• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Who shall inherit the crown after Randi?

Ron_Tomkins

Satan's Helper
Ron_Tomkins
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
44,024
This is the thing:

James Randi isn't getting any younger. Time goes by and no one has passed the preliminary tests of the Million Dollar Challenge. If Randi happened to pass away before someone won the prize, would he have a follower? Someone who will take the Baton of the Million Dollar Challenge?

It seems like Criss Angel wants that place, after what he did in the show Phenomena.
 
I'd prefer Penn Jillette or Derren Brown over Angel any day of the week. Angel has done very little in the service of scepticism, and it seems he's riding a bandwagon.

Hell, I'd like to see Chris Hitchens take over for a while, if only for the bunfights.
 
My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?
 
volatile said:
I'd prefer Penn Jillette or Derren Brown over Angel any day of the week. Angel has done very little in the service of scepticism, and it seems he's riding a bandwagon.

Hell, I'd like to see Chris Hitchens take over for a while, if only for the bunfights.
Click to expand...



Yes, that's exactly that came to my mind a couple minutes after posting the topic: Penn Jilette would be a perfect candidate for that.
 
Last edited:
AAA. Shouldn't this be moved to the JREF section?

Banacek's name comes up quite often.
Penn would be great.
Shermer's not a conjurer, and I agree you'd need a conjurer or someone intimately familiar with the art of same. (ditto Hitchens)
Angel's doing a lot, lately, but he's got all those crosses on chains and that's got to be a concern to those of us with atheist or non-theist leanings.

I'm not sure that the James Randi Educational Foundation will really be able to function without the founder. Would Banacek or Penn or Criss have the humility to take on an organization named after someone else? Would Criss or Penn be willing to give up fat portions of their fairly lucrative and busy careers?
 
Penn Gillette. Somebody that's going to keep those legions of woos on their toes.
 
Someone will be appointed to head the JREF in Randi's absence of course. However, I don't think anyone else will ever be able to fill his shoes. James Randi was alone in stating his skepticism when he started. The fact that we're debating so many different candidates suggests that whoever becomes the new face of skepticism will not be as iconic as James Randi.
 
Apology said:
Someone will be appointed to head the JREF in Randi's absence of course. However, I don't think anyone else will ever be able to fill his shoes. James Randi was alone in stating his skepticism when he started. The fact that we're debating so many different candidates suggests that whoever becomes the new face of skepticism will not be as iconic as James Randi.
Click to expand...

A new "face" could become as iconic, but it would take considerable teaming and working together starting asap. That's why I wonder that a big name would be willing to give up the time from his career. But if Penn, (say,... could be anyone already named or not yet named) was to start taking on some of the challengers... or do some guest columns for The Amazing One, it'd be a start.

It should be someone who is perceived to be already associated with and participating in the JREF.
 
R.S. Lancaster. He already has the beard and "hairstyle".
 
We could have a TV Reality show to decide his successor! We could call it..."The Successor"! We could either do an Apprentice-style show before James Randi dies, and let him choose the candidate he feels is best suited; or else do a Survivor-style show after he dies, where candidates have to face a series of difficult tasks and situations, getting eliminated until there's only one left.
 
Wolfman said:
We could have a TV Reality show to decide his successor! We could call it..."The Successor"! We could either do an Apprentice-style show before James Randi dies, and let him choose the candidate he feels is best suited; or else do a Survivor-style show after he dies, where candidates have to face a series of difficult tasks and situations, getting eliminated until there's only one left.
Click to expand...




Hehehe, while that sounds good, I think maybe it would be a little bit too sensacionalist... or maybe not. Either way, we'll have to see.
 
RemieV said:
I think Banachek would make an excellent skeptical leader.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree. And I've suggested him in the past. But I worry that he might be too kind for the job. Although perhaps that is a plus. I just don't know.
 
tkingdoll said:
My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. The JREF, as it is now, will be very different. I see it going one of two ways - it will either adopt a figure who has a public image currently, who will endeavour to continue to promote the JREF publically using their contacts and profile. Or a person without a current public profile will take the reigns. Either way there will be massive changes.

The MDC will, IMO, remain, and I see TAMs staying on for some time as well. These being the two biggest public icons of the JREF outside of Randi himself will continue to be useful, I feel. While Randi might know the magician's art of trickery, Randi himself isn't even a one-man authority. He regularly asks advisors on how to approach challenges. So long as the current JREF authority has access to such advisors it matters little if they personally possess the knowledge, or if they know who to ask for advice on it.

Athon
 
Ill do it Ive even got my own tiki torch I bought at the dollor store for 50 cent .
 
Last edited:
Penn would be the most obvious choice.
Penn and Tellers long standing friendship with Randi aside, They are experienced tricksters just as Randi. They also freely reveal their secrets as trickery.

They have often cited Randi and Houdini as their inspiration for magic and scepticism.

This entire debate is somewhat pointless because everyone knows James Randi is secretly immortal. His videos dating back decades show no real ageing at all. Perhaps its all the homeopathic remedies he swallows in demonstrations to prove their worthlessness.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Angel's doing a lot, lately, but he's got all those crosses on chains and that's got to be a concern to those of us with atheist or non-theist leanings.
Click to expand...

Why should that matter? JREF isn't an atheist organization.

To the OP:
I think JREF can continue even after Randi leaves us, we still have a Nobel Prize committee after all.

Hal Bidlack, Banachek and Michael Shermer would all be great choices and would keep the spirit and purpose of the foundation and the Million Dollar Challenge alive. I'm going to disagree with a lot of you advocating Penn. He's brilliant and dedicated to the cause but I think he can be too abrasive. This is an educational foundation and sometimes a lot of tact is required which is why I've chosen the three I've suggested.
 
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner said:
Why should that matter? JREF isn't an atheist organization.
Click to expand...

I meant the "us" to be the personal pronoun, e.g. why I'm not sure I'd be totally comfortable with him, personally. I didn't mean the "us" to refer to the JREF (as I'm not a member, just a forumite). In short, a personal opinion. I s'pose I shudda said, "to me".


To the OP:
I think JREF can continue even after Randi leaves us, we still have a Nobel Prize committee after all.

Hal Bidlack, Banachek and Michael Shermer would all be great choices and would keep the spirit and purpose of the foundation and the Million Dollar Challenge alive. I'm going to disagree with a lot of you advocating Penn. He's brilliant and dedicated to the cause but I think he can be too abrasive. This is an educational foundation and sometimes a lot of tact is required which is why I've chosen the three I've suggested.
Click to expand...

I agree on Penn's abrasiveness, but I think Randi's been criticized for the same failing, on occasion. I haven't done the TAMs... Is that his full-time persona, or stage mask?

But I do like your three choices, although I think that of them only Banachek could get the crossover to mainstream/entertainment that Randi gets. (Well, except that Hal's a Hamilton guy and I'm a Burr guy...)
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
I meant the "us" to be the personal pronoun, e.g. why I'm not sure I'd be totally comfortable with him, personally. I didn't mean the "us" to refer to the JREF (as I'm not a member, just a forumite). In short, a personal opinion. I s'pose I shudda said, "to me".
Click to expand...
I forget the code for the big crazy smilie otherwise I'd use it here.

Foolmewunz said:
I agree on Penn's abrasiveness, but I think Randi's been criticized for the same failing, on occasion. I haven't done the TAMs... Is that his full-time persona, or stage mask?
Click to expand...

He's very smart, funny well spoken (see if you can catch some clips of him on Glen Beck the other night) but I can't forget his comments to the UU woman at TAM3.

Foolmewunz said:
But I do like your three choices, although I think that of them only Banachek could get the crossover to mainstream/entertainment that Randi gets. (Well, except that Hal's a Hamilton guy and I'm a Burr guy...)
Click to expand...

Therein lies the question - does the Foundation try and get a high profile persona or more of an administrative leader known within the skeptical community (such as it is)? Perhaps the best course might be a triumverate.
 
I think it might take more than one person. Penn & Teller for their magical knowledge and name, Michael Shermer for his knowledge and name, and Jeff Wagg to keep it all together.

What did Penn say to the UU women at TAM3?
 
When the time comes, God forbid (yeah I know the G word you'll get over it) I know Jeff Wagg will do more than great. I was priviledged to meet him this year.
 
tkingdoll said:
My guess is no-one. Or maybe someone for a while, but the challenge isn't where the future of skepticism is at anyway. I think without Randi it will lose personality, what little momentum it has left, if any, and then fade into nothing.

Also, it takes a very skilled magician to know all of the ruses that potential challengers may use. I'm not sure Shermer has the knowledge...?
Click to expand...

You been reading my e mails?

In fact this whole thread looks like one of my Outlook folders...

Smiledriver said:
When the time comes, God forbid (yeah I know the G word you'll get over it) I know Jeff Wagg will do more than great. I was priviledged to meet him this year.
Click to expand...

Methinks you forgot about 45 smilies on that post.

TX50 said:
R.S. Lancaster. He already has the beard and "hairstyle".
Click to expand...

Now that's clever.

Me supporting it will kill the idea quickly enough, but it's actually brilliant. I don't know whether you were just being flippant because of the look, but you've hit the nail on the head.

<Realism Mode on>

Randi insists that the person needs to be a conjurer to ensure no trickery is used.

There are no "successors" in the manner that Randi sees it.

Teek's prognosis, should Randi die without a succession plan is a given.

Those three statements are factual and I have corresponded with James Randi on this very subject, so I'm pretty damn confident of my ground here and that he wouldn't disagree with the analysis:

If a successor isn't identified pre-mortem, it's over for JREF. It may struggle on in Randi's memory for a decade, but it would be doomed.

Why not someone like RSL?

Robert Lancaster has:

Huge credibility

Established media presence

Hard-nosed attitude

Excellent organisational skills

A successful history

Respect from the "skeptical community"

So, RSL might be tricked by a conjurer? I don't buy a bar of that myself. Even in a worst case scenario, there are sufficient Banacheks, Penns and Angells to lend a hand, as I'm certain they would. Hell, I had no trouble convinving NZ's top magician to become part of the Kiwi Challenge. They love this stuff. A deal to get expert help from a top magician if someone passed the preliminary challenge wouldn't be hard to arrange.

I have no idea whether RSL is available, or would want the challenge of taking Randi's torch into a new century, but he or someone like him could well fill the role.

But quickly.

In the same vein, Gravy would be another who could twist the role into the direction I'm thinking RSL could. I think the same positive qualities I've listed above could be said of Gravy as easily as RSL.

A conjurer taking over from Randi will inevitably draw comparisons - maybe a step sideways would overcome that and bring a new type of member to JREF.

<Realism Mode off>

And just to double-blind the realism mode of this post, I've just sung the praises of two blokes who I'd be reasonably confident do not have me on their Christmas card list.
 
Tressa said:
I think it might take more than one person. Penn & Teller for their magical knowledge and name, Michael Shermer for his knowledge and name, and Jeff Wagg to keep it all together.

What did Penn say to the UU women at TAM3?
Click to expand...

I know there's a thread on it somewhere but my search fu isn't serving me well tonight and I don't want to recount what for me might be faulty memories. Here's a link to a thread initiated after TAM2 in a similar vein though.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17040
 
CFLarsen said:
Can you name one person who hasn't said something at some point which you haven't found reason to criticize in any way?
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who started the thread I linked to above, nor was I the only person who commented on the TAM 3 panel discussion nor Penn's comments to the UU lady, therefore your question is a tangent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom