PK parties

[flyboy217]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....

Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....

Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action? Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?! If you were responsible for a million bucks and thought you'd loose it, what would you say, Claus?

Then I would do what Randi does: Negotiate until either agreeable terms had been found, or simply agreed to disagree - therefore, no test.

Surely, you don't expect Randi to accept a protocol that will not rule out trickery?

Don't bother. I'm psychic.

No, you are not.

Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

He can't. But then, of course, the lawyer would - if he was not a crook - take it public, exposing Randi. If the protocol was made public, and was fair, then Randi would suffer incredible damage. Strangely enough, we don't see a lot of that, do we?

Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action? Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

Wrong again. The legal waiver is only to ensure that JREF won't be sued for injury, accidents, etc.. It says so crystal clear in the terms:

7. When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

It has no effect whatsoever on the prize. Not Randi's challenge. Not his decision.

Try again, Lucianarchy.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Don't the applicants have to waive their right to take legal action?

Not if no agreement can be reached.

Besides, it is neatly by-passed by the application process, the challenger has no duty to even take them up in the first place. His challenge. His decision.

No. His public offering of the prize establishes a duty to respond (reasonably) to the applicants.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Not to get into the fray, but: how is a lawyer going to stop Randi from disagreeing with the protocol for testing a claim?

Legally? By claiming that Randi isn't acting in good faith in his disagreement, and that he's defrauding not only the claimant, but the donors to the JREF as well.

Politically, by generating a flood of negative publicity that the JREF can ill-afford.

Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Then I would do what Randi does: Negotiate until either agreeable terms had been found, or simply agreed to disagree - therefore, no test.

And Bingo!, was his name-o.

Just don't "agree". Well, now, there's an 'out' if ever I saw one! Claus, I can imagine what it would be like if you were in charge of the show, lol!

See, that's why you need a completely independant arbiter to oversee the whole process, from application to protocol to test, all the way through. That ensures there is no bias on either side. It certainly reduces the bias inherently weighted on the side of the guy responsible for losing $1m!

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

Precisely.

Yet another complaint shot to pieces. Yet another excuse shown to be invalid.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Wrong again. The legal waiver is only to ensure that JREF won't be sued for injury, accidents, etc.. It says so crystal clear in the terms:

Indeed it does, except, you seemed to have stepped right over four little words there:

[...]damage of any kind[...]

Doop!

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Legally? By claiming that Randi isn't acting in good faith in his disagreement, and that he's defrauding not only the claimant, but the donors to the JREF as well.

Politically, by generating a flood of negative publicity that the JREF can ill-afford.

Either way, Randi's defense is quite simple : point out the reasons for his disagreement with the proposed protocol. But "because I might lose the million" wouldn't be a reason, it would be a confession.

You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either. But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

These applications that are sent registered mail? Oh, good. Now that would be clear proof that JREF received it and is acting in bad faith in not even responding.

I also wonder how you could have missed these little words, the final sentence of rule #7 :

However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

Randi specifically does NOT require that applicants waive their right to sue over the awarding of the prize.

 

[garys_2k]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either. But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

So why not try for it, formally, and tell us just what about the test protocol made it unacceptable? All this pointless speculation -- prove it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Indeed it does, except, you seemed to have stepped right over four little words there:

Doop!

But it specifically says:

However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

So, no "doop". Next?

See, that's why you need a completely independant arbiter to oversee the whole process, from application to protocol to test, all the way through. That ensures there is no bias on either side. It certainly reduces the bias inherently weighted on the side of the guy responsible for losing $1m!

That "arbiter" is the free press, Lucianarchy. If JREF were to deny an applicant a fair try at the million dollars, JREF would go down in flames.

Can you point to any applicant who has unfairly been denied a test?

You could easily loose that in a claim over protocol security. 'She must have her face plastered in duct tape' , sounds a reasonable method of stopping cheating, but it is not a reasonable condition for a subject to produce a 'psi effect' under either.

Isn't it? You are, of course, referring to Lulova, whom you have been defending with no success whatsoever.

Her nose bridge enabled her to do the old "see askew" trick. She couldn't "see" with something between her eyes and the text, so she must be blinded. Guess what? When this leak was stopped, she couldn't read anymore.

Where is Lulova today? Has she undergone scientific testing anywhere? No, she will disappear, simply because she was caught applying an age-old trick.

But if the challenger is sharp enough, it doesn't even need to get to that stage, just sling or bin the applications of those that look like they might have a chance right at the beginning.

You are most welcome to provide us with names of those who have unfairly been denied a test.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

So why not try for it, formally, and tell us just what about the test protocol made it unacceptable? All this pointless speculation -- prove it.

Bud, you've got to go over to Florida just to check out the previous applications. Are you paying?