email: "Mind your biz"

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Brattus

Just because something is not against the law does not mean it is morally right. There were times when segregation was perfectly within the law, not to mention owning slaves, further back, and the current issue of gays not being able to be married just to name a few.

But i do feel Sylvia has a few actions which, if committed by anyone else would be considered against the law. For example if i were to give police false information , that is against the law, i would be arrested , yet sylvia has given information to the police knowing that it is incorrect and only a guess on her part. Yet because of her fame she gets away with it.

Not only is that taking the purse, but that is being able to stop in front of a police officer and give them the finger while stealing a second one.

Hear, hear!

To add to this, there are many things that are majorly reprehensible that aren't against the law- and shouldn't be against the law. (To steal from the great John Stuart Mill, who said this in one of his works.)

Lying to your loved ones, breaking promises, being amazingly rude to waiters, cheating on your spouse, stealing someone's girlfriend, being a terrible son or daughter and being a terrible parent to your children are all not against the law, despite being very immoral.

The only punishment for it is the disdain of other people and your own bad conscience (old John again) and, in Sylvia's case, she has gotten neither of those.

As for the analogy, it's pretty good. People who tell you to stop would be like people who not only do not try to stop the mugger when they see you interfering but tell you and others not to, either.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I hope you really don't take this the wrong way or anything other than a helpful advice, but could you be a bit at fault here?

Obviously this woman skimmed a bit through your site and obviously hasn't gotten to the most notable cases of browne's act. I mean according to what you say the woman was willing to read the materials but could not find it on the site or couldn't bother with the amount of time it would take her. She did read your quick summary - right?

Didn't you start another thread about a person not even realizing the connection between your site and the case you published on it?

No disrespect, but maybe you can take it as evidence that the site could use a bit of redesigning to put certain content in more obvious places?

You obviously have gathered amazing materials but perhaps it could be presented in a more user friendly way?

Again, I'm not trying to accuse, rant or inslut. Just trying to suggest a friendly advice and help out.

 

[RSLancastr]

You obviously have gathered amazing materials but perhaps it could be presented in a more user friendly way?

Well, I am frequently complimented on how user-friendly the site is. But it has long been on my to-do list to make it easier for visitors to find some of the more important points on the site. A Search feature would help, and a "Worst of Sylvia" page, linking to articles on some of her more egregious mistakes, would help. These will happen, but don't hold your breath.

Again, I'm not trying to accuse, rant or inslut. Just trying to suggest a friendly advice and help out.

Oh, please "inslut" me! I'm not sure what that is, but frankly, it sounds intriguing!

I appreciate the suggeastion, Fox!

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Since I see you're not the overly sensitive type I can elaborate a bit

Let me ask you this, you gave her two links in your response. The ones about shawn and opal, right? You chose those two for a reason because they are the biggest shock factor on not only about whether or not sylvia is a psychic but also on the dangers of her act.

I'm going to make an educated guess here... You're probably using those 2 links in a lot of your responses to people and you probably have somewhere a copy of them in your favorites or in a text file or somewhere you copy and paste them a lot to people.

My quesiton is then:
Why aren't those cases mentioned anywhere on the welcome page of the site? Something this significant should the first thing people notice when they come in.

Let me suggest a friendly experiment:

Take a bunch of people that you trust that aren't really familiar with the site. Give them a very brief period of time (from 30 seconds to 2 minutes. People have a short attention span). Let them wander in the site and ask them what they can tell you about it.

My psychic prediction is that they won't reach the real "hardcore" stuff.

 

[Rasmus]

I find it amazing, bzw, that Robert is so friendly and careful in what he says that he's not even getting proper hatemail. People that send him negative comments and insults about his website will not, when replied to, resort to death threats or further drivel - no, they actually reconsider their positions and may actually change their minds!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, hate to be the bad guy here but people who snatch purses go to jail because that is against the law.

How Sylvia Browne makes a living is complete crap and something I would never do.
But it's not against the law.
If it were she would have gone to jail long ago.

But that's kind of the point, isn't it? There doesn't need to be a campaign to make purse snatching illegal, because it already is. There does need to be a campaign to make false advertising, fraudulent charging and wasting police time by psychics illegal, because, although immoral and equivalent in effect, it is not yet also illegal. Therefore, it seems valid to point out that it should be against the law.

Dave

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How Sylvia Browne makes a living is complete crap and something I would never do.
But it's not against the law.
If it were she would have gone to jail long ago.

Fraud (taking money by deception) is against the law.

Unfortunately, many people who break the law never go to jail.

Your logic here is flawed. By that reasoning, since everyone who is tried for their first crime has never gone to jail before, if they could use that fact as a defense, no one would ever be found guilty of committing a crime.

 

[RSLancastr]

Since I see you're not the overly sensitive type I can elaborate a bit

Let me ask you this, you gave her two links in your response. The ones about shawn and opal, right? You chose those two for a reason because they are the biggest shock factor on not only about whether or not sylvia is a psychic but also on the dangers of her act.

I'm going to make an educated guess here... You're probably using those 2 links in a lot of your responses to people and you probably have somewhere a copy of them in your favorites or in a text file or somewhere you copy and paste them a lot to people.

My quesiton is then:
Why aren't those cases mentioned anywhere on the welcome page of the site? Something this significant should the first thing people notice when they come in.

Let me suggest a friendly experiment:

Take a bunch of people that you trust that aren't really familiar with the site. Give them a very brief period of time (from 30 seconds to 2 minutes. People have a short attention span). Let them wander in the site and ask them what they can tell you about it.

My psychic prediction is that they won't reach the real "hardcore" stuff.

Well:

No, I don't send those links to a lot of people. In fact, sending them to this person is the firast time I have done so in recent memory. So, no, I don't have them in "favorites" or in notepad or anything.

I did not send them this time just for their "shock value," but to fend off the "what harm does she do?" question I figured was forthcoming.

And as to your suggestion, I mentioned above that I already plan a "worst of Sylvia" page linking to some of the key elements of the site. And THAT page would be accessible from the site's Welcome page.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Robert,

You continue to impress me. Your response was reasoned, concise, and level-headed. And from her initial response, I think this will be another person to say, "Oh my gosh! I never realized I was being fooled!".

And as for Brattus... Well, you (and others) gave yet another well-reasoned response to him.

Keep up the good work, Robert. Don't get the wrong idea, but... I love you, man!

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you have another analogy you'd prefer I'd use, I wuld be glad to consider it. Until then, I will continue to use this one, which I consider neither poor nor wrong.

I have a few suggestions:

Yours: I believe that helping others, when I can, *IS* my business, and the business of us all. If you saw someone snatch an old woman's purse, would you stop the thief (if you could), or would you "mind your own business?"

Mine: I believe that helping others, when I can, *IS* my business, and the business of us all. If you saw someone about to get hit by a bus, wouldn't you shout, "Look out?" If you had information that could save people thousands of dollars and help them avoid heartache, wouldn't you share it?

Personally, I don't think you need an analogy at all. It's not like this is a difficult concept to explain to someone.

Consumer Reports doesn't review psychics, so I'm providing an objective evaluation of the publicly available information regarding Sylvia Browne's claims. I'm not telling anyone what to think - I'm giving them information to think about. The people who find my site are researching Sylvia Browne, which is a smart thing to do before spending money on a reading or asking her about a missing child. If it's okay in your mind for these people to ask for information from Sylvia, why isn't it okay for them to ask for information from me? At least my information is free.

I think Brattus has the right idea. Your analogy comes off like a personal attack on Sylvia and an accusation that she's doing something criminal. If this person had the slightest crack in her beliefs about Sylvia, your analogy would seal it right up. Of course, if you think the person is unreachable, it doesn't matter what you say. Hell, why bother to respond at all?

And let me add this: If you receive my suggestion less, I dunno, defensively than you did with the post by Brattus, then I believe I have made my point.

 

[Think_Tank]

The analogy I would use would be a private detective agency (bear with me here!).

Imagine a woman, let's call her Sylvia, runs such an agency. People pay her to discover information, which she is then obliged to go out and discover. All the enquiries are for overseas countries, and no-one ever questions the information provided. So Sylvia decides not to bother doing the research, makes up the information, and makes a metric wodge of cash.

No-one notices, until one day someone asks for critical information regarding a missing loved one, and Sylvia gets it wrong and declares that they have died. After the grieving is over and the will is executed, the person turns up safe and well. Sylvia's other clients begin to check her findings, and notice her guesswork. Her detective agency is shut down, and she is (presumably) charged with fraud.

Sylvia actually claiming to get her information not from another country but from another plane of existence makes little difference as far as I am concerned. The number of cases where she has been flat-out wrong listed on Robert's website should lead any sensible person to the conclusion that this isn't someone who should be given £5 in a fairground fortune-teller's booth, let alone the extortionate rates people flock to pay her.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think the detective agency is a good metaphor as well, especially the angle that since the information comes from the "spirit world" nobody seems to want to check it. Even if you believe in that nonsense, might you consider that the spirits are lying or mistaken?

 

[Dr H]

Once again, hate to be the bad guy here but people who snatch purses go to jail because that is against the law.

How Sylvia Browne makes a living is complete crap and something I would never do.
But it's not against the law.
If it were she would have gone to jail long ago.

Well now, you know, "fortune telling" is against the law in a lot of places, and it seems to me that Brown's claim to be able to predict the future is about as clear an example of "fortune telling" as you can get.

See, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601840.html?hpid=topnews

 

[Dr H]

[Your] analogy comes off like a personal attack on Sylvia and an accusation that she's doing something criminal.

She is doing something illegal: it's called "fraud."

 

[Uncayimmy]

She is doing something illegal: it's called "fraud."

Has she been convicted in regards to her psychic claims? Tried? Or do you think that she has slipped under the radar? Or maybe the authorities are on her payroll. She was convicted of investment fraud, yes, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

As much as I would like to see psychics regulated or more stringent case law available to convict them of fraud, I don't think it's appropriate to say what she's is doing is illegal. Saying it should be illegal, sure. If that's the thrust, then take it to the legislature and protect everybody from every psychic instead of picking on "poor Sylvia."

ETA: Sure, there are local laws here and there. If she has violated those laws, then by all means bring them to the attention of authorities. But if somebody rides a motorcycle without a helmet in Arizona, don't go calling them a criminal because you live in Maryland.

 

[atpeace]

First, I want to thank you for not “minding your own business”, Mr. Lancaster.

Second, I just went to your site for the first time and thought the FAQ’s probably answered all of the OP’s emailer’s concerns quite thoroughly. Nice site. User friendly. And you are obviously accessible.
Third, I believe you were spot on when you described the emailer’s reaction as possibly a “kneejerk reaction”. That is just human. It can be really tough to have anything one believes in, or likes, or does to be questioned, criticized, or challenged. But when we calm down we may eventually be receptive to what another is trying to tell us.
ap

 

[desertgal]

Well now, you know, "fortune telling" is against the law in a lot of places, and it seems to me that Brown's claim to be able to predict the future is about as clear an example of "fortune telling" as you can get.

See, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601840.html?hpid=topnews

Okay. You say that fortune telling is against the law in a "lot of places" and you cite an article that states it is illegal in Montgomery County, Maryland. How does the law in Maryland or any of these other places apply to Sylvia Browne? Can you be more specific?

She is doing something illegal: it's called "fraud."

She's doing something immoral and unethical...illegal is another story. Browne likely has a team of lawyers instructing her how to conduct herself within the limits of the law. Do you have some evidence as to what specific law she has broken, and when, where, and how, to back up your statement that she has done something illegal?

 

[Senex]

Robert, just another example of your sticking to the argument and handling all people with respect, kindness and gentlness. That philosophy is the only one that has kept Sylvia's legal team off your ass. That is alsoa sound philosophy to live life by.

I have a few suggestions:

...

And let me add this: If you receive my suggestion less, I dunno, defensively than you did with the post by Brattus, then I believe I have made my point.

UncaYimmy, you seem to have tried to model your website "Stop VFF" from Robert's site. Now it appears the student thinks he can teach the master. Clearly this is premature. Your site reeks of a personal animosity toward Anita. Robert still has much to teach you.

 

[dogjones]

Has she been convicted in regards to her psychic claims? Tried? Or do you think that she has slipped under the radar? Or maybe the authorities are on her payroll. She was convicted of investment fraud, yes, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

As much as I would like to see psychics regulated or more stringent case law available to convict them of fraud, I don't think it's appropriate to say what she's is doing is illegal. Saying it should be illegal, sure. If that's the thrust, then take it to the legislature and protect everybody from every psychic instead of picking on "poor Sylvia."

ETA: Sure, there are local laws here and there. If she has violated those laws, then by all means bring them to the attention of authorities. But if somebody rides a motorcycle without a helmet in Arizona, don't go calling them a criminal because you live in Maryland.

In the UK the legal definition of fraud is 'obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception'.

This is what she's doing, so it is clearly illegal (in the UK anyway, which I guess isn't entirely relevant). The question is, is it provable, could a case be brought against her, and can the police be arsed to do it (especially given her popularity)?

In any case, the purse-snatching analogy is definitely better than your 'bus' or 'money saving information' ones, which are vague and don't imply a malicious agent, which Browne obviously is - I mean, look at the evidence. The fact that purse-snatching is illegal and fortune-telling has multiple legal statuses is trivial and surely besides the point.

 

[iknownothing]

Hey, that was a pretty decent exchange for both of you. Good for her for being willing to consider it at least a little.

I think a "worst of Sylvia" page up front would be good. Maybe call it "What's the Harm?"