Audio Critic

[marcchem]

Since I was rude enough before

Wellfed:

At least doing some sort of testing will be helpful. I agree the test you are doing isn't the best (actually it isn't very good at all) but at least you are trying. If you know of a disc (or discs) that work well with the GSIC, why not order them on line? It would mean waiting a week (since I'm assuming you would prefer the weekend for testing) but it would be a good step forward. It would also let you find out how available a certain CD is, no point of trying to find a large # of a CD no longer in print.

Marc

 

[nathan]

I have many titles the I SUSPECT will respond favorably. I will do one or two rounds but I don't expect my results to be unequivocal. Do you think my test advisable under these conditions?

I think this will be a mistake. If you are unable to distinguish a difference with the discs you suspect will respond, what conclusion will you draw?

1. That particular disc doesn't respond well.
2. GSIC does not work

You are already convinced that the GSIC does work, so you need to design your test in such a way that that hypothesis is falsifiable. You have to design the test in such a way that the falseness of your hypothesis [that GSIC works] is the only conclusion you could draw from a failure to distingiush. Of course if you can distinguish, it doesn't matter whether you use discs you've tried before, or discs you suspect will work, does it? You should therefore used a disc in which you have previously heard a difference.

 

[Moose]

Hitch, Moose, and Vikram and all others who are civil.

I have decided to do a SBT this afternoon. Let me know what you think of my methodolgy and the conditions I set forth below.

To be honest, I don't care about the methodology you use for this, or what your schedule is allegedly like. All I've seen from you so far have been excuses piled up upon complaints and stacked upon squandered opportunities, with a number of fibs sprinkled on (for presentation, I guess.)

See, this is what it means to have used up one's credibility. You tell me you're going to do this this afternoon, and I simply don't believe you. Or even care one way or another.

It's quite simply up to you now. Do it, or don't do it.

 

[Wellfed]

Moose, I appreciate your frustration. Three months ago, on March 31st to be precise, I found my own frustration reaching its limit.

 

[webfusion]

Continuing to struggle with reality

Three months ago, on March 31st to be precise

March 31st - April 1st
April 30th - May 1st

One month.


[[[[ edited to add: WELLFED QUOTE:"I am going to start getting serious with some testing in the hope JREF will reopen my file." ]]]]]]]

Keep Struggling, in your dreams, Anda.
What a maroon.

See ya.

 

[Wellfed]

Well, I just did it this afternoon.

One trial only, my identification was correct. I will presumably do more trials this coming weekend.

It was actually a pretty interesting experience.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Good to know!

Now, for the next test, you can use one of the several protocols that has been proposed in this very thread. Hey, even I posted one or two, very simple, regarding single blind tests.

A brief friendly reminder (like its sometimes said...) KEEP IT SIMPLE!!

It is always nice to know someone is making experiments. instead of merely "believing".

 

[Hitch]

Well, I just did it this afternoon.

One trial only, my identification was correct. I will presumably do more trials this coming weekend.

It was actually a pretty interesting experience.

See there? You're batting 1.000 If you'd gone gone ahead and agreed to a protocol and taken the challenge, you'd be $1,000,00 richer!

I don't see what the problem is.

 

[-42-]

Congratulations! Tighten up the DB protocol, pass the next one, then in a year you can submit it!

 

[Wellfed]

See there? You're batting 1.000 If you'd gone gone ahead and agreed to a protocol and taken the challenge, you'd be $1,000,00 richer!

I don't see what the problem is.

I have agreed to two officially submitted protocols. JREF has agreed to zero. Can't ANYBODY see this. How can I be $1,000,000 richer unless I am tested by JREF. It is absolutely insane what filters people around here TRY and see through.

Maybe I just need to repeat myself more often.

Edited by Darat: 

48 repetitions of the 3 line paragraph above.

Your post was in breach of your Membership Agreement, Rule 6: "You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum."

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Wellfed]

Good to know!

Now, for the next test, you can use one of the several protocols that has been proposed in this very thread. Hey, even I posted one or two, very simple, regarding single blind tests.

A brief friendly reminder (like its sometimes said...) KEEP IT SIMPLE!!

It is always nice to know someone is making experiments. instead of merely "believing".

Really Bodhi, you don't know what it means to me to repeatedly hear your sanely worded, emotionally controlled, posts.

Do you think the test I did today was proper enough? I'd simply like to do this same test 9 or more times. The only problem is using discs that I am not positive will respond to treatment. I would determine that the test disc was either treated, untreated/undetermined. Here's how I would interpret the data

a) a treated assessment would be positive if the test GSIC proves to be the active chip
b) a treated assessment would be negative if the test GSIC proves to be the dummy chip
c) an untreated/undetermined assessment would be positive if the test GSIC proves to be the dummy chip
d) I would throw out the results of an untreated/undetermined assessment if the test GSIC proves to be the active chip

This actually would be a great training aid.

 

[Vikram]

Mr Anda, I think it's great that you're self-testing. As -42- said, you can now work for a year at perfecting your protocol. Consult people experienced in scientific methodology. They will help you rid the protocol of holes that you might have missed. You can then reapply a year later and win the million. I wish you luck.

I don't think your indignation at your file being closed is justified at all. KRAMER had told you that if you threatened again to postpone negotiations till October, your file would be closed. He simply kept his word.

That of course does not prevent you from reapplying next year. By then, if you have taken the advice of scientifically experienced people and taken into consideration the conditions that KRAMER had suggested (like having observers in the room and having a screen between you and the equipment), you should have a relatively flawless protocol that would probably only require fine tweaking by the JREF in order to be executed.

Repeatedly trying to paint the JREF as unfair is really not going to gather you any good-faith points here. As I said, all of us have been following the case right from the beginning. We have all seen precisely what has happened. At this point, your crying foul simply reflects on your integrity.

I bid you well for your reapplication a year later.

 

[Wellfed]

Thanks Vikram,

I obviously think my indignation IS justified. Here's why

1) I did not break any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE.

2) I myself warned Kramer that if I did not see good faith exhibited by JREF in the negotiations I would table the matter. Kramer did not exhibit good faith as shown by his brazen lies made on Tuesday, April 26th, 2005.

3) My reasons for suspending the negotiations were legitimate, reasons that I believe nearly every rational person here would agree with.

4) I negotiated in good faith, attempting to find alternatives to every point JREF found disagreeable.

I am quite open to discussing where you think my analysis may be erroneous. I can't for the life of me see where the participants at this site would let him get away with lying to an applicant, especially lies involving the negotiations. JREF and its Challenge simply can not be deemed legitimate if their representitives do not act with integrity in the negotiation process.

 

[Vikram]

Thanks Vikram,

I obviously think my indignation IS justified. Here's why

1) I did not break any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE.

2) I myself warned Kramer that if I did not see good faith exhibited by JREF in the negotiations I would table the matter. Kramer did not exhibit good faith as shown by his brazen lies made on Tuesday, April 26th, 2005.

3) My reasons for suspending the negotiations were legitimate, reasons that I believe nearly every rational person here would agree with.

4) I negotiated in good faith, attempting to find alternatives to every point JREF found disagreeable.

I am quite open to discussing where you think my analysis may be erroneous. I can't for the life of me see where the participants at this site would let him get away with lying to an applicant, especially lies involving the negotiations. JREF and its Challenge simply can not be deemed legitimate if their representitives do not act with integrity in the negotiation process.

I think the reasons why I, and many others here, feel that the actions of the JREF were justified have been posted on this forum and if they don't convince you then there really isn't anything I have to add.

I'm personally interested only in seeing the GSIC device being tested. If not by you, then by Lost Angeles or someone else.

Best of luck for your reapplication a year later, should you choose to walk this path again.

 

[-42-]

And don't worry, the Million will still be there in a year ;p

 

[Wellfed]

And don't worry, the Million will still be there in a year ;p

That's the good thing. The bad thing is having to wait, I didn't break ANY of the Challenge rules and shouldn't have to wait. Again, there is nothing in the rules that states that Kramer gets to make up new rules along the way.

Can anyone tell me if there is another skeptical society that is, itself, skeptical of JREF?

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Continuing to struggle with reality

March 31st - April 1st
April 30th - May 1st

One month.


[[[[ edited to add: WELLFED QUOTE:"I am going to start getting serious with some testing in the hope JREF will reopen my file." ]]]]]]]

Keep Struggling, in your dreams, Anda.
What a maroon.

See ya.

What's a maroon? BTW, I've taken you off my "ignore" list obviously, as well as the few others I had placed there.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Continuing to struggle with reality

What's a maroon? BTW, I've taken you off my "ignore" list obviously, as well as the few others I had placed there.

It's an old Bugs Bunny-ism. He'd sucker Elmer Fudd into doing something particularly silly/self-destructive (blowing his own head off or something like that), and Bugs would say, "What a maroon!" Probably a corruption of "moron."

Does that get webfusion back on your "ignore" list?

 

[Wellfed]

I think the reasons why I, and many others here, feel that the actions of the JREF were justified have been posted on this forum and if they don't convince you then there really isn't anything I have to add.

Was it determined that lying was acceptable practice in protocol negotiations? If so, why?

I'm personally interested only in seeing the GSIC device being tested. If not by you, then by Lost Angeles or someone else.

I can understand that, we all have our curiosities. Do you think JREF should exhibit integrity in the process or is the test itself simply more important to you?

Best of luck for your reapplication a year later, should you choose to walk this path again.

Thank you for your good will. I will choose the path again, if I must. In the meantime I think my current application is PERFECTLY valid.

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Re: Re: Continuing to struggle with reality

...

Does that get webfusion back on your "ignore" list?

No, the "ignore" list was useful for a season. BTW, sorry I didn't respond to your posting yesterday. I had a very limited opportunity to get my little test accomplished and I had to make due with the resources I had on hand. I almost didn't pull it off due to a lack of a tester. My wife was able to assist at the last moment.