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?