-----Original Message-----
From: Syd Baumel <sgb@escape.ca>
To: Happy Dog <happydog@interlog.com>
Cc: lkunkle@smail.Uni-Koeln.DE <lkunkle@smail.Uni-Koeln.DE>;
gian@cyberhighway.net <gian@cyberhighway.net>; randi@randi.org
<randi@randi.org>; andrusj@peak.org <andrusj@peak.org>
Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Challenge Protocol
>From JamesRandi@compuserve.com Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:14:45 -0400
>
>I'm reposting the following "limited circulation" messages from Randi,
>along with my comments:
>
>From: "James Randi" <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Challenge Protocol
>Date: 18 Apr 1999 17:14:45 GMT
>
>Hmmmm. It seems that everyone involved in this minor brouhaha
gets
>sidetracked from time to time. Just for the record, Mr. Andrew
Harter is
>in charge of the challenge correspondence, though I keep abreast of
what's
>being said, and he checks everything with me. This present matter,
the
>Benneth case, I've been paying much personal attention to, since I
dearly
>want him to go down in flames in a big way. Nothing like a pompous
ass
>spiraling to a crash.
>
>
>COMMENT: Well between Mr. Harter and you, many reasonable questions
and
>requests are going unanswered, adding to the climate of distrust and
>"paranoia" around here. Which of your email addresses should
we post to
>for optimal possibility of response? I notice this post came
from your
>compuserve address, but I would guess that if I were to reply to it,
Mr.
>Harter would be out of the loop. And I wouldn't dare post to
BOTH your
>addresses, judging by your Draconian reaction to that strategy to
get
your
>attention earlier.
>
>
>The preliminary test will NOT be waived. The security and the
protocol
>design for a final test in any of these cases, would constitute a
major
>investment of time and resources on the part of the JREF. Thus
the
>preliminary test requirement, as well as the fact that applicants
can
>suffer great personal embarrassment when they fail such tests, and
a
lower
>profile is desirable for that reason.
>
>
>COMMENT: I think you should change the wording on your application
form
so
>that applicants know that a preliminary test is an inevitability,
not a
>possibility.
>
>
>Benneth, however, is a different matter. I will thoroughly advertise
the
>advent and the performance of the preliminary test -- if we ever get
around
>to it. I want this to be thoroughly publicized, so that further
>involvement with such arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant characters
can
be
>minimized for me.
>
>However -- and this will be celebrated by the nut fringe -- I'm putting
a
>hold on further discussions about the homeopathy test with Benneth,
since
I
>have been informed of an offer by a noted Nobel laureate (in physics)
to
>test homeopathy, and that would provide a MUCH higher profile to such
a
>test. I also have received interest from a major TV producer
that he
would
>be interested in covering a homeopathy test for international coverage.
>The Nobel laureate would be much more attractive than any amateur,
of
>course, and the Nobel laureate has suggested the Benveniste claims
as a
>frame for a simple test, as I'd originally put forth. Benneth
refused
that
>protocol. I have the approval of a major scientific group (USA)
that
they
>will act as advisors in this possible involvement of the Nobel laureate,
>and he has been officially informed as of today that his offer is
taken
up.
>Now, I expect, the waffling will commence, and when the laureate goes
to
>the homeopathic community, that bunch will advise him NOT to be part
of
>any such test. That's what has happened before, so it won't
surprise me if
>it happens again. These folks are predictable.
>
>And, PLEASE get this straight: READ CAREFULLY -- I am NOT cancelling
out
>Benneth. I am suspending discussion for 6 weeks, that's all.
After the
>Nobel laureate has tasted dust or refused to show up for the call,
we'll
>offer a dust-bite to Benneth -- IF AND WHEN he gets rational and a
test
can
>be set up. I've been patient, just because of the potential
reward there
>is in this test -- for the rational folks.
>
>
>COMMENT: Why are you continuing to accuse Benneth of stalling and
being
>irrational when he's made another serious effort to comply with your
>requests that he "get on with it" and has offered a new protocol for
your
>consideration? He seems to be damned if he does, damned if he
doesn't.
>
>
>The "hold" on Benneth will apply until I get acceptance or refusal
from
the
>new applicant. I will allow only 6 weeks from today (until May
30th) for
a
>response, after which we will return to consider Benneth's problems.
>Unless, of course, the Nobel laureate backs out sooner, which I expect
he
>will do.
>
>Stay tuned.
>
Randi
>
>COMMENT: This is very important, so I'm going to ask you to PLEASE
READ
>CAREFULLY, and PLEASE RESPOND: If Josephson wins the Challenge, will
JB
>still be eligible to get his day in court -- and I don't mean sue
you,
>which he may not be able to, having faithfully signed your application
form
>(not like some people we know)?
>
>From JamesRandi@compuserve.com Sun, 18 Apr 1999 13:14:29 -0400
>From: "James Randi" <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Randi Protocol Posting
>Date: 18 Apr 1999 17:14:29 GMT
>
>I prefer deciding upon each sample individually, rather than simply
>randomly selecting 25 samples that will be "potentized." That
way, you
>have to decide upon each individual sample, rather than deciding which
25
>samples are or are not treated.... The division might be 22
and 28,
rather
>than 25 and 25. I think that one should not be forced into finding
25
>potentized samples, rather than deciding on each one seperately.
What if
>is announced that there are 25 and 25, and the guesser decides 30
are
>potentized, and 20 are not? He then has to compromise his decisions....
>
>
Randi
>
>COMMENT: I thought of that too (judging by the dialogue I just had
with
>Tito, it would double the statistical efficiency), but it adds another
>significant degree of security difficulty, i.e. now the homeopath
who
>prepares the samples has to be sworn to secrecy.
>
>Syd
>
>