I didn't post in this thread because I've read all of the many VfF threads,all of her claims, all of the SVfF, VfF websites, plus the live streaming video of the IIG demonstration. This has been a long and complicated saga that has gone on for two years so, ynot, you'd have to do all of those things to really debate the IIG protocol and it's end result.
In general, AC, I agree. I found it very frustrating that people who did not bother to do any research would be strenuously arguing about what terms Anita would or would not accept, especially when most of the suggestions were already discussed and rejected by her.
However, one need not understand any of that to deal with ynot's assertion that the test should have been stopped after the first failed trial. First, there are logistical problems with bringing the sonogram lady on and off the stage. Second, there's the issue of feedback to Anita that whatever technique she might be using (including collusion or cheating) is correct. That would only work to her advantage. To me that's enough to offset the
possible time savings since the bulk of the work for such a test is in the preparation stages. Besides that, I think the general public would be disappointed and frustrated that the full test wasn't given.
The major sticking point is the legal ramifications. If the IIG stopped at the first failed trial
and it turned out later that there was a mistake on their part, then we all agree that Anita would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Considering that everyone at the IIG is doing this stuff for the first time in a strange location, you can't discount that mistakes might happen.
I argue that you let it proceed. That way if she fails any of the other trials, the
final outcome is unaffected by the the mistake the IIG made in the failed trial. I pointed out that in US law, courts look to restore the person to the same position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Since redoing that one trial wouldn't make a difference in the final outcome, there's nothing to restore because she's already there. Thus, no lawsuit.
Of course, if she passed the other two trials, then she should be allowed to retake the third trial at the IIG's expense. Then she would be restored to a position where she stood a chance at successfully completing the entire test.
What ticked me off with ynot is his refusal to read any of the links I posted about contract law and his continued insistence based on his personal beliefs rather than his understanding of the law. If *I* am wrong about this, then at least I did my homework.
What's even more frustrating is that ynot cannot see the inconsistency of his position. He argues that if she fails, the IIG has the right cancel the rest of the test. Then he argues that if she fails a legitimate trial, she still has the right to sue to be allowed retake an invalid trial. Well, how come the IIG just can't cancel the whole thing at that point?
I think UncaYimmy needs a drink...
