• 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 email "Be gone!" (with replies)

RSLancastr

www.StopSylvia.com
RSLancastr
Joined
Sep 7, 2001
Messages
17,135
Location
Salem, Oregon
Okay, let's see if we can keep this one out of AAH this time...

I received this email at StopSylvia back in late May, with the subject "Be gone!":

I love novus spiritus.

Sent from my iPad
Click to expand...


That same day, I replied with:

"Be gone!"? Thanks, but I have no plan on going anywhere.

If you love a religion founded by a totally-discredited "psychic medium" who apparently never had a single meaningfully-correct prediction to her name, that is certainly your right.

Best regards,

Robert S. Lancaster

Founder & webmaster,
www.StopSylvia.com
Click to expand...


Yesterday, nearly a month after my reply, I got this back:

Bummer, be gone from my search engine, poof and your gonzo, best of luck with your cause. Lol. Smile :)

Sent from my iPad
Click to expand...


Looks like someone is tired of seeing Stop Sylvia Browne on the first page of their Google search on "Sylvia Browne"!

ETA:

My reply:

I guess it must really annoy you that nearly all of the pages listed on the first page of a Google search of Browne's name are ones which point out that she was, quite obviously, not psychic.

Face it, Mr. [name]: No matter how much you liked her writings, the evidence pretty clearly shows that there are far more reasons to doubt her claims than are to believe them.

Best regards,

Robert S. Lancaster

Founder & Webmaster,

www.StopSylvia.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd just say, "Doesn't the fact that she failed to predict the date, or even year, of her own death give you pause?"
 
Wouldn't work. Sylvia stated specifically on multiple occasions that she could not see things about herself. I think most such charlatans give themselves similar outs.
 
Mister Earl said:
I'd just say, "Doesn't the fact that she failed to predict the date, or even year, of her own death give you pause?"
Click to expand...


Yes, but, as Garrette points out:

Garrette said:
Wouldn't work. Sylvia stated specifically on multiple occasions that she could not see things about herself. I think most such charlatans give themselves similar outs.
Click to expand...


And, if the correspondent brought that up, I could ask "Why then did she once tell Larry King, on Larry King Live, that she knew that she would live to be 88 years old?" (she died at 77)
 
Last edited:
Was it Randi who used to carry a card bearing that day's date as a prediction for his own death on the off chance that if they did die that day the accurate prediction would be found. Of course should he not die that day he could destroy the card a replace it with one bearing the following days date.
 
Garrette said:
Wouldn't work. Sylvia stated specifically on multiple occasions that she could not see things about herself. I think most such charlatans give themselves similar outs.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and to which I would counter, "Then why did she make the prediction to begin with? If she knows she can't predict anything about herself, but made the prediction anyway, then she knowingly made a false prediction. If she made one, is it really so much of a stretch to say she might have made more than one?"
 
Ocelot said:
Was it Randi who used to carry a card bearing that day's date as a prediction for his own death on the off chance that if they did die that day the accurate prediction would be found. Of course should he not die that day he could destroy the card a replace it with one bearing the following days date.
Click to expand...


If it is Randi (and it sounds suspiciously like something he might do), how many cards has he gone through by now?
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Was: the trick is revealed and he doesn't do it anymore.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be so sure.

He may have revealed it in order to somehow take it to a higher level.

It's like when a magician shows you how they (supposedly) perform an illusion, only to blow your mind when they do it again under circumstances which would make the method that they "revealed" impossible.

Of course, by disclosing what he had (purportedly) been doing with those cards, Randi was not showing how an illusion had been done, he was showing how he was going to pull off an illusion, and...why would he do that, unless he was just setting up an even better illusion?

Think: Randi dies, and a card is found on him on which is written a prediction, in Randi's handwriting, that he would die on the date he actually died.

After some initial excitement over it, somebody says "Hey, wait! Didn't he once say that he wrote out a card like that every morning, with that day's date on it?"

Then, something about the card shows that it could not have been written that morning!

Doesn't that seem like something a true magician would do?

Layers upon layers...

I really see no other reason why he would (supposedly) reveal the method before the illusion is even performed.

ETA: Even better: after someone remembers Randi "revealing" the "fill-out-a-card-every-morning" method, the card is turned over, and the exact hour and minute of his death are written there - again, in Randi's handwriting. How did he do that? - He certainly didn't write out a new card every minute, did he?

I like it.
 
Last edited:
Mister Earl said:
Exactly, and to which I would counter, "Then why did she make the prediction to begin with? If she knows she can't predict anything about herself, but made the prediction anyway, then she knowingly made a false prediction. If she made one, is it really so much of a stretch to say she might have made more than one?"
Click to expand...
Likely still would not work. See here.

Just as it appears that here on the JREF most of those swayed by arguments are those not involved in the argument but rather those not yet emotionally invested in the beliefs, so, too, the Sylvia Browne believers who take the time to write to RSL in the manner shown in the OP.

Note that I'm on your side, and would even support your tactic. I'm just pointing out that it will almost certainly fail in regard to the person at whom you direct your efforts. If you want those efforts to actually affect someone, then they need to be public so that others, not quite so invested, can see them.
 
Garrette said:
Note that I'm on your side, and would even support your tactic. I'm just pointing out that it will almost certainly fail in regard to the person at whom you direct your efforts. If you want those efforts to actually affect someone, then they need to be public so that others, not quite so invested, can see them.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

That's why I think it would be far more useful to have these points made at the site which attracts these emails in the first place rather than here, preaching to the choir.

I mean, what's the point? There may well be some useful discussion generated by this back-and-forth about the value (or otherwise) of Sylvia Browne's legacy but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the people who might most benefit from such discussion are ever going to see it here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But what people will see here is how RSLancastr deals with people who write to him. Displaying those methods is certainly not preaching to the choir here.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
But what people will see here is how RSLancastr deals with people who write to him. Displaying those methods is certainly not preaching to the choir here.

Ward
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that all I can see in the OP is an ad hominem.

"Your chosen spiritual path/religion/means of enlightenment/whatever is borked because its founder was a fraud."​

Not only is it preaching to the choir; it's preaching a fallacious lesson.
 
Akhenaten said:
Indeed.

That's why I think it would be far more useful to have these points made at the site which attracts these emails in the first place rather than here, preaching to the choir.

I mean, what's the point? There may well be some useful discussion generated by this back-and-forth about the value (or otherwise) of Sylvia Browne's legacy but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the people who might most benefit from such discussion are ever going to see it here.
Click to expand...


Asked and answered many, many times, Akh.

I cannot update the site at the present time.

I post what I post here NOT for Sylvia's followers. I post it here because MANY here have expressed an interest in seeing these emails.
 
His/her reply:

No it does not annoy me very much, I know truth when I read it, and you are most certainly devoid. Best regards.
[name], love and light

Sent from my iPad
Click to expand...


To which I replied:

If my site is "devoid" of truth, then it should be a simple matter for you to point out something on my site which is stated as a fact, but which is actually untrue. Even just one? If it is "devoid" of truth, that should be an easy thing for you to do.

If you can, please do, and I will correct or remove the incorrect item as soon as I can update my site again.

Here's another challenge for you:

Can you give me even one example of where Browne was ever meaningfully correct in a reading about a missing person or murder case? I mean a time where she was on the record (in a book, a Montel episode, whatever) before the case was solved, and, once it was solved, it turned out that she had been substantially correct in her reading? If you can (and I seriously doubt that you can, even though Browne repeatedly claimed to have an 87% "accuracy rating"). please tell me about it and I will research it. If you are correct, I will write an article about it and place it on my site as soon as I can.

If you cannot do either of these things, I have to wonder why you believed in Browne's "abilities", and just what your problem is with my site.



Robert S. Lancaster

Founder & Webmaster,
www.StopSylvia.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom