[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

[rjh01]

I agree with the previous few comments. Request that Pookster put a summary of his position. Just so that we do not have to read heaps of posts to work it out. Should be not much more than a cut and paste job.

Thanks

Edit - I wrote this before The Atheist made his post.

 

[The Atheist]

I agree with the previous few comments. Request that Pookster put a summary of his position. Just so that we do not have to read heaps of posts to work it out. Should be not much more than a cut and paste job.

I reckon I can do that in two short sentences:

Randi's salary is made up of several different parts - education, speaking and managing, therefore to look at the $150k on its own is wrong.

There is $262k of deferred income, ($96k attributable to 2006) which can be added to the current year to cancel out the loss.

See how close I get.

 

[Pookster]

Nope, she's just talking across me - her points have virtually no relevance outside of cost accounting, while I live in the real world, but take it as you will.

If you bother to go and read the returns for yourself, you'll see which way the finances are headed.

A lot of bluster, but no substance. Still non-responsive to my post as well. Not surprising. It's to be expected. Also, I was really just kidding when I asked you for a response; I knew you had nothing.

How is it not? Randi is paid $150k and that's a fact. How it's accounted for has no relevance whatsoever.

Ok, Mr. Fact. Which is the fact? Is Randi paid $175K or $150K? Which of your facts is a fact? Is one relevant and the other not? Hello? McFly?

What Pookster has done is bring along a red herring. If people choose to dine it, it's no skin off my nose. If I were a financial supporter of JREF I'd be concerned, but since I'm not, it's over to those who do to decide whether a turnround in profitability/excess revenue of over $300k in two years is a good thing. Clearly, Pookster, yourself and a few others think it is.

Let's just sit back and talk about it again in six months' time and see how the finances look.

Red herring? Pffft. Sir, you stocked the fish in this pond, not me. And now we have this post showing you still can't even keep up with what you're posting. I wonder how many more different salaries Randi will have over the next six months. First you were cherry picking from a 990 that you have no clue about. Now, you're pulling numbers out of thin air and calling them facts. As I said, you're good for a giggle if nothing else.

 

[Pookster]

I agree with the previous few comments. Request that Pookster put a summary of his position. Just so that we do not have to read heaps of posts to work it out. Should be not much more than a cut and paste job.

Thanks

Edit - I wrote this before The Atheist made his post.

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money. He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries. In other words, he's failed. Based on his last post, I believe it's finally starting to sink in a little bit too.

 

[The Atheist]

Ok, Mr. Fact. Which is the fact? Is Randi paid $175K or $150K? Which of your facts is a fact? Is one relevant and the other not? Hello? McFly?

Oh god, you finally got me! A typo.



You're a legend.

 

[The Atheist]

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money.

Which is undeniably correct.

He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA.

Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.

He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries.

Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.

In other words, he's failed.

Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

 

[tsig]

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money. He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries. In other words, he's failed. Based on his last post, I believe it's finally starting to sink in a little bit too.

It seems that all woos first tell you how much they don't know then proceed to demonstrate it.

You have done better with The Atheist than most on this forum.

 

[tsig]

Which is undeniably correct.



Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.



Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.



Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

You have admitted and demonstrated that you know nothing about tax laws and not-for-profits so why do you argue so vehemently with those who do?

 

[Pookster]

Which is undeniably correct.

Incorrect. You've failed to show the JREF is losing money. It could well be, but you haven't shown it with your cherry picked numbers. As you even referred to, the deferred revenue is likely to put them in a surplus position alone based solely on revenue and expenses. Again, your ignorance of non-profits and how to determine the business health of one is showing. In other words, your pants are still down. Thus, the giggles.

Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.

Tax laws for non-profits in the USA are now irrelevant? BWAHAHAHAHA. Ok, smart guy. So ... ummm ... why is the JREF filing a 990? What exactly is a 990 for? What happens if the JREF fails to file one? Why has the JREF not paid federal income taxes as a 501(c)3? What kind of law provision is section Section 501(c)3? Well?

Too frickin' funny.

It's your call, but you really should just stop, dude.

Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

Wrong? Pfft. You have no clue what I've attempted to do. This post further demonstrates your little grasp of cost allocation. If I pay you $10 dollars, $5 of it to go dig a hole (which you're very good at), and the other $5 to go jump in a lake. How much have I paid you to go jump in a lake? Was it $10 or $5? Take your time. Think hard about this now. Don't hurt yourself though.

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.

There's nothing to get out of. Randi was paid $175k, but not even nearly $175K to be the CEO. It's you who tried to make the amazingly absurd comparison to other CEOs. Not me. Again, get over it.

Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Doesn't bother me at all. I'm getting lots of giggles out of it. Again, it's a discussion forum. You raised issues that I'm replying to. Neat how that works, huh? I personally wouldn't call typing $150K instead of $175K over several posts a typo. I'd call it not knowing what you're typing to begin with. But again, you go with what makes you feel better.

You've displayed a complete lack of understanding about non-profits. I've been involved with a few. It's not unusual to have expenses go above revenue in a given time period. As long as a healthy fund balance is maintained, a deficit in one year is not a problem alone. I've been involved with a youth athletic league (a non-profit) that has fund raisers every year to have money available to spend beyond the registration fees charged to parents and business sponsorships. They decided to make a major asset gain one year (replacing all the old equipment at one time instead of replacing some of it every year -- because they got a great deal on the equipment if they bought a certain amount). If I did what you did in this thread, I'd make the same silly mistake of saying they were losing money because the expenses exceeded the revenue for that year. But they're far from losing money ... when you look deeper at their finances. While it is nice to have, their goal is not to have an ever increasing fund balance. Their goal is to carry out their mission. Think about it for a while. Again, don't hurt yourself. Safety first, ya know.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

Buhbye! Oh, you might want to take care of that wardrobe malfunction between now and then. Just a suggestion.

 

[Pookster]

It seems that all woos first tell you how much they don't know then proceed to demonstrate it.

You have done better with The Atheist than most on this forum.

*curtsy*

I don't recall seeing his posts in the forum I usually visit, but I've run across his kind before. The agenda usually is pretty clear, and it certainly was with him. The ducking and dodging is usually what is the most noticeable. Mostly noise and little substance. Their arrogance is usually their downfall.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Game, set, match to Pookster. I keep waiting for TA to roar "I'll destroy you!", then get even more tangled up.

Please tell me you are female, Pookster!

 

[Pookster]

Game, set, match to Pookster. I keep waiting for TA to roar "I'll destroy you!", then get even more tangled up.

Please tell me you are female, Pookster!

Thanks! And I am.

 

[The Atheist]

Tax laws for non-profits in the USA are now irrelevant? BWAHAHAHAHA. Ok, smart guy. So ... ummm ... why is the JREF filing a 990? What exactly is a 990 for? What happens if the JREF fails to file one? Why has the JREF not paid federal income taxes as a 501(c)3? What kind of law provision is section Section 501(c)3? Well?

Too frickin' funny.

What a load of utter tosh.

The only relevant feature about taxation and the JREF is that it pays no income tax.

But the best is yet to come....

I've been involved with a youth athletic league (a non-profit) that has fund raisers every year to have money available to spend beyond the registration fees charged to parents and business sponsorships. They decided to make a major asset gain one year (replacing all the old equipment at one time instead of replacing some of it every year -- because they got a great deal on the equipment if they bought a certain amount). If I did what you did in this thread, I'd make the same silly mistake of saying they were losing money because the expenses exceeded the revenue for that year.

Incorrectly conflating capital expenditure with running expenses. As an accountant, you're aware that capital expenditure has no bearing on profit/loss, so at least you've confirmed you're willing to lie to obfuscate.

Cheers.

 

[De_Bunk]

I just see an opinion...

I'll make up my own mind...

Nobody has been 'pwned' here...

DB

 

[Pookster]

What a load of utter tosh.

The only relevant feature about taxation and the JREF is that it pays no income tax.

Non-responsive to my post. Try again. Why does the JREF file a 990?

But the best is yet to come....

Incorrectly conflating capital expenditure with running expenses. As an accountant, you're aware that capital expenditure has no bearing on profit/loss, so at least you've confirmed you're willing to lie to obfuscate.

Cheers.

I'm not an accountant. And it was a poor example, but it was far from a lie. I withdraw it. However ...

The concept works all the same though. It's not unusual for expenses claimed in a fiscal period to exceed revenue in the same fiscal period when it comes to non-profits. As long as a healthy fund balance is maintained, a deficit in one year is not a problem alone. You have to look at more than the 990, as you attempted to do, in order to determine the business health of a non-profit. Also, it is nice to have an ever increasing fund balance. However, their goal is to carry out their mission. Interestingly, the JREF's fund balance did increase, while you're claiming their losing money.

Also, it's amazing how fast six months went by. Welcome back. I hope you got a belt for those pants sometime today. Lets see if you can be responsive to my previous posts now that you're back. There are so many, but let's start with this one ... why does the JREF file a 990?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yeah, right. Fortunately, most people can read. I'll leave it to the readers to check.

2006
2005
2004
2003
2002

I gave summary figures in my previous post.

<snip>

JREF revenue and expenses, 2002-2006 ($US):

Year|Revenue|Expenses|Surplus(Deficit)
2002|408,975|356,162|52,813
2003|571,595|405,101|166,494
2004|801,540|479,521|322,019
2005|505,719|503,379|2340
2006|584,652|664,511|(79,859)

Note that the $1,000,000 has been in place as "Temporarily Restricted" since the beginning of 2002, so none of the above are related to it (other than the fact that the interest that it earns is revenue, of course).

Other notable expense items for 2006:

Legal Fees: $22,234 (No legal fees for previous three years)

Conferences, conventions, and meetings: $190,754 ($20,848 in 2005)

Note also that revenue from Lectures and Seminars was $269,726 ($200,505 in 2005; $165,304 in 2004; $183,456 in 2003; and $84,318 in 2002), so your theory about Randi's health problems' having impacted the foundation's income does not appear to be accurate.

<snip>

So, TA, do you assume that a not-for-profit should run a large surplus every year, and never use any of that surplus to support its activities? Also, could you please explain how you feel the approximately $170,000 increase in Conferences, Conventions, and Meetings expense relates to the approximately $80,000 deficit.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Love it!

Give a fool enough rope and she'll surely hang herself. Thanks!

I substantially agree with what Pookster has written. (Well done, Pookster; I think I'm in love. Too bad you're married. )

Go back and check the previous years' reports then try again.

(handy hint: start with 2004 when the surplus was $300k, and then note that the deferred income is a gross figure; that should assist you.)

Of course, you had to cherry-pick the year with the highest surplus. Why not start with 2002, when the surplus was only about $50,000? Frankly, 2004 seems like a fluke to me; possibly the foundation received a single particularly large donation that year. And the fact that deferred income is "deferred gross income" still doesn't change the fact that deferred revenue increased much more than deferred expenses, meaning we can't draw any conclusions at the moment about how much of that revenue will end up as part of next year's surplus or deficit.

 

[Pookster]

I substantially agree with what Pookster has written. (Well done, Pookster; I think I'm in love. Too bad you're married. )

Thanks.

 

[boloboffin]

Hi, folks.

Selected information from this thread is being used to smear James Randi at Democratic Underground's September 11th forum. The poster who's doing this is someone that the moderators have asked me to put on ignore, so I only became aware of the thread recently. It was during what DU calls a "loss of functionality" during a busy night of posting.

Surprised at the level of malevolence and open deception, I posted a new thread with a fuller picture of this information (though I could see the thread, I still couldn't post in it). That thread has now been deleted.

Some posters at DU are doing a great job at defending, though, despite my being barred from doing so. I just thought you would all like to take a look at that. The thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=194011&mesg_id=194011

Also, it occurs to me that should James Randi even care about the issue, he could sign up at DU. Those kinds of personal attacks on actual members are as frowned upon there as they are here.

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

 

[chillzero]

Thanks bol. Just so people don't flood the JREF, I have notified the mod team, and also Jeff Wagg of this post.

 

[boloboffin]

The actual thread was started on February 5th, so if they haven't flooded by now, they're likely not to. It's only gotten random kicks after the first burst, and I only became aware of it Tuesday night.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

This is one of those things that I think is best left ignored. The more they talk, the more they shoot down their own arguments.

 

[The Atheist]

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

Why is that problematic?

I took a look and have to agree with Jeff - when the attackers are claiming things like: "I was kicked off JREF because Randi was scared of my psychic powers", I don't think there's too much to worry about.

It is public information, posted in a public thread. Disappointing that a nutter stole my post, but I can't see any harm in them talking about it.

Where is the malevolence? It all looks pretty tame to me.

 

[rjh01]

That debate ended after 7 hours. I do not see any points they raised that were not either
previously raised in this thread (and debunked)
stupid (as like what the atheist said).

 

[boloboffin]

Why is that problematic?

I was unclear. I meant that the other poster was laughing about Randi "scamming" people and yet never would have know about it had it not been discussed openly here at JREF. Usually scam artists don't allow free and open discussion of their scamming if it's under their control. I didn't mean to imply any shame on you for discussing it, not at all.

I took a look and have to agree with Jeff - when the attackers are claiming things like: "I was kicked off JREF because Randi was scared of my psychic powers", I don't think there's too much to worry about.

That was Perry Logan, and that's his sense of humor. Psychic powers had nothing to do with Logan's banning.

It is public information, posted in a public thread. Disappointing that a nutter stole my post, but I can't see any harm in them talking about it.

Where is the malevolence? It all looks pretty tame to me.

The other poster and I have history. Believe me, there's plenty of malevolence there.

 

[The Atheist]

The other poster and I have history. Believe me, there's plenty of malevolence there.

Haha!

Strangely set-up forum, I couldn't handle that way of going about it.

 

[Dave31]

who what huh?

 

[Pookster]

Hi, folks.

Selected information from this thread is being used to smear James Randi at Democratic Underground's September 11th forum. The poster who's doing this is someone that the moderators have asked me to put on ignore, so I only became aware of the thread recently. It was during what DU calls a "loss of functionality" during a busy night of posting.

Surprised at the level of malevolence and open deception, I posted a new thread with a fuller picture of this information (though I could see the thread, I still couldn't post in it). That thread has now been deleted.

Some posters at DU are doing a great job at defending, though, despite my being barred from doing so. I just thought you would all like to take a look at that. The thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=194011&mesg_id=194011

Also, it occurs to me that should James Randi even care about the issue, he could sign up at DU. Those kinds of personal attacks on actual members are as frowned upon there as they are here.

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

The Randi/JREF smears over there look about as ill informed as the ones that were attempted here. Considering the poster at DU used the same OP from here as a start, it's no surprise that the same type of ignorance is displayed over there as it was here. As Jeff Wagg stated, it's best just to let them talk and shoot down their own arguments. Those that read through this thread from over there can see just how cherry picking numbers is typically a bad strategy.

 

[NiallM]

Claus.

How I would run JREF is irrelevant. This is about whether the financial position of JREF is good, stable and helpful to its mission.

I've made a suggestion about how it might get more money.

I'm waiting for action promised 12+ months ago to actually begin.

That's pretty specific.

Since the changes to the MDC have both been announced and partially implemented, are you prepared to pony up the $1000?

Or have I missed something?

 

[Klaymore]

When will the '07 numbers come out, anyway?

 

[Pookster]

When will the '07 numbers come out, anyway?

The 990 isn't due until the 15th day of the 5th month after the JREF's accounting period ends. This means it would be due May 15. However, the JREF could file for an automatic three month extension to file, which it did last year.

The 2006 990 was signed by Randi on May 21, 2007.

 

[The Atheist]

Since the changes to the MDC have both been announced and partially implemented, are you prepared to pony up the $1000?

Or have I missed something?

(bolding mine)

QED

 

[NiallM]

(bolding mine)

QED

I didn't have you down as such a milquetoast until I saw the definitive proof.

Of course, there was bound to be a gap between the announcement and the final implementation; this is necessary in order to give no-one any excuse about not receiving notice that the prize would be withdrawn, and to allow time in order that they can not wriggle out using that excuse.

The changes have been made, announced and have a fixed date when they will take place.

You're backing out of what you staed.

But if you wish, does your blsuter translate into a cast-iron guarantee to make the stated donation on the date that the MDC ceases?

 

[The Atheist]

You're backing out of what you staed.

But if you wish, does your blsuter translate into a cast-iron guarantee to make the stated donation on the date that the MDC ceases?

Sorry mate, but if you're going to come in here full of abuse and typos, you're going to have to lift your game considerably if you want me to take a bite of any of those baits.

You're clearly a fan of JREF, where a statement equates to "action".

Has Randi advised what the mio's going to be used for? Have you seen the (now six month-old) thread asking for what kind of efforts JREF should make? Has Randi publicly challenged any of the main psychics? Has JREF instituted legal proceedings against anyone, as stated?

What "action", precisely has JREF taken?* Oh yeah, it had its website updated several months after the announcement/s.

There's a very old saying you may not be aware of: "Action speaks louder than words." I see lots and lots of words - and I could probably be accused of the same, but then again, I'm not asking for donations.





*aside from making another announcement

 

[GreyICE]

I think the breakdown is more like employees are $300,000. That's a hell of a lot of money for an organization of this size.

 

[Arkayik]

What's the point again

Given that the OP has emphatically stated a total lack of financial support to the JREF, I'm given to wonder why the concern about its finances.

Outside of a failed attempt to count-coup, or blatant jealousy of someone more successful, what is it to you?

It seems to me that the path of mediocrity is ever to criticize those perceived to be out-front, instead of looking at what one might do to boot-strap his/her own situation... Start the TAEF and do better...

And do come down off the throne, you might hurt yourself in a fall. Anyone who declaims another for their number of posts or lack thereof, that's just beyond the pale of conceit (I do apologize for this slight meander, I do understand that one should debate the topic, not the individuals, but I failed to prevent the outburst)!

So, to - sort of - go back on-topic, given that it is the James Randi E.F., the only thing which I find surprising is that he doesn't keep more of the $$ from speaking engagements...

Cheers

 

[balrog666]

The travel expenses are what I would consider to be relatively low considering TAM(s); are Randi's expenses picked up elsewhere or does he pay that himself? And what about other officers or employees?

No big deal, but I was just wondering ...

 

[athon]

Given that the OP has emphatically stated a total lack of financial support to the JREF, I'm given to wonder why the concern about its finances.

I can't speak for TA, however I can voice my own concerns.

I have a desire to see the goals of the JREF attained. I personally hold a high regard for educating people in being more critical, and this being done as effectively and efficiently as possible. This means looking at what is being done, how it is being done, evaluating whether it works or not and following this with making relevant changes to continue improvement.

Now, I'm not in a position to necessarily criticise the foundation's fiscal position. This is primarily because I fully admit I'm not financially minded, and have little confidence in any stance I might ascertain from the facts being put forward by either side. However, I do agree with what TA says above - there are some things I do understand quite well and feel the JREF could do them better.

In short, I'm a fan of the goals of the foundation and support them wholeheartedly. I don't see it as a bad thing to ask if the foundation could be doing more to reach those goals.

It seems to me that the path of mediocrity is ever to criticize those perceived to be out-front, instead of looking at what one might do to boot-strap his/her own situation... Start the TAEF and do better...

This is a common method of defense whenever somebody criticises an established endeavour. Don't like it? Start your own and do better!

This is a seriously flawed rebuttal. First of all, endeavours like the JREF come about from opportunities an individual such as Randi has taken advantage of through his life. We're all in unique positions to make our own efforts, however few are in a position to replicate Randi's work, let alone accomplish it to any great standard.

So to say 'start your own foundation' is like telling an engineer who sees cracks in a building to 'build his own tower'. Seeing the flaws is not the same as being in a position to create a better version oneself. However, together the builder and the engineer can improve that building.

So, to - sort of - go back on-topic, given that it is the James Randi E.F., the only thing which I find surprising is that he doesn't keep more of the $$ from speaking engagements...

Cheers

While I can admire the celebration of Randi and his efforts, I think it misses the point. Perhaps we're simply here for two different reasons - you're here as a fan of Randi's, and support his work because you like the guy. Fair enough. Personally, I'm here because I'm a believer in the JREF's mission and its goals, and support what it is he's doing. If I were the former, I'd say it's his passion and hard work which should be rewarded however he sees fit. As the latter, I can only comment on whether that passion and hard work results in matching the goals as efficiently as possible.

Athon

 

[Arkayik]

I can't speak for TA, however I can voice my own concerns.

Fair enough, it is probable that I don't know TA well enough to impugn his motives. Additionally, it was immature of me to go after the poster instead of the post... If so, apology given.

In short, I'm a fan of the goals of the foundation and support them wholeheartedly. I don't see it as a bad thing to ask if the foundation could be doing more to reach those goals.

Very Noble. How has that worked out for you? In what ways have you done this?

This is a seriously flawed rebuttal..... <snip>

Well yes, it was a rebuttal, I grant you that, good or bad I leave to others like yourself to determine. To paraphrase, without Randi we'd not be conversing about any of this... Good point.

So to say 'start your own foundation' is like telling an engineer who sees cracks in a building to 'build his own tower'.... <snip>

I would grant you this point, if a building-foundation were the same as an Educational Foundation. However, here all you've got is the same word ;-)... You make a valid point about fair criticism, but I didn't see the OP as fair or constructive criticism, more of a gripe.

I suppose in TA's defence there has to be a bit of smoke to start a topic, but I don't think that necesarily means there is a fire in this case. And on balance the rest of the thread is something else...

I think the JREF is doing the best it can with its resources. If it doesn't meet the needs/wants of others, then they need to step up with some input energy (cash and/or time) and either create a new wing of the foundation, or a new foundation to pursue those needs/wants. Based upon JREF's collaboration with other groups, it is evident that the JREF isn't intended to be the A-Z of scepticism...

I suppose I could be accused of being a Randi fan, but I'm too old to believe the stars are anything more than human (no pun intended).

Cheers.

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks Athon, for the comments, but I'll have a quick say myself on the subject as well:

Fair enough, it is probable that I don't know TA well enough to impugn his motives. Additionally, it was immature of me to go after the poster instead of the post... If so, apology given.

As far as I'm aware, you don't know me at all. No need for apologies, though, I get far worse than that in the Sports forum!

Well yes, it was a rebuttal, I grant you that, good or bad I leave to others like yourself to determine. To paraphrase, without Randi we'd not be conversing about any of this... Good point.

That's quite true, but is the JREF actually educating anyone? If so, how? The scholarships had been in abeyance for several years, and while I won't take any credit for getting them re-instituted, it is coincidental that that happened after I'd been corresponding with JR asking why they'd been let go for so long. Even so, the amount of scholarships is puny when measured against what Randi pays himself.

People seem to be quite happy with that, but to me, it doesn't gel with the stated aims of the organisation. A good measuring stick would be the Richard Dawkins Foundation. In the case of the RDF, Dawkins pays money into it rather than drawing from it.

... but I didn't see the OP as fair or constructive criticism, more of a gripe.

Why would I gripe if I didn't care about the subject or the organisation? If I had no regard for educating people about the damage of pseudoscience and paranormality, why would I bother? If I was only interested in attacking, there are better angles than this one.

I think the JREF is doing the best it can with its resources. If it doesn't meet the needs/wants of others, then they need to step up with some input energy (cash and/or time) and either create a new wing of the foundation, or a new foundation to pursue those needs/wants. Based upon JREF's collaboration with other groups, it is evident that the JREF isn't intended to be the A-Z of scepticism...

Wouldn't it be far better to use the existing and successful format of JREF to continue the work and make it more useful?

Clearly, there are changes afoot with the removal of the mio, which will release the money for other purposes, but it seems to me that the aims of the organisation are only being achieved as far as preaching to the converted. There are plenty of examples of people who see JR as a "leader" and the organisation as a "church". That's all great, but do you think we should have something more than a fan club?