Psychic Sally morgan caught cheating?

[Reno]

Because I view this as unhelpful to the end goal and I have the right to say so. Plus, several of the people who are using thir own methods have said that their actions have been hampered by morganlibel's actions.

I view it as helpful to the end goal and I have every right to say so too.

The several people who you say are claiming that their own methods have been hampered may well be using less effective methods than continuing the publicity and attempting to keep the spotlight on Psychic Psally, so my support at this time will be to do whatever it takes (within the law) to keep that spotlight on her.

If any hack journalist is mad enough to write a piece supporting Sally, then that leaves room for a rebuttal. No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest because she is a fraud and a con-merchant. That's a plain fact that will remain so until there's proper evidence to support her claim that she talks to invisible, incorporeal beings that normal human beings cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

Who cares about her feelings or if she's being bullieed or mistreated by the big bad skeptics? Not me. Let her supporters claim that she's being harassed while she earns the huge amount from people who actually ARE traumatised from hearing her lies.

She's a smug, self-righteous, condescending, evil charlatan and she needs to be stopped. She's not being harassed at all - she's only claiming that (through her lawyer) to try to stop the spotlight being shone on her which could lead to her income being reduced.

Give me a hundred thousand a year and you can publish nude pics of me on the net and I won't feel harassed.

 

[Lamuella]

If any hack journalist is mad enough to write a piece supporting Sally, then that leaves room for a rebuttal. No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest because she is a fraud and a con-merchant.

If you honestly think that "No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest" then your view of publishing is so naive as to be adorable.

What exactly do you think would stop a newspaper like The Daily Mirror (who Sally writes a column for) from publishing an article where they defended her from nasty skeptic bullies?

Considering that the twin sewage outflow pipes of lies and utter nonsense that are the Mail and the Express publish complete falsehoods daily on every subject from medicine to global warming, what makes you think that they wouldn't come out in favour of Sally as a sop to those of their readership who believe in this kind of woo?

EDIT: Plus, what in the world makes you think that the efforts of Project Barnum and Merseyside Skeptics are "less effective" than publishing her personal details on Twitter?

 

[Reno]

If you honestly think that "No journalist promoting Sally can ever win in a publishing pissing contest" then your view of publishing is so naive as to be adorable.

Thankyou, I am adorable!

What exactly do you think would stop a newspaper like The Daily Mirror (who Sally writes a column for) from publishing an article where they defended her from nasty skeptic bullies?

The likelihood of them having to print a retraction and apology if they print any lies in their piece supporting her. You think a rag like the Mirror can't be sued?

Considering that the twin sewage outflow pipes of lies and utter nonsense that are the Mirror and the Express publish complete falsehoods daily on every subject from medicine to global warming, what makes you think that they wouldn't come out in favour of Sally as a sop to those of their readership who believe in this kind of woo?

They won't because they're not stupid. They know that there are reputable journalists and intelligent people who could pull a story supporting sally to pieces, then the paper would not only look stupid, but leave themselves open to legal action. Remember the News of the World? No paper is to big too be ripped down.

EDIT: Plus, what in the world makes you think that the efforts of Project Barnum and Merseyside Skeptics are "less effective" than publishing her personal details on Twitter?

I didn't say they are, I sad they may be.

 

[Lamuella]

The likelihood of them having to print a retraction and apology if they print any lies in their piece supporting her. You think a rag like the Mirror can't be sued?

As I said, so naive as to be adorable. You don't have to tell outright lies to twist something like this to make the skeptic side look bad.

They won't because they're not stupid. They know that there are reputable journalists and intelligent people who could pull a story supporting sally to pieces, then the paper would not only look stupid, but leave themselves open to legal action. Remember the News of the World? No paper is to big too be ripped down.

If they didn't print retractions or face legal action from their huge and systematic campaigns against the University of East Anglia after Climategate, what in the world makes you think they'd have to apologize for an op-ed painting the country's most popular psychic as a victim?

Also, the News Of The World didn't get "ripped down" because of lying in print. They got "ripped down" for hacking the phones of dead children and becoming too much of a liability to Rupert.

 

[Reno]

Yep, I'm still adorable. Thank you

You seem to be so concerned that the newspapers will make skeptics look bad, that you'd rather stand outside one of sally's shows handing out leaflets than take the hit of bad publicity against skeptics to keep Sally in the spotlight. The longer she's there, the more people are going to start to ask themselves questions about her.

Don't you realise that skeptics have always looked bad and always will? It's the nature of skepticism - going against the majority of people's beliefs. This isn't about trying to clean up the name skeptics have, or trying to make skeptics look like we are the nice guys, cuz buddy, that is never gunna happen! This is about reducing Sally's audiences, hopefully to the point where her current con is less profitable to her than if she did what she is best-suited for, which is being a lollipop lady at a pedestrian crossing.

 

[Lamuella]

You seem to be so concerned that the newspapers will make skeptics look bad, that you'd rather stand outside one of sally's shows handing out leaflets than take the hit of bad publicity against skeptics to keep Sally in the spotlight.

I'm still unsure as to how this keeps her in the spotlight or is in any way beneficial.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Woo always screams "persecution" when it's on the run. If it were down to me Morgan would be doing time for fraud.

 

[Reno]

I'm still unsure as to how this keeps her in the spotlight or is in any way beneficial.

Your naiveness is adorable

 

[lucan]

There is a memorial to the 11 innocent persons who met their doom at Crook of Devon after 5 Witch trials in 1662 and it has a poster of Sally and Carol Everett (The Jo Yeats medium)on its board of shame.

 

[snuffkin]

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her, the other person you mention, Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."

ProjectBarnum on Twitter: "however, we don't intend to harass & always clearly state that. We love psychics (just not fake ones)."

Some people will see that attitude is too wishy washy. If the alternative is the 'nasty' skeptic methods, more bad publicity and more hounding for Sally Morgan, I say, bring it on. The fact is Morgan and others like her need to be stopped, by hook or by crook.

I prefer to think of Sally Morgan in the same way Randi does:

Randi described professional psychics as "vultures", who "sit in a tree and… wait for the grieving to come by".

 

[John Jackson]

The fact is Morgan and others like her need to be stopped, by hook or by crook.

What "need" have you identified?

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this if you'd be so kind.

I prefer to think of Sally Morgan in the same way Randi does:

Randi described professional psychics as "vultures", who "sit in a tree and… wait for the grieving to come by".

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

An attitude that encompasses views such as "I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions" is not a one that will ever achieve anything other than to make 'skeptics' look infantile. It's certainly not 'educational'.

 

[Resume]

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

What part of psychics are vultures troubles you?

Sorry, not what you asked.

I joined JREF in part because I liked references from Randi like psychics are vultures because that's what they are.

 

[John Jackson]

What part of psychics are vultures troubles you?

Mainly the fact that it's a very ineffective way to go about 'educating' people. It's not just that it won't work; it's actually quite likely to be counter-productive.

 

[Lamuella]

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her

At no point in this entire thread have I sympathized with Sally Morgan or stuck up with her. That is a direct lie.

 

[Resume]

Mainly the fact that it's a very ineffective way to go about 'educating' people. It's not just that it won't work; it's actually quite likely to be counter-productive.

How do you know it's not effective? I don't think you're relating facts, I think you've made a bare assertion. Further, it is exactly the truth.

 

[Sideroxylon]

To be honest, if I were involved with the JREF (an organization that has the word 'educational' in its title) I'd be deeply concerned that the words of the leader are attracting people with attitudes like yours.

An attitude that encompasses views such as "I'd also cheer if someone put in all the windows of one of Sylvia Browne's mansions" is not a one that will ever achieve anything other than to make 'skeptics' look infantile. It's certainly not 'educational'.

This thread has taken an interesting turn, hasn't it. I would also to add my voice to those against condoning harassment or property damage against psychics. It is illegal, dickish, unnecessary and counter productive.

 

[John Jackson]

How do you know it's not effective?

Evidence! There's plenty of it in the psychological literature.

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.

 

[Resume]

Evidence! There's plenty of it in the psychological literature.

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.

Color me skeptical.

And the truth is the truth; the fact is in this case is that clearly psychics who prey on the bereaved are vultures and worse. If saying that makes me a dick I'll own that.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Lamuella, It's not surprising that that you are inclined to sympathise with Sally Morgan and stick up for her, the other person you mention, Hayley Stevens/Project Barnum, almost looks like a believer too.

Hayley on Twitter: "I think a lot of people think its proof she is fake now. All it is, is proof she didn't take a test."

That makes perfect sense to me. While I don't believe SM is psychic I don't see that she has been proved not to be either.

I looked at Hayley Stevens' blog. She describes herself as a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt ghosts. In other words, tries to find a rational explanation for that which others would say is supernatural. Doesn't sound like a believer in the paranormal to me, but to be fair I only skimmed her site.

 

[Pixel42]

Have you read the first piece in the current edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine? It's a nice piece on a conference regarding communicating science to the public and it touches on research that shows that using things like confrontation (and even hitting people with facts!) usually only serves to strengthen belief rather than weaken it.

As you say, the evidence is that neither pointing and laughing nor rational factual argument is effective on those who are emotionally invested in a belief.

A more interesting question is therefore which, if either, is more effective on the undecided.