StopSylvia email: "Hummmmmm"

Mushy: have you gone to Sylvia's website and demanded balance there?

As you have not presented any evidence to undermine RSL's assertions and evidence about Sylvia, what is balance in this case?

Please lay out some balancing "evidence" and let us all see how RSL responds, but until you counter with evidence your "morals" argument is all, well, mushy.
 
mushy said:
Yes, my belief and the fact you just stated that your research goes as far as their email is well written. lol.

And for the person who asked. The reason i'm kicking up a fuss and even when i agree she is a fraud, its called morals. Just because someone is a fraud does not give anyone the right to treat them a certain way.

You have all made it quite clear, you will accept almost any well written email to stopsylvia as proof she is taking advantage of even more people. I'm just glad the legal system isn't like that. You go to jail for robbery and change, but after release, if anyone claims you robbed them you get put in jail without trial.

Brilliant logic.
Click to expand...

Actually, he said that the process of "looking for the well written letters" is the first step.

Brilliant reading skills.
 
Audible Click said:
Let me clarify, RSL could have each email in the same thread. They are all, basically, the same email.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are. In fact, one main reason I choose to post an email here is if I think it is something new. Two recent such which come to mind are

1) The email from the psychic with a fairly specific prediction.

2) The email from the mother whose daughter's teacher had pointed the mother to my site.

Each time he added a new email the thread would be bumped.
Click to expand...

I don't think that bumping the one thread over and over would bring as much attention to new emails I add than starting a new thread does. people would have to open it to see if it contained a new email, or just replies about an older one.

If you re-read my post you will see that I never stated he should not post his emails. You guys are awfully quick on the trigger as usual.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I was not under the impression that you had stated that.
 
Did you not just read where he said

And no, I have not "verified" most of the emails I have published.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously not see a problem with that?
 
I don't think that bumping the one thread over and over would bring as much attention to new emails I add than starting a new thread does. people would have to open it to see if it contained a new email, or just replies about an older one.
Click to expand...

So, i guess i was right when i said you were doing this for attention then? lol
 
RSLancastr said:
If I just had one "StopSylvia email" thread, and used it to post every email I wished to post, I think it would soon become very confusing. After more than one email was posted in the thread, it would likely become difficult to tell which email was being referenced in subsequent replies. Doing it with a separate thread for each keeps this a lot clearer - at least for me. And I don't think that I post enough emails these days for this to be much of a concern, at least from a "flooding/spamming the forum" standpoint. Is that your objection?
Click to expand...

I vote for your own sub-forum!

(or, slightly more seriously, maybe a sub-forum for scepticism projects from forum-members?)
 
mushy said:
Yes, my belief and the fact you just stated that your research goes as far as their email is well written. lol.

And for the person who asked. The reason i'm kicking up a fuss and even when i agree she is a fraud, its called morals. Just because someone is a fraud does not give anyone the right to treat them a certain way.

You have all made it quite clear, you will accept almost any well written email to stopsylvia as proof she is taking advantage of even more people. I'm just glad the legal system isn't like that. You go to jail for robbery and change, but after release, if anyone claims you robbed them you get put in jail without trial.

Brilliant logic.
Click to expand...

Did you not read this post? Are you actually serious about this?

RSLancastr said:
No, I don't post every single negative (regarding Browne) email I receive. I "weed out" many which are poorly written. And some which do not pass my "sniff test" (admittedly, not a scientific nor totally reliable method), and some which I feel would simply be repeating what is already on the site. The ones I DO publish, I ask for further information until I acheive a personal level of comfort with the person and their story. If you'd care to pick one or more of the emails I've published on the site and suggest ways you think I should have verified it, I would be interested in reading it.

No, my method is far from perfect. This is one reason I add the "one person's opinion" disclaimer before most emails.
Click to expand...

It was addressed to me but it was meant for you. That's an extremely reasonable response to your concerns.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Actually, I do. However, I think the same method is being used in the fan-sites, so I think it's fair game.
Click to expand...

Yep, its fair game if you admit you have a biased site. Not if you act like you are looking are looking seriously at both sides of the argument.
 
mushy said:
Yep, its fair game if you admit you have a biased site. Not if you act like you are looking are looking seriously at both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

Which was never posited, as far as I can gather.

By the way, why aren't you responding to the reasonable offers of RSLancastr, such as the one highlighted by Joey McGee?
 
mushy said:
Yep, its fair game if you admit you have a biased site. Not if you act like you are looking are looking seriously at both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

But he is looking seriously at both sides of the argument.

He examines cases based on the available evidence - it's hardly his fault that nothing holds up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny, is it?

It's not his fault that all predictions of SB that could be verified if they were accurate turn out to be not accurate.

However much looking you do on the other side of the argument, there isn't anything to be seen!
 
Mushy can't be bothered.

So why do we bother?

mushy said:
Yes, my belief and the fact you just stated that your research goes as far as their email is well written. lol.

And for the person who asked. The reason i'm kicking up a fuss and even when i agree she is a fraud, its called morals. Just because someone is a fraud does not give anyone the right to treat them a certain way.

You have all made it quite clear, you will accept almost any well written email to stopsylvia as proof she is taking advantage of even more people. I'm just glad the legal system isn't like that. You go to jail for robbery and change, but after release, if anyone claims you robbed them you get put in jail without trial.

Brilliant logic.
Click to expand...

Really? Your logic completely escapes me.

Fraudulent behavior should not be exposed?

What is, then, the morally correct way to deal with fraudulent behavior, if not to expose it?
 
RSLancastr said:
If I just had one "StopSylvia email" thread, and used it to post every email I wished to post, I think it would soon become very confusing. After more than one email was posted in the thread, it would likely become difficult to tell which email was being referenced in subsequent replies. Doing it with a separate thread for each keeps this a lot clearer - at least for me. And I don't think that I post enough emails these days for this to be much of a concern, at least from a "flooding/spamming the forum" standpoint. Is that your objection?
Click to expand...


My post hardly had the qualities of objecting to anything. If you were "flooding/spamming" the forum I would have posted in Forum Management, not GS&P. I used the word "request" and you took "request" to mean "object" when "objecting" was not my intention. Perhaps I should have used the word "suggest" instead of "request". You've given your reasons for a separate thread for each email and I've read them, as far as I'm concerned, case closed.
 
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...

There is a lot of evidence. This has been explained to you. Not only is there no evidence of success, there is plenty of evidence of failure.
 
mushy said:
Yep, its fair game if you admit you have a biased site. Not if you act like you are looking are looking seriously at both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

He has admitted that the site is biased. What part of this do you not underst...oh, never mind.

So when are you going to go back to Sylvia and report "Mission Accomplished" for successfully trolling the JREF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom