StopSylviaBrowne: An Unbelievable Email

[RSLancastr]

I received an email on the site today that just left me... speechless.

I've added paragraphing to make it easier on the eyes (if not the brain):

Is Sylvia Browne hurting you in some way? She makes a lot of people feel better, feel more content, gives them hope. Most people that follow her are just opened minded people who have a "what if" attitude.

I love to watch psychics and view it as "covering my ass" if there is another side, I would like to believe it than to worry about a horrible painful death with absolutely nothing but a dirt nap afterwards. Which is more fun and positive to believe? An Athiest,,,,,,or the new age movement which likes to examine all kinds of worldly possibilities.

Do you not have anything better to do? Yes, she is probably a charlatan and just gets a few guesses right once in awhile, but she is soothing and I like to watch her. I also like John Edward. It is just plain fun to believe in Ghosts, the afterlife, witches and things. I even watch ghost hunters.

I'm a very educated person who decided to not take life so seriously and take a clue from children who look up and see a beautiful fantasy world. Why do you insist on bursting people's bubbles, or screwing with their spiritual high?

You are the one with the problem my dear.

A believer in fun and happiness,

[signature]I can't help but think of all the "fun and happiness" Sylvia Browne brought to Opal Jo Jennings' grandmother. Or Ryan Katcher's mother. Or Lynda McClelland's daughters. Or Shawn Hornbeck's parents.

:mad:

I don't normally share emails here, but this one riled me up...

[Skeptical Greg]

I can't help but think of all the "fun and happiness" Sylvia Browne brought to Opal Jo Jennings' grandmother. Or Ryan Katcher's mother. Or Lynda McClelland's daughters. Or Shawn Hornbeck's parents.

Have you replied to the person and asked her about the "fun and happiness" she brought to these people ?

[grayman]

Yes, she is probably a charlatan and just gets a few guesses right once in awhile, but she is soothing and I like to watch her. I also like John Edward. It is just plain fun to believe in Ghosts, the afterlife, witches and things.

I'm a very educated person...

It's amusing seeing these two statements together in the same correspondence.

You say you added paragraphing? I would think an "educated person" would have done that on their own.

Your a gentleman and a man of steel. Stay strong Robert.

[ChainLightning]

Very educated person that accepts magical thinking. No I'll never understand that.

Always enjoy your site and you input.

[Meri]

I love to watch psychics and view it as "covering my ass" if there is another side, I would like to believe it than to worry about a horrible painful death with absolutely nothing but a dirt nap afterwards. Which is more fun and positive to believe? An Athiest,,,,,,or the new age movement which likes to examine all kinds of worldly possibilities.

Looks like some kind of New Age Pascal's Wager. And it is bizarre: "Silvia Browne is a fake, but it's fun, so I'm going to believe anyway"?

[tkingdoll]

Looks like some kind of New Age Pascal's Wager. And it is bizarre: "Silvia Browne is a fake, but it's fun, so I'm going to believe anyway"?

Yep, it's a common mentality.

Wrestling works the same way.

[thisninjascrazy]

Yep, it's a common mentality.

Wrestling works the same way.

Wrestling is a little different - it's allegedly a form of entertainment. Or so I've been told. It might be a little different if Sylvia presented her schtick for 'entertainment purposes' only, but it's very disturbing to see an 'educated' person thinking "So what if it's a con-job? It's a con-job that lets me exercise my imagination!"

When The Rock(tm) starts charging $700 (and that's $700 U.S. - not exactly chump-change) a phone-call to offer advice, maybe then it's time to debunk Wrestling. That said, I'm sure "The People's Elbow" comes through on some things the phone psychics can't handle.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm actually not shocked or riled up.

I felt pretty much the same way about the Bermuda Triangle- I knew it was fake but was kidding myself because it was fun to sorta believe in. I, however, have an excuse- I was 12.

I got a few responses just like that way back when I posted a Sylvia rant on the IMDB. "It's fun, what's your problem, you're the one with the problem", "don't take life so seriously", "it's just fun", yada, yada, yada.

I blame the Internet in part. It gives every moron out there a public forum to lower themselves and brings everyone down to their lowest common denominator. I don't think this person's idiocy would come out this way if you were talking to her (it's a woman, right?) face-to-face.

Of course, her idiocy and ignorance is all hers...

[Cello Man]

There's a forum member here who has a great saying in their signature block. I can't remember who it is or who originally said it, but I'll paraphrase as best as I can here.

It's morally as bad to believe in something so long as it makes you feel good as it is to not care how you got your money as long as you have it.

[Oualawouzou]

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm actually not shocked or riled up.

I felt pretty much the same way about the Bermuda Triangle- I knew it was fake but was kidding myself because it was fun to sorta believe in. I, however, have an excuse- I was 12.



There is another difference: Sylvia and her ilk make their money by targeting specifically grieving, distraught people. People go to them because they have lost a loved one, or because they feel like control over their own life is escaping them, or merely because they feel alone and lost in the crowd.

On the other hand, people (well, most people) who believe in the Bermuda Triangle do so because hey, it's such a cool story, what's not to like about it? Yes, those exploiting the myth seek to syphon money out of suckers' pockets, but said suckers aren't desperate to find solace in the myth.

[Questioninggeller]

I received an email on the site today that just left me... speechless.

I've added paragraphing to make it easier on the eyes (if not the brain):

I can't help but think of all the "fun and happiness" Sylvia Browne brought to Opal Jo Jennings' grandmother. Or Ryan Katcher's mother. Or Lynda McClelland's daughters. Or Shawn Hornbeck's parents.

:mad:

I don't normally share emails here, but this one riled me up...

Indeed, the Hornbecks and Jennings don't think that Browne's "guesses" are fun. Neither does buying a cubic zirconia bracelet for $5,000 sound like fun.

I have to say that the glass is half full. That email, I don't think, should be taken at face value. Clearly, that person wants to believe, but admits there isn't much proof to believe. Thus, the seed of doubt is already planted. Hopefully, in time it will blossom into more critical thought.

If someone who wants to believe is skeptical about if there is evidence, that's a sign your website has impact on even those hardened supporters.

[Blue Mountain]

To me it sounds like this writer may actually understand the difference between the paranormal, reality, and entertainment. She may not be the one to spend $700 on an SB reading, or dole out money for her books, or attend her church. She might take her medical concerns to a qualified doctor and not a quack.

In short, she is not the target audience for StopSylviaBrowne.

[Kochanski]

I disagree Blue Mountain. People like her should be one of the target audiences for the site. Too many people just fob off the stuff she does. Because it does no harm to them, they feel justified in watching her nonsense. They choose not to see the harm she does. That is wrong.

As long as knowing people allow her to get away with her schtick she will have an audience on tv. Montel will be happy to have her on because of the ratings he gets. I am sure that quite a few people who don't buy into her crap watch for amusement.

People's eyes need to be opened up to the harm she does. They need to understand that it is not just playing games. It is not a sitcom or a sci fi movie or other form of entertainment. She is messing with real people's lives. Real people who are very vulnerable.

She is taking advantage of them and they are helping her to do so by ignoring the harm she does because they find her amusing.

[Slimething]

Someone on this forum has a very appropriate quote from Voltaire on their sig. Perhaps send this back:


Those who make you believe absurdities will also make you commit monstrosities. Voltaire

[SezMe]

I have to admit I liked this: "a dirt nap" I'll try to add that to my repertoire.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

There is another difference: Sylvia and her ilk make their money by targeting specifically grieving, distraught people. People go to them because they have lost a loved one, or because they feel like control over their own life is escaping them, or merely because they feel alone and lost in the crowd.

On the other hand, people (well, most people) who believe in the Bermuda Triangle do so because hey, it's such a cool story, what's not to like about it? Yes, those exploiting the myth seek to syphon money out of suckers' pockets, but said suckers aren't desperate to find solace in the myth.

Right you are. This person, however, isn't thinking of Sylvia Browne's victims. Otherwise she'd immediatly realize the danger in it and find no way to defend it.

Or so I hope.

[Soapy Sam]

The difference between Slyvia Browne and "Stop Sylvia Browne" is that when Robert receives an email like this he is honestly saddened and shocked. When Slyvia gets one, she hears the fairy tinkle of cash registers.

[Kochanski]

The difference between Slyvia Browne and "Stop Sylvia Browne" is that when Robert receives an email like this he is honestly saddened and shocked. When Slyvia gets one, she hears the fairy tinkle of cash registers.

Exactly.

And sadly all this person is concerned with is Robert "bursting people's bubbles, or screwing with their spiritual high". Ever the pointed finger against the skeptic. We are the buzz-killers, the negative, the close-minded. Never mind thinking about others. Never mind concern for harm done by a scam artist, as long as I am entertained. Pfft, stupid attitude.

Don't dare point out the wrongs done, it might spoil some one's buzz. It might make them think about someone else. It might make them show concern for someone besides themselves. And they might have to find some other way to be entertained or feel good about themselves. Poor things, they might have to live in the real world.

Robert, I don't know how you can answer that person, although I am sure you will find the words. I just hope you can actually get through to her.

[PastBrowneFan]

RSL,

I've read, and re-read this email several times, and I can't decide if this person is serious or not.

So, I'll just break down the parts with what knowledge I have:

Is Sylvia Browne hurting you in some way? She makes a lot of people feel better, feel more content, gives them hope. Most people that follow her are just opened minded people who have a "what if" attitude.

When you see the posting on any fan site, this is what most people have to fall back on when SB is ever doubted. People believe that she gives people hope, makes people feel better, so what's the big deal? And that is how she can get so many people to follow her, and her teachings, because so many people will allow their emotions to drive out their logic, all in the name of hope.

I love to watch psychics and view it as "covering my ass" if there is another side, I would like to believe it than to worry about a horrible painful death with absolutely nothing but a dirt nap afterwards. Which is more fun and positive to believe? An Athiest,,,,,,or the new age movement which likes to examine all kinds of worldly possibilities.

Looks to me like this person claims that they are putting their potential salvation in the hands of SB and psychics, instead of taking any responsibility themselves. So, sounds like this person will follow however makes them "feel good". Plus, RSL, as I recall, claims to be Agnostic, not an Atheist, so it shows how some of these people love to throw out labels to justify thier own beliefs or thoughts.

Do you not have anything better to do? Yes, she is probably a charlatan and just gets a few guesses right once in awhile, but she is soothing and I like to watch her. I also like John Edward. It is just plain fun to believe in Ghosts, the afterlife, witches and things. I even watch ghost hunters.

Ok, so this person watches SB for the entertainment value only, which is how many people who watch Montel feel, but when those same people who view psychics as entertainers that make them feel good go through something horrible, they can easily be sucked into the business end of the same entertainers.

If SB, or most public psychics, just said that their readings were for entertainment purposes only, then there would be no need for a stopsylviabrowne website. But SB goes beyond that, and claims matter of factly that the information she gives is 85% or higher accurate, which misleads people such as the Hornbecks, and hundreds upon hundreds of others.

One can believe in anything one wishes to, but to give money and power to those like SB can be dangerous.

I'm a very educated person who decided to not take life so seriously and take a clue from children who look up and see a beautiful fantasy world. Why do you insist on bursting people's bubbles, or screwing with their spiritual high?

I doubt the first part of the sentence, but would ask the writer this: Do children spend hundreds of dollars on psychic readings, books written by psychics, or lectures and cruises with psychics, or do they just go out and have fun?

As for the last sentence, this sounds like an ignorant person who must not be educated in history, for every cult and cult leader grew and thrived because they could control their people and insulate them from others opinions and facts, thus keeping them on a spiritual high that bound them to the control of the group and leaders. Again, dangerous.

You are the one with the problem my dear.

Transference.

I don't really see this as being sincere, but it does touch upon the dangers of someone like SB being allowed to be so public without the facts being presented. And people like Montel, who use her public persona to try to increase ratings and ad revenue in spite of the damage that she has done to those on his show, only help her to promote herself as credible.

But, it also does show that your site is getting attention of a wide range of people out there, so it is effective. Hopefully you'll get more of these types of emails, for they validate what you do.

PBF

[Cantab]

The letter writer seems to contradict herself.
On the one hand, she talks about it being a bit of fun. On the other, she says she's covering her ass. This would seem to mean she's putting more personal emphasis on this nonsense than she would if she were just treating it as a bit of fun. She can't be using it as a safety net unless she takes it at least a little seriously.

I also don't understand this:

...if there is another side, I would like to believe it than to worry about a horrible painful death with absolutely nothing but a dirt nap afterwards

I bet even true believers worry about horrible and painful deaths. Or is the writer implying that only agnostics and atheists suffer such endings? As for the "dirt nap", it's not like she'll be around to experience it, so how is it a negative thing that should cause her worry?

RSL, I greatly admire what you do and the way you do it. I registered on this site a little while ago for the express purpose of offering you my congratulations and best wishes in your endeavour, and am glad to finally do so. Keep up the good work.

[Geckko]

Just a comment on this point that, as someone else has commented, is not an uncommon one:

Is Sylvia Browne hurting you in some way? She makes a lot of people feel better, feel more content, gives them hope. Most people that follow her are just opened minded people who have a "what if" attitude.

The furthest that any poerson can extend themselves is to claim that SB makes them, personally, feel better/happier/whatever. The invocation of the ethereal "people" is fraudulent unless they have conducted a census of the population on this issue.

[Macoy]

You are the one with the problem my dear.i would think that she a lot angrier than she makes out. she is in denial, especially about the harm that browne causes. Robert's website emphasises this aspect, yet she chooses to ignore it completely.

[tkingdoll]

Wrestling is a little different - it's allegedly a form of entertainment. Or so I've been told. It might be a little different if Sylvia presented her schtick for 'entertainment purposes' only, but it's very disturbing to see an 'educated' person thinking "So what if it's a con-job? It's a con-job that lets me exercise my imagination!"

When The Rock(tm) starts charging $700 (and that's $700 U.S. - not exactly chump-change) a phone-call to offer advice, maybe then it's time to debunk Wrestling. That said, I'm sure "The People's Elbow" comes through on some things the phone psychics can't handle.

The mentality of the fans is the same, I mean. :D

Wrestling is nothing like psychics, other than the involvement of very ugly people. I wasn't comparing the two industries but the psychology of the believers.

[Cuddles]

I love to watch psychics and view it as "covering my ass" if there is another side,

Covering her ass? How exactly does that work? Pascal's Wager applies to belief, or at least worship, of deities. How can pretending to believe in psychics possibly cover your ass in any way at all? Even if it turns out there really is an afterlife, how would watching a fake psychic on TV be of any use once you got there? I'm severely skeptical that this person is actually educated at all.

I think Terry Prattchet summed up Pascal best. When the Discworld equivalent died, he woke up surrounded by a circle of gods with big sticks. What the gods hate more than anything else is a smartass.

[roger]

Rather than take the writer to task, why not try to learn something from her? After all, isn't this exactly the kind of person you are trying to reach? I assume the website exists to change opinions, not to gather responses to mock.

What can we learn from her - well, that some people don't necessarily take SB entirely seriously, but are scared that this world is all there is. And that it isn't harmful to engage in a bit of make believe. I can relate to that - sometimes I like to daydream about winning the lottery, though I surely don't go on from that and try to live my life as if I had won.

So, why not try writing from the perspective of this person? Point out that it can be "fun" to watch SB, and imagine the possibilites, and that it is soothing to think on these things. But then go on and point out the dark side - the people SB hurts, the anguish she causes, etc. Make the message appealing.

When I look at the front page I don't see much there that would catch the eye of a new ager. You are basically ripping Sylvia a new one. Now, you and I recognize she deserves this, but her fans don't. Think about it - if her fans understood the value of scientific testing, wouldn't they already have gone off SB?

I'm not arguing to sugar coat anything, just to present things in a way that will make your readers sympathize with your position. Instead of starting off by saying she has to provide scientific evidence, emphasize your concern with her victims. Tell a story, bring people in. play on sympathies. Maybe start out by telling a story, about a family that is grieving, and went to a psychic to get answers. Then show how bad those answers were, and how the pain was increased, not alleviated. Heap love on the victims, not vitroil on the psychic. Get the reader to decide for themselves "holy crap, that SB is scum". Later on, once you've established that things aren't kosher, go on and introduce the scientific angle, her retreats from testing, etc.

Right now, to them, you look like the person who is preying on others, trying to cause harm. We know you aren't, and that the logic is flawed, but SB fans are going to think differently.

Just IMO. I don't read all your letters - perhaps 10 to 1 you get messages like "you totally opened my eyes" vs the one you quoted, in which case I should just STFU :)

Why not ask the writer's permission to publish the letter on the site, with your response? In that response point out your compassion and worry for the victims; the anguish, the financial loss, etc. Show you are trying to protect, not destory. There will be people you can't reach no matter how you package your message, but this particular person sounds reachable if approached carefully.

[thisninjascrazy]

There are still believers in Wrestling, even after Vince MacMahon spilled the beans all those years ago? I'm sure there's bound to be a few, but given the various controversies of the UFC championship that have come and gone, wouldn't they wonder why nobody's come after the WWF? And then there was the "Wrestling may not be real, but Wrestlers are" disclaimer shortly after Owen Hart's death.

Now I'm curious. I really must meet one of these Wrestling hyper-enthusiasts. It'll be my new hobby.

[Geckko]

I just had to drop in on this thread to say that you are doing a great job and I hugely admire your approach.

Don't know if anyone else is tracking this, but you are only out Googled for "Syliva Browne" by her own web site. I can see you going to number 1 in time.

[Pythra]

When I look at the front page I don't see much there that would catch the eye of a new ager. You are basically ripping Sylvia a new one. Now, you and I recognize she deserves this, but her fans don't. Think about it - if her fans understood the value of scientific testing, wouldn't they already have gone off SB?

I'm not arguing to sugar coat anything, just to present things in a way that will make your readers sympathize with your position. Instead of starting off by saying she has to provide scientific evidence, emphasize your concern with her victims. Tell a story, bring people in. play on sympathies. Maybe start out by telling a story, about a family that is grieving, and went to a psychic to get answers. Then show how bad those answers were, and how the pain was increased, not alleviated. Heap love on the victims, not vitroil on the psychic. Get the reader to decide for themselves "holy crap, that SB is scum". Later on, once you've established that things aren't kosher, go on and introduce the scientific angle, her retreats from testing, etc.

Right now, to them, you look like the person who is preying on others, trying to cause harm. We know you aren't, and that the logic is flawed, but SB fans are going to think differently.
I absolutely disagree that StopSylviaBrowne comes across as "tearing Sylvia a new one" or "preying on others, trying to cause harm." If anything, I think RSLancastr is extremely restrained in his articles. He's writing about a women who knowingly takes advantage of people who are suffering horrific grievances. She indiscriminately takes money from desperate people, regardless of their circumstances. Robert's analyses are fair and completely lacking in "vitriol," he only considers evidence and points it out in a neutral manner. Sure, to an SB fan, StopSylviaBrowne seems extremely unkind, but is it really necessary (or appropriate) to sugar coat it? You say you aren't arguing that he sugar coats it, but I don't see any other description for what you're suggesting.

Sylvia Browne is an evil, hateful witch. Sometimes when I read Robert's articles I'm frustrated that he doesn't just come out and say so, since it's such an obvious conclusion to the evidence he's gathered. But he just gives the facts and allows the reader to form their own opinion.

[sinclairmcevoy]

I absolutely disagree that StopSylviaBrowne comes across as "tearing Sylvia a new one" or "preying on others, trying to cause harm." If anything, I think RSLancastr is extremely restrained in his articles. He's writing about a women who knowingly takes advantage of people who are suffering horrific grievances. She indiscriminately takes money from desperate people, regardless of their circumstances. Robert's analyses are fair and completely lacking in "vitriol," he only considers evidence and points it out in a neutral manner. Sure, to an SB fan, StopSylviaBrowne seems extremely unkind, but is it really necessary (or appropriate) to sugar coat it? You say you aren't arguing that he sugar coats it, but I don't see any other description for what you're suggesting.

Sylvia Browne is an evil, hateful witch. Sometimes when I read Robert's articles I'm frustrated that he doesn't just come out and say so, since it's such an obvious conclusion to the evidence he's gathered. But he just gives the facts and allows the reader to form their own opinion.

Ditto. Robert states the facts as they are. Neutral and to the point. It sets him apart and shows he has the "cajones" to say "Snake!" when he sees one.

[Oualawouzou]

Double-ditto. He seems to show similar restraints in his contact with SB's organization, and that's all the more honorable as he is directly confronted to their BS yet keeps a cool head.

[chillzero]

I think that this may be someone who takes the 'only for entertainment' disclaimer at face value, and doesn't realise that other people do not. I doubt that they have given it much thought at all.

[Kilgore Trout]

As I read that email I was struck by just one thought: the author is incredibly egocentric. He or she may mention "a lot of people" but I think that's only to validate their own idea. I think no matter how many times you bring up the striking failures of Sylvia, a person such as this will brush them off, unwilling and maybe incapable of displaying empathy. At least the author could be honest about it; the happiness Sylvia gives to her followers comes at the expense of terrible emotional distress to others (among other things).

Just as you (RSL) mentioned, Sylvia's victims were surely not having fun; how can anyone not see that?

[sinclairmcevoy]

I've just had a look at the go Sylvia Browne site. It seems to be a repository for online prescription drugs, porn and just about anything else, except negative comments about SB. Such concern for the welfare of others. Go to h--l Sylvia Browne........

[Apathia]

Well, it's the "When you wish upon a star ..." Disney sort of thing. Even if Pinocchio's nose keeps getting longer and longer, he's still cute.
Yeah, Disney Religion! It's cotton candy every meal.

Looks like the E-mailer needs to stuff a bit more of it in her face before she sickens of it and accepts real food.

[Brown]

My reaction, for what it is worth:

StopSylviaBrowne.com is not really meant for the person who sent you the e-mail. If the writer of the e-mail chooses to distinguish fantasy entertainment from an authentic phenomenon, then great, more power to her.

Perhaps she enjoys the fantasy that Browne provides much in the same way that some people really enjoy Star Trek. They get caught up in its history, its characters, its nuances ... but they know the Star Trek universe is not really real. It's just a fun fantasy environment to enter.

I haven't Googled, it, but chances are that no one has created a serious web site devoted to promoting the idea that Star Trek isn't really authentic. What would be the point? Everybody knows Star Trek is just fiction, and it's just fun to follow the characters, the stories, the aliens and the technology. It's fun to dress up like characters, or speak invented languages, or discuss the goings on in the Star Trek universe as if they were authentic. But everybody having good mental health knows that they're not authentic.

In the case of Browne, however, the situation is quite different. Browne passes herself off as the real deal. She targets people who are no more mentally ill than the average dope on the street, but who are emotionally stressed, mentally suffering and intellectually vulnerable. The weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Browne has no supernatural ability or special power of any kind, but these targeted folks don't know that, and Browne and company take great pains to deny the weight of the evidence.

StopSylviaBrowne.com is for people who want to know whether Browne has genuine psychic abilities. The web site is not meant for people, like the writer of the e-mail, who see her tall tales as simply things that are fun to believe.

(By the way, I've assumed the writer of the e-mail is female. Men, whatever their orientation, don't refer to strange men as "my dear.")

[rwguinn]

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm actually not shocked or riled up.

I felt pretty much the same way about the Bermuda Triangle- I knew it was fake but was kidding myself because it was fun to sorta believe in. I, however, have an excuse- I was 12.

I got a few responses just like that way back when I posted a Sylvia rant on the IMDB. "It's fun, what's your problem, you're the one with the problem", "don't take life so seriously", "it's just fun", yada, yada, yada.

I blame the Internet in part. It gives every moron out there a public forum to lower themselves and brings everyone down to their lowest common denominator. I don't think this person's idiocy would come out this way if you were talking to her (it's a woman, right?) face-to-face.

Of course, her idiocy and ignorance is all hers...

Anybody sane (by my definition, of course) likes (and needs) to be able to suspend disbelief on occasion. Even the Bad Astronomer enjoys some Star Wars and other such flick's. I know I do.
I love magicans--and ventriloquist--things that allow me to suspend my disbelief for a while, and only afterward wonder "How in heck did he do that?
I enjoy Terry Pratchett--and that's about as far from reality, as we know it, as it is possible to get. There are other fantasy/Science fiction authors I enjoy reading. I even like Tom Clancy to a certain extent. But I don't Believe in any of the stuff they are selling. When the author become too self-inconsistent within the book/screenplay/tvshow, I have to put it away. That is when they are trying to make you believe, rather than letting you escape for a period.
And I don't "Believe" in

[e-sabbath]

This may be something to write a legitimate answer for. "The Harm Sylvia Browne Does." You would have to be careful to make sure it's not actionable, but I think you have enough evidence.

[Moochie]

I received an email on the site today that just left me... speechless.

I've added paragraphing to make it easier on the eyes (if not the brain):

I can't help but think of all the "fun and happiness" Sylvia Browne brought to Opal Jo Jennings' grandmother. Or Ryan Katcher's mother. Or Lynda McClelland's daughters. Or Shawn Hornbeck's parents.

:mad:

I don't normally share emails here, but this one riled me up...


Wonderful stuff, Robert. It reminds me of how downright passionate some people used to get about certain wrestlers on those cheap, choreographed wrestling shows during the 60s. Told it was a prop chair that one wrestler hit another with and you'd get shouted down.

This email proves conclusively that Sylvia can't write. :D

M.

ETA: I hadn't read the other posts here before responding to yours, so was tickled to see how many others made the "wrestling" connection.

[roger]

Robert's analyses are fair and completely lacking in "vitriol," he only considers evidence and points it out in a neutral manner. Sure, to an SB fan, StopSylviaBrowne seems extremely unkind, but is it really necessary (or appropriate) to sugar coat it? You say you aren't arguing that he sugar coats it, but I don't see any other description for what you're suggesting.
Ah, let me clarify. I was not suggesting, and did not state, that RSL was heaping vitriol on her, though I can see why it looked that way. I was drawing a comparision - in the range between focusing on the victims of SB and merely heaping vitriol on her, I suggest leaning towards the former to reach the writer of the email. If I was to rate the site, I'd put it somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

As for sugar coating, I don't see how what I suggested could be described that way. Pointing out that SB causes anguish, that she has "victims", that she is taking $700 for pointless babbling isn't sugar coating to my eyes. What I suggested is stressing the compassionate side of RSL's personality.

Also, let me be clear I'm talking more about an addition to the site, not changing current content. Individual articles are fine, as everyone has pointed out. I'm just not sure I'm seeing content for a reader who thinks its fine to live in make-believe and is quick to dismiss when they see a lot of what they perceive to be negative put downs. RSL is clearly already reaching plenty of people and making them reconsider their views. Why not try to reach a few more?

[Reno]

Roger, if Robert S Lancaster played on the emotions of people, even if it's to sway a few more fence-sitters to 'our' side, that would be no different from the way Slyvia plays on the emotions of her victims to keep them on 'her' side.

As already stated, RSL presents the facts, leaving the conclusions to the reader. I believe Robert's presentation is unique and his position, because of the manner in which it is presented, is unassailable.

[RSLancastr]

All:

Thanks for all the responses.

I should not have started the thread. It was a case of PWT (Posting While Tired).

Had I not been exhausted when I read that email, it wouldn't have phased me. I would have replied to it and moved on. But I had just gotten off my third twelve-hour shift in three days (with little sleep), so it hit me differently than it would have otherwise.

Regardless, it was not "in character" for me to have posted this person's email here, and I now regret, and have apologized for, having done so.

I received a second email from this person, and understand better (for reasons I won't go into) the reason for his/her position. I don't agree with the reasons, but I understand them better.

Thanks again for all your comments.

[ysabella]

I guess in a sense you are the one with the problem, RSL. You have a problem with SB taking money from people's grief and lying to them.

[Juustin]

That first email sounded to me like someone's reality check bounced and they were trying to blame the bank.

[skeptifem]

hey if everyone just looked at it as a light hearted fun type of thing they wouldnt put any serious investment in it, like opal jo's grandma did. they would probably just ask for celebrity and world events predictions. its just crappy that the support of people not taking it seriously lets her get to people who do, and end up getting hurt/defrauded in the proccess.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

All:

Thanks for all the responses.

I should not have started the thread. It was a case of PWT (Posting While Tired).

Had I not been exhausted when I read that email, it wouldn't have phased me. I would have replied to it and moved on. But I had just gotten off my third twelve-hour shift in three days (with little sleep), so it hit me differently than it would have otherwise.

Regardless, it was not "in character" for me to have posted this person's email here, and I now regret, and have apologized for, having done so.

I received a second email from this person, and understand better (for reasons I won't go into) the reason for his/her position. I don't agree with the reasons, but I understand them better.

Thanks again for all your comments.

Yeah, I thought it was unlike you to share correspondence.

I hope this person didn't discover this thread on his or her own...

[e-sabbath]

I still think an article on the harm Ms. Browne does, might be helpful.

[Warge]

Somewhat related: how come the fans of Sylvia have these language difficulties? These taken from IMDB.com:


yes my aunty is a physic n dt. shes read my mums cards all time she once told her dt my older sister will have a baby boy and we will find out in june. and she did av a baby boy and we found out from a scan in june dt it was a baby boy. one thing dt she coudlnt of guess was about my nan the way she passed away dont wnt to go into detail but even i ddint know on wht she came up with and my mum said it was true so yes they are real physic people about.

After a few replies to the above:


*beep* u B*tch n i can right in english for ur info but since its the net i normall chat speak, i was only answerin the question of who eva asked. U dint afta make a comment like dt.

Another:


syliva browne has changed my life in seconds
i was listening to syliva browning on coast to coast am & boy she
was great she talking about movies like white noise awesome
she had callers in shock i mean this women has it all
then i saw her on montel she had the same effect on me as she had c2c am
wow is ALL I CAN SAY she rules syliva browning forever

Another:

its actualy sylvia browne but i get what you mean about her being so great


And so on. I just browsed a few topics, but I thought the Defenders of Browne shared the same trait - the inability to write correct English...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, you know why that is: they all have masters in English from San Francisco University.:)

[strathmeyer]

Stop confusing fake wrestling with real wrestling. I was once assaulted by a guy who claimed I pile drove him, and it wasn't funny later when I had to pay him money.

[roger]

Roger, if Robert S Lancaster played on the emotions of people, even if it's to sway a few more fence-sitters to 'our' side, that would be no different from the way Slyvia plays on the emotions of her victims to keep them on 'her' side.Interesting (sincerely). I don't consider it a play on emotions at all. Robert and others like ourselves are justifiably upset with SB because of the harm she does to others. Some people don't recognize the harm. I probably used the wrong wording in my initial post - I wrote "play on sympathies" - I didn't mean that in a perjorative sense, more along the lines of "arouse their sympathies". You know, make it clear that the point is not just that SB doesn't have scientic evidence backing her (the main point I glean from the front page), but that SB causes financial and emotional distress.

I tend not to spend much time thinking about how things should be, and most of my time thinking about how things are. I'd love it if everyone would react with reason when presented with a reasonable argument. Robert's emails point to many people who in fact do that. However, this email is representative of another segment of the population - those who want to live in make believe land, and read criticisms as just being negative. We can all wish that people didn't operate that way, but many do. Certainly his position vis a vis SB is unassailable, but just as clearly there are people who don't get that point.

So, I asked myself, and this forum, what can we do to try to reach people like the letter writer. I'm not one for heros, but Sagan would make the list. Why? Because he didn't react in anger when somebody expressed a naive view, or hold them up to ridicule, but he thought about the issue from their point of view, and presented an argument that would engage the mind of that person. For example, suppose somebody said something about science destroying mystery and wonder. Sagan could respond that was mind bogglingly stupid, and provide a raft of experimental results showing otherwise. Or, he could do what he did, and speak eloquently and movingly about the wonders of the universe as it is, the excitement and passion of learning about the universe, of the unutterable beauty of what exists. That's not playing on emotions, do you think? It's not disengenous, it's an accurate protrayal of what Sagan thinks, and it engages the protester rather than insults them.

I feel awkward pressing this point because obviously Robert's website is a good thing, and he is helping people. Nonetheless, I am extremely passionate about my feelings in this matter.

I believe in trying to reach people, and instead of reacting with anger when they present something foolish like this letter writer, trying to get inside their mind and find a way to present information that causes them to re-evaluate their position. We will never succeed with everyone, but what is the cost is not trying?

Since I'm running off at the mouth, perhaps I should put up or shut up? Here is an example of what I might respond:

"I know many people who gain happiness and strength from SB and other psychics. My mother is one. I'd rather not burst her bubble, but unfortunately I don't see a better option. Let me explain.

Please recognize that I don't want to burst her (or anyone's) bubble just to prove a point, or to cast doubt on somebody just because I don't agree with them. I'm doing this because SB has hurt a lot of people.

For example, did you know that she predicted that X's daughter was dead, and she was later found alive? Imagine the horror of being told your daughter was dead! Imagine the pain these people felt.

Did you know Sylvia charge $700 for a session. My mailbox is FULL of letters from people who paid $700 and felt completely ripped off. They did not receive any specific advise, most of what Sylvia said was wrong, and she refuses to refund the money. $700 is a LOT of money. Imagine a lawyer was charging $700 for services and then never gave you good legal advise. Imagine going to a doctor, paying $700, and all he says is "drink more water" or the like. Wouldn't you be outraged, and feeling ripped off? How was that advise worth $700?

I have a lot of articles I have written showing these things. It takes a bit of reading and time, but I think it is very worthwhile. It would be nice if all Sylvia did was spread hope through the world, but unfortunately that is far from the case. She is profitting ($700) from other people's pain. She is lying to people to get rich. That is not the act of a person trying to help people.

I'm glad that Sylvia has been a positive influence in your life, but I ask you, at what cost to others? People are being charged extreme amounts of money, people are being told incorrect things about their loved ones, so you can imagine a bright, happy world? I can't live my life that way - people are suffering because of SB, suffering badly, and I am not going to sit quietly to avoid bursting bubbles. I'm sorry if my site has lessened the pleasure in your life, but I see no other way to act. I'm doing it in response to somebody who has hurt a LOT of people financially and emotionally.

I suggest reading the articles I wrote, and look at it from the point of view of the people she hurt. I'm not being mean and trying to hurt SB, I'm trying to be helpful and help the victims of SB. I'm glad that you are not a victim of SB, but many other people are, and I intend to help them the best way I can.

Yours,
Roger

[Skeptic Guy]

I think everyone here was referring to the fake "Professional Wrestling" and not the "real" wrestling.

[thaiboxerken]

If Sylvia Brown sold her services as "just for fun/entertainment" then I don't think the e-mail would have some merit.

[Reno]

Interesting (sincerely). I don't consider it a play on emotions at all. Robert and others like ourselves are justifiably upset with SB because of the harm she does to others. Some people don't recognize the harm. I probably used the wrong wording in my initial post - I wrote "play on sympathies" - I didn't mean that in a perjorative sense, more along the lines of "arouse their sympathies". You know, make it clear that the point is not just that SB doesn't have scientic evidence backing her (the main point I glean from the front page), but that SB causes financial and emotional distress.

I tend not to spend much time thinking about how things should be, and most of my time thinking about how things are. I'd love it if everyone would react with reason when presented with a reasonable argument. Robert's emails point to many people who in fact do that. However, this email is representative of another segment of the population - those who want to live in make believe land, and read criticisms as just being negative. We can all wish that people didn't operate that way, but many do. Certainly his position vis a vis SB is unassailable, but just as clearly there are people who don't get that point.

So, I asked myself, and this forum, what can we do to try to reach people like the letter writer. I'm not one for heros, but Sagan would make the list. Why? Because he didn't react in anger when somebody expressed a naive view, or hold them up to ridicule, but he thought about the issue from their point of view, and presented an argument that would engage the mind of that person. For example, suppose somebody said something about science destroying mystery and wonder. Sagan could respond that was mind bogglingly stupid, and provide a raft of experimental results showing otherwise. Or, he could do what he did, and speak eloquently and movingly about the wonders of the universe as it is, the excitement and passion of learning about the universe, of the unutterable beauty of what exists. That's not playing on emotions, do you think? It's not disengenous, it's an accurate protrayal of what Sagan thinks, and it engages the protester rather than insults them.

I feel awkward pressing this point because obviously Robert's website is a good thing, and he is helping people. Nonetheless, I am extremely passionate about my feelings in this matter.

I believe in trying to reach people, and instead of reacting with anger when they present something foolish like this letter writer, trying to get inside their mind and find a way to present information that causes them to re-evaluate their position. We will never succeed with everyone, but what is the cost is not trying?

Since I'm running off at the mouth, perhaps I should put up or shut up? Here is an example of what I might respond:

"I know many people who gain happiness and strength from SB and other psychics. My mother is one. I'd rather not burst her bubble, but unfortunately I don't see a better option. Let me explain.

Please recognize that I don't want to burst her (or anyone's) bubble just to prove a point, or to cast doubt on somebody just because I don't agree with them. I'm doing this because SB has hurt a lot of people.

For example, did you know that she predicted that X's daughter was dead, and she was later found alive? Imagine the horror of being told your daughter was dead! Imagine the pain these people felt.

Did you know Sylvia charge $700 for a session. My mailbox is FULL of letters from people who paid $700 and felt completely ripped off. They did not receive any specific advise, most of what Sylvia said was wrong, and she refuses to refund the money. $700 is a LOT of money. Imagine a lawyer was charging $700 for services and then never gave you good legal advise. Imagine going to a doctor, paying $700, and all he says is "drink more water" or the like. Wouldn't you be outraged, and feeling ripped off? How was that advise worth $700?

I have a lot of articles I have written showing these things. It takes a bit of reading and time, but I think it is very worthwhile. It would be nice if all Sylvia did was spread hope through the world, but unfortunately that is far from the case. She is profitting ($700) from other people's pain. She is lying to people to get rich. That is not the act of a person trying to help people.

I'm glad that Sylvia has been a positive influence in your life, but I ask you, at what cost to others? People are being charged extreme amounts of money, people are being told incorrect things about their loved ones, so you can imagine a bright, happy world? I can't live my life that way - people are suffering because of SB, suffering badly, and I am not going to sit quietly to avoid bursting bubbles. I'm sorry if my site has lessened the pleasure in your life, but I see no other way to act. I'm doing it in response to somebody who has hurt a LOT of people financially and emotionally.

I suggest reading the articles I wrote, and look at it from the point of view of the people she hurt. I'm not being mean and trying to hurt SB, I'm trying to be helpful and help the victims of SB. I'm glad that you are not a victim of SB, but many other people are, and I intend to help them the best way I can.

Yours,
Roger

Roger, I find no fault with the manner in which you would present a website dedicated to the subject of Sylvia Browne. If you do create a website and present it in the manner you described, I will add it to my bookmarks and visit it daily.

Robert presents his site in his way and every time I visit it, I aspire to argue the case against Sylvia Browne in conversation with believers and fence-sitters in the same manner. Your own presentation has great merit too, but I personally prefer the way Robert does it. He just presents the facts, and will present facts from BOTH sides if the facts are verifiable. I like the way he leaves it up to the reader to reach his/her own conclusion.

It's like a slow, but unstoppable force. You just can't argue with any credibility against anything Robert presents. If you have a counter-argument backed with evidence, then Robert will just publish it and continue to let the reader make his own mind up. He cannot lose in the end, because he only presents the facts, and we all know that the facts speak for themselves.

If Sylvia Browne thinks that Robert will either be worn down or give up because of threats, slander, or the passage of time, she is making a grave error. She's finished. She just doesn't know it yet.

[lauraPSLI]

RSLancastr, so you're the one who made stopsylviabrowne.com. Very cool site. I'm new to the forums and it's an honor to meet you.

Well here's my take. It's fine for someone to believe what hey want, even f it's just for fun and they are deluding themselves. It's their individual decision and their right. However you did not force your website on her. It's out there if people want to see it but at last when I found it, it certainly wasn't involuntarily. She chose to look. If it upset her it's not your fault.

I can understand wanting to believe in something because it's fun. Let's put it this way. It would be nice if fairies existed. They're cute and the folklore is incredibly rich and colorful. If I happened to actually walk into a fairy ring and believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had seen them, I would be overjoyed because it would make life that much more colorful. However since they have not been seen and all signs point away from their existence I have to logically admit that there are no such things. It is still fun though to think what if.... On the other hand I would certainly not go screaming at everyone who says they're not real just because I want to have fun.

The purpose of this little bit of rambling is that it can be fun to think of other possibilities but there is no reason to start yelling at anyone who publicly states the opposite. If she doesn't want her "fun" ruined, she shouldn't look.

On another note, I get more and more emails myself in this ungrammatical sludge. What’s happening to our command of the English language? Let me goess, this email was what I call a “uni-paragraph” all blended together with barely any punctuation right? See ‘m psychic LOL! I get them all the time with my group.

I hope I made sense, just got me a little riled as well. Thanks for sharing that email.

-Laura

[ponderingturtle]

Yep, it's a common mentality.

Wrestling works the same way.

With wrestling there are few people who don't know it is choreographed. But is that the same as fake, and if so what does that say about the Ballet, or song and dance numbers in plays?

[ponderingturtle]

The mentality of the fans is the same, I mean. :D

Wrestling is nothing like psychics, other than the involvement of very ugly people. I wasn't comparing the two industries but the psychology of the believers.

I think you would need to show that most wrestling fans think it is a true athletic competitoin.

[Moochie]

I think you would need to show that most wrestling fans think it is a true athletic competitoin.

The TV program shown here in the 60s, "Ringside with the Rasslers," was all about show-biz, and not about the sport of wrestling. It showcased the major stars that would appear at a city venue in the week to follow; i.e., it was an advertisement for the show-business version of wrestling.

There is a difference.


M.

[ponderingturtle]

The TV program shown here in the 60s, "Ringside with the Rasslers," was all about show-biz, and not about the sport of wrestling. It showcased the major stars that would appear at a city venue in the week to follow; i.e., it was an advertisement for the show-business version of wrestling.

There is a difference.


M.

I am aware of the difference between scientific wrestling and professional wrestling. One of the reasons for it is that when scientific wrestling was one of the most popular sports around 100 years ago, that the matches would go on for way to long.

A&E did an interesting history of professional wrestling called "The UnReal History of Professional Wrestling" documenting how it progressed from a real sport to the spectacle that it is today.

But I would be surprised if all that many of the fans believed that it was actually a competitive event. Real is a hard term to use, because in general they are really doing exactly what you see, so in that sense it is real, it is just scripted.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

With wrestling there are few people who don't know it is choreographed. But is that the same as fake, and if so what does that say about the Ballet, or song and dance numbers in plays?

It's fake beause it presents itself as a real sports event. It's taken for granted plays, operas and dances and so on are choreographed spectacle. They are presented as fiction.

Wrestlers (and the entire industry they're part of) always shamelessly and straight-facedly maintain they're real act like there's no question it could be otherwise, as John Stossel once found out.

It's "fake" like a fixed election, a magic trick, a hoax or Sylvia Browne's nails, blond hair, stories about not smoking and psychic abilities are fake.

If it were taken for granted that it's a show like the strongmen in the circus or war re-enactments or sports re-enactments, then it would just be a scripted show. However, it's a hoax because the official story is always that it's real.

[strathmeyer]

Can you give examples of it presenting itself as a real sport? Maybe this is just a misunderstand because you didn't grow up around this type of stuff? Why is this thread eating itself?

[orpheus]

Interesting (sincerely). I don't consider it a play on emotions at all. Robert and others like ourselves are justifiably upset with SB because of the harm she does to others. Some people don't recognize the harm. I probably used the wrong wording in my initial post - I wrote "play on sympathies" - I didn't mean that in a perjorative sense, more along the lines of "arouse their sympathies". You know, make it clear that the point is not just that SB doesn't have scientic evidence backing her (the main point I glean from the front page), but that SB causes financial and emotional distress.

I tend not to spend much time thinking about how things should be, and most of my time thinking about how things are. I'd love it if everyone would react with reason when presented with a reasonable argument. Robert's emails point to many people who in fact do that. However, this email is representative of another segment of the population - those who want to live in make believe land, and read criticisms as just being negative. We can all wish that people didn't operate that way, but many do. Certainly his position vis a vis SB is unassailable, but just as clearly there are people who don't get that point.

So, I asked myself, and this forum, what can we do to try to reach people like the letter writer. I'm not one for heros, but Sagan would make the list. Why? Because he didn't react in anger when somebody expressed a naive view, or hold them up to ridicule, but he thought about the issue from their point of view, and presented an argument that would engage the mind of that person. For example, suppose somebody said something about science destroying mystery and wonder. Sagan could respond that was mind bogglingly stupid, and provide a raft of experimental results showing otherwise. Or, he could do what he did, and speak eloquently and movingly about the wonders of the universe as it is, the excitement and passion of learning about the universe, of the unutterable beauty of what exists. That's not playing on emotions, do you think? It's not disengenous, it's an accurate protrayal of what Sagan thinks, and it engages the protester rather than insults them.

I feel awkward pressing this point because obviously Robert's website is a good thing, and he is helping people. Nonetheless, I am extremely passionate about my feelings in this matter.

I believe in trying to reach people, and instead of reacting with anger when they present something foolish like this letter writer, trying to get inside their mind and find a way to present information that causes them to re-evaluate their position. We will never succeed with everyone, but what is the cost is not trying?

Since I'm running off at the mouth, perhaps I should put up or shut up? Here is an example of what I might respond:

"I know many people who gain happiness and strength from SB and other psychics. My mother is one. I'd rather not burst her bubble, but unfortunately I don't see a better option. Let me explain.

Please recognize that I don't want to burst her (or anyone's) bubble just to prove a point, or to cast doubt on somebody just because I don't agree with them. I'm doing this because SB has hurt a lot of people.

For example, did you know that she predicted that X's daughter was dead, and she was later found alive? Imagine the horror of being told your daughter was dead! Imagine the pain these people felt.

Did you know Sylvia charge $700 for a session. My mailbox is FULL of letters from people who paid $700 and felt completely ripped off. They did not receive any specific advise, most of what Sylvia said was wrong, and she refuses to refund the money. $700 is a LOT of money. Imagine a lawyer was charging $700 for services and then never gave you good legal advise. Imagine going to a doctor, paying $700, and all he says is "drink more water" or the like. Wouldn't you be outraged, and feeling ripped off? How was that advise worth $700?

I have a lot of articles I have written showing these things. It takes a bit of reading and time, but I think it is very worthwhile. It would be nice if all Sylvia did was spread hope through the world, but unfortunately that is far from the case. She is profitting ($700) from other people's pain. She is lying to people to get rich. That is not the act of a person trying to help people.

I'm glad that Sylvia has been a positive influence in your life, but I ask you, at what cost to others? People are being charged extreme amounts of money, people are being told incorrect things about their loved ones, so you can imagine a bright, happy world? I can't live my life that way - people are suffering because of SB, suffering badly, and I am not going to sit quietly to avoid bursting bubbles. I'm sorry if my site has lessened the pleasure in your life, but I see no other way to act. I'm doing it in response to somebody who has hurt a LOT of people financially and emotionally.

I suggest reading the articles I wrote, and look at it from the point of view of the people she hurt. I'm not being mean and trying to hurt SB, I'm trying to be helpful and help the victims of SB. I'm glad that you are not a victim of SB, but many other people are, and I intend to help them the best way I can.

Yours,
Roger

This has been a fascinating thread - for several reasons. Primarily because the fight against the horribly corrosive SB and her ilk is so worthwhile.

But secondarily, I think Roger and Reno raise some important points in their exchange. I agree wholeheartedly with Roger - and can't begin to top him in terms of expressing it so well. Yes, for some, a neutral presentation of the facts are what's needed to convince. But for many, this isn't the case. And it's important to recognize that there are lots of ways of presenting the facts - and some ways will reach some people better than others.

This is absolutely not a matter of distorting facts; rather it's a matter of empathy. My father has a wonderful definition of empathy, btw, that I think is useful here: "Empathy is not about trying to imagine how you would feel walking in the other person's shoes. It's about trying to imagine how they feel walking in their shoes." Where is this person I'm talking to coming from? How do they feel? What are they ready to hear?

(I completely agree about Sagan, incidentally. I was always moved by his utter lack of ridicule and honest, easy empathy with his questioners. A great and rare quality in a great man.)


Robert presents his site in his way and every time I visit it, I aspire to argue the case against Sylvia Browne in conversation with believers and fence-sitters in the same manner. Your own presentation has great merit too, but I personally prefer the way Robert does it. He just presents the facts, and will present facts from BOTH sides if the facts are verifiable. I like the way he leaves it up to the reader to reach his/her own conclusion.

It's like a slow, but unstoppable force. You just can't argue with any credibility against anything Robert presents. If you have a counter-argument backed with evidence, then Robert will just publish it and continue to let the reader make his own mind up. He cannot lose in the end, because he only presents the facts, and we all know that the facts speak for themselves.

If Sylvia Browne thinks that Robert will either be worn down or give up because of threats, slander, or the passage of time, she is making a grave error. She's finished. She just doesn't know it yet.

I would like to agree with Reno about everything here. I do think Robert is doing a magnificent job in his own way - a very important one, and it's clearly reaching people. But here's what I fear:

Although it's true that one "just can't argue with any credibility against anything Robert presents", I fear that many people simply aren't interested in credible argument. Although it's true that "the facts speak for themselves", I fear that no matter how eloquently they speak, people may be unwilling or unable to listen to them. And I fear that although Robert may not "be worn down or give up because of threats, slander, or the passage of time", SB, in turn, may not be worn down or give up in the face of facts.

It would be great if being rational about the facts was always enough to win people over in the end. But looking at history, I fear Ira Gershwin was right: "It ain't necessarily so."

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Can you give examples of it presenting itself as a real sport? Maybe this is just a misunderstand because you didn't grow up around this type of stuff? Why is this thread eating itself?

Once in the 80s, John Stossel asked a wrestler if it was fake or not, something he thought they were asked every day. The guy became infuriated and screamed something like "I'll show you how fake it is!" and slapped him to the floor several times.

No, I didn't grow up around it. Saw it on TV a few times over at friend's houses and heard all of the jokes about it, though. I grew up in the 90s so.

[ChristineR]

Wrestling is staged. Wrestling is not faked. That's what the wrestler that beat up Stossel was annoyed about. It really does take athletic ability and people really do get hurt and occasionally even killed.

I've heard many a wrestler get upset about the "faked" part but never heard one deny words like "planned" or "choreographed" or "scripted." Brett Hart has said that when he first started only the last three seconds were scripted.

Brett Hart's brother was killed in a wrestling stunt, by the way.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I know- I remember doing my Current Events on Owen Hart's death.

I see what you're saying but the fight is fake.

[ponderingturtle]

It's fake beause it presents itself as a real sports event. It's taken for granted plays, operas and dances and so on are choreographed spectacle. They are presented as fiction.

Wrestlers (and the entire industry they're part of) always shamelessly and straight-facedly maintain they're real act like there's no question it could be otherwise, as John Stossel once found out.

It's "fake" like a fixed election, a magic trick, a hoax or Sylvia Browne's nails, blond hair, stories about not smoking and psychic abilities are fake.

If it were taken for granted that it's a show like the strongmen in the circus or war re-enactments or sports re-enactments, then it would just be a scripted show. However, it's a hoax because the official story is always that it's real.

So it is like magicians who claim they can really do the tricks by magic?

[ponderingturtle]

Once in the 80s, John Stossel asked a wrestler if it was fake or not, something he thought they were asked every day. The guy became infuriated and screamed something like "I'll show you how fake it is!" and slapped him to the floor several times.

No, I didn't grow up around it. Saw it on TV a few times over at friend's houses and heard all of the jokes about it, though. I grew up in the 90s so.

Because it is not fake, they are really doing those things. The better questions is, is it fixed.

Telling someone that their athletic performance is fake can be taken as an insult even if it understood that it is fixed.

[RenaissanceBiker]

You guys want to start a wrestling thread in "Sports"?

[Moochie]

Once in the 80s, John Stossel asked a wrestler if it was fake or not, something he thought they were asked every day. The guy became infuriated and screamed something like "I'll show you how fake it is!" and slapped him to the floor several times.

No, I didn't grow up around it. Saw it on TV a few times over at friend's houses and heard all of the jokes about it, though. I grew up in the 90s so.

Stossel would have to be a Class A moron.

M.

ETA: "Moron" is my favorite word for the willfully ignorant.