StopSylvia email: "Hummmmmm"

[Fnord]

So he claims, yet he never publishes any emails of success stories.

Because there are none.

How balanced is that?

Perfectly. RSL only publishes the facts regardin Ms. Browne's claims. He will also any valid corrections, but it is up to Ms. Browne and her fans to provide the information.

Why don't you provide them?

Oh, right ... they don't exist.

 

[Cavemonster]

RSL,
I wanna be you when I grow up!

You approach this whole thing with such class and honesty, which I find to be an incredibly difficult thing to do when pointing out lies and delusions.

Every time I find out a friend has fallen under the spell of some nonsense, religion, anti-medicine, whatever- I find myself a bit paralyzed by the fact that mine is an inherently negative position, anything I say is inherently an attack on them because to criticize their belief implies that they have been fools and the people they respect are either crazy or dishonest.

I am absolutely inspired by the way you approach this with tact, but no apology.

Sorry for the brown nosing. Just a fan of your work.

 

[wollery]

And for the person who asked. The reason i'm kicking up a fuss and even when i agree she is a fraud, its called morals. Just because someone is a fraud does not give anyone the right to treat them a certain way.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked fraud was a crime in the USA. If someone is taking money for services that they are knowingly failing to provide they can (and should) be prosecuted for fraud.

The reason that psychics and mediums aren't prosecuted is that it's impossible to prove that the information they provide is knowingly wrong.

In the absence of any way to successfully prosecute such people what's wrong with demonstrating that they are rarely, if ever, correct about anything?

If she's a fraud then what's wrong with pointing it out?

Exactly what is it that Robert is doing that is morally wrong?

 

[mushy]

And what way is that? Presenting accurate information about a public figure?

Prove that the email he posted from people accusing her of ripping them off are "accurate information" please.

but yet again you are all ignorant to the point. Just because someone is a fraud ITS NOTS ok to publish any random email to a wide audience like he does. Why dont you understand that?

 

[Joey McGee]

Prove that the email he posted from people accusing her of ripping them off are "accurate information" please.

but yet again you are all ignorant to the point. Just because someone is a fraud ITS NOTS ok to publish any random email to a wide audience like he does. Why dont you understand that?

It has been repeatedly shown to you that he does not do this, that he does his best with limited resources, phone and email and facebook or whatever, his gut feeling about the person, to make sure they are a genuine person. That is all he can do. And he puts a disclaimer "this is only opinion" there is nothing wrong with that. Why don't you understand that? If you still think that's wrong, your dissent has been noted.

In the real world Sylvia could probably sue him for libel or something if he posted something bad that wasn't true. She'd probably do it too. So I think you can stop worrying about Sylvia at this point.

 

[mushy]

for example if someone who disliked {somebody} started up a site called {somebody}IsAPaedophile.com

and it had a picture of him saying

"Is he a well-intentioned fraud debunker, with a harmless bone in his body? Is he a paedophile, Getting kicks by molesting children? Or is she something else entirely?"

Then i was to email in saying he molested me as a child (a made up story).

Is the creater of the site ok to say ... "I just recieved another email that sounds honest" and publish the email?

I mean according to the people on here it should be fine to do that. I mean there is so much nice stuff written about rob, that its only fair to let people hear the other side... right?

Edited by Tricky: 

Do not make accusations of unlawful acts by other members, even hypothetically.

 

[Rasmus]

but yet again you are all ignorant to the point. Just because someone is a fraud ITS NOTS ok to publish any random email to a wide audience like he does. Why dont you understand that?

Because you fail to substantiate this claim in any way.

Why would it not be okay?

(And how does that tie in with your demand that he should be publishing even more random emails to the same audience?)

He publishes these e-mails for what they are: random e-mails from random-people.

Oh, and regarding the evidence: We all have noticed that he's asking for individual tapes of sessions between his users/messengers and SB, right?

 

[mushy]

It has been repeatedly shown to you that he does not do this, that he does his best with limited resources, phone and email and facebook or whatever, his gut feeling about the person, to make sure they are a genuine person. That is all he can do. And he puts a disclaimer, there is nothing wrong with that. Why don't you understand that? If you still think that's wrong, your dissent has been noted.

FLAWLESS INVESTIGATING!!! lol

 

[Joey McGee]

In that case, because the stories aren't true, depending on your country, yes you can call the police and they will take down your server. It's harassment or libel or slander or something. Sylvia is free to sue Robert for posting damaging lies about her, so I'm sure he's careful to make everything genuine.

 

[mushy]

In that case, because the stories aren't true, depending on your country, yes you can call the police and they will take down your server. It's harassment or libel or slander or something. Sylvia is free to sue Robert for posting damaging lies about her, so I'm sure he's careful to make everything genuine.

How can you be sure the stories he publishes from people about sylvia are true?

It's harassment or libel or slander or something.

Which is apparently fine when he does it to sylvia.

Sylvia is free to sue Robert for posting damaging lies about her, so I'm sure he's careful to make everything genuine.[/

Yes, he uses facebook and his gut feeling lol.

 

[Joey McGee]

How can you be sure the stories he publishes from people about sylvia are true?

I'm not. He does a good enough job vetting people, he's not rich and he's just a single person doing a good deed. It's unclassy to attack him in this way.

Which is apparently fine when he does it to sylvia.

rollseyes x a quadrillion. It's not illegal when it's true!!! lol

Yes, he uses facebook and his gut feeling lol.

Yep, I'm using my gut feeling to tell me that you take pleasure out of trolling. Everyone has heard your dissent by now.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

but yet again you are all ignorant to the point. Just because someone is a fraud ITS NOTS ok to publish any random email to a wide audience like he does. Why dont you understand that?

I thought the point was that he doesn't publish the positive emails that you know for a fact he receives? Are you now conceding that that is not true?

 

[mushy]

No, its not trolling. Your defense boils down to,

You like robert and you don't like sylvia. So you accept its ok for him to attack her and dont mind him posting unchecked stories about her.

You like robert so its not ok for me to attack hom and its wrong for me a website to post unchecked stories about him.

You are a hypocrite. Like everyone else on this site.

 

[mushy]

I thought the point was that he doesn't publish the positive emails that you know for a fact he receives? Are you now conceding that that is not true?

No, its one and the same point. He recieves random emails, some good, some bad. He does not post the good ones because there is no evidence they are true, however, he posts the bad ones. Its not rocket science to see that.

 

[Rasmus]

How can you be sure the stories he publishes from people about sylvia are true?

They don't need to be.

He publishes other peoples' mails as other peoples' opinions and then writes down what he thinks about those. Nothing sinister going on here. It is perfectly legal commentary.

He is not responsible for the accuracy of the stories told to him, and he says as much.

 

[Rasmus]

No, its one and the same point. He recieves random emails, some good, some bad. He does not post the good ones because there is no evidence they are true, however, he posts the bad ones. Its not rocket science to see that.

You are reading the thread, right?
You have seen Robert's posts to the effect that he does not receive the good emails you speak of, right?

 

[Joey McGee]

No, its not trolling. Your defense boils down to,

You like robert and you don't like sylvia. So you accept its ok for him to attack her and dont mind him posting unchecked stories about her.

Actually I would mind him posting unchecked stories. I take him at his word that he does his best and actually makes sure the people check out. He's even offered to look into specific emails for anyone who doubts the truth of them. What more do you want?

You like robert so its not ok for me to attack hom and its wrong for me a website to post unchecked stories about him.

No, you're talking about demonstrable lies. Sylvia would sue Robert if he made stuff up about her, she'd love the chance! She doesn't need your protection.

You are a hypocrite. Like everyone else on this site.

People have given you the time of day on this site, they have tried to address your concerns. Yet you show zero appreciation for this outreach. That is a shame.

 

[kerikiwi]

You are a hypocrite. Like everyone else on this site.

Please give your evidence for accusing me of being a hypocrite.
Or retract and apologise.

 

[kerikiwi]

He does not post the good ones because there is no evidence they are true,

Can you provide any evidence for this accusation?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, its one and the same point. He recieves random emails, some good, some bad. He does not post the good ones because there is no evidence they are true, however, he posts the bad ones. Its not rocket science to see that.

So, just to be clear, you are calling Robert a liar WRT what he's said on the subject of positive emails? On what are you basing that? What evidence do you have that he is lying about the emails he receives?