I can't believe it. Today Randi responded to that article that Michael Goodspeed wrote about him yesterday, which I sent out.
---------------------------------
Subj:
RE:" The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi"
Date:
4/1/2004 10:05:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
From:
"James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
To:
<goodspeed743@aol.com>
Cc:
<stuarttalbott@yahoo.com>,
<theproving@yahoogroups.com>
There are a number of points -- far too many for me to
respond to, here, and
most of which have already been handled in my writings
already -- that can
be picked out of this irresponsible tirade, and
considered briefly:
>It is also JREF's assertion that no applicant to date
has ever passed the
preliminary testing.<
Yes, that is true. It can easily be shown to be
false, simply by producing
ONE case which is an exception. Our statements are
falsifiable, 100%.
>Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only
contradictory and
hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of
the Challenge's
application process.<
This, too, can be proven by an example. I hear this
claim made often, but
never an example. Why?
>Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid
evidence to support any
paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.<
True. That statement can easily be shown to be false,
by producing ONE case
which is an exception. Again, our statements are
falsifiable, 100%.
>Randi often refers to paranormal proponents as
"frauds," and/or
"self-deluded fools," . . . <
I have referred to SOME proponents as frauds, when
that fact was inarguable
(Peter Popoff and James Hydrick are examples) but
NEVER as self-deluded
fools. Again, provide examples, please.
> . . . and in spite of Randi's stated bias, it is
JREF which ultimately
must approve all testing protocols.<
Yes, but only with the participation of (a) an
independent agent approved by
both sides, and (b) the "other side" as well. Read
the literature. And,
since the "other side" is not putting up anything as a
prize, the JREF
certainly would not enter into any agreement that is
not satisfactory. A
million dollars is at stake. Is that really
difficult to understand?
>If this is Randi's attitude about Browne [that her
claim is at least
viable], then why does he not apply the same logic to
others who have
attempted to apply for the Challenge? . . . Would
Randi have us believe that
he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more
"plausible" than
Kolodzey's?<
Absolutely, yes. It has been known, for thousands of
years, that an animal
cannot survive without nourishment. It's a basic fact
of nature. To claim
the contrary is, per se, ridiculous. For the same
reason, we do not examine
claims of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. And, we
have tested this
no-eating claim several times, and found the claimants
cheating; more of the
same is far too time-consuming and expensive -- and
juvenile. Ask yourself
-- do you actually give ANY credence to such a claim?
Seriously? If so,
you must await Xmas gifts magically placed in your
home in December, too.
>Recently, the Herald Sun of Australia reported that
an Indian man, claiming
to have consumed no food or water for 68 years, was
observed for ten days by
close-circuit cameras at a hospital in Ahmedabad. He
was believed to
consume nothing, neither food nor drink, during this
time, yet suffered no
detectable ill effects to his health.<
We specifically offered the million to this man,
Prahlad Jani, and he
declined to be tested by competent observers. We did
all we could do to get
to test him, but he knew better. Fooling MDs is not
as easy as fooling an
experienced conjuror, and he knows it. Did you ever
wonder whether those
doctors examined him for the "hole in the palate" that
he claimed to have,
and which was the agent of his miracle ability? They
did NOT, because he
would not allow them to do so.
I could spend hours more on this, and the numerous
canards dragged in here,
but I have serious business to attend to. Since so
much of this is handled
on our web page, it's doing our work twice to repeat
it. Notice that Mr.
Goodspeed has not troubled to look for that
easily-available data, or
perhaps has found it and decided to ignore it because
it does not suit his
purposes. Repeating lies and accusations appears to
be more his speed.
James Randi
James Randi wrote:
Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only
contradictory and
hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of
the Challenge's
application process.<
This, too, can be proven by an example. I hear this
claim made often, but
never an example. Why?
MG: Randi, my article demonstrated examples of
hypocrisy, contradiction, and illogic in your defense
of the application process. You desire to test Browne,
and yet you refused a priori to test Kolodzey - this
is illogical and contradictory. I find this
particularly peculiar, since you have been so
outspoken against all forms of "holistic healing" and
"Christian science." Think of the education and
enlightenment a successful debunking of Kolodzey could
provide for the lowly "grubbies" (aka unwashed public)
out there who think they're might be something to his
claim.
Randi wrote: ">If this is Randi's attitude about
Browne [that her claim is at least
viable], then why does he not apply the same logic to
others who have
attempted to apply for the Challenge? . . . Would
Randi have us believe that
he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more
"plausible" than
Kolodzey's?<
Absolutely, yes. It has been known, for thousands of
years, that an animal
cannot survive without nourishment. It's a basic fact
of nature. To claim
the contrary is, per se, ridiculous. For the same
reason, we do not examine
claims of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. And, we
have tested this
no-eating claim several times, and found the claimants
cheating; more of the
same is far too time-consuming and expensive -- and
juvenile. Ask yourself
-- do you actually give ANY credence to such a claim?
Seriously? If so,
you must await Xmas gifts magically placed in your
home in December, too.
MG: Same old tired skeptic platitudes. You even graced
with your perfunctory"Santa Claus" analogy. NO ONE
believes in Santa Claus, Randi – you know that. Can
you point to a single study by anyone, anywhere, which
purports to prove the existence of Santa Claus?
You assert that no person can possibly live without
food and water – and I referred you to a study which
PURPORTS to refute that. You dismiss the study on an a
priori basis, only citing general, philosophical
reasons for having a problem with it. You refer to the
researchers in the Jani case as "the naïve observing
the cunning;" but WHY are they naïve? Because you
don’t agree with their findings? You ask why they
didn't check for the alleged "hole in his palate," but
if Jani's claim is true, then it doesn't matter where
he believes the source of his "ability" comes from.
By the way, speaking of your "relationship" with
Jani, when you wrote of him on your website, you
said that you had no interest in testing him or anyone
like him. Now you say that you offered him the chance
to be tested. OK, I’ll believe you; please provide the
documentation of this.
Again, I maintain that you apparently desire to focus
exclusively on famous applicants. I followed your
entertaining exchanges with applicant John Benneth and
Benneth posted this alleged email from you at,
http://www.marius.net/ratsass.html, Here, you
apparently state that you do not wish to test him,
because you’d rather go after "bigger game." Did you
write this email? (By the way, I am aware of instances
where Benneth has allegedly lied, so this is why I ask
if this email is yours.)
Subject:
[theproving] Response to the APS
Date:
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:45:07 -0400
From:
James <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
To:
"INTERNET:theproving-owner@onelist.com"
<theproving-owner@onelist.com>,
Bob <park@aps.org>
Benneth: I thought I'd made my point of view very
clear to you, but I
guess not. Now, I do not speak for Bob Park, of
course. But for myself,
I will say that "nobody gives a rat's ass for Benneth
and his claims" --
when much bigger game is in sight, Benveniste and
Josephson. Mind you, they
seem to be elusive targets, but I believe that Bob
will stay the course,
until they either refuse to be tested, or are tested
and fail."
MG: A couple of years ago, you had a phone
conversation with paranormal investigator Winston Wu,
and Wu writes: "I remember when I was talking to Randi
on the phone, he actually said something about going
after Geller was more glorious and compared it to
"hunting elephants rather than mice." Did you say
this, or not?
I refer you to condition number 11 of the Challenge,
from http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
11. This offer is open to any and all persons, in any
part of the world, regardless of gender, race,
educational background, etc., and will continue in
effect until the prize is awarded. Upon the death of
James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass
into other hands, and it is intended that it continue
in force.
If this is so, then all applicants should be given
equal consideration, irrespective of their "social
status."
James Randi wrote: ">Randi often refers to paranormal
proponents as "frauds," and/or
"self-deluded fools," . . . <
I have referred to SOME proponents as frauds, when
that fact was inarguable
(Peter Popoff and James Hydrick are examples) but
NEVER as self-deluded
fools. Again, provide examples, please.
MG: This is an interesting semantics issue. I have
found numerous published articles where you refer to
people as "self-deluded," a couple of examples:
From
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1998/0041.html
"... These are not charlatans -- the sort
of persons I can deal with rather more easily -- but
self-deluded folks for ... "
From
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1998/0041.html:
"I think he's simply self-deluded and
driven by a huge ego that doesn't allow him to be
wring."
…but through a google word search of the words "James
Randi" and "self-deluded fools" I cannot find an
example where you used the terms self-deluded and
fools in conjunction.. James Oberg attempted to raise
this same diversionary semantics discussion in an
email this morning. He claims that you no longer refer
to the masses as "the unwashed public," and as far as
I can tell, he’s right. Your choice of ad hominem now
is "grubbies" (see attached email to Oberg.), and I
find instances too numerous to count of you referring
to alternative physicians as "quacks"…and you would
have me believe that this terminology is…what? More
dignified? More scholarly? More mature? Now I see the
semantics game: A person who is self-deluded is
INSANE. By your logic, it would be too cruel, too
unprofessional, to further dehumanize a person you’ve
labeled as crazy with the moniker of "fool." Same old
Randi…trying to get bogged down in side issues while
ignoring the key points.
Sincerely,
Michael Goodspeed
Here is my email response to Oberg:
James Oberg wrote:
Saw your piece on Randi on the Rense website. I
noticed you wrote, "Some
of these people even display a contempt for the
intelligence of the
average person, using terms like 'the unwashed
public' to describe the
common man." I don't recall seeing that phrase used
seriously since
Menckjen's time, and I was hoping you could fill me
in by pointing to some
more recent citations by "some of these people"
[i.e., skeptics of
paranormal phenomena]. Where can I verify this?
thanks for the documentation,
jim O
Hi James,
You raise an important point, and I must thank you. It
seems that we must now update our lexicon when
discussing Randi's view of the general public. Randi
now appears to be substituting the term "grubbies",
much more dignified and mature, for the apparently
outdated term, "unwashed public." Are we to believe
"grubby" means something other than "unwashed"?
Examples:
From http://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html: "Dear
reader, I did the above analysis to demonstrate for
you just how purposely misinformed the grubbies out
there, really are."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/082903.html: "The
problem is that the grubbies out there are aware of
the security of this account..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html: "This has
caused much joy among the grubbies, who exult mightily
whenever one of their standard-bearers marches forth
to proclaim the imminent demise of the ..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/080902.html "The
grubbies out there have created rumors that have me
involved in a colorful variety
of vices — though I've yet to try "night-haunts and
foul debauch," I ..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/092702.html"We didn't
withdraw, Carr did. But that doesn't stop the grubbies
out there from
hurling lies at us, even though they know the truth
about the situation..."
Others have followed Randi's lead. From
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2003-09-03.htm:
"...one of the distinctive aspects of the JREF that
the grubbies cannot fight...."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language defines "grubby" as "Contemptible;
despicable."
Attention readers of the Jeff Rense site, who may be
foolish, gullible, lonely, and uneducated enough to
think there might actually be something to these
so-called "paranormal phenomena." Understand this now,
as it has been spoken by James Randi and therefore is:
You are a GRUBBY. Got that? Contemptible; despicable;
in need for a further washing.
However, some skeptics apparently are still not up to
speed with the current lexicon,which dictates that
"grubby" is the appropriate term for the public, or at
least members of the public "naive" and "gullible"
enough to think that the paranormal might be real. One
example: From:
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol4_1.html,
The WHY-Files The Journal of the Inquiring Skeptics of
Upper New York: "Skeptics become cranky and crankier,
turning more and more people off in the process. They
react by assembling even more facts for the next claim
they analyze and the process repeats itself, a never
ending Quixotic quest to bring reason to the UNWASHED
MASSES." (MG: all caps added)
So THAT'S the reason skeptic/debunkers have such
delightful, heartwarming personalities! Attention
again, Jeff Rense readers: It is your fault some of
these folks always seem to wake up on the wrong side
of the bed...so stop annoying them, and close your
grubby, unwashed mouths.
--Michael Goodspeed
---------------------------------
Subj:
RE:" The Relentless Hypocrisy of James Randi"
Date:
4/1/2004 10:05:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
From:
"James Randi" <randi@randi.org>
To:
<goodspeed743@aol.com>
Cc:
<stuarttalbott@yahoo.com>,
<theproving@yahoogroups.com>
There are a number of points -- far too many for me to
respond to, here, and
most of which have already been handled in my writings
already -- that can
be picked out of this irresponsible tirade, and
considered briefly:
>It is also JREF's assertion that no applicant to date
has ever passed the
preliminary testing.<
Yes, that is true. It can easily be shown to be
false, simply by producing
ONE case which is an exception. Our statements are
falsifiable, 100%.
>Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only
contradictory and
hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of
the Challenge's
application process.<
This, too, can be proven by an example. I hear this
claim made often, but
never an example. Why?
>Bear in mind that Randi asserts there is no valid
evidence to support any
paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena.<
True. That statement can easily be shown to be false,
by producing ONE case
which is an exception. Again, our statements are
falsifiable, 100%.
>Randi often refers to paranormal proponents as
"frauds," and/or
"self-deluded fools," . . . <
I have referred to SOME proponents as frauds, when
that fact was inarguable
(Peter Popoff and James Hydrick are examples) but
NEVER as self-deluded
fools. Again, provide examples, please.
> . . . and in spite of Randi's stated bias, it is
JREF which ultimately
must approve all testing protocols.<
Yes, but only with the participation of (a) an
independent agent approved by
both sides, and (b) the "other side" as well. Read
the literature. And,
since the "other side" is not putting up anything as a
prize, the JREF
certainly would not enter into any agreement that is
not satisfactory. A
million dollars is at stake. Is that really
difficult to understand?
>If this is Randi's attitude about Browne [that her
claim is at least
viable], then why does he not apply the same logic to
others who have
attempted to apply for the Challenge? . . . Would
Randi have us believe that
he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more
"plausible" than
Kolodzey's?<
Absolutely, yes. It has been known, for thousands of
years, that an animal
cannot survive without nourishment. It's a basic fact
of nature. To claim
the contrary is, per se, ridiculous. For the same
reason, we do not examine
claims of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. And, we
have tested this
no-eating claim several times, and found the claimants
cheating; more of the
same is far too time-consuming and expensive -- and
juvenile. Ask yourself
-- do you actually give ANY credence to such a claim?
Seriously? If so,
you must await Xmas gifts magically placed in your
home in December, too.
>Recently, the Herald Sun of Australia reported that
an Indian man, claiming
to have consumed no food or water for 68 years, was
observed for ten days by
close-circuit cameras at a hospital in Ahmedabad. He
was believed to
consume nothing, neither food nor drink, during this
time, yet suffered no
detectable ill effects to his health.<
We specifically offered the million to this man,
Prahlad Jani, and he
declined to be tested by competent observers. We did
all we could do to get
to test him, but he knew better. Fooling MDs is not
as easy as fooling an
experienced conjuror, and he knows it. Did you ever
wonder whether those
doctors examined him for the "hole in the palate" that
he claimed to have,
and which was the agent of his miracle ability? They
did NOT, because he
would not allow them to do so.
I could spend hours more on this, and the numerous
canards dragged in here,
but I have serious business to attend to. Since so
much of this is handled
on our web page, it's doing our work twice to repeat
it. Notice that Mr.
Goodspeed has not troubled to look for that
easily-available data, or
perhaps has found it and decided to ignore it because
it does not suit his
purposes. Repeating lies and accusations appears to
be more his speed.
James Randi
James Randi wrote:
Repeatedly, Randi has shown himself to be not only
contradictory and
hypocritical but eminently illogical in his defense of
the Challenge's
application process.<
This, too, can be proven by an example. I hear this
claim made often, but
never an example. Why?
MG: Randi, my article demonstrated examples of
hypocrisy, contradiction, and illogic in your defense
of the application process. You desire to test Browne,
and yet you refused a priori to test Kolodzey - this
is illogical and contradictory. I find this
particularly peculiar, since you have been so
outspoken against all forms of "holistic healing" and
"Christian science." Think of the education and
enlightenment a successful debunking of Kolodzey could
provide for the lowly "grubbies" (aka unwashed public)
out there who think they're might be something to his
claim.
Randi wrote: ">If this is Randi's attitude about
Browne [that her claim is at least
viable], then why does he not apply the same logic to
others who have
attempted to apply for the Challenge? . . . Would
Randi have us believe that
he views the "abilities" of Browne and Geller as more
"plausible" than
Kolodzey's?<
Absolutely, yes. It has been known, for thousands of
years, that an animal
cannot survive without nourishment. It's a basic fact
of nature. To claim
the contrary is, per se, ridiculous. For the same
reason, we do not examine
claims of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. And, we
have tested this
no-eating claim several times, and found the claimants
cheating; more of the
same is far too time-consuming and expensive -- and
juvenile. Ask yourself
-- do you actually give ANY credence to such a claim?
Seriously? If so,
you must await Xmas gifts magically placed in your
home in December, too.
MG: Same old tired skeptic platitudes. You even graced
with your perfunctory"Santa Claus" analogy. NO ONE
believes in Santa Claus, Randi – you know that. Can
you point to a single study by anyone, anywhere, which
purports to prove the existence of Santa Claus?
You assert that no person can possibly live without
food and water – and I referred you to a study which
PURPORTS to refute that. You dismiss the study on an a
priori basis, only citing general, philosophical
reasons for having a problem with it. You refer to the
researchers in the Jani case as "the naïve observing
the cunning;" but WHY are they naïve? Because you
don’t agree with their findings? You ask why they
didn't check for the alleged "hole in his palate," but
if Jani's claim is true, then it doesn't matter where
he believes the source of his "ability" comes from.
By the way, speaking of your "relationship" with
Jani, when you wrote of him on your website, you
said that you had no interest in testing him or anyone
like him. Now you say that you offered him the chance
to be tested. OK, I’ll believe you; please provide the
documentation of this.
Again, I maintain that you apparently desire to focus
exclusively on famous applicants. I followed your
entertaining exchanges with applicant John Benneth and
Benneth posted this alleged email from you at,
http://www.marius.net/ratsass.html, Here, you
apparently state that you do not wish to test him,
because you’d rather go after "bigger game." Did you
write this email? (By the way, I am aware of instances
where Benneth has allegedly lied, so this is why I ask
if this email is yours.)
Subject:
[theproving] Response to the APS
Date:
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:45:07 -0400
From:
James <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
To:
"INTERNET:theproving-owner@onelist.com"
<theproving-owner@onelist.com>,
Bob <park@aps.org>
Benneth: I thought I'd made my point of view very
clear to you, but I
guess not. Now, I do not speak for Bob Park, of
course. But for myself,
I will say that "nobody gives a rat's ass for Benneth
and his claims" --
when much bigger game is in sight, Benveniste and
Josephson. Mind you, they
seem to be elusive targets, but I believe that Bob
will stay the course,
until they either refuse to be tested, or are tested
and fail."
MG: A couple of years ago, you had a phone
conversation with paranormal investigator Winston Wu,
and Wu writes: "I remember when I was talking to Randi
on the phone, he actually said something about going
after Geller was more glorious and compared it to
"hunting elephants rather than mice." Did you say
this, or not?
I refer you to condition number 11 of the Challenge,
from http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
11. This offer is open to any and all persons, in any
part of the world, regardless of gender, race,
educational background, etc., and will continue in
effect until the prize is awarded. Upon the death of
James Randi, the administration of the prize will pass
into other hands, and it is intended that it continue
in force.
If this is so, then all applicants should be given
equal consideration, irrespective of their "social
status."
James Randi wrote: ">Randi often refers to paranormal
proponents as "frauds," and/or
"self-deluded fools," . . . <
I have referred to SOME proponents as frauds, when
that fact was inarguable
(Peter Popoff and James Hydrick are examples) but
NEVER as self-deluded
fools. Again, provide examples, please.
MG: This is an interesting semantics issue. I have
found numerous published articles where you refer to
people as "self-deluded," a couple of examples:
From
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1998/0041.html
"... These are not charlatans -- the sort
of persons I can deal with rather more easily -- but
self-deluded folks for ... "
From
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1998/0041.html:
"I think he's simply self-deluded and
driven by a huge ego that doesn't allow him to be
wring."
…but through a google word search of the words "James
Randi" and "self-deluded fools" I cannot find an
example where you used the terms self-deluded and
fools in conjunction.. James Oberg attempted to raise
this same diversionary semantics discussion in an
email this morning. He claims that you no longer refer
to the masses as "the unwashed public," and as far as
I can tell, he’s right. Your choice of ad hominem now
is "grubbies" (see attached email to Oberg.), and I
find instances too numerous to count of you referring
to alternative physicians as "quacks"…and you would
have me believe that this terminology is…what? More
dignified? More scholarly? More mature? Now I see the
semantics game: A person who is self-deluded is
INSANE. By your logic, it would be too cruel, too
unprofessional, to further dehumanize a person you’ve
labeled as crazy with the moniker of "fool." Same old
Randi…trying to get bogged down in side issues while
ignoring the key points.
Sincerely,
Michael Goodspeed
Here is my email response to Oberg:
James Oberg wrote:
Saw your piece on Randi on the Rense website. I
noticed you wrote, "Some
of these people even display a contempt for the
intelligence of the
average person, using terms like 'the unwashed
public' to describe the
common man." I don't recall seeing that phrase used
seriously since
Menckjen's time, and I was hoping you could fill me
in by pointing to some
more recent citations by "some of these people"
[i.e., skeptics of
paranormal phenomena]. Where can I verify this?
thanks for the documentation,
jim O
Hi James,
You raise an important point, and I must thank you. It
seems that we must now update our lexicon when
discussing Randi's view of the general public. Randi
now appears to be substituting the term "grubbies",
much more dignified and mature, for the apparently
outdated term, "unwashed public." Are we to believe
"grubby" means something other than "unwashed"?
Examples:
From http://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html: "Dear
reader, I did the above analysis to demonstrate for
you just how purposely misinformed the grubbies out
there, really are."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/082903.html: "The
problem is that the grubbies out there are aware of
the security of this account..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/091903.html: "This has
caused much joy among the grubbies, who exult mightily
whenever one of their standard-bearers marches forth
to proclaim the imminent demise of the ..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/080902.html "The
grubbies out there have created rumors that have me
involved in a colorful variety
of vices — though I've yet to try "night-haunts and
foul debauch," I ..."
From: http://www.randi.org/jr/092702.html"We didn't
withdraw, Carr did. But that doesn't stop the grubbies
out there from
hurling lies at us, even though they know the truth
about the situation..."
Others have followed Randi's lead. From
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2003-09-03.htm:
"...one of the distinctive aspects of the JREF that
the grubbies cannot fight...."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language defines "grubby" as "Contemptible;
despicable."
Attention readers of the Jeff Rense site, who may be
foolish, gullible, lonely, and uneducated enough to
think there might actually be something to these
so-called "paranormal phenomena." Understand this now,
as it has been spoken by James Randi and therefore is:
You are a GRUBBY. Got that? Contemptible; despicable;
in need for a further washing.
However, some skeptics apparently are still not up to
speed with the current lexicon,which dictates that
"grubby" is the appropriate term for the public, or at
least members of the public "naive" and "gullible"
enough to think that the paranormal might be real. One
example: From:
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol4_1.html,
The WHY-Files The Journal of the Inquiring Skeptics of
Upper New York: "Skeptics become cranky and crankier,
turning more and more people off in the process. They
react by assembling even more facts for the next claim
they analyze and the process repeats itself, a never
ending Quixotic quest to bring reason to the UNWASHED
MASSES." (MG: all caps added)
So THAT'S the reason skeptic/debunkers have such
delightful, heartwarming personalities! Attention
again, Jeff Rense readers: It is your fault some of
these folks always seem to wake up on the wrong side
of the bed...so stop annoying them, and close your
grubby, unwashed mouths.
--Michael Goodspeed
