MICHAEL ANDA, Audio Critic

[KRAMER]

Thanks Kramer,

Gr8wight became aware of a problem within our protocol regarding its integrity which he has alerted you to. We have a little more work to do to correct this. Presumably this can be dealt with simply by T2 becoming an independent observer. I don't know what is standard practice, but I would like to have my own observer note the GSIC state of each trial. I don't mean to attribute dishonesty to anyone, this request would simply make for one less concern. I am trying to eliminate any cause for concern so that my mind stays fully on the task at hand.

1) Good

2) I really don't see the need for me to touch the discs. Since it appears that I'm not going to get around having an observer present in the room with me and my need for swapping discs would be limited to an unlikely scenario anyway this shouldn't be an issue.

3) I realize that I am not going to find the perfect environment, I would appreciate any input from you that can help reduce distractions.

4) I have a highly tweaked system with loads of accessory products, I can't imagine where any of these would be objectionable, but I simply covering my bases with this request.

5) Gr8wight said that it would be OK for T1 to simply turn his back during this stage.

6) Good

As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential:

1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise

2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after "treatment", eliminates any escape portal here.

3) GSIC covered, not contained.

4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods.

I really can't imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.

Sincerely,
Michael Anda

========================================================

Dear Michael,

So, if you are unable to keep your focus and fix your mind "fully on the task at hand", it'll be because of the protocol, or because of the JREF, or because of the observers, or because of what else? I can only imagine. Sounds like you're ready to offer any number of excuses as to why you failed, if you do. So many that I'm forced to wonder; are you EXPECTING to fail? It sure seems so, if these "concerns" are iny indication.

Having your own observer is fine. Have two.

1 - Good.
2 - Good.
3 - "Distractions" is a relative term. It can mean anything. You'll agree to the test, and agree that no distractions are inherent in the protocol. If something arises upon testing, which we're going to assume it will, we'll do everything within our power to fix it, but we won't change the protocol.
4 - If it's highly "tweaked" already, what's the problem? We never said you couldn't use any of the devices already in your system. We're just saying that the listening test shouldn't require you to tweak further. Set it up however you like prior to testing, but during the test, it's listening and listening ONLY. That's your claim. And just out of curiosity, which "bases" do you refer to here as being covered?
5 - Good.
6 - Also good.

Now, on to the "desires" you see as essential.

1 - It's your home. Is it not peaceful and free of "unneccesary distraction and noise already"? I don't understand why you would tell US this. Do you think we're going to have an American Bandstand party in the next room while you're being tested? Trust that we won't. We guarantee you absolute silence during testing. Do you have a barking dog you're worried about? If so, give him to a neighbor or take him to the pound for the day. Do you live under the interstate thruway, or beside a truck stop? If so, I suggest you offer an alternative location. Crying babies? Nagging spouse? Chattering parrots? These are all your own responsibility, as is anything else already within the environment that you insisted long ago was where you wished to be tested.

Rest assured that you will be asked PRIOR to testing if everything is OK with you, if the test was mutually agreed to, and if it is fair - so, if afterward you offer some excuse as to why the environment wasn't conducive to testing, well, we'll all be finding such a statement to be pretty darn disengenuous. And as regards your request for us to help YOU to create "the perfect environment", well, again, its your house, and if it's not "perfect" (what does "perfect" mean, anyway?), it's certainly not JREF's fault.

2 - When you say, "...and 10 minutes to identify the state after treatment"...does this mean that after you listen to the disc you're going to demand another 10 minutes to sit there and decide? We thought your claim stated that the difference is apparent. No matter. Have your 10 minutes to sit and think.

3 - Whatever. You won't be touching it or looking at the chip OR the disc, anyway.

4- Fine.

Good Luck. Please submit a finalized protocol for Randi's approval, and please don't be surprised if he comes up with something I didn't notice. He's the expert.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

Regarding distractions I simply referring to the JREF induced variety. I, of course, will have to deal with distractions inherit to my own environment. I will be sending my family and dog away on test days. I am not looking for excuses, I am trying to eliminate them.

I do think it takes a certain amount of sensitivity to hear the GSIC effect. The only concern I haven't found a way around is having an observer present in my listening room. I wish I could say this isn't a concern, but it is.

Tweaking my system is what I do for a hobby, this is an ongoing process, really my only concern with this is that I not be asked to remove anything. I will not need to touch anything during the test other than two remote controls.

The test I desire is to listen to a disc untreated for 20 minutes, then apply the GSIC (Active or Spent) then have 10 minutes after the "treatment" to make my determination.

I would like either myself or my observer to see each subject disc prior to playing to see if there are any visible flaws. Not a likely scenario, but I will have a few extra sealed discs on hand to deal with any anomaly.

I apologize if I haven't covered all the subject matter in your email. I have to get to some other tasks right now.

Michael

========================================================

So you can't demonstrate the validity of your claim if someone else in in the room? Then I'd say that according to the Challenge rules you'll be unable to demonstrate your claim. Demonstrations take place before a team of observers. There's no way around this. It is our sincerest wish that you will be able to overcome this anxiety and be tested.

You won't be asked to remove anything in your system. You just won't be allowed to "tweak" during the test.

Why would a "visible flaw" in the disc have any impact on the digital storage therein? This is not a test for inconsistencies in a vinyl LP record - the data is stored digitally in ones and zeros.

I have thousands of cd's and many of them have visible flaws, but they all play just fine, time after time. If a disc skips or is in some way determined to be flawed during the test, you will be permitted to discard it and open a new disc. If you still insist on this "inspection" of the disc for visible flaws that are on just about every disc I've ever seen, the JREF observer and your observer may do so together. Any disc they both agree is "flawed" will be discarded. Any disc they DISagree on will be discarded. You must trust your observer to accomplish this requirement on your behalf. This is a listening test, not an exercise in cd quality control.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

First the applicant assures me that he'll be sending his family and dog away so that he can "focus without any distractions" (after long discussions about his audio equipment and how much time he'll need to fix it and re-tweak it if a tube blows), then he asks me to clarify that the test will be conducted in his home. Yeesh.

=============================================

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I'd like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part.

Michael

==========================================

Your "line of sight"? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.

You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer "cheats". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.

And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?

All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.

Focus on that goal, and you have a much better chance at the prize.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I'll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.

You have never said that I can't use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.

I don't think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?

Michael

==========================================

Stop worrying yourself to death over the as-yet hypothetical final test. Pass the preliminary first. What's your big worry? The final test will be conducted under the same conditions, but you may be required to do better than 9 out of 10, so the test may be longer. OK? Does that satisfy you?

The scientific fact of the matter is that your ears will become more acute and more sensitive if your eyes are shut, anyway, so why not agree to it if it increases your chances of passing the preliminary? Hell, we'd give you the audio equivalent of binoculars if we thought it would help.

It's YOUR "new revelation" about looking at your system that made us wonder WHY...and since we know full well from experience in negotiating with you that you won't see any need to divulge WHY you need to SEE your system, we'll just skip to the chase and install a "blind" (blindfold) between yourself and the system, just to be sure that you won't be seeing something that will clue you in to which disc is playing. The best we can do for you in this regard, if you insist that a blindfold will muck up your "natural environment", would be to physically insert a blind between yourself and the system, while leaving the speakers totally unobstructed.

How's that?

 

[KRAMER]

Newly Revised Protocol

A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.

Materials necessary:

One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs (test discs)

One identical compact disc to be used as a control (control disc)

One sealed compact disc of any title to test working status of active GSIC prior to testing (reference disc)

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC.

Tacky substance to adhere cardboard squares to top of GSICs

Permanent felt tip marker for labelling

Coin

Participants:

JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T2)

Set up:

The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Applicant will have set up audio system to his satisfaction, using whatever audio accessories he deems necessary, prior to beginning of test. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labelled A (active) and S (spent) on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labelled 1 and 2. Applicant will label control disc and retire to listening room with reference disc and the control disc to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to listen to control disc and reference disc as he desires. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labelled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference disc in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.

Test:

The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break for lunch after 5 sessions. Additionally, two fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed, one before and one after the one-hour break, upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test disc to applicant in listening room. T1 will open test disc, examine disc for visible defects and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. During that time, T1 and T2 will choose the GSIC for the session in the following manner. T1 will turn his back, or step out of the room momentarily. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and S=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. T1 will not look under the cardboard square at the GSIC marking. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test disc into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.

Conclusion:

Applicant, and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.

Conditions:

Applicant understands that in addition to T1 and T2, the JREF may have as many as two observers present.

Applicant understands that the test will be videotaped, and that he will be required to make a statement on camera before the test begins, and after the test ends.

Applicant may have as many as two observers present, one of which will be allowed to monitor the selection and recording of the GSICs by T2.

All of the observers and the video camera will remain out of the applicant's direct line of sight during the test.

Once the test begins, the applicant will not be allowed to make any adjustments or modifications to the audio system except in the event of a tube failure.

A CD that has a serious visible defect upon inspection will be discarded and replaced by a new CD. Applicant will have several extra CDs on hand to meet this possibility. Applicant will discuss what visible defects to look for prior to test beginning.

A CD that skips, or has other audible defects will be discarded and replaced by a new CD.

During the test, applicant will be permitted to handle only the remote that controls the CD transport, and the remote that controls the volume.

All CDs and GSICs will be handled only by T1 and T2.

GSIC's will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.

No electronic devices are to be operated by any party except for video cameras and applicant's audio system. No "wireless" electronics are to be used under any circumstances.

All parties except for applicant will remain silent at all times.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before continuing.

Both preliminary and final testing will be identical and take place in applicant's home.

============================================

Michael,

Firstly, as I had previously stated, there will be more the just one JREF associate there. The test will be videotaped.

Secondly, regarding "all parties remaining silent at all times", sorry, but we will remain silent only while the LISTENING is taking place. We won't adhere to any demand for silence during the entire length of the test, and won't cater to any such similar vanities.

Also, did you really mean T1 and T2 to be JREF associates, or was this a mistake? Didn't you want one to be YOUR associate?

Aside from the two above points, I see no other problems. I'll present this to Randi in the morning.

 

[KRAMER]

I don't want observers present in the room in the first place. I have agreed to this because I think there is no way around it and I firmly believe JREF is certainly entitled to protect its interests in a reasonable manner. I think the blindfold provision is unreasonable. I will have to determine what a blind would do to the sound of my system before I could agree to that also. What exactly do you want me not to see? I have agreed not to handle any of the discs, I don't even expect that the disc in the transport will need to be removed prior to making an identification.

My claim has always been to identify the effect 10 of 10 times. People have advised me that 90-95% is accepted as valid in scientific studies. So for you to say "So the test may be longer" does not satisfy me.

Michael

============================================

OK, Michael. How could a blind between yourself and the sound system affect the sound? The blind would NOT cover the speakers, so the sound would NOT be affected in any way.

If you're going to insist that this is a sticking point, we can only assume that such sticking points will continue ad infinitum. The rules clearly state that the JREF will NOT cater to vanities, and we consider this to be one.

No test can occur without observers. To suggest that it can or should is contrary to the scientific process. Any further suggestion that you want the room in which the test tales place void of any observers will be responded to with silence.

I've spoken to Randi. The entire SPENT CHIP part of your protocol is NOT acceptable. You will use a GSIC chip, and NO CHIP. Hence, your discs will be "treated", or "untreated". As I'd initially stated, the spent chip allows you (if you fail) to say that the spent chip must have had more life in it, and that cannot be allowed. We cannot accept a protocol that will give you the opportunity to say that you failed because of the test.

Randi has also instructed me to cease and desist ALL talk of the final test. I will not respond to any more questions about it, so please do not even ask. If you pass the preliminary, we will discuss it then. Please remove ALL reference to the final test from your subsequent protocol proposal, should you chose to submit one.

Here's how WE would like to proceed: You are tranfixed on the "Conditions" surrounding the test. We would like, from this point forward, to discuss ONLY the details of your demonstration, and NOT the "CONDITIONS" of the test. Let me say that again in a another way:

Your claim is that you can discern between a GSIC-treated cd, and an untreated cd. Please tell us HOW you will do that. Please do NOT tell us about the fine details of all the comforts you require DURING the test until the test itself has been negotiated. I have been instructed NOT to discuss such matters until the issue of HOW you will prove your claim has been determined.

So, once again, we will NOT discuss the Conditions until we have agreed upon the actual test procedure. Your disc is either GSIC-treated, or it isn't. The matter of the spent chip is an unnecessary addition to the procedure that cannot be allowed.

Please let me know asap if you wish to proceed.

 

[KRAMER]

I believe that both testers have to be supplied by someone other than myself to insure the integrity of the test. Gr8wight rightly perceived, after the fact, that collusion between myself and either tester was within the realm of possibility.

Michael

========================================

OK, we're fine with having two JREF associates in the T1 and T2 roles. You'll have an observer anyway, though, correct?

Michael, I really do think it's time for us to make a mutual decision about whether or not to proceed. I find myself repeating the same things over and over again as you continue to ask questions I've asked you to refrain from asking, and that is not adding to my level of confidence in a test actually ocCuring. I'm sure your confidence is also rather shaken by all of this.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of this is your continued insistence on having no observers in the room.

I would like for you to state for-the-record right now that you understand and accept the neccesity for observers, and that you will cease all complaints about it. I also need you to agree now and also for-the-record, that you will refrain from asking any further questions about the final test until after the preliminary test has taken place.

Then we can proceed.

 

[KRAMER]

Kramer,

1a) I don't know, I said I check into it. I have never tried setting up a blind. I don't even know what it is you are trying to shield from my view.

1b) I consider blindfolds and blinds to be vanities; What's a guy to do?

2) I've stated that an observer in the listening room is something I am now prepared to accept. I view it as a potential escape portal, but I have to respect your right to such a provision. Let me state for the record again that my desire is to eliminate every escape portal. This does not appear to be completely possible in practical terms.

3) I am willing to accept input from JREF on any alternative methodologies to the "spent" chip dilemma, if you can call it that.

4) If the final testing is not identical to the preliminary testing I believe that I have been misled by JREF.

5) The conditions of the testing are more important to me than the protocol details, this is not to say the details of the protocol aren't important however.

6) I wrote to you previously with the essence of my requirements, I strongly believe there is nothing unreasonable about any of these points. Here is what I stated.

As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential:

1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise.

2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after "treatment", eliminates any escape portal here.

3) GSIC covered, not contained.

4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods.

I really can't imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.

These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.

Michael

===========================================

1a) - OK, again you skirt the question of WHY you need to see your system, so let's just skip it. Just be advised that you will be blinded from your system by an opaque barrier that will insure that you cannot see your system in operation.
1b) - Offer an alternative. We're not demanding a blindfold, and we can see how this might make you uneasy, so we need to agree upon some kind of visual barrier between yourself and the system that is mutually acceptable.
2) - Thank you. We now ask that you refrain from complaing about it any further.
3) - One disc will be treated with the GSIC device. The other will NOT. The problem is now solved, if you agree that this is an acceptable solution.
4) - As previously and repeatedly stated, we will no longer address this.
5) - Interesting statement. Suffice to say that the details of the test are JREF's primary concern.

Anda quote: These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.

Read the Challenge rules. Withdraw your claim if you refuse to abide by them.

 

[KRAMER]

1a) I simply require a listening environment that closely approximates my customary conditions. The only reason that I would need to see my equipment is to operate the remote controls.

1b) I have no alternative to offer, tell me what your concern is in this regard and I will try to come up with a method to alleviate your unstated concern.

2) I am not complaining about having an observer present, I simply point out that it has the potential to be an escape portal. If this is what you deem to be complaining, well, what can I say? I have stated that I accept this condition because you require it. I would deem an observer stationed between me and my system to be an unnecessary distraction.

3) Let me know by what method you would choose to facilitate this necessity and I will let you know if I find it to be acceptable. I have offered my solution, it appears you are rejecting what I consider to be a reasonable and practical methodology.

4) I will have to re-read the Challenge rules along with the record to comment on this.

5) As it should be from your vantage point.

What, if anything, do you find about the following to be unsolvable?

As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential

1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise.

2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after "treatment", eliminates any escape portal here.

3) GSIC covered, not contained

4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods

I really can't imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.

These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.

Michael

=============================================

1a) - I would say that having the test conducted in your own home and on your own system achieves something more than "a close approximation" of your customary conditions. It's not even a replication thereof. It IS in fact your home, your system, and your conditions. All we want is to blind you from seeing the system, and assuming that your remote control unit doesn't malfunction (install new batteries before the test to insure against this, if you like), there is no need for you to see the cd player. An opaque bedsheet, for example, would blind you from the unit while
allowing the remote control signal to pass through. An observer can verify that the switch has taken place as intended, if you require that.

1b) - See above.

2) - There will be no observer between yourself and your system. See above, again.

3) - Please clarify point #3. Frankly, I've lost track, so I'm not sure what you are refering to.

4) - Good idea.

5) - Well thanks.

Regarding your question about what is unsolvable, well, nothing is unsolvable, so long as you remove the following:
...the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing.

Keep this up and we're deadlocked. Remove it and we can proceed.

Your move.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

I just posted a message at JREF Forum under the Audio Critic thread stating that I was going to give these talks another day to shape up or I was going to table the matter until October 1.

Michael

==============================================

And I just posted my reply to your childish threat, which if carried out will only result in the immediate rejection of your claim.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

FILE CLOSED

The GSIC-Anda file has been closed. He may re-apply in March 2006.

 

[KRAMER]

From the Forums

Since the rejection of Mr. Anda's claim for reasons detailed previously, he has embarked upon a vicious campaign of hate and accusations of fraud on several JREF Challenge forum threads, including AUDIO CRITIC, MICHAEL ANDA AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CHALLENGE APPLICANT, GOLDEN SOUND QUERIES, and the most curiously titled, MY STRUGGLE (begun by Mr. Anda himself, translated from the German MEIN KAMPF by Adolph Hitler).

After numerous warnings made to him about his repeated use of profanity in the forums, he was suspended for several days. Despite the fact that he began using *** in the middle of words judged to be profane, upon his return he claimed no warnings had been issued to him, and he continued his virulent campaign.

He continued to make numerous claims regarding his having broken no Challenge rules, ignoring all efforts made to help him to understand that no Challenge rule needs to be broken in order for an applicant's claim to be rejected. He carried on day and night, as shown by the timeline on each posting he made.

With no end in sight, I warned him that the JREF was in no way obligated to accept any subsequent application from him if his behavior continued in this fashion. His next post is copied here verbatim:

Originally posted by Wellfed -
Vikram, the JREF Challenge is not a real offer. There is no point in speaking of it as if it were.

To which I replied...

OK, that's it. We're done with you. We will ignore all further correspondence from you, and we will discard any application you send to us in the future.

I warned you.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

A copy of this forum exchange has been emailed to Mr. Anda as well, as a courtesy, for his records, should he wish to pursue legal action against as, as he has openly hinted in the forum.

It was our sincerest wish that Mr. Anda would have behaved like an adult and modify his behavior in the hope that he would re-apply in one year (according to the Challenge rules), and that he would be given the opportunity to demonstrate his claim.

His inability to employ reason and good behavior has brought us to the point at which we have decided to have nothing more to do with him, ever. We feel that we were very patient during the weeks following the rejection of his claim, watching as each posting he made in the forum became more and more libelous.

We regret that it has come to this, and we regret that a claim that came to us with so much promise has resulted in such animosity, but the responsibility for this lies solely with the applicant.

 

[KRAMER]

The Harrassment Continues

Dear Mr. Randi,

I am a former Challenge applicant and would like to meet with you in person someday if at all possible. I will be in the Fort Lauderdale area from Dec. 17, 2005 thru Dec. 30 on a family vacation. Please let me know if you are available during this time. I’d also like to meet Kramer if at all possible. Things became highly rancorous between Kramer and myself during our protocol negotiations so I would understand completely if he would choose not to participate. I hope to hear from you soon.

Michael Anda

==========================================================

Dear Mr. Anda,

Stay away. You are NOT welcome here. You are banned not only from the JREF forum, but from the grounds of the JREF, as well.

We WILL call the police immediately and have you arrested for trespassing if you step foot on our property.

Please do NOT write again.

Enjoy your vacation.

-Kramer

==========================================================

Given your history of lies, I think it only proper that Mr. Randi himself accept or reject my request for a meeting. If granted, this meeting would not have to take place on JREF property.

- Michael Anda

===================================================================

I will not reply to such drivel.

Randi will have the final word.

 

[KRAMER]

From the desk of James Randi

Mr. Anda,

I reject your request for a meeting. Refer to Mr. Kramer’s statement, below.

Any further electronic correspondence from you will be automatically rejected from our systems, and any effort to further communicate with the Foundation or any JREF personnel, will be presented to our legal consul with a view to obtaining an injunction.

This closes all further discussions between us.

James Randi.