Dear Drooper

[Richard]

Here's an email I got yesterday after someone read SWIFT. Anyone got a better answer for this guy?
------------------------------------------

Have you guys ever investigated James Randi ? Specifically what did he mean when he confessed to Dennis Rawlins that he "always has a way out" when Rawlins asks him if he wasn't concerned that he would have to give the award away someday. You can read it for yourself in sTARBABY on the net. Randi's latest excuse is that it is a misquote, but it isn't, Rawlins is a meticulous scientist and an astronomer, and he would never make a mistake such as that. In fact if you haven't read sTARBABY you should, it is a great expose of just how far people with an agenda will go, even to the length of destroying the work and good name of another just because they fear the results of the research and findings that are counter the their agenda. Also, did you know Randi gets to keep and do what he wants to with the interest from the million, that sure would be a great incentive to not give the award away, after all if he only gets 5% that's still over $50 thousand annually. When you compound it over a few more years you got another million. And how about his "ethics" he attacked a woman at his web site all summer long with his unmanly and downright cowardly lies, until she finally threatened to sue him for libel, then he quickly printed just enough of a retraction to legally save his hate filled ass, but he wasn't man enough, or ethical enough, to print this truly decent woman an apology. Yet he was the one who questioned her "ethics". By the way, her crime was to see the world differently than him. If you agree, and believe, that free speech and thought are still desired by all free people, even if you don't agree with them, even if someone says a foolish thing,that they don't deserve to be hounded and continuously ridiculed by a mean spirited person only to serve the mean person's dasterdly ego, then it will be greatly appreciated if you will investigate Randi and then get back to me, thank you, Bill Perron

------------------------------------------

Thank you for your comments.

Mystery Investigators.

------------------------------------------


Comments ? What comments ? I sent you a request, not a comment. Is that how you blow off questions and requests that don't fit your preconceived agenda ? .....Bill Perron

-----------------------------------------

yes

-----------------------------------------

COWARDS !!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------

[Yahweh]

This icon sums up my immediate reactions after reading that email:

:big:


My devine intuition tells me that this guy isnt going to listen to a single thing that you say if it doesnt sound like "You were right, Randi is a poophead". Oh well, he's not too good for the line-by-line dissection...

Originally posted by Richard
Have you guys ever investigated James Randi ?
Yes, I believe Mr. Randi's work is well established and well documented. I'm sure Mr. Randi has recieved more than enough "Hey, is that prize you have legit?".

It seems most people are skeptical of the prize simply out of spite...

Continuing...

Specifically what did he mean when he confessed to Dennis Rawlins that he "always has a way out" when Rawlins asks him if he wasn't concerned that he would have to give the award away someday.
I see, the conspiracy theory approach. Hidden meaning behind words, context changed, manipulated, and twisted...

Yeah...

You can read it for yourself in sTARBABY on the net.
IF ITS FOUND ON THE INTERNET, ITS GOT TO BE TRUE!

Here is a nice commentary from April 11, 2003 (http://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html) regarding this "sTARBABY". To sum up: The "sTARBABY" is total bull<s>s**t</s>poop.

Randi's latest excuse is that it is a misquote, but it isn't, Rawlins is a meticulous scientist and an astronomer, and he would never make a mistake such as that.
Argument from Authority, try harder.

In fact if you haven't read sTARBABY you should, it is a great expose of just how far people with an agenda will go, even to the length of destroying the work and good name of another just because they fear the results of the research and findings that are counter the their agenda.
I have read sTARBABY, its the most intellectually dishonest thing I've ever come across (which is quite an insult when I've read YEC Headquarters).

Also, did you know Randi gets to keep and do what he wants to with the interest from the million,
THAT DOESNT SOUND LIKE TABLOID MATERIAL TO ME!!!!!!!!

that sure would be a great incentive to not give the award away, after all if he only gets 5% that's still over $50 thousand annually. When you compound it over a few more years you got another million.
You idiot (and when I say "idiot", I mean it in the nicest tone...), Randi doesn't have the million in the bank. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account.

And how about his "ethics" he attacked a woman at his web site all summer long with his unmanly and downright cowardly lies, until she finally threatened to sue him for libel, then he quickly printed just enough of a retraction to legally save his hate filled ass, but he wasn't man enough, or ethical enough, to print this truly decent woman an apology. Yet he was the one who questioned her "ethics".
I really dislike intellectual dishonesty...

By the way, her crime was to see the world differently than him.
Poor victim, EVIL RANDI! (Now lets skip to events which actually occur...)

If you agree, and believe, that free speech and thought are still desired by all free people, even if you don't agree with them, even if someone says a foolish thing,that they don't deserve to be hounded and continuously ridiculed by a mean spirited person only to serve the mean person's dasterdly ego,
Strawman burned to the ground, pat yourself on the back...

then it will be greatly appreciated if you will investigate Randi and then get back to me, thank you, Bill Perron
‹^›


He wants you to investigate the integrity of Mr. Randi...

I recommend you get ahold of the sTARBABY group, and ask them to define "slander"...

[Barkhorn1x]

I don’t think you can reply to someone like Mr. Perron. Judging by his messages above he is convinced that Randi is a crook and this Dennis Rawlins is some sort of saint who would “never make a mistake such as that”. One visit to the sTABABY website gives one a good idea of Mr. Rawlins agenda and makes one wonder if Mr. Perron is right here – for the wrong reasons.

Further, assuming that the “this truly decent woman” referred to in these messages is Sylvia Brown, then Mr. Perron’s judgment is called into question again as any familiarity with SB and her “work” would have one soon realize that she is a bottom feeding fraud.

The best response here, IMO, is to reply to Mr. Perron that one should not believe everything they see on the web and leave it at that.

Barkhorn.

[DVFinn]

The JREF does withdraw and make use of the interest from the million to fund their activities. They have openly stated that they do so and are well within their rights. As long as the million itself is readily available should anyone beat the challenge why shouldn't they have the use of the interest?

[Richard]

Here is the latest email to this nutter.

-----------------------------------------------

Think about it......

If Randi was out for the money, he would have announced years ago that someone passed his challenge. He would have handed over the $1m, and then made many times that amount via the media. They would pay big for the rights to the story. The fact that Randi has not done this speaks for his integrity.

Maybe you should suggest this to Randi as you are so sure he is only out to make money. Sylvia Brown might be able to help him with this but I doubt it as she has proven that she does not live up to her word. Still, it's good that she told the world about the Iran earthquake.... didn't she?

In any case, we are in Australia. If you send us the airfare, we will go over to the USA and investigate Randi.

----------------------------------------

[Starrman]

Randi's latest excuse is that it is a misquote, but it isn't, Rawlins is a meticulous scientist and an astronomer, and he would never make a mistake such as that.

Gee, that's not fallacious thinking at all. He is a meticulous scientist and an astronomer, so he would never make a mistake about what someone said to him?

Response: Randi is a meticulous magician and educator, he would never make a mistake such as telling someone he had a secret 'out' to the challenge if one existed!

[Suezoled]

He can do his own d*mn research. He won't like any answer anyone here give him, and if he wants to know, he has to find out himself.

dang lazy no good "do my work for me" biased hateful jerk bearing ......

[NoZed Avenger]

I wouldn't count on getting through to the guy.

Past messages:

[from skeptics.com.au]

-----Original Message-----
From: crystalman23 [email omitted]
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2002 11:23
Subject: Understand

Now I understand why Barry got so upset when I dared to question the ethics of his puppet master James Randi. It is obvious after seeing him on the JREF web site that they have a "man and his faithful dog" type of relationship. Randi pats the head of his little friend and the little friend is so happy just for the opportunity to occassionally sniff his butt and lick his foot. Seriously, why is it that sceptics always seem to be ugly grumpy old men ? Bill Perron p.s. It's not to late to open your mind and become the kind of man that women admire and want to be with, and other men want to be like. See for yourself, if you dare.

And:

[http://www.uechi-ryu.com/oldsite/august2002.htm]

-----Original Message-----
From: William Perron
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:32 PM
To: gmattson [email omitted]
Subject: TRUTH (Relating to Randi's million dollar challenge. GEM)

The truth is that it is going to be impossible for anyone to claim the million that is supposed to be offered but is in reality just a publicity stunt. If Randi ever gave the money away he would lose the interest that he gets from it. Do you really think that is going to happen ? Of course Randi doesn't tell others that he uses the interest to run his foundation but his secretary Linda will confirm this if you just ask her.
Bill Perron

I don't agree Bill. Please notify me of a challenge and I'll get it tested for the million.
Best, George

The fact that you disagree is your free choice but that doesn't change anything, Randi needs the interest to run his so-called foundation. He was a lousy magician who never had an original idea. He has had two idols in his life, Dunninger who he copied his idea of a cash offer from, and Houdini, whose career was starting to wane when he got the idea to debunk spiritualism and remake a career for himself. Problem with Houdini was that he wasn't above using falsified methods to achieve his goal of self glorification. Neither is Randi, remember the Gauquelin scandal that Randi was involved in ?

Respectfully,
Bill

I hope Linda doesn't lose her job over this! Imagine, Randi has been trying to keep this secret and Linda just blabs it to anyone that asks over the phone. tsk-tsk.

Back to 1999:

[LOS ANGELES TIMES (2-21-99)]

LETTERS: What's Wrong With Van Praagh's
Being a Source of Comfort?''

Who appointed Michael Shermer head of the
psychic police ("Medium of the Moment," by
Paul Lieberman, Jan. 24)? If James Van
Praagh can bring comfort to grieving
relatives, is what he does so bad?

Shermer and his skeptics group sound like a
bunch of elitist, hypocritical neurotics.
He preaches against gurus, yet his
literature identifies James Randi as their
spiritual leader. Isn't that a guru?

Shermer offers up a lot of claptrap and
mostly gets away with it; thinking people
have better things to do than pay
attention.

Bill Perron


. . . So I doubt your messages will penetrate any more than responses to those earlier ones did.

[Richard]

It goes on ..........


You fellows Down Under sure are naive, if Randi ever admitted that some one had an ability that doesn't fit his agenda he would be out of business. I bet you guys actually believe his publicity that he was a good magician too. The guys over at the Magic Castle in Hollywood consider him a crude joke. He was only good at one thing and that is publicity. He had two idols Houdini and Dunninger, just as Houdini's career was going bad he went into debunking spiritualist's, Randi realized he couldn't make it as a magician so he followed in Houdini's footsteps. Randi got the idea for an award from Dunninger who did the same thing before him. You or no one else can never name just one original idea or thought that Randi has ever come up with. He has made a career of saying the same thing over and over again......As for me confronting Randi I already have, it was about twelve years ago at a Skeptics conference at Caltech in Pasadena, Calif. there were about 400 people there and Randi was giving his usual diatribe on the evils of palm readers, astrologers, etc. I stood up and asked him just how long he had studied astrology before he came to his conclusion that it was bunk. He replied that he never wasted his time studying it. I replied "You mean to tell us here in this great hall of learning that you are lecturing on a subject that you admit you know nothing about ? How scientific is that?" Pandemonium broke out, people realized what I had just pointed out to them with my question, they started laughing, some clapped and stomped their feet. Randi glared at me. I didn't make him out to look like a fool, he did it to himself. After the audience calmed down Randi publicly challenged me to meet him at Caltech again next year to finish this discussion because his time was up. I came back next year and was met at the door by the wife of the Skeptics society who were the sponsors of the get together and a clone of Sonny Liston, this guy was the biggest, ugliest black man I have ever had threaten to do me great bodily harm. Kim Shermer and the black man told me to leave and not come back if I knew what was good for me. I protested that I was there by Randi's invitation, the black man doubled up his fist and moved towards me in a very menacing manner, I looked around and realized that there were no others in the hallway to witness his actions so realizing that discretion is truly the greater part of valor I left.....So much for a desire for honest discussion of differing points of view from Randi and Michael Shermers Skeptic Society. I can also document the conversation that I had with Randi because I brought a tape recorder with me and recorded all of our public debate. I only wish I had the recorder turned when I had my existence threatened on my return visit, I just wasn't aware of just how paranoid those professional skeptics can get.......Bill Perron p.s. if you feel the need to contact Randi or Shermer about the events just related I would encourage that, remember I do have an audio tape to document what I have just related to you. The truth is a beautiful thing, more folks should seek it, it sets one free.

[Yahweh]

I stood up and asked him just how long he had studied astrology before he came to his conclusion that it was bunk. He replied that he never wasted his time studying it. I replied "You mean to tell us here in this great hall of learning that you are lecturing on a subject that you admit you know nothing about ? How scientific is that?"
http://disted.tamu.edu/classes/telecom98s/eva/strawman.jpg Now if that aint a strawman burned, I dont know what is!

[TheBoyPaj]

Yep. It looks like we have to devote several years of our lives to researching every single bit of superstition before we can judge it to be fiction. I wonder how long it will take to fully cover Santa Claus?

[Barkhorn1x]

Bill Perron - not just a crank - but a Racist crank.

Yes, Bill your - err - story certainly has the ring of truth to it.

Barkhorn.

[max]

so why is no one questioning Randi if this is true?
you question religion what's the diferrence?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Perron
I stood up and asked him just how long he had studied astrology before he came to his conclusion that it was bunk. He replied that he never wasted his time studying it. I replied "You mean to tell us here in this great hall of learning that you are lecturing on a subject that you admit you know nothing about ? How scientific is that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahwah
http://disted.tamu.edu/classes/telecom98s/eva/strawman.jpg Now if that aint a strawman burned, I dont know what is! [/B]


Ummm . . I don't understand Yahwah. What's this got to do with strawmen? To pontificate on a subject that one knows nothing about might well be considered a tad presumptuous. However, if Randi were to say something like, look, I know nothing about this subject, but then gave reasons as to why astrology is prima facie unlikely, and gave reasons as to why people are psychologically disposed to believe in astrology, then that of course would be fine. I do think though that he should make his lack of knowledge quite explicit and explain that he's attacking astrology from the context of it being incommensurate with our assumed background knowledge of the world, and of peoples psychological disposition to believe in such things.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by max
so why is no one questioning Randi if this is true?
you question religion what's the diferrence?

Go ahead - his e-mail address is on this site.

OK - after that flip remark, I will add the following;
1. People tell lies about Randi all the time (amazingly, or not, they often accuse him of the same behavior they engage in).
2. Mr. Perron is hardly a disinterested party.
3. One site referenced by Mr. Perron has a Randi rebuttal - it is brief, but it makes one wonder about the rest of the charges.
4. The "news" that Randi makes use of the interest on the $1 Million - for his foundation - and this is somehow evidence of dishonesty is just stupid.

None of this proves that the charges aren't true - but it doesn't prove 'em either.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . . I don't understand Yahwah. What's this got to do with strawmen? To pontificate on a subject that one knows nothing about might well be considered a tad presumptuous.

Agreed. But we have no evidence other than Mr. Perron's word that these events took place in the manner decribed. Perhaps Mr. Perron could actually produce a .WAV file of the meeting, instead of continually threatening to do so.

Barkhorn.

[Soapy Sam]

There have been threads about the legal / financial status of JREF before. Also about what a bad character, bad magician, bad bet Randi is. Presumably if anyone is interested, they can hunt them up.

I think this sort of attack misses the point. JREF is not a cult. If James Randi is arrested for embezzling, baby snatching and horse rustling tomorrow, it would not alter at all the fundamental assumption of JREF, or the huge joke at the heart of it all.

The Million dollar prize is the safest money on Earth. It can only be awarded to someone who can do the impossible.

Of course the prize can't be won. This is the point. This is the joke. This is Randi laughing at the idiots who keep trying to win it.

Get this through your heads. It won't happen. Not because Randi changes the rules , but because it's impossible!

Randi was and is a showman. One with a mission. He's laughing at you. He may be laughing at me. He even has some of my money. I couldn't care less. I'm laughing too hard .

[max]

it does make one wonder, though, what we would have said about jesus had he been a magician afterall that's just another word for trickster

[Soapy Sam]

Max- I doubt that Christ calmed the storm in the Sea of Galilee. Maybe he calmed the men . Both tricks take magic of a sort.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Richard
Randi was giving his usual diatribe on the evils of palm readers, astrologers, etc. I stood up and asked him just how long he had studied astrology before he came to his conclusion that it was bunk. He replied that he never wasted his time studying it. I replied "You mean to tell us here in this great hall of learning that you are lecturing on a subject that you admit you know nothing about ? How scientific is that?"OK, I'm confused. How is this a strawman? Sounds like a perfectly valid question to me. Besides, it wouldn't take very long - a week, perhaps - to study up on astrology from different sources to come to a conclusion as to the agreement between the sources and the accuracy of what they predict.

And five'll get you ten that a week's worth of study into astrology will give you far more ammunition against astrology than any pro-astrology person will know how to rebut.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Beleth
OK, I'm confused. How is this a strawman? Sounds like a perfectly valid question to me. Besides, it wouldn't take very long - a week, perhaps - to study up on astrology from different sources to come to a conclusion as to the agreement between the sources and the accuracy of what they predict.


Agreed. But we have no evidence other than Mr. Perron's word that these events took place in the manner decribed. Perhaps Mr. Perron could actually produce a .WAV file of the meeting, instead of continually threatening to do so.

Barkhorn.

[bignickel]

I stood up and asked him just how long he had studied astrology before he came to his conclusion that it was bunk. He replied that he never wasted his time studying it

Ok, it's not a Strawman. Partly wrong categorization.

Anyone who's read "Flim-Flam" knows it's an out and out lie.

Randi has read quite abit about astrology: evidently alot more than some astrologers, since he knows about the FOURTEEN constellations the Sun passes thru.

But I do have a pretty good idea where this lie came from: it's a favorite tactic of woo's to accuse their critics of not 'learning' or 'studying' enough of their subject. If they had... well, they wouldn't be critics anymore, would they?

I believe there's a thread somewhere on this board from a skeptic who's studied up on his astology, but the 'astrologers' refuse to acknowledge that he's an astrologer too. "How much does he have to study more?" he asks. He never gets the same answer. However much, it's never enough.

It's partly a Strawman, because Randi wasn't giving a lecture on Astrology. He doesn't have to: all he has to do is a give a basic description, and then proceed to the most important part: what evidence is there for it? And of course, there isn't any.

It doesn't matter how many years he's studied the "Riddles of the Ancients", since it doesn't change the lack of evidence.

[bignickel]

Here's my dream conversation between the two of them:

Perron: "How many years have you studied astrology before you decided it was bunk?"

Randi: "Oh, it took me much less than year to figure out that it was bunk. All the studies that failed to show any correlation between birthdate and personality, the vagueness of the readings that allows anyone to interpret any sign as applying to them, my own stint as an 'astrologer' using cut-ups, the lack of any logic in the system (especially with the ignored 2 constellations), astronomers not even bothering to come up with a plausible mechanism on how any of it should work... I could go on and on. But anyway: how many years have you studied astrology?

Perron: "15 years!"

Randi: "Wow. 15 years, and you still haven't figured out it's bunk yet..."

[Ersby]

I heard Randi talk about the "I always have an out" quote on his radio show. He said it was only half of the the sentence. The sentence in full should read...

"I always have an out: I'm right."

(I only skimmed this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone.)