Because I have evidence on my side. That puts me in a nice position. You have a sad devotion to a fallen hero and nothing to offer accept innuendo.

No. This is why I don't care for pop science. An hypothesis doesn't "grow-up" and become a theory. An hypothesis is, put simply, a testable prediction. A theory, also in the simplest possible terms, is a predictive model.

And provided an example. You won't find any. (Not that a single example would make Randi's claims that the media were totally taken-in by his non-hoax any more fraudulent.)

Yes! I do! Mendham, Tim (1988) The Carlos Hoax, The Skeptic, 8(1)

Sure, a young foreign art student managed to do that all by himself, without any assistance from his infinitely more capable lover. Randi was blissfully ignorant. Let's just ignore the fact that Randi was well-aware of his true identity, knowingly employed an illegal immigrant under a false identity, and even lied to protect that identity (he even claimed to be worried about Pena's thick Bronx accent spoiling the "hoax") and, of course, to the US government on his I-9 form. Oh, and the fact that he admitted as much in court, stating that they didn't believe they were hurting anyone.

But sure, Randi was totally uninvolved, because he's a personal hero of yours.

Let's put reason and evidence first, shall we?

It would help, the second time, if you got it from a university.

So ... universally then. Glad you agree.

Well, he did all of those things. Did you miss it? It's well-publicized.

Your level of denial is astonishing.

I can't argue with people like you. You're beyond reason.

Let's try something different: On the issues at hand, where do you think society will ultimately end up? On which side of history do you want to find yourself?

I suspect that you won't want tell your grandchildren that you bravely denied the problem and fought against gender equality.

The lack of science. It's not exactly a big secret.

If it makes you feel more comfortable to believe that, go ahead. I don't argue with creationist either. I can't change their minds.

I have a different idea. How about we apply that same skepticism that Randi's fans believe they've mastered to Randi and his organization?

You won't like what you discover. It's no fun seeing a personal hero in the cold light of reality, but isn't it worth it, ultimately?

That would be an example of him actually accomplishing something. He's yet to do anything like that. See, his goal isn't to fight against fraudsters, it's to make himself wealthy.

No. Read it again. I'm saying that Randi fails because every one of his high-profile "debunking" efforts have been failures. You'll find not a single success among them.

Then again, it's possible that he doesn't actually care if his "efforts" are fruitful. He could just be putting on a show for his followers. He is a performer, after all.

No, it's not. Randi's goal with the "Carlos Hoax" was to show how credulous the media can be toward frauds like "Carlos". The media, as it happens, were universally skeptical of "Carlos" -- a fact that Randi ignores because it runs counter to the story he's trying to sell to his witless fans. Put simply, Randi flat-out lied about the media's response to "Carlos" to further his career. (I'm not surprised that he lied, considering the risks he took. Identity theft, passport fraud, the list goes on. Would you want all of that to be for nothing?)

So, yes, I think I'll stick to the opinions of actual scientists. I'll continue to give known liars and criminals the credulity they deserve.

I have. Randi's "history" doesn't impress me, particularly when so much of it is, well, less than trustworthy. The "Carlos Hoax" is a good example there, were he flat-out lied about the media response he actually got. (The "Carlos Hoax" was a failure. The media were obviously not "taken-in", yet that's exactly what Randi claimed happened.) Why would Randi lie about the results? Because he's a performer, not a scientist.

Further, his "debunking" efforts have had essentially zero impact on his targets. Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, Allison DuBois -- all completely unaffected by Randi's rambling. Even Peter Popoff, arguably one of his few actual successes, has been back for decades and is making millions every year.

Why people keep recommending that clown is beyond me.

Which didn't impact Gellar's career in any way what-so-ever. A bump like that is nothing to a showman. Just look at Randi himself. Remember that bit about identity theft, passport fraud, and a host of other related crimes? Did it affect his "business" in any way? Nope! He's still peddling his own brand of unscientific skepticism to his undereducated followers.

Let's leave research to actual researchers and keep the carnival freaks out of it.

Ugh, no thanks. I stick to the educated opinions of actual scientists, thanks.

Because not everyone wants to broadcast what they're writing. The silence is nice for the people around the user as well.

Have you ever been stuck around some yahoo talking way too loud on their mobile? It's irritating.

What is the distance between New York and Chicago in Kilograms?

Yeah, we know. They were also universally inadequate, if you'll recall. The most sophisticated approach to layout management from the bad old days was provided by Java, which no one in their right mind would defend. Visual Studio was even worse, and still is today. If you hadn't noticed, developers still have difficultly dealing with different display resolutions, particularly on mobile. (It's a common complaint.) Few applications even bother, as you can easily see for yourself by trying out a few on your desktop.

Yes, it can be solved for individual applications, and has been solved many times, but there has never been a simple general solution. Further, websites are not the same as applications so, even if your mythical solution existed, it isn't likely to be applicable.

Again, there isn't a simple solution because it's not a simple problem. If you believe otherwise, make your proposal. In the simplest terms: "Put-up or shut-up."