20/20 special

[jpenn]

What the hell is going on with 20/20. I started to watch because Randi was going to be on but so far all I see is Woo-woo reporting!! I don’t see anything skeptical or at least neutral in the way ABC is presenting the subject. I don't think it will ever change. Maybe I don't have FAITH!
Only 45 minutes into the show maybe the rest of the report will be better.

[Riser Glen]

First of all, hello everyone.

I'm having a hard time watching it. I am especially disgusted at the reporting on Audrey. I was having a good day, but the way that story was handled bummed me out.

[jpenn]

OK the Stossel report sounded a little better but I still have some issuse with the show.

[Achán hiNidráne]

They just did an completely biased segment on the late Audrey Santo that practically had the girl canonized. Nothing on tests that did on the "sacred oil" really was or the Audrey merchandising by her mother.

The segment on atheism was good though.

However, I was flipping back and forth between 20/20 and a Bill Moyer interview with Nick Gellispie of reason magazine. So I may have missed the segment with Randi.

[jpenn]

Got the DVD recorder going. Will post later without commercials if I didn’t screw up the set again.

[Smart_Cookie]

Crud! Of all the times for 20/20 to be TWO HOURS LONG.

I just tuned in and apparently missed the first hour.

That's probably when the Randi segment was, because all that's apparently coming up is more on the cloistered nuns, and exorcisms.

I'll keep my fingers crossed I haven't missed it.
:(

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's 7 pm Pacific time here, Show's not on until 9pm. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/?CMP=google_branded&partner=google&gclid=CKL0tqfHh4wCFQU8YQodOQqB4w)

But comments welcome, this isn't the kind of show where spoilers matter. Tell me what you think I should look for.

But darn, Bill Moyers journal (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html) in on at 9pm also, and it's so much more intelligent. It's on the Pat Robertson School of Law. That's the one where Bush put 150 new grad Christian lawyers into his admin. ranks. Monica Goodling, the lawyer who is to testify and has immunity in the Rove lawyer firing scandal came from the school.

How do you have Nick Gellispie on Moyer's, Mark? Is it related to the Regent Law School?

[Riser Glen]

Crud! Of all the times for 20/20 to be TWO HOURS LONG.

I just tuned in and apparently missed the first hour.

That's probably when the Randi segment was, because all that's apparently coming up is more on the cloistered nuns, and exorcisms.

I'll keep my fingers crossed I haven't missed it.
:(

You didn't miss it. You just missed about a hour and a half of woo-worshiping with out even the slightest hint of critical thought. Be grateful. :p

[Reager]

You didn't miss it. You just missed about a hour and a half of woo-worshiping with out even the slightest hint of critical thought. Be grateful. :p

Randi's segment was quite good (as far as it went). 10 minutes of skepticism in a two hour program...sounds about right for network TV... :(

[IceSage]

Randi just came on. ABC travelled to see Randi for about only 2 comments from him... Things we've heard Mr. Randi say many many times in the past.

And... that's it. There's your story on Peter Popoff. I found it rather lame.

They need to do a special on exposing woo-woo's, with James Randi as the main guest star. I look forward to that day...

[Achán hiNidráne]

How do you have Nick Gellispie on Moyer's, Mark? Is it related to the Regent Law School?

It was right after the story on Regent. Moyers talked to him about the Christian Right (which Gellispie thinks is declining in influence--the one thing I disagree with him on), the problems in the GOP, and libertarianism in general.

Overall, I give him a B.

I just saw the segment on Randi. Now there going into something on exorcism so it's time to change the channel.

[Ceritus]

Randi needs his own television show...... That would make my day.

[jpenn]

Too little skepticism too little Randi. but I think it is a small step in the right direction.

[Hamradioguy]

I can't believe I wasted two hours on this. Probably should have known better- ABC is pretty much the "woo-woo network" these days; less than a week ago in a Good Morning America piece on complementary medicine Diane Sawyer stated that she just knew acupuncture worked and had nothing to do with the placebo effect since she used it on her dog with great results (!)

Still.....John "Give Me A Break" Stossel was strangely muted, never once doing his "Give me..." cry. All too brief clips of Dawkins and Randi and plenty of stuff on nuns, exorcism, and of course "The Secret". In two hours (less seemingly endless commercial breaks) there was darn little time addressed to science anad rational thinking. About par for the course for ABC however. It's why I almost never bother with the networks these days.

[steve s]

I agree, too little Randi. They didn't even mention him exposing Popoff on the Tonight Show. They flew all that way for a couple of sentences from him.

I didn't watch the rest of the show. I saw the first five minutes and thought that there's no way I can stomach two hours of such woo-friendly gushing. Fortunately I turned it back on just in time to see the Popoff segment.

Steve S.

[Linda]

You think Randi got short changed? How many of you noticed Margaret Downey's brief encounter? She didn't even get her last name mentioned! Or Ellen Johnson's?

Very disappointing show overall. Especially the piece on "Saint" Audrey and the last one on exorcism.

[Smart_Cookie]

I'm glad I did get to see Randi's segment, but it was disappointingly short.

I was also disappointed that it was "buried" in the second hour. When they discussed what was upcoming in the second hour - there wasn't even a mention of it.

And yes, way too much woo. And too little skepticism.

I had the hardest part watching the segment on the cloistered nuns. I'm afraid I rolled my eyes alot, and muttered under my breath. The piece on exorcism made Scumop and I laugh. Honestly, thousands and thousands of demons sent packing? Sounds kind of like those McDonald's signs...

[Tumblehome]

Too little skepticism too little Randi. but I think it is a small step in the right direction.


The right direction? One and a half hours of serious reporting on mystical mumbo jumbo, and ten minutes (or five?) on reason. We wouldn't have seen that ten years ago on a flagship show like 20/20. Journalism has taken a great leap backward lately.

[steve s]

I did catch a minute or two of the exorcism of the old lady. They mentioned that they performed sixteen exorcisms on her. Sixteen! Them X-or-sizzums ain't none too eefecktive, is they?

Steve S.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well at least I know I can watch Moyers then the second half of 20 20.

[Riser Glen]

I put too much trust in John Stossel, who usually shows some signs of skepticism. All I got was 5 minutes of James Randi and about 1 minute of Richard Dawkins within 2 hours of woo-worshiping. Almost the entire show was a disgusting exercise in avoiding critical thought and playing into the delusions of the naive and gullible. Anything for ratings, I suppose.

They even had the audacity to have the segment of James Randi debunking that filthy con-artist Peter Popoff, which lasted about 5 minutes, in the same show as a 10 minute segment glorifying the disturbing case of Audrey Santo. A case which has been highly criticized and rightfully so. 20/20, you are despicable.

EDIT: That was my universal rant for most media on the subject. But this is the first thread I have ever posted in, so I just went for it. :)

[IceSage]

Very disappointing show overall. Especially the piece on "Saint" Audrey and the last one on exorcism.

I was kind of hoping they were saving Randi for last to turn around and explain what non-sense the first hour and a half of the 20/20 segment was. I swear, I thought Randi was going to pop-in and explain his views on the Audrey piece. I hate how they portrayed that segment.

The Audrey case is the most sad thing I've ever seen, and that lady makes me sick. Having faith that your child is "a-okay" and will do just fine in her condition is one thing, but making her a public attraction and setting up woo-woo falsities about oil and stuff just makes me want to vomit.

I was seriously expecting to hear Randi talk about the first part of the show with a bit of skepticism. All we get is to hear him say is what he's said in the past many times.

I'm not that old, but even I remember the days of when I found news stations and specials like this to be skeptical and EDUCATIONAL. I remember as a kid watching things like 60 minutes and learning so much...

[grunion]

What a load of crap. There's two hours of my life that I'll never get back.

Any credophile watching that show got nothing to disuade them from belief in the supernatural other than a few seconds of Randi and a few shots of a cute Athiest chick who was driven to tears by her mistreatment by fundies.

That guy Quinones (who did the John Of God show a while back) is one of the worst reporters I have ever seen - and when put alongside Diane Sawyer that is saying a lot.

They did a segment on The Secret and actually made it sound like it really works. Unbelieveable.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I missed the first hour too. Oh well. Seems like I didn't miss much. I was fairly disappointed.

- The exorcism segment had no balance from the skeptical side. Just, "This woman was possessed. Really." Meh.
- The Popoff segment? Basically, "Peter Popoff sells miracles. Randi debunked him years ago. And Popoff is still at it." Grrr.
- And "The Secret"? They summed it up with, "It's just magical thinking. But it works." I was half expecting them to say something like, "Here we have a skeptic in a box. Well, that's our story. Good night."

[Miss Whiplash]

Two hours wasted on woo-woo. This was a feel good show to mislead the gullible.

The exorcism crap really really sent me into orbit. "Bishop" McKenna isn't a Roman Catholic bishop at all. He left in 1985 and set up an independent church. McKenna worked with Ed and Lorraine Warren up until they retired. John Zaffis is Ed Warren's nephew and taking over the "family business" of scaring the gullible out of their homes.

The Pat Reading story was horrible. I'd really like to see the proof she was given a clean bill of health during all this mumbo jumbo for publicity. She's now dead from cancer, so all we have is second hand information from dubious sources.

[IceSage]

So, does ABC do this sort of thing often? Has anyone wrote to them trying to get them on track?

I seriously hope that if enough people request it, Mr. Randi gets his own special... or at the very least, they'll stop airing this woo-woo crap.

[T'ai Chi]

It seemed fairly well-balanced.

FYI, it is not reasonable to seriuosly expect organized skeptics to get air time if they spend most of their days complaining about how silly the tv stations are.

[Mercutio]

It seemed fairly well-balanced.

FYI, it is not reasonable to seriuosly expect organized skeptics to get air time if they spend most of their days complaining about how silly the tv stations are.

And do they do that?

[T'ai Chi]

Like Dawkins I believe in the probability.

[steve s]

It seemed fairly well-balanced.


You must work for Faux News Channel. 115 minutes of religious woo; 5 minutes of skepticism. Yeah, really balanced.

Steve S.

[carnyfolk5]

Hiya! Long time lurker, first time poster here. Like so many of you, I feel as though I've just wasted two hours with woo-woo flim-flam reporting. Randi's appearance this time made his John of God interview seem like a graduate-level lecture.

Unbelievable.

They could have made a great full length show out of the atheist girl and her struggles with a not-so-separated church-state educational system...well, assuming they would bother to do any actual reporting. During that segment, the show seemed almost uncomfortable to be giving this girl and her family air time and breezed away as quickly as they rushed in. And the closing line about how she might not be able to go to college on an athletic scholarship? :jaw-dropp What about the struggles she's going to face in a world that seems hell bent on converting? They really dropped the ball there.

But why should I be surprised.

I'm going to go bury my head in Penn & Teller's BS for a little while. Y'all have a good evening!

[steve s]

Hiya! Long time lurker, first time poster here.

Welcome to the boards.

Steve S.

[Beleth]

Like Dawkins I believe in the probability.
You misspelled "possibility".

And you are confusing cause and effect.

[T'ai Chi]

You must work for Faux News Channel. 115 minutes of religious woo; 5 minutes of skepticism. Yeah, really balanced.


Start up your own organized skeptical news channel then is my suggestion.

Then you can hear magicians talk about religion all day.

[steve s]

Here's the link to the 20/20 discussion board...
20/20 Board. (http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?folderId=1&listMode=13&nav=messages&webtag=ABC2020&redirCnt=1)
Not a whole lot of discussion going on over there right now.

Steve s.

[jpenn]

This is from the ABC 20/20Board threads.


"In the ads for this Fridays show concerns me.: "Seeing and Believing: The Power of Faith." The ads show a woman shaking and removing from being touched with the cross, I believe it is to show the religious attitude about demon possession. Individuals with seizures (epilepsy) has a difficult time being accepted because of this attitude. I have seizures and I am not possessed. I have a medical condition that was caused by a brain injury. Many, many religious people see me as being possed and faith will heal me. Faith is not going to heal me.

I am a Christian who believes that God saved my life. If I have to live with seizures and be alive. I accept the seizures. It is hard enough to be classified as being disabled never the less being possessed.

I hope you take that in consideration and make the public aware that seizures are not always a sign of a great sin or demon possession."



also


"I felt like something was missing in the story about the woman who seemed to be possessed. They just accepted the assertion that the victim was perfectly healthy and had no sign of mental illness. Then at the end they mentioned, almost in passing, that she had since died of cancer. Is it possible there was a connection? We have no way of knowing."


My thoughts



I also felt here was no connection given to the fact that this woman died of cancer and no mention of what link the cancer had or if it was located in the brain.

And in the part about the Everest Mountain climbers Sherpa who was fully recovered, I think he might have lost a nose and maybe there was was brain damaged? Fully recovered, I doubt it.

[psy kick]

I wouldn't have known it was on unless I checked this page, which I do every Friday. I turned it on and watched Amma hugging people. That was it.
Wasn't what I expected. Big deal, I could use a hug myself!
So I turned it off.

[nspeters]

Could somebody post a torrent or something? I don't have a TV.

[Czarcasm]

Like Dawkins I believe in the probability.

You believe in everything, which means your opinion is worth....what again?

[Skeptic Ginger]

It was right after the story on Regent. Moyers talked to him about the Christian Right (which Gellispie thinks is declining in influence--the one thing I disagree with him on), the problems in the GOP, and libertarianism in general.

Overall, I give him a B.
...I don't agree with a lot of what Gellispie believes anyway. He said because Robertson and Falwell blamed 911 on the sins of the nation, many people lost interest.

My interpretation is that everyone's forgotten that whole affair. The only reason Evangelicals are losing interest is the war is going badly and some of them decided maybe the rapture wasn't going to save the problems of global warming after all. No one remembers let alone still cares what Robertson and Falwell said after 911.

And Gellispie said it was fine anyway because 'la-te-da it was up to them', no government interference making them Evangelicals. It's like his head is in the sand about the right wing Evangelical manipulation of the courts and underlying principles of the Constitution. He has no concept that the abstinence only crap is interfering with AIDS prevention programs around the world. I think Gellispie lives in a tunnel which gives him tunnel vision.

The Moyers program was better than the over-dramatized 2020 show. I saw the Sherpa part and was disgusted with the usual nonsense, "it isn't explicable". Yes it is, the guy got worse then he got better. His brain swelling stopped just in time before permanent damage occurred.

Suppose the same circumstances had occurred except it was some quack witchdoctor the medical doctors saw as a quack? If the medical doctors weren't enthralled by the chanting and the stamina of the monks, they might not have been attributing the recovery to a miracle.

And I've seen that oil nonsense before. No one has ever seen the oil drip where the mother couldn't have done it herself. And I believe the analysis was some cooking oil or something.

The mother who needed repeat exorcisms, good grief! Talk about secondary gain.

Nuns married to Christ, more women with "issues", to be sure.

The stuff I did see in between and after Moyers was all simply crazy people, swindlers and coincidences, all sensationalized for the theatrical effect.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I put too much trust in John Stossel, who usually shows some signs of skepticism. All I got was 5 minutes of James Randi and about 1 minute of Richard Dawkins within 2 hours of woo-worshiping. Almost the entire show was a disgusting exercise in avoiding critical thought and playing into the delusions of the naive and gullible. Anything for ratings, I suppose.

They even had the audacity to have the segment of James Randi debunking that filthy con-artist Peter Popoff, which lasted about 5 minutes, in the same show as a 10 minute segment glorifying the disturbing case of Audrey Santo. A case which has been highly criticized and rightfully so. 20/20, you are despicable.

EDIT: That was my universal rant for most media on the subject. But this is the first thread I have ever posted in, so I just went for it. :)Welcome to the forum. Spoken like a true skeptic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seemed fairly well-balanced....:dl:

[HarryKeogh]

It's times like this I thank Jesus for my DVR. I was able to get through the two hour program this morning in about 1/2 an hour and see Randi (talk about something I've seen him talk about a couple of other times...but still, never a bad thing to get the news out there that Popoff is a con-man) and the atheist story (including an animated Dawkins with a penis pump). I watched the part on magical thinking as well and glad they pointed out the 27 year old millionaire got that way through optimism and lots of 12 hour days and busting his ass.

Felt bad for the atheist girl. But what was that liquid coming out of her eyes? Atheists don't have emotions, do they?

[Miss Whiplash]

Concerning Audrey Santo, wasn't there an analysis of the "miracle" oil years ago? I thought it was shameful for the mother to turn her daughter into a carnival side-show attraction.

JPenn: That was my line of thinking too, about the Reading woman. That she had died of cancer was presented more or less like foot note at the end of the segment. She died of cancer, yet got a clean bill of health? That doesn't quite add up.

[Riser Glen]

Concerning Audrey Santo, wasn't there an analysis of the "miracle" oil years ago? I thought it was shameful for the mother to turn her daughter into a carnival side-show attraction.

It was composed of 80% soybean oil and 20% chicken fat.

(Can't post the link, but check CSICOP.)

Welcome to the forum. Spoken like a true skeptic.

Thank you. :)

[wahrheit]

Haven't seen it, yet, but reading all previous comments it seems I missed nothing but a very frustrating experience. :mad:

[Sherman Bay]

It seemed fairly well-balanced.
You're whooshing us, right?

An entire episode on Audrey Santos and not a single quote from Randi? Or me? How about this one, for starters? (http://doorbell.net/tlr/fraudw.htm)

Note that 20/20 has done this report about Santos before on several occasions. Not once have they taken a skeptical attitude.

And I'm really dissapointed in Stossel. He usually displays some brains and I was a fan of his until this show.

And I missed Moyers to watch it. Dang.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Note that 20/20 has done this report about Santos before on several occasions. Not once have they taken a skeptical attitude.


I fear that there are two reasons for this:

The story involves a invalid woman.
The woman's mother invokes religion as a reason for the "miracles." Given that Americans are suckers for sob stories AND religion, 20/20 dares not skeptically investigate the story lest they invoke the wrath of the viewers and jeopardize their ratings.

[Brown]

My take:

I knew from the outset that the show wasn't going to be about challenges to religion in general, or about James Randi in particular. So I didn't expect Randi to be on screen any more than he actually was.

And on the whole, his segment was pretty good. Poophead--I mean, Popoff--comes across as a con man anyway, and Randi basically confirmed that Popoff had been "caught" red-handed in the past. The tapes of the secret transmissions from Popoff's wife disgust me every time I see them ("Petey, can you hear me?").

Sure, there could have been more. The "Tonight" show Popoff clips, for example, were devastating, truly one of the all-time highlights of television. (Carson called these clips "disturbing" on air, and according to Randi, Carson uttered additional remarks in reaction that were not fit to air.) But it seemed to me that the point had been made: there are many out there who are content to fleece the flock, and Popoff is one of them.

There are many folks out there who claim to speak on behalf of the Almighty. But as a matter of fact, every single one is a self-appointed spokesman, with no credentials whatsoever. Further, there has never been even one verified instance in human history in which the Almighty has stepped forward to deny that any spokesman lacks authority to speak on behalf of the Almighty.

Con men know this. They know that God will not strike them dead if they speak untruths in his name. But they also know that many people live under the delusion that the Almighty will not allow anyone to speak falsely in His name. Con men know that certain forms of religion cloud people's rationality and good sense, and they take advantage of that.

More thoughts on the show later.

[Brown]

A few more thoughts about the show in general.

I found myself saying "Oh, bulls***!" quite a bit. Anyone who tried to throw out that kind of nonsense on a supposed news show--such as a used car salesman or a pusher of a get-rich-quick scheme--would ordinarily not be allowed to get away without at least some sort of challenge. The challenge need not be hostile or confrontational. It could be a gentle "Can you please explain" challenge.

The Santos bit was maddening. Recognizing that it's tough to come down too hard on a people who have suffered a genuine loss, there was still room for investigation. You don't need to be Lt. Columbo to figure out simple ways to determine whether there are supernatural occurrences, as claimed, or whether there are some folks engaging in simple trickery.

And on this business of miracles in general: A good case can be made that miracles, even if they exist, prove nothing. In The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine wrote:Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.
...
If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is,--Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.The whole thing is complicated by the bizarre notion that, in Christian circles anyway, there are evil supernatural forces as well as good. In other words, the existence of a miracle is not proof that the miracle came from God. Paine put it this way, suggesting that instead of Jonah being swallowed by a whale--which might not be all that miraculous--that Jonah swallowed the whale--which would be an unquestionable miracle. Would that miracle be proof that Jonah was sent by the Almighty, and therefore his message was authentic?But suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale, and gone with it in his belly to Nineveh, and to convince the people that it was true have cast it up in their sight, of the full length and size of a whale, would they not have believed him to have been the devil instead of a prophet? or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nineveh, and cast him up in the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to have been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps?In other words, the inquiry into miracles seems to me to miss an important point. The reporter gets all wrapped up in whether "the reporter of a miracle tells a lie" or not. But a more crucial point should be this:

If it is a genuine miracle, then SO WHAT??

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Audrey Santo died?!?!?! Wow, less than a month ago.

How did I miss that?

[T'ai Chi]

You're whooshing us, right?
An entire episode on Audrey Santos and not a single quote from Randi?

I guess they dont like seeing skeptics be negative. Who knew. :)

[wahrheit]

I guess they dont like seeing skeptics be negative. Who knew. :)

What did you do after posting this uber-smart reply? Did you go to the bathroom, look into the mirror and think 'Wow, I am such a witty, clever dick guy"?

*shakes head*

[Questioninggeller]

Anyone post it online?

[Blight]

The funny thing is, if randi tries to catch someone like Popoff using today's technology, he'll probably get a DMCA notice for listening to encrypted transmissions.

[Miss Whiplash]

The funny thing is, if randi tries to catch someone like Popoff using today's technology, he'll probably get a DMCA notice for listening to encrypted transmissions.

Scanners are still legal in the US. So is monitoring "utility" transmissions. The only thing a citizen can't legally intercept is cell phones. I've not used one in sometime, but I found out interesting things about my neighbors when I listened to their baby monitor transmissions on my scanner.

[Blight]

The Vampire:
You missed where I said "today's technology". I guess I could have been clearer. I meant that today, con-men would probably use encrypted two-way radio. The encryption is usually not very good so it could be bypassed, but that would be grounds for a DMCA notice.

[Miss Whiplash]

I caught that. But my point was, it's not illegal in the US to listen to the transmission. Doing something with information and modifying the radio is another thing, which is what you were implying. I think it would come under the jurisdiction of the FCC rather than the DMCA, though. The FCC regulates and enforces radio bandwidth issues for private & public users. I could be outdated on that too.;)

[Questioninggeller]

Here's a 9 minute clip of the show with download: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/05/the_price_of_at.html

[Dunstan]

And I'm really dissapointed in Stossel. He usually displays some brains and I was a fan of his until this show.

Maybe someone who has read Stossel's book can comment on this, but I get the impression that his critical thinking is rather selective -- he uses it when it suits his conservative/libertarian views?

[grunion]

Maybe someone who has read Stossel's book can comment on this, but I get the impression that his critical thinking is rather selective -- he uses it when it suits his conservative/libertarian views?I agree with your assessment. If I recall correctly his book was filed with libertarian arguments masquerading as skepticism, with refutations of such "myths" about government regulation, school vouchers, immigration, labor unions, and other topics which are clearly matters of opinion.

[Withnail]

There was one sensible person in "The Secret" segment. She said it is probably better to leave for that job interview a half hour early instead of positive thinking you will get a parking spot at the last minute. The show(s) had a couple bits of common sense snuck into all the dribble. It seemed mostly a re-editing of old shows bundled together as a "special".

[Ducky]

The Vampire:
You missed where I said "today's technology". I guess I could have been clearer. I meant that today, con-men would probably use encrypted two-way radio. The encryption is usually not very good so it could be bypassed, but that would be grounds for a DMCA notice.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts if I were to put my laptop and a scanner to use debunking encrypted transmissions nowadays, and published my findings, I wouldn't get much more than an angry glare from the Gov't.