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):

Quote:

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.



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

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Meri

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]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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):

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.



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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Oualawouzou

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Quote:

...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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by thisninjascrazy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

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]

Originally Posted by roger

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]

Originally Posted by Pythra

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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):

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.



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.

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]

Originally Posted by Pythra

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.