You know how to do what you have to do yet you do not do it for some reason. "De do do do de da da da is all I want to say to you."
Enough Groundhog Day for me.
Ganzfeld million dollar challange?
- Thread starter andy2001
- Start date
- Status
You know how to do what you have to do yet you do not do it for some reason. "De do do do de da da da is all I want to say to you."
Enough Groundhog Day for me.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Rodney, should I e-mail Ersby?
How many of these had a goods protocol and did not have the potential for bias? How many of these were sloppy and did not meet a protocol to rule out bias?
After all the threads I have ask you:
1. Why if there was bias in the test should this be called 'significant'?
Again it could be 'significant' but until the procedures and protocols are tight, it is not 'significant'.
Last edited:
Cramming that many trials into such a small space of time is probably unrealistic. That many trials would realistically take at least five and half years.
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
I bet they pay more attention to an application. Have you considered applying?
Of course, you _could_ just send another e-mail. In case the first one got, you know, lost or deleted by mistake and you're incorrectly ascribing malice where none exists.
Or you could do nothing, at which point nothing will change.
The choice is yours.
You misunderstand, I believe the suggestion was that if you wish to have an official answer why your e-mail was never replied to, you will need to contact the JREF and ask.
Okay, I just forwarded my May 10, 2008 e-mail to challenge@randi.org with the following message:
Greetings,
I did not receive a response to the below inquiry. Some Randi Forum participants suggested that I jog your memory about it.
Regards,
Rodney
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
My money says no answer is the answer to hypotheticals again. Takers?
(Just when I thought I'm out I push myself back in.)
Taken.
Let's not forget Rodney asked for a rule change, too.
It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth.
I have already received the following response from Jeff Wagg:Hello Rodney,
Thanks for the suggestions. So you know, the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account.
If we do make changes, they'll be posted publicly.
Jeff
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Will you take a check?
It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth.
Hello Rodney,
Thanks for the suggestions. So you know, the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account.
If we do make changes, they'll be posted publicly.
Jeff
So you've spent all this time whining and ignoring all the people telling you to contact the JREF when you could have just taken 5 minutes to actually do what you were told. Now that you've done so, do you see just how much easier it would be in the future if you actually take advice when you ask for it instead of just whining about it?
I don't know about you, but when I send someone an e-mail, it doesn't bounce back, and I don't receive a reply, I assume that the recipient simply chose not to reply. Yes, glitches do happen, but they're pretty rare, and Jeff did not express surprise that I had previously sent an e-mail. I do admit that I was pleasantly surprised, not only at the speed of the response, but the fact that Jeff states that "the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account." Perhaps the JREF management is more open-minded than most of the participants on this thread?
I'd like a little more detail about what you consider "realistic". The five lines you quoted are the closest to "realistic" I could come up with. Could you write a proposal with your own numbers? You see, it doesn't need to be more than five lines.
I (speaking only for me) don't care if it's just a hypothesis. I'd like to see a specific claim to work with, even if nobody intends to apply using it. This thread is about Ganzfeld tests; what's a realistic Ganzfeld test like?
It looks as if you have stumbled into the truth.
...
Truth is a semantic fiction.
I gladly stumble upon evidence, data and information though.
Last edited:
Let's say I have bragging rights for the duration of this post and we're even.
I don't know about you, but when I send someone an e-mail, it doesn't bounce back, and I don't receive a reply, I assume that the recipient simply chose not to reply. Yes, glitches do happen, but they're pretty rare, and Jeff did not express surprise that I had previously sent an e-mail. I do admit that I was pleasantly surprised, not only at the speed of the response, but the fact that Jeff states that "the challenge rules are being reconsidered, and we'll take your suggestions into account." Perhaps the JREF management is more open-minded than most of the participants on this thread?
In light of this new evidence, are you reconsidering (at least the degree of certainty in) your hypothesis that the JREF actively chose not to reply to your previous e-mail?
To some extent, but I still think it's likely that my original e-mail was read, as opposed to a glitch that prevented it from being read. If it were the latter, I believe Jeff would have stated in his reply either that: 1) The JREF had no record of my prior e-mail, or 2) That e-mail had gotten lost in the shuffle.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Huh, my experience is different. I send out blanket requests for information at both my schools as well as advise on storing data and the like.
Response rate is about 5% at one school and up to 60% at another.
So yes people choose not to respond, but sometimes they just don't respond because that is the pattern. People usually scan the e-mail titles and the first two sentences (when they do open) and decide which ones to respond to.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Or without singling you out it was an e-mail that he does not respond to in type.
http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
Note I had to make the last two posts to be allowed to post the url.
- Status