The word of the Amazing is final. There will be no update.
It might not be "File Reopened", but simple decency suggests there should be some kind of JREF statement.
The word of the Amazing is final. There will be no update.
It's been three and a half weeks since Pavel said he sent the letter to the JREF. I asked RemieV and Jeff for an update.
I repeated my request for said update.
I repeated my request for said update.
Do we even know if Pavel has contacted the JREF (apart from his email to Randi himself) since his file was closed? If I missed something, I am sorry, but AFAIK, his last email to JREF was the request that his file be closed, so the JREF has nothing further to go by or respond to. Randi's response was quite specific. Take it up with the JREF.
If he has not done this, there is nothing further to respond to.
Norm
To Mr. James Randi,
201 S.E.
12th Street Ft Lauderdale
Florida 33316
USA
I am writing to you in regards to JREF's decision to close my fail, with th reason - “ In accordance with the suggestions from other JREF staff, Pavel was given one last opportunity to simplify his protocol. He has declined, and his Challenge file has been closed.”
The JREF stuff is misrepresented the facts in favor of the JREF and presenting me in false light.
This is unexceptionably as it is. I was given NO chance but to refuse the protocol, that is absolutely UNFAIR and guarantees that I will not be able to perform claimed by me abilities, the conditions offered to me is making it impossible to. As claimed by me ability and success rate CANNOT be reliably tested with 20 trials that has been offered with no other options. The JREF imposed a limit on the number of trials which is too low to test the ability as stated in the application. The JREF's proposed test would only give me a 25% chance of passing it, even if I indeed have the ability I claime. A protocol for 100 trials test that was refused is not unreasonable, and the fact that it is refused seems unreasonable and unfair due to the facts:
1. The time required for test did not violate JREF's limits of 8 hours.
2. It was reviewed by independent statistician (who previously worked with JREF) and according to his opinion it was good enough for testing. He did not pointed any of options where the protocol seemed unfair and would give me at any point the advantage to win by chance and not by the claimed ability.
3. From your response one of the reasons to refuse it and limit it to a 20 trials, was the cost of it. According the JREF's rules I have to pay all the expanses related to test, so I see no reason why is JREF concerned about costs.
The designed and discussed protocol of 100 pairs test, meets the generally understood requirements. The probability of winning by chance is less than 1 in 1,000. The time taken is within the bounds of previous challenges. I bear the expenses. I believe there are adequate guards against cheating. The protocol has been checked by an independent statistician (who was kind enough to volunteer his time) who is familiar with the challenge process. The protocol seems to have met with enough approval by the JREF staff that it was deemed suitable for final presentation to you.
The fact that the latest protocol was discussed with JREF for ONE year period, and not even once the JREF expressed it concerns about it as being unreasonable and unacceptable. So the sudden letter limiting the test and offering me no choice but to refuse it and my file to be closed, I consider as unfair!
I strongly believe that I was treated unfairly, unjustly and even fraudulently in some way. As I am presented on the JREF's applicants page in a false light, as a person who was given fair chances, time and conditions for testing the claimed ability but I have refused it. That is absolute false and lie!
There for, I would appreciate the JREF reopening my file and hold fair test or if JREF find the proposed protocol unacceptable and giving me chance to cheat or win in a fraudulent way, officially explain your point and reasons for refusing protocol and limiting me to a conditions that is unfair! I ask of you, to amend the record on the JREFS applicant log, as it misrepresent the fact and as I have said before presents me in false light to a people who were not involved in any way in to protocol negotiation and are not familiar to any other threads on the JREF forums that related to the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Pavel Ziborov
FYI: I have merged the To Mr. James Randi thread into this one.Posted By: Locknar
So the answer is no, he did not contact JREF directly.
I emailed same letter to Alison
Thank you. This answers my question. I already knew from this thread that you had contacted Randi personally, and got a response, I was just not aware until now that you also contacted Alison (the JREF) at the same time.
Just so as I can be clear, the events are (leaving aside the direct email to Randi have been:
1. JREF asked you to redo your protocol with only 20 photos in the test or your file would be closed.
2. You emailed JREF telling them to close your file, as you could see no way to fulfil a protocol with only 20 photos.
3. You later decided to appeal the closure and emailed JREF with the same letter you sent Randi (reproduced above).
4. You have recieved no response to that letter from the JREF.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
Norm
...
So, GzuzKryzt, I admire your persistance. Mayber Alison of somebody else from JREF does read the Boards occasionally (or their own email accounts) and will respond eventually.
Norm
I emailed same letter to Alison
(A father who was a federal judge, a brother who was an attorney general, and another brother who is a successful trial lawyer? I'm opting out of this one based on hairs too-spit for reason, so weekday dinners were educational.)
To make sure we are ALL talking about the same thing, shouldn't ALL previous letters be discarded?
I don't mean to split hairs, here, but I feel this is important. Did you send exactly the same letter to Alison as the one to Randi you posted here, or did you re-address so it was clear to Alison you were writing to her and no simply copying her on your message to Randi?
I think you are split hairs here... Any way.. I sent Alison the same letter as to James Randi, with subject "Attention to Mr.James Randi.." I am sure if I would address it to Alison than it would be other splitting hair..as Alison decides nothing there and I should have write to the one who in charge... Its clear that they received my letter, and as you can see from Randi's letter he forwarded it to other chaps in charge there..
...and still no reaction... why??
In short, you did not address a letter to JREF directly(as you've been asked to do many times)-you sent a copy of your letter to James Randi to them, giving them the very reasonable assumption that you wanted a response from Mr. Randi, not them.
Just send a letter directly to JREF so that there is no question who is being talked to and who is supposed to respond. Do not address Mr. Randi, and do not CC him.
Guys you talking like kids.. In short.. You guys splitting hair even more!
Do you think it will make any difference?? So naive.. Well I had to follow Randi letter and address it to Alison?? Volunteering secretary (I am not trying to offence any one)? great.. but I doubt Alison would be much of helps as she does what she told.. Randi told her close my file if i refuse 20 trials.. she done it..
Beside Alison when she got my email and I am sure she got it.. same as other chaps who got forwarded letter from Randi, could simply get in touch with me and say where and to whom I should apply even out of courtesy if there is any in JREF..
Or some one from them could reply to GzuzKryzt's letter with suggestions where I should apply.. NO? I don't make any sense again?? No.. than you will keep splitting hair even if will write to Alison and she will ignore it... than I will have to write to a cleanign lady there??
No, you told them to close your file, and they did.
Why should any of those people reply to you? You sent an email addressed to Randi. Randi replied. If you want a response from someone else, address an email to that someone else.
You aren't all that good at pretending to be the victim. Please stop. Stop assuming you know something you don't know; stop assuming you know how someone will react to an action you refuse to take.
Either write the letter to Alison, or don't, but stop condemning people with your presumed outcomes from hypotheticals.