PDA

View Full Version : JREF refuses reciprocality?


Pages : [1] 2

Pinocchio
25th May 2006, 11:19 AM
Two new applicants appeared in the challenge log a short while ago, and while I understand that people like Dr. Drew cannot just change the text in the application, sign it and think their claim will be accepted, I do not understand why JREF would not grant an applicant the same legal protection THEY THEMSELVES REQUEST before proceeding.

Rule 7 [which Dr. Drew changed to include a part giving him the same 'rights']
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

So why can't JREF surrender all rights to legal action as well? That's just wrong [there can be provisions for scam artists, etc, but if an applicant asks that they not be blamed for accidents, injuries, etc, they sure should be allowed to exercise this option]?:confused:

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 11:28 AM
You make it sound like the JREF and the applicant are two parties in a treaty. This isn't a negotiation, this is a challenge.

Ririon
25th May 2006, 11:39 AM
Let the claimant pay a million if they don't pass. THEN talk about reciprocality.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 11:39 AM
You make it sound like the JREF and the applicant are two parties in a treaty. This isn't a negotiation, this is a challenge.

Still, if it's to be taken as a serious challenge, and not just some exercise in rhetoric, appearing to be reasonable helps.

Have the challenge rules ever been revised since the challenge was created?

dogjones
25th May 2006, 11:51 AM
Agreed - I understand that the clause is there to prevent the JREF being flooded by frivolous lawsuits from various nutters, and that the JREF wouldn't sue an applicant anyway. In which case, what is the problem with modifying the clause? I just don't see it.

Although the principle of changing the rules for an applicant could be a slippery slope "you changed the rules for Mad Professor, why can't you change the rules for me", etc etc

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 11:55 AM
Still, if it's to be taken as a serious challenge, and not just some exercise in rhetoric, appearing to be reasonable helps.

Have the challenge rules ever been revised since the challenge was created?

What is unreasonable? This is the JREF's million dollars, and they award it or not based on the rules that they set up. If that's a sticking point, don't take the challenge. Make squirrels come out of your nether-regions or whatever you claim to be able to do for your local college/university, television station, etc. You will have single-handedly changed the world, and will make away with more than a million dollars, most likely.

drkitten
25th May 2006, 11:56 AM
So why can't JREF surrender all rights to legal action as well?

They can, of course.

They simply won't. Nor should they. The applicant isn't the one with deep pockets to be sued.

Nor, for that matter, will Microsoft agree not to sue you if for some reasons your system breaks their software.

I suspect that Randi would be happy to change the rules if I walked in with a million of my own on the table, winner-take-all. I also suspect that all the applicants for the year 2005 together couldn't scrape together a million.

Arkan_Wolfshade
25th May 2006, 11:57 AM
I believe this post addresses this question
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1656924#post1656924

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 11:59 AM
Honestly also - and I don't know if this is really fair or not - but judging from the level of sanity of most applicants, I don't think the JREF should waive its right to sue. Imagine a deluded "healer" sneaking a weapon into a testing area and injuring an examiner to have someone to prove his abilities on. Unlikely, yes, but still possible.

petre
25th May 2006, 11:59 AM
I believe this post addresses this question
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1656924#post1656924

Boy, made me glad I hit refresh before I posted exactly the same thing :)

Arkan_Wolfshade
25th May 2006, 12:03 PM
Boy, made me glad I hit refresh before I posted exactly the same thing :)

I'd say, "Great minds think alike." But I don't have a great mind, so I'll have to go with synchonicity.

roger
25th May 2006, 12:05 PM
Right, look at the history of JREF, and see how many frivolous lawsuits they have been subjected to, see how many threats they have had, etc. The number: a lot.

Now look at how many frivolous lawsuits JREF has issued to others. The answer: zero.

Now look at how often people libel or otherwise damage JREF, Randi, etc., in a form that may require legal action from JREF. The answer: sometimes.

Entirely reasonable position for the JREF to hold, IMO.

Ever gone on a guided hike/river raft trip/whatever? Ever read the contract you sign? You give up your right to sue, but the company does not give up theirs. Why? Same as with JREF. Because people issue frivolous lawsuits left and right, and because companies don't do the same to their customers, and require a way to redress their legitimate claims.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 12:06 PM
another reason why they won't waive this: usually the challenge uses JREF's facilities and equipment or those of an associated organization. There is therefore much greater chance of the applicant damaging the JREF's property than JREF damaging the applicant's property.

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 12:09 PM
Right, look at the history of JREF, and see how many frivolous lawsuits they have been subjected to, see how many threats they have had, etc. The number: a lot.

Now look at how many frivolous lawsuits JREF has issued to others. The answer: zero.

Now look at how often people libel or otherwise damage JREF, Randi, etc., in a form that may require legal action from JREF. The answer: sometimes.

Entirely reasonable position for the JREF to hold, IMO.

Ever gone on a guided hike/river raft trip/whatever? Ever read the contract you sign? You give up your right to sue, but the company does not give up theirs. Why? Same as with JREF. Because people issue frivolous lawsuits left and right, and because companies don't do the same to their customers, and require a way to redress their legitimate claims.

Well said.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 12:11 PM
Boy, made me glad I hit refresh before I posted exactly the same thing :)

Still, if JREF wishes to represent that the reason the challenge money hasn't been taken is that no one has paranormal powers, they would do well not to thumb their noses at applicants and say "take it or leave it," followed by ridicule and jeering when the applicant does the latter.

JREF sort of occupies the middle ground between the quiet studied scholarship of the CSICOP, and the profanity-laced tirades of Penn and Teller. It often comes across as unnecessarily nasty, as a brief perusal of comments made to applicants by someone calling himself "Kramer" will demonstrate.

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 12:18 PM
Still, if JREF wishes to represent that the reason the challenge money hasn't been taken is that no one has paranormal powers, they would do well not to thumb their noses at applicants and say "take it or leave it," followed by ridicule and jeering when the applicant does the latter.

JREF sort of occupies the middle ground between the quiet studied scholarship of the CSICOP, and the profanity-laced tirades of Penn and Teller. It often comes across as unnecessarily nasty, as a brief perusal of comments made to applicants by someone calling himself "Kramer" will demonstrate.

It's more like "put up or shut up", and I think it works just fine. If they don't like the JREF challenge, it's by far not the only one. They can take up one from some person or organization who doesn't hurt their precious feelings. Believers play the "mean-spirited debunkers" card way too often. If someone doubted my ability to jump an inch off the ground, I would just do it. I wouldn't engage in pages of nonsense and then run away crying that the evil skeptics don't believe me.

DRBUZZ0
25th May 2006, 12:26 PM
This is my advice to those who will not take the challange because they are convinced (or so they say) that JREF will cheat them out of the money or decide that they did not provide enough proof.

Take the challange, under the agreed terms and have it documented/tape/observed ect. (I believe that the agreement allows for this)

When you clearly demonstrate the abilities you profess (IE: the spoon bends, you make an acurate prediction, you move an object with your mind). One of two things will happen:

1. You win and get the money.

2. Randi (as you contend) will swindle you out of it, by changing the rules or using a technicality or claiming your "proof" is not good enough.

If the later happends, then you have the right to go to the press/lawyers/paranormal organizations and make a big stink about how unfair JREF really is. With your documentation of the event in hand, everybody will be able to see how biased and unfair the foundation is. Either JREF will have to concede or you will have completely discredited the organization.


If you're so sure that that is what is going to happen, then go ahead...

Call the bluff!

~Steve

roger
25th May 2006, 12:29 PM
Still, if JREF wishes to represent that the reason the challenge money hasn't been taken is that no one has paranormal powers, they would do well not to thumb their noses at applicants and say "take it or leave it," followed by ridicule and jeering when the applicant does the latter.

JREF sort of occupies the middle ground between the quiet studied scholarship of the CSICOP, and the profanity-laced tirades of Penn and Teller. It often comes across as unnecessarily nasty, as a brief perusal of comments made to applicants by someone calling himself "Kramer" will demonstrate.Why? I went on a horseback ride last week in Bryce Canyon where I signed a waiver with pretty much the same conditions. I rented a power boat on Lake Mead, and again waived my rights while the rental company retained their's. I did this, PAID for the privledge, all to spend the day puttering around not under my own power in pretty places.

You'd better believe I'd sign the same contract with JREF. In fact, I can think of, oh, about a million reasons to do so. :D

It's the same old thing - looking for any reason at all to not take the challenge. People sign contracts like this every single day. It's just a standard, boilerplate waiver.

Actually, I kind of agree with you, in that I haven't always liked the tone that has been taken towards applicants, but then it's not my foundation to run. But don't let yourself feel to sorry for those who back out. They are not being asked to sign anything onerous in that contract.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 12:31 PM
It's more like "put up or shut up", and I think it works just fine. If they don't like the JREF challenge, it's by far not the only one. They can take up one from some person or organization who doesn't hurt their precious feelings. Believers play the "mean-spirited debunkers" card way too often. If someone doubted my ability to jump an inch off the ground, I would just do it. I wouldn't engage in pages of nonsense and then run away crying that the evil skeptics don't believe me.

When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
--Winston Churchill

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 12:32 PM
the thing about the challenge is this: Randi sets the rules. It's his money to do with as he damn well pleases. If he says that he will only accept people for his challenge if they wear a red shirt, then he has the right to do so. He doesn't. In fact his rules as relate to the challenge are clear, well set out, and very reasonable indeed. Nonetheless they are his rules. If an applicant decides they can't operate under his rules, they have every right to go and find a challenge that they CAN operate under. People who quibble with the rules come across like they are trying to find an excuse not to enter, so they can say "Randi wouldn't let me take the test".

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 12:34 PM
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
--Winston Churchill

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this in this context.

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 12:36 PM
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
--Winston Churchill
I'm all for being polite. I'm not a confrontational kind of person. However, I'm not for treating grown adults with kid gloves. Again, if I had the paranormal ability and was being mocked by skeptics, I'd go through with the challenge and laugh all the way to the bank. Why do you think this hasn't happened, Cyphermage? Pinocchio?

Edited to reword the last sentence.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this in this context.

Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it. So you basically have someone making a fool of themselves in public, and permitting a permanent record of their embarrassment to be made, for the benefit of the JREF. It's certainly not for the benefit of the applicant, since he or she doesn't have the ability to do what is necessary to grab the carrot being dangled in front of them.

Under such circumstances, appearing smug or condescending towards the applicant is bad PR. As is refusing any negotiation of contract terms.

The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.

Darat
25th May 2006, 12:58 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it. So you basically have someone making a fool of themselves in public, and permitting a permanent record of their embarrassment to be made, for the benefit of the JREF. It's certainly not for the benefit of the applicant, since he or she doesn't have the ability to do what is necessary to grab the carrot being dangled in front of them.

Under such circumstances, appearing smug or condescending towards the applicant is bad PR. As is refusing any negotiation of contract terms.

The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.


What a silly comparison it is nothing like. What it is like is saying to a homeless person "prove you are homeless and I'll give you a million dollars".

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 01:01 PM
What a silly comparison it is nothing like. What it is like is saying to a homeless person "prove you are homeless and I'll give you a million dollars".

Now there's a Million Dollar Challenge I can get behind. It's doable by the applicant, and helps solve a pressing social problem.

Will Randi be making such an offer any time soon?

prewitt81
25th May 2006, 01:03 PM
Now there's a Million Dollar Challenge I can get behind. It's doable by the applicant, and helps solve a pressing social problem.

Will Randi be making such an offer any time soon?

What's your agenda?

drkitten
25th May 2006, 01:10 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it.

Well, that's an awfully negative attitude. Why do you say that?

The purpose of the James Randi Educational Foundation is, as one might guess, to educate. If you have already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, and that the challenge is therefore unwinnable, then you're not going to waste time applying for the challenge to begin with, and it doesn't matter what the rules are.

If you haven't already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, then by all means apply for the challenge. Experience is supposed to be the best teacher -- I hope that you will experience the fact that you don't, in fact, have superpowers and learn from it.

If you aren't willing to apply yourself, you can at least learn from the experiences of others. No one who has attempted the challenge has succeeded.

The rules aren't there to humilate the applicant. The rules are there to protect the JREF and to preserve its ability to carry out its educational mission. And they shouldn't be negotiated, any more than I should be able to negotiate with an airline pilot whether or not I'm allowed to carry a bomb aboard a plane.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 01:12 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it. So you basically have someone making a fool of themselves in public, and permitting a permanent record of their embarrassment to be made, for the benefit of the JREF. It's certainly not for the benefit of the applicant, since he or she doesn't have the ability to do what is necessary to grab the carrot being dangled in front of them.

Under such circumstances, appearing smug or condescending towards the applicant is bad PR. As is refusing any negotiation of contract terms.

The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.

I don't accept this at all. The whole point of the challenge is that there are people out there who say that they have these abilities. All Randi is doing is taking them at their word and offering them money to demonstrate what they say they can do. Your analogy is nasty, cruel and over the top, not to mention a gross distortion of the purpose of the challenge.

The challenge isn't meant to humilliate anyone. Randi didn't put a million dollars in a Goldman Sachs account to he could laugh at the people who try to get it. He put the money there to say "put up or shut up" to the people out there CLAIMING paranormal abilities.

Refusing to give up his legal rights isn't about Randi humilliating anyone, it's about him making sure he is protected against things going wrong. Remember that it is RANDI who has everything on the line here. The money on the line is his.

drkitten
25th May 2006, 01:13 PM
The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV,

Er, no. Almost the defining aspect of the Challenge is that the applicant -- the homeless person, in your analogy -- approaches the JREF -- the TV station -- with a proposal of what he can do.

They're not offering $1000 to eat a bucket of cockroaches. The homeless person approached them, saying "If I can eat a super-sized bucket of cockroaches, will you give me $1000?"

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 01:15 PM
Ever gone on a guided hike/river raft trip/whatever? Ever read the contract you sign? You give up your right to sue, but the company does not give up theirs.

This is a most apt comparison.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 01:17 PM
to draw another analogy, let's look at people who enter American Idol. They have to sign various disclaimers and waivers of their rights before they are allowed to appear on the program, and certainly before they advance into the later rounds. I very much doubt that Fox has to waive any of its rights at the same time.

Arkan_Wolfshade
25th May 2006, 01:19 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it.
Although that is probably the assumption of a bulk of us here, it is by no means a statement of fact. Instead, it is merely a educated prognostication based upon past performance.


So you basically have someone making a fool of themselves in public, and permitting a permanent record of their embarrassment to be made

Purely opinion on your part. It is a person making a claim, and attempting to demonstrate said claim.


, for the benefit of the JREF. It's certainly not for the benefit of the applicant, since he or she doesn't have the ability to do what is necessary to grab the carrot being dangled in front of them.

What benefit does JREF gain by having people fail? Randi himself has stated he _wants_ someone to win it. Look at the Lucid Proposel thread and the number of posters that made constructive criticisms and/or words of encouragement to MP.


Under such circumstances, appearing smug or condescending towards the applicant is bad PR.

This isn't a popularity contest. It states clearly that it is an adversarial one.


As is refusing any negotiation of contract terms.

Negotiation of contract terms is a legal matter and also a matter of "my sandbox, my rules"


The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.
Bullhockey

pgwenthold
25th May 2006, 01:25 PM
Well, that's an awfully negative attitude. Why do you say that?

The purpose of the James Randi Educational Foundation is, as one might guess, to educate. If you have already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, and that the challenge is therefore unwinnable, then you're not going to waste time applying for the challenge to begin with, and it doesn't matter what the rules are.

If you haven't already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, then by all means apply for the challenge. Experience is supposed to be the best teacher -- I hope that you will experience the fact that you don't, in fact, have superpowers and learn from it.

If you aren't willing to apply yourself, you can at least learn from the experiences of others. No one who has attempted the challenge has succeeded.

The rules aren't there to humilate the applicant. The rules are there to protect the JREF and to preserve its ability to carry out its educational mission. And they shouldn't be negotiated, any more than I should be able to negotiate with an airline pilot whether or not I'm allowed to carry a bomb aboard a plane.

I have always thought I could become rich by becoming a "psychic advocate" for the Randi challenge. I would be the agent for the applicant, working on their behalf to set up a fair test, asking only a 5% take of the cut.

I would have to set up a non-profit organization that survives on donations to fund the activities. I would think there would be no problem finding plenty of big time donors willing to put up funds to help find the person to defeat the challenge.

I would do my job honestly, and constantly recruit people who think they have paranormal abilities. I'd try to get a constant stream of people taking the challenge, regardless of how frivolous I think the attempt would be. I'd handle the negotiations, and designing the test (in consultation with my client). I'd even probably try to push the limits of what I could away with (for example, set the standards for passing as low as possible - although I would have to be careful, there, because I wouldn't want to alienate my relationship with the organization). All the while, I would have no expectations that anyone would ever pass. But that doesn't mean we can provide an honest attempt, and as long as the money comes from somewhere else, I think you could get rich doing it.

Unfortunately, my conscience gets the best of me.

Jeff Wagg
25th May 2006, 01:27 PM
We won't change the rules, and the reasons stated here are excellent. We also won't change them because it would set a precedent that the rules are negotiable. They're not.

Speaking for myself, I will try to be polite, however I can completely understand when some frustration leaks through. Some of you have an idea of it, but none of you can fully appreciate what we have to go through to administer the challenge.

Bottom line: the rules are such that anyone with a paranormal power could easily win the million.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 01:32 PM
They're not offering $1000 to eat a bucket of cockroaches. The homeless person approached them, saying "If I can eat a super-sized bucket of cockroaches, will you give me $1000?"

What is the moral and ethical thing to do when approached by a homeless person with such an offer? Say "Yes" and summon a camera crew?

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 01:38 PM
What is the moral and ethical thing to do when approached by a homeless person with such an offer? Say "Yes" and summon a camera crew?

Depends. Does this homeless person regularly bilk people out of their money by doing a trick where he pretends to eat the bucket of cockroaches?

this whole thing is a dreadful and offensive analogy anyway. There's nothing physically unpleasant about taking part in the challenge. If these self-professed psychics were so disgusted by their powers, they wouldn't claim to have them and charge money for their usage.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 01:48 PM
Well, that's an awfully negative attitude. Why do you say that?

Because there's no supernatural or paranormal? Yes, I think that's it.

The purpose of the James Randi Educational Foundation is, as one might guess, to educate. If you have already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, and that the challenge is therefore unwinnable, then you're not going to waste time applying for the challenge to begin with, and it doesn't matter what the rules are.

If you haven't already learned that paranormal powers do not exist, then by all means apply for the challenge. Experience is supposed to be the best teacher -- I hope that you will experience the fact that you don't, in fact, have superpowers and learn from it.

If the mission of the JREF is to be wise benevolent teachers of the poor deluded masses, it costs nothing to be polite.

The rules aren't there to humilate the applicant. The rules are there to protect the JREF and to preserve its ability to carry out its educational mission. And they shouldn't be negotiated, any more than I should be able to negotiate with an airline pilot whether or not I'm allowed to carry a bomb aboard a plane.

Being perceived as "Mean Skeptics" will cause people on the fence to tilt towards feeling sympathy for the crackpots. This is counterproductive to the previously stated mission of education.

Mental Professor
25th May 2006, 01:50 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it.Precognition! Write that man a check for a mil.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 01:55 PM
If the mission of the JREF is to be wise benevolent teachers of the poor deluded masses, it costs nothing to be polite.


If you are defining "being polite" as "waiving their right to legal action", then it doesn't cost nothing. Costs of "being polite" by your definition:

1) Being unable to sue someone who causes damage to property or people during their test
2) Being unable to sue people who libel James Randi about what happened in the test.

If you are defining "being polite" as "being willing to waive rules of the challenge upon request" then the following costs are incurred

1) massive wastes of time and effort on applicants demanding special treatment and demanding that particular rules be waived
2) bad publicity from participants for whom the rules AREN'T waived, claiming that Randi is a hypocrite and that he applies the rules selectively.

Jeff Wagg
25th May 2006, 01:57 PM
If you are defining "being polite" as "waiving their right to legal action", then it doesn't cost nothing. Costs of "being polite" by your definition SNIP

He's referring to some of the communication between Kramer, Randi and applicants in the past. There was rudeness on all sides. And while politeness doesn't hurt, it's not required and in no way removes someone's special powers.

roger
25th May 2006, 02:00 PM
I would have to say, seeing the nastiness of some of the applicants when things don't go their way, I'd think twice before agreeing to help JREF conduct a test if the applicant didn't waive their rights to legal actions. I mean, what would be in it for me? No thank you. What a quagmire.

Take, for example, the yellow bamboo tests. A guy charged the yellow bamboo guy, who was supposed to deflect the attack with his mind. Naturally, he did no such thing, and was taken down handily. Suppose he had been injured in the process, and litigious. Instant lawsuit.

This ain't rocket science, and it's as common as dirt as far as legal contracts go. I wish somebody would stop complaining, and actually attempt to win the prize.

edit: think about it. Would you agree to participate in a test of Geller, say, if you weren't protected from legal challenges from Geller? If so, you have bigger ones than I do.

edit again: if you don't know what I mean, heres a bit of the history: http://www.skepticfiles.org/randi/legal.htm

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 02:04 PM
When you clearly demonstrate the abilities you profess (IE: the spoon bends, you make an acurate prediction, you move an object with your mind). One of two things will happen:

1. You win and get the money.

2. Randi (as you contend) will swindle you out of it, by changing the rules or using a technicality or claiming your "proof" is not good enough.

If the later happends, then you have the right to go to the press/lawyers/paranormal organizations and make a big stink about how unfair JREF really is. With your documentation of the event in hand, everybody will be able to see how biased and unfair the foundation is. Either JREF will have to concede or you will have completely discredited the organization.

Or Randi will sue you for libel and you will lose your house and car, or spend thousands on lawyers defending yourself.

Another poster just pointed out the high cost of "being unable to sue someone who libels James Randi" as one of the reasons the legal waiver is one-sided.

If I were an applicant contemplating bitching about the test afterwards, I'd keep this in mind.

mrfreeze
25th May 2006, 02:06 PM
If you have video footage of you doing exactly what the protocol asks of you however, then the libel suit wouldn't go very far. Since you know, saying Randi cheated you out of the money when you have a tape of him doing just that isn't libel.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 02:09 PM
edit: think about it. Would you agree to participate in a test of Geller, say, if you weren't protected from legal challenges from Geller? If so, you have bigger ones than I do.

I agree protection from Geller suing afterwards is reasonable. But so is protection for Geller from being sued by me if I don't like his comments about the testing procedure afterwards.

Otherwise I announce my version of what transpired, and Geller, if he has any seizable assets, is effectively muzzled from contradicting me.

Darat
25th May 2006, 02:12 PM
Now there's a Million Dollar Challenge I can get behind. It's doable by the applicant, and helps solve a pressing social problem.

Will Randi be making such an offer any time soon?

All the applicants for the Challenge believe what they claim to do is "doable" - unfortunately for them it is normally a case of "yes but that's a house you live in so you aren't homeless".

Donks
25th May 2006, 02:13 PM
I agree protection from Geller suing afterwards is reasonable. But so is protection for Geller from being sued by me if I don't like his comments about the testing procedure afterwards.
This is why the testing procedures are negotiated and agreed to by both parties beforehand.

roger
25th May 2006, 02:20 PM
I really like this article from the Floridian, which seems to address a lot of the concerns from this thread. I'll quote selectively, with my response: http://www.sptimes.com/Floridian/41498/The__quack__hunter.html


Randi says he has been sued a dozen times, six by Geller. Often the lawsuits include personal attacks on Randi's character. He lost only once, but he says legal fees have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years, including much of a Genius Grant he was awarded by the MacArthur Foundation in 1986

Pretty clear why Randi want's applicants to waive their right to sue.


They treat every applicant with courtesy, Harter insists.


"We don't want to embarrass them. These are honest, well-meaning people. They just happen to be deluded." and Randi says "I'll be as gentle as I can because I understand how well-meaning, well-educated, very sincere people can fool themselves."


I think this is the wish of several poster on here. It's certainly my wish and hope. But looking at the titles for the different applicants in the challenge part of this forum tells a different story.




I certainly understand Randi's viotrol when he goes after somebody like Geller or Sylvia. I don't understand the mocking that goes on when a pretty obviously mentally unstable person writes incoherently. Would you want your Mom, brother, or whatever treated like that if they developed schizophrenia and became convinced voices were telling them the future, for example?

roger
25th May 2006, 02:29 PM
I agree protection from Geller suing afterwards is reasonable. But so is protection for Geller from being sued by me if I don't like his comments about the testing procedure afterwards.

Otherwise I announce my version of what transpired, and Geller, if he has any seizable assets, is effectively muzzled from contradicting me.Fine, you want equal risk/reward for both parties, you got it. Just add in if the applicant loses, they owe JREF $1M.

This is stupid. As I pointed out above, I recently waived my right to sue just to sit on a stupid horse and ride it into a canyon. Rather higher risks there than with the JREF challenge.

Or do you have evidence of Randi issuing baseless lawsuits against applicants?

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 02:38 PM
This is stupid. As I pointed out above, I recently waived my right to sue just to sit on a stupid horse and ride it into a canyon. Rather higher risks there than with the JREF challenge.

You were paying someone for a service. They were not offering you $1 million if you survived some stunt on a horse in their canyon. Apples and oranges.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 02:40 PM
You were paying someone for a service. They were not offering you $1 million if you survived some stunt on a horse in their canyon. Apples and oranges.

There's no cost for entering American Idol, and you waive certain rights during the contest that FOX don't waive.

Darat
25th May 2006, 02:41 PM
You were paying someone for a service. They were not offering you $1 million if you survived some stunt on a horse in their canyon. Apples and oranges.

And again your analogy is wrong - the JREF is not setting up any stunt, the applicant is setting up their stunt; the JREF is saying "you do the stunt you say you can do and we'll give you a million dollars".

Consider it more akin to a world record attempt, the Guinness Record book people just check to see if you have done what you said you would do, if you have they'll put it in their book.

roger
25th May 2006, 02:58 PM
You were paying someone for a service. They were not offering you $1 million if you survived some stunt on a horse in their canyon. Apples and oranges.Stunts? Glad you mentioned that.

Go to the Guinness website (thanks for the idea, Darat). it's a bit of clicking to get to the right page, so here is the relevant one, with the terms: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records4/NewClaim1.asp?opt=FT&PID=


Some relevant portions:
2.1 You acknowledge that the Record Attempt (even when conducted in accordance with the Guidelines and any safety advice as may be received by you from time to time) may be dangerous to you and others and you will be entirely responsible, at all stages of the Record Attempt for:
(a) deciding whether or not to proceed with; and
(b) all safety aspects in relation to the preparation for and/or the undertaking of, the Record Attempt.

2.2 You will, at your sole expense, take all appropriate professional safety advice in relation to all aspects of risk and safety connected with the Record Attempt including, but not limited to:

2.3 Except where arising out of its own negligence, GWR shall have no responsibility for the safety of any part of the Record Attempt and shall not be liable to you or your personal representatives for any loss, damage or injury to yourself or your property in connection with the Record Attempt.

4.5 You agree to waive unconditionally all moral rights owned by you in relation to any Materials submitted to GWR, such that, without limitation, GWR has no obligation to identify you as the author or creator of any such Materials and you will have no right to object to the manner in which GWR treats those Materials.

9. Indemnity

You shall indemnify on demand and hold harmless GWR (and, as applicable from time to time, GWR's parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents and employees) from and against any and all losses, demands, claims, damages, costs, expenses (including reasonable legal fees) and liabilities suffered or incurred by GWR as a result of a claim by a third party arising out of your breach of any provision of these terms and conditions.


I hope that fits in with fair use - the actual document is much longer.

Anyway, that page is pretty much like the JREF application, albeit quite a bit longer. You waive your rights, the organization retains theirs, because it's you who are saying you can perform the act, and you who will reap significant benefit from it.

I thought we had a beating a dead horse smiley. Imagine one here -->

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 03:04 PM
Stunts? Glad you mentioned that.

Go to the Guinness website (thanks for the idea, Darat). it's a bit of clicking to get to the right page, so here is the relevant one, with the terms: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records4/NewClaim1.asp?opt=FT&PID=


Some relevant portions:


I hope that fits in with fair use - the actual document is much longer.

Anyway, that page is pretty much like the JREF application, albeit quite a bit longer. You waive your rights, the organization retains theirs, because it's you who are saying you can perform the act, and you who will reap significant benefit from it.

I thought we had a beating a dead horse smiley. Imagine one here -->

So what are you arguing? That Randi's ethics are comparable to those of the Guiness organization?

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 03:06 PM
So what are you arguing? That Randi's ethics are comparable to those of the Guiness organization?

no, he is arguing that it is not unheard of for a challenge to ask applicants to waive rights that the challenge-giver does not waive. At least that is my understanding thereof.

Darat
25th May 2006, 03:07 PM
We have now :deadhorse

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 03:10 PM
no, he is arguing that it is not unheard of for a challenge to ask applicants to waive rights that the challenge-giver does not waive. At least that is my understanding thereof.

I don't believe that was ever in dispute. We're discussing what the highest moral and ethical standards are, not whether something has ever been done historically, much less by a beer company.

Darat
25th May 2006, 03:11 PM
I don't believe that was ever in dispute. We're discussing what the highest moral and ethical standards are, not whether something has ever been done historically, much less by a beer company.

What I have been discussing is your misunderstanding of what the Challenge is and trying to help you correct your misunderstanding.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 03:16 PM
I don't believe that was ever in dispute. We're discussing what the highest moral and ethical standards are, not whether something has ever been done historically, much less by a beer company.

The Guiness Book of Records, while started by the Guinness brewery, is no longer owned by "a beer company". It's owned by HIT Entertainment, who are in no way affiliated with Guiness.

petre
25th May 2006, 03:23 PM
I don't believe that was ever in dispute. We're discussing what the highest moral and ethical standards are, not whether something has ever been done historically, much less by a beer company.

Highest ethical standard? Wouldn't that be a protocol: "Tell us if you have a paranormal ability, and we'll take your word and give you $1 million".

It seems you wish to argue that the challenge would benefit in granting all applicants waiver from legal action in ways greater than the potential damages that may result. Many people here appear to disagree, with some even giving the specific example that allowing former applicants to claim whatever lies they wish without fear of libelous action would not aid in the mission of the JREF.

Perhaps if you wish to continue to further the discussion, you could offer a response to this, or maybe describe a class of people whose opinion of the challenge may be changed by this facet alone.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 03:23 PM
What I have been discussing is your misunderstanding of what the Challenge is and trying to help you correct your misunderstanding.

Well, that involves some presumption on your part, doesn't it. I wasn't aware there was some requirement that everyone share your view of the Challenge, and that you had been appointed to correct "misunderstanding" on the part of those whose views of the Challenge differ from JREF Canon.

My initial points were that JREF often comes across to applicants as nasty and mean, and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake.

I can summarize the response to this as "We don't care. We don't have to. It's a Challenge, not a Debate."

While that may be true, it's a bit politically tonedeaf, especially given the resurgence of the religious in recent years.

Lamuella
25th May 2006, 03:29 PM
Well, that involves some presumption on your part, doesn't it. I wasn't aware there was some requirement that everyone share your view of the Challenge, and that you had been appointed to correct "misunderstanding" on the part of those whose views of the Challenge differ from JREF Canon.

My initial points were that JREF often comes across to applicants as nasty and mean, and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake.

I can summarize the response to this as "We don't care. We don't have to. It's a Challenge, not a Debate."

While that may be true, it's a bit politically tonedeaf, especially given the resurgence of the religious in recent years.

I think there has been a lot of talking at cross purposes. Let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the JREF should waive rules for challengers if they don't like the rules, or are you merely saying that the JREF should be more polite with challengers when dealing with them?

Alex_Turner
25th May 2006, 03:31 PM
Jeez, Now I'm sorry I revived the old Rule 7 thread.

Look, mutual limitation of liability is uncommon in these kinds of contracts. It would not be fair to the JREF, it's not reasonable to the JREF's position, and it's not equitable.
There's no reason they should do it.

Darat
25th May 2006, 03:32 PM
Well, that involves some presumption on your part, doesn't it. I wasn't aware there was some requirement that everyone share your view of the Challenge,


The Challenge and what is it is an objective fact, it is not my view of what it is that matters but what it actually is.



and that you had been appointed to correct "misunderstanding" on the part of those whose views of the Challenge differ from JREF Canon.


Where have I ever said I had been appointed? This forum allows us all to discuss what we find interesting.fun/enjoyable and one the things I like doing is helping Members who have misunderstood what the Challenge is about.


My initial points were that JREF often comes across to applicants as nasty and mean, and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake.


Thanks for sharing your view - do you care to provide evidence that it is anything more then your opinion?



I can summarize the response to this as "We don't care. We don't have to. It's a Challenge, not a Debate."


Well you could but you would again be wrong.


While that may be true, it's a bit politically tonedeaf, especially given the resurgence of the religious in recent years.

Since your summary was wrong I doubt your conclusion is correct.

LordoftheLeftHand
25th May 2006, 03:45 PM
Everyone who takes the challenge is going to fail it.

Are you saying that supernatural abilities do not exist, or that for some special reason they can not be demonstrated to the JREF?


The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.

Every time someone says the word "morals" I giggle a little bit. Every time someone says the phrase "moral equivalent" I have to have a good chuckle. You know what they say about opinions and "large intestines" right?

It is not the JREF’s goal to humiliate anyone, although there is certainly a possibility of it happening during a test (and there is a warning about it in the application). I’ve always seen the million dollar challenge as an effort to dispel the myth that your friend’s neighbor’s aunt can speak to the dead. In my experience almost everyone knows someone who knows someone who has special powers of some kind, but they never seem to be able to produce them.

So the next time you hear that your friend’s, friend’s friend can summon demons; ask them why they haven’t won the million dollars yet.

Ultimately the JREF is an education foundation and not here to make claimants feel “comphy-whophy” during a challenge. If you don’t like the JREF’s actions maybe you should make a complaint to the IRS.

LLH

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 03:46 PM
I think there has been a lot of talking at cross purposes. Let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the JREF should waive rules for challengers if they don't like the rules, or are you merely saying that the JREF should be more polite with challengers when dealing with them?

I think that the tone in dealing with applicants should be that of scholarly university researchers professionally dealing with a potential subject, and that the flippant "My Way or the Highway" attitude vis a vis the rules should give way to a willingness to accomodate requests that don't materially interfere with the scientific validity of the outcome.

That doesn't mean you can't say "No" to things that are unreasonable, but saying "No" just to prove you can do it, and the subject can't do anything about it, and stating in the rules that not even the smallest thing can be changed, comes across as snotty and arrogant, and sends the message that it's more of a publicity stunt than a genuine attempt to locate people with unusual skills.

Since it's being done by skeptics, the presumption is that no one running the Challenge expects it to be won, and therefore quibbling over details is a total waste of everyone's time, and the only part that matters is the "trying to do it and failing miserably" part.

Such PR is unlikely to make potential applicants feel warm and fuzzy.

LordoftheLeftHand
25th May 2006, 03:55 PM
That doesn't mean you can't say "No" to things that are unreasonable, but saying "No" just to prove you can do it, and the subject can't do anything about it, and stating in the rules that not even the smallest thing can be changed, comes across as snotty and arrogant...
:v:

LLH

GzuzKryzt
25th May 2006, 03:55 PM
...
Since it's being done by skeptics, the presumption is that no one running the Challenge expects it to be won, and therefore quibbling over details is a total waste of everyone's time, and the only part that matters is the "trying to do it and failing miserably" part.
...


"Evidence, please."

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 03:58 PM
Well you could but you would again be wrong.

I think you left out the "in my opinion" part.

In fact, this thread is replete with exactly what I just stated. That's it's a challenge. If you don't like it, you can do someone else's challenge. That the JREF can't be required to do anything by the applicant. That the entire burden is on the applicant. That's it's basically "put up or shut up," with a $1 million lure, and that none of the contract terms are negotiable.

Would you care to explain where you think I've gotten it wrong, or retract your earlier statement.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 04:01 PM
:v:

LLH

As I said, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the ****** JREF."

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 04:04 PM
Cyphermage, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that skeptics do not believe in paranormal abilities. That is not the case. Skeptics believe that there is no evidence for paranormal abilities yet. That is different. Skeptics demand evidence for claims, and so far there is no evidence in favour of the existence of paranormal powers, but it would be foolish to say they do not exist. It is unlikely that they exist, sure, given the lack of evidence and the failure of those tested properly, but enough people believe they have them so we have reason to go on testing. And that's what the challenge is, an offer to finally prove it one way or the other.

Sometimes cynicism creeps in, because no-one ever actually manages to demonstrate any powers, but the idea of skepticism is not to stop looking, because that would serve no purpose and the paranormal would then never be proven one way or the other. Skeptics want to test claims in order to find the evidence so they can know for sure one way or the other. The challenge embraces this idea, so it's unfair to say that a winner is not expected because the challenge is run by skeptics.

GzuzKryzt
25th May 2006, 04:05 PM
...
Would you care to explain where you think I've gotten it wrong, or retract your earlier statement.

As I said, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the ****** JREF."

"Ba dum-dum busch!"

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 04:09 PM
"Ba dum-dum busch!"

Now you're combining stuff from two different messages of mine. The thing you quoted is not what I asked about. Such forum games are unworthy of people who call themselves critical thinkers.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 04:23 PM
Cyphermage, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that skeptics do not believe in paranormal abilities.

Thank-you so much. I've wanted something new for my Usenet .sigfile.

That is not the case. Skeptics believe that there is no evidence for paranormal abilities yet. That is different. Skeptics demand evidence for claims, and so far there is no evidence in favour of the existence of paranormal powers, but it would be foolish to say they do not exist. It is unlikely that they exist, sure, given the lack of evidence and the failure of those tested properly, but enough people believe they have them so we have reason to go on testing. And that's what the challenge is, an offer to finally prove it one way or the other.

Sometimes cynicism creeps in, because no-one ever actually manages to demonstrate any powers, but the idea of skepticism is not to stop looking, because that would serve no purpose and the paranormal would then never be proven one way or the other. Skeptics want to test claims in order to find the evidence so they can know for sure one way or the other. The challenge embraces this idea, so it's unfair to say that a winner is not expected because the challenge is run by skeptics.

This is splitting hairs. There is no paranormal, because a man who uses a different set of laws in his church, than in his laboratory, is an idiot.

There is ONE universe, ONE set of physical laws, and ONE scientific explanation for observed correlations between the behavior of distinct chunks of matter. There is no supernatural or paranornal. There is only as yet undiscovered science.

It is unlikely bordering on impossible that an applicant for the Challenge will have access to sufficiently advanced technology that Randi and the consultants he has access to can't figure out how an effect is being achieved, with several shots at it.

So I think for the purposes of this discussion it is accurate enough to say.

A. Skeptics don't believe in the paranormal.

B. The people conducting the contest don't expect any applicant to be successful.

C. All this "Randi really wants the Challenge to be won. Randi wants to see a paranormal power. " stuff is just shilling the marks.

LordoftheLeftHand
25th May 2006, 04:23 PM
Well Cyphermage I think you have firmly established that you do not like the way the million dollar challenge is run. You are obliviously entitled to your opinion. Do you have anything else to add?

LLH

DRBUZZ0
25th May 2006, 04:31 PM
Or Randi will sue you for libel and you will lose your house and car, or spend thousands on lawyers defending yourself.

Another poster just pointed out the high cost of "being unable to sue someone who libels James Randi" as one of the reasons the legal waiver is one-sided.

If I were an applicant contemplating bitching about the test afterwards, I'd keep this in mind.


Sue you for libel? He won't get very far if you have a video clearly showing that you did what you say you did and he denied you the money.

You make the conention "Randi is baised and a meanie and has the competition rigged and I can prove it with this timestamped, validated video/notorized statements/documentation ect ect."

what exactly is he suing you for?

Unless of course you actually didn't prove your powers....


If I say something about you that hurts your reputation, you could have the right to sue. But only if it's untrue.



Also....

I'm sure there are plenty of paranormal woo organizations who would love to be pledge money toward the defense of a lawsuit. They love to tell everyone how the big bad skeptics are keeping them down.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 04:32 PM
Well Cyphermage I think you have firmly established that you do not like the way the million dollar challenge is run. You are obliviously entitled to your opinion. Do you have anything else to add?

LLH


Nope. There has been no change in the reaction of Randi's crowd to constructive criticism in the ten years I've known them. Randi is a very cranky wizard, and he tends to attract similarly minded people to gather around him.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. I hope that observation doesn't make me unwelcome. As I've pointed out, I'm not a paranormal agnostic, but I actively believe in its non-existence.

I still think you're shooting yourselves in the foot on the Challenge thing. However, since it's not my foundation, it's not my call.

Rasmus
25th May 2006, 04:33 PM
Thank-you so much. I've wanted something new for my Usenet .sigfile.



This is splitting hairs. There is no paranormal, because a man who uses a different set of laws in his church, than in his laboratory, is an idiot.

There is ONE universe, ONE set of physical laws, and ONE scientific explanation for observed correlations between the behavior of distinct chunks of matter. There is no supernatural or paranornal. There is only as yet undiscovered science.

It is unlikely bordering on impossible that an applicant for the Challenge will have access to sufficiently advanced technology that Randi and the consultants he has access to can't figure out how an effect is being achieved, with several shots at it.

So I think for the purposes of this discussion it is accurate enough to say.

A. Skeptics don't believe in the paranormal.

Since you just defined it as not existing it would indeed be extremely silly to assume otherwise, right?

B. The people conducting the contest don't expect any applicant to be successful.

Probably not.

C. All this "Randi really wants the Challenge to be won. Randi wants to see a paranormal power. " stuff is just shilling the marks.

I doubt that that is true, and it certainly doesn't follow from A and B above.

Ah, logic .....

Rasmus.

GzuzKryzt
25th May 2006, 04:39 PM
Now you're combining stuff from two different messages of mine. The thing you quoted is not what I asked about. Such forum games are unworthy of people who call themselves critical thinkers.

I put two of your statements beside each other. No games, no Michael-Moore-style editing.


...
Would you care to explain where you think I've gotten it wrong, or retract your earlier statement.
...


And you explain it to yourself with your own words, Cyphermage:


...
Since it's being done by skeptics, the presumption is that no one running the Challenge expects it to be won, and therefore quibbling over details is a total waste of everyone's time, and the only part that matters is the "trying to do it and failing miserably" part.
...


Please do not confuse "opinion" or "statement" with fact-based reality.

So far we see you do not like the way the JREF sometimes handles the Challenge Applicants.
Opinion.

Apply, get accepted to & win the JREF Challenge by demonstrating your claim successfully = YOU WIN!.
Fact.

tkingdoll
25th May 2006, 04:44 PM
Guys, we're obviously dealing with an insider from the JREF here, seeing as Cyphermage seems to know what the JREF and Randi think and feel, even when it contradicts their stated positions.

Cyphermage, I do not give you permission to quote me out of context on another forum. Either quote my post in entirety with a hyperlink to it in this forum, or not at all.

Pinocchio
25th May 2006, 04:45 PM
Start with this:

Now look at how many frivolous lawsuits JREF has issued to others. The answer: zero.Now, if JREF have never sued anyone, never intend to sue anyone, despite being sometimes sued themselves, there is no logical reason why JREF would be as against this AS YOU ARE. The only logical reason why one would be agaist it is because one wants to BE ABLE TO SUE WHEN SO DESIRED.:D


Although the principle of changing the rules for an applicant could be a slippery slope "you changed the rules for Mad Professor, why can't you change the rules for me", etc etc
Double standards are a fact of life. Sylvia Browne was once offered a test without having to complete a preliminary test, so yeah... everyone can say it already. You'd let her skip it but not me [she refused, btw]!!!

But who's saying it? I don't think any applicant is. And I wasn't suggesting preferential treatment, okay?


another reason why they won't waive this: usually the challenge uses JREF's facilities and equipment or those of an associated organization. There is therefore much greater chance of the applicant damaging the JREF's property than JREF damaging the applicant's property.
That's exactly an acceptable reason why there should be protection. If something goes wrong and the unexpected happens BY ACCIDENT, I don't think the applicant should pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because a state of the art spectrum analyzer got fried when lighning damaged the applicant's Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM that wasn't properly grounded. Conversely for instance, if the guy gets mad for failing and trashes the place, I support pressing charges.


Ever gone on a guided hike/river raft trip/whatever? Ever read the contract you sign? You give up your right to sue, but the company does not give up theirs. Why?
Because they're a business that wants your money, not your lawsuits. They wanna be able to legally exploit you at their convenicence and at the same time make sure you can't do the same. Otherwise they would not be making much money. But that's not ethical. For instance: I go rafting with a private instructor, sign a really tough waiver, and his negligence lands me in hospital with an amputation. I'm screwed.


However, I'm not for treating grown adults with kid gloves. Again, if I had the paranormal ability and was being mocked by skeptics, I'd go through with the challenge and laugh all the way to the bank.
What if you'd have to spend $100.000 on DNA testing or NASA gravity accelerator rental, before the preliminary test? Real-deal claims just ain't of the paper and pen kind, guessing numbers or names. Those would be of the kind called... fraudulent.:D


Why do you think this hasn't happened, Cyphermage? Pinocchio?
Because most people that apply are totally incompetent. On top of that they have no powers whatsoever. Serious applicants that might stand a chance [heretic discoveries in science] would on the other hand think ten times before applying because of the open animosity of the forum community and James Randi himself. Bad karma.:p It's like spitting in front of your head when you're riding a bike real fast. Add the draconian agreement, and... yeah! While designed to repel trash, the agreement actually attracts trash, that is: applicants who have no chance of succeeding and only want to waste JREF's time, whereas real-deal potential candidates don't bother applying. I haven't seen a real-deal candidate in 12 months. You can never be sure what's gonna happen if it becomes clear that a particular applicant is a very formidable candidate who might be RIGHT. Things could get ugly in this case. And the power of suing which the applicant does not have could indeed prove beneficial to JREF, couldn't it? But hey, I'm against suing. I'm pro take-everyone's-chance-to-sue-AWAY.


The Challenge is basically the moral equivalent of offering a homeless person $1000 to eat a bucket of live cockroaches on TV, after making sure the bucket has a volume three times that of the poor sap's stomach. Being mean to the person before the performance is probably a little over the top.
Ahahahaha... good one. This one can actually be won, if the applicant eats real slow [one hour per bite].:D


The challenge isn't meant to humilliate anyone. Randi didn't put a million dollars in a Goldman Sachs account to he could laugh at the people who try to get it.
Maybe not, but it's a bonus that -I'm sure- never fails to cheer him up.


What benefit does JREF gain by having people fail? Randi himself has stated he _wants_ someone to win it.

Do you have that on tape? I would so love to see that. That would cheer me up.:o

Before I forget, I constantly hear people babble: it's Randi's challenge, he sets the rules... Don't like it? Don't apply. Got anything better to say? I mean really? Is this the best you can do? Is this another way of saying: you are indeed right, I cannot think of one sound argument against it?


We won't change the rules, and the reasons stated here are excellent. We also won't change them because it would set a precedent that the rules are negotiable. They're not.
Is a supplemental waiver [against injury and damage] signed by a JREF affiliate at the time of the preliminary test in Karachi, Pakistan or Mogadishu, Somalia changing the rules? Maybe it's JREF's invisible policy also to not accept anything supplemental to sign, but we know that can't be true, because JREF people don't have a problem signing non-disclosure agreements.


To tell you all the truth, I didn't think JREF deliberately wanted to take the applicant's 'right' to sue away, while retaining theirs. I thought it was just something that wasn't put in the agreement, but could be worked out. But after reading all these posts here, I'm realizing they're doing it on purpose.

Hindmost
25th May 2006, 05:11 PM
The fact is that the challenge is valid and if someone really had paranormal abilities, that person would sign up and not really care about the contract. If I imply Tiger Woods couldn't hit a 300 yard drive, he would just tee up a ball and hit it. (Probably with a 2 iron). He certainly wouldn't argue legal terms. Since I personally don't have any paranormal abilities--outside of an uncanny ability to get parking spaces--I won't apply.

Cyphermage: if people that claimed paranormal abitity would just follow the rules, there would be no need for any legal action; no need for any heated exchanges. However, JREF should protect itself from someone trying to cash in with legal maneuvering. The challege has always been about proving paranormal ability under scientific testing methods. I belive the legal terms are really about keeping it focused on that fact.

I guess we skeptics seem to be more scientist than lawyer.

glenn

Walter Wayne
25th May 2006, 07:16 PM
Rule 7 [which Dr. Drew changed to include a part giving him the same 'rights']
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.
The emphasis is mine, but doesn't the bolded part basically mean "but not really". My understanding is this would really only prevent you from suing if the everything in the challenge was done on the up and up. You couldn't sue for emotional damages upon "finding out my paranormal abilities aren't true" or anything or the sort. But if things were rigged, or your coat got damaged by carelessness when you handed it over to Linda at the JREF, well then you could still sue.

My legal knowledge is a bit suspect. Is there a contract lawyer around who know what "rights to sue" you can give up?

Also I wonder how things work when the challenge crosses state or country lines. JREF is Florida, if the applicant is in a small european coutnry and the closest person Randi trusts to do administer a preliminary challenge is in the next country over what civil laws are applied.

Walt

Gr8wight
25th May 2006, 07:34 PM
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
--Winston Churchill

When you have to kill a man, he'll be too dead to complain about your lack of manners.
--Paul Little

delphi_ote
25th May 2006, 07:59 PM
Being perceived as "Mean Skeptics" will cause people on the fence to tilt towards feeling sympathy for the crackpots. This is counterproductive to the previously stated mission of education.
Sorry, but I don't think capitulating to the paranoid teaches anyone anything. Your pointless legalism seems much more counterproductive than turning down the occational lunatic.

If JREF lets every applicant wade into a mire of legalism, they're going to need an army of lawyers to keep it all straight. You want to pony up the cash for that? Right now it's pretty simple: show us that you can do what you say you can do and you get a million dollars. Otherwise, hush and go away.

Flange Desire
25th May 2006, 10:18 PM
Hey Cyph, what is the real deal here?

You raised a question or two, and they were answered clearly.
But you just keep on and on with the same old insert-word-here as if you had not understood any of it.
Or is this some sort of point-of-view thing, where it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Excuse me for being frank Frank.

DRBUZZ0
25th May 2006, 11:09 PM
Okay...

Ya know what... I'll issue my own challange:


The Dr. Buzz0 Challange:

If you come to my place and prove to me that you haev supernatural powers, I will:

Give you 500 bucks, my computer, my 1080p HDTV, my stereo and hell...if I'm really impressed, my car.

Also...I'll talk to the JREF people and Randi and see if I can work out something out for you. (I'm a decent salesman.. I'll see what I can do)

Alrighty.

Rules for the test will be worked out ahead of time (flexable). If we can't agree on them though...no deal. We agree to them ahead of time and if you or I can't come up with mutually acceptable ones...well there ya go.

As far as legal stuff...okay we'll work something out.


There...

PM me

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 11:17 PM
Hey Cyph, what is the real deal here?

You raised a question or two, and they were answered clearly.
But you just keep on and on with the same old insert-word-here as if you had not understood any of it.
Or is this some sort of point-of-view thing, where it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Excuse me for being frank Frank.

I raised a few obvious points, and I got the usual "Oh, your mistaken. That's not the way it is. We don't care. It's not our problem. It's not a negotiation. It would be too expensive. It would be too much work. We can't make exceptions. Being rude doesn't ruin anyone's psychic powers. What's your agenda." etc, ad nauseum. I restated what I said clearly a few times, and corrected a few misstatements made about what I had said.

I don't think the cause of debunking and public education is advanced when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes and the contest rules are rigged, WHETHER OR NOT that perception is accurate or not.

Since no one cares, and I've stated my views, I'm not sure there's much more to say, unless someone has a specific question.

Flange Desire
25th May 2006, 11:24 PM
Since no one cares, and I've stated my views, I'm not sure there's much more to say, unless someone has a specific question.

OK, so thats the end of it then.
You refuse to accept the well considered explanations from the posters here.

DRBUZZ0
25th May 2006, 11:30 PM
One question:

What exactly are you afraid JREF will sue you for? Are you planning on giving them a reason to sue you? Were you planning on breaking something?

You can sue anyone for anything...in a sense true. But there has to be *something* to it or it'll get thrown out pretty fast (and possibly get you in trouble for harrassment).

Now...the protection of JREF is obvious: They don't want someone whining to a court that the competition was rigged or using it as an opertunity for a lawsuit.


It's perfectly reasonable to have this restriction. This is not a two-sided negotiation. This is a *CHALLANGE* He is *CHALLANGING* you to show you can do something supernatural.

As I stated earlier: Take the challange. Pass it. If you are denied your money, then Randi has a lot of egg on his face and will have VERY VERY hard time suing you.

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 11:31 PM
OK, so thats the end of it then.
You refuse to accept the well considered explanations from the posters here.

You seem to feel that the "explanations" of the posters are some sort of absolute fact like the first decimal digit of Pi being 3. That the sky will fall if an applicant is permitted to negotiate terms of the contract with JREF is more in the area of an opinion about an arbitrary policy, which of course, reasonable people can differ on.

The same goes for the idea that it might be prudent to have applicants dealt with by persons whose social skills do not resemble sandpaper.

GzuzKryzt
25th May 2006, 11:35 PM
...
I don't think the cause of debunking and public education is advanced when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes and the contest rules are rigged, WHETHER OR NOT that perception is accurate or not.
...


Cyphermage, please define "much". A definition expressed in percentage will suffice.

Can you also provide evidence for your statement, "...when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes...", please?

Cyphermage
25th May 2006, 11:47 PM
Cyphermage, please define "much". A definition expressed in percentage will suffice.

Can you also provide evidence for your statement, "...when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes...", please?

Would you like me to do a poll?

GzuzKryzt
25th May 2006, 11:50 PM
Cyphermage, please define "much". A definition expressed in percentage will suffice.

Can you also provide evidence for your statement, "...when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes...", please?

Would you like me to do a poll?

Simple answers will suffice.

Darat
26th May 2006, 02:05 AM
I think you left out the "in my opinion" part.


No I didn't, you did. I quoted the entirety of your post and there is nowhere in that post that you say "in my opinion".


In fact, this thread is replete with exactly what I just stated. That's it's a challenge. If you don't like it, you can do someone else's challenge. That the JREF can't be required to do anything by the applicant. That the entire burden is on the applicant. That's it's basically "put up or shut up," with a $1 million lure, and that none of the contract terms are negotiable.


Which is not how you summarised it previously which was:


...snip...

My initial points were that JREF often comes across to applicants as nasty and mean, and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake.

I can summarize the response to this as "We don't care. We don't have to. It's a Challenge, not a Debate."

...snip...


You still have not provided any support for your claim "..and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake. "


Would you care to explain where you think I've gotten it wrong, or retract your earlier statement.


So far you have made claims and not supported them with any evidence, it is not up to me to prove your claims wrong it is up to you to provide the evidence that supports your claims. Consider it like the Challenge, the JREF doesn't prove you can't do something you prove you can do something.

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 02:28 AM
No I didn't, you did. I quoted the entirety of your post and there is nowhere in that post that you say "in my opinion".

I was referring to your disagreement with me being your opinion, as opposed to a statement of a verifiable fact.

You still have not provided any support for your claim "..and that this undercuts the educational mission it is trying to undertake. "

Advice is not a "claim." It's just advice.

I think it would be lovely if JREF conducted the challenge in a friendlier manner. You disagree. Fine. That's doesn't make one of us wrong, and the other right.

Ririon
26th May 2006, 03:01 AM
Advice is not a "claim." It's just advice.

I think it would be lovely if JREF conducted the challenge in a friendlier manner. You disagree. Fine. That's doesn't make one of us wrong, and the other right.
OK, let me try.

Your advice is twofold:
1. The JREF should be nicer and more polite to the applicants to improve skepticism's public image.
2. As a part of that they should make a stupid change in their challenge rules.

I would have to say:
1. There is probably room for a little improvement, but that is a question of the personal style of James Randi (not going to change much) and Jeff Wagg (probably different from KRAMER's. We'll see.) There are about 15 "KRAMER is mean"-threads here if you are interested, but that is history.

If you want to discuss this further, start a "Jeff Wagg is mean"-thread.

2. Not going to happen for several very good reasons.

I think this thread has given you most of the facts about this. Feel free to disagree with other people's conclusions based on those facts.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 06:14 AM
That's exactly an acceptable reason why there should be protection. If something goes wrong and the unexpected happens BY ACCIDENT, I don't think the applicant should pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because a state of the art spectrum analyzer got fried when lighning damaged the applicant's Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM that wasn't properly grounded. Conversely for instance, if the guy gets mad for failing and trashes the place, I support pressing charges.


I disagree. I think if the applicant trashes the property of the JREF, be it by accident or on purpose, they should be liable for its replacement. Why do you think the JREF should be liable for replacing something the applicant destroys?

princhester
26th May 2006, 06:14 AM
What's your agenda?

Ahhh, the standard behaviour of JREF groupies: begin circling the wagons.

Around here, you cannot challenge the Challenge or those associated with it without people questioning your motives. I appreciate that many doofuses attracted to this circus are ill motivated, but extreme defensiveness when someone is making reasonable points is poor form.

Apply, get accepted to & win the JREF Challenge by demonstrating your claim successfully = YOU WIN!.
Fact.

Fall over and break a leg during a test as a consequence of negligence on the part of Randi: too bad, you gave your rights away. Fact. Give me a quick clue why, in principle, this might be regarded as fair.

Now, if JREF have never sued anyone, never intend to sue anyone, despite being sometimes sued themselves, there is no logical reason why JREF would be as against this AS YOU ARE. The only logical reason why one would be agaist it is because one wants to BE ABLE TO SUE WHEN SO DESIRED.:D

Bingo. I hear this all the time in contract negotiations. I was working a deal only today where this sort of to-and-fro was happening. The other party wants a "we can sue you but you can't sue us" clause. When you query it they say "oh, but we would never sue you, we're great and trusty and noble and responsible people, don't worry about it" and then you say, "ok then, let's have a 'neither party can sue the other' clause, since you're never going to sue anyway". Followed by crickets chirping before finally "well, we're the party with the greater bargaining position, take it or leave it".

Cyphermage, you raise a valid point. However (leaving aside the various empty, childish and in cases dumbass excuses made in this thread) the pragmatic position is this: even one or two wealthy but loony applicants with time and obsession on their side could make JREF's life hell by filing obnoxious lawsuits. Obnoxious loony applicants are sadly not exactly rare. Consequently, the Challenge rules try to avoid this problem. This is not perfectly fair and it is not equitable and it might even conceivably put off some applicants (although I suspect more as an excuse than a reality) though there is no evidence of that of which I am aware. The Challenge is pretty damn good, I reckon. It's not perfect, sadly. It's hard to set up a perfectly fair challenge that treats everybody like they are honest and noble when many people are not. A shame, but that's life.

And welcome as an inhabitant of these boards who is a skeptic but who is prepared to recognise both the good and the bad about the Challenge and doesn't revere and worship it as an untouchable idol. There aren't many of us.

princhester
26th May 2006, 06:22 AM
I disagree. I think if the applicant trashes the property of the JREF, be it by accident or on purpose, they should be liable for its replacement. Why do you think the JREF should be liable for replacing something the applicant destroys?

You would agree of course that if a state of the art Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM got fried when lighning damaged the JREF's spectrum analyzer that wasn't properly grounded, JREF should be liable for it's replacement? You would not of course think that the Applicant should be liable for replacing something the JREF destroys?

Pragmatically, the JREF needs to exclude liability and I support that. But pretending this is principled and not pragmatic is not going to get you anywhere.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 06:31 AM
You would agree of course that if a state of the art Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM got fried when lighning damaged the JREF's spectrum analyzer that wasn't properly grounded, JREF should be liable for it's replacement? You would not of course think that the Applicant should be liable for replacing something the JREF destroys?


All right. All the applicant has to do in this circumstance is prove that their Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM worked in the first place. They will then be given enough money to buy as many of them as they want.

petre
26th May 2006, 06:35 AM
If the applicant is concerned about safety precautions such as grounding, etc, damaging anything, this could be specified in the protocol. If the applicant, who is vastly more familiar with what is likely to occur than JREF, does not forsee potential harm and suggest proper precautions then why would one expect more from JREF?

roger
26th May 2006, 06:43 AM
Fall over and break a leg during a test as a consequence of negligence on the part of Randi: too bad, you gave your rights away. Fact. Give me a quick clue why, in principle, this might be regarded as fair. You can't waive things like negligence. For example, suppose you turned up a memo written by Randi stating "make sure the bastard gets pushed over and breaks his leg." You'd better believe you have a basis for a law suit. Same thing if you can show negligence absent that memo.

My God, you guys are acting like this is some kind of unique, unfair contract. It's standard, boilerplate stuff, like you sign everyday in every aspect of your life.

prewitt81
26th May 2006, 06:45 AM
Ahhh, the standard behaviour of JREF groupies: begin circling the wagons.

Around here, you cannot challenge the Challenge or those associated with it without people questioning your motives. I appreciate that many doofuses attracted to this circus are ill motivated, but extreme defensiveness when someone is making reasonable points is poor form.
Actually, several months ago I suggested that the challenge rules be amended to add that affidavits may be required. After a scolding by KRAMER in PMs about how this was not necessary, it showed up in the rules anyways. So "circling the wagons" is not quite correct. I am for changes that are necessary. I am against changes that are not.

Edited to add missing words.

princhester
26th May 2006, 07:06 AM
All right. All the applicant has to do in this circumstance is prove that their Pyramid-power-aura-wave-generatorTM worked in the first place. They will then be given enough money to buy as many of them as they want.

Is this a non-sequitur or a red herring? I always get confused.

If the applicant is concerned about safety precautions such as grounding, etc, damaging anything, this could be specified in the protocol. If the applicant, who is vastly more familiar with what is likely to occur than JREF, does not forsee potential harm and suggest proper precautions then why would one expect more from JREF?

Why indeed and who is suggesting such a thing anyway? What you need is a a basic grounding in the law of negligence and a grip on the essence of the debate.

You can't waive things like negligence. For example, suppose you turned up a memo written by Randi stating "make sure the bastard gets pushed over and breaks his leg." You'd better believe you have a basis for a law suit. Same thing if you can show negligence absent that memo.

Firstly, I doubt you are correct. You may be. I'm not familiar with the precise details of Floridan law (are you?). I suspect it is difficult to exclude negligence. I am skeptical that it is impossible.

However, even assuming you are right or partly right, you have fallen into the same trap I was just pointing out. If the JREF's waiver is ineffective, then why does JREF want it? And if it's not how is it fair when it is not mutual. You are doing the classic attempt at having it both ways. "JREF must have this clause". "It's unfair". "Don't worry about it, it's not effective". "Then why do you want it?"

My God, you guys are acting like this is some kind of unique, unfair contract. It's standard, boilerplate stuff, like you sign everyday in every aspect of your life.

Actually, no one's said it's unique (that's a straw man) and it is unfair. It's averagely, normally, everyday unfair.

Actually, several months ago I suggested that the challenge rules be amended to add that affidavits may be required. After a scolding by KRAMER in PMs about how this was not necessary, it showed up in the rules anyways. So "circling the wagons" is not quite correct. I am for changes that are necessary. I am against changes that are not.

Irrelevant. My point was that rather than debate Cyphermage civilly, and acknowledge the point he makes (while, as I did, countering it) you questioned his motives. Poor form.

prewitt81
26th May 2006, 07:15 AM
Irrelevant. My point was that rather than debate Cyphermage civilly, and acknowledge the point he makes (while, as I did, countering it) you questioned his motives. Poor form.

I admit it may not have been entirely fair, but given that many had tried to answer his question, and he continued to persist in his misrepresentations - when does it become fair to ask?

As for my form, I suppose it's lucky I put no weight on your evaluation, or I might be more upset than I am over it.

roger
26th May 2006, 07:16 AM
Firstly, I doubt you are correct. You may be. I'm not familiar with the precise details of Floridan law (are you?). I suspect it is difficult to exclude negligence. I am skeptical that it is impossible.

However, even assuming you are right or partly right, you have fallen into the same trap I was just pointing out. If the JREF's waiver is ineffective, then why does JREF want it? And if it's not how is it fair when it is not mutual. You are doing the classic attempt at having it both ways. "JREF must have this clause". "It's unfair". "Don't worry about it, it's not effective". "Then why do you want it?"Okay, now we are at the crux of it! Good!!!

Why does JREF want it? JREF is not trying to protect itself from legitimate lawsuits, it is trying to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits. Randi has been sued at least a dozen times. No one has won, but he has spent considerable assets, his own dollars (all of his McCarther genius grant, for example) to protect himself against these lawsuits.

Sure, we can conjecture some scenerio where an applicant has a legitimate grievance against JREF, and where Randi is unethical and refuses to do the right thing, and the contract gives the applicant no way to redress the wrong. I can also conjecture a scenerio where Randi gets on a plane, comes to me, and shoots me in the head for posting this. Neither are likely, though the latter is obviously absurd and the former is just on the fringes of possible.

Anyway, I'm done with this exchange. I'm posting this via microsoft XP, where I waived my right to sue microsoft, and they retained theirs to sue me, from my apartment, where, guess what, I waived.... well, you get the idea.

When Randi starts acting unethically, and frivolously issuing lawsuits, then I will will have sympathy. Until then, no.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 07:39 AM
If the JREF's waiver is ineffective, then why does JREF want it?

to avoid being buried under a landslide of nuisance lawsuits from everyone who has taken a preliminary test and is angry that they didn't pass.

Even if the lawsuits were entirely frivolous, it takes time, effort, and money to get them dismissed. The waiver discourages people from filing frivolous lawsuits without acting as a barrier to those who might have a genuine grievance.

Arkan_Wolfshade
26th May 2006, 07:43 AM
to avoid being buried under a landslide of nuisance lawsuits from everyone who has taken a preliminary test and is angry that they didn't pass.

Even if the lawsuits were entirely frivolous, it takes time, effort, and money to get them dismissed. The waiver discourages people from filing frivolous lawsuits without acting as a barrier to those who might have a genuine grievance.

Perhaps someone with solid legal knowledge can comment on this; how well do such waivers hold up in court when there is solid evidence of things such as negligence, liability, culpability, etc? Most of my reading and experience in this area is limited to EULAs for software so I am curious as to how this works in other areas.

Going back to the aforementioned example of renting a boat for the day and signing a waiver; the intent of the waiver is so if you crash the boat and break an arm you can't sue the people from whom you rented the boat, but if the boat randomly explodes through no fault of your own, they are not still covered under the waiver, are they?

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 07:47 AM
I'm fairly sure if they rented you a boat they knew to be leaky, and you were hurt as a result, there would be nothing preventing you from suing

roger
26th May 2006, 07:54 AM
By the way, here's a perfect example of why Randi has this clause in place:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1650435&highlight=lawyer#post1650435

Some deluded individual trying to sue Randi because he "won" the challenge (despite not being accepted for testing).

Just one example among many. Look at the challenge log and see how many people theaten or pursue legal action against JREF or Randi.

LordoftheLeftHand
26th May 2006, 08:53 AM
Fine, you don't like the challenge. Go create your own 501-c-3 and make your own challenge that other people will disagree with.

LLH

Rasmus
26th May 2006, 09:07 AM
Perhaps someone with solid legal knowledge can comment on this; how well do such waivers hold up in court when there is solid evidence of things such as negligence, liability, culpability, etc? Most of my reading and experience in this area is limited to EULAs for software so I am curious as to how this works in other areas.

Going back to the aforementioned example of renting a boat for the day and signing a waiver; the intent of the waiver is so if you crash the boat and break an arm you can't sue the people from whom you rented the boat, but if the boat randomly explodes through no fault of your own, they are not still covered under the waiver, are they?

I'm fairly sure if they rented you a boat they knew to be leaky, and you were hurt as a result, there would be nothing preventing you from suing

IANL, butt hat is what it is like in Germany:

You can't sue the renting people as long as the boat does boaty things (like strand you in solitude, capsize, etc.)

If the boat is leaky it's probably negligence (or wilfull, culpable or gross negligence). At least in the latter cases you can sue.

Or rather: You can always sue, but usually anything other than culpable negligence will be covered by the waiver and you will lose. If the boat does very un-boaty things (like exploding) then the court has to stablish if the boat rental people can be blamed.

Rasmus,
suddenly very glad that he only mediates contracts between tourists and boat rental people.

Bob Klase
26th May 2006, 09:10 AM
Fall over and break a leg during a test as a consequence of negligence on the part of Randi: too bad, you gave your rights away. Fact. Give me a quick clue why, in principle, this might be regarded as fair.

I'm not convinced that you'd be giving up your right to sue if there are negligence. Contract law is complicated. If you're not a contact lawyer then I'll bet you don't know either.

Bingo. I hear this all the time in contract negotiations. I was working a deal only today where this sort of to-and-fro was happening. The other party wants a "we can sue you but you can't sue us" clause. When you query it they say "oh, but we would never sue you, we're great and trusty and noble and responsible people, don't worry about it" and then you say, "ok then, let's have a 'neither party can sue the other' clause, since you're never going to sue anyway". Followed by crickets chirping before finally "well, we're the party with the greater bargaining position, take it or leave it".

So what's the problem? You can take it or leave it. They're not forcing you to sign the contract. If you're not happy and they won't negotiate it, then leave it.

Fengirl
26th May 2006, 09:34 AM
I'm fairly sure if they rented you a boat they knew to be leaky, and you were hurt as a result, there would be nothing preventing you from suing

I can't comment on the law applicable in Florida, and can only comment on English law in my capacity as a post-grad student of it, however...

In the UK, in relation to certain types of contracts (e.g. consumer contracts) your statement would be correct. Here, it is not possible to exclude liability for personal injury or death due to negligence. That is because the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 forbids it, and that statute will trump the law of contract. So, even if Leaky Boat Co Ltd get you to sign a waiver limiting or excluding their liability for the injuries you receive when they send you off in a death-trap boat, it is worthless. It will be utterly void. If your injury is due to their negligence, they won’t be able to weasel out of it.

In this case, of course, we are not dealing with a consumer contract, and we are not dealing with UK law, but where Rule 7 says that the applicant surrender legal rights “as far as may be done by established statutes”, that makes it rather obvious that there is legislation over there which makes it impossible to exclude or limit liability for certain things. I would suspect that personal injury and death from negligence would be one of those things. I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a knowledge of the applicable law in Florida.

Hellbound
26th May 2006, 10:00 AM
Fengirl:

IANAL, but my understanding is that anything that is covered by criminal law: for example, fraud, libel, slander, assault, criminal negligence, murder, rape, battery, etc, cannot be excluded in a contract. The contract can only exclude civil cases. That's a basic protection to start with.

This also extends farther into some civil cases, but I'm not sure how far.

delphi_ote
26th May 2006, 10:31 AM
Fine, you don't like the challenge. Go create your own 501-c-3 and make your own challenge that other people will disagree with.

LLH
But that would take work. Complaining about every detail of Randi's test is so much easier.

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 10:41 AM
...
Fall over and break a leg during a test as a consequence of negligence on the part of Randi: too bad, you gave your rights away. Fact. Give me a quick clue why, in principle, this might be regarded as fair.
...


As opposed to my example of a fact
"Apply, get accepted to & win the JREF Challenge by demonstrating your claim successfully = YOU WIN!.
Fact."
your example seems very unlikely to happen. If you were to explain the circumstances of your scenario further, probably even less likely.

Also, "consequence of negligence on the part of Randi" seems unlikely to happen because the protocol negotiations are done by both the Applicant and Mr. Randi (mostly through Mr. Wagg).



However, princhester, your point of view ("JREF groupies") got me thinking.

Based upon what I have learned so far about him, I have no reasonable doubt in the integrity, decency and honesty of Mr. Randi. (Which leads me to assume he would pay up without a lawsuit if someone succeeded in the Challenge.)

He seems very straightforward - to a point where it cuts sharply through the "social shell" of some people. Axe through cotton candy.

His lectures, his comparisons and his mockery of nonsense never hurt me, but dazzled, amused and intrigued me. I found this helpful and I feel gratitude towards him.

I suddenly understand that it might take a lot - solid self-esteem, perspective on life, firm grip on reality, ability to withstand criticism, etc. - to withstand Mr. Randi's...well...randiness.

I'll try to walk some more miles in these shoes of yours, Cyphermage. Perhaps you would like to walk in Mr. Randi's for some time?

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 11:20 AM
Based upon what I have learned so far about him, I have no reasonable doubt in the integrity, decency and honesty of Mr. Randi. (Which leads me to assume he would pay up without a lawsuit if someone succeeded in the Challenge.)

He seems very straightforward - to a point where it cuts sharply through the "social shell" of some people. Axe through cotton candy.

His lectures, his comparisons and his mockery of nonsense never hurt me, but dazzled, amused and intrigued me. I found this helpful and I feel gratitude towards him.

I suddenly understand that it might take a lot - solid self-esteem, perspective on life, firm grip on reality, ability to withstand criticism, etc. - to withstand Mr. Randi's...well...randiness.

I'll try to walk some more miles in these shoes of yours, Cyphermage. Perhaps you would like to walk in Mr. Randi's for some time?

I've always been a big fan of Randi. I've enjoyed his books, and his public debunking of people like Peter Popoff.

I think he occasionally goes a bit far in his mockery, and sometimes relates anecdotes that he means metaphorically, without identifying them as non-factual at the time he tells them.

These are aspects of his personality, and not defects in the "self-esteem" and "ability to withstand criticism" of those reporting them.

I think it's unfortunate he placed himself in a position where he had to settle with Uri Gelller. There are plenty of bad things to say about Geller without embellishing to the point where something becomes undefendable in court. That was dumb, and a huge black mark that organized skepticism will have to eat crow over for the forseeable future.

Randi is part genius, part loose cannon. I'm a big fan of the former, and would like to see the latter more carefully managed in the future.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 11:33 AM
I think it's unfortunate he placed himself in a position where he had to settle with Uri Gelller. There are plenty of bad things to say about Geller without embellishing to the point where something becomes undefendable in court. That was dumb, and a huge black mark that organized skepticism will have to eat crow over for the forseeable future.


Remind me, what did he say about Geller? Please only reply with what he said, not what media in another language erroneously reported that he said.

Hastur
26th May 2006, 12:45 PM
Perhaps someone with solid legal knowledge can comment on this; how well do such waivers hold up in court when there is solid evidence of things such as negligence, liability, culpability, etc? Most of my reading and experience in this area is limited to EULAs for software so I am curious as to how this works in other areas.

Going back to the aforementioned example of renting a boat for the day and signing a waiver; the intent of the waiver is so if you crash the boat and break an arm you can't sue the people from whom you rented the boat, but if the boat randomly explodes through no fault of your own, they are not still covered under the waiver, are they?
That would be correct, Arkan. Courts will look at the text of the waiver and what sort of injury was suffered by the plaintiff. In your hypothetical, the waiver would not apply as the boat exploding was most likely not expressly covered by the waiver. Even if it did, the court would probably find that the boat was so faulty as to be unfit for normal use and would have breached an implied warranty of marchantability (essentially, the boat rental company holds out the boat is fit for normal use by allowing it to be rented).
Now as far as Pinocchio, Cyphermage, and princhester are concerned, they're basing their arguments on the style over substance fallacy for the most part. To them it's more about maintaining some veneer of politeness, even at the expense of being effective.

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 12:58 PM
...
I think he occasionally goes a bit far in his mockery, and sometimes relates anecdotes that he means metaphorically, without identifying them as non-factual at the time he tells them.


I seem to not get your point. Can you please provide an example of said anecdotes and Mr. Randi's metaphorical use; also, where and to whom he told them?


These are aspects of his personality, and not defects in the "self-esteem" and "ability to withstand criticism" of those reporting them.
...


Of course you say that. (Non-mocking smile by me.)
He hit you and it seems from your above statement, you did not like it. He could not have hit you if there was not something inside you to hit.
If there had not been something inside you to hit you would not have been hit. (Granted, this sounds a bit dull. But plausible.)

dogjones
26th May 2006, 01:02 PM
"Randiness" is perhaps not the best word considering its primary meaning (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=randy).

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 01:08 PM
Now as far as Pinocchio, Cyphermage, and princhester are concerned, they're basing their arguments on the style over substance fallacy for the most part. To them it's more about maintaining some veneer of politeness, even at the expense of being effective.

Would you care to give some examples of professionalism impeding debunking?

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 01:18 PM
Would you care to give some examples of professionalism impeding debunking?

would you care to give some examples of what Randi said about Geller that was embellished to the point where it was undefendable in court?

Beady
26th May 2006, 01:34 PM
Excuse me, but this seems to be a fairly popular thread; every time I click on "New Posts," this thread is there, staring me in the face. Every time this happens, I want to say something, and the urge grows every time until I'm now about ready to burst. Here it is (ahem):



It's RECIPROCITY, GODDAMIT! There's no such word as "reciprocality."




Thank you. I feel better, now.

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 01:44 PM
would you care to give some examples of what Randi said about Geller that was embellished to the point where it was undefendable in court?

A Japanese newspaper reported Randi as saying a specific scientist commited suicide by shooting himself in the head when he found out how he had been duped by one of Geller's tricks. Randi blamed it on poor English to Japanese translation of the expression "shooting oneself in the foot." However, he later related the same anecdote in English to a Toronto newspaper, which kind of screwed his alibi. He then said the story was "metaphorical", and wasn't meant to be taken factually. The specific scientist named died of natural causes.

Then there was the time he said Uri Geller's magic performances were of the same quality as those printed on the back of cereal boxes, a slanderous claim which got both himself and the CSICOP sued over, and which was really an attack on Geller's career largely orthogonal to the issue of whether anything supernatural or paranormal was involved in it.

Again, instances in which a small amount of thinking prior to speaking would have worked wonders, and which created unecessary liability for Randi and others with little debunking benefit.

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 01:48 PM
It's RECIPROCITY, GODDAMIT! There's no such word as "reciprocality."
Thank you. I feel better, now.

I've been debating mentioning that for the last two days, but decided against it.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 02:11 PM
A Japanese newspaper reported Randi as saying a specific scientist commited suicide by shooting himself in the head when he found out how he had been duped by one of Geller's tricks. Randi blamed it on poor English to Japanese translation of the expression "shooting oneself in the foot." However, he later related the same anecdote in English to a Toronto newspaper, which kind of screwed his alibi. He then said the story was "metaphorical", and wasn't meant to be taken factually. The specific scientist named died of natural causes.

Then there was the time he said Uri Geller's magic performances were of the same quality as those printed on the back of cereal boxes, a slanderous claim which got both himself and the CSICOP sued over, and which was really an attack on Geller's career largely orthogonal to the issue of whether anything supernatural or paranormal was involved in it.

Again, instances in which a small amount of thinking prior to speaking would have worked wonders, and which created unecessary liability for Randi and others with little debunking benefit.


So in other words, your claims are those already debunked in the Skeptical Eye -- Vol. 8, No. 3, 1995. It's already been brought up in this thread.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/randi/legal.htm

Dumb All Over
26th May 2006, 02:13 PM
The word "reciprocality" shows up in dictionary.com.

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 02:15 PM
So in other words, your claims are those already debunked in the Skeptical Eye -- Vol. 8, No. 3, 1995. It's already been brought up in this thread.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/randi/legal.htm

I don't see any of the FACTS I just mentioned being debunked in the Skeptical Eye article. I do see a little spin and poo-poo-ing.

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 02:25 PM
speaking of FACTS, how is it a FACT that this was "undefendable in court" when Geller had to pay CSICOP's costs in this case?

Lamuella
26th May 2006, 02:27 PM
incidentally, which "toronto newspaper" was this claim repeated in? I'd like to see this for myself.

Cyphermage
26th May 2006, 02:28 PM
speaking of FACTS, how is it a FACT that this was "undefendable in court" when Geller had to pay CSICOP's costs in this case?

CSICOP was an innocent party dragged into the suit, and was reimbursed for its considerable legal expenses.

LordoftheLeftHand
26th May 2006, 02:30 PM
Cyphermage. You seem to think Randi is a hot head and that the challenge is insulting. That is fine, the JREF isn't for everyone. Got any other complaints? Maybe you should start a thread in general section called "Cyphermage's Complaints".

LLH

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 02:42 PM
The word "reciprocality" shows up in dictionary.com.

It also shows up at dict.leo.org Reciprocity seems to have a slightly different meaning in german.



Pinocchio, did you mean to say "reciprocality" or "reciprocity"?

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 02:44 PM
A Japanese newspaper reported Randi as saying a specific scientist commited suicide by shooting himself in the head when he found out how he had been duped by one of Geller's tricks. Randi blamed it on poor English to Japanese translation of the expression "shooting oneself in the foot." However, he later related the same anecdote in English to a Toronto newspaper, which kind of screwed his alibi. He then said the story was "metaphorical", and wasn't meant to be taken factually. The specific scientist named died of natural causes.

Then there was the time he said Uri Geller's magic performances were of the same quality as those printed on the back of cereal boxes, a slanderous claim which got both himself and the CSICOP sued over, and which was really an attack on Geller's career largely orthogonal to the issue of whether anything supernatural or paranormal was involved in it.

Again, instances in which a small amount of thinking prior to speaking would have worked wonders, and which created unecessary liability for Randi and others with little debunking benefit.

Cyphermage, can you provide links, please? Thanks in advance.

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 02:59 PM
"Randiness" is perhaps not the best word considering its primary meaning (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=randy).

Agreed.
I counted on the ability of the Forum Members to get it in its intended context.

I used it because it has some of the provoking pizazz of Mr. Randi himself.

On the other hand, "Jamesicity" or "Jamesicality" sound awful, don't they? ;)



(Edited: Erased error on my part.)

Beady
26th May 2006, 05:18 PM
The word "reciprocality" shows up in dictionary.com.

If you see it on the internet, it must be true.

It's *not* in Webster's 9th Collegiate.

ETA: Also, it's "reciprocity" in Webster's Dictionary of Law. Since we're talking in a legal context, here...

GzuzKryzt
26th May 2006, 06:24 PM
Cyphermage, when you find the time, please check out post #93 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663126#post1663126 again - you seem to have forgotten about it. Surely just an oversight.

princhester
26th May 2006, 11:00 PM
Sure, we can conjecture some scenerio where an applicant has a legitimate grievance against JREF, and where Randi is unethical and refuses to do the right thing, and the contract gives the applicant no way to redress the wrong.

Well, I've been a litigator for 16 years. I've defended more injury and property loss suits than I care to remember. The number of times that a defendant who had an exclusion clause available to them chose not use it to their advantage because they wanted to do the right thing is. Umm. Zero.

Another thing you might want to consider is this: a large percentage (over 50%, I'd reckon) of people consider that lawsuits against them are frivolous and without merit. Even those ones that their lawyers advise them have merit and should be settled. And almost no one ever considers that they are bringing a suit that is frivolous and without merit. Interesting disconnect, no? What does it tell you?

By the way, here's a perfect example of why Randi has this clause in place:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1650435&highlight=lawyer#post1650435

Some deluded individual trying to sue Randi because he "won" the challenge (despite not being accepted for testing).

Just one example among many. Look at the challenge log and see how many people theaten or pursue legal action against JREF or Randi.

It's quite funny that you should give this example. You need to think about it a bit more. You might start with the third sentence of clause 7.

Rather than respond to the the "is negligence excluded" posts, let me just say this: it's all irrelevant. Clause 7 is in the agreement for a reason, namely that JREF's lawyer considers it at least somewhat effective protection against lawsuits. The same clause is not offered to applicants. This is not fair.

I accept this is appropriate. I've already said that. It is appropriate for various pragmatic reasons.

But pretending the clause is fair is just kidding yourself.

I admit it may not have been entirely fair, but given that many had tried to answer his question, and he continued to persist in his misrepresentations - when does it become fair to ask?

What misrepresentations? I can't speak for Cybermage, but what annoyed me on reading the thread was the way no one was prepared to say "Yes, it's a bit unfair, but pragmatism dictates etc". Instead, what he got was a flat denial that there was anything unfair at all. Classic defensiveness. That lead Cybermage to keep restating his position.

Now as far as Pinocchio, Cyphermage, and princhester are concerned, they're basing their arguments on the style over substance fallacy for the most part. To them it's more about maintaining some veneer of politeness, even at the expense of being effective.

My posts in this thread commit no such fallacy. If you think exclusion clauses are about politeness, you should have been at the settlement conference I was at a couple of weeks ago where the undoubtedly negligent defendants (my client arguably being one of them) walked away from a half million dollar claim having to pay only a nominal settlement because of exclusion clauses. You could have said to the claimant "don't worry about exclusion clauses, they're only politeness!"

[edited to add in a few more things I'd thought of]

Darat
27th May 2006, 02:06 AM
If you see it on the internet, it must be true.

It's *not* in Webster's 9th Collegiate.

ETA: Also, it's "reciprocity" in Webster's Dictionary of Law. Since we're talking in a legal context, here...

Just to stir it! :)

OED Second Edition 1989


= RECIPROCITY.

1736 BAILEY (folio) App. to Pref., Reciprocality, reciprocalness. 1748 RICHARDSON Clarissa (1811) III. xxxi. 188 An acknowledged reciprocality in love sanctifies every little freedom. 1786 Hist. Eur. in Ann. Reg. 172/1 Similar concessions were made by France,..reciprocality..being the ground-work of all these arrangements. 1827 SCOTT Napoleon xxxvi. Wks. 1870 XII. 275 The reciprocalities of love and duty. 1873 tr. Swedenborg's True Chr. Rel. 591 There cannot possibly be conjunction without reciprocality.

CFLarsen
27th May 2006, 03:18 AM
Reciprocity. How many people lives there?

Pup
27th May 2006, 04:30 AM
Surely this thread isn't to the point of posting recipros yet.

NiallM
27th May 2006, 05:57 AM
I have another concern about this issue.

Quite simply, if several applicants get the same advice from their lawyer, then it calls into question the entire Challenge.

We've seen other challenges in the past which cannot be won - simply by the way that the challenge itselfis constructed. Kent Hovind's bogus offer to pay money to anyone who can prove Evolution is a classic example. He includes abiogenesis and the origins of the Universe in his definition of evolution, and he basically demands a laboratory recreation of these events.

Result: his challenge is impossible to meet, and is clearly a hoax. Unfortunately, he parades the challenge - and the failure of anyone to fulfill it - as proof that evolution is true.

Now, if several applicants are told by their lawyers that their advice is not to accept the challenge's waiver, this could lead to a devaluing of the Challenge itself.

There will be people who will say "I would do the Challenge tomorrow, but they have an obnoxious clause in there that my lawyer suggests I cannot agree with". Once a few people make this claim, there is an issue.

The Challenge could swiftly become perceived as just another Hovind challenge - one that protects itself by including a clause that prevents applicants from signing it.

And, in all of this, the woo-woos will be able to point to a good source - legal advice from legal professionals.

Please understand that I am not in the legal profession. I'm not speaking about the correctness or otherwise of the offending clause. I'm full sure that JREF have adequate experiences and some top legal minds advising them, and I am quite certain that there are very very solid reasons for having the clause.

I'm merely pointing out how this could be used by the unscrupulous.

The presence of this thread and the MP thread may well inspire a few of them to go through the motions of applying, yet witholding or amending their application "on legal advice". Then you'll have lots of blogs talking about the Challenge being loaded and incapable of being won because of the conditions.

I would be lyiing if I said that I would know how to handle this scenario if I were the JREF.

IN MP's case, I'm not sure that his advice is based on all the information that his advisor should have. My hope is that he revisits the advice and that he gets the go-ahead from his advisor. If not, the flood-gates could open.

Beady
27th May 2006, 06:14 AM
Just to stir it! :)

OED Second Edition 1989

Yeah. The latest cited use was in 1873. Zounds, varlet! Thou dost be an archaic poltroon.

Beady
27th May 2006, 06:20 AM
Quite simply, if several applicants get the same advice from their lawyer, then it calls into question the entire Challenge.

Oh, it does not! It might indicate a weak point, but weak points can be shored-up and/or defended. Weak points are also relative; the weakest point in anything may still be stronger than whatever assails it.

Rasmus
27th May 2006, 06:21 AM
I have another concern about this issue.

Quite simply, if several applicants get the same advice from their lawyer, then it calls into question the entire Challenge.

No. Last time I checked, lawyers weren't holding copyrights on the Truth (tm). So a bunch of lawyers that have an opinion on something is pretty meaningless in itself.

Result: his challenge is impossible to meet, and is clearly a hoax. Unfortunately, he parades the challenge - and the failure of anyone to fulfill it - as proof that evolution is true.

I don't see a parallel here.

Now, if several applicants are told by their lawyers that their advice is not to accept the challenge's waiver, this could lead to a devaluing of the Challenge itself.

Only in the eyes of those that lack the ability to understand the challenge and who have never done as much as rented a video for a night.

There will be people who will say "I would do the Challenge tomorrow, but they have an obnoxious clause in there that my lawyer suggests I cannot agree with". Once a few people make this claim, there is an issue.


Yes. The issue is that there's too many dumb people around and that it is still illegal to shoot them.

The Challenge could swiftly become perceived as just another Hovind challenge - one that protects itself by including a clause that prevents applicants from signing it.


Again, it should be obvious to most that the clause in question is not preventing anyone from renting out boats, houses, videos; it is not stopping people from going to trips on horseback or canoeing. It is unlikely that it should be fit to stop people from taking the challenge.

And, in all of this, the woo-woos will be able to point to a good source - legal advice from legal professionals.

Obviously, not a good source, since it fails to take into account the way in which contracts are commonly being written.

The presence of this thread and the MP thread may well inspire a few of them to go through the motions of applying, yet witholding or amending their application "on legal advice". Then you'll have lots of blogs talking about the Challenge being loaded and incapable of being won because of the conditions.

I would be lyiing if I said that I would know how to handle this scenario if I were the JREF.


I hope they do what they are there for: Refuse to dumb down everything for the gullible, credulous and stupid.

IN MP's case, I'm not sure that his advice is based on all the information that his advisor should have. My hope is that he revisits the advice and that he gets the go-ahead from his advisor. If not, the flood-gates could open.

So what? A few more nuts that dislike a perfectly reasonable aspect about the challenge.

Rasmus.

NiallM
27th May 2006, 06:35 AM
Sheesh. What's with the tone of your reply? I'm raising what I believe to be valid points. Your attitude is a bit high-handed.

I based my post on an assumption as implied in my comment about MP. That assumption is that several prospective applicants are given the same advice by experienced lawyers. If this is the case, then they may well raise issues about the credibility of JREF. That will reduce, if not eliminate, the option in dealing with frauds of issuing the age-old challenge: "Why don't you take the JREF Challenge". They will be able to say with authority and certainty: "Because my lawyer advised me not to.".

You refer to the shooting of idiots. This is waaay over the top. So far as I am aware, one of the rationales behind the Challenge is to protect the more gullible and less-educated members of society by exposing the frauds who seek to rip them off. One of the methods it uses is to issue the challenge to them. The existence of a valid well-constructed challenge leaves them looking foolish and cuts into their credibility.

My point remains unanswered: the woo-woos will now have a response to any questions about the Challenge. You and I may know that their response is hogwash, but we will now find ourselves taking on the person as well as challenging the quality of the legal advice they have received.

If they have that legal advice in their pocket they are free to dismiss the Challenge for all time, and their victims will accept those magic words "legal advice" as adequate reason for their non-response to the JREF Challenge.

I repeat: if lawyers are likely to advise applicants against signing the application as is, then there is an issue. It may well be worth JREF's while to do some tests.

I would suggest that a few members pose as applicants and seek legal advice on the conditions. If the advice from multiple lawyers is overwhelmingly against signing, then there is a real issue. If the advice is overwhelmingly the other way, then JREF can point to a body of independent advice which sees nothing wrong with the contract. That would go some way to addressing the issue,

NiallM
27th May 2006, 06:45 AM
Oh, it does not! It might indicate a weak point, but weak points can be shored-up and/or defended. Weak points are also relative; the weakest point in anything may still be stronger than whatever assails it.
As a colleague once said to me: "It only takes a small onion to make an elephant fart".

You and I know that the scamsters out there will pry the Challenge wide open if they see a crack in it. And they don't have to do it in front of experts. They merely maintain their position in front of their own audience - who, by definition, aren't the most discriminating.

They don't need to raise it with JREF, with anyone in these forums, with experts, or with anyone who has a differntly-informed view. Merely to do it in front of their own people will act to maintain their credibility.

Waht's worse is that they don't really need to work hard in order to say "I've been advised by my lawyer not to sit the JREF Challenge". They don't have to hand-pick a lawyer.

They merely go to their lawyer, show the Challenge Rules, indicate a willingness to take the Challenge, and then casually say: "But there is one issue that I fear: this clause here. I think that it ties my hands. Do you think that I should sign the Challenge while it includes this clause?".

His lawyer is now in a bind. If he says "Yes, go ahead and sign", he can imagine himself being sued if the applicant proceeds, fails with the Challenge and is looking for someone to take it out on.

His only option will be to say: "Nope. Strike out that clause and see if they will accept the amendment".

Rasmus
27th May 2006, 06:58 AM
Sheesh. What's with the tone of your reply? I'm raising what I believe to be valid points. Your attitude is a bit high-handed.

I based my post on an assumption as implied in my comment about MP. That assumption is that several prospective applicants are given the same advice by experienced lawyers.

Yes. Or so they claim. The claim comes from the same type of people that also claims that they can read other people's minds or dowse for chocolate. Frankly, I am not inclined to just take their word.

If this is the case, then they may well raise issues about the credibility of JREF. That will reduce, if not eliminate, the option in dealing with frauds of issuing the age-old challenge: "Why don't you take the JREF Challenge".

For that to be so, the advise of these allegedly experienced lawyers would have to be demonstrably sound and valid.

They will be able to say with authority and certainty: "Because my lawyer advised me not to.".

The words of the lawyer of a fraud are not going to impress me. Especially as long as these lawyers have nothing of substance to ad - and so far that hasn't been the case.

You refer to the shooting of idiots. This is waaay over the top. So far as I am aware, one of the rationales behind the Challenge is to protect the more gullible and less-educated members of society by exposing the frauds who seek to rip them off. One of the methods it uses is to issue the challenge to them. The existence of a valid well-constructed challenge leaves them looking foolish and cuts into their credibility.

Yes. And now there are a few incompetent lawyers giving bogus advice to the fraudsters and the more gullible. That just isn't a reason to change course.

My point remains unanswered: the woo-woos will now have a response to any questions about the Challenge. You and I may know that their response is hogwash, but we will now find ourselves taking on the person as well as challenging the quality of the legal advice they have received.

Yes, maybe so. But I see nothing that should be dome about that, other than having a few canned responses ready.

If they have that legal advice in their pocket they are free to dismiss the Challenge for all time, and their victims will accept those magic words "legal advice" as adequate reason for their non-response to the JREF Challenge.

Yes, maybe.

I repeat: if lawyers are likely to advise applicants against signing the application as is, then there is an issue. It may well be worth JREF's while to do some tests.

Every sane person would always advise anyone to not take the challenge. A bad lawyer might do so because of the terms of the contract. That doesn't mean there is a problem with the contract.

I would suggest that a few members pose as applicants and seek legal advice on the conditions. If the advice from multiple lawyers is overwhelmingly against signing, then there is a real issue.


No. Not even then: It might not be "wise" to sign certain contracts - "American Idol" comes to mind, assuming they're having the same kinds of contract the German version of the show has. Anyone who stands even a slim chance of becoming famous on their own should not sign such a contract.

If the advice is overwhelmingly the other way, then JREF can point to a body of independent advice which sees nothing wrong with the contract. That would go some way to addressing the issue,

So, we have a contract that is presumingly designed by competent lawyers. Their word might stand against that of other lawyers. So your suggestion is to get even more lawyers involved? I kinda doubt that that will make thngs clearer.

Rasmus.

Beady
27th May 2006, 07:01 AM
You and I know that the scamsters out there will pry the Challenge wide open if they see a crack in it. And they don't have to do it in front of experts. They merely maintain their position in front of their own audience - who, by definition, aren't the most discriminating.

Shrug. That's been standard procedure for years. Why is it now a problem?

NiallM
27th May 2006, 07:07 AM
It's all down to the quality of the advice, then. We can agree on that.

The thing is this: there's a fundamental and huge difference between someone who applies for "Pop Idol" and a fradulent psychic.

The "Pop Idol" applicant wants nothing more than to see how they fare . they dream of it. They think of little else. They would probably sell their parents to get on the programme. They don't give a **** about the contract details.

The "psychic", however, may have a completely different agenda: they may not want to take the test at all, but just want an excuse - one that they can post on their website etc etc.

Their excuses will withstand the scrutiny of an already deluded audience, and will add to their credibility with that audience.

I may be reading too many possibilities into this (indeed, I hope that I am being alarmist about this). I think, however, that it's a subject that should be addressed behind the scenes.

As you say, incorporating additional lawyers may only make things worse.

NiallM
27th May 2006, 07:09 AM
Shrug. That's been standard procedure for years. Why is it now a problem?
Because they will have a "doctor's note" from their lawyer explaining that they would of course take the test if they could, but they can't so there. They derive additional (even though illusory) authority from a professional's expressed vadvice.

Hindmost
27th May 2006, 07:12 AM
Sheesh. What's with the tone of your reply? I'm raising what I believe to be valid points. Your attitude is a bit high-handed.

I based my post on an assumption as implied in my comment about MP. That assumption is that several prospective applicants are given the same advice by experienced lawyers. If this is the case, then they may well raise issues about the credibility of JREF. That will reduce, if not eliminate, the option in dealing with frauds of issuing the age-old challenge: "Why don't you take the JREF Challenge". They will be able to say with authority and certainty: "Because my lawyer advised me not to.".

You refer to the shooting of idiots. This is waaay over the top. So far as I am aware, one of the rationales behind the Challenge is to protect the more gullible and less-educated members of society by exposing the frauds who seek to rip them off. One of the methods it uses is to issue the challenge to them. The existence of a valid well-constructed challenge leaves them looking foolish and cuts into their credibility.

My point remains unanswered: the woo-woos will now have a response to any questions about the Challenge. You and I may know that their response is hogwash, but we will now find ourselves taking on the person as well as challenging the quality of the legal advice they have received.

If they have that legal advice in their pocket they are free to dismiss the Challenge for all time, and their victims will accept those magic words "legal advice" as adequate reason for their non-response to the JREF Challenge.

I repeat: if lawyers are likely to advise applicants against signing the application as is, then there is an issue. It may well be worth JREF's while to do some tests.

I would suggest that a few members pose as applicants and seek legal advice on the conditions. If the advice from multiple lawyers is overwhelmingly against signing, then there is a real issue. If the advice is overwhelmingly the other way, then JREF can point to a body of independent advice which sees nothing wrong with the contract. That would go some way to addressing the issue,

As stated in the past, if someone has paranormal ability, the challenge would be easy to win. If I claim I can read minds under certain conditions, a lawyers advice is not needed for me to prove my capabilities. The challenge is based on scientific testing methods; therefore, arguing legal aspects of the challenge should be moot. There is zero harm in taking the test and either passing or failing...why would a claimant need legal advice unless the claimant is trying to use some type of deception? False legal claims do not constitute any type of authority against the terms of the challenge.

The challenge has be criticized by many people in the past. The criticism is always full of logical fallicies and misquotes of the challenge rules. Compared to most legal documents I have had to deal with, the challenge rules are quite simple and straightforward. A person just has to prove their own claims of paranormal ability.

NiallM-Why do you think the legal aspect of the challenge is so important when compared with the scientific aspect? I think this is one of the main points of disagreement.

glenn

NiallM
27th May 2006, 07:28 AM
...

NiallM-Why do you think the legal aspect of the challenge is so important when compared with the scientific aspect? I think this is one of the main points of disagreement.

glenn
It's not important to me, but it apparently is for some potential applicants.

Its importance in this instance is in the way that the legal issue could be used to bypass questions about the challenge.

The Challenge's greatest value is not in the Prize that is offered or the entertainment value of seeing people attempt it.

The Challenge has value as a means of calling frauds out. The question: "Why don't you take the JREF Challenge" is one I have used often, and usually results in a spluttering and incoherent excuse. It reduces the credibility of claimed "psychics", "Mediums" etc.

That it should be easy to pass the Challenge is irrelevant.

If someone can wrap themselves in the protection afforded by an over-paranoid lawyer, they can express regret frustration and annoyance at the "legal impasse" that exists. A lawyer's over-protective advice will have become actual instructions preventing them from applying, which of course they would like to do.

Let me be clear: I am not talking here about anyone other than the manipulative frauds who have no interest in taking the Challenge.

Darat
27th May 2006, 07:46 AM
...snip...

If someone can wrap themselves in the protection afforded by an over-paranoid lawyer, they can express regret frustration and annoyance at the "legal impasse" that exists. A lawyer's over-protective advice will have become actual instructions preventing them from applying, which of course they would like to do.

Let me be clear: I am not talking here about anyone other than the manipulative frauds who have no interest in taking the Challenge.

I have never had any legal document that my lawyers haven't expressed some concerns about - whether that be a contract for tens of millions pounds or a work-for-hire contract for £100. Any contract can be criticised by any competent lawyer. Therefore I would say that with or without that one clause anyone of such a mindset as you describe could find a lawyer (and even one that would be willing to go on record) to explain why this or that in the Challenge is "weak" or is in fact "selling your soul to the devil".

Hindmost
27th May 2006, 07:53 AM
It's not important to me, but it apparently is for some potential applicants.

Its importance in this instance is in the way that the legal issue could be used to bypass questions about the challenge.

The Challenge's greatest value is not in the Prize that is offered or the entertainment value of seeing people attempt it.

The Challenge has value as a means of calling frauds out. The question: "Why don't you take the JREF Challenge" is one I have used often, and usually results in a spluttering and incoherent excuse. It reduces the credibility of claimed "psychics", "Mediums" etc.

That it should be easy to pass the Challenge is irrelevant.

If someone can wrap themselves in the protection afforded by an over-paranoid lawyer, they can express regret frustration and annoyance at the "legal impasse" that exists. A lawyer's over-protective advice will have become actual instructions preventing them from applying, which of course they would like to do.

Let me be clear: I am not talking here about anyone other than the manipulative frauds who have no interest in taking the Challenge.

This would be difficult to resolve...I disagree that ability to pass challenge is irrelevant...I would really believe the rules are set up to ensure the questions about the challenge are not bypassed. Therefore, if the frauds do not have recourse, I think the challenge is working as specifically designed both legally and scientifically. As long as people with professed paranormal ability are not hampered in taking and passing the challenge, this should be acceptable to skeptics and claimed paranormals alike. Again, the challenge rules are designed to steer the claimaint towards the scientific method testing.

I agree the challenge is at its best when it exposes fraud. The challenge will continue to be assailed by such frauds with false quotes and logical falllicies. Unfortunately, very few people actually will investigate the truth about the challenge--any Sylvia Browne apologist is not going to see the validity of the challenge.

glenn

EGarrett
27th May 2006, 10:54 AM
Didn't have time to read all 4 pages, but if any of the following points were not made I will make them now...

1. Yes, Randi is snippy and rude to applicants.
2. Yes, it is counter-productive. As long as the man runs an "Educational" Foundation, he wants to influence the public...which means that ideally the group should be on their best behavior.
3. If it's understandable because he deals with so many applicants...then he deals with too many of them. He needs to let other people do it who aren't at their wits end. People on this board have volunteered to help handle applications in the past.
4. Contrary to what JREF representatives may have said in this thread, the JREF rules are not set in stone and have been changed in the past for special applicants. (Sylvia Browne and the Escrow Account). I'm not sure how this relates to the original point, though. Just wanted to note that.
5. Randi has 'challenged' people and lost in the past. (Arthur Lintgen) So to say that someone couldn't swindle the JREF is wrong.

Darat
27th May 2006, 11:13 AM
Didn't have time to read all 4 pages, but if any of the following points were not made I will make them now...

1. Yes, Randi is snippy and rude to applicants.


Disagree - I would say the evidence is that he is sometimes snippy and rude to applicants.


2. Yes, it is counter-productive. As long as the man runs an "Educational" Foundation, he wants to influence the public...which means that ideally the group should be on their best behavior.


This is often held out to be a self evident truth however can it actually be supported? (I am in the same camp in that I believe being polite etc. is the best way however I acknowledge that is only a personal preference.)

I have mentioned before that perhaps it is people like me who are wrong about this, after all Randi is the one with decades of experience in doing this - perhaps he has learnt from experience his way actually does further his goals better then "ours".


3. If it's understandable because he deals with so many applicants...then he deals with too many of them. He needs to let other people do it who aren't at their wits end. People on this board have volunteered to help handle applications in the past.


After dealing with just the fringes of some of the type of people he deals with I can say that I certainly didn't have a real understanding of some of the people he deals with day in and day out. Lots of these people are just out and out nasty, malicious and cruel.

I'm not saying that is a reason or even an excuse they should be treated in a particular manner but more of a suggestion that again although many of us believe that politeness is the best approach it may not always be the most appropriate way.


4. Contrary to what JREF representatives may have said in this thread, the JREF rules are not set in stone and have been changed in the past for special applicants. (Sylvia Browne and the Escrow Account). I'm not sure how this relates to the original point, though. Just wanted to note that.


Which representatives?


5. Randi has 'challenged' people and lost in the past. (Arthur Lintgen) So to say that someone couldn't swindle the JREF is wrong.

Who has ever said that? You will find post after posts and quotes from Randi saying stating that he and the JREF could be tricked, however the Arthur Lintgen story has nothing to do with swindling or Randi being tricked.

http://www.randi.org/jr/110102.html...snip...

Another thing, in the Danish science newsgroup, people claim that you have once tested a certain Arthur G. Lintgen, but just when he proved his claim to the prize, you declared his ability "normal", and therefore not eligible for the prize. I am sure that the truth behind the story is different, and I tried to find it on your web-site, but without luck. Could you give some details that I could pass on to the newsgroup?

I replied:
I was asked by TIME Magazine to look into Dr. Lintgen's ability. He said he could examine the surface of an LP recording — with the label removed or covered — and identify the music. It had to be classical music, entire symphonies or suites, etc., etc. From the very first, he admitted that he had a system, and that it was not paranormal. After he did the stunt — very successfully — he explained to us how it was done, and we were very satisfied. At no time was the prize offered, at no time did he try to claim it. The New York Times, TIME Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times ran articles on the matter that made that fact quite clear. Go to http://www.amh.org/docs/intlo.htmand http://www.snopes.com/music/media/reader.htm and see the whole story. That information was available to those who spread this malicious lie, but they simply persist in the lie because it serves to discredit me. Please note that those who know they cannot meet the JREF challenge, also choose not to understand the challenge — and lie about the matter freely. Thank you for informing me of this mendacity, and allowing me to try to set the record straight.

NiallM
27th May 2006, 11:57 AM
I have never had any legal document that my lawyers haven't expressed some concerns about - whether that be a contract for tens of millions pounds or a work-for-hire contract for £100. Any contract can be criticised by any competent lawyer. Therefore I would say that with or without that one clause anyone of such a mindset as you describe could find a lawyer (and even one that would be willing to go on record) to explain why this or that in the Challenge is "weak" or is in fact "selling your soul to the devil".
That pretty much clinches it, and is 100% correct.

*Any* applicant can persuade a lawyer in that manner. They probably all will now!

Darat
27th May 2006, 12:27 PM
That pretty much clinches it, and is 100% correct.

*Any* applicant can persuade a lawyer in that manner. They probably all will now!

Why should they if they believe they can do their "thing"?

The excuse that there is a "nasty" or non-reciprocal clauses in the contract does not wash in the real world.

After all consider how many hundreds of thousands of people worldwide (if not millions) regularly apply for all these reality TV shows or all the "talent" ones; they all sign contracts much more restrictive and one sided then the challenge is.

It's an anecdote so take it for that but I once saw the draft of a contract the applicants for the UK "Pop Idol" sign that had everything everything from restrictions on what they can and cannot do during the whole 6 months of the shows, non-disclosure agreements, even penalty clauses - it's a pretty nasty one sided contract yet thousands of people couldn't wait to sign it. And don't forget that is for something that even if they can do what they think they can there is no guarantee they will gain the ultimate prize which is quite unlike the Challenge.

Hastur
27th May 2006, 12:32 PM
4. Contrary to what JREF representatives may have said in this thread, the JREF rules are not set in stone and have been changed in the past for special applicants. (Sylvia Browne and the Escrow Account). I'm not sure how this relates to the original point, though. Just wanted to note that.
Sylvia was never given the escrow account. She used the whole song and dance about the escrow account as an excuse not to take the Challenge. Randi offered Larry King to be the escrow, but King never did follow through.

Beth
27th May 2006, 12:48 PM
Why should they if they believe they can do their "thing"?

The excuse that there is a "nasty" or non-reciprocal clauses in the contract does not wash in the real world.

After all consider how many hundreds of thousands of people worldwide (if not millions) regularly apply for all these reality TV shows or all the "talent" ones; they all sign contracts much more restrictive and one sided then the challenge is.

It's an anecdote so take it for that but I once saw the draft of a contract the applicants for the UK "Pop Idol" sign that had everything everything from restrictions on what they can and cannot do during the whole 6 months of the shows, non-disclosure agreements, even penalty clauses - it's a pretty nasty one sided contract yet thousands of people couldn't wait to sign it. And don't forget that is for something that even if they can do what they think they can there is no guarantee they will gain the ultimate prize which is quite unlike the Challenge.


I gather that it is a sad fact of life in the entertainment business to insist on such contracts to the clear detriment of the contestant because they can get it. The standard story in the recording industy for a band is how their first contract rule8'ed them to the wall and as soon as they got enough money to hire a lawyer, they renegotiated things. Stars who died early on in their career sometimes left their families poverty striken despite massive sales.

Bob Klase
27th May 2006, 03:28 PM
Clause 7 is in the agreement for a reason, namely that JREF's lawyer considers it at least somewhat effective protection against lawsuits. The same clause is not offered to applicants. This is not fair.

It's certainly not fair from the challenger's side. But is it fair that JREF puts up a million dollars and the challenger doesn't? Why is one fair and the other's not?

I can't speak for Cybermage, but what annoyed me on reading the thread was the way no one was prepared to say "Yes, it's a bit unfair, but pragmatism dictates etc".

I wouldn't say "yes, it's unfair" because in context of little a challenger (with a real ability) has to do for a million dollars, I don't think it is unfair.

Should the JREF ever sue an applicant I'd be willing to consider the facts of the suit and reconsider my opinion, but until then I think it's both fair and reasonable.

NiallM
27th May 2006, 03:38 PM
Why should they if they believe they can do their "thing"?...
Because, as I have repeatedly said in this thread, I am not speaking of genuine applicants (deluded as they may be).

I'm speaking of those who know that they won't pass the Challenge. I'm speaking of those who are frequently asked, "Yes, but if you can do this, why haven't you won the JREF million?".

An application turned down on what they will call legal advice will be a handy excuse for them.

Darat
27th May 2006, 03:40 PM
...snip...

An application turned down on what they will call legal advice will be a handy excuse for them.

But what would stop such a person just lying? Don't forget there are many, many of those sort of people out there lying about the challenge right now, including repeating the lie about the money not even existing!

valis
27th May 2006, 03:49 PM
Being perceived as "Mean Skeptics" will cause people on the fence to tilt towards feeling sympathy for the crackpots. This is counterproductive to the previously stated mission of education.

This has most assuredly happened to me. It seems like the tone here has grown more and more angry and hateful over the years. Mr. Randi, in my opinion, seems to be comfortable with insulting people he disagrees with. The challenge seems to exist mostly to allow 'brights' to feel superior to people who for the most part appear to be mentally ill.

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 04:41 PM
This has most assuredly happened to me. It seems like the tone here has grown more and more angry and hateful over the years. Mr. Randi, in my opinion, seems to be comfortable with insulting people he disagrees with. The challenge seems to exist mostly to allow 'brights' to feel superior to people who for the most part appear to be mentally ill.

Valis, your post provides an excellent example of how the JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi's behaviour may be perceived...

...by "a f***ing retard".

Cyphermage
27th May 2006, 04:55 PM
Valis, your post provides an excellent example of how the JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi's behaviour may be perceived...

...by "a f***ing retard".

I think it's time to invoke Hitler and declare this thread closed. :p

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 05:07 PM
I think it's time to invoke Hitler and declare this thread closed. :p

Does this mean you do not intend to respond to the inquiries directed to you?

Cyphermage
27th May 2006, 05:28 PM
Does this mean you do not intend to respond to the inquiries directed to you?

Google is your friend. I'm not your secretary.

I think you can dig up the definition of "much", find a survey on what percentage of Americans view skeptics extremely negatively, and google the date of the article in the Toronto Observer in which Randi reiterated his "shot himself in the head" fable without any assistance from me.

I've stated my opinion on the subjects under discussion. It's not a claim, a proof, or a scientific dissertation which requires a bibliography. It's an opinion on some things the JREF could do to improve its PR.

Which, like all opinions, you are completely free to ignore.

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 05:42 PM
Google is your friend. I'm not your secretary.

I think you can dig up the definition of "much", find a survey on what percentage of Americans view skeptics extremely negatively, and google the date of the article in the Toronto Observer in which Randi reiterated his "shot himself in the head" fable without any assistance from me.

I've stated my opinion on the subjects under discussion. It's not a claim, a proof, or a scientific dissertation which requires a bibliography. It's an opinion on some things the JREF could do to improve its PR.

Which, like all opinions, you are completely free to ignore.

Yep, I thought you might say that. I read that a lot on the Challenge Forum when a similar question gets asked.

Cyphermage, perhaps your opinion soup will matter to people when you serve it with a little side-dish of evidence and a glass of politeness. Yummy yum yum.

Pinocchio
27th May 2006, 05:57 PM
It's RECIPROCITY, GODDAMIT! There's no such word as "reciprocality."
Hey, don't you wish you had Cyphermage's sixth sense? :D


Pinocchio, did you mean to say "reciprocality" or "reciprocity"?
I meant what I said. These two are synonymous, but "recoprocality" is slightly more irritating to read, which makes it more suitable to use.:p


It's *not* in Webster's 9th Collegiate.

ETA: Also, it's "reciprocity" in Webster's Dictionary of Law. Since we're talking in a legal context, here...
Oh god, Beady, you need to stop inflating your ego, before too many people see this. Is it that hard to say: I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Reciprocallity is a proper word. And now I know, thanks?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/reciprocal.html
http://www.ultralingua.net/index.html?service=ee&text=reciprocality
http://dict.die.net/reciprocality/

Ahhh, why bother...
________________

I also have a comment about Arthur Lintgen. Now, why did Randi test him if there's nothing paranormal in his abilities? Why be interested in the guy in the first place? He [Lintgen]honestly explained what he was doing... This again kind of makes me think of the possibility of demonstrating an ability that JREF agrees is valid, only to later opine: you're right, you can do it, but we don't think it's paranormal. I believe Lintgen wasn't tested through the official Challenge, but in an event of a similar occurence through the Challenge, with all papers signed including the protocol, is Randi locked into it or not?

Cyphermage
27th May 2006, 06:06 PM
Yep, I thought you might say that. I read that a lot on the Challenge Forum when a similar question gets asked.

Cyphermage, perhaps your opinion soup will matter to people when you serve it with a little side-dish of evidence and a glass of politeness. Yummy yum yum.

Expressing my opinion that Randi is sometimes abrasive, and that the challenge looks a lot like a publicity stunt to make fun of mentally ill people, is not an invitation for you to give me followup homework assignments.

Some people ask questions because they genuinely want to be informed. Others ask questions because they think they know the answer, and have already prepared their witty rejoinder for when the response they anticipate is forthcoming.

You are one of the latter. Ask me something you don't think you know, and maybe I'll reply.

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 06:09 PM
...
I also have a comment about Arthur Lintgen. Now, why did Randi test him if there's nothing paranormal in his abilities? Why be interested in the guy in the first place? He [Lintgen]honestly explained what he was doing...


If you are really interested in Mr. Randi's reasons, you can inquire per e-mail: randi@randi.org


This again kind of makes me think of the possibility of demonstrating an ability that JREF agrees is valid, only to later opine: you're right, you can do it, but we don't think it's paranormal. I believe Lintgen wasn't tested through the official Challenge, but in an event of a similar occurence through the Challenge, with all papers signed including the protocol, is Randi locked into it or not?

You do like to speculate, don't you, Pinocchio?

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 06:26 PM
Expressing my opinion that Randi is sometimes abrasive, and that the challenge looks a lot like a publicity stunt to make fun of mentally ill people, is not an invitation for you to give me followup homework assignments.

You misrepresent my inquiry, Cyphermage. In post #87 you said:
"I don't think the cause of debunking and public education is advanced when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes and the contest rules are rigged, WHETHER OR NOT that perception is accurate or not.

Since no one cares, and I've stated my views, I'm not sure there's much more to say, unless someone has a specific question."

I consider my inquiry about evidence for your view "a specific question". Valid, polite and in no way intended to give "followup homework assignments".



Some people ask questions because they genuinely want to be informed. Others ask questions because they think they know the answer, and have already prepared their witty rejoinder for when the response they anticipate is forthcoming.

You are one of the latter. Ask me something you don't think you know, and maybe I'll reply.

I do not think you know me well enough to say something valid about me.



Cyphermage, would you please care to enlighten us, for the sake of a fruitful discussion, how you want to back up your statement
"I don't think the cause of debunking and public education is advanced when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes and the contest rules are rigged, WHETHER OR NOT that perception is accurate or not."?

How "much"?

What "public"?

princhester
27th May 2006, 08:14 PM
Cyphermage, perhaps your opinion soup will matter to people when you serve it with a little side-dish of evidence and a glass of politeness. Yummy yum yum.

Does anyone else find it as amusing as I do that GzuzKryst is:

(a) questioning Cybermage's conclusion that the public are more likely to be pursuaded by people who are not A-holes,

(b) calling people "f*cking retards"

while (on the very same page) stating that Cybermage's opinions will matter more if he is polite?

You have a serious hypocriticality problem to deal with, dude.

princhester
27th May 2006, 08:17 PM
It's certainly not fair from the challenger's side. But is it fair that JREF puts up a million dollars and the challenger doesn't? Why is one fair and the other's not?

That involves a value judgment that Randi has made and is clearly OK with. He's the one who decided what amount he'd offer in return for a successful test.

I've said repeatedly I think the Challenge overall is good. My point has been simply that clause 7 itself is not.

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 08:24 PM
Does anyone else find it as amusing as I do that GzuzKryst is:

(a) questioning Cybermage's conclusion that the public are more likely to be pursuaded by people who are not A-holes,

(b) calling people "f*cking retards"

while (on the very same page) stating that Cybermage's opinions will matter more if he is polite?

You have a serious hypocriticality problem to deal with, dude.

Princhester, please

(a) note that I used quotation marks for the quote "a f***ing retard" (and please try to quote & spell my nick correctly)

(b) look in valis' sig line.

After doing so, do you now have a different view on this?

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 08:28 PM
That involves a value judgment that Randi has made and is clearly OK with. He's the one who decided what amount he'd offer in return for a successful test.

I've said repeatedly I think the Challenge overall is good. My point has been simply that clause 7 itself is not.

Would you please provide us with a proposition, princhester, how to change said clause for the "better"?

princhester
27th May 2006, 08:36 PM
Princhester, please

(a) note that I used quotation marks for the quote "a f***ing retard" (and please try to quote & spell my nick correctly)

(b) look in valis' sig line.

After doing so, do you now have a different view on this?


No. Valis' sig line is a joke. Using that as an excuse is just a pissweak way of getting an insult in. Nor do you deal with point (a) of my previous post.

Would you please provide us with a proposition, princhester, how to change said clause for the "better"?

I mis-spoke. There should be the word "fair" on the end of the last sentence of my last post ie "My point has been simply that clause 7 itself is not fair.

Sorry.

GzuzKryzt
27th May 2006, 08:49 PM
No. Valis' sig line is a joke. Using that as an excuse is just a pissweak way of getting an insult in. Nor do you deal with point (a) of my previous post.


I did not get it as a joke. I looked again and found no clue to it being a joke.

Concerning your point (a): I would like to hear Cyphermage's response to this first. If he can convince me of the accurateness of his statement, I'll explain my point to you asap.


I mis-spoke. There should be the word "fair" on the end of the last sentence of my last post ie "My point has been simply that clause 7 itself is not fair.

Sorry.

Granted.

The reasoning behind your argumentation starts to dawn in me. I'm afraid I need a little more convincing.

Would you please provide us with a proposition, princhester, how to change said clause making it more "fair"? (Or is it "fairer"?)

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 12:18 AM
I think you can dig up the definition of "much", find a survey on what percentage of Americans view skeptics extremely negatively, and google the date of the article in the Toronto Observer in which Randi reiterated his "shot himself in the head" fable without any assistance from me.
Ah. Proof by "I'm too lazy to provide evidence for my statement." Not sure why that one wasn't convered in my college. I guess it must be advanced logic.

princhester
28th May 2006, 12:48 AM
I did not get it as a joke. I looked again and found no clue to it being a joke.

Really? You'd be a great audience for a comedian.

Comedian: "So this horse walks into a bar..."

GzuzKryzt to companion: [whispering] "Why would a horse walk into a bar? Is this man mad? I see no evidence he's joking."

But seriously, what exactly does your post #168 mean? Because regardless of valis' sigline, any way I read it you are suggesting that those who might have a particular view of the Challenge etc are "f**ing retards". Which seems to me to be impolite. You don't think so? Really?

Would you please provide us with a proposition, princhester, how to change said clause making it more "fair"? (Or is it "fairer"?)

How about:

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant, Mr. Randi, and the James Randi Educational Foundation mutually surrender any and all rights to legal action against each other and against any persons peripherally involved, as far as this may be done by established statutes. etc."

This is in essence the formulation of a mutual exclusion clause that I commonly advise clients to accept. I don't think it would be an appropriate clause in the case of the Challenge, for pragmatic reasons I've already stated, but it would be a fair clause.

Ah. Proof by "I'm too lazy to provide evidence for my statement." Not sure why that one wasn't convered in my college. I guess it must be advanced logic.

In any other context, would you have difficulty with the proposition that you catch more flies with honey? That people are more persuaded by someone they like than someone they find rude or abrupt?

I'd be interested to know whether your views run counter to common sense, every single thing I was taught about the art of persuasion in law school and in my professional experience, and the entire thrust of marketing and salesmanship.

Think about it and get back to me.

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 12:55 AM
In any other context, would you have difficulty with the proposition that you catch more flies with honey? That people are more persuaded by someone they like than someone they find rude or abrupt?

I'd be interested to know whether your views run counter to common sense, every single thing I was taught about the art of persuasion in law school and in my professional experience, and the entire thrust of marketing and salesmanship.

Think about it and get back to me.
Read the rest of your statement. You claim Randi reiterated this "shot in the head" comment, but you won't post a link to back it up.

DevilsAdvocate
28th May 2006, 01:00 AM
Two new applicants appeared in the challenge log a short while ago, and while I understand that people like Dr. Drew cannot just change the text in the application, sign it and think their claim will be accepted, I do not understand why JREF would not grant an applicant the same legal protection THEY THEMSELVES REQUEST before proceeding.Seems pretty simple to me. If an applicant fails the challenge, it could result in loss of income or embarrassment. This is even emphasized in the bottom of the application stating “several applicants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests.” So, Randi and JREF have good reason for the clause to protect against frivolous suit.

What would be the reason for the applicant’s clause? If a change to the rules has no justifiable reason, why should JREF change the rules? JREF has good reason not to change rules arbitrarily, and even discourage negotiations over the rules, because some applicants request changes to the rules when they would expose the claim as false.

There is some reciprocity even within Rule 7 itself: the applicant agrees to give up some rights to suit (probably if the applicant fails), and JREF agrees to give up $1 million (if the applicant succeeds).

In the case of Dr. Drew, I think it is all a wash. His attorney recommended the change, which would be a smart thing to ask for in a normal contract but isn’t really necessary for the JREF challenge. Because Dr. Drew seems reasonable and isn’t known to be making money from his claimed power, JREF could accept the clause. But, in the end, there is no reason for the applicant to insist on the clause and no reason for JREF to accept the clause. So, JREF has taken the correct action to refuse the clause. Seems as simple as that. :)

princhester
28th May 2006, 01:12 AM
Read the rest of your statement. You claim Randi reiterated this "shot in the head" comment, but you won't post a link to back it up.

I don't think you are talking to who you think you are talking to.

But more substantively, do I take it from this comment that although you quoted more in your post #183, you only actually take objection to Cybermage's failure to provide a cite regarding the "shot in the head" comment?

On that point, I too would like to see a cite. Wikipedia's entry for Uri Geller says that the comment was reiterated in the August 23, 1986 Toronto Star but having debated the issue up hill and down dale several times in the past I've never seen that reference before and of course, as always with Wikipedia, who knows what the source for that comment might be. I've left a question on the discussion page, we'll see if anyone answers.

Darat
28th May 2006, 02:20 AM
...snip...

I also have a comment about Arthur Lintgen. Now, why did Randi test him if there's nothing paranormal in his abilities? Why be interested in the guy in the first place? He [Lintgen]honestly explained what he was doing... This again kind of makes me think of the possibility of demonstrating an ability that JREF agrees is valid, only to later opine: you're right, you can do it, but we don't think it's paranormal. I believe Lintgen wasn't tested through the official Challenge, but in an event of a similar occurence through the Challenge, with all papers signed including the protocol, is Randi locked into it or not?

I provided the links that answered all these questions: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1666337&postcount=159

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 04:00 AM
The problem with the 'scientific community' is their DEMAND for empirical evidence.

Can't speak for the multitudes out there who HAVE experienced 'weird events' that fall outside of the so called "norm" (for science that is), HOWEVER, i am at liberty to speak for myself.

Having regularly experienced Dreams, Visions and Written Prophecies that have later come to pass, (for 32 years) the Truth is this :-

1). You cannot go to sleep and decide what you are going to dream about (if you even dream at all).

2). You cannot control the random Visions that appear from time to time.

3). Mixed in with True Visions of the Future, are all kinds of "ghosts of ideas" that will NEVER transpire as a Future Event.

So the problem is best summed up like this :

We are Receivers and Transmitters of ideas and pictures, some useful, some useless and some TRULY are snippets of a Future Event.

This is TRUE because i have experienced them repeatedly.

So, how do you KNOW that a certain dream or vision is set to become a Future Event?

The answer is YOU DO NOT...

However, a well seasoned Visionary WILL keep Records of Lucid Dreams and Visions and Written Material (of course) so, should the "item" contain a future event, it can be referred to for support to Reveal that there is MUCH MORE to this life than "modern science" even has a clue about.

In fact, i have been doing this for a long time now.

EXAMPLE (Recent and Massive)

One night, August 5th 2001, i witness two planes go down in a huge flurry of clouds. One had MASSIVE ENGINES, so oversized it was BIZARRE.

Then, as it was going down another jumbo jet came in close and supported it. They both crashed down in the clouds.

This VIVID DREAM was then followed by this NEXT PART :-

A THIRD JET appeared out of the sky and swooped in lower in a huge arc and came in towards me (in the dream) where i was in the top floor bedroom of a Penthouse apartment. i was with my daughter in the dream (she was 7 at the time). We watched spellbound as this third jet headed straight for the tower we were in.

i told her to get down quick. As we hid down behind the door, the Jet came CRASHING into the Tower, a few floors below us.

The bedroom windows SHATTERED and showered the room with broken glass.

(believe me it was a dream as REAL as any event in reality)

In the last phase of the dream we were in the lift, PLUMMETING down at a very high speed. As it hit the ground floor i woke up.

END OF DREAM - August 5th 2001

In the morning, as is my style, with dreams of this nature, i RECORDED the details in an MS Word document, and added a graphic of the Jet with the HUGE mis-sized engines.

BEHOLD :-

It was not until September 11th 2001, when my wife shouted at me to come and watch the news as we witnessed LIVE the BURNING TRADE CENTER Tower and watched the SECOND JET slam into a building, that the dream came true.

Truly, in fact, it was not until 5 hours later, that i remembered the DREAM described above.

i opened up the Word Document and located the August 5th record.

There, the GRAPHIC then made perfect sense. The graphic looked like two huge buildings that had fallen over, with a plane in the middle of them.

http://www.thelivingwordofgod.net:8080/DreamRecord-AUGUST5TH-2001.jpg

CONCLUSION :

This was just ONE of a multitude of events i have witnessed in Night Dreams and Day Visions and Written Material, that later had clear cut REAL EVENTS to "Match to them".

Problem is - I HAVE NO IDEA, when they are going to happen - or even if the Dream will ever become a Real Event...

BUT, it PROVES TO ME, as it did in 1974, when the First Dramatic ONE TRANSPIRED, that "There is a FUTURE"..

i have since learnt that the Future is in another Dimension, and certain KEY EVENTS in History are "stored there".

i have also learnt that for such things to be "seen" in advance, means they are "created in advance" ALSO !!!

Hereby is where the scientific community is in BIG TROUBLE, like multitudes, BECAUSE this Revelation is TRUE, it is SIMPLE to Conclude that GOD exists...

It doesn't matter whether YOU believe me or this fact or NOT...

The Fact is it is True whether YOU or science believes it or not.

So, i applied for the Randi Challenge, TO PROVE that Future Events are HIDDEN in Biblical Prophecy.

i was ACCEPTED under these Criteria, with the Mysterious Caveat, that NO TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION is allowed.

There is nice lengthy post on this matter, that has BEEN LOCKED..here :-
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56987

Then the AWESOME follow up :-
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57295

THE POINT?

A War of words erupted, with the essence summed up in one sentence : "i was "INTERPRETING" Biblical Prophecy and NOT eligible to WIN The Challenge"

HAH...That's what they say !!!

Here's what i say : "It was NOT INTERPRETATION, it IS Explanation!"

To truly put this matter to rest WILL require a Judge to decide :-

Was my Claim Interpretation or Explanation?

Now, since my LONG track record IS NOT fiction or fantasy or delusion, i CAN RELY on "This Gift" to not only sometimes "see a Future Event" - BUT, The Gift has other Applications - NAMELY, to "SEE" Past Events, those hidden in Prophecies...

So, The Gift was employed in the Challenge Application.

The Florida Statute of Limitations is 5 YEARS and the Clock started running in April 2004.

i have time to file the Writ.

Why bother, many might ask...

You are a nut job others may "think"..

Such "opinions" are their right, BUT doesn't mean they are TRUE...

Similarly, "modern science" has many theories on The Creation, and USUALLY God does NOT figure anywhere...

This is their theoretical idea - AGAIN, they are welcome to it - BUT, It is NOT The Truth - THE REAL TRUTH....

One HONEST LOOK around you will reveal a Complex Created Universe that a bunch of "loonies" with high IQs have decided got here ALL ON IT'S OWN, without any Designer or Creator?

They only popped out the woodwork since the late nineteenth century. with the ABSURD idea we are EVOLVED from monkies (or WHATEVER)..

i AM HERE to State Categorically THEY ARE UTTERLY DECEIVED AND TOTALLY WRONG - On ALL COUNTS - Amen

It may well take a Florida Judge to finally decide BASED ON MY EVIDENCE - not theirs !!

This is The truth....Alleluia and All Praise And Glory be unto The Lord JESUS Christ ONLY, for Proving His Case for His Father, and His Father IS INDEED God The Creator of EVERYTHING ....

Numbers 12:6
And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

http://www.constellation7.org/Randi/JESUSsights.gif (http://www.constellation7.org/Randi)

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 04:21 AM
Here we go again.......:rolleyes:

princhester
28th May 2006, 04:40 AM
So Elijah777, your view on clause 7 would be...

;)

matt-r
28th May 2006, 04:49 AM
I've only been lurking for a few months, but have usually found the forums to be an interesting, enjoyable and friendly place. Cyphermage has been making some perfectly valid points (together, admittedly, with some very dodgy analogies). Just because you disagree with him isn't reason enough to be rude. And not every opinion is easy to prove scientifically - you should be able to have a debate about the perception of James Randi/the JREF without providing poll numbers. If someone thinks that Randi has an image as someone who is unnecessarily rude then they are entitled to that opinion and to express that opinion. Yes, ideally, we'd go and do a poll. But it's ridiculous to ask for one when we all know that there probably isn't a poll about James' public image - certainly not one which is easily accessible.

For what it's worth, I started reading the thread thinking Cyphermage had a point about the reciprocity but have come to accept that the current contract is probably the right one. Perhaps it could be worded a bit better. To a non-lawyer it could seem like the exclusion is designed to prevent people suing Randi for the prize money. And a smart-ass 'psychic' could certainly try to argue that interpretation in bad faith.

I know there's that extra sentence about the awarding of the prize money but it's still not very clear. The FAQs to their credit do make the position clear, but since (to the applicant) it's the most important part of the contract, it would be easy to insert an extra line in the rules themselves saying "This exclusion does not prevent you from suing the JREF for failure to award the prize money in the event that you successfully demonstrate your ability in the final test (in accordance with the protocol agreed with the JREF). "

Is this spoon-feeding? A little perhaps. But I think Cyphermage definitely has a point about the Challenge's purpose. Now, we can all argue about the purpose of the Challenge. Some take the view (I'm paraphrasing) "It's a Challenge, you don't have to take it. Put up or shut up." Although there's an element of that, it is also incredibly useful as a rhetorical tool along the following line:-

"No one has passed the JREF test. Those 'psychics' who have taken it seem to have been deluding themselves, and those that don't take it appear to be afraid that they will be found out as the fraudsters they are. Therefore it is reasonable for me to be unconvinced as to the existence of paranormal abilities."

Although most (if not all) of us would dearly love it if someone could pass the challenge without trickery (thereby opening a whole new area of scientific investigation) I suspect that a similar percentage of us are very very doubtful that it will ever happen. That's not a controversial or contradictory opinion. Therefore, most of us (if we are realistic) admit that one of the best aspects of the challenge is its usefulness as a rhetorical tool. For this reason, I don't think that the "put up or shut up" argument is very good.

EVERY impediment - either real or perceived - to taking the challenge, erodes the credibility of that rhetoric. To take an extreme example, if applicants had to pay $1,000 for the privilege of taking the test, it would instantly lose any persuasive power as to the lack of evidence of paranormal ability, because people would argue that it's unreasonable to expect people to take the challenge (which is effectively what we sceptics do - if people refuse to take the test, we take it as good evidence of bad faith).

A clearly worded (and obviously fair) contract would be a good way to demonstrate how serious the Challenge is. I have already suggested one way in which the fairness of the test could be clarified. Another way would be to make it very clear, on the face of the "rules" document, that (on agreement as to a suitable protocol) the Claimant is entering into a legally binding contract with the JREF. The word contract isn't mentioned once in the application. I KNOW the FAQs (again) make it clear, but the FAQs aren't obviously part of the contract and the application document shouldn't leave such an important aspect open to misinterpretation.

The way the Challenge is conducted (and the tone taken with applicants or would-be applicants) is also, to my mind, an important part of making sure that the Challenge is credible and appears professional. I think that Cyphermage's point that it undercuts the educational aspect of the JREF's to be mean to people was spot on, and kind of hard to refute. It's not controversial to suggest that being unnecessarily mean (in ANY field of endeavour) damages your credibility. Yes, we could argue endlessly about what constitutes 'unnecessarily' mean, and try to claim some sort of victory, but agreeing to disagree is a bit more dignified. Unlike the challenge I don't think that everyone's aim here should be to "win".

Well, I've made a whole jumble of points, and I hope they make sense. Why can't we all just get along? :rolleyes:

Ladewig
28th May 2006, 06:29 AM
Seems pretty simple to me. If an applicant fails the challenge, it could result in loss of income or embarrassment. This is even emphasized in the bottom of the application stating “several applicants have suffered great personal embarrassment after failing these tests.” So, Randi and JREF have good reason for the clause to protect against frivolous suit.

Quoted for importance.

Here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52736 is a perfect example of the type of lawsuits that failed challenge applicants would launch. Defending against such lawsuits is expensive. The clause is appropriate.

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 06:39 AM
The reason we can't 'get along' is because there are TWO Schools :-

Believers and Ridiculers...

End of Story -

The Ridiculers can't Believe without HARD EVIDENCE (i only speak in my own Filed Challenge Case - details now Public Record)

The Believer (my case only at this point) - Provides EXPLANATIONS for Fulfilled Prophecy - HARD EVIDENCE (Challenge Criteria) and The Ridiculers spin webs of rejection and blah blah blah, WITHOUT actually considering that The Explanations might be The Truth.

Why?

FAITHLESS, preconceived, anti-Gospel mindsets...

They say "There is NO God", therefore The Bible is NOT True, therefore The Prophecies can't be True either.

It is circular reasoning that evidences nothing more than A CLOSED MIND.

It WILL Take a Miracle to OPEN THE MINDS to The Truth...

Working on this - Amen

Any answers that say "Evidence Please" - read my last post - WITH AN OPEN MIND for a Change..

Matthew 1
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 06:52 AM
I don't think you are talking to who you think you are talking to.

But more substantively, do I take it from this comment that although you quoted more in your post #183, you only actually take objection to Cybermage's failure to provide a cite regarding the "shot in the head" comment?
Mmm... perhaps I misread something in there, but you seem to have done a pretty good job of reading my intention. Where is this supposed article?

Beth
28th May 2006, 07:18 AM
Does anyone else find it as amusing as I do that GzuzKryst is:

(a) questioning Cybermage's conclusion that the public are more likely to be pursuaded by people who are not A-holes,

(b) calling people "f*cking retards"

while (on the very same page) stating that Cybermage's opinions will matter more if he is polite?



I did.

ETA: Great Post Matt-r! Welcome to the forums. I'm glad you've stopped lurking and look forward to reading more posts from you.

Donks
28th May 2006, 07:46 AM
The reason we can't 'get along' is because there are TWO Schools :-

Believers and Ridiculers...
If calling us ridiculers makes you feel better. Whatever floats your boat.
The Ridiculers can't Believe without HARD EVIDENCE (i only speak in my own Filed Challenge Case - details now Public Record)
The evidence doesn't have to be hard, it just has to exist. You have none.
The Believer (my case only at this point) - Provides EXPLANATIONS for Fulfilled Prophecy - HARD EVIDENCE (Challenge Criteria) and The Ridiculers spin webs of rejection and blah blah blah, WITHOUT actually considering that The Explanations might be The Truth.
Wrong. You provide interpretations. You retrofit facts to biblical references. You might as well do that with Winnie the Pooh.

Why?

FAITHLESS, preconceived, anti-Gospel mindsets...
Wrong, because you ave no evidence. There are Christians among us skeptics, and that still doesn't mean they'll buy into your retrofitting interpretations.
They say "There is NO God", therefore The Bible is NOT True, therefore The Prophecies can't be True either.
The existance of any gods is irrelevant to biblical prophecies. There could be no god and still have a bible filled with precise and accurate prophecies. The historical accuracy of the bible is also not relevant to its accuracy in predicting future events. The prophecies could be true, you just have provided absolutely no evidence of it.
It is circular reasoning that evidences nothing more than A CLOSED MIND.
no, that's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning goes like this: God exists because it says so in the Bible which is the inerrant word of God.
It WILL Take a Miracle to OPEN THE MINDS to The Truth...
No, it wil take evidence. In your particular case, it wil take you telling us about a biblical prophecy BEFORE it comes true. See, that's the point of prophecy, being able to foretell future events.
Any answers that say "Evidence Please" - read my last post - WITH AN OPEN MIND for a Change..
The open mind you ask for requires me to split my skull open, drain out the brain, fill the empty hole with fecal matter and leave the skull open.

CFLarsen
28th May 2006, 08:27 AM
Working on this - Amen

Any answers that say "Evidence Please" - read my last post - WITH AN OPEN MIND for a Change..

Matthew 1
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

If we ever needed a reason to disable the COLOR-tag, this would be it.

Why do these religious nuts think we will be persuaded by their ability to write in as many colors as possible?

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 08:38 AM
So Elijah777, your view on clause 7 would be...
;)

Hi Princhester - you asked, so here it is :-

7 When entering into this challenge, applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature and/or financial, or professional, loss of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

Clearly, the door is WIDE OPEN to prosecute Randi.org for Breach of Agreement, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract or Tort of Deceit (and suchlike) for not awarding the prize IN ONE CASE ONLY : -

Where there is sufficient, arguable evidence, in the proven files of both Randi and the Litigant that a Claimant has been REJECTED from qualifing for The Challenge Prize.

Such "Evidence" is very hard to come by, UNLESS the Accepted Criteria of the Litigant's Challenge, as agreed by Randi, is based on DOCUMENTS, and Randi REJECTED those Documents as being "merely interpretation", thereby refusing to pay the Challenge Prize Money.

Here we have the WIDE OPEN DOOR, "Interpretation".

Randi will argue that his Interpretation NEGATES the Litigant's Claim, and the Litigant will then have to PROVE that Randi is WRONG.

Since, in this possible real scenario, the accepted Criteria was to "Provide ONE piece of Historical Evidence that was Contained in a Biblical Prophecy, that in no way could be linked to any other event in history, OTHER than that provided by the Claimant (Potential Litigant) - with the proviso that Interpretation is NOT allowed."

Ahhh....Interesting - this is a real scenario.

ANALYSE PLEASE : Okay -

First we have Randi Accepting The Claimant's special application "To Provide a piece of proven History and shows where it is in Biblical Prophecy, that can NOT be explained by any other Historical Event, other than the one the Claimant Reveals"

This is The Key.

HOWEVER , Randi imposes a limitation on this Application, by stating that interpretation is UNACCEPTABLE and the event must be IRREFUTABLE.

The key word BELOW is "unless"...

Here is the proviso that was actually GIVEN TO ME BY KRAMER :-

"We are ALSO not interested in biblical prophecy, unless
of course you can make clear and definite connections between biblical
verse and ONE ACTUAL EVENT that cannot in any way be attributed to another
event."

The next communication then stated this :-

Unless you are able to make a clear and unrefutable connection between ONE
biblical prophecy and ONE historical event that is clearly NOT subject to
interpretation, your claim will be rejected.


Yours,
M. KRAMER
JREF ONE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE DEPT.
email...kramer@randi.org (email...kramer@randi.org)

So, on the one hand we have an Agreement to show the clear and irrefutable connection between ONE Biblical Prophecy and ONE Historical Event. (Duly provided in the myriad form)

Yet on the other we have the DISCLAIMER - "Not subject to Interpretation"

An interesting legal pickle.

Who will be Biased in such a case?

Randi will NOT want part with his million bucks unless he knows he has NO OTHER CHOICE...

So, he creates the cover story :- summed up in two words "unrefutable (should be irrefutable <never mind smile>) and interpretation."

This is a self defeating argument.

Why?

In order to LINK The Biblical Prophecy with the Historical Event EXPLANATION is of course NEEDED..(not Interpretation - EXPLANATION).

So where The Claimant (potential Litigant) firstly succeeds is to PROVE that his document Claim contains EXPLANATION not INTERPRETATION.

Second, the Explanation better be GOOD, VERY GOOD, good enough to overcome both the Interpretation "cop out", the Irrefutable "second line of defence" and the third bastion to save his precious million bucks and reputation, namely "CANNOT be linked to any other Event in History"..

Since the open doors for Randi (in his mind) to ESCAPE payment and CLOSE THIS RIDICULOUS Challenge FINALLY, ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME, rest in his final decision, he feels pretty safe from any onslaught, in both the Claimant's particular filed Challenge details, and his own "so called cast iron proviso wording".

It is then left up to this Claimant - (me) "Potential Litigant", as is my legal God Given Right, to structure and prosecute such a case, based on the Evidence in the filed documents.

All i reallly have to do now is simply ISSUE the Writ...

i am based a vast distance away from the USA...

So, this Forum has been a staging ground, for the planned ONSLAUGHT...

FINALLY, to conclude, for the record:- "WHEN THE WRIT IS FILED, it will be the final Supernatural Proof?"

How say you? You might say..

Simple, it will NOT be me that Fights and wins The Case, it will be The LORD God Himself...

And therefore it is is ALREADY WON - By Faith !!

All i have to do is Tell The Truth and Process the said documents...

God WILL do the rest...

Why? How?

Because the entire Plan is ONLY for His Glory - NOT for the Million Bucks....

The Million Bucks is the "carrot"...

His Glory is The Goal...

The Spirit Of The LORD God, The Father of All Creation, By His Holy Son JESUS CHRIST, Can do ANYTHING He Chooses to do.

He can EASILY win such a Case, Because it is His Name and His Bible and His History and His Prophecies that are at the Root of this Epic.

All i have to do is be Faithful and File The Documents and Reveal The Explanation, The Truth, that the Claim is ACCURATE, Real and then PROVE the fine details before the Florida Judge...

Since there is plenty of time to do so, the Structuring is already underway.

Hence this Public Revelation...

i have nothing to fear, nor hide from, because i am Honest and Truthful, and NOT making up fancy stories...

The Only Fear i have is "FEAR OF THE LORD"...Amen

Revelation 19:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=19&verse=10&version=9&context=verse)
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.


http://www.TheLivingWordOfGod.net:8080/DreamRecord-AUGUST5TH-2001.jpg


http://www.constellation7.org/Randi/ (http://www.constellation7.org/Randi/)

Moochie
28th May 2006, 08:53 AM
Oh my, I see we have the religious nutters active again.

M.

Miss Whiplash
28th May 2006, 08:56 AM
You should be in church this time of day.

Run...Quick!

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 09:38 AM
No, it wil take evidence. In your particular case, it wil take you telling us about a biblical prophecy BEFORE it comes true. See, that's the point of prophecy, being able to foretell future events.

Fair enough - Here's a Prophecy below from The Holy Scriptures for you...

Translation first (next) THEN, at the end "The Prophecy" and related Links - Colour Coding is simply because i "SEE" in Full Colour....sorry about that....

The Ark is The Church.

Those "On Board" will be Saved.

Same as just before The Flood - EXCEPT, the Wicked that are taken are only 50% of the global population "At That Soon Future Time"...

And a lot more than EIGHT SOULS will be On Board This ARK.

HOW are The Wicked taken and The Righteous Remain to Meet Christ?

Simple : They DIE OFF...

When they DIE, having deliberately REFUSED The Salvation of Grace offered by JESUS CHRIST, they do NOT get to spend 1000 years of Paradise on earth with The Lord.

This procedure is already in action right now and is soon to reach a Global Crescendo...

When the last soul is born, that WILL NEVER ACCEPT CHRIST, the rest that WILL are already Known to God IN ADVANCE...

At that point the Countdown begins...

People will be dying in their sins and The Rest who have BEEN Baptized and Saved WILL NOT.

Simple really :- The Flood of Noah (Noe) is a Type.

The Baptism By Faith in The Lord, Having Accepted JESUS, is The Water (in The Context below).

This Time The Water SAVES The Righteous and they get to meet JESUS when He SOON Returns.

When the Dying and Remaining ALIVE (Saved By Faith) Procedure is Completed (hence the vast growing Global population), The Lord Returns and takes Control of The Ark - The Church.

All "On Board" who are TRUE, and Sincerely Believing and Seeking the Lord, ARE Saved Already.

Those Alive at the Final Arrival Date are Known as The Sheep and The Goats...

They get to See JESUS and then The Goats ARE BANISHED, The Sheep are Sifted, and The Millennium of Perfection Begins.

The Sifting of The Sheep (The Wheat in Barns) is an internal Church matter.

False Christs, False prophets, imposters, the son of perdition spirit, the antichrist spirit, Satan himself, and a group known as The Five FOOLISH Virgins (all hanging out in churches, working iniquity), are the last to go...

To really understand how this ALL Comes To Pass, you WILL need to read the links here also :-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

End of translation.

This WILL Come to Pass....

Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


Genesis 6
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

CLICKING AND STUDYING THESE LINKS IS SERIOUSLY ADVISED:-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

CFLarsen
28th May 2006, 09:52 AM
Fair enough - Here's a Prophecy below from The Holy Scriptures for you...

Translation first (next) THEN, at the end "The Prophecy" and related Links - Colour Coding is simply because i "SEE" in Full Colour....sorry about that....

The Ark is The Church.

Those "On Board" will be Saved.

Same as just before The Flood - EXCEPT, the Wicked that are taken are only 50% of the global population "At That Soon Future Time"...

And a lot more than EIGHT SOULS will be On Board This ARK.

HOW are The Wicked taken and The Righteous Remain to Meet Christ?

Simple : They DIE OFF...

When they DIE, having deliberately REFUSED The Salvation of Grace offered by JESUS CHRIST, they do NOT get to spend 1000 years of Paradise on earth with The Lord.

This procedure is already in action right now and is soon to reach a Global Crescendo...

When the last soul is born, that WILL NEVER ACCEPT CHRIST, the rest that WILL are already Known to God IN ADVANCE...

At that point the Countdown begins...

People will be dying in their sins and The Rest who have BEEN Baptized and Saved WILL NOT.

Simple really :- The Flood of Noah (Noe) is a Type.

The Baptism By Faith in The Lord, Having Accepted JESUS, is The Water (in The Context below).

This Time The Water SAVES The Righteous and they get to meet JESUS when He SOON Returns.

When the Dying and Remaining ALIVE (Saved By Faith) Procedure is Completed (hence the vast growing Global population), The Lord Returns and takes Control of The Ark - The Church.

All "On Board" who are TRUE, and Sincerely Believing and Seeking the Lord, ARE Saved Already.

Those Alive at the Final Arrival Date are Known as The Sheep and The Goats...

They get to See JESUS and then The Goats ARE BANISHED, The Sheep are Sifted, and The Millennium of Perfection Begins.

The Sifting of The Sheep (The Wheat in Barns) is an internal Church matter.

False Christs, False prophets, imposters, the son of perdition spirit, the antichrist spirit, Satan himself, and a group known as The Five FOOLISH Virgins (all hanging out in churches, working iniquity), are the last to go...

To really understand how this ALL Comes To Pass, you WILL need to read the links here also :-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

End of translation.

This WILL Come to Pass....

Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


Genesis 6
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

CLICKING AND STUDYING THESE LINKS IS SERIOUSLY ADVISED:-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

Please tell me that you do live performances.

I would pay to watch you.

prewitt81
28th May 2006, 10:01 AM
Well, keep looking to the sky Elijah777. It's only been 2000 years. I'm sure Jesus is just doing his hair.

Matthew 24: 30-34

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 16:28

16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Chew on that and get back to me.

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 10:07 AM
If we ever needed a reason to disable the COLOR-tag, this would be it.

Why do these religious nuts think we will be persuaded by their ability to write in as many colors as possible?

Why do you think I backed it?

CFLarsen
28th May 2006, 10:11 AM
Why do you think I backed it?
"Spot The Looney"?

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 10:26 AM
If we ever needed a reason to disable the COLOR-tag, this would be it.

Why do these religious nuts think we will be persuaded by their ability to write in as many colors as possible?
Because they're the types easily distracted by pretty colors and or blinking lights. Since flashy gimmics convinced them to share an imaginary friend with millions of other people, they probably figure the same tactic will work on us.

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 10:41 AM
Well, keep looking to the sky Elijah777. It's only been 2000 years. I'm sure Jesus is just doing his hair.

Matthew 24: 30-34

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 16:28

16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Chew on that and get back to me.

Hi Prewitt - Covered that one already - have you FORGOTTEN??

The Lord was referring to St.John The Divine - survived until The Book of Revelation and those who were still ALIVE When The Church began with The day of Pentecost AFTER The Resurrection and The Ascension.

Here it is - no point in retyping : It is summed up in ONE PROPHETIC VERSE, full details below :-

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Meaning :- ALL these things in Matthew 24 - CHECK THE WORDING..

HERE IS THE LINK : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57295

Prewitt said : "Keep looking to the sky. It's been 2,000 years and Jesus is still "coming soon". In 4,000 more years, I'm sure your descendants will say the same thing to my descendants. You never quote the verse of the Bible where Jesus tells his disciples that he will return in their generation. Why is that? I don't expect an answer, but surprise me.
Where does The Holy Bible State that?"

ANSWER :-

For The Record - The Lord Returned in The Holy Spirit to St.John The Divine and The Book of Revelation was Written.

Below are The Scriptures relevant to this reply.

Matthew 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=3&version=9&context=verse)
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye , when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

So, the generation that Beholds ALL the items in Matthew 24 come to pass, is the Generation that shall NOT PASS, until ALL SUCH THINGS ARE FULFILLED...

Naturally, if you are NOT LOOKING in Faith for such things, then they will pass you by, and the Actual Event may be missed by those NOT LOOKING - AND, how can you LOOK if you Believe NOT???

It is The Faithless down through the Ages that are DIRECTLY responsible for the Date of The Second Coming being so long and delayed.

IF The Gospel of God had been PREACHED by ALL, and ACCEPTED by ALL, The Lord JESUS CHRIST would have Arrived sometime ago.

Its okay though. WHY? God is ABLE to Raise His Elect from The Dead and Return them at the Appropriate Time to Be With Christ, at The Time of HIS SECOND COMING - Amen

And for The Record - The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS available and His Name is JESUS CHRIST...

He is PERMANENTLY "WITNESSING" THE TRUTH OF THE LIVING GOD...

Lastly, JESUS did Return as He Promised, In The Direct Revelation of The Holy Spirit.. This PARTICULAR PROMISE was To St.John The Divine only :-

BEHOLD :-

John 21
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now BEHOLD AGAIN : John was very young when these things were Prophesied unto him - 33.5 AD - The Revelation of St.John The Divine did NOT occur until AD 96...

So some 62.5 years later BEHOLD THE CONCLUSION :-

Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

So to COMPREHEND you will need to Learn The Book of Revelation to finally understand....Amen

Click here or below to start The Revelation - Amen (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201;&version=9;)


http://www.thelivingwordofgod.net:8080/Randi/JESUSsights.gif (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201;&version=9;)

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 12:00 PM
"Spot The Looney"?

Something like that. I was getting a freaking headache AND a strong suspicion that I was developing epilepsia(sp?) on the two threads this [rule 8] posted.
And Mr. Moron still have to provide evidence for his claims.....

Admiral
28th May 2006, 12:01 PM
Fair enough - Here's a Prophecy below from The Holy Scriptures for you...

Translation first (next) THEN, at the end "The Prophecy" and related Links - Colour Coding is simply because i "SEE" in Full Colour....sorry about that....

The Ark is The Church.

Those "On Board" will be Saved.

Same as just before The Flood - EXCEPT, the Wicked that are taken are only 50% of the global population "At That Soon Future Time"...

And a lot more than EIGHT SOULS will be On Board This ARK.

HOW are The Wicked taken and The Righteous Remain to Meet Christ?

Simple : They DIE OFF...

When they DIE, having deliberately REFUSED The Salvation of Grace offered by JESUS CHRIST, they do NOT get to spend 1000 years of Paradise on earth with The Lord.

This procedure is already in action right now and is soon to reach a Global Crescendo...

When the last soul is born, that WILL NEVER ACCEPT CHRIST, the rest that WILL are already Known to God IN ADVANCE...

At that point the Countdown begins...

People will be dying in their sins and The Rest who have BEEN Baptized and Saved WILL NOT.

Simple really :- The Flood of Noah (Noe) is a Type.

The Baptism By Faith in The Lord, Having Accepted JESUS, is The Water (in The Context below).

This Time The Water SAVES The Righteous and they get to meet JESUS when He SOON Returns.

When the Dying and Remaining ALIVE (Saved By Faith) Procedure is Completed (hence the vast growing Global population), The Lord Returns and takes Control of The Ark - The Church.

All "On Board" who are TRUE, and Sincerely Believing and Seeking the Lord, ARE Saved Already.

Those Alive at the Final Arrival Date are Known as The Sheep and The Goats...

They get to See JESUS and then The Goats ARE BANISHED, The Sheep are Sifted, and The Millennium of Perfection Begins.

The Sifting of The Sheep (The Wheat in Barns) is an internal Church matter.

False Christs, False prophets, imposters, the son of perdition spirit, the antichrist spirit, Satan himself, and a group known as The Five FOOLISH Virgins (all hanging out in churches, working iniquity), are the last to go...

To really understand how this ALL Comes To Pass, you WILL need to read the links here also :-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

End of translation.

This WILL Come to Pass....

Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


Genesis 6
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

CLICKING AND STUDYING THESE LINKS IS SERIOUSLY ADVISED:-

1). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020;&version=9;

2). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%20:%2031-46;&version=9;

3). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=9&context=chapter

4). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206-7;&version=9;

That's a heck of a prediction, Elijah. Can you tell us when it will come to pass? A year from now, two years, ten years?

I ask because I've never been to Italy, and I've resolved to go before I die. It would be a shame if, on Judgement Day, all I was thinking about was how I never got to see Florence. Should I rush there this summer, or do I have a few more years?

CFLarsen
28th May 2006, 12:06 PM
Hi Prewitt - Covered that one already - have you FORGOTTEN??

The Lord was referring to St.John The Divine - survived until The Book of Revelation and those who were still ALIVE When The Church began with The day of Pentecost AFTER The Resurrection and The Ascension.

Here it is - no point in retyping : It is summed up in ONE PROPHETIC VERSE, full details below :-

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Meaning :- ALL these things in Matthew 24 - CHECK THE WORDING..

HERE IS THE LINK : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57295

Prewitt said : "Keep looking to the sky. It's been 2,000 years and Jesus is still "coming soon". In 4,000 more years, I'm sure your descendants will say the same thing to my descendants. You never quote the verse of the Bible where Jesus tells his disciples that he will return in their generation. Why is that? I don't expect an answer, but surprise me.
Where does The Holy Bible State that?"

ANSWER :-

For The Record - The Lord Returned in The Holy Spirit to St.John The Divine and The Book of Revelation was Written.

Below are The Scriptures relevant to this reply.

Matthew 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=3&version=9&context=verse)
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye , when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

So, the generation that Beholds ALL the items in Matthew 24 come to pass, is the Generation that shall NOT PASS, until ALL SUCH THINGS ARE FULFILLED...

Naturally, if you are NOT LOOKING in Faith for such things, then they will pass you by, and the Actual Event may be missed by those NOT LOOKING - AND, how can you LOOK if you Believe NOT???

It is The Faithless down through the Ages that are DIRECTLY responsible for the Date of The Second Coming being so long and delayed.

IF The Gospel of God had been PREACHED by ALL, and ACCEPTED by ALL, The Lord JESUS CHRIST would have Arrived sometime ago.

Its okay though. WHY? God is ABLE to Raise His Elect from The Dead and Return them at the Appropriate Time to Be With Christ, at The Time of HIS SECOND COMING - Amen

And for The Record - The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS available and His Name is JESUS CHRIST...

He is PERMANENTLY "WITNESSING" THE TRUTH OF THE LIVING GOD...

Lastly, JESUS did Return as He Promised, In The Direct Revelation of The Holy Spirit.. This PARTICULAR PROMISE was To St.John The Divine only :-

BEHOLD :-

John 21
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now BEHOLD AGAIN : John was very young when these things were Prophesied unto him - 33.5 AD - The Revelation of St.John The Divine did NOT occur until AD 96...

So some 62.5 years later BEHOLD THE CONCLUSION :-

Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

So to COMPREHEND you will need to Learn The Book of Revelation to finally understand....Amen

Click here or below to start The Revelation - Amen (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201;&version=9;)


http://www.thelivingwordofgod.net:8080/Randi/JESUSsights.gif (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201;&version=9;)


Because they're the types easily distracted by pretty colors and or blinking lights. Since flashy gimmics convinced them to share an imaginary friend with millions of other people, they probably figure the same tactic will work on us.

I do believe you are correct.

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 12:42 PM
And I STILL say that this ones invisible friend is a big bully, massmurderer, war criminal AND voyeristic pervert!
But Delpi_Ote's theory does sound like it merits more research.

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 12:44 PM
And I STILL say that this ones invisible friend is a big bully, massmurderer, war criminal AND voyeristic pervert!
But Delpi_Ote's theory does sound like it merits more research.
I pity any research subjects in such a study. Being exposed to that much colored font can't be good for the eyes or the brain.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 12:44 PM
This has most assuredly happened to me. It seems like the tone here has grown more and more angry and hateful over the years. Mr. Randi, in my opinion, seems to be comfortable with insulting people he disagrees with. The challenge seems to exist mostly to allow 'brights' to feel superior to people who for the most part appear to be mentally ill.

Please make allowances for the above post; I have it on good authority that I am a f***ing retard.

Valis, your post provides an excellent example of how the JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi's behaviour may be perceived...

...by "a f***ing retard".

@Beth & princhester: I do not know valis' personality nor do I get from the post that the signature has a humourous intent. Neither the wording nor the formatting hints any clue of humour to me.

When I posted my response I handed back what valis gave to me.

I did attribute said "perception" on valis, his post and his signature line.

Pidge
28th May 2006, 12:46 PM
One thing about Elijah777, is that if he's/she's posting here, it looks like he's/she's spent at least 2 hours NOT annoying somebody else somewhere else. Unless he's/she's got a nice collection of bit's'pieces to cut'n'paste.

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 12:47 PM
I pity any research subjects in such a study. Being exposed to that much colored font can't be good for the eyes or the brain.

hm....Do you think we have discovered a new kind of torture? One which ISN'T covered by the Geneva Convention?

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 12:47 PM
One thing about Elijah777, is that if he's/she's posting here, it looks like he's/she's spent at least 2 hours NOT annoying somebody else somewhere else. Unless he's/she's got a nice collection of bit's'pieces to cut'n'paste.

Addition by subtraction? :)

The_Fire
28th May 2006, 12:50 PM
Addition by subtraction? :)
No, I think he's using a homeopathic editing program. Probably a 30c dilution.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 12:56 PM
The problem with the 'scientific community' is their DEMAND for empirical evidence.
...


:D

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 01:10 PM
...
a well seasoned Visionary
...


Pepper? Salt? Garlic?

Carnal desires! I knew it. (John, 6, 51ff)



How is Cannibal Corpse's "Tomb Of The Mutilated" or "Eaten Back To Life" any different than this? Except a lot less displeasuring to listen to. Great drumming.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 01:14 PM
How can we get this thread back on track?

Perhaps somebody (Pinocchio? Beth? Cyphermage?) will provide a proposition how to improve "fairness" on clause #7?

Bigt
28th May 2006, 02:17 PM
The Spirit Of The LORD God, The Father of All Creation, By His Holy Son JESUS CHRIST, Can do ANYTHING He Chooses to do.


Can he make you go away? I wish he would. Or, at least, break the irrational loop that your mind is in.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 02:20 PM
...
If someone thinks that Randi has an image as someone who is unnecessarily rude then they are entitled to that opinion and to express that opinion.
...


It helps when forum participants express their opinions clealy and do not insinuate about a perceived "image".
Just say, for example: "To me, a behaves like b." or "I think, a is b." (Math buffs, chillax. ;) )


...
Yes, ideally, we'd go and do a poll. But it's ridiculous to ask for one when we all know that there probably isn't a poll about James' public image - certainly not one which is easily accessible.
...


Who asked for a poll and when?


...
t's not controversial to suggest that being unnecessarily mean (in ANY field of endeavour) damages your credibility. Yes, we could argue endlessly about what constitutes 'unnecessarily' mean, and try to claim some sort of victory, but agreeing to disagree is a bit more dignified. Unlike the challenge I don't think that everyone's aim here should be to "win".
...


Try to walk in Mr. Randi's shoes for 40 minutes, matt-r.
Then remind yourself he travels this path for more than 40 years.
Let it sink in, think about it for a while. No pressure to reply in an instant.

Then, if you like and entirely at your convenience, matt-r, express your opinion again.

princhester
28th May 2006, 04:18 PM
@Beth & princhester: I do not know valis' personality nor do I get from the post that the signature has a humourous intent. Neither the wording nor the formatting hints any clue of humour to me.

When I posted my response I handed back what valis gave to me.

I did attribute said "perception" on valis, his post and his signature line.

Tosh. "Gave to you" indeed. His sigline refers to himself, not you.

Now, you were about to tell us precisely what you meant by your post #168. I'm waiting.

How can we get this thread back on track?

Perhaps somebody (Pinocchio? Beth? Cyphermage?) will provide a proposition how to improve "fairness" on clause #7?

Do you have me on "ignore" or did you miss my post #184?


Mmm... perhaps I misread something in there, but you seem to have done a pretty good job of reading my intention. Where is this supposed article?

Which supposed article? The Toronto one? I don't know. As I said, I'd never seen or heard of it till Cybermage mentioned it. I'd like a cite to it myself. Do try to keep up.

And I asked you a question regarding your post #183. How's your answer coming along?

princhester
28th May 2006, 04:20 PM
Regarding Elijah777, is any purpose served by his presence here? I mean really. And responding to him is just feeding him, you know.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 04:30 PM
Tosh. "Gave to you" indeed. His sigline refers to himself, not you.

Now, you were about to tell us precisely what you meant by your post #168. I'm waiting.


Do you mean "me" when you say "us"?

I meant what I said. Precisely.


Do you have me on "ignore" or did you miss my post #184?
...


No and no.

princhester
28th May 2006, 05:13 PM
Do you mean "me" when you say "us"?

I meant what I said. Precisely.

I see. So Valis puts forward his perception of the Challenge and you say "Valis, your post provides an excellent example of how the JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi's behaviour may be perceived by "a f***ing retard"."

So you are calling him a f***ing retard. But you suggest Cybermage should be more polite. Do you see any hypocrisy here? Because I find it a little hard not to.

No and no.

So are you just ignoring my proposed clause or what? Why post something that suggests you are still waiting on a proposal for a fair clause when it's been given to you already?

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 05:31 PM
I see. So Valis puts forward his perception of the Challenge and you say "Valis, your post provides an excellent example of how the JREF Challenge and Mr. Randi's behaviour may be perceived by "a f***ing retard"."

So you are calling him a f***ing retard. But you suggest Cybermage should be more polite. Do you see any hypocrisy here? Because I find it a little hard not to.


Princhester, please note that valis refers to himself as "a f***ing retard" in his sig line.

I do not see hypocrisy. You may.


So are you just ignoring my proposed clause or what? Why post something that suggests you are still waiting on a proposal for a fair clause when it's been given to you already?

I still wait for a different proposition from another forum member.

Would you want to have this clause you proposed in the Princhester One Million Dollars Challenge?

princhester
28th May 2006, 06:40 PM
Princhester, please note that valis refers to himself as "a f***ing retard" in his sig line.

I do not see hypocrisy. You may.

Oh, I do, I do. Because I think you are being highly disingenuous. Unless you have little experience of life you know damn well that it is one thing for me to say (self-deprecatingly) "make allowance for me I'm an idiot" and it is quite another for you to say to me "you are an idiot". If you think the latter is polite even in the context of my self-depracating remark you need life lessons. Badly.

Furthermore, I gave you two reasons why you are a hypocrite over this issue, and you've only ever dealt (in an utterly unconvincing way, as above) with one of them.

If you took a deep breath, stepped away from the Challenge for a moment and looked at it dispassionately (as the bloody good but imperfect thing that it is) you might not get yourself into a bind in this way.

Would you want to have this clause you proposed in the Princhester One Million Dollars Challenge?

Don't you read my posts? I've already said not, for pragmatic reasons. That doesn't make the clause itself fair.

valis
28th May 2006, 06:41 PM
@Beth & princhester: I do not know valis' personality nor do I get from the post that the signature has a humourous intent. Neither the wording nor the formatting hints any clue of humour to me.

When I posted my response I handed back what valis gave to me.

I did attribute said "perception" on valis, his post and his signature line.


Sorry I find it hard to have time to keep up with these huge threads, and when they have techicolor bible quote goodness it gets even harder.

That said:

My sig is meant to make a point and be a bit tounge in cheek at the same time. It refers to Penn Jillete (sp?) who was quoted as refering to Christians as 'f***ing retards' not that I have any particular axe to grind against Penn and Teller; I have been fans of theirs for years, but I think it is indicitive of what I percieve as a growing lack of politness and downright mean spiritdness amongst the skeptical.

What really brought it home was the comment to the Russian blindfold reader that included this line:

Then I suggest that you are intellectually challenged.

Keep in mind that Mr. Randi wrote these people FIRST. What way is this to talk to people?

Anyhow I hate long posts and now I am making one so I will cut it short by summing up thusly:

I am what I call a little c Christian although I was an Atheist for most of my life. I belive by choice but freely admit the matter of God is unknowable. There is currently a point beyond which we cannot look so there is little point in arguing about it.

Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to be rude, I go back to getting Randi's email list before there was a web page and I sense a steadily growing nastiness to the general tone. This is my impression; your mileage may vary.

If you are smart and you disagree with someone else it does not follow that they are stupid. In other words if I am Bright it does not mean all who disagree with me are Dim and unworthy of common courtesy.

The challenge has a good purpose in the case of exposing frauds and rip off artists. Many of the challengers in the various threads here seem to have mental problems and many seem do delight in conversing with them about their imaginary abitlities. There is nothing to be gained from this; IMO, and is cruel. It smacks of a 'let's laugh at the kids on the short bus' mentality.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 06:59 PM
Sorry I find it hard to have time to keep up with these huge threads, and when they have techicolor bible quote goodness it gets even harder.

That said:

My sig is meant to make a point and be a bit tounge in cheek at the same time. It refers to Penn Jillete (sp?) who was quoted as refering to Christians as 'f***ing retards' not that I have any particular axe to grind against Penn and Teller; I have been fans of theirs for years, but I think it is indicitive of what I percieve as a growing lack of politness and downright mean spiritdness amongst the skeptical.

What really brought it home was the comment to the Russian blindfold reader that included this line:



Keep in mind that Mr. Randi wrote these people FIRST. What way is this to talk to people?

Anyhow I hate long posts and now I am making one so I will cut it short by summing up thusly:

I am what I call a little c Christian although I was an Atheist for most of my life. I belive by choice but freely admit the matter of God is unknowable. There is currently a point beyond which we cannot look so there is little point in arguing about it.

Just because you disagree with someone is no reason to be rude, I go back to getting Randi's email list before there was a web page and I sense a steadily growing nastiness to the general tone. This is my impression; your mileage may vary.

If you are smart and you disagree with someone else it does not follow that they are stupid. In other words if I am Bright it does not mean all who disagree with me are Dim and unworthy of common courtesy.

The challenge has a good purpose in the case of exposing frauds and rip off artists. Many of the challengers in the various threads here seem to have mental problems and many seem do delight in conversing with them about their imaginary abitlities. There is nothing to be gained from this; IMO, and is cruel. It smacks of a 'let's laugh at the kids on the short bus' mentality.

Thank you, valis, for your clarifying post. I most definitely misunderstood your sig line.

Valis, please accept my apology for calling you "a f***ing retard".



I spent this entire weekend with research about Mr. Randi and his work. I dawns on me that my huge respect for his track record may have influenced my ability to accept different opinions. I will let this gained perspective sink in over the next days and weeks.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 07:03 PM
...
If you took a deep breath, stepped away from the Challenge for a moment and looked at it dispassionately (as the bloody good but imperfect thing that it is) you might not get yourself into a bind in this way.
...


Done and done.

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 07:56 PM
That's a heck of a prediction, Elijah. Can you tell us when it will come to pass? A year from now, two years, ten years?

I ask because I've never been to Italy, and I've resolved to go before I die. It would be a shame if, on Judgement Day, all I was thinking about was how I never got to see Florence. Should I rush there this summer, or do I have a few more years?

Hey Admiral,

Good question (even if you are being "flippant")

Based on the Current Date, "Start of Third Millennium from Christ and the Seventh Millennium from Adam", AND taking into account the recent fulfillment of a large "swathe" of Old and New Testament Prophecy, in the past 350 years or so, most especially (particularly) since the advent of ELECTRICITY, coupled with the recent Massive Global Evangelical Movement, never in the history of mankind since the Resurrection has the Closeness of the Second Coming been SO Imminent.

Hosea 6
1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. (http://www.constellation7.org/Hosea/ThirdMillennium.htm)
3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

Add to this the VAST FULFILLMENTS last century with World War 1 and World War 2, culminating in The Holocaust, followed by The Greatest Sign of ALL TIME, The Restoration of Sovereign Israel (after some 2700 years in Abeyance), Heralded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki - (see Prophecy below), this Future looks increasingly BRIGHT.

Correlate into the equation the Final Islamic Judgment (long, long overdue, by famine, sword and earthquake) together with the colossal internal collapse of morality in the USA and the West generally, we have some Sharp Indicators, that the Time is at Hand "even at the doors".

The Restoration of Sovereign Israel IS the "Summer Fig Tree" (that Prewitt liked to mention) - see also the other Prophecy below.

Couple it ALL with the "arrival" of curious "Aerial Phenomena" that appear to somewhat match The Wheels of Ezekiel, PLUS the Crop Circles of the past 20 years or so (WHATEVER they really are), and we DO have Signs in the heavens above and Signs in the earth below, distress of nations, global tribulation" This global Tribulation is EMPHASISED by worldwide access to massive events through the News Media.

Finally, a massive "falling away" from The Faith within long established Church nations, and the Herald of the exposure of the spirit of the Son of Perdition, and the Antichrist spirit inside churches OR attacking The Church, and we are EXTREMELY CLOSE to The Great Command from Heaven, from God The Father - (translated) "Go My Son, and Take The Kingdom, Prepared for You from the Foundation of the worlds"

There are some other good pointers :- The ability for Christ to Stand anywhere on earth and be filmed (from a Distance because the "lost" will NOT be able to approach that close), and then the 'distant image' can be beamed across the entire globe, plus that 'distant hazy H-image' bathed in clouds can then be printed in every newspaper and magazine and website, GLOBALLY. (see Prophecy below).

This is achieved thanks to Satellite Technologies (oh yea, there is Good Science).

Remember that a Christian man stood and planted a flag in the moon, on the 21st Birthday of Sovereign Israel.

However, as stated before, the Lord is very Longsuffering and Patient, NOT desiring that any should perish but that ALL should Come to Repentance.

Nevertheless, The Prophecies Reveal that, at the Time of His Holy Arrival, the earth will STILL be teeming with DENIERS...

Boy will they Change their minds FAST when STANDS AGAIN ON EARTH ...

Sad thing, it will be too later for them then (the very wicked that is).

Conclusion Admiral : Take that holiday in Florence, BUT, EXAMINE your own life and heart, and ask, Why do i NOT Believe?

Why have i NOT become a Baptized Believing Christian man, striving to be Holy?

Why have i been such a skeptic and disbeliever?

:idea: Hence this Posting and The Claim Application in the First Instance...

That you might Believe that The Holy Bible of 1770 AD is Perfect Truth.

Just Believe that which is Written and Follow on to Obey The Commandments therein and ALL will be well with thy soul !!!

Do this simple "Action" for all to see and know, and The Angels will rejoice in Heaven, God will be WELL Pleased, and you too, WILL get to Meet The Lord JESUS Christ when He Returns for "The Takeover", and The Millennium of Perfection - Amen

This webpage is a deeper look into the above Prophetic Theme :-

http://www.constellation7.org/Hosea/ThirdMillennium.htm

Isaiah 10:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=10&verse=22&version=9&context=verse)
For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

Zechariah 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=45&chapter=14&verse=12&version=9&context=verse)
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Revelation 1:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=1&verse=7&version=9&context=verse)
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

NB : The First Recorded "UFO" :-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201;&version=9;



http://www.thelivingwordofgod.net:8080/AncientOfDays.jpg (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zephaniah%203%20:%208-9;&version=9;)

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 08:09 PM
World War 1 and World War 2, culminating in The Holocaust... Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this Future looks increasingly BRIGHT
... Final Islamic Judgment (long, long overdue, by famine, sword and earthquake)
Wow. Cut out all your nonsense color crap and it becomes fairly obvious you worship a real douchebag, and you definitely seem to be created in his image. Tell us more about how the Holocaust and Nagasaki are good things. Or maybe tell us more about how you hope Muslims are run through and starved?

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 08:12 PM
Hey Admiral,

Good question (even if you are being "flippant")

Based on the Current Date, "Start of Third Millennium from Christ and the Seventh Millennium from Adam", AND taking into account the recent fulfillment of a large "swathe" of Old and New Testament Prophecy, in the past 350 years or so, most especially (particularly) since the advent of ELECTRICITY, coupled with the recent Massive Global Evangelical Movement, never in the history of mankind since the Resurrection has the Closeness of the Second Coming been SO Imminent.

Add to this the VAST FULFILLMENTS last century with World War 1 and World War 2, culminating in The Holocaust, followed by The Greatest Sign of ALL TIME, The Restoration of Sovereign Israel (after some 2700 years in Abeyance), Heralded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki - (see Prophecy below), this Future looks increasingly BRIGHT.

Correlate into the equation the Final Islamic Judgment (long, long overdue, by famine, sword and earthquake) together with the colossal internal collapse of morality in the USA and the West generally, we have some Sharp Indicators, that the Time is at Hand "even at the doors".

The Restoration of Sovereign Israel IS the "Summer Fig Tree" (that Prewitt liked to mention) - see also the other Prophecy below.

Couple it ALL with the "arrival" of curious "Aerial Phenomena" that appear to somewhat match The Wheels of Ezekiel, PLUS the Crop Circles of the past 20 years or so (WHATEVER they really are), and we DO have Signs in the heavens above and Signs in the earth below, distress of nations, global tribulation" This global Tribulation is EMPHASISED by worldwide access to massive events through the News Media.

Finally, a massive "falling away" from The Faith within long established Church nations, and the Herald of the exposure of the spirit of the Son of Perdition, and the Antichrist spirit inside churches OR attacking The Church, and we are EXTREMELY CLOSE to The Great Command from Heaven, from God The Father - (translated) "Go My Son, and Take The Kingdom, Prepared for You from the Foundation of the worlds"

There are some other good pointers :- The ability for Christ to Stand anywhere on earth and be filmed (from a Distance because the "lost" will NOT be able to approach that close), and then the 'distant image' can be beamed across the entire globe, plus that 'distant hazy H-image' bathed in clouds can then be printed in every newspaper and magazine and website, GLOBALLY. (see Prophecy below).

This is achieved thanks to Satellite Technologies (oh yea, there is Good Science).

Remember that a Christian man stood and planted a flag in the moon, on the 21st Birthday of Sovereign Israel.

However, as stated before, the Lord is very Longsuffering and Patient, NOT desiring that any should perish but that ALL should Come to Repentance.

Nevertheless, The Prophecies Reveal that, at the Time of His Holy Arrival, the earth will STILL be teeming with DENIERS...

Boy will they Change their minds FAST when STANDS AGAIN ON EARTH ...

Sad thing, it will be too later for them then (the very wicked that is).

Conclusion Admiral : Take that holiday in Florence,
...


Good for the Admiral, but can you please try to give us a number, Elijah777?

Please refrain from explaining again why it will happen: Just tell us when. Thank you.

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 08:32 PM
Wow. Cut out all your nonsense color crap and it becomes fairly obvious you worship a real douchebag, and you definitely seem to be created in his image. Tell us more about how the Holocaust and Nagasaki are good things. Or maybe tell us more about how you hope Muslims are run through and starved?

Hello -

Nasty comment about your CREATOR...

Never said The Holocaust and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were GOOD things.

Just that they are MASSIVE historical fulfillments of Biblical Prophecy.

Sadly, EVIL MEN, have DONE these things...

For example, had Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan WON The Second World War, what kind of world might we be living in TODAY???

Therefore, the use of The Atomic Bombs and the forces of Britain and the USA to STOP that Iniquity, was a necessary thing.

The DESTRUCTION of The Jews in the Holocaust should tell you a lot about the Culmination of The Judgment that then lead to The Restoration of Sovereign Israel, and should tell you a lot about what the Twentieth Century was REALLY all about !!

Hitler had a CHOICE - he chose EVIL, beyond the imagination to comprehend.

In doing so he fulfilled what Daniel SAW, 2560 years earlier.

:idea: Hence my Claim Application in the first place.

Also, don't expect to UNDERSTAND The LORD God of The Hosts.

However, TRY and IMAGINE what He is is Like based on the sheer size of the known collection of stars and galaxies.

Based on our MINISCULE knowledge today of the Created Heavens, know this : God is Far Beyond The Size of His Creation.

In fact His Creation is "Small" Compared To Him.

Yeah..yeah.. i know you don't Believe He Exists...

That's okay - YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG...

He knows EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU - Everything !!!

Isaiah 19:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=19&verse=1&version=9&context=verse)
The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 08:49 PM
Good for the Admiral, but can you please try to give us a number, Elijah777?

Please refrain from explaining again why it will happen: Just tell us when. Thank you.

Mark 13:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&verse=32&version=9&context=verse)
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Having stated all things you have read to date since my arrival in this Forum, you may find this report below more than interesting (hey but somehow i doubt it - laughter)

The Angel Gabriel is an Important HERALD - (but even he has no clue to the hour or the day of The Second Coming)....Now read on

We all do Know it is VERY, VERY SOON...Amen

Click this Link (http://angelart-gallery.com/bramlet.html) to read the whole page that contains the below extract :

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]Encounter # 2 (Confirmed)
While in the process of investigating the above incident, I learned of this next amazing one from another person in California, although it took place in Tennessee. It happened just past midnight on March 26, 1993, to Vincent Tan, an analytical chemist who works in Chattanooga. ...snip...


Edited for Breach of Rule 4.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 08:54 PM
You have no idea when it will happen, do you Elijah777?

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 09:27 PM
Also, I do not understand how "no man knoweth" the time of the second coming but you "all do Know it is VERY, VERY SOON".

Does that count as blasphemy? Doubting "god's word" and all? You do not need to respond, Elijah777.

We welcome a contribution to the thread theme, however.

delphi_ote
28th May 2006, 09:50 PM
Nasty comment about your CREATOR...
Sorry I made fun of your imaginary friend.
Never said The Holocaust and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were GOOD things.

Just that they are MASSIVE historical fulfillments of Biblical Prophecy.
But it's wonderful that they fulfill prophesy. You said so yourself. So you sit around and hope for more disaster. You're a sick, sick person.
Hitler had a CHOICE - he chose EVIL, beyond the imagination to comprehend.

In doing so he fulfilled what Daniel SAW, 2560 years earlier.
So it was a part of God's plan, but Hitler chose to do it. God knew what he would choose, but let it happen anyway. Nice creator.
Also, don't expect to UNDERSTAND The LORD God of The Hosts.
Isn't that exactly what you're doing with this prophesy nonsense?
He knows EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU - Everything !!!
Right. There's a word for that. Omnipotence. All caps and color fonts are no substitute for vocabulary.

That word means your God knew all about the Holocaust and atom bombs and did nothing to prevent them. In fact, he planned on them happening. Isn't that what all this prophesy stuff is about? The realization of God's plan?

Elijah777
28th May 2006, 10:33 PM
Sorry I made fun of your imaginary friend.

But it's wonderful that they fulfill prophesy. You said so yourself. So you sit around and hope for more disaster. You're a sick, sick person.

So it was a part of God's plan, but Hitler chose to do it. God knew what he would choose, but let it happen anyway. Nice creator.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing with this prophesy nonsense?

Right. There's a word for that. Omnipotence. All caps and color fonts are no substitute for vocabulary.

That word means your God knew all about the Holocaust and atom bombs and did nothing to prevent them. In fact, he planned on them happening. Isn't that what all this prophesy stuff is about? The realization of God's plan?

Slow down - you are simply MISUNDERSTANDING...

God GIVES all of us FREEDOM TO CHOOSE - Free Will.

Otherwise we are all just PUPPETS on strings - would you like it that way?

You can choose to do Evil or choose The Good - we all have that Right.

Now i write Prophetically again :-

"Had mankind CHOSEN to do Good across the Ages, then the Prophecies in the Bible that have been highlighted recently, and that you point to above to deride me and The Creator would have forever remained UNFULFILLED.

Put another way - The Prophecies can only be Understood AFTER the Event has transpired.

No Event - NO Fulfillment.

This is why the language of The Prophetic is coded and hidden within the Body of The Main Text of The ENTIRE Holy Bible.

No Historical Event and they remain poetic writings with other implications by Parable only.

CONCLUSION :

God KNEW that sinful man would REJECT His Admonitions, YET, He Remains hopeful and neutral, that we MIGHT just do the Right Thing all on our own, by CORRECTLY excercising The Gift Of Free Will.

Case to Point is THE VERY BEGINNING, where Free Will was excerised IN THE MOST AWFUL WAY imaginable - In fact it is THE ROOT, literally, behind EVERYTHING EVIL that ever happened in the past 6006 years."

Here it is :-"

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

NOTE : Had The First Created Humans on earth OBEYED their Creator, mankind would NOT have been "POISONED" and "SIN" would NOT have entered.

Since all tribes throughout history can trace their Genesis to the First Man and the First Woman (has to be this way, otherwise no babies could ever have reached adulthood - BYE BYE Darwin) then MANKIND would have Lived Forever, and Satan "may" have been let back into Heaven later.

Trouble is Satan LIED and the Woman and then the Man disbelieved The LORD God and Listened to The Devil.

Essentially this was a TEST, and they failed, and The Devil failed..Hence this 6006 year non-stop War.

Mankind cannot be ALLOWED to LIVE FOREVER Poisoned and Sinful.

Satan CANNOT ever be allowed back into Heaven -

Nevertheless, JESUS Christ Came and Made a Way for our poisoned sinful souls to Recover Eternal Life...

This is THE ONLY WAY, The ONLY TRUTH, and THE ONLY LIFE

Believe Him !! - Amen

END OF STORY...

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 11:03 PM
Slow down - you are simply MISUNDERSTANDING...

God GIVES all of us FREEDOM TO CHOOSE - Free Will.

Otherwise we are all just PUPPETS on strings - would you like it that way?

You can choose to do Evil or choose The Good - we all have that Right.


Doesn't sound too bad so far, right, delphi_ote?


And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
...


What about the "Free Will" to eat from the tree? Was this "god" a "He Man Woman Hater"? Why did this "god" put this tree there in the first place if this temptation schtick was a "work from the devil"?

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 11:07 PM
"[Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted] [Expletive Deleted]"

valis
28th May 2006, 11:09 PM
Valis, please accept my apology for calling you "a f***ing retard".


Thank you, no offense taken.

GzuzKryzt
28th May 2006, 11:10 PM
Thank you, no offense taken.

Thank you.

Admiral
29th May 2006, 12:39 AM
Conclusion Admiral : Take that holiday in Florence, BUT, EXAMINE your own life and heart, and ask, Why do i NOT Believe?

Why have i NOT become a Baptized Believing Christian man, striving to be Holy?

Why have i been such a skeptic and disbeliever?


Actually, I am a baptized Christian, a Presbyterian. I went to church this morning. On my bookshelf I have a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which I got after four years of Sunday School.

I have my reasons for going to church. I also have my reasons for being fascinated with religion, and not just Protestantism. One of the reasons I want to visit Florence is that it was the birthplace of Dante, one of my favorite writers. My girlfriend is Jewish and I attend her seder each year. I feel like religion should be about love instead of hate- and the one thing it definitely should not be about is ridiculous prophecies and superstitions.

Here's a serious question- why do you believe God's will is so simple that you, a mortal, can comprehend it? It's your right to have faith in God, but why have faith in your own flawed interpretation of scripture?

One last thing- your post that lists "Vincent's encounters" is a clear violation of the JREF forum rules. You can't cut and paste large segments of copyright material. Don't do it again, or the mods will be all over you.

GzuzKryzt
29th May 2006, 12:51 AM
...
Genesis 3, 22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and U live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


"Your Scripture And Your Sermons
Are Leaves Borne On The Wind
To Heal The Unrepentant
One Needs A Greater Sin."
(Manowar)

Beleth
29th May 2006, 01:47 AM
Also, don't expect to UNDERSTAND The LORD God of The Hosts.
Isn't this akin to saying "don't bother reading the Bible"?

The_Fire
29th May 2006, 01:49 AM
Isn't this akin to saying "don't bother reading the Bible"?

Yup.

GzuzKryzt
29th May 2006, 01:50 AM
Isn't this akin to saying "don't bother reading the Bible"?

Hell yeah.