Art Wholeflaffer wrote, or quoted:
[...]

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):  This trick
consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard
of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going
to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear
exactly what the standards are in the first place.  This can be
especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from
noticing that he is continually changing his standard of
evidence.  That way, his opponent will eventually give up in
exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent
complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Skeptic:  I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will
only show me some sound evidence.

Opponent:  There are many thousands of documented reports of
incidents that seem to involve psi.

S:  That is only anecdotal evidence.  You must give me laboratory
evidence.

0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced
results which favor the psi hypothesis.

S:  Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and
Z.

To clear things up, a critical requirement for laboratory
experiments is reproducibility. That doesn't mean that more
than one believer says they got it work; it means that
anyone who sets up the same experiment and draws from the
same population should get the same effect, subject to the
margin of error and statistical chances of random deviation.

There is publication called "The Journal of Irreproducible
Results". It's a parody, a joke, because scientists know
that irreproducible lab results are worthless.

Reproducibility is not some bar skeptics have invented for
PSI results. It is, has been, and will continue to be the
standard for laboratory experiments. What's really happening
in Parapsychology is believers plead for a lowering of the
bar, because they've failed to find a single reproducible
demonstration that any paranormal phenomena exist at all.