View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Oct 2009, 22:43

ProfWag wrote:Does anybody have a better idea as to how to expose fake people who proclaim paranormal abilities? Should experiments in paranormal abilities have lax rules? Just curious what those who dislike the challenge actually pose as an alternative.

I'm all for exposing fakes. They're a dime a dozen and there's always ten waiting to take the place of one who has been exposed. I don't 'dislike' the JREF challenge at all. It's served it purpose very well.

It can also deter some people as there is some pretty bad press about those who have tried and failed. Who wants to be publicly humiliated or labeled as a fake because they attempt to find out if what they feel they can do, is actually paranormal? How can anyone even begin this journey to find out? You can't even post a video for discussion around here without some skeptic ripping it to shreds by using very strong and negative comments based solely on the original title. The attack isn't on the content, it's on the person who put it out there for discussion. How many times have you seen someone here post a simple personal experience in an attempt to look for logical answers to their experience to have a skeptic throw in a derogatory comment about that person's mental state? Who's going to bother to want to bring their two cents to the table to be thrown into that 'oh, you're crazy too' category?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby ProfWag » 18 Oct 2009, 23:06

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Does anybody have a better idea as to how to expose fake people who proclaim paranormal abilities? Should experiments in paranormal abilities have lax rules? Just curious what those who dislike the challenge actually pose as an alternative.

I'm all for exposing fakes. They're a dime a dozen and there's always ten waiting to take the place of one who has been exposed. I don't 'dislike' the JREF challenge at all. It's served it purpose very well.

It can also deter some people as there is some pretty bad press about those who have tried and failed. Who wants to be publicly humiliated or labeled as a fake because they attempt to find out if what they feel they can do, is actually paranormal? How can anyone even begin this journey to find out? You can't even post a video for discussion around here without some skeptic ripping it to shreds by using very strong and negative comments based solely on the original title. The attack isn't on the content, it's on the person who put it out there for discussion. How many times have you seen someone here post a simple personal experience in an attempt to look for logical answers to their experience to have a skeptic throw in a derogatory comment about that person's mental state? Who's going to bother to want to bring their two cents to the table to be thrown into that 'oh, you're crazy too' category?

Good point Ninja. I firmly believe that many, many people have honest experiences. We skeptics sometimes are too quick to judge what happened. There is, however, quite often a very sensible explanation.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Oct 2009, 23:17

ProfWag wrote:Good point Ninja. I firmly believe that many, many people have honest experiences. We skeptics sometimes are too quick to judge what happened. There is, however, quite often a very sensible explanation.

Yes, more often than not, there is a very simple explanation as well. It's those fleeting and few unexplained moments that usually get thrown in the garbage due to some non-related issues that get put into the mix that need more research and less criticism. You can't find something that you are not looking for.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 01:06

In the case of James Randi it is FRAUD v FRAUD. The man is a despicable creature who handpicks his subjects. For example,he refuses to test the remarkable people of this world who do not eat, they only drink water. His response to this is that it would cost too much to supervise an event and make sure the person being tested does not break free and nip into KFC. That is just ONE example. His whole forum is loused up with degenerates, paid liars, MKultra victims and fearful dummies. EVERY 'debwunking site' was spawned from that site. Mark Roberts, who has now retired, was its main exponent of 'debwunking'. The actual forum itself was set up in August 2001(how convenient). These days it appears to be suffering a backlash, people are leaving this 'virtual cabal' in droves. Go and see for yourself and you will be presented with a mass sock puppetry campaign. Check the date some of them joined and the posts they have made.

[Post edited by Moderator due to improper content]
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby Azrael » 19 Oct 2009, 02:48

accidentsinspace wrote:In the case of James Randi it is FRAUD v FRAUD. The man is a despicable creature who handpicks his subjects. For example,he refuses to test the remarkable people of this world who do not eat, they only drink water.

JREF do not test poeple who could physically coem to harm,it states in the rules.Have your read them? Who are these "remarkable people"? Cite me scientific proof they live only on water.
His response to this is that it would cost too much to supervise an event and make sure the person being tested does not break free and nip into KFC.

See my comment re:dangerous claims.
That is just ONE example. His whole forum is loused up with degenerates, paid liars, MKultra victims and fearful dummies.

Proof please.
EVERY 'debwunking site' was spawned from that site. Mark Roberts, who has now retired, was its main exponent of 'debwunking'. The actual forum itself was set up in August 2001(how convenient). These days it appears to be suffering a backlash, people are leaving this 'virtual cabal' in droves. Go and see for yourself and you will be presented with a mass sock puppetry campaign. Check the date some of them joined and the posts they have made.

As far as I am concerned they are the slimiest and most immoral and traitorous pieces of trash on the internet. I detest each and every one of the JREF 9/11 crowd with every fibre of my being. Of course, when you learn they are led by an alleged peadophile (Randi) it all begins to make sense.


JREF 9/11 crowd?! No idea what you are trying to suggest,you sound a bit nuts to me. What stupid belief is it you have then?
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 03:32

Pwoof please. You pwoove to me that they are not.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 03:35

JREF do not test poeple who could physically coem to harm,it states in the rules.Have your read them? Who are these "remarkable people"? Cite me scientific proof they live only on water.

I believe they live in Atlantis. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 04:00

Accidentsinspace - Are you adding to the conversation here or just trying to stir up trouble? Voodoo belongs in the "Religion / Philosophy / Theology" section and sticking pins into a muppet belongs on the Sesame St. sewing forum. Which is it?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 04:02

NinjaPuppy wrote:Accidentsinspace - Are you adding to the conversation here or just trying to stir up trouble? Voodoo belongs in the "Religion / Philosophy / Theology" section and sticking pins into a muppet belongs on the Sesame St. sewing forum. Which is it?


Can you put it in both, just to be sure?
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 04:04

accidentsinspace wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Accidentsinspace - Are you adding to the conversation here or just trying to stir up trouble? Voodoo belongs in the "Religion / Philosophy / Theology" section and sticking pins into a muppet belongs on the Sesame St. sewing forum. Which is it?


Can you put it in both, just to be sure?

No, but I can remove it with the click of one button. CLICK! It's magic!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 04:06

NinjaPuppy wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Accidentsinspace - Are you adding to the conversation here or just trying to stir up trouble? Voodoo belongs in the "Religion / Philosophy / Theology" section and sticking pins into a muppet belongs on the Sesame St. sewing forum. Which is it?


Can you put it in both, just to be sure?

No, but I can remove it with the click of one button. CLICK! It's magic!


You're in love with Jamie, arent you?
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 04:27

accidentsinspace wrote:You're in love with Jamie, arent you?

Not particularly. In the immortal words of Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?". My personal opinion of James Randi has no bearing on the facts of JREF's challenge or what I think of them.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby Azrael » 19 Oct 2009, 06:16

accidentsinspace wrote:
You're in love with Jamie, arent you?


I was in love with Jamie Summers back in 1975 does that count? Then later Jamie and the magic torch. You are just a troll.
I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 06:51

Azrael wrote:
accidentsinspace wrote:
You're in love with Jamie, arent you?


I was in love with Jamie Summers back in 1975 does that count? Then later Jamie and the magic torch. You are just a troll.

Gee, thanks Azrael. I Googled Jamie Summers. :oops:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Randi's Flim Flam Rules

Postby Mistislav D'ralle » 19 Oct 2009, 12:58

Mistislav wrote: The clause is simply like a "television release" document. It grants the right for JREF to show the experiment in any format but does not grant them the right to modify, falsify, manipulate or change the experiment as there is no "moral rights" waiver allowing this in the JREF offer document. I assume the intent is to allow JREF to reproduce all the failed experiments in their compilation books so they can prove they use the scientific method ( and make money from book sales). If this clause was not included then people applying to the JREF MDC would be able to prevent JREF disclosing the details of the experiments and allow them to complain that JREF is not being honest through being "secretive".

In the unlikely scenario that an applicant will prove they have paranormal powers JREF will want the rights to publish this significant experiment in the world's press. This is logical as JREF is conducting the experiment.


Don wrote:RESPONSE: On the contrary. The wording clearly allows them to use it any way JREF likes. You may THINK that's what they've written, but legally, you can only go by the actual words, and the words show that if someone agrees to the rules there is nothing they can do about misrepresentation by JREF.


Not true. In recent USA and international copyright law legislation has introduced moral rights where as a person assigning a copyright or a artistic, musical, celebrity or technical performance has the certainty that the new owner may only use the product for the intent detailed at the time of assignment. For example, if you recorded a nice song about you girlfriend and sold the copyright to EMI, EMI could not assign their new property to a dogfood commercial even though they own the song. However most copyright assignment contracts from the mid 80's now have "moral rights waivers" to allow complete control. JREF has no moral right waiver nor do they need to because your rights are protected by consumer laws that outweigh the express terms of a contract.
Mistislav D'ralle
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 10:46

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron