Psychic Samurai applies for MDC...apparently...

[Thabiguy]

The Professor,

you said that you had asked another person to help you put together a challenge claim and that you had asked them to join this forum thread. We eagerly anticipate this person's arrival.

Note that there are only about 43 days left till this October 31st 2008 for the entire application process including protocol negotiations, which is, based on experience with other applicants, precious little time.

I would suggest that your helper avoids unnecessary delays and becomes involved as soon as possible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...He is not stupid,though he is pretending to be for some reason.

...it's just a magic trick and not a serious applicaiton.

Well, there's your reason.

Loss Leader has repeatedly suggested a testable claim and reasonable protocol that TP repeatedly refuses to acknowledge. LL, are you a professional writer by trade?

It's got to suck for someone wanting to pull off a stage magic trick in front of a skeptical (non-credulous) audience who want to look in his hat before he pulls the rabbit out of it.

The Professor, does Loss Leader's suggested claim and protocol not cover what you've apparently been trying to say? If not, where could it be improved? You could practice your protocol negotiation with Loss Leader. Your turn, answer him back with changes and then he'll answer you back with changes. See? That's how protocol negotiations work. We'll all help you with your side.

 

[The Professor]

A quick, possibly off-topic question:

When you say that you have agreed to do this...did the JREF ask you to do this? I ask because agreeing to do something by definition requires someone to whom you have made the agreement, and we've heard nothing officially that you have responded to the JREF's last official communication....

Just curious.

Sorry ... I have agreed with someone who knows a lot about this stuff, to allow a writer to help me through the red tape that seems to be bogging this down. Hope you weren't confused and I see how it may have sounded like that. Sorry! I am also fine tuning the claim myself in addition.

 

[RemieV]

A quick, possibly off-topic question:

When you say that you have agreed to do this...did the JREF ask you to do this? I ask because agreeing to do something by definition requires someone to whom you have made the agreement, and we've heard nothing officially that you have responded to the JREF's last official communication....

Just curious.

We did not. There has been no response as of yet.

 

[Piggy]

Sorry ... I have agreed with someone who knows a lot about this stuff, to allow a writer to help me through the red tape that seems to be bogging this down. Hope you weren't confused and I see how it may have sounded like that. Sorry! I am also fine tuning the claim myself in addition.

There is no "red tape... bogging this down".

As has been pointed out to you, it is you -- and you alone -- who are bogging this down.

The rules are clear. You have been given a response to your inquiries. The problems with your application have been pointed out. Forum members have made suggestions.

The only impediment here is the applicant.

 

[Pantaz]

Sorry ... I have agreed with someone who knows a lot about this stuff, to allow a writer to help me through the red tape that seems to be bogging this down. Hope you weren't confused and I see how it may have sounded like that. Sorry! I am also fine tuning the claim myself in addition.

(Bolding is mine)
The only "red tape" is of your own making. As I stated earlier, all the back-and-forth in the thread is meaningless to the official status of the Challenge.

You really need to address what RemieV posted yesterday:

[snip]
In all of that correspondence, you have yet to give a testable claim. That means, since our protocol negotiations have begun, it has been 14 days. Fourteen days without a claim.

I am asking you to give a claim for your benefit. If you fail to do so, then protocol negotiations cannot take place. If we do not complete protocol negotiations, you will not make your deadline of October 31st.
[snip]

 

[Loss Leader]

LL, are you a professional writer by trade?

Of course not. If I were a professional writer, I would have had exactly ten steps.

Writing an acceptable protocol is easy. You just think of every single way you could cheat and change the protocol to exclude it.

 

[jimtron]

Dave:

Please let us know what JREF requests are unclear (as you stated in an earlier post) and what you mean by red tape bogging things down.

On your application thread you were asked some specific questions (same ones you've been asked here many, many times). If anything is unclear, let us know ASAP. We're eagerly awaiting more info about the paranormal entity: what it is, and how you will show it to indeed be paranormal in an objective way.

 

[The Professor]

We did not. There has been no response as of yet.

I have at no time stated that I agreed with you. In fact, I rarely do agree with how you are running things here.

After reading your site I am amazed that you have been given this position considering your view of the MDC claims ...
I believe your words were ..... "the claims put forward, quite honestly, friggin' ridiculous."
So as not to take it out of context, here is the link.
http://www.skepticalanalysis.com/reports/psychics/jref_challenge.html

How can someone with such a predisposition give a fair test? You are claiming in writing that my claims of the paranormal are "Friggin' Ridiculous" before we even start. How is that fair?

How can it be fair concerning Anyone applying for the challenge?

There are a million reasons why it isn't!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ......

 

[The Professor]

Well, there's your reason.

Loss Leader has repeatedly suggested a testable claim and reasonable protocol that TP repeatedly refuses to acknowledge. LL, are you a professional writer by trade?

It's got to suck for someone wanting to pull off a stage magic trick in front of a skeptical (non-credulous) audience who want to look in his hat before he pulls the rabbit out of it.

The Professor, does Loss Leader's suggested claim and protocol not cover what you've apparently been trying to say? If not, where could it be improved? You could practice your protocol negotiation with Loss Leader. Your turn, answer him back with changes and then he'll answer you back with changes. See? That's how protocol negotiations work. We'll all help you with your side.

Feel free to look into my hat any time
I am NOT ignoring LL. In fact I want to use some of his ideas. I just don't want to get pushed into a corner that I don't belong in.

Right now I am being told that hearing voices that can't be Scientifically Explained is NOT Paranormal, but the definition of Paranormal according to the JREF , is

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”


So you tell me ... How do you get around that catch 22?

I'd like to thank everyone for their help this far.
We've got the Place and Time nailed down. I know that what I purpose to do is Paranormal, since it can not be scientifically proven.
I am willing to let any trickery be removed ( Randi is very versed at doing this) to eliminate all doubt.
Please keep the suggestions coming.
Thanks again
Dave

 

[yairhol]

It is today September the 19th.
Still no claim has been made.
Still no protocol to consider.

 

[The Professor]

The Professor,

you said that you had asked another person to help you put together a challenge claim and that you had asked them to join this forum thread. We eagerly anticipate this person's arrival.

Note that there are only about 43 days left till this October 31st 2008 for the entire application process including protocol negotiations, which is, based on experience with other applicants, precious little time.

I would suggest that your helper avoids unnecessary delays and becomes involved as soon as possible.

Thanks for your help!
You are correct. Time is running short but I'm looking at the updated claim now and it looks like it will pass inspection. You would literally be knocked out if I told you who has been helping me!
I am so excited!
It is all coming together. The Event Location, Time, and the Paranormal Proof!

 

[Jackalgirl]

Azrael5 -- you ask me why I encourage TP.

I believe in the MDC and think it is intensely interesting. I like to help out with it, and will do so as objectively as I can. If I find myself making the same suggestion 10 times, though, with no acknowlegement, believe me in that I will stop (since it's evident the claimant is not interested in my advice).

This isn't the case for Dave. He does seem to have something of a dialogue going. However, would suggest to you, Dave, that you're still missing the basic simplicity of how the MDC works.

Let me give you an example: I work with people to design logos for local military commands (and also personal Challenge Coins). I often run into people who think that "more is better". They want the rating symbol AND the ship AND the satellite AND the submarine AND the aircraft AND AND AND. It's hard to convince them that when you're dealing with a coin that'll be max 1.75" in diameter, less is more. And when you're dealing with a command logo that could conceiveably be translated into the form of a patch, less is more.

It's the same with the MDC. It does not help to keep throwing additional stuff at the process. Less is more. You do not need a professional writer. The people in this Forum, myself included, are more than happy to help you out for free, and we already have a good inkling of what is acceptable to the JREF from having lurked and helped here for years. Do not waste money and time looking for a professional writer.

Again: step one is: Start with the Claim. You can't even begin to think about a protocol until the JREF accepts your claim. Do this first. Ignore everything else.

Re: the claim: you need to get the bit about "paranormal entities" out of there. See my three other posts in various places recommending the wording. You may want to take the more recent advice to say -- instead of "cannot be explained by normal means" -- "cannot be explained by any means other than paranormal means."

Do this first. Do not waste any more time here, with writers, thinking about the protocol, or anything until you get an email back from Allison saying "we accept your claim".

 

[chillzero]

I have at no time stated that I agreed with you. In fact, I rarely do agree with how you are running things here.

After reading your site I am amazed that you have been given this position considering your view of the MDC claims ...
I believe your words were ..... "the claims put forward, quite honestly, friggin' ridiculous."
So as not to take it out of context, here is the link.
http://www.skepticalanalysis.com/reports/psychics/jref_challenge.html

How can someone with such a predisposition give a fair test? You are claiming in writing that my claims of the paranormal are "Friggin' Ridiculous" before we even start. How is that fair?

How can it be fair concerning Anyone applying for the challenge?

There are a million reasons why it isn't!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ......

Your quote is incorrect, and out of context. Let me quote it properly, with a little extra context:

Now, the JREF has kindly allowed me to review some of the applications for the Million. And it is nothing like you'd expect. Anyone who believes the JREF is spinning the Challenge in such a way that no one can win is absolutely deluding themselves, because the claims put forward are, quite honestly, freakin' ridiculous.
I saw one, for example, that involved a piece of macramé. And the paperwork that came with it was absolutely unintelligible. If I understand it correctly, and I may not, this piece of macramé was somehow paranormal.

Alison is speaking in general, and follows it up with an example of why she says so. Even Randi often comments on the ridiculous nature of many of the claims they get - many of which are indecipherable, and all of which are available for review at the JREF offices.

I been and seen and held that 'paranormal macrame' myself, and tried to read the paperwork. I'm amazed it even made it as far as the offices - the postman is to be commended on delivering such an article.

In any case let's not stray further off topic. I find your criticism of Alison unfair, and I notice that you still avoid answering her directly on direct questions put to you, such as 'what exactly is your claim and how do you propose to test it?'. I hope you will respond to her and the JREF soon, and get your challenge claim moving in the right direction.

I would suggest putting more effort into doing so, and getting the claim explained properly, in conjunction with your writer if needs be, than responding here. It seems we are merely distracting you from achieiving your actual goal. It would be a real shame if you didn't get everything you needed put together and presented to the JREF in time, because you were pre-occupied here or at the Magic Cafe.

 

[The Professor]

Azrael5 -- you ask me why I encourage TP.

I believe in the MDC and think it is intensely interesting. I like to help out with it, and will do so as objectively as I can. If I find myself making the same suggestion 10 times, though, with no acknowlegement, believe me in that I will stop (since it's evident the claimant is not interested in my advice).

This isn't the case for Dave. He does seem to have something of a dialogue going. However, would suggest to you, Dave, that you're still missing the basic simplicity of how the MDC works.

Let me give you an example: I work with people to design logos for local military commands (and also personal Challenge Coins). I often run into people who think that "more is better". They want the rating symbol AND the ship AND the satellite AND the submarine AND the aircraft AND AND AND. It's hard to convince them that when you're dealing with a coin that'll be max 1.75" in diameter, less is more. And when you're dealing with a command logo that could conceiveably be translated into the form of a patch, less is more.

It's the same with the MDC. It does not help to keep throwing additional stuff at the process. Less is more. You do not need a professional writer. The people in this Forum, myself included, are more than happy to help you out for free, and we already have a good inkling of what is acceptable to the JREF from having lurked and helped here for years. Do not waste money and time looking for a professional writer.

Again: step one is: Start with the Claim. You can't even begin to think about a protocol until the JREF accepts your claim. Do this first. Ignore everything else.

Re: the claim: you need to get the bit about "paranormal entities" out of there. See my three other posts in various places recommending the wording. You may want to take the more recent advice to say -- instead of "cannot be explained by normal means" -- "cannot be explained by any means other than paranormal means."

Do this first. Do not waste any more time here, with writers, thinking about the protocol, or anything until you get an email back from Allison saying "we accept your claim".

You are totally correct and that is exactly the advise that has been given to me. Less is more, is often what we say when on stage. Just the basics will do if you approach it correctly. The paranormal entities IS gone.
I agree with you 100%.
I'm sorry others feel that it is wrong of you to help me, but I'm very glad you did!
I hope to have all of this completed by tomorrow.
I will take another day off work just make sure!

 

[Azrael 5]

Id be interested to know the reults of this are:"[hear voices on the tape]that would be over the top ,it's happened before"

I asked you on MagicCafe for this evidence.You would expect with all this talk of ITC etc you would have some prior examples to show us.

Right now I am being told that hearing voices that can't be Scientifically Explained is NOT Paranormal, but the definition of Paranormal according to the JREF , is

How do we know they can't be scientifically explained.If a voice were to come thru my unplugged music sytem now,would I assume it was an entity of some sort or the next door neighbours CB radio interfering.

Id be curious to know-as are other members- how can you prove these voices are paranormal? Its s simple question.One which you don't seem to have an answer for.

 

[Loss Leader]

How can someone with such a predisposition give a fair test? You are claiming in writing that my claims of the paranormal are "Friggin' Ridiculous" before we even start. How is that fair?

How can it be fair concerning Anyone applying for the challenge?

It is fair because the protocol would be negotiated and agreed to by all parties. You would develop the protocol; you would design it to fit your needs; and you would be the one who approves it. So it embodies the full sense of the word fairness - everyone involved will first declare that they are satisfied with the protocol. Nothing is forced on you ever. It could not, in fact, be more fair.

What it could be, however, is less strict, more open to interpretation and more vague. This would be decidedly unfair to everyone because it would allow a magic trick to pass as a real psychic phenomenon.

Right now I am being told that hearing voices that can't be Scientifically Explained is NOT Paranormal,

That is not what you are being told. What you are being told is that hearing voices in an uncontrolled environment is not tesatbly paranormal. You are being told that no one can see a way to run a test that excludes all normal sources and leaves only the paranormal explanation. You are being told this because of the multiple technological devices that could be used to simulate such an effect.

A voice with no normal source is paranormal; the challenge is proving that the voice has no normal source. So far, you have been entirely unable or unwilling to detail in any way how you intend to show that the voice is not emanating from a normal source.

I am willing to let any trickery be removed ( Randi is very versed at doing this) to eliminate all doubt.

This is your achilles heel. Exactly what will you do to prove that all trickery has been removed? Exactly what steps will you take that show that the source is paranormal and not normal? List them.

You continue to refuse to do so. Either you do not understand this requirement or you do not care about it; the effect is the same: you will not be tested and you will promote your magic show using that fact.

That is the real Catch 22 of this situation: however the JREF answers you, even ignores you, it only helps your real cause.

I'm sorry others feel that it is wrong of you to help me, but I'm very glad you did!

Nobody feels that way. You are lying.

 

[Cuddles]

Please read what I've said again. The writer is to help with the CHALLENGE CLAIM! Not the protocol. Why do you misquote me?

Liar. I quoted your exact words, and the posts are clear for everyone to see.

If Alison does not like the way I phrase my Claim then a professional Writer is needed to help me "Jump through This Hoop".

It is not the phrasing that is the problem, it is that you are trying to pass off a rather pathetic magic trick as paranormal, and somehow thinking that one of the most respected magicians in the world, along with various professionals at testing claims and hundreds of other people, is stupid enough not to notice. There is no point hiring anyone to write your claim until you actually have a claim.

Why are you afraid that I've hired one?

No-one is afraid. Even though I have exactly no respect for you I still don't want to see you throwing money away for absolutely no reason.

I just want some basic Fairness here.

No you don't. You are getting fairness. What you actually want is for people to just bend over and take whatever you give them without asking any questions. Sorry, but the people here, and especially the people working for the JREF, just aren't that stupid.

You are claiming in writing that my claims of the paranormal are "Friggin' Ridiculous" before we even start. How is that fair?

Because they are.

 

[e-sabbath]

I would still like to know why this claim must be tested on 10/31, and if there are any other days in the year this claim could be tested.

 

[Azrael 5]

Correct me if wrong but hasn't The Professor claimed to have got results from this Devil's Chair somewhere in this thread? If so then the date is irrelevant as he hadn't been to the location prior to June this year.

Trying to pull a fast one on Randi eh Dave? Thinking a magic trick is going to fool him! Really.....