StopSylvia email: "Hummmmmm"

Perhaps you have no morals, but i would require a lot of evidence before publicly accusing someone of being a fraud.

I still think its a hate site. You just don't like the term, thats your problem not mine.
 
mushy said:
Perhaps you have no morals, but i would require a lot of evidence before publicly accusing someone of being a fraud.
Click to expand...
*facepalm* We have all of the evidence in the world she is a fraud! a) she has failed every single time b) she has never succeeded c) She says she's psychic! What is so hard about this to understand?
I still think its a hate site. You just don't like the term, thats your problem not mine.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm just giving you the opportunity to save yourself the embarrassment for saying such ridiculous things but be my guest, ridicule yourself with this fantastic, unproven assertion.
 
It really focuses the mind back to one of the central dilemmas of skepticism: Is a patently untrue belief necessarily bad? If it makes people feel better, be nicer and be more productive, perhaps it may have value even while being inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
mushy said:
He seems like a nice guy. Personally i think it shows RSL as the nasty selfish person he is. Because i believe he picks on easy targets like Sylvia in order to fuflfull his need to be seen as some sort of authority figure.
Click to expand...

She only seems an "easy target" now, after so much evidence about her has been presented on StopSylvia. Before the site, not much of that evidence had been presented.

How about just letting people make up their own mind? Or even remaining anonymous? Just be honest you just want the kudos, thats why you do this.
Click to expand...

The site is all about encouraging people to make up their own minds. And it provides them As for remaining anonymous, I felt that the site would be easier to dismiss if the owner wouldn't even come forward, but remained anonymous.

As far as kudos go, I created the site because I thought that Stopping Sylvia from fooling as many people as she was was worth doing. that others would agree and give me kudos probably made the decision easier, but was not my motivation.
 
mushy said:
Perhaps you have no morals, but i would require a lot of evidence before publicly accusing someone of being a fraud.

I still think its a hate site. You just don't like the term, thats your problem not mine.
Click to expand...

What more evidence do you need? For me, the most damning thing was that she faked her trances. The trances are when she supposedly channels information from her spirit guide, the information that fills over 40 books. If you charge people to attend trances which you are faking, are you not a fraud?

Part of the evidence for the faked trances is spelled out in Robert's article about whether or not angels have wings. That's only the tip of the iceberg, though. There is much, much more that has not yet made it into article form.

Loss Leader said:
It really focuses the mind back to one of the central dilemmas of skepticism: Is a patently untrue belief necessarily bad? If it makes people feel better, be nicer and be more productive, perhaps it have value even while being inaccurate.
Click to expand...

This does seem to be true for some people. But there are still those of us who would rather lose it all and start over again from nothing than believe in something untrue. I realize there are others who don't feel that way. For the rest of us, though, the skeptical/anti-pseudoscience web sites are invaluable.

So for purely selfish reasons I'm glad the people who create these sites haven't let themselves be dissuaded by the people who seem to need to believe regardless of the facts.
 
What more evidence do you need? For me, the most damning thing was that she faked her trances. The trances are when she supposedly channels information from her spirit guide, the information that fills over 40 books. If you charge people to attend trances which you are faking, are you not a fraud?
Click to expand...

No you miss the point. She is a fraud. But just because someone is a fraud, it does not make every unverifyable anonymous email about them true.
 
mushy said:
Perhaps you have no morals, but i would require a lot of evidence before publicly accusing someone of being a fraud.
Click to expand...
(two posts later...)
mushy said:
No you miss the point. She is a fraud. But just because someone is a fraud, it does not make every unverifyable anonymous email about them true.
Click to expand...

I believe Robert has never made that accusation, whereas you have. He is merely presenting the facts.
 
mushy said:
Fine, then its not a site for people to make up their mind. Its a site to discredit her. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

No. It is a site where Sylvia's claims are examined for validity. Robert can only present limited amounts of her material because whatever else she might be, she still has rights to her books, etc.

You seem to to think that RSL has to go out of his way to be 'fair' to some standard that may not be possible.
 
mushy said:
How can they do that when only presented with one side of the evidence?
Click to expand...


How many sides of the evidence were they presented on the Montel Williams Show? Sylvia, in her books and appearances, only ever gave her side.

And how does your statement fit with the fact that RSL continuously asks for any evidence of any psychic success by Browne? None has been provided. The best defense of her has been, "She made me feel better when I was sad." And Robert has published those defenses (when allowed by the authors).
 
mushy said:
So he claims, yet he never publishes any emails of success stories. How balanced is that?
Click to expand...
As I say on the site many times, I am open to stories of her successes, but I have yet to receive an email with any verifiable instances of Browne being meaningfully correct in a single missing person or murder case. This does not prove that there are none. It may be that people who have such stories are hesitant to share them with a site named Stop Sylvia. But if that's the case, why haven't these stories been published elsewhere? If you know of any mushy, please let me know.
 
mushy said:
I disagree completely. His whole site is an nothing but a vailed attempt to crush her reputation disguised as a carefull study.
Click to expand...
It's not disguised as anything. The name of the site is StopSylvia.com.

mushy said:
Perhaps you have no morals, but i would require a lot of evidence before publicly accusing someone of being a fraud.
Click to expand...
How do you not understand that Robert is presenting a lot of evidence?

I still think its a hate site. You just don't like the term, thats your problem not mine.
Click to expand...
And if you don't like that nobody here agrees with your exaggeration, that's your problem. If you ever encountered real hate, your head would explode.

mushy said:
How can they do that when only presented with one side of the evidence?
Click to expand...
Maybe it would help if you imagine it this way: Sylvia's site, and all her fan sites, are like the defense attorney in court. They are only presenting their side. Robert's site is like the prosecutor. He is only presenting his side. Taken together, there is balance.

mushy said:
Fine, then its not a site for people to make up their mind. Its a site to discredit her. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Robert's site is presenting evidence that is found nowhere else. He is enabling interested parties to make informed decisions. He is not obligated to provide evidence supporting her because there is already plenty of it out there!
 
Joey McGee said:
<snip>
I'd agree with you, I don't think Robert should post every single negative email he gets without screening for trolls, but I don't know him, we'll have to ask him how he controls for this. Since we don't have him weighing in on this thread, let's ask him to do just that. <snip>
Click to expand...

I'd like to request that RSL stop making a separate thread for every email he posts.
 
mushy said:
No, i don't believe in psychic ability. Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories and i know he has recieved emails with success stories.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You might believe I have, but you don't know. As I have access to the email, I do know.
 
mushy said:
How can they do that when only presented with one side of the evidence?
Click to expand...

Well, take away Robert's web site and what do you have? You have the other side of the "evidence," if you want to call it that, and that's in fact all you have without StopSylvia. All that is already out there.

It's a pretty nice public service actually. I don't see it as a hate site at all. It isn't even motivated by hate, unless you count the emotional reaction to the Opal Jo Jennings story which helped inspire it all, though that emotion seems very different than hate. I see it as more like a "here, let me show you what happens when you actually research Sylvia's claims" site. It gives the other side a chance to tell their side of the story too.

Audible Click said:
I'd like to request that RSL stop making a separate thread for every email he posts.
Click to expand...

Not me. I look forward to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom