StopSylvia email: "Hummmmmm"

[Joey McGee]

I'd like to request that RSL stop making a separate thread for every email he posts.

I vote against this notion

 

[RSLancastr]

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.

Squeegee, you are right. I think I only mention her body language a couple of times, so it isn't something I've relied on heavily. But yes, body language is not an exact science. My bringing it up, even occasionally, was not very...skeptical of me. Fortunately, there is plenty of solid evidence on the site.

 

[Philosaur]

There is?

Touché.

 

[RSLancastr]

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

Part of my reason for creating the site was just the opposite. While there was no actual evidence of Browne's "abilities, there was lots of "testemonial" support of her on television, such as her weekly (over 17 years) appearance on the Montel Williams Show. Since those appearances were basically advertisements for Browne (her current book was usually shown and recommended), no criticism nor real examination of what she did was shown. When skeptics would criticize Browne on the web, her supporters would say things like "If she is a fake, where are all the complaints from people about her being wrong?"

The problem was, there were no sites which published such accounts. StopSylvia filled that void.

And no, I have not "verified" most of the emails I have published. This is one reason I usually say something like "this email is simply one person's opinion" before each email.

 

[RSLancastr]

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

Thanks, most of it was what I've said here many times, which is why I said it was what people would expect.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I received the following email on StopSylvia today, with the subject "Hummmmmm":



I replied as you would probably expect.

Good thing you censored the State. Otherwise I probably could have figured out who "Name" was!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Interesting approach. "You are attacking my religion and my ability to teach my beliefs to my daughter."
I am interested in seeing RSL's response, as I don't know what I am supposed to "probably expect" him to say.

His usual response is something along the lines of "You dumb piece of ****! How can you be so ******* stupid?"

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, I'm stumped. I sent this woman a FB Friend Request. She sent me a FB Message which read



When I replied that I did not understand, she sent another message which read



Is this some netspeak with which I am unfamiliar?

It's Spanish.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He seems like a nice guy. Personally i think it shows RSL as the nasty selfish person he is. Because i believe he picks on easy targets like Sylvia in order to fuflfull his need to be seen as some sort of authority figure.

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.

I think he's just in it for the money.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No you miss the point. She is a fraud. But just because someone is a fraud, it does not make every unverifyable anonymous email about them true.

The point appears to be to stir up trouble for no good reason.

Why else would you viciously attack someone for exposing what you acknowledge is a fraud?

 

[RSLancastr]

<snip> 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 site is definitely biased towards the evidence.

I believe that I say on the site that I make no pretense of impartiality. Having examined a lot of the evidence, I have come to a firm conclusion that Browne is a fraud. I make no secret of that on the site - read the Home Page.

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

Where did I tell you this? I more likely said that I was open to presenting the pros.

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

No, it is not a "hate site", at least not as I understand the term. If I made up unpleasant things about Browne, that might qualify as a "hate site", but there is no need to make up unpleasant things about her, as there are so many actual unpleasant things about her.

 

[headscratcher4]

How is Sylvia an "easy" target? She's been conning people all of her adult life and made a pretty good living at it and has a huge fan base. RSL is essentially going after a giant in the psychic con-game. The fact that she remains, that she still has believers and has had no come-uppence (sp?) from the regular media and still I assume makes a pretty good living for all of RSL's efforts, suggest that she's not an easy target at all.

I wonder Mushy, do you go to Sylvia's or her fan sites and demand balance there?

 

[Audible Click]

.

<snip>Not me. I look forward to them.<snip>

I vote against this notion

Let me clarify, RSL could have each email in the same thread. They are all, basically, the same email. Each time he added a new email the thread would be bumped. If you re-read my post you will see that I never stated he should not post his emails. You guys are awfully quick on the trigger as usual.

 

[RSLancastr]

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.

No, I don't post every single negative (regarding Browne) email I receive. I "weed out" many which are poorly written. And some which do not pass my "sniff test" (admittedly, not a scientific nor totally reliable method), and some which I feel would simply be repeating what is already on the site. The ones I DO publish, I ask for further information until I acheive a personal level of comfort with the person and their story. If you'd care to pick one or more of the emails I've published on the site and suggest ways you think I should have verified it, I would be interested in reading it.

No, my method is far from perfect. This is one reason I add the "one person's opinion" disclaimer before most emails.

 

[ExMinister]

Let me clarify, RSL could have each email in the same thread. They are all, basically, the same email. Each time he added a new email the thread would be bumped. If you re-read my post you will see that I never stated he should not post his emails. You guys are awfully quick on the trigger as usual.

Yeah, I know. It's just because I happen to enjoy the emails a lot. To me they all vary enough to be interesting.

I kinda thought this is what you meant, BTW. I just happen to like the new threads because I don't always check old threads that are resurrected.

Of course, if I knew Robert was going to do this, I would start checking.

 

[RSLancastr]

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

I believe I have answered this now, Mushy.

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.

Mushy, believe what you like. But until you offer even a shred of evidence, your belief is all it is.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

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.

Let's say someone started a site because he was concerned about the safety of a certain brand of tires. He publishes every report he can find of these tires exploding and causing an accident, along with claims from the manufacturer that the tires are perfectly safe.

Should he also publish reports of every tire that DIDN'T explode, in order to give the site balance?

Does the fact that EVERY tire doesn't explode change the fact that the manufacturer is selling defective tires?

In fact, if 90% of the tires don't explode, and the customers are very pleased with them, does THAT change the fact that the manufacturer is selling defective tires?

 

[Joey McGee]

No, I don't post every single negative (regarding Browne) email I receive. I "weed out" many which are poorly written. And some which do not pass my "sniff test" (admittedly, not a scientific nor totally reliable method), and some which I feel would simply be repeating what is already on the site. The ones I DO publish, I ask for further information until I acheive a personal level of comfort with the person and their story. If you'd care to pick one or more of the emails I've published on the site and suggest ways you think I should have verified it, I would be interested in reading it.

No, my method is far from perfect. This is one reason I add the "one person's opinion" disclaimer before most emails.

Actually that's as perfect as it can get! No one should expect much more. I figured that was your modus operandi I just wanted the mushy and the gallery to take note of it.

Let me clarify, RSL could have each email in the same thread. They are all, basically, the same email. Each time he added a new email the thread would be bumped. If you re-read my post you will see that I never stated he should not post his emails. You guys are awfully quick on the trigger as usual.

I know, I don't read every post on every Silvia thread, I do like to see the new updates, email or other when they come up though, is all. It's not like it's cluttering up the joint really. You do have a great point but I say the more threads on Sylvia the better

 

[RSLancastr]

I'd like to request that RSL stop making a separate thread for every email he posts.

If I just had one "StopSylvia email" thread, and used it to post every email I wished to post, I think it would soon become very confusing. After more than one email was posted in the thread, it would likely become difficult to tell which email was being referenced in subsequent replies. Doing it with a separate thread for each keeps this a lot clearer - at least for me. And I don't think that I post enough emails these days for this to be much of a concern, at least from a "flooding/spamming the forum" standpoint. Is that your objection?

 

[mushy]

Mushy, believe what you like. But until you offer even a shred of evidence, your belief is all it is.

Yes, my belief and the fact you just stated that your research goes as far as their email is well written. lol.

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.

You have all made it quite clear, you will accept almost any well written email to stopsylvia as proof she is taking advantage of even more people. I'm just glad the legal system isn't like that. You go to jail for robbery and change, but after release, if anyone claims you robbed them you get put in jail without trial.

Brilliant logic.