# Changes to Randi's Challenge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695 "2007-01-12T13:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/81 "2007-01-15T14:36:35Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] That was just before Kramer had the mild meltdown and left JREF, wasn’t it? [/QUOTE] That might explain it. I noted his sudden disappearance when I was browsing the applications - do you have a link detailing what actually happened? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/82 "2007-01-15T16:29:46Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I’m not so sure… it’s not really a fair rejection if it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the claim and a failure to properly apply the JREF rules/terms/conditions. The challenge itself is a sham if the hosts allow themselves this kind of weasel room and put up this kind of resistance to applications. [/QUOTE] Man, I have to agree with you. It looks like there was a misunderstanding at the beginning as to differentiating a successful trial from pure chance. Beth clarified, but it seems like both Kramer and Randi (post 14) either ignored or misunderstood her clarification. In addition, Kramer seems to think a _detailed_ test procedure is necessarly an _elaborate_ test procedure. Admittedly, the bits and pieces of email might not tell the whole story, but this looks, at best, incredibly sloppy on JREF’s part. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/83 "2007-01-15T16:38:43Z")
That’s not what i’m saying, **Mangetout**. I’m just saying that it’s pretty clear the reason they had for rejecting it was that they thought the test wasn’t a good one, and that the reason was not that they think any results less than 50% are paranormal. If they’re wrong, then they’re wrong, but that is the reason they’re giving. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/84 "2007-01-15T20:23:35Z")
[QUOTE=Priceguy] Nobody is saying that Randi isn’t abrasive, impolite, brash or rude. [/QUOTE] You can’t say that about Cecil, either, and that’s why I like him. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/85 "2007-01-15T20:26:05Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] That might explain it. I noted his sudden disappearance when I was browsing the applications - do you have a link detailing what actually happened? [/QUOTE] Naw, I don’t pay _that_ much attention to over there. I just wander over when bored. Right now there’s some cool oddness about a vampire hunter that’s interesting reading. But it was pretty apparent he was doing the overstressed boogie at around that time. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/86 "2007-01-15T20:44:30Z")
There’s a pretty big difference, Bryan. Cecil may be rude, but there’s no ounce of hate or anger in him. Randi, by contrast, is a total bigot and a rather vile individual all round. Not to mention the vast difference in intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/87 "2007-01-15T21:35:40Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] That’s not what i’m saying, **Mangetout**. I’m just saying that it’s pretty clear the reason they had for rejecting it was that they thought the test wasn’t a good one, and that the reason was not that they think any results less than 50% are paranormal. If they’re wrong, then they’re wrong, but that is the reason they’re giving. [/QUOTE] Well, actually, that’s not even quite correct; they just kept on and on with counterproductive dicking about until the applicant gave up in frustration. No formal rejection occurred or was actually necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/88 "2007-01-15T21:42:10Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Well, actually, that’s not even quite correct; they just kept on and on with counterproductive dicking about until the applicant gave up in frustration. No formal rejection occurred or was actually necessary. [/QUOTE] Did they not reject the original idea for a test? I don’t know what would consist of a formal rejection of doing the test other than saying “we don’t agree to that test”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/89 "2007-01-15T21:45:18Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] There’s a pretty big difference, Bryan. Cecil may be rude, but there’s no ounce of hate or anger in him. Randi, by contrast, is a total bigot and a rather vile individual all round. Not to mention the vast difference in intelligence. [/QUOTE] I rather disagree with your assessment of Randi, and I’m not even a fan of Randi. You just say it so unconvincingly and repetitively that I’m compelled to doubt you. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/90 "2007-01-15T21:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Did they not reject the original idea for a test? I don’t know what would consist of a formal rejection of doing the test other than saying “we don’t agree to that test”. [/QUOTE] I don’t think so - it looks like they just kept telling her to rework it until her resolve collapsed or she fell into confusion or something - I think a formal rejection involves JREF closing the case and forbidding re-application within a certain time period. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/91 "2007-01-16T01:44:42Z")
Randi simply underestimated the veracity and multitude of the “crazy” and “deluded” people he hunted. He is changing his tactics, he was decimated on the the left flank by the WOO-WOO Army. He’s setting up an elite unit to pick off the “officers”. He’s taking a play from the Catholics. Very successful Campaign. Burn them at the stake. No one suspects the Spanish Inquisition! Legion. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/92 "2007-01-16T03:11:13Z")
As a Magician, I will not let you take magic from life. Yours is a barren. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/93 "2007-01-16T03:37:56Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] and I’m not even a fan of Randi. [/QUOTE] I’m curious. Why do you always enter every single discussion about Randi? given that you have no particular feeling for him either way, I find it strange that you spend so much time talking about him. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/94 "2007-01-16T04:45:32Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I’m curious. Why do you always enter every single discussion about Randi? [/QUOTE] That is interestingly untrue. A search uncovers several threads with “Randi” or “Randi’s” in the title (not counting those about Randi Rhodes) that have no input from me at all; some others where my involvement only begins on the third or fourth page. Randi and I have some overlapping interests. I’ve never started a thread about him. > [@](#): > > I find it strange that you spend so much time talking about him. I don’t know what calculation you used. I have 55 posts with “Randi” in them (not counting this one). Of my 16,692 posts (again, not counting this one), that means Randi is mentioned in 0.3 % of them. By comparison: Cecil gets 58. Bill and/or Hillary Clinton get 69 (heh). Batman gets 81. The Simpsons get 116. Superman gets 171. You’re right; I’m clearly obsessed. Just not with Randi. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/95 "2007-01-16T05:22:00Z")
Myself and some others argued on the JREF forums that Kramer did not appear to have the temperament or the background knowledge to handle Challenge applications. One of the examples used in our arguments was that of Beth the candle person. Some time later, Kramer left. I have no idea whether these facts are related. One qualification that has to be placed on the scope of the Challenge in my experience is that Randi won’t countenance what might be referred to as low margin paranormal powers. If you claim to be able to exert paranormal influence in a manner that will show a statistically significant result only after numerous iterations, for example, you are probably SOL as far as the Challenge is concerned. Randi in my experience doesn’t have patience with such claims. He also is likely to refuse byzantine testing setups. I don’t know whether that is because of lack of patience or because he is concerned that they introduce too many complexities for him to be sure that cheating or experimental error can be avoided. Trying desperately to drag this back on topic, I suppose one of the benefits of the revamped challenge may be that JREF may have more time and resources to devote to a few high profile paranormalists. However, that is only useful if high profile paranormalists will play ball. While some of them may be what they are by happenstance, I think that most are clever people who know damn well how to play the publicity game to their advantage. My suspicion is that they will just starve JREF’s efforts of oxygen by refusing to even discuss the Challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/96 "2007-01-16T07:06:14Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] That is interestingly untrue. [/quote] Only to a strict pedant. > [@](#): > > A search uncovers several threads with “Randi” or “Randi’s” in the title (not counting those about Randi Rhodes) that have no input from me at all; some others where my involvement only begins on the third or fourth page. Okay then, in the intesests of absolute accuracy let me rephrase. Stating that you enter every single thread about Randi is inaccurate. However, you participate in MOST threads about Randi. You may not post in all of them, but you do in the majority. I can’t recall any thread about Randi that I was in that didn’t have you in it too. And I note that you are sometimes joining in the discussion before I do. You joined this thread before me, for instance. So, since you made the point that you aren’t a particular fan of Randi, why the frequent participation? Why do you so often come to his defence? Why should you be bothered by criticisms, if you aren’t a particular admirer of his? I just find it peculiar. > [@](#): > > Randi and I have some overlapping interests. I’ve never started a thread about him. Big deal. You’ve never started a thread about Cecil, the Clintons or Superman either. And you talk about them more often than Randi, right? In fact you rarely start threads at all. You didn’t start a Batman thread, either, though you did once start one about Robin. I’ll be generous and give you a pass on that one. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what calculation you used. I have 55 posts with “Randi” in them (not counting this one). Of my 16,692 posts (again, not counting this one), that means Randi is mentioned in 0.3 % of them. So? You’ve plenty of posts where you talk about Randi, but don’t actually say his name. An example is in post#30 in this thread. Simpply counting the number of times you have wriiten the word "Randi"is not a good estimate. > [@](#): > > By comparison: > > Cecil gets 58. > Bill and/or Hillary Clinton get 69 (heh). > Batman gets 81. > The Simpsons get 116. > Superman gets 171. > > You’re right; I’m clearly obsessed. Just not with Randi. 😃 Strange that you discuss him so often then. Why is that exactly? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/97 "2007-01-16T07:38:42Z")
Is anyone interested in discussing the OP? Because I see this bickering as a challenge to see whether I can close this thread. Knock it off. Stick to the pont of the OP rather than your personal feud hijacks. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/98 "2007-01-16T07:50:50Z")
Do we have any stats on how many challenges are filed each month under the existing rules? I can understand a desire to pre-emptively reduce this just in the interest of saving time. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/99 "2007-01-16T08:05:54Z")
If you mean how many are actually filed according to the rules clearly set forth on the website-not too many. I think one of the major reasons the rules were changed was so that the powers that be didn’t have to waste their time talking people through every single step(that was already clearly explained on the official website), only to have them try to change the rules(that were clearly outlined on the website) and/or the conditions of the test(which were mutually arrived at by both testor and testee) and/or the location of the test. People who were told which form to fill out, how to fill it out and where to send it, would instead try to phone in the information, mail in videos of them supposedly doing whatever it was they claimed they could do, or even show up unannounced and uninvited at Mr. Randi’s house. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695/100 "2007-01-16T08:40:50Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] or even show up unannounced and uninvited at Mr. Randi’s house. [/QUOTE] Well, if they’d found their way there with a divining rod, that could be kind of impressive… 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changes-to-randis-challenge/387695.md?page=6)