As I commented to some friends when Randi made his public “coming out” announcement, Randi’s sexuality has been well know to his friends, and his enemies, for decades. And Criswell could have predicted that it will be dragged all over like a red herring, just as the contents of the tape have been, by both his detractors and supporters.

And as Alcalde wrote “To be hypocritical he would need to have either claimed his magic tricks were really magic…” I agree. I suggest that you read the article.

The only relevance of Randi’s “coming out” would be if it contained deception itself. Randi has convinced people that “Randi was never really in the closet as an adult.” On his blog he said “At no time did I choose to adopt any protective coloration…” and further says in the audio interview that he has never pretended not to be gay, but just never made a statement as to whether he was his orientation was. Now if somewhere there is an article where Randi is going on about how he likes girls it would show that even his coming out is another of James Randi’s Deceptions (one of the alternate titles of the article).

Another thing that Criswell could have predicted is that people will criticize my article without ever reading it, so please, critique all you want, but read it first.

Tim Cridland

“I disagree with other posters who claim that Randi’s recent self-outing has no bearing on his alleged credentials as a scientist-skeptic. In fact, it starkly reveals his hypocrisy:”

There seems to be some curious uses of the word “hypocrisy” around here. James Randi challenged those who made unsubstantiated claims to prove them, and exposed people who were fleecing others out of their money by claiming to do things they couldn’t do (contact their dead love ones, useless health products, etc.) To be hypocritical he would need to have either claimed his magic tricks were really magic or otherwise conned people out of money by providing useless services. Whether he’s done those things or not, sexuality has nothing to do with that, so there’s no logical basis to claim a link between Randi’s sexuality and hypocrisy.

The rest of your post completely lost me as to how it demonstrated hypocrisy.

Now to the subject of his sexuality: people are using terms like “closet” and “double life” in regards to Randi. These terms don’t really apply here. It was no surprise to me when Randi announced his orientation. A newspaper article published several months ago openly identified a man helping Randi around at the Amazing Weekend convention (Randi, 82, is battling stomach cancer) as his partner. Others have stated that when Randi appeared to give talks at their events he attended with his partner and had no problems when people assumed that was their relationship. Randi has also stated that he was out to family and friends. He never created a fake relationship and has stated that the only beard he’s ever had was the one on his face (which he’ll sadly lose with the chemotherapy). Randi was never really in the closet as an adult.

Loren:

Given that the article is about “inconsistences”, and given what I know about Randi’s not really living in the closet, I’m not sure there’s really any link between the two.

“Considering how harsh he has been on others, one wonders how this all plays out in light of his sometimes extremely personal attacks on those he has critiqued, whom it would seem, he often called to task for not being forthright enough.”

I don’t see anyone who Randi tangled with could maintain with a straight face that Randi owed them the professional courtesy of being forthright about what goes on in his bedroom. As for how it’ll play out, I know something about how it played out *before* this announcement. A former cop became a target of Randi’s challenge after he began to lay claim to psychic powers and fleecing people. Now, according to Randi [I obviously don't know the truth of this] someone began to call him claiming to be a minor and trying to proposition him. In the past, Randi had been accused of being involved with some (much younger, though adult) magic apprentices, so there was always scuttlebut about Randi’s orientation, which might have been the prompting for this entrapment, if Randi’s version is correct. Randi claims he went to the police and was encouraged to lead the caller on and make recordings of the phone calls, which he did and gave the recordings to the police. The former cop somehow got ahold of these recordings and released them and accused Randi of being involved with minors. Considering Randi’s never been charged with anything although these tapes came out years ago and the likelihood the former cop got these tapes through legal connections, Randi’s explanation is probably the truer of the two. This was one reason Randi didn’t openly announce his orientation sooner – people were trying to entrap him or smear him because of it for many years previously.

Of course I am all in favour of separating the wheat from the chaff; in fact I do so myself continuously. If there’s a hoax, name it as such. But if there’s room for doubt; share it too. The truly Fortean perspective.

I have no particular viewpoints in regards to Randi, other than that to me as a researcher, he is not very important. I simply tend to gather my source materials from other quarters and occupy myself with other wonders. I do not need a Randi to educate me in the finer art of logical reasoning. At the same time, my intellectual horizon has room enough even for a Randi – even if this implies that a Geller might be there, too. He has his predilections; I have mine. As John Keel once wrote: Each Hendershot has his Hochstetter (Disneyland Of The Gods, IllumiNet Press).

But again, read Tim’s article and then discuss.

Sincere regards,

Theo

It’s about the need to live a double life because you embark in things that are taboo to the society you’re part of.

Since societies change and evolve, some of the taboos disappear, while others remain.

I can’t help thinking about the scientist that haven’t come out of the closet, you know? the ones who have a genuine deep interest in such taboo subjects like UFOs, Bigfoot or life after death; but that, sadly, struggle to keep this interest hidden and separate from their professional careers, lest they get attacked and publicly ridiculed by… well, Randi and his colleagues :-/

I do applaud Mr. Randi’s contribution to proper skeptical analysis. At some point, however, it clearly (and regrettably) crossed the line to become obsession. Such devolution might be a further suggestion that the true object of his outrage was elsewhere.

I said that the TA article written, which I assume Kittenz has not read yet, is intriguing to read in light of his own outing. It contains a good comparable analysis of “the inconsistencies” in Randi’s own renderings of his bio.

I understand this is an emotional issue, but I was not “insinuating” anything. For Kittenz to leap to some assumptions about Randi’s motives for why he did anything, as Kittenz has done, is not surprising. But, again, that was not what I was commenting about; I was only talking about reading the new TA article in light of Randi’s own new news.