June 10, 2005

Smug Conviction, Yet More "Intelligent Design" Flapdoodle, Smooth Talkers, Those Artifacts on Mars, Put This In Your Yin-Yang, Dunne Well Done, Generation Gap, I'm Scolded, Half-Fermented Science, The Henning Letter Recovered, and Is LifeWave Lying?

Table of Contents:


Reader Christian J. Burnham sends us to a transcript that tells of an episode of "Seeking Justice" on CNN at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html and he comments:

Just in case you haven't already been informed about this. It's truly unbelievable, even by CNN standards. It was on last night, Monday, May 30th. Here's the closing comment from the host of the program, Nancy Grace, just to give a flavor of how CNN are fulfilling their journalistic duties:

GRACE: Okay. You know what? If you don't believe the psychic detectives, if you don't believe these veteran criminal investigators, homicide investigators, and now a forensic pathologist that believe psychic detectives can help in criminal cases, I give up. I rest my case tonight. I'm Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight. Thank you to all of my guests. Aren't they fantastic? Thank you for being with us tonight and inviting us into your homes.

Reader Garrison Hilliard alerted me to this show, which CNN had advertised using the phrases "Why you should have a clairvoyant investigating your crime" and "How psychic detectives solve murders." Seemed a little presumptive, to me. Before the conclusion above given by Ms. Grace, we find in the transcript this statement from her:

...when we come back, we're going to Janis Amatuzio. She is a forensic pathologist, believe it or not, a scientist who believes in psychics.

With bated breath, we awaited the proof of this, but after the break, all we got from Dr. Amatuzio was:

I think we don't always know everything yet. I think it's really important for us to keep an open mind. I always say to my investigators, "Make observations, not judgments." There's so many stories, there's so many cases that have been discussed, I think that sometimes we have to take the information, trust it and confirm it, as the attorney said earlier today.... It's true. You know, Albert Einstein wrote, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." And he made some of the greatest discoveries on earth. So I think it's really important for us to keep that open mind.

I sincerely hope that Ms. Amatuzio is more careful with her professional duties than she is with this sort of "reasoning." First, it's obvious even to me that we "don't ... know everything yet." She's saying that because there are "so many stories," some of them must be true. Hans Christian Andersen wrote hundreds of fairy stories; does that mean that some of them are therefore true? She does the expected, dragging out Einstein and partially quoting him out of context as if he proved her point. What he actually said was:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.

He was not referring to spooks, psychic notions, or ESP. A reference to keeping an "open mind" is another refuge of apologists for the woo-woo world that fails to warn about also having a hole in one's head.... And, come to think of it, just where is her confirmation that she "believes in psychics," as Nancy promised us?

Incredibly, Ms. Grace seems unaware of the JREF prize — which has always been available to Ms. Grace herself and to all these "police" psychics" — as well as to "veteran criminal investigators, homicide investigators," and to any "forensic pathologist" — who might care to snap it up! How could it be that she didn't know? I hope that my readers will inform the uninformed Nancy Grace about this bonanza....! http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5c.html?24 will do it.


The fuss we caused over the Smithsonian Institution showing "The Privileged Planet," a film from the Discovery Institute [D.I.] — an agency promoting the creationist cause — has resulted in what the JREF regards as a satisfactory compromise arrived at by the Smithsonian, who were in any case legally committed to honor their contract to show the film at their Baird Auditorium. They formally agreed to do so while stating clearly that they did not endorse the notion of "Intelligent Design" [I.D.] and that they had withdrawn their implied co-sponsorship of the event; they also refused to accept the $16,000 donation from the D.I. that had been given in order to gain the use of the facility.

At http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44599 you will see that World Net Daily [WND] outlines the basics of this matter. In their article, WND opines that the campaign we launched from the JREF "may have backfired," a view with which we strongly differ. Consider: In response to strong public and media criticism for having allowed the D.I. to use their premises and thereby gain a perceived validation by the Institution, Smithsonian Director Cristián Samper promptly and correctly resolved the situation as well as could have been expected. Now, any support or validation that the D.I. may have hoped to gain from the Smithsonian has been denied them, a firm statement of the continued dedication of the Smithsonian to science and rationality has been issued, and the D.I. is now going to show their film to a limited invitation-only audience who will be largely in that camp already.

Many readers have sent me copies of statements of congratulation that they sent to Dr. Semper, much to my delight. A Director who responds appropriately to a difficult situation should receive proper acknowledgement, and I believe that such a problem will not again arise within the glorious organization that benefactor James Smithson created to promote "the increase and diffusion of knowledge." Kudos to the Institution.

Jonathan Witt, a co-writer of the script for "The Privileged Planet" and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science & Culture — described as a Discovery Institute "program" — commented on this turn of events involving the premiere of his film, providing us with an example of the clever means by which words are turned into missiles directed at reason and facts. He pointed out that the Smithsonian Institution had sponsored "Cosmos Revisited: A Series Presented in the Memory of Carl Sagan" in 1997, and that the famous and effective "Cosmos" series has as an opening statement by Carl:

The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.

Mr. Witt accuses the Smithsonian of "promoting this little philosophical flourish" and alleges that they are now "explicitly stating that not only do they privilege Sagan's materialist metaphysic, they will block any scientific argument that suggests a contrary conclusion." This is just not so; Sagan's TV series adhered carefully to scientific principles and procedures, no sort of "metaphysic" was involved, and the Smithsonian is not "blocking any scientific argument" giving "a contrary conclusion," in any way. The I.D. notion is just that, but it's not science. Look back at that opening statement by Carl, and decide whether or not he was excluding anything in his definition of the word, "cosmos." He was not, while the creationists limit their closed universe to only those matters covered in the Bible. Webster's Dictionary says that "cosmos" means

The world or universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious system.

And, as confirmation, and just so we aren't accused of choosing a preferred version or "promoting a philosophical flourish," the Oxford English Dictionary says it's

The world or universe as an ordered and harmonious system.

The meaning given above by Carl Sagan — "all that is, or ever was, or ever will be" — is much more comprehensive and all-inclusive than even these broad dictionary statements — which the creationists do not, and cannot, accept. Carl's treatment would include any deities, UFOs, miracles, or magic — everything that we could ever imagine or postulate, and the Cosmos series handled those possibilities, too. When no adequate evidence was available to establish an idea, Cosmos labeled it as not proven; that's what we call science, and science says clearly that religious claims are unproven. Religion, according to Webster's, is:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Note that it is a "set of beliefs," not a "set of discovered facts, or findings, or rules" — which is what science is. Religion is a set of preferred, blind, beliefs, accepted without evidence to back up those beliefs.

We might look a little further into what else Dr. Sagan said in introducing the Cosmos series:

In the last few millennia, we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the cosmos and our place within it....I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos....[this series] is a story about us, how we achieved our present understanding of the cosmos, how the cosmos has shaped our evolution and our culture, and what our fate may be.

Those are strong words that gently warn us about what our failure to learn and develop may cost us; the creationists would have us stop where we are and retreat back into the Dark Ages. Carl held aloft a light that we must not allow to be extinguished. In "The Demon-Haunted World," he wrote:

The candle flame gutters.
Its little pool of light trembles.
Darkness gathers.
The demons begin to stir.

That darkness is now at our feet.


Fundamentalist Christians are charming folks. One — typical among more than 50 who ranted about my recent articles on the Smithsonian matter — closed his savage message with this:

The satisfaction of knowing you will burn in hell, for eternity, never fails to bring a smile to my face.

I'll bet that hearing about the tsunami and the thousands of non-Christians who died by it, really turned you on, eh? Every heathen child who dies is a chuckle for you. Hatred seems very important to you, and you apply it to those who try to get you thinking, I see. As for my going to Hell — capitalized, because it's a proper name of a mythological place! — gee, I'm really scared....

Several of these messages closed with the fatuous assertion that the writer knows that he/she's right — because it's "in The Book." I don't have that easy way out.


Reader Dan Pallotta informs us:

The "artifacts" in the images of Hale Crater that J. P. Skipper examines so thoroughly are indeed "artifacts." They are known as "compression artifacts," generated by the JPEG [Joint Photographic Experts Group] compression algorithm. The patterns most certainly do not exist in Hale Crater. They exist only in the photographs, and then only because what is known as "lossy compression" has been applied. A discussion of it can be found here at www.apogeephoto.com/oct2000/killing_artifacts.shtml and www.webstyleguide.com/graphics/jpegs.html. The patterns "discovered" by Mr. Skipper can be produced in any digital photograph. If you'll take a close look at this next photograph, you may detect similar evidence of alien civilizations lurking just about everywhere.... www.randi.org/images/gallery/RANDI1.jpg


Reader Johan P. Bakker, Plymouth, Michigan, offered us a translation from the Dutch "Biostabil" ad we ran last week, from which we excerpt:

The revolving pendant has the yin-yang symbol on each face and will automatically assume the correct position against the body. Order Biostabil now for yourself or as a gift for someone you love.

Mr. Bakker and I are puzzled as to how this miraculous pendant senses its correct orientation — and this is of course a perfect claim about the device that can be easily tested for the JREF million-dollar prize; strangely enough, we've searched through our files and are unable to find any application concerning the Biostabil pendant. How can that be explained?


Reader Ron Holmstrom exchanged correspondence with the PEAR lab following my entry at www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#7. He asked Brenda Dunne why she would not agree to the JREF challenge, and she responded:

We appreciate your interest and concern, but we are not in the business of trying to convince disbelievers and skeptics about the existence of "paranormal phenomena," but are simply trying to understand what these anomalies are telling us about the inconsistencies in our current understanding of consciousness and reality. If people who admire Mr. Randi regard us as "delusional con artists," so be it. There are others who might question the intellectual astuteness of those who regard the word of a man who's business card reads "professional charlatan" as the source of scientific authority.

First of all, that's "whose" — not "who's" — and that business card came from the 50's when I was a practicing — professional — magician. The desperation of these folks is showing, once more. You have to understand that people like Dunne who are so plainly threatened by my "put up or shut up" tactics must resort to quoting canards and out-of-context phrases, inventing opinions and statements that I never had nor ever made, and knocking down attributes that I never claimed for myself. For example, as Ron points out, far from assuming the position of "a source of scientific authority," as she claims, I have consistently pointed out that I speak from no such position. Of course, Dunne has the firm delusion that anyone who is without a formal academic preparation cannot exhibit any wisdom; I dare to ask her to produce her own credentials, which are clearly lacking. She defines herself as a "generalist," which appears to me to lack specificity....

It's amusing — yet sad — to see Dunne persisting in the tired statement that she has no interest in "trying to convince disbelievers and skeptics about the existence of 'paranormal' phenomena," as if that's what we are demanding; we have made it perfectly clear to her that no such difficult task is called for. Belief has nothing to do with reality, though that seems to be a difficult fact for her to grasp. Note, too, her reluctance to even use the word "paranormal," as if she sees the PEAR work to be far beyond that rather discredited notion and terminology, and wishes to disassociate herself from the flakier population of the parapsychology milieu. Even more telling is her firm assumption that there are "anomalies" that demonstrate "inconsistencies" that she claims PEAR has shown — by tiny statistical edges that persist only when the very special observing conditions imposed by PEAR are adhered to. This is wishful thinking, another specialty of this lab and its dedicated illusionists.

Holmstrom then asked her:

If your intentions are, "simply trying to understand what these anomalies are telling us about the inconsistencies in our current understanding of consciousness and reality," I cannot imagine why you would not submit your studies to JREF.

You may resort to questioning Mr. Randi's "intellectual astuteness," as you put it, but I am certain that we both may agree that without your willingness to try to prove your case in such a qualified study, the JREF money will remain safe in the account, no?

Yes, Randi may present himself as a "professional charlatan," (he is a professional magician, for cat's sake!) but never does he put himself forward as a "source of scientific authority," as you say. He simply leaves such authority to his many fans and supporters in the scientific community, which are, of course, legion.

In closing, please do yourself and your supporters a great service and take part in the JREF challenge. I am guessing that you may not be a great fan of the scientific method, but don't you think this would be a great way to make your case?

Dunne was obviously not inspired to accept as Holmstrom advised.

The bottom line here is that the PEAR lab will not allow independent investigators in unless they agree to follow the strange and suspicious guidelines that the lab has adopted — rules assuring that new data will not only be unpublished, but will be assimilated and swallowed into their huge database, thus concealing any unwanted significance that might otherwise be exhibited. And PEAR will not — because they dare not — participate in a JREF examination with the million-dollar prize offered, a procedure designed, monitored, and supervised by persons outside PEAR and approved by PEAR. Needless to say, I would not be part of that group, by my own decision, should it ever be assembled — which will never happen so long as PEAR is ruled by Dunne.

Brenda J. Dunne runs a closed fiefdom known as the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab. She's in charge, she has the only key, and she's locked the door.

As a casual observation here, compare the "We appreciate your interest..." paragraph at the beginning of this item, above, with this one, another response made by Dunne to a similar inquiry from a reader named Birch:

We appreciate your interest, but must repeat that we are not in the business of trying to convince disbelievers and skeptics about the existence of "paranormal" phenomena." We are simply trying to understand what these anomalies may be telling us about inconsistencies in our current understanding of consciousness and reality. The results of our studies are available for anyone who wants to draw their own conclusions based on the empirical data. Those who prefer to defer to the authority of a non-scientist whose business card reads "professional charlatan" are entitled to accept his guidance instead. But we are too busy to divert our professional resources to charlatan games.

Sounds like she has no other tune to play, though "who's" has now become "whose." In his letter to Dunne, Mr. Birch had asked her:

[Ms. Dunne] says, "effects...manifest as statistical deviations from chance behavior only over the course of extensive repetitions that require major investments of time, effort, and financial resources." however, your website has a picture and caption of Loch Ness you say was remotely viewed that would seem to sit squarely within the Randi challenge.

Surely after 25 years of work you have something to show for your efforts better than Ms. Dunne's "data...from which they may make their own interpretations and conclusions."

No, Mr. Birch, apparently that's the very best they can do....

To close off this boring drama, here is Dunne's parting shot to Ron Holmstrom:

I'm sorry to disappoint you and other supporters of our work, but we really cannot afford a major digression from our research agenda to argue over the next several years about designing a protocol that will satisfy Randi and the rest of the community of skeptics/debunkers. Contrary to your assumption, I am too great a fan of the scientific method to prostitute it by such games. We have no desire to try to convince anyone of our point of view, and Randi and his friends are welcome to theirs.

Brenda, your phrase "the next several years" indicates that you'd have a tough time coming up with a protocol to test your claims — I certainly could manage that in about two hours, and I'm a mere unlettered peasant, as you've pointed out so eloquently and frequently. As you well know — I hope — you're under no obligation to "satisfy" me of anything, nor am I seeking to be convinced of your "point of view." I think that your major problem lies in that misapprehension: you have a "point of view" that says these mysterious forces exist. I, on the other hand, have no point of view that has convinced me that the forces do not exist. I am willing to be shown, one way or the other, and you, Brenda, are not willing to show....

Ms. Dunne, I'm also disturbed that you label the very serious JREF offer as "games." That, I believe, establishes your total misunderstanding of a true, scientifically sound, properly monitored approach to examining evidence — all the more reason that you should accept our offer.... I should also inform you that the scientific method is hardly "prostituted" by being questioned, though that notion appears to be your great fear — and your defense. I'll add that the prize in this "game" is rather more substantial than in most games, but you seem able to ignore that....


An anonymous reader tells me:

Keep up the good work. I am currently trying to catch up on all of your commentaries. They are very enlightening. I myself fell for the magnet belt and ear candle nonsense. My father is a very scientific man (aerospace engineer) and you would not believe how much Gary Null brand homeopathic nonsense he owns and takes religiously. You should see him play tennis; he looks like a medieval knight, with magnets on his knees, elbows, ankles and back. I wish I were kidding, he needs an intervention.


Reader S. Cooley from North Carolina admonishes us:

I want to say that I enjoy your commentaries every week, and I have learned a lot from you about the wide range of quackery and pseudoscience that is out there today. I wanted to take a moment to speak about why I have become such an ardent, loudmouthed skeptic over the past year, especially pertaining to medical quackery.

In your May 6th commentary, you said:

Here's a site at which you can enter in an ailment and receive — free! — a homeopathic suggestion for relief! Have some fun at www.abchomeopathy.com by entering in your problems. I entered in "doubt" as my symptom, and I was informed that a dilution of Agnus castus would relieve — in their words — "doubt that something exists" and/or "doubt about self-existence." I'm not troubled by that latter one, but I have serious doubts about the existence of homeopathy. I'm sure you don't doubt that I doubt that...

By the way, Agnus castus is a flowering weed that homeopathy says is supposed to bring about the opposite effect of Viagra. Go figure....

This can be an amusing site, but please take a moment to view their discussion forum (www.abchomeopathy.com/forums.php). The accepted norm there is to shun real medicine at all cost, and they have many times encouraged people to ignore serious illnesses, such as gangrene and even diabetes. In one thread (www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/12612/) a woman had a 7-month-old daughter who was very sick and vomiting, and she wouldn't take the child to see a doctor for 6 days!

I am a lonely voice of reason on that forum, trying to keep the demonization of real medicine down, but lately I've felt it futile and have barely posted at all. But these people need a voice of reason, and without me there, they have no one. Of course, they should know better than to get health advice on a public discussion forum, but the reality of this situation is that for whatever reason, they just don't. And so I repeat to them over and over again, ad nauseam, "See a doctor."

It's fun to point fingers and laugh at the people who buy into this stupid quackery sometimes, but I hope none of us, as active skeptics, ever forget why we are active skeptics. It is to help those who have fallen for the lies and deceit of quack medicine and pseudoscience.

Well, Mr. Cooley, I of course agree, but I try to take from all this nonsense any crumb of humor that I can extract. Also, my experience has been that believers in quackery can seldom if ever be disabused of their folly. They are perfect — and willing — victims of the vultures who feed on them. Still, we try....


Reader Kyle Young in Calgary, Canada, gets a taste of wine "science":

I've been reading your commentaries for some time now and find them a source of constant amusement. Looking back through your archives I was surprised to find that no one had offered up Summerhill Winery as a chuckle of the week. See www.summerhill.bc.ca/.

Last year I took a tour of the estate where I was asked to hold hands to feel the mystic energy of the pyramid they age the wine in. I should note that while they don't allow any electricity or metal in the pyramid, lest it somehow alter the alignment of the energy with true north, the new-age tour guides seem to miss the part where fork-lifts and machinery move the wine in and out of the pyramid, to say nothing of the metal nails that hold the crates together....


I promised last week to give you the text of the last letter Doug Henning sent to me. It had shown up on eBay for sale, while I hadn't even known it wasn't safe in my files. I managed to have the sale stopped, and it's been returned to me.

Doug was on Broadway doing the "Merlin" musical, a very expensive production with Chita Rivera as a lead. It was magnificent, but I'll discuss all that another time. The critics just weren't ready for this style of show, I think, and they generally bombed on it. I felt I'd like to cheer Doug a bit, and I wrote him to the effect:

Little did I know, when a skinny 14-year-old kid wrote me from Winnipeg asking for my autograph, that some day I would sit in a darkened theater on Broadway and be thrilled by his talent and enthusiasm....

The letter that follows was his response to my note to him.

Though I wrote Doug several times after I received this letter, everything I sent him was returned; I later discovered that he'd been instructed by the Transcendental Meditation movement that he could only correspond or mix with persons who were "in" the TM cult. How sad.

Here's what he wrote:

March 5/83

Dear Randi,

When I was feeling low; poor attendance, snowstorm, critics ambush, bad reviews, etc, I looked up on my dressing room wall next to the mirror and read how my show had thrilled one of the world's top magicians, you. This glowing praise kept me going many a night. In fact I cried when I first read your letter, it was such a joy to feel appreciated in this hub bub of negativity called New York. Thank you for your kind words and support. I also couldn't believe all the nice things you said on that late-night show a few days ago. Thank you.

Things have settled down here, with the reviews all but forgotten and good enthusiastic houses. We are looking for a good long run. I heard your special with Uri Geller was "Great," hope to see a video tape of it.

Oops, overture is almost over & I have to run!

Watch for a new "lighter than air" series of illusions based on a completely new principle, that I'll be showing soon.

Thanks again & take care.

All the best in wonder & joy,


I think you can understand why I made such a fuss over that letter getting out of my possession and onto eBay....


Another victory for the JREF! I'll close this week by referring you back to www.randi.org/jr/052705a.html#5, where I mentioned Dr. Meyya Meyyappan, Director and Senior Scientist of the Center for Nanotechnology at NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field. I'd notified the doctor that his name and NASA's reputation were being used to indicate that they endorsed the quack "LifeWave Patches" product at www.fflmarketing.com/go/arf/coaches.htm under the heading, "An Intro to the LifeWave Patches, Software for the Human Body that increases Sports and Performance Naturally!!!" Dr. Meyyappan was out of the USA when I sent him e-mail and telephone messages, but immediately on his return he called me to inform me of his shock and anger at this effrontery.

This misleading blurb was published by Alvin Ferguson of the "FFL Marketing Team." His opening to the list of "endorsements" was, "Welcome to this brief overview of a new technology that is rapidly spreading through the sports and performance industry." What followed was what appeared to be an effusive validation of the "new technology" of LifeWave by NASA through Dr. Meyyappan.

Dr. Meyyappan wrote me:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have given hundreds of talks all over the world on nanotechnology and I may very well have said something to this effect about NANOTECHNOLOGY, but not about any product, as most of us in the scientific community believe that nanotechnology will have an impact across the entire economic spectrum.

But I don't know what this company is about, or their product. They did not call me, or talk to me, or ask me for a quote, nor did they ask for permission to use my name in any of their promotions. It is clever of them to take something out of context, slap my name on it and try to get a boost for their product by associating a quote to their product. A quick reading of their website, as anyone who has even just a little scientific background will tell you, indicates what nonsense it is. NASA attorneys will immediately take action and stop this.

Once again, thanks for bringing it to my attention and also working to stop this kind of nonsense from deceiving the public.

And that's not all, folks! "Max Cogito" sent us an e-mail informing us of further glitches in the LifeWave scam that would indicate to me their shortened life expectancy. It's hard to believe that in the face of such reverses, they could survive for long. Read what was revealed to us via the WWSN [World Wide Scam Network]:

Part of performing serious and professional due diligence includes validating and verifying professional relationships that are used to establish credibility for a new company with a revolutionary new product such as the LifeWave patch. Since most of LifeWave's credibility is predicated on the results of what they claim to be "Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Studies" at both Troy University and Morehouse College, it is necessary and appropriate to contact both of these prestigious institutions regarding their participation in this important research.

And so we did. You may or may not be surprised by what they told us. A representative of Morehouse College, in Atlanta, Georgia, informed of the use of their name by LifeWave as endorsers. He wrote:

I called Lifewave but did not receive a call. I will be getting a cease and desist letter immediately.

Doug Patterson, Senior Vice Chancellor for Administration at Troy University, Montgomery, Alabama, informed of similar use of the good name of his school, wrote:

We have no relationship with Lifewave and have done no research for Lifewave. Our attorney has notified them to cease all references to Troy University or we will pursue legal action. Coach Shaughnessy does not represent LifeWave on behalf of Troy University.

WWSN also corresponded with Dr. Stephen R. Norris at the Human Performance Laboratory at the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary. Dr. Norris says that he was approached by Lifewave and he wrote:

I work within the Human Performance Laboratory (Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary) and have been approached by people associated with this [LifeWave] product no doubt so as to be a conduit to the Canadian National Team athletes of the various Winter Olympic Sports based out of this institution (and the main training centre on campus, the Canadian Sport Centre Calgary). I, of course, asked to see independent peer-reviewed studies for verification of the claims made. To date, NONE have been forthcoming.

We don't make this stuff up, friends. We have original correspondence from recognized and named authorities at each institution. Somebody is being less than truthful with the public. You should be able to figure out who that is on your own.

In response to questions posed to them, LifeWave responded:

You have presented your questions very clearly and in a fair manner. I also respect the unbiased spirit in which your questions are asked. Others I spoke to also felt you were being fair and cordial.

No response was ever received. Comments WWSN:

The questions haven't changed — we just ain't getting any more answers. Don't you wonder why?

You can see the WWSN inquiry at: http://worldwidescam.com/20qlw.htm, where you should go for up-to-date news on current scams....

This was a good week, folks....!