StopSylvia email: "Hummmmmm"

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Somewhat off-topic, but I've just been reading through a few articles on the site and am a little concerned to see the myth of "looking up and to the left means you're lying" repeated a couple of times. What direction you look in when you're thinking or talking has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you're telling the truth or not. Including such nonsense of the site does nothing but potentially harm its credibility.

[Edited to add]In fact, having just read a little bit more, you're best off leaving any and all analysis of Sylvia's body language and how it pertains to her truthfulness out all together. The vast majority of this stuff is utter nonsense and that which isn't can be summed up by Ben Goldacre's catchphrase "it's a little more complicated than that". If this stuff were reliable, then wouldn't it be used by the police and in court? Not even machines which read a whole bunch of physical cues to determine if someone is lying are considered reliable enough to be admissible in court, let alone looking at whether somebody has licked their lips or looked in a certain direction.

And, even if all of that weren't true, I assume that you, Robert, do not have a medical or psychology degree? Therefore, even if there were cues which could be analysed in the manner in which you are analysing them, you are not someone who is actually qualified to analyse them.

I think your case is strong enough as it is without resorting to relying on woo of your own in an attempt to discredit Browne. The only person it can actually serve to discredit is yourself.

 

[philkensebben]

No, i don't believe in psychic ability. Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories and i know he has recieved emails with success stories.

Stories that were featured prominently in the media? Cool, I certainly look forward to reading about these success stories and the inevitable follow up of paradigm shift in science which will now conclude Sylvia's abilities are in fact real and dead people are vibrating at a higher frequency than living people and the temperature is always a balmy 27 degrees where ever it is they are vibrating....

 

[Joey McGee]

No, i don't believe in psychic ability. Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories and i know he has recieved emails with success stories.

Success stories are disturbing testimonies of delusion and mental illness. There are enough success stories from Sylvia on the internet already, his job is to counter the mainstream narrative. Every skeptic site gets this complaint. If there is success proof, I think it's safe to say that we all would publish it. Nonsensical criticism.

 

[Flo]

No, i don't believe in psychic ability. Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories and i know he has recieved emails with success stories.

Unless you can demonstrate his having received success stories backed by verifiable evidence, this is pure calumny. You should be ashamed of yourself !

 

[mushy]

So in order to post success stories you need emails backed by verifyable evidence. But if you recieve an email saying that she took $700 off you and you feel robbed, you post that without any evidence?

Lol you guys have the worst double standards

 

[Think_Tank]

I know of NONE where she turned out to be even MOSTLY right. If you know of even ONE such case, PLEASE tell me about it. I will research it and put it up on my site.

Did you miss that bit, Mushy? Or do you know of any genuine successes that Sylvia has had, and want to share them?

ETA: Ninja'd several times before posting

 

[Joey McGee]

So in order to post success stories you need emails backed by verifyable evidence. But if you recieve an email saying that she took $700 off you and you feel robbed, you post that without any evidence?

Lol you guys have the worst double standards

You have the worst reasoning skills.

There is no evidence for her abilities. The unclaimed JREF prize and the history of psychic research proves this. Therefore it is a safe assumption that any success story is a delusion.

Sylvia has ripped off many people and broken the hearts of many families. Newspaper reports prove this. So there is evidence for one category and none for the other. A cursory amount of confirmation should be enough to run with a victim story.

 

[Think_Tank]

So in order to post success stories you need emails backed by verifyable evidence. But if you recieve an email saying that she took $700 off you and you feel robbed, you post that without any evidence?

Lol you guys have the worst double standards

An email from an individual is reasonable evidence that that person lost their money and feels cheated.

Transcripts of multiple interviews (etc) where Sylvia gives out advice on missing persons, followed by verified information on what actually happened, is compelling evidence that she cannot do what she claims to be able to do.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

How about just letting people make up their own mind? Or even remaining anonymous? Just be honest you just want the kudos, thats why you do this.

And if he was annonymous you would claim he is too much of a coward to give out his real name

So he claims, yet he never publishes any emails of success stories. How balanced is that?

Are there any?

No, i don't believe in psychic ability. Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories and i know he has recieved emails with success stories.

How do you know he had emails with success stories?
Did you forge any? (Not accusing, just asking)

 

[Rasmus]

No, i don't believe in psychic ability.

So, just for the record, you agree then that Sylvia is lying or at least reporting untruths and that she is charging money for those dubious services?

Still does not change the fact he refuses to publish success stories

He openly admits that people believe that Sylvia has been successful. That is the whole point of his site, really.

I seem to remember that a good number of articles contain letters from Sylvia's fans/customers/believers who at least initially support her. I might be wrong, if so just let me know. But I would think that this is also showing her alleged "success stories", right?

I don't see why he should be expected to provide a section of his side as an advertising platform, though.

He is biased, and it is a biased website. He looked at the evidence and found that Sylvia does not have any paranormal powers and that what she does harms and hurts people. Counter-points really, really need some sort of evidence attached to them - nothing unfair about that is there.

and i know he has received emails with success stories.

I wonder how you would know that. I don't doubt that he has, mind you. But why should he feel compelled to publish them?

 

[aggle-rithm]

So in order to post success stories you need emails backed by verifyable evidence. But if you recieve an email saying that she took $700 off you and you feel robbed, you post that without any evidence?

Sylvia Browne is KNOWN to take $700 from people, and is KNOWN to make bogus predictions. She is NOT KNOWN to have performed a single miracle.

Therefore, if someone claims to have paid $700 to Sylvia and gotten a bogus prediction in return, that is a reasonable claim consistent with what is known about her. On the other hand, if someone claims that Syliva laid hands on them and, as a result, they can now fart blueberries, that is NOT a reasonable claim.

Lol you guys have the worst double standards

Double standard? Perhaps. In this case, it's a REASONABLE double standard. Like the double standard you would apply when trying to decide whether to lock your car door in a church parking lot vs. a dark alley in the projects.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well, not always.

Here is my rather pedestrian reply:

Thanks for posting that. I found it far better than pedestrian, as usual.

 

[mushy]

Sylvia has ripped off many people and broken the hearts of many families. Newspaper reports prove this. So there is evidence for one category and none for the other. A cursory amount of confirmation should be enough to run with a victim story.

Ohh, newspaper reports. Well they never lie do they? Its funny watching you all scrambling to make excuses for your obvious double standards. Also i think its your reasoning skills that need examined. You claim you have seen news reports suggesting she rips people off, then use this as an acceptable reason to suggest we should just believe any off hand email anyone sends in saying they were ripped off. lol, you are literally delusional.

If anything requires research, its people sending in emails accusing her of fraud etc... But you are happy to accept them as factual, because its your personal belief she is a fraud. Its such obviously flawed logic, and i believe you realise that, however, you wont admit it.

Like it or not, stopsyliva is nothing more than a hate site. It does not care about presenting a balanced view of the facts. It cares about trying to discredit here so its owner can earn brownie points on jref forum.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ohh, newspaper reports. Well they never lie do they? Its funny watching you all scrambling to make excuses for your obvious double standards. Also i think its your reasoning skills that need examined. You claim you have seen news reports suggesting she rips people off, then use this as an acceptable reason to suggest we should just believe any off hand email anyone sends in saying they were ripped off. lol, you are literally delusional.

If anything requires research, its people sending in emails accusing her of fraud etc... But you are happy to accept them as factual, because its your personal belief she is a fraud. Its such obviously flawed logic, and i believe you realise that, however, you wont admit it.

Like it or not, stopsyliva is nothing more than a hate site. It does not care about presenting a balanced view of the facts. It cares about trying to discredit here so its owner can earn brownie points on jref forum.

... wurr

 

[mushy]

So, just for the record, you agree then that Sylvia is lying or at least reporting untruths and that she is charging money for those dubious services?

Yes!

He is biased, and it is a biased website

I know

I wonder how you would know that. I don't doubt that he has, mind you. But why should he feel compelled to publish them?

Because this whole argument started because i said his site is biased. People jumped down my throat. I'm glad you admit its biased. We are both agreeing.
The reason i brought it up, was because he told me before he was presenting both the pros and cons, which he clearly isnt.

If he accepts he has a hate site against her, then ill let it drop. Dont dress it up as anything else.

 

[Joey McGee]

Ohh, newspaper reports. Well they never lie do they? Its funny watching you all scrambling to make excuses for your obvious double standards. Also i think its your reasoning skills that need examined. You claim you have seen news reports suggesting she rips people off, then use this as an acceptable reason to suggest we should just believe any off hand email anyone sends in saying they were ripped off. lol, you are literally delusional.

Hey I said cursory confirmation, meaning you check the person out a bit, see their facebook, talk to them, get a feel for them. If you get caught posting a fake story your whole website is shot so there would be no point in doing this.

If anything requires research, its people sending in emails accusing her of fraud etc... But you are happy to accept them as factual, because its your personal belief she is a fraud. Its such obviously flawed logic, and i believe you realise that, however, you wont admit it.

I'd agree with you, I don't think Robert should post every single negative email he gets without screening for trolls, but I don't know him, we'll have to ask him how he controls for this. Since we don't have him weighing in on this thread, let's ask him to do just that.

Like it or not, stopsyliva is nothing more than a hate site. It does not care about presenting a balanced view of the facts. It cares about trying to discredit here so its owner can earn brownie points on jref forum.

That makes no sense. Does an evolution website have to give all of the arguments for creationism? There is no evidence or argument for creationism! There is no argument or evidence for psychic power! You're just making up stuff to attack JREF and Robert with because you're mad that debunkers are winning?

 

[mushy]

I'd agree with you, I don't think Robert should post every single negative email he gets without screening for trolls, but I don't know him, we'll have to ask him how he controls for this. Since we don't have him weighing in on this thread, let's ask him to do just that.

I'd like to know his method for this too.

That makes no sense. Does an evolution website have to give all of the arguments for creationism? There is no evidence or argument for creationism! There is no argument or evidence for psychic power! You're just making up stuff to attack JREF and Robert with because you're mad that debunkers are winning?

Evolution sites do not claim to be a debate site, that shows both sides of the argument. RL claims his site is a fair reflection of the evidence. I dont believe it is.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'd like to know his method for this too.

Give me a break mushy you already know that he doesn't do anything to verify they are true! Or why weren't you showing class and dignity and asking for an explanation from him before you made all of those accusations?

Evolution sites do not claim to be a debate site, that shows both sides of the argument. RL claims his site is a fair reflection of the evidence. I dont believe it is.

I hope you'll realize that doesn't make sense. There is no difference between claiming "you don't need magic to evolve humans" and "you don't need magic to get sylvia's "results""

So give us the evidence mushy, don't attack the JREF for being big meanies, RSL for being a corrupt attention-seeker, all of this waste of space and thinking. Show us your fair reflection of the evidence. So far you have shown me that you're personally hurt and offended that we have found so many things wrong with her.

 

[Rasmus]

Because this whole argument started because i said his site is biased.

I have no idea when, where or how this whole argument started, so let me add that I used "biased" in the sense that Robert's site is basically an opinion-piece. This doesn't mean that his opinion wasn't thoroughly researched and well-backed up by evidence, though.

As far as I see it, he is "the other side" that was not heard previously.

People jumped down my throat. I'm glad you admit its biased. We are both agreeing.

I doubt that.

You seem to be using "bias" in a solely negative sense, while I am not. It looks like you think his bias makes Robert a nasty guy, who picks on easy targets. I disagree.

(Well, Sylvia is an "easy target" in the sense that many of the things Robert reports are blatantly obvious. It is still a lot of work and this doesn't make it "easy" as such. And apparently there is a lot of need to even report on the blatantly obvious, too.)

I couldn't dissagree more about Robert's motives. In another thread he has been very reluctant to take on his new psychic friend (mama ... something?), even though I am sure he could have scored big with his fans ands followers if he had. I think the one thing you cannot reasonably accuse him off would be a lack of integrity or that he does things purely for show.

The reason i brought it up, was because he told me before he was presenting both the pros and cons, which he clearly isnt.

He is. It is not his fault that the pros are so severely lacking. He is not denying that there are a lot of people that are happy for being fooled out of their money. But the point of the site is not whether people are happy or not, it is about wether Sylvia can do what she says she can do. She can't, and nobody can show different. And I am convinced that Robert would include on his side any evidence to the contrary.

If he accepts he has a hate site against her, then ill let it drop. Dont dress it up as anything else.

Personally, I would agree. But that is because I have seen "hate-site" used in a much broader sense than the word implies. But accusing someone of " hate" and even "bias" without further qualification seems unjustified to me. In all the interactions I've had with Robert and that I could see between him and others and that third parties have reported he did not come across as the last bit hateful at all.

I find stop-site is a much better description of what the site is than the broader description of "hate-site", including the baggage that that word carries.

I don't know if Robert hates Sylvia or what she does. But in everything I have read and seen, he didn't let that hate - or whatever other feelings he might hold - dictate his words or actions about Sylvia.

 

[Rasmus]

RL claims his site is a fair reflection of the evidence. I dont believe it is.

So what actual evidence is he not showing us?