A very serious question

[arthwollipot]

A close friend of mine, whose opinions I trust, claims that any response from the email address randi@randi.org is extremely unlikely to be from the actual James Randi. Clearly this address must receive hundreds of thousands of emails every day. How can anyone be sure that if a response comes from randi@randi.org it comes from the "real" James Randi.

This particular person is the same one who has claimed that according to Gizmodo magazine (apparenly one of the offshoots of Wired), there are some 2,200 lawsuits in process against James Randi, and they have had no response back to Wired magazine from the JREF to their requests other than what was published on the JREF website. Previously I have had a response from randi@randi.org saying that none of these lawsuits exist.
Against the comment (sourced from Wikipedia) that Randi has "never paid even one dollar or even one cent to anyone who ever sued me" he claims that legal reparations can be paid by the legal firm, not Randi himself. If Randi is not in charge of payouts from lawsuits this claim can be entirely true but misleading.

I am Arthwollipot on the JREF Forums and a great philosophical supporter of the JREF, but this particular person (whom I repeat, is a person I trust) is convinced that the JREF and James Randi is a scam and a fraud. He is too "financially elite" to respond to a random person in Australia unless they have captured his interest. And only the equally "financially elite" have the wherewithal to capture his attention. He claims that the Commentaries are written by the staff of the JREF, not by Randi himself.

Andrew Gould
saturn@rocketship.com
The only problem
With haiku is that you just
get started and then

[Loss Leader]

I know one person who is in contact with Randi through email, phone and in person and he has shared with me the occassional email. There really is no mistaking Randi's communication style.

[tkingdoll]

lol.

Well, OK, before I laugh, I should remember that not everyone is close to JREF staff. And I should also remember that our saying it ain't the case is not evidence.

The lawsuit thing is silly. If such suits existed, then there would be evidence for them (you have to file a suit with a court, yes?).

As for the emails, well, I've had email communication with Randi on both private and business matters, and the writing style is the same. If it wasn't Randi who composed the emails then it was either Jeff Wagg, with whom I chat almost daily, as do many folk here, Linda, Jose or an intern. And I've had email communications from Linda and several JREF interns, and the writing style is not the same.

So I guess the two big questions your friend needs to answer are:

1) what is the benefit of having someone else write Randi's emails pretending to be him

and

2) what is Randi doing all day instead? Bear in mind that writing the commentary, responding to emails, etc, is his job.

I added that last part because I know several very very busy people who get hundreds of unsolicited emails per day, and have their assistants reply as if it is from them. Once the email is replied to, any further communications from that person go straight to the person inboxes rather than the assistants'. It's a good way of filtering the nutters and timewasters. However, these people have jobs which mean they are busy getting on with stuff and simply don't have time to answer the emails. I'm not sure what else Randi does other than the things your friend is accusing him of not doing.

[arthwollipot]

Well, I posted the exact text of this topic to randi@randi.org (pretty much simultaneously to posting this topic), and within half an hour I received the following response:

Mr. Gould: Prepare to doubt your "close friend."

I receive some 140 to 160 e-mails a day at randi@randi.org (http://adsfree01.mail.com/scripts/mail/compose.mail?compose=1&.ob=3b024aae3fa11902f7365f240a753b931db32419&composeto=randi%40randi.org), and every one is responded to by me, whether by a "canned" answer or individually - but always by me, personally.

No, we do not receive "hundreds of thousands of emails every day." That's ridiculous. We do receive over 600 spam messages a day, but they're taken care of by our spam filters.

There are ZERO lawsuits against the JREF or against me. We've had no requests from WIRED, either.

The "never paid one dollar" quotation is correct. Neither I nor the JREF has ever paid anyone any reparations or settlements, ever, nor have we ever agreed to any compromise in legal matters. We have, however, paid tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers who represent us, in legal fees. And we have never lost a case, either.

I personally write every word of the Commentaries, appropriately showing the quotations as such. And I personally answer each and every inquiry, signing "James Randi." No other person signs in that fashion.

We honestly represent ourselves, directly and clearly. The grubbies out there can't bear that fact, and circulate canards to try discrediting us.

Your "trusted friend" - a grubby - is full of crap.

James Randi

I have replied, saying that I appreciate his response, and that his response has at least provided my friend with a seed of doubt about the things that he had assumed about the JREF. He will be checking out the JREF website - he assumed that it was blocked because http://www.jref.org/ was blocked at his workplace. I have pointed out that the real address is http://www.randi.org/ and he has said that he's going to check it. He appears to have read only the "canards" and not got any information from the source.

Hey - at least he was skeptical, right?

Oh, and the last line of Randi's response I accept as the abrasiveness that he is famous for, and neither I nor my friend take it personally.

:yahoo

[arthwollipot]

2) what is Randi doing all day instead? Bear in mind that writing the commentary, responding to emails, etc, is his job.

Oh no. Apparently he runs a billion-dollar corporation. :eye-poppi

[Jeff Wagg]

I would just like to state that the claims your friend made are untrue from my own personal experience working at the JREF.

I'd be happy to speak with him.

As for Wired, we have a good relationship with at least some of their reporters. They've included Randi in interviews at least twice this year.

Edited to add: Reasonable people can be mistaken, especially if presented with false information.

[Darat]

Is your friend not aware that financial statements regarding the JREF are publicly available (as they have to be)?

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Hey - at least he was skeptical, right?
What? No. No, he wasn't being skeptical at all.

He accepted a bunch of outrageous claims about Randi hook, line and sinker without even having visited Randi.org, doing any research, or asking Randi himself.

"2,200 lawsuits"
"Hundreds of thousands of E-Mails a day"
"Multi-Billion dollar corporation"

This stuff is easily verifiable; even from the comfort of your office chair.

No offense, but your good friend is no more skeptical than the furvent UFO believer who saw a weird light once and therefore accepts all extraterrestrial claims as fact.

[tkingdoll]

And why is Randi not on any Rich Lists if he's the head of a multi-billion dollar corp?

[Metullus]

And why is Randi not on any Rich Lists if he's the head of a multi-billion dollar corp?Sleight of hand..?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Randi has replied to e-mails from me in the past and a couple of my comments have showed up in his Commentaries.

[arthwollipot]

Agreed. I'm not sure why he never looked at it from Randi's or the JREF's point of view, but he has agreed that he should at least look at the correct site. He now understands how one-sided his information has been, so I count that as a win.

[Gravy]

It would be interesting to know where your friend heard, or thought he/she heard, this information. For instance, I can assure you that Gizmodo never said anything as mind-blowingly absurd as "2,200 lawsuits," nor does a search of their member comments turn up anything.

If garbage like that is floating around there, it would be nice to go to the source to refute it. So, to your friend: what's the source? Who said the emails and commentaries are written by others? (By the way, Randi has responded to my email in the past within an hour.)

[Mr. Skinny]

Randi has replied to e-mails from me in the past and a couple of my comments have showed up in his Commentaries.
Randi has replied to the three or four emails I've sent him. The responses were short and to the point, much like his Swift writing style and other emails of his I've read.

I've never visited the JREF building, but as far as I understand it, it's pretty small, and staffed by Randi, Linda, and a part time helper or two.

I think Linda is too busy to be answering Randi's emails, and I honestly can't imagine Randi allowing anyone to sign his name to anything he didn't write.

I've no evidence to back up my feelings - but there they are.


ETA: Gord, he's never published so much as a line that I've written. Maybe someday I'll say something smart, or ask a great question, or point him toward a woo website, but alas, not yet.

[Gregory]

"grubbies?"

[Zep]

Indeed, Randi has even replied to my humble self. Granted, a few posts were two words or less. If anyone needs to be in line for the Pith awards here, it's James Randi!

[Geek Goddess]

Heh.

When Randi had his heart attack and was hospitalized for quite a while (something like two months??? - I disremember), other people filled in for his duties while he recuperated.

[Terry]

I think there are people who visualise JREF as some huge mega-corp...

[arthwollipot]

It would be interesting to know where your friend heard, or thought he/she heard, this information. For instance, I can assure you that Gizmodo never said anything as mind-blowingly absurd as "2,200 lawsuits," nor does a search of their member comments turn up anything.

If garbage like that is floating around there, it would be nice to go to the source to refute it. So, to your friend: what's the source? Who said the emails and commentaries are written by others? (By the way, Randi has responded to my email in the past within an hour.)

Yes, I agree. I wasn't immediately able to verify anything that he has said. He also says that the CSIRO and ACTEW routinely employ dowsers, and that psychics draw huge salaries from the LAPD. To which I went :eye-poppi

I'm not sure what his sources are.

Heh.

When Randi had his heart attack and was hospitalized for quite a while (something like two months??? - I disremember), other people filled in for his duties while he recuperated.

And this is one of the things that I pointed out to him, and he accepted that. Like I said, I'm slowly winning him over.

[Damien Evans]

I think there are people who visualise JREF as some huge mega-corp...

Just out of curiosity, how many people does JREF employ?

[arthwollipot]

And has anyone heard of the James Randi Institute? Apparently that's the mega-corp.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Randi has replied to e-mails from me in the past and a couple of my comments have showed up in his Commentaries.

I've also gotten replies from Randi to questions I've posed. Not long responses, but to the point, and I have no reason to doubt that they were written by him.

[Gravy]

Just out of curiosity, how many people does JREF employ?Jeff, Linda, and 1,600 lawyers.

[Crispy Duck]

And has anyone heard of the James Randi Institute? Apparently that's the mega-corp.

Have you ever heard of Google?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22james+randi+institute%22

It seems that many ill-informed people simply refer to the JREF as the "James Randi Institute". Going back to your opening post, I hope you've learned not to trust people quite so readily.

[Geek Goddess]

Just out of curiosity, how many people does JREF employ?

Besides Randi, Jeff and Linda are full time. There are a few people that do some specific tasks, but I believe many of them are either volunteers, or work part time. Jeff, as General Manager, is the one who knows all this.

[RecoveringYuppy]

It seems that many ill-informed people simply refer to the JREF as the "James Randi Institute".
I vaguely remember the James Randi Institute. It was right after Randi said "Antwerp".

[Elizabeth I]

Just out of curiosity, how many people does JREF employ?

:o Just skimming, I originally read that as, "How many people does JREF annoy?"

[Geek Goddess]

:o Just skimming, I originally read that as, "How many people does JREF annoy?"

all of them


:D

[RemieV]

Just out of curiosity, how many people does JREF employ?

The employees of the JREF are as follows:

James Randi, President
Jeff Wagg, General Manager
Linda Shallenberger, Executive Director
Rich Montalvo, Media Manager
Alison Smith, General Assistant

The board is currently being restructured.

[Damien Evans]

The employees of the JREF are as follows:

James Randi, President
Jeff Wagg, General Manager
Linda Shallenberger, Executive Director
Rich Montalvo, Media Manager
Alison Smith, General Assistant

The board is currently being restructured.

Cool, thanks

[Southwind17]

A close friend of mine, whose opinions I trust ...

I am Arthwollipot on the JREF Forums and a great philosophical supporter of the JREF, but this particular person (whom I repeat, is a person I trust) is convinced that the JREF and James Randi is a scam and a fraud.

Agreed. I'm not sure why he never looked at it from Randi's or the JREF's point of view, but he has agreed that he should at least look at the correct site. He now understands how one-sided his information has been, so I count that as a win.

I have replied, saying that I appreciate his response, and that his response has at least provided my friend with a seed of doubt about the things that he had assumed about the JREF.

Hey - at least he was skeptical, right?

He sure was; shame you weren't though (sceptical about your close friend's opinion, that is)!!!

[arthwollipot]

It seems that many ill-informed people simply refer to the JREF as the "James Randi Institute". Going back to your opening post, I hope you've learned not to trust people quite so readily.

My trust in my friend is not based on this. And the fact that he was wrong on this matter makes him no less my friend, and no less someone I trust.

He sure was; shame you weren't though (sceptical about your close friend's opinion, that is)!!!

I was. That's why I sought more information.

[Southwind17]

My trust in my friend is not based on this. And the fact that he was wrong on this matter makes him no less my friend, and no less someone I trust.

So what, excatly, is your 'trust' based on then?

[arthwollipot]

It's rather personal. Suffice to say that he is a member of my household, and in all respects a very reasonable person. I consider this particular matter to be an aberration for him. He blames it on James Burke's The Day The Universe Changed. :) We've only argued twice in the twenty years I've known him, and interestingly enough they were both about the JREF. The first time he claimed that Randi didn't have a million dollars. Well, as you know, that particular claim is easy to refute, and I did. Now, two and a half years later, there was this other one which was prompted by the audio cables issue. I asked him to actually read the Commentary and he did. As I stated before, he had never actually been to Randi's website - partially because the address he thought it was was blocked.

This is not a really big deal for him anyway - he doesn't have any vested interest in trying to prove that Randi's a charlatan (and I pointed out that of course Randi's a charlatan - he's said it many times himself) and he has bigger things to deal with. But I did send my original email to Randi, and he responded in such a way that my friend is satisfied that what I had been saying is true.

And let's face it. Everyone argues, even with their closest friends, sometimes. It's not a big deal, and certainly nothing worth jeopardising a valued friendship over.

[Southwind17]

OK - it's just that in your OP you made a particular point, which you saw fit to repeat, and highlight that you were repeating, of stressing that you trust his opinion. It seemed, therefore, that such trust was material to the OP, almost as if to say "... so there must surely be some validity in what I'm about to reveal to you." I could be misinterpreting, though. ;)

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, that's possible. I just didn't want people to think that this was some random woo that I'd stumbled over at a party or something. Like I said, I trust this man's opinions, and I was somewhat distressed that he was so one-sided when it comes to the JREF. He isn't normally like that.

[Southwind17]

Perhaps words along the lines of: "... who's opinion I [tend to/usually/am normally inclined to/etc.] trust ..." might, with hindsight, have been better, the inference being that you have some doubts on this particular occassion, as opposed to him probably being right because he's clearly trustworthy. A word or two can make such a difference, don't you think?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The employees of the JREF are as follows:

James Randi, President
Jeff Wagg, General Manager
Linda Shallenberger, Executive Director
Rich Montalvo, Media Manager
Alison Smith, General Assistant

The board is currently being restructured.

One of my roomates for the Galapagos!

[Geek Goddess]

One of my roomates for the Galapagos!

So, has he actually met you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, has he actually met you?

No, but he's heard good things!

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps words along the lines of: "... who's opinion I [tend to/usually/am normally inclined to/etc.] trust ..." might, with hindsight, have been better, the inference being that you have some doubts on this particular occassion, as opposed to him probably being right because he's clearly trustworthy. A word or two can make such a difference, don't you think?

In hindsight, yes. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify.

[Erin]

If I may folks, and I’m only new so you might not care what I think, but isn’t the board and the information on it the important thing?

[Soapy Sam]

If I may folks, and I’m only new so you might not care what I think, but isn’t the board and the information on it the important thing?

Ah. A radical, eh? Welcome.

Yes. It's the thoughts that count, but- do be careful not to confuse the board (forum / website/ whatever) with JREF (the organisation).
JREF is (essentially) Randi himself, with the handful of permanent staff listed above.
It's a tiny group of people in a small building in Florida.
The JREF board / forum / whatever is a discussion website owned and operated by the above organisation and comprising a herd of cats from all over the planet who are (to varying degrees) in sympathy with JR's views , but are happy to throw a pail of water over him when his brain overheats, as even the best brains do when faced with drivel on an unrelenting basis.

[Erin]

Soapy Sam,

Thanks for the welcome and for explaining that to me. Hope I didn't upset anyone but I'm new and have enough to do just taking in all the information on the board, I tend to avoid the polotics behind it. And besides it was 5am! Not at my best till I've had coffee. Lots of coffee! Thanks again for the welcome.

[genesplicer]

When I first started teaching, way back in 1991, I began the "Look who's talking" project. My wife and I would send out a stack of letters to various celebrities, asking for letters and pictures with words of encouragement for my students, that I could display in my classroom. About 90% were either unanswered or canned responses from fan clubs. About 5% were just autographed pictures. However, the other 5% were actual messages of note, which I display every year in my classroom.

I wrote to James Randi in 1994. Here's his response, which is probably the best I ever received:
http://www.wendingourway.com/celebs/randi.htm

Other submissions, along with some of my commentary can be found at this URL:

http://www.wendingourway.com/lookwhostalking.htm


I have to note that by a strange coincidence, I sent letters to both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan the weeks that they died... Sucks that I didn't get off my ass and move faster.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

When I first started teaching, way back in 1991, I began the "Look who's talking" project. My wife and I would send out a stack of letters to various celebrities, asking for letters and pictures with words of encouragement for my students, that I could display in my classroom. About 90% were either unanswered or canned responses from fan clubs. About 5% were just autographed pictures. However, the other 5% were actual messages of note, which I display every year in my classroom.

I wrote to James Randi in 1994. Here's his response, which is probably the best I ever received:
http://www.wendingourway.com/celebs/randi.htm

Other submissions, along with some of my commentary can be found at this URL:

http://www.wendingourway.com/lookwhostalking.htm


I have to note that by a strange coincidence, I sent letters to both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan the weeks that they died... Sucks that I didn't get off my ass and move faster.

A nice idea and some nice responses. Boy though, does Colin Powell look young! He must be much happier now in retirement.

[mac]

Just a little add-on to Randi's famed style of response. I contacted him initially for some incredibly naive advice, and this before I had even looked attentively through this site (this was a few years ago - and at the time, it was a valid matter to me). He responded with what I can only describe as compassion and in no way did he make light of the situation nor did I feel he was curt or dismissing. This was no conversion "thing", by the way, so I would have understood a curt response in the line of "that's a dumb idea" - but he was really very nice.

Uh oh, I hope I haven't undone anything here...

[Smiledriver]

I received only one e-mail from Randi and unless someone was making a definite attempt to mimmick his "style" then at least I got a reply from the genuine article.

[cj.23]

I think I received two or three emails from James Randi, and in them he was surprisingly gracious (given that I was mistaken in my comment) and witty, given my position on "the other side". I found him a pleasure to correspond with on the matter in question, and from what I have seen of his commentary threads he answered personally - the style is unmistakable. As i have said many times, I think he is a delightful, wise and excellent chap.

cj x

[Michelle Lyon]

No offense, but your good friend is no more skeptical than the furvent UFO believer who saw a weird light once and therefore accepts all extraterrestrial claims as fact.

I respectfully disagree. If he were to truly buy into it then he would not have asked any questions of Arthwollipot, whom the friend knew was a member of the forum, about what he read in Gizmodo. He would have simply believed what he heard without questioning anyone at all. Also there are people in the world who don't have the knowledge of existence of public records, etc. nor how to do that research, which is why they don't think to look for them.

He just has to visit us more and hone the skills. :)

[arthwollipot]

I can't even remember what my "very serious question" was now.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I vaguely remember the James Randi Institute. It was right after Randi said "Antwerp".

This the post that's bothering you? Old one. I know how I hate that feeling of "yeah, I should know that". Drives me crazy.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Got to be especially annoying when it's one of your favorite authors.

[Ririon]

This the post that's bothering you? Old one. I know how I hate that feeling of "yeah, I should know that". Drives me crazy.
No, it wasn't bothering me. But NOW it is. Why did you dig up this ancient post? And what does it mean? When did Randi say "Antwerp"? Why did he say it? And why did it make you recall this (fictional/misnamed?) organization? :confused:

[RecoveringYuppy]

When I'm done teasing a particular lurker I'll come back and explain. It's a reference to an obscure movie written by a farily well known author. And someone is going to just scream if I tell them before they figure it out for themselves. And if I stretch it out properly it will be a very loud scream.

[Ririon]

Amsterdamned (1988)! (Oh no, that is the Netherlands.) Good luck with the screaming and all that. :)

[RecoveringYuppy]

OK. I'm done teasing my lurker friend so I'll explain just on the off chance anyone is losing sleep over this.

It's a reference to the movie Lathe of Heavan based on the book of the same name by Ursula K. Le Guin. My friend is a fan of hers so it was maddening to her when I explained the reference. It is an obscure reference though.


The movie and book are about a guy and his psychiatrist. The guy (George), has dreams that actually change reality and it's driving him crazy. He uses to drugs to suppress his dreams and his abuse of those drugs gets him assigned to a shrink. The shrink eventually realizes that George isn't crazy and his dreams really do change reality. The shrink starts suggesting dreams in an attempt to improve the world. It doesn't work out.

When the shrink realizes things aren't working well, he decides that he needs to improve himself so that can do a better job of improving the world. So he suggests a dream to George where the psychiatrist isn't the lowly psychiatrist treating only drug addicts, but rather is the head of the "William Haber Institute".

The codeword that the psychiatrist uses to trigger his dreams via hypnosis is "Antwerp".

So that's the reference.

It's a great book and movie. The movie has an interesting story to it. It was first broadcast in 1980 and was very popular. They intended to release to VHS but had trouble licensing parts of the content, in particular the song "With a Little Help from my Friends" from the Beatles. It took 20 years to work out the licensing and once they worked it out the master copy had been lost and they had to restore it from secondary copies.

So, very obscure reference, go back to sleep now.

[Robert Oz]

I've received responses to all but a couple of my e-mails to Randi, and it gave me a little thrill every time.

And I've been lucky enough to have been published on Swift several times.

I must say, I really miss the weekly Randi commentaries.