Interesting JE Hits....

[SteveGrenard]

LOKI: Exactly Steve - you're "hanging around" intellectually with Sylvia, and becoming "like her".

LOL......bite your tongue. It may well be impossible to hang around wth SB intellectually. It first requires some inellect.

 

[Loki]

Steve,

It may well be impossible to hang around wth SB intellectually. It first requires some inellect.

Since you made me laugh, I'm prepared to accept that you mean that Sylvia has no intellect, rather than you have no intellect!

I'm at work at the moment...so here's the delayed reply to your previous post :

This is not politics Loki.

No, actually, wth Sylvia and Larry King and Randi it's *exactly* about politics (re marketing), and nothing more. Randi knows this. You *should* know this (I thinkn youn do!). Sylvia wants to pretend it's not - and you taint yourself by pretending that there's anything more at stake here.

This is not about whether SB is a fraud or a fake. Its about what's right.

Stopping fraud is wrong?

Randi duped her.

Nope - they were playing "the game", and both knew it.

This doesn't mean she's the real deal.

We are in complete agreement.

This doesn't make it alright for someone to pull a fast one over an applicant for the JREF Challenge.

Oh please ... are you seriously suggesting that Sylvia intended to be tested? She knew all along what game she was playing - it's politics, nothing else.

 

[SteveGrenard]

When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant. For JREF, the Challenge, its integrity and hopefully for many but I know not all of us here, it is NOT politics. Politics taints
the Challenge. Changing the passing grade after the fact as Randi allegedly did is tainting the process. It gives SB an excuse to play her game. Randi should not give any applicant an excuse but he does so consistently. I know perfectly well it is politics for SB and her ilk, but I like to think that some of us are above that and at the end of the day SB and her minions can point no fingers
which is exactly what she is doing and Randi doesnt have a good enough answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant.

No, you did not explain yourself in a way that made it clear what you meant. Don't be so quick to blame others for your own flaws.

 

[Darat]

When I said this was not politics, you misinterpreted what I meant. For JREF, the Challenge, its integrity and hopefully for many but I know not all of us here, it is NOT politics. Politics taints
the Challenge. Changing the passing grade after the fact as Randi allegedly did is tainting the process. It gives SB an excuse to play her game. Randi should not give any applicant an excuse but he does so consistently. I know perfectly well it is politics for SB and her ilk, but I like to think that some of us are above that and at the end of the day SB and her minions can point no fingers
which is exactly what she is doing and Randi doesnt have a good enough answer.

I've often wondered about this since I've not seen anything myself but what has SB or her "minions" said about the challenge?

 

[Ersby]

One of her minions, Victor Zammit, says on his website http://www.victorzammit.com/ :

SYLVIA BROWNE the medium - ... closed-minded skeptic Randi keeps poking fun at every week is the same medium I advised NOT to be tested by Randi. This is because my investigations show that Zwinge Randi is NOT genuine, his offer is absolute rubbish and she would be set up to fail the test. Go peddle your rubbish somewhere else Zwinge Randi - leave Slyvia alone.

Anyone familiar with the editorial style of UK newspapers The Sun or The Star would be hard pressed not to read that without laughing.

Zammit also says, apropos of absolutely nothing:

DEAD SKEPTICS - all dressed up and nowhere to go.

Truly bizarre. And often very funny.

 

[Loki]

Darat,

I've often wondered about this since I've not seen anything myself but what has SB or her "minions" said about the challenge?

I don't have any referenes handy, but Sylvia has been on LKL live since the appearance with Randi, and I believe that both there and on her web site she has (a) cast doubt on whether the million dollars actually exists and (b) claimed that she doesn't have the time to be tested. It must be so time consuming seeing into the future so she can state that "John Travolta has to be very careful flying his plane in February" as she did back in 2000.

Of course, that was the year that also gave us the following amazing insights from Sylvia :

"Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston get married, but it lasts for only a short time." - well, I suppose 3 years and counting might be "a short time";

"Gwyneth Paltrow marries an older man who is in the entertainment business, but not as well known as she." - In fact, he's so 'Not well known" that no one knows this has happened!

"David Letterman decides to call it quits from his nightly late show after this year." - Eventually, yes!

"Courtney Cox will get pregnant this year and have a baby boy."
- Well, only 3 years off, or perhaps it's a long pregnancy?

"NASA finally cuts back on the space program realizing that every time they send up a space vehicle they are tearing the ozone layer." - The Ozone layer fights back.

"The midwestern U.S. has a big uprising because of some kind of polluted waste hazard. This has not been recognized at this point, but begins to surface around Branson." - An uprising?

"There is going to be a very definite detection of mines and some bombs that have not been detonated off the coast of Hawaii." - Un detonated bombs off the coast of Hawaii? Surfing can be dangerous!

"Train wrecks will occur in France and England causing quite a bit of devastation in May." - Any train wrecks in France or England in May 2000, Darat?

Gee, but she's good!

 

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I do not have a scanned copy of the forms at home nor polciies, procedures and regs at home so will be happy to privately e-mail to anyone next week as I probably have digital copies on diskette in the lab where I am not.

Monday, then, Steve. We need to see those forms.

I see Steve posted HIPAA fines and penalties, but not the agreement he would have Claus sign. Steve, please post the agreement in its entirety, I would like to read it. I am sure you must have a copy- what would you have Claus sign otherwise? Thanks!

Edited in this link- check this thread out, some interesting comments on HIPAA and contracts.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870045004#post1870045004

 

[SteveGrenard]

The agreement is known as a HIPAA Compliant Business Associates Agreement. I have looked at several we have today. They must be drawn up between two entities on an individual
basis therefore there is no boilerplate or standardized version of this which I can send. The subject matter covered goes to 4 single spaced pages and I do not intend to have an agreement drawn up for anyone's curiosity at this point. The agreements I happen to have are confidential themselves by their nature so it is impossible to release them as an attachment on a forum such as this.

I will see if I can find an example on the web for your interest and information.

 

[PinkRabbit]

Please answer the question: Do you have any evidence that such a third party exists and that what you describe is possible?


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

1) The bonds remain in the name of the donor's account so this is why they are blacked out. I understand why they should be blacked out since the donor wants to remain anonymous. But
if that's the case, why is the original donor's name still on them. There is a mechanism to change the ownership of the bonds and JREF's name should be on them.


2) The blacked out lines are the issuing authority or corporation's name. This is the more likely of the two. What reason is there for JREF to suppress who issued the bonds? None that I can think of unless they are surety bonds and not corporate or public authority bonds.

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. 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.

Actually, there is a third, much stronger possibility, namely that the blocked out information contains additional account reference numbers, and has been blocked out for security reasons (since with those numbers, one might possibly be able to manipulate or steal the money in some manner), just as the account number at the top has been partially blocked out.

It's been awhile since I've done any business with Goldman Sachs, but my memory is that an overview statement like this is simply intended to give gross amounts in each sub-account, and wouldn't typically list the actual bond entities (or stocks, or mutual funds, etc). Further a clue to this likelihood exists in that it's listed as Cash and Cash Equivalents, a broad term that indicates several possible types of holdings being grouped together for ease of reporting. Often these sorts of forms are intended more for tax purposes than as a tool in tracking individual investments (the IRS cares about amounts---it doesn't give a damn who that investment was with).

Investment reports are typically very detailed and contain a lot more information, most of it in incomprehensible legalese.

It's highly likely that Randi gets a more detailed statement that includes a description of how that money is divided up (after all, with that volume of cash, it's entirely likely, it's actually invested in several different bonds), however, even that might not list the actual bond issuers, and given that these are fairly static bonds, may not come more than once a year for tax purposes.

Barb

 

[CFLarsen]

The agreement is known as a HIPAA Compliant Business Associates Agreement. I have looked at several we have today. They must be drawn up between two entities on an individual
basis therefore there is no boilerplate or standardized version of this which I can send. The subject matter covered goes to 4 single spaced pages and I do not intend to have an agreement drawn up for anyone's curiosity at this point. The agreements I happen to have are confidential themselves by their nature so it is impossible to release them as an attachment on a forum such as this.

I will see if I can find an example on the web for your interest and information.

Steve,

I would like to obtain a copy of the CD you will also recieve. Please send me the necessary forms I need to sign.

Are you going to do that or not?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The two lamest excuses for not taking the JREF challenge are surely these:

1) Randi will fix me up to loose

2) Randi does not really have the money

As for #1: The testee gets to take part in designing the test, actually, the testee can design the whole test, if it is acceptably designed. Both parts accept the test protocol in advance. There is no way Randi could fix the test.

As for #2: In theory, this could turn out to be true. Most potential testees keep saying, however, that "it is not the money that is important", and this would be a prime opportunity to vindicate paranormal and destroy the JREF for good: Somebody passing the test and the JREF failing to pay up! To the believer's community, this would certainly be worth more than a million bucks!

Hans

 

[CFLarsen]

1) Randi will fix me up to loose

Kun et "o". Dummerniks!

As for #2: In theory, this could turn out to be true.

In reality, this turns out to be false. The money is there. Or, rather, here.

Most potential testees keep saying, however, that "it is not the money that is important", and this would be a prime opportunity to vindicate paranormal and destroy the JREF for good: Somebody passing the test and the JREF failing to pay up! To the believer's community, this would certainly be worth more than a million bucks!

Yeah, that's what I don't understand either. They seem to really, really loathe Randi, so why not bring him down by passing a test they themselves design?

They are not "vindictive"? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Don't forget the "tainted" money excuse. That has to do more damage to the woowoos than any other excuse. Homeopathic money?? BUWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

(Do skeptics evolve this demonic laughter after dealing with woowoos for a while? Hmmm.... )

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Most potential testees keep saying.................


I didn't know they could talk. That's one paranormal claim I would like to see Randi tackle....

 

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Most potential testees keep saying.................


I didn't know they could talk. That's one paranormal claim I would like to see Randi tackle....

Burned out, drunk, or really this lacking in comprehension?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are ...........................................................................

 

[renata]

Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are ...........................................................................

test·ee ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ts-t)
n.
One who takes or has taken a test.

tes·tis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tsts)
n. pl. tes·tes (-tz)
The reproductive gland in a male vertebrate, the source of spermatozoa and the androgens, normally occurring paired in an external scrotum in humans and certain other mammals.
An analogous gland in an invertebrate animal, such as a hydra or a mollusk.


www.dictionary.com

 

[BillHoyt]

Hoyt: I can't believe you of all people don't compehend what
testees are ...........................................................................

Steve,

I know how to spell. When I have a question, I know how to look it up. When someone else questions me, I think about it and usually look it up. I don't hang myself out to dry like a pair of dangling oval objects after a hot shower.

 

[BillyTK]

Could we avoid the first year undergrad humour by using "participant" instead?

 

[BillHoyt]

Could we avoid the first year undergrad humour by using "participant" instead?

Not to worry, Billy, SG imploded on this one. It remains to be seen if he simply DQ'd us or not...

Cheers,