It does not matter what you believe. It matters what evidence we have.
challenge procedure questions
- Thread starter latent aaaack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mdc
It does not matter what you believe. It matters what evidence we have.
And also, the MDC is nothing but a illusion for con artists and insane people to try for it.
It seems that you argue with closed eyes and a closed mind. The evidence countering your first quote is the history of more than ten years of the MDC. Remind yourself, if you want to, what the E in JREF stands for. And forgive me if my limited abilities make me sound preaching.
You have made your point. Please consider there might be others.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Well, well. Which Pro7 are we conversing with tonight? Is this Pro7's daughter or Dan O. or someone else?
I dont have closed eyes and a closed mind. All there is, is only what there is. Paranormality cannot ever be proven because it doesnt exist. Those who try to prove that paranormality is real, are either deluded, insane, or just completely wacko, not ruling out that they could also be con artists.
Ok.. this is the end of this discussion. I wont go further.
Peace.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Do you have any evidence that Pro7 is more than one physical person? If so please ensure that his fate is the same as Dr Mas. If you like just PM me the details and I can take care of the rest. Or PM Darat and cut out the middle man.
"Cat's in the kettle
Did you ever think, when you eat Chinese
It ain’t pork or chicken but a fat siamese?
Yet the food tastes great, so you don’t complain.
But that’s not chicken in your chicken chow mein.
Seems to me I ordered sweet-and-sour pork
But Garfield’s on my fork.
He’s purrin’ here on my fork.
...
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon
The place that I eat every day at noon.
They can feed you cat and you’ll never know
Once they wrap it up in dough, boys:
They fry it real crisp in dough.
...
Chou Lin asked if I wanted more
As he was dialin’ up his buddy at the old pet store.
I said "Not today. I lost my appetite.
"There’s two cats in my belly and they want to fight."
I was suckin’ on a Rolaid and a Tums or two
When I swear I heard it mew, boys:
And that is when I knew...
...
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon
I think I gotta stop eatin’ there at noon.
They say that it’s beef or fish or pork
But it’s purrin’ there on my fork.
There’s a hair-ball on my fork."
(As performed by Dr. Demento.)
Did you ever think, when you eat Chinese
It ain’t pork or chicken but a fat siamese?
Yet the food tastes great, so you don’t complain.
But that’s not chicken in your chicken chow mein.
Seems to me I ordered sweet-and-sour pork
But Garfield’s on my fork.
He’s purrin’ here on my fork.
...
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon
The place that I eat every day at noon.
They can feed you cat and you’ll never know
Once they wrap it up in dough, boys:
They fry it real crisp in dough.
...
Chou Lin asked if I wanted more
As he was dialin’ up his buddy at the old pet store.
I said "Not today. I lost my appetite.
"There’s two cats in my belly and they want to fight."
I was suckin’ on a Rolaid and a Tums or two
When I swear I heard it mew, boys:
And that is when I knew...
...
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon
I think I gotta stop eatin’ there at noon.
They say that it’s beef or fish or pork
But it’s purrin’ there on my fork.
There’s a hair-ball on my fork."
(As performed by Dr. Demento.)
Last edited:
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
I wish I did. I must admit all I really have is a hunch.
However, Pro7 did state in another thread that he was not the author of some of his posts.
No evidence found! Pro7 could be a person with multiple personalities syndrome!
Anyone who says that is also deluded.
Fixed the link. Don't worry, Dumb All Over.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Don't mind me, Gzuz. I'm just a worrywart.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
Pro7, we've all seen many claims on this board, in various places, that the MDC is unwinnable. You seem to be making this claim.
Could you please specify what leads you to make that claim? You mention that you have a problem with the "mutually agreed-upon protocol". What, in particular, is problematic about it?
Do please check out the Achau Ngyen thread over in the Challenge Apps forum. It's an example of an applicant who actually got to the testing phase. Most tests do fail to get past the protocol negotiation (many fail to even get to that point because the appplicant can't describe his/her ability) -- in other words, JREF and the applicants can't agree on a protocol.
But if you are meaning to imply that JREF and any potential applicant can NEVER agree on a protocol because JREF makes it impossible, please provide me with some specific examples (despite the three mentioned which, in fact, made it past that stage). I have read every thread in the Challenge Apps forum and in no way have I ever gotten the impression that JREF has made protocol design impossible for an applicant. In EVERY case, the applicant simply didn't understand what a properly-controlled, double-blinded test WAS.
So if you can provide some actual, concrete examples of applications that were deliberately torpedoed by JREF in violation of the rules of the Challenge, it would surely help me understand your claim.
Could you please specify what leads you to make that claim? You mention that you have a problem with the "mutually agreed-upon protocol". What, in particular, is problematic about it?
Do please check out the Achau Ngyen thread over in the Challenge Apps forum. It's an example of an applicant who actually got to the testing phase. Most tests do fail to get past the protocol negotiation (many fail to even get to that point because the appplicant can't describe his/her ability) -- in other words, JREF and the applicants can't agree on a protocol.
But if you are meaning to imply that JREF and any potential applicant can NEVER agree on a protocol because JREF makes it impossible, please provide me with some specific examples (despite the three mentioned which, in fact, made it past that stage). I have read every thread in the Challenge Apps forum and in no way have I ever gotten the impression that JREF has made protocol design impossible for an applicant. In EVERY case, the applicant simply didn't understand what a properly-controlled, double-blinded test WAS.
So if you can provide some actual, concrete examples of applications that were deliberately torpedoed by JREF in violation of the rules of the Challenge, it would surely help me understand your claim.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I just followed Jackalgirl over to this thread and I see my name has already come up.
Someone here seems to think that I am the same person as Pro7. I don't know if Pro7 has any alternate identities on this forum. But I do know that I am only myself. I believe that I have provided enough information when signing up for the moderators to identify me as a real person and to see that I have had a significant history on the internet using my real name and email address.
I tolerated the accusations in Pro7's thread. But any further accusations I will consider abuse. If you have any evidence, present it to a moderator.
Someone here seems to think that I am the same person as Pro7. I don't know if Pro7 has any alternate identities on this forum. But I do know that I am only myself. I believe that I have provided enough information when signing up for the moderators to identify me as a real person and to see that I have had a significant history on the internet using my real name and email address.
I tolerated the accusations in Pro7's thread. But any further accusations I will consider abuse. If you have any evidence, present it to a moderator.
Last edited:
autumn1971
Illuminator
I think that the semantic trap we're falling into vis-a-vis Pro7's sniping, is the matter of the word "paranormal". I think (forgive me for trying to get inside another's mind [challenge-worthy?], but the tangential nature of some remarks by Pro7 encourages straw-clutching) that Pro7 is pointing out that any successful, properly controlled test would cross into the realm of the natural upon its completion, thereby negating the finding of "paranormality". In my opinion, Pro7 is either knowingly ignoring the aspect of the challenge that specifies that the methods by which the results are obtained is of no consequence, i.e., a dowser could be using an uncanny ability to detect magnetic fields, or he could be using invisible pixies, the result is what matters, or Pro7 is baiting us by being a skeptic picking a fight over the JREF challenge.
I could be wrong.
But I never think I am.
I could be wrong.
But I never think I am.