Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum \$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$\$

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 4th February 2005, 08:36 AM #2 IXP Graduate Poster     Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,085 Kramer, He does have a point in that the present value of the bonds could fall dramatically if interest rates were to suddenly increase, a situation which is very likely in the near future. I think it is a valid question of whether the prize, when awarded, will consist of bonds with a present value of \$1M or whether that would be the value at maturity, meaning that the present value would be dependent on the maturity date, the rating and the interest rates of the bonds. IXP __________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
 4th February 2005, 08:49 AM #3 Rob Lister Suspended   Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523 Quote: Originally posted by IXP Kramer, He does have a point in that the present value of the bonds could fall dramatically if interest rates were to suddenly increase, a situation which is very likely in the near future. I think it is a valid question of whether the prize, when awarded, will consist of bonds with a present value of \$1M or whether that would be the value at maturity, meaning that the present value would be dependent on the maturity date, the rating and the interest rates of the bonds. IXP No. He doesn't have a point. The prize is a cash (dollars) prize. The form that cash takes while still in the possession/control of Randi is not relevant. Quote: The Challenge states that One Million Dollars will be awarded to anyone who proves the existence of paranormal phenomenon. That's a contract. If someone manages to win the prize, Randi owes him the million.
 4th February 2005, 08:51 AM #4 CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804 I think I'll withdraw a bit, and keep the rest in bonds... __________________ SkepticReport.com
 4th February 2005, 09:17 AM #5 KRAMER Former challenge facilitator   Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 1,443 Rule #8 Here is Rule #8 of the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge (not the JREF "MAYBE" ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE, or the JREF "NEGOTIABLE BONDS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WORTH ONE MILLION DOLLAR" CHALLENGE, but the real and actual JREF ONE MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE)... At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US\$10,000. In the event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US\$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail. Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend, and accept? The Challenge will pay the claimant "...the reward, for a total of \$1,000,000." Where does it state that the claimant will get bonds instead of a million bucks? We're awarding One Million Dollars. Nowhere does it state that the winner will receive bonds of any kind. The reference to bonds was a miserably failed attempt to communicate the validity of the fund's existence. Instead of offering confidence to the applicant, as was its' sole intention, it has most often served only to draw suspicion and contempt. Curious, too, that 99% of it comes from people who never submit an application, don't you think? Ya know what I think, folks? I think this is all a bunch of crap. The prize is for One Million Dollars. The prize is NOT for One Million Dollars in bonds. I just can't figure a way to make it any more plain than that. If you don't believe that you'll get the Million Dollars, don't apply. We feel no obligation whatsoever to jump through hoops to convince the applicant that the million bucks exists. We send our most current fund confirmation letters from Goldman Sachs to any applicant who requests one. And guess what? Of the 100 or so potential applicants who requested them since I've been here, not one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON who received the Goldman Sachs letter, then sent in an application. A paltry few summoned the fortitude to send me emails stating that they STILL don't believe the money exists, but by and large, once we send the confrimation letters, we never hear a peep from them again. Now THINK: What does this tell us? Here's what it tells ME: NONE of these people will ever be satisfied, NONE of these people will actually apply, FEW (if any) of them are sincerely interested in participating in a controlled experiment that might verify their claim, and ALL of these people are wasting my time, bar none. So, for me, I've arrived at the exact same place Randi has been since the earliest days of the Million Dollar Challenge: APPLY, or go away. We prefer you'd APPLY, but we won't play endless email games in an effort to convince you to do so. __________________ KRAMER, JREF Paranormal Challenge Desk
 4th February 2005, 09:39 AM #6 IXP Graduate Poster     Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,085 Sorry Kramer, I concede, I was wrong. This, however, is the source of the confusion: Quote: At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account. Perhaps it should be rephrased as: "... we offer a one-million-dollar cash prize..." "the prize money is held in the form..." After all how many times have you gotten this one? "You have won one of the following prizes...", the least of which is "a \$2000 vacation at one of our resorts". Did you expect that you would be able to collect \$2000 in cash, or would it be a 2-week off-season stay in a condo that they couldn't rent (transportation not included)? Sorry again, I should have looked further into the rules. IXP __________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar
 4th February 2005, 10:14 AM #7 CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804 Re: Rule #8 Quote: Originally posted by KRAMER Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend, and accept? ... Now THINK: What does this tell us? Misdirection. The classic tactic of the deceiver. I think that they do comprehend and accept it. They just want to divert attention from their own claims. They don't want to apply, because they know that if they are tested properly, they will lose. They know it, Kramer. They only want to talk about their ability in broad terms, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty, they start realizing that they will never be able to pass any properly designed test, be it JREF's or not. That's why John Edward, before he agreed to be "tested" by Schwartz, made damn sure that he only had to perform better than the average person - that is, someone totally unskilled in cold reading. Of course John Edward can perform better than those people! But not with JREF. So, they use the money to come up with excuses, because the money is such a promenint factor in the JREF challenge. "The money's not there." Oh, yes, it is. What can you actually do? "The money's in bonds." No, it isn't. What can you actually do? "The money's tainted." Rubbish. What can you actually do? And so on, and so forth. It's misdirection, nothing else. They understand the money perfectly. Top Excuses for not taking the Randi Challenge __________________ SkepticReport.com
 5th February 2005, 11:32 AM #8 peebrain New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 12 I outline in my first e-mail the source of the "confusion": "The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account." and "...James Randi Educational Foundation will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of US\$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York..." That does not say CASH, that says BONDS. Negotiable bonds. Bonds. Not cash. There IS a difference. If it is cash, then change the rules on the challenge page to say CASH. ~Sean
 5th February 2005, 11:54 AM #9 peebrain New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 12 Also, I just noticed that you edited the emails I sent you before posting them on here. Do you do this with all the emails? For the skeptics out there who are interested in the exact conversation, without Kramer butting in with his two cents explaining why I'm an idiot, and why he is right (which of course, he never did in the emails to me), I've uploaded a literal transcript: http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html Compare that to the image he's protraying on this forum. ~Sean
 5th February 2005, 12:00 PM #10 CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804 Quote: Originally posted by peebrain Also, I just noticed that you edited the emails I sent you before posting them on here. Do you do this with all the emails? For the skeptics out there who are interested in the exact conversation, without Kramer butting in with his two cents explaining why I'm an idiot, and why he is right (which of course, he never did in the emails to me), I've uploaded a literal transcript: http://s91683501.onlinehome.us/randi.html Compare that to the image he's protraying on this forum. ~Sean I'm not sure what you complain about. It's been explained to you. You - apparently - don't have a paranormal claim you want tested. So......? __________________ SkepticReport.com
 5th February 2005, 12:07 PM #11 peebrain New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 12 What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail. Hell, he could have just copy/pasted what he wrote on the forum into the e-mail... or he could have linked me to the forum pages that explain it. Instead, he tells me I'm full of sh*t (which he edited out of the emails he posted), and ignores me because I have no intention of applying - which again, isn't relevant to the questions I presented. Notice how none of YOU have intention of applying, yet he answers your questions. Apparently I used the wrong channel of communication - I should have publically asked the questions, instead of privately. ~Sean
 5th February 2005, 02:00 PM #13 CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804 What Tricky said. __________________ SkepticReport.com
 5th February 2005, 11:39 PM #15 Beleth FAQ Creator     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,135 What DevilsAdvocate said. Why assume the questioner has a hidden agenda to make the Foundation look bad, and then jump through so many hoops in the answer that you end up making the Foundation look bad yourself? "The prize will be paid in cash. Until the prize is won, it's being stored as bonds. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is that it's easier for an independent entity to confirm that bonds exist than it is to confirm that the cash exists." Does that sum it up? If it does, why not just say that instead of all this "apply, or go away" righteous indignation malarkey? __________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .
 6th February 2005, 07:08 AM #16 jmercer Question Everything     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,263 Well, since the JREF agreement states that payment will be made (sans the actual word "cash") in clear, unequivacal language... I would assume that any questions about the veracity of the funds being available are generated by: 1) Someone that didn't read the agreement 2) Someone that doesn't trust the agreement/organization 3) Someone that's looking to find a way to raise doubt about the funds 4) Someone incapable of lucid thought Besides, the agreement states that the applicant that wins will be paid \$1,000,000. Period, the end. I'd take that in cash, negotiable bonds, check, gold bullion, etc. Who cares what the medium is? (pun intended ) Truthfully, the VERY last thing I'd want is a million in cash or negotiable instruments handed to me. I'd insist on an electronic transfer of funds. (edited to add last sentence.) __________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero
 6th February 2005, 07:12 AM #17 jmercer Question Everything     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,263 Which, by the way, sidetracks me and brings me to another point I've been meaning to raise. Posters keep saying things like "If the medium doesn't want the money, they can simply donate it back to JREF or a charity." I don't think it's that simple. I think there are tax implications to receiving a million bucks that donation of the entire amount wouldn't solve. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I' m not. Anyone know? __________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero
 6th February 2005, 08:23 AM #18 Bodhi Dharma Zen Advaitin     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Here Posts: 3,880 Quote: Originally posted by peebrain What I'm complaining about is that Kramer will take the time to explain to everyone in the forum the answer to my questions, but he doesn't have time to give me the same respect in an e-mail. I agree. Treating with respect ANY person who ask questions would be imperative. Granted, after, perhaps, several hundreds of people asking the same, one gets tired. But thats not the problem of the one who is asking, but a problem of etiquette from both Kramer and Randi. Being nice doesnt hurt.
 6th February 2005, 08:33 AM #19 Lisa Simpson The answer to a question no one asked Administrator     Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 20,991 Quote: Originally posted by jmercer Which, by the way, sidetracks me and brings me to another point I've been meaning to raise. Posters keep saying things like "If the medium doesn't want the money, they can simply donate it back to JREF or a charity." I don't think it's that simple. I think there are tax implications to receiving a million bucks that donation of the entire amount wouldn't solve. I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure I' m not. Anyone know? I"m not a tax expert, nor do I play one on TV. However, I think it would cause you big problems. With most non-profits--including the JREF--, you can donate 50% of your adjusted gross income. So if you won the million (I'm just using the million, not any income the winner would have also had, nor any deductions the winner would normally take) you could donate \$500,000 and not pay taxes on that money. If you donated all 1 million, you'd still have to pay taxes on the other \$500,000. __________________ That's what the Internet does -- you get a free bonus prize of Stupid Lies with every box of Delicious Facts. - cracked.com Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers
 7th February 2005, 10:34 AM #21 peebrain New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 12 Awesome, thanks :-D. So, your understanding of how JREF is functioning, is that when someone wins, the claimant won't win the bonds, but JREF will liquidate the bonds into cash and pay the claimant with the cash. Is this correct, Kramer? I was under the impression that the prize was the BONDS themselves. ~Sean
 7th February 2005, 11:04 AM #22 jmercer Question Everything     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,263 Keri, that was masterfully put, and an education to me. Peebrain, I don't know where you got the idea that the bonds would be the prize, but the quote (provided by YOU) reads: Quote: One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. You will be paid if you win - that's why it's being held as "surety" by a third party, that's why it's a contract, and that's why there's a public financial disclosure of assets available. Asking for more detail is utterly irrelevant. As has been asked before in this thread: What is your claim? __________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero
 7th February 2005, 11:07 AM #23 Lisa Simpson The answer to a question no one asked Administrator     Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 20,991 Let me add my thanks, Keri. I got 501 (c)(3) status for the PTO of my son's elementary school, but no one ever donates much to us, so I didn't really know the rules for donation. __________________ That's what the Internet does -- you get a free bonus prize of Stupid Lies with every box of Delicious Facts. - cracked.com Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers
 7th February 2005, 11:53 AM #24 peebrain New Blood   Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 12 Quote: Originally posted by jmercer You will be paid if you win - that's why it's being held as "surety" by a third party, that's why it's a contract, and that's why there's a public financial disclosure of assets available. Asking for more detail is utterly irrelevant. As has been asked before in this thread: What is your claim? Right; all of that is clear now that we've discussed it in this thread. It wasn't so clear before when I was emailing Randi and Kramer, and they told me to "Apply or disappear", etc... And actually, it still isn't completely clear because neither Kramer nor Randi have confirmed what others have said. I do feel a little more at ease though :-). Why is my claim so important? Perhaps it's important because I am raising valid points, and instead of dealing with the points that I've raised, you'd rather write me off as another whacko. The easiest way to do this is to listen to my wild and crazy claim, and then laugh at me and ignore my questions. Like I've continued to say - my claim isn't relevant to the validity of my questions. Thankfully, there exists people surfing this forum who know what they're talking about, and are willing to help me answer my valid questions. Thank you to everyone who has been patient with me, and helped me to understand the inner workings. ~Sean
 7th February 2005, 12:31 PM #26 jmercer Question Everything     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,263 That's about what I thought would happen. __________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero
 7th February 2005, 02:08 PM #28 Lisa Simpson The answer to a question no one asked Administrator     Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 20,991 Quote: Originally posted by peebrain I still question the existance of the money, but I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money. It's still possible it's a scam, but it's "unlikely" the scam would include worthless bonds. Again - thanks for your help and patience. I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless Kramer posts with useful accurate information about JREF. ~Sean Why do you question the existence of the money? Why do you think it's a scam? What does the JREF gain by not having the money except public disgrace should the challenge be won? Do you think the bank holding the bonds is in on the scam? __________________ That's what the Internet does -- you get a free bonus prize of Stupid Lies with every box of Delicious Facts. - cracked.com Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers
 7th February 2005, 03:44 PM #29 Keri New Blood   Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 22 Quote: peebrain wrote: I still question the existance of the money I know you will not be posting further, but I cannot resist providing this information. Please click on http://12.39.246.46/650/650649443/65...200312_990.pdf JREF's 990 from 2003. (Their 2004 990 will be due to the IRS the 15th day of the 5th month after their 2004 fiscal year ends). If you look at page 3 of the 990 you will see: Line 59 column B (end of the year) Assets (\$ they have) = \$1,878,457.00 Line 66 column B (end of the year) Liabilities (debt they must pay) = \$8,391.00 Line 74 column B (end of the year) Net Assets (money they have minus what they owe in debt) = \$1,878,457.00 So you can clearly see they have well over \$1 million dollars. If they are lying they are lying to the IRS and then are stupid enough to file that tax return with at least two organizations that act as watch dogs to weed out bad charities (guide star and the foundation center). Also, I do not know the state laws of Florida, but in most places an organization with finances over \$25,000.00 would be highly encouraged if not required to have their financials audited by an independent accounting firm on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. Since JREF receives grants (and most grant making foundations require an audit). I am almost certain that the numbers provided to the IRS have been audited. You can be about as sure that JREF has the money as you are that the bank has yours.
 7th February 2005, 03:53 PM #30 webfusion Philosopher     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,222 this guy is a nuisance here, too Quote: The easiest way to do this (call me a 'wacko') is to listen to my wild and crazy claim, and then laugh at me and ignore my questions. No, the easiest way to see you are a nuisance and a wacko, is to have you participate on these forums and make post after post of nonsense, in the middle of which, what do we see: "I'm satisfied with the answers provided to continue to pursue the money." - posted by peebrain, who is finally, at last, revealing that he is really interested in the money, and has a paranormal ability that will manifest itself shortly in a Challenge Application, notarized and official? OK, peebrain, here's my humble opinion: You really were given the best answer possible under the circumstances, originally by the Amazing Randi himself. Apply or go away. You did neither, unfortunately. Now, let's see if you live up to your last comment: "I won't be replying to this thread in the future unless Kramer posts with useful accurate information about JREF." Kramer is not going to post a word further to you, that's my prediction! Next case.
 7th February 2005, 04:42 PM #31 Beleth FAQ Creator     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,135 Quote: Originally posted by jmercer Well, since the JREF agreement states that payment will be made (sans the actual word "cash") in clear, unequivacal language... So why not make it even more clear and unequivocal by adding the word "cash"? It'd take, what, about ninety seconds of KRAMER's time. Quote: I would assume that any questions about the veracity of the funds being available are generated by: 1) Someone that didn't read the agreement 2) Someone that doesn't trust the agreement/organization 3) Someone that's looking to find a way to raise doubt about the funds 4) Someone incapable of lucid thought Of those, only #2 doesn't assume some incompetence or maliciousness on the part of the questioner, so only #2 is one I would consider reasonable. The questioner might be incompetent or malicious, but up until now, we have no reason to believe so. So, that said, why would the questioner trust the JREF? That's why there are contracts - to minimize the amount of trust required between two parties. Certainly the JREF doesn't trust any applicant; why should the JREF expect any applicant to trust them? Quote: Besides, the agreement states that the applicant that wins will be paid \$1,000,000. Period, the end. I'd take that in cash, negotiable bonds, check, gold bullion, etc. Well, okay, but you are not every applicant. __________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .
 7th February 2005, 05:29 PM #32 webfusion Philosopher     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,222 this individual is not an applicant, yet beleth remarks: Quote: Well, okay, but you are not every applicant. From the very first contact with this guy, the point has been made over and over and over (and in more ways than one): JREF will not enter into this discussion just to satisfy people's "curiosity" -- Apply or don't. Sean did not apply. He is not anyone with "standing" and he got the attention he deserved --- all in all, Sean has been treated pretty well considering he's being a major pain in the a\$\$. What he did is drag this out in public, and I for one am more convinced than ever before the guy is a loser. I hope he does apply, then we can really laugh at him! Who wants to guess what his paranormal claim is going to be now? It should be a doozy.
 7th February 2005, 06:43 PM #33 jmercer Question Everything     Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,263 Quote: Originally posted by Beleth So why not make it even more clear and unequivocal by adding the word "cash"? It'd take, what, about ninety seconds of KRAMER's time. Because by citing a disbursement, JREF has to comply with that specific method unless they can get permission from the winner. The way it's written now, they can hand over a check, wire the money, you name it. It would be a very unusual step to explicitly require a disbursment in cash. Regarding the rest of your comments... well, that's why I made them multiple choice. Everyone gets to choose their own interpretation of Kirk's motivation. And thank goodness I'm not an applicant in any form. __________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero
 7th February 2005, 07:10 PM #34 Beleth FAQ Creator     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,135 Re: this individual is not an applicant, yet Quote: Originally posted by webfusion From the very first contact with this guy, the point has been made over and over and over (and in more ways than one): JREF will not enter into this discussion just to satisfy people's "curiosity" -- Apply or don't. Which is a very arrogant position to take. Imagine you're apartment-hunting. You go to a particular rental office and they have a sign on the door that says "We will not show you an apartment just to satisfy your 'curiosity' -- Rent from us or don't." Would you ever even consider renting from a place like that? You probably wouldn't even open the door and set foot inside. Even if you did, that sign certainly sets a very bad first impression for any discussion you might have with the landlords! Quote: Sean did not apply. He is not anyone with "standing" and he got the attention he deserved Um... what? Since when do you need "standing" to be treated civilly? Is the JREF only really interested in talking to Sylvia and Geller? Are all these other applicants and potential applicants just fleas to be annoyed with and squashed as quickly as possible? I guess I have no idea what you mean by that comment. Quote: all in all, Sean has been treated pretty well considering he's being a major pain in the a\$\$. What he did is drag this out in public, and I for one am more convinced than ever before the guy is a loser. I hope he does apply, then we can really laugh at him! No. He has not been treated very well at all. He asked a valid, if nit-picky, question, and his only responses have been curt and uncivil. It saddens me that this is how well-respected members of the skeptical community treat people we know nothing about. __________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .
 7th February 2005, 09:10 PM #36 rebecca Banned   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,852 I agree with Beleth and shera (welcome to the forum, by the way). Sean deserved a better answer than what he got. A lot of unbalanced people apply for the million, or pester the foundation and the forum with stupid questions, but let's not forget the whole point of all this. We're not here to debunk a bunch of crazies, we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right? So how come when someone asks a few legitimate questions in a very polite manner, he's told he's full of baloney (or \$hit, maybe) by the person who he's been told he is to deal with. And when he turns to this forum for clarification (and perhaps to defend himself), webfusion calls him a "major pain in the a\$\$" and a "loser?" Seriously, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you apologize. Ugh, I need to go count to ten or something.
 7th February 2005, 09:36 PM #37 Gr8wight red-shirted crewman     Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,656 Quote: Originally posted by Shera Lastly, if Randi and his associates really do not want any questions from people until they have already signed the application ( a legal agreement where they give up certain legal rights and take on certain obligations (like all "challenge related expenses") ) then they should say so on the web site. Instead they say, as per "rule 8" on http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html: "Validation of this account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail." They don't mention that only people who have already signed the application can ask questions, do they? Sean contacted the foundation, and was provided with a copy of a statement from the independant financial institution holding the fund. That is the standard response due him as per the website's stated rules. After receiving this statement, Sean wanted more proof of the money's existence. He was told that more proof could be provided if and when he became an applicant. Until that time, the statement copy he had already received fulfilled the foundation's obligations to any casual request. The main point here is that Sean has not applied for the challenge. It is entirely likely that Sean will never apply for the challenge. Certainly, most people here believe he never had any intention of applying for the challenge. At this point, the ball is in his court. His only method of returning it is via a notarized application. __________________ Aurora Walking Vacation "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan
 7th February 2005, 09:52 PM #38 webfusion Philosopher     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,222 I don't know about you... Quote: ... let's not forget the whole point of all this. We're not here to debunk a bunch of crazies, we're actively trying to find evidence of the paranormal. Right? Well, allow me to say -- I am most certainly here to see the debunking and laugh myself silly and ridicule the woo woos!!! At a certain level, yes, being a skeptic means being open-mided to the possibility of paranormal. However, being a rational, thinking and educated human also requires us not to get carried away too far into that realm. Kramer can go over in that area, Randi can, that's their chosen profession. I'm just a guy with a keyboard, who comes in here for laughs. Why? Because there is no paranormal and those who bring forth their claims into the harsh light of day are only the tip of the planet's woo woo iceberg ------- The million dollars isn't going to be paid EVER, in my opinion. Yeah, it is available, but won't be claimed, because the applications for the Challenge are ludicrous, each one more funny than the next! Sean didn't even apply (yet) and I'm perfectly comfortable sitting here laughing at him! The whole thing about the money was (and is) hilarious enough. I happen to agree that "apply or go away" was about the best advice offered in response to his entire train of thought. It took Randi all of two seconds to deal with this guy peebrain. And it took Sean all of a million words to get to the same point he started at --- sitting around in front of his computer trying to figure out what to do next! Go for it, Sean, apply!!! Here's the money -- Randi has it stashed away in that vault !!! Let's see your Application, OK? We need the entertainment, this week has been slow for woos. =============================== Shera, Rebecca, Beleth are waiting for evidence of the Paranormal? Get yourselves real lives... Go watch a movie or something to chill out -- BOOGEYMAN I hear is a really wild ride!!!
 8th February 2005, 07:58 AM #40 webfusion Philosopher     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,222 brainiac with an internet connection Quote: Seriously, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you apologize. Ugh, I need to go count to ten or something. Count to a million or something! I'm not apologizing for anything, not to mr peebrain and not to you. This isn't about me, or what my 'take' on the JREF challenge is ----- this is about one particular case of someone (Sean Connelly) failing miserably to accept the answer given and persisting to annoy. He was and still is full of sh*t -- no less than hundreds of others who beat a path to the Amazing Randi thinking that they are "gonna show him a thing or two" Well, newsflash, Randi knows it ain't gonna happen! He is 100% confident the money will remain forever in that bank vault and KRAMER is going to continue to post stuff that offers the optimum amount of smiles! Serious pursuit of the paranormal? Yeah, like the Yellow Bamboo. Or TC Albin. Give me a break. Get serious yourself.

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit