Late-breaking news

Uncayimmy:

If we are going to be fair, than anyone of us who complains about their job, or gives any details of a negative experience with a believer should be treated the same way. Just because Rob is in the public eye dosn't give us the right to be a knob to him. Anymore than we would be to anyone else.
 
I feel happy that Robert is catching up on all the mail he missed while sick and getting back to work on it. And I feel happy he feels he can share his thoughts with us.
 
shandyjan said:
I feel happy that Robert is catching up on all the mail he missed while sick and getting back to work on it. And I feel happy he feels he can share his thoughts with us.
Click to expand...

Well, he thought he could share his thoughts.

DesertGal, you should not feel that you have to avoid any threads. I did not address you before because you were not attacking, merely disagreeing. Disagreement is fine and completely expected in this forum. Personal attacks, such as those by Brattus and UncaYimmy, are not expected and are not in keeping with the tone of the JREF Forum, and should not be tolerated, celebrity or not.

That said, could we end the personal attacks and be civil adults, please?
 
It's too bad how people always take critique more seriously than praise.

RSL, you're absolutely welcome to post emails here (after you had permission), so please do if it contributes something!
 
Agreed. I love robert in a manly way, and it pains me a lot to see him attacked like this.

If you don't like him, then leave him alone, or make a "robert sucks" thread you can bitch in. Then he, and other people, can partake in that if they want to.

But please don't go and ruin Roberts threads, or his day, by being gits in every thread he makes.

Please.
 
Yeah, what the frack is this?

I very clearly read the OP as "Well, I guess I'm not as well known a SB debunker as I thought I was *selfdeprecating laugh*"

Now, maybe that is because it is what I have come to expect from Lancaster so I didn't look for any other meaning - it is possible that it could be construed like that (if you are so inclined) But now Mr L has expressed that my interpetation is the way he intended it, and as we can't know intent I have to go on past conduct and my own impression and decide that my first interpretation holds.

What I don't get is this nigh-on stalking exercise that seems to be emerging here. Wtf is that all about?

Most people here - me included, I hope - when put in the situation that they have mis-interpreted a post and the poster explains how it was actually intended, will usually (and I have seen this plenty of times also from posters I don't have much time for) either appologize and withdraw the comment, or at least acknowledge the alternative intention and withdraw.

Here goal posts are moved and new bitching is brought up "Well, that may be so, but you also..."

What I really don't get is the very personal level this is brought on, or the endless references to pre-stroke/post-stroke. Like the fact that there was a stroke was evidence of anything. RSL has discussed pre/post differences in personal community threads and it really is of no merit in other threads.

I invoke rule 12.5: "F.f.s - Attack the argument, not the stroke"
 
ExMinister said:
I just don't hear mockery. I hear self-deprecating humor over the irony of the situation, as Robert himself has already explained.
Click to expand...

Right. He was making fun of the situation, not the person.

And to this I'll add: RSL was mocking before the stroke!

As nice of a person as he was (and is), he could also be impatient and mocking on rare occassions (like almost every human being on Earth). He could be somewhat snide. It was nothing particularly mean, no, but he could and did laugh at others and himself.

This has not changed. He is exactly the same way as he was. Exactly.

Make no mistake, he most certainly would have said exactly the same thing about someone saying something stupid/ironic/funny two years ago.
 
Last edited:
wow, I mean this doesn't make me think one way or another about Robert.

but it does sort of give me that '"eww they are kinda creepy" feeling about a few of the replies.

OK, your life is...this?

(cue Psycho music) I mean you can post anything you like, but the interpretation is kinda obvious here.
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
Yeah, what the frack is this?

I very clearly read the OP as "Well, I guess I'm not as well known a SB debunker as I thought I was *selfdeprecating laugh*"
Click to expand...

I find that assessment bewildering. The topic of the thread is "Late-Breaking News" and the OP ends with the line, "Why yes, I am aware of that. thanks!" It was followed by RSL saying, "At least he/she didn't say 'Were you aware that there is a web site which seeks to Stop Sylvia Browne?'" which was clearly a dig. The next bit of clarification was, "I was being nice. Sort of."

And from that you determined that he was being self-deprecating? He didn't talk about himself, he talked about the person writing the e-mail. I saw it as ridiculing the correspondent and said as much. RSL replied saying, "So yes, I was aware of the case. And if the correspondent had bothered to look at my site a bit, they would have known that." Again, how is that self-deprecating? Clearly he is accusing the correspondent of not doing their research.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment, but I'd appreciate a breakdown of how you came to your conclusion. Others agreed that he was mocking and saw no problem with it. My opinion is that what he did detracts from the site and harms his mission. I think if the person saw the OP, they would be offended. I offered this for his consideration, and RSL considered it. And that's exactly what should happen on a discussion forum like this.
 
Unca, I also don't understand what you don't get about this.

Someone asked if Robert knew of the Shawn Hornbeck case. Robert broke the Shawn Hornbeck case. It became a media story because of his site.

That's just funny. There's no explanation needed there.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
Unca, I also don't understand what you don't get about this.

Someone asked if Robert knew of the Shawn Hornbeck case. Robert broke the Shawn Hornbeck case. It became a media story because of his site.

That's just funny. There's no explanation needed there.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't funny. In fact, I already explicitly stated as much in this thread. If I were to sit next to RSL at a bar having a beer, I'd laugh right along with him if he told me that story. And when I read his post, I chuckled to myself, then grimaced because he posted it in a public forum that is read by all sorts of people and quite possibly the person who sent him the e-mail. I think it's bad form to get a public chuckle at the expense of someone who is trying to help.

And let's be skeptics and evaluate just how "silly" this person was and whether it's actually funny or not. If you go to the Articles page on his website, there are 75 articles listed before the first article mentioning Hornbeck in the title or description. The description reads, "More about Browne's most famously wrong reading to date." (emphasis added). That's an accurate description in my opinion. I think most people consider it her most famously wrong reading.

Now, I'm not about to tell RSL how to organize the data on his site, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone visiting the site to wonder why such an important piece of information is not prominently displayed. I would expect it to be the lead story, but it's not mentioned on the home page or even in the FAQ.

So, really, was it "funny" that some newbie "wanted to make sure" that RSL was aware of something that hit the news 2 1/2 years ago, especially since the last update on the site was 1 1/2 years ago? Personally, upon reflection I think I was a little smug when I laughed at the guy.

As for RSL "breaking" the story, who cares? Other than Woodward and Bernstein, I couldn't tell you who "broke" any story. It's just not important to me, and it's probably not important to most readers. Besides, it's not like it was a feat of stunning investigative journalism. I'm quite sure that many people recalled Sylvia's reading, especially the Hornbecks. Why should we expect somebody visiting the site to know that RSL was the first to point it out?

On top of that, it says right on his website, "I will not publish any information sent to me without first obtaining the permission of the person who sent it." (emphasis his, not mine). I think a reasonable interpretation is that if you send him an e-mail through his site, he's going to keep it out of the public eye unless given permission. He doesn't say he won't quote you verbatim or simply won't refer to you by name. He says he won't publish any information sent to him. I think what he did is a violation of trust in addition to not being a very nice thing to do to some poor sap trying to be helpful.

Maybe you don't think posting in a public forum that gets 120,000 plus unique visitors per month constitutes publishing. Maybe you think of it like we're just a handful of folks chatting at a barbecue. I don't.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
I find that assessment bewildering. The topic of the thread is "Late-Breaking News" and the OP ends with the line, "Why yes, I am aware of that. thanks!" It was followed by RSL saying, "At least he/she didn't say 'Were you aware that there is a web site which seeks to Stop Sylvia Browne?'" which was clearly a dig. The next bit of clarification was, "I was being nice. Sort of."

And from that you determined that he was being self-deprecating? He didn't talk about himself, he talked about the person writing the e-mail. I saw it as ridiculing the correspondent and said as much. RSL replied saying, "So yes, I was aware of the case. And if the correspondent had bothered to look at my site a bit, they would have known that." Again, how is that self-deprecating? Clearly he is accusing the correspondent of not doing their research.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment, but I'd appreciate a breakdown of how you came to your conclusion. Others agreed that he was mocking and saw no problem with it. My opinion is that what he did detracts from the site and harms his mission. I think if the person saw the OP, they would be offended. I offered this for his consideration, and RSL considered it. And that's exactly what should happen on a discussion forum like this.
Click to expand...


There really is no mystery. I am used to irony and self mockery as a default setting in people around me. Therefore I am able to detect it when I see a poster with a history of self-irony doing it again.

Also: you are repeating yourself.

Again.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I never said it wasn't funny. In fact, I already explicitly stated as much in this thread. If I were to sit next to RSL at a bar having a beer, I'd laugh right along with him if he told me that story. And when I read his post, I chuckled to myself, then grimaced because he posted it in a public forum that is read by all sorts of people and quite possibly the person who sent him the e-mail. I think it's bad form to get a public chuckle at the expense of someone who is trying to help.

And let's be skeptics and evaluate just how "silly" this person was and whether it's actually funny or not. If you go to the Articles page on his website, there are 75 articles listed before the first article mentioning Hornbeck in the title or description. The description reads, "More about Browne's most famously wrong reading to date." (emphasis added). That's an accurate description in my opinion. I think most people consider it her most famously wrong reading.

Now, I'm not about to tell RSL how to organize the data on his site, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone visiting the site to wonder why such an important piece of information is not prominently displayed. I would expect it to be the lead story, but it's not mentioned on the home page or even in the FAQ.

So, really, was it "funny" that some newbie "wanted to make sure" that RSL was aware of something that hit the news 2 1/2 years ago, especially since the last update on the site was 1 1/2 years ago? Personally, upon reflection I think I was a little smug when I laughed at the guy.

As for RSL "breaking" the story, who cares? Other than Woodward and Bernstein, I couldn't tell you who "broke" any story. It's just not important to me, and it's probably not important to most readers. Besides, it's not like it was a feat of stunning investigative journalism. I'm quite sure that many people recalled Sylvia's reading, especially the Hornbecks. Why should we expect somebody visiting the site to know that RSL was the first to point it out?

On top of that, it says right on his website, "I will not publish any information sent to me without first obtaining the permission of the person who sent it." (emphasis his, not mine). I think a reasonable interpretation is that if you send him an e-mail through his site, he's going to keep it out of the public eye unless given permission. He doesn't say he won't quote you verbatim or simply won't refer to you by name. He says he won't publish any information sent to him. I think what he did is a violation of trust in addition to not being a very nice thing to do to some poor sap trying to be helpful.

Maybe you don't think posting in a public forum that gets 120,000 plus unique visitors per month constitutes publishing. Maybe you think of it like we're just a handful of folks chatting at a barbecue. I don't.
Click to expand...


You have...some very good points there. Very good points.

As a matter of fact, you are correct.

I hope that this person didn't see it and if she/he did, they were not offended.
 
Points to consider:

1) Why would this individual have reason to be offended if Robert's intent was not to mock?

2) I see no mockery in Robert's comment about whether or not he (Robert) was aware of the Stop Sylvia web site. Again, I hear humor and irony.

3) When Robert states that this e-mailer could have done a little more research, IMO he is just stating the obvious. Haven't we all had facepalm moments where someone has made an assumption about us or our work that wouldn't have happened had they done a little research beforehand?

3) When Robert states on his web site that he will not publish information without permission, he is referring to his web site. Now, it is debatable whether posting something in this forum is considered publishing. Most of us consider forums to be social places where discussions take place among like-minded people and not places where one goes to formally "publish" something. It is a discussion among friends. In the case of the JREF, we also consider it to be a place where people can come to learn (more about that later), but that doesn't change the fact that it's just a forum.

4) If people here mock the e-mailer or accuse Robert of having intent to do the same, though he did not, the person may then have reason to be offended. In which case it is the forum members who have introduced mockery into the situation.

5) Robert has politely accepted Unca Yimmy's point of view as food for further thought, which is fine since that's what a discussion forum is - a place to discuss one's point of view.

6) If Robert is to post these types of e-mails here, is it not up to us, as forum members on an educational skeptics forum, to create threads that will be informative and respectful to fans who might happen to come here and read them? Do we have even more responsibility to do that with the Sylvia Browne threads than others since we are aware that believers may link over here out of curiosity?
 
Last edited:
Baby Nemesis said:
I'm glad someone filled us in on what on earth this was all about. I'd never heard of Sylvia Browne before I came to this forum. And I had absolutely no idea who Shawn Hornbeck was, so was rather mystified by the OP, until Marduk's post.
Click to expand...

More information can be found on the StopSylvia.com site, which is linked to by numerous people here. It does not have a search feature currently, but you can use Google to search it. Here is the URL:

http://www.google.com/search?q=shawn+hornbeck+site:stopsylvia.com

This will show all the articles concerning this incident on the StopSylvia.com site. Just remember, Google is your friend. :)
 
RSL, you haven't let pseudo-psychics and woo supporters stop you from being yourself. Don't allow skeptics to do it, either.
 
TheSkepticCanuck said:
More information can be found on the StopSylvia.com site, which is linked to by numerous people here. It does not have a search feature currently, but you can use Google to search it. Here is the URL:

http://www.google.com/search?q=shawn+hornbeck+site:stopsylvia.com

This will show all the articles concerning this incident on the StopSylvia.com site. Just remember, Google is your friend. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don't really feel the need to know any more though now the mystery of what this thread was supposed to be about has been cleared up. I'm not that interested in Sylvia Browne because I've never read anything here that would suggest she's any more harmful than anyone else who claims to be psychic; I've read a few interesting articles on psychic detectives in general though and the harm they're alleged to do sometimes, like these:

Missing Children - Hazards - Psychic Detectives.
Psychic Detectives.
 
These threads about RSL's emails actually seem a bit odd. Should they be in "Forum Community" rather than "General Skepticism"? I know lots of people here are friends of RSL, but new visitors aren't.
 
Okay, this is my first post in this thread since my "final" post in this thread.

Here are some points:

The OP was meant to be self-deprecating. Although that is probably not clear, taken by itself, I assumed that someone familiar with my history here would recognize it for what it was. Evidently not. So, those interpreting it as my mocking the correspondent make it clear that I should NOT have made that assumption. And, someone NOT familiar with my posting here could EASILY interpret the OP as mocking the correspondent. This may well include the correspondent him/herself, should he/she ever stumble upon this thread.

Given the above, it is very clear that UncaYimmy and Brattus are correct: My starting this thread was a bad idea, contrary to my own policy, and not in the best interest of my site. Period. I think that Brattus' criticism, while valid, was expressed in what, to me, came accross as personal attacks (particularly given his recent posting history regarding yours truly). That does not invalidate the criticism - it just makes it harder to accept.

But hey, I'm a (way too) big boy, and I can take it.

This whole episode reminds me of something I discussed in my TAM7 speech:

Back in 2001, I found this site, after doing a web search for "james randi". I had been a huge fan of Randi's for decades, but had yet to look for him on the web. Excited, I read a few Swifts, and then sent Randi an email. I had thought to search for Randi because I had just learned of John Edward. Randi was obviously JUST the person to expose this fraud, and I wanted to make sure Randi was aware of him. So I wrote to Randi and asked if he had heard of this shmuck. Randi's reply was typically abrupt. In no uncertairn terms, he let me know that, had I bothered to use the site's Search feature, I would know that yes, he was VERY aware of Edward. I was stung by the reply, and embarrassed that I had, quite obviously, been a nuisance to someone who I greatly admired. I know that I would have been mortified had he then created a thread here, or mentioned in the next Swift, about receiving that clueless email. Given that experience, you'd think that I would have been more understanding when I received the email discussed in the OP.

Evidently not.

Another point:

Those who have said here that I would NEVER moock ANYBODY don't know me vewy well. My friends IRL would find that statement utterly hilarious. For decades, I have been known IRL as a sarcastic, mocking SOB. So I am by no means "above" mocking someone. But I would never want to be seen as mocking a correspondent to SSB, especially one who was just trying to help.

As far as my future posting on the forum goes, I am not sure. I think that I need to be more selective in what I post about. My "poor me, I'm in a wheel chair" stuff is probably unbecoming, and, i fear, has gotten a bit old. And, quite obviously, I will be far more selective in what I post regarding email I receive on the site.

My thanks to all who have posted in this thread, or have sent me PMs and/or email regarding it. But I am hoping that, with this long-winded post, we can consider the issue resolved, and move on.

My best to you all,

RSL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom