Interesting JE Hits....

SteveGrenard said:
The evidence Claus is in the very document you pointed to. The blacked out lines. There are two possibilities:

No, there are three: The third being that the donating part does not want his/her name out. Which is fair enough. Howver, the black lines do not hide the name of anybody.

SteveGrenard said:
With those lines blacked out I have no evidence of any of this but the existence of the blacked out lines adds fuel to the speculation.

Thank you. You only have speculation. No evidence.

SteveGrenard said:
If Randi unequivocally states JREF owns those bonds and they were issued by so and so it will go a long way in helping to promote applicants for the challenge. I am sure you will agree this would be a very positive step.

The black lines are there to prevent people from knowing the actual account number - for obvious reasons. The account is for JREF. That means the money belongs to JREF.

Yet another attempt of yours to smear JREF has failed. You never seem to give up, Steve. Nor do I.
 
tbk,
....Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....


Here is what Randi said to Sylvia on the testing protocols, read it carefully.. you'll see that it's not just Randi that selects the participants.

Well, I have a proposed test, approved by people at Harvard and at MIT, that would clearly test whether you're simply doing a guessing game, or that you have the powers you claim to have. May I suggest that process to you?

I suggest that we advertise ¡ª via the Internet ¡ª perhaps even on Larry's web page, if that would be possible, Larry ¡ª for ten persons who would be willing to be subjects for this test, done via telephone. Each one would have to attest in writing that (a) they believe in your powers, Sylvia, (b) that they believe you can do a genuine spiritual reading, and (c) that they've had a personal loss of a loved one within the last year. At a date and time convenient to you ¡ª and I know how very busy you are ¡ª we would randomly select one of those ten persons ¡ª by choosing a number from a hat. Then, either you would call us or we would call you ¡ª your choice ¡ª you'd be given the gender, name, and age of the chosen subject, and you would do a reading over the telephone without getting feedback, that is, without doing questions-and-answers or asking for guesses to be accepted or refused. That reading could take a minute or two, or as much as half an hour ¡ª again, Sylvia, your choice, so that you could be sure that you've made "connection" with the subject.

When the reading is finished, you would so indicate, and the subject would then be asked to give a score to the reading, from zero to ten points. Following that, we would contact, again in random order, each of the other nine persons for whom the reading was not done, and present them with either a transcript of the reading, or an audio tape of it, for them to also score from zero to ten.

Now, we should expect that the person for whom the reading was done would obtain a score, say, from six through ten, and ¡ª unless my "guessing game" scenario is correct ¡ª the other nine for whom the reading was not done, would have scores of zero to five. But, to simplify all this, in order to beat 50-to-1 odds ¡ª which is much better than the thousand-to-one odds we usually require for such a test! ¡ª eight of those scores would have to be less than the score given by the person for whom the reading was actually done.

I point out to you, that the person chosen to have the reading would be a believer in Sylvia's powers, and would therefore be expected to be sympathetic to her success. Please note, Sylvia would be provided with complete identifications on each of these persons, so that she could fully check out their credentials. And one more thing: we would have an independent party, approved by both sides, present at all procedures, and everything would be videotaped, and the original videotape would be retained by that independent party. It could be someone from your staff, if you wished, Larry, and if Sylvia approved, of course.
 
Clancie said:
The only belief that it challenges is my belief that the test should be (1) scientifically sound and (2) fair.

It doesn't need to be scientific. All it needs to do is to be agreed by both parties.

It needs to be fair, sure. Please point out where it is not fair.

Clancie said:
A big charge, tbk. Specifics, please? How have I -specifically- "misrepresented" anything about the Sylvia test? What did I say that is untrue? You can't just accuse me of that without providing specifics.

Don't make me fire up that search engine.... ;)

Clancie said:
Randi presented the terms of his test to Sylvia and she agreed. She did not, technically, "help to design it".

Yes, she did. Randi suggested some things, and she agreed to all of them. Read about what happened in the article by Bryan Farha, "Dodge Ball Deluxe - The Sylvia Browne Chronology"

Clancie said:
Sylvia's participation or not really is irrelevant. The test Randi designed for her to take is very flawed (for reasons I've given) and is not scientifically sound. We may disagree on why that is, but I haven't seen you contradict any specficis of my criticism or explain why, in fact, it is a very good test of paranormal ability.

It doesn't really matter. Sylvia claims paranormal powers. Randi suggests a test. Sylvia agrees. Sylvia then ignores Randi completely.
 
C: The black lines are there to prevent people from knowing the actual account number - for obvious reasons. The account is for JREF. That means the money belongs to JREF.


The account number is at the top of the page and is partially blacked out. I am not referring to that line . I am referring to the asset allocation. One short, one long blacked out line below.
If these are account numbers so be it.

The question remains then: Randi has always said these are bonds, these assets are being held as bonds. These are a perfectly good investment vehicle so why doesn't he simply tell us
what the name of the company's whose bonds JREF owns is? Maybe we'd like to buy some too.
 

Reply: I did not say or imply deception on Randi's part but since you now mention it, the thought will cross everyone's mind. He is, after all, a self-admitted liar, cheater, charlatan and trickster.


Now you imply it even more. You are a disguisting individual to resort to this kind of ad-hominem. Randi's "self admittance" lies only in the context of his prestigidation, yet you'll want to apply it to all aspects of his life in order to discredit him and his organisation.


Randi doesnt have to coach the others actually and he knows it


Why is that?


What Browne has to do, even if she gets 100% accuracy for the person she reads, is make sure somehow that nothing she tells the person she reads is true of the people she doesn't read. Now that IS NOT her claim. It is Randi's demand. It is my understanding that Randi will not budge on this condition and she does not want to back down either and withdraw as someone suggested she could do in order to have her clock removed. I guess there is some clock policy, procedure and protocol somewhere that Claus checked.


LOL. The test is to show if she's making general assertions about the people she reads, general enough that they apply to everyone. That's what cold-reading is, that's what's being tested.. whether Sylvia is cold-reading or not. If she's not, her readings could be so specific that they would apply to only that one person, right? Wow, you're stupid.


They set a statistical cut off point which Randi claims to have consulted statisticians on but it is quite high as I recall (I havent read the offer in awhile). It is still absurd and I cannot blame Browne or anyone else from going on a fool's errand with this challenge.


LOL. It's only absurdly high to people that don't have superpowers. If Sylvia had superpowers, she should easily be able to pass the test.

Damn.. you must really hate logic.
 
Steve, I think I've asked this before, but do Walsh and Winbow have websites? I can't find any info on them. Is Winbow in London? How does one contact these trance mediums? You can PM me if you don't want to post on the thread...thanks. I'm interested in having the experience of being read by a trance medium.
 
SteveGrenard said:
The question remains then: Randi has always said these are bonds, these assets are being held as bonds. These are a perfectly good investment vehicle so why doesn't he simply tell us what the name of the company's whose bonds JREF owns is? Maybe we'd like to buy some too.

Huh?? What difference does that make? What happened to your previous "two possibilities"?? Abandoned those because you failed to provide evidence of your allegations?

You're a real piece of work, Steve.
 
tbk,

Is it fair to say that you had to post the long quote from Randi because you are unable to address any of the points I've raised, one by one, yourself?

Apart from that, some time after his LKL appearance, Randi mentioned here that he "already had enough volunteers" for the reading. So...he did not use LKL as an intermediary, and had somehow selected the participants himself.

Tell me, tbk....Would you let Sylvia unilaterally select 10 people to participate (knowing that all the scoring rules are already published. thereby allowing people to consciously determine the results? No? You wouldn't want Sylvia to choose the 10 participants because she'd be biased? Then why should Randi? He also has a vested interest in the outcome and can hardly be considered unbiased.
 
No Claus. Think again., My FIRST and now my last question is the same: what is the name of the issuer of the bonds. You introduced all these other issues which I was perfectly happy to entertain but they do not change the fact I suggested releasing the name of the bond issuer.
 
RC said:
Steve, I think I've asked this before, but do Walsh and Winbow have websites? I can't find any info on them. Is Winbow in London? How does one contact these trance mediums? You can PM me if you don't want to post on the thread...thanks. I'm interested in having the experience of being read by a trance medium.

No they do not. They work in total obscurity, are both elderly and probably not computer savvy at all. See you PM for more information.
 
SteveGrenard said:
No Claus. Think again., My FIRST and now my last question is the same: what is the name of the issuer of the bonds. You introduced all these other issues which I was perfectly happy to entertain but they do not change the fact I suggested releasing the name of the bond issuer.

Write to JREF, then.
 
SteveGrenard said:
...snip...

Also: Can anyone tell me the name on the million in bonds Randi has tucked away somewhere? I am sure if he published this information he would eliminate a lot of speculation and get many more applicants by this simple action alone. Funny nobody willing to tackle this. Wonder why? What does Randi have to hide? Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face. It worries people when it comes to serious issues like this whether he likes it or not.

Can you show me where Randi states he is "charlatan"? A trickster yes, because he was and is a magician...
 
Clancie said:
tbk,

Why shouldn't the preliminary tests (which no one has ever passed, interestingly), be scientific as well? Why save the "science" for the final and use....what, exactly instead?...for the preliminary?

Preliminary or final...both tests should be scientifically credible and completely fair. However, how fair is this? .

....Participants known to Randi not Sylvia...selected by Randi...9 of them knowing they haven't been read, yet scoring the results "as if" they have...the "statistics" used to evaluate the scoring (totally arbitrary statistics, cited as if they are mathematically sound, when in reality they are based on nothing at all...just Randi's claim)....

Why would anyone want to participate in a scientifically flawed and statistically unsupportable preliminary test just in the hope that the obvious flaws of the design would not eliminate them and that they would somehow be able to get to take a "better" and more scientific "final test" in the future?


At the moment this is a hypothetical discussion as the test itself is still a proposal - lets wait and see if SB ever accepts ANY challenge...
 
Clancie said:
[...snip...

Randi presented the terms of his test to Sylvia and she agreed. She did not, technically, "help to design it".

Sylvia's participation or not really is irrelevant. The test Randi designed for her to take is very flawed (for reasons I've given) and is not scientifically sound. We may disagree on why that is, but I haven't seen you contradict any specficis of my criticism or explain why, in fact, it is a very good test of paranormal ability. [/B]

Not quite the full picture, the details of the test had not been hammered out when SB accepted to take the challenge.
 
Darat said:
Can you show me where Randi states he is "charlatan"? A trickster yes, because he was and is a magician...

Discussed here

No verification whatsoever, but lots of false claims. Somebody makes a remark, it is quoted again and again, and suddenly, it achieves validity.

We have seen this happen to Hyman's quotes, as well. Incidentally by Steve Grenard, also. He quoted Hyman out of context, to show that Hyman supported Steve's ideas.

Hyman did exactly the opposite. One cannot trust Steve in anything.
 


Not quite the full picture, the details of the test had not been hammered out when SB accepted to take the challenge

Darat,

Randi added the scoring details unilaterally afterwards. Is that what you mean? He has laid out all the procedures and evaluation here and never mentioned that it was not going to happen (if it ever does) exactly as stated.

edited to add:

Sylvia is on record as accepting the Challenge prelim test (well, Randi didn't call it that at all on LKL). She clearly said "Yes".
 
Clancie said:

Darat,

Randi added the scoring details unilaterally afterwards. Is that what you mean? He has laid out all the procedures and evaluation here and never mentioned that it was not going to happen (if it ever does) exactly as stated.

edited to add:

Sylvia is on record as accepting the Challenge prelim test (well, Randi didn't call it that at all on LKL). She clearly said "Yes". [/B]

I will reserve final judgment on the validity of the testing until after it has happened.
 
Darat -- in answer to your question, first define charlatan. In response to the entire subject matter, I forward the following;
the connection is there if you see it.

The second front is garrisoned by professional magicians, the most famous of which is James Randi, founder and promoter of JREF (James Randi Educational Forum). His website proclaims, "James Randi has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Randi is an accomplished illusionist and trickster. That is, his glib delivery and skills of misdirection are outstanding. Yet, his behavior is ethically corrupt. When a magician such as Randi performs on stage, his deceit is entirely ethical because he and his audience enter into a tacit agreement. Spectators expect to be fooled, and the performer expects to entertain. This agreement works well when the performer tells a lie such as, "I'm holding in my hand a new deck of ordinary playing cards." The spectators don't say, "I don't believe it." Instead, they suspend their disbelief to enjoy the show. Then, say, the magician pushes a cigarette through a "randomly chosen card." The majority of spectators will enjoy the illusion, knowing that they've been tricked but not caring. But a spectator with a scientific turn of mind might ask how the trick works. After a quick search on the internet, he or she can link to a dealer of magic tricks and find the "Cigarette thru card" trick for sale. Clearly, there's nothing unethical about any of that.

However, Randi has broken the tacit agreement by creating illusions off-stage under the guise of investigating and debunking paranormal phenomena. The people he aims to fool have not agreed to be tricked, nor does he tell them he's doing it. On the contrary, he claims he's a serious investigator. It's ludicrous because he uses deception from the start, and that's a serious ethical problem. In fact, this type of unethical behavior is the reason con games are illegal when they are intended to swindle victims of their money.

Is Randi's con game deliberate? Judging from his own words, it is. He candidly identifies himself as a professional trickster in his online commentary of 8/3/01 in response to the remark, "Randi is a professional trickster whose life's work is to fool people." He wrote, "Here we have two 'doctors' ... who resent my being a professional trickster (how could we function without lawyers or politicians, smartypants?)."

In short, not only critical thinkers, but Randi himself, recognize the absurdity of claiming to evaluate serious scientific work in terms of the methods of tricksters. Nevertheless, scientists and lay persons alike are regularly duped by this showman.
 
CFLarsen said:


Discussed here

No verification whatsoever, but lots of false claims. Somebody makes a remark, it is quoted again and again, and suddenly, it achieves validity.

We have seen this happen to Hyman's quotes, as well. Incidentally by Steve Grenard, also. He quoted Hyman out of context, to show that Hyman supported Steve's ideas.

Hyman did exactly the opposite. One cannot trust Steve in anything.

I agree - I've many of Randi's books and I've searched the archives and "charlatan" seems to be a word Randi uses for someone who frauds someone, I can't find any record of this "self-confessed" phrase.

However I am sure Steve (knowing his views on litigation) would not risk making such a statement if he couldn't prove it. Steve - can you provide proof that Randi has "self-confessed" to being a charlatan?
 
SteveGrenard said:
Darat -- in answer to your question, first define charlatan. In response to the entire subject matter, I forward the following;
the connection is there if you see it.
..snip...

No Steve I will not define "charlatan" it does not matter how you or I define charlatan.

I will remind you of your words

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
…snip…

Remember, Randi is a self-confessed trickster and charlatan. He freey admts it to your face.


...snip…


No ambiguity about this, now please provide the proof you have of a statement from Randi where he says, in his own words that he is a "charlatan".

(Edited to remove an "or")
 

Back
Top Bottom