Changes To The Challenge

[Cuddles]

To be fair, the challenge has been changed. They may not have made a big announcement yet, but they have done exactly as they said they would. The JREF will no longer accept applications from just anyone and will, in the future, actively pursue people they feel deserve it. What more do you want from them? Just because they haven't had as big a song and dance about it as you'd have liked doesn't mean they have failed to do anything.

 

[steenkh]

On the main challenge page, they still say that the challenge is open to everyone, so there is still some updating to do.

 

[The Atheist]

..., but they have done exactly as they said they would.

You sure about that?

THE PURSUIT

Rather than merely waiting for applicants to present themselves, we will regularly and officially highlight well-known persons in the field and challenge them directly by name. Those challenged will then have a six-month period during which they may respond; during that period the JREF will heavily publicize the fact that such a challenge has been issued, we will issue press releases on the matter, and we will be frequently asking that those challenged make a response. Tentatively, we will begin by formally challenging Uri Geller, James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward, on April 1st.

A CHANGE IN APPROACH

For too long now, the JREF has been on the defensive rather than on the offensive. That will be changed as of April 1, when we will begin actively pursuing the possibility of legal actions being brought against prominent figures in the field to investigate whether or not any laws are being broken by false promises to clients, incorrect attributions, accepting fees for services not met, or other deceptive procedures whereby the public has been misinformed and/or taken advantage of. This will include both civil and criminal actions.

We will seek to bring civil lawsuits against offenders, we will inform the Securities Exchange Commission [SEC] of possible infractions in which they might be interested, and we will bring attention to possible violations involving 501(c)3 requirements in the case of claimed religious exemptions.

(bolding mine)

That seems to pretty well indicate that something beyond rule changes would happen on 1st April. Plus, as just pointed out, while the site has anote regarding new rules, the pages are unchanged, apart from FAQ, which has been removed.

Can I suggest that if Sylvia, Uri, James or John had made plans to do X on 1/4/07, then nothing was seen to happen, that I'd hear the derisory laughter from the South Pacific? Hmm?

 

[BillyJoe]

Look, it's hard not to be disappointed.
Still, let's see what happens - as long as it happens soon, Goddamn!

 

[Cuddles]

You sure about that?

(bolding mine)

That seems to pretty well indicate that something beyond rule changes would happen on 1st April. Plus, as just pointed out, while the site has anote regarding new rules, the pages are unchanged, apart from FAQ, which has been removed.

There's a big red note on the main site, both FAQs have been removed, and Randi's personal one has been replaced by a note asking for questions for a new one and the application form has been replaced. As far as I am aware there aren't any other pages that would need changing.

As for what he said would happen, the first bolded part says "tentatively" quite clearly. Obviously the exact plan has changed over the last 3 months. The second bolded part says nothing at all. They will start actively pursuing people after April 1st. It doesn't say they will start a bunch of lawsuits on April 1st. Your complaint really is just that they haven't done exactly what you want in exactly the way you'd have liked at exactly the time you want. What they have actually done is exactly what they said they would do.

 

[Reager]

There's a big red note on the main site, both FAQs have been removed, and Randi's personal one has been replaced by a note asking for questions for a new one and the application form has been replaced. As far as I am aware there aren't any other pages that would need changing.

As for what he said would happen, the first bolded part says "tentatively" quite clearly. Obviously the exact plan has changed over the last 3 months. The second bolded part says nothing at all. They will start actively pursuing people after April 1st. It doesn't say they will start a bunch of lawsuits on April 1st. Your complaint really is just that they haven't done exactly what you want in exactly the way you'd have liked at exactly the time you want. What they have actually done is exactly what they said they would do.

Exactly right. The JREF is not under the gun to satisfy The Atheist, or anyone else. Sure, we'd all like things done as soon as possible...Sylvia and her ilk are still going strong. But I'd rather things be done judiciously and thoughtfully than rushed just to meet an arbitrary deadline.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Exactly right. The JREF is not under the gun to satisfy The Atheist, or anyone else. Sure, we'd all like things done as soon as possible...Sylvia and her ilk are still going strong. But I'd rather things be done judiciously and thoughtfully than rushed just to meet an arbitrary deadline.

I agree: The JREF's primary target should not be forum member satisfaction.



However, if you set a date, stick to it.
Or do not set a date at all.

 

[Reager]

One of the JREF's greatest strengths, compared to other skeptical organizations, is the level of openness the Foundation exhibits with its supporters (specifically, Forum members) regarding Foundation activities. Granted, such openness can also be a weakness when the expectations of JREF supporters and the general public (and even the JREF itself) may not be met. It's a very difficult line to walk, and I commend Jeff and the JREF for being willing to take the criticism (warranted and unwarranted) associated with being as open as possible with JREF plans.

 

[BillyJoe]

Some of us thought three months was a pretty long wait.
Now we're waiting again.

I wonder whether they're trying for a soft landing now.

 

[The Atheist]

Your complaint really is just that they haven't done exactly what you want in exactly the way you'd have liked at exactly the time you want. What they have actually done is exactly what they said they would do.

Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts.

First, I'm not a member of JREF and I don't donate to the forum, so it doesn't affect me one iota. I have said several times in this thread, I'm looking at it totally dispassionately, on the basis that when an organisation says X is going to happen on a set date, it's a good idea to have X in place at that stage, if you wish to retain credibility.

So far, what JREF has actually done is that someone has spent about 5 minutes taking down the FAQs. If the MDC and credibility are important to JREF, the details should be on the site alreay. There isn't an excuse for not having it done - the changes were advised three months ago, the job is just not that large.

I repeat, it isn't my credibility on the line. If you think it gives the right impression for an "educational foundation" to be this slack with announcements and changes, you clearly have different standards than I do.

Exactly right. The JREF is not under the gun to satisfy The Atheist, or anyone else. Sure, we'd all like things done as soon as possible...Sylvia and her ilk are still going strong. But I'd rather things be done judiciously and thoughtfully than rushed just to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Obviously, and I repeat, it's not my satisfaction aty stake, it's JREF's reputation among people who aren't forum members.

If you think the amateurish changes to the JREF site are good enough, same applies as I just said to Cuddles.

I agree: The JREF's primary target should not be forum member satisfaction.

Mate, I'm not suggesting it should be. Forum members are the least concern, they will be loyal no matter what - in the vast majority of cases.

However, if you set a date, stick to it.
Or do not set a date at all.

Well, I could only agree with that!

One of the JREF's greatest strengths, compared to other skeptical organizations, is the level of openness the Foundation exhibits with its supporters (specifically, Forum members) regarding Foundation activities. Granted, such openness can also be a weakness when the expectations of JREF supporters and the general public (and even the JREF itself) may not be met. It's a very difficult line to walk, and I commend Jeff and the JREF for being willing to take the criticism (warranted and unwarranted) associated with being as open as possible with JREF plans.

This, I don't get. What's the difficulty? What line is JREF walking that's so hard? The date of thread is September 2006. We are now 7 months past that, and I'm completely sure the type of changes were known at that stage. This isn't a 100-storey, concrete-cored building we're talking about here. The money's in place, the rules are Randi's for the making.

I was never expecting to see lawsuits being filed on 1/4/07, but the announcments made should have been backed up by a public statement of intent on that date.

Intent is everything, sloppiness is just sloppiness.

Some of us thought three months was a pretty long wait.
Now we're waiting again.

I wonder whether they're trying for a soft landing now.

Mate, I wish I knew what was happening. All I can say is that the more I look at the situation, the more it looks like the sort of behaviour I expect from dodgy bucket-shops rather than reputable educational foundations.

Too much time flag-waving at TAM and not enough time spent on the prime goals? I won't even go there just yet.

No actual response from JeffWagg yet? Obviously not too concerned with what forum members think just yet, eh?

 

[Cuddles]

Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts.

First, I'm not a member of JREF and I don't donate to the forum, so it doesn't affect me one iota. I have said several times in this thread, I'm looking at it totally dispassionately, on the basis that when an organisation says X is going to happen on a set date, it's a good idea to have X in place at that stage, if you wish to retain credibility.

So far, what JREF has actually done is that someone has spent about 5 minutes taking down the FAQs. If the MDC and credibility are important to JREF, the details should be on the site alreay. There isn't an excuse for not having it done - the changes were advised three months ago, the job is just not that large.

I repeat, it isn't my credibility on the line. If you think it gives the right impression for an "educational foundation" to be this slack with announcements and changes, you clearly have different standards than I do.

As I said, what more do you want them to do? They said that the rules on who could apply for the challenge would change. The rules have changed. What exactly is the problem? Yes, they could have announced it louder and could have organised the website more efficiently. So what? They have done exactly what they said they would do. You can whine about their credibility all you like, but the fact is that they have done what they said. The only person lacking credibility is you since you apparently refuse to admit this.

 

[The Atheist]

Ok, I'll accept I'm being too picky if you can swear on the bible (NZ Turf Register) that you had the same attitude when I asked this question:

Can I suggest that if Sylvia, Uri, James or John had made plans to do X on 1/4/07, then nothing was seen to happen, that I'd hear the derisory laughter from the South Pacific? Hmm?

 

[Cuddles]

Ok, I'll accept I'm being too picky if you can swear on the bible (NZ Turf Register) that you had the same attitude when I asked this question:

The same attitude as what exactly? Of course if they said they would do something and then didn't Randi would laugh at them. On the other hand, if they said they would do something and then did he probably wouldn't, he would just continue pointing out their fraudulent behaviour.

 

[The Atheist]

Of course if they said they would do something and then didn't Randi would laugh at them.

Well, that was my point.

This is how I see it:

This thread was started in response to "rumours" of changes, on 29 September 2006. We were told in the OP:

Stay tuned for the press release in the next week.

That "week" turned out to take three months.

In January, we were advised of what the changes would be, and that they would take effect from 1/4/07.

1/4/07 rolls around and ........ nothing happens. Well, almost nothing. A few changes were made to the website, but done in such amateurish fashion that it may as well have not been changed at all. The FAQs are still down, a fortnight after the "launch" date.

Looking in from the outside, I would have expected to see the Swift of the week of 1/4/07 dominated by the changes, setting out a plan and course of action. After all, JREF has had six months to get it organised and as I said, they're not building the Empire State Building, just making some easy changes to an already-extant challenge.

It may well be that no announcement or action was planned, but that being so, why did Jeff respond with:

we had hoped to do more. But illness and unexpected things cropping up got in the way. We will be having a bigger announcement of some sort in the future.

That seems to indicate that something was planned, but like everything else to do with the "new" challenge, has been delayed indefinitely.

I still maintain that if one of the other team had acted in this fashion, there'd be a 20-page thread by now, taking the piss out of whichever one it was. Jesus, look at the crap I took merely discussing increasing the size of the challenge! And I'm [technically] on the same side!

Mate, I know it looks like I'm barking at the wind, but to be completely honest, I'm only pissed off because I think it reduces JREF in the eyes of those who might vacillate between belief and disbelief in the BS of the enemy.

It smacks entirely of that double-standard I keep chasing.

Or does use of "skepticism" not apply to one's own "side"?

 

[BillyJoe]

Apart from a lack of personel (and why would that be - aren't there enough interested bodies to help out?), the only reason I can think of is that we are in for a let down. But it's coming slowly to soften the impact.
Tell me it's not true.