• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Now a PM from Randi

Almo said:
I can't believe people are so mad about this.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I give money every year to The Nature Conservancy and The National Trust (among others). I do all my charitable donations at the end of the year (except for membership type donations, like the Art Museum, Zoo, etc - I do those when they come due). After seeing this thread, I did some checking. Counting emails and letters, between the two of these charities, I was contacted 11 times, just in the last 6 weeks of this year. I tossed the letters into a pile (I us them as a reminder to donate) and deleted the emails. I didn't start any threads, nor did I contact either organization to complain. Somehow I mangaged to go about my daily life.
 
Last edited:
I don't think "mad" (I assume you mean in the sense of "angry" ), is the right word.

The posters who have responded are, by definition, users of the forum, but are not , for the most part, closely connected to JREF in Florida.

If people identify with the forum and feel its potential is being ignored except as a place to ask for donations, it's understandable they may be upset. Nobody is violating the MA though. Objections and suggestions have been made quite civilly.

ETA-Scrut I don't think the comparison is valid.
We all get junk mail- and either respond to it or bin it.
Online communities are different. I can't explain the psychology of that, but it's real. Whether it's hacker BBs , social network sites or forums like this, people view them as intensely personal and important. They can get extremely defensive about them. Look at the RDF closedown. Regulars there were like refugees in wartime, shell shocked and pushing their few salvaged belongings on a cart. This is mild.
 
Last edited:
Almo said:
I can't believe people are so mad about this.
Click to expand...

How "so" are they mad, according to you ?

Let's be clear. Someone saying:

"Damn. I got six e-mails and two PMs about this. I get it already. Maybe the JREF should revise its marketing policy, because it is somewhat like spam. Quite annoying."

Is not like someone saying:

"I can't take this anymore. Those idiots sent me SIX E-MAILS!!!! SIX!!! And TWO PMs!! What the **** ?? Please, I DONATED ALREADY!! Leave me ALONE !!! I'm calling the cops !"

To me, "so mad" implies something closer to the second made-up quote.
 
That, in and of itself, is no evidence of being "mad" about something.

I can discuss for hours on end about things I don't care about. So your interpretation is flawed.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I don't think "mad" (I assume you mean in the sense of "angry" ), is the right word.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I, for one, am not mad. I rather feel betrayed. And used. As if Randi has had violent sex with me and then dumped me on some wet and cold sidewalk, disgraced and beaten, everything of value taken away from me, hopes and dreams and expectations shattered, personality violated, humilated and befooled, finding no more meaning in life and having lost my trust in human beings.

But no, I would not say I'm mad.
 
Last edited:
El Greco said:
Indeed. I, for one, am not mad. I rather feel betrayed. And used. As if Randi has had violent sex with me and then dumped me on some wet and cold sidewalk, disgraced and beaten, everything of value taken away from me, hopes and dreams and expectations shattered, personality violated, humilated and befooled, finding no more meaning in life and having lost my trust in human beings.

But no, I would not say I'm mad.
Click to expand...

He's been known to do that. Almost happened to me on the Galapagos cruise.
 
Sorry for my delayed response. We were away a bit for the New year and then yesterday I was just swamped work-wise.

I'd like to thank everyone for this discussion. I think it was overall beneficial to this online community and for the JREF.

Our new fundraising efforts may take some getting used to for some folks; when we began to implement the new strategies in early 2010, it was slow-going at first, due to various technological, database and staffing issues. In fact, in 2010, we had about a five percent drop in overall number of donations over 2009. But I'm happy to say that in 2011, we have now had a 78% increase in number of individual donations over 2010, which I consider a success, especially considering the down economy (we had a pretty good uptick in the final days of 2011, which is the goal, and why nonprofits do end-year campaigns in the first place). Over its history, JREF has largely relied on a small number of large donors, but this is not ideal for a healthy nonprofit. This is why we have worked this year to implement a strategy to increase the number of individuals who support our work. Our sending that PM is an example of this effort. And we are sincerely grateful for those on the forum who chipped in.

Quickly, to Bart: Just give it a rest. First, no one is in "damage control," and I haven't spoken with anyone on the forum about you (persecution complex much?). But two forum members have taken it upon themselves to forward me messages that you sent them encouraging them not to donate to the JREF, and making some impressively false and over-the-top claims about Randi, me, other JREF staffers and our board of directors. (I haven't had a chance to respond to those messages yet.) I again repeat my request that as a former employee, one who appears disgruntled, you just try to move on. You have contributed a lot to skepticism over the years and I hope you continue to do so, even while refraining from diminishing the sincere and hard work of others.

To Allison: I agree with some of what you said: I certainly meant to imply nothing about former employees, but only to talk positively about our team of nonprofit professionals working at the JREF now. Yes, I think it was probably part of former job descriptions to spend considerable time on forum matters. But I do not consider that a wise allocation of staff time in a small nonprofit like JREF, and people of good will can disagree on this point (as some in this thread apparently do).

And allow me to disagree with you on other points: first, the forum certainly does matter to JREF, for the reasons I stated many times in many discussions. It is at once a sort of online repository of important skeptic know-how, and a way for JREF to help support and foster the online skeptics community. It is not perfect, and its culture and spirit is often criticized from within and without. But as a whole, I think it is a positive for the JREF and for skepticism. Second, while I agree that detailing specific giving opportunities is often a good thing to do (like "your $100.00 donation will feed four families on Christmas," etc.) some donor appeals to people assumed already to be familiar with a nonprofit's work may include a simple appeal lacking great detail, by design. More detailed donor appeals are used in other circumstances, and we aim to use just such development resources throughout 2012. As I state above, we are in many ways happy with the results of our fundraising appeals in 2011, even though we know there is always more work to do, especially when looking at the resources and budgets of our cultural competitors who peddle so much harmful nonsense at great profit.

Thanks again to everyone for the discussion. And thanks again to those who chipped in to help with our ongoing efforts to battle unreason and harmful pseudoscience in society.
 
Last edited:
DJGrothe said:
In fact, in 2010, we had about a five percent drop in overall number of donations over 2009. But I'm happy to say that in 2011, we have now had a 78% increase in number of individual donations over 2010, which I consider a success, especially considering the down economy (we had a pretty good uptick in the final days of 2011, which is the goal, and why nonprofits do end-year campaigns in the first place). Over its history, JREF has largely relied on a small number of large donors, but this is not ideal for a healthy nonprofit. This is why we have worked this year to implement a strategy to increase the number of individuals who support our work.
Click to expand...

The underlined is a good point. I believe relying on one (or a few) big donors caused some issues at CFI a year or two ago, although they seemed to have survived that crisis.
 
Certainly nice to have a few big donors, but the loss of one or two can be critical.
Also, if you are used to dealing with what is basically large scale funding from a few sources, it can seem like more trouble than it's worth to go after a lot of small donations- indeed, it may not just seem that way, it may be that way.
But a broad base of small donors may be a less volatile source of income.

I've been looking at a few UK based charity websites. Most offer a "For £2 a month, we can do x" type of inducement. I suspect asking people for $50 in these straitened times is less apt to get a result than asking for $4 a month.
 
I'm not in any way 'mad' at the JREF, but I must say that the 'pitch' does not touch me at all. First there was this self-gratulatory mail about how much the JREF achieved, which just looked empty. I know the JREF primarily did TAM, which seems to have been a success, and kept the challenge going, which is great not so much because of the people who take the test, but because of the people who could but who won't do it. That's great and I don't think an appeal gets more.. appealing when fluffy language is added.

Another issue I have is that all these mails and stuff is written as though it was from Randi, where it really does not look like it is actually written by Randi. And neither should it be. What's wrong with signing it DJ Grothe, President of the JREF?

The third thing which is really worrying me is how DJ seems to be getting himself involved in these petty personal fights (see above). DJ, you're president of the JREF. You really, really need to subdue your ego and try to get people to get along.

I don't really know anything about the motives behind the changes at the JREF, but whatever the reasons, the result seems to be that it's moving from a substantially volunteer-based organization to a more 'professional', staff-run operation. And that inevitably means you either need more money, or you need to do less. Since I have no idea why this change is happening I'm not very motivated to donate.

I think a good solicitation for donations for an organization like the JREF should basically contain the target budget, saying we currently have X dollars, our fixed costs are Y, project A will cost Z and if we can collect an additional W dollars we can also do project B. Frankly I don't think a lot of people will be interested in donating when there is such a vague idea of what the money will be used for.
 
Merko said:
The third thing which is really worrying me is how DJ seems to be getting himself involved in these petty personal fights (see above). DJ, you're president of the JREF. You really, really need to subdue your ego and try to get people to get along.
Click to expand...

Eh. If I were in DJ's shoes and someone forwarded me a PM from a former employee trying to undercut the JREF's attempts at fundraising, I would get involved in that particular fight. I would probably pursue the matter aggressively too, and with much less restraint.

As for the fundraising messages, I'm certainly not upset by them. Given a choice, I'd like to see some details about what the JREF has been doing and what they plan to do if the fundraising goals are met, but I don't demand it. Either I trust the people at the JREF to spend money wisely (in which case I would donate regardless of the wording in the letter) or I do not (in which case I would not donate no matter what's in the letter).

Of course, I am also motivated by trying to get Brian Thompson to give me my pictures back.
 
Merko nail on head

Merko,

You hit the nail on the head. Great post and in my opinion, great critical thinking. The JREF is moving away from volunteer to professional, and in principle I support this (or at the very least don't see it as a huge negative). Certainly a great deal _could_ be done with such an organization.

Cheers

Bart
 
Am I the only one who felt a bit queasy at the title of the appeal "fight the fakers" given the whole faked ID case? It seems like a poorly chosen campaign name.
 
This entire thread makes me sad. Pretty much all of it. I'd say more, but it would just peeve most everyone to no good end.
 
Almo said:
I can't believe people are so mad about this.
Click to expand...

In my case, I am not "mad about this"; I simply thought I would add my opinion, giving feedback to the JREF regarding what happened.

I'm not going to be storming the Reichstag, calling for impeachment nor shouting "off with their heads!"; I'm just having my say.

Thanks for listening.
 
I would like to echo Wolfman. I'm not bothered by the requests, but there is surely unrealized potential in this forum.
 
lionking said:
And, again, I have no problems with the JREF soliciting donations. I just hate nagging.
Click to expand...

They provide this resource for free, and there is nothing wrong with them using it as a way to ask that forum members donate to their organization. Even if they do it over and over again (what I presume you mean by nagging).
 
I think the most 'unrealized potential' of the forum is actually the 'notices' banner at the top. Currently I see a banner for some cringe-inducing 'bright' campaign (whoever thought it was a good idea to market skepticism under the 'we are smarter than regular people' meme needs serious time in a re-education camp!) but in principle this is a great way to market skeptical events and campaigns because of the google traffic that the forum drives.
 
Having followed this thread from the very beginning, I thought I'd put my two cents in here.

I'm a longtime member of this forum. I'm also a paying member of the JREF. I'm one of those people who doesn't post obsessively nor donate giants amounts of money -- but I will donate when I feel that there is a targeted purpose for my funds. For instance, if we're trying to sponsor someone to go to TAM, or if someone on the forum needs help with medical bills. My acts of goodwill tend to be impulsive and, yes, emotionally driven. I will back things that make me feel as though my actions can make an identifiable difference.

Reading through this thread has left me with a couple of vaguely unpleasant impressions. The first is that the JREF doesn't really value, or even feel the need to pay attention to, people like me who don't donate giant chunks of money but are more likely to donate modest amounts to meet specific goals. We're included in a generic catch-all appeal for funds, but when we inquire as to why none of the JREF employees are really involved with the forum anymore, we get told that they don't have time and that it's not part of their job description -- as if interacting with us were a burden.

For people who keep claiming that the forum is not a real financial wellspring for the JREF -- I agree with Cuddles and others who say, if it isn't a resource for them, it should be and it can be. People on here have offered very smart ideas about ways to link the JREF and the forum posters more closely, and yet D.J. Grothe's responses are coming across (to me, anyway) as dismissive and arrogant.

I'm somebody who remembers when Phil Plait used to post regularly here, and became friends with many of us. If I felt that some JREF employees were making an effort to be a part of the forum community because they genuinely enjoyed it, and then those same employees appealed to me further down the line to donate funds, I would be that much more likely to give and, I think, so would other people. I mean, yeesh, I may never be one of those massive donors that are the real whales for the JREF, but my money's just as good.
 
I think the biggest "miss" is realizing that the forum most likely reaches more people than the rest of the JREF on a daily basis.

But it belongs to JREF, and they can do what they want with it. Arguing otherwise is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom