----------
>Von: Happy Dog <happydog@interlog.com>
>An: Alain Jean-Mairet <ajm@ajm.ch>
>Betreff: Re: New Challenge to Randi...
>Datum: Jeu, 8 avr 1999 9:28
>

> Alain Jean-Mairet wrote:
>
>> > Thanks for the protocol suggestions BTW.
>> My pleasure.
>>
>> Here some other suggestions, privately for a start. Tell me what you
>> think:
Here Happy Dog snipped the body of the message. I add it for more clarity:

The double coding by several people proposed by John IS a good idea.
If we don't do this, we have the risk that the person making the
coding can 'help' thanks to some photographic memory.

The # of people necessary depends on the # of samples. It should be
done in a less than half an hour, I'd say. Many people will help if
the trial is introduced to the public, say by Art Bell. As the coding
itself is blinded, there is no problem in finding people able to do
this -- some honesty will suffice, and the videotaping will provide
good reason for it anyway.

After the coding, all lists (bearing the name of the people having
done it) are gathered in closed folders, put together in a suitcase,
and the latter is placed in a private safe, in a bank, by Randi and
John together. All keys stay in the bank. The bank will give them only
against signature (and even only in the presence maybe) of both Randi
and John.

John does its testing, gather his results, and send copies to a few
people of his choice. A rendez-vous is arranged at the bank. The lists
are immediately copied a couple of times (at the bank, work done by
the bank employees) and all direct involved people get one complete
set. Originals (of lists and of John's results) are deposed by some
lawyer.

Results are published by both sides as they wish.

Happy Dog again:
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.  But I think that much of this is
unnecessary.
> Randi is more than capable of preventing John and his homeopaths from
> cheating just by observing the sample preparation.  The samples can be
coded
> and then recoded by an accounting firm.  This sort of thing is done all
the
> time in big contests like awards ceremonies etc.  Plenty secure.  I think
> that Randi would agree to this.  It's nice and simple and secure.
> hd
>
The only difference I see is that we would have to pay a firm for doing the
job, whereas the other way would have been a sort of little feast for a
bunch of folks, probably happy to take a small part in this experiment
against a chance to get some little present if John would have won the
game. A bit less joyful. But it is okay.

So now, I think we have it all together. I suggest that John writes the
whole thing once more, regarding the controlled part of the trial only (for
all Randi's are concerned, the test is John's business exclusively, he only
has to bring the right results). I would say he will need a week for doing
it right. The whole thing will be mailed on our list list and posted to
Randi.

After that, Randi will have another week for saying yes and when. As he
probably is the most demanded of both parties, he should propose at least
three possible dates for John to chose from.

John will have then 48 hours for choosing a date.

Then we will be on the road.

If John does not come with a good protocol (once again, only concerning the
challenge, not for what is regarding the actual differentiation between
potencies and placebo) in a week, he's out. Definitely.
If Johns delivers the good in time and Randi does not react with a solid
proposition within a week, he is out. Definitely.
If Randi does make the proposition and John fails to chose a date, he is
out. Definitely.

Okay boys?

Alain