My Struggle
- Thread starter Wellfed
- Start date
Re: Re: Next Move...
I saw it. The only thing I agree with is the need to apologize for profanity. I have already done so at the Audio Critic thread.
A Freudian slip perhaps, but KRAMMER is the perfect name for Kramer considering his "negotiating" methods.
Vikram said:
I saw it. The only thing I agree with is the need to apologize for profanity. I have already done so at the Audio Critic thread.
A Freudian slip perhaps, but KRAMMER is the perfect name for Kramer considering his "negotiating" methods.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
I was angry. Now I am simply intent on exposing JREF misdeeds and hopefully cause the folks here who still believe the Challenge to be a legitimate enterprise to hold JREF to accountability. Let it be known again that I'd love to be tested under fair conditions.
Let's start with JREF assertions that I have waffled. Can anyone here document this perceived waffling? The entire record is available here at JREF Forum except for my phone conversations with Kramer. You'd think this would be an easy matter if the waffling allegations were indeed true.
Remember, I seek documentation not opinions. I don't expect you'll find anything solid you can return with. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to post a definition for waffling before we get started.
-42- said:
I was angry. Now I am simply intent on exposing JREF misdeeds and hopefully cause the folks here who still believe the Challenge to be a legitimate enterprise to hold JREF to accountability. Let it be known again that I'd love to be tested under fair conditions.
Let's start with JREF assertions that I have waffled. Can anyone here document this perceived waffling? The entire record is available here at JREF Forum except for my phone conversations with Kramer. You'd think this would be an easy matter if the waffling allegations were indeed true.
Remember, I seek documentation not opinions. I don't expect you'll find anything solid you can return with. Perhaps someone would be so kind as to post a definition for waffling before we get started.
Beady
Philosopher
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
I feel another psychic moment coming on:
Prediction: Someone will offer up documentation by pasting in a quote. You will assert that they're taking you out of context, or that's not what you meant, or that their interpretation of what you wrote is only an opinion and therefore violates your directive.
Or you'll blame Kramer.
Wellfed said:
I feel another psychic moment coming on:
Prediction: Someone will offer up documentation by pasting in a quote. You will assert that they're taking you out of context, or that's not what you meant, or that their interpretation of what you wrote is only an opinion and therefore violates your directive.
Or you'll blame Kramer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
Wellfed:
Well, we could start with the whole "I'm uncomfortable with having an observer around" bit where you'd go on and on saying essentially "I guess I'll have to accept an observer" then come back with "isn't the video camera enough?". I'm not going to go to the work of exact quotes and time stamps, I don't think you deserve the effort after all this time. Dude, you've posted over 300 times! As far as I can tell, you do not participate in any meaningful fashion in these forums except with regard to your own Challenge. Are you really that self-centered?
As for "waffling" let's try this on for size: "Agreeing to a condition in a contract negotiation then attempting to remove said condition on a later date." Oh, like the above example, maybe? Do you think that, for example, Piano Teacher would agree that you are not waffling in your negotiations with JREF? And if the answer is "yes", would you care to document it in a concrete fashion? AND no "read the thread and figure it out for yourself", there is well over a THOUSAND posts in the combined threads. I'm sure PT is a busy man, maybe you should help him figure this out . . .
Marc
Wellfed said:
Wellfed:
Well, we could start with the whole "I'm uncomfortable with having an observer around" bit where you'd go on and on saying essentially "I guess I'll have to accept an observer" then come back with "isn't the video camera enough?". I'm not going to go to the work of exact quotes and time stamps, I don't think you deserve the effort after all this time. Dude, you've posted over 300 times! As far as I can tell, you do not participate in any meaningful fashion in these forums except with regard to your own Challenge. Are you really that self-centered?
As for "waffling" let's try this on for size: "Agreeing to a condition in a contract negotiation then attempting to remove said condition on a later date." Oh, like the above example, maybe? Do you think that, for example, Piano Teacher would agree that you are not waffling in your negotiations with JREF? And if the answer is "yes", would you care to document it in a concrete fashion? AND no "read the thread and figure it out for yourself", there is well over a THOUSAND posts in the combined threads. I'm sure PT is a busy man, maybe you should help him figure this out . . .
Marc
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
So Marc, where did I agree to a condition and then attempt to remove said condition on a later date? I don't think you're going to find one instance personally. The example you gave doesn't pass your definition IME. JREF was always asking why I needed a particular condition and I always offered an explanation. Conversely I'd ask JREF for an explanation for one of their requirements and was typically never offered the courtesy of a reply.
As for your question about me being self-centered, the only reason I have for coming to this place is to discuss my claim. If I had anything else to offer I'd be happy to participate as evidenced by my offer on IXP's "Psychology of a Challenge Applicant" thread.
marcchem said:Wellfed:
Well, we could start with the whole "I'm uncomfortable with having an observer around" bit where you'd go on and on saying essentially "I guess I'll have to accept an observer" then come back with "isn't the video camera enough?". I'm not going to go to the work of exact quotes and time stamps, I don't think you deserve the effort after all this time. Dude, you've posted over 300 times! As far as I can tell, you do not participate in any meaningful fashion in these forums except with regard to your own Challenge. Are you really that self-centered?
As for "waffling" let's try this on for size: "Agreeing to a condition in a contract negotiation then attempting to remove said condition on a later date." Oh, like the above example, maybe? Do you think that, for example, Piano Teacher would agree that you are not waffling in your negotiations with JREF? And if the answer is "yes", would you care to document it in a concrete fashion? AND no "read the thread and figure it out for yourself", there is well over a THOUSAND posts in the combined threads. I'm sure PT is a busy man, maybe you should help him figure this out . . .
Marc
So Marc, where did I agree to a condition and then attempt to remove said condition on a later date? I don't think you're going to find one instance personally. The example you gave doesn't pass your definition IME. JREF was always asking why I needed a particular condition and I always offered an explanation. Conversely I'd ask JREF for an explanation for one of their requirements and was typically never offered the courtesy of a reply.
As for your question about me being self-centered, the only reason I have for coming to this place is to discuss my claim. If I had anything else to offer I'd be happy to participate as evidenced by my offer on IXP's "Psychology of a Challenge Applicant" thread.
SpaceFluffer
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 586
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
How do you expect anyone to believe you when you refuse an offer such as the one Gulliver proposed?Wellfed said:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
I applied for the Randi Challenge, not the Gulliver Challenge. I have not broken any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE and am entitled to testing under its provisions. The Gulliver Challenge was a very nice gesture that I chose to decline for a number of reasons.
SpaceFluffer said:
I applied for the Randi Challenge, not the Gulliver Challenge. I have not broken any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE and am entitled to testing under its provisions. The Gulliver Challenge was a very nice gesture that I chose to decline for a number of reasons.
SpaceFluffer
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 586
I wasn't questioning your attitude towards the JREF challenge. I believe I already expressed my opinion on your behavior earlier in this thread with regards to the JREF challenge.
I was suggesting that any credibility you have left after that escapade (and there wasn't much, to be frank), flew out of the window after you decined Gulliver's offer.
I was suggesting that any credibility you have left after that escapade (and there wasn't much, to be frank), flew out of the window after you decined Gulliver's offer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
Wellfed:
Um, OK, as far as I can tell you are correct, unfortunately the vomit listing of the e-amils you and Kramer exchanged makes it extremely hard to read and understand. But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
Marc
Wellfed said:
Wellfed:
Um, OK, as far as I can tell you are correct, unfortunately the vomit listing of the e-amils you and Kramer exchanged makes it extremely hard to read and understand. But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
Marc
SpaceFluffer said:
I am not interested in being tested under Gulliver's offer. I am interested in being tested under JREF's, hence my application. If that hurts my credibility with you, or anyone else for that matter, so be it. As I've stated before, IME it is JREF's credibility that is at question at this time. They are the party that stopped my testing from going forward, not me. I'd like them to reverse their position, negotiate in good faith, and let the results of the tests establish my credibility. Unless they opt to do this, they are the party that lacks credibility.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next Move...
Thank you Marc. I appreciate you taking the time to read the email record. I apologize for the redundancy of this file. I simply dumped the emails to a Word file and did a search and replace where privacy concerns existed. Perhaps one day I will edit out the redundancy and post a cleaner version for all to see. Again, thank you, I am fully aware that reading this file is a daunting task. I commend you for your effort.
marcchem said:Wellfed:
Um, OK, as far as I can tell you are correct, unfortunately the vomit listing of the e-amils you and Kramer exchanged makes it extremely hard to read and understand. But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
Marc
Thank you Marc. I appreciate you taking the time to read the email record. I apologize for the redundancy of this file. I simply dumped the emails to a Word file and did a search and replace where privacy concerns existed. Perhaps one day I will edit out the redundancy and post a cleaner version for all to see. Again, thank you, I am fully aware that reading this file is a daunting task. I commend you for your effort.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,757
file incomplete
This file of yours is incomplete, Wellfed.
It does not contain the message from KRAMER to you indicating your Application has been officially rejected and the FILE CLOSED.
Are you now denying that you have been notified of that?
This file of yours is incomplete, Wellfed.
It does not contain the message from KRAMER to you indicating your Application has been officially rejected and the FILE CLOSED.
Are you now denying that you have been notified of that?
Regarding the Harping on the 12 Rules
In case anyone hasn't seen my recent posts in the other Anda-ish threads, it's important for everyone to know that an applicant need not break any of the Challenge rules in order to have his claim rejected. Many applicants are rejected for a number of reasons, and I have detailed many of them in the aforementioned threads, making particular note of the fact that a good many applicants are rejected because they act like infants, invent rules that don't exist (or interpret ones that DO in ways that suit them and conform to whatever complaints they dream up), or behave in a manner that strongly suggests they may be deranged, or dangerous.
In fact, I'm not actually aware of even a single application being rejected due to the breaking of any of the 12 rules. Most never get that far. Not even close. The applicant's present focus on the Challenge rules is misdirection, plain and simple.
As I've said elsewhere as an analogy, Microsoft would never re-hire an ex-employee who spent 24 hours a days howling FRAUD through a bullhorn atop a soapbox outside the main gate, and the JREF is not in any way compelled to entertain a future application by ANY person who behaves as outrageously as Mr. Anda has done non-stop following the rejection of his claim. It is a smear campaign that has been tolerated, but not ingored. The file grows larger each day.
Mr. Anda can interpret the rules as he likes, but it is the JREF that makes the decisions.
So Mr. Anda may re-apply in 12 months, but unless his aggressive, threatening tone takes a decided turn, and unless the allegations of wrong doing and fraud (and worse) come to a complete halt, he can forget about re-applying. He'd be wasting his time.
He's free to do so, of course, but the JREF is equally free to decline it. And we will do just that unless the Bullwinkle stops right here and now.
Once again he is being told in no uncertain terms what will happen if his behavior continues in this fashion. Let us now see if Mr. Anda is a Creature of Habit, or Reason.
In case anyone hasn't seen my recent posts in the other Anda-ish threads, it's important for everyone to know that an applicant need not break any of the Challenge rules in order to have his claim rejected. Many applicants are rejected for a number of reasons, and I have detailed many of them in the aforementioned threads, making particular note of the fact that a good many applicants are rejected because they act like infants, invent rules that don't exist (or interpret ones that DO in ways that suit them and conform to whatever complaints they dream up), or behave in a manner that strongly suggests they may be deranged, or dangerous.
In fact, I'm not actually aware of even a single application being rejected due to the breaking of any of the 12 rules. Most never get that far. Not even close. The applicant's present focus on the Challenge rules is misdirection, plain and simple.
As I've said elsewhere as an analogy, Microsoft would never re-hire an ex-employee who spent 24 hours a days howling FRAUD through a bullhorn atop a soapbox outside the main gate, and the JREF is not in any way compelled to entertain a future application by ANY person who behaves as outrageously as Mr. Anda has done non-stop following the rejection of his claim. It is a smear campaign that has been tolerated, but not ingored. The file grows larger each day.
Mr. Anda can interpret the rules as he likes, but it is the JREF that makes the decisions.
So Mr. Anda may re-apply in 12 months, but unless his aggressive, threatening tone takes a decided turn, and unless the allegations of wrong doing and fraud (and worse) come to a complete halt, he can forget about re-applying. He'd be wasting his time.
He's free to do so, of course, but the JREF is equally free to decline it. And we will do just that unless the Bullwinkle stops right here and now.
Once again he is being told in no uncertain terms what will happen if his behavior continues in this fashion. Let us now see if Mr. Anda is a Creature of Habit, or Reason.
There is one, true victim of the Anda debacle. Boris couldn't kill him. Natasha couldn't seduce him. Fearless Leader couldn't even touch him.
But thanks to the Michael Anda Fiasco (as it will be known forevermore), my childhood memories of Bullwinkle will never be the same... Goodbye, fearless Moose. O patron saint of hapless cartoon sidekicks everywhere... never again will I hear your lilting tones saying "Quiet! The Spirits are about to Speak!" Never again will I hear the dulcet tones of Mr. Announcer announcing "Frostbite Falls, Minnisota - home of Bullwinkle J. Moose and Rocket J. Squirrel!"
Forever lost to me will be the sounds of birds sweetly singing after Boris conks you on the head... and what of Boris? What will he do now? What new and unexpected demands will Fearless Leader place on Boris Badenov? Will we ever hear his gutteral "Qaviet, Natasha! It iss moose un sqvirrel we must get! Heheheh!"
And don't even get me started on poor Natasha Fatale - doomed to a life behind the makeup counter at Macy's, most likely... in between gigs substituting for Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, or perhaps Morticia Adams... how far will she fall?
Tis a sad, sad, day, indeed... farewell, noble Cervidae; farewell, mighty Moose. What more can I say, other than...
"Hokey Smoke, Bullwinkle!"
But thanks to the Michael Anda Fiasco (as it will be known forevermore), my childhood memories of Bullwinkle will never be the same... Goodbye, fearless Moose. O patron saint of hapless cartoon sidekicks everywhere... never again will I hear your lilting tones saying "Quiet! The Spirits are about to Speak!" Never again will I hear the dulcet tones of Mr. Announcer announcing "Frostbite Falls, Minnisota - home of Bullwinkle J. Moose and Rocket J. Squirrel!"
Forever lost to me will be the sounds of birds sweetly singing after Boris conks you on the head... and what of Boris? What will he do now? What new and unexpected demands will Fearless Leader place on Boris Badenov? Will we ever hear his gutteral "Qaviet, Natasha! It iss moose un sqvirrel we must get! Heheheh!"
And don't even get me started on poor Natasha Fatale - doomed to a life behind the makeup counter at Macy's, most likely... in between gigs substituting for Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, or perhaps Morticia Adams... how far will she fall?
Tis a sad, sad, day, indeed... farewell, noble Cervidae; farewell, mighty Moose. What more can I say, other than...
"Hokey Smoke, Bullwinkle!"
Never again
Your application has been rejected. Deal with it.
Somebody please kick me in the behind if I ever post to a WF thread again, because I am not going to give this troll the satisfaction.
So what? The world owes you a living? I should name my first born after you? Fact is, not breaking the rules means nothing to anything.Wellfed said:
You were once, but you are not anymore. You might have got in back if you had done the Gulliver Challenge, but then, you know better. Gulliver made an incredible offer, which I think would have led back to the JREF Challenge. But you behaved like a prick, and still do. (oops, can I say "prick" in the forum?)
Your application has been rejected. Deal with it.
Somebody please kick me in the behind if I ever post to a WF thread again, because I am not going to give this troll the satisfaction.
Re: Never again
It means that JREF has no standards. Or in other words, there is no reality to the JREF Challenge.
JREF must have forgot to mention the Gulliver Challenge as being requisite to taking their Challenge, either that or you are engaging in some fanciful thinking.
stormer said:
It means that JREF has no standards. Or in other words, there is no reality to the JREF Challenge.
stormer said:
JREF must have forgot to mention the Gulliver Challenge as being requisite to taking their Challenge, either that or you are engaging in some fanciful thinking.
Re: Regarding the Harping on the 12 Rules
I think what Kramer is saying here is that there are no rules or expectations for JREF to actually live up to, we just pretend the Challenge is real. Or in simpler terms, he might say "The JREF Challenge is a 40 year old farce".
KRAMER said:
I think what Kramer is saying here is that there are no rules or expectations for JREF to actually live up to, we just pretend the Challenge is real. Or in simpler terms, he might say "The JREF Challenge is a 40 year old farce".