randi the harasser

One of the things that caused me to join this forum, was that after watching a bunch of clips of James Randi, I was really impressed that he was not derisive of the possibility of anything paranormal. He just doesn't want to be, and doesn't want others to be, fooled.

It's a little absurd to think that he'd be disrespectful of someone who is able to perform magic, but anyone who claims that it's something other than a well-performed trick ought to be willing to prove it.
 
This is a bit off topic, but hey, it's in response to T'ai Chi, the guy with whom every conversation sounds eerily similar. ;)

This is just you not agreeing with what they charge for their services.

So?
So I'd rather be scammed for $10 than for $200? Pointing out the particularly ludicrous amount being charged is just insult to injury. The simple fact is she can't do what she claims, and yet still makes money on it. That for a similar amount of money you can get actual professional advice from someone who has a good chance of knowing what they're talking about and who has actual legal obligations to provide their service well just demonstrates the silliness of the whole concept of paying someone to pretend to talk to the dead, or to pretend that by looking at your hand, some cards, or the stars that they can tell you anything you don't already know.

And yes, I'm gonna go around calling every police department in the world on every palm reader, tarot card shuffler, and assorted BS artist in their jurisdiction because I have an infinite amount of time to waste on telling people what they either already know about or wouldn't listen to me about anyway, particularly because I have no standing to press charges against any of them.

I know of at least 2 places around here where people have neon "palm reader" signs up in their windows along major roads. Clearly the relevant authorities are already aware of the people, and haven't gotten rid of them. In point of fact my hometown tried for many years to get the local one to move or at least take down the horribly tacky signs in the windows and couldn't even manage that. Front of that place looked like a cross between a bar and a whorehouse. ;)

The law isn't really set up to deal with paying money for someone to talk to you. Fraud is awfully hard to prove when it's something so nebulous being payed for in the first place. And really, getting the government involved is just in general unlikely to solve a problem that a large chunk of the population doesn't want stopped. Though the idea of back alley psychics is kinda funny. "Hey man, wanna dime reading?" Grainy black and white educational films on the dangers of "psychic madness." "Just say no... to tea leaves." "Mothers Against Palmistry" :D

Back on the topic, I didn't know Randi performed in the Philippines, I'd only heard of the psychic surgery debunking. So I've learned something today. It is kind of amusing that Mr. Licauco was unable to get basic facts correct, lending one to automatically question the rest of the article. In point of fact I seem to recall a couple reporters getting national attention in the US for making up their stories and sources... perhaps the Philippine Daily Inquirer is rather less demanding of it's reporters? I suppose if it's a sleazy tabloid then there's little point in trying to shame them into doing better.
 
Idunno,

The author provides no reference for the lawsuit, I was unable to find anything through lexisnexis or westlaw, and Randi denies being under a restraining order or paying any damages. The burden of proof is on the accuser so I therefore conclude that the link you provided is inaccurate.

It is nice to see Randi pop in here once in a while.
 
Most people who provide a service don't have any problems attaching dollar amounts to it.

Scam artists love to charge for their "services". A service is not performed if you get nothing for your money but a feeling that you got something for your money.
 
idunno,

It has been 3 days since you last posted. No one can seem to find this harassment case. In light of that information what is your opinion of that article now?
 
"Psiload" has published a rather naive and very wrong series of statements about me. To wit: "...Randi made a similar statement ("The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done.") in the August 23, 1986 Toronto Star that seemed to validate Geller's charge." I never made any such statement; the quotation is from a Star reporter who simply invented it. Wilbur Franklin, the naive scientist in question, died of natural causes. I never had any doubt about that. "...Geller successfully sued both the newspaper and Randi in the Japanese courts." No, that never happened. The Japanese suit Geller brought was against me, only, and the court awarded him 1/3 of one percent of what he asked for. "Randi could not participate in the trial, did not recognize the court's authority..." I most certainly did recognize and acknowledged the court's authority: I wrote the presiding judge, and he voluntarily lowered the charge from "libel" to "insult," thus making it a charge I did not have to respond to. Subsequently, in order to get out of other legal difficulties, Geller was obliged to surrender any claims against me. "...and refused to pay the $2,000 judgement that was awarded." Nonsense, as explained above. In any case, a Japanese court does pursue any legal obligation of a foreigner of less than US$10,000...

"Randi once commented that Uri Geller's tricks are of the same quality as those Randi read on the backs of cereal packets as a child. Geller sued both Randi and CSICOP." Wrong. I produced the cereal box with the spoon-bending trick, and Geller shut up.

I'm getting really tired of answering to the irresponsible statements of those who could be better informed, but don't care to look at the record...

James Randi.
 
Actually, what Psiload posted was a quotation of a section headed "Legal disputes" from the Wikipedia page about Randi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Legal_disputes.

If any Wikipedians are reading this, perhaps the page could be edited. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were journalists out there lazy enough to source information from Wikipedia without checking the links.

ETA: At least some of the links supporting the Wikipedia entry do not appear to say quite what the entry itself says (and there's no link for the Toronto Star story). To quote from the "talk" page: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" (their bold).
 
Last edited:
The newspaper finally published Randi's reply (can't post the URL - newbies aren't allowed to. Google “Magician belies claims in Licauco’s columns” for the link.) I'll post back when Licauco writes a reply of his own.
 
Hey thanks, but actually, I was thinking of: htt p://opinion.inquirer .net/inquirer opinion/letterstothe editor/view_article.php?article_id=37701 (just remove spaces)
 
Last edited:
By coincidence someone had the radio on and it was tuned to Jimmy Licauco's weekly program. I wasn't really listening but then I suddenly heard the word "Randi." I ran to the radio and sure enough, as I suspected, he was talking about Randi's Dec. 12 letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Licauco went through Randi's eight points and addressed each of them.

Just a summary of what I remember. First off Jimmy says he doesn't claim to be a psychic or have psychic powers and so he isn't a candidate for the million dollar prize. (But then he teaches, among other things, ESP and how to do remote viewing, and even boasted in the show that more than 80% of his students develop the skill.) He claims there's a plethora of scientific evidence for psi phenomena. He mentions the usual--Rhine, Targ and Puthoff, the more recent PEAR studies, and some other names I didn't catch. He says he doubts Randi will check the evidence. Then Jimmy dredged up something about CSICOP's "cover up" which Dennis Rawlins exposed a couple of decades ago about some Gauquelin astrological correlations. He also touched on the Geller issue.

Jimmy says he submitted his rebuttal as a letter to the editor. Well, since he's a columnist for the Inquirer, it'll probably be published. But since I don't read that paper, somebody please post the link if and when it does appear.
 
Nancy Weber - I know it's been awhile since she was mentioned. But I just thought I'd say that I saw her the the ABC (U.S.A) morniong show (love being a shift worker).

She used her "amazing skills" to "see" that a widow had a picture of her husband next to her bed. Woo! What do you reckon the chances of that happening?
 
My ever reliable friend buzzed me to tell me that Licauco's posted his rebuttal to Randi's letter. Part 1 appears today in Jimmy's column:
showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=42299

Licauco says he's never claimed to have psychic abilities. But then just several months ago he claimed everybody's a psychic:
showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=18963

Let's see.
* Licauco says everyone has psychic abilities just as we all have some singing/painting skills.
* Licauco claims not to have psychic abilities.
* Ergo, Licauco is not part of "everybody." Uh, he's nonhuman?

Then there's his 1999 book, When The Impossible Happens: Confessions Of A Reluctant Psychic. From the publisher's blurb:

"The book focuses on Licauco's own psychic experiences, which, although incredible, have been witnessed by others who swear to their accuracy. The author shares his experiences on astral projection, telepathy, psychic diagnosis and surgery and spirit channeling." anvilpublishing.com/bookdetails.php?id=2004000292

And of course, Jimmy continues to teach people how to develop ESP and other psychic abilities. Does that mean he's tried his own lessons and flunked?
 

Back
Top Bottom