The Museum of Hoaxes
sylvia browne
Posted By:
padego
Apr 04, 2005
 Just thought I'd peruse Ms. Browne's site for news of the pope, oddly theres no mention....

http://www.sylvia.org/home/index.cfm
Category: Prophecy-Psychic; Replies: 765

Comments
Page 7 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
Carter S
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 | 01:25 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

You WIN!!!!!!!

You have just one the CS challenge. The prize: satisfaction!!! YAY!!!!

"Yup, Carter, that is WAY off the topic. Besides, since not all people in New Orleans have the same "attitude" (whatever that vague word means in this context), how can we draw any conclusions based on "their" alleged "attitudes?"

Yeah I guess I could just put the attitudes of the African American race on How it was handled.
But many Blacks feel sorry for themselves and blame others (pres. Bush,gov)(although he did have a delayed reaction to it).

But have you read it yet? It is Very True. I recommend that everyone reads it.


It is also on the WorldNetDaily.com
posted Sept 21, 2005 1:00am Eastern. If that helps.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 | 01:36 AM
Carter S said:

"Yeah I guess I could just put the attitudes of the African American race on How it was handled.
But many Blacks feel sorry for themselves and blame others (pres. Bush,gov)(although he did have a delayed reaction to it)."

I'm sure it's true that a lot of Black residents of the Gulf states feel that they were neglected during the Katrina and Rita hurricanes. That would also be true for a lot of White people down there. I don't think it's unfair to ask whether the response would have been equally slow if a disaster had struck Beverly Hills, for example. In other words, it may not be so much a race thing as a class thing.

Is it really shocking to you that people who have had all their wordly possessions taken away by a natural disaster (or "act of God") feel sorry for themselves and are a little bitter about the experience?

My visits to World Net Daily haven't shown me that it's a credible source of news.
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 | 11:06 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

Well It's really not news, it's rather an opinion of Rev. Peterson. I too share his opinion. Yeah you make a good point, about the beverly Hills thing.

I don't find it shocking at all that people are sad and angry about the devastation, but I think the Rev. made a good point on how it was handled, but I wouldn't just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for me, then complain about it.


For the Act of God thing, only some people feel that way. But I don't really want to get into all of that.

But have you read it? And if so, do you share the same opinion of the Rev? If not, why?
Carter S
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 | 11:10 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

"I'm sure it's true that a lot of Black residents of the Gulf states feel that they were neglected during the Katrina and Rita hurricanes. That would also be true for a lot of White people down there. I don't think it's unfair to ask whether the response would have been equally slow if a disaster had struck Beverly Hills, for example. In other words, it may not be so much a race thing as a class thing."

It is a Class thing, as well as a moral thing. The only reason why the African American race was brought into this is because the majority of Louisiana is Black. And they are calling Pres. Bush a racist.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 | 02:52 PM
Carter S said:

"It is a Class thing, as well as a moral thing. The only reason why the African American race was brought into this is because the majority of Louisiana is Black. And they are calling Pres. Bush a racist."

I don't know if that true, but it seems correct to me (about the racial composition of Louisiana, I mean).

Who is this "they" of which you speak? Yes, SOME Black residents of Louisiana have called Bush a racist, but not all. Other people in other states, including some non-Blacks, have called him that too.

I'll ask again: do you think the response would have been the same to a disaster in Beverly Hills? Shouldn't American citizens, of any class or race, be able to expect a reasonble response from their EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY? After all, that's all that FEME does--respond to emergencies. An Emergency Management Agency which can't mount a decent response to an emergency is like an umbrella that won't open in the rain. Who needs it?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 | 02:59 PM
Carter S said:

"I wouldn't just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for me, then complain about it."

Are you aware that slightly over a quarter of the population of New Orleans didn't own a private vehicle (according to the last Census)? FEMA completely dropped the ball on getting transportation into the city to evacuate people. So, exactly HOW did you expect people to get out?

No one blames the government for the hurricane. They blame it for the pathetic response TO the hurricane.

"For the Act of God thing, only some people feel that way. But I don't really want to get into all of that."

Well, insurance companies use the term "Act of God" in their policies--usually to deny claims.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 | 04:45 PM
Okay, just a nudge here, but it's getting a tad off-topic. We already have 'God' and 'Racism' topics out there. This one's about Sylvia.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 | 01:24 AM
Works for me, Charybdis.
Carter S
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 | 06:49 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"No one blames the government for the hurricane. They blame it for the pathetic response TO the hurricane."

Actually, SOME liberals are blaming bush for the hurricane. I seriously heard that. But I guess it's because he didn't join some type of an organization.

Yeah, there are a lot of people out there that didn't have transportation. But whats stopping them from trying to find it?
Perhaps Neighbors? The neighbors could have gone back to get them. Maybe they could have been more prepared, along with the Gov of course. They knew the hurricane was coming. People shouldn't have to rely on the Government.

Yeah, many people have called the Pres. racist. But the whole thing is about the reason why they called him a racist. Yes, other people from other states have called him that, but the reason is pathetic.

I say yes. It would have been the same response even if it were in Beverly Hills. In my opinion anyway. I really don't think that this should be a race issue, It should be a moral issue.

Anyway.......... Sylvia Brownes predictions, are they more accurate than if she were wrong? I already know the answer to this. Just trying to get something started.

..................................
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 01:38 AM
Carter S said:

"Actually, SOME liberals are blaming bush for the hurricane. I seriously heard that. But I guess it's because he didn't join some type of an organization."

Well, in the larger sense, some people are blaiming the government for the hurricane because it hasn't done more about global warming, but I haven't seen anyone blame Bush directly for Katrina. I have no idea what "organization" you're referring to.

"Yeah, there are a lot of people out there that didn't have transportation. But whats stopping them from trying to find it? Perhaps Neighbors? The neighbors could have gone back to get them."

Um, what transportation would you suggest? A ride from their neighbors who also don't own a car? The busses that weren't under the control of the mayor and the drivers of which were also trying to help their families survive? You DO know that the city was shutdown when the hurricane hit, yes? How, exactly, would the theoretical neighbors get back into a ravaged city? Do you honestly think that the people of New Orleans wanted to die?

"Maybe they could have been more prepared, along with the Gov of course. They knew the hurricane was coming. People shouldn't have to rely on the Government."

How would they be better prepared? By buying the cars they couldn't afford?

If you think that it is unreasonable for people to depend on a Federal EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Agency, what do you think its function is, exactly?

By the way, have you seen those whiny white people in Florida on TV? The nerve of them, complaining about having to wait six hours or more on line for gasonline. Damn, those people expect the world, don't they? Why didn't they gas up before the hurricane hit? Do they expect the government to do EVERYTHING for them? Damn Caucasians.

Funny, 'cause I saw a guy on camera who had a lot to say about their dependence on government. Guess what race he was. That's right, he was WHITE. So, that proves...uh, something, I guess.

As for Sylvia, she's a shit artist who uses cold reading to seperate the gullible and desperate from their money. Period.
Carter S
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 05:26 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"If you think that it is unreasonable for people to depend on a Federal EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Agency, what do you think its function is, exactly?"


Actually recent reports show that Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, failed to follow through on his own citys emergency response plan.


"Um, what transportation would you suggest? A ride from their neighbors who also don't own a car? The busses that weren't under the control of the mayor and the drivers of which were also trying to help their families survive? You DO know that the city was shutdown when the hurricane hit, yes? How, exactly, would the theoretical neighbors get back into a ravaged city? Do you honestly think that the people of New Orleans wanted to die"

Yeah actually, as you can tell, I shouldn't have written that. I didn't really think it through. You're right Because their neighbors don't have cars either. But Like REV. Peterson says.. "One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it now-the photo showing 200 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?" (His article).

The mayor knew that the hurricane was coming, so why didn't he put those people on a bus before hand. And you saw how "their" plan worked out, putting people in the Superdome and the city convention Center. Didn't work out too well did it. They turned it into the Ghettos, with rape, murder and theft. All races did. But the majority was African American.

Now What my biggest peeve was that instead of trying to help the community out, they turned to Looting businesses.

Again, People should not have to rely on the Government. The Government should be the last resort. Some people are so use to living off welfare that it makes them unproductive, and lazy.

"As for Sylvia, she's a shit artist who uses cold reading to seperate the gullible and desperate from their money. Period."

So was that the conclusion to the Sylvia Forum? I guess we'll have to wait for more arguements for her.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 01:24 AM
Carter S said:

"Actually recent reports show that Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, failed to follow through on his own citys emergency response plan."

Well, I don't actually know that that is true. Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, just said the other day, that he disagreed with former FEMA chief Brown's story that the state and local officials didn't do what they were supposed to.

As for the buses, I guess you missed where I explained that they were NOT under the control of the Mayor because they're owned by a private company and that the drivers were trying to save their own families.

"And you saw how "their" plan worked out, putting people in the Superdome and the city convention Center. Didn't work out too well did it. They turned it into the Ghettos, with rape, murder and theft. All races did. But the majority was African American."

What "their" are you referring to? Also, the reports of rape, murder and theft in the Dome were greatly exaggerated, as we found out about a week or so after the hurricane.

Michael Brown, the then-head of FEMA (who is still on the federal payroll, by the way) LIED when he claimed on live TV that he didn't know there were thousands of people in the Superdome for five days after the hurricane. We now have the email from days earlier that TOLD him they were there. The federal official inside the Dome notified him that he had just eaten an MRE and took a crap in the hallway.

"Now What my biggest peeve was that instead of trying to help the community out, they turned to Looting businesses."

Yes, there was looting. There was also a lot of desperate people taking what they needed to survive. Some of those people included New Orleans police officers.

To recap:

27% of the population of New Orleans does not own a personal vehicle.

The mayor was NOT in control of the school buses.

Once outside the city, you could NOT get back in to help your neighbors.

The reports of crime inside the Superdome were greatly exaggerated.

While there was looting, there was also people taking the means of survival.

Oh, yeah, a lot of white people in Florida are pretty pissed-off right now about the pathetic response of the federal government to a natural disaster.

You'll have to do better than that to demonstrate that black people are savages. Sorry.
Carter S
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 05:08 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

"You'll have to do better than that to demonstrate that black people are savages. Sorry."

Whoa buddy!!
I am not saying that black people are savages. Sorry. But I am agreeing with Rev. Peterson.

I am pretty much fed up with people who rely on the Government, such as welfare. It's pathetic. Unless they absolutely have too.

If you are implying that I am prejudice against blacks than you are wrong guy.

Anyway, where did you get that information?

Is that some twististics going on there?

Give me a source.

And news is not a good reliable source. The news distorts just about everything. The news paper distorts just as bad.

So how about some sources to back you up.

"Yes, there was looting. There was also a lot of desperate people taking what they needed to survive. Some of those people included New Orleans police officers"

Did you not watch the television? It actually had shown people taking televisions, and unnecessary objects that has little to do with survival.
Was it absolutely necessary to take food? You bet ya. But was it necessary to take luxury items? Hell no.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 | 12:33 AM
Carter S said:

"I am pretty much fed up with people who rely on the Government, such as welfare. It's pathetic. Unless they absolutely have too."

If you sincerely believe that people should not rely on the government, then you need to shut off your computer RIGHT NOW. As you may not realize, the Internet was developed by the Department of Defense. That's an arm of the government. You don't NEED the Internet, so don't use it.

Also, don't put your garbage can out this week. It's picked up by the sanitation department which is part of the government. Don't use public transportation or call the police if there's an emergency. Ditto for the fire department. You don't want to RELY on the government, right?

What state do you live in? Some states get more back from the federal government than they pay into the system. That's a form of welfare, wouldn't you say? You may wish to research this vis a vis your state. After all, it wouldn't be right for you to suckle on the public teat. If it turns out you DO live in such a state, I suggest that, to be consistent with your beliefs, you move to a state which DOESN'T leech off the federal government. New York would be one such state.

"Anyway, where did you get that information?

Is that some twististics going on there?

Give me a source.

And news is not a good reliable source. The news distorts just about everything. The news paper distorts just as bad.

So how about some sources to back you up."

You first. After all, you made the claim that there were multiple murders, rapes, etc. in the Superdome. Where did YOU get THAT information? Couldn't have been any form of news source, right? What I said was a refutation to what YOU said, so what's YOUR source(s)?

So, where did you hear about those alleged things? I saw a lot of the same TV news stories that you probably did. I also, however, read the follow-up stories that refuted a lot of that stuff. I take it you didn't.

"Did you not watch the television? It actually had shown people taking televisions, and unnecessary objects that has little to do with survival.
Was it absolutely necessary to take food? You bet ya. But was it necessary to take luxury items? Hell no."

Didn't I SAY that there was looting? Why, yes, I did. Did I say anything that excused that? Why, no, I didn't. Funny thing, if FEMA had actually done its job (like if the director had been competant at his job), perhaps a lot of that looting wouldn't have happened.

As for the racism thing, well, you're the one who specifically mentioned black people in the first place. Why? Yeha, I know, you're "not racist." It's just that those Negroes don't know how to behave.
carter
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 | 11:29 AM
Cranky Media Guy,

"I am pretty much fed up with people who rely on the Government, such as welfare. It's pathetic. Unless they absolutely have too."

Actually I recall me saying unless they absolutely have to. Which means that when it comes to sanitation, the internet. But when it comes to people LIVING off welfare when they absolutely CAN DO something about their lives, instead of just sitting on their asses waiting for someone to give them some handouts. That's pathetic. You take things a little over board to what people actually mean.

"You first. After all, you made the claim that there were multiple murders, rapes, etc. in the Superdome. Where did YOU get THAT information?"

If you were to read that article then you would know. Besides, it's documented. Even you said it happened, but was exagerated.

"Didn't I SAY that there was looting? Why, yes, I did. Did I say anything that excused that? Why, no, I didn't. Funny thing, if FEMA had actually done its job (like if the director had been competant at his job), perhaps a lot of that looting wouldn't have happened"

Again, here is my point.
"Was it absolutely necessary to take food? You bet ya. But was it necessary to take luxury items? Hell no."

It's one thing to take food for survival, but to take somthing that has nothing to do with survival is completely pathetic. WITH ALL RACES.
I don't care if FEMA didn't do their job, it is ALSO the RESPONSIBILITY the human race (as a society) to do their part. If you don't agree with that, then I am sorry, I don't know what to tell ya.

"As for the racism thing, well, you're the one who specifically mentioned black people in the first place. Why? Yeha, I know, you're "not racist." It's just that those Negroes don't know how to behave."

Yeah, there is no need for sarcasm, especially when it comes to race. The whole article is about moral poverty, and how the blacks call the pres Racist for his slow reaction. The article (rev. Peterson)(BLACK) brought up the race, I just brought up the article. Seriously though, Races seem to blame everything like their financial problems, or anything that goes wrong on racism.(Although that may be the case, in some ways) Like African Americans and Hispanics seem believe that we owe them something, that we should feel bad for them. Such as slavery, I am not guilty of anything, just because all White people may be related to slave owners doesn't mean WE are guilty of that. I don't know I really can't think right now, I am doing homework.


Hey way off the subj. How did you become a radio DJ? I have always wondered how people become DJs.

Is there a try out? Or do you have to have some sort of a prestige in your career field?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 | 12:33 PM
<FONT SIZE=5><b>AHEM!!</b></font size>

Am I missing something? What does this have to do with Sylvia Brown? 😠
carter
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 | 01:25 PM
I am done, unless cranky replies back.
Carter S
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 | 09:02 PM
Actually I am done with the site for sure now.
I have better things to do.

It's been nice arguing with you Cranky. Good luck with everything.

But I still want to know how people become a Radio DJ. So I will only come back to see if you responded to that. I would really appreciate it.
THANKS,
CARTER S.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 | 01:40 AM
Carter S said:

"But I still want to know how people become a Radio DJ. So I will only come back to see if you responded to that. I would really appreciate it."

I'm going to surprise you by giving you a serious answer to that question.

All of this is merely my opinion, but I think it's fairly well-informed.

I don't think the radio business is really all that worth going into these days. Consolidation has reduced the number of employers and therefore has reduced salaries as well. I suspect you'd be quite surprised by what the average DJ makes these days. It ain't great. You tend to hear about the Howard Sterns and Don Imuses, etc; you don't hear about the people who do "voice tracking" for $8/hour (far more common than you might imagine).

I will say, however, that if you really really want to be in radio and feel that no other job can make you happy, you may want to consider it. What I would do if I was a younger guy in that situation is go to allaccess.com . You'll have to register to use the site but there's no cost so it's worth it. Go to the "Jobs" section every day and see what openings are out there. You'll soon see what I mean about the salaries, but you'll also be able to see what jobs you can apply for.

As someone just entering the business, you will almost certainly have to start in a small market, although it's possible to find the occasional job in a larger market which is open to someone who will work for little money.

Anyway, that's the best suggestion I can make for you. Come back and let us know if you find something, OK?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 | 01:55 AM
Hey, Carter:

Well, there are any number of government services that aren't absolutely necessary which I'm sure you use regularly. If you wish to be consistent with what you have said vis a vis not relying on government, you should sit down and make a list of the government services you use and eliminate the non-essential ones.


As for "living on welfare," you may not be aware that that sort of thing is pretty much a thing of the past. During the Clinton administration, a bi-partisan program of "welfare reform" took away the ability to live for extended periods on welfare. It is FAR more difficult to get welfare these days, plus you can only collect for a total of five years in your entire life, if I remember correctly. You are also required to join a job training program to receive benefits, unless you can demonstrate conclusively that you have some disability that would make it impossible for you to work. I know this because I have a family member who is a social worker who deals with this stuff daily. The "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" that Ronald Reagan invented isn't possible under the current rules.

So, you don't believe in, say, The New York Times or Washington Post, but you ARE prepared to take, at face value, the opinion of someone who may or may not be a black minister who happens to own a website? Interesting.

You watch a LOT of Fox News Channel, don't you?

With that, we really should drop this conversation as we are WAY off the topic of the thread.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 | 05:08 PM
Cranky Media Guy,

Hey thanks man. I really do apprectiate it. I have always wondered. I have considered trying and am still a little interested but if I do try I will give you a heads up on how it went.


With that whole Government thing, I obviously went a little over the top. But I REALLY DON'T think that radically about things.

Well I try not to believe in everything I hear, Even the paranormal, I read an article about statistics in the Readers Digest, It was in the contents of THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!, and I really got paranoid about the stats that are being passed around by politics and the News. But I don't have cable so my news is pretty limited. But I watch all the stations, Like FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC. And the paper where I live is called the standard examiner, But I call it the Sub-Slandered Exagerater, For thousands of reasons. But thanks for your feedback on things. I do think we should get back on topic, But I will most likely stop with this site.

So thanks for your opinions, It has really helped. So take it easy and It's been great debating with you. Best of luck dude!

CARTER S.


PS. Sylvia Browne is a fake!! Later!!!
Big Fan
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 | 10:18 PM
I find Sylvia Browne to be quite real. I had a reading with her, and being the skeptic that I am I wanted to laugh at the thought of having a reading. But my friend and I were very very curious. (She didn't have the money so she didn't do it).
So I had the reading, and expecting a bunch of bull. But once the reading stated, not even 7 seconds into the reading, no questions asked, she started off by saying that my mother will recover from breast cancer. I was stunned! I mean how did she know my mother had breast cancer, and that she would recover? (She recovered 3 months after the reading took place). I then asked her what career field I should go into, she said, and I quote "umm...you will go into the field that you are studying now, umm..sociology..a social worker." Again, I was quite taken back. I am studying to Sociology to become a social worker at the University of Southern California as we speak. (GO TROJANS!). She got about 90% right. The other 10% I am still waiting for to come true. There were no questions asked to get information out of me. I asked her and she answered.
I read some of the entries in this forum, and many of you say that the burden of proof in on you (meaning believers). Well I think the burden of proof is on Sylvia, and she certainly proved herself to me. The only burden on me would be paying for the reading. Which I found was really high. Although she was great, it was still not worth the money.
I would have to disagree with you on the JREF Challenge. If someone decides not to take the test, that does not mean that they are a fraud. I would not want to take the challenge, in fear that I might mess up or that I am being cheated. If they do fail, then there goes there reputation. I know that challengers have to agree to the terms ahead of time. But that still doesn't mean that James Randi won't try to cheat you out of a win. It could leave a legitimate psychic out in the dust. It would be demeaning in my opinion.
I am still skeptic about many things, but now I have a wider range of thinking. I don't dismiss everything that comes my way. I look into it first. I then base my opinions on my research and experiences.
I do know the process of Cold Reading, and I can assure you, Sylvia did not cold read. Nor did she "Hot" read, Since she knew nothing of me, Only my name and date of birth, which I told her. I just thought I'd let you guys in on my experience. Thank you.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 | 03:56 AM
Big Fan said:

"So I had the reading, and expecting a bunch of bull. But once the reading stated, not even 7 seconds into the reading, no questions asked, she started off by saying that my mother will recover from breast cancer. I was stunned! I mean how did she know my mother had breast cancer, and that she would recover? (She recovered 3 months after the reading took place)."

The first thing to note is that you only know the circumstances of your reading with Sylvia. For all you know, she tells EVERY client about breast cancer in their family. If they say there isn't any in their family, she can always BS her way out by saying something like, "Well, I see that in the future. Keep an eye out for it." I've seen her do something similar when she's on TV.

"I then asked her what career field I should go into, she said, and I quote "umm...you will go into the field that you are studying now, umm..sociology..a social worker." Again, I was quite taken back. I am studying to Sociology to become a social worker at the University of Southern California as we speak. (GO TROJANS!)."

If Sylvia is psychic, why didn't she know you were already studying social work? She suggested you will go INTO studying it; you're already studying it. She threw something out; if your retelling is accurate, at best she got sort-of lucky with you. It has to happen sometimes.

"She got about 90% right. The other 10% I am still waiting for to come true."

First off, how do you measure "90% success?" What does that mean? For instance, when she said you SHOULD go into social work and you are already studying it, is that a hit or not?

Secondly, you're actively looking for things you can count as a hit ("The other 10% I am still waiting for to come true.")

"I would have to disagree with you on the JREF Challenge. If someone decides not to take the test, that does not mean that they are a fraud."

I don't think anyone here has suggested that a reluctance to take the Challenge automatically means that a person is a fraud. Unfortunately, many fruads exist and they are understandably reluctant to expose themselves.

"If they do fail, then there goes there reputation."

Do you not find it interesting that NONE of the "big name" "psychics" ever take the Challenge? Even for a million dollars and the ability to throw the win in Randi's face for evermore?

"I know that challengers have to agree to the terms ahead of time. But that still doesn't mean that James Randi won't try to cheat you out of a win."

This has been said over and over, but I guess it has to be repeated again. As stated in the rules of the Challenge, Randi takes NO part in the testing (except as an observer). He simply CANNOT cheat you.

"It could leave a legitimate psychic out in the dust. It would be demeaning in my opinion."

"Demeaning" to these people to demonstrate the claims they routinely make on TV with the additional incentive of a million dollars?? I can think of another, more likely, reason they don't want to submit to actual testing, can't you?

"I do know the process of Cold Reading, and I can assure you, Sylvia did not cold read. Nor did she "Hot" read, Since she knew nothing of me, Only my name and date of birth, which I told her. I just thought I'd let you guys in on my experience. Thank you."

What you've described sounds exactly like cold reading to me. Not knowing anything about you in advance is the "cold" part of the reading. It would be a "warm reading" if she had any advance knowledge about you.
Big Fan
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 | 05:22 PM
"If Sylvia is psychic, why didn't she know you were already studying social work? She suggested you will go INTO studying it; you're already studying it. She threw something out; if your retelling is accurate, at best she got sort-of lucky with you. It has to happen sometimes"

Actually she didn't say that I will go into studying it. She said that I will become a social worker. Here this is what I said:

"I then asked her what career field I should go into, she said, and I quote "umm...you will go into the field that you are studying now, umm..sociology..a social worker." Again, I was quite taken back. I am studying to Sociology to become a social worker at the University of Southern California as we speak. (GO TROJANS!)."

Ok she said I will go into the field that I am studying NOW. Sociology. So she saw that I was already studying sociology, and said that I will become a Social Worker. I mean by her saying that I am already studying sociology is quite an accusation on my life. If she were making it up she wouldn't have said "....you are studying NOW.." It would've been more like "You WILL go into social work."
I really can't measure the accuracy of the reading, but I do know that all of it was true and has been becoming true lately. She said almost at the end of the reading that my Boyfriend will break his leg playing sports. Last Friday he broke his leg playing football when some idiot fell on him. I told him about it but we both shrugged it off. Until now.
With the Breast Cancer thing, your right she could do that. But I guess since she has been right on everything else, then I am going to assume she was right about the Cancer. Besides it's a great guess. She said don't worry your mother will recover from breast cancer. She seemed to already know that she had it.
I am going to have my friend get a reading from her and see if anything sounds similar.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 | 01:26 AM
Big Fan, if you go to randi.org and use "Sylvia Browne" as a keyword, you'll find an article where James Randi talked about receiving recordings of "readings" from two of Sylvia's clients. They are from people who didn't know each other and from different parts of the country and were recorded over a year apart.

The amazing thing is that they are virtually identical. In other words, Sylvia gave the same "reading" to two different people. She was reading off a script, apparently. When I say that the readings were the same, I mean that she used virtually identical phrasing. You may wish to take a look at the excerpts from those readings to see if they seem familiar to you.
Big Fan
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 | 11:02 AM
Thanks.
me:
"I know that challengers have to agree to the terms ahead of time. But that still doesn't mean that James Randi won't try to cheat you out of a win."
you:
This has been said over and over, but I guess it has to be repeated again. As stated in the rules of the Challenge, Randi takes NO part in the testing (except as an observer). He simply CANNOT cheat you"

That may be true, but what my real concern would be his scientists trying to screw someone out of a win. He would pay them or perhaps tell them to cheat. That is how Randi could cheat. Right?
But I'll look into everything on his site.
thanks. Besides he decides whether or not it passes or not, does he not?. So if they do something miraculous he could just say it was trickery and that's the end of that.
Im just saying.
????????
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 | 02:22 PM
Big Fan said:

"That may be true, but what my real concern would be his scientists trying to screw someone out of a win. He would pay them or perhaps tell them to cheat. That is how Randi could cheat. Right?"

As long as we're making up far-fetched scenarios, couldn't the claimant pay the scientists to lie as well?

"Besides he decides whether or not it passes or not, does he not?. So if they do something miraculous he could just say it was trickery and that's the end of that.
Im just saying."

Well, no, not really. As it is clearly stated in the rules, the nature of the outcome is agreed upon in advance. It has to be something that can be clearly observed, which needs no "interpretation." This is, of course, to prevent exactly what you're suggesting--that Randi can "interpret" the outcome.
Big Fan
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 | 09:21 PM
Why is that so far-fetched?
I mean you think it's happening with psychics(deceiving), so couldn't it be possible for Randi to do such a thing?
Yes the psychic could try to pay a scientist off, but his scientists wouldn't do that. They, like Randi don't want anything "paranormal" to be a reality. It's also a thing of loyalty, which I am sure they are very loyal to Randi and look up to him.
I think if a psychic tried to win by bribing the scientists then the scientists would be happy to tell Randi about that. It would be a lot easier to be a scientist or Randi and say 'nope not good enough.' Yes you did do what you said you were going to do but I don't think it was good enough.'
Or they could come up with some other way, they could say 'well we didn't really see it, or, we didn't think it was significant enough to count it as something that we agreed to.
I am sure Randi has left something out of the contract that he can work around.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 | 11:26 PM
Big Fan said,

"They, like Randi don't want anything "paranormal" to be a reality."

How do you know this? If psychic powers were real it would be a revolutionary discovery. Any scientist worth his salt would want to be part of it yet you claim they would try to cover it up. For what reason? Why would they single out this one thing, out of all the other discoveries made by science, to keep quiet?

This only shows you are arguing from ignorance. You expect us to believe thousands of scientists are conspriring to hide the validity of psychic phenomena and you are smarter than any of them. You can see right through them. Don't flatter yourself.

Like I have said many times on this forum, if psychic powers existed, it would be ridiculously easy to prove it. The fact is no one has and it doesn't take a scientist to see why.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 | 05:44 AM
Big Fan said:

"Why is that so far-fetched?
I mean you think it's happening with psychics(deceiving), so couldn't it be possible for Randi to do such a thing?"

Well, as I've said before, Randi takes NO part in the Challenge except as an observer.

"Yes the psychic could try to pay a scientist off, but his scientists wouldn't do that. They, like Randi don't want anything "paranormal" to be a reality. It's also a thing of loyalty, which I am sure they are very loyal to Randi and look up to him."

How do you know any of this? You sure make a lot of assumptions. Specifically, how do you know that they "dont' want anything 'paranormal' to be a reality"?

"I think if a psychic tried to win by bribing the scientists then the scientists would be happy to tell Randi about that."

I said that only to show that it's a two-way street. You assume that Randi could and would bribe people; why couldn't a "psychic" do the same thing? I'm not saying that either party has done it or would actually do it.

"It would be a lot easier to be a scientist or Randi and say 'nope not good enough.' Yes you did do what you said you were going to do but I don't think it was good enough.'
Or they could come up with some other way, they could say 'well we didn't really see it, or, we didn't think it was significant enough to count it as something that we agreed to."

As I've also said before, the claimant has to agree in advance, in writing, to the specifics of the Challenge. That includes what would constitute a win. As stated in the rules, a win has to be obvious without having to be "interpreted." That is, of course, to prevent exactly the kind of situation you are theorizing. Either the "psychic" does what they claim in advance they can do or they don't. No wiggle room.

"I am sure Randi has left something out of the contract that he can work around."

Again, why are you sure? Tell you what, why don't you actually take a look at the contract (on randi.org) and see if you can find the loophole you are so sure is there?
Heather (Big Fan)
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 | 11:44 AM
Actually I don't know. But, what I do know is that it could be just as possible as a psychic trying to bribe a scientist as it is Randi to bribe a scientist. But would be easier for randi.
I am really trying to state possibilites. If you have a problem with someone asking questions or trying to figure stuff out then maybe you should go to a different website.
Heather.

ps. I looked at the different tapes they sounded nothing like mine.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 | 01:52 AM
Heather said:

"Actually I don't know. But, what I do know is that it could be just as possible as a psychic trying to bribe a scientist as it is Randi to bribe a scientist. But would be easier for randi."

Why do you make that assumption? If a scientist would be swayed by money, wouldn't Sylvia's money be just as good as Randi's (theoretical) bribe money? Besides, this is all conjecture; there is NO evidence at all that anyone has attempted to bribe anyone.

"I am really trying to state possibilites. If you have a problem with someone asking questions or trying to figure stuff out then maybe you should go to a different website.
Heather."

Where are you getting that from? I'm responding to you. This is a debate; did you expect that I would simply agree with you?

"ps. I looked at the different tapes they sounded nothing like mine."

What did you hear on the tapes on Randi's site? How did it differ from what you were told by Sylvia?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 | 06:37 PM
Hey, here's some VERY interesting information about a "psychic" who is on TV in England and, apparantly, is going to be on the air in the U.S. soon:

http://randi.org/jr/200511/111105derek.html#i1

BUSTED!
HEATHER
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 | 07:52 PM
"Why do you make that assumption? If a scientist would be swayed by money, wouldn't Sylvia's money be just as good as Randi's (theoretical) bribe money? Besides, this is all conjecture; there is NO evidence at all that anyone has attempted to bribe anyone."

Why not make an assumption? People are making assumptions about sylvia being fake. They may have some evidence of her being incorrect. Maybe the person called twice and tried to fool her. So she gave the same reading. I don't know, it's just another possibility.
Well no, there isn't any evidence of bribes, but do you really need evidence to make it a possibility? I mean you need evidence to accuse. Yeah, evidence should be looked at but I don't think it's too relevant when it's just blind ideas. I for one have not read enough on Randi, so my ideas may or may not be good.

"Where are you getting that from? I'm responding to you. This is a debate; did you expect that I would simply agree with you?"

Sorry, PMS, and my boyfriend is bitching and moaning because of his leg.(baby). I wasn't so much looking for a debate as much as I really just wanted to state my experience and have a conversation with someone about it.
No I didn't think you or anyone would agree, but just listen, and let them know that I had a great reading, and that maybe someone else had a good reading too.

"What did you hear on the tapes on Randi's site? How did it differ from what you were told by Sylvia?"

Well on the tapes on Randi's site it seemed like she beat around the bush. Like she tried to give an answer in which anything can be true. Like, yeah you have something wrong with your back. I mean that could be the small of the back, the upper or middle section. It could be scoliosis, or muscle spasms. But in my reading she really seemed to give a well thought out description of her predictions. She predicted my boyfriends leg injury. It seemed to be a straight up comment.
She said, " Um.. I see umm... your boyfriend hurting his leg, he will break it playing sports, tell him to be careful. He is very rough and doesn't seem to care about his well being. So tell him to take it easy."
I guess in the tapes on Randi's site it seemed more like a cold reading style, but with mine she never really asked any questions, she didn't beat around the bush, or give out things like... I am getting an mmmm.. a mmmmm... or a mary... marty... gary? She was pretty straight up about things.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 | 12:43 AM
Heather said:

"Why not make an assumption? People are making assumptions about sylvia being fake."

Well, we would like her to prove that she has extraordinary abilities as she has claimed. What's wrong with that? Let's look at this objectively for a moment.

The fact is that everything Sylvia has ever done to "demonstrate" "psychic abilities" can be duplicated using completely natural means well known to everyone who has ever done a mind-reading act. She has NEVER done anything that can't be duplicated. Now that could theoretically be a coincidence, but how likely does that seem?

A few years ago, my wife, who claims NO psychic ability, was able to do a complete credible cold reading on a friend of mine and his then-girlfriend, using a deck of Tarot cards as a prop. They were blown away. Keep in mind that my wife had never met the woman before in her life but still managed to tell the woman a few things that had her convinced my wife had "powers." By the way, this was the first time ever that my wife attempted a cold reading.

No, this does not PROVE that Sylvia is a fake, but it does show that these kind of demonstrations can be performed by an intelligent person with some acting ability who takes a little time to study the principles of a cold reading. If and when Sylvia (or any other "psychic") is able to do something which cannot be explained by perfectly natural means, then I may be persuaded that "psychic abilities" exist. Until then, I humbly submit that Occam's Razor answers the question nicely. The simpler answer is that she's a fake.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 | 10:18 PM
For those who think psychics do no harm, have you heard about self-proclaimed psychic, Jennifer Nicole Evans? She was sentenced to 12 years, that's right 12 years, in prison for coercing more than $200,000 from clients using psychic readings.

The November/December 2005 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has a good summary of the facts of this case, in an article by David Park Musella, that ended with a conviction in July this year. It seems our "harmless" psychic predicted that things such as cancer and other maladies would befall her client's friends and loved ones unless they paid her to break the curse. One victim was handing over her entire paycheck to Evans, foregoing car payments and groceries, to prevent her friend from getting cancer. In all she paid Evans $10,000.

Others emptied bank accounts, took out loans or ran up credit card debt in response to telephone harassment by Evans threatening various kinds of bad fortune. Now you may think these people have no excuse because of their gullibility but the Texas court didn't agree. Even though the victims handed over the money voluntarily, the law "protects the innocent from schemes, scam, and swindles". In addition to the 12 year sentence, Evans must pay back $213,000 to her victims.

Bexar County District Attorney Susan D. Reed stated:

"The psychic scam may be a long tradition for the gypsy culture, but the law clearly protects us from the thief who uses words of coercion and alleged power of the paranormal to secure the life savings of the citizens of our community."

Can a similar fate for Sylvia Browne be far behind?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 | 01:39 AM
My local Fox affiliate, KPTV, in Portland, Oregon, is running a story about a "psychic detective" this week. It's Sweeps Weeks, you see and there's a young, attractive, white blonde locally who has been missing for over a year now.

The police haven't had any success in finding her body, so KPTV has taken matters into their own hands by bringing in a "psychic" to "help" out. Yes, the station brought her in, by their own admission.

When the station ran a promo tonight touting her upcoming appearance on the 10 o'clock news, I turned to my sister-in-law and said, "Gee, let me guess. She'll say the body will be found in a wooded area." Wow, I must be psychic 'cause guess what happened! Um, who would bury a body in the middle of a city street?

The story said that this "psychic" claimed to know nothing about the Brooke Wilberger case but took him to an area in the woods near a road with "Walnut" in it (as the "psychic" predicted) where there were some cabins. Of course there's NO chance at all that she just lied about having no knowledge about the case or area, right?

Anyway, she also said that her Spidey Senses told her that Brooke was kept alive for several days by her abductor and abused during that period.

Pardon my French, but how fucking disgusting of the station to bring in this phony to say things like that! Her parents probably saw that story (if not they will certainly be told about it) and may actually take this nonsense seriously. These people have lost their daughter and this woman--who was presumedly paid by the station for her appearance on the "news"--is telling them that their daughter was tortured, with absolutely NO proof at all.

In a more just world, these scumbags would lose their broadcasting license for shit like this.

Tell me again how "psychics" can't cause any harm, I need the laugh.
Heather
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 | 11:08 AM
"The November/December 2005 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has a good summary of the facts of this case, in an article by David Park Musella, that ended with a conviction in July this year. It seems our "harmless" psychic predicted that things such as cancer and other maladies would befall her client's friends and loved ones unless they paid her to break the curse. One victim was handing over her entire paycheck to Evans, foregoing car payments and groceries, to prevent her friend from getting cancer. In all she paid Evans $10,000."

Actually, not all psychics play the "curse" game. When I had the reading with sylvia she said straight up that when psychics do that then get up and leave or hang up with them. She said that there are no such things as curses.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Also a very well known psychic in my hometown says the same thing, that there are no such things as curses. She also only charges 5 dollars a reading.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 | 09:53 AM
Heather said:
"She said that there are no such things as curses.
Just thought I'd let you know."

Yes, we already know that. There are no such thing as psychics either. Sure not all "psychics" play the curse game. Most, like Sylvia Browne, play a different game. If you read my post a few pages back, you will see how she told a relative of a missing child she was still alive and sold into white slavery in Japan.

The disappearance of that child was a high profile case that had been on going for a couple years. Browne knew there had been a lot of searching without success. Therefore it was highly unlikely the body would ever be found so her "reading" about the child could never be proven wrong. Unfortunately for Ms. Browne the plan backfired. The child's body was found, and in the US. Imagine the grief of those people when they were given hope the girl might still be alive and then suddenly that hope was snatched away by reality.

In my opinion that is a crime equal to or greater than that which Jennifer Nicole Evans was convicted of and sentenced to 12 years in prison for. And people continue to insult and discredit James Randi for trying to expose these psychic slime balls.
heather
Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 | 05:47 PM
yeah, I knew all of that too. But I just wanted to let you know that not all of them do that. That's all. The way you guys wrote made it sound like they all do it.
Nancy
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 | 12:02 AM
This is my first time posting here.

I've been going through a very rough time in my life. I lost my job (lay-offs), my love life seems to be a train wreck and I've been having some medical issues. No job also means no medical coverage to pay for the doctor prescribed medication that I need.

Anyway, today I called in to Sylvia's internet radio show (hay house radio). I asked her to tell me about the man I was going to marry. She gave me a physical description and told me that I would meet him in March.

I have mixed feelings about what she told me. I currently have a "friends with benefits" situation with a long time friend. I was hoping that Sylvia was going to tell me that I would marry him. Marrying him has always been wishful thinking. I think I've always known that. He and I have always had a strange type of friendship, and although I would like to marry him, somehow, I have never thought it could possibly happen. I'm not giving up on a chance with him. Especially not just because of what Sylvia said. If I went to 100 psychics and they all told me about this man and that I would meet him in March, then I would probably except it without a doubt.

Now if I do meet this man in March like she says, and we do get married, I will definately be back to mention it.

By the way, if you want to listen to my conversation with her, go to hayhouseradio.com and go into the archives and listen to the November 17th show. In the 3rd segment, I'm the 2nd (or 3rd) call.

I'm not saying I'm a believer of her predictions. I think I'll have a better idea by the end of March. I'm still a skeptic.

I've been reading the postings here. What I think some of you are missing is that she is giving some form of hope to many people. How would you react to having people constantly tell you sad news and looking for a bright spot? Just about everyone she talks to is in a bad place in their lives. I know I am. She may not have given me the news I wanted to hear, but she did give me something to look forward too. Whether it happens or not, at least now I'm not dwelling on the depressing current state of my life, I'm now looking towards the future.

She may very well be a fraud, but she is helping people feel better. When she tells people that their loved ones died quickly and are on the "other side" it makes people feel better.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 | 12:53 AM
Nancy said:

"What I think some of you are missing is that she is giving some form of hope to many people. How would you react to having people constantly tell you sad news and looking for a bright spot? Just about everyone she talks to is in a bad place in their lives."

No, I don't think we "miss" that point. The problem is that she is giving a FALSE hope to people. Don't you believe that adults should be dealt with honestly? Under what moral code is it OK to lie to people? Remember that she takes money for her "services." So she's a paid liar. That's a good thing?

"She may very well be a fraud, but she is helping people feel better. When she tells people that their loved ones died quickly and are on the "other side" it makes people feel better."

She tells lies for money (in case I didn't make that point strongly enough the first time). Wouldn't it be better to try to help grieving people to deal realistically with their pain (as an honest therapist would do) than to tell them the lies they want to hear?

And how about the fact that she sometimes tells people to stop taking the medicines their doctor has prescribed for them? I'm sure a lot of her clients want to hear that they can live without their meds, but is that a reasonable thing to tell them? That is, of course, putting aside the fact that what she does may well be practicing medicine without a license, which would make it a crime. Is THAT OK?

You're an adult. Why would you want to PAY someone to lie to you? That's what politicians are for (joke).
Heather
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 | 05:10 PM
Just wondering, Has anyone actually been harmed by sylvias medical advice. I am not saying that it's ok to do if no one has, but has anyone complained about her advice?

Maybe her advice was right.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 | 08:42 PM
Heather,
See Cranky Media Guy's posts on page 1 of this thread.
Heather
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 | 12:36 AM
Yeah, I can see how people watching Montel would see her giving out advice and those people doing what she says. But again, maybe she's right and it does help. Not saying she is in the right of doing so.

But Crankys post does make the point. Thanks Al.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 | 10:44 AM
Heather,

I understand your curiosity in wanting to know if Sylvia Browne's advice to some people was right but really, what difference does it make? We know "psychics" have many tricks they use to appear genuine. So if you find one, two or even 10 instances where a psychic appears to give good medical advice, it could still be a trick. We must not be fooled by it.

Commons sense tells us that even if you could use psychic powers to detect what ailment a person suffers from, you still need medical training to know what to do about it. What medical training does Sylvia Browne have? None. So how could she give any medical advice?

It would seem to me Sylvia Browne is just adding medical treatment to her repertoire of "skills" to increase the number of revenue sources.
Nancy
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 | 04:59 PM
No she isn't a doctor, and telling people to stop taking their medicine or to change medicine should only be done by a doctor. There are people who ask her about their health because they have undergone tons of tests and still have no answer as to what is wrong with them. I've seen her tell alot of people that they should have a certain thing checked. She told one woman to have her doctor check her thyroid. Not every doctor graduates at the top of his or her class. Some doctors get stuck in a rut and only prescribe ceratin drugs or only run certain tests. There are plenty of doctors that mis-diagnose patients. If she can tell someone what to have checked, and it's something the doctor has overlooked, then it really isn't harming anything to have the doctor run tests.

Sylvia does seem to tell alot of people to go see an endocrinologist though.
Carter S
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 | 05:51 PM
Like I said before, What Sylvia is doing is not a crime. Sure she is telling people to take this and do that, but it is the responsibility of that person to act on it or not. She is merely giving out advice. Who doesn't do that? Family does it, co-workers do it, friends do it, Strangers do it, and last but not least the Television does it.
If sylvia gives out bad or good advice it is the responsiblity of the person receiving it to check into it with a doctor. If they don't, then they are stupid. I have also heard her say to go to the doctor and have it checked, or go to many doctors to have more opinions on it.
But it is NOT a crime. Now if she claims to be a doctor and she starts to give out advice, then it would be a form of mal-practice. But all she is claiming to be is a psychic. Nuff said.


GO UTES!!!! 41-34 UTAH!!!!!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 | 10:07 AM
Carter,

I agree people should take responsibility for their own actions. If a friend suggests you stop taking your medication, you should be responsible for the consequences if you follow that advice. (The law might not agree though.)

However, friends and relatives give free advice. Sylvia Browne is doing it for money. Furthermore she is actively promoting her "ability" to diagnose medical problems so people are fraudulently being led to believe she knows what she is doing. As the Evans case clearly shows, the law protects the public from scams of this nature. Therefore what Sylvia Browne is doing IS a crime.

I'm amazed any television station would risk their broadcast license by allowing this sort of programming on their station.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 | 02:54 PM
Carter S said:

"Now if she claims to be a doctor and she starts to give out advice, then it would be a form of mal-practice. But all she is claiming to be is a psychic. Nuff said."

Yeah, a "psychic" who tells people to stop taking certain medications, which comes dangerously close to practicing medicine without a license. Oh, she also has given virtually identical "readings" to at least two completely separate people over a year apart. Illegally practicing medicine (perhaps) AND lazy: bad combination.
big boss
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 | 06:04 PM
sylvia has started a cult called novus spiritus. she is a liar. she needs to be stopped. how long are we going to sit by and allow this?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 | 12:47 AM
big boss said:

"sylvia has started a cult called novus spiritus. she is a liar. she needs to be stopped. how long are we going to sit by and allow this?"

My guess would be that Sylvia is trying to be proactive and is putting some of her BS under the cover of a "religious organization" to make it harder to prosecute her, if it comes to that.

I'm most certainly NOT a believer but I DO think that people have the right to believe whatever they want to. Unfortunately, that First Amendment right gives some scam artists a convenient loophole. At least part of the answer would be for the government to actually enforce that whole "separation of church and state" thing and take taxes from churches. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen, though.
carter
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 | 11:16 AM
"At least part of the answer would be for the government to actually enforce that whole "separation of church and state" thing and take taxes from churches."

that would be good

Big boss, it's not a cult bud. I don't believe in her or her religion but I do know it's not a cult. Just look into it. I have.
Kelly S. S.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 | 12:12 AM
Carter this is Kelly. I gave you the WRONG NAME and AUTHOR of that Book. I told you about. By the way ALL of U should Read it. It's very, VERY Convincing to say the least.
The Book is Called: "THE AFTERLIFE EXPERIMENTS"
By; Gary Swartz, PH.D. Excellent Book!!

And also by the way; Ms. Browne is now just charging .50 Cents a Call. And is not, NOT allowed to give out Medical Advice via thru the TV PROGRAMS or Radio Programs. If you want them, She will mail them to you.

Happy Holidays to all, Keep warm and Safe, and NEGITIVIELY FREE Your Minds and Souls that is.
Kelly S. S.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 | 12:48 AM
Kelly S.S. said:

"And also by the way; Ms. Browne is now just charging .50 Cents a Call. And is not, NOT allowed to give out Medical Advice via thru the TV PROGRAMS or Radio Programs. If you want them, She will mail them to you."

Is it 50 cents a CALL or 50 cents a minute or what? I find it hard to believe that it is only 50 cents a call; there's no money in that.

OK, when you say she isn't "allowed" to give out medical advice, who is keeping her from doing that? I don't think it makes any difference legally if you give out medical advice without a license via the airwaves or by mail. If what you say is true, something smells funny to me.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 | 06:33 AM
"If you want them, She will mail them to you."

Fifty cents won't even cover the cost of mailing.

If it's 50 cents a minute, Sylvia should be able to use her psychic ability to determine what your question is without you even asking it. That will save you money.
Carter S
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 | 06:22 PM
50 cents a call?!!!

Wow, I think it's 50 cents a minute. But it's better than 700 dollars. unless you go long enough.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 | 01:31 AM
Turns out our gal Sylvia is a serial copycat. Check this out:

http://randi.org/jr/200511/112505psychich.html

(scroll down a little bit)

I guess that MAYBE she didn't steal the material from the guy, she just accidentally read his mind. Yeah, that must be it.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 | 10:59 AM
Cranky,

I read that book review in the Sept/Oct 2005 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer. It was quite funny. Don't know why it took Randi so long to get it into his commentary. The review can been read on the Skeptical Inquirer website.
<a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-09/sylvia.html">Sylvia Browne's Latest: Ghost Written? by Joe Nickell</a>
Carter S
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 | 11:42 PM
Wow, that was just about word for word. Is she really that stupid? Can she get in trouble for that? I think she can.

Thanks Kelly,

I will look into it. I appreciate your time to let me know about that.

Have a good one.
Page 7 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.