James Randi is 'totally' unimportant in the scale of things. His challenge is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. It is not up to Randi or his like to test anyone. He is a magician, an illusionist and that is all the Randi challenge is AN ILLUSION!

Dear Gary,
That's excellent. If all are provable and can be replicated, then you should be a millionaire in no time. I'm sure Randi would love to hear from you. And good luck.

Dear Josh, sorry kept calling you john. My gifts if I may call them that are all proveable and can be replicated over and over again, which is what science asks for. I have said my piece and with great justification. Everyone who has dealt with these people or looked them up on the web and read about them knows what they are all about and it isn't trying to prove the existence of the sixth sense etc. I think the conversation is very much like ones I have had before with sceptics a time wasting exercise and being as I am very busy we shall leave it at that! Thank you for your comments they are much appreciated.

Dear Gary,
As you have so gracefully admitted, your observations are drawn anecdotally, and therefore do not constitute a valid argument. Opinions are fine, but making claims and statements that are not factually evidenced only betrays a lack of understanding and discriminate grudge against those who would question your ideology. Your strawman arguments against sceptics are a waste of time - like I implored previously, understand the position you are deciding to attack, or don't do it, lest you reveal underlying ignorances that would only deter people from taking your articles seriously.
And again, as evidently it was ambiguous beforehand, "It is not a question of "belief"; it is certainly not a question of whether Sceptics believe something to be true or not. The only belief Sceptics have is in evidence and the value of scientific inquiry, both of which have suggested, to stick to the same topic, that ESP has not been proven to exist yet."
Thank you.

Dear John,

I do not need your sympathy but thanks anyway. When all is said and done what could be more nonsensical than sceptics spending their whole life investigating something which as a sceptic they don't believe even exists! You do not need a scientific or academic brain to work out how stupid that is!

My findings are based on my own experiences and no one else. I comment on what I understand and what I know to be true. My comments on the sceptics are based solely on my understanding of them and my findings. I don't need anyone's sympathy but thanks all the same. If sceptics cannot understand that there are 'unexplainable' things in this life that cannot be measured in a test tube or with Zena cards that's their problem. I personally think the well known sceptics like Randi, Wiseman, French etc are a complete waste of space but that is my opinion and I stick by that. Have a good day!

Dear Gary,
Unfortunately, those who are unable to distinguish between observations that have a scientific basis of support, and those that are pure ideology and have not one inkling of evidence, are what we call in the rational realm of thinking a 'True Believers'. In which case you have my sympathy. Amidst the logical fallacies of your argument and lack of any critical thought, I implore you to not speak out against the sceptical movement unless you have a decent argument on which to stand on.
Thank you.

Dear John, thank you for your long and detailed response. I believe that the paranormal DOESN'T exist as its all perfectly normal. Everyone knows what a sham the sceptic profession is what more can I say. I could never change my mind about the reality I know because you cannot change truth. Have a good day.

Dear Gary Allen,
I find it incredibly hard to conceive, and would like to ask, how you have arrived at the conclusion that those sceptical of paranormal claims, of whom investigate it thoroughly and performed "years worth of 'paranormal' research", would not actually want to find any results? That is almost analogous to the Cancer Research funds spending great amounts of resources purely for not wanting to discover a remedy! In fact the opposite of what you have said is true; they work endlessly to investigate paranormal claims and would wholly endorse them if they were proven under suitable testing conditions (of which every single case for claimed ESP has failed so far).
On the topic of Randi's Million-Dollar Challenge, I would like again ask how you came to evaluate his direct contest with every prospective psychic who enters as a charade? Assuming you've researched the case and know the J-Ref and each participant co-operate to agree to a set of standards before they initiate their test, to ensure there is experimental validity, and therefore, able to draw implications from findings. How is there any element of deception present in that? There is not charade to the public; the fact contestants agree to the set of rules and acknowledge the conditions that they will be tested under, surely demonstrates otherwise? We "never seem to find evidence" because no contestant never seems to authenticate any claim they profess. That ball is unfortunately in the "Knowers" park.

Both your comments that James Randi has no scientific qualifications (not that he has ever claimed any), but also that he is unimportant are clearly ad hominem attacks; if you want construct a concise and critical argument, why resort to what would be deemed sly and childish tactics?

And to answer your question to Sceptics "if you believe that there is no such thing as the 'paranormal' (I believe its all natural) just what is it you are investigating?" I would answer and ask you to rephrase that question appropriately. It is not a question of "belief"; it is certainly not a question of whether Sceptics believe something to be true or not. The only belief Sceptics have is in evidence and the value of scientific inquiry, both of which have suggested, to stick to the same topic, that ESP has not been proven to exist yet.

Similarly in your following question "why has it taken some of you a lifetime of researching and finding nothing, as evidence is in abundance?", I would simply ask you to point to this evidence. A well-controlled, double-blinded study that demonstrates a significant effect or implication to paranormal claims would be preferable.

Oh, and the listing of "Many famous artists, poets, writers, philosophers, politicians and even scientists like Einstein believed in the occult (hidden) and with very good reason, they were Knowers!", explicitly displays the argument from popularity (despite not actually listing names), and specifically with Einstein, the subset of that, the argument from authority. I'm sorry to ask, but again please clarify your evidence for this "hidden" occult association Einstein supposedly has. If a thousand people with a range of academic abilities claim something for example, would that automatically make it true? Would you believe it without even considering why?

I think the question for you, Mr Allen, is what would it take for you to not believe in paranormality? Or to think otherwise about your current deductions?

These guys are often funded, sometimes out of the public purse and if they have no intention of finding the truth the question is should they get any funding?