Talk:James Randi/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

812:"Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi's claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had "never even set foot" inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole "is three-and-a-quarter inches and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments." 1106:"For years the Randi organization has pretended to offer a bogus million dollar reward to any person who can successfully demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability. This has naturally generated a lot of publicity and profit for the lead charlatan of the Randi organization, former sleight of hand con artist James Randi. That is until the Yellow Bamboo organization from Bali INDONESIA called his bluff and actually demonstrated paranormal ability in front of scores of independent witnesses and a media representative from the Radio Republik Indonesia broadcasting network On 14 September 2003 Mr. Nyoman Serengen, the founder of Yellow Bamboo (with over 40,000 members) successfully slammed down, without touching, the Randi representative Mr. Joko Tri clearly demonstrating extraordinary paranormal ability. Once the demonstration was successfully carried out James Randi frantically scrambled to concoct a phony pretext not to pay." 730:"For years the Randi organization has pretended to offer a bogus million dollar reward to any person who can successfully demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability. This has naturally generated a lot of publicity and profit for the lead charlatan of the Randi organization, former sleight of hand con artist James Randi. That is until the Yellow Bamboo organization from Bali INDONESIA called his bluff and actually demonstrated paranormal ability in front of scores of independent witnesses and a media representative from the Radio Republik Indonesia broadcasting network On 14 September 2003 Mr. Nyoman Serengen, the founder of Yellow Bamboo (with over 40,000 members) successfully slammed down, without touching, the Randi representative Mr. Joko Tri clearly demonstrating extraordinary paranormal ability. Once the demonstration was successfully carried out James Randi frantically scrambled to concoct a phony pretext not to pay." 705:"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy." 740:"That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums - and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal. 182:

Klux Klan entry. I am using "no point-of-view". A poorly written rant (it was certainly not in-depth about the subject) that doesn't even get the basic facts right is not what I would put in an encyclopedia. You can certainly put in some links casting Randi in a bad light, but I would expect those to generally be accurate as well-- not to a T, but no lies or things to confuse or mislead the reader. We are not going for "We MUST give all points of view a chance"-- that would be near impossible on some, if not most, subjects. We are going for "no bias". Linking to the JREF is as appropriate as linking to conspiracy sites under the UFO conspiracy section (if one exists), for example.

745:

statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Gary Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal."

817:

wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments." "

1206:

design of the test is subject to the foundation's judgment. And it is recognized that it's less than ideal to have a challenge in this manner, but the nature of the test deals with the "paranormal." It's simply too broad a subject to have a set procedure to test all claims. There has to be judgment on someone's part. Obviously Randi is the JREF which administers and controls the test, because if it were open to anybody to decide if the person has passed the test or not, then one could simply have their friend say that they saw them do so.

2056:

dated to early 2006, when things were still uncertain. The fact that Mr. Randi is no longer hospitalized and that he has resumed speaking, traveling and writing seems a completely legitimate and important amendment to the information on his health. The only way I can think of citing it would possibly be to cite one of his television appearances as the source of the information. Even though the information that he is out of the hospital and has resumed activities is not given in the interview, it is apparent by his very appearance at all.

1606:

of dollars on unproven (and likely unprovable) mumbo-jumbo, millions more who remain convinced of paranormal elements even when confronted by clear evidence to the contrary, and a worldwide culture promoting blind belief over the testing and critical analysis of theory that has essentially invented the modern world — a culture that turns its collective back on the very things that brought it into being and make it sustainable. Who couldn't help but be occasionally caustic when confronted by this self-destructive mass psychosis? ~

598:

are revealing is actually the question you peeked at previously. After your almost accurate prediction, open the slip and read the actual question that person wrote. In reality, you are reading to yourself the question which is really written on this slip of paper. Now you give an answer to this question. Here you may want to use cold reading techniques which I explain later. You shouldn't disappoint the audience with your answer. Try to please. You may also want to add a little humour here and there.

31: 1630:

approach he takes to writing." That makes it sound as if ALL people that oppose him are believers, and that ALL skeptics support him This simply is not true. As a skeptic myself, I find him to be offensive and childish. I think his behaviour does no favours at all to the skeptical movement. I don't think there is any word other than "childish" that describes his language, such as "woo-woo" Harry Mudd 15 June 2006

987:

NEVER performed by JREF employees, for the very reason of avoiding accusations that the test is rigged. The testing is usually done by a skeptic organization in the vicinity of the testee. If the person posting these lies about Randi claims that an organization of skeptics will be equally biased, then he will show himself to be a true conspiracy theorist, worthy of being ignored by everyone.

384:"Happy Newton's Birthday! Just 361 years ago this next Thursday, Sir Isaac Newton was born, a man we know existed, someone who contributed hugely to his and to our world, and a chap we can and should commemorate by means of observance of his birthday. Instead, most of the world chooses to believe that another guy was born on this day, a notion for which there's no proof at all." 1284:

personal crusade; (against PSI?) But, I'll tell you what, Randi and I go way way back. I'll ask him if he thinks if it should be in his Knowledge (XXG) bio. (He is gonna love this one!). If I sweet talk him, he does have a soft side, maybe we'll get him to comment here. What say you? (I'm gonna share it with him anyway. He is one of my heroes. Love to make him laugh!).

1173:"(A)s a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." 581:

head, you give an almost accurate description of what is written inside. Then you read out the actual question, and give an answer to it! My version of this test uses no confederates and no special equipment. All you'll need are as many slips of paper as there are volunteers and a tray to carry them in. This trick gets pretty good reactions from my audience.

2018:

portion of the day. He did address his health issues, saying that he felt very well and was grateful for all the support and concern shown by his friends and members of the foundation. He also mentioned that the surgery did leave him weary for some time after and that the meeting and other events helped to provide the motivation to not slow down.

255:

in terms of being well-documented, etc.) to admit that he has spent a very long time investigating paranormal phenomena, and he has an established track record of exposing "psychic" frauds. I'm sure that what I've just said promotes a larval meme of some kind, but I think Randi (though, as I said, often unlikable) worth defending.

113:

is taken incorreclty out of context here, in the article by Rawlins, and by many of Randi's critics. Here's the sentence: However, Randi has been quoted as saying that it is not possible for paranormal abilities to be true and he has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out." Documentation, anyone? From a non-biased source?

941:"). They maintain that sitting on the fence is the only valid position. Disagreeing with them is unscientific, according to them - especially if you disagree in one particular direction, which borders on being a crime. So you should take their propaganda with a grain of salt - look at both sides instead of just believing what 1778:

general agreement that Randi is rude, it would be hard to deny it. Some skeptics consider his rudenes to be "bold" and admire him for it. Others consider his rudeness to be "childish" and condemn him for it. Any NPOV article must acknowledge both sides, or else remove the section altogether. Harry Mudd. 16 June 2006

1753:, of the current editors. It needs proper sources to avoid being completely removed as original research (which, I will remind everyone, can be perfectly true but still unacceptable as Knowledge (XXG) material). Please consider how respectable publications will put words like "bold" or "childish" in quotes 2055:

Agreed that that the forum would not be the place to cite, and given no press articles as such that I have found, I'm not sure if there will be any. However, I think it's relevant and important to note that Mr. Randi got through his surgery well and is doing well. The current biography is somewhat

1221:

Please at least consider the possibility that Mr. Randi will give you a fair shake, before saying the challenge is rigged. You have the right to believe anything you want, as does Mr. Randi. If you do not agree with Mr. Randi's view of the world, that's fine. But if you think you can provide him

347:

As time passes, Randi seems to exhibit a high level of anxiety when it comes to the subject of religion and magick. Other magicians are concerned about his obvious cognitive distortions and the effect they have on his admirers, especially young magicians who are unaware of his faults and ignorance in

181:

I don't know what you think you are-- psychic, astrologer, homeopath...? -- but posting a link as an "analysis of the challenge" should at least understand the very basics of the challenge. Also, posting links dealing with James Randi is NPOV. Same with giving the URL to the KKK's website on the Ku

112:

I'm pretty sure the original quote was in the context of one of his magic shows; another similar quote is said to apply to the JREF challenge and the fact that Randi has safeguards in place in case someone tries to cheat (ie. photo and physical documentation proof of the challenger's performance). It

2108:

The photograph of the offices of the JREF in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is out of date. That office has been closed for over a year. I personally took photos in October 2011 that show "For Sale" signs on the property. Rumor has it that a site has been selected in Los Angeles for a new office, but the

1605:

I would have to disagree. I'm an avid fan of Randi's, and despise the superstitious claptrap he exposes through the Challenge and his regular activities. But he certainly can be caustic. However, one should consider the situation: millions of people actively scamming credulous people out of billions

1463:

You have lost me, brother. It is as clear as mud. Thanks for the effort though. It seems justifyng the inclusion is just about an individual thing. What you see connects is different than what I see connects. Why I am not surprised? Anyhow, I'll try to please you guys. The digging will take a while.

1365:

how long I can't say. Want to do some more research. Hopefully before either Randi or I kick the bucket. But I'll get back to you (guys?). Be patient. Oops! I have one more thing to say, before I gallop off into the sunset. If tommorrow a flying saucer came down at the White House, and Elvis stepped

1169:

Generally, he means that you can't risk your health or that of another. For instance, there are those who claim to be able to survive without food indefinitely. If a person were denied food long enough for the purposes of the challenge, they would die. If JREF participated in that they could well be

1112:

The claimed to be able to do something. An acquaintance of Randi went along to observe and report on what he saw. Whilst there he agreed to be a test subject to a demonstration NOT done under controlled conditions. From his report, it appears that what happened was that he was hit from behind with a

1058:

Again, he designs the tests in accordance with the claimant. And in terms of being a judge, tests are NEVER designed so that success or failure is a judgement call. In dowsing for water, for instance, it may be agreed before that the claimant will find water more than 50% of the time. If he does, he

597:

Now instead of picking up the slip you just read, pick up a different slip and pretend to concentrate. Then, give an almost accurate description of the question or statement. Not too accurate mind you or they may start to suspect some trickery at work here. Just almost accurate. But the question you

254:

Excellent point, Rick. Khranus, if you had ever read anything by Randi or observed his hundreds of television appearances, you would know that he is no fraud. You don't have to like him (he's often unlikable) nor do you have to agree with the conclusions he reaches (though they are on solid ground

1213:

Try to imagine what this means. If you truely believe in the paranormal, then more power to you, but you will probably admit that it's a belief, not a provable fact. Perhaps it could never be proven, but IF it could, it would change everything. If one could prove a paranormal phenomenon, then

1133:

W: May I interject here. Actually you are dead wrong about that. The Ganzfeld experiments in telepathy and the Princeton PEAR experiments in PK were replicable and proved the existence of psi. See Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe". Combine that with the fact that 40-50 percent of the world

535:

There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP, or whatever we wish to call it, and I think it is the refuge of scoundrels, in many aspects, for them to turn to something like quantum physics — which uses a totally different language from the regular English that we are accustomed to

477:

I'm deleting the cat "Atheist thinkers and activists" in this article. POV categories with no support in the article itself are IMO just sneaky vandalism. I'm actually grateful to the user who exchanged the even more objectionable category "Atheists" for "Atheist thinkers and activists", but none

444:

Dear Mr. Modemac, Randi, Paul Kurtz, Martin Gardner and I have known each other for at least 20 years. Only Martin has impressed me as being an honest person. I admire him deeply. Randi will speak to me about other things magic, magicians, blah, blah ,blah, but when I

263:

I have, actually, and I find his 'methods' very flawed... Sure, there are plenty of 'psychic' and 'spiritual' frauds (which should be obvious), but there are also plenty of very real psychics, shamans and the like that most certainly are doing something more than just making up stories... Shamans

2021:

I have absolutely no idea how this could possibly be added to the artificial, because this was my own personal observation. (I was there myself). I know wikipedia now seems to want very good and speffic citations. Also, I'm not sure how to say that he was very lively and appeared to be well,

2017:

Randi was at The Amazing Meeting on January 18 through 21st 2006. He appeared to be in good health and showed no sign of physical weakness. Obviously, he is not a young man, but he never needed a wheelchair, nor even a cane and showed no signs of fatigue, even though the events took up a large

1651:

Only if it's in the article text. Here, it's just a "bold" opinion, to use the same adjective currently applied in the article. The wording would be less of an issue if we did a better job sourcing the statements in this section. Currently, the only source provided, which is supposed to be for the

1314:

is not new original research, either; it's just a topic already on Knowledge (XXG). But if I put it on this page, it would be original research, because I would be implying something by the juxtaposition. As much to the point, you shouldn't put random links at the bottom of the page if they aren't

1209:

Again, I admit to being biased, but I do not think it is proper to confuse Randi's irreverence and occasional sarcasm for malice. All indications I've seen are that fairness is important to the challenge. It's also important to understand what the challenge is looking for: Scientific proof of

1205:

I think you are missing the point of the challenge. I'll admit that I am somewhat biased, but all indications I've seen is that the challenge is not designed to discredit legitimate claims of the paranormal, but to find actual paranormal evidence. It is true that the actual interpretation and

744:

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each

593:

When you go up to collect the slips of paper, you place them all in a tray. Then, as you are walking up to the stage, you palm one of the slips in your hand. Once you have distracted the audience's attention, open the slip and secretly read what's written on it. Then fold it up again and give it a

580:

Effect: You hand out small slips of paper to different people in the audience to write down any question or statement they wish. When they are done, you ask them to fold up the slips and you pass a tray around to collect the slips. Then you turn the lights to a dim and holding up each slip to your

169:

Hey, Lord! What's with removing the link? "Contains misleading and untrue information"? By that criterion then you'd better remove links to JREF pages as well. Look, NPOV requires presenting or at least providing pointers to all points of view, even those that may not cast the Great Randi in the

1176:

Randi has never claimed that passing the challenge would provide scientific proof. He does not regard himself as a scientist, nor does he expect scientists to change their mind because of anything that happens in the challenge. All he asks is that people perform in what they themselves agree is a

1077:

This is a misinterpretation. What the rules say is that the JREF owns the data. So for example if they film somebody actually doing something paranormal, then they would be able to sell it to TV companies afterwards. This is perfectly reasonable and standard - no scientist would agree that a test

986:

The poster who claims that the preliminary testing in the million dollar challenge is done by Randi's own people is totally erroneous. On Randi's website (the forum section) one can follow the correspondance between JREF and the nutjobs who apply for the challenge. The preliminary test is in fact

816:

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. "It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing

422:

See my letter. Go to YAHOO select charlie turek magician folie a deux, my letter is still in the all experts answers. I am not making an accusation. That ain't my way. Nor is it my my way to claim another of accusations, and blow away their entries, Mr Modemac. Randi may be wrong about telepathy.

1283:

This is not not new original research. This is just a collection of different topics already on the Knowledge (XXG). They are very interesting. This not a "what I think thing" this is what the data says if carefully read. It is very revelant to Randi's biography. Certainly it casts doubts on his

1155:

definition of "skeptic" includes that opinions are a big no-no. Others allow more freedom. So you and your ilk are the Only True Skeptics, and want to ban everybody who disagrees with you from using the word. That's just a power game by seizing the definition. There are a lot more errors in your

116:

Without context, the whole sentence sounds POV. Consider an actual quote by Randi stating his views about the paranormal, in context. It would be more effective and less POV. I will do some research and find out where the I have an out quote actually came from to begin with and where it actually

1777:

Bubba wrote : "I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish." No, violating NPOV is when an article presents only one point of view, and rejects differing opinions. The line presents an alternative view to counterbalance the unequivocal praise in the earlier version. I think there is

1664:

this is a valid source for the sentence. Considering how incredibly long the article is, this is a bad idea in general, and even worse in an article where editors are arguing over wording. (I found one possible explanation — a passage where Randi mentions a German scientist who called him "too

1882:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a news report. I'm not questioning the verifiability of the text, only its importance and relevance. If his condition worsens, something notable or public comes of the surgery, or he dies as a result of it then I could justify its mention here. But presently it's only an

1782:

I removed this section. As an outsider to this discussion, I feel qualified to effect a compromise that pleases no one. :) But seriously, I think Jeffq stated it best above that making general statements about how people think without sourcing them is original research. If you want to quote a

1629:

I am reverting the changes that some anonymous person made to this section. Ads it stands it is totally one sided. "Randi's bold, uncompromising style of writing and presentation has won him enemies among paranormal proponents and friends among those who appreciate the direct and no-nonsense

1074:"In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it." 781:"James Randi is a conjurer (the “Amazing Randi”) and showman who is described on his web site as “the world’s most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims.” He used to be a leading figure in CSICOP, but had to resign because of litigation against him." 324:

Oh, "energy fields", eh? What kind of "energy" is this? Certainly the new-age type, and not anything remotely resembling science. There is no scientific evidence to support this claims-- in fact, why don't these superpower doctors go take the JREF's test? There is no excuse not to do so.

687:

In addition, according to The Amusing Randi's own rules, he controls all data generated from the tests and all information about them and you have to waive your right to sue him. This combination of facts makes it very easy to rig the tests and essentially impossible for anyone to pass it.

788:

this "prize" cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single

387:

Make of that what you will. Apparently our anonymous contributor feels that being a skeptic prevents you from being allowed to display sarcasm and a sense of humor. And incidentally, there are several different days put forth as the "true" date of Jesus' birth, other than December 25th.

1217:

However, those who pass themselves off as having supernatural powers, when they are infact using trickery or deception really don't help anyone's cause. At best, they muddy the waters. Randi has encountered many over the years, and that hasn't helped with the whole cynical additude.

1146:

That's a silly site. It's full of bad logic. For example, it uses one definition of the word "skeptic" when in fact there are several definitions in use, and it claims (not in those words) that all cases where other definitions apply, should be called "pseudo". By the same reasoning, all

1344:

seems like an extreme example of people picking up quirks off each other, not psychic phenomenom. Even if it is psychic phenomenom, it doesn't go on a biography of Randi; it might go on a page about the belief system Randi holds, or other pages about the existence of psychic phenomenom.

2036:(not the JREF Forum!) may be acceptable, so we can wait for those as well. This is probably not such an essential element to the article (however critical it obviously is to Randi and his fans, and possibly his detractors) that we should be overly concerned about the latest updates. ~ 1126:"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena. 95:

Seeing how many self-proclaimed "psychics" and other such folks love to twist the truth around (which is how they make a living), I have to ask where this supposed quote "I always have an out" attributed to Randi comes from. And are there really any "serious" parapsychologists? --

131:

And yes, there are serious parapsychologists (scientists) out there in the world, with admitted programs as many accredited universities around the world as well as other independent labs and institutions. Just as there are "serious" scientists involved in SETI. Take a look at the

1116:

But whatever happened, the Yellow Bamboo people never submitted an application, never agreed a testing procedure with the JREF - if they had, one of the conditions would have been that observers would be present to make sure nobody was sneaking up behind the guy with a stun gun!

1408:

No "see also" J. Allen Hynek? I am not trying to be funny. I am trying to understand other people's boundaries. When I entered Milbourne Christopher at "see also" there was no complaint. What is the big difference? That I added Christopher's biography on the Knowledge (XXG)?

601:

Now, crumple up that slip of paper, throw it away and reach out and pick a different slip. Then you pretend to divine the general content of this paper but you are in reality telling the audience what you read to yourself on the last paper. This is the one-ahead principle.

891:

paranormal ones, and really at most fraudulent ones by scientific lights. This is of course debatable, but this whole section of yours sounds like special pleading - "what I favor can't pass the test but that's the test's fault", but you know what special pleading means

486:

Why is the category Atheist objectionable? James Randi is one, if you've ever read his column. He's definitly an atheist thinker; an atheist activist is harder, but he certainly argues against religion in his column enough. I hardly see how any of this is objectionable.

271:

I don't promote anyone who just stomps out memes from a minute amount of evidence against them, especially not when they themselves follow a silly religious meme like materialism ('science' that isn't really very scientific, in my opinion, especially when one considers

1798:

I have removed a disputed sentence from the article about one of the court cases with Geller leading Randi to part ways with Csicop. Randi has sent an e-mail advising that this is not correct and there does not seem to be any verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

1328:

To boot, I've read these articles and don't see the connection. Chemicals have effects on the mind; so what? If you can read the original article and the linked article and still can't put it together, it needs text explaining the connection in the main article.

1090:

So? It's his opinion that nothing paranormal exists, so of course he would think that there is no possibility that such things could be genuine. The whole point of the test is that he's challenging people woho claim to have these abilities to prove him wrong.

449:

to believe? What pleases you? Oh yeah, look me up on YAHOO as charles turek magician and look at my book reviews on Amazon. Start with Morton Smith's "Jesus the Magician". You might find them of interest. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm through.

1214:

it would eliminate the idea of "belief" and make it a cold hard fact, and in doing so, expand humanities understanding of the world. It would be the first step to opening up the area for serious scientific study and remove the stigma of psuedo-science.

435:

It says the following: "Once I went to a CSICOP convention. I saw Randi the first night. His beard was snowy white! I never got to meet him. The next day he was gone." Then after that he apparently never responded to your letter of inquiry. So what?

1783:

verifiable source that says good things about Randi, that's fine. If you want to quote a verifiable source that says bad things about Randi, that's fine, too. But the section as it was espoused mere editorial opinion without anything to back it up. --

1094:"Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it." 291:(and that was speculation. I wasn't necessarily saying that dolphins 'do' in any way use cold fusion, only pondering the possibility that they do, based on the evidence. "If at first an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it." -Einstein) 1665:

aggressive and rude" (with which he agreed, with qualifications) — but it isn't an adequate source for the entire sentence, and proper citations should include any relevant quotes to confirm published opinions on such a controversial subject.)

1100:"By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so." 720:

By his own admission, Randi sponsored one of his aides as a fake "psychic." He toured and took people's money for his performances. Randi says they did this "to show how gullible people are," but it's still a fraudulent method of doing so.

405:

Everytime I bring up Randi's preferred silence on the subject of the remote, mundane, possibility of telepathy in Folie a deux some close-minded person removes it. I don't mind it. I just find it amusing. I guess convictions are always true.

1366:

out singing "Hound dog", and it was on the national news, and I said something about on the Knowledge (XXG), would I get the wailing and gnashing of teeth with the cries of NO NEW RESEARCH? Shades of Galileo! We have made no progress? Adios

1918:

I removed this whole sentence as I would argue that the personal health problems of a person does not have encyclopedic value. If editors believe stoingly that this needs to be included, feel free to re-add. I will not pursue this further.

1421:

as a "see also" to a James Randi page can be justified. By reading both of their pages, one can notice similarities. For example: both magicians, both illusionists, both writers about magic and debunking, they even shared a respect for

1619:

I agree with the use of "caustic," which helps provide an immediate insight into Randi's style of delivery. For many, the medium seems to overrun the message, which I see as integral to why many people dislike him. (I am not among

1434:

that has written almost exclusively about UFOs. This has no connection to Mr. Randi, beyond the general idea that Mr. Hynek writes about one specific topic that is one of the hundreds/thousands of topics that Mr. Randi debunks.

445:

write to him about Folie a deux he bails out. This was not the only time I sent him that letter. I can only surmise Randi has made up his mind, and folie a deux just doesn't exist. The medical profession says it does. What do you

1555:

I used to read Randi's site a lot. The reason the two numbers are different is because they refer to different dates. One is when Silvia agreed to take the test, and the other is when she ... did something else. I've forgotten.

478:

of them are acceptable for Randi. Either don't have a cat, or write something in the article that supports it, because there is nothing now. (Nor could be, as far as I'm concerned. "Atheist activist"? Randi? It's ridiculous.)

1674:

Making statements about how people think, without sources, or with sources where the actual evidence is buried and uncited, invites edit wars. We must remember that if we make claims that people think some particular way, we

1263:

policy here. Please review this policy again. 2. Regardless if the issue is true or false, it is still not relevant to Mr. Randi's bio page. You have provided no outside or noteable references to support any connection.

977:

Randi can be irritating, dogmatic and wrong-headed without being a fraud. I agree with him sometimes and disagree others, but nobody is compelled to take his test, and all are entitled to draw their own conclusions about it.

536:

using from day to day — to merely say, "Oh that's where the answer lies, because that's all very fuzzy, anyway." No, it's not very fuzzy, and I think that his opinion will be differed with by the scientific body in general.

1134:

population has had some psychic or paranormal experience, and that's a ton of evidence that is irrefutable. See my article www.geocities.com/WWu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm for more arguments you can learn from.

233:

I doubt he's ever really investigated the 'paranormal'... Considering that I've personally witnessed dozens of doctors accurately diagnose patients based completely on what they call an 'energy field' that they sense...

2022:

without resorting to weasel words like "By all accounts, Randi was in good spirits"... that'd get flagged pretty fast. I suppose I could write about it elsewhere and then quote myself and hopefully it won't get tagged?

661:

The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge. And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action. In essence, the deal is

1497:

hate television. And the tabloids. Perhaps if psychic abilities were not shown to be "fictional" all over the media, people like this wouldn't exist... one can only dream what that would be like. (by 66.190.145.221)

1045:

One of the rules of the test is that the JREF must agree the conditions with the claimint in advance. Meaning every test subject goes into the test thinking they will succeed because THEY helped plan it in advance!

309:)... There is such a multitude of evidence out there supporting the theory that all consciousness is connected (making psionic abilities possible), that to deny the possibility can only be the result of ignorance. 916:

You said: "This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."" - Look at the people you made that page. You are wrong, those are not part of the current skeptic movement.

348:

this field. He ridicules faith. Yet he called upon the trust and faith of other magicians when confronting Uri Geller. (Abracadabra 2Feb 74). As with many other skeptics, he dictates different rules for himself.

1251:, belongs here. It certainly casts doubts on Randi's strong convictions that there is no such thing as psychic phenomena, a stand he has taken for many years. Why should these things not be referenced here? 770:

Again, we must remember, it is Randi's assertion that there is NO VALID EVIDENCE of any paranormal or supernatural phenomena, so there really can be no such thing as "degrees of plausibility" in this field."

1292:

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference to support the claim "this is what the data says if carefully read". 2. We all look forward to reading Mr. Randi's response to your request via his

103:

This quote was reported by one of the CSICOP founding members, Dennis Rawlins, in an article ultimately published in the Oct-1981 issue of FATE magazine. Supposedly the text of the article is available at

1808:

I have added a sentence suggested by Randi "This case was directly responsible for the decision of Randi to part company with CSICOP.". This sentence is substantially the same as what was there before.

2109:

location hasn't been announced. But in any event, the photo shown is at least a year out of date. I'd delete it myself, but I'm not experienced with with photos, I don't want to mess up something else.

456:

Oh, one thing more ,Mr Modemac, after you have looked at all that stuff, you can put my entry back about Randi avoiding the possibility of telepathy in folie a deux. That would be the kind thing to do.

1506:

encyclopedia, and the talk pages are here in service to that goal. Your personal opinions on the subject, as they don't pertain to the article, don't help that at all; it's just basically a troll. --

381:

Regarding the silly attempt to defame Randi by claiming that we should celebrate December 25 as Isaac Newton's birthday "instead of" Jesus, here's what Randi actually wrote in his commentary column:

1974:"He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" . The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected. " 1052:

Actually his own people do them sometimes, but not even close to always. And the whole point of the tests are that they are structured in such a way that it doesn't matter who does them.

655:

Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates. And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people? (

1573:

IIRC, she appeared on another show (Larry King I think) and restated her willingness to take the Randi test. He reset the clock at that point, figuring the earlier offer was now moot.

1906:

tag just for that purpose. Also, if someone has had emergency heart surgery, that's worthy of mention in a biography even as non-current info. So IMO the mention should go back.

759:"Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only contradictory and hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of the Challenge's application process. Bear in mind that 795:

Randi’s fellow showman Loyd Auerbach, President of the Psychic Entertainers Association, is likewise sceptical about this “prize” and sees it as a stunt of no scientific value."

1398:. 2. Additionally, in writing a good article about the event, one might appropriately link to official pages of the national news source that supported what you are writing. 1355:

Thanks for caring enough to share.I will weigh your advice carefully. Still it is Randi's bio. Like to see what he has got to say. I am a very curious person. I'm out of here!

1937:

How the hell can an emergency coronary artery bypass surgery not be considered worthy to add? A man's health is definitely something that should be included in his article.

1592:

It seems to me that Randi's "caustic" style only seems that way to believers in something he debunks. What I see happening is that he nails them and leaves them no way out.

1120:

Hell, even if you accepted what happened as a preliminary test - which it wasn't - they would still have to go on to do a formal test, and they never even ASKED about that!

1055:"That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. The catch is the psychic must agree to a test according to Randi's guidelines, where he is the sole judge." 901:

to grant your main point, have you met more than a few of these people? Some of them certainly are frauds of the highest order.) is hyperbole. Recognize it. Avoid it.

855:

Now, I'm certainly no advocate of the paranormal. I tend to be very skeptical of these paranormal things myself -- although I am not closed to them. Some may be real.

230:

Randi appears to me to be either very arrogant and uninformed or simply a Fundamentalist Materialist spending a whole lot of money in attempt to propogate his views...

709:

This is how Randi rigs the system so he will never have to pay out the million dollars, or even acknowledge the possibility of anyone having any paranormal abilities.

2032:

Well, the right way is to wait for the mainstream press or other reliable source to report this information. Barring that, Randi's or others' published statements in

824:"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are impossible." 414:

You could try offering a reference for this supposed refusal of Randi to approach the subject, instead of making accusations against him that are not NPOV. --

1081:"IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find." 178:

You can post a link criticizing the challenge and Randi-- however, the link you posted didn't even understand the basics of how the challenge is performed.

692:

IOW, Randi and his people control the testing process. They are setting up the process to guarantee that it finds the results that they wanted it to find.

2059: 507:

I know that SB has made these claims (well the first anyway not sure about the second). I can't recall much in the way of evidence that they are true.

1181:

Both parties have to agree on the terms before-hand, and then they enter into a contract. I haven't heard anything about Randi being sued over this.

369:

Provoked by the 11 Sep 01 terrorist attacks on the USA, Randi roared about being an atheist, and blasted religious faith with ridicule and sarcasm.

1445:

No, no, no, no. I am being misunderstood here. What if I linked "see also" J. Allen Hynek to the CNN Elvis Saucer at the Whte House? That's okay?

1714:

behaviour and frequent use of insulting language has also alienated many sceptics. His overuse of the word "woo-woo" has been seen as especially

716:"Randi revealed that he had been able to orchestrate a years-long and complete compromise of a privately-funded psychic research experiment." 264:

in Peru discovered 'the twisted essence of life' (twisted as in coil-like) thousands of years ago whilst having out-of-body-experiences on

1845:

Will whoever it is who is doing this please quit it! If anyone can find out who it is, please notify/warn them on their own talk page. --

590:

At the time the audience is folding up the slips, ask them to fold it up into quarters. I like to work with small square pieces of paper.

328:

Additionally, your anti-materialism "evidence" is laughable. What you are linking to is a result of government tyranny, not materialism.

1471:

1. I find it very confusing when you write "brother". I am not a brother, nor am I your brother. 2. In any case, if you have anything

587:

Method: The secret in work here is something known as the one-ahead principle, or staying one-ahead of your audience. Let me explain:

118: 1503: 666:

James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism.

1260: 1842:

Generally dates, common words, and ordinary terms should never be linked. Only things relevant to the article topic need linking.

848:"The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man." 605:

The absolute last slip you should pick up should be the one you sneeked a peek at in the beginning. The one with the twist in it.

105: 170:

best light. Certainly there are many people who do not take Randi very seriously. Their view needs to somehow be represented.

1872: 1259:

1. You have provided no outside or noteable reference for what you "think". Remember, you have been told before about the

1170:

open to criminal charges. Another guy claimed to be able to blind people by means of a personal agreement he had with god.

2071: 858:

I know these fields attract a lot of hucksters and charlatans. But they are no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself, IMO.

1680: 882:. At least preview before you post to see that your markup isn't working, and remove it if you don't know how to fix it. 336:

I think you're just wacked in the head. Sorry, but you talk about scientific evidence, and none supports your claims. -

2114: 1068:"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run." 682:"Remember; it's the JREF Paranormal Challenge, and The JREF alone dictates the rules surrounding it and how it is run." 423:

Notice the responses to my letter from others; especially those in psychology and psychiatry. Notice too who finked out

1946:

Major health problems are encyclopedic in a biography. It is a direct relationship between the person and their body.

1878:. The circumstances surrounding his admission to hospital are not clear at this time but it appears to be unexpected. 878:

UBB. Your attempts at markup are distracting; HTML works, as do Knowledge (XXG)'s own proprietary tags explained at

829:

Stated simply, there is NO proof, no matter how thorough, that someone with James Randi's worldview will EVER accept!

79: 71: 66: 38: 1277: 1244: 826:

Yet this is exactly the mindset from which Randi operates and from which his million-dollar challenge is issued.

696:

And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine.

1087:"And Randi has been quoted as saying that there is no possibility that any paranormal acts could be genuine." 832:

They have already ruled out the possibility of any of these experiments succeeding before they conduct them.

748:"Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfill his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests" 1362: 960:

addresses addresses that point - they claim to be skeptical investigators when they're really the opposite.

283:

To all those who think that Materialism isn't a dangerous cult just like Catholicism (if not worse), behold:

2110: 1928: 1810: 1800: 463:

I've made some updates and corrections. The criticism section should also be rewritten and organized better.

1394:), and you said something about it here on Knowledge (XXG), then you would have the national news as your 1138: 617:

Fascinating, thanks! Can that get made into an article which could then be linked to from the Randi page?

358: 1907: 1998: 1952: 1418: 994:

is a fraud himself? He removed from this talk page the above text, which is unpleasant for his cause. --

373:

Can someone give some evidence of him ridiculing religious faith because of the Setpember 11 attacks? -

552:

The article makes mention of the "'one ahead' routine," but does not explain what this is. - anonymous

1557: 1285: 1188: 1023: 775: 761:

Randi asserts there is no valid evidence to support any paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena

302: 1059:

wins. How could Randi or anybody possibly pretend that such a test had been failed when it had not?

879: 1784: 1530:

Going to that page, I don't see any clock at all. Does anyone else see this supposed week clock? --

887:

What sorts of experiments would fail these 'rigged' tests of Mr. Randi's? So far as I can tell, at

2063: 2023: 1226: 171: 137: 933:'s main job is criticizing skeptics. Those people call themselves "real skeptics", as opposed to 906: 842: 806: 317: 277: 265: 214: 1787: 1642: 1624: 1599: 1071:

Again, the JREF does NOT dictate the terms of the test. That is stated explicitly in the rules.

1049:"And isn't it interesting that he has the "preliminary" tests done entirely by his own people?" 861:"The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery." -- Fred Alan Wolf 767:(So) What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."? 268:. As I said, several doctors see/sense 'energy fields', by which they can diagnose disease. 2094: 2067: 1979: 1745:

Oops, I missed that. I still maintain that this entire section is merely the opinion, whether

1724: 1638: 1596: 1574: 964: 835:"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein, in 355: 337: 273: 256: 222: 210: 183: 163: 1992:

It seems okay to me to have the single sentence describing the event in a consise manner. :)

1042:"Randi's "challenge" is structured in such a way that no one CAN pass the tests he creates." 800:

This is from a "skeptic" website, so it's not just people that The Amusing Randi "debunked."

2003: 1957: 1903: 1465: 1446: 1410: 1367: 1356: 1311: 1280: 1252: 1248: 1157: 995: 991: 946: 922: 734: 699: 457: 451: 424: 407: 306: 284: 47: 17: 1684: 1166:"What exactly is Randi asserting when he writes: "We only respond to responsible claims."? 1062:"And as part of his challenge, the applicant must give up all rights to any legal action." 2040: 1938: 1924: 1889: 1761: 1691: 1610: 1531: 1507: 1346: 1330: 1030: 979: 930: 926: 625: 571: 488: 203: 1156:

site, but this is the basic one. As long as this error is there, the site is hopeless. --

1970:"on Thursday February 2, 2006, Randi underwent emergency coronary artery bypass surgery" 1534: 569: 396:

I agree with what Randi says here, but including it in the article would result in POV.

1427: 724: 710: 632: 501: 464: 145: 133: 122: 1683:. Otherwise they are nothing more than our own opinions of others' opinions, which is 1185: 352:

Can anyone NPOV this? I could not find who the magicians, which were mentioned, were.

1517: 1480: 1454: 1436: 1423: 1399: 1375: 1320: 1298: 1265: 938: 918: 902: 516: 479: 1323:

in the middle of a sentence discussing that, not in a link collection at the bottom.

209:

Of course you would include a link to the KKK home page in the KKK article, just as

2091: 1976: 1757:

mention the quotee. If we can't do this, we have no business making such claims. ~

1721: 1635: 1621: 1593: 1545: 1341: 1274: 1240: 961: 618: 559: 437: 415: 389: 310: 298: 288: 241: 148: 97: 1453:

1. In that specific hypothetical situation one probably could justify inclusion.

217:

includes a link to the text of the book. Where on Earth did you get the idea that

1544:

shows it. It shows 208 weeks in the graphics of the sign but 232 in the text.

544:

Somebody needs to edit this so he is not quoted saying something he did not say.

2118: 2098: 2075: 2043: 2026: 2008: 1993: 1983: 1962: 1947: 1941: 1932: 1910: 1894: 1849: 1846: 1825: 1813: 1803: 1764: 1728: 1694: 1613: 1577: 1560: 1520: 1510: 1483: 1476: 1457: 1439: 1402: 1379: 1349: 1333: 1301: 1268: 1243:(here a sharing of the same visual hallucination) can be produced by the use of 1229: 1225:

Again... I'm not claiming to speak on his behalf. That's just my take on it.

1191: 1160: 1033: 968: 467: 397: 374: 151: 125: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2037: 1920: 1884: 1864: 1838:

Links that lead to places that a reader is unlikely to be interested in going.

1758: 1688: 1653: 1607: 636: 432: 248: 121:

page, but it is lacking citation as well. For now I placed a citation needed.

2090:

Does the CSICOP fellowship count as an award? (If so, it should be added.)

1387: 1097:

No it doesn't. It means only that he can use and profit from it afterwards.

508: 1390:", and it was on the national news (I assume you mean TV news, for example 957: 753: 672: 1109:

In actual fact, the Yellow Bamboo people NEVER APPLIED FOR THE CHALLENGE!

1006: 316:

Would this be the completely discredited nonsensical 100th monkey fable?

1002:

Hob, Randi frequently performs the tests himself. Here's a few examples:

539: 520: 157:

Randi did say that quote, but apparently Rawlins took it out of context:

1875:. He is said to be "in stable condition' and "receiving excellent care" 1431: 1294: 1148: 934: 1018: 1012: 822:

William James nailed Randi (even before Randi was here) when he said,

624:

The above would be a copyvio - feel free to write your own version...

247:

This from the person who claims that dolphins work with cold fusion.

1395: 1222:

with the proof that what you believe is accurate, consider doing so.

866:

The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World

669:

Here are the ways that the test is rigged, from Randi's own website:

331: 1103:

So what? It's no worse than what many investigative journalists do.

1883:

unneeded breaking news mention which is completely unnecessary. --

1184:

Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem appropriate to the talk page.

1029:

Or rather, he frequently writes about those he performs himself. --

776:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#JamesRandi

1383: 1340:

After rereading your statement, I still don't see the relevance.

1868: 1316: 659:.) That is how he can ensure that no one ever passes the test. 515:

Thanks for the correction. You might want to take a look at the

446: 218: 117:

shows up in reference to the challenge. There is a quote on the

294:

I'm Catholic, and I think the previous statement is retarded.

1391: 1123:

Frankly, for them to claim they beat the challenge is absurd.

864:"The Universe is self-aware through us." -- Dr. Amit Goswami, 843:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

807:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

786:"(A)s a leading Fellow of CSICOP, Ray Hyman, has pointed out, 652:

The Amusing Randi is as big a fraud as the people he exposes.

497: 25: 897:

The rest (no bigger frauds than Mr. Randi himself? Even if I

678:"Preliminary tests are conducted by associates of the JREF" 188:

False: We do not aim for "no bias," or "no point of view."

1833:

Links that have little or nothing to do with the subject.

1634:

I think it is a violation of NPOV to call him childish.

735:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

700:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

1541: 1876: 1968:

I agree. I think that the article should state that

1247:. The purpose of confusing the enemy, by the use of 1141:(who 54 minutes later returned to make it all bold). 725:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb106721.htm

711:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/James-Randi

532:

These were his actual words from the BBC interview:

146:

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

1902:WP often follows developing news stories and has a 1540:That page talks about the clock, but the main page 1516:

So this is the psychic killer i've been sensing. --

189: 106:

ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard/rawlins-starbaby

190:http://en.wikipedia.org/NPOV#Giving_equal_validity 2104:Section James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) 1078:subject owns the results of a test done on them! 577:The Simple One-Ahead Test by Cornelius Christian 528:James Randi never called Josephesen a "scoundrel" 1660:, July/August 2005. It fails to explain exactly 594:small twist to distinguish it from the others. 945:write. And it is "Amazing", not "Amusing". -- 8: 519:article where I have copied this text from. 285:Falun Gong Practitioners Persecuted in China 558:I also would like to know what that means. 433:http://experts.about.com/q/3278/2493018.htm 1829:from the article, especially these types: 1652:above quoted sentence, is a bare link to 1493:Ah, James Randi. Idiocy at its best... I 1479:, then feel free to discuss it here. Y 144:The text of sTarbaby can be found here: 1863:Randi's website claims that on Thursday 1137:... added at 09:50, 13 November 2005 by 754:http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm 673:http://www.randi.org/research/index.html 1007:http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html 929:are well-known pro-paranormalists, and 852:I couldn't have said it better myself. 213:includes a link to their home page and 1151:words should be preceded by "pseudo". 540:http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html 297:I strongly suggest you read about the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1502:The goal of Knowledge (XXG) is make 1019:http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html 1013:http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html 791:( www.skeptic.com/archives03.html) 202:presently neutral point of view. - 1710:However, his hostility, his often 1542:James Randi Educational Foundation 332:http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html 136:article for links and references. 119:James Randi Educational Foundation 24: 803:From the same "skeptic" website: 431:You mean this letter, I presume: 1315:completely obviously connected; 29: 343:I moved this from the article: 237:He's a fraud, if you ask me... 1873:coronary artery bypass surgery 1794:Disputed sentence about Csicop 126:02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 1587: 1521:17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 152:02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2099:16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 2076:02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 2044:00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 2027:00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1911:11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 1895:01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 1871:, Randi underwent emergency 1850:17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1823:I have just removed massive 1814:15:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1804:10:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1679:provide properly referenced 1548:18:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC) 1230:01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1161:10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1005:Lithuanian psychic doctor : 969:21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 198:point of view. This page is 1614:21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1600:16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1535:18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC) 1129:There IS no such evidence. 657:That's from his own website 2134: 2119:03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1933:17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1011:Russian X-ray eyes girl : 1788:22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 1765:01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1729:01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1695:23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1643:19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1578:17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 1511:02:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC) 1484:19:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1458:18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1440:18:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1403:17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 1350:22:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1334:22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1302:21:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1278:3-quinuclidinyl benzilate 1269:20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 1245:3-quinuclidinyl benzilate 1034:01:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 998:15:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) 911:16:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC) 635:. Please add to it. -- 621:21:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 574:17:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 511:15:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 482:10:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 468:17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 392:18:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) 377:17:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) 361:13:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) 225:23:54, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC) 1625:21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1561:14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 1192:20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 1039:A few points in reply : 949:13:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) 639:23:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 628:22:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 562:17:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 523:13:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) 491:01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) 440:09:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 418:19:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 365:Moved from the article: 259:23:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC) 174:22:45 21 Jul 2003 (UTC) 140:07:37 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC) 2009:11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1984:04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1963:04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1942:03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1363:This may take some time 982:16:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) 880:Knowledge (XXG):Editing 400:18:51, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC) 251:01:18, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1720: 1707:It is in the article: 1654:"Fakers and Innocents" 221:requires otherwise? - 2062:comment was added by 1972:. I would leave out 1708: 1588:Randi's caustic style 1525: 1419:Milbourne Christopher 1386:stepped out singing " 42:of past discussions. 1261:No original research 303:morphogenetic fields 1319:'s aricle links to 1084:Simply impossible. 837:The New Convergence 584:Preparation: None. 2111:Professor Hosquith 1811:Capitalistroadster 1801:Capitalistroadster 1658:Skeptical Inquirer 1374:1. If tommorrow a 1017:American dowser : 278:Superstring Theory 215:The Turner Diaries 2079: 1931: 1893: 1685:original research 1466:User talk: Kazuba 1447:User talk: Kazuba 1378:came down at the 1368:user talk: Kazuba 1295:weekly commentary 1253:user talk: Kazuba 1065:Simply not true. 631:See new article: 274:Quantum Mechanics 211:National Alliance 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2125: 2057: 2006: 2001: 1996: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1923: 1904:Template:current 1887: 1859:I removed this: 1687:at its worst. ~ 1681:reliable sources 1411:User talk:Kazuba 1357:user talk:Kazuba 1312:Furry lifestyler 1286:user talk Kazuba 1281:chemical warfare 1249:chemical warfare 1210:the paranormal. 937:(who they call " 923:Rupert Sheldrake 648:Randi is a fraud 521:Rafał Pocztarski 307:Rupert Sheldrake 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:James Randi 2133: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2106: 2088: 2058:—The preceding 2004: 1999: 1994: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1857: 1821: 1796: 1590: 1528: 1491: 1237: 1139:172.185.180.169 931:Marcello Truzzi 927:Brian Josephson 650: 550: 530: 505: 502:U.S. presidents 475: 93: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2131: 2129: 2105: 2102: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2049: 2047: 2046: 2016: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1987: 1986: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908:70.231.131.185 1880: 1879: 1856: 1855:Ticker trouble 1853: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1820: 1817: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1785:GentlemanGhost 1776: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1646: 1645: 1617: 1616: 1589: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1550: 1549: 1527: 1526:Sylvia's Clock 1524: 1514: 1513: 1490: 1487: 1461: 1460: 1443: 1442: 1428:J. Allen Hynek 1406: 1405: 1353: 1352: 1337: 1336: 1325: 1324: 1307: 1305: 1304: 1272: 1271: 1236: 1233: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1179: 1164: 1163: 1037: 1000: 984: 983: 974: 973: 972: 971: 951: 950: 939:pseudoskeptics 913: 912: 894: 893: 884: 883: 870: 695: 691: 649: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 633:billet reading 629: 626:Rick Boatright 611: 608: 572:Rick Boatright 566: 565: 564: 563: 549: 546: 529: 526: 525: 524: 504: 496:including the 494: 493: 492: 474: 471: 442: 441: 420: 419: 403: 402: 401: 379: 371: 370: 363: 350: 349: 341: 322: 321: 320: 261: 260: 252: 240: 228: 227: 226: 176: 167: 155: 142: 134:parapsychology 129: 110: 101: 92: 89: 87: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2130: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2103: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2085: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2019: 2010: 2007: 2002: 1997: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1956: 1951: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1935: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1891: 1886: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1854: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1843: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1828: 1827: 1818: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1730: 1726: 1723: 1719: 1717: 1713: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1644: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1615: 1612: 1609: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1562: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1533: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1488: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1468:29 July 2005 1467: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449:29 July 2005 1448: 1441: 1438: 1433: 1430:however is a 1429: 1425: 1424:Harry Houdini 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413:29 July 2005 1412: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376:flying saucer 1373: 1372: 1371: 1369: 1364: 1360: 1358: 1351: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1321:Anti-Semitism 1318: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1287: 1282: 1279: 1276: 1270: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1234: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1140: 1135: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1027: 1026:July 14 2005 1025: 1021: 1020: 1015: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1003: 999: 997: 993: 988: 981: 976: 975: 970: 966: 963: 959: 955: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 919:Gary Schwartz 915: 914: 910: 909: 904: 900: 896: 895: 890: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 868: 867: 862: 859: 856: 853: 850: 849: 845: 844: 840: 838: 833: 831: 830: 825: 820: 819: 814: 813: 809: 808: 804: 801: 798: 797: 793: 792: 790: 789:experiments." 783: 782: 778: 777: 773: 772: 768: 765: 764: 762: 756: 755: 751: 750: 746: 742: 741: 737: 736: 732: 731: 727: 726: 722: 718: 717: 713: 712: 707: 706: 702: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 684: 680: 679: 675: 674: 670: 667: 664: 663: 658: 653: 647: 638: 634: 630: 627: 623: 622: 620: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 609: 606: 603: 599: 595: 591: 588: 585: 582: 578: 575: 573: 570: 561: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 547: 545: 542: 541: 537: 533: 527: 522: 518: 517:Sylvia Browne 514: 513: 512: 510: 503: 499: 495: 490: 485: 484: 483: 481: 472: 470: 469: 466: 461: 459: 454: 453: 448: 439: 434: 430: 429: 428: 426: 417: 413: 412: 411: 409: 399: 395: 394: 393: 391: 385: 382: 378: 376: 368: 367: 366: 362: 360: 357: 353: 346: 345: 344: 340: 339: 334: 333: 329: 326: 319: 315: 314: 313: 312: 308: 305:(proposed by 304: 300: 295: 292: 290: 286: 281: 279: 275: 269: 267: 258: 253: 250: 246: 245: 244: 243: 238: 235: 231: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 207: 206: 205: 201: 197: 194:We aim for a 192: 191: 186: 185: 179: 175: 173: 166: 165: 161: 158: 154: 153: 150: 147: 141: 139: 135: 128: 127: 124: 120: 114: 109: 107: 100: 99: 90: 88: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2107: 2089: 2048: 2033: 2020: 2015: 1973: 1969: 1945: 1936: 1917: 1881: 1858: 1844: 1841: 1824: 1822: 1807: 1797: 1775: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1715: 1711: 1709: 1676: 1661: 1657: 1628: 1618: 1591: 1575:BobThePirate 1529: 1515: 1494: 1492: 1472: 1470: 1462: 1444: 1407: 1370:29 Jul 2005 1361: 1359:28 Jul 2005 1354: 1342:Folie a deux 1306: 1288:28 Jul 2005 1275:Folie a deux 1273: 1255:28 Jul 2005 1241:folie a deux 1238: 1235:Folie a deux 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1183: 1180: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1152: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1038: 1028: 1022: 1016: 1010: 1004: 1001: 989: 985: 942: 907: 898: 888: 875: 869: 865: 863: 860: 857: 854: 851: 847: 846: 841: 836: 834: 828: 827: 823: 821: 818: 815: 811: 810: 805: 802: 799: 796: 794: 787: 785: 784: 780: 779: 774: 771: 769: 766: 760: 758: 757: 752: 749: 747: 743: 739: 738: 733: 729: 728: 723: 719: 715: 714: 708: 704: 703: 698: 694: 690: 686: 683: 681: 677: 676: 671: 668: 665: 660: 656: 654: 651: 610: 607: 604: 600: 596: 592: 589: 586: 583: 579: 576: 567: 551: 543: 538: 534: 531: 506: 476: 462: 455: 443: 421: 404: 386: 383: 380: 372: 364: 354: 351: 342: 338:Lord Kenneth 335: 330: 327: 323: 299:100th Monkey 296: 293: 282: 270: 262: 257:Jwrosenzweig 239: 236: 232: 229: 223:David Gerard 199: 195: 193: 187: 184:Lord Kenneth 180: 177: 168: 164:Lord Kenneth 159: 156: 143: 130: 115: 111: 102: 94: 86: 60: 43: 37: 1826:overlinking 1819:Overlinking 1558:70.66.9.162 1477:James Randi 1417:1. Adding 1380:White House 1239:I think if 1189:70.66.9.162 1186:Or does it? 1177:fair test. 1158:Hob Gadling 996:Hob Gadling 947:Hob Gadling 908:bowl listen 500:and former 36:This is an 1939:DarthJesus 1921:≈ jossi ≈ 1865:2 February 1532:Prosfilaes 1508:Prosfilaes 1347:Prosfilaes 1331:Prosfilaes 1149:homonymous 1113:stun gun! 1031:Prosfilaes 1024:Harry Mudd 980:Doovinator 892:already... 489:Prosfilaes 473:Categories 204:LionKimbro 1432:ufologist 1388:Hound dog 548:One ahead 465:AuroraMae 460:magician 427:magician 410:magician 123:AuroraMae 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2072:contribs 2060:unsigned 1718:by many. 1716:juvenile 1712:childish 1518:Cyberman 1481:Eclipsed 1473:specific 1464:Bye Bye 1455:Eclipsed 1437:Eclipsed 1400:Eclipsed 1299:Eclipsed 1266:Eclipsed 956:I think 935:skeptics 903:Schissel 480:Bishonen 2092:Bubba73 2064:DrBuzz0 2024:DrBuzz0 1977:Bubba73 1722:Bubba73 1636:Bubba73 1622:Edbanky 1594:Bubba73 1546:Bubba73 1504:neutral 1489:Hmmm... 1227:DrBuzz0 962:Bubba73 662:rigged. 619:Andreac 560:Andreac 438:Modemac 416:Modemac 390:Modemac 311:Khranus 289:Khranus 242:Khranus 196:neutral 172:Grizzly 149:Lippard 138:Grizzly 98:Modemac 39:archive 2095:(talk) 2086:Awards 2041:(talk) 2038:Jeff Q 1980:(talk) 1847:Fyslee 1762:(talk) 1759:Jeff Q 1725:(talk) 1692:(talk) 1689:Jeff Q 1639:(talk) 1620:them). 1611:(talk) 1608:Jeff Q 1597:(talk) 1495:really 1426:. 2. 1396:source 1382:, and 992:Tbpsmd 990:Maybe 965:(talk) 925:, and 458:Kazuba 452:Kazuba 425:Kazuba 408:Kazuba 398:Maroux 375:snoyes 359:(talk) 356:Rasmus 318:MrGalt 2034:Swift 1885:Krash 1384:Elvis 876:isn't 874:This 637:Krash 568:from 249:RickK 16:< 2115:talk 2068:talk 1890:Talk 1869:2006 1677:must 1317:Saki 1153:Your 958:this 943:they 899:were 889:most 509:Geni 447:want 301:and 280:... 276:and 219:NPOV 160:See 91:Misc 1995:Ans 1949:Ans 1755:and 1751:con 1749:or 1747:pro 1662:how 1475:to 1392:CNN 498:FBI 266:DMT 200:not 2117:) 2097:, 2074:) 2070:• 2005:ll 1982:, 1959:ll 1927:• 1867:, 1727:, 1656:, 1641:, 1345:-- 1329:-- 1297:. 967:, 921:, 905:: 839:. 763:. 487:-- 436:-- 388:-- 287:- 162:] 108:. 76:→ 2113:( 2078:. 2066:( 2000:e 1954:e 1929:@ 1925:t 1892:) 1888:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index