From Abracadabra to Zombies

• a
• b
• c
• d
• e
• f
• g
• h
• i
• j
• k
• l
• m
• n
• o
• p
• q
• r
• s
• t
• u
• v
• w
• x
• y
• z

reader comments: James Randi

November 08, 2002
I am wondering why the Skeptics Dictionary is not skeptical of the Randi million dollar offer. He gets the interest from the million and if he gives the award away he will lose that interest income, isn't that situation an obvious conflict of interest situation, and one that any intelligent person should be skeptical of ?

Respectfully, William Perron

reply: Randi doesn't have the million in the bank. As you probably know, the prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account.

Also, as you probably know,

The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.*

What would be a real conflict of interest would be if Randi got a percentage of the prize should anyone win it. You claim the JREF is getting the interest on these bonds and that these funds would be lost should anyone win the prize. Thus, should the prize be won, the JREF would lose substantial funds. The JREF would also lose face and have to eat crow. It would lose a lot more than this funding should anyone win the prize. My guess is, the JREF would be out of business should anyone win the prize. So would I and every other skeptic who maintains that the likelihood of miracles and paranormal powers is near zero.

You might as well argue that it was a conflict of interest for the University of Nevada (Las Vegas), Charles Tart, and Raymond Moody to take money from Robert T. Bigelow to set up the so-called Consciousness Studies program at UNLV. If they had failed to come up with some scientific proof of life after death, they would lose their funding. Well, they did fail and they did lose their funding. You are assuming that Randi will never allow anyone to win the prize. But that is what you claim to be proving by claiming he will lose money if anyone wins the prize. In logic, we call this kind of fallacious reasoning begging the question.

I think you would have a better chance of a winning argument if you could show that it is logically impossible to prove any paranormal power; therefore, Randi's money is safe and the $1,000,000 offer is just a gimmick to gain publicity for the skeptical cause.

The "conflict of interest" argument is interesting, but very weak. You might as well claim that anyone who offers a prize has a conflict of interest because they will lose the prize when it is given away.

Mr Perron replies:

Dennis Rawlins, a co-founder of CSICOP in his article titled sTARBABY quotes Randi, when he is asked about his then ten thousand dollar offer that he said " I always have a way out." He is the final word on the give-away of the money, it will never be given away, but certainly not for the reasons that you suggest at your site. To say that there is no "paranormal" events is ridiculous, I myself have had at least on one mystical experience so I know that they are possible. The jackals bark and the caravan moves on.

Not so respectfully,
William Perron

reply: I don't deny that people have mystical and paranormal experiences. What I deny is that anyone knows that the origin or cause of those experiences is supernatural or paranormal, rather than natural. I reject your interpretation of your experience, not the reality of it to you.

---

29 Sep 1999 

I was browsing the net the other day when I came across a web page for Riley G. Your hero, James Randi was allegedly tied in with a Sex Tape and teenage boys. If this is true, I think you should select another idol, Mr. Carroll. I'm sure your colleagues would be disappointed with your choice of leaders to fight for. I have added the section from Riley G's site on this e-mail. 

Awaiting my e-mail on your website,

Prof. Marco Beriolle

reply: Professor Beriolle seems to believe Riley G has some credibility. I wonder on what basis. I would be a bit more careful about what I admitted I do with my spare time, if I were the Professor. But if participating in the spreading of vicious innuendo is what you want to be known for, so be it.

P.S. I think he's talking about you in the next to last sentence.

[from Riley G's page]
And just how can you claim I screwed up on something when you can't even get the persons name correct. Sure, someone claiming to be from the Miami PD sent me a photo of a death scene that looked like Andrew Cunanan. I had this photo on my web site for about 1 week before I debunked it myself when the evidence proved is was not Andrew Cunanan.

As to your remarks about me never backing up my claims that I was NYPD, I suggest that you do better research. Hell, even the Septic Cult leader James Randi ate crow on that one. And speaking of the gutless wonder (Randi). He has always hated the fact that I have a copy of the court transcript and cassette tape of the infamous Sex Tape and other assorted items with what appears to be underage teen-age boys!

For the record, Randi refused me twice to take his psychic challenge. All I requested was direct access to the SAME DATA AFTER the tests, and for it to be done LIVE in front of an TV audience. This is something that would keep RANDI and his CULT honest, but he refused. Geez, I wonder why?

Prof. Marco Beriolle

reply: I suggest that if you want to quote from the gutter, Professor Beriolle, you have your reasons. Allying yourself with Riley G is not something I would let my colleagues know about, however. For those who have never heard of Riley G, you are lucky. He is a self-declared psychic detective, claims he used to be a police officer (but was retired due to injury after three years), is an actor, entertainer and remote viewer. He also refers to himself, for reasons known only to Mr. G, as The Minister of Propaganda. He says he rides a Harley and is a friend of Uri Geller's, too. On his website, he has the following notice: "All graphics and text contained within these web sites remain the property of Riley G & Squatting Dog Productions and can not be reproduced or altered without the permission or consent of Riley G"

You like this Squatting Dog fellow, Professor?

Riley G once sent me an e-mail and asked why there was no page on Riley G in the Skeptic's Dictionary. I looked at his website and determined that he was perhaps not the most stable person on the planet and that it would be best to leave him alone.

I suspected Mr. G or one of his friends was behind the recent smear campaign that I wrote about in Mass Media Funk. Riley G denies it and says he does not condone such stuff. (See his comments below.) He sounds like a swell fellow to associate with, Professor. Perhaps you are the anonymous author of both the e-mail and the slanderous website on Freeyellow.com that was removed after I complained about it. If so, please come forward and identify yourself. It seems shameful that such eloquence should hide in the darkness of anonymity.

---

01 Oct 1999
(Sender psicop@pop.pipeline.com)
I suggest that you get your facts straight. I have nothing to do with the Randi Site, and I don't condone it!

BTW, there is no period (.) after the last name of G (Riley G).

Riley G
Blood Brothers MC Founder & International President http://www.BloodBrothersMC.org

reply: I'm glad to hear it, but I'm surprised that I heard from you before the Professor responded. I have a feeling you are not a daily reader of the Skeptic's Dictionary, so I assume the Professor informed you of these comments. Where are you, Professor?

James Randi