# The mandatory "Million Dollar Challenge is a fraud" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555 "2005-02-11T06:37:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/121 "2005-02-14T01:28:20Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > First of all, she wished to be tested anonymously. Randi & Co refused to honour that and published her name, calling her ‘deluded’ and the usual range ofinsults. Yes, I agree that her request to remain anonymous should have been honored. But I don’t see this as an unfair condition. It was simply rude. > [@](#): > > First problem: she says her power only works occasionally. She estimates that she can move the flame about one time in three that she tries it. So, she wants a long trial with many tests to establish the truth of her claim. Randi & co will not accept this. They demand that she show a high success rate in a short series. They are just not prepared to test powers that work only occasionally. The only problem they raised was funding such a long trial. It seems to me their problem was not with conducting such a long test, but rather simply funding it. > [@](#): > > They like telling tales of how deluded woo-woos come saying they are certain of their own abilities, and cannot accept when they fail. With someone like B.C. they have no opportunity for mockery, and they don’t like that. That’s YOUR interpretation of their motive. They refuse to test her claim as she proposes because they can’t afford it. > [@](#): > > So, all in all, they have refused to test her claim. She says that she thinks she can do it 1 time in 3, and Randi won’t test that. If she wants to be tested, she must say she is certain that she can do it every time. She refused to have the circle divided into 12 sections, stating that the effect was not that accurate. She says she can do this only 1 in 3 times, when chance would have only 1 in 2 successes. That’s fine - and it’s measureable. But expensive. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/122 "2005-02-14T01:29:50Z")
I think the Randi Challenge comes up so much on the board for a variety of reasons, one of them being that it’s simply an interesting topic. Howbeit, the reasons why it is interesting lie in the subtleties; unfortunately, we here do _not_ argue the subtleties, but treat our argument about the Challenge as a proxy for warring directly over whether the “paranormal” exists in the first place. This is unfortunate, as the reasons we disagree about the Challenge really have nothing to do with the “paranormal” (which is itself an illy defined folk category, nothing more). Before we get to those subtleties, let me say this. Here we have a group of skeptics, people trained in sniffing out the truth and smoking out faulty claims. Is it not odd (I will not say “supernatural”) that the Randi Challenge, though subject to the trained noses of all the skeptics here, invariably comes out smelling like a rose, and a perfect rose at that? The Challenge is perfect; Randi is scrupulously honest; the Challenge’s rules are perfectly fair; the tests themselves fairly and impartially administered; and the interpretive conclusions that Randi reaches about the results always correct. Such perfection is a rare thing in human affairs. If you skeptics cannot find the slightest flaw in any aspect of the Challenge, not the smallest thing that might be improved, then I humbly suggest that your own skepticism and impartiality is open to serious question. Again, before we get to the subtleties of the Challenge, I’d like to reiterate that the problems one may have with the challenge, or even the reasons one may wish to support the Challenge, have little to do with the paranormal per se, and not merely because the “paranormal” is so vague a category to begin with. In essence, the Challenge is attempting (and largely succeding, it would seem) to be a Challenge to Complete Very Difficult (or Impossible) Tasks. In fact, Randi lumps things in there that would not usually fit the “paranormal” category. On the website of his I’ve seen one or more that would fit the “pseudoscience” category: substances or devices that have unusual powers, etc. Although all of these claims are put forth by the biggest nuts you can imagine, it may be that one day Randi will get a nasty surprise when someone really does invent a device that can do something “impossible.” Similarly, I might make a claim that, in my mind, has nothing to do with the paranormal; yet it might be perceived by Randi as applicable to the Challenge. For example, if I claimed to be able to read a book held up one mile distance because of my “good eyesight,” Randi might choose to label the claim “remote viewing” or “clairvoyance” and thus permit me to take the challenge. In short, the acrimony that attends all debates on SDMB about the “paranormal” and which is greatly evident in this thread, is entirely unnecessary. The real question is whether the Randi Challenge is a fair test of “very difficult or impossible” tasks. My view is that it is fair in some instances, not fair in others. One more thing: the skeptics here seem to think that, as they are on the “same side” as Mr. Randi, they have acquired an unusual (I will not say “paranormal”) degree of information about the JREF (its inner workings and moral calibre, etc.) as well as Mr. Randi’s motives and thoughts. How many statements are there in here that begin “Randi would…”? The **fact** of the matter is that we do not have access to a sufficient number of the test records to judge whether the test has, _in actuality_ been administered fairly and consistently. I understand that you think Randi is a fair and great guy and that, in each and every case, people have been treated with fairness and their abilitites accurately assessed. But I will raise a basic philosophical principle to which I believe you adhere as well: “He who posits must prove.” Until someone here claims to have done more than peruse Randi’s website and bulletin board, which has limited information (not to mention open to aggressive selecting), then I should think glowing bromides about his character and the fair administration of the Challenge are inappropriate and a smirch on your claim to skepticism. For my part, all I can say is that what I’ve read seems reasonably fair (but with such qualifiers as I describe below), and the jury is out on the rest. Finally, **Points about the Challenge I Find to Be Pertinent** A. **No judging**. The application states: > [@](#): > > All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. This is highly problematic for the simple fact that many tasks–easy, difficult, or impossible–require a judge. Ergo, there are many tasks for which one cannot apply to the Challenge. Here’s a simple example. Suppose I claimed to be able to look at a few works by an skilled artist and then draw or paint a perfect pastiche of his/her works (again, I am not saying this is “paranormal,” merely difficult). A knowledgable judge would be required to determine whether my pastiche was up to snuff. Suppose I claimed that I could juggle 11 balls at once (or however many is deeped exceptionally difficult or impossible). Someone knowledgeable in juggling would be required to determine first whether the task was actually difficult and then whether my technique was proper (i.e., was I actually keeping all the balls properly aloft). If you wish to get even more concrete, people could claim all manner of abilities in which they affect temperature, light, mass, etc., all of which might require special instruments and persons knowledgeable in their workings as judges of a sort. It is understandable why Randi wishes only to test those tasks in which success is self-evident to a layman. But that is only a small subset of potential tasks. Hence, I don’t see any way to get around describing the Challenge as being extremely limited in scope. B. **Quantifiability**. Based on what I have seen on Randi’s web site and elsewhere, he requires each challenge to have a quantifyable result, such as locating a hidden object among several choices. That is, something that anyone could do if s/he were lucky enough (a de facto highly difficult task). The test of the ability requires several attempts. Contrariwise, Randi will not accept a test that requires interpretation, or, as per point A above, judging. For psychic phenomena, this would serve to include what one may term basic ESP (the kind that could give one a boost in general perception and intuition) while ruling out “big-hit psi,” in which a person perceives a certain thing that would seem impossible to guess. Again, this rule (or testing principle) would prevent the testing of many different kinds of phenomena, “paranormal” and otherwise. To take the juggling example again, what if I claimed that I could keep an arbitrarily large number of balls in the air for 15 seconds if I tried my absolute damnedest and at the peak of concentration? Suppose I said I could screw up my strength and courage and do it once, but Randi wanted me to do it three times? It is easy to see how an impasse could develop. So, this desire for quantifiability and multiple attempts could also rule out many kinds of tests. If Randi has found out a way to get around this problem, I should like to see it. Show me the records. If he hasn’t, let’s admit that there is much that he does not attempt to test. I don’t necessarily blame him for that, either; it’s in the nature of the Challenge to begin with. C. **Astronomical odds.** Granted per point B above that the task must have quantifiable results, then it also follows from the nature of the Challenge that the odds against chance for successful completion (of the test as a whole) are at most 1 in 1,000,000. For, owing to the principle of mathematical expectation, even at odds of 1 in 1 million, Randi stands to lose $1.00 when he gives the test. As a concrete example (from Randi’s website), one task for a dowser was to locate (with 100% accuracy) an object hidden in ten containers ten times. As indeed the agreement between the man and Randi stipulated that he find the object each and every time, the odds of success were 1 in 10,000,000,000 or 1 in 10 billion. At such odds Randi risked losing 1/100 of a cent. Skeptics say that, inasmuch as the dowser and Randi agreed on the terms of the test beforehand that said terms were fair. I have no problem with that logic. But I do request that the skeptics understand the implication of the requirement of astronomical odds. It is simply this: most psychics who are not lunatics would never claim such accuracy in the first place. If you want to know why “serious” skeptics both with the Randi Challenge, this pretty much explains it. Either their task is not quantifiable per point B above, or the odds of success are so against them that they know they will fail. The Challenge really is impossible. Some skeptics think this is fair anyway; they say that a psychic, if his/her ability is real, should be able to perform under any circumstances with 100% accuracy. Yet obviously there is a wide gulf between this strict standard and a level of ability that will impress many people. It is dangerous for skeptics to hold psychics or other task performers to a standard that is so high that the layman ends up dismissing the skeptic’s standard and not the claim of the task performer. Whether this is fair or not, it is the case. **Conclusions** Whether Randi’s test or not has meaning has very little to do with the nature of the paranormal and a lot to do with mathematics and the philosophy of test construction. Insofar as we bicker about the nature of the “paranormal” in this thread, we are not getting to the heart of what’s right and wrong about the Challenge. Personally, I have very little to say against what Randi **does**. He tests a lot of kooks and determines that some kooks claim they can do things that they really can’t. (I seriously doubt that he ends up testing self-acknowledged frauds. Randi himself consistently describes the challengees as “sincere.” Common sense also tells us that frauds would have no interest in getting exposed by an intelligent magician. So let’s drop from the rhetoric the part about the Challenge exposing frauds; it doesn’t.) The trouble is that it all doesn’t mean very much. First, the requirement of “no judging” weeds out a large portion of tasks. The requirement of quantifiability weeds out more. Finally, what tasks are left–the quantifiable–are required to be performed at level of success whose odds are astronomical. Since no sincere skeptic claims to be able to perform at those odds, no sincere skeptic has an interest in taking the Challenge. The skeptics who always bring up the rhetorical dig, “If that were real, then why doesn’t the person collect a cool million?” either have not thought through the above or willfully ignore it. Owing to the skeptics lack of skepticism toward the Challenge and anything related to their hero, I suspect that it is the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/123 "2005-02-14T01:35:20Z")
> [@Me](#): > > In short, the acrimony that attends all debates on SDMB about the “paranormal” and which is greatly evident in this thread, is entirely unnecessary. The real question is whether the Randi Challenge is a fair test of “very difficult or impossible” tasks. My view is that it is fair in some instances, not fair in others. I should say here that I mean, “Meaningful in some instances, not meaningful in others.” There is a superficial fairness when the testee and Randi agree to the terms of the test. The terms rejected by potential testees may or may not be fair. We would need to see the records to know one way or the other. But the Challenge itself is clearly not applicable to vast categories of tasks. To say that the Challenge sheds any light on the validity of claims for them would be “unfair.” Sadly, skeptics do this a lot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/124 "2005-02-14T01:39:14Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > From Paul Carey, we learn that Randi _doesn’t_ negotiate the test protocol, he dictates it. No part of the protocol is open to discussion - not even the time and location of the test. The applicant has to accept Randi’s demands, or not take the test at all. Carey’s rudeness doesn’t alter that basic fact. Where did Paul Carey propose a part of the protocol that was rejected - other than who supplies the receiver? He didn’t propose ANY protocol. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/125 "2005-02-14T01:47:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree that her request to remain anonymous should have been honored. But I don’t see this as an unfair condition. It was simply rude. You think so? Honestly, I would be seriously ticked off if I heard that “The Challenge was won by an anonymous person”. That has ‘scam’ written all over it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/126 "2005-02-14T01:50:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where did Paul Carey propose a part of the protocol that was rejected - other than who supplies the receiver? He didn’t propose ANY protocol. [Here’s another thread discussing Paul Carey.](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50132) ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/127 "2005-02-14T02:14:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where did Paul Carey propose a part of the protocol that was rejected - other than who supplies the receiver? He didn’t propose ANY protocol. Well, there’s the part where he said that JREF should provide the person into whose head he would transmit the message. But apart from that, he wasn’t given TIME to propose any alternative. He was given a protocol and ordered to accept immediately. When he failed to reply within a day his claim was closed. It’s kinda unreasonable to expect him to propose an alternative protoco0l at such short notice. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/128 "2005-02-14T02:19:55Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > [Here’s another thread discussing Paul Carey.](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50132) Yeah, and even Princhester saw how unreasonable JREF was being. (Only a matter of time before he turns up in _this_thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/129 "2005-02-14T02:22:57Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Well, there’s the part where he said that JREF should provide the person into whose head he would transmit the message. > > But apart from that, he wasn’t given TIME to propose any alternative. He was given a protocol and ordered to accept immediately. When he failed to reply within a day his claim was closed. > > It’s kinda unreasonable to expect him to propose an alternative protoco0l at such short notice. He agreed to the protocol himself. You got that part wrong. It was worked out between him and the Irish skeptics before the date was set. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/130 "2005-02-14T02:27:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where did Paul Carey propose a part of the protocol that was rejected - other than who supplies the receiver? He didn’t propose ANY protocol. Well, there’s the date of the test… but Randi & co refused even to discuss it. Do you think it would have been worthwile saying: \* You want me to get 4 out of 5 100% right? Thayt’s beyond my abilities. How about 2 out of 5?\* since Randi & co wouldn’t budge on the date, do you thi9nk they would have even considered this? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/131 "2005-02-14T02:28:19Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > You think so? Honestly, I would be seriously ticked off if I heard that “The Challenge was won by an anonymous person”. That has ‘scam’ written all over it. And it wasn’t like that was a condition they set up specifically to block her. It’s a normal, blanket prerequisite that the applicants not cloak their identities. Anyone who doesn’t like that rule doesn’t have to apply. She wanted JREF to change the normal rules to suit her. I also thought her claim was nebulous almost to the point of untestable. She thinks she can sometimes make a candle flame point in different directions with her mind but she also says the ability is “subtle and intermittant” and that she actually “succeeds” less often than what would be expected by random chance. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/132 "2005-02-14T02:32:41Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Well, there’s the part where he said that JREF should provide the person into whose head he would transmit the message. I’d say that such a thing actually violates parts of the “Challenger must state what constitutes failure” by giving him a rather convenient ‘out’. His reasoning was also flawed. > [@](#): > > But apart from that, he wasn’t given TIME to propose any alternative. He was given a protocol and ordered to accept immediately. When he failed to reply within a day his claim was closed. Looking at the link you provided, it would seem that Mr. Carey was very impatient and eager to be tested, then started cancelling dates. Mr Carey cancelled at least one, and then failed to confirm a second one. Mr. Carey had several months to propose a protocol. By KRAMER’s accounts, he was not terribly interested in the protocol “Upon acceptance of his claim, he immediately began to demand immediate testing. He wanted little to do with test design negotiations (as in…“Come on! What are you afraid of? Let’s do this and you guys get ready to pay up!”), and repeatedly demanded to be tested at his whim.” > [@](#): > > It’s kinda unreasonable to expect him to propose an alternative protoco0l at such short notice. Several months is short notice? Sounds more like you are trying to blame Randi for Mr. Carey’s failure to do his homework. Sorry, I still fail to see this as a failing of Randi. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/133 "2005-02-14T02:34:25Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Yeah, and even Princhester saw how unreasonable JREF was being. > > (Only a matter of time before he turns up in _this_thread.) Princhester wrote this: "You ask whether JREF did anything wrong. No, I don’t think so, based on your subsequent explanation. " Not exactly a shining example for your claims. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/134 "2005-02-14T02:35:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > He agreed to the protocol himself. You got that part wrong. It was worked out between him and the Irish skeptics before the date was set. cite? The information provided by JREF sdays the protocol was worked out between the Irish Skeptics and Randi. They don’t mention thae applicant was being a part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/135 "2005-02-14T02:39:02Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Well, there’s the date of the test… > > but Randi & co refused even to discuss it. Looks like they did. He cancelled one date, then failed to respond in time for a second. This after he was apparently all gung ho testmetestmetestmegimmiemoney! > [@](#): > > Do you think it would have been worthwile saying: \* You want me to get 4 out of 5 100% right? Thayt’s beyond my abilities. How about 2 out of 5?\* > > since Randi & co wouldn’t budge on the date, do you thi9nk they would have even considered this? Did he say this? Where? ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/136 "2005-02-14T02:43:30Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Several months is short notice? Sounds more like you are trying to blame Randi for Mr. Carey’s failure to do his homework. Where the hell dio you get “several months” from? He was simply informed that he must give his acceptance within ONE DAY. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I still fail to see this as a failing of Randi. I get the impression that you wouldn’t see mass murder as a failing if Randi did it. Seriously, what would it take to convince you? The fact that Randi hasd constantly broken his own stated rules is abundantly clear, but you always have an excuse. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/137 "2005-02-14T02:56:28Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Looks like they did. He cancelled one date, Bull. What date did he “cancel” then? Randi & co unilaterally set a date and ORDERED him to comply. He did not agree to that date, and attempted to arrange a more convienient time. [quote] then failed to respond in time for a second. [/'quote] bull. He was REFUSED a second. > [@](#): > > This after he was apparently all gung ho testmetestmetestmegimmiemoney! grow up > [@](#): > > Did he say this? Where? read my previous message. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/138 "2005-02-14T03:02:52Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Where the hell dio you get “several months” from? “Paul Carey applied for the Challenge several months ago,” -KRAMER Your link. > [@](#): > > He was simply informed that he must give his acceptance within ONE DAY. The protocol was given on the 16th, and was for a date on the 27th. He was required to confirm by the 20th Mr. Carey dropped the ball. Considering his impatience, this sudden bit of waffling is rather telling. His only reason for refusal was groundless. There are certain things that The JREF (and anyone testing on behalf of the JREF) must adhere to during protocol negotiations, and aviodance of an ‘easy out’ for the challenger is one of them. > [@](#): > > I get the impression that you wouldn’t see mass murder as a failing if Randi did it. Seriously, what would it take to convince you? Certainly, nothing that you have shown. > [@](#): > > The fact that Randi hasd constantly broken his own stated rules is abundantly clear, but you always have an excuse. I fail to see any such rule breaking as you allege. Its not an excuse when it was not a problem to begin with. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/139 "2005-02-14T03:11:54Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > Princhester wrote this: > > "You ask whether JREF did anything wrong. No, I don’t think so, based on your subsequent explanation. " > > Not exactly a shining example for your claims. Of course, you’ve cut out a large part of his message that gives a rasther different slant to his words. But then, that’s your usual level of honesty. A few bits of what he said > [@princhester](#): > > But your original writing up of the matter left a big unanswered question, because you give no real explanation of why you wouldn’t test in Holland. > > Saying that for an applicant’s convenience you will refuse to test them where they want to be tested does not, I hope you can see, make immediate sense. > > … > > ``` > Re: Excuse me? > > ``` > > Sorry to revive this but I’ve had no time over Xmas/New Year till now. > > Kramer, thanks for the explanation. > > You ask whether JREF did anything wrong. No, I don’t think so, based on your subsequent explanation. > > But your original writing up of the matter left a big unanswered question, because you give no real explanation of why you wouldn’t test in Holland. > > Saying that for an applicant’s convenience you will refuse to test them where they want to be tested does not, I hope you can see, make immediate sense. > > It makes sense now that you have given an explanation, but only now. > > Kramer, you asked: “How do you know the full extent of what I asked, or didn’t ask?” > > The answer of course is that I didn’t because you didn’t tell, which left your decision to refuse to test in Holland when you gave no good reason and it was what the applicant wanted, surrounded by an air of unexplained peremtoriness. > > I didn’t say, absolutely, that you had no explanation, I said that you nixed “the idea out of hand, as far as we [ie your readers] can tell.” > > ``` > quote:Originally posted by KRAMER > WRONG again, Princhester. > > The fact is that there was (at the time I insisted the test be done in Ireland) a Skeptics Group even closer to this applicant than Irish Skeptics in Dublin. I wrote to them, and on the very same day, wrote to Paul Carey to give him their contact data. > > It was not until a few weeks went by with no response that further investigation uncovered the fact that this group had recently disbanded. > > ``` > > Like I said, at the time you nixed the idea you couldn’t find anyone there to test, albeit that you knew of a group who you thought would be able to test. Which is, as you have now said, precisely the same situation as in Holland, where as you say you knew of a skeptics group, albeit you had not been in contact. > > So in short, this situation left the reader with no way of knowing of a good reason for nixing the Holland idea. so, even to a fanatic as obsessive as Princhester, Kramer’s actions seemed unreasonable and incomprehensible. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555/140 "2005-02-14T03:13:30Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > I fail to see any such rule breaking as you allege. Well, if you would remove the hands from your eyes… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mandatory-million-dollar-challenge-is-a-fraud-thread/289555.md?page=8)