Which valid points? Its overarching point is that Randi was contemptuous of people who spent their time "studying" ESP, precognition, and other nonsense, with a few attempts to smear him with spurious comparisons to McCarthy. Of course James Randi was contemptuous of those people, and of course they hated him for it. But that doesn't make merit a vulgar character assassination a week after his death.

Plus, the article does precisely what you have just asked me not to do: it attacks the man and his character without making the slightest argument as to why he was wrong to dismiss ESP and occult research.

> He was to skepticism what Senator Joseph McCarthy was to anticommunism — a showman, a bully, and, ultimately, the very thing he claimed to fight against: a fraud.

I find it perverse that someone who makes a living touting the power of positive thinking to reshape reality and make you rich believes he speaks for the "real skeptics". It's tendentious nonsense from the first word to the last.

> It seems to be well written

It is well written or it isn't. What's with the "seems" business?

> contains some valid points.

Does it? Then why did you fail to mention a single one in your comment?

Why does it matter how well-written it is? Shouldn't it just matter if the points are valid or not?