Challenge Questions

[oddball]

Requesting clarification of the following:

(1) Will the challenge end when someone wins the $1m prize, or will it continue, with another prize?

(2) Is it okay to post here an initial draft of a challenge proposal, prior to submitting an application, and solicit advice on protocols and so on?

(3) If one has two abilities to demonstrate in hopes of winning the prize, is it okay to send both proposals with the application and allow JREF to choose whether one or both abilities will be tested at a demonstration, and if both abilities are demonstrated, is it possible to win the prize if only one of the two abilities is adequately proven?

(4) Regarding Rule #7, since I am not a lawyer and do not understand the wording in a legal sense, what does "as far as this may be done by established statutes" actually mean? If in fact "...the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action [emphasis mine]" and this “applies to ... damage of any [emphasis not mine] kind", in what kind of circumstances might agreeing to such a broad waiver be a mistake for a challenger?

(5) I'd appreciate hearing what exactly is to be done with the Challenge page on the JREF website, in terms of applying? At least half of it appears not to be part of an application but rather instructions on how to apply. Does the entire web page need to be printed, or is it fine to start from "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000...."? Does the italicized paragraph following "(signature of applicant)" need to be printed as well?

(6) Is the description of what will constitute the demonstration to appear on a separate page along with the statement of what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result? If not, where should these items appear?

(7) Last but not least, I'd like to know, for the record, whether JREF considers it a foregone conclusion that no one will ever win the big prize, or is there a genuine (and perhaps hidden) desire for someone to prove that there's more to this experience we call Life than can be seen without "magic spectacles"?

Thank you in advance.

[webfusion]

Your questions more accurately belong to the realm of the Challenge Administrator ----- however, since they seem to be easily dealt with here by the forum members, from our common knowledge,
I'll take first crack:

1. Ends.
$one-million is all the JREF has in the "bank vault" ---
http://www.randi.org/images/photos/bankvault.jpg

2. Yes. Great idea. Highly recommended.

3. No. Focus on one. Avoid abiguity and the refrain from the need to 'judge' a success.

4. You are entering into a contract. The law defines to what extent contracts may be enforced. JREF cannot avoid, and you cannot avoid, the given terms of this contract, in terms of statutory (tort) law.
(Caveat: I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be what is meant as I understand it, as a layman).

5. Print it out. http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
The entire page itself, from top to bottom, is the "Application"

6. Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated on the reverse before a notary public, and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. --- This would indicate, to me, that the front of the page is the boilerplate text of the Agreement, and on the reverse is your brief description, followed by your Notarized signature and date.

7. Last but not least, I'd like to know, for the record, whether JREF considers it a foregone conclusion that no one will ever win the big prize.

That would require James Randi to make a prediction. For the record.
However, since he is not claiming to be a psychic, I cannot imagine him making such a prediction.

The prize is available, it is real, the Challenge exists.
Apply, or go away.

[SkepticScott]

Hi oddball,
I don't speak for JREF, only for myself
>(1) Will the challenge end when someone wins the $1m prize, or will it continue, with another prize?
I don't know.

>(2) Is it okay to post here an initial draft of a challenge proposal, prior to submitting an application, and solicit advice on protocols and so on?
Yes, many people here will help you refine it, try to anticipate problems, and point out possible flaws.

>(3) If one has two abilities to demonstrate in hopes of winning the prize, is it okay to send both proposals with the application and allow JREF to choose whether one or both abilities will be tested at a demonstration, and if both abilities are demonstrated, is it possible to win the prize if only one of the two abilities is adequately proven?
I think you may want to pick one ability and focus on that. Trying to test two abilities just makes the test more complicated.

>(4) Regarding Rule #7, since I am not a lawyer and do not understand the wording in a legal sense, what does "as far as this may be done by established statutes" actually mean? If in fact "...the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action [emphasis mine]" and this “applies to ... damage of any [emphasis not mine] kind", in what kind of circumstances might agreeing to such a broad waiver be a mistake for a challenger?
I think it means that you can't sue JREF for embarassment if you fail, or if you hurt yourself while travelling to the challenge. I think you can still sue if Randi deliberately hits you, or JREF doesn't hand over the $1M after you win.

>(5) I'd appreciate hearing what exactly is to be done with the Challenge page on the JREF website, in terms of applying? At least half of it appears not to be part of an application but rather instructions on how to apply. Does the entire web page need to be printed, or is it fine to start from "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000...."? Does the italicized paragraph following "(signature of applicant)" need to be printed as well?
I think from "I, James Randi" to "(signature of appicant)" is all that's really neede, but I'd print it all. If you email challenge@randi.org and ask you'll get an answer.

>(6) Is the description of what will constitute the demonstration to appear on a separate page along with the statement of what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result? If not, where should these items appear?
I think they can go on a separate page. Don't get too detailed at this stage, as there may be a lot of questions and refinement. If you claim to be able to make floating balls of light appear indoors, it would be better to say just that, rather than specify "at 12:01:15 on 23 October 2006, at 123 Main St., Anytown, XX".


>(7) Last but not least, I'd like to know, for the record, whether JREF considers it a foregone conclusion that no one will ever win the big prize, or is there a genuine (and perhaps hidden) desire for someone to prove that there's more to this experience we call Life than can be seen without "magic spectacles"?
I've heard Randi say that he'd gladly pay $1M to uncover something special; however, he doesn't expect that to happen.

Your best bet might be to post what you claim you can do here, and ask for suggestions. Keep it brief; we don't want to read a 12-page paper with theories behind why you think you can make floating balls of light appear indoors. After you prove you can do it, then people will try to figure out why and how.

Good luck!

[oddball]

Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. Part of your reply raises one additional question:

Apply, or go away.

Is it actually required that in order to continue posting on this forum, one must apply for the challenge?

[oddball]

>Is it okay to post here an initial draft of a challenge proposal, prior to submitting an application, and solicit advice on protocols and so on?
Yes, many people here will help you refine it, try to anticipate problems, and point out possible flaws.

OK I will do that (soon) in another thread. I'm very happy to hear that I can expect to receive some good input.

Trying to test two abilities just makes the test more complicated.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Perhaps you will read my proposal when I post it, and let me know if you think it sounds too complicated.

I think you can still sue if Randi deliberately hits you, or JREF doesn't hand over the $1M after you win.

This is good to know!

I think from "I, James Randi" to "(signature of appicant)" is all that's really neede, but I'd print it all. If you email challenge@randi.org and ask you'll get an answer.

I did, once, and I got a very rude reply (so rude in fact that I was put off of considering this challenge for almost five years) but perhaps it's time to try again. I could sure use the $1m....

I've heard Randi say that he'd gladly pay $1M to uncover something special; however, he doesn't expect that to happen.

I'm very glad to hear this!

After you prove you can do it, then people will try to figure out why and how.

They won't have to, because I'll be more than glad to explain it to all who care to listen.

Good luck!

Thank you very much.

[jimtron]

Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. Part of your reply raises one additional question:



Is it actually required that in order to continue posting on this forum, one must apply for the challenge?

No, but I think there are some members of the forum who have spent a lot of time answering a lot of questions about the challenge, to people who never apply. You're welcome here whether you apply or not. I would suggest carefully reading the rules, and feel free to ask questions. And please do apply.

eta: It would probaby be beneficial to you to read previous discussions on this (Challenge) forum--a lot of the same issues are brought up again and again.

[webfusion]

Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. Part of your reply raises one additional question: Apply or go away

Is it actually required that in order to continue posting on this forum, one must apply for the challenge?

What do you think?

People such as yourself will perpetuate a thread such as this for weeks on end, with post after post of questions and remarks, leading nowhere.

(See: Pater (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63782))

jimtron gives you good advice, and I concur.
Don't waste our time, and we won't waste yours.

The phrase "Apply or go away" is Randi's. He uses it when a potential applicant starts asking too many idiotic questions and appears to be asking just for the sake of an argument.

Don't go there...

[webfusion]

I could sure use the $1m....

Play the lottery. Your chances are better.

[timokay]

I did, once, and I got a very rude reply (so rude in fact that I was put off of considering this challenge for almost five years) but perhaps it's time to try again. I could sure use the $1m....

If you are going to be sensitive to people who will challenge your claim, then you are going to have a hard time. Speaking for myself, I have little patience for people who cannot be clear and direct about what they can do. So please try to stay on topic, and be very clear with the people on the forum. I will make every effort to be open minded if your claim is simple and direct.

[oddball]

eta: It would probaby be beneficial to you to read previous discussions on this (Challenge) forum--a lot of the same issues are brought up again and again.

Thank you for your advice. I have been reading the forum and will continue doing so. I've found it to be a very helpful resource.

[oddball]

If you are going to be sensitive to people who will challenge your claim, then you are going to have a hard time. Speaking for myself, I have little patience for people who cannot be clear and direct about what they can do. So please try to stay on topic, and be very clear with the people on the forum. I will make every effort to be open minded if your claim is simple and direct.

Thank you very much for your comments. I am quite sensitive, but usually can shrug off baseless nastiness and not take it personally. And thank you for the reminder about staying on topic.

[oddball]

What do you think?

Well, I did think you were being rude, or as I wrote to timokay, "baselessly nasty".

People such as yourself will perpetuate a thread such as this for weeks on end, with post after post of questions and remarks, leading nowhere.

The phrase "Apply or go away" is Randi's. He uses it when a potential applicant starts asking too many idiotic questions and appears to be asking just for the sake of an argument.

Don't go there...

I won't. I read a lot of the Pater thread (had to remove the link you provided because I'm too new here to quote one). It was not and is not my intention to ask "idiotic" questions (and it looks as if you're subtly implying that you think I have, or that I will).

I merely wanted information that I hadn't found through reading pre-existing posts.

I very seldom find rudeness endearing or amusing, even when it may be seen as somehow being justifiable. There are more civil means of getting a point across.

[steenkh]

Play the lottery. Your chances are better.
If somebody actually has a paranormal ability, and can demonstrate it again and again, there is every chance that he will take the million. And he should only apply when he is certain that he can do this.

Like you, I do not believe that there is anybody who has paranormal abilities, but I think it is not correct to try scare them away. After all, what purpose has the challenge if people are told that they have a better chance of winning the lottery than taking the JREF challenge, when they believe they can demonstrate paranormal abilities?

The JREF is not a lottery, and there is no attempt at preventing people from getting the money if they can do what they claim.

The message should be that claimants should be absolutely certain that they can do what they claim, even though they will be subject to controls that will ensure that their ability will not be the result of random chance. In fact, there is only 1 to a million chance that a claimant can take the final test through random chance alone (which is better than most lotteries, BTW!).

On the other hand if one is certain that one has the ability, it is a foregone conclusion that one will get the million: If the challenge would accept bending a spoon with my hands, I am confident that I could do this again and again, and I would not care that the JREF would demand that I can do this with a certainty of one to a million that I do not do it by chance!

[oddball]

If somebody actually has a paranormal ability, and can demonstrate it again and again, there is every chance that he will take the million. And he should only apply when he is certain that he can do this.

Like you, I do not believe that there is anybody who has paranormal abilities, but I think it is not correct to try scare them away. After all, what purpose has the challenge if people are told that they have a better chance of winning the lottery than taking the JREF challenge, when they believe they can demonstrate paranormal abilities?

The JREF is not a lottery, and there is no attempt at preventing people from getting the money if they can do what they claim.

The message should be that claimants should be absolutely certain that they can do what they claim, even though they will be subject to controls that will ensure that their ability will not be the result of random chance. In fact, there is only 1 to a million chance that a claimant can take the final test through random chance alone (which is better than most lotteries, BTW!).

On the other hand if one is certain that one has the ability, it is a foregone conclusion that one will get the million: If the challenge would accept bending a spoon with my hands, I am confident that I could do this again and again, and I would not care that the JREF would demand that I can do this with a certainty of one to a million that I do not do it by chance!

Well said, steenkh!

I've never played a lottery and never will. Not because I'm averse to taking risks but because I don't believe in throwing money away in the process, and I'm aware of the odds involved.

As to my proposed Claims (see my other thread entitled "Formulating Challenge Proposal" which I can't link to until I'm less of a newcomer to this forum), at least A and B will be given a few "dry runs" before I decide to go through with an application for the prize, just to be sure my abilities haven't become too rusty to still work. I do routinely detect cancer cases in crowds but haven't ever had the gall to walk up to any of them and ask "Hey, I was just wondering whether or not you know that you have cancer?" Maybe I will think of better way to verify this one. Got any ideas on how to do that???

[Cuddles]

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Perhaps you will read my proposal when I post it, and let me know if you think it sounds too complicated.

I don't speak for the JREF, but I believe on every occasion that someone has claimed more than one thing they have been told that they will only be tested on one at a time.

[nathan]

I don't speak for the JREF, but I believe on every occasion that someone has claimed more than one thing they have been told that they will only be tested on one at a time.
Yup. Oddball, if you claim more than one thing, the JREF will ask you to pick one of them for test protocol negotiations. If you're confident you can do all of those things, any one of which would get you the money, why not just pick the one that is easiest to test? Really, what is the point of claiming more than one thing?

If you're unsure which is the easiest to test, then you might want to put all on your application and say 'I'm not sure which of these is the easiest to go forward with, what do you (the JREF) suggest?'

The consensus here seems to be that Claim A is the one to proceed with.

[Rasmus]

Hi,

I will try to not repeat too much of what has been said already ...

Requesting clarification of the following:

(1) Will the challenge end when someone wins the $1m prize, or will it continue, with another prize?

Your guess is as good as mine. If you - or anyonme else, for that matter - won the challenge, then there would be no point in proving that the paranormal exists anymore. (Until such a time that a rational explanantion can be found that explains how what has been done wasn't paranormal at all, at least. Don't worry: You get to keep them onley if that should ever happen.)

(2) Is it okay to post here an initial draft of a challenge proposal, prior to submitting an application, and solicit advice on protocols and so on?

By all means, please do! But keep in mind that anything happening here won't be official, and you will have to negotiate the protocol with the JREF. So again, don't waste too much time before sending that application - you should notice an increased amount of help and support afterwards. (By applying in an acceptable way, you demonstrate that you are serious about this, after all. Makes it easier to donate time and effort to your cause.)

(3) If one has two abilities to demonstrate in hopes of winning the prize, is it okay to send both proposals with the application and allow JREF to choose whether one or both abilities will be tested at a demonstration, and if both abilities are demonstrated, is it possible to win the prize if only one of the two abilities is adequately proven?

You will most likely be told to stick to just one claim. So no sneakily doubling your chances. ;) Setting up a challenge is no trivial task, and it will always be attempted to keeps things as simple as possible.

Pick your best bet, and apply with that. You don't need to be able to perform 100%. If you can't do something with absolute 100% accuracy, don't claim that you can! (If you can predict coinflips, say, it would probably be sufficient if you claimed 80% success rate. Of course, testing will be simpler and quicker if you have a higher claim to make - but even if you have a special ability, you should be careful if you also want to claim that you are unfailable...)

(6) Is the description of what will constitute the demonstration to appear on a separate page along with the statement of what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result? If not, where should these items appear?

I don't really know. Just writing in coherent sentences will be a good start, though and truly put you ahead of the crowd.

(7) Last but not least, I'd like to know, for the record, whether JREF considers it a foregone conclusion that no one will ever win the big prize, or is there a genuine (and perhaps hidden) desire for someone to prove that there's more to this experience we call Life than can be seen without "magic spectacles"?

In addition to what has been said, many a sceptic will tell you that they would be very excited to live in a world with magic, past lives, etc. We're just aware that wishful thinking doesn't make things so. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[Cuddles]

Your guess is as good as mine. If you - or anyonme else, for that matter - won the challenge, then there would be no point in proving that the paranormal exists anymore. (Until such a time that a rational explanantion can be found that explains how what has been done wasn't paranormal at all, at least. Don't worry: You get to keep them onley if that should ever happen.)

I would hope the challenge would continue even if it was won. Just because one particular phenomenon is shown to be real does not mean they all are. If something does turn out to be real there will be even more need for something like the challenge to show up all the frauds that would come forwards to capitalise on it.

[oddball]

You will most likely be told to stick to just one claim. So no sneakily doubling your chances. ;) Setting up a challenge is no trivial task, and it will always be attempted to keeps things as simple as possible.

Part of my reason for wanting to submit more than one claim in the application is to simplify. Both claims could be tested in one day, at one location; I could make just one trip to Florida instead of two; and JREF could be finished with me in one fell swoop.

I was going on the assumption that there's a million-dollar prize for each successfully proven claim, so why not go for it all in one day, and have it over with?

[oddball]

This reply is to what Nathan wrote. I tried using the "quote" button at the end of his post, and the next page came up with the Rasmus post in quotes :wide-eyed

...why not just pick the one that is easiest to test? Really, what is the point of claiming more than one thing?

See my reply to Rasmus.

If you're unsure which is the easiest to test, then you might want to put all on your application and say 'I'm not sure which of these is the easiest to go forward with, what do you (the JREF) suggest?'

The consensus here seems to be that Claim A is the one to proceed with.

I'm not sure it would be so. "A" would require fewer volunteer subjects but might be harder to work out a protocol for. "B" is probably simpler in terms of working out the protocol but might be more difficult to gather enough of the kind of volunteers needed.

It would help me if I knew who would be expected to do the recruiting of subjects. If that would be me, and if the final testing has to be done in Florida, and I don't live anywhere near Florida, it presents quite a logistical problem.

I'm sure there's a plentiful pool of cancerous folk in south Florida, but if you were fighting to survive cancer, how interested would you be in taking part in a test like this one? I'm in no position to persuade anyone with an amount of money that might be persuasive in such a case, let alone persuade ten or more of them.

On the other hand, there's a good chance that at least a dozen of the 60 or more needed to test Claim B would be fitting subjects for Claim A, and testing both claims at the same day could take advantage of that factor.

[timokay]

Part of my reason for wanting to submit more than one claim in the application is to simplify. Both claims could be tested in one day, at one location; I could make just one trip to Florida instead of two; and JREF could be finished with me in one fell swoop.

I was going on the assumption that there's a million-dollar prize for each successfully proven claim, so why not go for it all in one day, and have it over with?

Because you have yet to create a satisfactory protocol for even one of your claims.
Just focus on Claim A first, and do not get sidetracked discussing the other ones. If you succeed in creating a really simple and effective protocol, then you could consider moving on to the next one.

[Steven Howard]

It would help me if I knew who would be expected to do the recruiting of subjects. If that would be me, and if the final testing has to be done in Florida, and I don't live anywhere near Florida, it presents quite a logistical problem.

From the main challenge page: (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives.

So the preliminary test will take place at a location convenient to you. As for who's responsible for recruiting subjects, I think that's generally spelled out as part of the formal protocol.

[oddball]

Strangely, every time I try to quote anyone's post in a reply in this thread, only the Rasmus' #17 appears on the next page.

Timokay, you wrote "If you succeed in creating a really simple and effective protocol, then you could consider moving on to the next one."

Yes. It's just that I'd rather not have to wait a year to do it. Would I be required to wait a year if I win the prize? Would there be another prize to claim if I won on the first go? I need to know these answers before deciding how to proceed.

[timokay]

Strangely, every time I try to quote anyone's post in a reply in this thread, only the Rasmus' #17 appears on the next page.

Timokay, you wrote "If you succeed in creating a really simple and effective protocol, then you could consider moving on to the next one."

Yes. It's just that I'd rather not have to wait a year to do it. Would I be required to wait a year if I win the prize? Would there be another prize to claim if I won on the first go? I need to know these answers before deciding how to proceed.

Oddball, I am saying that we should only discuss and help you formulate only one claim at a time. The discussion is going to be derailed by the discussion of your claims regarding cancer and raising from the dead, which, I agree, are more fantastic claims. But claim A is one that has some precedent, so if you work with us, we can help you formulate your protocol.

If you focus the discussion on just one claim at a time, then perhaps you can actually fufill a test protocol, which is the goal right? Once you get just one protocol finished and submitted, then you can work on the next claim.

Whether or not you can test all your claims on the same day, for multiple prizes is a different issue, and could probably be answered by a moderator very simply.

[oddball]

This time I used the Reply button instead of the Quote button, and I *still* got the Rasmus post :boggled: Hmmm .... Maybe that's paranormal right there, and the prize would belong to ... the developers of VBulletin? JREF's web host? Rasmus?

Claim A has some precedent, you say. I'd like to see that.

I can see your point about derailing the discussion. Maybe there should be a thread for each potential Claim But isn't it part of the process in this case to analyze the pros and cons of each proposal in relation to the others?

At this stage I am feeling most inclined toward choosing Claim B, and have a few ideas for making the proposed protocol more workable. One thing is I can agree to wear a blindfold, to exclude the possibility that I was somehow reading body language and/or facial expression well enough to see that "this person looks so gloomy, I bet s/he suspects s/he is doomed, and is in a lot of pain" and thus probably has cancer. Doing so would disable me from writing notes on the cards, but there may be a way around that, such as, after the person walks away, I can sit down in a little curtained-off booth and make notes about them before the next person comes up.

Alternatively - and this might solve a major logistical problem with Claim B - the Referee and someone from JREF could accompany me to a big hospital if the hospital agrees to allow me to be led, blindfolded, from room to room for a quick visit with 60 or more sick people, at least 10% of whom are undergoing cancer treatment. We could pause between visits for me to write my notes. It might even be harder for JREF to cheat doing it that way, as opposed to having the cancer patients gather in a central test location.

It might also be convenient to visit a big hospital for a chance to test Claim C. I think it's a good bet that a lot of people die in hospitals on a daily basis. Some if not all hospitals have autopsy facilities, so there might be a ripe opportunity to test Claim C. I can't really imagine any hospital personnel above the level of janitor agreeing to allow such a test in their facility, but it might be worth looking into.

[steenkh]

I could make just one trip to Florida instead of two; and JREF could be finished with me in one fell swoop.
As other have pointed out, you will not need to make any trips to Florida at all.

I was going on the assumption that there's a million-dollar prize for each successfully proven claim, so why not go for it all in one day, and have it over with?
There is only one prize. The only reason why you should want to be tested for more than one claim is if you are not confident that you can perform what you claim.

Also, the JREF will definitely ask you to concentrate on a single claim. We have seen it before.

Take one claim and do it well. Test yourself again and again, as realistically as possible.

[nathan]

wrt more than one claim]
See my reply to Rasmus.
I think you may have missed my point.
1) the JREF will accept ONE application from you per year
2) an application has to claim ONE thing

If you apply with two claims, you're either saying 'my claim is that I can do A and I can do B', which is just making it harder for you. Or it is saying 'my claim is that I can do A or I can do B', which is really two separate claims.

In either case a complex claim makes protocol negotiation harder.

I'm not sure it would be so. "A" would require fewer volunteer subjects but might be harder to work out a protocol for. "B" is probably simpler in terms of working out the protocol but might be more difficult to gather enough of the kind of volunteers needed.
I respectfully disagree :) But, it's going to be between you and the JREF to sort out. Nothing will happen in that regard until you apply.

It would help me if I knew who would be expected to do the recruiting of subjects. If that would be me, and if the final testing has to be done in Florida, and I don't live anywhere near Florida, it presents quite a logistical problem.
That's for protocol negotiation to determine. Nothing will happen in that regard until you apply.

On the other hand, there's a good chance that at least a dozen of the 60 or more needed to test Claim B would be fitting subjects for Claim A, and testing both claims at the same day could take advantage of that factor.
Like I said, that's for you and the JREF to sort out. Nothing will happen in that regard until you apply.

[nathan]

Yes. It's just that I'd rather not have to wait a year to do it. Would I be required to wait a year if I win the prize? Would there be another prize to claim if I won on the first go? I need to know these answers before deciding how to proceed.
Um, there's only one prize. If you win it, it's no longer there to be won again.

Whether a new JREF prize is created is unknown. Perhaps the winner of the prize will donate the money to the JREF and they decide to use it for a new prize.

I don't understand why you need to know whether you can reapply after you've won the prize.

You're asking questions only the JREF can answer. That'll only happen if you apply.

As you're determined to make more than one claim on your application, just go ahead and do it. The JREF will do what they will do. They won't do anything until you apply.

[nathan]

I can see your point about derailing the discussion. Maybe there should be a thread for each potential Claim But isn't it part of the process in this case to analyze the pros and cons of each proposal in relation to the others?
Yes, that is part of the discussion. That discussion has happened. The overwhelming view is that you should proceed with Claim A first. It is only seems to be you who want to proceed with Claim B first.

You came to this forum for advice about applying. You got that advice, but seem to want to ignore it. That's your call.

At this stage I am feeling most inclined toward choosing Claim B, and have a few ideas for making the proposed protocol more workable. One thing is I can agree to wear a blindfold, to exclude the possibility that I was somehow reading body language and/or facial expression well enough to see that "this person looks so gloomy, I bet s/he suspects s/he is doomed, and is in a lot of pain" and thus probably has cancer. Doing so would disable me from writing notes on the cards, but there may be a way around that, such as, after the person walks away, I can sit down in a little curtained-off booth and make notes about them before the next person comes up. ...
You're already making this protocol complex. You're involving entities outside the JREF, it involve questions of conventional diagnosing of cancer, false negatives of same. I'm fairly sure any any such protocol will require all test subjects to undergo screening for cancer(s).

Your initial description of a protocol for Claim A was very clear, and with the modification I suggested I think it'd take no more than a page to describe robustly.

[steenkh]

So, oddball, you have heard our comments to your claims. Do you think you have the information needed to fill in the application form for the challenge?

Remember that you will probably be asked to supply affidavits to show that your claims can also be witnessed by others, and will not just be a waste of time.

If you do write, please post your application and the replies here. The JREF is unfortunately no longer posting the correspondance, and believe me, we are very interested!

[drkitten]

I would hope the challenge would continue even if it was won.

Can we expect you to bankroll the next million, then?

[Cuddles]

Can we expect you to bankroll the next million, then?

If only academia paid more.:rolleyes:

[drkitten]

If only academia paid more.:rolleyes:

You see the problem, then. I'd love to see the JREF challenge stand as a permanent monument to skeptical thinking and the scientific method....

... and to that end, I pledge Randi and his heirs all the change underneath the passenger seat of my car. Unfortunately I already pledged the driver's seat to the mortgage company, and in exchange they will let me sleep indoors tonight. If I had a couch, I might offer that to the Leaning Tower of Pizza delivery guy so I could eat, too....

[Crowbot]

... and to that end, I pledge Randi and his heirs all the change underneath the passenger seat of my car. Unfortunately I already pledged the driver's seat to the mortgage company, and in exchange they will let me sleep indoors tonight. If I had a couch, I might offer that to the Leaning Tower of Pizza delivery guy so I could eat, too....

Got paypal? Dinner is on me.

[oddball]

Whether or not you can test all your claims on the same day, for multiple prizes ... could probably be answered by a moderator very simply.

Apparently no moderator has seen my post, or if one has, they didn't take the time to reply. How can I find out who the mods are? I'd like to try sending PMs.

This is an important issue for me. If I can win more than $1m in a matter of a few days, my plans are going to be different than if I know there's only $1m to be won in a given 12-month period, and different still if I know there will never be another $1m to be won from JREF.

Thanks a lot for being so helpful and patient with me so far. I deeply appreciate it.

[steenkh]

Apparently no moderator has seen my post, or if one has, they didn't take the time to reply. How can I find out who the mods are? I'd like to try sending PMs.
This is a wrong idea that timokay got started there. The moderators are not involved with the JREF. They are solely here to ensure that the forums are working correctly according to the policy laid out by the JREF.

The only authoritative place you can get some information about how many claims you can test simultaneously is at challenge@randi.org. However, we can tell you with fairly high accuracy that the JREf will test only one claim at a time. James Randi has never said what would happen if the million has been won, but we know that there is approx. 2 million at the challenge account at Goldman Sachs, so it is theoretically possibile that another challenge could be running after the first has been won. At least I think that somebody here said that the latest account statement from Goldman Sachs listed 2 million dollars.

(ETA: There is some possibility that any new challenge would rule out entries from previous winners, so do not hold up your hopes for more than one million)

[oddball]

As other have pointed out, you will not need to make any trips to Florida at all.

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere on the website or forum that only the preliminary tests were done at the claimant's location, and the final test requires travel to Florida. If I'm mistaken I wish someone would set me straight on that point.

[oddball]

The only authoritative place you can get some information about how many claims you can test simultaneously is at challenge@randi.org.
<snip>
(ETA: There is some possibility that any new challenge would rule out entries from previous winners)

Pardon my ignorance but what does "ETA" stand for?

I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions. Maybe things have changed since the first time I tried to communicate directly with JREF but my initial contact was met with such extreme rudeness that I wanted to exhaust other options for getting questions answered before contacting JREF. I sure hope they now have a different person handling email correspondence with applicants.

[steenkh]

Pardon my ignorance but what does "ETA" stand for?

ETA: Edited To Add

I edited the post because I had another small point to add, and I thought it was not worth firing off another post withing 20 seconds!

[webfusion]

I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions.

Uh-Oh. This is a bad harbinger of how oddball intends to approach things.
No application has been formulated yet, and already he's providing the best possible "out" ----- Randi's brusque style (AKA: rudeness).

oddball actually states that:
Maybe things have changed since the first time I tried to communicate directly with JREF but my initial contact was met with such extreme rudeness that I wanted to exhaust other options for getting questions answered before contacting JREF. I sure hope they now have a different person handling email correspondence with applicants.

1. This indicates that oddball has failed to read http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56603]THIS Challenge thread dealing with the topic in question ---

2. Oddball opened another thread, for ideas and discussion on how to prepare the Application and what to focus on ----- yet, after a few pages, he decided that the thread should be closed
In post #77 ("http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1929230&postcount=77) ---
"Guys and gals, let's close this thread.... It has become a waste of my time."

3. Rather than do so, he wastes our time further, with posts # 79 and 81 in that thread, and then offers the final words:

"NO THANKS"


Oddball, you have reached the point where it is appropriate (I repeat (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1920879&postcount=2)) for you to take the best advice of all:
Apply or go away.

AGA.

(ps- for the record, AKA = Also Known As)

[oddball]

Originally Posted by oddball http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1929277#post1929277)
I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions.
Uh-Oh. This is a bad harbinger of how oddball intends to approach things.
No application has been formulated yet, and already he's providing the best possible "out"----- Randi's brusque style (AKA: rudeness).

Why is it the "best possible 'out'"? Out of where?

It should be plentifully obvious that I have been investing a lot of time in trying to formulate an acceptable challenge proposal. Instead of dissing me for "wasting" time, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the effort I am making?

I've asked for help with the proposal in the first message of the new thread. Read it and you will see that it contains a number of questions that no one so far has said anything about.

Your reply certainly hasn't contributed to my effort in any way. In fact I would say that you are the one wasting everyone's time.

This indicates that oddball has failed to read

I got here less than a week ago, and I'm expected to know the contents of every post?

If you can't be helpful, at least be civil, or go away!

[Gr8wight]

Strangely, every time I try to quote anyone's post in a reply in this thread, only the Rasmus' #17 appears on the next page.

Try purging your internet cache.

[Gr8wight]

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere on the website or forum that only the preliminary tests were done at the claimant's location, and the final test requires travel to Florida. If I'm mistaken I wish someone would set me straight on that point.

There has never been a final test, so we're not sure about that point, but such a stipulation does not appear in the challenge rules or FAQ

[Gr8wight]

I'm not too keen on the idea of asking anyone @ randi.org any questions. Maybe things have changed since the first time I tried to communicate directly with JREF but my initial contact was met with such extreme rudeness that I wanted to exhaust other options for getting questions answered before contacting JREF. I sure hope they now have a different person handling email correspondence with applicants.

Here's the problem. There is not one poster on this forum who can speak with authority about the challenge. Everything we are telling you is based upon our observations of previous claim applications, but none of us are officially a part of the JREF. The only way to get some of your questions answered authoritatively is to ask the JREF. No way around it.

[nathan]

I've asked for help with the proposal in the first message of the new thread. Read it and you will see that it contains a number of questions that no one so far has said anything about.
Yes, and AFAICT you have ignored the specific advice about how to modify the protocol for Claim A to avoid the judging of the referree.

I once again advise you to

a) modify the protocol so that the subjects do the determination of which reading applies to them.

b) submit an application to the JREF.

[oddball]

Yes, and AFAICT you have ignored the specific advice about how to modify the protocol for Claim A to avoid the judging of the referree.

What do you mean by "the judging of the referee"?

I once again advise you to modify the protocol so that the subjects do the determination of which reading applies to them.

I don't recall seeing you say that before. I do recall at least one other poster suggesting that I propose doing it the way it is now stated.

[oddball]

The only way to get some of your questions answered authoritatively is to ask the JREF. No way around it.

Well as webfusion so "brusquely" pointed out in his(?) recent post, a Jeff Wagg is now in charge of challenge applications, and since he's a different person than I corresponded with in the past, I feel somewhat relieved. From what little I've read of Wagg's forum posts, he sounds like he knows how to be civil.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by oddball
Why is it the "best possible 'out'"? Out of where?

Out of actually applying, or going forward with the protocol negotiations or even testing. You complain that you aren't being treated nicely enough and it disrupts your 'sensitivity' and ruins your abilities to go ahead because the JREF is treating you 'rudely' and you won't stand for it.

Boo-Hoo.

It should be plentifully obvious that I have been investing a lot of time in trying to formulate an acceptable challenge proposal.

You surely meant "painfully obvious" right?

This thread is one of three you've started --- in this specific thread you allude to your claims, starting with "I do routinely detect cancer cases in crowds."
Claim A.

Then you move onto ----
"Claim B" and "Claim C" etc...

Now you're up to Claim "D" -- correct? (clairvoyance using photographs)
And that's being covered in a new thread....


Instead of dissing me for "wasting" time, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the effort I am making?

This is completely ridiculous. I was the first one to answer each and every one of your OP questions, and provided you with the link to answer your specific complaint/question in Post #38 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1929277&postcount=38) --- them's the facts, bub.

Your reply certainly hasn't contributed to my effort in any way. In fact I would say that you are the one wasting everyone's time.

Hey, oddball, my postings are contributing to your 'effort' directly. You can say what you want but the members of this forum are not going to fall for your insults and your false insinuations.

I got here less than a week ago, and I'm expected to know the contents of every post?

Uh, back in Post #10 of this thread, you were offered some sage advice.
You read it, and agreed that you need to follow it.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1921044&postcount=10

Now, you're mad at me for calling your attention to a very important thread that you completely failed to research? How is that MY fault? I did you a favor and answered your question, and you perceive it as "brusque" ?

Oddball, do me a huge favor and put me on 'ignore' status, and that way I can continue posting things that tear you apart, and everyone else can see them, but I won't have any fear of 'hurting your sensitivities'.

No, being civil to woos is not a requirement around here -- get used to it.
You, odd, are a woo, of the first order.

[oddball]

Out of actually applying, or going forward with the protocol negotiations or even testing. You complain that you aren't being treated nicely enough and it disrupts your 'sensitivity' and ruins your abilities to go ahead because the JREF is treating you 'rudely' and you won't stand for it.

Boo-Hoo.

This makes no sense to me. I haven't complained. I've stated facts and opinions, and related experiences. Nothing emotional at all. I haven't said that anything has ruined my abilities either. I said I don't care to deal with people who are rude for no reason. The impression I have from some of the people here - you included - is that being rude might be a requirement to get extra points or something.

You surely meant "painfully obvious" right?

Whatever.


This thread is one of three you've started --- in this specific thread you allude to your claims, starting with "I do routinely detect cancer cases in crowds."
Claim A.
Then you move onto ----
"Claim B" and "Claim C" etc...

In the context of responding to others' questions and in the course of discussing which claim is the one to use in an application. How is that bad?


Now you're up to Claim "D" -- correct? (clairvoyance using photographs)
And that's being covered in a new thread....


No, not D. Others advised to focus on one claim and suggested ways to revise it. So that's what I did. The thread where I originally posted about that claim was filling up with digressive discussions so I started a fresh one. If that was the wrong way to handle it, I didn't hear about it soon enough. Sorry.

This is completely ridiculous. I was the first one to answer each and every one of your OP questions, and provided you with the link to answer your specific complaint/question in Post #38 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1929277&postcount=38) --- them's the facts, bub.

I don't know what "OP" means. I do know that every post you've made in my threads has had a hostile tone. Don't you know how to be civil?


Hey, oddball, my postings are contributing to your 'effort' directly. You can say what you want but the members of this forum are not going to fall for your insults and your false insinuations.

Uh, back in Post #10 of this thread, you were offered some sage advice.
You read it, and agreed that you need to follow it.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1921044&postcount=10

Now, you're mad at me for calling your attention to a very important thread that you completely failed to research? How is that MY fault? I did you a favor and answered your question, and you perceive it as "brusque" ?


The overall tone of everything you post is what I call brusque. Expecting me to read everything in the whole board in such a short time is also unreasonable. I'm not "mad" at you. Exasperated is more like it.

Oddball, do me a huge favor and put me on 'ignore' status, and that way I can continue posting things that tear you apart, and everyone else can see them, but I won't have any fear of 'hurting your sensitivities'.

What have I done to earn so much hatred from you, that you want to tear me apart? Why don't you ignore my posts, if they move you to such strong feelings as wanting to tear me apart. You've been minimally helpful and your nastiness so far has more than negated any help you've offered.

You, odd, are a woo, of the first order.

I'd have to say that you're a boor in the same degree. If that's how you treat everyone you know, then I'm glad we haven't met.

I'm really sorry to be feeling pushed into saying these kind of things to anyone. I've managed to live 53 years without ever finding it necessary to be half as rude to anyone I've ever known as you are being to a stranger on the internet. Feels like I'm starting to come down with a new disease called ROOC---Rudeness Out Of Control.

:boxedin:

[nathan]

I don't recall seeing you say that before. I do recall at least one other poster suggesting that I propose doing it the way it is now stated.
Well, then you missed what I wrote, and what at least one other person referred to.

I may have misunderstood your new protocol, could you clarify some things for me?

1) Your claim is 'by looking at someone's face I can tell you something about their parents & grandparents'.

Is that correct?

2) Your original protocol had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would write some stuff about them. A referree would determine if what you wrote was 'the same as' what the subjects wrote.

Is that correct? The problem here is that it calls for a subjective judging.

3) Your new protocol (which is where I think I misunderstood), had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would see their photos and what they had written. You would match up the photos with the writings.

Is that correct?

Question: How does doing #3 actually prove your claim that you can tell some stuff about them? All it seems to be doing is showing you can match mug shots to some personal details.

Hence my suggestion. You write the details you determine by looking at the mug shots. That bit appears to exactly match your claim. Then the subjects individually determin which of your readings actually refers to them. That bit deals with ensuring your readings are both (a) specific enough and (b) accurate enough. Although each subject is subjectively judging, they are judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data. We can use some statisical analysis to ensure any results are significant.

[oddball]

Well, then you missed what I wrote, and what at least one other person referred to.

I may have misunderstood your new protocol, could you clarify some things for me?

1) Your claim is 'by looking at someone's face I can tell you something about their parents & grandparents'.

Is that correct?

Yes.


2) Your original protocol had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would write some stuff about them. A referree would determine if what you wrote was 'the same as' what the subjects wrote.

Is that correct? The problem here is that it calls for a subjective judging.


Not quite what I said.... I said the subjects themselves would determine how accurate I was. But that would probably not fit what JREF wants either.


3) Your new protocol (which is where I think I misunderstood), had the subjects write out some stuff about themselves. You would see their photos and what they had written. You would match up the photos with the writings.

Is that correct?


Yes.

Question: How does doing #3 actually prove your claim that you can tell some stuff about them? All it seems to be doing is showing you can match mug shots to some personal details.

I understand what you mean but I'm not sure I agree with you.

Doing it that way was suggested (I forget by who) as a way to avoid the problem in your #2 above. So I incorporated that suggestion when I wrote the new protocol.

I'm not sure that your idea (below) would solve the issue of subjectivity in the results. Are you saying that they'd choose which of my descriptions best fits them, and then give it an "accuracy rating"? If so, that might also be too subjective. I can see it also making designing the protocol more complex, since some kind of "accuracy grading system" would have to be devised.

Hence my suggestion. You write the details you determine by looking at the mug shots. That bit appears to exactly match your claim. Then the subjects individually determin which of your readings actually refers to them. That bit deals with ensuring your readings are both (a) specific enough and (b) accurate enough. Although each subject is subjectively judging, they are judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data. We can use some statisical analysis to ensure any results are significant.

I don't completely understand what you mean by "judging something about themselves to generate some statistical data".

The way I did this when I was learning it, I would sit with the subject and make notes, then ask the subject if I was correct about each item in my notes. If I missed something I would make note of it, and that was how I knew which areas I needed to work on to improve my accuracy.

Working from facial photos shouldn't be too much more difficult than using a live subject if the photos are good enough. Matching photos to descriptions also seems straightforward and simple, with no room for subjective distortion.

Maybe others will give opinions on this part. But I think this kind of discussion, which is specific to this claim proposal, really belongs in the new thread.

[timokay]

By all means. I think this thread should be locked, and we should deal with this in only one thread. I just asked the same questiosn nathan asked, and was answered by you in this thread.

[oddball]

Maybe the other thread "Formulating Challenge Proposal" should also be locked.

[nathan]

Not quite what I said.... I said the subjects themselves would determine how accurate I was. But that would probably not fit what JREF wants either.
ah, yes I remember. You would give the subject *only* the reading you made of them, and ask them 'is this you'. The problem is that in such a scenario, the subject has no baseline of a reading by you that does not correspond to them. Also they have no scale in which to rate accuracy.
I'm not sure that your idea (below) would solve the issue of subjectivity in the results. Are you saying that they'd choose which of my descriptions best fits them, and then give it an "accuracy rating"? If so, that might also be too subjective. I can see it also making designing the protocol more complex, since some kind of "accuracy grading system" would have to be devised.

I'm fairly certain it would solve the primary problem, because it is a protocol James Randi recommends for astrological reading accuracy. Your problem is isomorphic to that (as I understand your claim).

In my protocol the subject would simply have to determine which of the N readings they are given matches them. They don't have to rate how good it is. The reading merely has to be sufficiently precise that they can distinguish it from the other readings. The result will be M subjects selected the reading that matched them.

The reason this works is that if you consider the case when the readings have *no* distinguishing features, the probability of a subject picking the right reading is what chance predicts. Thus each subject has a 1/N chance of picking the right one so at random one would expect M to be 1. Probability theory will tell you the chances of 2, 3, 4 etc subjects select the right reading.

The way I did this when I was learning it, I would sit with the subject and make notes, then ask the subject if I was correct about each item in my notes. If I missed something I would make note of it, and that was how I knew which areas I needed to work on to improve my accuracy.
This sounds like cold reading. You're not specific enough for me to tell if it IS cold reading or not.

Maybe others will give opinions on this part. But I think this kind of discussion, which is specific to this claim proposal, really belongs in the new thread.
Nooooo! Stop creating new threads at the drop of a hat. You're showing a very good ability to NOT STICK TO THE POINT. That's a classic sign of someone who ends up not applying for the challenge but just mutters on about things. A pity, because your first post was remarkably clear - but then that's happened before -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57001 for instance.

[oddball]

I'm fairly certain it would solve the primary problem

Which is??

because it is a protocol James Randi recommends for astrological reading accuracy. Your problem is isomorphic to that (as I understand your claim).

It would seem so but the more I think about it, the less I agree.

In my protocol the subject would simply have to determine which of the N readings they are given matches them. They don't have to rate how good it is. The reading merely has to be sufficiently precise that they can distinguish it from the other readings. The result will be M subjects selected the reading that matched them.

This sounds like putting the odds too heavily in my favor, because I would only need to hit one correct thing on each subject, so I would make fewer notes on each subject and only submit the one I felt most certain was correct. And of course I'd choose the easiest item to detect, and feel as if I was cheating even thought I was following the rules that had been set up.

The reason this works is that if you consider the case when the readings have *no* distinguishing features, the probability of a subject picking the right reading is what chance predicts. Thus each subject has a 1/N chance of picking the right one so at random one would expect M to be 1. Probability theory will tell you the chances of 2, 3, 4 etc subjects select the right reading.

In this kind of test, what would constitute a distinguishing feature?

This sounds like cold reading. You're not specific enough for me to tell if it IS cold reading or not.

Then feel free to ask whatever clarification you need. If I knew what you mean by "cold reading" I would tell you right now.

Nooooo! Stop creating new threads at the drop of a hat. You're showing a very good ability to NOT STICK TO THE POINT. That's a classic sign of someone who ends up not applying for the challenge but just mutters on about things. A pity, because your first post was remarkably clear - but then that's happened before -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57001 for instance.

I'll read that other thread as soon as I can but I'll tell you now that I am just trying to keep it organized. Continuous flipping between three different threads is confusing.

[nathan]

Which is??
Subjectivity of scoring how well you're doing.

This sounds like putting the odds too heavily in my favor, because I would only need to hit one correct thing on each subject, so I would make fewer notes on each subject and only submit the one I felt most certain was correct. And of course I'd choose the easiest item to detect, and feel as if I was cheating even thought I was following the rules that had been set up.
Incorrect. You would need (for example) one correct thing and *no* incorrect things on each subject. That's a higher barrier than you think it is.

In this kind of test, what would constitute a distinguishing feature?
I have no idea -- it's your claim. You claim to be able to give readings. Such readings, if they are any good, must contain correct features that distinguish one reading from another. Furthermore, with my suggested protocol we don't have to define what these are in advance.

Then feel free to ask whatever clarification you need. If I knew what you mean by "cold reading" I would tell you right now.
I suggest you do a search for cold reading on wikipedia or google or something. For instance, do your subjects give you feedback in any way (conciously or unconciously) during the reading?

Continuous flipping between three different threads is confusing.
yeah, you brought that on yourself :)

[oddball]

Opening a new thread was my effort to make this process *less* confusing :(

On the subject feedback question, the subjects didn't say anything and I didn't say anything until the reading was finished. At the end, I read from my notes, and they said whether each item is correct or incorrect.

You would need (for example) one correct thing and *no* incorrect things on each subject. That's a higher barrier than you think it is.

But if I only gave one thing - the one I was most certain was correct - I wouldn't be giving any additional things to be incorrect about. The only thing I could miss on would be the "one thing" that I did give.

I wish I could think of something to compare this with but like I said a few hours ago I am getting overwrought. I'll keep it on the back burner and post later if something does occur to me.

Subjectivity of scoring would also be solved by what timokay suggested in [what is now] the main thread for this topic.

I still don't know what you mean about distinguishing features.

[nathan]

But if I only gave one thing - the one I was most certain was correct - I wouldn't be giving any additional things to be incorrect about. The only thing I could miss on would be the "one thing" that I did give.
Yes. Though note that the one thing you're most certain of would have to be unique for that particular subject. Is that always true, regardless of how many different subjects there are?
I still don't know what you mean about distinguishing features.
Ok, if your reading consists of one thing, then that's the distinguishing feature.

[oddball]

Nathan I am falling asleep sitting up and simply cannot keep up this conversation with any degree of intelligence right now. I'll be back later on. This brief message is just a "placeholder" for my reply. Hope I can still add to it when I return.

[webfusion]

OP refers to your Opening Post.

You still insist: "I haven't complained."

Sure you have.

Right here: Post #38 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1929277&postcount=38) == you complain of rudeness from the Challenge Administrator being so off-putting that you cannot bring yourself to write another email, and now feel the need to come here into the forum and blather on in three different threads that are barely coherent.

and I simply cannot keep up this conversation with any degree of intelligence...

You said it.

[Gr8wight]

Well as webfusion so "brusquely" pointed out in his(?) recent post, a Jeff Wagg is now in charge of challenge applications, and since he's a different person than I corresponded with in the past, I feel somewhat relieved. From what little I've read of Wagg's forum posts, he sounds like he knows how to be civil.

Kramer (probably who you dealt with in the past) did go through a period of near burn-out where he had difficulty being civil. It was much discussed here. He seemed to find a new balance eventually, but it was shortly before he left the JREF. And, the simple fact is, if you intend to undertake to one million dollar challenge, there is no way round dealing with the JREF, regardless of who is administering it.

[oddball]

OP refers to your Opening Post.

You still insist: "I haven't complained."

Sure you have.

Right here: Post #38 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1929277&postcount=38) == you complain

That's an explanation, not a complaint. Your perception of it as a complaint doesn't translate to mean that it was one. I wrote it and I know why I wrote it, and you don't. That is, unless you're claiming to be a mindreader.

[webfusion]

That's the beauty of the internet ----- a "mindreader" such as oddball can cast aspersions and make numerous excuses and explanations, without actually coming right out and doing what was originally expected of her.

Apply or go away.

[rjh01]

I agree with webfusion. "Apply or go away." Oddball has what he needs to apply. There is nothing he can learn from us or us from him.