• 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.

Changes To The Challenge

Jref needs to be more sexy!!! Auras, pendelums, spirits, ghosthunting and all the other bs is sexy. It is more exiting then "no, it doesn't work". Bs should be shameful and not sexy. We should always tell the religious that God hates psychics. It is in the bible. Not so sexy to buy things from the devil.

"Did you see Derek Acorah yesterday? He is great! It´s true! :)"
"God hates Derek and all psychics. They will burn in hell forever along with their customers and fans. It is in the bible."

Not so sexy arguing for Derek then...
 
Thank you for the update, Jeff.

I understand JREF's argumentation.

Personally, I would prefer to see the Challenge open to anyone, with as much transperence to the process as possible. But even as a regular forum member I most likely do not know enough about what really goes on behind the walls of the JREF.

Of course, this change will resound with outcries in the world of "creative perception". Lots of bandwidth on numerous fora will be used to bash JREF. I would not expect it any other way.

I am curious to see JREF's next steps - and if they will be crowned with success.

I wish you well, esteemed JREF Staff. Go get 'em!
 
It looks to me like this is a case of determining where to best spend the limited resources available. I am assuming that what has been holding the JREF back in the past from being a real thorn in the side of high profile psychics and faith healers etc. it the ongoing requirements of testing the myriad dowsers and etc. that apply. Or even getting the applicants in a position to where there is a protocol that can be tested. If that is the case, I agree with the slight change in direction. The value of the open public challenge has perhaps run its course.

You haven't stated how you plan on being more of a thorn, but if I may humbly make a brief suggestion: Come up with some test protocols in advance. Make them as simple as possible, without risking the intengrity of the test. Make it known that the applicant may request changes to the protocol, but have a concrete starting point. The whole "protocols are designed with the applicant" thing is nice, but it gives people wiggle room to say stuff like "Randi will always have an out". If you propose a protocol going in, but say it is NOT set in stone, you force Sylvia or whoever to point out the problems they have with the protocol - you put the ball in thier court to specifically say why the challenge isn't fair.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Why don't we all show up at sylvias front door holding signs with the Clock count down since Larry King, and rave until the media shows up and she's forced to take the challange. Then we can move to John Edwards house.
 
Plastictowel said:
Why don't we all show up at sylvias front door holding signs with the Clock count down since Larry King, and rave until the media shows up and she's forced to take the challange. Then we can move to John Edwards house.
Click to expand...

If I am gonna bother showing up on her lawn, I would bring rather more than a sign.....
 
Thanz said:
You haven't stated how you plan on being more of a thorn, but if I may humbly make a brief suggestion: Come up with some test protocols in advance. Make them as simple as possible, without risking the intengrity of the test. Make it known that the applicant may request changes to the protocol, but have a concrete starting point. The whole "protocols are designed with the applicant" thing is nice, but it gives people wiggle room to say stuff like "Randi will always have an out". If you propose a protocol going in, but say it is NOT set in stone, you force Sylvia or whoever to point out the problems they have with the protocol - you put the ball in thier court to specifically say why the challenge isn't fair.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You can't do that. You have to go with what people actually claim they can do.

If you want to reduce the wiggle room, this is definitely the wrong way to do it. It has to something that is mutually agreed upon.

Don't give them any excuse for failing to apply.
 
CFLarsen said:
You can't do that. You have to go with what people actually claim they can do.

If you want to reduce the wiggle room, this is definitely the wrong way to do it. It has to something that is mutually agreed upon.

Don't give them any excuse for failing to apply.
Click to expand...

I haven't given this as much thought as is probably warranted, but it seems to me that if you are going to have an "offensive" challenge, then nobody "applies" to take it. YOU are the one CHALLENGING Browne or whomever to do X,Y, and Z based upon their stated abilities. Having an airtight "no wiggle room" formulation is not paramount because we know SB and her ilk will NEVER take the Challenge anyway.

What the JREF is presumably trying to do is USE that fact to their advantage (like the Sylvia clock) and reformulate the Challenge in such a way as to maximally benefit the JREF and its mission.

If the Challenge is going to have any use as a publicity device/offensive weapon it must make the public think, "Gee, yeah...why doesn't Sylvia Browne accept that Challenge...it seems she could easily do what they are asking."

We have to start thinking of the Challenge in terms of public relations and benefit to the JREF (financial, social, educational, etc...)... not as a "real" challenge that anyone ever expects will be "won" or "lost" by Sylvia Browne.
 
I think this is a bad idea. I've always used the challenge to browbeat woo-woos; it's been a great weapon. Now they'll just say that Randi's running scared of them.
 
Before ya'll come to too many conclusions, I'd suggest waiting until the formal announcement is made.

I've heard a bit more than what is public at the moment and I am pretty pumped.
 
Kimpatsu said:
I think this is a bad idea. I've always used the challenge to browbeat woo-woos; it's been a great weapon. Now they'll just say that Randi's running scared of them.
Click to expand...
That, I think is a very good point. Why not do both? JREF could make use of this forum for the "everyday" claimants. Anyone getting past the members would be well worth a look.
 
Agree with Kimpatsu. We know Browne and co. won't take the challenge. Unless being proactive means kidnapping them and torturing them until they agree to take a test, this will result in no tests whatsoever. And it'll remove a huge skeptic tool. "You can do that? Fine. Do it, and get a million bucks. What's the matter, don't you want a million bucks?"
 
Have patience, Skiltch. Wait to hear the 'how', first.

Just because you don't immediately think of a way to do this, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
 
Kimpatsu said:
I think this is a bad idea. I've always used the challenge to browbeat woo-woos; it's been a great weapon. Now they'll just say that Randi's running scared of them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll find a new 'weapon' with which to 'browbeat' people. :rolleyes:
 
Skiltch said:
Agree with Kimpatsu. We know Browne and co. won't take the challenge. Unless being proactive means kidnapping them and torturing them until they agree to take a test, this will result in no tests whatsoever. And it'll remove a huge skeptic tool. "You can do that? Fine. Do it, and get a million bucks. What's the matter, don't you want a million bucks?"
Click to expand...

The problem is what does that get you? How much does that benefit the JREF and its mission? It's a cost/benefit analysis. Sure, the Challenge is a great gotcha! tool for the skeptic confronting the woo-woo. But so what? In the end, the woo-woo is still a woo-woo and the skeptic is still a skeptic, and there is a HUGE cost to the JREF in terms of manpower, time, and aggrevation. Hopefully the new Challenge will be formulated to 1) more effectively publicize the JREF, 2) reach a broader population than confirmed skeptics/woo-woos, and 3) better persuade that broader population to give more credence to the skeptical position.
 
It gets the fence-sitters. The people who are thinking "I dunno, it's kind of odd, but maybe homeopathy really does work. Maybe Miss Ova over there really can see the future." The people who aren't closed off to rational thinking entirely but who are naive or don't know the track reccord of such things. This is who we're abandoning. Now the challenge is going to three groups of people -- us, the big shots, and the audiences of the big shots, who are already pretty far into woo-woo and will be harder to sway.
That said, Scotth has a point, and I'll reserve further judgement/complaining until learning how the proactiveness is going to work.
 
Skiltch said:
It gets the fence-sitters. The people who are thinking "I dunno, it's kind of odd, but maybe homeopathy really does work. Maybe Miss Ova over there really can see the future." The people who aren't closed off to rational thinking entirely but who are naive or don't know the track reccord of such things. This is who we're abandoning. Now the challenge is going to three groups of people -- us, the big shots, and the audiences of the big shots, who are already pretty far into woo-woo and will be harder to sway.
Click to expand...

I disagree, there is a far greater chance of reaching that vast, uncommitted public by focusing on the big shots (in essence, "piggybacking" on their fame) than spending time and energy on unknown applicants. John Q. Public doesn't know who Lou Gentile is, but they sure know of Sylvia Browne.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, focusing on the big shots will make it more likely that media outfits will choose to carry stories re the Challenge, thus bringing the JREF's message (and it's very existence!) to that broader audience. The media wouldn't be nearly so inclined to write up that some random person refuses to take the JREF Challenge.

That said, Scotth has a point, and I'll reserve further judgement/complaining until learning how the proactiveness is going to work.
Click to expand...
Don't know that I have that kind of restraint, but I agree with the sentiment!
 
Last edited:
Jeff Wagg said:
Why are we doing this? One is that we get dozens of applications every week. It takes a LOT of time to go through them all. The vast majority of these are from people suffering from mental illness.
Click to expand...
You know, if you formalized section 4.2 of the FAQ (especially paragraph 4), you would not have to deal with people suffering from mental illness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom