I tried to find Barron’s online – they want me to subscribe for $79 to read the old articles. No thanks.

I also looked up all of Randi’s articles mentioning Karen Boesen on his website. The most relevant comments concern his appearance on a Danish TV show, Øjvind Kyrø’s TV series, “Fornemmelse for snyd” (“A Sense of Deceit”). I haven’t actually seen the show or transcripts, so I don’t know what was actually said. Karen Boesen contends that Randi called her and the International Society of Business Astrologers “criminals” and “mentally deviants”. These appear to be the comments most upsetting to her, prompting her to consult her attorney about suing Randi for slander.

Randi claims that he reviewed the tapes of the program to confirm that he never called her or her associates criminals. I do suspect that he wondered aloud why astrologers were not prosecuted for fraud. But saying that astrology is bunk and it’s practitioners are either deliberate frauds or deluded is not slanderous. In order for it to be slander, at a minimum there would need to be solid scientific evidence for the efficacy of astrology. Also, she would need to prove that Randi is aware of the evidence that astrology works. And even with those conditions, Randi is expressing his opinion, which is different that statements of fact.

However, Ms. Boesen makes several unsubstantiated claims that come a lot closer to slander than anything said by Randi:

“But James Randi is notorious in the USA, not just among so-called alternative and astrologers, but also in the academic world, where he is excluded from several fora because of his unethical behavior and cheating with data. His tactics, when people pass his tests, are also well known.”

No evidence provided for Randi being excluded from academic fora or for his unethical behavior and cheating with data. That particular claim is slanderous. Also is the assertion that people pass the tests, which is unsupported.

Info obtained from here:
http://www.randi.org/jr/050203.html

Regarding the rest of the mentions of Karen Boesen on the JREF pages:

Randi likens “business astrology” with “consulting bird entrails”. The analogy is apt.

He summarizes her inane justifications for the results of one test, where they asked her to pick the best candidate for a hypothetical travel agency, but the birth data provided was from a list of convicted felons. Her response was that murderers and top managers often have the same planetary constellations in their horoscopes. Rather than question the validity of the test conditions themselves, she says she was mistaken because good managers and murderers are similar?
http://www.randi.org/jr/051603.html

On one page, Randi does say:
“she has a web site where the poor scam-artists who were blown away on Øjvind Kyrø’s TV show in Denmark, can complain.”
http://www.randi.org/jr/062003.html

So he does liken her to a scam artist (since she was on that show and was blown away). Still, that’s not much of an actionable claim.

On another page Randi lists some vague claim against him by Boesen from an unspecified person or event. She also makes some errors in her statements. Randi characterizes these statements as lies. Perhaps “lie” is too strong a word, incorrect statements being more appropriate, but that isn’t slanderous on his part.
http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html

Bill Perron still hasn’t made any of his cases against Randi, or the rest of us for that matter. And we’re the narrow-minded dogmatics?

Bill Perron Said:
>Your comments on the falseness of the Randi award totally ignores the reality of his tactics and his wording in his offer. The offer is to be given for proof of para-normal ability but all he has to say is that whatever is demonstrated is not a paranormal ability. As he already admited to Rawlins in “sTARBABY” he always has a way out.

That’s a red herring. Sure he calls it the paranormal challenge. That’s to categorize the types of things the challenge is for. “Hey, my dog can bark the National Anthem. Can I apply?” “No, it’s not the Talented Dog Challenge.” But regardless of what Randi calls the challenge, the claimants apply by describing what they can do and under what conditions, with what levels of success. Once those terms are spelled out, Randi develops with the applicant a test protocol. When both sides agree to the protocol, they both sign a contract. That contract is a legally binding document that says, “If I do X, Randi pays me money.” Any good lawyer will able to defend that contract against quibbling over whether X is really “paranormal” or not. Randi’s signing the contract is his consent that X is “Paranormal” by the standards of the challenge.

Randi may have an out, but it won’t be over such a trivial and easily contested point. And if he tried that, he would definitely loose points with us “psuedo skeptics”.

Shameful and distorted claims against a woman?

Thomas Siefert Said: “Bill, we are not talking physical violence here and we are talking about a women taking money from other gulible people.”

TS called her gullible.

TS said: “Bill, I find women speaking nonsense extremely offensive.
Astrology is nonsense, can I express myself any clearer?”

TS said she was “speaking nonsense”. That’s a description of her behavior, not of her.

I said: “I guess I’m from another generation, where we treat women as equals and let them stand on their own merits, rather than coddling them from negative criticism.”

I called her my “equal”.

That is the extent of descriptions of Ms. Boesen by Thomas Siefert and me. I don’t see how those could be shameful or distorted. You characterized Randi‘s comments about Ms. Boesen as “defamation of character”, “Lying intentionally”, and “libel”. Neither Thomas Siefert nor me agreed with that description, though neither of us directly refuted it either. We asked you to justify that description, which you have yet to do. You have not quoted Randi’s defaming and libelous remarks, nor linked to them. You have told us to look it up ourselves.

That’s a rather poor debating form. You made a claim, back it up. I don’t have to agree with your assessment and how can I if you don’t show me the evidence? You claim it’s easily available, but Thomas says he can’t find it. I intend to go back through Randi’s page and perhaps dig a little myself, but it’s not like this is the only thing I do all day. I have been a little busy with other things. It simply isn’t reasonable to expect instant agreement with your personal assessment of what happened, even if you do know her personally.

Furthermore, if Randi or Thomas or I or anyone else feels that someone, even a woman, is ripping people off, either consciously or even unconsciously, why is it wrong for us to say so? Now I will agree that to make that assertion, one would have to justify it as well. Note that I have not made that assertion. However, I don’t believe there to be any validity to astrology, and so I think that at a minimum Ms. Boesen is deluding herself along with her clients. Is that fraud? I haven’t made that judgment. But it is not defamation of character if I state that I think astrology is bunk, so astrologers are practicing bunk. It is my personal judgement. If that hurts the feelings of astrologers, too bad. They can call engineering a load of bunk and insult my profession, we’ll be even.

>You and every other pseudo skeptic I have ever encountered say you’re in favor of critical thinking, that is until the critical thinking is pointed in the direction of skeptics, then the critical thinking is called an attack. Rather hypocrital of skeptics wouldn’t you say, or is that observation also an attack?…..

Not at all, apply critical thinking to skeptics as well. Just don’t expect people to take your word for anything, whether it’s a glowing statement or a critique. That applies to both astrologers and skeptics.

As for it being an attack, you said:
“a publicity hungry dealer in half truths like James Randi”.

“When did defamation of character become a generational thing? Lying intentionally and libel are not criticizing someone, be they male or female, it is painful rude cowardice.”

You call Randi a liar and a defamer of character. That would be an attack in my book.

You also said:
>Thank you again for cotinuing to prove my point, Thomas Siefert requested examples of Randi’s half truths and I gave them. His response is the predictable shallow rationalizing of dishonesty because it fits his smug little myopic agenda.

>Thanks again Thomas Siefert, your smug catty reply only confirms your lack of forthrightness and mature honesty.

>Irishman, you have obviously fallen off the wagon again. When you sober up re-read what you wrote,… You have this shameful distorted view of women, are you a homosexual?

>I am far to busy to tarry here any longer with narrow minded dogmatics.

So apparently you are not above the occassional name-calling and insult-hurling. And you’re questioning our maturity? To quote someone: “first remove the beam from thyne own eyes”

I never said that James Randi was my hero.

I never used the word “attack” you did and I agree 100% with Randi on his views on astrology, so I think his criticism of someone making a living of it is fair.

I have used “Barrons astrology articles” as keywords in google and all that comes up is astrology websites vaguely refering to Barrons. If I search for astrology on the Barrons website it only comes up with two articles that I can’t read witout a subscription. What about posting some links that works?

>You have this shameful distorted view of women, are you a homosexual?

These types of comments don’t reflect well on you. I would also suggest that you tone it down, you’re violating Phil’s rules for behavior on this board.

>Your account of the Gauquelin events distorts the real truth of the matter, fraud was committed by Randi and CSICOP that is why Dennis Rawlins quit that group in disgust and wrote about the shameful events in sTARBABY.

I have read the sTARBABY account, though admittedly it has been a while. I have also read other material on the topic. I prefer to make up my own mind. I give Randi a conditional approval. I like what I see, and like what he’s doing to further critical thinking and skepticism. I don’t claim he’s perfect, and don’t expect him to be.

>In that article he also quotes Randi when he asked him if he was concerned about ever having to give up his award he replied “No, because I always have a way out.” His award is just a publicity stunt and you pseudo skeptic intelectuals blindly buy into it.

If it’s just a publicity stunt and he has no intent of ever paying out, then prove it. If I were going to try to prove that, I would apply for the prize with a claim I was certain was real, then document every step of the negotiations. I would save emails, record conversations, have documents notorized and duplicated. And when I concluded the test and won, because the claim was real, and Randi refused to pay, then I would reveal all the evidence and sue him for breach of contract – hit him on two fronts, the courts and publicity. But I don’t see anyone doing that. They blithely refuse to participate with lame excuses. I have to wonder if the real problem is that they can’t find a real claim so that they could stand a chance of winning a fair test.

>Irishman, the facts are that the history of successful astrological financial investing is way beyond that of chance and that is what the articles were about. Go on line and read and learn, you only display your ignorance by stating opinion rather than fact.

Perhaps if you would link the articles so I don’t have to go hunting for them. How do I know which ones you mean?

>Your attitude that it is O.K .to attack a woman because you are from a different generation is downright stupid! When did defamation of character become a generational thing? Lying intentionally and libel are not criticizing someone, be they male or female, it is painful rude cowardice.

Again, it would help if you would provide evidence. If I am ignorant of the truth, yelling at me doesn’t educate me, it just makes me blow you off as an irate jerk. Can you give me a link or two to the examples of lying, defamation of character, and libel? Is this something I can look up online? Why don’t you calm down and post information instead of screaming insults? You might be received better.

Bill, you came on this thread and posted some strong statements about Randi. Several people in this thread are familiar with Randi and his website, and asked for more information. Your response was to take that as a personal attack and throw more accusations, rather than provide the information requested. Vague hints about situations and your brief personal interpretation of the events is not strong evidence, and hardly convincing. If I have an impression of Randi from a lengthy exposure, and then I have one derogatory comment at odds with my own impression, am I to immediately blow off my own impression just because some stranger is posting vague comments? You post some generic comment about looking up articles in “Barrons”, as if I’m supposed to recognize what “Barrons” is and be able to find it, and then find the particular articles you mean. If my descriptions of events are mischaracterizations, then demonstrate that with evidence, not yelling and name-calling.

No, it means you made a claim and I asked for the evidence.

>Randi and CSICOP participated in the Gauquelin scandal or have you so easily forgotten that?

I’ve read some stuff on the Gauquelin scandal. From what I gather there were conflicting personalities getting in the way of the analysis, but the results were inconclusive at best. There was some hints in the data to support the claim, but more analysis has shown that to be in question.

>Also at his site he only puts up negative postings about such things as astrology, totally ignoring the fact that the financial newspaper “Barrons” has printed several very positive articles on financial astrology and it’s practioners.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I fail to see how a “Barrons” article or two is proof of anything but the media catering to a credulous public. Feed them what they want so they will buy the paper.

>He even went so far as to atteack personally and posted libelous articles on Karen Boesen a financial astrologer. Only after she threatened to sue him did he most quickly print a retraction. But he was not man enough to apologize for all the anguish he caused her. Personally I find males who attack women extremely offensive.

I guess I’m from another generation, where we treat women as equals and let them stand on their own merits, rather than coddling them from negative criticism. Next you’ll be saying Randi is a misogynist because of his Sylvia Browne clock.

>Thomas Seifert by his own believes it is just fine to attack a woman just because she has a different view.

Define “attack”. I think it is totally valid to criticize even a woman if she makes faulty claims and pushes nonsense. I also find it difficult to find fault with someone for reaching a conclusion about a person based upon her actions. I may or may not agree, but they aren’t my conclusions, they’re his.

>His response is the predictable shallow rationalizing of dishonesty because it fits his smug little myopic agenda. The Bible verse invoked is the perfect verse for Siefert, if he could do that he could grasp the power of humility,…

Those are strong words. Pretty ironic coming from someone preaching humility.

>…saying such obviously agenda filled Randibot hyperbol.

Um, what? Because he hasn’t blindly agreed with your position, he’s pushing “agenda filled Randibot hyperbol”? It seems to me the one with a Randi agenda here is you. And the hyperbole is certainly coming from you.

I hope you have a nice day ,
Allen

See you around friend.

Einstein’s belief system did not include the existence of a personal God. In his writings on religion, Einstein emphasized a “cosmic religious feeling,” the essential beauty and mystery of the universe, and a metaphorical deity “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” He tried repeatedly to explain his views, but they were often poorly understood and were by turns co-opted in support of or in opposition to different religious creeds. For example, in an attempt to defend Einstein’s theory of relativity against the claim that it was atheistic, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue in New York cabled the professor in 1929 and asked him to clarify his views on God. Einstein replied that he believed in a God who “reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind

Perhaps this will help you to understand.
I have only a little time today, I will check back tomorrow.

Bill, may I suggest that’s perhaps not the IDEAL Bible verse to invoke when criticizing others?

Just because a journalist belives in astrology and writes a favourable article about it, doesn’t make it any more real.
Honestly about the CSICOP/Randi Gauquelin “scandal”, why don’t they just sue? and prove once and for all that astrogoly really work?

TS: Where does science butt into churches to teach their ideas?
ID try to break into the classroom saying all you need is faith.
And which science is dedicated to disprove a god anyway?
—————————————————–
Allen L:It isn’t either /or , I might remind some of you some of the most influential people you can think of down the line in history were believers in a higher power starting with Einstein.

TS Wrong person for the argument, Einstein was an atheist.
—————————————————
Allen L: I am kind of sick to death of athiests masquerading as defenders of logic in society.

TS: This simply does not make any sense to me.
————————————————-
Allen L: I have no problem with creation and evolution going hand in hand there is no scientific way to say creation didn’t happen. Call it big bang if you want, there is no difference.

TS: So how do you know how the whole shebang was created?
————————————————–
Allen L:When it comes to the progression of life and how it changed who is to say God had no role to play in it? You cannot prove otherwise, by saying this amounts to fantasy when the theory of evolution has so many gaps in it that have not been bridged and may never. Just tells me that faith can be many things, mine just happens to be a little different to yours, or to put it more succinctly, I am a little more open minded than the average athiest calling Science his God.

TS: And you cannot prove that a god is involved. By coming up with two explantions for the “gaps” would I then be more open minded than you then?
In that case I will invoke FSM (I realise this could be seen as playing the god card, but I know for a fact that he is real).
——————————————-
Arrrrggg you made stay up late, I’m going to work early you know.

Say maybe we could settle it over a game of Cube?
http://www.cubeengine.com/

Please don’t quote online dictionaries, make up your own sentences, it’s so much more fun.

Don’t tell me you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment performed in the 50′s. No I’m not gonna try to improve on it, I don’t have the necessary millions of years and an earth sized ocean at my disposal to try a more realistic experiment
I can’t reanimate your amoeba, but neither can prayers.