Venom,
I think it is necessary to step back a bit here. Some experimental cheats exist in every area, for example:
Jan Hendrik Schön - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strangely enough, even though he was found to have cheated in some of his organic semiconductor work, some of his other papers are now thought to contain genuine results. Even Mendel is now thought to have cheated in some of his genetics experiments, because some of the results are too perfect. Obviously cheating is highly undesirable, but it should be put into context.
Clearly, if you need to take possible cheating into account, very little cutting edge science can be considered valid - only stuff like acid+base=salt+water (OK, I exaggerate a little), that has been repeated endless times can be considered safe.
Given that this is the case, it is easy to take an area such as parapsychology that doesn't fit with certain assumptions that you hold dear (purely physical universe), and discredit it.
Whether your assumptions are right or wrong, can't you see that simply labelling all your intellectual opponents as either cheats of gullible, doesn't take the argument much further!
One solution would be to rule the evidence of psychics as too suspect to use, but there is a danger of doing this with one type of of potential ψ-phenomena after another, pushing parapsychology into utterly sterile card guessing experiments and then losing the effects. A genuine sceptic should be concerned to test the phenomena that are reported - not just to try to eliminate them from consideration.
Maybe Alex should choose a good psychic using his current method, and get him to cold read a number of subjects - each of whom would have been primed to give away as little as possible. Then the question would be if a group of spouses could sort out the readings (in written form) and attach the right name to each reading.
David