RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Since the early days of StopSylvia, I have frequently said to Browne supporters, whether in email, on Internet fora or elsewhere,
I have said this DOZENS of times over the years, but as far as I recall, I have NEVER received any response to this. Not even an ATTEMPT at pointing out an inaccuracy or error of fact.
Until now.
Several days ago I came upon a post in a pro-Browne forum where the author had harsh words for me and mocked those who took the articles on my site as "gospel" without doing any further research. I sent this poster a message, including my oft-use quote above.
A day or so later I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response. The person listed many things he found questionable on the site. He felt, for example, that the articles which did not have anything directly to do with Browne's purported abilities (such as the articles about the Novus jewelry) should be removed from the site. In my reply I talked of how I felt that some things, while not directly related to her "abilities" (or lack thereof) DID in fact "go to character" and so, I felt, were fair to show to people so that they could take them into account when trying to decide whether or not to believe Browne's claims.
He also pointed out that the email accounts on the site are not verifiable. I agree, which is one reason I usually state "this email is only one person's opinion" before each email. For all a reader of the site knows, I have written those emails myself! It is one reason I hesitated before including them on the site at the beginning. But I think that a reader of the site can decide just how much weight to give those emails, much ;ike a jury decides how much weight to give to the testimony of a trial witness. I have long considered adding a page to my site saying much of this about emails on the site, and then linking to that page before each email. I think that the emails on the site are among the strongest articles there, but a page discussing the inherent problems with publishing emails would probably make sense.
His strongest point, I felt, was that he felt that I had been unfair or misleading in my discussion of "Gnostic Christian" beliefs in the article "Browne vs. Christiabity." I am considering this carefully, and will likely be updating that article to clarify some points, first running the update by some of my Gnostic (and ex-Gnostic) friends. I have also offered this gentleman a look at those updates when they are ready.
As I read the message, I was thinking I should post it here, and was already mentally composing how I would ask his permission to do so, but towards the end of the message he explicitly stated that I should not take his having contacted me as permission to post his communications on the JREF forum. I have asked his permission to at least paraphrase his concerns here. As I write this (offline) I have yet to receive such permission. but, if I have posted this on the forum, I have received permission to do so. In fact, I plan to run a copy of this by him before posting it.
He and I have messaged back and forth a handful of times now. As pleasantly surprised as I was to hear from him (especially given the tone of his original post about me), I think he has been similarly pleasantly surprised by my end of our correspondence as well.
I also stressed to him that, whatever changes I make to that article, they will have to wait until I have overcome the obstacles which currently are keeping me from updating the site.
All in all, it has been a very positive exchange, and will, I believe, help the site overall.
ETA: I did run this post by him and received a go-ahead on posting it here. He also gave me permission to post his name here, but I am still hesitant to do so. I will be sending him a link to this thread. He can add his name here if he so chooses.
He also stated that he will be posting about our correspondence on the "inner circle" forum. I assume that means the members-only forum opn Sylvia's site. I am not currently a member there.
I have said this DOZENS of times over the years, but as far as I recall, I have NEVER received any response to this. Not even an ATTEMPT at pointing out an inaccuracy or error of fact.
Until now.
Several days ago I came upon a post in a pro-Browne forum where the author had harsh words for me and mocked those who took the articles on my site as "gospel" without doing any further research. I sent this poster a message, including my oft-use quote above.
A day or so later I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response. The person listed many things he found questionable on the site. He felt, for example, that the articles which did not have anything directly to do with Browne's purported abilities (such as the articles about the Novus jewelry) should be removed from the site. In my reply I talked of how I felt that some things, while not directly related to her "abilities" (or lack thereof) DID in fact "go to character" and so, I felt, were fair to show to people so that they could take them into account when trying to decide whether or not to believe Browne's claims.
He also pointed out that the email accounts on the site are not verifiable. I agree, which is one reason I usually state "this email is only one person's opinion" before each email. For all a reader of the site knows, I have written those emails myself! It is one reason I hesitated before including them on the site at the beginning. But I think that a reader of the site can decide just how much weight to give those emails, much ;ike a jury decides how much weight to give to the testimony of a trial witness. I have long considered adding a page to my site saying much of this about emails on the site, and then linking to that page before each email. I think that the emails on the site are among the strongest articles there, but a page discussing the inherent problems with publishing emails would probably make sense.
His strongest point, I felt, was that he felt that I had been unfair or misleading in my discussion of "Gnostic Christian" beliefs in the article "Browne vs. Christiabity." I am considering this carefully, and will likely be updating that article to clarify some points, first running the update by some of my Gnostic (and ex-Gnostic) friends. I have also offered this gentleman a look at those updates when they are ready.
As I read the message, I was thinking I should post it here, and was already mentally composing how I would ask his permission to do so, but towards the end of the message he explicitly stated that I should not take his having contacted me as permission to post his communications on the JREF forum. I have asked his permission to at least paraphrase his concerns here. As I write this (offline) I have yet to receive such permission. but, if I have posted this on the forum, I have received permission to do so. In fact, I plan to run a copy of this by him before posting it.
He and I have messaged back and forth a handful of times now. As pleasantly surprised as I was to hear from him (especially given the tone of his original post about me), I think he has been similarly pleasantly surprised by my end of our correspondence as well.
I also stressed to him that, whatever changes I make to that article, they will have to wait until I have overcome the obstacles which currently are keeping me from updating the site.
All in all, it has been a very positive exchange, and will, I believe, help the site overall.
ETA: I did run this post by him and received a go-ahead on posting it here. He also gave me permission to post his name here, but I am still hesitant to do so. I will be sending him a link to this thread. He can add his name here if he so chooses.
He also stated that he will be posting about our correspondence on the "inner circle" forum. I assume that means the members-only forum opn Sylvia's site. I am not currently a member there.
