Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation

Yellow Bamboo
I've tried to improve the YB section which is completely unreferenced as a criticism anyway. The JREF source explains fairly well that this 'test' was never going to be accepted as it was never supposed to be an initial test since the JREF had already severed ties with the YB group before the test was carried out. Someone else independently volunteered to go and do a test, but no evidence is presented that the YB group was informed either by the JREF or by the volunteer this would be an initial test accepted by the JREF. In any case, there were multiple flaws in the exectuion of the 'test' which the JREF also pointed out which meant even if it was an initial test, it was never going to be accepted as it would have violated any agreement (of which there was none). Of note, contrary to what the article claimed, there is no video of the incident simply a set of stills Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. We are all part of a secret CIA conspiracy led by the Jooooooooooooos! for the expressed purpose of withholding information about the supernatural. We can't believe that wikipedia caught on to our conspiracy so fact. Incidentally Wikipedia will now be bought out be Fox News in an attempt to protect the super ultra conspiracy from the basement dwellers at wikipedia. (Omega Alpha Agent #01006674; Code name: Super Soaker 16.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.212.96 (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A Winner?
I subscribe to this mailing list for magicians, and there was a post in today's list from Seth Raphael, saying that he has won the challenge by proving his computer was psychic in front of a large crowd in Boston MA. He also provides a link but I can't see the video, so I cannot see how valid this is. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fool
It's an April Fool - http://affect.media.mit.edu/milliondollarchallenge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.17.103 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

People who took part in the challenge
I think the article should include some examples of the people who took the challenge rather than those who refused. Such as the upcoming test with Colin A. Ross, M.D. Feerzeey (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A few of these are in the section "Exploring psychic powers television show". But there are more in his books, and perhaps I can add an example.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a write-up to be added later today. Bubba73 (talk), 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Derek Ogilvieaccepted the challenge and failed on a British television programme called 'Extraordinary People: The Million Dollar Psychic'. A good source on this is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollisit (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aditional verification
As an April Fool's prank on April 1, 2008 at the MIT Media Lab Seth Raphael and James Randi performed a demonstration of Seth Raphael's psychic abilities which was awarded the prize-is this true? I think that we need some aditional references. --Vojvodaeist 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is true, I read about it at the time. Should be able to google it, but I have to leave in about 3 minutes.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont understand is foundation still running?--Vojvodaeist 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it just announced a new president yesterday. Bubba73 (talk), 12:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jsut more one think who is Seth Raphael?--Vojvodaeist 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MIT Media Specialist. Bubba73 (talk), 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template
I'd like to propose a template for the million dollar prize. (ideally with a snappy graphic... ) It would be nice to have a block of text to add to various paranormal topics across wikipedia noting that if anyone were to actually demonstrate this ability or phenomenon it would eligible for the prize.

Something along the lines of :

This would allow an editor to easily and consistantly tag the various paranormal pages with information about the challenge. Maybe the image is a bit big... :-) Thoughts? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've userfied that template rather than just speedy-deleting the original as CSD-G8 (talk-page of a page that doesn't exist). DMacks (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasnt sure it was appropriate to host something to be added to pages on my personal pages.Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If/when there's consensus to use it on actual articles, it would go in the Template: namespace (not "Talk:[whatever] template"). User-space is perfectly fine for not-ready-for-real-use and other experimentation and ideas. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * May not be a problem anyhow, in one trial its going over like a lead balloon. Thus template mk2 
 * Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific testing of psychics in 1932
I have a hobby of adding citations from the Google Books Popular Science scanned magazine archive into Wikipedia, and I have found an article from May 1932 about a similarly highly scientific testing of psychics that was done by a scientist who is now apparently unknown. I am trying to determine if this material should be worked into this one somehow or if it should be spun off as a separate article of its own.

''Spirit Fakers... Trapped by Black Light'' - Popular Science, May 1932, Pages 18-19

Click here to read this article: http://books.google.com/books?id=1ScDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&source=gbs_toc_pages_r&cad=0_1#PPA18,M1

From the article:
 * It was to investigate the methods of these "wonder" workers that Dr. Christopher Schroeder, noted German psychologist and naturalist, recently established one of the strangest laboratories in the world. In this "Institute of Metaphysical Research" mediums are invited to demonstrate their powers before an imposing array of scientific instruments. Usually Dr. Schroeder makes no attempt to conceal it. Only the boldest of fraudulent mediums are willing to exhibit their skill in this laboratory.

This seems very important as a historical context to the modern work that JREF has done. DMahalko (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in category Pseudoscience?
Why this article James Randi Educational Foundation is listed in "Category:Pseudoscience"?

In that category should be listed only articles which are pseudocience, not articles about pseudoscience: "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)", see also PSCI. Doubting thomas (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you prove that Category:Pseudoscience should not include "articles about pseudoscience" ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.86.63 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

History about being incorporated in Deleware not needed
I'm removing the paragraph with all the details about being incorporated in Delaware while being located in Florida. Being incorporated in Delaware is very common for corporations and so it isn't notable at all.

We certainly don't need a long paragraph about it. For historical purposes here's the paragraph: On November 7, 1997 The JREF officially registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations as a foreign nonprofit corporation and was granted a certificate of authority to operate within the state.[3] As a legal entity, the Foundation is referred to as a nonprofit Delaware domestic corporation and in Florida where it has its principal office, it is called a nonprofit foreign corporation (the term describes either out-of-state or out-of-the-country corporations operating in Florida). While the JREF's Delaware corporate entity address is 980 air miles north of its principal office in Fort Lauderdale,[4] the Foundation is still bound by Florida's corporate laws as if it were a domestic Florida corporation (Florida Statute 607.1505).[5] However, being a foreign corporation in Florida means that the State of Florida cannot legally regulate the organization or internal affairs of the JREF and the Foundation is able to take advantage of Delaware's more protective corporate laws.[6][7] The full legal name of the Foundation is "The James Randi Educational Foundation, Inc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Million dollar challenge being tested right now
Connie Sonne, a dowser from Denmark, will be attempting to win the million dollars:


 * Streaming video link

Brangifer (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, she failed the test. Not a single one of the three cards she chose was right.  Brangifer (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really?! Shocking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.254.221 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Challenges taken?
How many attempts have been made to win the prize? The JREF FAQ states 650 in 1964-82 and 360 in 1997-2007. Is there a list of names somewhere? Hexmaster (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

PL WE NEED THIS PEGE AN ARABIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.201 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

controversy
There is part missing called controversy. Particularly where Rupert Sheldrake is calling James Randi a liar.

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

Rupert Sheldrake calls Randi a liar and explains why: 49:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4tops (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Has his accusation been reported in any reliable sources? If lots of newspapers had reported significantly on it it might be worth including, but Sheldrake saying something on his own website is not very notable. If we included all such accusations things would get ridiculous. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

fraud
I applied to the jref 1 million dollar challenge after james randi had asked me, then when I did, I noticed my copyrights were in other peoples names, and now jref deny ever having heard of me, all mail was done through netscape mail in 2003 and some other from 2005/6, I have all copys(including source to verify it all.) I think it would help the article greatly if people knew that jref are fraudulent foundation. If Steven J. Anderson doesn't like this in the talk section and keeps removing it i will move it into the main article and include "ALL E-MAILS" to verify jref's dealings with me, and this is as relevant to this discussion article as all the other articles in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try this approach. Your claims are nothing but unsupported anecdotes, and they have no place here or in the article. If you have a reliable source that backs up these claims, then by all means, share that source here. Otherwise, please refrain from using this talk page as your own personal forum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. Thank you. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well considering I am the source as the e-mails were from them to me,and I have all the copys, there is no better source than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No more unsourced claims please. See the verifiability policy: you cannot add your claims about your own experiences to any article. This is not the place to complain about an organization. I strongly recommend to other editors that this section be removed if any further unverified claims are made here since this is not a forum to make allegations. Your emails are not a source: see reliable sources for what is accepted here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I am prepared to post the original e-mails from jref(including the source code) in the discussion page to provide fectual evidence of these e-mails, would that be alright as I am the person who jref had sent these e-mails to? You can call me a liar if you like, but I will only then send them to you, and ask you to remove that comment anyway.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Personal emails are not compliant with the verifiability policy. We do not call people liars here – there is no suggestion of that, and it is not relevant. The fact is the Internet is a very big place and there are a lot of emails and other material that people could present in order to add text to an article. In order to maintain an encyclopedic approach, the policy no original research prevents the chaos of people adding their own research. In short, if there is no reliable source, the material must not be added. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Uh, no, you don't seem to be getting it, fella. Your private e-mail correspondence with the JREF is not a reliable source, even if it says what you claim it does; and you're not going to flood this talk page or the article with that stuff. Wikipedia has a policy called undue weight and another called verifiability that make that clear. In a nutshell, an encyclopedia article on an organization cannot include every petty squabble someone has had with that organization, particularly if the squabble is so insignificant that it's never been mentioned by any reliable source. Additionally, your e-mails fail the verifiability test because, as unpublished, private correspondence, it's impossible for another editor to visit a library or an archive or look on the internet to determine that they actually say what you claim they do. I won't delete this again because it looks like you're finally, finally saying something relevant to the subject of how the article should read. Nevertheless, it's obvious that the material you'd like to include utterly fails Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for several reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right,even though there are comments on jrefs talk page about the challenge and others, when I asked jref in facebook if I had ever made a claim to enter the challenge and james/jref deny it, and I am the one who applied and have all e-mails of this event, and this is a little more than just a petty squabble, more like criminal defamation and fraud, i'm not allowed to have a say about it, even though I am the one who put in my claims and have had this happen to me. I'm not a verifiable source as there isn't going to be articles on it in any news paper because it is unsourced information i am not allowed to include it in the article which is about it(The challenge)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Don't bother trying to look for it in facebook either, my account has been disabled and facebook tell me: - Our systems indicated that your account may not be authentic based on a variety of factors. If you believe you were disabled by mistake, please reply to this email with a scanned image or digital picture of a government-issued ID (e.g., driver’s license, passport, etc.) and make sure the following information is clear:

- Full name - Date of birth - Photo I don't know why? There is only 1 Pierre harkild in the world anyway and who will they match the photo up with anyway to find out that it's me??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that you still haven't read Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources based on your statements above. Please do so. At the very least, please stop posting the same thing on this talk page over and over without bothering to read the relevant policies that several people have now pointed out to you. You are simply using this space as your own personal soapbox for unsupported, negative claims about this organization, and that is not acceptable. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 02:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add this. Are you allowed to have a say about it? Yes, but not here. Please go to blogspot and follow the instructions for starting a blog. Once you've done that, you can yammer on idiotically to your heart's delight without interference from anyone. However this is an encyclopedia, not a no-holds-barred forum for all and sundry to air their complaints. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No I have read it, and I understand. I Will go get those reliable sources now then, will be back in a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.4.183 (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a better idea for you, 121.209.4.183: go to the media. If you really have super powers and JREF rejected your candidacy and then denied having done so, this will be the scoop of the millennium. Dan ☺ 10:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

some publicized cases
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41742269#41742269 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY745NxZwsY

It happens that both are from Serbia. :)

So why doesn't JR call these guys into his competition? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

another one from Taiwan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdbNFvDL8SU 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not how the prize works. The claimant has to apply to the JREF - if you reckon those people really have supernatural powers, by all means contact them and urge them to apply. In any case, this isn't the forum for this discussion.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted material
Unless I'm misinterpreting the diff, this edit removed all of the material about a dowsing test. What was the reason for this? The edit summary reads "Merged material pertinent to history; removed redundancies and unsourced material per WP:V/WP:NOR; removed dated wording like "has announced" per WP:DATED; etc." The material was perfectly well cited, so I don't understand the rationale for removing it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for Million Dollar Challenge
What do you think of the idea of moving the text on the Million Dollar Challenge to its own separate article? A few arguments for: It takes up a lot of the JREF article so would make the article cleaner and more focused; it would make information on the Million Dollar Challenge easier to find (it currently does not "google" well); it would make a Challenge criticism section easier to add, where adding it to the JREF page might make the page way too skewed on Challenge material. Some arguments against: would it look like an "advertisement" for the challenge if on its own page? Would it divorce too much focus from the JREF page? Rjmail (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly moved it. I think this makes sense: it seems to me the public is much more likely to be searching for info on the million dollar challenge then on the JREF, and so this helps make the challenge info more clear and accessible, rather than buried within the JREF article. It also cleans up the JREF article so you can see more information it, rather than a whole lot of challenge info.

In the process, I also moved the material on Jame's Randi's appearance on "Exploring psychic powers television show" to his own wikipedia article. It really didn't seem to apply to the JREF (since it happened years before the JREF existed), and didn't seem to belong on the challenge page quite either. Rjmail (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the situation on JREF?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobilehttp://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.198.176 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please verify my rollback
Could someone please double check the rollback I just did here? It was a completely unsourced piece of text that seemed like original research to me. But I clicked quickly from my watchlist after looking at the diff, and then realized I have a potential conflict of interest here. Trying to stay strictly within the rules. Krelnik (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been an unsourced addition editorializing aspects of the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. Rollback was appropriate. The editor had included a URL pointing to a blog about the topic, but the sourcing was unclear and not WP:RS for that content. Nmillerche (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar soapboxing has recently been added and removed at James Randi. It is fine to remove stuff like that, but do not use rollback as that is strictly for WP:VAND. An undo with edit summary "unsourced commentary" is good for that kind of text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll be more careful in the future. Krelnik (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Carson
Randi's claim that Johnny gave him big bucks should be confirmed by Carson's estate, or deleted.
 * Using the IRS 990 forms filed by the John W. Carson Foundation over at GuideStar, there is evidence they gave JREF a $50,000 unrestricted grant in both 2012 (page 55 of 75) and in 2011  (page 54 of 66). As a Research Fellow for JREF I have a COI here so I can't add it. Those PDF links might require logging in at Guidestar. Krelnik (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The text reads: Randi says Johnny Carson was a major sponsor, giving several six-figure donations.[7]


 * Carson died in 2005. Please correct or delete. PS.  You might show how this is relevant.  I believe there is a Wiki policy about celebrity endorsements, or you could invent one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.151.239 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because Randi said it. The John W. Carson Foundation is where the bulk of Johnny Carson's estate resides, they give out millions in charity each year. It is colloquially equivalent to say "Johnny Carson gave me money" and "Johnny Carson's charitable foundation gave me money." Drawing a distinction between the two is needlessly pedantic. Celebrities on the level of Johnny Carson do all their charitable donations through legal entities like this. Krelnik (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See the charge of fraud, above. Randi and his say-so is no more a proper source than me and my say-so.  It needs to be sourced from an acceptable third party and it needs to be relevant to the page.  Carson did not give this money, Carson is dead.  Carson did not bequeath money to Randi in his will, or Randi would have said so.  Carson's executor has done this, for reasons of his own.


 * Searching around the net, I find Carson's charity donates primarily to
 * Children/youth, services
 * Family services
 * Human services
 * Reproductive health, family planning
 * Youth development


 * Found here.
 * Here is a proper attribution to the Carson Foundation, by a children's hospital. On the face of it, a donation to an advocacy group of Randi's sort smells.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.151.239 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It might "smell" by your estimation, but I provided you with two official IRS documents that show the John W. Carson foundation has given the James Randi Educational Foundation 6 figures in donations in the last two years for which reporting is available. It is reasonable to assume that earlier donations might exist as well. Your claim that the foundation is giving money to JREF without any prior authorization by Carson himself is pure speculation. Krelnik (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just FYI for those looking in, the above IP editor was determined to be a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and was itself blocked from editing for a week. Krelnik (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

delete photo of building
Please delete the photo of the building and the reference to "former headquarters". The JREF has not been in that building for three years. Its mention is irrelevant and Randi would like it removed.

I'd do it but I have a conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrefstaff (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Is info on Randi's income from a primary source allowable?
A sentence was added a few months ago withing a block of edits by User:Crustypie in a block of edits on June 8 - "In 2012, Randi's JREF salary was reported as $243,750, and Grothe's was reported as $95,000." The source is JREF's organizational tax return from 2012. While it fleshes out a statement included earlier and sourced to SF Weekly, in the past, primary sources info taken from public documents were flat out prohibited. However, it seems that the rules on WP:PRIMARY have changed somewhat, and primary sources are not in themselves prohibited. However, this still could very likely be in violation of WP:BLP.

I'd like to get some second opinions before removing it, or have an someone who's clearer on policy remove it, if in fact it violates these rules or is otherwise deemed irrelevant. The article is getting attention at the moment because of a recent shakeup at JREF, and I'd rather not have it turn into an edit war. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC
 * Here from the RFC notification bot. It is WP:PRIMARY but not WP:BLPPRIMARY imo as it is talking about the organization and is not directly stating Randi's income (as he has income from other sources such as books and speaking fees etc). Its borderline, and certainly subject to editorial judgement, but I do not think there is a policy mandating removal. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW an interesting addition can be found by comparing his compensation from the JREF over the years. For the years I've seen quoted (2011-2013), it appears to equal 15% of the previous years total revenue. Rjmail (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm here via the RfC bot. Favorper removal WP:BLPPRIMARY, which applies to all articles, not just BLPs. SF Weekly is an alternative weekly and cannot be considered a reliable secondary source for a BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with alternative weeklies? I would consider them reliable.  The Village Voice is an alternative weekly, and I can't imagine anyone would call that unreliable.  Not sure about a primary source, though.  If it augments a secondary source, that makes it more useful, though.  If someone wants to say that it's undue to include, that would be a legitimate argument.  I suppose that makes me neutral on the matter of a primary source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's WP:BLPPRIMARY. Further compensation isn't the same as salary I would have thought, since compensation would be salary + travel expenses etc. Second Quantization (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In favor of removal WP:BLPPRIMARY, applies to all articles. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

JREF general changes
So many unknowns are happening now with the JREF, I think we need to take another look at this page. What's going on with the fellows? Do they even exist? Who is president? Who is running the challenge? It appears that there will still be a TAM (at least this year) but moving forward what is happening. Obviously this page should reflect the history of the organization, I'm hoping for opinions of how to handle the current situation. Sgerbic (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on James Randi Educational Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141204161145/http://www.randi.org/jr/carson.html to http://www.randi.org/jr/carson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Updates
The last time this page has been updated seems to be prior to 2015. Randi passed away in October of 2020 so the fate/status of this organization needs to be updated Narwhil (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)