The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

I'll bet it would have if I'd conceded the point.
[/B]

Nah. I probably would have just dropped it as tangential to the discussion. I mostly wrote it because I thought it made a clever point, sort of to point out that the entire discussion is about an abstract that could be viewed from different perspectives. That's why I said I wouldn't quibble over the point.

Afterwards I realized that it was really a flawed point from the start.

Originally posted by Beady

As should be obvious by now, the people in this thread who are apparently most familiar with the terms being used are united in their opinion that the analogy is completely wrong and inappropriate. It therefore cannot make the intended point

Hence my request for suggestions on corrective language to be sent to Kramer/Randi. I realized that the plaintiff/defense role was reversed in a way.

In fact, so many people were saying it was wrong that I really took the time to examine the idea. I came to the conclusion that the whole analogy is flawed no matter what role you cast JREF in, if for no other reason than JREF would also be playing the role of judge and jury as well.

So I ultimately gave up my position because I realized (based on the arguments made) that the other people in the thread were right.

Originally posted by Beady
First, let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer. As I explained earlier in the thread, I am a Federal employee who works with the law, and my job is somewhat analogous to Kramer's. I decide whether to approve or deny applications made to the government, and my decisions are made according to Federal law. Whether I approve or deny, I must be able to justify my decision by pointing to a provision of law and saying "That's why." My denials must be in writing and must be able to stand up in court before a judge, should the applicant appeal my decision.

My apologies - I had you confused with someone else. Sometimes it's hard to keep track, there are so many people in so many different threads. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Beady
Second, the entire analogy should be thrown out. It seems to me the rest of the FAQ makes the point quite well without it, and its presence is not only unnecessary, it causes confusion. As I've described, there's also an outside chance this confusion could be detrimental to the Challenge, and to JREF as a whole.

Which you (and others) convinced me of... and as noted, that's why I asked people to provide an alternative that gets the point across.

Personally, I can't think of an analogy close enough to the JREF Challenge that will do that. I'm hoping someone else can.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

Good grief, jmercer, that's what we've been saying for two pages now.

I must say the impression I am forming of you from this and the last debate we had is that you are someone that will go on finding something to argue about long after you've conceded the point. [/B]

You have a strange way of looking at things if you believe that someone's going to instantly give up their point of view just because you say it's wrong - most people need to have a debate to be convinced.

Although, in fact, I and others may have been arguing at cross-purposes. My point was about the intent of the analogy and whether or not it was successful in getting it's point across. I didn't have the slightest problem understanding the message intended and got it instantly after reading it. This made it very difficult for me to accept that others wouldn't also have the same experience. (Hence my "stupid or liar" remark, which was perhaps a knee-jerk reaction on my part - and probably emotionally loaded the discussion unintentionally.)

So - believing that if I could "get it", anyone could, I felt that the critics were being nit-picky over the flaws in the analogy - very, very few analogies are perfect, after all. It's pretty clear to me now that there was more to the issue than I originally perceived, hence I've changed my viewpoint on it.

I believe that's called "being open-minded".

 

[Paul2]

Re: Re: THE FAQ will be posted SOON-

Of all the scenarios I envisioned happening as I was writing the FAQ, this was the one I saw as the Best Possible Outcome.

Thank you, Kramer, and thank you, Mr Randi.
You have made me euphoric.

Beleth: you and I tangled several months ago, and your logic infuriated me, but I can well imagine how euphoric you are, and I congratulate you. Well done! Your FAQ is one small example of making a small but brilliant contribution when intent and purpose is clear and strong.

 

[princhester]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's fine. Really.

You have a strange way of looking at things if you believe that someone's going to instantly give up their point of view just because you say it's wrong - most people need to have a debate to be convinced.

I've just been over all my posts in this thread and I cannot see one in which I have simply said something was wrong: I have explained (or endorsed the comments of others who have explained) precisely why it is that plaintiff and defendant are the wrong way round ie because of onus of proof. Nobody has doubted that proposition, except for you in relation to the French system, and I subsequently explained why you were wrong about that, I didn't merely assert.

 

[athon]

Huzzah Beleth!

You've seen something that can be made better about the JREF, saw an opportunity to do something about it (and not whinge) and have IMHO improved things. More so, instead of saying 'we should do this'...hell, you just went an did it.

You should be damn proud. I know we all are.

Athon

 

[Beleth]

First off, another big round of "thank you"s to everyone who has expressed their appreciation of the FAQ!

I've been on vacation (still am, and will be until the 28th), and KRAMER has been (justifiably) absent since the 17th, so I haven't had a chance to let you all know what's been going on.

I PMed a list of about half a dozen errata to KRAMER. About half the points in the errata involved turning the "trial" analogy into a "duel" analogy. The point of the analogy was to make things clearer. It was obviously not fulfilling that purpose.

There are two aspects of the Challenge which are true regardless of the opinions of any applicant or anyone not part of the JREF:
1) Randi is taking the role of aggressor. It's not the applicant's "I can do this; give me your money" statement which is the "first shot", if you will, in this exchange. It is Randi's "you can't really do what you say you can do, and I'm so sure of that that I'll give you money if you show that you can" statement. As such, it's Randi who gets to set the rules of the engagement.

2) The burden of proof is on the applicant. This is self-evident.

Since more people are familiar with the rules of a trial than with the rules of a duel these days (thank goodness), I made the analogy a trial-with-a-difference one instead of a duel one. I really was trying to make things clearer, but since it's not working as intended, it needs to be changed.

But like I said in a previous post, I can't change it now that it's a Web page. I can suggest changes, but I can't edit the page myself. I just hope that the events that draw KRAMER away from his job resolve themselves happily and quickly, and that he takes my suggestions to heart.

I'd also ask that you don't pester him about any of this. Pester me instead; it's my own darn fault that this FAQ exists anyway.

 

[Placebo]

Well done Beleth - good job

I'd also just like to reiterate the bonds/cash problem again, as it seems to have been ignored.
Shera posted this in the $$$$ thread:

Per the official FAQ, the prize is mostly BONDS not cash.
[...]
Compare that to the draft version of the FAQ in the thread The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial

I agree with her that should this *not* be corrected, we will have yet another rerun of confusion regarding the bonds/cash issue.

Beleth, I understand that you don't have direct access to the FAQ anymore. However I feel this is something worth mentioning to the powers that be

 

[Placebo]

(Of course, this is simply my opinion )

 

[webfusion]

have you read this thread ?

Placebo, if you scroll up a bit, and view my previous posting, where I indicated the FAQ as finalized and posted tells everyone that Sean always was right all along, and we spent our energies on the $$$$$$$$ forum arguing using the wrong underlying assumption. That last posting of mine was ignored in this thread, because apparently nobody wants to re-engage that aspect of the discussion now.

However, there is no more confusion. The prize is to be awarded in the form of bonds. Not cash.

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.3

Now, what exactly is it that you wish to write to "the powers that be" ?

 

[Beleth]

When an Official version of something conflicts with an Unofficial version of the same thing, the Official version wins. This is true of pretty much everything, including the FAQ.

I can't change the Unofficial FAQ because one only has two hours to edit a post one makes here before it becomes "set in stone" and uneditable.

 

[Placebo]

Re: have you read this thread ?

I apologise, I felt there was still a misunderstanding. It seems it was all mine
I had assumed that the entire thread of $$$$ seemed unlikely to have been in error, and misread the recent posts

As the official versions are indeed accurate, I have no further comment

 

[webfusion]

whoops!

placebo says:
"I had assumed that the entire thread of $$$$ seemed unlikely to have been in error "

Yeah, well, there are quite a few skeppers who have red faces after that debacle. No wonder nobody wants to get back and rehash the whole thing from this newly-revealed perspective!

One final comment however --- Where is the application of Sean Connelly? We're still waiting to see one! Apply, dude!

 

[jmercer]

Yeah, it was a pretty interesting conclusion. My position was "Who cares, as long as it's negotiable and worth a million bucks?" I will admit that I was surprised that they'll deliver it in negotiable instruments instead of cash... so while I wasn't red-faced with embarassment, I certainly raised my eyebrows and went "What the heck??"

 

[Placebo]

Where is the application of Sean Connelly? We're still waiting to see one! Apply, dude!

I know Sean a little, and it would be great to see him apply.
I could only guess as to why we don't see an application, or the exact nature of the claim should he do so.

This confusion does make Sean's question far more reasonable however. Nevertheless, as was mentioned previously, he received the information from Goldman & Sacks. If he questions it further, it is a query that should be directed to them, not the JREF.

Anyway, I agree it might be prudent to just drop the subject before the more red-faced skeps get irritable

 

[KRAMER]

Bad analogy...

The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

 

[Darat]

Re: Bad analogy...

The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

KRAMER I do wish that you and the JREF would stop being so reasonable about this issue.

First you listen to the arguments and change your mind, then you listen to constructive criticism and suggestions and actually take them on board!

Don’t you understand you are meant to be totally closed minded?!

 

[Vikram]

Re: Bad analogy...

Beleth,

Congratulations on having constructed such an exhaustive and excellent FAQ. Kudos to you!!! (I personally thought the 'monkeys flying out of butt' example was very entertaining.)

The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Good choice. Perhaps the reason why the removal of this analogy is best is because it doesn't really add anything much to the understanding of the challenge (the FAQ can do without it) and might confuse international applicants - it would require them to have some understanding of the American legal system.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Bad analogy...

The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

Welcome back.

 

[Beleth]

Seven-month checkup

So KRAMER -

It's been almost seven months now since I wrote the groundwork for the FAQ and it got turned into a Web page.

Would you say that it has made your life easier, or harder?



I ask because it has a big bearing on whether I attend TAM4 or not!

 

[Darat]

Re: Seven-month checkup

So KRAMER -

It's been almost seven months now since I wrote the groundwork for the FAQ and it got turned into a Web page.

Would you say that it has made your life easier, or harder?



I ask because it has a big bearing on whether I attend TAM4 or not!

I suggest you send Kramer an email or a PM - he isn't posting to the forum any longer.