StopSylvia: new hate mail

[RSLancastr]

A few very angry emails this week. I have not asked permission to quote them, so I will just describe them.

The first described the site as "juvenile smut" and said, among other things, that I had apparently read none of Sylvia's books. In my reply I talked of the books I have read, the hours of Montel I have watched, the audio and video CDs and DVDs I have slogged through, and much more. I stated that I have probably seen, read and listened to more of Browne's output than have most of her fans. She had also started her email by saying that she had read all of the articles on the site. In my reply I told her that I found that hard to believe, given some of her criticisms.

She replied and said "I have misjudged you - sorry if I offended you." She also admitted to having read only a dozen of my articles, picked at random. I replied with a list of suggested articles to read (I really need to put together that "Worst of Sylvia" list on the site.

The second hate mail accused me of "having nothing better to do than bash an old lady" and of ignoring all of her correct predictions. I replied asking for examples. She also said I was ignoring "organizations like Associated Content" which had declared Browne's predictions "the gold standard."

I had never heard of "Associated Content" and Googled it. It appears to be a site which publishes just about ANYTHING submitted by ANYONE, and boasts of having more than 400,000 contributors. I did find an article there by one Christopher Murray, which indeed referred to her predictions as the "gold standard." There were also articles there skeptical of Browne, including one which cited many of her gaffes listed on my site.

I got another today from someone angry with me for

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I got another today from someone angry with me for

...not finishing my sentences.

 

[RSLancastr]

...not finishing my sentences.

I had started that sentence and later fleshed it out (it became the paragraph about the second email) but neglected to delete the started sentence.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

So apperantly that person told you there is an article about how accurate sylvia is and hasn't pondered why didn't sylvia publish it at her own site?!?

 

[ExMinister]

I bet people are just so surprised when they get a response back at all, much less the thoughtful types of responses they get from you!

 

[Delscottio]

[snip]
The first described the site as "juvenile smut" and said, among other things, that I had apparently read none of Sylvia's books. In my reply I talked of the books I have read, the hours of Montel I have watched, the audio and video CDs and DVDs I have slogged through, and much more. I stated that I have probably seen, read and listened to more of Browne's output than have most of her fans. She had also started her email by saying that she had read all of the articles on the site. In my reply I told her that I found that hard to believe, given some of her criticisms.

She replied and said "I have misjudged you - sorry if I offended you." She also admitted to having read only a dozen of my articles, picked at random. I replied with a list of suggested articles to read (I really need to put together that "Worst of Sylvia" list on the site.

I find this really bizarre, what the conversation amounts to is:

Brown Supporter "You haven't really looked into her"

RSL "I have"

Brown Supporter " Ok sorry about that"


Seriously do these people not look at the site and think you may have actually looked into her claims? The worst bit is how quickly the person believed you, if I had formed an opinion of someone to actually contact them with "hate mail" I wouldn't back down without a proper argument delving into the subjects work to check if they truely had read and understood it.

Flakey is the only word I can come up with!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find this really bizarre, what the conversation amounts to is:

Brown Supporter "You haven't really looked into her"

RSL "I have"

Brown Supporter " Ok sorry about that"

Could have been an alcohol- or drug-inspired e-mail. You know, where someone is in a condition where their normal impulse control isn't in place and they send out an e-mail that they later regret.

Possibly. At least that person had the integrity to admit being wrong about Robert and his site (though it seems he or she didn't go as far as admitting to being wrong about Sylvia) and to apologize.

 

[ExMinister]

Also, we didn't read the entire e-mail since RSL was being considerate not to post it without permission, so we don't know if there was more.

Even if there wasn't, I do think people have a knee-jerk reaction of anger, assuming that if Robert is criticizing her, he can't possibly have read any of her wonderful, uplifting books. He must fall into the category of horrible skeptics that Sylvia is always complaining about, the ones whose only purpose is to make things difficult for her and all the other White Entities, the dark-minded ones who try to tear them down, on no grounds whatsoever, as they try so nobly to carry out their mission for God in spite of it all - this godly mission of course being all she cares about, if you read her books.

Then they actually hear back from Robert and realize he isn't what they thought, nor is the situation what they'd assumed it was. I'm sure it takes some of them by surprise.

 

[OverlapingMagisteria]

I find this really bizarre, what the conversation amounts to is:

Brown Supporter "You haven't really looked into her"

RSL "I have"

Brown Supporter " Ok sorry about that"

I'd say its probably because these kind of people are convinced of her powers. They assume that anyone who disagrees must have not really seen everything and are making rash judgments. "If only you'd see her! Then you'd believe!"

This makes it very important to reiterate that you actually have done a heck of a lot of research and aren't just close-mindedly dismissing Browne's abilities.

ETA: This applies to any type of woo. How many of us have been accused of being close-minded? It's one way believers in woo rationalize our lack of belief; we didn't really look into the issue. This annoys the heck out of me since I try to look at both sides of the argument.

 

[RSLancastr]

So apperantly that person told you there is an article about how accurate sylvia is and hasn't pondered why didn't sylvia publish it at her own site?!?

Evidently so.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Seriously do these people not look at the site and think you may have actually looked into her claims?

The really short answer is : NO.

I don't know how many people ask that of RSLancastr (feel free to give stats if you have them). But I can tell you for a fact that is the #1 thought process woosters use.

I can tell you I constantly hear "you don't know about subject X" whether it's alternative medicine or the bible or whatever and when they actually sit down and talk about it they realize I can out quote them any day of the week they are utterly shocked.

Moreover, in most cases they are the ones who haven't read anything about the subject they protect so dearly. They assume because they don't do it, neither do you.

Evidently so.

Might be a good idea to ask the next person that question.
I am always amazed by their answers.

 

[RSLancastr]

Perhaps I should put together a Frequenttlt Hurled Insults subpage to the site's FAQ, which would address such poorly-thought out complaints. The FAQ page already addresses at least one of these: "why don't you get a life?"

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Perhaps I should put together a Frequenttlt Hurled Insults subpage to the site's FAQ, which would address such poorly-thought out complaints. The FAQ page already addresses at least one of these: "why don't you get a life?"

Like they'd read the FAQ. One more page to point 'em to, though.

 

[Apology]

It's highly likely that the person who directed you to Associated Content also wrote the article about Brown that you found there

It's important to inform people who cite Associated Content about its nature, and let them know that Associated Content and Associated Press are not the same organization. Associated Press is the wire service that provides us with much of our news. Associated Content is the website that provides us with much of our nonsense masquerading as news.

 

[RSLancastr]

I replied to her explaining what Associated Content apparently is.

She replied asking me to not reply again, as she had no more time for all this.

 

[RSLancastr]

I occasionally get emails detailing horrible thing after horrible thing I have supposedly done, with a closing line saying "don't even bother to reply."

Riiiiiight...

 

[Edges]

I replied to her explaining what Associated Content apparently is.

She replied asking me to not reply again, as she had no more time for all this.

Ah, the classic "I just got pwned, but I'm not going to admit it. Instead I'm going to act like this whole thing is beneath me." Those are always the most frustrating people to argue with. They only want to argue with you when you won't argue back.

 

[Zep]

Mummy's Little Darlings... No-one is allowed contradict THEM!

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I replied to her explaining what Associated Content apparently is.

She replied asking me to not reply again, as she had no more time for all this.

Wow. Some people are just worth nothing more than a shake of the head.

Perhaps I should put together a Frequenttlt Hurled Insults subpage to the site's FAQ, which would address such poorly-thought out complaints. The FAQ page already addresses at least one of these: "why don't you get a life?"

Go for it! I'd be interested in reading it. And maybe using a few of your answers in the future.

What are the other Frequently Hurled Insults?

Here are a few I get:

"You are close minded!"/ "You have no imagination!"/ "You aren't open to other possibilities"/ "You are just a meanie nay sayer!"

"Why don't you get a life?"

"Well, explain this", followed by an alleged psychic experience with someone other than Browne. Or another claimed paranormal/supernatural event that has nothing whatsoever to do with psychic powers.

"Why don't you get a life?"

"Why are you taking away hope?"

"Why don't you get a life?"

"How do you know she isn't real? Who are you to say so?"

"Why don't you get a life?"

"How is it any of your affair?"

"What has she ever done to you?"

"You will be so sued one of these days!"

And, the perennial classic, "Why don't you get a life?"

I occasionally get emails detailing horrible thing after horrible thing I have supposedly done, with a closing line saying "don't even bother to reply."

Riiiiiight...

Hahaha

That's great.

I'd laugh and pass them around to other skeptics to read, honestly.

 

[RSLancastr]

Here is the bulk of the email I sent to her regarding "Associated Content":

Ms. [name]:

Well, I looked into Associated Content. your sayng that the "organization" Associated Content deemed her the golden standard" is, to say it mildly, misleading.

As far as I can tell from the brief look, it is a site where ANYONE can add an article. It states on the site that they currently have over 400,000 contributors, so it is no surprise that they had one writer who refers to Browne's prediction track record as the "gold standard." Apparently, I could add an article there myself saying just the opposite. would being published on Associated Content make my opinion any more meaningful? Of course not.

And that quick look at Associated Content also showed other artcles about Browne which were less than glowing.

One, titled "Sylvia Browne...Psychic?" seems to have been written by a fan of my site, listing many of her incorrect predictions detailed here.

The person who wrote the article you quoted is one Christopher Murray, who seems to have written only that one article. As far as we know, "Christopher Murray" could be anyone - even Browne herself!

So no, I doubt I will be quoting Associated Content articles - pro-Browne or con - anytime soon.

Any other "organizations" you feel I have "stacked the deck" by not quoting?

And here is the bulk of her reply:

Ok, you only talked about one sentence in my entire rant. Plus, when i said commentors i meant COMMENTORS. Yes, you wrote the articles not the comments. Please do not email me back wasting my time. I have said all their is to say. As I said also I could write forever on how you website is misleading but IT IS NOT WORTH MY TIME. Thank you. Goodbye.