He took some persuading to tell me,but I think we came to an agreement
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dokkenboots/3323536785/
I'm surprised he stayed in them long enough for you to take a photo.
He took some persuading to tell me,but I think we came to an agreement
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dokkenboots/3323536785/
Good! Now let's REALLY put the screws to these creeps!
I say, if it's at all possible, we find a way to boost the prize to $5,000,000. Randi can use the money, and the psychics can look even more foolish!
I don't see how the legal problems would be different in a paid ad compared to the sort of thing Randi has already said in public.
Again, an ad going over the facts with regard to Sylvia Browne should present no legal problems.
She accepted the challenge; she accepted a protocol; the prize money is real; her claims about helping with missing children's cases are demonstrably false; etc.
ETA: It may even be possible to get a well written piece run as an op-ed article.
So is this true or just dribble?
Of course I do, however, the primary reason for ending the MDC was to free up that money for other purposes. Encumbering additional funds to sit as an odd sort of endowment seems to be a fairly radical shift in opinion. Again, the argument that someone would refuse a million dollars because it wasn't worth their time but would jump at five is flawed.
Yay! And I get to look even more foolish!I say, if it's at all possible, we find a way to boost the prize to $5,000,000. Randi can use the money, and the psychics can look even more foolish!
The topic at hand, or your post?So is this true or just dribble?
So none of you know if it's true or not? Even after all of this?
Why would it matter to you, Professor?