Wow! I have to admit I didn't expect such an overwhelming 'yes' response.
As I'm replying to 13 posts (eta: they've grown to 15 while I'm typing), this is going to be long. To keep it tidy, I'll state my main point in the next paragraphs and leave smaller/off-topic comments after the main point.
Yes, I do think one million dollars pays for the efforts required, but you all seem to forget that most of that efforts are not to win a million dollars. They are to
check that the challenge is for real. If it is not, much more effort would be neccessary
for a legal battle for the million. Now, suppose you hire a translator and a legal consultant and then they tell you that the application form has a loophole and it's worth next to nothing. Then what?
Of course, then you sue Sylvia. Now, suppose the loophole is not obvious enough to warrant legal action. As an example, suppose the legal text allows Sylvia to change the conditions for the test
while the test is in progress "to avoid cheating in ways not thought before the test". You can't really expect to win a legal battle against her for including a sentence like this in an otherwise correct challenge. While thinking about this, consider that you know nothing about the legal system to which the challenge belongs (at least, you don't know until you've paid the translator and the legal advisor) and remember that people like Sylvia Browne know how to say things (e.g. that they can talk to the dead) without having
legally said them.
Compare to a Nigerian scam: you receive an e-mail from someone offering you a million dollars to help him get out of Nigeria. The e-mail comes with offers of Nigerian documents to ensure you'll be paid. What do you do? Do you hire a translator and a legal consultant to check the e-mail's validity? What makes Sylvia Browne more "trustable" than the Nigerian offer?
Okay, the previous is my serious, directly on-topic answer. Now I'll go for some smaller and/or a little off-topic comments:
My lurking days are over. I post!
Welcome to the forum.
For fairness I'm going to assume that the language in question is at least as common as English and so finding an interpreter will be less complicated than finding one for, say, Swahili. I am likewise going to assume that the legal system of which you speak is at least as well known worldwide as the legal system of the United States of America.
If I got your point correctly, I agree.
Certainly I'm not willing to set a (probably useless) debate about language commonness or legal system well knownness metrics, so I'll go to a practical reply: would you agree that Spanish/Spain is fair (supposing you don't speak Spanish and don't know Spain's legal system)? While probably not as common or well-known as English/U.S., I think it's a useful example to give Americans an idea of what English and the U.S. legal system look like "from outside".
Now, can you guess where I live?
Finally I will assume that the proof of funds offered and the nature of the agreement are at least as impressive and fair, once translated and legally reviewed, as those offered by the JREF.
(bolding mine)
Completely agreed. Indeed I was trying to replicate what the MDC would look like to someone with true paranormal powers, so your fairness points completely make sense to me.
Of course, the bolded part means that you have to spend your money in translation and legal review
before having the impressiveness and fairness the JREF offers. This brings on my point at the beginning of this post and (for fairness
) this point also applies to the JREF MDC.
i know a number of people studying international law [...].
For their time I would offer 10% of the prize upon my success. I would likewise, if necessary, offer 10% of the prize to an interpreter.[...]
Now, I know what your thinking, these people may also be able to ride a bike. They might ditch me and try for the prize themselves. That's fine though. I so desperately want the world to realise that riding a bike is possible that I'm willing to take that risk. When the world comes to accept bike riding my skills will be in demand
The serious answer to this is in the first paragraphs of this post, now the funny one: I must admit that I actually thought about that. However, I also thought about your desperation for the world to realise that riding a bike is possible so I wasn't going to use that argument..... until you brought it up
the foreign language/country thing is a red herring since there are plenty of American/English speaking "psychics" that are welcome to apply for the JREF prize.
Oops! I'm sorry I forgot to mention in the OP that this thread is not intended as an argument about the Sylvia Brownes. Say, it's about Mike Guska, Carina Landin, etc. Well, I mean, about people like these, who haven't applied yet, and assuming they have true paranormal powers.
I agree completely with your point. I, in fact, think that Sylvia Browne, John Edward, etc. have no reason to refuse to apply. Except, of course, that they might not have the powers they claim.
If you think what you've listed is an insurmountable burden for something you can do, then you have excessive laziness or no appreciation for the value of a million.
Well, I admit having a bit of laziness, and I surely admit I have much, MUCH less appreciation for a million dollars than most people I know.
However, I still have some appreciation for the million, and my main reason for not applying is still the one I mentioned in the beginning of this post.
No problem. I've had to go through more than that just to apply for a job that wouldn't pay a million dollars if I spent 10 years working at it.
Of course I don't know what jobs you've applied for, but I never felt the need to hire translators or seek legal advice about foreign laws to apply for a job.
why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for translators for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike?
[...]why should "Sylvia" have to spend thousands of dollars paying for legal consultants for hundreds of people who really can't ride a bike?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for a road?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for smoothing the bumps and filling in the holes?
[...]why should "Sylvia" pay for stopping the traffic?
She shouldn't, just as she shouldn't expect people to trust her word; and she shouldn't expect people to pay translations and legal advice based only on her word.
I certainly wouldn't apply for such a challenge.
In that case you're either lying about being able to ride a bike or you're just an idiot.
I can actually ride a bike (well, unless it has flat tyres and no handlebars), so I guess the idiot part is the right one.
Do you have a job? How many years will you work to earn a million? And during those years, how much money will you spend on transportation to get to you job and back home every day?
You asked.
I do have a job, about 30,000 euros ($45,000) per year, which could lead to think that I could make $1M in 23 years. However, the IRPF (IRS) takes its part, the mortgage (I owe 25,000 euros or $37,000 to the bank) takes its part, I have to eat, etc.
You ask for directly job-related costs. I must say that, due to twists of life, I work 120 km away from my "main" home (the one with the mortgage), so I've had to rent a "second" home near my job. Also, I travel all weekends to my "main" home and back. That's... about 600 euros ($900) per month.
After all this, I still want to keep myself away from international legal battles against people who is clearly much more powerful than me (or is it "more powerful than I"? I never know).
You're right- spending a couple thousand dollars and giving up 2-3 days of your life certainly isn't worth a million dollars. Go on back to your $50,000 a year (or less) job and spend the next 20 years getting a million- that's obviously much easier.
As always: in the challenge, you see a million dollars. In the same challenge, I see a legal battle against Sylvia Browne.
However, I must point out that your "$50,000 or less a year" was quite close. Are you psychic or something?
Paved road? Where is the fun in that?
<----- See avatar.
I have avatars (and signatures) disabled in this forum. Furthermore, I have adblocked most images in the site. Fortunately for you, the first time I saw this post I was not on my computer and not logged on, so I did see your avatar.
Google Translate, simple and free tool.
Are you serious? Would you rely on an automated translating tool to check if you can trust a foreign legal document involving one million dollars?
Well, since Sylvia and I both live in the same country, I doubt this is a plausible scenario, so we're throwing this one out. However, I'm unaware of bicycling being forbidden in any country.
The problem is not that bicycling might be forbidden. The problem is that the legal text in the challenge application and rules might have a different interpretation under foreign law.
The problem with the OP is that jojonete makes the barriers of entry extremely irrational to keep people from accomplishing the simple task. Yet the JREF $1M challenge, until roughly a year ago, had extremely easy barriers of entry, with irrational claims that couldn't be reproduced - hence NO WINNERS.
Which barriers have I set that are not in the JREF MDC, or were not in it until roughly a year ago? I've chosen my requirements to match the ones in the JREF MDC, and I've even given the option to choose between the old-style three-affidavit requirement and the new-style media-presence requirement.
Seriously, if you feel the list of requirements in the OP does not match those of the JREF MDC, I want to know exactly the differences. In fact, if there are important differences, my whole argument collapses.
For your hypothetical situation to be accurate, you'd need to say:
[*] You and the tester agree that a reasonable test of your ability would be to ride the bike for at least 200 meters.
Agreed, but...
This comment has quite a bit of nitpick. I mean, I feel I don't need the level of accuracy you ask for to make my point.
However, you're right in your comment, and I also completely admit I shouldn't have made the mistake of setting different distances for the preliminary and final test (200m vs. 1km).
BTW, I don't think Slyvia is capable of coming up with a Paranormal Challenge that utilizes proper, controlled testing, so that sort of obviates your whole hypothetical situation right there. ; )
While I see you're not serious here, I have to point out that this exact argument is used by woos to throw away Randi's challenge.
Don't forget the million dollars would just be the tip of the iceberg. Your place in history would be assured.[...]
Seems like it would be worth the effort to me.
I think the place in history or other rewards outside the challenge don't belong here. The question is: would you apply for Sylvia's bike riding challenge? And I intend it to have some implications about wether regular people with true paranormal powers would apply for the challenge.
Of course, your last sentence answers the question... with one more 'yes'.
If we could get a million dollars for something that was as easy as riding a bike, we would be willing to brave all the difficulties that jojonete mentions.
Agreed. But that is
if we could get a million dollars for riding a bike.
My point is: if Sylvia offered the proposed challenge, I wouldn't think I can get a million dollars for riding a bike. I would think I could get a lot of legal trouble for trying to take one million from her.
And I'm surprised I'm the only one here who thinks so.
Let me check... no, no new posts since my last typing. So, I'll post this.
If anyone feels I have not answered some important point, please repost it or at least post a pointer. I may have overlooked something in the 15 previous posts. Thank you.
