• 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.

StopSylvia.com: Email From an "Idiot"

Robert, that's so great to see.

You do an awesome job with these sites!
 
A lot of us have sort of believed for no reason, and finding a truth has opened us up
to critical thinking in more areas than just psychics. I think my sig line is very apt for your emailer :)
 
RSLancastr said:
Round 2 in the correspondence...
Click to expand...

The idiot-who-is-not wrote more appropriately this second go-round. I wonder if they were just exaggerating their "idiocy" with the grammatically-incorrect first e-mail to see if you were a pompous ass. Well, you are anything but a p.a. Well done!

I hope you told the "idiot" about the JREF. I think they would have fun here.

Thanks, Robert!
 
I'm glad we have "idiots" like this - someone smart enough to look at the evidence and change their mind based on the evidence.

I say: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to this person. And same to you, RSL, for having such a great site.
 
Amapola said:
I'm glad we have "idiots" like this - someone smart enough to look at the evidence and change their mind based on the evidence.

I say: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to this person. And same to you, RSL, for having such a great site.
Click to expand...

I agee. It's so good to see an example of a person with a truly open mind! And it's so nice that she wrote to you, shows courage, I think. I think you can take credit for that, RSL, making it easy by treating everyone politely.
 
The one thing I'm disappointed in is that the usual crowd of people bleating that Robert's site is a waste of time haven't posted. They're normally so vocal, and yet haven't commented here. I wonder why?
 
Sledge said:
The one thing I'm disappointed in is that the usual crowd of people bleating that Robert's site is a waste of time haven't posted. They're normally so vocal, and yet haven't commented here. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Maybe the person who wrote the letter was one of them. ;)
 
Let us hope that this thoughtful person...and I say thoughtful because she took the time to read through your site even though it wasn't what she was looking for...will use her newly gained knowledge to point others in the direction of StopSylvia.
 
Amapola said:
I'm glad we have "idiots" like this - someone smart enough to look at the evidence and change their mind based on the evidence.

I say: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to this person. And same to you, RSL, for having such a great site.
Click to expand...

I was one of them. I can't express how happy I am that I no longer believe in her or others like her. After that one step, I was also freed from other woo beliefs.

I've never been happier or more free. I'm not the most educated person on these boards, but I'm certainly grown more skeptical and open-minded, as a decent critical thinker should be. I've come a long way and so has this lady.

Yes, two thumbs up! Way up for her! :)
 
You others may know better, but does Robert really say all that much different from the other "bashing" sites? Is it what he says that is different, or how he says it?

One thing could be the sheer magnitude of how much he says, but in that respect, the problem with the "bashing" sites is that they don't have enough dirt.
 
Sledge said:
The one thing I'm disappointed in is that the usual crowd of people bleating that Robert's site is a waste of time haven't posted. They're normally so vocal, and yet haven't commented here. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Why do people think it's a waste of time? If someone wants to make a website about the lies of Sylvia Browne that is their prerogative. I don't spend a ton of time on the site obviously since I think she's a fraud to begin with, but I think it's a pretty effective site. Does Robert really get attacked that much?

Sylvia Browne is the absolute worst of the worst. She is in the axis of evil with Van Praagh, Jon Edward, and her. Those are probably the 3 most famous in America.

The reason i think those sites are effective is a lot of people are in a middle place between skepticism and belief, but I think deep down want reinforcement that it either is or isn't true. So in that sense, a site like Robert's can help others to cross over to the side of a true skeptic.

A lot of people, even skeptics, criticize James Randi for hating Uri Geller too. Is he wasting his time?

I say, if you got an ax to grind, do it.

One suggestion for the site though. Have you considered maybe a page each dedicated to some of the other psychic frauds? Kind of like a primer maybe. Anyways, I like the site. I don't see what people's problem is.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
You others may know better, but does Robert really say all that much different from the other "bashing" sites? Is it what he says that is different, or how he says it?

One thing could be the sheer magnitude of how much he says, but in that respect, the problem with the "bashing" sites is that they don't have enough dirt.
Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on one's definition of "bashing." But there are sites out there which, for instance, make unflattering remarks about Browne's looks. The closest I come to that is my site's logo, which is NOT meant as a comment on her looks at all. Other sites also call her names, which mine mostly avoids. Perhaps mine is different to "bashing" sites (in this correspondent's eyes) because it presents evidence and invites readers to come to a conclusion.
 
pgwenthold said:
You others may know better, but does Robert really say all that much different from the other "bashing" sites? Is it what he says that is different, or how he says it?

One thing could be the sheer magnitude of how much he says, but in that respect, the problem with the "bashing" sites is that they don't have enough dirt.
Click to expand...

It's both.

I think the sheer magnitude of evidence is a big part of it. Robert's site bombards people with the facts, one straightforward article after another.

Bashing is probably fine if your audience is intended to be other skeptics, but it doesn't really work well for believers.

Because of the nature of a web site like this, the danger is that you might actually alienate the followers to such a degree that they begin to sympathize with Browne. It seems like a fine line between presenting evidence with sincerity that draws the followers in, and crossing the line into the type of commentary that might actually push them closer to Browne by making them feel sorry for her, that kind of thing, which is a reason why "bashing" can have the opposite effect from what's intended.

He mostly allows the evidence to speak for itself. That's a big part of it.

But here's what I think is really key. If you notice, because he doesn't stoop to Browne's (or some of her followers) level of threats and insults, he appears the better person.

When Browne or anyone else tosses something at him that seems immature and petty, Robert responds with calm and maturity. When Browne is nasty, Robert is dignified and reasonable. When Browne seems illogical, he responds with logic. Where Browne seems cold and indifferent, even cruel, Robert is sympathetic and outraged. In his articles his sincerity is difficult to miss. People see all of that, and to a believer, Robert actually comes out looking like the better, more trustworthy person (which he is!).

Anyway, just the 2 cents of a former "woo," for what it's worth
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Why do people think it's a waste of time? If someone wants to make a website about the lies of Sylvia Browne that is their prerogative. I don't spend a ton of time on the site obviously since I think she's a fraud to begin with, but I think it's a pretty effective site. Does Robert really get attacked that much?
Click to expand...

Especially early on, there were those here who were of the opinion that Browne fans would never be swayed by evidence. Emails such as the one above show that to be untrue. Others, such as forum member Brattus, have more recently expressed the opinion that the site is a waste of time because even if it causes a Browne believer to lose faith in Browne, they will subsequently start believing in some other "psychic." While this will certainly happen to some, others will realize thate t, if they were fooled by Browne, perhaps they could be fooled by someone else, and so will be on the lookout for that.

Sylvia Browne is the absolute worst of the worst. She is in the axis of evil with Van Praagh, Jon Edward, and her. Those are probably the 3 most famous in America.

The reason i think those sites are effective is a lot of people are in a middle place between skepticism and belief, but I think deep down want reinforcement that it either is or isn't true. So in that sense, a site like Robert's can help others to cross over to the side of a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

Yes. From the beginning, I have said that the site would probably be of most help to fence-sitters.

A lot of people, even skeptics, criticize James Randi for hating Uri Geller too. Is he wasting his time?
Click to expand...
Certainly not. But yes, there will always be those who criticize someone for taking a stand.



I say, if you got an ax to grind, do it.

One suggestion for the site though. Have you considered maybe a page each dedicated to some of the other psychic frauds? Kind of like a primer maybe. Anyways, I like the site. I don't see what people's problem is.
Click to expand...

Rather than pages on StopSylvia.com, future sites like StopJohnEdward.com and StopJamesVanPraagh.com will focus on other psychic frauds.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Slightly off topic, I apologize

sadhatter said:
I was about to say, why do the idiots never call themselves idiots? This person actually posted a clear, grammatically correct thought. Almost made me fall over.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes strip in which Calvin said something along the lines of "Being a girl must be like being a bug. You have some vague sense that the universe has played an evil trick on you, but you're just too dumb to figure it out."

True woo idiots lack the brain muscles needed to realize that they're plain dumb.
 
While some believers stop believing, here's a report on a recent Browne event:

Believing weird things can be dangerous ‎
Calgary Herald
By Rob Breakenridge
April 13, 2010


...
Last week in Calgary, 1,400 people turned out for an evening with Sylvia Browne. While the self-proclaimed psychic/clairvoyant is not exactly filling arenas, it was more than turned out to hear, for example, Ann Coulter a few weeks ago.

While Browne is not "controversial" in the sense that Coulter is, it's far more disconcerting that people would pay to see the former than the latter.
...
Click to expand...

Full: Calgary Herald
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom