On Sally Morgan And The Issues With Testing Psychic Claimants (Are There Any?)

One of the unfortunate side-effects of Twitter is that you can get short, sharp, terse-sounding and inappropriate comments that are intended to be anything but. I’m certain Tim Minchin could talk about that quite easily, for example.

This doesn’t mean that the occasional intentional passive-aggressive statement is completely absent, which (as I’m certain we all know) can also be par for the course with online interactions. They tend to just exacerbate what could be, at its core, a simple misunderstanding or ignorance about the situation at hand. It also can end up dividing people who have a common goal, but different ways of seeing how that goal might be achieved. Might.

I’m a subscriber to Hayley Stevens’ blog Hayley Is A Ghost and I read and enjoyed her most recent entry on “Testing Psychic Claimant Sally Morgan. I enjoyed it because I quite like questioning blog-posts in general. I think skeptics should be willing to reassess and reflect upon their efforts, and I know I’m not alone in this; see the Token Skeptic podcast episode #18 ‘On The Placebo Protest, for example.

It’s one reason why there has been a general enthusiasm and greater emphasis over the years amongst many skeptics for measurable, goal-orientated activist strategies – which has resulted in resources like the Grassroots Skeptics “Skeptical Activism Campaign Manual” and the Daniel Loxton-edited “What Do I Do Next?: Leading Skeptics Discuss 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism” (with that link, you can listen to the Skepticality interview with Daniel as well).

In Hayley Stevens’ blog-post – which, as she admits, has been edited after further discussion with Professor Chris French about how Sally Morgan could work with the test designers to adapt the Million Dollar Challenge (or MDC) – she writes:

I personally don’t care if Sally Morgan does or does not agree to be tested, what I care about is the person paying to go to a show without knowing how to spot a cheat. I honestly believe this is where the biggest difference can be made. By arming people with information we’re not forcing our beliefs or opinions on others, but simply enabling them to think for themselves and if that’s the least we can do, then that’s marvelous.

Stevens, therefore, has a different focus in mind when it comes to dealing with psychic shows – which resulted in the earlier-released Project Barnum. Not, I hasten to say, that doing a Million Dollar Challenge couldn’t be done with educational resources on the side as well, complimenting the media attention that such a challenge could get. But that’s not happening in the case of the Halloween challenge of Sally Morgan.

I also really liked Derren Brown’s blog-entry, ‘Testing Psychics‘ - because he’s essentially saying the same things as Stevens. Particularly these parts:

I imagine Sally will decline the test, and people will draw their own conclusions. I can’t imagine this will make any difference to her fan base or indeed to her…  Most of you, as readers of this blog, will know all of this of course. Others won’t, and will just feel annoyance towards the scientists offering the test (‘Who the hell are you to test our Sally? Leave her alone, it’s nothing to do with you’). So it’s always worth saying why it’s really important to check carefully when these sorts of claims are being made.

 Brown also takes a little time during his blog-post to impart an educational link (very much in the spirit of what Stevens suggests doing):

They most likely are unaware of the self-working technique of Cold Reading which can allow anyone with little sense of morality to get up on stage and carry off a perfectly convincing psychic show. Here’s a page where you can learn how to be a fake psychic yourself – its one of the oldest businesses in the world. Add some benign, trustworthy charisma, a bit of ‘hot’ reading (where you have some information on your punters) and some decent PR,  and you have got yourself a world class show.

This is why it disappoints me that Australian blog-commentator Caroline wrote a few comments on Stevens’ blog-post – and then posted the following on Twitter directly after making some of those comments to Hayley (as noted by Hayley - one of Caroline’s comments on the blog appeared at 3.22pm and she Tweeted this at 3:29pm):

Cazbaah : @SLSingh You’re not damaging your credibility at all. Only a handful of self important pricks with massive egos, seem to have an issue ;).

Ouch. Helpful? No. Insulting? Yes. Is it about Hayley Stevens? Well, Caroline has claimed on Twitter that it’s in fact about Jon Donnis, another commentator who agreed with Hayley:

You have echoed many of the criticisms I have been aiming towards Singh and MSS!

- and then proceeded to insult both Stevens and myself as ‘freaking neurotic women’.

…little wonder I now automatically refer people to read resources like the blog-posts of Barbara Drescher. They are very helpful when it comes to over-enthusiastic but not very-well-informed people on what skepticism actually entails.

I’m not as well-versed, erudite, nor an expert in the field of Psychology like Drescher – but I have composed a (rather lengthy) response as to what I think is wrong with Caroline’s attitude towards both Stevens and Donnis (who, after all, agrees with Stevens).

As for ‘unhelpful’ – yes, I do think it is very unhelpful that Caroline makes these comments, because they are discouraging a meta-approach to skeptical activism. Particularly to Stevens and people like her (e.g: Derren Brown), who take a step back from the challenge and reflect on the likelihood of it being accepted or other strategies being employed – perhaps in conjunction or even as alternatives. They clearly do have issues with the Million Dollar Challenge, or at the very least raise questions about it being as useful as it could be for the general public. What to do?

Well, of course finding oneself drawn into a tit-for-tat Twitter interchange is even less helpful (although I found myself on the verge of doing just that,because it’s the Internet and everyone can be a jerk on the internet, even me) – and funnily enough, its the ‘You’re not being helpful‘ claim that is at the heart of this interchange.

Caroline doesn’t think that (despite admitting that she signed the Project Barnum petition) that Hayley is doing the right thing by questioning the Merseyside Skeptics’ call for Sally Morgan to

“…take an hour out of her lucrative theatre tour to conclusively demonstrate that the abilities she claims to possess are in fact real.”

This is in spite of the fact that it’s entirely possible that (as Derren Brown pithily puts it) Sally has better things to do on HalloweenDo rejections by the likes of Sally Morgan completely negate the point of the Challenge altogether?

If we look at the history of the JREF’s Million Dollar Challenge, it has indeed been withdrawn completely and then reinstated, because of initial concerns that it just wasn’t doing any good at all. As a media stunt, it has existed since 1968 and has attempted to draw the attention and be accepted by general claimants (which was altered in 2007 to be only high-media-profile and academically-backed claimants) and even discontinued on March 6, 2010 in order to free the money for other uses. It then evolved further:

In 2010 D. J. Grothe indicated his further plans to change and expand the Million Dollar Challenge, including making the application process more transparent, producing more live challenges, being more aggressive with the challenge in order to raise awareness about irresponsible pseudoscientific claims made by institutions, and the like.

On March 8, 2011, the JREF announced that qualifications were being altered to open the Challenge to more applicants… The JREF explained that these new rules would give people without media or academic documentation a way to be considered for testing, and would allow the JREF to use online video and social media to reach a wider audience. [Wikipedia]

Even if one isn’t in the USA, there’s a number of groups throughout the world who have their own equivalent ‘challenge’ of varying amounts. Therefore, this is an established, well-orchestrated and long-standing paranormal challenge that has been offered numerous times throughout it’s history… although with high-profile claimants, it hasn’t exactly been taken up with eagerness and even dismissed outright as some kind of a trick or fake by potential claimants and their fans (as Brown points out in his blog-post, attitudes of the ‘Who are you to ask this of our Sally? Leave her alone!’ kind).

When people have taken up the challenge, it’s always been something that is supported by skeptics, although the eventual outcomes (as no one has passed it yet) hasn’t always resulted in acceptance by the claimant - the Anita Ikonen final outcome after being tested at TAM8, for example.


So, what does Caroline have issues with, apart from persons (people?) who are ‘self important pricks with massive egos’? The following points are from Caroline’s questions on Stevens’ blog:

But if you read Simon’s Blog in full, you would have seen that he did call Sally herself and spoke to her management team via telephone, he did try several times to contact her in a more personal manner and Sally refuses to talk to anyone unless it is via her Lawyer. Therefore, what other way is there to get her attention?

Because at a certain point, it stops becoming ‘get their attention’ and could be regarded as ‘harassment‘.

How many of us have a certain modicum of sympathy for the public figures who end up on the front pages of gossip magazines and headlines, again and again and again? I look again at Brown’s post regarding Leave Our Sally Alone sentiments pervading regardless.

Just because a person is performing as a psychic, doesn’t mean in any way that they are exempt from having the same rights as anybody else – whichincludes the right to not reply or say ‘NO COMMENT’. That is possibly why Sally Morgan has her lawyers involved, which seems a fairly straightforward step to take. She is, after all, a public figure (whether you believe she’s a psychic or not) and it’s fairly standard to have one’s legal representatives take charge in these cases in order to avoid any potential trouble.

Yes, headlines can work in some cases in actually getting a claimant to step up – but they are in the minority of the history of the Million Dollar Challenge. Even Sylvia Browne’s very public 2001 claim on national television that she’d be willing to be tested by James Randi has gone well into the ‘not likely during this lifetime’ realm.

When headline-grabbing does work in terms of raising awareness (although not, I hasten to say, with a resulting Challenge acceptance on the part of Van Praagh!), it can be very entertaining as well. Let’s have a look at the case study provided by the James Randi Educational Foundation in regards to ‘getting the attention’ of another psychic, James Van Praagh.

This is most certainly an example of a funny, interesting and headline-grabbing attention-getter – but it’s also ethical in that it does not disrupt the show, is done outside and not inside the venue, they are obeying the local laws regarding protests… in fact, Daniel Loxton puts it far better than I do -“…agreeing in advance on rules of engagement, and designing that engagement to keep the protester on the moral high ground.”

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) brought a small horde of costumed ‘zombies,’ carrying signs reading “Van Praaaaaaagh” and “talk to us, we won’t bite.” The zombies shambled up to the building where Van Praagh’s “Spirit Circle” was set to begin, and asked to speak with him. Led by JREF President D.J. Grothe, the groups asks why Van Praagh is dodging questions about whether he’ll accept the Foundation’s million-dollar challenge to prove his claimed abilities. Apparently, Van Praagh won’t even talk to dead people about the JREF’s challenge.

Yes, headline-grabbing, much as the Sally Morgan case has been headline-grabbing – but not acceptance-getting. I do think that what the JREF did was a more creative spin on proposing a challenge, and it got me smiling. Although it doesn’t produce educational resources with this case either, I can’t help but think that yes, there is indeed a value to the MDC, even if it isn’t accepted. Not letting the MDC die out due to lack of publicity can be a skeptical activist’s goal.

What the JREF has done is not harassment. Not by their putting up a clock on their website as to the years that Sylvia Browne has failed to fulfil her acceptance of the challenge, nor by dressing up as zombies outside Van Praagh’s venue.

Does it negate Stevens and Brown saying that more could be done with more of an educational aspect, by producing resources in the case of the Sally Morgan? No. But then, arguably, that wasn’t the goal of this protest. That’s what activism needs to have – clearly defined goals and outcomes that are desired by the participants. Stevens and Brown just demonstrate a different opinion as to what the goal should include.

Caroline continues:

You are the second person who has criticised Simon that I have discussed this with tonight, I see plenty of the criticising going on but no one seems to be able to give any suggestions (besides your PB thing) on what else could be done to expose this woman/cretin.

Firstly - yes, they haveProducing links, resources, promoting education. It’s something that the James Randi Educational Foundation do as well. Of course, the use of the words ‘woman/cretin‘, is another example of ‘not exactly helpful’… Yes, we can be impassioned and we can be personally and financially hurt by psychic claimants.

I don’t know if Caroline is suggesting that the likes of the Merseyside Skeptics and / or Simon Singh should use words like ‘cretin‘ when discussing Sally Morgan, but considering recent history with the use of the words ‘bogus treatments that Caroline might not be aware of’, I’m inclined to think NOT.

Caroline concludes:

Instead of having a bitch about what you think sucks about the challenge, how about writing out a list of other ideas/suggestions of things that could be done to put a stop to Sally Morgan and others like her.

You came up with PB, I am sure you and Jon and others could put your heads together and since you’re such super skeptics, come up with some other plan that would have more of an impact while sending out your skepticism on a fluffy rainbow cloud.

…you want alternative plans? See here – Project Barnum.

…Or in the case of Jon Donnis’ work spanning over six years with the site Bad Psychics that was quoted not only in UK newspapers and TV, but in the media world wide? See evidence of that here.

Or in the case of previously linked to Grassroots Skeptics “Skeptical Activism Campaign Manual” and the Daniel Loxton-edited “What Do I Do Next?: Leading Skeptics Discuss 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism.”

[Here's a fluffy rainbow cloud as well, but I suspect you were being very serious when you wrote that.]

I think that there’s a veritible glut of ideas/suggestions that Caroline could have sought out, rather than making the comments she did on Twitter and Stevens’ blog-post. I hope she’s been educated by this blog-post on a little of the back-history of the MDC, the different ways it has been regarded over the years (even by the people who created it, such as wanting to end it and then re-instating it) – and how voicing a different opinion isn’t necessarily a negative or completely dismissive one.


It’s entirely possible that nobody, even Caroline, will read this lengthy blog-post to the end. It’s quite long, I know. :(

But if Caroline does? Ad Hom is short for argumentum ad hominem and it’s often regarded as a logical fallacy. It’s Latin, and means “to the man”. It’s where you attempt to negate the truth of a claim by attacking the person (their characteristics or their beliefs) than actually tackling the argument they’re making. Calling someone a ‘self-important prick with [a] massive ego‘, rather than addressing what they’re saying, is such an example.

Here’s an additional resource that I think you should check out. Because, Caroline, as a newcomer to skepticism, they’re very useful to know.


Photo Credit to Susan Gerbic, who contributed it to Wikipedia.

Because, Ultimately, Everything Wrong Is Due To Atheists From Divorced Families
AstroFest Perth (Video From Previous Years)
Australia And Friday 13th – A Skeptical Viewpoint
Behind The Scenes And At The Start Of Perth’s #FringeWorld
About Kylie Sturgess

Kylie Sturgess is a Philosophy teacher, media and psychology student, blogger at Patheos and podcaster at Token Skeptic. She has conducted over a hundred interviews including artists, scientists, politicians and activists, worldwide.
She’s the author of the ‘Curiouser and Curiouser‘ column at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry website and travels internationally lecturing on feminism, skepticism, and science.

  • http://www.badpsychics.com Jon Donnis

    Great post, and always nice to get a mention :D

  • Aliasalpha

    I happen to be a self-important prick with a massive ego and I’d LOVE to see a fair and impartial test once and for all provide evidence of a verifiable psychic.

    I’m also a realist though so I know we never will because they’re almost certainly all disgusting frauds callously exploiting the desperate inconsolable pain of the innocent for personal gain.

    I’m clearly not the impartial tester they require.

  • http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ Andy

    Seems @Cazbaah has been deleted completely. Either that or I really, truly don’t understand twitter.

  • Chez

    [Someone who hasn't read the blogpost]

  • Kylie Sturgess

    The original commentator contradicted themselves and their behaviour several times in both comments and emails – and have since demonstrated that they are moving on with their life. This blogpost will be left as it is, unedited.

    It remains in the spirit in which it was intended – to demonstrate the history of the Million Dollar Challenge and that questioning the Challenge and possible alternative ways to deal with psychics’ claims are always up for discussion.

  • Susan

    I saw some of the things that were being posted on Twitter and they were very unpleasant attacks on Hayley,Kylie and Jon. It’s good they’re not happening again.

    PT Barnum was right, except that some of them don’t care that they are being fleeced and will get angry if this fact is pointed out to them.

    The real worry is when the police take these shysters seriously, that is public time and money being wasted.

    It’s easier to fool a small number of people you know well than a large crowd of people you don’t. It’s got nothing to do with the money or your spiritual wish for a reckoning. The other difference between Sally and the amateurs is likely to be she isn’t deluded as much.

    I think Sally didn’t do the challenge because a) she’d know she’d fail and b) she’d get more than a million in small change by continuing the shows anyway.

    Education is a better way, but at least the challenge is good for a ‘money where mouth is’ quickshot to those who propose psychics are real

    • Kylie Sturgess

      A question as to how to educate the public still exists, however. In Australia we have the ‘Little Black Book of Scams’.

      It clearly says in that document:
      REMEMBER — Psychic and clairvoyant scams prey on your curiosity.
      CAUTION — Never send money or give credit card or online account details to anyone you do not know and trust. If the offer came in an email, do not respond to the email and do not try to unsubscribe. This will only
      confirm to the scammers that your email address is active.
      THINK — Take a step back and carefully consider any advice or suggestions given by someone who claims to be a psychic.
      INVESTIGATE — Examine whether there is any evidence to support the claims made by the psychic or clairvoyant.
      ASK YOURSELF — Am I putting myself and my family or friends at risk by acting on the random advice of a stranger?

      Consumer rights awareness classes happen world-wide, but there’s other elements in play that endorse belief in psychic claims.

  • skepticola

    QUOTING THE POST (I can’t make the html work)

    Is it about Hayley Stevens? ….it’s in fact about Jon Donnis, another commentator who agreed with Hayley:

    You have echoed many of the criticisms I have been aiming towards Singh and MSS!

    - and then proceeded to insult both Stevens and myself as ‘freaking neurotic women’.

    It’s obvious that the initial attack was about Jon Donnis (as you said), but to continue to insult Hayley and Kylie on Twitter as they did was wrong on their part.

    The topic is meant to focus on whether Hayley Stevens and Derren Brown were right in saying that the MDC was not as good as it could be and I agree to a certain extent but in terms of getting a regular Halloween challenge going, it was a classy start.

    • Kylie Sturgess

      I fixed it for you. Yes, my blogpost clearly says that the Twitter statement was said to refer to Jon Donnis only as being one of (plural?) the ‘self important pricks with massive egos, seem to have an issue’.
      I didn’t say that it referred to Hayley, only questioned whether it did. It did not. Other insults were made after. I’m done with that matter.

      I don’t think of Jon Donnis that way at all, by the way, as demonstrated at the end of the post where I outline how Jon Donnis ran the Bad Psychics website for many years (although apparently not six years? Maybe Jon Donnis could explain if that’s in error).

    • Kylie Sturgess

      Yes, I agree that having a challenge that will happen every Halloween is a good idea and certainly a good media-grabbing headliner. But I’d like to move on from this, as others have done.

  • Hellman

    Is the Project Barnum website going to have their own challenge?

  • http://www.badpsychics.com Jon Donnis

    I took over BadPsychics in 2005. I closed down the site in 2010. That maks 5 years, however I was also runnning the BadGhosts site, the BadHomeopathy site and the BadReligion site, as well as the ever popular BadPsychics forum which never closed down.

    I also worked behind the scenes on many other projects you will not know about, I am also the founder of Birmingham Skeptics in the Pub.

    Whether you class the work I did as 5 years, 6 years or 7 years I dont really care, the point is I took a tin pot site and turned it into the worlds largest and most comprehensive skeptical site looking at psychics/mediums.

    I helped Robert Lancaster when he first started his Stop Sylvia Browne site, I was a listed resource on Randi.org and was the first and only skeptical site listed on Derren Browns site (dunno if I am still listed or if he lists other sites now)

    The likes of Richard Wiseman would often come to me for help and advice with regards to psychics.

    My experiences of training to be a medium were also covered in a 7 page featured article in The Skeptic magazine! (Cough Matthew Smith copied me cough)

    I wrote for both the UK version of The Skeptic and the Australian version.

    I have helped behind the scenes protect many skeptics from legal action and advised many on what they can and cant do.

    Does all this make me a “self important pricks with massive ego”?

    Yes probably, but whatever people think of me, I kinda know what I am talking about.

    Oh and modesty is one of my greatest attributes!

  • chez

    Pathetic. A whole blog belittling someone who was simply expressing an opinion and defending the efforts of Challenge Sally. Nice. Someone else with a massive ego! I agree with poster Caroline, the focus should be on exposing people like Morgan. Any publicity generated by Simon Singh, JREF for Challenge Sally is a good thing, those who disagree are probably only jealous because they are not getting all the glory. Stop tip toeing around people like Morgan. We all know why she won’t take the test, but it doesn’t mean we should shut up about the whole thing for her sake. Challenge Sally was an attempt to put Sally under the spot light, and make her accountable. She has since tried to shift the burdon of proof, and made herself look even less credible. So I believe it has achieved something.
    Try putting your time and effort into writing blogs about ‘psychics’ who are exploiting the bereaved, instead of childish playground stunts like this one aimed at inexperienced newcomers. Looks like you made this entire blog to single someone out and make yourself look smart, and for no other purpose. Not cool.

    I notice you only publish the comments that are in your favour. (Fair and balanced reporting then?) So, for what it’s worth, I am submitting it again.

    • Kylie Sturgess

      “A whole blog belittling someone who was simply expressing an opinion and defending the efforts of Challenge Sally. Nice. Someone else with a massive ego! ”

      Once again, Chez – you haven’t read the blogpost. If you can indicate exactly where I’m ‘belittling’, I’m fine with that. Otherwise, you’re misrepresenting.

      “I agree with poster Caroline, the focus should be on exposing people like Morgan.”

      That’s your opinion and it’s clearly one that’s held by others. But some people would argue – and as demonstrated throughout the post – that education outreach is a more useful method to deploy with ‘unsinkable rubber ducks’ (you should look up what that means).
      Can you answer this – DEFINE exposed? Are you familiar with the case of Peter Popoff? How he continued to work after he was outed by James Randi?

      “Any publicity generated by Simon Singh, JREF for Challenge Sally is a good thing, those who disagree are probably only jealous because they are not getting all the glory.”

      You really need to rethink these ad hominem attacks – read the blog post all the way to the end. Glory is not the goal here. And if you are honestly saying that you’re not supportive of educating people as to how psychic claims work (have you read anything by Simon Singh on that matter?? Or even James Randi? Or Ben Goldacre, Alom Shaha… do you read anything by skeptics on this matter?) – then I think you should really start educating yourself on the various views.

      “Stop tip toeing around people like Morgan. We all know why she won’t take the test, but it doesn’t mean we should shut up about the whole thing for her sake. Challenge Sally was an attempt to put Sally under the spot light, and make her accountable. She has since tried to shift the burdon of proof, and made herself look even less credible. So I believe it has achieved something.”

      If you can demonstrate ANY example of how her credibility has dropped – can you show me the stats for her shows dropping? – then you have evidence of that. You do not.

      As for ‘tip-toeing’ – how does an entire website like Project Barnum in ANY way demonstrate that it is not trying to be dealt with? Have you read about the site?

      Here is a podcast interview with Hayley that you should listen to.
      – it is episode Seventy-Nine. Have you created as many resources?

      In fact – here’s the question that Caroline posed to Hayley and myself – I’m going to pose it to you too:
      Have you got any evidence whatsoever that you have created ANY resources that are of use in this situation whatsoever?
      Or are you ‘pot calling the kettle black?’
      Because at this point, all you have is opinions and attacks on fellow skeptics that are merely hindering the situation and wasting MY time by with your comments, let alone that of Hayley and Jon.

      Try putting your time and effort into writing blogs about ‘psychics’ who are exploiting the bereaved…

      You are ignorant of my work.

      I have written for a number of publications on a number of topics. I also have a blog since 2007:
      Psy-Quakes and Radio Skepticism! – INTERVIEW on statewide radio.
      Potential Psychic Claims Crackdown in UK! – Analysis in 2008 of legal situation.
      Women and Superstitions – Part One – Analysis of psychic belief tendencies, across several blog-posts.
      Bad Tricks Are For Kids… Variety Review Of Psychic Kids – Review of ‘Psychic Kids’
      Live-Blogging Series on ‘The One’, the nationally-syndicated psychic show – I wrote for about six weeks, analysing every episode.
      Psychics Harass Father Of Disappeared Claremont Girl – this is a case in my home town that I have reported on.
      ALSO – The Email Quandary – Psychics On Claremont Serial Killer

      Would you like to read my M.Ed, where I studied belief in the paranormal? Get it from the University of WA. Tell me, Cheryl – I’ve written since 2007 on this topic. Have you ever done as much?

      By the way – Caroline’s irrational ranting, where she suggested she would post pictures of me in a public place with a certain libelous word is not a good step to take. Calling someone the term she used is actionable. THAT is why her post is not publicly available, as she clearly did not think it through. She also did not read exactly what the post said and claimed that she did not insult Hayley and myself. She has since done worse. I want to let it drop.

      In terms of ‘Fair and Balanced Reporting’ – I suggest you think very strongly and very hard about what you say and how you say it in future – be an actual skeptic in this matter.
      Bring some evidence to the table before you start throwing around accusations. In terms of ‘belittling’ – pot calling kettle black.

  • http://www.badpsychics.com Jon Donnis

    Chez but this is what we want, we want people to expose psychics, but what Singh and MSS did was a publicity stunt that achieved very little, Now I dont attack MSS for the stunt because that is kinda what they do, its how they work, and I understand the need for them to try and raise their profile with stunts like this, What I am against is the fact Simon Singh went along with this.

    He is an intelligent science writer, and instead of investigating psychics he is partaking in silly stunts like this which do very little in the grand scheme of things.

    • Kylie Sturgess

      Jon – thank you again for bringing a balanced and fair look to the situation. It baffles me how people cannot see that a different opinion – to simply EDUCATE as well as act on psychic claims – is something that deserves calling you horrible things.

      • Kylie Sturgess

        I’m officially stating that I will not engage in email / blog comments on this topic again.