This isn't in anyway contrary to what Randi has always said about the prize. He has always stated that the challenge doesn't prove that paranormal phenomena don't exist; it only shows that no one has been able to demonstrate that it does (even with a big incentive to do so).
One of his books is called "
Flim-Flam Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions." In case you're not aware, flim-flam means
deceptive nonsense. The chapter about the challenge is called "Put up or Shut up." He refers to some claimants as "nutties" who are deluded in their beliefs. He refers to the rest as "fakes" as being "unwilling" to take the challenge.
So, I don't buy your claim that Randi believes that failing the test doesn't prove they are not psychic because Randi very clearly believes these people are frauds or deluded. Psychics don't exist, and the possibility simply isn't even on the table. I prefer not to engage in a semantic quibble about what failure in a single test "proves" because I see it as one more example in a huge pile of failures.
Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the ability, but their inability to prove it is not the same as proving the contrary.
That's a philosophical argument that I find rather silly because it is inaccurately applied here. You see, it's not like there's an absence of evidence. Negative test results are evidence. If 10,000 people hold a match to a piece of iron and it doesn't catch fire, that is evidence that iron is not flammable by a match. Anyone making the claim otherwise is simply wrong. It's downright silly to say, "Well, we did our own test and the iron didn't catch on fire, but we can't say that iron cannot be burned by a match. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
When you climb down from the ivory tower and go out in the real world, you'll quickly realize that absence of evidence is something we rely upon every day. Will the bridge collapse when I drive my car across it? No, because thousands of cars cross it every day. There is an absence of evidence that it's dangerous. Will my shoes turn into serpents? No, because they never have before, and there's no evidence that any such thing has ever happened in the history of the world.
A skeptic can and should live life by making judgment calls about the absence of evidence. Hell, everyone does it to some degree. We'd get nothing done if we did otherwise. The skeptics only obligation in that regard is to accept reliable evidence if and when it is presented. That doesn't obligate him to test every silly claim multiple times looking for evidence nor does it obligate him to equivocate on every single ridiculous claim out there.
As for the first part, I would assume you agree that doing something once (no matter how unlikely) could be a fluke, and demands further study.
No, I don't necessarily agree unless by "study" you mean examine the protocol for flaws and review the video for evidence of cheating. One of the inherent problems with encouraging more people to submit to tests is that it increases the odds of success. If you run enough 1 in 1,000 odds tests, somebody is going to get lucky. The IIG tested Regen Taylor, and his modus operandi is try these tests in the hopes of getting lucky. He wasn't serious about his ability. He just figured he'd spend a few hours for a shot at $50,000. Why not? I've wasted money at a casino doing in effect the same thing.
If anything, the comment just shows a commitment to scientific standards of evidence.
I disagree. The challenge is not science. If it were science, it wouldn't even exist because real scientists don't waste their time on frauds and deluded people making impossible claims. Scientists don't offer financial incentives to the subjects of their studies. They don't broadcast them over the Internet.
The challenge does not prove anything with a positive result, so there's no "standard of evidence" in place. The challenge has a protocol that allows the claimant to do what they claim they can do while at the same time preventing them from using known means to accomplish the task.
Mr. Randi specifically tells claimants he is not interested in their pet theories. If the challenges were scientific, they would be addressing those theories. See my other post about VFF's claims about seeing inside the human body. Since she claims to be able to smell and hear things inside the human body, any test of
seeing inside the human body would require her to wear ear plugs and nose plugs. Since she claims she can read minds, the subjects should have been corpses. Then again, she claims to be able to talk to ghosts, so how do you control for that?
My point is that this is not science. It's a bet: $1M versus humiliation (to put it bluntly). The JREF says in effect, "We don't give a ****
how you think you can do it. We just believe you can't do it, and we're going to eliminate all known methods at your disposal. So put up or shut up."
If anyone ever passes, it will be through dumb luck, a flaw in the protocol, sophisticated cheating or collusion. Since they have to do it twice, dumb luck is the least likely explanation. I doubt anyone who succeeds will submit to scientific testing. They will take the $1M and take their show on the road.
After all, the paranormal is flim-flam.
I'm not going to comment on most of the rest of your post because who am I to say you should like or approve of anything? The one thing I will comment on is this:
I am presenting my opinion and supporting it. You should do the same. Perhaps we shall enlighten each other or those reading the thread. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, and a discussion forum is the ideal place to do it.
) 
I said that the phrase is inaccurately applied when used to justify the statement, "If you fail a test designed to prove you are psychic it doesn't mean you are not psychic." I have no qualms about saying somebody is not psychic because despite countless tests, it's never been proven once. The one additional failure is like a grain of sand on the beach.