|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.116.186.171
In Reply to: Re: The thing is... posted by andy19191 on March 20, 2007 at 00:08:04:
...is that the whole thing became increasingly convoluted and acrimonious as time progressed.The summary thread you refer to is actually Kramer's own private little playground. He, and he alone, comes up with this 'summary' view. What you see there is what Kramer wants you to see. He doesn't leave a lot out, but what he does is certainly crafty.
"The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled listening test of cables and then backing out."
Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd like to see you try and support the notion.
"Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going on based on the threads."
This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.
"Some aspects of Kramer's performance probably deserve criticism but set against the overall process this is again a detail. Most of the apparent issues occurred towards the end when the prospect of a test occurring was effectively over."
Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to fruition. He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of outright lies. What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF Challenge?
"If you want to lay this to rest after all this time my guess is that you will need to get somebody you really trust like a member of your family to explain to you how and why you were at fault during the first half of the process. Even though I suspect you cannot see it yourself others can."
First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being. Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here. Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't. The aggravating thing for me is it's like you guys don't want the truth. And seriously more aggravating yet, it seems that Kramer was banking on just that. It's downright disgusting IME.
Follow Ups:
> > "The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that
> > I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled
> > listening test of cables and then backing out."
>
> Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd
> like to see you try and support the notion.That is not what the sentence says.
> > "Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going
> > on based on the threads."
>
> This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.Only if you ask for it since I am not pushing this along.
Your behaviour when defining the test was irrational. My interpretation of the probable cause is that your responses looked more to be those of someone who was confused and uncertain rather than someone who had come to realise the situation (i.e. the test was going to be failed) and is trying to delay and back out. Clifff using the same information would appear to interpret things differently.
> Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to
> fruition.The test did not happen because you did not send in a protocol that was agreed by both parties.
> He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of
> outright lies.I can see no evidence of him taking great pains. Once it became fairly clear what was happening he let his frustration show rather than working at being professional.
> What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the
> 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF
> Challenge?I can see nothing in your application that questions the integrity of the challenge. All you had to do was submit a protocol, modify the points of contention while leaving the agreed points alone and after one or two exchanges it is done. The JREF side was trying to do this almost upto the end but you were not. Exactly what you were doing is debatable.
What I did view as a bit odd was not corresponding in a neutral manner but I guess there is a significant element of show business in what they do.
> First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and
> myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being.
> Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here.The postings are on JREF to give an idea of what happened. I can see little to suggest dishonesty one either side. But your irrational behaviour cannot be disputed.
> Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself
> because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't.Kramer has betrayed nobody that I can see. He let himself down a bit by not behaving in more professional manner but that would appear to be about the limit of it.
> The aggravating thing for me is
> it's like you guys don't want the truth.The truth about your paranormal abilities concerning the chip or your interaction with the JREF?
I think you should probably accept the fact that neither is of importance to anybody but yourself except as a topic to chat about in a group like this. The former is because nobody believes you have paranoraml abilities and the second is because they are reasonably content with what they have seen on JREF with the odd exception like Steve Eddy.
BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
If you have anything to add please post it here - or start another thread. I will read it carefully.I am not going to get involved in 'phone calls to the UK (where I am) and am curious as to why you are so apparently desperate to convince a sceptic.
I'm offering this service, free of charge, for YOUR benefit? Remember, I already know the truth. My assumption is that you'd want to know it as well.I'll post some details, in component parts, working backward from April 26, 2005. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your commentary on the events of that day which have been previously documented here at PHP.
BTW, I don't incur any long-distance charges calling the UK, hence my offer.
Are you planning to "save" me or something?I don't go for that.
Why do you want to 'phone me? (no cost for me either, but I do have a life. I think)
The only 'saving' I had in mind is for you to see the truth about JREF.A phone conversation is simply more efficient than all the typing necessary to unravel a highly convoluted mess, but let's just skip the phone call talk and get back to business.
Go back to the 17/18/19th and your pissing around trying to challenge and change things, then put it off until July/October must have caused them to totally lose patience.Most of the candidates wriggle out of taking even a preliminary test. If you wanted to do it you have to be squeaky clean.
You cannot seem to grasp that it was YOU making the challenge, YOU who wanted to take their $1M, YOU who were confident that you could hear the ENOORMOUS differences. And YOU who blew it.
Don't you think that with all those enormous egos (like KRAMER) at JREF totally convinced that the GSIC was a fraud they would have LOVED you to test scientifically and fail?
No more.
I dislike being impolite, but i think you are very misguided.
Hopefully we can continue to converse on other subjects here without any difficulty. Best wishes to you as always.
d
> Would you care to join clifff and myself in examining the facts?.No thank you. I replied because you posted twice on the thread that disappeared off the right hand side. I am content to let clifff represent "us guys".
> BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
In which case, if you do not think the chip operates in a paranormal manner how do you think it operates in a non-paranormal manner?
In the grand scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.One last thing before I bid you adieu.
Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum April 26th, 2005
"Originally posted by KRAMER
That's a good one, and an entirely different paranormal claim. You'll have to send in a new application...especially since I haven't heard a peep from you since last week when you promised a new protocol within hours.A most curious, deafening silence.
Oh, and by the way, Piano Teacher is who he claims to be.
Did anyone here really accuse him of being something else?
If so, I must have missed it."
When he received and responded to the following correspondence from the previous day (flow of correspondence moves from bottom to top)
"My protocol is better than the Howard protocol in that it allows for the GSIC to be applied in a manner closer to the instructions of the manufacturer. I will research the matter however.-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer[edit]randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: dummy chipUse the HOWARD protocol.
-Kramer, JREF
====================
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: dummy chip
Kramer,
Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005"His intent with this April 26 posting obviously was not intended to deceive me as I had both the memory of, and the correspondence on file, to know the truth of the matter in no uncertain terms. So tell me, who was he trying to deceive, and more importantly, why was he trying to deceive anybody at all? I'll get into the other details with Cliff.
> I seldom pause to consider how the chip functions...In the grand
> scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.So it might operate in a paranormal manner if this science thing cannot explain how it works?
> Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum
> April 26th, 2005You are asking me to guess? OK I will guess.
You have been messing Kramer around for ages with your irrational behaviour and he is pretty p*ssed off. All he wants is for you to agree a procedure for the experiment which is straightforward but you will not do it. You are telling him all sorts of irrelevancies (he used a different word which I cannot recall) which he is ignoring while repeatedly asking you to supply a bl**dy procedure. You finally send him one but then switch to messing him around with dates you have already agreed to. He threatens not to send the procedure in an effort to stop you p*ssing about with the dates.
During this period you change the procedure you want to perform in discussion with other people in one of the threads. The procedure written on a piece of paper in front of Kramer is different (correct me if I am wrong? - I know I should not have asked that). You are posting all these details at him but he is quite reasonably letting them wash over him because they are irrelevant to him.
He has loads of other applications to look after at the same time? When he next gives your application some attention he decides to send the procedure he has got in front of him off to be agreed instead of trying to use it as a stick to try stop you p*ssing him around with the dates.
Your complaint is that he sent off the wrong procedure even though it was the only one he had (did he have the correct procedure on a piece of paper in front of him?) and that this is some sort of deliberate plot against you. The basis for this is that he should have paid attention to whatever you were banging on about in your emails which one quite reasonably would have expected him to ignore because it is not his concern. I think the worst one can claim is a mistake and if my guessing above is close to the mark possibly not even that.
Was this a good guess?
By the way he has done something wrong. He has made a positive suggestion to you to use the Howard protocol. OK I am sure he meant it in the form of stop p*ssing around and lets go with what we have got but it can be read as a positive suggestion. So when you failed the test you could then say I was not sure (lots of evidence for this!) but you persuaded me to use the Howard protocol and this is why I failed.
I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves and requires.I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it before tomorrow evening at the earliest.
I would like to comment briefly on the notion that I waffled on test dates. This simply is not true. I was firm with JREF all along that Aug. 1 - Aug. 15, 2005 were the dates that worked for me. Kramer stated on March 31st, 2005 that JREF wished to see the testing take place in June. I provisionally agreed, with reluctance, if the June dates were vital to JREF for some reason, by days end they stated that June testing was not vital and it appeared that the matter was settled.
There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle" where I have posted all of my correspondence with JREF up to the date of the "My Struggle" thread creation date. If you wish to investigate my take on the matter, go to this thread and view the correspondence from March 31st, 2005. This thread is not opening for me at the moment or I would have provided a direct link. If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the emails from my own archives.
> I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves
> and requires.It does not deserve or require much attention - this is a chat page on a nutty audiophile site.
In addition, I wrote it from memory without checking a single piece of correspondence (how much attention does that deserve?) because I was trying to get you to look at the wood rather than the trees.
> I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it
> before tomorrow evening at the earliest.OK but I would appreciate a response at the level of my posting and not more trees. Or, if it has to be trees, can I have just the trees of relevance to Kramer and not all the other ones.
> There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle"
The threads either side load but this one doesn't. Is it huge? Has it been removed and, if so, do you know why? If you have posted other peoples private emails to you there could be quite reasonable reasons for removing it.
> If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the
> emails from my own archives.Thanks for the offer but I really am only chatting on a website to find out about audiophiles.
Perhaps I should add that even if Kramer made a whole bunch of mistakes processing your application and is now covering up (for which I have seen no evidence) it doesn't change anything that is worth bothering about. You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you.
I am content. You would be more content if you made an effort to bring this thing to a close by hearing some uncomfortable truths from somebody you trusted. Posting here is not going to help. I am sure you will dismiss the likes of clifff and myself and symphathetic responses from other audiophiles will only prolong the matter.
Just let me know if they are of any interest to you.BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you presented, was it not?
"You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you."
Pretty much a given, right? I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't pass. 'Science' just marches on. ;-)
> Facts be damned then?...I am not damning facts. I am telling you that I am not particularly interested in a lot of emails on a topic I have looked at and have relatively little residual curiosity about.
> BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you
> presented, was it not?Yes if it is about why you were waffling and why you did not send revised procedures in a timely manner (apart from the first obviously). No emails please, just what motivated you to do what you did.
> Pretty much a given, right?
Yes.
> I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they
> themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't
> pass.It is very difficult to see any similarities between you and JREF. People reading the thread will see you failing to get on with the challenge and JREF not handling that particularly smoothly. But I do not think JREF did you any favours if the matter is not largely closed for you after all this time.
'Science' just marches on. ;-)
Science? You presumably wanted the money as I would if I could see a way to beat their challenge. JREF presumably wants the show business. Science would seem to have a very minor role.
My motivation initiated with one of the persistent calls here to take the Randi Challenge if, in this case, the GSIC really worked. The million dollars was appealing too.JREF did me no favors. I was being sarcastic.
I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are wrong.
Some of the stuff with Kramer ended in a Mexican standoff. I was frustrated with the lack of progress on top of all the deceitful stuff he pulled. My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known on the matter. This 'waffling' over dates matter is another of many JREF deceits. It would take a person about 2 minutes to come to the conclusion that I didn't waffle on the matter if they were to view the pertinent portion of the record. Yet the notion persists. I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to deceit.
> I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything
> but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are
> wrong.I commented based on the threads in JREF which would seem to be reasonably factual. If you want to point errors may I suggest simply quoting the statement which is wrong and stating why it is wrong underneath it in a self contained manner. A general claim without anything concrete is not persuasive.
> My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still
> disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not
> at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known
> on the matter.Well then the remedy would seem to be straightforward. Create a summary thread just like Kramers, inserting the bits you consider are missing and pointing out where in his summary thread things are not quite right. That is, you put in the work and not ask your readers to do it.
> I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to
> deceit.It depends on the case and your viewpoint. Is it sickening that the manufacturers of this chip are deceiving you about its action?
While JREF misdeeds were many, the most irritating proved to be their nasty habit of painting a picture that wasn’t warranted by the negotiations or discussion. Prior to the March 31st phone calls with Kramer I had suggested a couple of proposals that would allow me to take advantage of a family vacation to Florida we were considering in the month of June ’05.These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc, treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.
In the meantime Steven Howard came up with a protocol proposal on the JREF Forums that I considered to hold a lot of promise. I stated as much on the Forum and in my conversation with Kramer on March 31. He was well aware that I had to review the proposal a bit further myself and that I already had some amendments I considered important in mind. He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum for himself, but what the hay, no problem.
In the same conversation we discussed test dates. I told him of my desire to be tested between the dates of August 1 and August 15. I had given the test date matter much consideration and these were the dates that worked around my schedule and concerns. His response was something to the tune of “that’s 6 months from now.” Reviewing the record I notice too that I had also told him that it was my desire to be tested August 1, or later, way back on March 15, a few day after our initial contact with one another if memory serves me. March 15 was the very FIRST day of any email correspondence between ourselves.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: headphones
Kramer,
One other note, my 30th high-school reunion is coming up this summer. I haven’t heard dates yet, but I would definitely like to avoid any notoriety at least until after this event. I would like to avoid all notoriety completely if possible. What kind of time frame is typical to iron out the protocol, do the preliminary testing, and assuming I pass, do the final testing? I would like to see the final testing take place Aug. 1, 2005 or later.- Michael]I emphasize this because of Kramer’s insinuation on the Forum March 31 07:29 PM as follows
[More Wasted of Time
Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it.Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anda this morning. It was a very nice chat. He informed me that June would be fine, and asked if we could resume protocol negotiations now. I said YES, and we exhanged some emails. Go to his thread in CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS to see where it all wound up.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?
__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.]
He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.[-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here
Hello Michael,
It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.
[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:
[privacy edit]
Let's get it rolling.
-Kramer, JREF]Early August was more than “a possibility for” me, it was my clearly stated preference, not too mention expectation, unless JREF could provide a strong case for June testing being vital to the matter. My dates were within the JREF Challenge guidelines and Kramer told me in our March 31 AM phone conversation that he would see what he could do to get Randi to approve those dates. He came across as ‘I will go to bat for you on this one’ and see if I can get Randi to approve of your preference.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Thanks Kramer,
Just to be clear I have a fairly strong aversion to doing this in June. I just feel a little rushed with everything else on my plate. I do feel the need to settle into audiophile mode without any other distractions for a period of time to get my comfort level back to where it needs to be. Aug. 1 thru Aug. 15 would be a great time for me and would give me great peace of mind which I feel is essential to my success with this Challenge.---Michael][-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: kramer here
Michael, you JUST told me on the telephone that June would be "fine". This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about. What's to prevent you from changing your mind AGAIN once August rolls around? All this "peace of mind" stuff is really just more of what we hear ALL THE TIME from folks who never submit their claim to the test.
Let me be clear about this: if we determine a test date, and you agree to it, and then you back out, we will have no further dealings with you. I cannot tell you how many applicants put us through weeks or months of negotiations, only to back out when it came time for the test. We will NOT tolerate such vanities, and we absolutely refuse to drag our investigators through such muddy waters. They offer their expertise as volunteers, and we need our vaolunteers badly. We'd have few to chose from if we didn't exhibit some form of discretion regarding such waffling. If you keep saying one thing and then reversing your position, we'll simply won't ever be able to trust your sincerity.
Please understand that we will close your file if you cancel any agreed-upon test date.
-Kramer, JREF]
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Kramer,
I thought I was pretty clear about being reticent about June. If I recall correctly, I stated that June would be fine if that is what it was going to take to get this thing to happen. If you want to fine tune the protocol details over the next week or two and select a date on, or shortly after, Aug. 1 I would be overjoyed to submit unequivocably to being tested on that date with no further ado. If there is a reason that a June date is vital I would be willing to make due with a certain amount of reluctance. If we can avoid all reluctance, wouldn’t you consider that to be a good thing? I really don’t want this to be a sticking point. Aug. 1 is 4 months from tomorrow. If we can agree on Aug. 1, or thereabouts, as the date, I will enter into this test without ANY trepidation. I REALLY don’t want to have ANY trepidation. OTOH, I don’t want you to have any reservations either, so please let me know why a June date is considered important to JREF.---Michael Anda][Kramer’s response Sent: Thu 3/31/2005 2:06 PM
OK, now you're playing semantics games with me.
We don't want you to have any trepidation, either, but you will.
A June date isn't "vital", but it IS what got me interested in re-starting the protocol negotiations. Whatever. We certainly wouldn't want you to say you failed the test because you were nervous. You'll say that anyway, but it won't be because we pressured you into being tested in June, or whenever. You just let us know and we'll bend over backwards to accomodate you. You call the shots, Michael. By all means. Each and every comfort you require is yours for the asking.
I'll give Randi the test protocol in a couple of months, when we get closer to a time in which you think your level of trepidation is at an absolute minimum. I'm will NOT bother him with a protocol until then. It's utterly pointless.
And I'm NOT getting into this again until then. You've worn me out.
-Kramer, JREF]The widely held notion that I waffled on test dates was one of the many aggravations I was forced to endure in my dealings with the JREF Forum mob. If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.
If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment. Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer ‘facilitation’.
Let me know if you'd like any further information or commentary on the date waffling question. There is some detail I've left out in order to keep this from becoming even more overwhelming than what's presented here.
> Well Andy, here goes...I have told you repeatedly I am not interested in emails and suggested you write up a complete record like Kramers and post it somewhere to help get it out of your system. You have done exactly the opposite. Your irrational behaviour is exactly the same chatting to me as it was when dealing with JREF. I can only repeat my suggestion that you talk to someone you trust in your family to help with your confusion.
I had intended to read the top and tail and skip the emails but I read them. They seem to indicate the opposite to what you want to believe and again I can only suggest talking with someone you trust.
> These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs
> down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc,
> treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism
> from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal, fix the one or two points where they think you may be able to cheat and then to sit the test in a few weeks time. Everything else is a big red flag indicating that it is not going to happen. They have no interest in you as a person and no interest in getting involved with your magic rituals.
> He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I
> thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum
> for himself, but what the hay, no problem.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal. Nobody can submit one for you. You have now, at last, responded to their request for a revised proposal addressing their issues with the first. This is tangible progress. Only a lunatic would not agree with their own submitted proposal.
> He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as
> witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.There is nothing you posted to suggest this. JREFs actions suggest the opposite: an exchange where you said things that moved the test from being off as far JREF were concerned to being on. You put forward dates in June and August. They started working to the June dates and then you started to say no not the dates in June I gave but the ones in August. There can be only one way to read this. I repeat again: get someone you trust to talk to you about it.
> If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the
> Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic
> expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.For the people of JREF (Kramer and Randi) you were an annoying waste of time. What they wanted was for you to take the test and, hopefully, agree afterwards that it was fair. Your entertainment value was almost certainly zero.
For the posters on the JREFs threads there was a significant element of entertainment just as chatting here involves a significant element of entertainment. In addition, you drew interest because your behaviour was not typical of audiophiles/dowsers/flat-earthers/... that hold incorrect beliefs about matters in the scientific domain. Most are self confident and ignorant like the overwhelming majority of 'subjectivists' you see posting on this site. Most ordinary people find it hard to have much sympathy for such individuals and much as I would like to think parts of my recent exchanges with the likes of Morricab, Kerr and E-stat was just winding them up the truth is probably a bit more uncomfortable and I will soon stop posting because of it.
> If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the
> submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment.
> Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer
> ‘facilitation’.My interest is the same as it has always been in this thread, what I have repeatedly told you it is and what you have repeatedly ignored. You have a problem. Do something positive about it like talking to someone you trust or writing up the whole thing. Complaining about it in posts here is going to get you nowhere whether you get a sympathetic or an unsympathetic response.
I will answer any questions you have on the contents of this post if you have any but after that I would like to draw this thread to a close.
You're about as attentive as Kramer. And about as intellectually honest to boot. Not good in either case.First off, the proposal involving June dates was dismissed out of hand by JREF. It involved protocol elements completely different from my original and final proposals and the June element was simply the time proposed for preparation of discs while I would happen to be in Florida where JREF is located. It was NOT a proposed test date.
Also note, this option was submitted AFTER I had requested that my testing occur on, or after, August 1, 2005 and was never officially submitted. It was simply offered as an alternative and was NEVER taken seriously by JREF. Also, JREF NEVER even hinted that they thought a June test date was my desire because of this alternative proposal offer.
"There can be only one way to read this."
What a joke of a response.
Consider our discussion closed. If you'd ever like to review the matter in an objective, attentive, and honest manner, just let me know.
I read a lot of this brouhaha over the GSIC test on the JREF forum. It was educational to see just what an applicant has to put up with. What this has proven is that the JREF is a SCAM and a JOKE. It's a group of agenda-pushing zealots who insist on believing the world is flat. But they'll dangle a million dollar carrot and say "if you claim otherwise, prove it by walking the circumference of the earth, and then coming around behind.""Of course, before you do that, you gotta come up with a protocol we approve of. Good luck with that! 'Cos if we decide we simply don't like the **tone of your voice** during this process, out you go! And if you're foolish enough to accept the protocols that we approve of which puts the entire process in our favour? No problem, we'll mess you up when we get to the testing part!"
The JREF crew threw out more BS excuses to dismiss Wellfed's application (ie. "oh, now yer waffling!") than I could have ever possibly imagined. There's a reason why no one is able to come close to going through the extremely convoluted process of having a protocol accepted by Kramer and the JREF crew, and meeting the final test requirements. The reason is the JREF scammers have no intention of ever letting you do that. Why if they did, God forbid, you might actually win their "million dollar carrot". Assuming it even exists.
So negotiating in bad faith with applicants is how they protect their organization from going bust, both financially and ideologically. While they "pretend" to be accomodating to your application, just so they can make it all "look good" to the world, when they have no intention of ever allowing you to come close to their golden carrot. The whole "million dollar JREF" affair is no more than a carnival sideshow. There's no mistake that James Randi knows a lot about frauds and fakers. And that he's learned from them how to be one.
I've never seen anyone in our hobby more reasonable, pacific and appeasing than Wellfed, from all I've read. Even after the fact, after seeing and knowing that they dealt with him dishonestly and in bad faith, he's still writing things like "I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions". Yet they BANNED him from their forums anyway! You can't even criticize the JREF zealots on their forums, and point out what deceitful fraudsters they are, because they'll ban you and delete your messages. It's like trying to criticize Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly on their own shows. In fact there's a stronger connection to that, because they are the scientific community's "right wing extremist blowhards" One can see from every message on their forums (that are not from applicants), that this is an organization of intellectually dishonest pathological disbelievers who seriously need to get lives and do something productive for society. They do far more harm to science and progress than the good they think they are doing.
Having conversed with Wellfed over a period of days it became clear that he was irrational, no actual communication was taking place despite my prodding and the thread was stopped from my end. You will notice exactly the same thing happened in thread above with clifff. It also happened on JREF but over a longer period. I would suggest you are not doing him any favours by encouraging his problem.JREF is not a scam. The rules are clear but Wellfed did not to address them and instead wandered off with irrelevant concerns of his own.
JREF is not science. It is show business with a scientific flavour. If you do not like the show then turn over and watch the other side.
The Randi Challenge is baloney, plain and simple. If it wasn't, why would Kramer lie about not having contact with an applicant since the previous week when he had, in fact, responded to contact from that applicant the previous day? A most curious bunch of deception Andy. More curious yet, you guys can't see it, or it doesn't seem to bother you. What's the dealio? Talk about irrational, Kramer offers up deception after deception and you can neither see it OR care?Can't converse with me? Let's see how you and Posey fare on this topic. Now THAT would be entertainment.
BTW, you're the guy with the problem, and a serious one at that, believing a sick puppy like Kramer is NOT a healthy proposition. Don't believe me? Take on Posey. I fully expect you will stick your head between your legs and waddle off.
Only you were honest, only you know the truth. It is ALL his fault. Kramer has become a hate figure for you. WE have to believe you else WE don't want to know the truth.Gentle Jesus.
It won't wash, Wellfed!
I read everything at the time and it was obvious to me that you were full of BS and ducking a weaving like a spoilt brat.
And no, I am not going to try and dig out chapter and verse. It is your job to do that if you want to prove something.
It is all very sad, but until you can accept that you blew it big time I doubt whether it will let you rest.
This is all I would ever expect from anyone that cares to comment on the subject.
They are the foundation for both our opinions. This is why it is important to examine them and have them straight. Would you like to do this through private communications, or through the forums? The forums can be be a zoo, but I'm willing if you are. My preference however would be via private communications as there would be less distraction. The telephone would be a very useful tool as well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: