Interesting JE Hits....

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread.

Don't try desperately to change the subject here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What's the point about talking about context when actions speak louder than words and I have provided accounts of those actions above. Since I was not there and only have his written words to go by I am not to be expected to infer from his tone of voice that he was joking.

The point of context?? Are you a dimwit, Steve? Context is everything. You can't just go around quoting people out of context and then think it is all OK.

It's nice of you to acknowledge that you were wrong, though.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The definition of charlatan which Darat is not interested in but which is extremely important fits Randi rather nicely and I am sure he would not disagree with it based on his actions and what else he has said about himself. In addition, the paragraph where he confesses to be a charlatan which you quoted were responded to long after after the fact in legal questionning. When originally quoted, these remarks were not hastily subject to qualification by Randi. Randi then backtracked on them, saying "hey, I was only joking." Who's backtracking now?

No backtracking on Randi's part. He was addressing the audience of a magic show, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I made no claims about the JREF money pot. I suggested that it woud be nice if Randi revealed the issuer of the securities or bonds in that account. I did this at the very first instance of this subject and I did so at the end. Nothing changed with that.

You used far stronger words than merely "nice", Steve. Who's backtracking now?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Can you tell me why Randi doesn't want to reveal this?

Ask Randi. I am not a mind reader.

[SteveGrenard]

C: If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread. Don't try desperately to change the subject here.

No, a new thread is not necessary. I don't want to talk about it....only point it out in the "context" of the definitions by which Randi describes himself. Did he consider the researchers at the Paraspychological Association magicians? Did the researchers at McDonnell agree to be fooled by him? I think not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
C: If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread. Don't try desperately to change the subject here.

No, a new thread is not necessary. I don't want to talk about it....only point it out in the "context" of the definitions by which Randi describes himself. Did he consider the researchers at the Paraspychological Association magicians? Did the researchers at McDonnell agree to be fooled by him? I think not.

Where does Randi refer to anyone regarding Project Alpha as "charlatans"? Nowhere? Then what is your point??

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I guess you posted before you got the connection. In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well. He owes her an apology. I don't wonder why she has not backed down. When Randi comes to his senses and plays fair and square, perhaps they can hammer out a scientifically proper test. Until then Darat, I have to agree with you.................of course we may all be gone by then. I seem to recall something about hell freezing over.


I may have missed this, but why does Randi owe Sylvia an apology again?

[Iamme]

Clancie---This is Iamme. Hi.

Here is the site you can go to that gives the transcript of what I was talking about regarding the November birthday. See for yourself how JE follows up his question, with confirmation AFTER the sitter acknowledges, first.

Go to: Tvtalkshows.com. Then go to the John Edward board. You will see a listing of the latest threads. About ten threads down is a thread started by poster "Kenny" entitled, "South Park was talking aboutthis JE board." I am using a friend of mines computer and my posts are logged under the name "Seeker" over there. But my username is Phelps. I usually try to identify myself as Phelps in the post, even though the name "Seeker" is the registered username.

Posters such as Instig8R, Gryphon, Neofight, RC34, Lurker...and many others are both regulars on this JE board and your JREF board. Come on over sometime. It can be a hoot.

[Clancie]

Hi Phelps (RC caught it before I did! :) ). Good to see you posting here.


Here is the site you can go to that gives the transcript of what I was talking about regarding the November birthday. See for yourself how JE follows up his question, with confirmation AFTER the sitter acknowledges, first.
I didn't realize who you were, Iamme, but I wanted to mention that the reading in that thread wasn't an actual JE transcript--just a very clever parody of one. Sorry, but--clever though it was--we can't use it as an example of a bad JE reading! :p

(And, say, btw, aren't the editing features here nice? :) ) Trevor could use this posting format, too--so easy to read--but he won't. I don't know why. :confused:


Posters such as Instig8R, Gryphon, Neofight, RC34, Lurker...and many others are both regulars on this JE board and your JREF board. Come on over sometime. It can be a hoot.
Right you are! And also...Rain, Mel, mark tidwell, Cynical, dharlow, Mike D, RSLancastr....and of course, our old "friend", Cantata! are all here as well.)

As a matter of fact, I'm one of the regulars over at TVT myself! I am me...no, I mean, really One of them is me! or whatever. Any idea who? :D

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

These were personal experiences, they were anecdotal and they represented an honest answer to a question posed as to why I became interested in this subject. This is what I said before, and this is what I am saying now. This eliminates the need for me to support my account, especially in this forum, and clearly I am claiming nothing other than this. Is this the game you jerks play? Ask a question and then when you get an honest answer turn that around and try and recruit for Randi's slaughterhouse?
Pretty sick bunch of whackos I would say.
You've been picked up by the mothership and taken for a trip to the moon, and returned to Earth. You have the exact name and address of the person who arranged this for you. And you don't feel the need to contact this person again. Okay, if you say so...

In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well.
You're defending Sylvia Browne!!!!!!! Gasp .... can't breath .... staggering stupidity ...

Clancie/Steve - you *really* don't want to be seen to be supporting Sylvia in *any* way at all, do you? The morning after September 11 this woman advertised her $4000 per head "spiritual trip to the holy land" on her website as the follow-on text to her "what a tragedy" comments ? Who 24 hours later followed this up by announcing that the airliners were crashed by the terroriests using a secrect weapon known as "the X bomb"? She has the moral sensibilities of a crocodile, and the "psychic-skills" of a worm.

[SteveGrenard]

You just don't get it. This is not politics Loki. This is not about whether SB is a fraud or a fake. Its about what's right. Randi
duped her. This doesn't mean she's the real deal. This doesn't
make it alright for someone to pull a fast one over an applicant for the JREF Challenge. It taints the process.

If you're a cop and you hang around with bad guys long enough this is not jusification to be like them.

[Loki]

SteveGenard,

If you're a cop and you hang around with bad guys long enough this is not jusification to be like them.
Exactly Steve - you're "hanging around" intellectually with Sylvia, and becoming "like her".

[SteveGrenard]

LOKI: Exactly Steve - you're "hanging around" intellectually with Sylvia, and becoming "like her".

LOL......bite your tongue. It may well be impossible to hang around wth SB intellectually. It first requires some inellect.

[Loki]

Steve,

It may well be impossible to hang around wth SB intellectually. It first requires some inellect.
Since you made me laugh, I'm prepared to accept that you mean that Sylvia has no intellect, rather than you have no intellect!

I'm at work at the moment...so here's the delayed reply to your previous post :

This is not politics Loki.
No, actually, wth Sylvia and Larry King and Randi it's *exactly* about politics (re marketing), and nothing more. Randi knows this. You *should* know this (I thinkn youn do!). Sylvia wants to pretend it's not - and you taint yourself by pretending that there's anything more at stake here.

This is not about whether SB is a fraud or a fake. Its about what's right.
Stopping fraud is wrong?

Randi duped her.
Nope - they were playing "the game", and both knew it.

This doesn't mean she's the real deal.
We are in complete agreement.

This doesn't make it alright for someone to pull a fast one over an applicant for the JREF Challenge.
Oh please ... are you seriously suggesting that Sylvia intended to be tested? She knew all along what game she was playing - it's politics, nothing else.

[SteveGrenard]

When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant. For JREF, the Challenge, its integrity and hopefully for many but I know not all of us here, it is NOT politics. Politics taints
the Challenge. Changing the passing grade after the fact as Randi allegedly did is tainting the process. It gives SB an excuse to play her game. Randi should not give any applicant an excuse but he does so consistently. I know perfectly well it is politics for SB and her ilk, but I like to think that some of us are above that and at the end of the day SB and her minions can point no fingers
which is exactly what she is doing and Randi doesnt have a good enough answer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant.

No, you did not explain yourself in a way that made it clear what you meant. Don't be so quick to blame others for your own flaws.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant. For JREF, the Challenge, its integrity and hopefully for many but I know not all of us here, it is NOT politics. Politics taints
the Challenge. Changing the passing grade after the fact as Randi allegedly did is tainting the process. It gives SB an excuse to play her game. Randi should not give any applicant an excuse but he does so consistently. I know perfectly well it is politics for SB and her ilk, but I like to think that some of us are above that and at the end of the day SB and her minions can point no fingers
which is exactly what she is doing and Randi doesnt have a good enough answer.

I've often wondered about this since I've not seen anything myself but what has SB or her "minions" said about the challenge?

[Ersby]

One of her minions, Victor Zammit, says on his website http://www.victorzammit.com/ :

SYLVIA BROWNE the medium - ... closed-minded skeptic Randi keeps poking fun at every week is the same medium I advised NOT to be tested by Randi. This is because my investigations show that Zwinge Randi is NOT genuine, his offer is absolute rubbish and she would be set up to fail the test. Go peddle your rubbish somewhere else Zwinge Randi - leave Slyvia alone.

Anyone familiar with the editorial style of UK newspapers The Sun or The Star would be hard pressed not to read that without laughing.

Zammit also says, apropos of absolutely nothing:

DEAD SKEPTICS - all dressed up and nowhere to go.

Truly bizarre. And often very funny.

[Loki]

Darat,

I've often wondered about this since I've not seen anything myself but what has SB or her "minions" said about the challenge?
I don't have any referenes handy, but Sylvia has been on LKL live since the appearance with Randi, and I believe that both there and on her web site she has (a) cast doubt on whether the million dollars actually exists and (b) claimed that she doesn't have the time to be tested. It must be so time consuming seeing into the future so she can state that "John Travolta has to be very careful flying his plane in February" as she did back in 2000.

Of course, that was the year that also gave us the following amazing insights from Sylvia :

"Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston get married, but it lasts for only a short time." - well, I suppose 3 years and counting might be "a short time";

"Gwyneth Paltrow marries an older man who is in the entertainment business, but not as well known as she." - In fact, he's so 'Not well known" that no one knows this has happened!

"David Letterman decides to call it quits from his nightly late show after this year." - Eventually, yes!

"Courtney Cox will get pregnant this year and have a baby boy."
- Well, only 3 years off, or perhaps it's a long pregnancy?

"NASA finally cuts back on the space program realizing that every time they send up a space vehicle they are tearing the ozone layer." - The Ozone layer fights back.

"The midwestern U.S. has a big uprising because of some kind of polluted waste hazard. This has not been recognized at this point, but begins to surface around Branson." - An uprising?

"There is going to be a very definite detection of mines and some bombs that have not been detonated off the coast of Hawaii." - Un detonated bombs off the coast of Hawaii? Surfing can be dangerous!

"Train wrecks will occur in France and England causing quite a bit of devastation in May." - Any train wrecks in France or England in May 2000, Darat?

Gee, but she's good!

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I do not have a scanned copy of the forms at home nor polciies, procedures and regs at home so will be happy to privately e-mail to anyone next week as I probably have digital copies on diskette in the lab where I am not.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Monday, then, Steve. We need to see those forms.

I see Steve posted HIPAA fines and penalties, but not the agreement he would have Claus sign. Steve, please post the agreement in its entirety, I would like to read it. I am sure you must have a copy- what would you have Claus sign otherwise? Thanks!

Edited in this link- check this thread out, some interesting comments on HIPAA and contracts.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870045004#post1870045004

[SteveGrenard]

The agreement is known as a HIPAA Compliant Business Associates Agreement. I have looked at several we have today. They must be drawn up between two entities on an individual
basis therefore there is no boilerplate or standardized version of this which I can send. The subject matter covered goes to 4 single spaced pages and I do not intend to have an agreement drawn up for anyone's curiosity at this point. The agreements I happen to have are confidential themselves by their nature so it is impossible to release them as an attachment on a forum such as this.

I will see if I can find an example on the web for your interest and information.

[PinkRabbit]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please answer the question: Do you have any evidence that such a third party exists and that what you describe is possible?


The evidence Claus is in the very document you pointed to. The blacked out lines. There are two possibilities:

1) The bonds remain in the name of the donor's account so this is why they are blacked out. I understand why they should be blacked out since the donor wants to remain anonymous. But
if that's the case, why is the original donor's name still on them. There is a mechanism to change the ownership of the bonds and JREF's name should be on them.


2) The blacked out lines are the issuing authority or corporation's name. This is the more likely of the two. What reason is there for JREF to suppress who issued the bonds? None that I can think of unless they are surety bonds and not corporate or public authority bonds.

With those lines blacked out I have no evidence of any of this but the existence of the blacked out lines adds fuel to the speculation. If Randi unequivocally states JREF owns those bonds and they were issued by so and so it will go a long way in helping to promote applicants for the challenge. I am sure you will agree this would be a very positive step.

Actually, there is a third, much stronger possibility, namely that the blocked out information contains additional account reference numbers, and has been blocked out for security reasons (since with those numbers, one might possibly be able to manipulate or steal the money in some manner), just as the account number at the top has been partially blocked out.

It's been awhile since I've done any business with Goldman Sachs, but my memory is that an overview statement like this is simply intended to give gross amounts in each sub-account, and wouldn't typically list the actual bond entities (or stocks, or mutual funds, etc). Further a clue to this likelihood exists in that it's listed as Cash and Cash Equivalents, a broad term that indicates several possible types of holdings being grouped together for ease of reporting. Often these sorts of forms are intended more for tax purposes than as a tool in tracking individual investments (the IRS cares about amounts---it doesn't give a damn who that investment was with).

Investment reports are typically very detailed and contain a lot more information, most of it in incomprehensible legalese.

It's highly likely that Randi gets a more detailed statement that includes a description of how that money is divided up (after all, with that volume of cash, it's entirely likely, it's actually invested in several different bonds), however, even that might not list the actual bond issuers, and given that these are fairly static bonds, may not come more than once a year for tax purposes.

Barb

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The agreement is known as a HIPAA Compliant Business Associates Agreement. I have looked at several we have today. They must be drawn up between two entities on an individual
basis therefore there is no boilerplate or standardized version of this which I can send. The subject matter covered goes to 4 single spaced pages and I do not intend to have an agreement drawn up for anyone's curiosity at this point. The agreements I happen to have are confidential themselves by their nature so it is impossible to release them as an attachment on a forum such as this.

I will see if I can find an example on the web for your interest and information.

Steve,

I would like to obtain a copy of the CD you will also recieve. Please send me the necessary forms I need to sign.

Are you going to do that or not?

[MRC_Hans]

The two lamest excuses for not taking the JREF challenge are surely these:

1) Randi will fix me up to loose

2) Randi does not really have the money

As for #1: The testee gets to take part in designing the test, actually, the testee can design the whole test, if it is acceptably designed. Both parts accept the test protocol in advance. There is no way Randi could fix the test.

As for #2: In theory, this could turn out to be true. Most potential testees keep saying, however, that "it is not the money that is important", and this would be a prime opportunity to vindicate paranormal and destroy the JREF for good: Somebody passing the test and the JREF failing to pay up! To the believer's community, this would certainly be worth more than a million bucks!

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
1) Randi will fix me up to loose

Kun et "o". Dummerniks! :)

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
As for #2: In theory, this could turn out to be true.

In reality, this turns out to be false. The money is there. Or, rather, here (http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif).

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Most potential testees keep saying, however, that "it is not the money that is important", and this would be a prime opportunity to vindicate paranormal and destroy the JREF for good: Somebody passing the test and the JREF failing to pay up! To the believer's community, this would certainly be worth more than a million bucks!

Yeah, that's what I don't understand either. They seem to really, really loathe Randi, so why not bring him down by passing a test they themselves design?

They are not "vindictive"? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Don't forget the "tainted" money excuse. That has to do more damage to the woowoos than any other excuse. Homeopathic money?? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

(Do skeptics evolve this demonic laughter after dealing with woowoos for a while? Hmmm.... ;))

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Most potential testees keep saying.................


I didn't know they could talk. That's one paranormal claim I would like to see Randi tackle....

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Most potential testees keep saying.................


I didn't know they could talk. That's one paranormal claim I would like to see Randi tackle....

Burned out, drunk, or really this lacking in comprehension?

:rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are .................................................. .........................

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are .................................................. .........................

test·ee ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ts-t)
n.
One who takes or has taken a test.

tes·tis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tsts)
n. pl. tes·tes (-tz)
The reproductive gland in a male vertebrate, the source of spermatozoa and the androgens, normally occurring paired in an external scrotum in humans and certain other mammals.
An analogous gland in an invertebrate animal, such as a hydra or a mollusk.


www.dictionary.com

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are .................................................. .........................
Steve,

I know how to spell. When I have a question, I know how to look it up. When someone else questions me, I think about it and usually look it up. I don't hang myself out to dry like a pair of dangling oval objects after a hot shower.

[BillyTK]

Could we avoid the first year undergrad humour by using "participant" instead?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Could we avoid the first year undergrad humour by using "participant" instead?

Not to worry, Billy, SG imploded on this one. It remains to be seen if he simply DQ'd us or not...

Cheers,

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Kun et "o". Dummerniks! :)

Youck! I guess I loost it ;)


In reality, this turns out to be false. The money is there. Or, rather, here (http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif).

Since when has documentaion meant enything to believers?

Yeah, that's what I don't understand either. They seem to really, really loathe Randi, so why not bring him down by passing a test they themselves design?

They are not "vindictive"? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Thats true! After all, have you ever heard of any of them threatening to sue Randi, or seen them slandering him on their websites, or lying about him in public?

Don't forget the "tainted" money excuse. That has to do more damage to the woowoos than any other excuse. Homeopathic money?? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Yeah. One wonders what they use for cash. After all, who knows who had those money before :eek: ?

(Do skeptics evolve this demonic laughter after dealing with woowoos for a while? Hmmm.... ;)) [/B]

Steve: Potential testees...... Mmm, it seems I made a faulty double-o earlier in my post, but ... potential ... methinks the potential joke here is deeper than the one you made ;)

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Let me remind you, since you seem to have forgotten:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I would need you and Randi to sign a confidentiality agreement, breech of which now makes you liable to 10 years in prison and a quarter of a million dollar fine if found guilty of violating it. If you or Randi are willing to sign that I have no problem sharing this wave form data with you and your researcher(s) who also need to sign if and when I get it and have permission to do so. I would have to investigate whether being overseas is an impediment as I dont have that kind of information and what your country's extradition laws are should a violation cause you to be charged.

Also:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I don't see any point in having you sign anything yet until after the upgrade is complete and Schwartz agrees to give me the EEG and ECG data as discussed above and also agrees for me to send it to Denmark so an independent researcher can look at it as well. I am happy to have independent evaluation of anything I might end up doing with it and I don't know yet as I have not seen it. This upgrade that would enable this will be complete by the end of August so we are looking at the middle of September earliest. This would give you time to find someone to download it and enable reading of it. I suggest any neurophysiology department, sleep lab or EEG department that is digitized and can convert EDF files. They would have to agree to sign as well.

We are now well into October. Can I see that confidentiality agreement, please?

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

We are now well into March 2008.

Can I see that confidentiality agreement, please?

[alfaniner]

Geez, Claus. Sometimes you gotta just let things go.

[HarryKeogh]

Geez, Claus. Sometimes you gotta just let things go.

Can I predict his reply?

"If it was Sylvia Browne instead of Steve would you say 'I gotta just let things go?'"