July 29, 2005   Here are some options we have. We can change fonts as well as other formatting things. Personally, I like blocking as is seen in the last example. BEEN THERE & DUNNE THAT (With Geneva) The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here (see www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html#6 and www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#10 for examples) and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Rod began the exchange: On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says "...yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly sigcreases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly sigcreases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." These statements are incorrect. If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation. Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize. Note that the prize is described by Brenda as, “putative.” She apparently has some doubts about the existence of the prize, which could be quickly banished if she would write, call, e-mail, or fax the JREF, after which she would quickly receive documentary proof of the prize. But Brenda doesn’t want to know that; she prefers to continue to be safely ignorant, casting doubt on the validity of the prize – and thus on the JREF – from her Ivory Tower in Princeton . And, as we’ve informed her, the claims made by her lab are most certainly of a paranormal nature, though she may prefer another more comfortable description. The term “paranormal,” Brenda, refers to “events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation.” The “ statistically repeatable” and “highly significant deviations from chance expectations” reported by PEAR and “ attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator,” are most decidedly “paranormal” – by definition. BEEN THERE & DUNNE THAT (With Times New Roman) The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here (see www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html#6 and www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#10 for examples) and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Rod began the exchange: On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says "...yet the experimental results display increases in information ases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectcontent that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." These statements are incorrect. If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation. Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize. Note that the prize is described by Brenda as, “putative.” She apparently has some doubts about the existence of the prize, which could be quickly banished if she would write, call, e-mail, or fax the JREF, after which she would quickly receive documentary proof of the prize. But Brenda doesn’t want to know that; she prefers to continue to be safely ignorant, casting doubt on the validity of the prize – and thus on the JREF – from her Ivory Tower in Princeton . And, as we’ve informed her, the claims made by her lab are most certainly of a paranormal nature, though she may prefer another more comfortable description. The term “paranormal,” Brenda, refers to “events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation.” The “ statistically repeatable” and “highly significant deviations from chance expectations” reported by PEAR and “ attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator,” are most decidedly “paranormal” – by definition. BEEN THERE & DUNNE THAT (With Verdana) The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here (see www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html#6 and www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#10 for examples) and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Rod began the exchange: On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says "...yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of lay increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highlylay increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highlythe consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." These statements are incorrect. If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation. Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize. Note that the prize is described by Brenda as, “putative.” She apparently has some doubts about the existence of the prize, which could be quickly banished if she would write, call, e-mail, or fax the JREF, after which she would quickly receive documentary proof of the prize. But Brenda doesn’t want to know that; she prefers to continue to be safely ignorant, casting doubt on the validity of the prize – and thus on the JREF – from her Ivory Tower in Princeton . And, as we’ve informed her, the claims made by her lab are most certainly of a paranormal nature, though she may prefer another more comfortable description. The term “paranormal,” Brenda, refers to “events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation.” The “ statistically repeatable” and “highly significant deviations from chance expectations” reported by PEAR and “ attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator,” are most decidedly “paranormal” – by definition. BEEN THERE & DUNNE THAT (With Comic Sans) The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here (see www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html#6 and www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#10 for examples) and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Rod began the exchange: On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says "...yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." play increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." play increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." These statements are incorrect. If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation. Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not claiming the JREF prize. Note that the prize is described by Brenda as, “putative.” She apparently has some doubts about the existence of the prize, which could be quickly banished if she would write, call, e-mail, or fax the JREF, after which she would quickly receive documentary proof of the prize. But Brenda doesn’t want to know that; she prefers to continue to be safely ignorant, casting doubt on the validity of the prize – and thus on the JREF – from her Ivory Tower in Princeton . And, as we’ve informed her, the claims made by her lab are most certainly of a paranormal nature, though she may prefer another more comfortable description. The term “paranormal,” Brenda, refers to “events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation.” The “ statistically repeatable” and “highly significant deviations from chance expectations” reported by PEAR and “ attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator,” are most decidedly “paranormal” – by definition. BEEN THERE & DUNNE THAT (With blocking, Times New Roman, and dark gray font color) The Unsinkable Brenda Dunne has been discussed here (see www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html#6 and www.randi.org/jr/061705like.html#10 for examples) and she has now exchanged a few missiles with reader Rod Bruce. The results are informative indeed. Rod began the exchange: On http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html it says "...yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations."the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations."the consciousness of the human operator" and "...they are statistically repeatable and compound to highly significant deviations from chance expectations." These statements are incorrect. If they were correct then you would be eligible for $US1 million dollars from the JREF foundation. Please feel free to provide poor excuses for not laiming the JREF prize. Note that the prize is described by Brenda as, “putative.” She apparently has some doubts about the existence of the prize, which could be quickly banished if she would write, call, e-mail, or fax the JREF, after which she would quickly receive documentary proof of the prize. But Brenda doesn’t want to know that; she prefers to continue to be safely ignorant, casting doubt on the validity of the prize – and thus on the JREF – from her Ivory Tower in Princeton . And, as we’ve informed her, the claims made by her lab are most certainly of a paranormal nature, though she may prefer another more comfortable description. The term “paranormal,” Brenda, refers to “events or perceptions occurring without scientific explanation.” The “ statistically repeatable” and “highly significant deviations from chance expectations” reported by PEAR and “ attributed to the influence of the consciousness of the human operator,” are most decidedly “paranormal” – by definition. View the Commentary archive.

Want more? View all of Randi's Opinions by visiting the archive. Click here. Help support the JREF through donations, grants, gifts and memberships. Click here to learn more. Subscribe to Randi's email "Info List." For details, send an empty email message to JREFInfo-help@ssr.com

Home | Commentary | Lectures | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | Swift | Library | Donations | Contact | Internet Audio Show Join Now | Books & Videos for Sale | About the JREF | Randi's Calendar | Scholarships and Awards | Learning Resources | Press Center © 2005 James Randi Educational Foundation Web Design and Maintenance provided by Flying Chimp Media.