Defending Sylvia....

[NotARepublican]

Well, a friend of mine sort of within the confines of Novus has begun a new blog: www.defendingsylvia.blogspot.com.

I guess it's a sincere attempt at defending the heroine.

If interested, take a stroll over. :boggled:

[apathetic medic]

That site while picking holes in arguments against the Novus church hardly give credibility to the so called "powers" of their vaunted psychic. I would like them to illustrate compelling evidence of her claimed psychic abilities.

They should put up or shut up.

[angrybeliever]

That site while picking holes in arguments against the Novus church hardly give credibility to the so called "powers" of their vaunted psychic. I would like them to illustrate compelling evidence of her claimed psychic abilities.

They should put up or shut up.



Well, call me unreasonable, but I would like to hear from Sylvia herself. Good grief, for a woman who wields as much control, and has an outrageous temper, you would think she could speak up for herself.

No, she leaves it to other people to do her defending. I know, I used to be one of them. Sad, isn't it, that the one truth of 'to thine own self be true' seems to escape her.

I bear no ill thought for the person doing the blog. I will give the benefit of the doubt, and say that they truly believe that Sylvia is being persecuted by SSB and this forum. I will also say that they don't have all the facts, and so their presentation is flawed as well.

There is no defense for her, and she leaves those who have clue about her deceit, to aid her.

I expected more from Sylvia...but then, that's how my journey started, isn't it?:(

[Pythra]

I think this is great. Finally one of Sylvia's fans has stepped up to the task of sharing validations of Sylvia and carefully composed rebuttals to RSL's articles (if we ignore the first effort, which basically amounts to "I don't like Robert and what if he's making all this up anyway?").

GoSylviaBrowne.com failed entirely at this endeavor, and for some reason, the members of the message board there have also declined to provide evidence in support of Sylvia, even though they are constantly complaining about how RSL is only willing to show one side of the story. Why don't you send him some material, GSB members? Then if he refuses to put it on his site, you can tell everyone how one-sided and unfair his treatment of Sylvia is.

I for one am really looking forward to seeing DefendingSylvia's contributions.

[RSLancastr]

I for one am really looking forward to seeing DefendingSylvia's contributions.As am I.

I found the blog via technorati.com (which I use to locate references to SSB from within the blogosphere), and came here to start a thread about it, only to find one already started.

I've already emailed the following to the blogger:

Equal Apologist:

I read with interest the "Browne Lied, Delaware Died... " article in your new "In Sylvia's Defense... " blog.

I have added a link to that blog entry in the "Related Links" section of my "Novus Spiritus: Delaware Breaks Away" article on my site, and have added a link to the blog's home page from the "Pro-Sylvia/Other" section of my site's Links page.

While I disagree (obviously) with much of what you say, I welcome such entries into the "marketplace of ideas" about the subject.

It's late and I am tired, but here are a few comments, not about your criticisms of the article, but about some misconceptions you seem to have about my site.

Regarding your references such as "The whiners over at www.stopsylviabrowne.com...", "the average IQ for the contributors to SSB": It's possible I have used the "editorial we" in some of the site's articles. If I did, this may have led to some confusion. But so far, I am the author of every article on SSB. So unless you count the authors of quoted material within the articles, I'm the only contributor. If there is indeed any whining being done over here, it is by me and me alone. And, to find the "average IQ" of contributors to the site, take my IQ (which I don't know offhand) and divide by one.

I'm not certain where you get the idea that there was a "near dearth of articles going up in May" here at SSB, since there were ten article which went up that month, making it the second-highest number of articles to go up on SSB in a given month since the site opened.

As far as your worry that SSB's readership might be disappearing, I'm happy to report that in May, the site received an average of 3,061 page-loads per day (I currently don't track unique hits, so I do not know how many different people visit the site on a given day). This is very much in line with the past few months, so, at least for the time being, the site's readership does not appear to be disappearing.

Regardless of all of that - I look forward to future entries in your blog, and if they are critical of specific articles on my site, I will most likely be linking to them from within those articles as well. As I state on the site, I encourage people to consider all information about Browne. And, since Browne's site does little but promote her books and such, and the Go Sylvia Browne site has so far produced little in the way of anything tangible in defense of Browne, I am hoping that you will at least make an attempt at proving Browne's claims of psychic powers. While criticism of my articles is welcome, I hope you can come up with, for example, some instances where Browne did a reading for a missing person or homicide case on the Montel Williams show (so that it is documented ahead of time), which was later borne out by the case's resolution.

When I have more time, I will be considering the points in your blog entry, and possibly responding to them in an update to the article.

In the meantime:

Best regards,

Robert S. Lancaster

[Zep]

How could you be fairer than that, Rob?

[SeekingTruth]

The person who created this blog has no information about him/herself on his/her profile. Is this person connected to Sylvia personally - a family member, a close friend, her business manager, one of her Board members. Or is this simply a "fan" who continues to blindly support her "fearless leader" as so many others have done over the years.

They state on the blog "but it is, at least in this country, also the right of the party of defense to, well, defend itself." So the blogger is defending itself - Would make me think the blogger is either SB herself or SB's attorney.

This person mentions the "whiners over at the stop sylvia site". As Robert pointed out, he is the only contributor to SSB so it would appear that the creator of the blog believes this JREF forum and the SSB site are either one in the same or somehow connected.

As to this person having proof that will validate SB's psychic abilities, that remains to be seen.

ST

[TruthBeTold]

Robert, you are a class act!!! :)

I think that at times people come to the defense of Sylvia and stumble over themselves and make things worse.
Many times they fizzle out...

When Robert asked some GSB members to give him proof of Sylvia's psychic powers and he would gladly put it on his site, many of them hemmed and hawed and said they couldn't.
As I said on another thread, if you tell me you're psychic, tell me what's going to happen at 2:30 on Thursday.

Yes, I can tell people there will be hurricanes coming or that an 80 year old is going to die but the proof that has come out about Sylvia's other incredibly wrong "readings" is solid proof. Not imagined as it is backed by news articles and victims families coming forward.

And the validations page on GSB is still void of validations.

I find it kind of sad really.
I understand the stages of death...denial, depression, anger, etc. and it seems that many of the devoted fans of Sylvia are experiencing them.
I find it kind of sad.
They say they are seekers of truth and yet they would rather believe in lies and deceit.
To each his own!

TruthBeTold

[Minarvia]

Well, Rob, no matter how late it is and how tired you are you still write one heck of a letter. Nicely done! You are very fair and I look forward to a reply by that blogger.

[Irish Murdoch]

I'm not certain where you get the idea that there was a "near dearth of articles going up in May" here at SSB ...

Maybe the person in question had a near dearth experience.

[PastBrowneFan]

So, is the Sylvia supporter disappointed that articles examining the truth and consequences of Sylvia and Novus are not going up fast enough? :confused:

[grayman]

Robert, I haven't said this in a while but I love and and respect you man!



In a strictly platonic, heterosexual fashion of course.




Seriously, I am proud to have met you and count you as a friend.

[Monza]

Once again I am impressed with Robert's class and manners. It is clear that he is willing to publish any facts, pro or con, so that readers can make up their own mind. Though, I can understand if Sylvia supporters don't necessarily rush to his site to submit proof of her powers. What astounds me, though, is that they aren't offering up such proof on their own pro-Sylvia sites. Why do you think that is?*

* I have my own theory. :)

[RandFan]

Once again I am impressed with Robert's class and manners. It is clear that he is willing to publish any facts, pro or con, so that readers can make up their own mind. (emphasis mine)

These are some of the things that have endeared me so much to Randi. Class, manners, graciousness, generous, honest, etc.

The only people who belong on pedestals are those who are too classy to stand on them.

[SeekingTruth]

Once again I am impressed with Robert's class and manners. It is clear that he is willing to publish any facts, pro or con, so that readers can make up their own mind.

Unlike the owner of the "In Defense of Sylvia" blog. Now this person is spouting stuff about the Canadian church they know absolutely nothing about - as evidenced by this remark:

"Regarding the various money concerns these ministers had with Novus, please alert me to who, in the entire organizations of Sylvia Browne Corp. and Novus Spiritus—besides Sylvia—is earning any money. Um…time’s up. Nobody."

Has this person been hiding under a rock? Actually crawling back under would be most beneficial to humanity.

ST

[PastBrowneFan]

The person writing that blog is pretty much asking for more proof showing the money and properties that SB has, and is also asking for an audit of NS. Looks like she/he will be getting exactly what they ask for.

This is exactly like a "sermon" that Prelate Michael McClellan gave in Campbell after Canada did quit, he put the blame on them for their egos, when in fact it was the Ego of SB and her Board of Misdirectors that have caused NS to fail as an "international religion".

Sylvia Browne has profited greatly, Sheila Hallmeyer has profited as well, Chris, Paul, the list can go on. Yet, those who have morals did get out, as has been evident in the past few years with the exodus.

Writer of this blog, do you really want all information to be made public to counter your propogandic claims?

[kittynh]

wow Robert. Stay on the high road!

You are so fair and balanced. Knowing my history, I can't stay calm and focused on this subject.

You can, and do. Thank you.

[angrybeliever]

[As am I.

I found the blog via technorati.com (which I use to locate references to SSB from within the blogosphere), and came here to start a thread about it, only to find one already started.]

Hi,

I went to that site that Robert uses, and found a plethora of posts, blogs, and all around stuff on Sylvia, Novus, etc.

It seems that the message is getting out there. I even found the blog having that infamous post that was deleted from GSB (directed at RSL with language to make a sailor blush).

I am also wondering about the blog that you have to be invited to. Something tells me that we are being scoped out, and it is really foolish.

Do you think knowing who "we" are is going to change things, other than the obvious tactic of directing focus away from the issues, and onto bashing those of us who left.

I have developed so much respect for a group here that prior to coming, was only in my mind "troublemakers". I find this forum, exciting and the people for the most part, intelligent, witty, and purposeful.

[Soapy Sam]

When we truly believe something- for example, " my kid is smarter than most kids" - and later evidence proves us wrong, it can be very hard to accept. This is a very human experience.

If what we believed was at least possible and credible, it's hard enough; but if what we believed was self evidently very, very silly, admitting our error takes serious moral fibre.

Admitting you believed Slyvia Browne could really see into the future must take real balls. Frankly, I'm impressed that several folk have done so and even come on this site to state it. They have my respect.

It's to be expected that others are not yet able to admit they have been taken in, even if they are starting to suspect it.

I hope, given the data, others will get there.

Seeing the tortuous illogic required to defend Slyvia's record, perhaps the editor of this site will also be forced to admit the obvious- that Slyvia is a con artist, that he was taken in, that we all make mistakes and that when we apply cold logic, we can recognise those mistakes. To my mind, achieving that is a goal to feel proud of. I hope he makes it.

[SeekingTruth]

From the blog:
"The only blog whose sole purpose is to defend the mission, message, and practices of a well-intentioned spiritual teacher, psychic Sylvia Browne. Because we're all allowed a fair trial."

The trial will be fair and this liar will be convicted. Hopefully on multiple charges with her entire NS staff on trial with her.
ST

[Locknar]

I checked her blog...this morning she had a new post, though as of this post her entire blog seems to be gone.

Overall, she had far more the emotional argument then any real facts.

[TruthBeTold]

Thanks Soapy Sam,
I wonder if those who spout "the tortuous illogic required to defend Slyvia's record" are actually crying out for help?
Maybe they just need some help to come out of the closet? :aaa!

[PastBrowneFan]

Yep, the blog is not showing up now.

Wasn't very effective, was full of false NS propoganda, and even the most die-hard SB fan would have to question what was written there.

Those poor people at NS, they just can't seem to get anything right: GSB shows how they really are (the opposite of kind Spiritual people), and this blogger admitted that NS was a dogmatic, religionistic religion that was not based on or centered around the people, in fact, NS would be the exact opposite of what they promote it to be.

No wonder the blog had to come down.

[zombiebex]

Ah, you beat me to it. Yes, the blog is a complete 404 now.

Don't suppose anybody snagged any of the text of the article(s) before it went poof?

[Pythra]

I think the blog had to come down because the blogger took a closer look at StopSylviaBrowne, and realised he couldn't possibly provide any substantial arguments against them. By attempting to do so he would probably make Sylvia look WORSE, because people would read his blog and think "is this the best defense Sylvia's believers can offer?"

I am disappointed though as I had hoped to see some good content there. Maybe another of Sylvia's supporters would like to have a go?

[Locknar]

I just checked it again, it is back...though restricted to "Invited Readers Only". Guess her comments can't stand the light of truth.

I agree with Pythra, I'm most disapointed...I had hoped for some good content.

[Pythra]

I just checked it again, it is back...though restricted to "Invited Readers Only". Guess her comments can't stand the light of truth.

:confused: Preaching to the choir, then. Shouldn't it be the skeptics he's targeting?

[SeekingTruth]

Ah, you beat me to it. Yes, the blog is a complete 404 now.

Don't suppose anybody snagged any of the text of the article(s) before it went poof?

I did: :)

In Sylvia's Defense...
The only blog whose sole purpose is to defend the mission, message, and practices of a well-intentioned spiritual teacher, psychic Sylvia Browne. Because we're all allowed a fair trial.

Saturday, June 2, 2007
Browne Lied, Delaware Died...
The whiners over at www.stopsylviabrowne.com have started a war of complete partiality. I’ll be the first to admit it—it’s their right—but it is, at least in this country, also the right of the party of defense to, well, defend itself.

Hence, and welcome to, this blog. The only home on the web dedicated to the blogosphere-defense of psychic-medium Sylvia Browne.

I must also admit that I’m quite stunned by the near silence from the SBC (Sylvia Browne Corp.) crew, especially in light of the recent scathing—but poorly-reasoned—articles from the Stop Sylvia site; but one never knows what they’re really paying attention to—like actually helping their church congregation, instead of spending their free and valuable time justifying their religious beliefs, which, by the way, no other governmentally-recognized religion has to do.

To begin, we’ll take issue with the latest article posted by the Stop Sylvia site, about the closing of the Delaware church. You can find that posting here, and I encourage you to read this laughable example of church “corruption.” I’m assuming—benefiting my doubt of the IQ average for the contributors at SSB—that it was a slow day and that, due to the near dearth of articles going up in May over there, they had to post something before their readership disappeared.

Moving on.

What we know is that Reverend Nancy Williams, who headed the fine Delaware Gnostic community, resigned in April 2007. The reverend even composed a moving letter to the board and clergy of the organization, outlining her reasons for resigning—none of which chided Novus Spiritus (the religious institution founded by Sylvia). In fact, Williams’ epistle was so complimentary that she even bent over backwards to show her gratitude to Sylvia—the person allegedly at the forefront of the “controlling” organization.

Williams’ panegyric for Sylvia included the following:

Sylvia, I will forever cherish what I have learned through your teachings as well as your kindness on those occasions when we’ve had personal conversations. You brought closure to me in 1987 when I finally understood the meaning for my husband’s sudden death. And I will be forever grateful for your support as well as your words to me about my grandson TJ and his health as he is the most precious person in my life.

This doesn’t sound like someone disenfranchised or under strict control; and it certainly doesn’t sound like someone embittered by Novus or its board—who, for God’s sake, actually attempt to maintain some type of order in the church. In this same vein comes one of my favorite lines in the article, which cites this example as one of the autocratic “demands” of the church:

“The board chastised Williams for preaching a sermon based on a book written by someone other than Sylvia Browne.”

Okay, let’s get something straight SSB: Novus is a religion; religions have rules, beliefs, creeds—and especially scripture. Which I don’t understand. I mean, why not let your clergy run around teaching tenets from the Bhagavadgita or the Qur’an, without proper authorization. Who cares, really, what gets spewed from the pulpit, right? I can definitely see the Pope allowing bishops to preach from the King James Bible whenever they want.

Maybe Williams’ intentions were good, and maybe there was nothing out of line with what she taught that day, but as a member of clergy, she must work within the canon of Novus Spiritus. And if her congregation—or more likely the folks over at SSB—can’t get that, maybe they should consider laying down the pen and going back to school.

If Novus didn’t authorize certain texts and require authorization before preaching on other pieces of literature, then what would separate their Gnostic organization from Roman Catholicism or Buddhism, or Paganism, or—well, you get the picture.

This is nothing but pure, demagogic whingeing from the opposition, who, I’ll assume, is just one good atheist short of a smart society of their own.

Regarding the other unreasonable examples of Lancaster’s fine reasoning are the following: that (1) Novus required 10% of the “Sunday collections [be sent] back to headquarters, despite the fact that those donations barely covered the cost of renting the hall where the services were held (and sometimes didn’t cover that….)” and (2) “[t]he board chastised Williams for having preached a sermon without wearing her official SNS robes.”

Let’s take these dense arguments one at a time so we don’t lose ourselves in their convoluted and tortuous logic: regarding the presumptive allegation that Novus would require such a small amount of tithes (if that’s really what you want to call it—Novus has always had as its policy the “give what you can; take what you need” approach, so that those in financial hardship can obtain some provisions in emergency situations), 10% is an infinitely small amount to ask of a satellite, and, in even greater “evidence,” from someone claiming to be so scientifically- and evidentiary-grounded, Lancaster got his information admittedly from “one member of the Delaware church,” using as his preface the trusting words, “I have been told…”

So let’s put this one together: “I have been told…by one member of the Delaware church…[X,Y,Z]….” Not from Reverend Nancy Williams; not from a financial statement that would offer up proof—but by somebody, somewhere in “Delaware.” I’ll just leave this one to your imagination and offer you the best advice of the night: at SSB, “Delaware” is likely code for “I made this up.”

And regarding number two, which states that Williams was chided for preaching without her clerical robes, all I have to say is that I’m surprised she was allowed to continue preaching after that. Oh yes, I can easily imagine a bishop in the Catholic Church being allowed to preside over Mass while in his Levi 401s with matching Mickey Mouse t-shirt to boot. In most cases, not only would she have been suspended from serving her honorary function as minister, she may have even been dismissed outright.

But Novus is unreasonable and controlling.

Right….

In closing, I’ll just iterate (while performing cartwheels, if that’ll help you remember this) that any organization—not least religious organizations—have dissension as part of their makeup. We didn’t get the Catholic empire or tranquil Islam (whose dissenters are prone to blowing themselves up and flying into buildings to prove their point, with which Mohammed would almost certainly disagree) without differences of opinion.

So let’s pull up our pants and be okay with a little tussle now and then. It’s good for the sturdiness of the church and, dare I say it, reason.

We’ll tackle the other nonsensical articles at SSB as we go, but this is a good start.


Posted by Equal Apologist at 12:44 AM Links to this post


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) About Me
Equal Apologist
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
? 2007 (1)
? June (1)
Browne Lied, Delaware Died...


Sunday, June 3, 2007
Canada Leaves—Whew! I Thought They Never Would.
Here we go again at the Stop Sylvia site: the Canadian branch of Novus Spiritus decides to go indie, and, much like the Delaware congregation, they claim they had “drastic concerns” with the direction of Novus. Funny how they never specifically state what these “drastic concerns” are. They throw around phrases like “philosophical and operational differences” and “inconsistencies between the Novus mission as…originally brought forth by Francine and Raheim,” but they don’t inform the reader of just what those differences and inconsistencies are. They do, however, come across like new-age halfwits. So much the better, in this case, that they go.

Of course, the most priceless piece in this article, which can be found here, is the shocking agreement of the former SNS ministers with Cardinal Darren English—and then their complete contradiction to it. The authors of the letter cite the Cardinal’s following, perceptive sentiments as their outgoing battle cry:

We agree with Cardinal Darren English when he says in this month’s newsletter, “Seeking after truth is wonderful—but what do we do with the information and knowledge once we’ve gained it? We’re not just seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Collecting facts and information and not doing anything with it is useless.”

And then they did just that—collected all the information and knowledge of Novus after years of painstaking study and, now departed in “everlasting separation,” (spare me the drama, please) they’re doing nothing with it. Great thinking, and way to score big on your logic test, quislings! You’re supposed to put your knowledge to use, not quit when it gets tough. Remember? You just argued that.

According to the five traitors who signed the letter, they “considered many important questions in [their] efforts to satisfy [their] fiduciary, ministerial, and spiritual duties,” while three “particularly pertinent questions” were considered. They are, in no hierarchically intellectual order (since, of course, there is no intelligence offered up by these five have-beens), the following:

Should a “people’s church” allow flexibility in order to adapt to each local congregation’s dynamics?

Before I can answer this twaddly question, I have to ask what does “people’s church” mean? What does the former congregation mean by “flexibility”? And what do they mean by the “dynamics” of each local congregation?

Since we can’t possibly conclude what any of these means, as these vague terms have been left conveniently undefined, we can’t answer the question. And why? Because there is no question, really. It’s just fluff that is supposed to appeal to the common parishioners and crybaby anti-Sylvia buffs around the planet.

But I’ll give it my best shot, anyway, to humor them: Novus is not a people’s church; it is a church of God for the people. This does not mean that the people run it. Like all other churches who have any solid organization about them, Novus is run by its officials. This would be the board and the head, Sylvia. And no, Novus should not adapt to each local congregation’s dynamics if their dynamics stray too far from the tenets of the church. Let me give you an example, in case you’re hard of understanding: A Lutheran church set up in a heavily Mormon area of, oh, let’s say Utah, should not allow its congregants to practice polygamy just because some among the extremists think it’s okay. Got it? Good.

Next question.

Should a “people’s church” maintain a dogmatic hierarchy that perpetuates a separation between it’s Ministry and it’s congregations?

(And yes, I left the contractional “it’s” in the question—both times. I only hope it was a punctuation error when Lancaster copied the letter’s contents. Oy vey.)

I won’t waste your time about the people’s church thing, as I’m sure you already understand its meaninglessness, but to suggest that Novus has a “dogmatic hierarchy” that perpetuates a separation between the ministry and the congregation is nothing but complimentary. And I thank you. God help us when the laity runs any church—when it would cease to be a church (which, somber intellectuals, is run by God if it’s worth its salt). And now I hear the opposition again: “Well, Sylvia and the board aren’t God!” Too true! But they are the ones directly responsible to Him if things go wrong with the conduct of the church. I’d hate for that burden to fall to the yellow Canadians now lighting incense, holding hands and writing world peace songs together in their dirty little Canadian apartments. “Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya….”

And on we go.

Should the Ministry and the congregations of Novus Spiritus be restricted to the exclusive use of Sylvia Browne’s material at church? Is this really any different from other churches that prohibit sources other than their particular Bible?

God in heaven, give me something difficult to work with tonight. YES you should be restricted! While it’s true that Novus has attempted in many ways to be different from other, more conservative religious institutions (and they’ve succeeded—they’re pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, for example. Find me another Christian church that progressive.), they never formally decided to part ways with common sense. I covered this in the article titled “Browne Lied, Delaware Died…”; a church must have its scripture. Any other material not within the official canonical writings of the institution should be sanctioned, and permission sought after, before it is preached on (alright, I’m done ending my prepositional phrases with prepositions). I’m not touching this obvious one again. If you don’t get this, please—please—leave the church forthwith!

Regarding the various money concerns these ministers had with Novus, please alert me to who, in the entire organizations of Sylvia Browne Corp. and Novus Spiritus—besides Sylvia—is earning any money. Um…time’s up. Nobody. And this is how you treat your chairwoman? Please, contribute something—anything! Maybe Sylvia—who’s now 70 and works harder than she ever has—could retire if you did.

While you considered “many important questions” in your efforts to satisfy your “fiduciary, ministerial, and spiritual duties,” you forgot one: to minister to your congregation! Instead, when things got tough, you threw in the towel and departed. Imagine if Sylvia and the rest of the fine ministers had done the same during times of difficulty.

What creates a strong institution is order, hierarchy, and commitment. What maintains a strong institution is getting rid of the moles who lurk there in the night. In this case, the Canada branch goes. And because of this, Novus goes on.

Posted by Equal Apologist at 1:47 AM Links to this post

[zombiebex]

... and now I can see the blog just fine. Strange indeed.

[Locknar]

... and now I can see the blog just fine. Strange indeed.


Well seems her blog as come full circle, as I can see it fine now as well....

[Pythra]

I was wrong in my assumptions. My apologies, Equal Apologist.

I have to say that the "Canada Leaves" article is pretty horrific, especially considering how Sylvia's supporters are constantly condemning negativity (though I do believe "negativity" translates to "skepticism" in that neck of the woods).

They do, however, come across like new-age halfwits.
The authors of the letter cite the Cardinal’s following, perceptive sentiments as their outgoing battle cry:
Great thinking, and way to score big on your logic test, quislings!
According to the five traitors who signed the letter...
They are, in no hierarchically intellectual order (since, of course, there is no intelligence offered up by these five have-beens)...
It’s just fluff that is supposed to appeal to the common parishioners and crybaby anti-Sylvia buffs around the planet.

[PastBrowneFan]

Good, now all (though probably not very many) can see just how dogmatic, religionistic, petty, vindictive, and unspiritual NS and it's diehard defenders are.

Would be interesting to see how the blogger explains how NS has, in over 20 years, not formed churches, not had a steady, stable base of Study Groups, and loses members faster than they can recruit.

With the 2 Full Time "churches", and 3 once-a-month things, not a very impressive resume for an "International Church", or any Spiritual group.

Those who manage NS would have been fired a long time ago if they were in any other church org., business, non-profit, or any group. Their track record of control and dominance has totally buried any message or mission they once may have had, and they need to be replaced yesterday.

SB, if nothing else, clean up your "church".

[RSLancastr]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.

[fromdownunder]

Why did not Sylvia see all this sort of opposition coming years ago?

(sorry if this type of comment has been made before)

Norm

[PastBrowneFan]

I too see/saw no satire there, only examples of what all too many current and ex-NS people experience(d).

[Zep]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.If it was REALLY satire, why not adjust it if necessary, but leave it there?

I suspect they actually had a look at your website for real this time, Rob, and understood that they were neck deep in it and sinking.

[angrybeliever]

If the blogger had wanted to make a stronger statement, it would have been better in my estimation, to use the number of people that Sylvia has given wrong advice publicly on.

The examples used will only be satirical to those who are involved in the philosophy, don't you think? The fans, who are for the most part,I think, in the church system already, will perhaps, think to themselves.."Yeah, after all, there ARE rules, etc".

Oh, and can we not compare the blogger to Colbert?!!!! I have so little idols left. LOLOLOLOLOL

[Locknar]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.

I'd have to agree...I didn't see it as satire either; oh well.

[Pythra]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.

Definitely an unexpected twist! I was completely fooled.

Didn't NotARepublican say that it was written by a friend of his/hers who is connected with NS, and that it was supposed to be sincere?

[Locknar]

Didn't NotARepublican say that it was written by a friend of his/hers who is connected with NS, and that it was supposed to be sincere?

Why yes...yes he/she did; NotARepublican - comment?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Well, a friend of mine sort of within the confines of Novus has begun a new blog: www.defendingsylvia.blogspot.com (http://www.defendingsylvia.blogspot.com/).

I guess it's a sincere attempt at defending the heroine.

If interested, take a stroll over. :boggled:

Definitely an unexpected twist! I was completely fooled.

Didn't NotARepublican say that it was written by a friend of his/hers who is connected with NS, and that it was supposed to be sincere?

... and that's today's Word.

[Slimething]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.


Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law) strikes again. That's why god gave us smilies. ;)

[Mr. Stick]

The blogger has contacted me.

He/she says that the blog was an attempt at an obvious, Colbert-like satire of a Browne supporter.

After seeing that the was not as "obvious" as had been hoped, he/she has decided to take the site down.

I sure didn't think it was satire. If I had, I would not have linked to it.

Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law) strikes again. That's why god gave us smilies. ;)

I didn't know Poe's Law before, but that's excactly what I thought. It's nearly impossible to do a satire of a true Browne follower. Much stranger things has been written in full seriousness.:cs:

[PastBrowneFan]

"Defending Sylvia", sounds like a future book to be written by her Criminal Attorney after the AG and IRS look into her Business and Spiritual dealings.

[SeekingTruth]

"Defending Sylvia", sounds like a future book to be written by her Criminal Attorney after the AG and IRS look into her Business and Spiritual dealings.

There isno defense for her dispicable behavior - or that of her staff.

ST

[Locknar]

Did NotARepublican ever answer the question about the blogg that started this thread? He/she said it was a friends blogg (or sorts) and it was a sincere attempt; RSL was told by the blogg owner it was suppose to be satire.

NotARepublican did the same thing in another thread; posted about a blogg - turned out HE/SHE was the owner.

NotARepublican - Whats the deal?

[RSLancastr]

Yes, NAR 'fessed up to being the author of the Defending Sylvia blog. It was supposed to be a satire, but didn't work out.

[Locknar]

Yes, NAR 'fessed up to being the author of the Defending Sylvia blog. It was supposed to be a satire, but didn't work out.

AH....ok; when you had said the "blogger" had contacted you, I didn't associate that with NAR.

[RSLancastr]

AH....ok; when you had said the "blogger" had contacted you, I didn't associate that with NAR.I said "blogger" because at that point, NAR had not made it public that he was the blogger.

[Locknar]

I said "blogger" because at that point, NAR had not made it public that he was the blogger.

Doh! I re-read NARs 6 JUN post in another thread ("godsobsession")...got it now :) I must have missed it when I read it before.