according to silvia brown

[nyarltep]

on larry king live
dogs and cats goto heaven
but not skunks

also she had a caller from japan who asked about her mother whom she had unresolved issues with
silvia told her that the callers mother was dead
the caller said "ill have to get back to you about that, after i call her on the phone"

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by nyarltep
...silvia told her that the callers mother was dead
the caller said "ill have to get back to you about that, after i call her on the phone"

Oh, that is so precious.

I'd call that a miss. Miss Sylvia Browne.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by No Answers


Oh, that is so precious.

I'd call that a miss. Miss Sylvia Browne.

Me, too. Honey

hey 666th

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by nyarltep
on larry king live
dogs and cats goto heaven
but not skunks

also she had a caller from japan who asked about her mother whom she had unresolved issues with
silvia told her that the callers mother was dead
the caller said "ill have to get back to you about that, after i call her on the phone"
:dl:

[DarkMagician]

Close only counts in horseshoes, but this ain't horseshoes or close!

[TruthSeeker]

She spun it to imply the woman did not know her mother was dead. From the transcript:

CALLER: Shizuoka, Japan. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, hi.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: I'd like to ask about my mother. We had some unresolved issues.

BROWNE: Yes. But I don't know if you could have had any resolved issues with your mother because she was so very difficult to deal with. And I'm not saying that to be cruel. So, you see, the thing that you got to realize is when somebody goes to the other side, everything is OK.

CALLER: But she's -- you can definitely see her on the other side?

BROWNE: Yes. Little. She's little.

CALLER: Yes, well, the last time I spoke to her, she was alive.

BROWNE: Yes, but see, I don't -- she's not alive now.

CALLER: She's dead.

BROWNE: Yes.

CALLER: You're telling me my mother has died?

BROWNE: Yes.

CALLER: You're sure about this?

BROWNE: I'm positive.

CALLER: OK. Well, I'll have to get back to you after I've called her.

BROWNE: All right.

CALLER: Thank you.

KING: OK, now, what -- she doesn't know, hasn't heard from her mother.

BROWNE: No.

KING: And she's trying to reach her, hasn't heard from her.

BROWNE: That's right.

KING: You saw her as gone.

BROWNE: That's right.

KING: OK. And you were truthful enough to say that.

BROWNE: Oh, I have to.



the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/05/lkl.00.html)

[nyarltep]

this is the part that cracks me up
silvia that skank
has something against skunks

KING: The dog goes to heaven, too?

BROWNE: The dog goes to heaven. I wouldn't want to go to heaven if there weren't animals.

CALLER: Well, I'm relieved to know Tippy's in heaven!

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Thank you. Dogs are there, too?

BROWNE: Dogs, cats.

KING: How about skunks?

BROWNE: I don't think a skunk is there.

[Keneke]

I'm watching the replay...it's disgusting me. Knowing what I know, and seeing that...I'm getting ill. I feel like puking. Seriously.

Even if I didn't know what I know, I'd be like, "Who is that witch? That's not even Nancy Reagan's psychic. He was doing so well with Tom Cruise as a guest this week; is he running out of guests or what?"

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I have no idea what's goin on!

[Quinn]

CALLER: She's dead.

BROWNE: Yes.

CALLER: You're telling me my mother has died?

BROWNE: Yes.

CALLER: You're sure about this?

BROWNE: I'm positive.

OH... MY... FRIGGIN'... GAWD.

Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disgusted with this woman, she manages to go and top herself. Telling someone their mother has unexpectedly died rather than owning up to a giant, glaring, flag-waving, neon-colored miss?!?!?

It's almost enough to make me start believing in hell, for the sole purpose of wishing her a speedy trip there.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Quinn
Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disgusted with this woman, she manages to go and top herself.

[snippety]

It's almost enough to make me start believing in hell, for the sole purpose of wishing her a speedy trip there. DID I READ THIS RIGHT? SYLVIA IS DEAD, DID YOU SAY?? OMFG!!! SHOULDN'T THERE BE A NATIONAL HOLIDAY OR SOMETHING??? AND DIDN'T SHE SEE THIS COMING??

[Ipecac]

I saw her for a few minutes on LKL last night. Don't know if it was a rerun or what. She is a disgusting, immoral individual.

I saw three or four callers and every one identified who they wanted to contact and what happened to them. One guy was still distraught that his mother had committed suicide when he was nine. Sylvia told him his mother was schizophrenic.

Another woman called about her niece. Sylvia took the smart guess and said she passed quickly. Apparently not as the girl died from cancer. She tried to finagle that guess into her sudden passing at the end (I imagine it's always quick to go from technically alive to technically dead). The woman wasn't buying it and even Larry piped up to support Sylvia. Sylvia guessed that the woman had held her niece's hand before she died. Wrong again. She spun it to say that she's holding her hand now.

What a scumbag. :mad:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Close only counts in horseshoes, but this ain't horseshoes or close!
You're forgetting hand grenades and tactical thermonuclear devices.
SB desrves both.

[ca3799]

I saw part of the show, too. I had watched a comedy (movie) just before the LK show came on. I laughed more during LK. The caller from Japan thing had me cracking up.

I have never seen so much BS fall out of any one persons mouth in my life- and in such a short time, too!

I have mixed feelings about Larry King, too. I used to enjoy his show when he was on the radio. I remembered him as asking questions of his guests that were good enough to keep me interested even in topics I didn't really have interest in. Either I'm remembering incorrectly, or he's resorted to simply pandering for ratings now.

[Quinn]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Another woman called about her niece. Sylvia took the smart guess and said she passed slowly. Apparently not as the girl died from cancer. She tried to finagle that guess into her sudden passing at the end (I imagine it's always quick to go from technically alive to technically dead).

It's sad when people's need to believe becomes so great that they'll allow themselves to be swindled by a tactic transparent enough to serve as a comic element in an 80's Chevy Chase movie...

[from the scene where Fletch is posing as a doctor]

DR. DOLEN: Shame about Ed.

FLETCH: It was. Really a shame. To go so suddenly.

DR. DOLEN: Oh, he was dying for years.

FLETCH: Sure, but the end was so sudden.

DR. DOLEN: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.

FLETCH: Yes, but the very end, when he actually died... that was extremely sudden.

[Clancie]

Posted by ca3799

I have mixed feelings about Larry King, too. I used to enjoy his show when he was on the radio. I remembered him as asking questions of his guests that were good enough to keep me interested even in topics I didn't really have interest in. Either I'm remembering incorrectly, or he's resorted to simply pandering for ratings now.
Imo, LK's the same as always. The thing is King really -likes- people, all types of people, and is not dogmatic. He's said that he sees his job as giving the guest, any guest, a comfortable environment to speak in. He is a "broadcaster", not a journalist, but his easy-going method, though sometimes frustrating to watch, works just fine.

He is liberal, agnostic/atheist, but has an unusual ability to create a friendly environment for a one-to-one conversation with people he disagrees with (see his Bob Jones interview, for an example). Yes, he's not adversarial, but he still lets people give a document of their ideas and personality in their own words and often, as the saying goes (like with SB), they "hoist themselves on their own petard".

King has a unique show and, imo, he does what he does very very well.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Imo, LK's the same as always. The thing is King really -likes- people, all types of people, and is not dogmatic. He's said that he sees his job as giving the guest, any guest, a comfortable environment to speak in. He is a "broadcaster", not a journalist, but his easy-going method, though sometimes frustrating to watch, works just fine.

He is liberal, agnostic/atheist, but has an unusual ability to create a friendly environment for a one-to-one conversation with people he disagrees with (see his Bob Jones interview, for an example). Yes, he's not adversarial, but he still lets people give a document of their ideas and personality in their own words and often, as the saying goes (like with SB), they "hoist themselves on their own petard".

King has a unique show and, imo, he does what he does very very well.

I thought you were just complaining about the ABC show, which depicted JE in a bad light, which you saw as bad journalism?

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you have no problems whatsoever? You invent all kinds of excuses for a journalist (which Larry King is, whether you like it or not) who is not critical of JE?

Talk about bias....

[Julia]

Just a couple of weeks ago, seeing Sylvia on Montel, seeing her slink on her belly in mud while exploiting a families grief, was the last straw.

This past Summer a couple whose daughter vanished over 20 years ago, had a cruel hoak pulled on them by a mentally ill woman who posed as their now-adult-daughter.

They were devastated. Yet there they were in Montels audience, and there was Sylvia . . . assuring them that their daughter was still alive. She was also clucking sympathy for the couple that endured the hoax and were given cruel, false hope.

I sat speechless. That was it. I can't watch her anymore - ever.

[The Don]

I like the fact that Sylvia confidently predicted that the woman who commited suicide was bi-polar. I don't know what the statistics are but I expect that a fair proportion of people whe take their own lives are either depressives or manic-depressives (bi-polar).

If we're being even lazier, we could more or less insist that anyone who kills themselves is at the least an undiagnosed depressive.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Clancie

Imo, LK's the same as always. The thing is King really -likes- people, all types of people, and is not dogmatic. He's said that he sees his job as giving the guest, any guest, a comfortable environment to speak in. He is a "broadcaster", not a journalist, but his easy-going method, though sometimes frustrating to watch, works just fine.

He is liberal, agnostic/atheist, but has an unusual ability to create a friendly environment for a one-to-one conversation with people he disagrees with (see his Bob Jones interview, for an example). Yes, he's not adversarial, but he still lets people give a document of their ideas and personality in their own words and often, as the saying goes (like with SB), they "hoist themselves on their own petard".

King has a unique show and, imo, he does what he does very very well. You are far too kind to LK. He knows that Browne is lying outright, and he chooses to abet her behavior by giving her a comfortable environment, not challenging her directly on her assertions, implementing a caller screening process that keeps out skeptics and so forth. Your distinction between "journalist" and "broadcaster" is frankly meaningless. Even if you couldn't pin a professional misconduct/incompetence charge against him, he's a plain scumbag for letting this happen on his show.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Clancie
King has a unique show and, imo, he does what he does very very well. Originally posted by hgc
You are far too kind to LK. He knows that Browne is lying outright .... Even if you couldn't pin a professional misconduct/incompetence charge against him, he's a plain scumbag for letting this happen on his show. I see merit in both of these points of view. First (as I've said before), it isn't easy to be a good interviewer. King is pretty good at what he does, and he cannot be expected to be an expert in every subject.

That said, he repeatedly invites as his guest an individual who is as loopy as they come, and does very little to challenge the goofy and intellectually harmful stuff that spews from her pie hole. By continuing to give her a soap box, he lends his credibility to her and makes himself an accessory to the damage she causes. he doesn't need to be an expert in psychology or any other scientific field to understand that this sort of thing has the ring of being fundamentally dishonest.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Brown
I see merit in both of these points of view. First (as I've said before), it isn't easy to be a good interviewer. King is pretty good at what he does, and he cannot be expected to be an expert in every subject.

That said, he repeatedly invites as his guest an individual who is as loopy as they come, and does very little to challenge the goofy and intellectually harmful stuff that spews from her pie hole. By continuing to give her a soap box, he lends his credibility to her and makes himself an accessory to the damage she causes. he doesn't need to be an expert in psychology or any other scientific field to understand that this sort of thing has the ring of being fundamentally dishonest. Thank you for pointing this out. I also don't have a problem, generally, that LKL throws softballs to his guests, and that's just the kind of show he does. There's room for all styles of interview shows. But Larry is more than just a softball interviewer for the psychic sideshows -- he's become a regularly scheduled infomercial for Browne, Edward and van Praagh, and should be subjected to the kind of scrutiny and criticism that attends to such shills. By the way, CNN, a journalistic enterprise, and its parent, Time-Warner, are to be slammed for giving their 'airwaves' over to such purpose.

[Brown]

The notion of "personal responsibility" seems to be held in high regard these days. And yet, so-called "psychics" are not held responsible for the harm they cause.

A person dies of natural causes, but a "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that the cause of death was murder. As a result, the family spends its own savings and wastes governmental resources in an effort to find a non-existent murderer. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a person has a particular health condition. The person undergoes diagnostic procedures and perhaps engages in unnecessary therapy for a condition that does not exist. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A loved one has vanished and the family does not know what to do. A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess concerning the location of the missing person. As a result, resources devoted to searching are wasted in following a lead that has no basis whatsoever. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a person has been cured of a troublesome health condition, so the person discontinues taking medication for that condition, and dies as a result. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

In "reading" a subject, the "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a loved one is dead, and persists in the guess even after being told that the loved one is not dead. The subject, in a panic, makes efforts to confirm that the guess is incorrect. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

If a professional (such as a physician) bahaved this way, that professional would be up to his ears in malpractice claims, because professionals have to be responsible for what they do and for the advice they dispense. But "psychics" get a free pass and are not held to any standard of responsibility. Why is that?

Even ordinary non-professionals are held responsible in some circumstances in which a misrepresentation, even if innocently made, results in harm. But "psychics" are not held responsible. Why?

Browne and others pretend to have "knowledge" that they do not have. They did not study for it, they did not work for it, they claim they simply "get" it from a source or sources unknown. If the "knowledge" they impart turns out to be wrong (and it often is) and if they know that people are relying upon the "knowledge" they impart (and surely they do), then they ought to be held responsible. This is not meant as a proposal to place an unfair burden on "psychics." Rather, it is a proposal that "psychics" be compelled to play be the same rules that everybody else has to play by.

[Zero]

I'm new here, so I'm not sure how this forum runs...am I allowed to call believers in psychics like Browne and Edward a bunch of mean-spirited names?:D

[CFLarsen]

Brown,

Dead(!) on.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Brown
The notion of "personal responsibility" seems to be held in high regard these days. And yet, so-called "psychics" are not held responsible for the harm they cause.

A person dies of natural causes, but a "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that the cause of death was murder. As a result, the family spends its own savings and wastes governmental resources in an effort to find a non-existent murderer. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a person has a particular health condition. The person undergoes diagnostic procedures and perhaps engages in unnecessary therapy for a condition that does not exist. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A loved one has vanished and the family does not know what to do. A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess concerning the location of the missing person. As a result, resources devoted to searching are wasted in following a lead that has no basis whatsoever. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

A "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a person has been cured of a troublesome health condition, so the person discontinues taking medication for that condition, and dies as a result. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

In "reading" a subject, the "psychic" makes a wild-ass guess that a loved one is dead, and persists in the guess even after being told that the loved one is not dead. The subject, in a panic, makes efforts to confirm that the guess is incorrect. Who pays for this? Not the "psychic."

If a professional (such as a physician) bahaved this way, that professional would be up to his ears in malpractice claims, because professionals have to be responsible for what they do and for the advice they dispense. But "psychics" get a free pass and are not held to any standard of responsibility. Why is that?

Even ordinary non-professionals are held responsible in some circumstances in which a misrepresentation, even if innocently made, results in harm. But "psychics" are not held responsible. Why?

Browne and others pretend to have "knowledge" that they do not have. They did not study for it, they did not work for it, they claim they simply "get" it from a source or sources unknown. If the "knowledge" they impart turns out to be wrong (and it often is) and if they know that people are relying upon the "knowledge" they impart (and surely they do), then they ought to be held responsible. This is not meant as a proposal to place an unfair burden on "psychics." Rather, it is a proposal that "psychics" be compelled to play be the same rules that everybody else has to play by.
This reminds me of a criticism of Pat Robertson and other television preachers. WHen they do their 'healings' they are always vague:'I see a woman in North Carolina whose cancer has disappeared!" Even if he has actually healed a woman in Charlotte, a woman in Wilmington may think he means her, and stop seeking treatment, and die as a result.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Zero

This reminds me of a criticism of Pat Robertson and other television preachers. WHen they do their 'healings' they are always vague:'I see a woman in North Carolina whose cancer has disappeared!" Even if he has actually healed a woman in Charlotte, a woman in Wilmington may think he means her, and stop seeking treatment, and die as a result. I see a TV preacher being tormented by the fingers of Hellfire.

Just love the way that Robertson does that theatrical little bit of closing his eyes and feigning a semi-trance state when he's having his fraudulent visions. But then when I consider the devastating consequences to real people, it's not so funny.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hgc
I see a TV preacher being tormented by the fingers of Hellfire.

Just love the way that Robertson does that theatrical little bit of closing his eyes and feigning a semi-trance state when he's having his fraudulent visions. But then when I consider the devastating consequences to real people, it's not so funny. Well, I have always seen mediums as being a sort of 'emotional faith healing', wherein the real grieving and acceptance process is underminded by fraudulent claims that the bereaved can communicate with their loved ones. It is just as harmful in its way as people avoiding real medical treatment after a 'faith healing' that has no effect.

[ca3799]

I got so disgusted with Larry (and Sylvia), I sent a complaint to Larry's show. Just one tiny (probably useless) effort to bring sense into the world.

[Jim Lennox]

Good call Mr.CA3799.

I will do the same.

I can't believe King didn't mention Randi's challenge.

The most edifying fact to come out of my reading of the transcript was the whole "Everyone becomes 30 when they get to heaven" rubbish.

This invalidates so much of what she already said that I can't believe someone of her experience did it. She claims she's getting an older man or that a man has grey hair, how can she tell?

And the most despicable were the tawdry baubles she was flogging - she's going to give a 'portion' to some charities?? Scum, subhuman scum.

And what the hell is septosis anyway?

[ca3799]

I got a automated response from the Larry King show, but maybe my complaint will make a difference. An excerpt:

"Thank you for the e-mail you sent to Larry King Live.This auto reply is your notification that we have received it.
While we are unable to personally reply to every e-mail, your comments are important to us, and we do read each and every one. Comments become part of the viewer response report that is prepared and made available each day to our producers and senior management. "