Randi Posting?

[H3LL]

Randi has posted in the forums before and other places but it seems to be an increasingly rare occurrence.

Why is that? Is it a deliberate decision by Randi not to post?

I'm comparing Randi's activity with that of Richard Dawkins. Both are busy with their other activities, both are writing books and web content, attending events etc. and, at 67, Dawkins is not as venerable as Randi (80?) but does post often in both his forums and the comments sections of his articles.

I have also noted that Dawkins does occasionally make requests to his forumites for information but it's a very rare thing for Randi to do.

Having one of the larger sceptical forum communities on the Interweb tubes it is a little odd that Randi should use the resource so little and comment on its activity so infrequently.

BTW, where is Phil Plait? A members search got me nothing as Bad Astronomer or Phil Plait. I seem to remember Mr. Plait would post often as the Bad Astronomer (or something similar). I almost never get a good result using the forum search facilities so it might be me.

Just askin'.

 

[CFLarsen]

Plenty of things to do.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think you have to put it down to personal choice. As you noted Dawkins elects to interact with his forums more. Randi chooses not to. He posted ever so rarely in the past and hasn't had a post in quite some time.

Phil's member name is The Bad Astronomer. It's still active but he hasn't posted since October.

Again, both have things to do, as CFL says, but I still put it down to personal choice. We all have "plenty of things to do". Some of us choose to post on the forums and some don't.

 

[lionking]

Agreed, but it would be nice for Randi or Phil to make their mark sometimes.

 

[Damien Evans]

Agreed, but it would be nice for Randi or Phil to make their mark sometimes.

Phil posts and admins at BAUT too you have to remember, in addition to running the JREF, writing his book and his blog. He probably doesn't have much spare time.

 

[H3LL]

All reasonable assumptions but it could still be argued that with Dawkins' current high profile he is much busier than Randi or Phil while running websites, two widely separated charities, appearances and writing books with the additional burden of TV and video production which neither Phil nor Randi do to any large extent.

"Gee! Well they're very busy!" just doesn't cut it IMHO.

As already mentioned, many members are also "very busy" but still find time to post.

If it is personal choice not to interact with the communities they have generated, as suggested, I would be curious as to why this is so.

 

[H3LL]

Plenty of things to do.

I doubt very much that you are doing nothing and also have "Plenty of things to do" but still manage 45,000+ posts.

Maybe you should offer your skills in time management to Randi and Phil.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have 12 fingers and an incredibly agile tail.

 

[The Atheist]

Why is that? Is it a deliberate decision by Randi not to post?

Yes.

He's made derogatory comments about barking dogs and wastes of time in the past, so it seems clear to me that posting here is beneath him, but since 70% of visitors to randi.org go to the forum, he's quite happy to have it.

 

[Beerina]

He might post more under a pseudonym, you never know. Also, the more he opens his mouth spontaneously, the more he might make a boo-boo that detracts from the mission of JREF.

 

[The Atheist]

He might post more under a pseudonym, you never know. Also, the more he opens his mouth spontaneously, the more he might make a boo-boo that detracts from the mission of JREF.

Nah.

His style is unique.

 

[Foolmewunz]

He might post more under a pseudonym, you never know. Also, the more he opens his mouth spontaneously, the more he might make a boo-boo that detracts from the mission of JREF.

The man's an entertainer. I have nothing wrong with egos, so this isn't a criticism, but do you really think Randi's ego would permit him to post under a pseudonym? How many meek and humble types rename themselves "The Amazing"?

 

[The Atheist]

How many meek and humble types rename themselves "The Amazing"?

Pretty sure his custom title is "Amazing" as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Meek, Randi's not. Humble, absolutely.






Speak like Yoda, he does not.

 

[The Atheist]

Meek, Randi's not. Humble, absolutely.

Wrong word there, CFLarsen.

Humble:

modest: modest and unassuming in attitude and behavior

not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive

not proud or not believing that you are important
ordinary; not special or very important

having or showing a consciousness of one's defects or shortcomings; not proud; not self-assertive; modest

Someone self-described as "The Amazing" cannot be fit "humble".

 

[CFLarsen]

"The Amazing" refers to Randi's stage name as a magician. Well-earned.

 

[Tony Inchpractice]

Someone self-described as "The Amazing" cannot be fit "humble".

Well, would you go and see a magic act by 'The Adequate Randi'?

 

[sthomson]

Randi is 80 years old and in middling health. Does your 80-year-old grandmother post on internet forums regularly? My 70-year-old grandmother just discovered the internet a few months ago, and her activity is pretty restricted to casual games and checking the weather report.

In comparison to Dawkins, there is a HUGE cultural and physical difference between 67 and 80 years of age. It is not surprising to me that Mr. Randi thinks the forums are sort of useless and is unwilling to subject himself to the drivel herein.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, would you go and see a magic act by 'The Adequate Randi'?

No, but I'd pay to see Harry Houdini, Penn Jillette, David Copperfield, Jon Zealando and plenty of other magicians who have lived at one time or another.

None of them seemed to need to self-label themsleves as "amazing".

I see nothing wrong with Randi calling himself The Amazing, but it is a classic example of non-humility.

 

[tkingdoll]

The Amazing is his stage name from an era when such stage names were not uncommon. However, even though he is a pretty old dude by anyone's standards, I have as recently as 2008 seen him amaze, nay astound, an audience of onlookers in a restaurant, including the waiters who gathered round open-mouthed to watch, with a simple card trick.

In his heyday his feats rivalled Houdini's, and his reputation endures. I have recently been party to some overwhelming examples of fandom of Randi from some extremely high-profile Brits, people I admire. I'm not saying 'the Amazing' isn't the product of ego (perhaps with a hint of irony, I'd guess that he took a name that's the polar opposite of his physical presence. He's a tiny guy. He doesn't look like he could do amazing stuff), but you need a big ego to dangle upside-down over Niagara Falls in chains. You need a big ego to take on Geller, you need a big ego to tell the public that they have been fooled and you, some little guy with a beard, has bested them and the media. And so on.

As for the OP, I don't mind if Randi posts here or not, excepting it's an opportunity missed for him to see what a great forum it is first-hand. But given the recent changes to Swift etc, it seems clear that Randi is focusing on other stuff. Having Randi here would certainly add something, but his absence doesn't take anything away.

 

[The Professor]

He doesn't post here because he believes it is a waste of his time obviously.

 

[H3LL]

Randi is 80 years old and in middling health. Does your 80-year-old grandmother post on internet forums regularly? My 70-year-old grandmother just discovered the internet a few months ago, and her activity is pretty restricted to casual games and checking the weather report.

In comparison to Dawkins, there is a HUGE cultural and physical difference between 67 and 80 years of age. It is not surprising to me that Mr. Randi thinks the forums are sort of useless and is unwilling to subject himself to the drivel herein.

Both of my parents are over 80 and quite active on the Interweb Tubes. Does the phrase "Silver Surfer" mean anything other than a comic book character to you.

Physical characteristics have little bearing on writing ability IMHO. Stephen Hawking is a prolific writer - as just one example.

As for the "drivel herein" - Thank you for your 600+ contributions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Harry Houdini was really Ehric Weiss, but changed it, to pay his respect to the then famous magician Robert-Houdin. Houdini also called himself "King of Cards", and was billed with similar grandiose titles.

Penn Jillette and David Copperfield are from a different time.

Jon Zealando, however, is referring to himself as "A living legend". But then again, he is the "star of over 10,000 exciting children’s parties".

Note that Randi doesn't call himself The Amazing Skeptic. The criticism is therefore totally misplaced.

 

[H3LL]

He doesn't post here because he believes it is a waste of his time obviously.

I guess mind-reading is going to be your next, equally successful, shot at the MDC.

Thank you for your post and opinion but considering your record on these forums if you said water was wet I would be inclined to go and check.





To everyone else; I'm sorry the thread has been jumped on by the Randi haters and whiners, that was never my intention and I have nothing but great respect for the still "Amazing" Randi.

The gradual fading away of Randi on these forums and the similar fading away of Phil Plait on these forums was of concern.

It is nice to see Dawkins jump into comments and threads and it was nice to see the occasion posts from Randi (and frequent posts from The Bad Astronomer) that have sadly disappeared.

I'm no nearer to discovering why this should be so other than speculation, which gets me nowhere.

Teek's last paragraph seems to just about sum things up, even though it makes me a little sad.

 

[Oleron]

Couldn't agree with Mrs Teek more: I had the honour of seeing Randi in Dublin a few years ago and seeing how he could mesmerise an audience. As a magician he is hugely underrated, as a genius he is simply sublime. If I had half his talent I'd be twice as cocky.....

 

[CFLarsen]

Randi as a magician is definitely not underrated in any way by magicians. Penn & Teller are always saying that without Randi, there would be no P&T.

 

[Dunstan]

Randi as a magician is definitely not underrated in any way by magicians. Penn & Teller are always saying that without Randi, there would be no P&T.

I thought that was because Randi was the one who told them they should work together? (Not that they don't also have a high opinion of Randi as a magician; I'm just saying that's not how I understood that particular comment.)

 

[CFLarsen]

"&"

 

[rjh01]

There could be many reasons why Randi does not participate in this forum. That is his choice. What I do know is that without Randi
a. This forum would not exist. He after all played a part in founding it.
b. Other forums may not exist.
c. Many psychics would not have been debunked by Randi.
d. Other skeptics sites would not have been started. They needed this forum and Randi to start. Robert Lancaster and 'what's the harm' are two examples.
e. Skeptical people would be lacking a person to quote in blogs. I just love this one 10 Tips For Dealing With James Randi: Claim Your Million Today!

I do not think it is fair that Randi be criticized for not doing everything. Praise him for what he does and has done.

 

[The Atheist]

Harry Houdini was really Ehric Weiss, but changed it, to pay his respect to the then famous magician Robert-Houdin. Houdini also called himself "King of Cards", and was billed with similar grandiose titles.

Penn Jillette and David Copperfield are from a different time.

Jon Zealando, however, is referring to himself as "A living legend". But then again, he is the "star of over 10,000 exciting children’s parties".

Sorry, CFLarsen, but as you have managed to do in the past, you're skewing the subject into something else.

Nobody has made claims that Houdini or Zealando were "humble".

You claimed Randi was and trying to name and shame others is peculiar, but doesn't correct your original error.

Note that Randi doesn't call himself The Amazing Skeptic. The criticism is therefore totally misplaced.

Rubbish. Is Randi the skpetic a different person from Randi the amazing magician?

I do not think it is fair that Randi be criticized for not doing everything. Praise him for what he does and has done.

I'm not criticising him at all - he's rightfully seen as a legend. But I'm not some slavering moron who will defend him against fair criticism or praise him to absurd lengths.

He doesn't post here because he believes it is a waste of his time obviously.

He is on record as having said that it's a waste of time.

To look at it from Randi's perspective, check out Dawkins - every post he makes, his fan-club leaves 1000 drooling posts. Dawkins gets around this by hardly ever responding, only starting threads. Dawkins and Randi aren't likely to glean much from replies to threads, are they? Randi is also tied up with enough writing with Swift and I imagine him being a poster here would reduce the impact of that as well.

For Randi, the forum is a waste of time, for some of us it's entertainment.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, since I seem to have caused this derail.....

I said originally that I have no problem with people having egos. There's nothing wrong with Randi calling himself The Amazing Randi, or James Randi if he so chooses. It's part of his charm, frankly. I like his self-confidence when addressing these quacks, charlatans, scammers and other assorted scum.

CFL, I think you're conflating "down to earth" with "humble".

BTW, I was responding to a poster who said he could very well be posting under a nom de plume. I have nothing but respect for James Randi.

H3LL, I think it's equally the defenders. Somehow, you can't say anything about Randi without people thinking they need to rush to the defense, regardless how you meant it. I suppose that goes with the territory - it's the JAMES RANDI Educational Foundation, after all, and he is the founder and eminence grise. But it was not intended, on my part, in any negative way. And knowing TA, I don't think he (with that huge thumping ego of his) is saying there's anything wrong with it, either.

 

[roger]

He answers the question right here:

Folks, you know that I only pop in here when I think I need to. I can't possibly monitor any of the Forum, due to the heavy 10-hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week schedule I follow. Others have been handling Forum duties for me....

That doesn't mean that I'm disinterested in what goes on here. When Hal or Linda have called my attention to items on which I should offer input, that's always been done, sometimes from actually posting -- as now -- but just as often by suggesting in the right direction, that something should change.

 

[The Atheist]

And knowing TA, I don't think he (with that huge thumping ego of his) is saying there's anything wrong with it, either.

I did say just that.

There's a time and place for humility, but I doubt sticking it up psychics and pseudoscientists is it.

(Big ego? Moi?)

 

[CFLarsen]

You don't get much out of being a magician by calling yourself "The humble Magician". Yeah, right, what's this guy doing? Children magic shows? You got to add something spectacular. When Randi started out as a magician, that was the way to go.

I think the best piece of evidence that Randi is humble is that he is the first to admit that even he could be fooled. Both when it comes to paranormal claims, but also when it comes to magic tricks. He is always very supportive of both other magicians and other skeptics. If he sees someone - even a mere amateur - do a trick, or someone being active as a skeptic, he doesn't say "Yeah, I've seen that before. Here's something better."

If Dawkins doesn't bother to respond to the threads he starts, what is the difference between him and Randi, then? Randi doesn't even need to start threads on his own, there are plenty of people who will start threads based on what he says. The issue is discussed, it doesn't matter who starts it.

If this is about who does something, it certainly speaks in favor of Randi being humble.

Down-to-Earth is also something I would describe Randi as. At TAM, I always get a kick out of asking people if they have met Randi yet. Quite a lot stare at me and ask something like "Can we do that?". Yes, you can do that. And you should - that's what Randi is there for: To meet you.

 

[Dunstan]

Claus, nobody has said anything bad about Randi in this thread, so I don't know why you feel so obligated to leap to his "defense".

But feel free to keep trying. Maybe if you kiss enough ass, Randi will name you his successor instead of Phil.....

 

[CFLarsen]

I am neither defending Randi or kissing his ass. He doesn't need the former and neither of us would like the latter.

 

[The Atheist]

You don't get much out of being a magician by calling yourself "The humble Magician".

He didn't, you did.

It's helluva funny trying to watch you turn yourself inside out defending something which, by your own admission, Randi doesn't need defending from. And I know he doesn't need defending from it, because I can't ever recall him referring to himself as humble anyway.

Keep it up, I have hopes of a transfer to that Humor section, which is where I think jokes go.

 

[rjh01]

For Randi, the forum is a waste of time, <snip>.

If you are arguing that this is a reasonable point of view for him then I will agree with you.

The majority of posts are either worthless or close to it for everyone who is not writing posts in the thread. I often get frustrated, an interesting thread gets opened and then people start arguing about small details. This is almost inevitably true when > 50 posts get made within a day.

If anyone wants to know what Randi thinks then read SWIFT. If you want to inform Randi of anything, e.g. a thread that needs to go into SWIFT then someone can write the article and send it to the editors.

 

[The Atheist]

If anyone wants to know what Randi thinks then read SWIFT. If you want to inform Randi of anything, e.g. a thread that needs to go into SWIFT then someone can write the article and send it to the editors.

Plus, old bloke he might be, but he does respond to most e mails.

 

[sthomson]

Both of my parents are over 80 and quite active on the Interweb Tubes. Does the phrase "Silver Surfer" mean anything other than a comic book character to you.

Of course, every person is different. I'm glad your grandparents have interests that are enhanced or furthered by the internet. I'm sure Randi himself uses the internet - in fact, he often posts to a blog - perhaps you've heard of it?

Be that as it may, each person makes a choice, conscious or unconscious, as to whom they will associate with and how they'll do it. I don't see why it's so confusing that Randi would chose not to communicate via a web forum. It's the same reason why, say, the VP at my work place does not come to our weekly Happy Hour at the Raddison.

Physical characteristics have little bearing on writing ability IMHO. Stephen Hawking is a prolific writer - as just one example.

Writing ability? I said nothing of writing ability. It is clear that Randi is a prolific writer. However, sickness and injury definitely clarify what is or isn't important to a person. When one has only so much energy or time in a day, it becomes clear that certain things must give way if anything is to be done. Note that Stephen Hawking, although an excellent writer, does not post on many science forums. You might want to read The Spoon Theory to get a sense of how limiting long-term illness or disability can be, outside of the obvious physical ones.

As for the "drivel herein" - Thank you for your 600+ contributions.

Any intended insult was directed at my own posts, of course. I admit that I waste far too much time on internet forums, and if I had more discipline to keep away from them I could hope to be as famous as Hawkins or Randi.