• 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: "Confused"

devnull said:
Even if what s_pepys is saying were true, can anyone here claim not to be a hypocrite in some area of their lives?
Click to expand...

I am sure there is a name for that fallacy.

Baby/bathwater and all that.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even go that far.

Robert is doing a great job wrt to Sylvia, and that does not depend on how he treats other psychics. (I am certain that is also a fallacy with a fancy name for it.)

I disagree with his reasoning thus far - but I am not in a position to tell him who his friends should be - and right now I'd much rather not be forced to examine all of my friendships as closely, anyway.

There have been demands he should be doing a stop site for his dear friend - and whilst I agree that that would be a good thing, it is hardly anything that could be demanded. And I agree: given her lack of fame chances are efforts are better spend elsewhere - and it is not a big secret that Robert right now issn't able to put in the work into the Sylvia site he would like to put into it.
 
devnull said:
Even if what s_pepys is saying were true, can anyone here claim not to be a hypocrite in some area of their lives?

Baby/bathwater and all that.
Click to expand...
Um, no? If the claims are BS, the bathwater is thrown out while the baby is not. That's kinda how it works in real life.
 
The point of RSL detractors here, seems to be: if I discredit Robert, this instantly returns Sylvia to awesomeness.

As someone else pointed out, who cares what Robert is like? All I care about, is the very point of his work: To highlight the fact that Sylvia has never proven her 'ability', nor has she solved any missing child cases. I dont need to be chums with Robert to see this is glaringly obvious.

As it stands though, Robert seems to be nice bloke. Good for him :)
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
Has Robert ever called anyone a troll before? I cannot recall him ever doing so. It is not part of his normal way of writing. If no, congratulations to s_pepys for being the first.
Click to expand...

I probably have, though I don't recall any instance of having done so. I generally prefer responding to the person's criticisms, and allow the verdict of whether or not they are trolls to be in the eye of the reader. I think that's what I did with S_Pepys in the thread where he went on and on about my friendship with MamaLisa. It was only when he tried to resurrect that theme in THIS thread that I decided to call a spade a spade. He then kindly linked back to the other thread, allowing readers of THIS thread access to the evidence.

I don't think I even calles SylviaRox a troll, in his spectacularly successful troll thread "Stop Robert S. Lancaster, Slanderer of Sylvia Browne" from four years ago.

So, for S_Pepys to claim here that "RSL labels all those who criticize him as trolls" is as demonstrably false as is his claim that I avoided questions within the thread about MamaLisa.
 
Sherlock said:
Robert: Let's exchange sites for awhile. The crowd protecting "my" psychic actress sends the same kind of messages ALL the time! Unless of course its just one person sending a lot of messages under multiple names. . . gee come to think about it the names you cite are some of the same names I've received similar messages from. . . Hhhhhmmmmmm. If you wish I can start forwarding all the messages I receive to you so you can have some more. I'd even throw in the ones I get from Laurie McQuary supporters but in the last few months those seem to have dropped off to almost zero. Even you-know-who supporters appear to have packed their bags about my critical analysis. Are the supporters of the aging psychics themselves dying off and/or discovering how foolish they may have been as supporters?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, but I thin I'll pass just the same.

And yes, I think that many of Sylvia's former supporters are no longer in that camp. As I have mentioned in other threads, about the only place I find them now is in places specifically set up to sing her praises, such as her facebook page's message board. Even people in more generic "aren't psychics great" or "ain't the paranormal great" forums seem hesitant to get on the "pro-Sylvia" side of a discussion of her. I'd like to think that my site has something to do with that, but who knows?
 
dropzone said:
Um, no? If the claims are BS, the bathwater is thrown out while the baby is not. That's kinda how it works in real life.
Click to expand...

I believe the implication was that S_Pepys was throwing out the baby (my credibility and the evidence on my site) with the bathwater (my friendship with MamaLisa).
 
RSLancastr said:
Well, I haven't had any "real training in skepticism and critical thinking" yet!

None in grade school nor high school. None in college either (Two years, no degree earned. Theatre Major and Music Minor). Spending decades as a professional computer programmer certainly made sure that I understood and respected logic, which is at the root of skepticism and critical thinking, and I was a fan of Randi, but I had never really studied skepticism nor critical thinking, and had never even heard of logical fallacies, Occam's Razor, nor most of the other "tenets" of Skepticism and critical thinking until I started hanging out here almost ten years ago (September 2001). And I don't think I'm alone in this. Ex-M, I think you may have an unrealistic mental image of how "the rest of us" got here. Your path here and mine are not really so different after all.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, that is what I tend to think. It's nice to know, RSL, thanks.
 
philkensebben said:
The point of RSL detractors here, seems to be: if I discredit Robert, this instantly returns Sylvia to awesomeness.

As someone else pointed out, who cares what Robert is like? All I care about, is the very point of his work: To highlight the fact that Sylvia has never proven her 'ability', nor has she solved any missing child cases. I dont need to be chums with Robert to see this is glaringly obvious.

As it stands though, Robert seems to be nice bloke. Good for him :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Phil. i once got an email at SSB accusing me of all sorts of awful things. In my reply I refuted many of the accusations, and added something like "But, even if I was the worst person on the planet, it would have no effect on whether or not what I say on my web site is true." I then challenged the correspondent to find anything on the site which was untrue or inaccurate.
 
As always (well, "quite often" then, if you want to be picky), your even-tempered approach works.

That sort of cheap "Care Bear" argument is pretty hard to counter if you respond as I would. ("What? You silly git!") The pretense/conceit is that they're really just concerned for you, whereas the gambit is to show that you're an obsessed and evil person. If you react in anger, you're only proving their point as to how wasteful "all that negative energy" is. Ergo, the best response is to stay on message and continue in your evidence-based non-rancorous approach.

Meh? I'd have gone berserker at message 2 and done a little hyperbolic tap dance on her windpipe(figuratively, of course). "A nice lunch!! Is that what it's about for you? I have trouble digesting a nice lunch when I know that this epitome of eviltude is still across town wolfing down the savings accounts of widows and orphans. Yeah, you have your nice life. The rest of us will worry about righting the wrongs, defending justice, and speaking up for the forgotten little people. Here, have a nother helping of tiramisu!"

Note to innocent bystanders: This is why neither the Marquis nor De Bunk nor Ducky nor myself would really be cut out to do Robert's work.


Oh, and for that Pepys guy.... One of my best friends is a Jehovah's Witness. We just have an agreement that if she starts any of that voodoo nonsense, the conversation ceases. We have to employ the rule often, but it's now less often than before. (They just can't help themselves - all that indoctrination.) Would I happily launch an anti-JW site? Hell, yes. Does that mean I can't befriend an individual JW? Does that mean I need to trip the next nun I see?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Oh, and for that Pepys guy.... One of my best friends is a Jehovah's Witness. We just have an agreement that if she starts any of that voodoo nonsense, the conversation ceases. We have to employ the rule often, but it's now less often than before. (They just can't help themselves - all that indoctrination.) Would I happily launch an anti-JW site? Hell, yes. Does that mean I can't befriend an individual JW? Does that mean I need to trip the next nun I see?
Click to expand...

No, as I understood it, his problem was NOT with my befriending a believer, but with my befriending a psychic - a purveyor of woo. So he would (again, as I understand it) have no problem with your befriending an individual JW. Not sure about the nun thing, though.
 
RSLancastr said:
No, as I understood it, his problem was NOT with my befriending a believer, but with my befriending a psychic - a purveyor of woo. So he would (again, as I understand it) have no problem with your befriending an individual JW. Not sure about the nun thing, though.
Click to expand...

Well, some folks True Believers are some folks Woo. I was considering the situation to be analogous. As a hard-nosed atheist I consider both sets of underlying beliefs to be nonsense. I'd have no more difficulty befirending a personable psychic or dowser or nun or JW.

In fact, I'd have no difficulty slamming a misanthropic skeptic or atheist or debunker. I just don't compartmentalize my friendships based on belief systems.
 
Aer several days with no reply, I sent the following:

You still there?
Click to expand...

Today I received this:

Yes, I'm still here. But I've moved on.
Click to expand...

I can hope this means that she read enough of the articles to have reconsidered her thoughts on Browne and my site, but it might mean that she has found that my reaction to her poking me with a stick wasn't as fun as she hoped it would be.
 
RSLancastr said:
Aer several days with no reply, I sent the following:



Today I received this:



I can hope this means that she read enough of the articles to have reconsidered her thoughts on Browne and my site, but it might mean that she has found that my reaction to her poking me with a stick wasn't as fun as she hoped it would be.
Click to expand...

Or, she has simply decided to disregard your site, for whatever reason.

Cheers
 
Garrette said:
Whew! Since Sylvia dancing a jig is inconceivable, I was obviously mistaken. My apologies, Sir. And if anyone dares post any sort of image showing Sylvia jigging I shall be forced to immediately report them to the mods for permanent banning.
Click to expand...

I can see her dancing a jig when she's on her way to the bank.
 
dropzone said:
Um, no? If the claims are BS, the bathwater is thrown out while the baby is not. That's kinda how it works in real life.
Click to expand...

A mother was washing her baby one night,
The youngest of ten and a delicate mite.
The mother was poor and the baby was thin,
'Twas naught but an skelingtin covered with skin.

The mother turned 'round for a soap off the rack.
She was only a moment but when she turned back
Her baby had gone, and in anguish she cried,
"Oh, where 'as my baby gone?" The angels replied:

Oh, your baby has gone down the plug 'ole.
Oh, your baby has gone down the plug.
The poor little thing was so skinny and thin,
He should 'ave been washed in a jug, in a jug.

Your baby is perfectly happy;
He won't need a bath anymore.
He's a-muckin' about with the angels above,
Not lost but gone before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom