Civility Out?

[dann]

Okay. Don't be convinced. Go right on believing that JREF is never unjustiably rude or mean to applicants or potential applicants. Because if what's posted on the challenge application section doesn't convince you, I don't think I can. But clearly, many other people feel differently, including potential applicants who then never become actual applicants. Is that a problem? Apparently not.

When did I say that the JREF was never rude or mean? I have no idea if they were, ever, or not. You are the one that posted this anonymous quotation:
"With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every (!!!) correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness" (my exclamation marks, of course)
It should be very easy to prove that every single correspondence with the JREF resulted in pure rudeness - and that the JREF, and the JREF only, were to blame!

Because I try to control my own actions, not those of other people. And because my correspondent didn't do anything that I considered impolite. S/he only tried to engage JREF in a dialog about the challenge. In response, s/he was treated much as the EFT guy in Randi's commentary was treated. The result of the exchange - s/he now has the impression of JREF that I posted.

And if you didn't consider what your correspondent did impolite, but apparently considered every correspondence from the JREF impolite, we simply have to take your word for it and ask the JREF to apologize ...
Come on, let's see the exchange. All of it! And let's decide for ourselves!
So far we only have your impressions and considerations, and you want us to simply accept this - as facts.
Come on!

 

[Beth]

I agree...but I am struck by the fact that many of the posts Kramer has shared seem to start off politely enough on the JREF end and then switch to a tone that might seem to someone as unjustifiably rude.

I'm in no position to decide for other people what is unjustifiable about JREF's reasons for being brusque dismissive or offputting...

I'm just asking if we can define the *point* at which it goes from
'Thank you for your interest in the JREF challenge...'
to 'There is nothing more to be gained from further correspondence...'.

I'm not really concerned about defining that point. JREF can set it as they see fit and if they would stick to polite statements such as 'There is nothing more to be gained from further correspondence...' there wouldn't be much discussion about their propriety.

It is the fact that they become rude and belligerant at the slightest provation. It's almost as if they are trying to make applicants so angry and frustrated they go away rather than work through a protocol and be tested. I personally doubt this is actually the case, but I would find it understandable if someone reading through the correspondence came away with that impression.

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

Beth

 

[crimresearch]

"After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more."

Publicity? Sure...
That is the whole idea of offering a challenge when you are certain that it can't be beaten...to publicize the failures.

Stunt and nothing more?

As in a rigged stunt? A fraud? No money exists?

Given the available means of verification, I would hope that you would have something more to offer in the way of evidence than threads on a forum from a short while.

And back to the rudeness...I notice claims about rudeness from the very onset of communications.

IIRC, that scenario plays out when someone contacts JREF with a claim that would likely involve death or other severe harm to the claimant or the subjects, etc.

If the basis for forming negative opinions about JREF's integrity is that they are rude to people who propose harmful activities, could you expound upon that?
Why is that a bad thing?

Or if you are referring to cases where JREF's initial response to someone was rude, when no harm was involved, then we are left to ask:

Is it rude to reply 'Thank you for your interest, here is the application packet'?

Or can you provide more information as to why there is a difference between those posts, and the posts Kramer shared showing a lack of initial rudeness?


If I may ask, without being rude...

 

[jmercer]

You are quite right of course. They can treat their applicants any way they like. I don't watch any of reality TV shows myself, but I'll take your word for how they treat their contestants.

Well, for the record, I don't watch them, either. (I don't watch much TV, for that matter.) I catch snips of them as I'm flipping channels when I do indulge, and occasionally I stop for a few minutes to watch with sick horror at just how people will debase themselves for money. Kind of like watching a train wreck in horrified shock. You don't want to see it, but you find it impossible (for the moment) to look away.

The whole "reality TV" thing is utterly disgusting - and the only thing worse (to me) is the fact that there are apparently enough people fascinated by this garbage that it's shown on prime time... AND there are enough of them to make it worthwhile to the advertisers!

Best argument I've ever seen for evolution, in the sense of extinction making room for higher life forms.

I agree. After watching and participating in threads for the past several months, I am now convinced that the challenge is simply a publicity stunt and nothing more.

Whoa, pardner! That is NOT what I'm saying. There's certainly an element of "publicity stunt" involved in what the JREF does, and I think the organization leverages that as much as possible. And frankly, that's a good thing. The more people talk about something, the more it's examined.

But I don't believe that's all it is. I've seen no evidence to support that contention, and I've seen plenty of evidence that the million is technically "winnable". The only obstacle is that to win the million, you have to show something impossible actually exists. Well, to be accurate about that, I should have said:

"The only obstacle is that to win the million, you have to show something thought to be impossible actually exists."

Eventually, someone will probably win the million because they'll be able to demonstrate something "impossible".

 

[dann]

IIt is the fact that they become rude and belligerant at the slightest provation.

So it actually takes provocation to make them rude? Interesting ...

It's almost as if they are trying to make applicants so angry and frustrated they go away rather than work through a protocol and be tested. I personally doubt this is actually the case, but I would find it understandable if someone reading through the correspondence came away with that impression.

You yourself doubt it, but nevertheless it is almost as if? And therefore, even though you doubt it, you empathize with the people who come away with that impression???

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

And once again "a conclusion" from somebody who's angry at "this man". Wouldn't it be much more interesting if you showed us what made him reach his conclusion? The one-sidedness, the acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive behaviour that the JREF is being accused of?
I, for one, would like to see it ...

 

[jmercer]

Look at this assessment by a recent applicant:

"The conclusion I came to was this man has no intention of facilitating anything regarding my claim. The Challenge negotiations have been entirely one-sided, acrimonious, deceitful and unproductive, in other words, a farce"

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?s=&threadid=53829&perpage=40&pagenumber=20

Beth

Hey, Beth - you're citing a complaint by a dishonest and deceitful applicant, who's claim was rightfully closed by JREF.

This is just sour grapes from this guy when it became obvious that he was doing everything in his power to get JREF to close his claim, rather than him withdrawing it. (And thus irreparably damaging his reputation among his peers and readers.)

I documented the specifics of Wellfed's application journey in that thread when he finally manuvered JREF into closing his application.

Wellfed then responded by saying that my information was all wrong, and that Kramer, Randi and JREF had lied and practiced deception by manipulating the process to their own ends - that of dismissing his claim.

I told him to prove it.

He then attempted to show that Kramer lied to him him on two occasions, but failed miserably. He then admitted that other than the two "lies" he claimed Kramer did, the rest of the thread (and ergo, my specifics) were not lies... because what was posted in the thread was 100% accurate and representative of his (Wellfeds) actions.

So pointing to Michael Anda as an example of anger over rude treatment is erroneous here. His anger stems from me calling him on his deceitful and dishonest practices during the negotiations, and his attempts to manipulate the process to his own ends. He can't blame me for citing the Applications thread, and he can't say that I'm distorting it - so he has to complain about JREF.

Anda's complaint doesn't really support your position, IMHO.

 

[Beth]

Hey, Beth - you're citing a complaint by a dishonest and deceitful applicant, who's claim was rightfully closed by JREF.
This is just sour grapes from this guy when it became obvious that he was doing everything in his power to get JREF to close his claim, rather than him withdrawing it. (And thus irreparably damaging his reputation among his peers and readers.

We'll have to disagree on that. I've had some private correspondence with Anda. He was seeking advice on how to deal with Kramer because he was frustrated, he very much wanted to come to a mutually agreeable protocol and felt stymied by the responses he had received from JREF. I don't think he is at all concerned about his reputation among readers. He's not a professional audio critic, he just posts his opinion to a public forum, much as we do here.

Anda's complaint doesn't really support your position, IMHO.

Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I think Kramer treated Anda badly; I can understand why he felt that Kramer had been deceptive. I wouldn't have blamed Anda for withdrawing his claim (in fact, I wrote him and told him that weeks ago), but he didn't. He chose to continue attempting negotiations despite the treatment he had received. End result: Kramer - not Anda - closed the file unilaterly and for what I consider to be pretty piddlin' reasons. Exactly what would expected if the Challenge is just a publicity stunt and JREF doesn't actually want any serious challengers - only loons and people predetermined to fail.

Beth

 

[jmercer]

I guess you're right - we'll simply have to disagree on this.

 

[Beth]

I guess you're right - we'll simply have to disagree on this.

Thanks. It's nice to be told I'm right about something and it's nice to talk with someone who can disagree without being unpleasant about it.

Beth

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.
2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.
3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.
4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.
5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.
6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.
7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.
8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.
9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.
10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

There you go - disgruntled sour grapes. Can we get a sour grapes smiley. I think it would be used a lot.

 

[jmercer]

Thanks. It's nice to be told I'm right about something and it's nice to talk with someone who can disagree without being unpleasant about it.

Beth

Nothing wrong with people having different opinions... and regardless of how I view Mr. Anda's activities, it's just my opinion, after all. It's certainly not worth being unpleasant about. (Except when I have a different opinion than my wife... at that point, I'm just an idiot, according to her. )

Where I do become passionate is when people deny reality in ways that negatively affect people, like that Verbeke guy and the Holocaust, or "John of God" and his "Healing Powers", Sylvia Browne, etc. These people are causing harm, and that's where I draw the line and refuse to step backwards. There's a reason I have Edmund Burke's quote in my sig...

BTW, if I didn't do so publicly before, let me compliment you on withdrawing from your Challenge without wasting everyone's time and/or dissembling... and for hanging around the forums and contributing. Both actions were and are - in my opinion - worthy of praise.

 

[crimresearch]

Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.
2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.
3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.
4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.
5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.
6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.
7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.
8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.
9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.
10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

There you go - disgruntled sour grapes. Can we get a sour grapes smiley. I think it would be used a lot.

Well, all I can say is that the way she has treated me has been *very* rude.

 

[Beth]

Well, all I can say is that the way she has treated me has been *very* rude.

My apologies. It was unintentional. But if you will be kind enough to tell me what I did to you that you considered to be *very* rude , I will try to avoid such behavior in the future.

Beth

 

[Beth]

Beth is learning the "sour grapes" methodology fast.

1. Don't answer the question asked.

Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

2. Don't provide any evidence - talk in generalities.

People have different ideas about what constitutes rude behavior. I don't care to get caught up in a 'yes it was'/'no it wasn't' type argument. Sorry, but you'll have to get someone else to argue with you about those details.

3. Regard people who ask questions or ask for evidence as 'rude'.

Asking questions or asking for evidence isn't rude, but it can be done in a way that is rude.

4. Make yourself out to be the victim. After all, the JREF has just 'tricked' you out of that million dollars.

I haven't done that.

5. Use the most egregious example, but not in context. Only present the bit that suppossedly supports your case.

Hmm. I haven't used the most egregious example. And I prefer brief quotes with links to supporting material. Just my preference. You're free to bring up more context and more evidence.

6. Becoming willing to support the most outrageous frauds, quacks and charlatans, because you now know what it is like to be treated 'badly' by the JREF (although you offer no evidence of this). You now empathise with crooks, villains and those responsible for the palpable hindrance of human progress.

I'm typically willing to support people I don't necessary like or approve of when discussing principles I do support, such as supporting pornographers in discussions of freedom of speech, drug dealers in discussions regarding legalization of recreational drugs, and christian fundamentalists in discussions of home-schooling. I don't see the people who apply for the challenge as being crooks, villains, etc. (I find it interesting that you do) and I don't consider them any worse than the other groups I just mentioned.

7. Become increasingly anti-scientist.

I'm not, nor have I ever been anti-scientist.

8. Become increasingly anti-Randi.

Is criticism of Randi or JREF not allowed? Is anyone who does automatically anti-Randi?

9. Become extremely abusive, but in a mockingly charming and polite way.

Abusive? Mocking? Charming? I'm at a loss for words with this comment. You might elucidate what you mean by abusive and I'll try to avoid it, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

10. Claim that it was "they" who started the fight.

Who started what fight? I don't consider this discussion a fight. Or are you referring to something else?

 

[thaiboxerken]

PS: Does TB really not know who Feyman, Penrose, and Dyson are or is he disagreeing with your description of their views?

I don't know who those people are, and I could care less. Appeals to false authorities mean little to me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Posted by Beth
Who started what fight? I don't consider this discussion a fight. Or are you referring to something else?

I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...

Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!!

 

[Beth]

Nothing wrong with people having different opinions... and regardless of how I view Mr. Anda's activities, it's just my opinion, after all. It's certainly not worth being unpleasant about. (Except when I have a different opinion than my wife... at that point, I'm just an idiot, according to her. )

You sound like my husband. Any time I disagree with him, I'm a contrary b*tch who likes to argue (true) and he thinks I think he's a dick (not true). But all issues can be resolved with that magic phrase "Yes dear, you're right".

Anyway, I quite agree that there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing - as long as they aren't disagreeable! But it seems more and more rare to find people one can disagree with and manage to keep civil at the same time.

BTW, if I didn't do so publicly before, let me compliment you on withdrawing from your Challenge without wasting everyone's time and/or dissembling... and for hanging around the forums and contributing. Both actions were and are - in my opinion - worthy of praise.

Aw shucks, it weren't nothin'. Thank you for being kind and gracious enough to notice and mention it.

Beth

 

[rwguinn]

I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...




I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!! [/B]

for a "skeptic", you are pretty ignorant. The "have you quit...." was what most people of double-digit IQ would call "an example" of a question that doesn't deserve an answer.
To assume she was asking the question of you is the funniest thing I have ever read!

 

[jmercer]

I find this really funny, for some reason. You say it's not a fight, and yet...




I would venture to say that every question asked of you has been relevant to the discussion. There is no need for you to pick fights by asking these kinds of questions. Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!! [/B]

Thai - I'm not sure if your serious about this or not. If you are, then I assume that you've never encountered this kind of paradox/question before, so I'll explain.

The question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" - is a classical rhetorical question used to illustrate a situation where there is no "good" answer.

If the subject says "Yes", then they've admitted to beating their wife previously. If they say "No", they've still admitted to beating their wife previously, not to mention continuing to do so.

 

[thaiboxerken]

for a "skeptic", you are pretty ignorant. The "have you quit...." was what most people of double-digit IQ would call "an example" of a question that doesn't deserve an answer.
To assume she was asking the question of you is the funniest thing I have ever read!

I understand that it is an example, it's a poor one that is insulting, at best. She is trying to pick a fight with this kind of a rhetorical question.

Posted by JMercerThai - I'm not sure if your serious about this or not. If you are, then I assume that you've never encountered this kind of paradox/question before, so I'll explain.

I do understand the fallacy. However, I don't agree that using that particular question as an example is doing anything more than trying to pick a fight. Another factor that I've taken into consideration is the fact that she did NOT give specific examples of these fallacious questions that she claims people have asked her.

Beth, can you show me any real examples where people have asked such questions of you that assume a premise that has not been established?