• 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.

My Struggle

Re: Re: Re: Regrettable Decision

Gulliver said:
...

BTW, extraordinary claims do not require any refutation. The claimant must prove the claim. The ball is in your court.
Click to expand...

OK, since I have agreed to be tested by JREF 3 months after an acceptable protocol for both the preliminary and formal testing are established, what's my next move? I have rejected your offer. I am more than willing to be tested by JREF under acceptable terms.
 
Re: Okay, I'm just being mean and petty

Hitch said:
But I've reviewed the threads related to this to confirm that I'm not crazy, and Wellfed's account of lies on the part of Kramer and JREF are unfounded and came accross a quote that many here may have forgoten.

KRAMER on 03-14-2005 posted:

Oh boy, I bet he wishes he could go back and unsay that.

There's a thread claiming that Kramer in the wrong person for the job. Kramer's problem is not as the poster claims that Kramer is too undiplomatic in dealing with applicants. Apparently he's too gullible when a slightly reasonable sounding crackpot comes along.
Click to expand...

Dig deeper Hitch.
 
edthedoc said:
It takes courage to admit to being wrong and backing down gracefully. Some people just can't do it.
Click to expand...

Your point being? If you think that I can be proven wrong, encourage JREF to just test me, because anything less is pure, unadulterated bulls****t on their part.

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.
 
jmercer said:
Especially when their reputation is at stake in the Audiophile's forums, where they write their reviews of such products... and in particular, glowingly endorsed the product under discussion here. :)
Click to expand...

I stand by the claim I presented to JREF, now what? The GSIC works.
 
Re: Re: Re: Olive Branch

jj said:
Now, Michael, that is offensive. What you're doing here is a classic abuse of the "range rule", basically, one that audiophiles have been doing pretty much since the dawn of time.

Attacking JREF's credibility is simply not called for here.
Click to expand...

JREF's credibility is currently the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned. I don't know what the "range rule" refers to.
 
Re: Re: Re: Regrettable Decision

Beady said:
What part of "The train has left the station" are you having trouble understanding?
Click to expand...

The part where they justify leaving early.
 
Re: Re: Okay, I'm just being mean and petty

Wellfed said:
Dig deeper Hitch.
Click to expand...

By dig deeper do you mean to the point where you didn't want to be tested until August? So Kramer told you to put off protocol negotiations until such time as you were ready to test.

Or do you mean when Kramer explained the desire to not bother with protocol negotiations until the subject is ready to be tested because any time they've had an applicant try to work out a protocol well in advance they want to change it as the time to test approaches?

Or do you mean after restarting protocol negotiation when you suddenly announced you wouldn't be able to test until October?

Or should I dig to the point that Kramer got frustrated at this and told you if you wanted to pursue protocol negotiations at this time, you were not to bring up October again or your file would be closed?

Or should I dig up your response to that ultimatum? Namely insisting on an October date at the earliest for testing.

How deep do you really want to dig?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regrettable Decision

Wellfed said:
ar·bi·trar·y (är'bğ-trĕr'ē) pronunciation
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
Click to expand...

I said:
You are incorrect - "The ball" is no longer in play. JREF has officially closed your application - there is no "clock" to run out, except for the 12 month waiting period before you can submit another claim.

This was done when - after months of fruitless efforts on the part of JREF and Forum Members - you arbitrarily suspended protocol negotiations.
Click to expand...

Definition 1 applies. Shall I reword it to your satisfaction?


I COULD have said:
You are incorrect - "The ball" is no longer in play. JREF has officially closed your application - there is no "clock" to run out, except for the 12 month waiting period before you can submit another claim.

This was done when - after months of fruitless efforts on the part of JREF and Forum Members - you impulsively suspended protocol negotiations.
Click to expand...

I used "arbitrary" to give you the benefit of the doubt. I could just have easily used "desperately" or "manipulatively".

(Added note - I just realized that Mr. Anda has been suspended for repeated violations of Rule 8. Oh, well. And we were just starting to have fun... :D)
 
Next Move...

Wellfed said:
OK, since I have agreed to be tested by JREF 3 months after an acceptable protocol for both the preliminary and formal testing are established, what's my next move? I have rejected your offer. I am more than willing to be tested by JREF under acceptable terms.
Click to expand...

I've elected to be frank. You did ask for my opinion here.

You have several tasks that you should undertake.

First, you should gather credibility with the Forum Members. Avoid profanity. Apologize for its use. There are children here.

Second, you should demonstrate your willingness to be tested. Accept my offer. Stop avoiding the test.

Third, you should submit a written and complete protocol without vanity and ego with your application next year.

Fourth, you should apologize to JREF, and to KRAMMER in particular, for the trouble you've caused. Your emails are confusing and follow-through lacking. Learn to be humble.

There's a list of my thoughts. I'm sure other members can offer their insights too.

Regards,
Gulliver
 
Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
After vehemently denying that I had committed this crime, the police simply asked me,
"Would you be willing to take a lie detector test to prove this?"
Without hesitating, I replied,
"Of course. Just let me know when and where. Absolutely."
At this point, the police officers knew I was innocent. I didn't commit that crime, and you're damn right I was going to do whatever I had to prove it.
Click to expand...
While I understand your point completely, it would probably be a good idea for you to research the polygraph (lie detector). It is not admissible in court because it doesn't work.
Is there any evidence that the polygraph is really able to detect lies? ... No. Is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than non-experts using other methods? No. There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth.
Click to expand...
 
While I understand your point completely, it would probably be a good idea for you to research the polygraph (lie detector). It is not admissible in court because it doesn't work
Click to expand...

Point taken, however, I was young and the police certainly were never planning to subject me to a polygraph.

It's all about the confidence you have in your claim. The same confidence Wellfed showed before negotiations began on hammering out a protocol, and interestingly enough, the same confidence he is now showing since his claim has been rejected!

I stand by the claim I presented to JREF, now what? The GSIC works.
Click to expand...

I'm interested to hear from Wellfed.. So far he's accused Kramer of lying, and JREF of being deceitful. What I haven't heard is what he thinks Kramer would have to gain by lying about the negotiations?? He, like everyone else here, wants to see you tested! Of course he has to look for loopholes to make sure he isn't giving $1,000,000 to a crook. But implying that Kramer was trying to derail his efforts to self-test? That simply does not make sense.

-Ripley 29
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Olive Branch

Wellfed said:
JREF's credibility is currently the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned. I don't know what the "range rule" refers to.
Click to expand...

Then Google for it. It is, among other things, an excuse used by some audio folks to reject the outcome of ABX tests and the like.

I can't see any trouble with JREF's credibility. I'm not going to stand up and gloat, but you didn't settle on a protocol, and nothing happened as a result, and that's really how it is.

Any protocol would have to have a neutral observer, and no chance of leakage, even for the preliminary test. I've run many tests, and I can tell you that leakage doesn't have to be even slightly deliberate, it is most often completely accidental and does not involve concious actions on anyone's part.

Oh, you got suspended. Um, sorry about that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olive Branch

jj said:

Any protocol would have to have a neutral observer,
Click to expand...


The mythical Neutral Observer is often spotted with Unbiased Person and Unicorn, I hear.


and no chance of leakage,
Click to expand...


"no" chance? Really? Is that possible?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olive Branch

jzs said:


The mythical Neutral Observer is often spotted with Unbiased Person and Unicorn, I hear.
Click to expand...

I see you're back to bickering. Many tests, many times, over many years, have managed to overcome this issue, which is neither the question of the existance of a deity or the need to find an unbiased person.

Since it's been done, why do you bicker about this, or try to equate it with something it's not?
"no" chance? Really? Is that possible?
Click to expand...

It's possible to make it very close to possible unless there is in fact some kind of paranormal ability manifesting.

Again, your behavior is shown to be petty stalking and bickering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom