Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
I know this is a bit late, but I took the liberty and edited your post. Excellent article!!
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
StopSylviaBrowne - I Speak With Sylvia Browne
- Thread starter RSLancastr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- stop sylvia browne
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Thanks, Soma!
Very cool!
Thanks, Mikillini!
Thanks, Lock!
Thanks, Brown!
Niobe
Sons of Dis
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Messages
- 289
Now I figured out why the collectors item book is worth eleventy million dollars on ebay, it's because her pre-fraud conviction name (minus -E) is on the jacket.
bob_conklin
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 88
Mr. Lancaster
I asked you about a year ago if you thought you could really stop Sylvia Browne.
You e-mailed me back promptly and said that you wouldn't have started this project if you didn't think that you would be able to finish it.
When do you call it done? There are a few things left to research. A few articles left to write. Your web site does an extraordinary job at informing anyone that can be influenced. The rest, you just never can reach with reason. I think that you have reached some point of diminishing returns. You will probably never get the quantity of testable claims that you did from the Montel show again. I have not seen the other mediums give this kind AND amount of data to pour though and analyze against news reports years later. Feel free to prove me wrong here
Before your site came along, the media didn't report critically about Sylvia. Lack thereof or wrong 911 predictions, the Sago mine controversy, nor the Sylvia clock ever made the news that I watch. After your site came along the Hornbeck story was mentioned every time her name was used in the news.
I and others tried to make changes to Sylvia's Wikipedia page to add a criticism section last fall, but it was always reverted because we were outnumbered. (Read: Not a single one of us was up to the editing standards of Wikipedia. There were several in the pro Sylvia side that were.) This January, "Criticism of Sylvia Browne" became a Wikipedia page all of its own, with the major points listed on her main page. There are over 20 independent skeptical contributors to those 2 pages now.
About a year ago, she was taking advantage of grieving and desperate people on what amounted to her own once a week nationwide TV show. Today, she is not making any TV shows. When she said that she was working on a new show, she was really trying to convince her loyal followers that public opinion of her would still support a TV show. I beg to differ.
The reason that Wikipedia and the media cannot be taken as fact is because it IS public opinion. It IS argument from common knowledge. Is this recent overall change of public opinion because of stopsylviabrowne? You would say ... We'll just let the evidence speak for itself and leave it up for the reader to make up his or her own mind.
Not me.
I say ... Give credit where credit is due. You can't give equal weight to the slim possibility that these are all coincidences as you would give to the possibility that you are doing exactly what you set out to do and thought you would accomplish before you started. You obviously have the gift of calm, consistent, relentless persuasion.
I would like to hear from you that you are up for another project as this one is starting to wind down. You have momentum and it would suck to lose it. Just looking at this thread tells me that you could have substantial resources to bring to bear if you wished to. How many e-mails do you think that the Montel Show received about Hal's open letter? I sent one.
Here is an idea:
Could you please convince a major portion of this country that there is no pill that will enlarge "that special place on a man". The FDA already prohibits that claim to even be made. You could bring truth to light, save the population millions, maybe put some scammers in jail this time, AND greatly reduce internet traffic congestion all in one shot.
Seriously, I did do some research into their recent "clinical studies" and it is humorous how many excuses they come up with for not being able to publish any reliable measurement data.
Cheers,
Bob
I asked you about a year ago if you thought you could really stop Sylvia Browne.
You e-mailed me back promptly and said that you wouldn't have started this project if you didn't think that you would be able to finish it.
When do you call it done? There are a few things left to research. A few articles left to write. Your web site does an extraordinary job at informing anyone that can be influenced. The rest, you just never can reach with reason. I think that you have reached some point of diminishing returns. You will probably never get the quantity of testable claims that you did from the Montel show again. I have not seen the other mediums give this kind AND amount of data to pour though and analyze against news reports years later. Feel free to prove me wrong here
Before your site came along, the media didn't report critically about Sylvia. Lack thereof or wrong 911 predictions, the Sago mine controversy, nor the Sylvia clock ever made the news that I watch. After your site came along the Hornbeck story was mentioned every time her name was used in the news.
I and others tried to make changes to Sylvia's Wikipedia page to add a criticism section last fall, but it was always reverted because we were outnumbered. (Read: Not a single one of us was up to the editing standards of Wikipedia. There were several in the pro Sylvia side that were.) This January, "Criticism of Sylvia Browne" became a Wikipedia page all of its own, with the major points listed on her main page. There are over 20 independent skeptical contributors to those 2 pages now.
About a year ago, she was taking advantage of grieving and desperate people on what amounted to her own once a week nationwide TV show. Today, she is not making any TV shows. When she said that she was working on a new show, she was really trying to convince her loyal followers that public opinion of her would still support a TV show. I beg to differ.
The reason that Wikipedia and the media cannot be taken as fact is because it IS public opinion. It IS argument from common knowledge. Is this recent overall change of public opinion because of stopsylviabrowne? You would say ... We'll just let the evidence speak for itself and leave it up for the reader to make up his or her own mind.
Not me.
I say ... Give credit where credit is due. You can't give equal weight to the slim possibility that these are all coincidences as you would give to the possibility that you are doing exactly what you set out to do and thought you would accomplish before you started. You obviously have the gift of calm, consistent, relentless persuasion.
I would like to hear from you that you are up for another project as this one is starting to wind down. You have momentum and it would suck to lose it. Just looking at this thread tells me that you could have substantial resources to bring to bear if you wished to. How many e-mails do you think that the Montel Show received about Hal's open letter? I sent one.
Here is an idea:
Could you please convince a major portion of this country that there is no pill that will enlarge "that special place on a man". The FDA already prohibits that claim to even be made. You could bring truth to light, save the population millions, maybe put some scammers in jail this time, AND greatly reduce internet traffic congestion all in one shot.
Seriously, I did do some research into their recent "clinical studies" and it is humorous how many excuses they come up with for not being able to publish any reliable measurement data.
Cheers,
Bob
bob_conklin
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 88
Nemesis. Greek Mythology. The goddess of retributive justice or vengeance.
dustbunny
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 246
I'm a member of another forum here in England and this morning I found the new story on StopSylviaBrowne website. I've got to say I admire Rober Lancaster's restraint after Sylvia Browne seemed to badger him into a confrontation. Surely the security men must have rolled their eyes when they discovered the truth about what really happened. I think he's done a brilliant job. The article also mentioned Montel Williams having a new show called Living Well, does anyone know what it's about? I'd like to know how much damage she did to his ratings. Sylvia Browne has bought Montel Williams support, how different would he feel if her large donations stopped. 
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 879
Montel does have a recent book called "Living Well". He has also set up an online dieting program called Living Well. However, if he is in talks for a new TV show with that name, I can't find anything about it. Also, since CBS is packaging the "best of" Montel for syndication during the upcoming year, I don't think they'd take too kindly to him competing with himself for air time. There is most likely a "no-compete" clause in his contract that would prevent a new talk show for a while. This means that Slyvia is a liar once again. Surprised?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
A casino is private property. They don't need evidence, nor do they need regulations. They can kick anybody out at any time (as long as they don't, for example, kick all black people out). This is true anywhere in the US, but I think in Las Vegas casino owners have even greater leeway. They can kick you out if they just suspect you're counting cards.
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
And one of mine even has a minus-E autograph! I should be able to retire on the sale of it!
When she and her son are out of business.
There is plenty left to write about Browne. I have a list of articles which I have yet to write. That list is over 100 articles long.
I disagree. I have found with this site, as well as with the StopKaz site before it, that every article seems to be the "straw that broke the camel's back" with yet another group of people. So, I believe that there are people who have read the site and are not yet convinced, who will be convinced by a future article.
There are still many testable claims from past episodes which I have yet to write about.
In the site's FAQ, I mention this as one of the reasons I chose Browne as the focus of a site:I have not seen the other mediums give this kind AND amount of data to pour though and analyze against news reports years later. Feel free to prove me wrong here
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/faq/#whysylviabrowne
I hope you are correct.
Thanks, you're very kind.
I have mentioned before that I have already registered:
www.StopJohnEdward.com
www.StopPeterPopoff.com
www.StopKevinTrudeau.com
www.StopBennyHinn.com
...as well as a few others.
The intent is for me to be primarily the editor of these sites, with the bulk of the articles written by others under my editorial approval.
Wel, I'm not sure how popular www.StopPenisEnlargement.com would be...
Last edited:
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
John's less-well-known brother."Johon"?
FSM
god
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,267
I know it's kinda derail-ish, but hell, why not?
Seems to me that in Las Vegas the remedy for trespassing at a casino is to be told to leave:
The State of Nevada v. Annette Wilkinson also known as Jackie Owens, case number 0662-78M in the Justice Court of Las Vegas Township, Clark County, Nevada, on 9 March 1978. The facts were that Security Guard Frank M. Baker of the Holiday Casino took Wilkinson and another female to the Security Office on 11 December 1977, advised her that she was not welcome, and read her the Trespass Act. When he again saw her in the casino on 17 February 1978, he placed her under citizen’s arrest for trespassing. On neither occasion was Wilkinson annoying either the owner or any other occupant of the hotel. She was not acting in a disorderly manner. Nor did she destroy any property. Nor did she cause a public disturbance. Mr. Baker testified that he saw Wilkinson commit no misdemeanor or felony other than his belief that she had committed trespass against the hotel. Wilkinson was found guilty of trespassing and fined $50.
On 23 March 1978, an appeal was filed, case number C40816 in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State Of Nevada. The conclusion of the appeal:
1. The Criminal Trespass Statute, NRS 207.200, is unconstitutional in its application against Defendant Annette Wilkinson aka Jackie Owens and the case is ordered dismissed.
2. The evidence produced at the trial is insufficient to cause Defendant Wilkinson to be found guilty since she was not given an opportunity to leave the hotel on the date of her arrest, being February 17, 1978.
3. The evidence is insufficient to convict the Defendant since no acts of misconduct occurred either on the date she was originally told not to return to the hotel nor on the date of her arrest.
Signed: Thomas J. O’Donnell, District Court Judge
Sounds to me like the original officer should have just given RSL the 'get going with you' treatment. Using pretend authori-tie to make him feel like he has to stay and talk to a supervisor seems to me more like this:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
NRS 200.460 Definition; penalty.
1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.
2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
3. If the false imprisonment is committed:
(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or
(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,
the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years.
4. If the false imprisonment is committed by a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement with the use of a deadly weapon, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.
[1911 C&P § 175; RL § 6440; NCL § 10122]—(NRS A 1967, 472; 1981, 614; 1995, 1190)
So, in my non-legal advice opinion, the casino did have the right to ask RSL to leave, but not to make him feel like he had to stay and answer questions. They don't have to cuff you for you to be 'detained'. The fact that casino valet employees had custody and control of his vehicle kind of adds to the whole 'detained' thing. How the hell COULD he leave if they had his car?
Also, I looked for a minute on defamation (which in Nevada is still broken down into the old fashioned slander and libel causes of action) but I got bored so I gave up searching for the law on it. Usually, though, if somebody (SB) falsely alleges that another (RSL) committed a crime (disturbing the peace, etc.) it's per se considered defamatory. I could be wrong about it in Nevada, but I don't think so.
I'm all for free expression, but the line is usually drawn in most places in the US when someone goes around alleging that somebody is committing a crime when they have not. Especially when she was so keen to make that *******, half-assed threat to RSL right before she wheeled away.
Not saying anyone should actually act on any of this, particularly since I'm pulling it straight outta my butt, but if someone someday called her on her hideous lies and behavior and made her answer to something in a courtroom while she was accompanied by her REAL spiritual partner (her pocketbook), I would then rejoice and dance about with glee.
Prolly not the time or place for it with this set of facts,,,,,
but I can dream.
Seems to me that in Las Vegas the remedy for trespassing at a casino is to be told to leave:
The State of Nevada v. Annette Wilkinson also known as Jackie Owens, case number 0662-78M in the Justice Court of Las Vegas Township, Clark County, Nevada, on 9 March 1978. The facts were that Security Guard Frank M. Baker of the Holiday Casino took Wilkinson and another female to the Security Office on 11 December 1977, advised her that she was not welcome, and read her the Trespass Act. When he again saw her in the casino on 17 February 1978, he placed her under citizen’s arrest for trespassing. On neither occasion was Wilkinson annoying either the owner or any other occupant of the hotel. She was not acting in a disorderly manner. Nor did she destroy any property. Nor did she cause a public disturbance. Mr. Baker testified that he saw Wilkinson commit no misdemeanor or felony other than his belief that she had committed trespass against the hotel. Wilkinson was found guilty of trespassing and fined $50.
On 23 March 1978, an appeal was filed, case number C40816 in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State Of Nevada. The conclusion of the appeal:
1. The Criminal Trespass Statute, NRS 207.200, is unconstitutional in its application against Defendant Annette Wilkinson aka Jackie Owens and the case is ordered dismissed.
2. The evidence produced at the trial is insufficient to cause Defendant Wilkinson to be found guilty since she was not given an opportunity to leave the hotel on the date of her arrest, being February 17, 1978.
3. The evidence is insufficient to convict the Defendant since no acts of misconduct occurred either on the date she was originally told not to return to the hotel nor on the date of her arrest.
Signed: Thomas J. O’Donnell, District Court Judge
Sounds to me like the original officer should have just given RSL the 'get going with you' treatment. Using pretend authori-tie to make him feel like he has to stay and talk to a supervisor seems to me more like this:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
NRS 200.460 Definition; penalty.
1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.
2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
3. If the false imprisonment is committed:
(a) By a prisoner in a penal institution without a deadly weapon; or
(b) By any other person with the use of a deadly weapon,
the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years.
4. If the false imprisonment is committed by a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement with the use of a deadly weapon, the person convicted of such a false imprisonment is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years.
[1911 C&P § 175; RL § 6440; NCL § 10122]—(NRS A 1967, 472; 1981, 614; 1995, 1190)
So, in my non-legal advice opinion, the casino did have the right to ask RSL to leave, but not to make him feel like he had to stay and answer questions. They don't have to cuff you for you to be 'detained'. The fact that casino valet employees had custody and control of his vehicle kind of adds to the whole 'detained' thing. How the hell COULD he leave if they had his car?
Also, I looked for a minute on defamation (which in Nevada is still broken down into the old fashioned slander and libel causes of action) but I got bored so I gave up searching for the law on it. Usually, though, if somebody (SB) falsely alleges that another (RSL) committed a crime (disturbing the peace, etc.) it's per se considered defamatory. I could be wrong about it in Nevada, but I don't think so.
I'm all for free expression, but the line is usually drawn in most places in the US when someone goes around alleging that somebody is committing a crime when they have not. Especially when she was so keen to make that *******, half-assed threat to RSL right before she wheeled away.
Not saying anyone should actually act on any of this, particularly since I'm pulling it straight outta my butt, but if someone someday called her on her hideous lies and behavior and made her answer to something in a courtroom while she was accompanied by her REAL spiritual partner (her pocketbook), I would then rejoice and dance about with glee.
Prolly not the time or place for it with this set of facts,,,,,
but I can dream.
Last edited:
Ah, yes. Johon Sebastian Bach.
>>"I am trying to understand the process of what you are doing. I understand that you don't claim to be 100% correct. But in the cases where you are wrong, you give absolutely no indication that you could be wrong. You are precisely as sure as in those cases where you do get it right. This must mean that you are not aware yourself if the messages you get are right or wrong. Isn't that correct?"<<
This is the perfect question I think. One of which a satisfactory answer would not be forthcoming however. These people are delusional or intentionally deceptive. Either way they are dangerous.
This is the perfect question I think. One of which a satisfactory answer would not be forthcoming however. These people are delusional or intentionally deceptive. Either way they are dangerous.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
It is a good question CasaRojo. I doubt if Sylvia will even attempt to answer such questions. Robert has invited Sylvia and her supporters to provide evidence that she is right above 0% for anything that can be verified and cannot be easily guessed at. So far he has not received any such evidence.
And welcome to the forum.
And welcome to the forum.
Beanbag
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,468
Sorry, I'm just having this remarkable giggle-fit, imagining a Sylvia get-together where we smuggle in CFL, RSL, and put Randi in a wheelchair with a shawl and false nose and get him one of the preferred tickets. I'd spring for all three tickets -- no, make that FOUR tickets -- so I could watch.
Beanbag
Beanbag
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Probably true SB would not say Lupus. However you'd be hard pressed to prove SB wrong. Say she said "she had a bad heart", or "a blow to the chest",....play out the cenerio; for example:I'd ask her what my mother's mother died of and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't say Lupus. Slam dunk!
You: No, she died of Lupus
SB: I know hon, but she had a bad heart too that the doctors didn't tell you about. She didn't want them to worry you....
You'd be hard pressed to argue at that point, and she saves face with the audience.
Hi Robert. You may want to add StopParanormalState.com and StopPsychicKids.com.
I read your post about speaking with Sylvia Brown and I commend you on your dealing with the situation in such a low key manner. I lived and worked in Las Vegas in 2001 and 2002 in Entertainment where I worked with "psychic" Gary Spivey on one occasion. It's truly amazing to me that people buy the crap they these charlatans dish out.
On a humorous side note, the Gary Spivey show that I reference took place near Halloween in 2001. Backstage a showgirl that wasn't familiar with GS commented to him: "great George Washington costume dude". I happened to be standing there with them and found that hilarious on several levels and had to walk off so I didn't laugh in his face. LOL! If you've not seen Gary Spivey go here--> garyspivey.com
After the show I told the showgirl that I throughly enjoyed her comment to GS and she said that she was really embarrassed as she didn't know that he was the star of the show. LOL! Gotta love the showgirls! ;-)
I would not have provided ID to the security guards just on general principal but you probably did the right thing. Thanks for all that you do!
I read your post about speaking with Sylvia Brown and I commend you on your dealing with the situation in such a low key manner. I lived and worked in Las Vegas in 2001 and 2002 in Entertainment where I worked with "psychic" Gary Spivey on one occasion. It's truly amazing to me that people buy the crap they these charlatans dish out.
On a humorous side note, the Gary Spivey show that I reference took place near Halloween in 2001. Backstage a showgirl that wasn't familiar with GS commented to him: "great George Washington costume dude". I happened to be standing there with them and found that hilarious on several levels and had to walk off so I didn't laugh in his face. LOL! If you've not seen Gary Spivey go here--> garyspivey.com
After the show I told the showgirl that I throughly enjoyed her comment to GS and she said that she was really embarrassed as she didn't know that he was the star of the show. LOL! Gotta love the showgirls! ;-)
I would not have provided ID to the security guards just on general principal but you probably did the right thing. Thanks for all that you do!