• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audio Critic

Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule. Had I been, I would have behaved myself appropriately.

It's been a while since I've registered, but I seem to remember having to agree that I've read the posting rules as a condition for getting my account. Rule 8 is the relevant one, and I also see Darat smacked you for a breach of rule 6 as well.

If you weren't cognizant, you darn well should have been.

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary.

I think we now see who the liar is.

Originally postedy by Darat wielding his moderator's attitude readjustment tool:

I have had to edit several of your posts to remove the profanity you have used that is not allowed as per your Membership Agreement. Further breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions.

So what do you do? You break the rules yet again and get yourself suspended for it.

Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

Just for the record, you've just finished burning through what little remaining benefit of my doubt you've had.

It's now entirely clear that you're the liar.
 
Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Moose said:
...


I think we now see who the liar is.



So what do you do? You break the rules yet again and get yourself suspended for it.



Just for the record, you've just finished burning through what little remaining benefit of my doubt you've had.

It's now entirely clear that you're the liar.

Do you honestly believe that "Cease and desist" orders attached to postings I was unlikely to review in a timely manner constitute a fair warning? This practice does reek of "JREF logic" though, I shouldn't be surprised. FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.
 
Re: I strenuously object...

webfusion said:
Hey, Anda, can you please find another euphemism for your profanity? It bothers me to see you bringing one of the most lovable and innocent characters of cartoondom into this discussion as a substitute for a "curse word" ----
bullwinkle.gif

webfusion, I did pause to consider not implicating our beloved icon to simply support my crazed profanity obsession. The pull was just too strong.


webfusion said:
  • Gee, Rocky, when do ya think that Wellfed will come to realize that he isn't going to be tested? He even got the eMail telling him so! What a maroon!

What email might that be? Can I assume Kramer is playing games with your head again if he has given you reason to believe such an email exists? Perhaps you simply dreamt that one up in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway).
 
Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.

Liar. I just quoted it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Moose said:
Liar. I just quoted it.

You quoted what? BTW, did you read my statement about not not having received any "Cease and desist" orders?
 
Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

Wellfed said:
You quoted what? BTW, did you read my statement about not not having received any "Cease and desist" orders?

Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?
 
Re: Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

Moose said:
Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

Moose:

What I think Wellfed is implying is that when Darat started with the "Rule 8" notifications on the forum that an e-mail was not sent to Wellfed stating he was in violation. Since I don't remember the specifics of the rule agreement we all agreed to when we became forum members, its possible that rule violations are only noted within the forum. I'll PM Darat and ask him (or her) if this is the case or not.

Wellfed:

This is still yet another case of "splitting hairs" you seem to be so fond of. Most forums have rules of conduct including the use of profanity. You should have known better when you started to cuss even if YOU think it was justified. You should keep an eye on your postings, I know I tend to check to see if nothing else whether I mis-typed something. Its not like its hard to miss a big grey box in each offending posting.

Also, frankly, you just need to shut up. You've already dug yourself a nice big hole, I'd work on getting out rather than digging deeper. JREF has decided to terminate your application, period. Its their game, you play by their rules. Before you whine "I didn't know the rules" it behooves you to ASK. If you don't know, ask! Kramer gave you plenty of warnings. Again frankly I think you deserve what you got.

I already gave you some good advice earlier:
0) Get your act together. You claim that you can identify CDs treated with the GSIC? Great! But only certain discs work well? Are you SURE you can do this 100% of the time? I'd still be impressed by 70 or 80% success if the test is properly designed DBT. Get over your concern about double blind testing - you are doing things the JREF way.
1) Make a protocol - ask CSICOP or other skeptics to help you. There are some good starting points in these forums, build on those. Ask Piano Teacher for help, you have about 9 months to whip something up.
2) Learn some humility - "My Struggle"? Seriously, dude! Pick a protocol and plan out the time from next March until the end of the year. No "Weekends are no good". MAKE the time if you are serious!
3) Stop boring us - use the time to test yourself instead. Really!

Finally, good luck - with the way you are wandering around, I think you'll need it!

Marc
 
Re: Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

Moose said:
Of course I read it, Liar, and I showed you exactly where you received a moderator's instruction to stop breaking forum rules.

You know, the one you got suspended over? Are you going to try claiming you were never suspended now, Liar?

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

Moose, how often do you go back and re-read your previous postings? Even if you were to do so hourly I can tell you that I don't. I have of course re-read the record many times to get a handle on Kramer's various deceptions, this is typically done considerably after the fact. If you think posting warnings where they are unlikely to be read in a timely manner is sensible practice, so be it. You will never convince me of its sensibility. In fact, given JREF operating principles, I could easily consider the practice devious.
 
Re: Re: Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

marcchem said:
Moose:

What I think Wellfed is implying is that when Darat started with the "Rule 8" notifications on the forum that an e-mail was not sent to Wellfed stating he was in violation. Since I don't remember the specifics of the rule agreement we all agreed to when we became forum members, its possible that rule violations are only noted within the forum. I'll PM Darat and ask him (or her) if this is the case or not.

Wellfed:

This is still yet another case of "splitting hairs" you seem to be so fond of. Most forums have rules of conduct including the use of profanity. You should have known better when you started to cuss even if YOU think it was justified. You should keep an eye on your postings, I know I tend to check to see if nothing else whether I mis-typed something. Its not like its hard to miss a big grey box in each offending posting.

Also, frankly, you just need to shut up. You've already dug yourself a nice big hole, I'd work on getting out rather than digging deeper. JREF has decided to terminate your application, period. Its their game, you play by their rules. Before you whine "I didn't know the rules" it behooves you to ASK. If you don't know, ask! Kramer gave you plenty of warnings. Again frankly I think you deserve what you got.

I already gave you some good advice earlier:
0) Get your act together. You claim that you can identify CDs treated with the GSIC? Great! But only certain discs work well? Are you SURE you can do this 100% of the time? I'd still be impressed by 70 or 80% success if the test is properly designed DBT. Get over your concern about double blind testing - you are doing things the JREF way.
1) Make a protocol - ask CSICOP or other skeptics to help you. There are some good starting points in these forums, build on those. Ask Piano Teacher for help, you have about 9 months to whip something up.
2) Learn some humility - "My Struggle"? Seriously, dude! Pick a protocol and plan out the time from next March until the end of the year. No "Weekends are no good". MAKE the time if you are serious!
3) Stop boring us - use the time to test yourself instead. Really!

Finally, good luck - with the way you are wandering around, I think you'll need it!

Marc

One of the very first posts I made at the JREF Forum was to inquire what (Rule 8) referred to. I was told and responded that I thought that to be a good rule. Had I known that the term Bull**** was seriously frowned upon it would not have found its way into my postings. It seems that people have picked up a fondness for quoting that line because of the Penn & Teller usage for challenging suspected frauds. I used the term in the very same sense. I consider the JREF Challenge to be a fraudulent enterprise. I will now use the phrase "Bullwinkle! Just test me." instead to express my challenge to JREF. If you were to do a search for the offending term you will find many instances of its use in unadulterated form.

Edited for the purpose of making sense. ;)
 
Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
...snip...

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

That misrepresents what occurred. You were warned twice, after I had to edit several of your posts, about breaching Rule 8. You were told twice to "cease and desist" breaching your Membership Agreement, and since those warnings were ignored you were suspended. This is the list of all the Moderation actions and posts in which they occurred:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870879782#post1870879782

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of rule 8.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870883208#post1870883208

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


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870882511#post1870882511

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870884725#post1870884725

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870884735#post1870884735

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.


I have had to edit several of your posts to remove the profanity you have used that is not allowed as per your Membership Agreement. Further breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870884751#post1870884751

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.


This is your last warning regarding a breach of Rule 8, any further breaches will result in an immediate 3 day suspension.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat


Despite this second “cease and desist” notification you again beached Rule 8 and as per my warning I immediately suspended you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

Wellfed said:
In fact, given JREF operating principles, I could easily consider the practice devious.

I have no doubt you would. The rest of the net, however, realizes that the JREF forum operates just about like any other forum out there.

Neither forum admin nor the JREF have any obligation to hold your hand, especially when you've neglected to read the forum rules before posting.

Quit whining already.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
Do you honestly believe that "Cease and desist" orders attached to postings I was unlikely to review in a timely manner constitute a fair warning? This practice does reek of "JREF logic" though, I shouldn't be surprised. FYI, I received no warning to "Cease and desist" anything.

You did receive two "cease and desist" warnings as can be seen in my post above. It is your responsibility to ensure your posts here are in line with your Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Darat said:
You did receive two "cease and desist" warnings as can be seen in my post above. It is your responsibility to ensure your posts here are in line with your Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.
 
Re: Leave Bullwinkle out of this.

Moose said:
...

Is there anybody left who believes a word you say?

There is one. Here's what he has to say. This is posted with Steve's express permission. I have formatted text that Steve responds to in italics. I have also edited Steve's post for (Rule 8). You can also read the commentary where originally posted, there is a link to this posting at the bottom.

Originally posted by Steve Eddy at Audio Asylum Discussion Forum
Let me say that while I've been as skeptical and critical of the GSIC as anyone (and still am), I've always had the utmost respect for Wellfed. When he decided to take up the JREF challenge I let him know that I would support him in any way I could. He took me up on my offer and I've been following this whole saga both online at the JREF forums as well as via EMail and telephone conversations with Wellfed. So I'm not someone who's jumped into the fray here late in the game.

Having said that...


I read through all twenty pages of that thread and all I saw them doing is going out of their way to accomodate you and your waffling...over and over again. It was obviously something they had never done with anyone else before and I thought they were being quite patient with you. I thought for a minute they would have agreed to give you a gilded chair to sit on during the test if you'd asked. They started out very open minded and accomodating with you and it was only after you started the "I can't do THIS because of THAT" routine over and over that they began to loose patience with you. I'm amazed they played along as long as they did.

I don't know what you read, but after reading what I have (which encompasses several different threads on the Million Dollar Challenge forum), I concluded just the opposite.

In my opinion, KRAMER is an absolute prick who I think should have no business being involved in the challenge whatsoever. His role according to JREF is that of what they call a "facilitator." What a f*cking joke. "Antagonist" would be a much more suitable title.

And accommodating? I saw little or no evidence of that.

Right from the start they rejected the original protocol that Wellfed had proposed, without ever giving any particular reason for it so that any differences might be worked out.

Wellfed wanted to do the listening in his own home with his own system, which is the environment he'd been experiencing the differences all along. They didn't like that.

He also wanted to use the Walker Vivid on his discs, just as he'd been doing all along. They shot that down for no apparent reason.

And on and on.

And while this is going on, KRAMER persistently denegrated and insulted Wellfed.

The guy's a f*cking joke.

And in a post by KRAMER from yesterday, in a new thread regarding some new claimant, he wrote:


The strictest protocol will be in place for this test, based upon the original "Steven Howard Protocol" which was submitted by Mr. Anda and then, upon unconditional acceptance by Randi, withdrawn by the applicant for reasons that will, with any luck, forever remain a mystery.

This is just absolute bullsh*t. The only mystery here is how KRAMER can say this with a straight face.

Some time back, someone named Steven Howard posted a suggested protocol. Wellfed said that he liked the suggested protocol in general, but not entirely and wanted some slight changes made to it.

He sent KRAMER a paste of Steven Howard's protocol along with the changes he wanted made to it.

Then KRAMER posts that Randi had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol EXACTLY AS POSTED BY STEVEN HOWARD with NO changes or addenda.

When Wellfed said that that that's not what he had agreed to, KRAMER went on one of his smear campaigns against Wellfed, much as he does in what's quoted above, even though Wellfed was on record numerous times prior to this stating that he was only agreeable to the Steven Howard protocol WITH CHANGES.

I pointed this out on one of the threads and KRAMER instead of addressing the issue, went into this obfuscational, self-righteous indignation routine.

I found it rather ironic as his behavior was strikingly similar to that of frauds and charlatans when they're exposed for what they are.

He went into a similar self-righteous indignation routine when Wellfed requested that he have is own observer(s) for the test as if cheating on JREF's part was somehow an absolute impossibility.


ALL you had to do is try to identify whether a disk was treated or untreated. That's it...period...and you could have been an instant millionaire.

Not so simple.


They certainly didn't seem to me to be trying to deceive anyone. They were just trying to set down some solid ground rules and good controls, most obviously not to your liking.

Why should everything necessarily be to JREF's liking to the exclusion of Wellfed?

Look, Wellfed's claims with regard to his perceiving differneces with the Chip have only been within the context of the environemnt and conditions of his own home with his own system, etc.

All he's ever really wanted was to be able to do his listening under conditions as close to that as possible. Which I believe is a more than reasonable request and one in which I think there can be a suitable protocol to accommodate.

However JREF seems to want to make the conditions of his listening tests as different from those upon which he's made his claims as possible.

Bottom line I've little or no reason to believe that KRAMER and/or JREF are acting in good faith.

When Wellfed telephoned me last night and told me he was going to withdraw his claim, I understood completely why he would be compelled to do so.

se



Link to Audio Asylum Post
 
A question for Darat or other mod.

The problem here seems to come from the precedure used to issue a warning. Is a "cease & desist" warning:
  1. Posted only with the offending post in a thread
  2. Emailed to the offender
  3. Both
  4. Other
?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.
If you look in the post a few above the one you quoted you will see the two "cease and desist" notices you did receive.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Wellfed said:
I received precisely zero "cease and desist" warnings.

Hahaha! This is hilarious! I'm amazed how some people seem to be so dumbfounded as to how this statement can be perfectly true.

I guess they were sleeping in science class when they did that old "If a tree falls in a forest..." thing. :)

And just how stupid is it to put the warnings in the posts themselves? I mean who the hell routinely goes back and re-reads their previous posts?

The Member Agreement reads:

When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs.

It says that warnings will be issued in the thread where the violation occurs, not in the post where the violation occurs. I don't think most people reading the agreement as worded would take that to mean they have to keep looking over their shoulders at their previous posts to make sure they haven't been given any warnings.

Why not post the warnings in the thread as a separate post where the violator will be most likely to see it rather than in their previous posts where they're least likely to see it?

se
 
Sherman Bay said:
A question for Darat or other mod.

The problem here seems to come from the precedure used to issue a warning. Is a "cease & desist" warning:
  1. Posted only with the offending post in a thread
  2. Emailed to the offender
  3. Both
  4. Other
?

This is covered in the Membership Agreement:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42936

“…When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs…”

Wellfed was treated as per the Membership that he, you and me all agree to abide by.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Steve Eddy said:
Hahaha! This is hilarious! I'm amazed how some people seem to be so dumbfounded as to how this statement can be perfectly true.

I guess they were sleeping in science class when they did that old "If a tree falls in a forest..." thing. :)

And just how stupid is it to put the warnings in the posts themselves? I mean who the hell routinely goes back and re-reads their previous posts?

The Member Agreement reads:

When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs.

It says that warnings will be issued in the thread where the violation occurs, not in the post where the violation occurs. I don't think most people reading the agreement as worded would take that to mean they have to keep looking over their shoulders at their previous posts to make sure they haven't been given any warnings.

Why not post the warnings in the thread as a separate post where the violator will be most likely to see it rather than in their previous posts where they're least likely to see it?

se

Wellfed received the "cease and desist" notice as his Membership Agreement stated it would be done. Please note irregardless of where or when a particular warning was made by posting the profanity he did he had already breached his Membership, however we have an attitude of trying to err on the side of not taking action (if we can) therefore his first few breaches were merely edited. However his repeated breaching of the rules he agreed to post by resulted in further warnings and when those warnings were ignored he was as per the last warning to “cease and desist” suspended.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Darat said:
If you look in the post a few above the one you quoted you will see the two "cease and desist" notices you did receive.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Just because you have sent something doesn't mean it has been received. And unless you have some proof that he in fact saw them, I think he's owed an apology.

se
 

Back
Top Bottom