• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Late-breaking news

RSLancastr said:
I just found it humorous, and thought others here might too. Sorry I disappointed.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't humorous.

I'm just saying that if I sent you an e-mail trying to be helpful and later saw you publicly holding it up as "humorous" to your buddies on a public forum, I'd be a little disappointed. And if I were a Sylvia zealot, I'd be sure to tell everybody how you make fun of people who are just trying to help you out and that you seemingly violate your own promise to "not publish any information sent to [you] without first obtaining the permission of the person who sent it."

It's one thing to sit around with your buddies and tell stories. It's another to share them on public forums. You, of course, are welcome to do whatever you like. I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is - it just occurs to me that you may not be seeing this perspective.
 
RSLancastr said:
I received an email yesterday at StopSylvia.com from someone who wanted to make sure that I knew of Browne's mistake regarding Shawn Hormbeck.

Why yes, I am aware of that. thanks!
Click to expand...

So I need to "watch who I call stupid" but you will create a thread and post an email sent from someone trying to help you so your faithful followers can all point and laugh?

RSLancastr said:
Yes, sorry for the typo. darned stroke... the (attempt at) humor in the OP is that the news of Browne's being so wrong in the case was first broken on my site, resulting in national television and newspaper coverage of it. Just about any reference to Browne and the Hornbeck case is (directly or indirectly) because of my article, which was published the same day that Shawn was found alive. So yes, I was aware of the case. And if the correspondent had bothered to look at my site a bit, they would have known that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for filling us all in on how awesome you are.
You may want to repost this in an hour or so just for those that missed it.

Robert Lancaster from 2 years ago would have never dreamed of posting this or starting a thread like this.
I miss him.
I know you've been very ill but come on.

UncaYimmy said:
I didn't say it wasn't humorous.

I'm just saying that if I sent you an e-mail trying to be helpful and later saw you publicly holding it up as "humorous" to your buddies on a public forum, I'd be a little disappointed. And if I were a Sylvia zealot, I'd be sure to tell everybody how you make fun of people who are just trying to help you out and that you seemingly violate your own promise to "not publish any information sent to [you] without first obtaining the permission of the person who sent it."

It's one thing to sit around with your buddies and tell stories. It's another to share them on public forums. You, of course, are welcome to do whatever you like. I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is - it just occurs to me that you may not be seeing this perspective.
Click to expand...

Please read the entire post from this smart man.
He makes a very good point far better than I could.
 
Brattus said:
So I need to "watch who I call stupid" but you will create a thread and post an email sent from someone trying to help you so your faithful followers can all point and laugh?
Click to expand...
Brattus, where did I post this email? Oh, that's right - I didn't.

And, because I was obviously not clear: I discussed the email NOT to make fun of the correspondent, but to show how it took me down a peg or three.


Thanks for filling us all in on how awesome you are.
You may want to repost this in an hour or so just for those that missed it.
Click to expand...
Those who know me are well aware of how awesome I think I am, which: not at all. And thanks for yet again aggressively misinterpreting one of my posts.

Robert Lancaster from 2 years ago would have never dreamed of posting this or starting a thread like this.
I miss him.
I know you've been very ill but come on.
Click to expand...
Brattus, sorry I have let you down. I will try to live up to your expectations from now on.
 
RSLancastr said:
Yes, sorry for the typo. darned stroke... the (attempt at) humor in the OP is that the news of Browne's being so wrong in the case was first broken on my site, resulting in national television and newspaper coverage of it. Just about any reference to Browne and the Hornbeck case is (directly or indirectly) because of my article, which was published the same day that Shawn was found alive. So yes, I was aware of the case. And if the correspondent had bothered to look at my site a bit, they would have known that.
Click to expand...

This does not read like you were being brought down a peg or two.
It clearly says if the person had read your site then they would have known your true awesomeness.
It also reads that if they had read your site they wouldn't have wasted your time with an email that was so far beneath you.
I mean jeez doesn't everyone know who the true Hornbeck hero is?


RSLancastr said:
Brattus, where did I post this email? Oh, that's right - I didn't.

And, because I was obviously not clear: I discussed the email NOT to make fun of the correspondent, but to show how it took me down a peg or three.


Those who know me are well aware of how awesome I think I am, which: not at all. And thanks for yet again aggressively misinterpreting one of my posts.


Brattus, sorry I have let you down. I will try to live up to your expectations from now on.
Click to expand...

You can change it up anyway you like if that makes you feel better.
It is however pretty obvious why this thread was started.
And no you did not actually post the email. I was wrong about that. Sorry.
Do you see how easy it is to admit when a mistake as been made?

I didn't say anything like "well never mind what I typed it only matters what I meant and you know what I meant".
 
Brattus, you're really coming off as a jerk now. This isn't some Internet argument you must win. You've made your point, please for the sake of those that read this thread, move on. It seems every time RSL writes something you want to take a contrary position. We get it.
 
Brattus said:
This does not read like you were being brought down a peg or two.
It clearly says if the person had read your site then they would have known your true awesomeness.
It also reads that if they had read your site they wouldn't have wasted your time with an email that was so far beneath you.
I mean jeez doesn't everyone know who the true Hornbeck hero is?




You can change it up anyway you like if that makes you feel better.
It is however pretty obvious why this thread was started.
And no you did not actually post the email. I was wrong about that. Sorry.
Do you see how easy it is to admit when a mistake as been made?

I didn't say anything like "well never mind what I typed it only matters what I meant and you know what I meant".
Click to expand...

Okay, here is my last post in this thread. And I am seriously considering making it my last post on the forum for some time, as I have apparently lost the ability to be clear in making a point):

That my site broke the Browne/Hornbeck story is something of which I am proud. To receive an email from someone who was interested in the subject, but was unaware of my part in making the story known, gave me a new perspective, and brought me down a peg or two. I think that Woodward & Bernstein would react similarly if they received an email asking them if they had ever heard of Watergate. And no, Brattus, I am not equating my accomplishments with those of W&B.

Due to UncaYimmy's (and Brattus') posts in this thread, I will definitely think twice, thrice, or more times before even discussing SSB emails in this forum. I don't want to even give the appearance of mocking my correspondents. Now I need to give some serious thought to how I should limit my posting here, period. My sincere thanks to all for their comments, pro or con.

Best, RSL
 
Robert, I'm going to have to take your side here.

The email you got was funny. The reason you shared it was obvious. I really don't know what Brattus doesn't get about it.

If you mocked the person who sent it, well, he/she sorta deserved it for not even bothering to take a good look at the site.

At least to me, your point couldn't have been clearer.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Robert, I'm going to have to take your side here.

The email you got was funny. The reason you shared it was obvious. I really don't know what Brattus doesn't get about it.

If you mocked the person who sent it, well, he/she sorta deserved it for not even bothering to take a good look at the site.

At least to me, your point couldn't have been clearer.
Click to expand...

Ditto
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
If you mocked the person who sent it, well, he/she sorta deserved it for not even bothering to take a good look at the site.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not sure that's fair. Look at it this way: here is a person who reads the latest or earliest few articles on the site (since that's where most people start), agrees with what he/she reads, and finds favor with RSL's reasonable and objective style of debunking Browne. They possibly get a little enthusiastic over the idea that RSL has taken the time and effort to put the site together, because they don't like Browne and don't believe she should be allowed to get away with her nonsense. Not knowing if RSL is aware of the Hornbeck case, he/she decides to send an email.

Should they have read more of the site? Probably, but the site IS extensive, so maybe it wasn't a case of "not bothering" as much as "not having gotten to that part yet". Obviously, it's a positive thing that they're 'bothering' to read the site at all.

Point is, they clearly thought they were doing a good thing, making RSL aware, just in case he wasn't. I don't think that deserves mockery, even 'sorta'.

I recall that my first reaction to his site was an enthusiastic "You GO, dude!". I also initially came to this forum as a result of reading his site. If I had jumped the gun and sent such an email, and then come here and seen that the people who helped him had mocked me over it, that would have stung-mainly, because I respect him (and those that help him) for his efforts.
 
Last edited:
Brattus:

Why is it Rob is the only person on earth who is not allowed to talk about his job? He gets all kinds of wacky e-mails, and some like this that point out a trend in the skeptic movement, specifically that our victories go unnoticed.

I mean i have went on a huge rant about previous boss of mine ( in relation to him reading the secret and damning an entire segment of a call center) , i don't recall anyone getting angry with me and i was downright mean. Yet rob posts a funny e-mail or in this case makes a mention of a nameless person, and people are all over him. Seems kinda like trying to be thorn in someones side for the sake of it , in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Look, I don't know who some of you think Robert Lancaster is. Apparently, Brattus and Unca Yimmy think he used to be superhuman and now, since the stroke, is somehow flawed.

BIG NEWS, FOLKS: ROBERT LANCASTER IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN AVERAGE HUMAN BEING!

While he has changed in some, mostly inpreceptible ways, he is the same man who started SSB and SK. Enough already. Get off his back.
 
ETA: RSL's Better Half probably wrapped it up just fine but we cross-posted. Anyway:

Since when is irony the same as mockery? Don't we have a sense of the ironic around here? Am I the only one who thinks irony can be funny? Yes, it's ironic that this person has sent RSL an e-mail asking whether he's heard of the Shawn Hornbeck story when RSL was one of the major players in getting the facts out when the story broke.

I just don't hear mockery. I hear self-deprecating humor over the irony of the situation, as Robert himself has already explained.

Those who are taking this as mockery of the e-mailer are wrong.

And Brattus, you are totally out of line this time. Are you deliberately attempting to be insulting in this thread? I don't see this thread as out of character for RSL in the least and I have never known him to openly mock anyone - not now and not before the stroke. What I do see is that your posts in the last few days are getting more and more vicious and seem more like personal attacks than productive commentary.
 
Last edited:
There are some people who just want to screw with someone famous, and at the moment Rob is the most famous person here. If your even half famous and present your internet visage anywhere there is always going to be someone who is tired of riling up the general public and is going to try for you.
 
ExMinister said:
Since when is irony the same as mockery? Don't we have a sense of the ironic around here? Am I the only one who thinks irony can be funny? Yes, it's ironic that this person has sent RSL an e-mail asking whether he's heard of the Shawn Hornbeck story when RSL was one of the major players in getting the facts out when the story broke.

I just don't hear mockery. I hear self-deprecating humor over the irony of the situation, as Robert himself has already explained.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that.

Those who are taking this as mockery of the e-mailer are wrong.
Click to expand...

I DIDN'T suggest that RSL had mocked the emailer. I was responding-and I thought it was clear, since I quoted it...

EeneyMinnieMoe said:
If you mocked the person who sent it, well, he/she sorta deserved it for not even bothering to take a good look at the site.
Click to expand...

...to EMM's assertion that, if RSL had intended any mockery, the person "sorta deserved" to be mocked. As I said, I'm sorry, but I don't believe that is fair. My comments were NOT directed at RSL, nor did I intend any offense.

As for who I think RSL is, I believe, always have and still do, that he is an admirable human being. At no point did I ever consider him "superhuman" nor am I intending to be "on his back" about anything.

I'll avoid SB threads in the future. :(
 
DesertGal, I did misunderstand your point and I apologize. I see now what you were responding to. Please don't avoid SB threads on my account! It seems we agree that 1) mockery isn't helpful or appropriate, and 2) that isn't what this thread was ever about anyway. That was my main point at any rate, and it wasn't only directed toward you, though I apologize for misunderstanding.

Also, I can't speak for RSLBH, but she did specifically mention UncaYimmy and Brattus in regards to the superhuman issue. Just sayin'. :)
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Robert, I'm going to have to take your side here.

The email you got was funny. The reason you shared it was obvious. I really don't know what Brattus doesn't get about it.

If you mocked the person who sent it, well, he/she sorta deserved it for not even bothering to take a good look at the site.

At least to me, your point couldn't have been clearer.
Click to expand...

As I see it there are two things to consider here. The first is the source. If James Randi made such a post, nobody would think twice about it. Randi is known to be irreverent and mocking at times. RSL, to his credit, comes across on his website as someone who is, well, not like that. I'd say that what you describe is not expected. That's not to say it's wrong. There is a difference.

Second, there's the issue of what it says on the Contact page, which is, "I will not publish any information sent to me without first obtaining the permission of the person who sent it." I read that as saying all contact is confidential, which is a good idea if you want people to give you the inside scoop. To me, at least, it doesn't mean you can paraphrase what somebody tells you and not name them because the info itself could identify the person, such as an "informer" in Sylvia's camp. I would suggest rephrasing it to say that he won't reveal any information if the person requests he doesn't. That's a reasonable policy just as it's reasonable to tell people not to tell him anything they don't want published. It's a matter of upholding your own standards.

The fact that RSL has taken my comments to heart, whether he agrees or not, speaks volumes about his character.
 
RSL's better half said:
Look, I don't know who some of you think Robert Lancaster is. Apparently, Brattus and Unca Yimmy think he used to be superhuman and now, since the stroke, is somehow flawed.

BIG NEWS, FOLKS: ROBERT LANCASTER IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN AVERAGE HUMAN BEING!

While he has changed in some, mostly inpreceptible ways, he is the same man who started SSB and SK. Enough already. Get off his back.
Click to expand...

I took the following from the FAQ on the StopSylvia website.

Q: What gives you the right to criticize RSL?

A: Among other things, the Right to Freedom of Speech as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Also, RSL is a celebrity, albeit on a minor scale. By putting himself in the public arena, he opens himself up to public comment.

With due respect, I'm not commenting on what RSL does in the privacy of his own home. I'm commenting on what RSL has done publicly. The moment he put StopSylvia on-line, he opened his conduct up to criticism. I would also note that if you don't want people to comment on what you perceive are negative aspects of his conduct regarding the site, then you should be consistent and ask that people not publicly praise him for it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom