Will Sylvia Browne ever be brought down?

If Jimmy Swaggart and Robert Tilton can recover from their respective humiliations and still have hordes of followers, Sylvia is probably safe.
 
negativ said:
If Jimmy Swaggart and Robert Tilton can recover from their respective humiliations and still have hordes of followers, Sylvia is probably safe.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. After seeing Popov recover from his downfall--he seems to make more money than ever now--I don't think Sylvia can be totally taken down.

However, Robert and JREF can help individuals and bring thinking skills to the some--we can trim Sylvia's claws back a bit. Perhaps in a millenia or so, we can get rid of all the woos. Have to start somewhere.

glenn
 
alfaniner said:
Well, July is typically a "sweeps" month. So either new shows are going to be shown or they will repeat some immensely popular ones.
Click to expand...

This is good. They show repeats and Sylvia gets less money and other rewards from the show.

It is not just a matter of can you bring down Sylvia? It is a matter of will anyone replace her? The answer to that question is no.

It is very slow progress. However measured over decades the shift in belief on woo matters is visible.
 
If you are serious about claiming 'fraud', I suggest you alert the proper law enforcement agency.
 
RSLancastr said:
I think she means well, and I think she has helped many people.

But I also think that she has harmed many people by promoting psychics and things such as "The Secret."
Click to expand...

Oprah seemed more than willing to take James Frey to task for lying about his book after she promoted said book. I'd like to see Oprah do the same for any psychics she has promoted.
 
Thank you very much, Robert. It means alot to me.

That's exactly the trouble: it's easy to find a lot of very interesting things about Sylvia Browne but other tan SSB, there's no outlet for them. At least not where her fans as well as skeptics and anyone else who happens to be interested can see it. You were right when you said that there's a void of anti-Sylvia material on the Internet.

There's so much I've found out about her I'd like to be able to share, from that suspect claim about winning an award from George W. Bush to how much time Montel allows himself for editing to the mountain of cold cases she has to her credit to the instances where she surpasses herself in rudeness and insensitvity. If I had the technical know how and the time, I'd start a Sylvia blog. StopSylvia 2 (as long as your lawyer didn't have anything to say about that, of course :) ).
 
HMMM The SSB website is doing a great job, but I think this is going to be one of those cases where she retires before she's stoped :yikes:

Before she is obviously proven to be a fraud, she will probably be on Montell saying "after all my successes, I've decided to retire..."

Hah ! Now that's psychic !
 
Agreed. But it will happen this year. And earlier than what she planned. What makes it so good is that there will be no psychic to replace her.
 
I think the extremely silly and nitpicky 'Does Sylvia Browne Smoke?' article will do the trick.

LOL! Talk about organized skepticism missing the mark by about a mile.
 
T'ai Chi said:
I think the extremely silly and nitpicky 'Does Sylvia Browne Smoke?' article will do the trick.

LOL! Talk about organized skepticism missing the mark by about a mile.
Click to expand...

The smoking article has importance because it is one more step in challenging her credibility. The woman is pathological. She's the kind of person who would lie about the present weather if she thought she could get away with it. She told several versions of her smoking status, and it is important to show people that she lies about EVERYTHING.

The SSB site is full of many examples of Sylvia being wrong in her readings. Addressing the fact that she lies about silly and mundane matters covers another angle of her dishonesty. A complete picture is being painted by covering different aspects, and that is a good thing.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
The smoking article has importance because it is one more step in challenging her credibility.
Click to expand...

To summarize this silly article:

1980's: "A correspondent to this site who wishes to remain nameless..", which is not admissable even in pseudoskeptic work, says Browne smoked in the 80s. and early 90s.

1990: Book by Browne and coauthor says in regards to Sylvia: "Smoking, an addiction she has conquered"

1998, ashtray on her desk, circumstantial evidence

1998 story, says Browne was smoking

2002, Browne: ..., we [entire family] don't smoke.

2005, Browne: "Since I don't smoke..."

2005-2006: "Another former Novus Spiritus member...", who is anonymous and probably has a bone to pick, claims Browne smokes.

2007, ex-husband of Browne says she smoked. Do you think an ex would have a bone to pick? He did say "..., I haven't been in contact with her for a long time" so he doesn't know if she smokes now or not.

Author of pseudoskeptic article: "I have not been able to find a transcript of the Montel episode where I heard her make the claim, " Well gee, you think you should find the transcript first, then write the article?

Normal people, pseudoskeptics take note, realize that when someone says "I don't X", they may or may not be saying that they have never done X. They may just be saying that they have not done X for a while, and currently don't do X. If I said 'I don't listen to rap.', would pseudoskeptics take that to mean I have never listened to rap music?

So basically some pseudoskeptic who is against Browne equates someone casually stating they don't smoke with a "claim". Talk about wheel spinning at its finest. :)
 
T'ai Chi said:
Author of pseudoskeptic article: "I have not been able to find a transcript of the Montel episode where I heard her make the claim, " Well gee, you think you should find the transcript first, then write the article?
Click to expand...
Since I found her saying the same thing in a book and an interview article, no. I mentioned hearing it on Montel as explanation of what had gotten me interested in the issue.

If I said 'I don't listen to rap.', would pseudoskeptics take that to mean I have never listened to rap music?
Click to expand...
No, but if listening to rap was known to cause throat cancer, and you had said "I don't have to worry about throat cancer because I don't listen to rap" even though you had listened to rap for decades, you would be strongly implying that you had never listened to it.

I gree that the article is not the strongest on the site, and read on its own, means little. But, within the context of the other fifty or do articles on the site, I think it makes its point.

Would that point have been stronger if Browne had explicitly stated that she had never smoked? Of course.
 
Once frauds just moved to a new geographical area. That doesn't work so well now but evening in the worse cases a few years appears to be enough for people to forget and for frauds that do get caught to start again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom