Audio Critic
- Thread starter jmercer
- Start date
Steven Howard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,797
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
1. Hmm. I guess I wanted terms that were a little less general than that. How did you conduct these listening tests?
2. I fail to see how keeping this information secret (nitpick: "proprietary" is not the word you want here) helps you in any way. If you're afraid that JREF would either forbid or require the use of specific CDs based on your naming them here, I speak without fear of contradiction when I say that such fears are groundless.
3. Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by some of those terms, but I think I have a general idea of what you're saying the improvements are.
4. Thank you again.
Wellfed said:
1. Hmm. I guess I wanted terms that were a little less general than that. How did you conduct these listening tests?
2. I fail to see how keeping this information secret (nitpick: "proprietary" is not the word you want here) helps you in any way. If you're afraid that JREF would either forbid or require the use of specific CDs based on your naming them here, I speak without fear of contradiction when I say that such fears are groundless.
3. Thank you. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by some of those terms, but I think I have a general idea of what you're saying the improvements are.
4. Thank you again.
You are welcome Steven.
At the time of your writing my claim was still active, Kramer has since closed my file. I did not have any concern about JREF rejecting the title of my choice, I simply did not want to give out any information that would help my competition.
P.S. Thank you for taking the time to write up your protocol on my behalf. I do truly appreciate you taking the time to do so.
At the time of your writing my claim was still active, Kramer has since closed my file. I did not have any concern about JREF rejecting the title of my choice, I simply did not want to give out any information that would help my competition.
P.S. Thank you for taking the time to write up your protocol on my behalf. I do truly appreciate you taking the time to do so.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
PianoTeacher,
Sigh....
I see I made the mistake of including more than the operative statement made by Wellfed..
I will try again.
Would you say that a difference in S/N that cannot be measured by conventional means is proof of anything?
Sigh....
I see I made the mistake of including more than the operative statement made by Wellfed..
I will try again.
Would you say that a difference in S/N that cannot be measured by conventional means is proof of anything?
Re: Good One !!!
jmercer, here is Kramer's most recent lie, the one that broke the camels back as they say.
Kramer responded to my emailing sent Mon 4/25/2005 at 9:31 AM. How can he possibly say that he hasn't heard a peep from me since last week when he personally responded to my first correspondence sent to him yesterday.
"A most curious, deafening silence."? You be the judge.
Yesterday's correspondence.
He claims I promised him a "new protocol within hours". Here is my last exchange with him on the subject prior to writing Monday morning. This exchange occurs in the Challeger's (sic) observer thread.
My response:
KRAMER said:
jmercer, here is Kramer's most recent lie, the one that broke the camels back as they say.
Kramer responded to my emailing sent Mon 4/25/2005 at 9:31 AM. How can he possibly say that he hasn't heard a peep from me since last week when he personally responded to my first correspondence sent to him yesterday.
"A most curious, deafening silence."? You be the judge.
Yesterday's correspondence.
He claims I promised him a "new protocol within hours". Here is my last exchange with him on the subject prior to writing Monday morning. This exchange occurs in the Challeger's (sic) observer thread.
KRAMER said:
My response:
PianoTeacher
Unregistered
P
My attempt to Correct Myself
I was rushing, earlier, to try to answer Diogenes' objections, to meet a deadline, and I'm afraid that I started making mistakes -- note my need for two corrections, quickly posted. When returning from my apointment I started to think this out again...am I beginning to see a glimmer here?
I know how frustrated and dissatisfied Grw8ght and Diogenes are with me. I therefore start with the operative assumption, "PianoTeacher has made a BIG SLOPPY mistake that *only he* can't see. He is incapable of working thru the examples he has contrived to answer it, and obviously is missing the point of others because of this gargantuan error. Given that, let us re-state a fully-reduced actual impossibly paranormal challenge, and step-by-step, relate it to the parameters of the Wellfed claim."
'OK,' you say, 'But at least have the decency to *entertain* people, not bore them to death.'
Well...I'll try.
Paranormal Challenge No. 1:
We meet a an allegedly delusional character who is named Unfed. He is convinced that his next door neighbor is sending "evil thoughtwaves" his way. He is so certain of that, that he thinks that he can prove it; hell, he is *so* sure, he insists that he will be able to show *ten times out of ten tries* to detect them that he can really, truly perceive those evil waves.
His neighbor happens to be a busy salesman who only rushes home, from time to time, to pick up orders and gulp a cup of coffee. He whisks in-and-out, in-and-out, all day and all night long.
Unfed has two acquaintances: wise, patient James Randi; and the paper boy, who could care less about the guy's delusions, one way or another.
James Randi does not believe that it is rational for Unfed to make these assertions. He says, "Say: I bet you *can't* pick up "evil thoughtwaves", and I'll put up ten bucks that says so!"
The bet is accepted by Unfed, and James quietly, without telling anybody, arranges to find out whenever the next door neighbor is HOME, and when he is AWAY. James intends to keep that info to himself.
He asks Unfed to write down the exact times, up to ten occurrences, over a period of exactly three days, that he has the conviction that those "evil thoughtwaves" are impinging on him.
Meanwhile, James watches the neighbor's house all day and night, for a period of three days, noting down the time the neighbor is home, and when he has been away from the house. He covers up his sheet of paper while writing and does not let anyone see the list thereon; when finished, James puts it into a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch.
At the end of the three day test period, the paper boy collects Unfed's list, and James' list, and makes a tally of the time periods. If Unfed is right and CAN perceive *evil thoughtwaves*, he'll claim they were emitted during times that James has recorded that the salesman neighbor was *actually* home. Any one false positive out of ten will prove that Unfed cannot assert with perfect accuracy that he CAN indisputably tell if he can ALWAYS perceive the "evil thoughtwaves".
When the tally is made, there are SOME positives, but not ten. There are enough false positives to make the result come out purely random; ergo, Unfed is imagining things, and can't win James' ten bucks.
-------
Adjusted Paranormal Challenge No. 2:
It seems to me that we have restated something very close to the test concept that Diogenes has summarized: it is reduced nearly to essentials. The only difference I can discern is that James' list has a time range, not merely ten fixed numbers representing ten individual times, because the neighbor was in the house for varying periods of time, even though he was perpetually in a hurry.
We can correct for this by turning the test into one that is a little different but has a closer fit, by stipulating that "Unfed believes that the neighbor only emits evil thoughtwaves the *exact moment* that the neighbor steps into his house; the rest of the time he is too busy thinking about something else." So James Randi need only record the EXACT moment that the neighbor steps into his house. Under the circumstances, there is no "range" for providing windows of time; the tally of times given by Unfed, and James, must agree PRECISELY, ten out of ten instances.
I believe may be an exact fit.
-------
I shall try to take PianoTeacher (me!) by the hand, and walk him thru the examples above, and the Wellfed Claim, step by step.
1. Wellfed's assertions that he can hear differences -- irrespective of GSIC, but as a hi fi listener -- are normal human cognitions and judgments. There is nothing delusional about his hearing differences under some conditions; his claim only begins to run parallel with the two Paranormal Claims above when he inserts the insistence that the differences HAVE to be caused by the GSIC device.
2. Similarly, Unfed can perceive evil words if his neighbor shouts profane insults at him within earshot; but the "perception of evil thoughtwaves" is indeed, in the considered view of rational Randi, an irrational delusion UNLESS by some strange quirk, Unfed's data match Randi's and prove Unfed's claim. THAT would be weeeeeeeiiiirrrrd, and surely paranormal!
3. There is an existing bias, of James, that Unfed is "irrational". It is strong and reality-based, and only PROOF can overcome it and show evidence of the paranormal, for no one thinks that a person can detect evil thoughtwaves, and nobody can measure them; certainly no one *else* claims to perceive them, in James' neighborhood.
4. Unfed only becomes "not irrational" when he proves his point and wins the ten bucks. No other situation allows for him to be "not irrational"; at least no way that rational processes can infer or demonstrate.
5. Wellfed, on the other hand, may be rational when he hears differences that have real causes, and differences that other people can hear, too. We don't know if he is imagining the differences, and don't care if GSIC is causing them; we only want to line up Wellfed's claimed hits, with the instances of which CD was in the player. The resulting calculation for positives in ten out of ten tries MUST, per Wellfed's boast, be exactly right every time; no false positives will be allowed.
6. We are not interested whether or whether not what Wellfed claims to be able to perceive are "audio nuances" or just self-delusions. We don't have to quantify them at all.
7. Ergo, we are unconcerned with cognition, etc.
8. As a matter of fact, our biases are that the GSIC can have no effect so there cannot be, by a known mechanism, a way for Wellfed to line up all true positives, and no false ones, except by a virtually impossible chance occurrence.
Now, I *think* this is correct.
-------
Probably the only thing to worry about here is Wellfed's boast, and its degree of practicality. He may actually hear nuances; our biases say "NO -- he isn't" but that's irrelevant. Proof of a line-up (and inferred coincidence with GSIC treatment) comes out of the data -- the true positives. A false positive immediately invalidates the boast that "ten out of ten tries" can be achieved; it in effect terminates the test and proves that Wellfed can't win the Challenge. Sorry: no million bucks.
Now, assuming -- and going against the biases of rational people; indeed the proofs that PianoTeacher himself has shown -- that Wellfed, though able to detect concrete and actual nuances and preferences between CDs, and that GSIC *does work*, Wellfed only wins the Challenge if he moves the bar so low that he CANNOT lose. This means that in the eventuality of (a) faint nuances from GSIC that vary all over the place, from undetectable to obvious; (b) Wellfed, though a good listener, makes the usual mistakes of judgment and evaluation errors because he can't reliably focus; and (c) his protocol is too loose in some other parameters, he must set the bar VERY low indeed in order to win: he must have it as low, or in fact lower, than the most minimal mistake of all that he will make.
With the bar set too high, Wellfed can't win even IF the effect is real and he can detect it. He simply makes too many mistakes to get ten out of ten true positives. He might also have set the bar higher than that for any listener who was more reliable and sensitive than he is, and who makes fewer mistakes.
At some point, the bar is set so high that: (a) no one can win; (b) a good test subject never could avoid false positives; and (c) it does not matter if the effect is real, and also if it is "Belethlike" (i. e., obvious to every listener, per my earlier discussion). I can see a problem with one exception of (c). It would be possible to set the bar too high to detect even Belethlike differences -- by choosing SO MANY hits as the required number of tries -- that Wellfed actually falls asleep or becomes completely disoriented and starts blowing it, while normal people listening to the original ten out of ten tries, always can detect Belethlike differences. Eventually there is a point where even nominally Belethlike differences become impossible to detect: when the test subject loses consciousness, or if total loss of the necessary mental coherence is caused by something.
------
I may have actually worked through "the paradox of Diogenes" here, right, and have located my mistake. Or, have I?
But, in looking over my flowchart, I see that the narrative above seems to fit into it, so the linkages I was seeing last night, which caused me to conclude that "the Wellfed protocol as stands is impossible under any circumstances", is still valid. For indeed the bar is too high, considering my EXTRA parameter added that "ten out of ten tries" is impractical and unachievable, given that a fallible human listener, with a loose listening protocol, would start to lose confidence in reliably detecting real but small nuances.
Unfortunately, my wife has just informed me "that I must go", so I only have time for a quick read to check spelling. We'll take a chance and post this and see how embarrassed PianoTeacher may become by his latest attempt to think this through!
Yours,
PianoTeacher, himself.
I was rushing, earlier, to try to answer Diogenes' objections, to meet a deadline, and I'm afraid that I started making mistakes -- note my need for two corrections, quickly posted. When returning from my apointment I started to think this out again...am I beginning to see a glimmer here?
I know how frustrated and dissatisfied Grw8ght and Diogenes are with me. I therefore start with the operative assumption, "PianoTeacher has made a BIG SLOPPY mistake that *only he* can't see. He is incapable of working thru the examples he has contrived to answer it, and obviously is missing the point of others because of this gargantuan error. Given that, let us re-state a fully-reduced actual impossibly paranormal challenge, and step-by-step, relate it to the parameters of the Wellfed claim."
'OK,' you say, 'But at least have the decency to *entertain* people, not bore them to death.'
Well...I'll try.
Paranormal Challenge No. 1:
We meet a an allegedly delusional character who is named Unfed. He is convinced that his next door neighbor is sending "evil thoughtwaves" his way. He is so certain of that, that he thinks that he can prove it; hell, he is *so* sure, he insists that he will be able to show *ten times out of ten tries* to detect them that he can really, truly perceive those evil waves.
His neighbor happens to be a busy salesman who only rushes home, from time to time, to pick up orders and gulp a cup of coffee. He whisks in-and-out, in-and-out, all day and all night long.
Unfed has two acquaintances: wise, patient James Randi; and the paper boy, who could care less about the guy's delusions, one way or another.
James Randi does not believe that it is rational for Unfed to make these assertions. He says, "Say: I bet you *can't* pick up "evil thoughtwaves", and I'll put up ten bucks that says so!"
The bet is accepted by Unfed, and James quietly, without telling anybody, arranges to find out whenever the next door neighbor is HOME, and when he is AWAY. James intends to keep that info to himself.
He asks Unfed to write down the exact times, up to ten occurrences, over a period of exactly three days, that he has the conviction that those "evil thoughtwaves" are impinging on him.
Meanwhile, James watches the neighbor's house all day and night, for a period of three days, noting down the time the neighbor is home, and when he has been away from the house. He covers up his sheet of paper while writing and does not let anyone see the list thereon; when finished, James puts it into a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch.
At the end of the three day test period, the paper boy collects Unfed's list, and James' list, and makes a tally of the time periods. If Unfed is right and CAN perceive *evil thoughtwaves*, he'll claim they were emitted during times that James has recorded that the salesman neighbor was *actually* home. Any one false positive out of ten will prove that Unfed cannot assert with perfect accuracy that he CAN indisputably tell if he can ALWAYS perceive the "evil thoughtwaves".
When the tally is made, there are SOME positives, but not ten. There are enough false positives to make the result come out purely random; ergo, Unfed is imagining things, and can't win James' ten bucks.
-------
Adjusted Paranormal Challenge No. 2:
It seems to me that we have restated something very close to the test concept that Diogenes has summarized: it is reduced nearly to essentials. The only difference I can discern is that James' list has a time range, not merely ten fixed numbers representing ten individual times, because the neighbor was in the house for varying periods of time, even though he was perpetually in a hurry.
We can correct for this by turning the test into one that is a little different but has a closer fit, by stipulating that "Unfed believes that the neighbor only emits evil thoughtwaves the *exact moment* that the neighbor steps into his house; the rest of the time he is too busy thinking about something else." So James Randi need only record the EXACT moment that the neighbor steps into his house. Under the circumstances, there is no "range" for providing windows of time; the tally of times given by Unfed, and James, must agree PRECISELY, ten out of ten instances.
I believe may be an exact fit.
-------
I shall try to take PianoTeacher (me!) by the hand, and walk him thru the examples above, and the Wellfed Claim, step by step.
1. Wellfed's assertions that he can hear differences -- irrespective of GSIC, but as a hi fi listener -- are normal human cognitions and judgments. There is nothing delusional about his hearing differences under some conditions; his claim only begins to run parallel with the two Paranormal Claims above when he inserts the insistence that the differences HAVE to be caused by the GSIC device.
2. Similarly, Unfed can perceive evil words if his neighbor shouts profane insults at him within earshot; but the "perception of evil thoughtwaves" is indeed, in the considered view of rational Randi, an irrational delusion UNLESS by some strange quirk, Unfed's data match Randi's and prove Unfed's claim. THAT would be weeeeeeeiiiirrrrd, and surely paranormal!
3. There is an existing bias, of James, that Unfed is "irrational". It is strong and reality-based, and only PROOF can overcome it and show evidence of the paranormal, for no one thinks that a person can detect evil thoughtwaves, and nobody can measure them; certainly no one *else* claims to perceive them, in James' neighborhood.
4. Unfed only becomes "not irrational" when he proves his point and wins the ten bucks. No other situation allows for him to be "not irrational"; at least no way that rational processes can infer or demonstrate.
5. Wellfed, on the other hand, may be rational when he hears differences that have real causes, and differences that other people can hear, too. We don't know if he is imagining the differences, and don't care if GSIC is causing them; we only want to line up Wellfed's claimed hits, with the instances of which CD was in the player. The resulting calculation for positives in ten out of ten tries MUST, per Wellfed's boast, be exactly right every time; no false positives will be allowed.
6. We are not interested whether or whether not what Wellfed claims to be able to perceive are "audio nuances" or just self-delusions. We don't have to quantify them at all.
7. Ergo, we are unconcerned with cognition, etc.
8. As a matter of fact, our biases are that the GSIC can have no effect so there cannot be, by a known mechanism, a way for Wellfed to line up all true positives, and no false ones, except by a virtually impossible chance occurrence.
Now, I *think* this is correct.
-------
Probably the only thing to worry about here is Wellfed's boast, and its degree of practicality. He may actually hear nuances; our biases say "NO -- he isn't" but that's irrelevant. Proof of a line-up (and inferred coincidence with GSIC treatment) comes out of the data -- the true positives. A false positive immediately invalidates the boast that "ten out of ten tries" can be achieved; it in effect terminates the test and proves that Wellfed can't win the Challenge. Sorry: no million bucks.
Now, assuming -- and going against the biases of rational people; indeed the proofs that PianoTeacher himself has shown -- that Wellfed, though able to detect concrete and actual nuances and preferences between CDs, and that GSIC *does work*, Wellfed only wins the Challenge if he moves the bar so low that he CANNOT lose. This means that in the eventuality of (a) faint nuances from GSIC that vary all over the place, from undetectable to obvious; (b) Wellfed, though a good listener, makes the usual mistakes of judgment and evaluation errors because he can't reliably focus; and (c) his protocol is too loose in some other parameters, he must set the bar VERY low indeed in order to win: he must have it as low, or in fact lower, than the most minimal mistake of all that he will make.
With the bar set too high, Wellfed can't win even IF the effect is real and he can detect it. He simply makes too many mistakes to get ten out of ten true positives. He might also have set the bar higher than that for any listener who was more reliable and sensitive than he is, and who makes fewer mistakes.
At some point, the bar is set so high that: (a) no one can win; (b) a good test subject never could avoid false positives; and (c) it does not matter if the effect is real, and also if it is "Belethlike" (i. e., obvious to every listener, per my earlier discussion). I can see a problem with one exception of (c). It would be possible to set the bar too high to detect even Belethlike differences -- by choosing SO MANY hits as the required number of tries -- that Wellfed actually falls asleep or becomes completely disoriented and starts blowing it, while normal people listening to the original ten out of ten tries, always can detect Belethlike differences. Eventually there is a point where even nominally Belethlike differences become impossible to detect: when the test subject loses consciousness, or if total loss of the necessary mental coherence is caused by something.
------
I may have actually worked through "the paradox of Diogenes" here, right, and have located my mistake. Or, have I?
But, in looking over my flowchart, I see that the narrative above seems to fit into it, so the linkages I was seeing last night, which caused me to conclude that "the Wellfed protocol as stands is impossible under any circumstances", is still valid. For indeed the bar is too high, considering my EXTRA parameter added that "ten out of ten tries" is impractical and unachievable, given that a fallible human listener, with a loose listening protocol, would start to lose confidence in reliably detecting real but small nuances.
Unfortunately, my wife has just informed me "that I must go", so I only have time for a quick read to check spelling. We'll take a chance and post this and see how embarrassed PianoTeacher may become by his latest attempt to think this through!
Yours,
PianoTeacher, himself.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Wellfed said:
The world anxiously waits....
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Q. Why is it called the GSIC?
A. GEE, I dunno, but I'm SICk of reading about it by now...
A. GEE, I dunno, but I'm SICk of reading about it by now...
Re: Re: Good One !!!
Thats it? You accuse Kramer and JREF of what amounts to fraudulent activities based on minor rhetoric like this? This wasn't "the one that broke the camels back" from JREF's POV, either. Kramer published in the Application thread that if you changed your target date to October as you had threatened to do, he'd close your application. You changed it, he kept his promise. There's your "straw".
Try again. Try harder. All the things I cited were from directly from your application thread, and it's those things I expect you to address if you want to prove deceit on JREF's part and your innocence... and you'll note that Kramer's contention about your "curious deafening silence" is not among those issues I cited. That's because I considered it a minor exchange between people at odds with each other - and that's how I still view it.
Wellfed said:
Thats it? You accuse Kramer and JREF of what amounts to fraudulent activities based on minor rhetoric like this? This wasn't "the one that broke the camels back" from JREF's POV, either. Kramer published in the Application thread that if you changed your target date to October as you had threatened to do, he'd close your application. You changed it, he kept his promise. There's your "straw".
Try again. Try harder. All the things I cited were from directly from your application thread, and it's those things I expect you to address if you want to prove deceit on JREF's part and your innocence... and you'll note that Kramer's contention about your "curious deafening silence" is not among those issues I cited. That's because I considered it a minor exchange between people at odds with each other - and that's how I still view it.
Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
That was simply his first lie of the day. And, yes, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't this deception by itself that precipitated my decision. Read on.
I've been looking for good faith from Kramer since the time of his first lie. I didn't find it, and I made the decision to not waste any more of my precious time dealing with someone this problematic and deceitful until October.
His second lie of the day is contained in the GSIC AUDIO thread. Actually he is just repeating a lie he made earlier in the proceedings. This one I can also document. Kramer's deceptive misrepresentations of my correspondence have been a constant, but are subject to interpretation. Knowing the spirit in which my correspondence was intended it is presumably easier for me to see his deceptive methods.
The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce, the way Kramer likes it apparently. Your citations, as a whole, do not portray the experience accurately.
jmercer said:
That was simply his first lie of the day. And, yes, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't this deception by itself that precipitated my decision. Read on.
I've been looking for good faith from Kramer since the time of his first lie. I didn't find it, and I made the decision to not waste any more of my precious time dealing with someone this problematic and deceitful until October.
His second lie of the day is contained in the GSIC AUDIO thread. Actually he is just repeating a lie he made earlier in the proceedings. This one I can also document. Kramer's deceptive misrepresentations of my correspondence have been a constant, but are subject to interpretation. Knowing the spirit in which my correspondence was intended it is presumably easier for me to see his deceptive methods.
The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce, the way Kramer likes it apparently. Your citations, as a whole, do not portray the experience accurately.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
How is that "package that will deal with the lies, the deceptive spin...of the JREF Forum" coming along?
Has that too been delayed until October?
Wellfed said:
How is that "package that will deal with the lies, the deceptive spin...of the JREF Forum" coming along?
Has that too been delayed until October?
PianoTeacher
Unregistered
P
Reply to a Question from Diogenes about SNR
Diogenes quoted a declarative statement by Wellfed, equating all "things" to an improved SNR, and asked me my opinion, viz:
>
Would you say that a difference in S/N that cannot be measured by conventional means is proof of anything?
<
No. Could I try to turn the statement around, so that it also says or infers,
"Some differences in S/N ratio are too small to be measured, but can be heard."
If I've done it right, then the statement is *false* because metrics are far more sensitive at quantifying SNR than human perception; even with a proper weighing curve, measurement of noise level can be vastly more precise than anybody's cognition of noise level, by ear. You can start by comparing changes in SNR that are detectable; narrow the differences until you cannot HEAR them; but the metrics can still very clearly discriminate them.
Furthermore, the Fletcher-Munson effect comes into play with low volumes, making it harder and harder, as the noise gets softer, to hear the HF components; your efficiency in detecting nuances in the noise starts to plummet. At some point the masking effect swamps the noise of the background hiss if there is ANY significant musical program material. You lose focus on the noise, directing focus more to on the music. (Conversely, the masking effect tends to mean that constant hiss, superimposed on music above a fairly discrete critical threshold, tends to make the listener think that the music is "brighter" than without the hiss.)
Noise in the background of program material can cause lots of perceived effects that are not absolutely straightforward and consist only of algebraic total signal amplitude change. (I used to think that I knew a LOT about that, based on work in the '70's with analogue noise reduction system designs, and filters; but when a few years ago I read some of the papers on the Net written by the designers of digital audio compression algorithms: whew! I was just blown away!)
----
Now, there are measurements of SNR...and measurements of dynamic range. I would tend to assert that dynamic range capability is measured from the amplitude of the very faintest median of system noise, weighted appropriately, to the point of clipping. The measurement may be crudely measured with only a short moment of absolute silence in a "dry" recording with no ambience, but it is very hard to do when normal echoes are audible; sometimes you never have a "quiet" reference moment. The dead zones in the gaps between tracks aren't usable because they don't record the true noise floor of the digital music master of the recording of a selection; the noise floor drops to the 'basement'. Actual musical dynamic range is a dynamic measurement comparing the amplitude of the very faintest registration of sound, above the noise platform, to (a) either just under the point of clipping, if the recording is fully "loaded", or to the highest amplitude of sound peak in the entire recording.
So we might want to know if Wellfed is talking about his perception of S/N ratio, during silent moments in the recording, after he can hear that the pots are all down, such as during the total fade to black at the end of a track, vs. the very loudest sound in the music; if he perceives apparent S/N ratio as being the hiss platform that stays constant and is occasionally heard on some recordings if (a) they are analogue mastered, transferred to digital, containing tape hiss; (b) if he can actually detect noise from mikes or electronics (maybe a guitar amp that was noisy, in a complicated mix but having hiss/hum that was not at every moment totally masked by other sounds.)
Now we get into the interesting realm of "Wellfed trying to find CDs that are optimal, in his opinion, in revealing his alleged GSIC effect". He touched on that at one point, and his desire to use CDs that revealed the effect, so that I'd infer from this that he felt some were better capable of it than others. That makes me wonder...
If he thinks that cumulative SNR is the carrier of the clue that reveals to him GSIC action, and concludes that "clearer hiss" indicates that GSIC had worked, it would tend to show us his misperceptions, or self-delusions if indeed GSIC did not cause "clearer hiss".
Where, incidentally I was concerned with "lyric intelligibility", I was trying to relate that odd term with known concepts that mean something very concrete to musicians: for instance, "play the phrase in measure 6 with lyrical phrasing". Or did it mean that he could tell that a vocalist's words were actually easier to understand? That "the lyrics are clear after GSIC treatment, while without the treatment I can't reliably discern every word of the lyrics"? Unfortunately, this is a fallacy given a repetition of the CD, over and over both during his home listening tests trying to find "effective CDs", normal enjoyment of record albums that he likes, and during the pair of the test. If the passages repeated in a given pair had as contents a vocalist singing the lyrics of a song, and the same passage was repeated again soon thereafter, OF COURSE the lyrics would be easier to understand, as each repetition increases intelligibility. In fact, quite incoherent, mumbled lyrics when heard once, will obviously start to make sense the more times you play the song.
Unless, Diogenes, I am barking up the wrong tree and you posed your question related to an entirely different issue, I think here we start get a notion of what Wellfed is using as cues to GSIC-effect. We'll stipulate, for simplicity, that there is actually NO effect. Therefore, (allowing for the sort of vague, probably indetectable uncertainty built into the Reed-Solomon error correction code as it effects each individual playback of a CD, and understanding that in most cases the error correction ambiguities CANNOT be heard by ear unless they fail and one can hear pops, ticks, etc.) in a controlled, repeated playback of two instances of the same selection, from two copies of the CD, a "normal" nondeluded person will for all practical purposes (dismissing turning of the head, etc.) experience physiologically identical or very close to identical stimulae, and infer that "the music hasn't changed" during A-B testing (ABX protocol). But the longer you wait between repetitions, or the more music that is being played so that you lose sight of "moments" when you were trying to codify a concrete impression of a specific sound -- maybe a tiny single tinkle of a triangle, one "s" sound, etc. -- the greater chances there are that you will experience a delusion that a virtually identical replay "sounds different".
Oh, it gets complicated when you start to factor in the qualities and to describe them by what you think are concrete symbols!
PianoTeacher
Diogenes quoted a declarative statement by Wellfed, equating all "things" to an improved SNR, and asked me my opinion, viz:
>
Would you say that a difference in S/N that cannot be measured by conventional means is proof of anything?
<
No. Could I try to turn the statement around, so that it also says or infers,
"Some differences in S/N ratio are too small to be measured, but can be heard."
If I've done it right, then the statement is *false* because metrics are far more sensitive at quantifying SNR than human perception; even with a proper weighing curve, measurement of noise level can be vastly more precise than anybody's cognition of noise level, by ear. You can start by comparing changes in SNR that are detectable; narrow the differences until you cannot HEAR them; but the metrics can still very clearly discriminate them.
Furthermore, the Fletcher-Munson effect comes into play with low volumes, making it harder and harder, as the noise gets softer, to hear the HF components; your efficiency in detecting nuances in the noise starts to plummet. At some point the masking effect swamps the noise of the background hiss if there is ANY significant musical program material. You lose focus on the noise, directing focus more to on the music. (Conversely, the masking effect tends to mean that constant hiss, superimposed on music above a fairly discrete critical threshold, tends to make the listener think that the music is "brighter" than without the hiss.)
Noise in the background of program material can cause lots of perceived effects that are not absolutely straightforward and consist only of algebraic total signal amplitude change. (I used to think that I knew a LOT about that, based on work in the '70's with analogue noise reduction system designs, and filters; but when a few years ago I read some of the papers on the Net written by the designers of digital audio compression algorithms: whew! I was just blown away!)
----
Now, there are measurements of SNR...and measurements of dynamic range. I would tend to assert that dynamic range capability is measured from the amplitude of the very faintest median of system noise, weighted appropriately, to the point of clipping. The measurement may be crudely measured with only a short moment of absolute silence in a "dry" recording with no ambience, but it is very hard to do when normal echoes are audible; sometimes you never have a "quiet" reference moment. The dead zones in the gaps between tracks aren't usable because they don't record the true noise floor of the digital music master of the recording of a selection; the noise floor drops to the 'basement'. Actual musical dynamic range is a dynamic measurement comparing the amplitude of the very faintest registration of sound, above the noise platform, to (a) either just under the point of clipping, if the recording is fully "loaded", or to the highest amplitude of sound peak in the entire recording.
So we might want to know if Wellfed is talking about his perception of S/N ratio, during silent moments in the recording, after he can hear that the pots are all down, such as during the total fade to black at the end of a track, vs. the very loudest sound in the music; if he perceives apparent S/N ratio as being the hiss platform that stays constant and is occasionally heard on some recordings if (a) they are analogue mastered, transferred to digital, containing tape hiss; (b) if he can actually detect noise from mikes or electronics (maybe a guitar amp that was noisy, in a complicated mix but having hiss/hum that was not at every moment totally masked by other sounds.)
Now we get into the interesting realm of "Wellfed trying to find CDs that are optimal, in his opinion, in revealing his alleged GSIC effect". He touched on that at one point, and his desire to use CDs that revealed the effect, so that I'd infer from this that he felt some were better capable of it than others. That makes me wonder...
If he thinks that cumulative SNR is the carrier of the clue that reveals to him GSIC action, and concludes that "clearer hiss" indicates that GSIC had worked, it would tend to show us his misperceptions, or self-delusions if indeed GSIC did not cause "clearer hiss".
Where, incidentally I was concerned with "lyric intelligibility", I was trying to relate that odd term with known concepts that mean something very concrete to musicians: for instance, "play the phrase in measure 6 with lyrical phrasing". Or did it mean that he could tell that a vocalist's words were actually easier to understand? That "the lyrics are clear after GSIC treatment, while without the treatment I can't reliably discern every word of the lyrics"? Unfortunately, this is a fallacy given a repetition of the CD, over and over both during his home listening tests trying to find "effective CDs", normal enjoyment of record albums that he likes, and during the pair of the test. If the passages repeated in a given pair had as contents a vocalist singing the lyrics of a song, and the same passage was repeated again soon thereafter, OF COURSE the lyrics would be easier to understand, as each repetition increases intelligibility. In fact, quite incoherent, mumbled lyrics when heard once, will obviously start to make sense the more times you play the song.
Unless, Diogenes, I am barking up the wrong tree and you posed your question related to an entirely different issue, I think here we start get a notion of what Wellfed is using as cues to GSIC-effect. We'll stipulate, for simplicity, that there is actually NO effect. Therefore, (allowing for the sort of vague, probably indetectable uncertainty built into the Reed-Solomon error correction code as it effects each individual playback of a CD, and understanding that in most cases the error correction ambiguities CANNOT be heard by ear unless they fail and one can hear pops, ticks, etc.) in a controlled, repeated playback of two instances of the same selection, from two copies of the CD, a "normal" nondeluded person will for all practical purposes (dismissing turning of the head, etc.) experience physiologically identical or very close to identical stimulae, and infer that "the music hasn't changed" during A-B testing (ABX protocol). But the longer you wait between repetitions, or the more music that is being played so that you lose sight of "moments" when you were trying to codify a concrete impression of a specific sound -- maybe a tiny single tinkle of a triangle, one "s" sound, etc. -- the greater chances there are that you will experience a delusion that a virtually identical replay "sounds different".
Oh, it gets complicated when you start to factor in the qualities and to describe them by what you think are concrete symbols!
PianoTeacher
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Re: My attempt to Correct Myself
You have a certainly valid point for the conditions of a scientific test. But, I have at least tried to point out in other posts in this thread that this is not a scientific test -- it is a challenge to prove paranormal ability.
From what I've read, in cases where probability is in play in a paranormal challenge, JREF expects the challenger to exceed 1 in 1000 probability. You have realized an extreme difficulty in testing claims of events or perceptions that have very minor effects. This is a simple matter of statistics. If the effects or perceptions are very small, it would require a very large sampling to determine whether the results are outside of statistical probability and therefore might actually be something. If you read through these forums, you should find numerous posts about the analysis and meta-analysis of paranormal studies data.
But for "proof" -- proof worthy of handing over $1 million of your own money -- there must be a simple test that achieves the extraordinary -- proof of paranormal. In this case, to conduct a test sufficient to prove that the challenger can hear a difference would require many tests and many many days. The JREF test must be completed in much less time. Therefore, it requires higher standards of accuracy.
By probability, a challenger could simply guess 5 of 10 disks (50%). If the challenger can actually hear a difference in a treated chip, I'm on board with you that the difference is there but so subtle that you could really only expect an increase to say 7 of 10 (70%) or maybe 8 of 10 (8%) or even raise the bar to 9 of 10 (90%).
If I had a 70% chance to get one million dollars just by randomly guessing 10 numbers, I apply for this challenge every chance I got. Even if I only had a 90% chance. I spend maybe a couple hundred bucks on expenses, and have a 10% chance at $1 million. Beats Vegas odds, and sure beats lottery odds.
So, what is JREF to do? You can't accept low odds that the challenge will be won merely by chance. You can't spend the time to the number of challenges necessary to determine whether the challenger can make a difference outside of statistical probability.
The challenger claims he could get 10 out of 10. With the limitations on the number of trials that can be reasonably done in a test, this is the only ratio that could be considered preliminary "proof". If he got 9 out of 10, that could mean that maybe there really is something there. But that is far different from "proof of paranormal".
You are correct in looking for long term tests with many repeated trails to determine whether the challenger could detect a difference outside of statistical probability.
So, I agree with you that even if the chip has an effect, the challenger will fail. If the chip has a subtle effect that can be heard, you might expect a control group to guess at 50%, but the real group to be at maybe 70%. But in any 10 trials, you would have to expect that the number hits could be anything. Only a significant number of trials would average out any differences.
So, you are right. The challenge was doomed to fail, even if the challenger's claim was true. But it is a matter of proof. It would be a bit different maybe if the challenger had documented proof of thousands of trials under double blind conditions and statistical analysis of the results. Considering what you would expect for an appropriate protocol, I would not expect JREF to accept anything less prior to accepting an application.
I would not expect this level of preliminary testing, or an agreement to this complex of a test (which the challenger would have to pay for) from anyone but a university or corporation (the people that sell the device come to mind--where are they--where are their independently administered tests conducted under your highly stringent protocol).
You are correct. The challenger’s claim was doomed from the start. But he made the challenge. The only way for the challenger to prove his claim would requires days or months of testing of dozens or hundreds of trials such that the minor differences in quality would average out to a number beyond statistical probability. Of course the challenger would have to shell out all the dough to pay for all those people to conduct those week long or month long tests. In this case, the challenger didn’t seem to even consider taking one day out of his busy schedule for the test, let alone the weeks or months that a proper test would require, or spending more than a few hundred bucks to do the challenge.
If you know anyone, including the company that makes the chip, that is willing to put forth the time and money and effort to prove the validity of the chip (and have it tested according to standards that you would like to see), then by all means have them apply for the challenge.
PianoTeacher, you seem to like long posts, so I’ll give you one in return,PianoTeacher said:
You have a certainly valid point for the conditions of a scientific test. But, I have at least tried to point out in other posts in this thread that this is not a scientific test -- it is a challenge to prove paranormal ability.
From what I've read, in cases where probability is in play in a paranormal challenge, JREF expects the challenger to exceed 1 in 1000 probability. You have realized an extreme difficulty in testing claims of events or perceptions that have very minor effects. This is a simple matter of statistics. If the effects or perceptions are very small, it would require a very large sampling to determine whether the results are outside of statistical probability and therefore might actually be something. If you read through these forums, you should find numerous posts about the analysis and meta-analysis of paranormal studies data.
But for "proof" -- proof worthy of handing over $1 million of your own money -- there must be a simple test that achieves the extraordinary -- proof of paranormal. In this case, to conduct a test sufficient to prove that the challenger can hear a difference would require many tests and many many days. The JREF test must be completed in much less time. Therefore, it requires higher standards of accuracy.
By probability, a challenger could simply guess 5 of 10 disks (50%). If the challenger can actually hear a difference in a treated chip, I'm on board with you that the difference is there but so subtle that you could really only expect an increase to say 7 of 10 (70%) or maybe 8 of 10 (8%) or even raise the bar to 9 of 10 (90%).
If I had a 70% chance to get one million dollars just by randomly guessing 10 numbers, I apply for this challenge every chance I got. Even if I only had a 90% chance. I spend maybe a couple hundred bucks on expenses, and have a 10% chance at $1 million. Beats Vegas odds, and sure beats lottery odds.
So, what is JREF to do? You can't accept low odds that the challenge will be won merely by chance. You can't spend the time to the number of challenges necessary to determine whether the challenger can make a difference outside of statistical probability.
The challenger claims he could get 10 out of 10. With the limitations on the number of trials that can be reasonably done in a test, this is the only ratio that could be considered preliminary "proof". If he got 9 out of 10, that could mean that maybe there really is something there. But that is far different from "proof of paranormal".
You are correct in looking for long term tests with many repeated trails to determine whether the challenger could detect a difference outside of statistical probability.
So, I agree with you that even if the chip has an effect, the challenger will fail. If the chip has a subtle effect that can be heard, you might expect a control group to guess at 50%, but the real group to be at maybe 70%. But in any 10 trials, you would have to expect that the number hits could be anything. Only a significant number of trials would average out any differences.
So, you are right. The challenge was doomed to fail, even if the challenger's claim was true. But it is a matter of proof. It would be a bit different maybe if the challenger had documented proof of thousands of trials under double blind conditions and statistical analysis of the results. Considering what you would expect for an appropriate protocol, I would not expect JREF to accept anything less prior to accepting an application.
I would not expect this level of preliminary testing, or an agreement to this complex of a test (which the challenger would have to pay for) from anyone but a university or corporation (the people that sell the device come to mind--where are they--where are their independently administered tests conducted under your highly stringent protocol).
You are correct. The challenger’s claim was doomed from the start. But he made the challenge. The only way for the challenger to prove his claim would requires days or months of testing of dozens or hundreds of trials such that the minor differences in quality would average out to a number beyond statistical probability. Of course the challenger would have to shell out all the dough to pay for all those people to conduct those week long or month long tests. In this case, the challenger didn’t seem to even consider taking one day out of his busy schedule for the test, let alone the weeks or months that a proper test would require, or spending more than a few hundred bucks to do the challenge.
If you know anyone, including the company that makes the chip, that is willing to put forth the time and money and effort to prove the validity of the chip (and have it tested according to standards that you would like to see), then by all means have them apply for the challenge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
OK. What is your standard of proof?
The brazen lie I documented yesterday didn't seem to hold any sway with you. The rest of Kramer's deceptions would require some study, are you prepared to do that?
Here is the documentation for the other lie I have alluded to. That lie being that I had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol and then backed out. This was a half-truth at best, actually more of a quarter-truth. I never agreed to the Steven Howard protocol to any degree greater than it providing for a base to work off of. I thought the gist of Steven's design was excellent and could easily be ammended to to suit my requirements.
Kramer submitted this protocol to Mr. Randi unammended without my approval and knowledge.
He then states on his Challenge Application thread the following:
Randi has officially approved the following protocol (known in the forum as the "Steven Howard Protocol") without amendment or changes of any kind. It appears here just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda.
He then quotes verbatim the contents of the Steven Howard Protocol which was part of what I had submitted. As well as some insane commentary to the effect of how he was holding the GSIC Challenge ship together.
This "It appears here just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda." is an outright lie that led to my first outburst on these forums.
Here is my correspondence just as it was truly submitted.
Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.
The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").
Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.
People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).
The setup:
Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.
Demonstration:
A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.
The experiment:
The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:
In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.
Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.
T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.
After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.
What do you think?
----------------end-----------------
This is Mr. Howard’s proposal exactly as he posted it.
I later responded to him with some minor changes I would expect.
If memory serves me, I asked that the 11th disc he mentions be a non GSIC treated reference disc that I could swap in and out to compare with the subject disc at will.
I will review my comments to him on the Forum to see if there is anything I am forgetting
We will need to establish the amount of time necessary to complete this test.
We will need to discuss whether burned copies or original CD’s are to be used. I haven’t established an opinion on the subject myself.
If possible, I think I would prefer that T2 leave the room as I make each identification.
A contingency plan for tube failure will need to be implemented.
I will get back to you via email after I’ve re-read the Forum discussion about Steven’s proposal. Steven, and I, had a mild disagreement over a few parameters. I don’t think that my requests altered the integrity of the test. His commentary was to the effect of “If the device makes such a big improvement you shouldn’t need the changesâ€, this element of the discussion went no further.
It is my hope that we are back on track with this process, I sense you are of the same mind.
What is really weird about this particular deception is the fact that Kramer solicited me to send him Steven's protocol in writing in the first place rather than just looking it up for himself. This request seemed odd at the time and seems downright devious in retrospect.
While I was totally "pissed off" that he would pull a stunt like this, I decided to conditionally give him the benefit of the doubt and view this as perhaps having been due to human error. Big mistake on my part.
This posting discusses Kramer's first outright lie. My last postings directed to you discussed his last lies. While the stuff in between cannot be classified as lies, his commentary regarding my communications with him were typically deceptive. Let me know if you want me to delve into that matter. It requires that inferences be made as to what effect Kramer desired to achieve.
jmercer said:
OK. What is your standard of proof?
The brazen lie I documented yesterday didn't seem to hold any sway with you. The rest of Kramer's deceptions would require some study, are you prepared to do that?
Here is the documentation for the other lie I have alluded to. That lie being that I had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol and then backed out. This was a half-truth at best, actually more of a quarter-truth. I never agreed to the Steven Howard protocol to any degree greater than it providing for a base to work off of. I thought the gist of Steven's design was excellent and could easily be ammended to to suit my requirements.
Kramer submitted this protocol to Mr. Randi unammended without my approval and knowledge.
He then states on his Challenge Application thread the following:
Randi has officially approved the following protocol (known in the forum as the "Steven Howard Protocol") without amendment or changes of any kind. It appears here just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda.
He then quotes verbatim the contents of the Steven Howard Protocol which was part of what I had submitted. As well as some insane commentary to the effect of how he was holding the GSIC Challenge ship together.
This "It appears here just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda." is an outright lie that led to my first outburst on these forums.
Here is my correspondence just as it was truly submitted.
Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.
The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").
Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.
People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).
The setup:
Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.
Demonstration:
A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.
The experiment:
The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:
In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.
Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.
T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.
After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.
What do you think?
----------------end-----------------
This is Mr. Howard’s proposal exactly as he posted it.
I later responded to him with some minor changes I would expect.
If memory serves me, I asked that the 11th disc he mentions be a non GSIC treated reference disc that I could swap in and out to compare with the subject disc at will.
I will review my comments to him on the Forum to see if there is anything I am forgetting
We will need to establish the amount of time necessary to complete this test.
We will need to discuss whether burned copies or original CD’s are to be used. I haven’t established an opinion on the subject myself.
If possible, I think I would prefer that T2 leave the room as I make each identification.
A contingency plan for tube failure will need to be implemented.
I will get back to you via email after I’ve re-read the Forum discussion about Steven’s proposal. Steven, and I, had a mild disagreement over a few parameters. I don’t think that my requests altered the integrity of the test. His commentary was to the effect of “If the device makes such a big improvement you shouldn’t need the changesâ€, this element of the discussion went no further.
It is my hope that we are back on track with this process, I sense you are of the same mind.
What is really weird about this particular deception is the fact that Kramer solicited me to send him Steven's protocol in writing in the first place rather than just looking it up for himself. This request seemed odd at the time and seems downright devious in retrospect.
While I was totally "pissed off" that he would pull a stunt like this, I decided to conditionally give him the benefit of the doubt and view this as perhaps having been due to human error. Big mistake on my part.
This posting discusses Kramer's first outright lie. My last postings directed to you discussed his last lies. While the stuff in between cannot be classified as lies, his commentary regarding my communications with him were typically deceptive. Let me know if you want me to delve into that matter. It requires that inferences be made as to what effect Kramer desired to achieve.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
Refute the incidents as cited in the Application thread by producing emails or other correspondence proving your claims of deception, just as you said you would do. Asking for a definition from me of "standard of proof" will not help your cause.
You made the accusations. You do the work to prove it. I've already done my research on the evidence available to me.
When you submit a protocol to an official of JREF who handles such items, you are proposing a protocol. If you were not prepared to accept what you sent in, then you should have not sent it - or you should have clearly stated that the protocol is being sent to JREF as a draft for feedback, and not for actual use.
Proposing a protocol that you are not prepared to accept is deceitful.
You have not proven that there were any lies on the part of Kramer or JREF. You now admit that everything else in the Application thread cannot be classified as lies. You have also failed to refute any of the points I drew out of the Application thread.
I am not interested in your speculations about "what effect Kramer desired to achieve." - I am interested in evidence supporting your assertions. Since you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, I stand by my conclusion that you are the one who practiced deception during this process.
Wellfed said:
Refute the incidents as cited in the Application thread by producing emails or other correspondence proving your claims of deception, just as you said you would do. Asking for a definition from me of "standard of proof" will not help your cause.
Wellfed said:
You made the accusations. You do the work to prove it. I've already done my research on the evidence available to me.
Wellfed said:
When you submit a protocol to an official of JREF who handles such items, you are proposing a protocol. If you were not prepared to accept what you sent in, then you should have not sent it - or you should have clearly stated that the protocol is being sent to JREF as a draft for feedback, and not for actual use.
Proposing a protocol that you are not prepared to accept is deceitful.
Wellfed said:
You have not proven that there were any lies on the part of Kramer or JREF. You now admit that everything else in the Application thread cannot be classified as lies. You have also failed to refute any of the points I drew out of the Application thread.
I am not interested in your speculations about "what effect Kramer desired to achieve." - I am interested in evidence supporting your assertions. Since you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, I stand by my conclusion that you are the one who practiced deception during this process.
Wellfed Did in Fact Agree to the SH Protocol
While not a lawyer, I taught business law at the Graduate level for years.
I find that Wellfed has documented that he emailed a protocol to Kramer. This constituted an offer of a binding bilateral contract. (Though technically, we still need to determine place and time of the performance.) Since JREF accepted before Wellfed rescinded his offer, the contract is binding on Wellfed.
Wellfed's refusal to abide by the protocol he offered is a breach of contract. We need no further evidence than what he has offered recently in this thread to conclude in favor of JREF.
To provide an analogy: If I email Wellfed a challenge for him to wash my car today for $16.00, Then Wellfed responds with the process his wants to use to wash my car (number of buckets, number of sponges, temperature of the water, what detergent to use, etc.) and asks “What do you think?â€. If I then accept the conditions, we have a contract.
While not a lawyer, I taught business law at the Graduate level for years.
I find that Wellfed has documented that he emailed a protocol to Kramer. This constituted an offer of a binding bilateral contract. (Though technically, we still need to determine place and time of the performance.) Since JREF accepted before Wellfed rescinded his offer, the contract is binding on Wellfed.
Wellfed's refusal to abide by the protocol he offered is a breach of contract. We need no further evidence than what he has offered recently in this thread to conclude in favor of JREF.
To provide an analogy: If I email Wellfed a challenge for him to wash my car today for $16.00, Then Wellfed responds with the process his wants to use to wash my car (number of buckets, number of sponges, temperature of the water, what detergent to use, etc.) and asks “What do you think?â€. If I then accept the conditions, we have a contract.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good One !!!
It is a lie when someone claims that a person has agreed to something that wasn't actually agreed to.
It is a deception to state that I had submitted Steven Howard's protocol for final consideration without mentioning my requirement that it be ammended.
The proof of my accusation is right there in front of your eyes. The following provides some context. This is the spirit in which Kramer presented "my" protocol to Mr. Randi. This one posting alone illustrates what I mean when I say "The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce, the way Kramer likes it apparently."
If you can live with this type of behavior as being acceptable and above board there is no point in further discussion between the two of us.
Guess What?????
quote:Originally posted by Wellfed
Given the history of our discussion, I too feel entitled to expressing my opinion. You've earned it.
Like one's civil rights, one can hardly EARN what is already rightfully theirs.
BY all means, Michael. Speak your mind.
After all, this IS the USA.*
Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:
In a sincere effort to address your accusations regarding my "maneuverings" succinctly and in a manner that will put your mind to rest over the JREF's motives, such as you erroneously perceive them, I decided after reading your most recent post to waltz into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol in hand.
The "Steven Howard Protocol" proposal has been officially approved by James Randi, without any changes or amendments whatsoever. From this point forward in the application process, NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE without the mutual agreement of both parties.
What say you now, Grasshopper?
Remember, Michael: Adversaries, not Enemies. Don't use what you perceive as JREF's bias as an escape portal. They'll laugh you out of town if you do. You might even find yourself tarred and feathered for good measure.
Remember also that if you successfully demonstrate your claim, you've got a lifetime's worth of apologies from me forthcoming.
It may not make you feel any better, but it's in the mail anyway, like it or not, should you pass the preliminary test.
We've had some good conversations, Michael. Let's not watch everything crash and burn now.
I'm now posting the protocol on your Challenge thread for all to view.
========================================
*I much prefer the Mamet version of this line (from HOUSE OF GAMES), which says, "This is the United States of Kiss My Ass."
Man, I love that line.
But, I digress.
__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
jmercer said:
It is a lie when someone claims that a person has agreed to something that wasn't actually agreed to.
It is a deception to state that I had submitted Steven Howard's protocol for final consideration without mentioning my requirement that it be ammended.
The proof of my accusation is right there in front of your eyes. The following provides some context. This is the spirit in which Kramer presented "my" protocol to Mr. Randi. This one posting alone illustrates what I mean when I say "The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce, the way Kramer likes it apparently."
If you can live with this type of behavior as being acceptable and above board there is no point in further discussion between the two of us.
Guess What?????
quote:Originally posted by Wellfed
Given the history of our discussion, I too feel entitled to expressing my opinion. You've earned it.
Like one's civil rights, one can hardly EARN what is already rightfully theirs.
BY all means, Michael. Speak your mind.
After all, this IS the USA.*
Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:
In a sincere effort to address your accusations regarding my "maneuverings" succinctly and in a manner that will put your mind to rest over the JREF's motives, such as you erroneously perceive them, I decided after reading your most recent post to waltz into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol in hand.
The "Steven Howard Protocol" proposal has been officially approved by James Randi, without any changes or amendments whatsoever. From this point forward in the application process, NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE without the mutual agreement of both parties.
What say you now, Grasshopper?
Remember, Michael: Adversaries, not Enemies. Don't use what you perceive as JREF's bias as an escape portal. They'll laugh you out of town if you do. You might even find yourself tarred and feathered for good measure.
Remember also that if you successfully demonstrate your claim, you've got a lifetime's worth of apologies from me forthcoming.
It may not make you feel any better, but it's in the mail anyway, like it or not, should you pass the preliminary test.
We've had some good conversations, Michael. Let's not watch everything crash and burn now.
I'm now posting the protocol on your Challenge thread for all to view.
========================================
*I much prefer the Mamet version of this line (from HOUSE OF GAMES), which says, "This is the United States of Kiss My Ass."
Man, I love that line.
But, I digress.
__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.
Z
Variable Constant
Wellfed, go back to your hole and lick your wounds. It's over, dude - and you've been caught in a legally verifiable case of fraud, essentially (well, of contract violation, actually). And, to top it all off, your claim was rejected precisely as it was explained it would be, due to your own waffling and backsliding.
Deceit is inherent in your nature; this much is true. As in, you would willfully deceive yourself into hearing something that is not there, then willfully deceive others by writing a review chock full of absurditites and falsehoods.
The scientific data has been exposed, apparently - this chip does nothing. It affects no change in the CDs it is applied to. Data remains identical. Certainly, it has no effect on the disc surface - that's not even the claim made. Rather, the claim appears to be that it 'corrects timing issues' - in other words, makes minute alterations to the data on the disc - which, clearly, it does not.
You bought into a scam, so your continued support of this scam shows that you are either a) an unscrupulous person to begin with, who feels no guilt or remorse at deceiving others; or b) so invested in your ego, you cannot admit that you were, in fact, mistaken and taken for a proverbial ride.
Either way, though, your claim was rejected - and it's pretty clear, based on your inflexible and egotistical nature, that no new claim is going to get anywhere later on, either.
So go back to your den of audio paradise, with your thousands of dollars of snake oils and ceramic cones; listen to some minor local jazz artist's voice humming through the imaginary space behind your speakers; and drop the whole thing. It'll reduce your personal stress. Frankly, there's nothing more you can accomplish here... except to upset yourself further, which will, ultimately, lead nowhere for you.
Blessings to you,
Rev. T
Deceit is inherent in your nature; this much is true. As in, you would willfully deceive yourself into hearing something that is not there, then willfully deceive others by writing a review chock full of absurditites and falsehoods.
The scientific data has been exposed, apparently - this chip does nothing. It affects no change in the CDs it is applied to. Data remains identical. Certainly, it has no effect on the disc surface - that's not even the claim made. Rather, the claim appears to be that it 'corrects timing issues' - in other words, makes minute alterations to the data on the disc - which, clearly, it does not.
You bought into a scam, so your continued support of this scam shows that you are either a) an unscrupulous person to begin with, who feels no guilt or remorse at deceiving others; or b) so invested in your ego, you cannot admit that you were, in fact, mistaken and taken for a proverbial ride.
Either way, though, your claim was rejected - and it's pretty clear, based on your inflexible and egotistical nature, that no new claim is going to get anywhere later on, either.
So go back to your den of audio paradise, with your thousands of dollars of snake oils and ceramic cones; listen to some minor local jazz artist's voice humming through the imaginary space behind your speakers; and drop the whole thing. It'll reduce your personal stress. Frankly, there's nothing more you can accomplish here... except to upset yourself further, which will, ultimately, lead nowhere for you.
Blessings to you,
Rev. T