Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal

[TruthSeeker]

Although this may cause my brain to explode...I agree with both Pyrrho and Steve (about one point).

All journalists should adopt a skeptical attitude regardless of subject matter and should check facts. Editorial columns have different standards regarding expression of opinion but this does not change the responsibility of checking facts. All of this fact-checking and skepticism takes place within the context of publishing a magazine that would like to make a profit. As such, there is some "tailoring" of stories to maximize readership. However, Steve, I would suggest that this is true of all for-profit and for-propaganda publications. "Tailoring" or targeting does not reduce the demand for skepticism and fact-checking. That it might, would not surprise me.

 

[Pyrrho]

What the hell is this? Benneth's email?

The Hellfire Curse


Matthew 5:22 : but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. (KJV)

If you're having trouble understanding that, maybe there's a different way to put it. Such as, "If you tell a man to go to Hell and he does, you have to go with him. The only way out is love. You got to love your enemy. You resist nothing, you don't even resist what you used to think was evil."

(The Reverend Johnny Jack Jovan St. John on horseback at the Church of the Savage Mine in Virginia City, Nevada)

I peeked in on Uri Geller's website today to see how he was doing. It had been years since I talked to Uri, before Eldon died, or I should say passed away. And I did finally see Eldon, after he died.On a video tape that was made just before he went. He was talking about mind control. The tape was brought to me by a friend of mine, who by another strange coincidence not only knew and met Eldon Byrd, but Uri Geller as well.

It's one thing to know Uri Geller, to have met him and talked to him, but it's another thing to know who Eldon Byrd is and to have met and talked to him. And by strange coincidence, both these qualities appear. As far as strange coincidences go, I experience more strange and sometimes awe inspiring coincidences than anyone I know.

So of course the phone rings and it's Uri. Or perhaps, someone who sounded like him.

The video tape that I saw Eldon in was on mind control.

Uri said by some fluke in his computer an essay I wrote on skepticism had got through to him. "Synchronicity, I guess," he said.

Eldon once told me that he was at Uri's house one day eating spaghetti and he stabbed himself in the chin with the fork.

I hope it doesn't take you as long to get that as it took me.

I really love Uri Geller. He called right at the right moment, too. I think I've been getting real depressed. I sleep a lot, obsess over things. I don't stay busy enough. But Uri Geller gives me tremendous confidence in myself. But what I really love about Uri is that anyone can get that from him, all they got to do is stop being so skeptical, stop acting afraid.



He got very angry with me when I started putting him up to a level with Jesus Christ, but this is the man one observer wrote was something other than human, a different species, homo geller. Why not? They're both Jewish.

Marcello Truzzi was the first editor of CSICOP's magazine, during sTarbaby, the Gaughelin fiasco. He must have seen through Kurtz, Randi and the others, seen what they were really into and backed off.

During Eldon's libel suit against Randi Truzzi stood up for Eldon.

Eldon was the guy who convinced me Uri was for real. He did the tests on Uri back in the seventies for the U.S. Navy. When Randi attacked Uri, he also attacked Eldon. I guess Eldon had really stood up for Uri.

Marcello died within thirty days of Eldon.

Uri may not even know this and I won't say how I do. Ask Randi if its true. Randi started out almost desperately in love with Uri. He used to write to Uri, but Uri never responded. Randi wanted to form a partnership with Uri after he saw him perform in New York, or was it New Jersey?

The letters Randi wrote became more and more desperate until they finally turned to threats and curses, then ceased altogether. Uri never read the letters.

Randi once accused me of betraying him by saying he thought he could trust me. I thought that was odd for a man to expect to trust someone you've been reviling as a stupid crazy liar. But I think I am mostly crazy in Randi's book.



So far during the three years this has been going on I haven't heard any denials. I saw what he did to X's marriage. But that was just for having the audacity to show up in Ft. Lauderdale. What I did to Randi deserved the special treatment, for revealing those affidavits from the civil compromises detailing ......

Yep, for that I get the special treatment.

Goldschneider and Elffer's Secret Language of Relationships describes the astrological relationship between Leo II's, Randi, and Sagittarian Capricorn Cusps, Uri.

"These two may find themselves acting out a drama over which they have no control. Their relationship has a peculiar fated quality to it, which each partner taking on defined roles, as if someone were pulling the strings. Well directed and strong minded, the relationship knows where it is going and what it is sup[posed to do, but the question is, do its partners?"

I get to wondering what would happen if Uri Geller started studying the Sermon on the Mount. I mean here's the greatest living paragnost, he ought to read up and practice what the most legendary master of healing did and how he did it.

One can appear to bend metal with his mind, locate gold and old submarines by waving his hands over maps, and the other guy can heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead. And as far as what Uri does he says, "if you believe, you can tell that mountain over there to get up and cast itself into the sea and it will."

George Harrison of the Beatles got mad at Uri once because he felt Uri wasn't using his powers for healing, but I don't think Uri knows how. Or maybe Uri has avoided knowing how, just as most of the rest of us have.

I think he wants to know how. But maybe something keeps getting in the way. And I think Randi wants to know how, but something keeps getting even more in his way.

But look at this. It tells you how. It ells you how to become able to do all sorts of incredible things.

The primitive Christians were noted for their ability to escape from incarceration, to suddenly become invisible enough to walk through a crowd, having the power of bilocation and to speak in a way that they could be understood by any foreign tongue, to glow with halos, to levitate. Simon the Magician claimed he too could levitate but broke a leg in a show down with one of the apostles when he fell.

Blessed are the meek, they inherit the Earth, they get the world after the arrogant have blown away.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.

You can read about the alleged letters from Randi to Geller on Geller's website:

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm

Scroll down to the bottom.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.

Technically Jaroff was then and still is a "retired" editor freelancing his stuff to TIME. The problem with his prior JE piece, as Clancie points out, was that is was passed off as Science in the science section and carried the cachet of a science writer/editor. It was indeed an editorial and an opinion piece. But even editorials need to be based on facts or should be. He didn't preface anything reported by "My opinion is...." or "I think or believe that ...." The pieces were crafted to seem like science fact when they were only un-substantiated opinion. The Jaroff article represented the culmination of a concerted effort by Randi (along with Shermer and Jaroff) to attempt to embarass JE on the eave of his show being rolled out into syndication. Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown. The only place it was not shown was on public (non-cable) networks in the Bible Belt states populated by large numbers of fundamentalist envangelical christians. Instead their efforts only piqued interest in JE and new watchers joined his ratings pool. At that point it was up to JE whether he would keep those viewers or not. Sooner or later, like all TV programming, his show will wither due to boredom and not the efforts of Randi, Shermer or Jaroff. Remember the old saw "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right."

 

[SteveGrenard]

Yes Pyrrho, I said the item in quotes was Benneth's e-mail. I actually snipped out some highly libelous and slanderous remarks.

My point is, as a non-fiction writer, would I or should I use this e-mail as my sole source to back up my opinions or alegations? Answer: NO. This is what Jaroff did in re O'Neill.

 

[Pyrrho]

Although this may cause my brain to explode...I agree with both Pyrrho and Steve (about one point).

All journalists should adopt a skeptical attitude regardless of subject matter and should check facts. Editorial columns have different standards regarding expression of opinion but this does not change the responsibility of checking facts. All of this fact-checking and skepticism takes place within the context of publishing a magazine that would like to make a profit. As such, there is some "tailoring" of stories to maximize readership. However, Steve, I would suggest that this is true of all for-profit and for-propaganda publications. "Tailoring" or targeting does not reduce the demand for skepticism and fact-checking. That it might, would not surprise me.

Going a bit further, I am reminded of that old saying, "Don't believe everything you read."

Editorial decisions are made by committee. A direction for the magazine is already known, and editorial decisions follow accordingly. Yes, marketing is an important factor; the magazine's marketing image is taken into consideration, etc.

In the case of Jaroff's article about O'Neill's experience on the JE show, we don't know if Jaroff attempted to verify facts; he reported what O'Neill said, period. He did not assert that O'Neill's suspicions were factually true. Granted, he didn't point out that they might be wrong, either.

It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.

 

[Pyrrho]

Yes Pyrrho, I said the item in quotes was Benneth's e-mail. I actually snipped out some highly libelous and slanderous remarks.

My point is, as a non-fiction writer, would I or should I use this e-mail as my sole source to back up my opinions or alegations? Answer: NO. This is what Jaroff did in re O'Neill.

Agreed. Jaroff or his staff apparently did, however, try to contact Crossing Over for comment, and they apparently responded with the standard, "John Edward does not respond to criticism." I don't think Jaroff is pretending to be neutral -- his column is titled "The Skeptical Eye", after all. Now, if this were straight news, I'd expect a balanced approach, but I don't expect that from a columnist.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.


Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.

Jaroff declined the invitation, nor did he offer to have TIME send a researcher in his place (he was in Florida). TIME editorial offices were within walking distance of the studio at that time. Jaroff spoke to them the day before the story was locked. I doubt he wanted to publicize their invitation so you may not have heard about it from him. This came from CO.

I attended, Jim Underdown attended and others I know or have heard from attended in addition to the three others who attended with me. None of us could confirm what Jaroff wrote about, nor could we confirm his opinions if you wish to call them that. Jaroff or a deputy should have taken the invitation but then why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

I also agree with Clancie that it was highly irrepsonsible for Jaroff to accept what O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi without contacting O'Neill and interviewing him. If he had done that we would have heard about it, no? If he had no space in TIME to give a few lines about it, surely space could have been found in The Skeptic or on a website somewhere for that purpose. Nothing. Nada. This was very poor journalism
Sorry.

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.

Technically Jaroff was then and still is a "retired" editor freelancing his stuff to TIME. The problem with his prior JE piece, as Clancie points out, was that is was passed off as Science in the science section and carried the cachet of a science writer/editor. It was indeed an editorial and an opinion piece. But even editorials need to be based on facts or should be. He didn't preface anything reported by "My opinion is...." or "I think or believe that ...." The pieces were crafted to seem like science fact when they were only un-substantiated opinion.

Um...they are substantiated opinion, if only by virtue of O'Neill's experience and suspicions. Yes, even columnists and editors should make sure of their facts. I would expect a science writer to be skeptical of people such as JE, given that what they do is contradictory to known science. As to whether the articles were deliberately passed off as science, I think that's a subjective opinion.

The Jaroff article represented the culmination of a concerted effort by Randi (along with Shermer and Jaroff) to attempt to embarass JE on the eave of his show being rolled out into syndication. Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown.

Do you have a source to substantiate that, or is it just your opinion?

The only place it was not shown was on public (non-cable) networks in the Bible Belt states populated by large numbers of fundamentalist envangelical christians. Instead their efforts only piqued interest in JE and new watchers joined his ratings pool. At that point it was up to JE whether he would keep those viewers or not. Sooner or later, like all TV programming, his show will wither due to boredom and not the efforts of Randi, Shermer or Jaroff. Remember the old saw "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right." [/B]

Oh, I don't think Randi or Shermer or Jaroff have enough of an audience to affect TV ratings or to substantially affect interest in any given TV show.

Randi himself has said similar things about JE and others.

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-27-01.html

But there's hope. In my opinion — and I've seen a lot of these crazes come and go — the "talking-with-the-dead" artists are actually doing themselves out of business. With John Edward going into syndication this Fall, it may be perceived that the public taste for this flummery has brought the whole shoddy trade a respectability it ill deserves. I believe that with Char going to NBC in 2002, and astrologer Ferdie Pacheco, Miss Cleo, and Van Praagh coming up for much wider exposure as well, the basic "cold-reading" gimmick of guessing and extracting information from the victims, will become evident to even the most naive viewer — and as soon as the consumer gets smart, the con game is over. This is over-saturation bringing on Darwinian limits.....

I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.


Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.

Jaroff declined the invitation, nor did he offer to have TIME send a researcher in his place (he was in Florida). TIME editorial offices were within walking distance of the studio at that time. Jaroff spoke to them the day before the story was locked. I doubt he wanted to publicize their invitation so you may not have heard about it from him. This came from CO.

Any proof or evidence that such an invitation was offered? If we contact Jaroff, can he confirm this?

I attended, Jim Underdown attended and others I know or have heard from attended in addition to the three others who attended with me. None of us could confirm what Jaroff wrote about, nor could we confirm his opinions if you wish to call them that. Jaroff or a deputy should have taken the invitation but then why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Were you given unfettered access to the studio in order to check O'Neill's suspicions, or were you just sitting in the audience?

I also agree with Clancie that it was highly irrepsonsible for Jaroff to accept what O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi without contacting O'Neill and interviewing him. If he had done that we would have heard about it, no? If he had no space in TIME to give a few lines about it, surely space could have been found in The Skeptic or on a website somewhere for that purpose. Nothing. Nada. This was very poor journalism
Sorry.

How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

 

[CFLarsen]

I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.

They already are. JVPs show was quickly cancelled and the ratings of JE's Crossing Over has by far the biggest drop of all the talkshows.

Recent Talk Show Ratings:
Judge Judy: 7.1 (no change)
Oprah: 6.5 (+12)
Dr. Phil: 5.3 (+23)
Judge Joe Brown: 4.5 (+ 5)
Live With Regis & Kelly: 3.5 (+ 6)
Divorce Court: 3.4 (no change)
Maury: 3.0 (+ 3)
Texas Justice: 2.7 (+ 4)
Jerry Springer: 2.7 (+13)
Judge Hatchett: 2.4 (+14)
Montel: 2.4 (+ 4)
People's Court: 2.2 (+22)
Judge Mathis: 2.1 (+31)
Sharon Osbourne: 1.5
Ricki: 1.4 (- 7)
Ellen DeGeneres: 1.4
John Walsh: 1.1 (-21)
John Edward: 1.1 (-42)
Good Day Live: 1.0
Wayne Brady: 1.0
Living It Up with Jack & Ali: 1.0
Ask Rita: 0.7

Source: TVTalkshows

John Edward now ranks below such pop icons as Sharon Osbourne, Ricki, Montel and Jerry Springer. When his show is cancelled, we will see all sorts of excuses that this is in no way reflecting on his popularity or validity.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: Um...they are substantiated opinion, if only by virtue of O'Neill's experience and suspicions. Yes, even columnists and editors should make sure of their facts. I would expect a science writer to be skeptical of people such as JE, given that what they do is contradictory to known science. As to whether the articles were deliberately passed off as science, I think that's a subjective opinion.

Answer : An e-mail by a third party (O'Neill) to a second party (Randi) is not substantiation to the first party (Jaroff). I felt I pointed that out here and above with the e-mails I have received from Huck and Benneth. I would expect a science writer not only to be skeptical of JE but also of someone who describes an experience with JE and to check both, and certainly the latter most carefully. It was not done. That these items were passed off as science fact is based on its placement in the magazine as Clancie points out but is otherwise my opinion.
and no doubt hers.

This is a forum where opinion is clearly allowed and discussed in near real time. Its not TIME magazine.

Pyrrho: Do you have a source to substantiate that, or is it just your opinion?


Answer: It is opinion based on the circumstances and timing. This piece was timed to coincide with the aforementioned roll out onto syndication of CO and Randi was grousing about it for weeks and months after the syndication deal was announced and before the articles appeared. We knew something was coming but didn't know what.

Pyrrho: Oh, I don't think Randi or Shermer or Jaroff have enough of an audience to affect TV ratings or to substantially affect interest in any given TV show.

Answer: You would be surprised on the sample sizes used to make marketing decisions. Perhaps Ed can help us out there, it used to be his business. In any case I think the combined weight of TIME and Scientific American magazines alone would be sufficient to lead the perpetrators to believe they had a shot at this. It back fired as it sometimes does. It stimulated instead of quelling interest.


Pyrrho: This is over-saturation bringing on Darwinian limits.....

Answe: I agree. Oversaturation and bordeom with the field will bring about its demise on the popular sea and the cycle of die-hards discussing this in semi-private or poorly accessed media will remain once again. Although we never had the internet before so its hard to say what will happen next.

Pyrrho: I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.


Answer: Yup.

 

[CFLarsen]

No evidence from Steve, then.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Pyrrho: Any proof or evidence that such an invitation was offered? If we contact Jaroff, can he confirm this?

Answer: I said this came from C.O., By all means ask Jaroff to confirm or deny.

Pyrrho: Were you given unfettered access to the studio in order to check O'Neill's suspicions, or were you just sitting in the audience?

Reply: We went in as if we were normal audience members. We mingled, watched and observed and went thru the standard procedures. Our primary ticketholder was a lady from Ohio. She brought me, and I in turn invited the head of the Parapsychologiy Foundation (the skeptical medium Eileen Garrett's grand daughter and her married name is not Garrett) and an interior designer from Manhattan as guests. We also had a friend arrive separately who was not known to be related to us who was allowed to watch the taping from the control booth because he knew people on the program. Our presence was revealed afterwards. We were then allowed to visit the control booth, meet with Paul Shavelson in his office and meet with JE. This was after the taping was over. We all met for several hours afterwards to compare notes. We could not confirm anything O'Neill asserted or believed about the set-up.


Pyrrho: How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

Answer: Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so. This is SOP. Jaroff never said so. If he interviewed O'Neill and didnt quote him directly or explain that he interviewed him personally, he would
be guilty of one of the grossest misrepresentations in journalism. One short line would be all that would've been required in TIME. And the results of that interview could easily have found a home elsewhere, in other media including on the internet. Its not there. It doesn't exist. When O'Neill surfaces and agrees to be interviewed about this, I will retract if he confirms everything Jaroff and Randi represented. BTW CO did find the footage of O'Neill's reading and said they could not confirm that it was edted to make it look like he was agreeing when in fact, he was not. The head-nod issue.

 

[Unas]

You are missing the point UNAS. See logical fallacies on "missing the point. "

You refuse to answer the simple questions I have asked you, Mr. Grenard. Why?

You consider Randi's use of an unsubstantiated e-mail from O'Neill as the absolute gospel but you do not consider an e-mail I received in the same light.

I have made no statement regarding any "unsubstantiated e-mail", Mr. Grenard. See logical fallacies on "straw man".

Your statement is false. Did you post this false statement deliberately? If not, kindly apologize for your mischaracterization of my views.

And when you asked if I considered it acceptable, my answer was unequivocable: NO.

You have yet to answer my question: You have just done something that you claim to consider unacceptable. Are we to conclude from this that you routinely commit acts that contravene your sense of morality, or that you are lying when you say that you consider your own actions unacceptable?

You have yet to provide any specifics regarding the lies you claim that Jaroff and Gardner have told, or your evidence for your claims. Do you have any specifics, Mr. Grenard? That question can be answered simply: either yes or no. No more evasion, Mr. Grenard: provide the specifics.

 

[CFLarsen]

Our presence was revealed afterwards. We were then allowed to visit the control booth, meet with Paul Shavelson in his office and meet with JE. This was after the taping was over.

Why were you invited the control booth? That's hardly "backstage", you know...

Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so. This is SOP. Jaroff never said so.

Again, you criticize people for what they didn't do but what you wanted them to do. This is "SOP" for you. You claim fault with others, because they don't do what you do.

It doesn't exist.

You don't know that.

BTW CO did find the footage of O'Neill's reading and said they could not confirm that it was edted to make it look like he was agreeing when in fact, he was not. The head-nod issue.

Steve, you are incredibly gullible. You really think they would come out and agree that they cheated?

 

[Unas]

What is important in the end is truth. And using lies and fabrications to arrive at the truth is unethical and immoral and these are the tactics I accuse Randi, Jaroff and Shermer using in this specific instance.

What lies and fabrications has Randi told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

What lies and fabrications has Jaroff told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

What lies and fabrications has Shermer told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

You have yet to cite a single specific lie that you allege any of these men have told, Mr. Grenard.

You are engaged in simple character assassination. You have presented no facts to back up your accusation that the three men you have named are liars.

Why do you continue to discredit yourself publically on this forum?

 

[Unas]

...Jaroff's past writing on this topic and his own shoddy journalistic standards in regard to it -do- seem quite relevant.....

The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied.

Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

 

[Unas]

Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown.

What is your evidence for this statement? Do you claim to have powers of telepathy that allow you to know what other believe?

What lies did those three men tell, Mr. Grenard? When will you answer this simple question?

 

[Unas]

Pyrrho: How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

Answer: Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so.

You've made an accusation against Jaroff based solely on what you would have done? Why is that sufficient justification for calling him a liar?

 

[renata]

I am sorry, and perhaps it is not relevant, but doesn't Steve now think John Edward is a cold reader?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

By comparison, I NOW feel what we see JE provide is rubbish and cold reading. I now agree JE has the advantage of some short term prior research on major publicly available data as well as the advantage of asking questions. He asks questions even though he protests not to give him any info (e.g. the last LKL performance) which has really turned him off for me.

I guess Steve and Jaroff agree on JE, in essense

And, thanks for this, Steve:

TrtuhSeeker if you are seeking the truth go with renata on this.

Why, I might make it my Sig!