Is it me or is it that skeptics of the James Randi variety like the old 17th century priests who burn people at the stake for being physcic read this link and see for yourself

By the way James ("%$£&*NG W"£K£R!") Randi has the typical close-minded biggot website dedicated to disproving physcics.

the address is http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

The close-minded biggot set up a $1million  challenge to prove  physcic phenomena under laborartory conditions.  No doubt that the applicant will be put under all sorts of emotinal stress and unparralled levels of mental stress and humiliation.

My good friend Mr Zammit has also set up a similar site as I'm sure your all aware of which runs an opposit challenge to him.

The amazing thing is neither of the two challenges have been won yet!

Randi egotistically boasts about how many appliacants "have tried and failed, to my delight"

Does that not prove wat a complete and utter moron this man is!

I hiope when he does pass away he will enjoy his stay at the lower astral realm

I wouldn't say they are the same as those who burned witches et al at the stake. That is an unfair characterization. I don't like what they do either, but I wouldn't accuse them of being potential murderers.

Rob

People either love him or hate him.
Personally, I suspect he is sincere. What does he
have to gain by debunking "psychics", except the
hatred of millions of supernaturalists (many of whom
would be more useful as FRIENDS to him, rather than
enemies.)
I've noticed that the people who bash Randi the hardest are people like Victor Zammit in America, and Michael
Roll in England (both of whom claim scientific "evidence" of the afterlife based on 19th-century paranormal research done by the English scientist William Crookes... whom many suspect was seduced by the medium he was doing his "occulto-scientific" research with.)
They also trot out paranormal "research" done by the likes of Edison and Tesla (who despite their great brilliance - or perhaps DUE to it! - were truly WEIRD men with a MILE-WIDE streak of eccentricity in both of them...)
Great genius is often INIMICAL to common sense - ever noticed that? THAT is one of life's great paradoxes..!
Also... the "ectoplasm" seen in the 19th-century photos of Crookes' research(?) appears as a "substance" which greatly resembles BEDSHEETS.
Top all that off with the fact that Crookes (although a brilliant scientist) spent much of his life working with toxic metals like thallium (which he discovered!) using typical 19th-century safety standards... and may well have suffered brain damage from his work, much as Madame Curie suffered radiation poisoning. Is it therefore surprising that a brilliant chemist may have been steered toward superstition due to very subtle neurological damage?
Add that to the feminine charms of the medium he worked with... "a black magic woman" (to quote Santana) and what chance would a brain-damaged "nerd" have? (And most truly brilliant scientists ARE "nerds", socially speaking! I'll bet that was even more true in Victorian England than it is today..!)
So I'll withhold judgement on Randi. The burden of proof lies with the BELIEVERS, not the skeptics (despite Zammit's million-dollar counter-reward for DISPROOF of the afterlife. Isn't placing a reward for proof of a NEGATIVE just a little bit disingenous?)
Somebody's taking us for a ride all right...
But WHO???

B-man

The problem with Randi is that he puts restrictions on what he will accept as proof beyond what would be reasonable for "accepted" phenomena. 

The example I always use is AM radio...say you have an AM radio of a certain vintage...it's as good as it's going to get, you can't improve it with any new parts (sort of like the human brain).  It will only pick up what the radio stations (spirit) sends out, interference (negative thoughts/skeptics) plays hob with reception, and you've gotta speak the language of the broadcaster, or you're finished before you start.  And yet no one is claiming AM radio doesn't work. 

Yes, there are other forms of radio, but that's not the issue...the issue is, does that one not exist because it's fuzzy, intermittant, unreliable and susceptable to interference?

Wouldn't you agree that a post entitled Idiotic Skeptics is in violation of the posting standards?

Suppose someone were to title a post Idiotic New Agers?  How long would that remain before it would be removed?

Roger

Quote:


Some people say there's strong psychics out there that will, somehow, 'attack' anyone that effectively tries to prove any kind of supernatural phenomena.

Maybe that one million's well earned if achieved.