challenge procedure questions
- Thread starter latent aaaack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mdc
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
I'm not sure I follow. What is meant in this case by "contracting"? Could you please provide links to the related federal law and/or a Florida State law that requires this? It's not that I disbelieve you, but I'm wondering if you mean "contracting" in the sense of "contractor" (which is distinct from "someone providing a contract"). JREF is not a contractor, insofar as is regarding my admittedly incomplete understanding of the legal definition of the term (hence my need for the links).
Pro7 said:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand you here either. What do you mean by "issuance of negotiations"?
Pro7 said:
Negotiations of what? I've been using the word "negotiation" to describe the step in this process during which JREF and the applicant determine a test protocol that is agreeable to both of them. Is that what you're talking about?
If so, I'm not sure how your example (of the difficulty in proving the veracity of certain types of online communication, like chat logs) would translate to the MDC. Let's just say that I declared that I was telekenetic, and worked out a protocol with JREF. We finally agree on something. Come the day of testing, if suddenly JREF is trying to set up the test in a way I didn't agree, I could simply say, "that's not the test to which I agreed", and point out the problem. Since the whole conversation will have been archived and posted for public review (and since I'd have kept a copy of it myself, although admittedly not everyone would do that), it would be hard for JREF to change such goalposts without a lot of people knowing.
Take, for example, the Carin Landin test. The test was, in fact, NOT carried out in the manner specified in the protocol. So JREF has invalidated the test and it will be repeated.
Pro7 said:
It does. There are two separate FAQs concerning the MDC -- a general FAQ and one written by Randi, available on the Challenge page. Additionally, there is the challenge@randi.org email, which Jeff Wagg, the Challenge Administrator, answers. And lastly, there is also this particular Forum, where -- although we are not representatives of JREF and will invariably point people to Jeff for the particulars -- plenty of people are more than happy to help people understand what's required. We also help people develop test protocols (and let them know if we think that JREF might have problems with their proposals, so that they can square them away before applying). So it's not as if claimants are going to have to approach this totally in the dark.
Last edited:
Can you give us some specific examples of what would this "self help" would contain, please?
ok,
let me put this in a few simple Q-A sentences.
Q: "JREF is not a contractor"
A: A contractor is a person or entity who provides -share a contract. The MDC is a "contract".. as stated in the previous posts, right?
Proof of this statement can be found:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contractor
noun1. someone (a person or firm) who contracts to build things 2. the bridge player in contract bridge who wins the bidding and can declare which suit is to be trumps 3. (law) a party to a contract 4. a bodily organ that contracts [syn: contractile organ]
read #3.
Q: Federal or State law regarding contracting:
A. Its common sense. Refer to Q #1 above. You can review Florida state law or federal laws on contracting anywhere. The internet is a good place to start.
Q Issuance of Negotiations:
A. A party who starts the negotiation. Issuance means a act of issuing.
Proof of this statement can be found at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/issuance
Q: "Negotiation"
A. When a "test protocol" has been reached in agreement between both parties. This fulfills the initial part of the MDC contract. This is a legal term of "negotiation" when its referring to a contract.
Q: it would be hard for JREF to change such goalposts without a lot of people knowing. (your statement).
A: How do I know? Im a skeptic. I would not believe every single word that the "negotiation" was taken completely truthfully since it is in a electronic format. Any concrete proof? .. provide it and it will change my mind.
Q: (your statement) It does. There are two separate FAQs concerning the MDC -- a general FAQ and one written by Randi, available on the Challenge page. Additionally, there is the challenge@randi.org email, which Jeff Wagg, the Challenge Administrator, answers. And lastly, there is also this particular Forum, where -- although we are not representatives of JREF and will invariably point people to Jeff for the particulars -- plenty of people are more than happy to help people understand what's required. We also help people develop test protocols (and let them know if we think that JREF might have problems with their proposals, so that they can square them away before applying). So it's not as if claimants are going to have to approach this totally in the dark.
A: There is NO reference anywhere in both FAQs on what to do if a person doesnt understand the application, process, negotiations, etc.. (as focused on the application, etc itself)...
All it says:
Questions and Answers
0. What should I do first? Before you read this FAQ any further, go read the actual Challenge Rules at http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html. Don't just skim through it; take 10-15 minutes (or as long as you need) to read it thoroughly. Ask a reliable friend (or a legal advisor) to help you, if necessary. Then come back to this FAQ if you have more questions.
"Ask a reliable friend (or a legal advisor) to help you, if necessary. Then come back to this FAQ if you have more questions."
That part makes the claimant to ask a reliable friend or a legal advisor to help the claimant, on the actual challenge rules. It doesnt explain what to do if a person doesnt understand the FAQs.. or application rules, etc..
If I was a hispanic person, is there a spanish language text available? .. Can I, as a hispanic person, UNDERSTAND those words?
Get it?
If the FORUM IS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, then why is it in one language structure???
In my opinion, this MDC is a SCAM because it does not SUPPORT any other forms of languages, also often vague on how to support people to gain a insight into the applications, including when the claim is being applied to, is all electronic since its the forum and is changeable.
If I was a tester for the MDC, do I ASK the claimant to know what RACE or language that person is?
How this started, was simple..
A couple weeks ago I had spoken to a friend of mine who happens to be hispanic and his wife is indian. I told them that there is a 1 mil dollar challenge out there for anyone to PROVE that the paranormal exists. (I can speak Nez Perce, since Im 1/4 indian myself and was raised on a indian reservation....)
Believe me, I have seen some stuff these people do, and yet Im STILL A SKEPTIC and do not believe in paranormality. However, giving them a fair chance to read the forum and the application, etc etc. I gave them the URL to JREF.
The first thing they asked..
Is there another site like this which has spanish-indian available? I try to understand this, but I cant understand all of it.
That ticked me off right there. Thats the beef I have with JREF.
First I apologize for not making my words clear in the previous posts. I, myself do have some trouble understanding english as well, but am more fluent in nez perce. That is why I asked if there is any "Self Help" notices anywhere. Those "Self Help" notices would indicate a direction of how to "translate" english to spanish or nezperce.... or whatever language it can be translated to. My friends felt that JREF was very discriminatory against them all because they couldnt understand it.
Last edited:
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
I'd still like to see the specific law you're referring to. Sure, I can go look up stuff myself, but it's no guarantee that it's what you're referencing. So please provide me to a link to a law, or the laws, because there are all kinds of different laws applying to difference kinds of business transactions (for example, the difference between private general contractors and contractors who provide services to the US Department of Defense).
The reason why want these details is because there was no "help desk" when I obtained the mortage for my house. I was certainly welcome to ask any questions I wanted to, and they certainly provided me with answers and helped me understand. But if I signed the contract, I signed the contract, and thereby was attesting to the fact that I understood the contract (even if, in fact, I did not). Were to default on the loan, I highly doubt that I could claim ignorance as a way to get out of trouble. Mind you, if the mortage company actually and intentionally deceived me, absolutely yes. But the onus is still on me to understand, NOT on the mortgage company to make sure that I understand. Their primary means of ensuring (legally) that I understand something is to obtain my signature on the paperwork, at which point the law is satisfied unless fraud is involved.
But actually, I'm not sure all of this is really relevant: I've already pointed out the FAQs and the Challenge email. So I really don't understand what your beef with JREF or the MDC is in this particular case.
Pro7 said:
In other words, the claimant. Okay, I follow.
Pro7 said:
Okay, I follow that you are, in fact, referring to the same thing that I am when talking about the negotiation phase of designing the protocol. Still, I don't understand your beef with JREF in this regard. Although I may not, as yet, agree that JREF is legally obliged to provide assistance to a potential claimant (I need to see the law to which you're referring), they actually do, in the form of the things I have referenced before. JREF is not unwilling to provide help to claimants. So what is the problem?
What I do gather is that you believe that the very existance of the MDC is meaningless, because you believe that there are no such thing as paranormal abilities. However, your statement "there are no such thing as paranormal abilities" is not provable. Lack of proof does no constitute disproof. We can only disprove a particular claimant's claim, in the form of an unsuccessful test.
So again, could you clarify? We seem to have shifted from "the MDC is pointless because these powers don't exist" to some kind of extremely convoluted discussion of points of laws meaning to demonstrate...what? You say:
Pro7 said:
Concrete proof of what? That the Challenge applications/processes that have taken place so far have not been falsified? That any of them aren't made up wholly out of the ether by Randi, Kramer, and Jeff? What proof would satisfy you? I'm sorry to say but am beginning to suspect that none would.
Last edited:
Pro7;2441418Under federal and state laws of contracting said:
Speaking as someone who worked his way through grad school as a contractor -- I am aware of no such law either Federally, generally, or specific to Florida.
I do not believe that this is true.
This is also wrong.
Um,... no, they wouldn't. The person could, of course, deny ever making the threat and claim that the "evidence" of the transcripts had been faked. However, legally speaking, there's no reason to believe the denial; the evidence would probably be accepted and the jury would be asked to make a determination about which party were more credible.
There are also various technical aspects that could be used to confirm the authenticity of the transcripts, but that's a minor point. Although a rather well-paying one for the technical specialists.
Absolutely untrue. The judge is under no obligation to dismiss evidence simply because one party raises unsubstantiated allegations about its accuracy.
It does appear to be your opinion -- but it also appears to be completely without foundation in fact, law, or reality.
OK,
in contracting, do you ever read about "misrepresentations"? when I said "to provide a means"... what do you think that means?
But one problem in this issue, is the direct evidence of such negotiations. As we all know, that electronic communications do not hold up well in a court of a law if it cannot be proven to be factual.
>>This is also wrong.<<
It IS RIGHT.. SHEESH.. If you CANNOT PROVE SOMETHING IN COURT, IT GETS DISMISSED! SIMPLE AS THAT! .. Wow .. are you misunderstanding that ALSO?
>>Um,... no, they wouldn't. The person could, of course, deny ever making the threat and claim that the "evidence" of the transcripts had been faked. However, legally speaking, there's no reason to believe the denial; the evidence would probably be accepted and the jury would be asked to make a determination about which party were more credible.<<
Credibility has NOTHING TO DO with the court system except witnesses. ONLY EVIDENCE -FACTS has to do with the court system.
Which would then force the judge to dismiss the criminal case entirely. The person goes scot free.
>>Absolutely untrue. The judge is under no obligation to dismiss evidence simply because one party raises unsubstantiated allegations about its accuracy. <<
That is TRUE. I must have misspoken that when I said "FORCE the JUDGE".. actually meaning it "MAKES the JUDGE".. sorry.
>>It does appear to be your opinion -- but it also appears to be completely without foundation in fact, law, or reality. <<
When the world reads this, it will make people think Im nuts. Otherwords, you know its true that people will read this. So in my eyes, its a attempt to criticize me and to put negative pressure on me. simple as that. I dont need to read your negative tones.
Last edited:
Well GUYS..
I just had enough of all of this bullcrap.. I think JREF IS BS. I REFUSE to pressure on with this topic as IM TRYING TO HELP JREF in a way to UNDERSTAND why I got a beef with them.
I DONT LIKE what drkitten is saying to me BECAUSE its a ATTEMPT to bring me down. Simple as that.
That is WHY MDC WILL ALWAYS FAIL. Because when someone decides to bring litigation to JREF, DONT say that I havent warned you about it.
Sorry, Jacklagirl, that is my final post in JREF Forums. All I have ever encountered is skepticism to the extreme but in a negative way, not positive way.
good bye and have fun with so many idiots who likes to bring people down..
I just had enough of all of this bullcrap.. I think JREF IS BS. I REFUSE to pressure on with this topic as IM TRYING TO HELP JREF in a way to UNDERSTAND why I got a beef with them.
I DONT LIKE what drkitten is saying to me BECAUSE its a ATTEMPT to bring me down. Simple as that.
That is WHY MDC WILL ALWAYS FAIL. Because when someone decides to bring litigation to JREF, DONT say that I havent warned you about it.
Sorry, Jacklagirl, that is my final post in JREF Forums. All I have ever encountered is skepticism to the extreme but in a negative way, not positive way.
good bye and have fun with so many idiots who likes to bring people down..
I have. Simply saying something you don't understand is not a misrepresentation on my part.
In the context you used it, it means absolutely nothing.
This is utter gibberish.
And wrong.
Courts deal with potentially false evidence all the time; it's fundamental to the adversarial system.
Utterly wrong. Questions of credibility and weight come up all the time and are central to the justice system.
Here's an example from Texas, where the court held,
"Chain of custody goes to weight not admissibility.[In the Matter of J.M.A.B.](07-1-7)
On November 30, 2006, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that when the proponent of evidence shows the beginning and the end of the chain of custody, any gaps in between go to the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the evidence."
This is almost exactly the situation you describe. The State mishandled the chain of custody issue, and therefore was unable to prove that the physical evidence as analyzed and presented in court had not been tampered with to the detriment of the defendant. Despite this, the court found that because the state was able to establish a valid beginning and end to the chain, "any gaps in between go to the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the evidence."
Note the boldfaced word. "Credibility" is a direct quotations.
Of course, other examples are legion, to the point of being tiresome.
But the real argument is the rules of evidence themselves. Here is the relevant Federal rule:
In order to get the document into evidence, I simply depose that it's accurate. At this point, the judge will probably rule the document to be admissible unless you can come up with extremely strong evidence of its inaccuracy at the evidence hearing.
That is TRUE. I must have misspoken that when I said "FORCE the JUDGE".. actually meaning it "MAKES the JUDGE".. sorry.
It does not. The judge is under no legal obligation to believe your sworn testimony that the document is inaccurate, any more than he is under a legal obligation to believe the DA's sworn testimony that it's accurate. If you both persist in so testifying, one of you is probably mistaken.... and the judge will almost certainly admit the evidence precisely in order to resolve and make a judgement.
If you want to put the shoe on and loudly proclaim that it fits, that's not my problem.
Yup. Just as they will read your misleading and fallacious argument about the JREF, the JREF MDC, and the ludicrous basis on which you make the argument.
It so happens that your argument is based on a number of entirely false premises. False in law, false in fact, and entirely unrealistic.
Absolutely. It's an attempt to criticize you because you are wrongt, and because I see no reason to let falsehoods propagate.
You can either stay and debate your position, you can learn something, or you can simply slink away like a troll. Apparently....
... you've decided that slinking away is preferable to learning something.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Am I correct in understanding that you are now shifting from the opinion that the MDC is BS to the new opinion that JREF is BS? Or are you still referring to the MDC?
Pro7 said:
I understand that you're trying to make a point here, but I'm afraid you're not being clear about it at all -- I don't understand what your point is, largely because you keep shifting from point to point and making legalistic arguments you can't back up (you still, for example, have not provided reference to a specific federal or state law). Plus, these legalistic arguments and hypothetical situations don't really seem to have direct bearing on the MDC (for example, you mention chat logs, which are technologically rather different from email). So I still don't understand your point. So far you seem to be saying:
1) The MDC is worthless because paranormal abilities do not exist (which is not provable).
2) The JREF is legally obliged to provide some kind of service that they do not provide. What service that is, I don't know, because they DO provide help to claimants, in the form of the FAQs and Challenge email.
3) That the JREF is legally obliged to ensure that a claimant fully understands the terms of the contract, somehow above and beyond the claimant's notarized signature on the contract attesting that this is so. Again, I'd like reference to a law, because I'd love to see a law that requires JREF to be telepathic (which is, essentially, what this argument requires).
2) That it is impossible to prove that any given MDC has been conducted fairly, since all information involved could be faked. I have already explained, I think, why this is highly unlikely -- in fact, given the way that the JREF does business (openly, with all documents stored on file), this smacks of an accusation of a conspiracy. Is that what you're claiming? That JREF is a conspiracy to defraud claimants? Do you have any proof or examples of this ever happening?
Pro7 said:
Pro7, you call yourself a skeptic. If this is so, then you must understand that asking questions is what skeptics do, and that a skeptic should attempt to answer them. Drkitten is simply making counter-assertions, based on his experience, that your information is not correct. Rather than take it personally, as an "attempt to bring you down", you need only counter with a specific citation. Tell us what law you are reading, where it can be located, and what paragraphs you're using as your reference. If the law exists, and you are interpreting it correctly, then we are wrong. Simple as that. It's not a personal attack, just a counter to your argument. A skeptic should not fear debate.
Pro7 said:
Again, you still haven't made it clear how the MDC will fail. Fail in what? Fail to prove that there is such a thing as paranormal abilities? Heck, I've already told you that I agree with you that that's likely. And if the JREF does willfully and intentionally defraud someone, I certainly hope that JREF will face litigation. I just don't see how the MDC is set up to defraud people.
Pro7 said:
Um, again, when have I ever been extremely negative? What does that mean? People have disagreed with you (as I have, on some specific points of yours), but that is not extremely negative. If your definition of "extremely negative" is "disagreeing with me", then I hope that at some point you learn different. Being wrong -- as well as being right, when backed up by the evidence -- can only make you stronger and more intellectually resilient.
Edited to add: P.S. yes, there are some jackholes on this board. But again, if you know what you know and have evidence to back it up, then everything they say can be safely countered. If they're rude, they can be safely ignored (we're not ALL rude here). And if you're wrong, then you can learn something. Win-win-win.
Last edited:
No, it won't. You'll be back.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
If I'm not mistaken, this is why judges are called "judges". : )
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
So, if I understand this correctly, this whole thread has arisen because the MDC is worded in american english, and does not come with a whole back-up interweb all of its own to cover all eventualities.
This guy's friend was not very good at english, and struggled to follow the information, and this is somehow the JREF's fault? He couldn't show some initiative and get it translated, or send a simple email to the JREF to ask for assistance?
Pro7's 'beef' with the JREF is ridiculous. How would they span everything? First they would have to have the information translated into every language that is used in the world. Then, if I read Pro7's point properly, they should also have answers for every single question that might be raised about it - from the definition of 'contract', to contact information for anyone in the world who can assist with negotiations or pre-Test-testing / affidavits, etc.
I don't understand people who can't just ask when something is unclear to them - or ask the relevant people. I am sure that if Pro7 had approached the correct email enquiry line noted on the challenge, that he would have gotten some useful advice or information for his friends.
Likewise he could have started this thread in a different way - along the lines of "I have a friend who might qualify for the challenge, but we need help translating the information into Nez Perce - can anyone help?". I am always amazed at the wide range of expert knowledge available on this forum, and also at the negative attitudes of many people from the get-go.
This guy's friend was not very good at english, and struggled to follow the information, and this is somehow the JREF's fault? He couldn't show some initiative and get it translated, or send a simple email to the JREF to ask for assistance?
Pro7's 'beef' with the JREF is ridiculous. How would they span everything? First they would have to have the information translated into every language that is used in the world. Then, if I read Pro7's point properly, they should also have answers for every single question that might be raised about it - from the definition of 'contract', to contact information for anyone in the world who can assist with negotiations or pre-Test-testing / affidavits, etc.
I don't understand people who can't just ask when something is unclear to them - or ask the relevant people. I am sure that if Pro7 had approached the correct email enquiry line noted on the challenge, that he would have gotten some useful advice or information for his friends.
Likewise he could have started this thread in a different way - along the lines of "I have a friend who might qualify for the challenge, but we need help translating the information into Nez Perce - can anyone help?". I am always amazed at the wide range of expert knowledge available on this forum, and also at the negative attitudes of many people from the get-go.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Really. It was funny to finally find out what all the posturing and anger was about. What a simple (relatively speaking) thing to solve! I doubt his friend is the only Nez Perce-speaker who's needed to negotiate and sign an English-written contract, and translators must surely be available.
Or we could just go with Pro7's logic that any contract open to residents world-wide that's not written in Nez Perce is therefore a scam. I think I'll start by initiating a class action suit against MasterCard...
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I guess rather than concentrating on JREF, perhaps he should start with the Nez Perce Official Website first, 'cos these bigots have unfairly written the whole site in ENGLISH!!!!.
Sorry - Pro7's protestations are quite lame.
It's fairly obvious that Pro7 doesn't have a leg to stand on, but there's another very important way that he's wrong which I don't think anyone has pointed out yet. His entire arguments rests on the fact that the JREF has certait contracual obligations to applicants. However, as far as I understand it, there is no contract until after a protocol has been agreed. Negotiations are simply negotiations towards a contract. The JREF cannot possibly have any contractual obligations before a contract exists.
In addition, I'd say that anyone who finds that two FAQs, a challenge adminastrator, Randi himself and a whole forum full of helpful people isn't enough help is probably past helping anyway.
In addition, I'd say that anyone who finds that two FAQs, a challenge adminastrator, Randi himself and a whole forum full of helpful people isn't enough help is probably past helping anyway.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Oh, heck, is that what this was all about? I totally missed that. Jeez. All that blathering on about contractual obligations and stuff...when all it would take is to say "my buddy doesn't understand..can you help?" [shakes head]
I guess it didn't occur to Pro7 to even ask. Obviously, if his/her friend doesn't understand something, it must be paranormal!
Sheesh.
Good point, Cuddles, btw -- no agreement, no contract. Although the signatures on the contract would, I imagine, legally mean that all parties involve understand what they're doing...