Good, good...but the question was, do you want to make a million dollars? If anyone actually bothered to look at the challenge conditions, they have nothing to do with the fact that Randi is an illusionist at all. All he has done is ensure that a set of circumstances exist where -he- can't be fooled - because he knows very well how to do this.
If you look at the conditions, they are quite reasonable. In fact, it's even up to the applicant to devise a suitable test - but it must be agreed upon by the JREF: > Applicant must state clearly what is being claimed as the special > ability upon which they wish to be tested, and test protocols must be > agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All > tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, > so that no judging or voting process is required. We do not design the > protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear > guidelines so that the test(s) may be properly designed and carried > out. > 1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must > state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what > powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the > proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables > are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative > result. > 15. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION > THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRELIMINARY OR THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE > DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. Every other rule just reinforces this central idea: that it is the applicant who must come up with the test procedure, not the JREF. Randi's previous training could only come into play if the applicant devises a test whereby expectation or misdirection can be employed. He would be most sensitive to that and would be able to detect it very well - better than almost anyone. It is, quite simply, a "put your money where your mouth is" kind of thing, to put it bluntly and to put out some flame bait here. But quite frankly I'm getting tired of all the BS I see here, so flame away...or better yet, rather than flaming me, use your superhuman hearing abilities to become a million dollars richer. Randi clearly is putting his money where his mouth is, in a very public way. I don't see Pear Cables doing the same - in fact, their lawyers have probably told them very specifically how to word their outlandish claims so they can avoid getting sued for false advertising. That may very well happen one day, and the only reason it hasn't yet is because boutique cables have such a limited market. If Proctor & Gamble marketed laundry detergent like exotic cable manufacturers marketed cables, they would have been sued into the stone age... If it is "night and day" (like it ALWAYS is) then two words: PROVE IT. The onus of proof is on the one making the unverifiable claim. If the difference is that big you ought to be able to drag a crack-head in off the street and he'd be able to tell the difference. But it doesn't even have to go that far, you'd be the one doing the proving using your own test that you devise. What could be easier? -- Mark Lanctot 'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=200910&postcount=2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
