• 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

Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
So it's your belief that he thinks the GSIC is a fake? I don't think that's the case at all.

I think he's so convinced that it works, that he doesn't feel a need to take time out of his busy schedule to test it.

Mr. Anda seems like a reasonable person. I hope that I'm not naive in thinking that if he had actually done a DBT, failed, and realized that the GSIC was a fake, that he would be man enough to admit that instead of resorting to obfuscation.

-Ripley 29
Click to expand...

You are not naive in the least to believe this. If I were to fail a self-administered DBT I would admit it in a heartbeat. I have only done one trial to date and passed. More trials are necessary obviously. If you are not aware of it, DBT's are not requisite to taking the JREF Challenge.
 
Wellfed, you have not done a simple double-blind trial, have you?

Ripley. The truth may be between our two opinions. Wellfed may have thought the GSIC to be genuine, but has enough doubt now to be less sure about his little chip, and less keen to actually test it.

If he really did believe it worked, he would get so much sweet revenge by doing a trial and showing us the positive result. The ultimate revenge would be to take the JREF's challenge, but there's no chance of that happening now.
 
edthedoc said:
Wellfed, you have not done a simple double-blind trial, have you?

Ripley. The truth may be between our two opinions. Wellfed may have thought the GSIC to be genuine, but has enough doubt now to be less sure about his little chip, and less keen to actually test it.

If he really did believe it worked, he would get so much sweet revenge by doing a trial and showing us the positive result. The ultimate revenge would be to take the JREF's challenge, but there's no chance of that happening now.
Click to expand...

I am still after the ultimate challenge. I challenge the Challenge at this point.
 
Re: Please read this.

Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
It seems at this point that everyone is so close to this situation, that it has disintigrated into a 'He said, she said' type of argument that is going absolutely nowhere.

[snipped a very nice summary]

-Ripley 29
Click to expand...

Nicely put... however, I believe that you are overlooking a few key points, such as Mr. Anda's sending a protocol proposal to the official at JREF (Kramer) that he (Mr. Anda) was not prepared to utilize. (A charitable characterization - I could have as easily said that he (Mr. Anda) had no intentions of accepting.)

When JREF accepted the protocol as presented, Mr. Anda reneged in a panic and immediately stated that the protocol he had submitted to JREF was unacceptable to him.

This is not an example of irreconcilable mutual requirements between two negotiating parties. It is an example of one party (Mr. Anda) was negotiating with the other party (JREF) in bad faith. Mr. Anda, of course, has since claimed that such was not his intention, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Shortly afterwards, Mr. Anda unilaterally stated his intention to "table negotiations until October" if the negotiations didn't improve. Essentially, he gave a public ultimatum to JREF, who responded by telling him that if he broke off negotiations, his application would be closed. This is a highly appropriate response when dealing with someone who has bargained in bad faith, and then issued an ultimatum afterward.

While I applaud your laudable efforts to present this as an issue of mutually opposing requirements, I'm afraid that doesn't accurately reflect the situation in all regards, and misses the critical examples I gave above. I should point out that I began by supporting Mr. Anda's efforts to create a workable protocol (as many of us here did). But as his actions became increasingly inappropriate, I began to reassess my opinion of him.

All of my comments above are well documented in the main thread. If you need any help finding the specific posts that refer to these incidents, please PM me and I'll sent you the urls. :)
 
Wellfed said:
You are not naive in the least to believe this. If I were to fail a self-administered DBT I would admit it in a heartbeat. I have only done one trial to date and passed. More trials are necessary obviously. If you are not aware of it, DBT's are not requisite to taking the JREF Challenge.
Click to expand...

This is a misleading statement. You have not done a Double Blind Trial yet, based on your description of what you did.
 
In Conclusion

The conclusion of this sordid affair has been detailed in Mr. Anda's Challenge Application thread, linked below:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870895438#post1870895438

Responses offered herein to Mr. Anda have been proven fruitless, as would any further responses to his pointless diatribes.

The JREF urges a speedy conclusion to this debate (which the ex-applicant seems bent upon crusading toward unto infinity), and suggests to all forum members that any further responses offered to him will be counterproductive and damaging to all who chose to partake in it.

In the spirit of this decision, I'd like to state conclusively and with unflinching confidence that veggie chili can be just as mouth watering as chili made with the ground up carcasses of dead animals.
 
Re: In Conclusion

KRAMER said:
In the spirit of this decision, I'd like to sate conclusively that veggie chili can be just a mouth watering as chili made with the ground up carcasses of dead animals.
Click to expand...

Have you done a DBT?

IXP
 
Sorry, but...

I will not agree to any test that I am not confident I can pass.
 
Re: In Conclusion

Originally posted by Kramer:

In the spirit of this decision, I'd like to state conclusively and with unflinching confidence that veggie chili can be just as mouth watering as chili made with the ground up carcasses of dead animals.
Click to expand...

Pavlov's protocol?
 
Re: In Conclusion

KRAMER said:
In the spirit of this decision, I'd like to state conclusively and with unflinching confidence that veggie chili can be just as mouth watering as chili made with the ground up carcasses of dead animals.
Click to expand...
[appalled]
No way! Only a PETA member would say something like that!
[/appalled]
 
If animals aren't supposed to be eaten why has God made them so tasteful?

In yo face! :D
 
SpaceFluffer said:
[ Tres pretentious. [/B]
Click to expand...

Trees pretentious?

Oh, come now. I realize this mesmerizing thread has developed a good deal of free-floating animosity as well as the more jugular- focused kind , but must we lash out even at the humble and innocent tree? Really, this is too much. Tray too much as the French might say. Or might not -- (haussement d'epaules)

I think that I shall never see an example of a pretentious tree, and I challenge you to show me and Master Randi the Great One even a single pretentious tree deciduous or - uh - the other kind, DB Tested of course, and you will be awarded your 15 minutes of fame on the Oprah show, maybe, we'll see. Showing us a pretentious Bush, by the way, will not cut it.

Sorry to insert this somewhat tangential remark into an otherwise fascinating and productive discussion -- please consider it, if you will, as merely a modest cough from a minor poet.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Regarding the Harping on the 12 Rules

jmercer said:
We have a number of attorney's on this forum. Is there some point where these baseless public accusations and derogatory remarks become legally actionable items? Clearly, Mr. Anda is performing an ongoing public attack (albeit unsuccessfully) on JREF and Kramer's credibility and reputation.

Just wondering. :)
Click to expand...

I an not a lawyer, but I did teach business law at the graduate level at an accredited university.

While any false and harmful statement made in public is actionable, I doubt that there is a case. Primarily, the harm would be difficult to quantify.

Furthermore, the court would have to wonder the reason that JREF continued to permit Wellfed to do harm. JREF has the ability to silence Wellfed in this forum. Now if Wellfed were to libel JREF elsewhere, then there might be more of a case.

My worthless advise to JREF would be to ban Wellfed from the forum for his repeated attacks. I do, however, appreciate the kindness that JREF extends to allow opposing views to be posted here. Once the views become repeated attacks, however, I very much understand the banning of such attackers.

Sincerely,
Gulliver
 
Counterpoint to Your Good Point

edthedoc said:
Wellfed, you have not done a simple double-blind trial, have you?

Ripley. The truth may be between our two opinions. Wellfed may have thought the GSIC to be genuine, but has enough doubt now to be less sure about his little chip, and less keen to actually test it.

If he really did believe it worked, he would get so much sweet revenge by doing a trial and showing us the positive result. The ultimate revenge would be to take the JREF's challenge, but there's no chance of that happening now.
Click to expand...
I offer that Wellfed has a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate his ability, the Gulliver Offer! If he were to be successful in this DBT, he would demonstrate his ability to the point of sheer certainty. We need only assume that a (respected?) member, me, did not collude with Wellfed.

If Wellfed were earnest in his desire to be tested, he has a very clear way to proceed. Be tested! I'll handle the legwork and the all of the costs. Heck, at this point, I'll even throw in $100 honorarium (a check delivered with the CDs) for Wellfed just for trying.

Now, I’m done with this applicant—until March 2006 or his acceptance of my offer.

Eager regards,
Gulliver T. Bullwinkle
 
Nevermind...

JREF has appropriately banned Wellfed. I accordingly withdraw my support of him as well.

To Wellfed,
You really should have accepted my offer and stopped your attacks. I have no respect for your opinions at this point.

Deep regrets,
Gulliver
 
Re: Counterpoint to Your Good Point

Gulliver said:
Now, I’m done with this applicant—until March 2006 or his acceptance of my offer.
Click to expand...

Until the shady side of never, I'm afraid. Mr. Anda squandered even that chance. Dead'un. May I submit that your admirable generosity might be better directed at this time?
 
Re: Re: Counterpoint to Your Good Point

Moose said:
Until the shady side of never, I'm afraid. Mr. Anda squandered even that chance. Dead'un. May I submit that your admirable generosity might be better directed at this time?
Click to expand...
Thanks. Please point me in the right direction. I truly enjoy helping.

Gratefully,
Gulliver
 
Re: In Conclusion

KRAMER said:
.... I'd like to state conclusively and with unflinching confidence that veggie chili can be just as mouth watering as chili made with the ground up carcasses of dead animals.
Click to expand...
While it may be mouth-watering, this qualifies only as an opinion. True chili may contain no beans (including soy), and to be perfectly correct, must contain primarily red or green chilies, with the true and correct choice being green, of course.
Inclusion of potato is strongly discouraged, and tomato is strictly an option.
Beef and pork are both acceptable, however the inclusion of bear or venison, either Elk or Deer, are strongly encouraged and adds greatly to the flavor.
The use of Moose and/or caribou are considered wasteful and bragging.

Edited to correct Bear is not a venison....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom