amherst said:
I have dealt with this point ad nauseam. Are you now disagreeing with Hyman etc all when they say that fraud can always be shown to have entered any test, even if it didn't? If you're not, then what basis do you have for your criticism? It is not my job to sit around and come up with hypothetical ways that fraud could have been shown to have taken place in well conducted experiments. That job is for the Randis and the Hansels of the world.
Sure I'm disagreeing. Besides which, all they say is that fraud can be alleged in any test. Not that it can be proved. And if someone passed a preliminary test, it would be up to Randi to prove that there was fraud involved, not the other way around.
And frankly, if you are the one alleging that Randi could fraudulently get out of any test that someone passed,
it is entirely up to you to prove that. You are the one making the allegation, prove it or shut up.
Randi has had heavy access to the media. He is well known as an exposer of charlatans. He has considerable rhetoric. If he confidently proclaims that a claimant succeeded by fraud or by some other error in following protocol which he has shown to have been a possibility, I find it hard to see how he would lose any credibility.
You are steadfastly refusing to deal with or even mention my YB hypothetical, because you simply can't deal with it.
What about this do you disagree with me about? Has your stance now become that Randi doesn't have the ability to dismiss tests which he feels didn't follow proper protocol? If so, then how did that change of mind come about? What information which I'm not aware of has caused that change?
I only ever agreed that
in theory Randi can allege whatever he wants, in the same way any lunatic can allege that the moon is made of green cheese or that black is white. I have never agreed that Randi could do so credibly, or without loss of reputation, or in a court of law or that he could prove fraud in any test.
Taking an admission, expanding it, then pretending that the admission was wider than it was is the behaviour of a jerk. Bear that in mind.
Do you disagree with me that there will always be a way for an experiment to be shown to have not followed proper protocol? Surely you know that you are not just disagreeing with me on this, right? You're also disagreeing with Hyman and every other scientist. So what is your stance?
Yes I do. How many more times am I going to have to say this before it gets through your dense skull?
I don't give a damn who I disagree with. And as for me disagreeing with "every other scientist" are you fantasising much?
Who is the one who decides then? Is your stance that it is supposed to be self evident? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hold off believing that that's your position. Please explain to me who you think it is who decides whether a test followed protocol or not. I've asked you to state your position clearly before, you should comply.
Ultimately, given that there is a binding contract involved, it would be a court. However, given that the tests are usually pretty simple, and they can be documented to hell (see my YB hypothetical if you can bear to bring yourself to think about it) in the first instance it's usually going to be pretty easy to see if the protocol was followed. The important point is that if the protocol was followed but Randi says otherwise, it'll be up to him to prove that (ultimately in court) and unless the claimant has stupidly agreed to conduct an undocumented test, it'll be pretty damn hard for Randi to prove a breach of protocol if there wasn't one.
You seem to want to assume that if a claimant passes the preliminary test, he's a shoe in to pass the formal one and thus win the million. Based on the rules this is certainly not Randi's position, or there would be no preliminary test in the first place. You have done nothing, except assert that you practice law, to show that a claimant would be entitled to something he wouldn't be entitled to ordinarily.
No I've done more than that, I've provided you with two paragraphs explaining the legal position which you evidently are unable or unwilling to understand. If Randi refuses to go on, with an applicant who has passed the preliminary test, he is in breach of contract. It would be up to Randi to show why the applicant should not be entitled to damages of one million dollars due to Randi's refusal to go on with the formal test. Given that the only evidence at that time as to whether the applicant
could or could not pass the formal test would be his passing of the preliminary, the applicant would get a million dollars worth of damages unless Randi could prove that the protocol was not followed in the preliminary.
I'll give you a simple example. Say you enter into a contract with me to come onto my property and chop down a tree, and if you do that OK then the next day you can chop down another tree on my property and we agree I'll then give you $5000. You come onto my property and chop down the first tree. I then refuse to go on with the contract, don't let you back onto my property the next day and say "you can't have the $5000 because you didn't chop down the second tree".
You sue. I say "but I bet even if I'd let you come onto the property you couldn't have chopped down the second tree, you couldn't have done it". The court would say "no way, princhester, you can't get out of payment by your own breach of contract in refusing to let him onto the property to chop down the second tree. And as to your allegation that he couldn't have chopped down the second tree, well all I have to go by is that he could chop down the first tree, so unless
you can prove he didn't actually chop down the first tree, it's damages of $5000 to amherst, buster!"
You're dead wrong on this point, amherst, you've just put too much ego behind it to admit it.
If my interpretation was correct, then the claimant would be contractually agreeing that if he decided not to follow the rules, he would be seen as never having been a claimant at all. This would mean he could never sue Randi since Randi's agreement with him would be invalidated. If you believe my interpretation was incorrect then see my above response. Either way Randi can't be sued for the million.
It all ends up in the same place. For Randi to allege that the claimant never was a claimant because he didn't follow the rules, Randi first has to prove that the claimant didn't follow the rules. And we are back to square one, which is that for Randi to get out of a passed preliminary where the protocol was followed, it would be up to Randi to prove that the protocol was not followed.
