Audio Critic

[Wellfed]

Very well. Yet there had to be some conscious decision in using special formatting for one particular word. That should have been a clue.

From one of your previous posts:


In my opinion, 48 repetitions of the same paragraph hardly qualifies as "restraint". (Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this is exaggeration on Darat's part or not).

(edited to note: Cross-post with Rolfe expressing the same thing).

I didn't count 'em, but Darat was probably correct. I was highlighting my point which was to say maybe I needed to repeat myself more often.

I was responding to Hitch had made the following comment in response to my having announced that I had correctly identified the chip used to treat my subject disc in the only blind test that I've conducted to date.

He states

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

I don't see what the problem is.

I respond

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

Maybe I just need to repeat myself more often.

I then copied this same text and pasted it 48 times, assuming Darat to be correct, within the body of the same posting for effect.

I did not consciously choose to violate any of the Forum rules. I think you folks are getting pretty anal with this subject which I is within your rights, except that it may perhaps violate the spirit of the flooding rule. Better check yourselves, I am warning you.

 

[alfaniner]

...
I have agreed to two officially submitted protocols.

"I agree to the protocol, except for (added conditions)" holds the same veracity as "I apologize for what I did, but it's not my fault."

 

[Wellfed]

"I agree to the protocol, except for (added conditions)" holds the same veracity as "I apologize for what I did, but it's not my fault."

If you say so.

Unfortunately it's time to edit my ignore list. Perhaps you'll be happier by doing the same.

 

[Darat]

Very well. Yet there had to be some conscious decision in using special formatting for one particular word. That should have been a clue.

From one of your previous posts:


In my opinion, 48 repetitions of the same paragraph hardly qualifies as "restraint". (Unfortunately, I have no idea whether this is exaggeration on Darat's part or not).

(edited to note: Cross-post with Rolfe expressing the same thing).

The 48 repetitions were not an exaggeration, since I was removing content from a post I carefully counted the number of phrases I was removing. (Obviously I may have miscounted and it was 47 or 48 but certainly in that region.)

 

[alfaniner]

The 48 repetitions were not an exaggeration...

As I thought, but since I did not have the "evidence", I had to hedge my bet lest we get another round of nitpicking.

"There were only 47 repetitions, not 48!!"

"Nevertheless, you spammed."

"But you lied. 47! 47, I tell you! Liar, liar!"

"I may have miscounted."

"Lies! Lies!! Test me now!"

And so on...

 

[tim]

Do you people know how much time you're wasting on this stuff? Does nitpicking silly arguments make any difference? No. Go out and enjoy your lives a bit more.
Or if your idea of fun is this - please, carry on. Bye!

 

[tim]

P.S. Darat, is it ok to use the word anal?

 

[Wellfed]

And would you mind explaining on what you base that conclusion?

I think that after having obsessed over this single detail, at length, you deserve a break. You asked for one.

Now, about the part of my post you snipped, how come you just unconsciously decided to put the "i" in the BS word in bold font? Didn't even occur to you that you might be violating a rule?

Rolfe.

Surprisingly it did not occur to me. I was on a mission apparently.

 

[Rolfe]

Surprisingly it did not occur to me. I was on a mission apparently.

It didn't occur to you that you were breaking a rule when you chose to use fancy formatting, which apparently had no purpose at all but to defeat the automatic censorship programme?

Really?

You wouldn't care to explain to us why you did choose to bold the "i" in the BS word, if the thought that it might have something to do with breaking a rule simply didn't occur to you?

(Sorry, Tim, some of us have unusual ideas of fun.)

Rolfe.

 

[alfaniner]

or a really slow time at work...

 

[LTC8K6]

Since the GSIC can apparently work from 6+ feet away, I'd like to get a GSIC-30 and take it out of it's case in a room with 30 untreated CD's going at once and see if the thing explodes.

Geoff Kait:

I have noticed even at distance of 6 feet or more the chip can be "activated" if taken out of the plastic box while a disc is playing.

 

[Darat]

Since the GSIC can apparently work from 6+ feet away, I'd like to get a GSIC-30 and take it out of it's case in a room with 30 untreated CD's going at once and see if the thing explodes.

Geoff Kait:

From my understanding of how it works distance is no problem...

 

[Gulliver]

One Example of Contradictions

Do you have evidence of me contradicting myself?

Sir,
You do contradict yourself. Here's an hour's research on just your commitment to do a DBT. In particular, I note that you used the volunteer resources of the Forum Members to development your DBT protocol and then never used that protocol.

Regards,
Gulliver

The evidence:

Due to the turmoil of recent events I have decided to postpone the self-testing I proposed for this weekend. I have found that the agitation of mind has become so great at this time as to disallow for a valid result. View the complete record regarding my claim if you are curious as to why I would choose the following course.

I am going to take a few weeks off and then, with the assistance of Steve Eddy, submit to testing in a valid and fair environment, free of distraction and contention. I will be submitting a protocol proposal to Kramer by midweek as originally planned. I have no plans to view JREF Forum content until the testing with Steve Eddy has been completed.

 

[Wellfed]

Re: One Example of Contradictions

Sir,
You do contradict yourself. Here's an hour's research on just your commitment to do a DBT. In particular, I note that you used the volunteer resources of the Forum Members to development your DBT protocol and then never used that protocol.

Regards,
Gulliver

The evidence:

Is it a contradiction if a family has a reunion planned at a local park and a severe thunderstorm warning causes them to cancel their intended event? I don't think so. I publicly stated my plans to test myself twice. Both events were cancelled due to crap Kramer threw my way at those precise times. His timing was impeccable in this regard.

I do appreciate your research however Gulliver. If you care to do some more, how about trying to find some waffling on my part within the public record?

 

[prewitt81]

Ok, there are at least seven threads dedicated to this guy on the first page of MDC alone. He's already had his application denied and shows no signs of ever wanting to do a DBT. Is there really anything else we can accomplish by further posting?

 

[KRAMER]

Re: .

I was recently locked out of the JREF for 5 days and therefore unable to respond to some of the comments made about me. This proved very unsettling, so much so that I could feel its effect on my listening sensitivity.

Aw. Poor baby.

 

[webfusion]

Thank you for your continued interest

wellfed remarks: I really have difficulty understanding the frenzy this matter has generated. Can you explain this phenomenon to me?

Paul Carey (naughtyrasputin) explains it HERE:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870883305#post1870883305

'Hello all,
keep it coming,
it is beautiful quackery..."

• Bullwinkle, test me.

See ya.

 

[Perpetual Notion]

Re: Re: .

Aw. Poor baby.

C'mon Kramer. You knew what you were doing. You and Randi have all that money stacked up in a big pile in his office and you spend your afternoons rolling around in it, smoking cigars and laughing about how noone's ever gonna get tested. Yep, we know it goes down like that.

 

[Gulliver]

Re: Re: One Example of Contradictions

Is it a contradiction if a family has a reunion planned at a local park and a severe thunderstorm warning causes them to cancel their intended event? I don't think so. I publicly stated my plans to test myself twice. Both events were cancelled due to crap Kramer threw my way at those precise times. His timing was impeccable in this regard.

I do appreciate your research however Gulliver. If you care to do some more, how about trying to find some waffling on my part within the public record?

Yes, it is a contradiction. Absolutely!

Now, you have a point. We all must change based on events. At times, we must break our promises. It would be wrong to subject children to the danger of thunderstorm because of a promise you made.

You fail however in your reasoning. Staying with the children and the park example, the correct approach would be to tell the children of your decision and to take responsibility for it. You should not invoke gods or demons. One example of incorrect behavior would be to say, "The Devil has prevented me from taking you to the park today by creating the bad weather."

Your excuse is also a problem. Staying with the analogy, you should not use an excuse like Aunt Martha called and upset me. I strongly suggest that your excuse is intangible at best, fraudulent at worst. "I can't do the test because someone upset me." That's very different than a thunderstorm. I can see a storm. I sure can't see your state of mind. Too often we encounter excuses like these when dealing the paranormal. Many failures are blamed (lamely) on there simply being skeptics in the room.

Of course, a caring father would also mitigate the effect of the broken promise. For example, you could promise to go to the park on the next sunny day or Aunt Martha's house after the storm--and then follow through.

You must step to the plate and back your promises. You've had plently of time and lots of support from Forum Members. Do the DBT. Accept my generous offer. Mitigate your broken promise, and stop blaming Kramer.

Regarding the addditional research, I've already documented your waffling in a previous post. I hope it's not too much trouble for you to review all the various threads to find it.

Regards,
Gulliver

 

[webfusion]

MRI waffle

I strongly suggest that your excuse is intangible at best, fraudulent at worst. "I can't do the test because someone upset me." That's very different than a thunderstorm. I can see a storm. I sure can't see your state of mind.

Wellfed's State of Mind (an actual MRI image of his brain)

Yeah <<< Sure, I've posted this before, but this thread is now a joke anyway, so I'll throw it in here once again for maximum comedic effect since I'm on Wellfed's ignore list anyway.