a proper scientific test. They know nothing of double blind testing, or statistics, or the placebo effect, etc.

It would be cool if we selected a few forum members who could be in charge of both educating the claimant, and helping them set up a test.Hmmm. Good idea. Just brainstorming here...

In both the interest of education, and to take some burden off of Kramer, maybe a web page of capsule instructions on these matters. Maybe copius, but well-organized links to other sites (Skepdic, etc.) for specific details. Maybe a list of books (Shermer, Randi, others). Magazines (Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic).

I know, all these are mentioned frequently in these forums, but maybe not in one place (the FAQ is a good attempt to summarize the Challenge, but could be supplemented by such additional data.)

Still brainstorming...

Maybe boilerplate text that Kramer (or a pre-Kramer for initial screening) could pick from to answer the very earliest inquiries. "Your claim is interesting. Please read the enclosed/referenced text, as we think it applies to your situation. If you still feel you have a valid claim, proceed to step 2."

Examples:

Double-blind test (http://skepdic.com/control.html)
Placebo Effect (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html)
Scientific tests (controlled experiments) (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html)

I know Randi is working on a book about Challenge history, and I am eagerly awaiting it. But while it may provide copious chuckles, I fear it will not be oriented toward education of those who believe in the paranormal. Ridiculing may be fun, but isn't likely to be educational.

[Wellfed]

Interesting resource Sherman. Were your links supposed to go to different pages? My attempts brought me to the same page each time.

[Metullus]

This all presupposes that the claimants are at all interested in a scientific approach to examinig their claims. I submit that many - perhaps a majority - are not at all interested in a rigorous test of their abilities. It is not, I think, that they don't understand DBT, they just don't want to be subjected to DBT.

No amount of education or explanation is going to convince mayday, jambo, Carey, Edwards, or Sylvia to test their beliefs. Their beliefs are justified, in their minds, simply because the believe them to be true.

[Winny]

Originally posted by Metullus
No amount of education or explanation is going to convince mayday, jambo, Carey, Edwards, or Sylvia to test their beliefs. Their beliefs are justified, in their minds, simply because the believe them to be true.
I agree.

No amount of education, explanation or persuasion will ever convince these people to take the test. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that they do take the test, it's unlikely that it will change their opinion of their powers one whit.

In fact, on my reading of challenge applicants, I don't think that the challenge has changed the view of any applicant and I don't think it ever will. The most well meaning applicants (I'm thinking mainly of some dowsers and maybe folks like wellfed) will take the test, fail, and then rationalise their failure away.

All of this assumes that convincing the applicants of their wrongheadedness is an objective of the challenge. I don't see it that way.

Originally posted by webfusion
The Challenge stands to ridicule people who think they can pass it. On the other hand, I do hope that the challenge exists for more than just a few laughs at the expense of the seriously deranged.

For me, the objective of the challenge is to expose the falsehoods, be they sincerely held misconceptions or deliberate lies, so that all can see them. I don't think that the challenge has the slightest impact on confirmed woo-woos, and it certainly won't change the thinking of confirmed skeptics, but it might cause some folks to stop and think about their casually held belief in one form of nonsense or another.

For this reason, I think that JREF needs to be careful about the way it presents itself. A casual reader sees an applicant that declines to continue after being insulted and thinks; 'fair enough'. The same person reads on BarnieThePrognosticator's website that he was going to take the challenge, but wouldn't stoop to that level and thinks; 'Makes sense'. I have a beer with that person up at the Oaks on Thursday night and interrupt his talk about Barnie by suggesting that there's a million dollars on offer for him and he proceeds to explain to me why Barnie would never allow himself to be treated in such a way.

I'm just a long-time lurker, recent-poster at these forums. My opinion will, rightly, carry very little weight. Quite frankly, if JREF carries on *exactly as it is* it will continue to do an enormous amount of good in educating people to think more clearly.

I just think it could do even better by being more civil to the applicants. Even (perhaps especially) when they patently do not deserve civility.

cheers

Winny

[Doberman]

Originally posted by Winny
My opinion will, rightly, carry very little weight.

Winny, don't sell yourself short. This attitude is only held by those foolish enough to think that their post count makes them somehow more correct or valid or important. True, you see this attitue in forums all over the internet, but it's completely misguided every time it's expressed.

[webfusion]

If you think the public record supports your view, I suggest you re-read the matter.

My view on what? You, or Kramer?

Clarify, please, because I really can't read minds.
Especially yours, bub.

[Placebo]

Webfusion: Since you are neither skeptical nor scientific in your thinking (in fact, you seem to be a blatantly deranged cynic), I consider your views to be unrelated to JREF's in any form.
Enjoy your comedy, but note that many will simply ignore your posts due to your attitude.

Claims that the paranormal do not exist just annoy me.
'I believe the paranormal does not exist'
'I believe Santa exists but is now retired'
Forgive me for not taking another fallible human's 'belief' in something as 'proof'
Unlike Webfusion over there, I'm eagerly awaiting the first woo to be proven right. And yes, it has happened, and will happen again.
(With what? How about lucid dreaming for a start)

Regarding Kramer, I feel that he has a considerably tough job and is doing a pretty good job of it. His 'sixth sense' for applicants has become pretty sharp, for example.

However I also agree that his demeanor is often way too caustic.
This does NOT mean he need be replaced, simply that he need to try be more careful in his representation of JREF. He did state previously that he would attempt to do exactly this and I feel he has been trying somewhat.

Of course there's still room for improvement, but, Kramer, thank you for your hard work and your attempts to correct your mistakes :)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
My view on what? You, or Kramer?

Clarify, please, because I really can't read minds.
Especially yours, bub.

That view expressed directly above my posting to you mister.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
...

And keep after Wellfed, he needs to be straightened out.

Any suggestions on how you would tackle the job?

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Interesting resource Sherman. Were your links supposed to go to different pages? My attempts brought me to the same page each time. My mistake. Three references but only two links. The last one should have been:

http://skepdic.com/science.html

The other two, for reference:

Double Blind Study (http://skepdic.com/control.html)

Placebo Effect (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html)

If you are not familiar with Bob Carroll's Skepdic site, I highly recommend it, as well as his book, Becoming a Critical Thinker. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0536600600/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-6041319-3812150) Mr. Carroll is a philosophy prof at Sacramento (CA) College, and his site is a wonderful, searchable resource. It is also available in book form.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Winny
I agree.

No amount of education, explanation or persuasion will ever convince these people to take the test. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that they do take the test, it's unlikely that it will change their opinion of their powers one whit.

In fact, on my reading of challenge applicants, I don't think that the challenge has changed the view of any applicant and I don't think it ever will. The most well meaning applicants (I'm thinking mainly of some dowsers and maybe folks like wellfed) will take the test, fail, and then rationalise their failure away.

All of this assumes that convincing the applicants of their wrongheadedness is an objective of the challenge. I don't see it that way.

On the other hand, I do hope that the challenge exists for more than just a few laughs at the expense of the seriously deranged.

For me, the objective of the challenge is to expose the falsehoods, be they sincerely held misconceptions or deliberate lies, so that all can see them. I don't think that the challenge has the slightest impact on confirmed woo-woos, and it certainly won't change the thinking of confirmed skeptics, but it might cause some folks to stop and think about their casually held belief in one form of nonsense or another.

For this reason, I think that JREF needs to be careful about the way it presents itself. A casual reader sees an applicant that declines to continue after being insulted and thinks; 'fair enough'. The same person reads on BarnieThePrognosticator's website that he was going to take the challenge, but wouldn't stoop to that level and thinks; 'Makes sense'. I have a beer with that person up at the Oaks on Thursday night and interrupt his talk about Barnie by suggesting that there's a million dollars on offer for him and he proceeds to explain to me why Barnie would never allow himself to be treated in such a way.

I'm just a long-time lurker, recent-poster at these forums. My opinion will, rightly, carry very little weight. Quite frankly, if JREF carries on *exactly as it is* it will continue to do an enormous amount of good in educating people to think more clearly.

I just think it could do even better by being more civil to the applicants. Even (perhaps especially) when they patently do not deserve civility.

cheers

Winny
Winny I was about to post, until I read your post and saw you had already put what I was thinking pretty much exactly.
Frustrating as Kramer's job must be, and no matter how much we may all be thinking the same thing, we need to see less "Just apply or leave" type posts.
Every rude post officially from the JREF stands a chance of doing the rounds and causing people who might be on the fence about such things to think of sceptics as, well, not entirely as we'd hope.

And again I wish to add otherwise full support for Kramer who does, without pay, a job that would have me tearing my hair out within about an hour.

Doberman is also right. Post count means absolutely nothing apart from the fact that the poster has posted a lot of times. It's like saying the quiet person in the office has less to say of importance than the mouthy git who won't shut up.

[Questioninggeller]

Kramer's doing a great job in a difficult and draining position. Dealing with nutcases day in and day out isn't easy, so he and everyone else at JREF should be cut some slack when they appear "rude."

Can you imagine sending 20 emails a day to nutcases that think they can tell the future, but doubt the million exists...

If anything Kramer should be praised for his work and letting us see the applicants squirm away from their protocols, and tolerating crude and offensive people (see applicant Carey who wasted months of Kramer's time).

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Kramer's doing a great job in a difficult and draining position. Dealing with nutcases day in and day out isn't easy, so he and everyone else at JREF should be cut some slack when they appear "rude." A clinical psychologist in a mental hospital deals with nutcases day in and day out, too. Should he treat them by insulting them?

Given the nature of the Challenge, if you believe that it is impossible to win, every applicant is by definition a nut case. That doesn't require a hostile treatment. Far from it -- each applicant should be treated with kid gloves, respectfully but firmly. The eyes of the world are upon us, and the average Joe doesn't know how preposterous the claims are. All Joe sees is the treatment of applicants.

[Gulliver]

I'd like to disagree with Sherman Bay, in a major way. I believe that anyone who fails to provide frank and candid feedback in a challenge has done the applicant and the world a disservice.

JREF must say when behavior is questionable. JREF must say when an applicant dishonest. JREF must uphold the truth. JREF must tell the emporer when he wears no clothes. The emporer may not like the news or even how it's delivered, but it's much better than revealing his shortcomings to the empire.

Keep up the good work, Kramer!

[webfusion]

Quoted from Francois Tremblay (on another thread)

You are spectacularly missing the point. The Million Dollar Challenge is not about determining whether people can really communicate "telepathically". Scientific facts and the failure of past claims are more than sufficient to establish that this is a fantasy. The Challenge is here to show people that no one has "para-normal" powers.


Precisely. Thank you for saying it.
You will now join Placebo's ignore list, however.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
A clinical psychologist in a mental hospital deals with nutcases day in and day out, too. Should he treat them by insulting them?


Other than the insult to Carey, (which Kramer apologized and changed his conduct, if you noticed) Kramer hasn't been insulting the people.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Gulliver
I'd like to disagree with Sherman Bay, in a major way. I believe that anyone who fails to provide frank and candid feedback in a challenge has done the applicant and the world a disservice.
Of course, I don't think anybody is asking that Kramer not provide frank and candid feedback. But rather that he use some diplomacy in the way he brings the feedback.

[ Edited to add 'don't' ... fixing the lack of negative :p ]

[Winny]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Other than the insult to Carey, (which Kramer apologized and changed his conduct, if you noticed) Kramer hasn't been insulting the people. I don't agree. For example, there's this comment to Elaine McGuckin; "My having misunderstood that part of your letter is peanuts, however, compared to how some people throw their entire lives away on utter nonsense such as this. THAT is appalling.

Now let's see how well YOU understand English:"

Then this one; "Stop playing games. And stop changing your name, too. It won't change who you are." to Alana Kay.

There's "you seem wholly incapable of comprehending my numerous emails to you" to Gail Hagen.

More recently, there was this comment to Michael Anda; "This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about. What's to prevent you from changing your mind AGAIN once August rolls around? All this "peace of mind" stuff is really just more of what we hear ALL THE TIME from folks who never submit their claim to the test."

And, of course, the comments that were made to Carey.

I just find comments like these unnecessary.

Go back and re-read these threads as if these comments had been completely deleted and tell me what part of the original message is no longer communicated. Tell me what nuance is now missing.

cheers

Winny

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Winny
I don't agree. For example, there's this comment to Elaine McGuckin; "My having misunderstood that part of your letter is peanuts, however, compared to how some people throw their entire lives away on utter nonsense such as this. THAT is appalling.
Now let's see how well YOU understand English:
If you read that thread, Elaine had become insulting to Kramer first.

Originally posted by Winny
There's "you seem wholly incapable of comprehending my numerous emails to you" to Gail Hagen.
This just seems frank to me. 'you seem' are the key words for me. He's just stating the way it looks to him.

I don't really know about the others

[Winny]

Originally posted by Placebo
If you read that thread, Elaine had become insulting to Kramer first.Yep. This is a person applying for a million dollar prize under the belief that she has supernatural powers. I am astonished that people can reach such a belief, so it surprises me not at all that she became insulting!
Originally posted by Placebo Originally posted by Winny
There's "you seem wholly incapable of comprehending my numerous emails to you" to Gail Hagen.This just seems frank to me. 'you seem' are the key words for me. He's just stating the way it looks to him.It's insulting by any measure.
Originally posted by Placebo
I don't really know about the others I'm not claiming that KRAMER is making these comments unproked. He is clearly provoked, by stupidity in some cases and by aggression in others. I just think that JREF wouldd be better served to be a bit less emotive in its replies.

As I said before, go read the emails as if those words were never typed and then tell me what value they added to the communication.

cheers

Winny

[Solid.Sniper]

Hi,

I'm quite new to these forums (as for posting), and in my first post I want to say that JREF is a very nice initiative.

However other ppl are far better placed than me to speak bout this matter, I just wanted to share my 2 cents.

I also have the feeling when reading the applicant section that Kramer might not be the right person in the right place. Although he is correct and to the point in most cases, he surely isn't the most diplomatic man I've ever seen in a position like his.

We might consider that he is on the frontline of JREF, thereby representing JREF to the world, and you might consider having a diplomatic man over there. After all, he is an important factor of the image the world has of the organisation.

I know there are alot of nutcases (most of them are), but that doesn't mean we really have to scare them off or insult them, because it is that kind of ppl you will see later in some talkshow claiming that and this bout JREF. Also I've seen quite serious applicants being scared off by endless discussions on details (of tests) or other issues, in which I hardly see any purpose. I have the feeling that Kramer can be the right person, if he's willing to have more patience and doesn't insult ppl (even if they are nutcases). Imo simply explaining what is needed, helping them if they ask questions and end the case when it's closed is all a busy man in his position should do, there is no need to be personally involved (like I feel sometimes happened).

No offense to anyone, just expressing my thoughts in order to help.

[Francois Tremblay]

For a guy who *has* to deal with the mentally deranged every day and is not trained to do so, I'm surprised KRAMER hasn't snapped yet. He deserves a medal.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
For a guy who *has* to deal with the mentally deranged every day and is not trained to do so, I'm surprised KRAMER hasn't snapped yet. He deserves a medal.

I think everyone heavily involved with this process deserves a medal. Let me state for the record that I harbor very little resentment toward Kramer. I think we're both just EXTREMELY frustrated with one another at the moment. I wish the man well despite appearances to the contrary.

[webfusion]

When was the last time you wrote directly to KRAMER?

Did you present to him the reults of your own DB test at home, with the assistance of your daughter?

KRAMER does not appear to be frustrated with you.
He has done everything you asked him to.

Where do you see any indication of KRAMER failing to respond positively to your whims? He has replied to you in great detail in the eMails, spoken in person with you, and even posted as a participant in the forums.

This thread is about replacing KRAMER, not about Michael Anda, but the tone of KRAMER's replies to Applicants is the issue, and I would like to know why Mr Anda feels that he has been 'dissed' by the Challenge Admin.

--- Anda claims to recognize an audio advantage with GSIC.
--- James Randi recognizes that is an impossibility, technically.
---- Anda is considered by JREF to be a fraud by the definition of his claim.
---- Randi offers a Million Dollars if Anda can prove his claim.
---- Anda spends countless hours typing and saying nothing and going in circles on the JREF forums.
---- Anda spends ZERO time doing the DB tests, neither on his own nor in the presense of JREF investigators.

When was the last time you wrote directly to KRAMER, Mr Anda? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by webfusion
---- Anda is considered by JREF to be a fraud by the definition of his claim.
Do you have evidence to back that?
Who is to say that Mr Anda isn't just delusional ? (ignoring the minute possibility of him being for real, of course)

I just find that a little incorrect...

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by webfusion
When was the last time you wrote directly to KRAMER?

Did you present to him the reults of your own DB test at home, with the assistance of your daughter?

KRAMER does not appear to be frustrated with you.
He has done everything you asked him to.

Where do you see any indication of KRAMER failing to respond positively to your whims? He has replied to you in great detail in the eMails, spoken in person with you, and even posted as a participant in the forums.

This thread is about replacing KRAMER, not about Michael Anda, but the tone of KRAMER's replies to Applicants is the issue, and I would like to know why Mr Anda feels that he has been 'dissed' by the Challenge Admin.

--- Anda claims to recognize an audio advantage with GSIC.
--- James Randi recognizes that is an impossibility, technically.
---- Anda is considered by JREF to be a fraud by the definition of his claim.
---- Randi offers a Million Dollars if Anda can prove his claim.
---- Anda spends countless hours typing and saying nothing and going in circles on the JREF forums.
---- Anda spends ZERO time doing the DB tests, neither on his own nor in the presense of JREF investigators.

When was the last time you wrote directly to KRAMER, Mr Anda? Inquiring minds want to know.

webfusion, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Wellfed has clearly stated that he will be attempting his own test this coming weekend. He explicitly states in the Audio Critic thread that he spoke to Kramer on the phone last week, and Kramer confirms this in the Challenge Applications thread. All information provided by both sides indicates that Wellfed and the JREF continue to work towards the implementation of a test.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
webfusion, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Wellfed has clearly stated that he will be attempting his own test this coming weekend. He explicitly states in the Audio Critic thread that he spoke to Kramer on the phone last week, and Kramer confirms this in the Challenge Applications thread. All information provided by both sides indicates that Wellfed and the JREF continue to work towards the implementation of a test.

I don't have the time right at the moment to address all of webfusion's questions and observations, but the answer to his first question is Thursday, 3/31/05 at 11:31 AM CST.

The answer to his second is no I haven't, they aren't available yet. I see no where in the JREF Challenge rules that I am required to do so. I plan on doing so because it simply seems like the right thing to do and many people are interested in hearing the results, myself included.

As for webfusion's third question, I perceive comments like "You're wearing me out" to be derived out of frustration. I perceive publishing a protocol that I have not agreed to as and act of frustration. This is all quite subjective to be sure.

I have much to say regarding question 4. My response will have to wait for now due to time constraints.

Finally I wouldn't say that JREF and myself are currently working towards implementing a test. We have both stated publicly that we would like to see my claim tested. I have requested a number of times for someone to volunteer to be my advocate in this protocol matter as I see myself as falling short in this area. No one from the JREF Forums has volunteered for this task so I pledge to plug along as best I can. As things sit I have some serious gripes to work out before I expect to see progress in this area.

[rwguinn]

For those of you who think Kramer and JREF are antagonistic to applicants, check http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46657 to see how he/they treat an earnest, helpful applicant, regardless of the silliness of his claim....
All it takes is a willingness to be tested. And an understanding of the written American Englis language.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Wellfed


Finally I wouldn't say that JREF and myself are currently working towards implementing a test. We have both stated publicly that we would like to see my claim tested. I have requested a number of times for someone to volunteer to be my advocate in this protocol matter as I see myself as falling short in this area. No one from the JREF Forums has volunteered for this task so I pledge to plug along as best I can. As things sit I have some serious gripes to work out before I expect to see progress in this area.

I think I'm missing something. You posted the above about three hours ago, on the 5th of April.

Three days ago, on the 2nd, KRAMER posted that

Randi has officially approved the following protocol [...] just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda.


Your protocol has been approved. What "serious gripes" remain? To what end do you need an advocate? What further work needs to be regarding the test's implementation?

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I think I'm missing something...

Here is the posting you refer to from Kramer verbatim.

Originally posted by KRAMER
Like one's civil rights, one can hardly EARN what is already rightfully theirs.

BY all means, Michael. Speak your mind.

After all, this IS the USA.*

Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:

In a sincere effort to address your accusations regarding my "maneuverings" succinctly and in a manner that will put your mind to rest over the JREF's motives, such as you erroneously perceive them, I decided after reading your most recent post to waltz into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol in hand.

The "Steven Howard Protocol" proposal has been officially approved by James Randi, without any changes or amendments whatsoever. From this point forward in the application process, NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE without the mutual agreement of both parties.

What say you now, Grasshopper?

Remember, Michael: Adversaries, not Enemies. Don't use what you perceive as JREF's bias as an escape portal. They'll laugh you out of town if you do. You might even find yourself tarred and feathered for good measure.

Remember also that if you successfully demonstrate your claim, you've got a lifetime's worth of apologies from me forthcoming.

It may not make you feel any better, but it's in the mail anyway, like it or not, should you pass the preliminary test.

We've had some good conversations, Michael. Let's not watch everything crash and burn now.

I'm now posting the protocol on your Challenge thread for all to view.

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

*I much prefer the Mamet version of this line (from HOUSE OF GAMES), which says, "This is the United States of Kiss My Ass."

Man, I love that line.

But, I digress.

__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

Check out my posts right before the posting I quote along with my responses to him immediately afterwards for my thoughts on the subject. I thought we were close to an agreement, but I was sadly mistaken. My protocol was never approved and he knows it as shown by his comment in the same posting.

"Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:"

I can see where Kramer would love the quote he attributes to HOUSE OF GAMES. Because it appears that ass kissing is what he is after.

If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Here is the posting you refer to from Kramer verbatim.


So, he took your suggested protocol in hand to Randi, got the protocol you proposed approved, and now you're complaining?

At the risk of repeating myself :

Your protocol has been approved. What "serious gripes" remain? To what end do you need an advocate? What further work needs to be regarding the test's implementation?

If you didn't want to use that protocol, then what on earth moved you to propose it?

[webfusion]

"webfusion, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.'


No, I don't. I am following everything here perfectly.
By his own admission just now, since March 31st he has not replied to KRAMER directly. He has, however, spent several days writing and composing posts that say nothing and contribute nothing, beyond disparaging the Challenge itself and KRAMER in particular.

In fact, I would dare say that it appears Mr Anda has enlisted some of his compatriates (Steve Eddy for one) to puff Anda up and try to knock down the JREF & KRAMER.


Last words from Mr Anda:

"As things sit I have some serious gripes to work out before I expect to see progress in this area."

B.S.
He has no serious gripes.

Also, he has said elsewhere (there are apparently three threads running for Anda's Challenge now, all the more difficult to comprehend and keep track of, but I'm valiantly doing it):
"This is where I sit with JREF today... I feel that I'd be ready to perform the task 3 months after the protocol has been established."

These are the only published 'reservations' he has, as expressed in the eMail sent to JREF (in the submission by Anda to Randi of the 'Howard Protocol' offer):

I will require a reference disc, not treated with the GSIC device, to use for A-B-A... comparisons with the subject disc from each iteration. Number of discs swaps will only be limited by the time allowed for this testing.

I would like no observers in the room as I make my determinations if at all possible. If this is deemed impractical, suggestions are welcomed to try and minimize the effect an observer (T2) may have on my concentration level.

The time required to perform these iterations will need to be established. I suggest two 2 hour sessions with a break of 1 hour in between. 5 hours total testing time including break. 10 hours total for preliminary and final testing.

A contingency plan will need to be established in the event of a tube failure.

Sourcing of test discs needs to be established. I will look into the feasibility of using burned copies vs. original copies.

Any restriction of audio accessory use will need to be dealt with in the protocol.

I want to review the record here at JREF Forums for any previous commentary on this protocol methodology to determine if I am forgetting any unacceptable element. I don't recall any at this point. I will be sure to do this over the next few days.

If things play out as I've outlined, we should have completed the process within 4.5 months assuming preliminary testing occurs in early August and final testing prior to August 15th. Again this will be dependent on the observers availibility at that time.

Three months, four months, five months,
Whatever.

Sheesh.

KRAMER was 100% correct.
This Applicant should have kept quiet until July.

Instead, look at the waves he is making.
And it's not even April 11th yet.
We can hardly wait.
Have a good weekend, everyone.

[Wellfed]

I've done so privately, but I offer here a public apology to Kramer for any inference that he is practicing fraud. While my comments question his integrity, any implication of fraud was never the intent of my heart, I'd rather believe that actions I found to be suspicious were in reality the result of extreme misunderstanding. We do have legitimiate differences over many matters, but my frustration with the JREF Challenge process did cause me to go "over the top" with many of my statements, most notably in regard to Kramer personally. I would like to try and establish a good relationship with him, if that is still possible, and choose to think the best about him, not the worst. My hope is that he will choose to do the same regarding me. I have truly enjoyed my dealings with him at times and hope that we can move on in a more professional and cordial manner. I consciously chose to use the term JREF in many of my posts instead of Kramer thinking I was laying off Kramer by doing so. I see now that this would infer wrongdoing by Mr. Randi and this has never been the case in my experience. My limited dealings with Mr. Randi have never recieved anything less than cordial and professional treatment from James Randi. I don't actually expect things to go too much differently than they already have, but I do not charge Kramer or JREF with any type of fraud based on my dealings with them to date.

[Comedian]

I agree with the thread starter. The JREF would look a lot better for the casual observer if applicants were handled in a more diplomatic and seemingly professional manner.

They would do well to take a look at how incoming email is responded to at the feedback section of talkorigins.org ("TO"), see http://talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/ . No matter how much of a crank the respondents are, the TO guys keep their calm and offer sound scientific reasoning for the validity of evolutionary theory.

It seems the TO guys have understood something Kramer or JREF haven't grasped: that the primary goal of what they write isn't to convert the fundamentalist Christians and other cranks, but rather to aid those "sitting on the fence" with regard to creationism vs evolution, and to win those over to the side of science and reason. So actually, the more cranky the incoming email is, the better it looks to respond in a civil and informed manner.

For those "sitting on the fence" with regard to the plausibility of paranormal phenomena, I believe the aggressive responses from Kramer/JREF quickly comes out as if the JREF has something to be afraid of, and therefore uses intimidation to scare people off from taking the $1mill Challenge.

[Solid.Sniper]

Originally posted by Comedian
I agree with the thread starter. The JREF would look a lot better for the casual observer if applicants were handled in a more diplomatic and seemingly professional manner.

They would do well to take a look at how incoming email is responded to at the feedback section of talkorigins.org ("TO"), see http://talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/ . No matter how much of a crank the respondents are, the TO guys keep their calm and offer sound scientific reasoning for the validity of evolutionary theory.

It seems the TO guys have understood something Kramer or JREF haven't grasped: that the primary goal of what they write isn't to convert the fundamentalist Christians and other cranks, but rather to aid those "sitting on the fence" with regard to creationism vs evolution, and to win those over to the side of science and reason. So actually, the more cranky the incoming email is, the better it looks to respond in a civil and informed manner.

For those "sitting on the fence" with regard to the plausibility of paranormal phenomena, I believe the aggressive responses from Kramer/JREF quickly comes out as if the JREF has something to be afraid of, and therefore uses intimidation to scare people off from taking the $1mill Challenge.
Fully agreed, Kramer seems to be missing professionalism imho.

[Winny]

Originally posted by Comedian
They would do well to take a look at how incoming email is responded to at the feedback section of talkorigins.org ("TO"), see http://talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/ . No matter how much of a crank the respondents are, the TO guys keep their calm and offer sound scientific reasoning for the validity of evolutionary theory. Excellent example. The TO folks are masters at providing highly factual, unemotional responses to complete crackpots.

Anyone undecided about the issue of evolution and creation would see that site providing logical, clear, unemotional responses, heavy with the weight of reason, to emotive irrational halfwits.

You couldn't help but be swayed by their style and method.

cheers

Winny

[IXP]

I think there is another way to view Kramer's attitude.

Try starting a thread here and be very polite and don't say anything controversial. It will die quickly.

Why does CNN have Tucker Carlson matched against James Carville? Why do radio talk-show hosts rant and rave about everything? Why does reality TV usually involve two-faced back-stabbers? Because it SELLS.

Conflict and controversy, not diplocmacy, keeps people coming back. I think there is more method to this madness than you all imagine.

IXP

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by IXP


...

Conflict and controversy, not diplocmacy, keeps people coming back. I think there is more method to this madness than you all imagine.

IXP

I imagine having a tough time reaching an agreeable protocol if this is in fact the case.

As soon as I hit the Submit Reply button I am tuning out JREF Forum until late Sunday, at the earliest, in order to facilitate my self-test, and remain credible.

OK, my last three words were spoken in jest. ;) I know that I will only become credible if I pass the Challenge test and I aim to try my best.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I imagine having a tough time reaching an agreeable protocol if this is in fact the case.

As soon as I hit the Submit Reply button I am tuning out JREF Forum until late Sunday, at the earliest, in order to facilitate my self-test, and remain credible.

OK, my last three words were spoken in jest. ;) I know that I will only become credible if I pass the Challenge test and I aim to try my best.
You have had SEVERAL Protocols. You even submitted one yourself, then entered panic mode when it was approved
You can't do it, and don't want to be found out.
end of story

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by rwguinn
You can't do it, and don't want to be found out.
end of story

A mind read, eh? When can we expect to see your application filed to claim the $1 million?

se

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
A mind read, eh? When can we expect to see your application filed to claim the $1 million?

se
Probably rwguinn was just making a guess, based on evidence, but better supported guess than some guesses that are treated as truth.
As only a recent commentator to this thread, I have to ask, why is Wellfed worrying so much about protocol? He has been able to ascertain that the treatment works to improve CD quality. It is so obvious to him that little details shouldn't even bother him. He has heard it himself.

If he has a CD that he has heard a definite improvement after treatment, then by all means, use new copies of that CD. He would even know what to listen for. As confident as he was earlier, there should be dozens of CDs that he would find acceptable, because he has already done them. So I simply can't understand why the reticence to test. It's a sure million for him, because he has done it before!

The protocols are simple. The test is simple. With such a clear difference in sound quality, he should be able to blow through the test even if things are not perfectly set up. After all, he has already done it. And since he claims not to know how to burn CDs it is obvious that he did his initial evaluation on purchased CD's, so it would only make sense that he should use them again to prove his evaluation correct. I'm sure he didn't insist on elaborate protocols before he made the statement that he could hear a difference in treated CDs. Certainly he didn't take weeks to treat them, and he has told us that he can definitely hear a difference. So even if something is not perfect in the protocols, the overwhelming difference of treated CDs should outweigh any "noise effects".

If one were to suppose, as rwguinn has, that his reluctance to be tested has something to do with unadmitted self doubt on the part of the applicant, that would certainly be understandable. In fact, it is the best explanation I can see based on the evidence.

No one has proposed an equally well-supported reason for the hesitancy.

It ain't mind reading. It's following the evidence.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Steve Eddy
A mind read, eh? When can we expect to see your application filed to claim the $1 million?

se
Stating an opinion based on observation of the obvious (to all but woo's) and historical trends is not paranormal in any way, shape, or function...

[webfusion]

Originally posted by IXP
I think there is another way to view Kramer's attitude.

Try starting a thread here and be very polite and don't say anything controversial. It will die quickly.

Why does CNN have Tucker Carlson matched against James Carville? Why do radio talk-show hosts rant and rave about everything? Why does reality TV usually involve two-faced back-stabbers? Because it SELLS.

Conflict and controversy, not diplocmacy, keeps people coming back. I think there is more method to this madness than you all imagine.


That is approximately what I was saying earlier, as my preference is for the caustic, in-your-face KRAMER.
We got to see a wonderful example of it on the Audio Critic thread today. Hooray for KRAMER!

What say you, Sherman Bay, Gr8wight, Placebo? You think that KRAMER's postings to Mr Anda weren't absolutely brilliant?

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by rwguinn
Stating an opinion based on observation of the obvious (to all but woo's) and historical trends is not paranormal in any way, shape, or function...

But you didn't state your opinoin as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

You can't do it, and don't want to be found out.
end of story

No room for any doubt in that statement.

If that's your idea of an opinion, how are we to know when you're stating an opinion and when you're stating a fact?

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Tricky
Probably rwguinn was just making a guess, based on evidence, but better supported guess than some guesses that are treated as truth.

I dunno. Perhaps I overlooked something but that seemed to be about as declarative a statement of fact as one can make and I see no room for any doubt in there. I mean, "end of story" is about as final as it gets, yes?

Or was it an "end of story" in the Hollywood sense where "end of story" is just code for "the beginning of the sequel"?

As only a recent commentator to this thread, I have to ask, why is Wellfed worrying so much about protocol? He has been able to ascertain that the treatment works to improve CD quality. It is so obvious to him that little details shouldn't even bother him. He has heard it himself.

Yes, but he has acertained that in the environment of his usual listening conditions. All he's been striving for is a protocol which will allow for the same environment and listening conditions when he's taking the test.

You ask why Wellfed is worrying so much about the protocol. Well, it seems to me that JREF is just as worried about it as they are apparently unwilling to accept any protocol that would allow for Wellfed to do his listening under the same conditions that he normally does. The conditions under which he's perceived the effect of the Chip, i.e. without "observers" hanging about, looking over his shoulder, going in and out of rooms, etc.

Personally I think Wellfed's desire to be able to do his listening under normal conditions is quite reasonable and that JREF's refusal to allow for this is quite unreasonable.

se

[webfusion]

Personally I think Wellfed's desire to be able to do his listening under normal conditions is quite reasonable and that JREF's refusal to allow for this is quite unreasonable.

Let's stick to the topic, which is KRAMER representing JREF and how his 'demeanor' has reached a point where he needs to be dismissed (or not). This thread is not a Wellfed symposium. There are already several proper topics open for that.

"JREF (KRAMER) is being quite unreasonable" is your opinion now, Steve? ---

Here are the exact words from the 'unreasonable' Challenge Administrator:

"If you are confident of your claim, why all the eccentric demands? Time to reveal your mettle, sir. Step forward and be tested."

Meanwhile, here is the 'reasonable' Applicant:
"GSIC treatment of test discs for both preliminary and final testing will take place in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area at a mutually agreed upon site. The JREF observer will then remove the GSIC treated disc from the transport/player and place said disc label side down on a photocopy machine and close the lid. The photo copy machine will be placed in close proximity to the transport/player. The APPLICANT and the JREF observer will then take joint possession of this box and travel together to an agreed upon institution where the sealed envelope will be placed in a safe-deposit box. The APPLICANT will take sole possession of the test discs immediately after the sealed, signed and dated envelope is locked within the safe-deposit box. APPLICANT will then be given time to analyze the discs to determine which disc numbers having been treated. APPLICANT would like to have 6 weeks time to analyze the test discs and return to Ft. Lauderdale with the results. Prior to revealing the disc numbers, APPLICANT will post the numbers believed to have received the GSIC treatment publicly at the JREF Forum. APPLICANT and Mr. Randi will then present themselves at the safe-deposit institution and one of the sealed copies will be given to each party, and the third copy will be given to a mutually agreed upon third party. If the numbers match APPLICANT will have proved a positive outcome and be entitled to the $1,000,000 USD Prize Money.

Or maybe:

One last point ("One last point", offered March 23rd, on page four of a ten-page thread!!!!), depending on the elements in the final protocol, I would like the option to have 3 months to settle back into my "groove" after the protocol is finally nailed down. I would provide 20 copies of the same title. Each set would be marked 01-A , 01-B, 02-A, 02-B,...10-A, 10-B. All other protocol elements would remain the same except I would leave Ft. Lauderdale with 10 envelopes containing 2 discs instead of one box of 5. I picture the safe-depost box now holding the results containing 30 photo copies (3 copies each page showing the 10 treated discs) instead of the 3 photo copies stored previously. I'd much prefer my current proposal simply due to the fact that I would feel less pressure without ANY observers present. It has the added bonus that Mr. Randi would not have to travel to my city and I wouldn't have to incur that cost. I don't see where time, or location, have any bearing on the matter from the JREF perspective other than not wanting it to be open ended. I am finding this whole process to be quite paranormal, if you will.
Here's what on my plate over the coming months.

End of May: Son graduating from High School
June: Florida vacation anticipated
Mid July: High School reunion
Mid August: expecting first grandchild
Currently my daughter is just finishing her basketball season. Her last tournament of the season is this coming weekend. She then starts Spring soccer season.

Also, I need to clarify a point. (((( another point clarified ))))
JREF was actively involved in discussing the test protocol, they just didn't offer any counter-proposals to disagreeable elements. Tell me if you find ANY meaningful negotiation from JREF in this, or any other thread here at the JREF Forum.
I have never been in any rush to have my claim tested and for that matter I did not have any reason to believe the JREF was either. In the final analysis I will require a relaxed atmosphere free of undue outside influence in order to have any chance of passing.
If you are willing to accept my last proposal we can get started shortly. How does June sound when I expect to be down your way? (Florida)
Ooops -I found out just this evening that June is out for our family vacation to Florida.
I entered into this process naively believing that both parties would negotiate in good faith. Please let me know when negotiation over the Steven Howard Protocol ammendments can begin. We will need to discuss whether burned copies or original CD’s are to be used. I haven’t established an opinion on the subject myself.
We will need to establish the amount of time necessary to complete this test. If possible, I think I would prefer that T2 leave the room as I make each identification. A contingency plan for tube failure will need to be implemented.
It is my hope that we are back on track with this process, I sense you are of the same mind.
If you'd really like to see some really fast action between JREF and myself check out my latest proposal. I've started a new thread. It's pretty exciting really.

My definition of "reasonable" must not jibe with yours, Steve. So, I must remember to go out and buy a new dictionary ASAP.
<<<< webfusion tosses his Miriam-Webster out the window >>>>

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by webfusion
Let's stick to the topic, which is KRAMER representing JREF and how his 'demeanor' has reached a point where he needs to be dismissed (or not). This thread is not a Wellfed symposium. There are already several proper topics open for that.

So be it. I presume this admonition extends to rwguinn and Tricky as well?

"JREF (KRAMER) is being quite unreasonable" is your opinion now, Steve? ---

With respect to JREF/KRAMER requiring that an observer or observers be present when Wellfed does his listening, their being quite unreasonable has been my opinion ever since I became aware of it.

Here are the exact words from the 'unreasonable' Challenge Administrator:

"If you are confident of your claim, why all the eccentric demands? Time to reveal your mettle, sir. Step forward and be tested."

Well, those certainly appear to be exact words from the "unreasonable" Challenge Administrator alright. Unfortunately none of those words are the words upon which I based my opinion of unreasonableness.

Let me know when you have an actual point to make.

se

[webfusion]

Sure thing. When I have a point, you'll be the first to know.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I agree on one thing. Diplomacy should be A MUST, both for Kramer and Randi. I see no point in insulting the applicants.

On the other hand I understand that maybe a great number of applicants are as rude and obnoxious as to "deserve" less than quality diplomacy.

Still. Being a gentleman never hurts. And is not that dificult.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay

Kramer, I would like to hear from you when you have a moment. Is the edgy attitude you project a deliberate attempt to provoke applicants, a "natural" way (for you) of communicating, specifically requested by Randi, or what? Can you justify it as compared to a more diplomatic approach?

Although reading this thread thoroughly and carefully considering all points is something that any truly concerned and sincere professional would do, I was hoping to not have to take part in it, just as I don't think you'd care to have me come and watch YOU at YOUR job and then start a thread somewhere whose title states that you should be fired. That would take balls.

However, you've now asked a perfectly reasonable question, and I think it would be supremely rude of me to ignore you, or to pretend that I hadn't seen it.

The answer to your first question is NO and NO.

The answer to your second question is also NO.

I am who I am and I will not pretend to be what I am not - not for you, not for any applicant or potential applicant, and sorry, but also not for the JREF. I suffer idiocy poorly, but I do my very best.

I'd considered ending this post right here, but perhaps that would only serve to support the personal criticisms you've leveled here, so I'll offer more.

Give me an applicant, JUST ONE, who is confident of their claim, presents it according to the Challenge rules, STICKS to those rules, sincerely wishes to see his claim tested, and doesn't lead me on a wild goose chase through the protocol negotiations with one convoluted tapdance after another when a simple, brief test will do, and you'll see what you want to see.

I think I always begin by being diplomatic, and that is "natural" for me. My social skills definitely deteriorate rather rapidly once an applicant starts trying to make me dance. When a simple claim turns into an asburd, never ending series of whimsical demands that illustrate to me a total lack of confidence in their claim or a desire to realize an environment in which they can accuse the JREF of being resistant or difficult or out-and-out frauds, and then walk away from testing (as SO many do), well, I am who I am.
I ask no forgiveness, nor do I deserve any.

I am sarcastic. Is the JREF better served by an alternate approach? Yes, absolutely. That's why I never begin that way.

When I am insulted, I have trouble turning the other cheek.
I admit it. Have I ever denied it? I don't think so. In that sense,
I have never really grown up. I admit it without reservation.

And I'm not terribly pleased with that shortcoming, either.
I recognize the need for someone made of stone to be sitting at the claims desk. I just don't think anyone can sit here for as long as I have before arriving at the conclusion that his or her time might be better spent elsewhere. I'd rejoice to find myself mistaken about this. I'm here because I'm committed to the following notion; BETTER ME THAN RANDI, whose twilight years just might be better spent finishing his next book, teaching and lecturing, and keeping his blood pressure down to an acceptable level.

In direct comparison to the manner in which Randi himself once corresponded with many applicants and potential applicants (and still does when I take a rare few days off), I think I do OK.

I'm here because I'd do anything for James Randi, even if that means corresponding with the mentally ill, engaging the deluded, and catching 99mph pitches hurled by the potentially dangerous. No fear. It's the only way to operate here.

And yeah, I sure DO hate Van Praagh and Edwards and Sylvia and anyone who rapes the memories of the bereaved at their time of deepest grief. Don't you? The sanctity of such memories is the sole territory of the holder, and in my mind, there are few things worse on this earth than such psychological rapists. They deserve the abject hatred they get from me, and I'll never stop giving it to them.

I might wrap this up by answering the question you did NOT ask:

YES, I do think there are a plethora of persons far more qualified and capable and unemotional and mature who can step into my position and perform far better than I could EVER hope to. Absolutely.

I began here 13 months ago as a volunteer. Eventually, I was hired full-time. Could Randi have found someone better?

Yup.

Any more questions?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by webfusion
Or how about Beth Clarkson, who had forum input of the Nth magnitude about her protocol? She may not have "vanished" in the true sense of the word, but her Application sits in the JREF file drawer, collecting dust.

Actually, she just a few days ago withdrew her claim.

[KRAMER]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Winny
I don't agree. For example, there's this comment to Elaine McGuckin; "My having misunderstood that part of your letter is peanuts, however, compared to how some people throw their entire lives away on utter nonsense such as this. THAT is appalling.

Now let's see how well YOU understand English:"

I think it's highly disengenuous for you to post this response without also posting the email that inspired it, so I'll do it for you:

[B]Perhaps your grasp of English is not up to scratch. Perhaps I was wrong to presume that the JREF being an educational foundation was just that, educated. I really am quite shocked...
Is there more to the JREF than the general public are led to believe?...I do have a right to at least have the letter I sent you read by someone who can read and comprehend English.

This from a woman who insists that she has advance knowledge that an asteroid will destroy one town in Australia and one in Scotland. She got what she deserved. I won't stand or sit for such
insults.

Anything anyone says here can be taken (and printed) out of context and used against someone, if one is clever enough.

I understand your desire to do everything and anything necessary in your campaign to prove yourself and your position infallible, Winny, but just how far will you go?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
For a guy who *has* to deal with the mentally deranged every day and is not trained to do so, I'm surprised KRAMER hasn't snapped yet. He deserves a medal.

I snapped a few times. The worst was directed at Paul Carey.
I lost plenty self-respect over that little piece of work.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by webfusion
KRAMER does not appear to be frustrated with you.

Wrong. I'm frustrated, alright.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Wrong. I'm frustrated, alright.

KRAMER, you are the right person for the job.

Did that help? ;)

[Lisa Simpson]

I agree with Claus. You are the right person for the job and an incredibly trying job it must be at times.

[KRAMER]

Anda is no fraud. He's just wrong. He's no nutjob, either. He's just a regular guy who thinks he hears something when in actuality he doesn't, in our opinion. As a record producer,

Has he now come to feel that he may be wrong, and is doing all of this in an attempt to wriggle out of testing? That ALSO remains to be seen. The test alone, if conducted, will answer that question.

We do believe, however, that the company that makes these GSIC chips is guilty of fraud when they advertise that it does what we strongly believe (according to the laws of science and physics) it cannot possibly do.

Only a double-blind test will prove conclusively which party is right. My frustration in trying to arrange one is vividly illustrated in the forum, verbatim. I do not photoshop my numerous blemishes.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.

Conclude away. We really don't care what you think of us. All we care about is your claim.

And although I'm not exactly keeping count, this seems like the umpteenth time you've accused me or the JREF of fraud, purposeful manipulation or disengenuousness in our dealings with you, and then apologized for having done so.

Make up your mind already. For your OWN piece of mind. We won't care either way.

We just want to test your claim.

[jmercer]

Up until now, I've refrained from posting in this thread. No longer.

Kramer, keep up the good work, you're doing fine.

Regards,

Jim Mercer

[Francois Tremblay]

KRAMER is right about this... no one else gets people come to their work and comment about how badly they're doing their job. Why don't these whiners complain directly to Randi and the JREF instead of posting on the message board ? If I was KRAMER, regardless of how good or bad I was at my job, I would tell them to **** off.

[Winny]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I think it's highly disengenuous for you to post this response without also posting the email that inspired it, so I'll do it for you:My post was in response to a comment that the only time you'd been insulting was to Carey. The quotes that I posted were made to illustrate that this was incorrect.

The question of whether or not you were provoked was not addressed. For the record, I'll say here that as far as I can see, on each and every occasion that you have been insulting to an applicant, I believe that you were provoked.

ETA: Actually I did comment on the fact that you were provoked, but it was later in the thread.

I made what I considered my final comments on the matter in the "What is the objective of the Million Dollar Challenge?" thread on 06/04/2005. The comments were addressed to you in direct response to a post that you'd made. For the sake of clarity, I'll repost it in this thread;

Originally posted by Winny
Fair call. I retain my opinion that you could do more good for rational thinking by handling the applicants in a more civil, less emotional way, but, as is often pointed out, it's Randi's million and he should run the challenge in whatever way he sees fit.

I have great admiration KRAMER, for the work done by both you and Randi. The world would be a poorer place if not for your contributions. As I have said before, if JREF carries on exactly as it is it will continue to do an enormous amount of good in educating people to think more clearly.

My opinion of your style has been made clear and I have no plans to repeat it unless asked directly. I hope that I haven't offended you by any comments that I've made. It certainly wasn't my intention.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Placebo
His 'sixth sense' for applicants has become pretty sharp, for example.

Yep. Very. As in he jumps down their throat before they've even done anything wrong, not too seldom.

Sure, they're all woos. They probably will do something wrong. But if you want to be perceived by bystanders to be wrong despite actually being right, flying off the handle before your opponent has done anything deserving of it is a sure way to achieve your goal.

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Can you imagine sending 20 emails a day to nutcases that think they can tell the future, but doubt the million exists...

If anything Kramer should be praised for his work and letting us see the applicants squirm away from their protocols, and tolerating crude and offensive people (see applicant Carey who wasted months of Kramer's time).

Kramer regularly creates work for himself. If workload and stress are his problem, he's doing his level best to exacerbate his problem.

Verbally fencing with silly claimants, being rude to them, having them get rude back, getting into a slanging match are not ways to cut down time or stress spent.

If Kramer got into the habit of short, to the point responses that ignored all the nonsense that woos surround themselves with, he'd not have so much to complain about.

As for applicants squirming away, the very fact that is what they are doing is often buried amonst the vitriol. Kramer gives woo after woo excuses for turning tail with his rudeness.

Originally posted by Gulliver
JREF must say when behavior is questionable. JREF must say when an applicant dishonest. JREF must uphold the truth. JREF must tell the emporer when he wears no clothes. The emporer may not like the news or even how it's delivered, but it's much better than revealing his shortcomings to the empire.


Why? Since when did the JREF Challenge become some sort of "Guide to Good Manners"? The point of the JREF Challenge is just to see if people can do what they say they can do or not. Period. You must understand that everyone thinks their own behaviour is good. Getting into debates with applicants about that is pointless and just throws up a smokescreen which allows applicants to hide their failure behind.

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
If I could suggest a way for you to strengthen your arguement: Go through the emails sent to Kramer, and write you own responses to them (the way you feel it should be done.) Answer ALL of them. Post your answers here for us to read. By answering ALL the emails, imagining that these people are talking to you, I imagine you could start to get an idea of what Kramer's job is like.

It's an obvious idea and I've thought of doing something like it myself, but it doesn't work. A dialog is a series of actions and reactions and reactions to that. Kramer says rude things, the applicants then get rude back, and so on. If you don't start out saying what Kramer says, then the applicant's next response would be completely different.

Kramer.

Kramer, your response is largely an irrelevant dodge. Sure you are what you are. No one's suggesting that you should be what you are not. You've used this strawman before, and it's as much of a strawman now as it has ever been. The suggestion is that what you are is not appropriate for the job.

Next we have your "applicant's are difficult people" spiel. Sure they are. Comes with the territory.

Personally, I have no sense of balance and no ability to ice skate and I do not and never will work (even voluntarily) as an ice skating rink attendant. If I did and people pointed out that I was crap because I kept falling over, I certainly wouldn't be offering an excuse such as "Give me an ice rink, JUST ONE, that wasn't slippery and icy and then you'll seem me perform".

[Sherman Bay]

Kramer, thank you for coming to this thread and answering my questions. It is entirely appropriate to respond to comments and accusations -- there are at least two sides to most issues. With your response, at least some items are no longer in doubt.

I think I understand what you are going through, and I'm sure our long-term goals are mutual to the extreme. However, I have heard nothing that changes my feeling that someone in your position would best serve the organization and "the cause" by being the ultimate diplomat, even though performing that role might require some acting, considerable restraint, and a very hard shell.

If you look at my meager posts in any forum, I don't pretend to be diplomatically "pure," but I don't formally represent JREF, either. If I did, I might have different standards for my public face.

Let me tell you a story.

Onceuponatime, I had a job which included keeping membership lists correct and current for an organization made up of, shall we say, H*O*L*L*Y*W*O*O*D types, if you know what I mean. Maybe not woo-woos, but given to "I'm a big, rich star, therefore I'm right" -- type of attitudes. I was very careful to keep accurate records, but once in a while someone would call me and accuse me of losing their membership check, or putting their name in the wrong category. I took every complaint seriously ("maybe it fell behind the desk, I'll look" was about as flip as I got) and was polite to everyone. Not once did anything turn up that was my fault -- usually it turned out their business manager sent the check to the wrong party, or the wrong listing category was checked by them on the form -- and I think I defused all complaints. No one ever dropped their membership because of my attitude although some sheepishly admitted they made a mistake. They all got polite letters acknowledging their concerns and what the outcome was ("the listing on your account has been updated as per our most recent conversation -- please verify this and report any errors").

Could I have answered each irate complaint with "You stupid, arrogant f*! I don't make mistakes and I don't care! Why don't you check your records before bothering me! Do you think I have time for this? Go away!"? Sure, they probably deserved that, but what good would it have done? In that kind of job, most likely me fired.

Some jobs just require a different customer service attitude than others.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay


I think I understand what you are going through, and I'm sure our long-term goals are mutual to the extreme. However, I have heard nothing that changes my feeling that someone in your position would best serve the organization and "the cause" by being the ultimate diplomat, even though performing that role might require some acting, considerable restraint, and a very hard shell.



May I invite you to amplify a bit?

Specifically, what benefit would you expect to accrue either to the JREF or to the public as a whole if the Diplomacy Fairy were to magically transform KRAMER into the "ultimate diplomat" that you feel should represent the JREF?

For example, would there be more applicants tested? Would more people be convinced of the non-existence of the paranormal? Would the JREF be getting larger and more frequent donations?

I can agree that KRAMER's handling of applicants is not necessarily the most tactful. But in many, perhaps most, cases, I don't see that handling the applicants more tactfully would actually have made a bit of difference. This discussion originated with regard to his (KRAMER's) handling of Anda's application in the Audio Critic thread, and it appears as of this writing that Mr. Anda will not, in fact, be tested due to an inability to come to an agreement on protocol. (Or, more accurately, to Mr. Anda's unwillingness to commit to a protocol and testing date.) But do you think that this is caused by a lack of diplomacy?

How much rudeness would you be willing to put up with for a million dollars? A megabuck can salve a lot of hurt feelings, especially when I get to gloat publically about it for the rest of my life.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by new drkitten
May I invite you to amplify a bit?Certainly.Specifically, what benefit would you expect to accrue either to the JREF or to the public as a whole if the Diplomacy Fairy were to magically transform KRAMER into the "ultimate diplomat" that you feel should represent the JREF?JREF has an extremely negative public relations appearance among some groups of people. Some of this is because of the nature of the challenge; some people don't understand it, some stand to lose their income if their beliefs are proved false, some are frauds that can't stand exposure, etc. -- that is something we can never do anything about other than to challenge.

But some of the appearance is due to Randi & Kramer's attitude which is seen as offensive and rude to the extreme. I don't feel it is necessary or desirable to cultivate this or reinforce it.

In any dialogue, bring the topic back to the question at hand, insist on following the requirements, negotiate for testing protocols, explain what is not understood. But do it with tact.

If I see an argument between two parties and one party appears educated, calm, reasonable, and patient and the other party is the opposite, I feel the first party has the upper hand in the argument.

So it is only a matter of public relations. Most companies, whether commercial or charity, spend a lot of time and money on improving their appearance, thinking that in the long run, it is beneficial to be seen in a good light. JREF seems to not care.

Would more people be convinced of the non-existence of the paranormal? Would the JREF be getting larger and more frequent donations?Maybe. Maybe not. But it couldn't hurt. Right now, the one thing that woo-woos can add to their list of complaints is the very real one of conduct unbecoming a gentleman.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
JREF has an extremely negative public relations appearance among some groups of people. Some of this is because of the nature of the challenge; some people don't understand it, some stand to lose their income if their beliefs are proved false, some are frauds that can't stand exposure, etc. -- that is something we can never do anything about other than to challenge.

But some of the appearance is due to Randi & Kramer's attitude which is seen as offensive and rude to the extreme. I don't feel it is necessary or desirable to cultivate this or reinforce it.


At the risk of repeating myself, why is this a problem?

I will acknowledge that it is not necessary or desirable to cultivate this appearance. But I've not seen any evidence that it is undesirable, either. I don't think that it's necessary or desirable (particularly) that KRAMER have red hair, and I'm certainly not going to demand that he dye it crimson for my pleasure. But neither will I ask that he dye it some color other than red, if he happens to have red hair.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by new drkitten
At the risk of repeating myself, why is this a problem?

I will acknowledge that it is not necessary or desirable to cultivate this appearance. But I've not seen any evidence that it is undesirable, either. I don't think that it's necessary or desirable (particularly) that KRAMER have red hair, and I'm certainly not going to demand that he dye it crimson for my pleasure. But neither will I ask that he dye it some color other than red, if he happens to have red hair.

My take on it, and I've said this before on these forums, is that they give ammunition to those who claim the JREF has no intention of ever running a fair test, or that the money does not exist, etc. Some of Kramer's replies to Michael Anda sound very much like an intentional attempt to drive him off. Believers will latch onto that with all their might, and add it to many other examples they claim illustrate that the JREF challenge is a fraud.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by new drkitten
At the risk of repeating myself, why is this a problem?Public/Customer relations plays a big part in most companies. Do you understand what this is? Do you think advertising is just used to sell a product? Much advertising is devoted to instilling a good feeling in the consumer towards that company. Imagine how many sales Panasonic would make if everyone thought they didn't treat the customer right when a product was defective or needed service. Any company that has a "screw you" attitude will have a tough time in the marketplace.

Is JREF marketing a product? Yes, in a way, I think it is. Whether you say the Challenge is the product, or only a means to the end product of public education, JREF needs to cultivate a little more warm & fuzzy.

[Doberman]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
KRAMER is right about this... no one else gets people come to their work and comment about how badly they're doing their job.

Actually, that' untrue. Just about anyone who is the public face for something such as JREF gets reviewed & criticized for their performance.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
Public/Customer relations plays a big part in most companies. Do you understand what this is? Do you think advertising is just used to sell a product? Much advertising is devoted to instilling a good feeling in the consumer towards that company. Imagine how many sales Panasonic would make if everyone thought they didn't treat the customer right when a product was defective or needed service. Any company that has a "screw you" attitude will have a tough time in the marketplace.

Is JREF marketing a product? Yes, in a way, I think it is. Whether you say the Challenge is the product, or only a means to the end product of public education, JREF needs to cultivate a little more warm & fuzzy.

I know all about customer service. Problem is, JREF doesn't have any customers... and if they did, those customers would most certainly not be the applicants.

Let's look at it this way. JREF isn't "selling" anything. They're not making a profit. They're not manufacturing a product. Argueably, I suppose, one could say they're providing a service... but it's a public service. Determining the truth in a public venue, folks... hang around, watch and see for yourselves - no charge. So if you're eager to find a "customer"... or perhaps, "consumer" is a better term, then you need to be looking at us, and not the applicants. I don't know about you, but JREF's treated me just fine. :D

Consider this as an summary of the situation:


I have a million dollars. (Don't I wish!) I say that all paranormal claims are at best made by deluded individuals; at worst, by frauds or people with mental problems. I'll put my money where my mouth is. 1 Million big ones says you're either a nutcase, deluded, or a liar. Prove that I'm wrong, and you get the million, plus bragging rights.

The conditions are simple. You propose a valid test of your powers, and we make the entire process public and transparent. I won't accept claims that would hurt people or from people I think are mentally ill. If I think you're mentally ill, I won't agree to a test because that could cause you harm. Go away. Get help.

Otherwise, we'll discuss it until we both agree on what constitutes a valid test. If I think you're wasting my time or stalling, I'll tell you off and you can get out of my face - you're a fraud, or a liar, or both.

You don't like that? Too bad, it's my rule(8) million, so I make the rules and the terms. Nobody forced you to go after it, and we are not friends, nor are we on friendly terms. :)


It's really that simple... Randi and JREF have put together one helluva "honeypot". They're not forcing people to come and apply; and as long as the people don't dissemble, they're as polite and businesslike as you could ask.

And if people are wasting their time, then they deserve the rudeness, because in case you've forgotten - wasting people's time is rude, too. And you know something? Randi's right in his latest commentary. Sometimes rudness is called for. I once threw a vendor out of my offices after our fourth meeting when it became apparent that he (and his four colleagues) weren't listening to a word I said. I gave them the names of business partners of theirs, told them that I'd only consider their product if the partner was brought in. (Because the PARTNER had a product I wanted that ran on their hardware.)

They never contacted the partner, and kept trying to sell me something I couldn't use... in spite of the fact I said in plain english "I can't USE your product. I need THIS product, and your business partner (fill in the blank) has it." Half-way through the fourth meeting, when I realized I was going to be subjected to yet another round of sales pressure, I stood up and announced to the entire group:

"You have wasted my time once again. I don't know if you're stubborn, ignorant, or simply stupid - and frankly, I don't CARE. I will NEVER buy another product from you or your company. You know the way out - NOW USE IT!" And then, I stalked out of the meeting radiating disgust.

This company was - at the time - the largest computer company in the world. Because of that, they felt that their time was more valuable than mine, and that I would eventually be forced to consider their product if they simply kept pressuring me.

Well, rudeness was called for, and rudeness was delivered in buckets. And I would do exactly the same thing all over again, too, because it was utterly deserved.

It's not JREF that's trying to sell a product... it's the applicant that's trying to PROVE SOMETHING THAT JREF DOESN'T BELIEVE IN. If the applicant is wasting their time, there's no reason at all to be polite.

[webfusion]

JREF doesn't have any customers.
JREF isn't "selling" anything.

http://www.randi.org/shopping/index.html

JREF STORE

jmercer, I know that's just nit-picking and I couldn't help myself.

Your comments are right-on-target and I find myself (once again) agreeing wholeheartedly with your perspective.
JREF's treated me just fine, also.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Conclude away. We really don't care what you think of us. All we care about is your claim.


Here's a question

Do you really care what people who make monetary donations to the JREF think of you?

I ask because more moderate members/supporters/sponsors could be easily driven off by perceived unnecessary and rough handling of applicants.

[Sky Ranger]

Hi all !

JREF has customers- the ones who donate !
They can be anyone, the one who applies or the one who just reads the SWIFT online or just about anybody who finds JREF appealing.


JREF is a home for educational resource on paranormal. Its their business to listen to people who make paranormal claims and maybe reject or accept them. The right attitude is to really listen. Infact , if they listen well they can solve many claims in the most scientific way, and help us all to understand 'paranormal things' better.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by jzs
I ask because more moderate members/supporters/sponsors could be easily driven off by perceived unnecessary and rough handling of applicants. I wasn't thinking of donations originally in starting this thread, but I happen to know of one person who has CSICOP as a major beneficiary in his will to the tune of something in the high six figures. He was considering changing the recipient to JREF, but has stopped considering the change for now primarily due to the handling of these kind of matters by the staff.

No, you won't get the name out of me, and I am unable to prove my assertion unless the party in question dies soon, so you can believe me or not as you wish. But I wonder if this is an isolated situation. And unless JREF has all the funds it ever wants or needs, it might be prudent to consider good public relations as a higher priority.

Call them customers, clients, donors, whatever -- they are the public and it rarely pays to have the public mad at a charitable or educational organization no matter how justified it might be.

[webfusion]

Sherman Bay, I am under the impression that Johnny Carson willed a considerable amount. Your friend can donate or not, I would venture to say it matters little in the grand scheme of things at JREF in this decade.

Who in the general public is mad at JREF?
Mad for what reason? KRAMER being KRAMER?
That's absurd.

Sky Ranger has it spot-on correct --- JREF listens to the worst of woo-woos and this forum is evidence.

By the way, has anyone heard a peep from Kirk Gustum?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45022

(KRAMER's first post)

[Placebo]

Originally posted by webfusion
Who in the general public is mad at JREF?
Mad for what reason? KRAMER being KRAMER?
That's absurd.
Well, obviously they don't acknowledge it as KRAMER... but as JREF. After all, he represents JREF.

Now, the people in this room can (by and large) certainly understand JREF and Kramer, and why he does what he does.

What my concern is, is for those 'on the fence' people who are about to be roped into some fraudulent paranormal cult/scheme.
They see the paranormal possibility as intriguing and 'What if it's true!'. And then think 'But why hasn't anybody taken the challenge'. Then they dig, find how Kramer insults people, misunderstands why and resorts to 'AH, nobody wins the challenge because JREF are a bunch of pr*cks and chase people away after ruining their reputation based on speech alone'

Now, what makes me so confident that this happens?
Simple - I've been around some of these communities and SEEN them say this in both chat and forum.

Now if JREF is truly a public education forum - have they successfully educated a person such as this that LOOKED for the answer, but where unable to see past JREF's rudeness?

Quite simply No

PS: As for the argument I've heard of 'Well if they're that stupid about crackpot woo, then we have no care to attract them' - were all of you skeptics from the start? Without having found skeptical resources to question things, many of these 'woos' are simply, well, let's call it 'uneducated'. Chasing them away will just keep them from learning how to question things properly.

Surely you know of at least one big ex-woo-ish member who is now an avid skeptic? Isn't JREF interested in helping educate more borderline woos out there?

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by webfusion
Sherman Bay, I am under the impression that Johnny Carson willed a considerable amount. Your friend can donate or not, I would venture to say it matters little in the grand scheme of things at JREF in this decade.Interesting. We encourage applicants for the $1mil prize by saying, "Think of what you could do with all that money!" but JREF doesn't care to be on the receiving end of a similar sum?

[jmercer]

A few comments...

Webby, nitpick away. I knew where you were coming from on it. ;)

Placebo - I feel that JREF has successfully educated me on many questions that I didn't know the answers to. When I joined the forums, I did so after seeing the value inherent in them. So your "Quite simply no" comment is quite simply wrong, and I'm an example of that. I don't care about rudeness. It's irrelevant, and I've had some pretty damned rude instructors, professors, bosses and teachers in my life. I stuck with them because they taught me valuable skills and passed along valuable knowledge.

Their rudeness was annoying, but hardly a major obstacle. They had something I wanted, so I stuck with it until I got what I wanted. And I sure as heck would have worked my way through rudeness to get my hands on a million bucks. I could put up with a LOT for that kind of money.

Sherman - thanks for the anecdote. Got proof? :D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
I know all about customer service. Problem is, JREF doesn't have any customers... and if they did, those customers would most certainly not be the applicants.


Let me add my pennysworth in support here. The metaphor of "customer service" is seductive and I'm finding that I'm spending more and more of my time dealing with people who don't realize that, first, it's just a metaphor, and second, it's often a metaphor that does more harm than good.

Just as an example, I don't want a doctor that makes me happy. I want a doctor that makes me healthy. A lot of doctors and hospitals that have fallen under the sway of the "customer service" metaphor are using that as an excuse for bad medical decision. (The classic example, of course, is overprescription of drugs, on the grounds that "that's what the customer wants," irrespective of whether or not the prescription is medically justified. A lot of the antibiotic-resistant strains we have floating around were caused by overuse of antibiotics, caused in part by overprescription, including prescription as a "treatment" for viral infections. According to some recent reports, 32% of all antibiotic prescriptions are for [viral] respiratory infections, and only 49% of antibiotic prescriptions are actually appropriately prescribed.)

Similarly, I don't want a teacher that makes me happy. I want a teacher that makes me smart -- or at least knowledgeable. I don't want a trainer that makes me happy. I want a trainer that gets me in better shape. Sometimes what a doctor, a teacher, or a trainer needs to say is "get your fat ass off the sofa and do some work, lackwit."

Even if that's not what the patient/student/client wants to hear.

The next-to-last thing that I want to hear is, "Drkitten, I'm afraid you're going to need a major change in your lifestyle or you're going to die." But what do you think the absolute last thing I want to hear is?

[IXP]

Originally posted by new drkitten
iAccording to some recent reports, 32% of all antibiotic prescriptions are for [viral] respiratory infections, and only 49% of antibiotic prescriptions are actually appropriately prescribed.)

Can you give a refernce on this? I think it might be highly misleading. My doctor prescribes antibiotics every time I get a cold. Is this inapproriate? No. Before doing this I regularly ended up with brochitis (a bacterial infection) after having a cold.

IXP

[drkitten]

Originally posted by IXP
Can you give a refernce on this? I think it might be highly misleading. My doctor prescribes antibiotics every time I get a cold. Is this inapproriate? No. Before doing this I regularly ended up with brochitis (a bacterial infection) after having a cold.


Overuse of antibiotics is a well-studied problem. One recent source that I found quickly is (McIsaac and To, 2004) in the April 2004 issue of Canadian Family Physician. In an article entitled "Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infections : Still too frequently prescribed," they found that, in a survey of 120 physicians and 408 patients :

"Antiibiotics were prescribed in 77.9% of cases whree the diagnosis was acute bronchitis, and [i]in 28.9% where the diagnosis was viral, asthma-related, or no diagnosis."

Antibiotics were prescribed in 24.0% of the cases "when probably not indicated."

Physicians felt pressure from patients to prescribe antibiotics in 32.8% of cases; "When they felt at least some pressure from patients, the prescribing rate was 82.7%, compared to 46.5% when no pressure was felt."

[TjW]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me add my pennysworth in support here. The metaphor of "customer service" is seductive and I'm finding that I'm spending more and more of my time dealing with people who don't realize that, first, it's just a metaphor, and second, it's often a metaphor that does more harm than good.

Just as an example, I don't want a doctor that makes me happy. I want a doctor that makes me healthy. A lot of doctors and hospitals that have fallen under the sway of the "customer service" metaphor are using that as an excuse for bad medical decision.
(snippage)


I can't entirely disagree. There are many businesses where the customer does _not_ always know best.
I have an aphorism I'm trying to popularize:
"The customer is not always right. But right or wrong, he's always the customer".
I guess I just don't see where rudeness on the part of JREF adds value, or education, or much of anything.
If the person you're responding to is a troll, rudeness is a win for him. "Oh, yeah, I pushed HIS buttons!" A reply ignoring everything but the business at hand is more irritating to that type simply because it implies the troll is not worth your time.
If they're not a troll, if the provocation was unintentional, then you just have an escalation in emotional content that gets in the way of communication.

[jmercer]

Hi, TjW -

Applicants are not customers. They are challengers. :)

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by TjW
I can't entirely disagree. There are many businesses where the customer does _not_ always know best.
I have an aphorism I'm trying to popularize:
"The customer is not always right. But right or wrong, he's always the customer".
I guess I just don't see where rudeness on the part of JREF adds value, or education, or much of anything.
If the person you're responding to is a troll, rudeness is a win for him. "Oh, yeah, I pushed HIS buttons!" A reply ignoring everything but the business at hand is more irritating to that type simply because it implies the troll is not worth your time.
If they're not a troll, if the provocation was unintentional, then you just have an escalation in emotional content that gets in the way of communication.

Ah. But in the JREF case, he is not a customer. He is the claimant of an Award.
The Award is for showing that a paranormal property exists. as JREF has stated--you don't have to prove how you do it, just that you can do it.
As a claimant, it is up to you to meet the requirements of the claim. You can make all the damands you want, pull all the bull(rule 8) you want, and you won't get the money until you do it. period. Claiming this and that, demanding exceptions, wasting time is much more rude, in my opinion, than calling the person doing the waffling an idiot.
Time is all we really have, and for someone to waste it when the rules are spelled out in advance, in easily readable and understandable American English (for anyone with an IQ greater than that of a rock), is as rude as it gets.
Apologists and PC-thinkers just muddy the water. Go, or get out of the outhouse. Othes may need in.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TjW

I guess I just don't see where rudeness on the part of JREF adds value, or education, or much of anything.


Yes. But I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that rudeness on the part of JREF subtracts value, or education, or much of everything.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to put KRAMER's rudeness in the same category as Randi's beard.... something that I personally could do without, but not something that I will permit my knickers to twist over.

[webfusion]

Sherman Bay mentions:
Interesting. We encourage applicants for the $1mil prize by saying, "Think of what you could do with all that money!" but JREF doesn't care to be on the receiving end of a similar sum?

Doesn't care? Who said the JREF doesn't care? Not I.

I merely pointed out that your anecdote of a guy (who already has a will set up for another organization) who now isn't "going to change his will" because of some perceived slights of the woo-woos by KRAMER, won't really matter in the grand scheme of things at JREF.

1. JREF has the million available.

2. JREF has a considerable 'war-chest' of available operating funds for this decade and beyond, I imagine.
(Although donations are appreciated, I can't see Mr Randi groveling to your friend or anyone else -- it ain't his style)

3. JREF has KRAMER, a heck of a guy, a heck of a public representative, and someone who I find (IMHO) to be clever, insightful, caustic, erudite and even spicy.

C'mon, what more do you want from an Internet Website Forum? KRAMER is priceless.

[TjW]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yes. But I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that rudeness on the part of JREF subtracts value, or education, or much of everything.

Otherwise, I'm inclined to put KRAMER's rudeness in the same category as Randi's beard.... something that I personally could do without, but not something that I will permit my knickers to twist over.

I thought I addressed that. It gives a troll a win, and impedes communication with non-trolls.
My knickers seem to be fitting comfortably today, too.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by TjW
I thought I addressed that. It gives a troll a win, and impedes communication with non-trolls.
My knickers seem to be fitting comfortably today, too.

Hm. I don't wear knickers yet - I've only started learning how to fence - but they sure don't look comfortable... ;)

Regarding trolls and JREF - if an applicant is a troll and Kramer tells them off, it's not really a win for the troll. Why? Well, I'm glad you asked. ;) Applicants who are told off are dropped. JREF no longer corresponds with them, or publishes their subsequent communiques... utterly ignoring them from that point forward. This isn't a desirable outcome for a troll...

[princhester]

Originally posted by rwguinn
Apologists and PC-thinkers just muddy the water. Go, or get out of the outhouse. Othes may need in.

You and many others miss a vital point. It is necessary to agree a protocol. This involves discussion. Discussion with someone being rude is not conducive to sensible agreement. Time and again I have seen Kramer's behaviour derail or nearly derail attempts to reach agreement.

Sure, ultimately the applicant may have derailed the process anyway. After all, we are talking about silly woos. But let them do that, and let them be seen to do that.

Those who pretend that it is simply a matter of claimant "applying or going away" or "doing or going away" are merely betraying their ignorance of what is involved in organising a challenge.

[princhester]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yes. But I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that rudeness on the part of JREF subtracts value, or education, or much of everything.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is being explained to you over and over and you either will not or cannot acknowledge the problem.

[princhester]

jmercer and new drkitten you have both said you are people who would persist in the face of of rudeness. You have both also said that you would prefer to be given a truthful but bitter pill.

Good, fine. I agree. Terrific. Now can we move on from anecdotes from skewed samples and get onto the real world?

Look around you. Do you see a world full of people who will gladly have the truth screeched at them, and who will trust it to be the truth even if they dislike the person telling it? Or do you see a world full of people who are much more likely to believe something if it is told to them in a nice way by people they like?

If you answer anything other than the latter your career in politics, marketing or popular education is over, dude.

What does the "E" in JREF stand for?

You seem to be unconcerned about Kramer's rudeness because you perceive it will not hinder the education of people like you or I or other rationalists about the non-existence of the paranormal, but that seems to me irrelevant because we never believed it existed in the first place.

I and others are saying that Kramer's rudeness is a problem because it detracts from the education of people who are perhaps far too inclined to believe things if they are sugar coated. The type of people who might actually believe in the paranormal in the first place. The type of people who need the education that JREF can offer.

[IXP]

Kramer,

I have argued both side of this issue at different times and I am still sitting on the fence, but...

I really think you should change your title from "Challenge facilitator" to "Challenge Terminator", with a suitable avatar of course. After all, it does describe the outcome more accurately.

IXP

[Francois Tremblay]

How can anyone POSSIBLY think that the Education part of JREF is addressed to crackpots ? Crackpots by definition do not have the proper mental attitude to be "educated". Obviously the education is addressed to non-crackpot individuals (believers and unbelievers).

[Gulliver]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
How can anyone POSSIBLY think that the Education part of JREF is addressed to crackpots ? Crackpots by definition do not have the proper mental attitude to be "educated". Obviously the education is addressed to non-crackpot individuals (believers and unbelievers).

Goodness.

I believe that we owe everyone an attempt at education if only they visit JREF with willingness. I don't see anything in the definition of crackpot �one given to eccentric or lunatic notions� (Reference: Webster.com) that prevents his/her education. Every typical (I exclude those with disabilities here.) child starts life with eccentric notions. (I am the center of the universe. The world is flat. I am invincible.) Every parent finds ways to educate the typical child.

That is not to say that educating a crackpot is easy. Heavens, no! But I have never known Randi to shy from the difficult tasks.

Regards,
Gulliver

[Placebo]

From jmercer
Placebo - I feel that JREF has successfully educated me on many questions that I didn't know the answers to. When I joined the forums, I did so after seeing the value inherent in them. So your "Quite simply no" comment is quite simply wrong, and I'm an example of that. I don't care about rudeness. It's irrelevant, and I've had some pretty damned rude instructors, professors, bosses and teachers in my life. I stuck with them because they taught me valuable skills and passed along valuable knowledge.

Their rudeness was annoying, but hardly a major obstacle. They had something I wanted, so I stuck with it until I got what I wanted. And I sure as heck would have worked my way through rudeness to get my hands on a million bucks. I could put up with a LOT for that kind of money
I seem to have failed to indicate that I'm not referring to the applicants, but those forum members that read the applications and threads.

Of course, those who want to take the challenge need not be treated less rudely for them to take the mil, but those reading the threads AFTERWARDS could be influenced by the handling of the application.

Princhester said it quite a bit better than I could...

[DivaLasVegas]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I agree with Claus. You are the right person for the job and an incredibly trying job it must be at times.

And i second that wholeheartily, Lisa !

I also think that this thread is an insult to the good job Kramer does here.
It also puzzles me that so many posters never posted before this thread opened. Could that be because they have had an "experience" with Kramer ?
It just makes me mad that so many people jump on the threadopeners bandwagon without having ever posted anything here before. *böse bin* :(

[SezMe]

Originally posted by new drkitten
The next-to-last thing that I want to hear is, "Drkitten, I'm afraid you're going to need a major change in your lifestyle or you're going to die." But what do you think the absolute last thing I want to hear is?
"You're dead?"

"St. Pete's trumpet?"

"Satan's warm 'Hello'?"

[princhester]

Originally posted by DivaLasVegas
And i second that wholeheartily, Lisa !

I also think that this thread is an insult to the good job Kramer does here.
It also puzzles me that so many posters never posted before this thread opened. Could that be because they have had an "experience" with Kramer ?
It just makes me mad that so many people jump on the threadopeners bandwagon without having ever posted anything here before. *böse bin* :(

Goodness what a post. You manage to combine total factual inaccuracy (Placebo, Sherman Bay and myself all have higher post counts than you do, dude), with begging the question (whether Kramer does a good job is the issue fella) and an ad hom attempt to stifle dissent (you imply that people are motivated by an "experience" with Kramer rather than fact and reason).

Well done.

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
How can anyone POSSIBLY think that the Education part of JREF is addressed to crackpots ? Crackpots by definition do not have the proper mental attitude to be "educated". Obviously the education is addressed to non-crackpot individuals (believers and unbelievers).

And here we have a strawman combined with an excluded middle.

Hey, the way you guys are going you're going to manage to commit every standard debating/logical fallacy in a single page.

[DivaLasVegas]

Originally posted by princhester
Goodness what a post. You manage to combine total factual inaccuracy (Placebo, Sherman Bay and myself all have higher post counts than you do, dude), with begging the question (whether Kramer does a good job is the issue fella) and an ad hom attempt to stifle dissent (you imply that people are motivated by an "experience" with Kramer rather than fact and reason).

.

Hell-o !
I was refering to the postings from people whom have never posted before in any thread, but have managed to criticise Kramer in this one.

And i`m sure as Hellfire *gg* no dude or fella !

Talking about factual inaccuracy.

And if i`m not aloud to think that some people here were motivated by some past "experience" with Kramer ( even though i dont know that for sure, it was just a theory), than you don`t really know for sure that they were motivated by fact and reason.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by webfusion
Doesn't care? Who said the JREF doesn't care? Not I.Sure seems like you did:Originally posted by webfusion
Sherman Bay, I am under the impression that Johnny Carson willed a considerable amount. Your friend can donate or not, I would venture to say it matters little in the grand scheme of things at JREF in this decade.I'm glad to hear JREF is awash in money and has no need to cultivate good public relations.Originally posted by SezMe
But what do you think the absolute last thing I want to hear is? Domina nobis pacem...?

[princhester]

Originally posted by DivaLasVegas
I was refering to the postings from people whom have never posted before in any thread, but have managed to criticise Kramer in this one.

Either you were making an inappropriate generalisation (in which case my response was appropriate) or you were injecting a silly non sequitur (what relevance has the post count of some but not all persons espousing a particular point of view?). Have it whichever way you like, I don't care.

And if i`m not aloud to think that some people here were motivated by some past "experience" with Kramer ( even though i dont know that for sure, it was just a theory), than you don`t really know for sure that they were motivated by fact and reason. [/B]

You're allowed to think what you like.

Whether I am right about certain people being motivated by fact and reason is irrelevant, because fact and reason stand on their own feet. Two plus two equals four whether I point that out because of ill will or love.

Contrastingly, attacking motivations based on speculation stands on thin air.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by princhester
There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is being explained to you over and over and you either will not or cannot acknowledge the problem.

That's because I don't want explanation.

I want EVIDENCE.

I see a lot of "maybe" scenarios of the same approximate plausibility of The Lorax and with the same long-term effectiveness of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

If KRAMER's rudeness is a serious problem, then why aren't there any documented problems arising from it?

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by new drkitten
The next-to-last thing that I want to hear is, "Drkitten, I'm afraid you're going to need a major change in your lifestyle or you're going to die." But what do you think the absolute last thing I want to hear is?

"Oh, baby, that was fantastic?"

[DivaLasVegas]

Originally posted by princhester


Have it whichever way you like, I don't care.




I absolutely agree !

[drkitten]

Originally posted by princhester
jmercer and new drkitten you have both said you are people who would persist in the face of of rudeness. You have both also said that you would prefer to be given a truthful but bitter pill.

Good, fine. I agree. Terrific. Now can we move on from anecdotes from skewed samples and get onto the real world?


I quite agree. So quit waving anecdotes and skewed samples and produce evidence.



Look around you. Do you see a world full of people who will gladly have the truth screeched at them, and who will trust it to be the truth even if they dislike the person telling it? Or do you see a world full of people who are much more likely to believe something if it is told to them in a nice way by people they like?


An anecdote. Not off to a good start.



If you answer anything other than the latter your career in politics, marketing or popular education is over, dude.


A skewed sample. JREF isn't in politics, marketing, and "popular education" isn't as you describe it.

And still no evidence.



You seem to be unconcerned about Kramer's rudeness because you perceive it will not hinder the education of people like you or I or other rationalists about the non-existence of the paranormal.

No. I'm unconcerned about KRAMER's rudeness because it's never been shown to hinder anyone's education.

And with every fairy tale told to me about "but it MIGHT hinder the education of the wrong sort of left-handed pipewelder," I get less concerned. Because if it were as big a problem as you suggest, it would have caused problems. Major problems. Problems that can be documented and solved.

But I'm a scientist, and I refuse to solve non-existent problems. I don't offer explanations for homeopathy works, I don't speculate about Santa's elves having glandular diffiiculties, I don't design cooling systems for UFO engines, I don't build Bigfoot cages at the local zoo, I don't test lycanthropy treatments in case the local vet gets bit, and I tend not to worry about the opinions of the voices that exist only in other people's heads....

[Beth]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That's because I don't want explanation.

I want EVIDENCE.

I see a lot of "maybe" scenarios of the same approximate plausibility of The Lorax and with the same long-term effectiveness of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

If KRAMER's rudeness is a serious problem, then why aren't there any documented problems arising from it?

What are you looking for in the way of documented evidence? Are you expecting a scientific study? In the absence of such a study, what would it take to convince you that a problem exists?

Note - I'm not saying that a problem does exist, but I hear the call for evidence quite a bit here. I think it behooves us to consider what, exactly, is being asked for when people call for EVIDENCE. So...

What are you looking for in the way of documentation?

What about the anecdote of a person who was considering making JREF a beneficiary of a large sum in his will changing his mind as a result of reading such exchanges. Is that documented evidence of a problem? If not, why not?

If I told you I had private email correspondence from a potential claimant who said that Kramer's rudeness was the reason for their deciding not to go through with it, would that be evidence of a problem? If I sent you the email and you verified with the potential claimant that it was legit, would that be documented evidence of a problem? If not, why not?

What about Wellfed's posting that the people he knew had all advised him not to bother because of the reputation of JREF and that he now understands why JREF has that reputation? Is that documentated evidence of a problem? If not, why not?

Is it that you don't consider such anecdotes to be evidence or that you don't consider them to be evidence of a problem?

What documented evidence are you looking for?

[KRAMER]

www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8 (http://)

I just thought that perhaps the opinion of someone whom we must all agree is pretty darn smart might add some perspective to this debate, albeit one that reflects my personal feelings, and as much as I might endeavor to allow less of my feelings to interfere with my work here, sometimes it's simply unavoidable.

Some applicants really want me to jump through circus hoops for them. I cannot abide such stuff. I haven't the time, and Randi deserves more productive work from me. So few tests ever occur in the first place (and that includes the time period prior to my arrival here), that I simply cannot fathom how people arrive at a place from which they can confidently assert that my presence here has in any way hindered the process and lessened the value of the Challenge.

VERY few applicants offer me something (i.e.; a sincere claim that will not be withdrawn under ANY circumstances) that I can respond to in a manner that will please everyone here. I don't really think anything can be done about that, short of inventing a computer program that responds to applicants and negotiates protocols with them, in lieu of a real live human being. Such a program would most likely just repeat the same things over and over again to many applicants, and I think that would be strongly attacked by detractors just as quickly as any responses I might offer, and seem equally "rude".

Kramer's personality sucks. The computer is incapable of accounting for the human factor that MUST be understood to be a part of the proceedings. Randi is a curmudgeony old fart. The Challenge is a hoax. The money doesn't exist.

Six of one or half a dozen of the other. The beat goes on. And the beat goes on. Drums keep pounding rythym through the brain.
La-de-da-de-dee, La-de-da-de-dah.

I don't think there's much cure for this unless a totally new kind of applicant happens along - one who understands and adheres to the Challenge rules, and is as anxious to abide by them as he is to be tested. A million bucks should be enough incentive to weather any such difficulties as are inherent in the application process, but why then do so many turn away and leave such nasty calling cards in their wake?

Because such stuff comes with the territory, and I'm OK with that.

My way of doing business here is NEVER meant to make applicants go away. Precisely the opposite. It's meant to facilitate the process for those who really seek the million dollars and think they have a genuine method of acquiring it. The ones who are ready to say that my "attitude" means more to them than the million dollars, well, what can I say? I think such excuses are so transparent as to be ludicrous, and I'm frankly surprised that any critical thinker would offer it here as a viable support for criticism. All I can do is laugh when I hear such drivel.

I'm not a PR person, and I'm not sure that anyone here who has argued that I should be a PR person has convinced me of such. And I'm no more convinced now than I was prior to all of this that I should be as polite as I can - as polite AS I CAN, to all applicants.

I remain as convinced of that as I was previous to this debate.

I always begin diplomatically, and like all diplomats and politicians, I'm ready to be reviled, and resigned to it. Again, it comes with the territory, and I have no fantasies about how far-reaching that terrority can be. The road is well traveled. I try my best...

But, at a certain point, well...maybe a machine WOULD be best.

I'm not sure what more I can say about all of this, except that in my personal opinion, if this helps anyone to know what I'm thinking, I think the whole PC thing is a bunch of crap, and I always have. God forbid anyone should be offended, eh? I hold no respect for such positions. What happened to Free Speech?
Am I entitled to less of it because I work for the JREF? If you think that is or should be the case, I heartily disagree.

p.s. I really don't know why my links don't work. If anyone can advise me on this, I'd be very appreciative.

[webfusion]

My comment about your friend deciding to keep his will unaltered, and how it would have little effect on the 'grand scheme of things' is not a declaration that JREF doesn't care about donors and participation, and support.
I merely have the impression that JREF is in good shape, financially, partially as a result of Mr Carson's Last Will & Testament (Factual Disclaimer: I have no evidence that there was any amount of money designated for JREF in the execution of that Will) and James Randi not about to fire KRAMER for some perceived slights to the woo-woos.

Also, KRAMER is not there for p.r. work.

[webfusion]

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

This is the article, in SWIFT, the Randi Commentary.

(What is this, KRAMER, you bringing out the "Big Guns"? --- see photo of Penn Gillette in the Article !!!)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Beth

What are you looking for in the way of documentation?

What about the anecdote of a person who was considering making JREF a beneficiary of a large sum in his will changing his mind as a result of reading such exchanges. Is that documented evidence of a problem?


No, because I don't believe such a person exists.


If I told you I had private email correspondence from a potential claimant who said that Kramer's rudeness was the reason for their deciding not to go through with it, would that be evidence of a problem? If I sent you the email and you verified with the potential claimant that it was legit, would that be documented evidence of a problem?


Yes, that would be evidence.

But I'm afraid that I don't accept "friend of a friend of a friend" stories as evidence of much of anything.

Especially when the person presenting the stories has an axe themselves to grind. I could easily make up a tale about someone I know who is planning on giving hundreds of millions to the JREF on the condition that they become even more rude. JREF would be foolish to adjust their behavior on my say-so of that alone --- but by the same token, they'd be foolish to adjust their behavior on yours alone.

Specifically, I have not seen any first-person accounts from anyone who open-mindedly considered the JREF's position, but was driven away by the rudeness. I've seen a lot of people who have already demonstrated themselves to be anti-JREF (frequently to the point of demonstrably lying about themselves and the JREF on this and other forums) complaining about the rudeness and telling how it might put off a hypothetical open-minded person.

I've also seen a lot of documentation of expressed anti-JREF attitudes among people who have already clearly expressed their hostility to the JREF's message. To it's message, not to its delivery. There's no way to make the message "there is no such thing as the paranormal" palatable to someone who has already made up their mind that there is.

In other words, big deal. The people who already didn't like Randi's message don't like his delivery.

Show me a single documented case of any harm that has resulted to the JREF or anyone else as a result of KRAMER's rudeness. Show me someone who likes the message but dislikes the delivery -- and show me why the delivery caused problems.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by KRAMER
www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8 (http://)

I really don't know why my links don't work. If anyone can advise me on this, I'd be very appreciative.

If you use the "http://" button, the first prompt is for the description and the second prompt is for the URL. That's the only thing I can think of, Kramer... unless, of course, you haven't been paying your Illuminati dues. ;)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by new drkitten
But I'm afraid that I don't accept "friend of a friend of a friend" stories as evidence of much of anything.

Especially when the person presenting the stories has an axe themselves to grind. I could easily make up a tale about someone I know who is planning on giving hundreds of millions to the JREF on the condition that they become even more rude. JREF would be foolish to adjust their behavior on my say-so of that alone --- but by the same token, they'd be foolish to adjust their behavior on yours alone.

Specifically, I have not seen any first-person accounts from anyone who open-mindedly considered the JREF's position, but was driven away by the rudeness. I've seen a lot of people who have already demonstrated themselves to be anti-JREF (frequently to the point of demonstrably lying about themselves and the JREF on this and other forums) complaining about the rudeness and telling how it might put off a hypothetical open-minded person.

I've also seen a lot of documentation of expressed anti-JREF attitudes among people who have already clearly expressed their hostility to the JREF's message. To it's message, not to its delivery. There's no way to make the message "there is no such thing as the paranormal" palatable to someone who has already made up their mind that there is.

In other words, big deal. The people who already didn't like Randi's message don't like his delivery.

Show me a single documented case of any harm that has resulted to the JREF or anyone else as a result of KRAMER's rudeness. Show me someone who likes the message but dislikes the delivery -- and show me why the delivery caused problems.

Well said, and I agree.

[webfusion]

jrmercer, scroll up a bit and you'll see I posted the proper link to the article KRAMER was trying to show us.

The url KRAMER posted had one too many backslashes, three.

///


http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

That should work now.

[jmercer]

That would do it, all right. :)

[princhester]

I'm not telling anecdotes, I'm giving illustrations, explaining and arguing. I'm not giving samples, skewed or otherwise. If you don't want to talk about this sensibly, if you just want to point score then fine.

You might care to bear in mind that I think the JREF a good thing, and that I voice my concerns because I want to see the Challenge as a shining light and a good tool, and it upsets me that at the moment, because of Kramer, I hesitate to mention the Challenge in arguments against woo woos because his behaviour makes the Challenge embarrasing to be associated with.

Originally posted by new drkitten
[B]A skewed sample. JREF isn't in politics, marketing, and "popular education" isn't as you describe it.

Expand on the latter. Why isn't it? Then we'll go from there.

[MarkRandall]

Being new to the forum I've spent some time over the past few weeks reading up on recent challenges and the correspondence related to them. I'll say up front that:

1. The challenge is JREF's and they can run it any way they want and correspond any way they want.

2. Kramer has a really tough job. He's said himself (to paraphrase) his goal is not to be abrupt or curt and that he geniunely wants to encourage participation in the challenge and to help applicants through the process. Given that goal, I don't know if I could write all that correspondence with what appear to be, at least in some cases, people with varying degrees of mental health problems. Other cases are people that clearly had no intention of following through with the challenge, leading one to recall the classic Monty Python "Cheese Shop" skit, wherein it is learned at the end that the protagonist's time has been intentionally wasted the whole way through. I doubt that I could keep a uniformly civil and polite tone in the face of being intentionally and repeatedly messed with like that.

3. I also agree with Kramer that this is a worthwhile goal to strive to achieve.

I care about the challenge because I have cited it on many occasions in talking with people who believe in extraordinary things without having extraordinary proof for doing so. When I hear about psychics, spoon benders etc. I cite the challenge and it does often have a significant impact on the person I'm talking to. Of course, we all know that the fact that the million dollars remains safely unclaimed after all these years is certainly not proof that the paranormal doesn't exist, but then again, the people I'm talking with about this topic are, by definition, not the most rigorously analytical types to start with ;-).

So for me the challenge is an invaluable tool to use in discussions with those kinds of people (and it's even "free" to me!). The challenge helps open the door for them to at least consider that maybe there is no such thing as paranormal events. This can be an important conceptual breakthrough. Just a few weeks ago I was at an Easter brunch with my wife's extended family. Her uncle started sharing with me about all the amazing miracles he saw his Indian swami perform before his very eyes (sounded like the usual bad sleight-of-hand magic tricks). I used the challenge to great positive effect in the discussion. The swami is raising money for the under-priveledged in India. The challenge would be an easy $1 million which could help a lot of less fortunate people. Why doesn't the swami go for it? With his claimed powers it would be child's play to take JREF's money and put it to "better" use.

Now my wife's uncle, although not very skeptical or logical, otherwise seems to be a generally pleasant and reasonable guy. His personality does lean toward the "touchy-feely" type and I suspect that this isn't unusual among more "woo"-type folks. My personality is definitely more Penn Jillette-like than Stuart Smalley-like (the self-help addicted character from Saturday Night Live).

I believe that if my uncle-in-law read those occasional pieces of challenge correspondence that we're concerned with here, he would somehow think less of the challenge. Maybe many people like him would think poorly of the challenge no matter what the correspondence file held. But I do think that some of the "woo"-types are more "on the edge" than others and the challenge can fulfill a very positive role in swaying those closer to the fence.

In the end, I don't agree with the thread title. Kramer clearly cares deeply about his work and that kind of passion can't be easily replaced. While I haven't read all of these forums, I have read posts from Kramer where he said some things in less than ideally "diplomatic" fashion, and I've also read some direct apologies for those "slips", which takes big person to do.

Perhaps there's a technique that Kramer can use to help himself. I read the posts where Kramer mentions the advantages of being more machine-like. I've also noticed that in much of his correspondence, it seems like he's often required to cover the same ground and repeat the same themes. It seems like he has some "boilerplate" language that he cuts-and-pastes here and there as appropriate in a reply (I'm guessing here). Maybe expanding that library of typical correspondence fragments would be valuable.

I'm the founder of a fairly successful software company and I know that our tech support staff has to deal with sometimes frustrating end-users. The staff has a large library of reply fragments that they use in crafting responses where appropriate. This helps reduce our staff's frustration and helps improve the consistency of our support to customers. It also helps them remain unfailingly polite and thorough with all our customers (cutting down on "rushing through" the call at the end of the day).

--- Mark

[webfusion]

Thank you for your continued interest.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by MarkRandall
Perhaps there's a technique that Kramer can use to help himself. I read the posts where Kramer mentions the advantages of being more machine-like. I've also noticed that in much of his correspondence, it seems like he's often required to cover the same ground and repeat the same themes. It seems like he has some "boilerplate" language that he cuts-and-pastes here and there as appropriate in a reply (I'm guessing here). Maybe expanding that library of typical correspondence fragments would be valuable.

I'm the founder of a fairly successful software company and I know that our tech support staff has to deal with sometimes frustrating end-users. The staff has a large library of reply fragments that they use in crafting responses where appropriate. This helps reduce our staff's frustration and helps improve the consistency of our support to customers. It also helps them remain unfailingly polite and thorough with all our customers (cutting down on "rushing through" the call at the end of the day).


This has been suggested to Kramer before, and he has dismissed the suggestion out of hand. He prefers, he says, to respond personally to every e-mail he gets.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
This has been suggested to Kramer before, and he has dismissed the suggestion out of hand. He prefers, he says, to respond personally to every e-mail he gets.

Yes, it has been suggested, and discussed. I will re-state my point of view on that... if someone is applying to win a million dollars, they deserve more than a form letter in response. :)

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by jmercer
Yes, it has been suggested, and discussed. I will re-state my point of view on that... if someone is applying to win a million dollars, they deserve more than a form letter in response. :)

Why?

If they have been replied to once, with the information that their application is not complete, and a referral to the challenge rules and FAQ, and continue to send incomplete or irrelevant correspondence...why continue to draft original, personal replies. If they are not prepared to put in the effort...and it would save Kramer's sanity, to a large degree...

Why?

[feyd rautha]

count me in to the crowd who thinks kramer is not the right person for this job.


you work in public, kramer so you can be critiziced and fired if enought people think like me. thats not a special or personal thing, it happens with tv-moderators all the time. a tv-moderator would have been fired after the first insult of one of his guests, you insulted people many times.

every person(includin journalists) who is more interrested in the jref will one time read your unproffesional comments, you give the jref and its cause a bad face, maybe randy has work for you as an intern that would be much better for the jref.

[webfusion]

"why continue to draft original, personal replies?"

For clarification, for explanation, for direction, for emphasis.

He enjoys it.

He thrives on it.

We enjoy reading it.

We want more of it.

[T'ai Chi]

Why not have the applicants submit their application through a form, with several fields (who, what, claim, etc) on a webpage?

That way the information is already in the computer, and is more efficient from start to end.

[Winny]

Originally posted by jzs
Why not have the applicants submit their application through a form, with several fields (who, what, claim, etc) on a webpage?

That way the information is already in the computer, and is more efficient from start to end. They could have a notary press the send button?

We wouldn't know for sure, but if they really, really promised that it was a notary, we should be ok?

Winny

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Winny
They could have a notary press the send button?

We wouldn't know for sure, but if they really, really promised that it was a notary, we should be ok?

Winny

Oops, I forgot about the notary part. Thanks.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by webfusion
"why continue to draft original, personal replies?"

For clarification, for explanation, for direction, for emphasis.

He enjoys it.

He thrives on it.

We enjoy reading it.

We want more of it.

Well, that would be 100% OK with me. Does Kramer admit that those are his reasons? Because that's not what he has said in the past.

[jmercer]

Applicants seldom (if ever) submit a notarized document, let alone during the initial contact with JREF. There's no point to doing so until a protocol is worked out that's acceptable to both parties. (Just to make sure I wasn't simply mis-remembering this, I examined the currently listed applications.)

The more rational people send emails that contain any (or all) of the following:

1) Questions about suitability of their claim and/or requests for clarification of the rules
2) Initial claims and/or assertions

Both - in my opinion - require a custom response. If you start replying with form letters, it won't be a heartbeat before the JREF critics start saying that JREF isn't even willing to discuss tests with applicants.

Additionally, either type of email is effectively a beginning of protocol negotiations. That also requires a custom response.

Irrational applicants (which show up all too often) also require a custom response... if for no other reason than to suggest to them that they seek professional help.

I don't see where a "form letter" would fit into the applicant cycle, in complete honesty...

[Darat]

A sincere question - how rude is KRAMER?

Let me say up front that he's made posts I consider rude and he made one that was beyond any consideration of being anything but offensive never mind rude (and which he regretted and offered in my opinion a contrite and sincere apology) and I've seen a few that are not polite, but just how are people gauging his rudeness?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Darat
A sincere question - how rude is KRAMER?

Let me say up front that he's made posts I consider rude and he made one that was beyond any consideration of being anything but offensive never mind rude (and which he regretted and offered in my opinion a contrite and sincere apology) and I've seen a few that are not polite, but just how are people gauging his rudeness?

A damned fine question. :) How do you measure rudeness, anyway? Is there a scale, like a thermometer? Or perhaps a Richter-like scale? Or an absolute measurement? In a similar vein, rudeness and bluntness are often confused, especially in today's "PC" world.

One other thing I might point out is that Mr. Randi could have called this anything, but he chose to call it a "Challenge". If I walked into a local dojo and announced that I was there to prove my art was the real-deal, and whatever was being taught there was bogus... I doubt I'd get a warm and congenial reception based on my challenge. :D

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by MarkRandall
It seems like he has some "boilerplate" language that he cuts-and-pastes here and there as appropriate in a reply (I'm guessing here).--- Mark

I have never, EVER Cut & Pasted anything in my correspondence with applicants. Not even once. I type in real-time.

If some items seems almost identical, it's because I know my job by rote at this point, like an actor in a year-long B'way run knows his lines, and an actor has to MEAN what he says, or he's a bad actor, and no one believes him. I have never simply shut my eyes and given pat answers to questions, even when the questions are among those I've heard a thousand times before. I make an investment in every statement offered to both applicants and would-be applicants, right up until it's clear that they're not going to comprehend me, regardless of how I say things. That's when you start to see the "Apply or Go Away" type stuff.

The only time I ever Cut & Paste is when I'm copying emails verbatim into the Challenge Applications section.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Well, that would be 100% OK with me. Does Kramer admit that those are his reasons? Because that's not what he has said in the past.

I don't thrive on it. I just think people deserve something more - right up until the point where they don't deserve anything at all, and I'm saddened to have learned that most applicants arrive at that point rather quickly, and (contrary to the assessments of many critics here) entirely on their own. They don't need my help.

Much of what goes on here would go on just the same if someone other than myself was sitting here at the claim desk,
I'm quite certain.

What would a more reserved "attitude" on the part of the Challenge guy bring? Just a less expeditious departure from the would-be applicants who'd never apply anyway, and a similarly tardy retreat for applicants whose motive in applying are questionable, at best.

Yup. At a certain point, most applicants don't deserve much of anything anymore. And that's my call to make, I guess.

All this having been said, I'll say one more thing again that I've said here before, and I mean it - I am NOT the best man for this job, but frankly, Feyd, you can eat my shorts. Right down to the last thread, too. And there you have my healf-hearted attempt at matching you in rudeness.

Come on in here and see how long you last. You'd fast be sliced up like a squid on a bait board.

A tv moderator would be fired the first time he insults one of his guests? That's a good one. I guess you don't get MSNBC, CNN or FOX in your country. Thanks for the laugh. I needed one today.
A finer example of an utterly idiotic statement I may never see.

Austria, huh? I know a few Austrians. Really fine people, too. Funny thing...they're all constantly afraid of getting fired from their jobs just because someone dislikes them, regardless of how long they've worked there or hard they work. It must be very hard for them to work in such an environment. I keep telling them they should move to the good 'ol United States of Kiss My Ass, but they're all afraid to leave their families behind. Something about the neo-Nazi's, if I recall. Waldheimers everywhere you turn, they say. But what do I know.

Of course I have no real evidence of this other than what my good friends say is true, what I read in the papers, and a few concerned historians I know who are keeping a close eye on developments there, so I can't purport any of this as fact. It's nothing more than the concerted opinions of everyone I speak to on the matter.

An intern, eh? Nice touch. Come to TAM4. I'd like to meet you.

"You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill." - Apocalypse Now

[feyd rautha]

@kramer

1) we have cnn here and i know a bit of letterman, ophra and therelike. i am pretty sure that larry king is polite to his guests maybe some trashy talkshow moderator can insult his guests the way you insult the challenge-applicants, though i have never seen it.

2)i do not fully understand what you want to say with your nazi-babble or of people beeing afraid of losing their jobs cause someone dislikes them, but that is probably for the better. the war is 60 years over now and i can ensure you that there is not the least possibility that something like the naziregime will happen here again. i consider myself leftwing and am in a way thankful to the usa for liberating europe from the nazis and also thankful that i did not have to grow up in a communist regime. though i am leftwing i am not a bush-hater like most europeans, i think it was the right thing to liberate the iraki people from a grazy dictator, history will show this at one point.

3)you should not take my comments personal, i do not know you in person. i critizised the way you treat people because it does damage to the cause of the jref and that is my only reason. either change your manners or retreat, both is fine for me and the cause of the jref. i am a skeptic myself but i would never insult a believer in god the paranormal or any other woowoos, i am still open minded, believe is irrelevant to me, only knowledge matters.

best wishes
feyd rautha

[Francois Tremblay]

Once again, if you disagree so much with the JREF's approach, why are you still posting here ?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
@kramer

1) we have cnn here and i know a bit of letterman, ophra and therelike. i am pretty sure that larry king is polite to his guests maybe some trashy talkshow moderator can insult his guests the way you insult the challenge-applicants, though i have never seen it.

2)i do not fully understand what you want to say with your nazi-babble or of people beeing afraid of losing their jobs cause someone dislikes them, but that is probably for the better. the war is 60 years over now and i can ensure you that there is not the least possibility that something like the naziregime will happen here again. i consider myself leftwing and am in a way thankful to the usa for liberating europe from the nazis and also thankful that i did not have to grow up in a communist regime. though i am leftwing i am not a bush-hater like most europeans, i think it was the right thing to liberate the iraki people from a grazy dictator, history will show this at one point.

3)you should not take my comments personal, i do not know you in person. i critizised the way you treat people because it does damage to the cause of the jref and that is my only reason. either change your manners or retreat, both is fine for me and the cause of the jref. i am a skeptic myself but i would never insult a believer in god the paranormal or any other woowoos, i am still open minded, believe is irrelevant to me, only knowledge matters.

best wishes
feyd rautha

:tr:

Yes... I think I can drop the word "Perhaps" in that sign...

[feyd rautha]

Yeah sure i am a troll, probably everybody who does not share your opinion is a troll. You are laughable.:xfight

[jmercer]

Originally posted by feyd rautha
Yeah sure i am a troll, probably everybody who does not share your opinion is a troll. You are laughable.:xfight

Nope. Just the ones who show up out of nowhere with strong opinions... and who's command of the English language suddenly improves when I call 'em a troll. ;)

Ok... perhaps your not a troll. Tell you what, I'll keep my mind open on it and read your further posts. :)

[billydkid]

I think you are wrong not to give Kramer the benefit of the doubt. We do not know the details or extent of the correspondence that had gone on between the applicants and Kramer and it seems clear to me that in those cases where Kramer is blunt with applicants there is a significant history involved and as Kramer has eluded to the applicants have demonstrated habitual dishonesty and uncooperativeness. If someone is jerking you around you are under no obligation to be particularly respectful towards them. I am very certain that Kramer is no more disrespectful with applicants than the applicants are with him. If you are not a serious applicant but merely an attention seeking jerk or someone who's only interest is in wasting JREF's time, then you deserve any treatment you get.

[Doberman]

I'm curious what proof we have that the K.C. Hauge referenced in the court case is the same one who has a paranormal claim. And even if he is, what does that court case have to do with his claim? Does having domestic problems somehow discount his claimed abilities?

Why was it posted in his official application thread?

[KRAMER]

Same full name, same state, same county, uncommon last name, chillingly familiar tone, etc. Not conclusive, but compelling and worthy of comparison.

And what does Siegfried Verbeke's jail sentence and activities as a Holocaust Denier have to do with HIS claim? Nothing, I guess, unless of course you happen to possess an inquiring mind that's capable of putting two and two together to make four.

I posted it because I did not find it as irrelevant as you did.

Domestic problems? That's a laugh. His wife is the only one with "domestic problems". His problems run much deeper, and darker, as evidenced by the timbre of his correspondence with JREF. This is a dangerous man, and that has great bearing on our decision whether or not to deal with him, ever. Hardly irrelevant.

And I'm curious as to why you posted your query in this thread?

[Doberman]

I posted my question here because I assumed it would be seen here, and might have been overlooked elsewhere.

And because I feel it's possibly yet another example of you putting your personal bias into the situation.

I ask again, what does this court judgement have to do with his paranormal claim? Yeah his claim has some creepy points to it, but what has the fact that he beats his wife got to do with the viability of his claim? If the court case had been about him luring redheads into his house & raping them, I could see the connection. This? Not so much.

I'm sure that many of us here in these forums have things in their past that are less than flattering. Maybe not domestic abuse, but I find it hard to believe that every logic minded skeptic here has a clean record. Does that make any of us less intelligent? Less logical minded? More gullible?

You seem to be stating that his domestic violence somehow has a bearing on the validity of his paranormal claim. As a skeptic, I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion. If you've got a valid reason, good. I'll stand corrected if you tell me what that is. If not, it looks like you're taking a shot at an applicant just because you can. And, IMO, that's unprofessional.

And honestly, I don't really see the connection between Verbeke's jail sentance and his claim either. He doesn't believe what most of the rest of the world believes. His saying so landed him in jail. What's that got to do with the validity of his claim? Are you saying that a court judgement in another country somehow disproves his claim?


From the outset of this thread, I've felt that it's been a question as to what the JREF's real purpose is and how it should present itself to the public. This is another example of what are, IMO, actions that could be detrimental to the JREF. Or, at least, actions that are unnecessary & unbecoming of a professional organization.


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

Edit.

I should have quoted your response in mine, because I must have missed something when I first read it.

If you're saying that you don't wish to deal with him because he's got a violent history, that's valid enough for me.

The way it's posted in the official thread still smacks very much of taking a shot to me. As if this history has some impact on the truthfullness of his claim.

[jmercer]

Doberman,

Are you really suggesting that it's appropriate for JREF to facilitate a protocol where a woman is to be "sexually stimulated" by an proven abusive male?

If you are, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the idea that this is ok.

Kramer called this one appropriately. JREF should not encourage interaction (sexual or otherwise) between a violent criminal and potential victim. This guy is disturbed, and JREF has a policy about not accepting claims from people with mental and emotional problems, or of allowing tests that may cause harm. (Such as exposing a predator to possible prey.)

Read the Challenge rules and the FAQ.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by jmercer
Doberman,

Are you really suggesting that it's appropriate for JREF to facilitate a protocol where a woman is to be "sexually stimulated" by an proven abusive male?

If you are, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the idea that this is ok.

Kramer called this one appropriately. JREF should not encourage interaction (sexual or otherwise) between a violent criminal and potential victim. This guy is disturbed, and JREF has a policy about not accepting claims from people with mental and emotional problems, or of allowing tests that may cause harm. (Such as exposing a predator to possible prey.)

Read the Challenge rules and the FAQ.


Thank you, sir--you beat me to it!

Roger

[jmercer]

Sorry about that. ;)

[princhester]

I've been away, sorry to perhaps drag out an old topic.

Originally posted by new drkitten
[B]JREF isn't in politics, marketing, and "popular education" isn't as you describe it.

Paging new drkitten. To repeat myself, expand on the latter. Why isn't it?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Doberman
IAnd honestly, I don't really see the connection between Verbeke's jail sentance and his claim either. He doesn't believe what most of the rest of the world believes. His saying so landed him in jail. What's that got to do with the validity of his claim? Are you saying that a court judgement in another country somehow disproves his claim?


First off, it's not that he doesn't believe what most of the rest of the world believes - that's not the issue. (Although you do get points for diplomacy in avoiding the highly appropriate term "hatemonger".)

Verbeke's claim is suicidal. He was going to submit himself to inhaling a deadly nerve gas which has literally killed millions. Setting aside all other irrelevant discussions, that alone is covered by the JREF Challenge rules - they won't take a challenge that will harm anyone, including the applicant. And your suggestion that the legal action against him was the reason this claim was rejected is way off the mark. The claim was rejected before that particular discovery was made here by someone OTHER than Kramer, in these forums. Let me quote from the VERY first post on Verbeke's application over in the Challenge Applications sub-forum:

Kramer on Verbeke's initial application
An unpublished scene from MAN IN THE GLASS BOOTH, perhaps?

I don't know if this is a bona-fide Holocaust Denier or just some garden-variety luncatic, but ya know...I just don't even care.
I have no plans to ponder this claim for even a millisecond longer than is required.

This claim has been summarily rejected because testing would result in certain death for the applicant.

Anyone wanna debate that assessment? Be my guest.


Doberman, I don't get the impression that you're a troll, but you really should review this stuff (and the Challenge rules, and the FAQ) before jumping in. Don't assume that others are representing the situation fairly, because some of them have their own agendas where JREF and Kramer are concerned. :)

[Sherman Bay]

As time goes on, I am getting a better understanding of what Kramer has to put up with, and I sympathize. It's not all peaches and cream and a thick skin is a job prerequisite.

But I don't feel any different about the OP, and I don't feel the official JREF's spokesperson should treat people as in this recent post by Kramer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870890134) (directed at Beleth):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.
...
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.Is this the face JREF wants to show the public? Is there no other way to get the point across? Kramer, IANAPsychiatrist, but IMHO, you need to take a chill pill and consider psychiatric counseling, no matter how big a rock star you may have once been.

Kramer, I'm sure you will reply to me. No problem -- I can take it and I'm sure JREF will outlast any personal exchanges we might have. But before you hit that "submit" button, consider that insulting me, as opposed to merely disagreeing in a civil manner, is likely to prove my point. So choose your words carefully, my friend. :)

[KRAMER]

I had some really, really great veggie chilli last night.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I had some really, really great veggie chilli last night.

Not possible. You gotta have meat in a great chili.

[KRAMER]

Oh yeah???!!!!

Are you stupid, or just a liar. Either way....

Oh, sorry. I gotta go take my chill pill and see my shrink.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not possible. You gotta have meat in a great chili. How true, how true.

Sherman Bay's Chili Recipe, good for what ails you:

Brown 1 lb ground round & drain. Add 1 can diced tomatoes and 1 can kidney beans, slightly drained. Add some chopped garlic, and (important!) 1 each chopped fine fresh habanero pepper and serrano pepper. Add lots of chili powder (mild & hot). Add 1 small can tomato sauce, a little water, and salt to taste.

Simmer for about an hour. Taste and stir frequently until you can't stand it anymore and fill a bowl. Garnish with finely chopped raw onions if desired. Serve to Kramer and stand back. :)

[jmercer]

Oh, Gawd, I love chili... you're making my mouth water...

(P.S. - I didn't take Kramer's response to Beleth as him speaking as an official spokesperson. I took it as him replying on a personal basis.)

Now me, personally - I don't like chill pills. I take it out on my students. :D

[Winny]

Originally posted by jmercer
... I didn't take Kramer's response to Beleth as him speaking as an official spokesperson. I took it as him replying on a personal basis... I don't think I can buy this.

When KRAMER posts on these boards, he is posting as a JREF representative. Everybody knows he is a JREF employee and even if they didn't, his status shows him as "challenge facilitator".

It's a bit like wearing a work uniform. Even if you've finished your shift, you will still be seen as representing the company while you've got that uniform on.

If KRAMER wants to say something on a personal basis, he should probably have a personal login.

Winny

[jmercer]

That's a fair point. However, it seemed to me that he was responding to a personal attack.

Well, heck, whatever. :)

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Winny
If KRAMER wants to say something on a personal basis, he should probably have a personal login. Yeah -- that's what sock puppets are for.

[prewitt81]

Originally posted by Winny
If KRAMER wants to say something on a personal basis, he should probably have a personal login.

So you're saying you'd be happy with the same person writing exactly the same posts, and changing only the username? We'd all know it's still KRAMER, right?

Beleth: Look what KRAMER has posted this time! I've had it with him!!

Winny: No, wait, this was posted by KRAMER2 - the in-your-face rocker who calls 'em like he sees 'em. Not KRAMER the official JREF representative.

Beleth: Of course! I have no case now. I can't get mad at him because this name has a 2 in it.

- - - - - - - -

Keep up the good work KRAMER. Lots of us don't have a problem with you and wouldn't wish your job on our worst enemies.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Oh yeah???!!!!

Yeah!!!!

Originally posted by KRAMER
Are you stupid, or just a liar. Either way....

Either way, I know how to make a great chili! (farts in your general direction)

So, there!

[princhester]

Kramer abusing Beleth's english comprehension skills is a joke. She may be a woo, but she shows every sign of understanding what is written. Kramer on the other hand regularly misunderstands people, usually seemingly because he's reading through a red mist. His grasp of basic statistical terminology is lacking (see the "level of confidence" ballsup) and his aggressiveness sees him abusing people for things they didn't say or mean (see the Albin example, where Kramer takes what is clearly stated as a hypothetical example as an actuality).

[-42-]

Note that this post is simply my opinion.


Personally, I like Kramers posts and the tone of them - most of them. A very very select few I feel were out of line and most of the cases Kramer even thought they were out of line - OK.

A lot of the people he runs up against will stall, delay, confuse and attempt to befuddle the issue: Their Claim.

All of the accepted claims (Remember, this is my opinion) is almost certainly the result of someone who is deluded, mistaken, a fraud, a liar or a cheat.

That is the 'clientel' he is dealing with. The Applicants.

As someone who has been in the customer service industry I truly understand the reasoning behind a lot of these objections to the behavior that is questioned. I've read more than several (and lived) books about Customer Service and the concepts behind it.

One touted here is a central CS issue: "You are the Company". Such as when you talk to a 'customer' when you are employeed by a company, YOU are the company (or institution).

I understand all that.

However, when dealing with deluded people, there comes a time you will not and cannot entertain them any longer.

I've certainly dealt with people who I am sure either A) No longer believed they had a problem, but wanted to talk to someone and streach it out as long as possible, B) Were mentally ill , C) Made no (or little) effort on their part to resolve the situation when the situation required such.

These people you have to be blunt, if not 'rude', with. State your position and your conditions and the result of not adhering to those conditions. When that is not adhered to, it's goodbye. Period.

Otherwise it would go on for absolutly FOREVER, regardless of the subject at hand. Message after message, call after call. When you state your conditions rudely or bluntly it comes very clear to a person that you will not deal with them further unless certain conditions are met. If you are polite or legal-ese it invites response, queries, compromises, further coorespondance when the situation is anything but.

I've had cases where I wanted to simply pull my hair out because of the utter stupidity or insanity of the client. To think that KRAMER gets these on a weekly basis is simply mind numbing. I think many simply do not understand this. I think most know "it's a hard job" but vastly underestimate how frustrating it is to deal with his particular clientel.

So that part totally aside,

Many of the clients are totally delusional and will never agree to be tested under agreeable conditions. Many of these clients are confrontational, extremely evasive, obsfucate the issue, and the list goes on and on.

You can't really deal with them in a totally rational matter.

However, every post COULD be very "PC" and very "Im a Nice Company" oriented, but what would that 'solve'? Where is the pre-requisite that JREF has to be, say, Nations Bank or Boeing when dealing with their clients or customers?

Anyway.... Just my personal opinion, I like the tone and it makes for the posts and some of the applications to be entertaining. Entertainment would likely be a reason for someone who was not otherwise interested in them, to well, read them.

Ever read some boring leagal-ese coorespondance, complete with boilerplate and pre-constructed responses? It's boring.

The smart people often want a chuckle and the woo's will find anything objectable to any coorespondance whatsoever about the most stupid, absurd and unlikely of claim even if they have to apply some 24+7+7 law to decipher that KRAMER is a handmaiden of the anti-christ.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by princhester
Kramer's...grasp of basic statistical terminology is lacking (see the "level of confidence" ballsup)

This is true. I cannot deny this critique.

But, I'm learning, thanks in great part to the forum.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Winny
If KRAMER wants to say something on a personal basis, he should probably have a personal login.

So I can feel free to be as duplicitous as others?

Pass.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by princhester
...Albin example, where Kramer takes what is clearly stated as a hypothetical example as an actuality).

A hypothetical? In a Challenge claim letter?

Statement #1 - I can make it snow in Kansas in July.

Statement #2 - For example, I can make it snow in Kansas in July.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, each one a clear statement of the claimant's professed ability, each equally implausible, impossible, and famously stupid. We've been through all of this, at length. Some losers like to lose long, I guess.

One would think that with a bit more effort you could find a better claim to razz me about.

Then again, maybe you can't.

Come on. Be creative. You can invent better trivialities to nitpick over.

Then again, maybe you can't.

Keep it up. You're actually helping me to enjoy this thread.

In the meantime, you might get my continued attention if you chose as your example a claim from someone who does NOT belong in a straight jacket.

No sympathy for ignorance. Sorry.

[Darat]

(Personal comments.)

Come on everyone, this is getting beyond any sense of legitimate and constructive criticism.

Criticism towards an individual should be offered as a sincere attempt to help someone improve or rectify a mistake or weakness, not as a cynical means to insult someone.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
(Personal comments.)

Come on everyone, this is getting beyond any sense of legitimate and constructive criticism.

Criticism towards an individual should be offered as a sincere attempt to help someone improve or rectify a mistake or weakness, not as a cynical means to insult someone.

In the absence of legitimate and constructive criticism of Kramer, I think it is most appropriate to discuss chili recipes.

Can I petition for Kramer's expulsion from this forum for suggesting that it is possible to make a great chili without meat?

That is not just a POV, that is heresy! BURN THE WITCH! (Especially if he's a duck!)

[KRAMER]

Darat is quite right. So is CFLarsen, in that being a vegeterian, I have no business denying the taste value of an ingredient I never utilize.

I have always had problems fending off personal attacks with blunted swords. This is either a strength or a shortcoming, depending upon one's point of view. I am my own harshest critic, by the way, always evaluating and re-evaluating my work.

As the sole person here capable of consulting Randi in a timely fashion and offering authorized JREF responses to the psycho-babble posted here, I'm in a unique position, as Randi himself steers clear of this place, and no one else here has any interest in so visibly forcing themselves between what is true and what is not.

Sometimes that gap becomes conspicuous, and when it does, I feel it would be negligent to decline to respond. Am I wrong? My mind is wide open on this matter.

Should I not justify the looniness with a response? Is such drivel best left utterly ignored, instead? Do the woo-woos win by default if we decline to reply? I've seen them claim victory on such occasions. Should I even care?

I'm not being rhetorical here. I am looking for good advice.

Perhaps it's high time I recused myself from the forum and restricted my postings to the Challenge Applications thread, leaving JREF's critics and forum trolls to their own devices.

The reason I have yet to do this (or done it briefly and then returned) is that I am unsure as to whether or not ignoring accusations of deceit and fraud (and much, much worse) is the right thing to do. I would like to hear some comments on this.

I may not go with the concensus, but I will consider all opinions. ALL opinions.

Is turning the other cheek what the JREF Challenge rep really ought to be doing?
Should there really be no one at JREF who responds to such bunk?

Or is it the manner in which I often respond that people take such offense to?
That does most often seem to be the case. But is this a question of protocol, or one of job description?

I really am unsure. All I am sure of is that it's not easy (or honest) being anything but me. I bite my tongue a lot, but sometimes, it's just impossible.

This personailty flaw may indeed dictate that I change my role here in the forum, restrict myself to the aforementioned Challenge Applications thread, and maintain a strictly clerical position in all of my postings therein.

I know full well that we have debated this before ad nauseum, but I am at the point now where I feel that a decision must be made and adhered to, finally.

Comments? Opinions? Criticisms?

[Beth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I know full well that we have debated this before ad nauseum, but I am at the point now where I feel that a decision must be made and adhered to, finally.

Comments? Opinions? Criticisms?

I think Soapy Sam said it quite nicely in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870891369#post1870891369


1.First , Read the thread.
(This IS hard, I agree, especially with long, complex and wandering threads like this one. )
2. Carefully consider which specific argument you wish to respond to.
3. Type the response, then click the "Preview Reply" button.
4. Go through your post, editing out all irrelevant comment , insult and rudeness.
5. Click preview again.
6. Ask yourself if the final version advances the discussion. If the answer is "no", delete it.

The above is simple to the point of banality. Nothing we don't all know. Yet persistently we fail to do it. Ian is far from the only guilty party, I quote him solely because his comment aptly summarises the problem.

The forum post system is a restrictive way to debate. The one advantage it could have is the ability to delay the appearance of a comment (compared with a verbal argument where once we speak there's no getting it back.)
Can I suggest we try to use preview more? Introduce a delay. A few seconds in which to consider whether we really need that smartass comment or not?

Beth

[jmercer]

Well, you asked.

#1 - You are the primary representative of JREF in these forums. That alone would make you a target for some.

#2 - Only you can decide whether or not to participate. If you stop participating, however, these forums will be a poorer place. Additionally, speculation about JREF issues will go without comment, clarification or resolution. Both of these things are undesireable, in my opinion.

#3 - The only person(s) to whom you are accountable regarding your JREF conduct are Mr. Randi and whoever else runs JREF. That's it - no-one else, not here, not anywhere. Everyone else's opinion is simply that - an opinion - and should be expressed to randi@jref.org, not in the JREF forums if they feel that strongly about it.

#4 - You have a tough job. You deal with irrational people. People who are trying, offensive, deceptive and outright frauds in some cases. However, you sometimes appear to be too quick to pass judgement, regardless of the reality of the situation. That doesn't make you wrong; but at times it makes you appear hostile; as if you were deliberately trying to discourage the applicant. I would suggest that when you are ready to "pull the trigger" on someone, that you do so in the most professional and impersonal manner. It's an art, not a formula, of course.

#5 - You have some excellent insights, and as you pointed out, you are the only one with access to Mr. Randi. You are literally the pipeline between he and us, bringing things that you and we think are significant to his attention.

#6 - You can't let a few angry people chase you off. Lincoln was petitioned to relieve General Grant - his response was "We cannot spare this man. This man fights!" As noted in the past, the JREF Challenge establishes an adversarial relationship between applicants (and their supporters) and the JREF. To be the interface between JREF and these applications requires a certain mindset, which I believe you have - and I believe that the forums provide you with insights that you would not get without participation.

Just my opinions, of course.

[Sherman Bay]

I agree very much with what has been posted here by Beth and jmercer so far as reponse to Kramer's retrospective question. And I think the fact that both post(er)s responded in a level-leaded manner rather than tossing caustic comments and insults is extremely good, civilized-wise.

Kramer, the fact that you would even post such a question and listen to responses elevates you considerably in my mind.

I guess if I were the High Chief, I would put a super-diplomat at the "front desk" so that JREF's public relations are kept as smooth as possible. Perhaps a harsher attitude behind the scenes is OK. If this can't be two different people, I'm sure it will be a struggle for one person to be both. But I think good public relations is important and certainly you should never let your guard down.

I hope you will continue to contribute to this forum and discussions on a time-available basis; I suppose handling the applications is highest priority. And I think letting the public see as much detail in the process as possible is a good thing, even if it airs the dirty laundry, so to speak.

One final thought. Some people have elevated insults to an art form and made them a successful part of the ambience. I have in mind Cecil of the Straight Dope, (http://straightdope.com/) which I suspect you are familiar with. Almost every one of his answers begins with an insult to the questioner. But Cecil makes this work and it is funny. And of course he is usually right; that helps. It may be a fine line to draw, but there are insults and there are insults. "Yo mama!"-type ones can be funny, and humor changes everything. And if we can't laugh at all this, what's the point of doing it? :)

[princhester]

Originally posted by KRAMER
A hypothetical? In a Challenge claim letter?

Statement #1 - I can make it snow in Kansas in July.

Statement #2 - For example, I can make it snow in Kansas in July.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, each one a clear statement of the claimant's professed ability, each equally implausible, impossible, and famously stupid. We've been through all of this, at length. Some losers like to lose long, I guess.

One would think that with a bit more effort you could find a better claim to razz me about.

Then again, maybe you can't.

Come on. Be creative. You can invent better trivialities to nitpick over.

Then again, maybe you can't.

Keep it up. You're actually helping me to enjoy this thread.

In the meantime, you might get my continued attention if you chose as your example a claim from someone who does NOT belong in a straight jacket.

No sympathy for ignorance. Sorry.

This is a classic example of why you are not suitable for your position. This post above is long on rhetoric and short on facts, wisdom or understanding.

The claimaint in question said (and I'm paraphrasing) "I can make it snow for example in Kansas in July but I have to be where it is going to happen".

You then demanded he make it snow in Kansas in July.

He said he wasn't in Kansas, he was in California so could his test be making it snow in California in July? [Now note at this juncture that you ultimately accepted California as a test, so you must agree that making it snow in California in July is an equivalent to making it snow in Kansas in July.]

With me so far?

You then proceed to crow about how the guy has "backed down". The guy gives an example of a location where he can allegedly do something, he then says he's not going to utilise that location for an actual test for reasons of convenience, but rather an (as you agree) equivalent location, and you hoot with derision about him "backing out".

Does that actually make sense to you Kramer?

Of course the guy's going to fail. Of course he's a loon. But let me point something out to you:

I have seen situations where JREF has refused to carry out tests in a way that a claimant might demand because testing as the claimant demands would be logistically difficult. For example, you insisted on testing in a particular location in the Carey case. Carey wanted Holland, you said no, that is not appropriate, JREF will test you in Ireland. I understand you had your reasons for that, and I accept your reasons.

What would your reaction be if someone hooted that JREF was "backing away" in the Carey case because you wouldn't test in the way the claimant wanted (but would test in a precisely equivalent way)? You'd think that criticism somewhat unwarranted, no?

Now go back and look at the Albin example. Notice anything?

If you just made simple blunt civil replies to applicants, with no rhetoric, no insults, no sneering, you'd be 50% of the way towards avoiding this nonsense.

[Gayle]

The following post represents my opinion, which is subjective.

I joined these forums some weeks ago because I've been a Randi fan for years, I wanted to brush up my critical thinking skills in preparation for an adult education class I intend to teach, and I thought it would be enjoyable to hold rational discussions with other critical thinkers.

Because I enjoy Randi's commentaries, I went first to the commentary issues forum and clicked on the most recently active thread: ' "I am not a vegetable!" -- Terri Schiavo'.

That did not seem a promising start, so I clicked on a number of other forums and threads and found much discussion filled with LIAR. I came to the conclusion that there is, indeed, something wrong with the face JREF presents to the world.

That's an opinion, based on my personal preferences, and as far as I know, personal preferences do not require evidence, so demands for evidence won't get far.

(And heaven help me if I should mistakenly use the word proof when I'm talking about evidence. I must be stupid, a liar or ignorant. Oh, no, I used the word heaven. What a delusional woo woo!)

When I read Sherman Bay's opening post in this thread, I thought he might be on to something. Maybe KRAMER was inciting rational thinkers to irrational outbursts of namecalling and nitpicking.

Instead of replying right away, I took the time to read the challenge applications and as many other posts by KRAMER as I could find. I wanted context as much as specific content. I tried to read all of Wellfed's struggle, but I ended up skimming much of it, looking for the name KRAMER, and concentrating on his messages.

I now offer KRAMER, who I do not know, support for his continued role as challenge facilitator. He's not perfect, but he's darn good. If there is a problem with the public face JREF presents to the world, KRAMER is not, in my opinion, a substantial cause of it.

I would prefer less sarcasm, but that is, once again, a personal preference. As far as I know, James Randi has never been known for approaching paranormal claims with polite diplomacy. KRAMER's approach seems entirely in keeping with Randi's public face.

KRAMER, you asked for comments and criticisms. The only place I really cringed when I read your messages is where you told an applicant to seek psychiatric help. Your letter was appropriate, caring and sensitively written. I find no fault with the letter itself. It gets an A+ for kindness.

I cringed because you publicly posted it. I thought it would have been better to have kept that particular communication private because there's no telling how a person with a psychiatric disorder may react to public embarrassment, including harming himself or others.

I can't say that what you did was wrong because you told the applicant that all correspondence would be posted in the public forum. I'm just saying that I cringed.

After doing all that reading, it's my opinion that KRAMER is the right person for the job, that the forums would be poorer if he recused himself from them and restricted himself to the challenge applications thread, and I would enjoy the forums more if there was less sarcasm from all quarters. Again, a personal preference. [edit for typo]

Gayle

[Winny]

Originally posted by KRAMER
So I can feel free to be as duplicitous as others?

Pass. You're right. Was a bad idea.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
...

The only time I ever Cut & Paste is when I'm copying emails verbatim into the Challenge Applications section.

Or whatever portion of an email that serves YOUR purposes apparently.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Darat is quite right. So is CFLarsen, in that being a vegeterian, I have no business denying the taste value of an ingredient I never utilize.

I have always had problems fending off personal attacks with blunted swords. This is either a strength or a shortcoming, depending upon one's point of view. I am my own harshest critic, by the way, always evaluating and re-evaluating my work.

As the sole person here capable of consulting Randi in a timely fashion and offering authorized JREF responses to the psycho-babble posted here, I'm in a unique position, as Randi himself steers clear of this place, and no one else here has any interest in so visibly forcing themselves between what is true and what is not.

Sometimes that gap becomes conspicuous, and when it does, I feel it would be negligent to decline to respond. Am I wrong? My mind is wide open on this matter.

Should I not justify the looniness with a response? Is such drivel best left utterly ignored, instead? Do the woo-woos win by default if we decline to reply? I've seen them claim victory on such occasions. Should I even care?

I'm not being rhetorical here. I am looking for good advice.

Perhaps it's high time I recused myself from the forum and restricted my postings to the Challenge Applications thread, leaving JREF's critics and forum trolls to their own devices.

The reason I have yet to do this (or done it briefly and then returned) is that I am unsure as to whether or not ignoring accusations of deceit and fraud (and much, much worse) is the right thing to do. I would like to hear some comments on this.

I may not go with the concensus, but I will consider all opinions. ALL opinions.

Is turning the other cheek what the JREF Challenge rep really ought to be doing?
Should there really be no one at JREF who responds to such bunk?

Or is it the manner in which I often respond that people take such offense to?
That does most often seem to be the case. But is this a question of protocol, or one of job description?

I really am unsure. All I am sure of is that it's not easy (or honest) being anything but me. I bite my tongue a lot, but sometimes, it's just impossible.

This personailty flaw may indeed dictate that I change my role here in the forum, restrict myself to the aforementioned Challenge Applications thread, and maintain a strictly clerical position in all of my postings therein.

I know full well that we have debated this before ad nauseum, but I am at the point now where I feel that a decision must be made and adhered to, finally.

Comments? Opinions? Criticisms?

I'd be happy if you simply chose to be honest. I've seen your better side and you've seen mine. There is no good reason that we shouldn't have been able to stay on that tack.

[webfusion]

on April 4th, the following exchange took place in this thread:

quote:Originally posted by webfusion to KRAMERr
...

"And keep after Wellfed, he needs to be straightened out."


ANDA:
Any suggestions on how you would tackle the job?


This works just fine for me, Wellfed.
See ya.

KRAMER
challenge facilitator

FILE CLOSED

The GSIC-Anda file has been closed. He may re-apply in March 2006.

Posted 05-02-2005 12:52 PM

[KRAMER]

My heartfelt thanks go out to Sherman Bay, jmercer, Beth and Gayle, who all posted constructive criticism and suggestions, all of which I take to heart. These posts were very illuminating and very helpful.

I can hardly ignore princhester, though, who offered one solitary sentence of enormous value:

If you just made simple blunt civil replies to applicants, with no rhetoric, no insults, no sneering, you'd be 50% of the way towards avoiding this nonsense.

princhester has never been more correct. how very refreshing.

Next question: do forum members and Challenge applicants deserve identical treatment?

Meaning this; Are forum members, even when they lie, obfuscate, make false allegations, call the Challenge fraudulent, or behave as abhorrently as the worst applicants, or worse, deserve precisely the same respect/treatment as Challenge applicants?

I would think not, but again, I am quite willing to be educated and enlightened in this regard.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by KRAMER
My heartfelt thanks go out to Sherman Bay, jmercer, Beth and Gayle, who all posted constructive criticism and suggestions, all of which I take to heart. These posts were very illuminating and very helpful.


Speaking for myself, you're most welcome. And thank you for asking.

Originally posted by KRAMER
Next question: do forum members and Challenge applicants deserve identical treatment?

Meaning this; Are forum members, even when they lie, obfuscate, make false allegations, call the Challenge fraudulent, or behave as abhorrently as the worst applicants, or worse, deserve precisely the same respect/treatment as Challenge applicants?

I would think not, but again, I am quite willing to be educated and enlightened in this regard.

I'd say... no.

Applicants are establishing a specific kind of relationship with JREF, and forum-only participants are establishing a different one entirely. The focus with Applicants should always be on testing their claim, so (IMHO) they need to be handled accordingly. Unfortunately, there are those (such as Mr. Anda) who will use the forums to support their excuses for not testing. That can't be helped, but it should be noted that a strict a focus on testing in the forums by ALL participants can control the situation. (Pretty much as it did here, in fact.)

Forum-only posters that lie, obfuscate, etc., are opening themselves up to a negative response because they are provoking it by their actions. We have people in these forums that dissent with JREF, but do so in an intelligent and honest fashion. They state their viewpoints without resorting to dishonesty or deceptiveness, and therefore (IMHO) deserve to be treated with respect by all and sundry.

As for the dishonest ones? As long as we keep it clean and don't resort to their tactics, they get what they deserve. :D

[KRAMER]

Agreed.

[princhester]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Next question: do forum members and Challenge applicants deserve identical treatment?

Meaning this; Are forum members, even when they lie, obfuscate, make false allegations, call the Challenge fraudulent, or behave as abhorrently as the worst applicants, or worse, deserve precisely the same respect/treatment as Challenge applicants?

I would think not, but again, I am quite willing to be educated and enlightened in this regard.

Agreed. For the Challenge to be taken seriously, dealings with applicants need to be businesslike, even if frankly the applicants don't deserve it. The Challenge should be above board and solid as a rock, no matter how loony the applicants are.

The forums are just debate and chat and so on. They are not or are largely not what the JREF and the Challenge are judged by.

[Winny]

KRAMER

I typed and lost a longer reply last night, so you are getting the condensed version here. Actually that's probably better for all.

I complained about your attitude to challenge applicants a few weeks ago. However, I believe that recently you've changed your approach appreciably. I' guessing that this is intentional, but either way you deserve recognition for making the effort.

I substantially agree with Princhester's view. You need to be detached and businesslike in your dealings with applicants. I feel you have been that way in the recent past.

I also recall that you were going through some severe personal difficulties recently and wonder if that affected your professionalism for a brief period. If so, it's perfectly reasonable and some of us here probably should have taken greater account of that at the time.

Overall I think you and JREF are doing a great job.

As for how you deal with forum members, I don't think you can afford to be too much different from the way you deal with applicants. As I noted before, you're still wearing your JREF "uniform" when you're posting here. For that reason, I do think you need to hold yourself to a higher standard than the rest of us rabble.

Winny

[KRAMER]

Thank you, Winny. I appreciate your having taken the time to offer your thoughts on this, and I doubly appreciate your assessment regarding my behavior during the grieving period that began a few months ago, and continues in part to this day.

I'm definitely getting better. Time heals even the worst of all wounds, and ofor a while, the grief was quite unbearable.

Thanks for the kind thoughts.

I mean it.

[Gulliver]

Kramer,

I resist even posting to the thread, given its title. Constructive criticism is fine by me, especially now that you've asked for it.

Let me echo Winny's comment about the uniform. I'm afraid that you can't have the fun of speaking your mind here as openly as the rest of us enjoy. It's part of the job, I'm afraid.

Overall, I must ask you, however, to continue to call a spade a spade. Don't confuse diplomacy with paternalism. Say it like it is. Your job is tough. You have to tell applicants many things they don't want to hear.

Finally, let me give up all airs of impartiality. I love the work you do. It's so very helpful. You (and the rest of JREF) shine a light into the dark corners that scares away the evil things that try to hide there.

Warm regards,
Gulliver

[KRAMER]

Thanks.

I think the best thing to do is to employ combination of all the advice I've received here.

Firstly and most importantly, I will no longer post when angry. It's impossible to avoid getting angry at some of the drivel that drips down here, but it's certainly within my power to avoid posting at such times. I will take a long gulp of air, and wait until the anger has passed. Then I will comment without insulting anyone.

I will most likely continue to use sarcasm at times, but never again nastily. Much as I might endeavor to avoid it, I cannot be myself and express myself honestly without the occasion sarcastic note. In that way, I will be able to continue calling a spade a spade, without hurting anyone. I think that anyone who cannot bear a touch of sarcasm at times, ought not to join a forum such as this one wherein matters are often debated hotly.

So, everyone will be pleased to see a total cessation of anger, and most will be satisfied with that, it seems, while those that want machine-like responses void of any and all scent of human frailty will not be completely satisfied.

But I think this is a healthy compromise that will, at least in part, please nearly everyone.

Except Wellfed.

[SezMe]

That's a big row you've chosen to hoe, Kramer. But I heartily applaud the objective you are striving for and I heartily applaud your personal efforts.

Here's one great big ATTA BOY

[-42-]

Please don't ditch the sarcasm ;p

-----------------------------------------
-On a personal note, they're all unreasonable claims and for someone to say that one claim is more reasonable than another is absurd. --Anthony Chadwell

K- Good point.

-The dog is able to perform with 100% accuracy, but for demonstration purposes, I would say that the dog would perform successfully two out of three times...
K- Two out of three. Wow. Not bad, for a dog.

K- He soon got back to me with a revised protocol in which tobacco had been substituted for the hashish, but shortly thereafter, he vanished. Whatever he's smoking, it's time for him to quit.

K- "Tyrone Shoelace, Fecal Magician"
------------------------------------------


Randi has a great pool of sarcasm and can certainly be confrontational. 'Polite' isn't the first word that springs to mind when I think of him dealing with 'Flim-Flam'.

It is also not the word, naturally, that comes to mind when I think of JREF. Even if you were Mr. Polite-R-Us it still wouldn't be, simply because of Randi, the 'head' of the beast so to speak.

Now... obviously one would not want to take the same route as dealing with someone who is mentally ill as with dealing with a con artist, fraud, or fooled themselves by a known effect. For those who show signs of being mentally ill the claim itself can be damaging to them. So I'm certainly not talking about them. (Although I probably wouldn't even post the application where 3 affidavits are required) Getting someone mentally ill all riled up is far from a good idea. And the cases I have seen on this seem to be handled appropriately.

Others have strong belief in something. Like GSIC, Dousing, TT, etc. It is unlikely that these people suffer from mental illness unless their power springs from demons whispering in their ear. These are likely simply victims of placebo effect, ideomotor effect, etc.

These people should handle the *expected and anticipated* confrontational - if not blatantly rude - tone and sarcasm and seek to vindicate themselves through testing (or educate themselves through testing).

I think the abrasive attitude more or less goes with the territory. It is true that "You are the Company" when you speak, write or act, whether you like it or not. Heck, if the face of the company is to change for some reason then Randi should 'change' foremost. (Which I'm certainly not harkening for, or even suggesting). Almost would seem contradictory if not.

If you worked, for say, a Travel Agency and got a phone call from a man who behaved normally at first, gave his information, then stated clearly he wanted to plan a trip to Titan. Well...

1) Verify he means a Moon of Jupiter, in outer space, and not Tibet or Toronto.
2) Explain that currently such a trip is not offered, but if he likes you can put him on a mailing list and maybe something will open up in the future for Titan.
3) Say your good byes, apologize for the trip not being available at this time. Thank him.

Indeed, you indulge them with kid gloves, and at the same time get them to thank you for sending them a mailing list where they might later purchase something.

The Titan traveler was one of three people:
1) Just playing a joke. He'd probably find the serious answer quite funny, laugh, then just say he was just kidding and wants to go to Vegas. Customer is happy.
2) Just playing a joke, but will fight and keep it up until hung up on. Suddenly, when this belief is not questioned they have nothing to fight over. They might repeat several times they mean a UFO trip to Titan. Just say that you understand, unfortunately do not have that available right now, maybe next year.
3) Mentally Ill or severely delusional. Again, indulge them. It makes for a quicker interaction and you want them to buy a trip someday after all, perhaps the institution they will eventually be sent to is another city, and they'll remember how nice "Travel Time" was to them.

Indulging people and being nice, friendly and helpful as warranted is quite obviously the better "Customer Service" solution.

Because it's your job to sell trips, not to educate, inform or spread information to others not involved with the transaction.

But JREF isn't out to provide Customer Service.... That's not the purpose. JREF does not need its applicants to be any way satisfied with the hopes they come back next year. Indeed, you cannot keep an applicant in their 'comfort zone' during this process and maintain JREFs interests.

If one of the goals is to 'spread information' it is quite likely that changing to machine-talk or CS-Centered speech could likely decrease the effectiveness of this. I would guess that many have come here, originally, for entertainment purposes. A friend spoke to someone and told them about this crazy guy who said he could read your mind, or that someone was about to try dousing for a cold million.

Maybe some of those people are even fence sitters and get pointed to some great information that scientifically explains (or attempts to rule out) something that they believed in... Like Edward, Sylvia, Dousing or Homeopathy. Often you see this information in corresponding threads to the challenge application.

I would even recommend linking discussion threads to the application, so that even old applications can be instantly linked to the discussion about it.

For many people, your implication that their belief most likely does not exist is a very, very large insult and is blatantly rude. I think this is why many applicants become hostile or evasive very quickly. ("Fight or Flight")

The way to avoid that is to indulge them and take the face of a helpful facilitator who wants to do everything they can to help them harmoniously to a test, doing everything they can to keep them in their comfort zone. JREF is quite different since the 'customer' IS an Opponent, whereas other CS industries you take the position, or illusion of, an advocate.

It's a war to be waged, not goods to be sold.

I don't know. Something is to be said for the funny-factor of responding with fully serious-sounding inquiries.. but I think regardless of what change may or may not be made, they should be keep an entertaining tone and not a legalese boiler plate application negotiation process.

As long as it's not boring. ;) Even if you decide to take comments out of mail messages, I certainly wouldn't leave them out of the application post.

PS: Posting angry is never a particularly great idea. Even if 'angry' is the exact tone you wish to convey. The 'line' to unacceptable behavior can quickly be pushed back a few miles or become non-existent.

[Vikram]

Kramer,

Your posts on this thread prove that you are indeed the right person for the job.

[KRAMER]

More thanks to Gulliver, SezMe, Vikram, and especially -42- for the lengthy comments that gave me much food for thought.

[MarkRandall]

Kramer,

The improvements you've outlined sound terrific. I know it will be hard to do sometimes (I know how hard it would be for me). I was struck by the comments made by others about wearing the "uniform" on the forum. True, wearing the uniform is a burden but let's not forget that it is also an honor. You are carrying the flag (so to speak) for a noble cause, and I for one, think you do it well and should be proud.

Also, I must say I am impressed by the thoughtfulness you've shown in responding to posts in this thread.

--- Mark

[KRAMER]

Thank You.

Now if only I could respond similarly to applicants and their supporters who call Randi a fraud and refer to the Challenge a sham, or insist that the million simply doesn't exist (Kramer is a Big Fat Liar didn't bug me in the slightest - such obvious baiting is beneath me).

But I have proven that I cannot respond kindly to these accusations, so it seems clear that in such instances, the best response will just have to be NO response.

It's just wrong to justify such lurid accusations with a response.

This reminds me of a story I once heard about LBJ's campaign for Governor of Texas, way back when:

Not long before the election, it looked as though LBJ was definitely going to lose. In a moment of desperation, LBJ said to his campaign manager...

"Look. There's only one way to win this thing. My opponent in this race is a farmer. Let's leak a report that says that his own daughter caught him late one night in his barn fornicating with some pigs and sheep. You know what I mean, right?"

The campaign manager was shocked and appalled.

"WHAT???!!! You can't say that!!! Besides, it's just not true!!!"

"Of course it's not true", LBJ shot back..."But let's make the bastard deny it."

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

Yup. He won the election.

If someone choses to fight dirty, the only response is to take the high ground. Sometimes the dirty ones win, but what matters most?

Here's the new rule of thumb on this sordid subject: Should anyone ever put forth such drivel again, they will be politely directed to the Challenge FAQ, wherein lies a most reasonable response to such claims.

If they wanna pick a fight, they won't find a taker here anymore.

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

[jmercer]

That's the way to do it, all right. :)

Besides, there are more than enough of us here perfectly willing to address rule(8) types. :)

[Moose]

Now we just have to deal with Kramer's blatant rule 6 violations. :D :p

(Kidding! Kidding! Eek!)

[Gayle]

Sometimes the dirty ones win...

Kramer, in my eyes you, Randi and the integrity of the JREF Challenge came out the clear winners in this unpleasant drama.

The accusations and responses were all made in public, for anyone to see. Any forum member was free to offer an opinion on you, Randi, or The Challenge. Criticism and comments were invited, and as a result some changes were made, both organizational and personal.

For the organization, a new FAQ was created. On a personal level, you decided it would be better if you didn't post in anger -- a wise choice. And while you'll keep the sarcasm, you'll avoid nastiness -- another wise choice.

All of this was done in an open, transparent process, some of which had to be galling while it was transpiring.

Challenge applicants go through a somewhat similar process that subjects them and their claim to public scrutiny, comment and criticism. Some can't take it. It's galling, it hurts, it's embarrassing, it can be difficult to deal with for anyone with feelings.

But when you look at what contestants on shows like American Idol or Fear Factor go through in order to win, you have to wonder why applicants for the Million Dollar Challenge are such a sensitive lot.

I'm still trying to figure out that mystery. I'm new to the forums and there's a lot I don't understand. However, this thread did help me understand the nature of The Challenge better.

It's also given me reason to believe that applicants will be given much help in learning how to fairly test their claim, as long as they accept that it will be under the rules of The Challenge, and not according to their own whimsical demands.

For a million bucks, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.


Gayle

[jmercer]

:clap:

Extremely well said, Gayle. :)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by jmercer
:clap:

Extremely well said, Gayle. :)
Yes. Thanks, Gayle.

[KRAMER]

Thanks, Gayle. We try our best.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Thanks, Gayle. We try our best.

Just don't ever go near a chili recipe again.... ;)

[Gayle]

Thank you, friends. May we never have to resort to chili recipes again.


Gayle

[jmercer]

I'll go along with that. Who's got a good bundt cake recipe? ;)

[Francois Tremblay]

If I was KRAMER, I'd have closed this thread on page 1. Why are the admins permitting this ridiculous off-topic bashing-fest to fester like an open sore ?

First the commies, now this.

[KRAMER]

I'm not a moderator. I can't close a thread. My influence over such matters is very, very minimal, and I have nothing whatsoever to do with the decision making process.

Besides, we never really want to ban anybody. But sometimes, such as in the case of Anda (whose libelous accusations quickly went from bad to worse), when a member's behavior is simply unconscionable, we really have little choice.

And there's nothing wrong with this thread. It proves the value of open discourse, and much good has come of it. I've altered my approach in a positive manner, and many who were unhappy with various aspects of the treatment of applicants have been pleased by that, if what has been posted here thereafter is any indication.

I don't feel bashed in the slightest. I took the constructive ciriticism to heart, and ignored the bashing.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
If I was KRAMER, I'd have closed this thread on page 1. Why are the admins permitting this ridiculous off-topic bashing-fest to fester like an open sore ?

First the commies, now this.

Because JREF doesn't want to be accused of censoring critics, no matter what their views are. OTOH, there's a difference between critisizing and attacking, which is why Wellfed (Mr. Anda) was banned. :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by jmercer
Because JREF doesn't want to be accused of censoring critics, no matter what their views are. OTOH, there's a difference between critisizing and attacking, which is why Wellfed (Mr. Anda) was banned. :)

I would say it's not just that the JREF (and the Mod Team) don’t want to be accused of censoring, its a genuine desire not to apply censorship according to someone's beliefs or opinions.

However this is not an absolute right to no censorship, for instance the JREF wont allow illegal content on this forum, so that's a level of censorship it imposes, it wont allow certain words because it believes that these may reduce the possible audience for the forum, (similar reasons apply for the other rules and guidelines in the Membership Agreement) it also wont allow attacks that could harm the JREF by way of preventing the JREF carrying out it's goals.

Specifically when I've been reading this thread I have considered it several times to be at least borderline on what is acceptable or not on this forum. (And because it is was aimed at a JREF staffer I probably erred more on not taking action then I would have done if the thread had been about “just� a Member.)

Overall however I hope some good has come out of this thread - many participants were obviously trying to be constructive rather then destructive and made some good and I believe valuable points, I think Kramer showed remarkable restraint (at times :p) and managed to do something that most of us find very difficult, i.e. listen to criticism about ourselves, then admit it may have some foundation and then the even more difficult step – try to do something about it.

[Francois Tremblay]

I don't buy that. A board that censors "profanity", "indecency" or "criminal" information (including, one supposes, supporting or helping the homosexuals in Texas who are forced by law to surrender their adopted children) can't possibly value free speech. My personal hypothesis is that this board is moderated by people who want to keep this off-topic and unwarranted criticism against Kramer going, or deliberately ignoring it.

I'm only complaining about it because it's becoming a real plague, and contributing absolutely nothing to the Million Dollar Challenge or discussion about the Challenge. If they don't like Kramer OR the JREF OR how Randi talks, they should complain to a more relevant board. I'm sure there are plenty of crackpots who would be interested to read their posts.

[Vikram]

Francois,

Considering the fact that the contentious issue with which this thread was begun has reached a satisfactory and productive conclusion, I would think that it certainly HAS contributed to discussion about the Challenge.

The very fact that the JREF does not choose to censor non-offensively put opinions that are critical of its way of functioning certainly elevates it immensely in my mind.

[Moose]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
I don't buy that. A board that censors "profanity", "indecency" or "criminal" information (including, one supposes, supporting or helping the homosexuals in Texas who are forced by law to surrender their adopted children) can't possibly value free speech.

As far as I understand it, the board censors profanity and indecency to keep the entire site from being censored by Net Nanny and similar proxies. While I see as little value in censorship as you do, I think the people who most need to benefit from what JREF has to offer are the same people most likely to be affected by censorship movements.

It's a reason that ranges between pragmatic and cynical, but I think a straw poll would find that the majority of JREFers don't feel particularly restricted by Rule 8.

And it hard to argue that indecent or criminal "information" has any value to the JREF membership at large.

As for your Texan homosexual... thing, how is this in any way relevant to the JREF and especially this forum? Is there a paranormal claim involved?

Perhaps you could take that discussion (and perhaps your entire thesis) to the political and forum management fora respectively?

[krevency]

KRAMER, I want to pat you on the back for at least taking the criticism, and thinking of ways to handle yourself more tactfully. Criticism isn't an easy thing to listen to. I made a couple of negative comments in the thread "Kramer, you are the right person for the job," and I take them back. Whoever you are, you're at least someone who tried.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
I don't buy that. A board that censors "profanity", "indecency" or "criminal" information ... can't possibly value free speech. So if I were to come to your home and in a profanity-laden tirade, incite your party guests to riot, arson, rape, murder and insurrection, you would just shrug it off as my perfect right to freedom of speech?

[princhester]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
If I was KRAMER, I'd have closed this thread on page 1. Why are the admins permitting this ridiculous off-topic bashing-fest to fester like an open sore ?

Because the admins are more open minded than you.