I suppose that they'd have to be stunningly sparkling bald to start with. Then work from there.

Yay for gay-mes randi. I hope at 81 there are still men to Popoff with him. I would.

The only Weiner I want is Anthony's.

To piss you off.

There can be no better reason.

Agreed. I can't give my main man any less than five stars, but this was nowhere near as interesting as his curmudgeony views on psychics and flimflam.

I just hope he's not going to cement his mainstream legacy with this. First Richard "LOLXtians" Dawkins, now James "Gay Grandpa" Randi?

Michael "Libertarian Bicycle Enthusiast" Shermer would be rolling over in his grave, if he were dead, and not a reanimated cyborg zombie, as revealed to me during my last astral session.

Yeah! Asshole should of stayed in the closet so you wouldn't have to voluntarily click on a youtube video!

stars to joel

I clicked on the YouTube video because in the past James Randi has been synonymous with entertainment. But now Jim wants to tell me about the ruffled man-hat where he makes his wrinkly old dick disappear.

James Randi likes to fuck. I'm okay with that, and I completely support him in that endeavor. I just don't see why I would want him to talk about that instead of something that's actually interesting.

It's still entertaining--this time he's debunking heteronormativity!

Every time a gay says his life is great an angel dies.

A lot of people actually. Don't underestimate the impact of respectable people in changing society's views. Just as Randi has strived his whole life to debunk and illuminate frauds, magic and the like, I think it is fitting that he throw this tiny shred of himself into the arena too. If he was just being "masturbatory" as you so keenly say, he would've done it years and years ago as a much younger man. And just because it isn't important to you, doesn't mean it may not positively influence someone else.

I for one really enjoyed this. Sure it's not eye-opening or anything, but I really like the guy. He's one of my honorary grandfathers.

You're right. I'm drunk and you're right, though I can't take it back I respect what you've said. Sometimes it's hard to see beyond the tip of my upturned nose.

I can't disagree with you, but look at it this way; he is an octogenarian. It ain't a big deal to the whippersnappers but this motherfucker was born in 1928.

you too?

Being a scientist doesn't make one infallible - it's not that he has a dim view of science or scientists, but he also doesn't raise a person to a plateau of critical invulnerability just because of their profession.

Besides, he's debunked psychics that have fooled scientists, and I imagine that's what he's talking about.

What you've got to ask yourself is: Is James Randi infallible like the Pope? If so, then he's a great man, because everyone he's ever destroyed was a fraud and deserved it. OTOH, if he is a mortal like us, then he makes mistakes. If that is so, then there are a (small) number of sincere researchers and claimants who might have made great contributions to our lives, but were stopped dead by this man.

Additionally, it should be noted that frauds thrive on attention, which Randi generously showers upon them. Whereas the real thing is destroyed by such attention as the debunkers provide.

Unfortunately, these are subtle points, and don't lend themselves to discussion on a video sharing site.

Making a false equivalency between James Randi and the pope is about as subtle as a boner in spandex, despite phrasing it in a Morton Downey-esque question.

As far as the "sincere researchers", what, exactly, are you suggesting as an alternative? That no vetting of scientific discovery take place so as to not hurt the poor scientists? Many scientific careers of sincere researchers are ended in peer review, and sometimes incorrectly. But the alternative is to take all research at face value. Shall we believe the Discovery Institute as readily as the University of Chicago?

Also, frauds to thrive on attention, but only on certain kinda of attention. You ask James Hydrick about how his attention from Randi worked out.

Scientists are fools. Studies are bunk. Peer reviewers are morons. But it's fine, because science happens in the limit.

People think you can prove or disprove something with a single study or expert opinion. Then they accuse science of being a religion, because they don't get how it works.

@Napkin: No false equivalence; I am asking if James Randi is always right. He thinks so, and presumably, so do you. So it follows you'd find my accusation off the wall. I think he is human, and makes mistakes. He is _definitely_ not a scientist, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool far greater than the occasional researcher who gets taken in by a fraud. James starts with the assumption that all claimants are frauds. That's about as unscientific as you can get. Additionally, he disparages scientists that do take claims at face value and try to test them. Randi doesn't test claims, he debunks them. Can you see the difference?

As I said, this is a very deep rabbit hole, and not something that can be discussed in the few days this clip will stay active. Which is a shame; as this issue cuts to the core of how we got from the space age to the myspace age. I suggest to you that it's become very hard for a scientist in the academy to pursue _any_ idea outside of the mainstream thinking. It's career suicide. That was not always the case. But it is now.

Oscar, you can experiment in homosexuality any time you like.

I hope that I will never see or hear the phrase "Myspace Age" again

This is truth.