StopSylvia email: "thanks!"

[RSLancastr]

Got this email at Stop Sylvia Browne today with the subject "Thanks!":

I came across your website today after reading this letter to the editor: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=476469

I just wanted to tell you that your FAQ section cracked me up because you obviously get outraged email from insane people and you attempt to placate them with some of your answers.

Well done, but you'll never placate the wackos! Oh well.

Here is my reply:

[Name]:

Thank you for sharing that link with me.

A couple of nitpicks:

I do NOT consider Browne's supporters to be "wackos", but just people who I hope might benefit from reading my site.

And I don't try to "placate" them, but to draw them into a reasoned dialog, and - it is hoped - to get them to see that Browne is most likely a fraud. You might be surprised at how many of them eventually come around to that conclusion. (I have published my correspondences with some of them, and you may find it heartening to read them).

Best regards and thanks again,

Robert S. Lancaster
Founder and Webaster,
www.StopSylvia.com

He/she wrote this in return:

Good for you for not being so judgmental. I should work harder at that myself!

I'm off to go read some of those correspondences now.

 

[Darat]

Checking the thread is working.

 

[RSLancastr]

Thanks, Darat, but I think this thread is about a DIFFERENT EMAIL than the one you deleted. They both have "thanks" in the subject is all.

Plerase UNdelete the one you deletd, if possible.

If not, I will try to start it a FOURTH time.

Confused,

-RSL

 

[rjh01]

I wonder how she found your site? The article does not refer to your site.

 

[RSLancastr]

I wonder how she found your site? The article does not refer to your site.

I did not see a reference either. I just assumed that either...

1. The correspondent had read multiple web pages about the story, one of which linked to (or just mentioned) my site, and, by the time the correspondent got around to writing the email, he or she had forgotten precisely which article had led him or her to my site, and simply picked one of them to mention to me as where he or she had learned of my site. -OR-

2. Something else which I have now forgotten.

I'm voting for 1.

 

[rjh01]

I did not see a reference either. I just assumed that either...

1. The correspondent had read multiple web pages about the story, one of which linked to (or just mentioned) my site, and, by the time the correspondent got around to writing the email, he or she had forgotten precisely which article had led him or her to my site, and simply picked one of them to mention to me as where he or she had learned of my site. -OR-

2. Something else which I have now forgotten.

I'm voting for 1.

I did a search and found a few relevant articles that mentioned your site at least in the comments.

 

[RSLancastr]

Yup, there were a handful or so of them, resulting in a large influx of visitors and emails.