2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« New Method of Creating Stem Cell Lines, Same Old Bullshit Opposition The RantsSkeptics' Circle #42 »

Sylvia Browne Outs Herself (Or, "Summer is Nothing But Reruns")
2006.08.27 (Sun) 22:17

There are two things that we can be certain of in this world. The first thing is that self-proclaimed psychics will make asses of themselves on at least a semi-regular basis. After all, when you make a living by pulling predictions out of your ass, you're bound to pull out big handfuls of utter shit from time to time. The second thing we can be certain of is that, no matter how many times these "psychics" are shown screwing the pooch on national television, hordes of their weak-minded groupies will continue to fawn all over them, making excuses for their fuck-ups and defending their real honest-to-gosh spirit medium powers.

So, coming as no surprise to us, we present this recent gaffe by Sylvia Browne from the Montel Williams show, which we found over on A Gentleman's C:

Not only has this clip shown that Sylvia's powers are a figment of her own twisted imagination, but they also show pretty clearly that she's a reprehensible, vile woman who couldn't possibly care less about the suffering of the marks who are her bread and butter. After seeing this kind of clip from her (as well as a similar account about Allison DuBois), we can't help but wonder at the vile, moronic dipshits who worship someone who isn't just full of shit, but is also pretty clearly not a nice person. As a note, if you're one of those dipshits, please don't take that last sentence as an invitation to explain your asinine beliefs to us — we don't really want to hear it.

You know, we've shown how Sylvia's predictions have been flatly wrong in the past, and we've showcased more than our fair share of Allison DuBois' public fuck-ups, and through it all, we're still bombarded by swarms of credulous idiots telling us that these people are beautiful, special flowers and that we "r teh suk" for trying to besmirch their sterling reputations. Hey! To the creduloids who can watch something like this and still lavish Sylvia Browne with sweet, sweet love: all we can say (borrowing from Les Jenkins) is:

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

— • —

[It has come to our attention that the video we originally linked to in this Rant has been removed from YouTube. We have replaced that video with another that shows the same segment, as well as another Sylvia Browne fuck up for your amusement, horror, and/or edification...ideally, all three. Thank you. — Ed.]

[Now it seems that the "new" video we linked to is also gone. As such, we added a new one. Again. And here's a link to yet another version in which the segment in question comes after another Sylvia Browne screw-up on Montel. Thank you. — Ed.]


— • —
[  Filed under: % Bullshit  ]

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/tpc-trkbk.cgi/374

Comments (437)

Andrew, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 15:46 [Link] »

Browne immediately jumps to the psychic's stock response, "Well, no, you're wrong."

"He died on September 11. He was a fireman."

"Well, no, see I keep seing him in water."

When they're caught in a lie or mistake, their first response is to accuse the other person of being the mistaken one, like this poor woman doesn't know when her boyfriend died. No, Browne sees him in water, so he obviously couldn't have died in the Towers, end of story.



darthcynic, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 17:40 [Link] »

Oh that is priceless, I love the sudden look of uncertainty in that hucksters eyes when the 9/11 bombshell gets dropped and the laughs just kept coming. Yep, first she tries the old "well your wrong and I'm right" angle and then the guttertrash says "well if they were trying to put the fire out,... montel" implying what?, he drowned from an errant firehose or puddle!. You also gotta love the long drawn out pauses as like an animal caught in yer highbeams the mental minnow struggles to cope with a scary situation and fails. Hell even poor montel was flummoxed, gently supplying the 9/11 reference again in case she had'nt heard and quickly moving on.

But what shone through apart from her absolute lack of any otherworldly power is just what a mean, nasty person is contained within, staring daggers at the poor woman in the audience. Is there no depths that these poor excuses for people, these greedy, egotistical twits will not stoop?, I guess not. Despite this live on air complete fuckup by the sham as you say the dipshits will carry on believing, arseholes the lot of em.



oddlittleman, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 18:38 [Link] »

Browne hit the mark! As this woman said; "they never found any of him". Notice she didn't say who "they" are. That's because it was all a giant conspiracy. Her boyfriend and all those others where taken out the other side (have you seen any pictures from the other side of the buildings?) and rushed away. My vast research shows those who agreed to cooperate with the government were given new identities while the other were disposed of. My bet is her boyfriend had to be disposed. He was most likely a terrorist type.



skeptic, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 20:00 [Link] »

Holy fuck, what a Class A piece of shit that woman is!



Greg, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 21:57 [Link] »

Wow! And I thought I knew some crazy psychics!



beepbeepitsme, 2006.08.29 (Tue) 01:45 [Link] »

I am compiling a new blogroll of atheist and agnostic blogs. if you would like to be included in this list please leave a reply here :

Are You An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/08/are-you-atheist-or-agnostic.html



The Two Percent Company, 2006.08.30 (Wed) 23:11 [Link] »

Honestly, folks, you know what's really pathetic? If Sylvia was any good at her bullshit carny act at all, she could have easily recovered from this misstep. Instead of sticking with her pig-headed insistence that he drowned, she could have shifted gears and pulled out the save once she learned that he was a fireman on 9/11. Here's the actual beginning of the exchange:

Sylvia: The reason you didn't find him is because he was in water. ...

Suffering Person: Well it was September 11th. He was a fireman.

Sylvia: Well no, I keep seeing him in water. Is there any way he could have drowned in water, someway?

Suffering Person: They never found a piece of him, nothing.

From here, instead of stupidly insisting, as Sylvia chose to do, that he somehow drowned, she could have gone in a different direction, like so:

Sylvia: He keeps saying that he can't breathe. His lungs are filled up and he can't breathe and it feels like water or something else in his lungs. Does that make sense?

Suffering Person: Well, he was fighting the fire.

Sylvia: Exactly. His lungs are full of smoke and dust, and that's the feeling I keep getting — that his lungs are full of something and he can't breathe. I've connected with him — he says "Hi."

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? This "making shit up" deal isn't all that tricky. Too bad Sylvia really sucks at it.



someone else, 2006.08.31 (Thu) 00:30 [Link] »

"Browne hit the mark! As this woman said; "they never found any of him". Notice she didn't say who "they" are. That's because it was all a giant conspiracy. Her boyfriend and all those others where taken out the other side (have you seen any pictures from the other side of the buildings?) and rushed away. My vast research shows those who agreed to cooperate with the government were given new identities while the other were disposed of. My bet is her boyfriend had to be disposed. He was most likely a terrorist type."

Are you seriously saying this? You're INSANE. I'm in the military and I was there within 2 hours of the attacks. Maybe if your "vast research" was more than googling "9/11" over and over, you might have found some pictures of the other side of the towers.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2006.08.31 (Thu) 01:05 [Link] »

Actually, I'm pretty sure oddlittleman wrote his comment as a joke (that's certainly how I read it). So, he's not insane. Well, not for this reason, anyway.



John M. Burt, 2006.08.31 (Thu) 04:54 [Link] »

Two Percent, I had the same thought: that if I were totally lacking in decency, I could do this sleazebag's job so much better than she could.

Damn that woman. She's not even good at being what she is.



abnoxio, 2006.09.22 (Fri) 09:30 [Link] »

I have often wished that someone would come up with a better word than "psychic" to describe people like me. Between all the con artists out there and the gypsy and witch stereotypes, the word has been forever tainted. Call it what you want; I have what I refer to as the gift.?

-Allison DuBois

How about ?lying-uncaring-unoriginal-scamming-filthy-boring-jizz-bucket-whore-bitch??

http://www.allisondubois.blogspot.com



Strider1974, 2006.12.10 (Sun) 10:51 [Link] »

Absolutely spot on

For more information on this have a look at stopsylviabrowne.com

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



BIG-AL, 2006.12.10 (Sun) 15:49 [Link] »

Hi my truth seekers

I am a real psychic. I think people like that going on talk shows dirty the good name of us real psychics. If you would like a reading just send a paypal cheque for $40/ £20 to alan_macleod11 I look forward to hearing from you



The Two Percent Company, 2006.12.11 (Mon) 00:55 [Link] »

Yeah, we hate those so-called psychics who pretend to have special powers and go on television just for their own benefit. All they're after is money. It's enough to make all so-called psychics look like the only thing they're after is money. How revolting. Not like you, Big Al. Not like you at all.



lin, 2006.12.16 (Sat) 15:58 [Link] »

Wow, there seems to be a lot of anger issues here. I find all this talk very amusing. I just love a good laugh here & there. You guys sound less stable than sylvia browne. Do you have anything better to do with your time? Family, friends, anything? Putting someone down because you don't believe them is pretty harsh considering you don't even know her. Does it make you smarter, better or just make you feel good to speak of someone this way? Remember, God is watching you as well as her. NO ONE CAN JUDGE US BUT GOD! Have a blessed day!



The Two Percent Company, 2006.12.17 (Sun) 00:13 [Link] »

Oh, for fuck's sake. Is there no end to the make-believe nonsense that you'll buy into, lin? Do you also believe in unicorns and magical fairies? You're right that there's a lot of anger here. People like Sylvia Browne — who leverage the pain and suffering of those around them just to make a buck — deserve our justified outrage; what we're wondering is why you aren't angry with her as well. Oh, right — because you didn't bother to read anything we wrote about her, and instead you chose to defend her blindly like a fucking moron. Bang-up job of that, lin — you certainly managed to come off sounding like a fucking moron.

Does exposing Sylvia Browne as a pathetic bullshit artist make us smarter than you? No. Genetics and a willingness to educate ourselves make us smarter than you.

Does using bad words and derogatory insults make us better than you? No. Being absolutely outraged at assholes who take advantage of others' pain and suffering makes us better than you.

We also find it interesting (read: "laughably pathetic") that you lambaste us for not having friends, and then count among your own friends an imaginary sky daddy called "God." We have plenty of friends, including each other (or perhaps you didn't notice this is a group blog?), and — unlike yours — none of our friends are fucking make-believe.

You are a deluded inhuman dipshit; case closed, congratulations. The most useful thing you can do for us is go play in traffic. Have a blast; bring marshmallows.



RRyan, 2006.12.18 (Mon) 11:42 [Link] »

You ever notice that when xians say "Have a blessed day" they really mean "Go fuck yourself with an iron rod"?



Phony Montana, 2006.12.19 (Tue) 09:14 [Link] »

Have you ever also noticed that people who have decided to "let God into their hearts" (let him get his foot in the door more like) have instantly higher levels of credulity to all the other peripheral bullshit? Particularly strange when the tenets of said faith rigorously applied would have Sylvia Browne/Allison Dubois tied to a big toasty stick.



Emily, 2007.01.22 (Mon) 20:26 [Link] »

Oh my gosh Sylvia was so horrible to her. She was just so sure that she was the correct one. I'm glad the girl didn't tell her anything before hand and got this footage. I myself am a very spiritualist person and before I got into everything I used to like to watch her every so often but now days I don't because a few years ago I started feeling horrible vibes from her and I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who feels so iffy about her. Her prices are outrageous and she's supposed to be helping people. For someone who was the real deal check out Edgar Cayce. I've never felt bad vibes from him.



Michelle, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 11:34 [Link] »

She is a lying sack of shit, that woman is such a liar and Montel has her on his show like allll the time. Anybody can tell someone oh he is watching over you. Or he is doing this and that. She got caught and I hope everybody sees her for the liar she is.



Michelle, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 11:34 [Link] »

She is a lying sack of shit, that woman is such a liar and Montel has her on his show like allll the time. Anybody can tell someone oh he is watching over you. Or he is doing this and that. She got caught and I hope everybody sees her for the liar she is.



Kate, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 11:47 [Link] »

What is up with Montel?!!! What the! No credibility. I used to think he was sensitive, but now this is just disgusting, offensive, and frigin pathetic. Are there enough other screwed up people to have on the show than a circus woman who hurts his guests deliberately with her alcoholic rantings? Sylvia, your grandmother is here. She said you have lung cancer, but not to worry. Satan loves your show.



Ria, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 11:51 [Link] »

Sylvia Browne is a joke. I remember a past Montel episode where an audience member was inquiring abou a scar. It went something like this:

Audience Member: I wanted to know where my scar came from.

Sylva Browne: In a past like you were shot in the back by an arrow.

AM: But the scar is on my leg.

SB: Oh, that scar? That was from another past life when you were thrown in a well and got bit by a snake.

This exchange is in the best of my recollection, but you get the point.

I have always wanted to get on Montel's show witha phony question for her, but I haven't gotten the chance yet.

She is hilarious.

How about her telling the family of the kidnapped boy that he was dead, and pointing to a location of the body, and it turns out the kid was just found & reunited with his family?

For entertainment value, she is a gem. However, all her "predictions" should come with a disclaimer...



G-Man, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 11:53 [Link] »

Wow, the disillusionment on the girl's face when she realizes Sylvia Browne is a fuck.

I remember waaay back in the day when Montel had a scrap of dignity.



Bea, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 12:07 [Link] »

i understand not believing in psychics, but what i don't understand is all the angry four letter words.
what's that about? take the show as entertainment, a laugh. perhaps she provides some sort of consolation for the grieving people. your anger makes me think that you once believed??



Dustin Young, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 12:27 [Link] »

pure comedy!!!



JOhn, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 12:32 [Link] »

What a shame so few have command of the English language. Every vulgar word they can come up with expresses who they are and what a lack of education they have. Pitiful.



tomtom, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 12:42 [Link] »

I read for people. However I don't talk to the dead. I really don't see that as a positive thing. I also refund people's money when I don't seem to be able to read for them. If I don't know the answer to something I say "I don't know." TV psychics and the movies have really put out a warped picture of what intuitive abilities are. Self doubt can make it harder to read but it also makes it a whole lot easier to not get full of yourself and think you know everything. All I know is that when I don't trust my feelings I land in a heap of trouble.



siouxwoman, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:07 [Link] »

Sylvia Browne and that guy (can't remember his name) who has his own show now are modern day carneys. I believe there are people in this world who truly have this gift. I have met 2 of them in my lifetime. However, we will never see them on Montel because they believe that to profit from this gift is a sin. They shun the public light. Carneys on the other hand....... To use grieving trusting people like this is an abomination and when they die, they will get their "rewards".



Mike , 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:09 [Link] »

to bea---"take the show as entertainment, a laugh. Perhaps she provides some sort of consolation for grieving people." Do you actually believe that ?? If you find entertainment, a laugh, in this huckster Sylvia Browne preying on the terrible suffering of the lady who lost her husband, a firefighter, in the 9/11 towers collapsing, you're sick. How did Sylvia Browne provide some sort of consolation to this lady?? Again, you have a twisted view of this situation. Montel also does not have a shred of decency about him--he also preys on people showing them in their deepest time of need. He pretends to care, all the while having them go over and over their stories for the world to see. He's hovers over them like a vulture, while his guests recount their heartbreaking, shattered lives.. Shame on him and guests like this Sylvia Browne... not guests like this poor woman who lost her husband in the 9/11 tragedy.....



Amber Jolley, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:11 [Link] »

Who cares what you believe. Don't worry what other people in this world believe. What's the big deal if people in this world believe in Psychic Sylvia Browne. I think you have some serious issues that you should keep to yourself and leave the rest of us who believe in God and Sylvia browne who was blessed by God with her special gifts to help people in this world alone. She is an amazing woman and I love her. Sincerely, Amber



Bubbly, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:16 [Link] »

Are any of us really surprised?
I mean come on, Sylivia rolls her eyes at the audiance and acts as if she's been put out by the fact that she has to "preform" for all these desperate folks.



Bubbly, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:23 [Link] »

wonder why Sylvia didn't pull that old "I must be confussing this with one of his past lives" bullshit



Cwatt, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:23 [Link] »

This lady is the most vile, evil creature ever placed on this planet! My wife has been sucked into her bullshit world via her book. All I hear is Sylvia says this and Sylvia says that, well if she knows so much why couldn't she tell me what happened to my father?? I had gone to a taping of Montel 7 years ago(my wife got tickets) I had seen some of her shows before but always laughed them off. I hadn't seen my father in 16 years and wanted to see just how "all knowing" she really was. I had found out just a few months prior to the show that my father had been killed while on assignment in Russia. I got all the details of my fathers death via the U.S. government investigation, so I was aware of what happened. When we got to the taping the producers looked for "targets". I added a few details to my fathers story, to make them choose me as a "target". They asked me questions basically outlining what had happened, but I played dumb and gave only bits and pieces of my story. Right before the show began taping I was brought back to the "green" room where Ms. Brown awaited. She also asked me "bait" questions to get as much info out of me as she could. I answered as much as I wanted to, so that it would really test her. When the show began and they got to my segment, they stood me up and Montel introduced me, Sylvia asked why I was there and what I was looking for, I explained to her again, and she began her "show". I was told my father was not on the other side, that he dissapered to start a new life in a foreign place, without fear. My father was a cia op, so he had a few enemies, she also said he is still living but couldn't get a presise location. I went on to tell her that the government had provided us with death certificates and autopsy results from the mourge in the Czech Republic(not to mention my mother had to ID the body!!!) She said that what the government told us was false and that he was still alive and kicking under a different name now. Montel tried to cover for her a little and the segment was done. I signed a release form before exiting the studio, but the best part is that the day the show was to air(they give you that info when you leave) My segment just happened to not be in the airing. I called the studio and asked questions about it, and was given the run around until I finally talked with a producer. His response " Due to the length of some of the other segments, unfortunately we couldn't use your footage" BULLSHIT!!!!! It'sbecause I caught her redhanded and they couldn't afford to be found out, that thier #1 moneymaker guest is a total and complete fraud. This lady is lucky to predict her next diaper change, or how many cigarettes she has in a week. I have shown my wife all this information, but she is still a believer. This doughnut needs to be ousted for the scammer she is!!! DOWN WITH SYLVIA BROWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



sam, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:29 [Link] »

As an emergency services provider I find this psycho with over done nails absolutely insulting and reprehensible. As far as entertainment, she's about as entertaining as Maury's unending line of trash who can't figure out who of the hundreds of men they've been with is the father of their child. The only difference is, this scam artist is pawned off as legitimate and capable simply because she can read people and knows that general statements can make people who want to believe in it find credibility in it. It worked for the oracle of Delphi. One can only hope this scam artist won't be as widely remembered.



Cheryl, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:30 [Link] »

Vibes? Helping people? I remember the smell. I remember the smoke, dust and fire. And that was at Ground Zero 4 weeks after 9-11. Sylvia's scam was sophmoric. The only water in the Towers came from busted sprinklers. The firemen never reached the floors to hook up their hoses. The help I saw rendered in Manhattan was tanglible and active. Would Sylvia or Emily understand what that means? Probably not.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:35 [Link] »

Forsooth, dear JOhn! We think they be quite wrought
With humor fit to send us into fits
Of laughter, thy divine inspired words.
For only one whose education lacks
Exposure to the raucous tongues of man
Wouldst posit, in so serious a tone,
An axiom, unfounded, with no bite,
That truth abandons, when 'tis come to light.
If only thy prodigious might of mind
In nobler purpose could be so engaged —
To wit, addressing Sylvia's deceit
Instead of Two Percent's profanity.
But simple minds to simple comments be
Like lodestones lit upon our iron swords,
And simple minds like thine shall ever be
Inept to see the meaning for the words.
And so, with all sincerity, thou tool,
We say to thee: Fuck off, O flaccid fool.



toni, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:51 [Link] »

it's about time this phony is exposed I've known from the very beginning of her "career"
that she is nothing more than a charliton.

..and you know whats really sad..she has people like Montel Williams bring on her national TV to dupe the public....

people you are searching for answers but looking to the wrong source...if you happen to believe there is a GOD than look to Him. not to some scary looking medicine woman who has made millions of $$$ ....shame on her and God have mercy on her soul.



MFerris, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:57 [Link] »

I won't lie, I'm a fan of Montel. From what I have seen (Sylvia Brown aside) of him he appears to be an intelligent and caring man. However, it disappoints me that he won't take this crook off of his show. I used to love watching Ms. Brown on Montel...when I was younger and more naieve, before I began to catch onto her lies. Have you ever noticed that a large percent of the time when an audience member on the show has a mystery illness she'll say it's fibromyalgia? It's always fibromyalgia with her! Her condescending tone with audience members also disgusts me. She treats them like incompentant bafoons, unwilling of her attention and "impressive" knowlege.



C, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 13:59 [Link] »

Sylvia got caught. She's a fraud and why Montel would have her on his show is beyond me. And to the person who said that 9/11 is a fraud and that people were rushed out the back by officials is crazy! Absolutely beyond my comprehension that anyone would believe that nonsense!!!



Lady Melanie, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:10 [Link] »

Time for you people to get another hobby!! Picking others apart because of some need to always know everything is ridiculous. I can see why this page was created...a bitching post as it were. Should have kept it a private bitching post though.

When you get some knowledge, and a life..then post for those in public to see. Yes, I posted here to, in hopes someone connected with this bitching post would at least make it so people have to become a member. The rest of us don't want this confused with real news or real informed opinions.



Mrs Danvers, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:21 [Link] »

Sylvia Browne was my high school teacher. She was then known as Mrs. Dufresne. She was a bad teacher and now she is a bad psychic. No suprises here.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:26 [Link] »

Well, damn, folks. We're not sure which we prefer — the scads of spam that we have to remove from our blog database, or the scads of actual comments that we have to reply to. Thanks to those who have already taken on a portion of that task themselves. As for us, we'll just hit a few highlights. (We're emotionally drained after our riveting performance with JOhn. You know we're Method, right?)

I believe there are people in this world who truly have this gift. I have met 2 of them in my lifetime. However, we will never see them on Montel because they believe that to profit from this gift is a sin. They shun the public light.

Not only won't we see them on Montel, we won't see them anywhere. Maybe — and we're just spitballing here — maybe they just don't exist. Or they could be hiding really, really well. Yeah, there's always that.

If you find entertainment, a laugh, in this huckster Sylvia Browne preying on the terrible suffering of the lady who lost her husband, a firefighter, in the 9/11 towers collapsing, you're sick.

Exactly, Mike. This isn't some "ha ha, so funny" comedy sketch, it's a sick fucking hag making money by capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others. Anyone who can't understand why we're so angry about people like this is severely, severely fucked in the head. We agree completely.

I think you have some serious issues that you should keep to yourself and leave the rest of us who believe in God and Sylvia browne who was blessed by God with her special gifts to help people in this world alone. She is an amazing woman and I love her. Sincerely, Amber

Yes, Amber, we hear from people like you all the time. You have so many fucking rocks — magical ones, we bet — in your head that we're amazed you don't tip over when you stand. Apparently, you'll believe anything, right? Well, go right ahead and screw those blinders on tight; but don't expect us to refrain from pointing and laughing at the stupid, silly person who believes in Sylvia Browne despite the fact that she's fucking wrong all the time. Do us a favor — next time you cross the street, close your eyes, be at peace, and trust in God and Sylvia to get you to the other side safely. The world will be a lot better off, and so, we're betting, will you.

Picking others apart because of some need to always know everything is ridiculous.

Ah, sweet Lady Melanie, but that is, in fact, not our motivation. As you may (or, more likely, may not) have noticed, Sylvia Browne is a spiteful, disgusting woman who manipulates others' emotional and psychological welfare for her own personal — particular financial — gain. We "pick her apart" (an interesting euphemism on your part) because her purely evil deeds anger us — plain and simple. No need to try (and fail) psychoanalyzing us to divine this — we make such facts quite clear throughout our site. And:

The rest of us don't want this confused with real news or real informed opinions.

We wouldn't consider this "news" either, as it isn't new — AOL's strange, sudden link to it notwithstanding. However, having done copious amounts of research on Sylvia Browne specifically, and "paranormal" practitioners in general, we can safely say that our opinions are both real and quite informed. From the depth of your comment, we somehow doubt that you can legitimately claim the same of yours.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:40 [Link] »

That was not only bullshit, it was poorly executed bullshit! Before Browne said a word, I thought, "She's going to say he's in or near water". They ALWAYS say the bodies are in or near water!!! As soon as the woman said he was a fireman, I thought, "Oh, now she'll claim the 'water' she sees is from the firehoses", but she didn't think of that until it was too late. I could do her schtick better than she can!! Damn, why am I still working retail? I could be a famous psychic and "help" people!!!



does it matter, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:41 [Link] »

FINALLY!.......my chance, lol
within about 2 minutes of first seeing this MORON! on montel i was ust stunned.
HOW!..........can a man of obvious intelligence like montel have anything to do with this pain exploiting,fake a## dipsh##!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
"there's an m in the name"
"so there must be an m in the last name"
"oh someone must have said his name on monday once, there's an m in monday, that must be it".................she should get bowel cancer and linger for months!



Stelter, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:41 [Link] »

He raised his left arm up in front of his face to shield himself from the blast of dust that was rushing around him. He didn't realize immediately what was happenening and thought it would pass.
After a few moments he realized what was happening, but by then it was too late. His last thought was of the woman he loved. It was over in an instant and he felt no pain.
He was standing in water. The room was hazy with smoke, that was giving a brownish cast against the fire he was fighting.
He was standing off to one side of the room, his right should facing a corner with no windows. The stairs were to his left, in front of him.
He was a hero and gave his life saving others.



cindy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:43 [Link] »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKyzBe0CA2Q

theres another clip of her i found on youtube. go watch how ridiculous she is!! the clip at the top of the page is also in here, but the first part is a different story.

notice how she says 'she doesnt care' if it was on the autopsy or not, it happened. shes just oh-so-believeable.



Lauren, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:46 [Link] »

This sort of disheartens me. I read her book and I have to say it gave me a little piece of mind about my dad dying. I doubt any of you have read her book but it says we all choose how our life pans out, so in some way I found (small) comfort in thinking that my dads (and my) plan was for him to die when he did and he was happy somewhere. And now I have nothing to hold on to.



Psychics are crackpots, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:50 [Link] »

Quote:
"Phony Montana, 2006.12.19 (Tue) 09:14 [Link] ?
Have you ever also noticed that people who have decided to "let God into their hearts" (let him get his foot in the door more like) have instantly higher levels of credulity to all the other peripheral bullshit? Particularly strange when the tenets of said faith rigorously applied would have Sylvia Browne/Allison Dubois tied to a big toasty stick."

I believe in God and I think psychics are all a bunch of wack-jobs so I don't know which hat you pulled that rabbit from.

Exactly which "faith" are you regurgitating about? A classic example of "hasty generalization" and a lousy collection of God-hating, mumbo jumbo. Get your facts straight and stop generalizing. While you're at it, stay on topic too.

I say so what if lin feels sorry for this lady? We should all feel sorry for an oxygen bandit like Sylvia Browne.

Someone bump this whole diatrab...w/ mine too for all I care.



Steph, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:51 [Link] »

I think we'd all LIKE to believe in unicorns, but if they spit on you when you ask if that horn is stapled on, it's just not as much fun. Believe in God or don't, but I would suggest that no one make the decision based on Sylvia, Christians who judge (since that is exactly what Jesus said not to do), or unicorns. When this shit starts making too much sense, it usually means you smoked too much!



Teresa, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:54 [Link] »

If you hate her so much why are you giving her so much publicity? Any publicity is good publicity. I'm kind of on the "you guys have issue's" end of this. So much wated time and energy on a stupid subject. Yes it was horrible and yes it was mean but get over it already. You are obviously much smarter than the average person and wont fall for psychic crap, good for you. Now use your smarts on something important, global warming, incurable diseases, etc.



BRENDA, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:54 [Link] »

I was once among the believers, John Edwards was my idol. Then I saw an expose of how he finds out his information on these poor, often bereaved souls. When a person asks for tickets to the show, a staff member is sent to their neighborhood, talks to people, even snoops their house posing as a meter reader, then the info is used in the reading! So very sad. There may be real readers out there, be he and Sylvia aren't among the blessed.



marc, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:58 [Link] »

To the person who referred to god as "sky Daddy",
He is in fact in the sky, watching over us...u and I both.. One day u, as well as Sylvia Brown, and all the rest of us will have to account for our actions and words. Can't wait to see ya at the "Gates"..!!! btw...I will tell Peter hi for ya if ya can't make it



Ari, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:02 [Link] »

This woman disgusts me. To be able to sit there, and use the grief of another... it’s the mark of someone who is seriously deranged. To me this goes beyond whether or not she’s a “real” psychic, this is about what a vile monster she is. Personally I believe in psychics, but not ones who use their gift for profit. However, Sylvia Browne is nothing more than a woman who gets perverse pleasure from screwing with people’s emotions.



Deanna, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:11 [Link] »

I swear Montel must have ran out of idea's. It seems like this crazy bitch is on all the time. The show should be changed to the Sylvia Browne Show. She is so full of shit. I won't watch the show when she is on, and I feel so sorry for those people who hang on to every word she says as if it is true.



mommaW, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:13 [Link] »

If you ever actually rerad the Bible, it very clearly states not to associate with spiritualistic people or mediums. The Bible clearly states that the people who engage in this activity do not worship God, and the" gifts " are from Satan. You cannot eat from the table of God with one hand on the Devils plate. If you going to defend someone using religion. you should do your homework first.



Kathy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:15 [Link] »

she's always been that way, and what's worse is, montel is so star struck by her. i lost so much respect for him with teh way he tries to shove her up our noses.
example one time, she told a lady, yeah i see the color "YELLOW" and the lady said, "yes she had a Yellow Doll in her room 15 yrs ago"
and montel jumps up and down, SEE, now how would sylvai had known that?? man i'm telling ay she's good!!!!!!!

so to me?? i would have said, ok i see 'PINK??:"
and she owend something pink does that make me psychi too montel??



Tony, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:15 [Link] »

I like Montel. Always have. He means well, tries to do good with his show. However, I've never understood why he puts this lady on. Especially so often. I immediately turn the channel. Never believed a word she spoke and am perplexed why Montel caters to her so much. Montel can do very well without her. He risks his career, and more importantly, his reputation and integrity, every moment he puts her on his show. I'm borderline ready to never watch his show again due to this. I completely stopped watching Maury when he went the route of Jerry Springer. Montel, you can do better!



Tony, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:16 [Link] »

I like Montel. Always have. He means well, tries to do good with his show. However, I've never understood why he puts this lady on. Especially so often. I immediately turn the channel. Never believed a word she spoke and am perplexed why Montel caters to her so much. Montel can do very well without her. He risks his career, and more importantly, his reputation and integrity, every moment he puts her on his show. I'm borderline ready to never watch his show again due to this. I completely stopped watching Maury when he went the route of Jerry Springer. Montel, you can do better!



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:18 [Link] »

Oh, sure, my comment never appears and this "Tony" person's appears twice. Where is mine? It wasn't spam! It was on topic!



Erica, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:18 [Link] »

lauren,
don't let this take away the comfort that you felt about your father's passing. true, this woman seems to be a manipulative liar (she disgusts me, to be honest), but she has nothing to do with your father. i don't know anything about you or your father, but i do know what it's like to lose someone who you love. i would suggest that you read the book "A Grief Observed," by C.S. Lewis. it is a really good book, and it helped me to find some peace amongst all of the questions and heartache. but even if you opt not to read that book, just know that you can hold on to the fact that there are millions of people out there struggling to find peace with the same thing, and it is a battle, but it is possible to find peace.

take care, dear.

-erica.



danirizzo, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:21 [Link] »

I find it hilarious that so many of you sit at your computers and bash Sylvia Browne's "fuck ups" when I'm sure that all of you (I include myself in that) have plenty of those in your closets as well. No one is perfect. Focusing on the times when she has made mistakes doesn't change all of the times that she has been absolutely right about things that she has seen. Some of you obviously have no other outlet besides "online ranting". Get out more.



NOGOD, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:25 [Link] »

physics are all full of shit. of coarse they all ready new that



Mr. Reality, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:29 [Link] »

People.....are you fucking serious? How can grown human beings believe any of this babble. Do you all still believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy......etc.?

Religion is nothing more than a mental creation by human beings to cope with loss and death of loved-ones and themselves. If "heaven" is such a great place why dont all of you religious nut-jobs go there now? why wait, i mean its not that hard to get DEAD. And as for all of you "creation" believers, Sylvia Browne and her kind are doing nothing other than taking complete advantage of your ridiculous beliefs.

Theres about as much chance Sylvia "the smoker" Browne can talk to dead people as there is that some guy built a boat and caught 1 male and 1 female of every single species on the planet and put them all on a boat to survive. LOL But that does raise an interesting question.....wouldnt that mean that every species had no choice but to commit incest to survive.....isnt incest a "sin"? lol

Hmmmm, Adam and Eve, 2 people created the entire "family" of 6 Billion we have today......no wonder some of you are so fucked up and believe in fairy tales.

Get over it, dead people are like dead dogs, goats, sheep, cows, cats.........etc......they are DEAD and dont talk to anyone especially a nasty ass like "smoker" browne and the reverse racist Montel Williams.

WAKE UP AMERICA.........you live, you die........Deal with it!!!!!!!!!



kat, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:31 [Link] »

I can't believe how mean Slyvia was to that lady, just because you are caught in your own ly Slyvia doesn't give you the right to put this lady through more, my husband and I think this is the biggest load of shit and I hope people will finally realize this people care nothing about you they just want your money



Kathy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:43 [Link] »

Danarizzo, OH PLEAZEEEE don't put US in the line of being like you and sylvia brown.
everyday human mistakes we all make is nothing compared to this.
if you want to compare apples and oranges and you don't "GET IT" on what we are all talking about then you are what they are referring to up above...........
"You are a weak-minded groupy that will continue to fawn all over her, making excuses for her fuck-ups and defending her real honest-to-gosh spirit medium powers" adn then to make matters worse try and tell us that we are all like her!!
hey, if that were the truth, i'd be a million aire too, slap a scarf on my head and i'll tell you how yoru 2nd cousins wifes sisters, best friends sons ex girlfriends dog died from 800 years ago in the past life!!!!"



Asha Narayan, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:48 [Link] »

Well there are a lot of fake psychics. I am related to one in Sacramento. He wants the family to call on people who are sick or in debt. Get their stories and then when people come to his house he start to tell them about their hardship and needs. people believe him because they think he knows everything but dont know family members already feed him with the info. Than he charges them a lot of money telling them that he will cure them. But at the end no cure than he fights with them tell false stories to other people and get away with it. If You come across this name be careful. He Naresh Narayan aka Ojjah. Also he is gay and will try to have you divorce your wife so he can have them.



Asha Narayan, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:48 [Link] »

Well there are a lot of fake psychics. I am related to one in Sacramento. He wants the family to call on people who are sick or in debt. Get their stories and then when people come to his house he start to tell them about their hardship and needs. people believe him because they think he knows everything but dont know family members already feed him with the info. Than he charges them a lot of money telling them that he will cure them. But at the end no cure than he fights with them tell false stories to other people and get away with it. If You come across this name be careful. He Naresh Narayan aka Ojjah. Also he is gay and will try to have you divorce your wife so he can have them.



Scott, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:00 [Link] »

Lauren - Just because Sylvia's a fraud doesn't mean what she says in her book doesn't have validity. If it made sense to you, it might be true . . .

For those dissing Montel - I don't care for his show, but I hate the way you all are talking crap about his guest selection. Do you think he chooses all of his guests himself? He's not the only producer of his show, and doesn't make all the desicions. He MIGHT see Sylvia's name on his week's docet and say "Ah Shit! Not this Bitch again!" for all we know.



Peter, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:05 [Link] »

I think shams like Sylvia Browne should not be allowed to spread her crap to the public on t v or any other way and Montel Williams should be ashamed of himself for subjecting people to this crap I no longer have respect for hm and I refuse to watch his show.



Shelley, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:10 [Link] »

I have myself wondered time and time again, If anyone in the world could possibly, actually, believe this woman. My mother -in-law after the death of her youngest son at 19yrs sought out Brown and the other John whatever his name is, to get though her grief. I thought it was sad enough that she could not just take comfort in the words of the bible that we may see each other in the after life, but when she sat week after week watching those shows, listening and hanging over Browns words, like yes he is your guardin angel, he watches over you, Comeon. really, let teh dead be dead and rest in piece please, and I am soooooo Happy to see this two percent group call her out, and let every one see in deed she is a scam artist, those people should seek a counsler to learn to get over the grief instead of money hungry in-moral monsters who make a living off the tradgies of peoples lives. OH and isnt FUCK? in the english language? I say it all the time... WellFUCK...lol



[A spammer who should die a long, slow, grisly death], 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:17 [Link] »

[This comment was utter spam, clearly someone trying to ride the wave of sudden interest this post has generated. Nice try, fucko. You want to advertise, fucking pay for it. — Ed.]



seanb, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:19 [Link] »

i predict i will drink a corona tonite



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:22 [Link] »

TimmyAnn — sorry about that. Our spam blocker gets a little overzealous at times, and its eyesight isn't so good these days. (Plus, we're pretty sure it has a crush on Tony.) We're getting a frankly ridiculous metric tonne of comments today, and what with, you know, actual work to do, getting everyone approved will just take a little time. But we'll get there.

danirizzo, aside from Kathy's excellent points above, we would also mention that we find it hilarious that you sit at your computer and bash those who find a common interest in bashing Sylvia Browne's avaricious, deceitful behavior (not her "fuck ups," as you put it). You obviously have no other outlet besides "online ranting." Er. What else were we supposed to say? Oh, that's right. "Get out more." That's apparently what you say to someone who, uh, wastes their time spouting off their own opinion online.

Scott — it's a nice sentiment, and one we'd be happy to believe, but there's evidence that Montel is actually a Sylvia Browne fan, or at least publicly claims to be. To us, it matters as little whether he's really a fan or just pandering to fans of woo as it does whether U.S. senators truly believe in the bullshit measures they try to get passed or are simply pandering to their zealous voting base. He's still either vapid or an asshole.

Incidentally, if you're all going to pile on here, you should really be giving Robert Lancaster a read. He's the real expert on this wicked witch.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



Borders,Language,Culture, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:23 [Link] »

Sylvia "I'm a complete and utter fraud" Browne just proves what a counterfeit she really is. Montel has lost it by advocating this rubbish and blatant jabberwocky by playing off of his audiences sadness. I'm sorry some individuals continue to believe in her drivel and would subject themselves to ask her about their deceased love ones. It literally makes me sick. She (Sylvia) ought to be hung and beat like a pinata for all her felonious rambles that she has so boldly dared to answer and each time her physic awareness if more OFF then the next and yet some just think she will give them all the answers they seek. If she was so physically aware of such matters I would think her powers above her would tell her to do something with that face and hair now that she looks more like Donald Trump in a bad wig. Oy!



Ann, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:25 [Link] »

ROFL....OMG....but, wait, Syliva Browne is helping Catherine Chancler on the Young and Restless, find her missing grandson, that she gave swapped as an infant.
I don't know why anyone believes in this crap. Just like the bible, it's a great story....a piece of history. I don't believe a word of it.



lila, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:33 [Link] »

I love exposed assholes...i mean assholes exposed...i mean when you expose an asshole....i mean.........



ivy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:48 [Link] »

Sean; I love you after reading all these rants your "I predict a corona" gave me a laugh attack.
Coronas on me!



sandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:52 [Link] »

i think we all believe in things from time to time that others may consider strange.....as sylvia says.lessons in life????perhaps that may be true. one day each and every one of us will know
sandy



sandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:58 [Link] »

i think we all believe in things from time to time that others may consider strange.....as sylvia says.lessons in life????perhaps that may be true. one day each and every one of us will know
sandy



Sandra Lytch, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:59 [Link] »

Recently, I watched a small excerpt on Montel. Sylvia was predicting that the weather was going to be the warmest it has ever been on the east coast and that it would be that way all winter. I found it funny that she predicted this after the news came out that it was very warm. Well, a couple of weeks later, of course, the weather started to change as I knew it would because I live in the Northwest, and we start to get a lot of the cold storms in this region. I had a feeling it would spread eastward as it does usually, not because of psychic abilities but just because it usually does. I'm surprised Sylvia didn't come back on right after this news to say that the weather was going to now be extremely cold. What a farce. This woman is unbelievable!!!



Suzie, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 17:01 [Link] »

danirizzo, the difference between our "fuck ups" and Sylvia Browne's is about 800 dollars an hour.



Doughnut, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 17:02 [Link] »

awwwwwkwaaaaard!



Doughnut, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 17:02 [Link] »

awwwwwkwaaaaard!



Ro, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 17:05 [Link] »

I used to watch Sylvia Browne when she was on TV...but the more I watched...the more phony I realized she was. A friend of mine paid $250 to have a reading by phone...and Sylvia told her that she would meet a guy named Bill...and it would become permanent in two years. My friend actually did meet a guy named Bill ... the relationship ended after one year tho. I don't know if she has any psychic ability... but if she does ... then she doesn't have it to the degree that she portrays she does. Also... I can't stand that when someone asks her or tells her something ... she answers with an attitude saying, "Well honey... of course"....blah blah blah ...... as if the person asking should know .... and is stupid. And I just love when she asks..... "Who's the short woman ... or the thin man ... or the girl with the round face" ... I mean... come on .....everyone knows someone who fits these descriptions. She's been wrong ..... from what I've read .... on many occasions ... not just this time. On one show this woman asked about her daughter who was ill ..... and Sylvia told her that she did not see her making it. The poor woman was crying ..... and of course we have no way of knowing whether the daughter survived or not. Sylvia is not God ..... and these people need to stop looking for answers thru her. I don't know if Montel really believes all her crap .... or if he did believe previously....and now he's so caught up.... that he can't get rid of her. Well.... that's all for now... and I enjoy reading all the comments.



kells , 2007.01.23 (Tue) 17:47 [Link] »

It is all up to each persons individual take on the information provided. Everyone hears things differently. Remember the childhood game telephone?? I don't know about anyone else but I have trouble hearing people on my cell phone at times, I can't imagine trying to receive messages from the other side. I would never pretend to have heard from the deceased, but I'm sure if they ever did decide to talk with me, I wouldn't always understand what they were saying.

Who is anyone to say what the last thing a person sees, hears, or feels before they die? What if the last thing the fireman was aware of was not being able to breathe due to the smoke and debris, and was being soaked by a broken sprinkler overhead? I used to date a fireman and he had told me stories of how disorienting being in a situation like that could be. He was almost killed once trying find someone in a burning building, he thought he could feel them tapping on his shoulder, but couldn't find them in the thick smoke, turns out it was his helmet that had been hitting his shoulder.

I am not weighing in on this as a believer or a non-believer. I am just trying to make the point that no one knows. One can not prove nor disprove this complety 100%.



Brandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 18:37 [Link] »

For Christ's sake! Poor Montel! I FINALLY got my grandmother to stop believing in that overpaid bitch. Could she have been any more rude to that poor woman?!?

I do believe in ESP and things of that nature, but come on people, she's not even good enough to catch her own mistakes and straighten them out! She is a disaster. I can only imagine how many people she has ripped off and either confused more than they were before, or are totally traumatized now. Un-fucking-believable.

And why on earth didn't that poor woman explode?!? I would have! Well, I wouldn't have talked to her in the first place!



Elsbeth, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 18:52 [Link] »

I recall hearing or reading at some point in time that Montel's relationship with her was based on the correct, critical and impacting information he got from Sylvia personally. So basicly, her words worked well for him...and he wants to share that.

I don't think anyone who has posted here is "wrong". We all can have our different and divergent beliefs.

We all have our own relationships with the energies of the universe. Sylvia is sometimes "wrong" as are we all. She is also sometimes "right"....it's all really simply a matter of perspective.

Appreciate all the diverse perspectives around you - they contribute to your own growth. They all help form our own belief systems.
Enjoy the growth!



Jon, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:04 [Link] »

Since the first time I saw this horrible woman years ago, I have felt she was a complete fake. It's not my nature to call names or make criticize someone because of their physical appearance. That being said, I would like to comment that this broad (she is to despicable to call a woman) Has to be the most repulsive creature to walk on the Earth. Undoubtedly the nastiest, skankiest dishonest douchebag whore that ever lived. What peplexes me most is that with all her money (that she has swindled from so many poor souls) She could only afford that hidous 50 dollar Mexican face-lift . What A BUTCHER JOB!!!!



Jon, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:04 [Link] »

Since the first time I saw this horrible woman years ago, I have felt she was a complete fake. It's not my nature to call names or make criticize someone because of their physical appearance. That being said, I would like to comment that this broad (she is to despicable to call a woman) Has to be the most repulsive creature to walk on the Earth. Undoubtedly the nastiest, skankiest dishonest douchebag whore that ever lived. What peplexes me most is that with all her money (that she has swindled from so many poor souls) She could only afford that hidous 50 dollar Mexican face-lift . What A BUTCHER JOB!!!!



Jon, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:04 [Link] »

Since the first time I saw this horrible woman years ago, I have felt she was a complete fake. It's not my nature to call names or make criticize someone because of their physical appearance. That being said, I would like to comment that this broad (she is to despicable to call a woman) Has to be the most repulsive creature to walk on the Earth. Undoubtedly the nastiest, skankiest dishonest douchebag whore that ever lived. What peplexes me most is that with all her money (that she has swindled from so many poor souls) She could only afford that hidous 50 dollar Mexican face-lift . What A BUTCHER JOB!!!!



Chris, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:14 [Link] »

Alright I just want to point out how in the introduction of this thing the writer of this blog for The Two Percent Company noted how heartless Sylvia is. The quote is that is that "she's a reprehensible, vile woman." After this comment however, almost every single comment made by the Two Percent Comapany writer has been utter bullshit. I most definetly don't agree with Sylvia's way ofmaking a living; it exploits other people's misery. I also don't get how someone can scold one person for being insensitive to others when they are in fact themselves insensitive. The writer decides to not only voice their opinion on Sylvia but also their pessimistic opinion on everyone else. In one of the first comments a person made the remark that the writer must not have any friends. I can actually see where this has some truth if I examine how little respect the writer has for other's. If you feel that we should degrade anyone that is different than us then why don't we just go back to the days of HItler and his grand ol' idea of unification... what was that called? oh yea genocide. If you have an opinion, voice it but don't be a bastard to others.



Kathy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:22 [Link] »

Well, I agree that Sylvia Brown is a fake. She's known all along, it just took some of us time to figure it out.( Myself included) but man, those nails have got to go! Yuck! I've always liked Montel but I agree with the fact that his shows have become very lame anymore. I want to believe in "People with the Gift" but I guess we might as well believe in Unicorns too ,if thats the case. No Fairy Tales anymore. If you need to grieve, thats fine but find solace in something other than somebody telling you stories to make you feel better as they take your money and smile.



Alice, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:30 [Link] »

Gee, I bet You don't believe in GOD, either.
Some people just have to bash everyone.
I guess it makes them feel like Gods . They are really Idots.



Alice, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:31 [Link] »

Gee, I bet You don't believe in GOD, either.
Some people just have to bash everyone.
I guess it makes them feel like Gods . They are really Idots.



Bob, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:50 [Link] »

why does Montel keep this woman coming on his show? From the first time I saw her she look like a con artist. Any body believeing what comes out of her mouth is a IDIOT. She is not real.



Brandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:53 [Link] »

The Hitler idea sounds good to me! Something has to be done about the all the money-grubbing, lying, cheating, self-centered egomaniacs in the world. And the weak, ill-informed, insecure, naive people that believe in all the nonsense that is shoved into our faces constantly. A little common sense and confidence is all it would take for these "believers" to see the truth and realize that they to have been dupped. Guess no one really wants to see the truth and live in the real world. Apparently, La-La Land, is an easier world to live in. Probably prettier to, with all the unicorns and magical fairies.



carol wong, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 20:31 [Link] »

my mother is always watching montel, and really believes what sylvia browne has to say. i on the other hand am a skeptic. i started becoming suspicious when she was publishing soooooo many books. i guess she saw how much money could be made by putting her rantings in print. it is sad when someone like her takes advantage of people who just want to believe that she has the answers. i really doubt that anyone who believes and has the extraordinary experiences she has claimed to have, would be so motivated by money. and you know she is by the riduculous amounts she charges just for a short phone reading alone. i wonder how much she actually does in the way of good for others with that money. does she give any to charities,etc. she seems to me to be self absorbed, and somewhat condescending. i often wonder if people who dupe the public for their own selfish reasons worry about their souls and what will become of them. i do believe in god, and i believe that she and every other con artist who hurt people for their own gains will answer to him.



gene, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 20:34 [Link] »

I actually paid to have a private reading with her. Ok, I was young and stupid lol ) She said she preferred to 'read' the future over the past. Well she was totally wrong on both! 4 days later I was attacked and had my throat slit. Ok, so she missed one, but not even one thing she said came to be. The 'past' readings were not even close either. Her son also does/did 'readings' at a reduced price. She claimed that the 'talent' was passed down. I bet it was!!!



bing, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 21:01 [Link] »

americans sure are suckers. from physics, to rosie odonnell to george bush- donate your money to the tolite instead , or better yet i have a bridge in new york city to sell ya............dumbasses



believer, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 21:37 [Link] »

I love Sylvia Brown!!! Watch Montel every Wednesday just so I can see Sylvia. I believe in her, she's the only physic that is real



Jaz, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 21:47 [Link] »

Go see a Santera or a Babalou.. now thats the truth lol



Jay, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 21:54 [Link] »

I think she's a fraud and so is Montel. I agree with bing, most americans are mindless sheep easily distrcted by shiny beads.



Angie, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:07 [Link] »

I am extremely happy to see such nasty comments about Sylvia Browne...What an ass! She is not only the phoniest person I have ever seen, she is completely RUDE to her audience! It is so hard to believe that anyone would believe her phony nonsense, or even like her enough to sit and listen! I cannot believe that a man like Montel Williams would sit and listen to such garbage...it is obviously a money issue with him...SAD!!!!



Law, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:07 [Link] »

Ehh although i don't really believe in all the Sylvia Brown hype, I didn't really see her as a rip roaring bitch. Here's an idea. Maybe the guy did drown after the towers came down. You know how many water pipes and valves were in that place? Maybe he was trapped in a area where a water main did burst and he couldn't get out of it and drowned.

I'm not saying I believe her, but come on, you all talk so high and mighty like you know bullshit when you see it, but your retorts are all second hand, poor attempts at Daily Show observations or The Onion. Which is why I can see why you don't work at those places and instead have to set up a free site to talk your heads off. Good job, nice accomplishment.



Angie, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:08 [Link] »

I am extremely happy to see such nasty comments about Sylvia Browne...What an ass! She is not only the phoniest person I have ever seen, she is completely RUDE to her audience! It is so hard to believe that anyone would believe her phony nonsense, or even like her enough to sit and listen! I cannot believe that a man like Montel Williams would sit and listen to such garbage...it is obviously a money issue with him...SAD!!!!



bing, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:30 [Link] »

BELIEVER--- YOU'RE AN IDIOT- STOP WASTING YOUR WENDSDAYS AND GET A LIFE.
IT'S STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ENABLE THESE PHONIES. YOU PROBALLY LOVE ROSIE ODONNELL TOO, YA LOSER



TP, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:31 [Link] »

YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL SO SAD. WHY DON"T YOU TRY GETTING A LIFE AND LEAVE THE GIFTED PEOPLE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



TODD, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:42 [Link] »

T.P

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GIFTED PEOPLE,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PHONEY, THIEVES (SYLVIA BROWN AND ALL PHYCHICS) THAT PRETEND TO BE GIFTED, AND DUMBASSES LIKE YOU WHO SUPPORT THEM
I SUPPOSE YOU HAVE THE "GIFT" TOO.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:50 [Link] »

Okay, settle down just a bit, folks. Whichever side of this issue you're on, ALL CAPS comments give us a headache. We reserve the right to delete any such comments out of human decency. Swear to your heart's content (fuck knows we do), use a few exclamation points here and there (not forty-three, please), even capitalize a word or two for emphasis (if you're not used to HTML coding), but keep the all caps stuff to a minimum, or we may not feel like putting up with it any longer.

As for you, TP: Quid pro quo. When the "gifted" people start leaving everybody else alone — as in, stop lying to them, stop ripping them off and stop exacerbating their emotional trauma — then we'll leave them alone. Think you can broker that deal? With your stellar grasp of verbal intercourse, you must have some kind of talent for diplomacy, right?



TP, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 22:52 [Link] »

YESI AM GIFTED. I SUCCEDED IN PISSING YOUR SORRY ASS OFF HAH HAH. WHO'S THE DUMBASS NOW TODD?????????

SYLVIA IS THE REAL DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



todd, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 23:14 [Link] »

no TP you failed just like sylvia, sorry....

and, if she is real, i hope she can see that she's going to need a new racket after this, cause only idiots like you support her.

get a life and quit being a loser, supporting other lossers.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 23:50 [Link] »
Ehh although i don't really believe in all the Sylvia Brown hype, I didn't really see her as a rip roaring bitch. Here's an idea. Maybe the guy did drown after the towers came down. You know how many water pipes and valves were in that place? Maybe he was trapped in a area where a water main did burst and he couldn't get out of it and drowned.

I'm not saying I believe her, but come on, you all talk so high and mighty like you know bullshit when you see it, but your retorts are all second hand, poor attempts at Daily Show observations or The Onion. Which is why I can see why you don't work at those places and instead have to set up a free site to talk your heads off. Good job, nice accomplishment.

Second-hand retorts? No, see, that would be something more along the lines of: "Law, you ignorant slut." We get all of our retorts first-hand, little guy, right from our own rumbling, roiling, wonderful brains. Here's an exercise: try Googling +"out of your ass" +"big handfuls of utter shit" (right from the very beginning of our Rant!) — wow, we seem to be the only people on the Intarwebs who've ever put those thoughts together, which frankly surprised us, too! (As of this writing, even +"out of your ass" +"big handfuls of shit" — slightly less specific — returns no hits.) Not that we consider that to be even remotely among our favorite Two Percent lines, but it was an extremely easy one to dig up...right there at the top of this page. You may wish to read, oh, any more interesting page on our website before making your quite pedestrian and uninformed judgments. Those who do read our site regularly, rather than jumping on the AOL-linked bandwagon, often comment favorably on our unique turns of phrase. While we're not in this "business" particularly for entertainment purposes, we happen to agree with them.

We also know countless talented musicians, artists, comedians, writers (especially some excellent bloggers) and, hell, charitable individuals who might take umbrage at your suggestion that not charging money for your work somehow devalues the quality of the work. Perhaps you'd like to have a word with some of them. Or all of them. Heck, a razor-sharp wit like yours could take 'em all on, right?

Your claim that you don't necessarily believe Sylvia Browne, while you still try to justify her "hit" — which was already belied by the facts of the incident — is honestly just astounding. Did you also show up at ancient Aztec sacrificial ceremonies to point out that, while you don't think the Leopard God exists, you can see the case for it, so hey, kill the virgin?

For the last time, Law — and all of those of you who are clearly not getting the point — our outrage at the monster called Sylvia Browne has very little to do with her "getting it wrong," and everything to do with the emotional and financial damage she inflicts on people in precariously sensitive positions (like bereavement). Do we believe she got it wrong? Sure, we think so. Even if she "got it right," though, her track record (along with those of every other so-called psychic) belies any genuine "psychic powers." Our true and simple grievance against her is the horrible, terrible emotional and financial toll she takes on her victims. Anyone who doesn't get that just isn't thinking straight. Anyone who gets it, but disagrees that it's a problem, isn't someone we really want to know.



todd, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 00:05 [Link] »

i love this site. thanks two percent co.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 00:23 [Link] »

Thanks for the apology. I wasn't expecting that.....um, wait, I mean, I KNEW that both my posts would appear after I logged off and went to work and that there would be an apology. Just like I know that Jimmy Hoffa's body is near water.
Sylvia Browne and that creepy John Edwards, or whatever his name is (the guy with the hideous teeth) should be ashamed of themselves. Making money by exploiting people's pain is really low.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 00:57 [Link] »

Is it safe?

Well, in case another wave is due any minute now, we'll just take a moment to direct any newcomers — and bewildered regulars — to our latest Rant, in which we'll explain just what the heck is going on here.

All right, game on.



bird37721, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 01:27 [Link] »

IF ANY OF YOU SELF PROCLAIMED IDIOTS ARE CHRISTIANS... YOU SHOULD KNOW JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED... SYLVIA HAS MORE CLASS IN HER LITTLE PINKY THEN ANY OF YOU HAVE ALTOGETHER... I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU. I PRAY THAT IN A FEW MORE INCARNATIONS YOU WILL SEE THE LIGHT AND COME TO KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT A CHRISTIAN IS... GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL.



BJ, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 02:34 [Link] »

If anyone has any more true stories of botched encounters with Sylvia Browne we would really like to get them documented. We need all stories we can get, so please email me at: SavannahLees@aol.com

By the way this story originally aired August 16, 2006, but she has made many, many more idiotic mistakes than this one since then. Now they are promoting her son's fraudulent (ghost-written) books on the Dog & Pony glorified info-commercial that you call the Montel Williams show every Wednesday. I guess all those people out there who think this is all innocent and silly fluff entertainment, also believe organized crime is harmless as well and we should just turn a blind eye to everything. A con is a con, and it's criminal activity/behavior. By the way, for those of you who don't know this, Sylvia Browne is a convicted felon. She, her husband and two others were convicted in a real estate scam/scheme in 1988 in Northern California. How harmless was this for the people who lost all their money, and just how harmless would this be if it were you who lost all your money?. Luckily she got exactly what she deserved and hopefully she will again very soon!



waxLlPS, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 07:32 [Link] »

I believe this one could have been saved too for Syliva too even though now I think she's a big fake...she could have said "well I see water...I believe he died in water"..."he's a fireman, he died on 9/11!" "Hmm, 9/11 huh? well, maybe what I'm seeing is he works with water and his lungs are filled up with smoke and debris and he just can't breath and I assumed it was the water...I just put the two together." She was just too stupid and stuborn and refused to admit that she was a fake from the beginning.



mICHAELENE bERGER, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 08:44 [Link] »

I don't believe in physics, but when I saw the tape of Silvia Brown on You Tube,I remembered a fireman being interviewed, who survived 911. He said he almost drowned in a small pool of water. There were several of them lying face down on the basement floor, protected in a pocket of fallen pillars. There was water everywhere, not only by their hoses, but sprinklers which were set off. They were in the dark lying on the floor after the building collapsed listening to water spilling everywhere. He said he was disoriented and he didn't know if he should put his head up or down, he wasn't sure which direction to move his head until the dust settled and he found his way out to help rescue hundreds of people. I hate to admit it, but maybe she's right.



Michelle, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 11:05 [Link] »

What a conartist. She screwed up and had to make that poor woman feel even worse. After she goofs on her "prediction" she has the audacity to tell her "well thats ok hun,because it doesn't matter whether they find him or not. He is still over there." What!! It does matter, how inconciderate. I use to watch her but no more.



Brandy, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 11:36 [Link] »

She'd have more credibility if she said "I predict April showers will bring May flowers!" What an idiot! I feel so sorry for those people that are naive enough to fall for that crap. "I see water, " is that a vision from the weekly shower she's about to take?! If I were that woman, I would've walked up there and punched her in mouth. But she probably would've known I was gonna do it, so she wouldn't have been there by the time I got to the stage!



me, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 13:06 [Link] »

Ok so I think what she did was absolutely wrong. In fact I got quite the crack up at her stupid mistake. But I think that you MR. The two Percent have taken it to damn far! Who do u think u r? Sky daddy? God? What? U know what am not going to insult u what I am going 2 do is pray 4 u instead! And 4 Sylvia because apparently the 2 of u r sitting in the same boat u just don’t even know it! To everyone else it was hilarious!



f-s517, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 14:34 [Link] »

i dont know if you guys have been reading into the shawn and mike devlin kidnapping story but the parents of shawn went on the montel show and silvia told them that he was burried under neath some rocks by a tree or something like that; that he was not alive they spent countless hours searching for a body where she told them; they never uncovered anything; and now he is found i wonder if she feels stupid on this case and the one in the video



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 15:09 [Link] »

Here's a blanket response to those of you who have stated that since some fireman may have died by passing out and drowning in small puddles (or other similar scenarios), that therefore Sylvia could be correct. Our advice is to take a moment to actually listen to the exchange so that you can understand why this assertion is nonsensical. Here's the relevant bit:

When the grieving woman talks about her dead boyfriend, she clearly states that she is upset because they never found his body. Sylvia's answer is in direct response to that statement, and she says: "The reason why you didn't find him is because he's in water. And to find him in water...it's like the girl who's missing in Aruba. You can't find somebody..."

Now, to all of you who are arguing that Sylvia could be correct, we ask you to read the above exchange — or better yet, watch it — and then help us to understand how drowning in a small puddle or in a flooded elevator shaft somehow equates to losing this man's body in water. For fuck's sake, Sylvia says point blank that his body was lost in water, and that's why it couldn't be found. So her statement is dead wrong, no matter how he died. His body was lost in rubble, and likely destroyed (as gruesome as that may be), and anyone who could possibly score this as a "hit" for Sylvia is willfully delusional. Period.

Sylvia's later scramble to draw a line to drowning was just that — a scramble. She knew she was demonstrably wrong, and she was trying to save face. As we mentioned way above, and as a few folks echoed, there would have been far better ways to lie to make her predictions seem better, but she wasn't even capable of that kind of recovery.

To "me" who said:

Ok so I think what she did was absolutely wrong. In fact I got quite the crack up at her stupid mistake. But I think that you MR. The two Percent have taken it to damn far! Who do u think u r? Sky daddy? God? What? U know what am not going to insult u what I am going 2 do is pray 4 u instead! And 4 Sylvia because apparently the 2 of u r sitting in the same boat u just don't even know it! To everyone else it was hilarious!

Yeah, what the fuck were we thinking? You're right — this woman's pain is abso-fucking-lutely hilarious! Ha, ha, fucking-ha. Our anger at this raggedy cunt making money off of people's suffering is so misplaced — boy do we have egg on our faces! Now that we look at it through your eyes, dipshit, it all seems so silly. We r teh suk for being so mean 2 sylvia and 2 god. Fuck off, you moronic asshole.

And to f-s517, no we haven't kept up on Sylvia's latest screw ups, though we're sure they are every bit as complete and heartless as this one was. If you want to know why she doesn't feel stupid (or, even more poignantly, why she doesn't feel guilty and inhuman) about her screw ups, you need look no further than the bevy of idiots who still believe in her miraculous powers. Some of them are on display, their credulous stupidity fluttering in the breeze, on this very post. Sadly, it doesn't matter at all how many times Sylvia fucks up, or how many people she shits on to make her money — the mindless herds of true believers will always buy into her crap, no matter what. They are just too stupid and deluded to do anything else. Like many of the rational people who have commented here, we have no idea why.

And to all of the people who are still professing that Sylvia is the "real thing," you are simply too fucking moronic to talk to. Seriously. Go hit yourselves about the head and neck with a tack hammer until we tell you that you can stop. Fucking idiots.



Amber, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 15:28 [Link] »

This is to the person who responded to my statement. You look at Sylvia Browne like she's a total fake. How can you make a prediction about the future and get them right if your not pychic. Can you do it. It's sad to see so many ignorant people on this page that are full of hate. There's where the real evil is not Sylvia Browne. She has more class than you. I thank God i'm not full of hate like a lot of people on this page. I always keep him close to my heart. This page reminds me of how people acted when Jesus came to earth. They didn't believe in him and thought he was a bad person and a fake for all the believers that followed him. God bless you and I hope one day you will come around. Take care. Amber



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 16:10 [Link] »
You look at Sylvia Browne like she's a total fake. How can you make a prediction about the future and get them right if your not pychic. Can you do it.
First, any idiot can make a successful prediction about the future. I predict that tomorrow, the Earth's rotation will cause the sun to appear as if it is rising, and subsequently setting, unless clouds obscure our view. I predict that here in Illinois, it will continue to be cold tomorrow, necessitating the use of hats and jackets. I predict that I will sleep in until I force myself to get out of bed and do my dishes. I predict that credulous asshats such as yourself will continue to buy into and justify any load of bullshit issued forth from the likes of Sylvia Browne, despite their terrible track records. How do you make successful predictions if you're not psychic? Ask a goddamn weatherman. They may not always be right, but they've got a hell of a lot better track record than Sylvia Browne.

Secondly, and here's what you somehow fail to understand, while any dipshit can make a successful prediction about the future by making vague statements and playing the odds, Sylvia's discussion of the dead boyfriend here was not successful. She did not get it right. Nor did she get any of her predictions about the Shawn Hornbeck case correct, including the very basic question of whether he was alive or dead. So, I put the question back to you, Amber: if Sylvia Browne isn't a total fake, then why can't she make predictions about the future and get them right?

And when someone goes around, preying on people's desire for answers and hope and giving them false information, as Sylvia does, they deserve our hate. There's nothing classy about claiming incredible knowledge and then falsely telling parents that their kidnapped child is dead and buried. There is nothing classy whatsoever about Sylvia Browne and her fraudulent predictions. She preys on innocent, grieving people in order to increase her own fame and pocketbook. That is real evil.

As far as Jesus goes, I don't think he charged 700 sheckels for twenty minutes of apparent miracles. If you buy into the Biblical account, when people claimed that he wasn't the real thing, he gave them a clear and amazing demonstration of his abilities. He calmed storms and walked on water and showed his fatal wounds to the doubters when they questioned his status. He didn't make weasely statements about how skeptics are negative and if you can't disprove something, it must exist. When people doubted, he produced results. In other words, the Jesus of the Bible would have taken Randi's challenge. And then he would have donated the money to people who needed it.

But that's if you buy into the Biblical account, which I would imagine is a minority opinion on this site. I certainly don't buy fairy tales of resurrection and transubstantiation any more than I buy into Sylvia Browne's unreliable predictions. But even if I did, it'd be clear that Sylvia Browne is no Jesus.



Brian, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 16:14 [Link] »

I find it interesting to see the passion behind the arguments on both sides. I guess I'll submit a few opinions.
Genuine psychics are rarely successful. "The Sleeping Prophet", Edgar Cayce, was always bad with money and always seemed to be in the whole. I don't know if it's correlated or not. Perhaps this is why they never get noticed and instead the media feeds the people frauds. Or maybe it's just a coincidence.
The psychic phenomenon is scientifically documented to be a very real ability. Think of every human brain as a T.V. station putting out it's own broadcast and then think of psychics as T.V.'s that have learned to tune into those channels.
Psychics are never 100% correct because 1.) they are humans interpretting things they hear and see in their heads and 2.) other human beings' freewill and choice are added into the mix. Take predicting the future, for instance. The future is not now nor will it ever be set in stone. The future is constantly being created by the billions of people making choices every second of every day. So when a genuine psychic tells you what he/she sees in the future, they're telling you the future based on the current choices that have been made. Some choices affect the future in a minor, almost undetectable, way while others affect in very major ways.
I have no opinion on Sylvia Browne's abilities because I've never really watched her appearances until today or read her books. I'm told she's rather blunt, bordering on rude with people she "reads" for.
The original point of this rant is based on her taking advantage of people in an emotional state of trauma, and not whether or not psychics are real. In any profession in the world, there are always the genuine articles and then there are the scam artists that give the real-deal a bad name.



todd, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 16:28 [Link] »

everyone knows deep down that phychics are fake,
it's the weak people who need someone or something to believe in, or rely on. it's blind faith.

to the people who say
" who knows, she could be right" i say,
if phychics are real, then they would prove it. they don't prove it because they can't prove it. they rely on ignorant people do give them the benifit of the doubt, and in the end are laughing at you suckers.



SpnKick540, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 16:47 [Link] »

Todd, how would you have psychics prove their abilities? How, exactly, would you set up tests to put them through? Are we talking about standard "What card am I thinking of" tests? Because psychics don't even claim to be able to do that. Only the media does.
The fact is that quantum physics research into the String Theory is proving the psychic ability more and more.
And I wanted to address the random poster that said the Bible is nothing but a story. Granted there is a lot of crap in "the good book". But a lot of cities and events that happened in the Old Testament are being proven every day. In fact, the scientific community has begun viewing the Bible not as a mystical source of spirituality, but rather a historical document. Check out the first couple chapters of a book called "The Genesis Race" for the cited research on this.



lesliev, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 16:49 [Link] »

i remember when shawn hornbecks mom went on montel when sylvia was there and sylvia said he was dead and his remains were by a big rock bluff. SURPRISE!!!!!! he is alive and well, found 50 miles from his hometown.



todd, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 17:20 [Link] »

spnkick,
although i didn't engage in bible talk,
i believe the bible has alot of true places and happenings as well as scientific facts. key words, scientific facts.
i also believe that the bible is interpitations from people hundreds of years after the fact, leading to embellished stories.
about phychics, which is what i was commenting on, in my opinion if they were real, they wouldn't need to be tested because after hundreds of years of history, they should be at least creditable, and they are not.



SpnKick540, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 17:33 [Link] »

Todd, if you notice the bible talk wasn't aimed at you. So I don't understand your rebut to that. But I do agree that it's a collection of letters that have been translated so many times that the true meaning is lost. A big example is the use of the word "God." When referring to creation of heaven and earth, the original text uses "Yaweh", meaning creator of all. But when referring to man, the word for God is changed to "Elohim", meaning those that came from the stars. But that's beside the point.
As for your comment on psychics, you seem to be contradicting yourself with a statement that they should prove themselves, and then a statement saying they shouldn't need to prove themselves. There's a great documentary out called "What the Bleep do We Know". Granted, the storyline they portray is rather dumb. But the information presented is presented by leading scientists in just about all fields. Guess what? There's a lot of psychic acknowledgement. So before saying all kinds of statements about all psychics being shams, do your research.



j, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 17:47 [Link] »

come on you know sylvia is a liar....on one of montel shows a long time ago...she said that the third pope was going to be black...lol..... you see that didnt happen....



SpnKick540, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 17:52 [Link] »

lol Yeah, a little off on that one. I never defended Sylvia Brown. I never bashed her either. Like I said, I'm uninformed about her. My opinions (and facts) were aimed towards having people reconsider the "all" in the statement "all psychics are frauds."



Joann , 2007.01.24 (Wed) 17:57 [Link] »

to stay neutral. the girl friend said her boy friend died on 9-11.. but she never mentioned that it was in the towers or any of the other attacks. we all assume it was in the towers.. so who is jumping to conclusions???



Amber, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 18:12 [Link] »

Tom Foss, I can tell I could talk to you about this all I wanted and we would still have our differences. I respect your opinion. That's what you believe and I respect that. I don't have a life so I don't mind talking back and forth about this. Now when you said it's easy to predict the future and you made some of your own, the predictions you made were elementary compared to real psychics. They were easy ones. I went to a couple psychics myself and there were just some things that you couldn't make up. I went to my first one just to get a reading for the fun of it. I never gave her one bit of information about myself but I tried to. When I started talking to her about myself she stopped me and said I don't want to know anything so she could prove to me that she was real. In the middle of the reading she brought up something out of the blue that was off the subject we were talking about and said she saw me getting some money between 700 to 800 dollars soon. I started laughing and said what my paycheck and she says no sweety this is something else. She didn't know exactly what but she said I would get it in about a week. I think about a week and a half later I got my last check from social security from when my dad had died. I never told her about my dad and how he died from a brain tumor. How do you explain that. There are just some things you can't explain. For the Jesus thing i'm glad you brought that up. You said when people doubted he showed proof. Well why did they still crusify him. Sylvia could show proof and people would still doubt her. I remember when she said Bush would be the president again during elections and you might say that was a lucky guess but isn't it kinda funny that she picked him when everyone hated him and it looked like there was no way he would win the elections. Even Montel looked at her funny when she said that and he said, really? She was right. Well talk to ya later! Let me know on your opinion. Sincerely, Amber



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 18:13 [Link] »
Todd, how would you have psychics prove their abilities? How, exactly, would you set up tests to put them through? Are we talking about standard "What card am I thinking of" tests? Because psychics don't even claim to be able to do that. Only the media does.
Perhaps if the psychics could perform better than blind chance on their own claims of abilities, it would help bolster their claims. Or, perhaps they could submit to James Randi's challenge, which is designed to prove such things on the psychic's terms, albeit with proper controls.
The fact is that quantum physics research into the String Theory is proving the psychic ability more and more.
No, it isn't. Please do not talk about theories that you do not understand. String Theory, right now, is a hypothesis at best, and although psychics like to claim that there's some kind of "quantum" justification for their abilities, their is no such thing. Quantum effects are very well understood, and none of them would allow one to see the future, talk to the dead, or read minds.
And I wanted to address the random poster that said the Bible is nothing but a story. Granted there is a lot of crap in "the good book". But a lot of cities and events that happened in the Old Testament are being proven every day.
Yes, there are historical people, events, and places in the Bible. There are also such things in Silence of the Lambs. Should I look to that as a history book of recent FBI cases?
In fact, the scientific community has begun viewing the Bible not as a mystical source of spirituality, but rather a historical document.
No, sorry, try again. From declaring that bats are birds to transforming water to wine, the Bible's claims to scientific accuracy are nil. And any historian will tell you that there's quite a bit suspect on that front as well. There's no archaeological evidence that the Jewish people wandered through the desert for 40 years, or that they were even enslaved by the Egyptians. There's no evidence that King Herod killed all the young males in the kingdom, and even the evidence for Jesus's existence is pretty shaky. As a historical document, the Bible is unreliable at best, and fabricated at worst.
When referring to creation of heaven and earth, the original text uses "Yaweh", meaning creator of all. But when referring to man, the word for God is changed to "Elohim", meaning those that came from the stars. But that's beside the point.
And the point of that is that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 come from two different Hebraic tribes. The account in Gen 2 is older, and features the personal God(s) (the term used is plural) creating things directly, while Gen 1 uses a less personal God who creates things by speaking them into existence. One tribe conquered the other, and the creation myths were united into a vaguely cohesive unit, still bearing two different names of God, still contradicting each other in places, and still suggesting that there are multiple gods of which Elohim is Lord.
There's a great documentary out called "What the Bleep do We Know". Granted, the storyline they portray is rather dumb. But the information presented is presented by leading scientists in just about all fields. Guess what? There's a lot of psychic acknowledgement. So before saying all kinds of statements about all psychics being shams, do your research.
Oh FSM, do your own research. "What the Bleep" is trash, through and through. There is only one reputable scientist involved, and he has since stated that all of his interviews were edited to remove the context from his statements and make him appear to be endorsing the movie's retarded ideas. "What the Bleep" is basically a commercial for the church of Ramtha, a supposed ancient Atlantean warrior channeled by a middle-aged housewife. There's not an ounce of scientific viability to the entire movie, which throws around the word "quantum" and intentional misunderstanding of quantum mechanics to lend credence to their claims that you can change the world with the power of concentration. Skeptico did an excellent post on the movie some time ago, and it links to several other sources which show just what a worthless pile of steaming dog vomit that film is.


todd, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 18:13 [Link] »

spnkick
if you re-read my statement i said they WOULD prove it not SHOULD prove it. and by WOULD. i mean they wouldn't screw up like sylivia does on a regular basis as do any phychic i've seen. if they were real proof is in the accuracy, and there is none here.



Amber, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 18:17 [Link] »

Tom Foss, I forgot to tell you how much my last social security check was. It was for $736. Amber



SpnKick540, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 18:35 [Link] »

Wow, lot's of good stuff here. James Randi's test may be designed to prove such psychic abilities, but it doesn't mean it's an effective test. For crying out loud, we can't even test intelligence correctly. For that fact, the word intelligence is just a word that they came up with to label an idea that can't be fully understood.
I'm fully aware of the string theory (and it's many derivatives) so I can certainly talk about this theory if you truly wish to try and understand it fully. The basic point is that everything is connected and comes from the same source (as spiritualists have been saying for centuries.) Now I could go into the scientific terms if you want, but I'd prefer that everyone can understand what's being said here. The whole universe is made of a series of strings that are so infinitely small that they cannot be detected by current technology. With every movement and thought, every person in the world creates disturbances and vibrations through these strings. And so everybody interacts with the Universe in such a way that their vibrations can be felt everywhere by anyone sensitive enough.
The bible statements are were referring only to history that is stated. Not all of the "miracle stories." And yes, recently historians and scholars have pieced together exactly how the timeline described in the bible actually happened. So yes, it's being proven as a historical document in that sense.
The idea that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are from 2 different tribes was a simple outlandish theory put forth by a single person. It's not even widely accepted. The actual belief, currently, is that Genesis 1 & 2 describes 2 different creations. Chapter 1 happening, some kind of global disaster, and then Chapter 2 happening. Notice how man and woman are scavengers in chapter 1, and then suddenly farmers in chapter 2. Try reading it yourself, instead of reading others' interpretations.
The reason there is only 1 "reputable scientist" in the entire documentary is that the scientific community trashes anybody that doesn't believe their narrow view of existence. They always have. Look at the discovery of the world being round, to name a simple example. Science will always be "best guess based on human interpretation of results." That's why it's always changing. As far as "changing the world with the power of concentration", explain how numerous scientists can find quarks in subatomic particles simply by believing them to be in one specific spot? Now that'd be all good if they all found it in the same spot. But the truth is, quarks are always found where they believe they will be, and each scientist finds it in a different area. Now if your mind has the power to create on a subatomic level, how do you think it affects the larger world? Fearful people will always try and discredit. But everybody is so quick to jump on any evidence that it's not real and dismiss any evidence that says it is. Scientists always sweep anything under the carpet that doesn't fit in with their view of how the world works and where it came from.
Todd, I already explained the inaccuracy of psychics. Scroll back up and re-read.



Connor, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 21:17 [Link] »

Honestly The Two Percent Company, who do you think you are? Oh, I'm sorry, I guess your beliefs are automatically true because you're the poster of this. I can agree with you about the phychic bullshit, but bringing religion into this was completely uncalled for (I don't even care if you didn't bring it up, you kept the fire burning). Let me get this straight -- you are trying to talk down on other people's beliefs of a God (or any spiritual existance for that matter) to the point of cursing and insulting them so brutally so that you sound like either a priest raped (and thus you're against religion) you or you're mentally unstable. Note that I say mentally unstable, not retarded. At least I'm trying to stay politically correct, or at least rational. I think you're forgetting something that is why hundreds of millions of people have emigrated to this country. It's a little thing called freedom of religion. Ever notice what happens when people aren't free to worship as they please? Let me refresh your memory -- "The Final Solution", the Crusades, and the numerous wars in the Middle East being fought today. You have absolutely no right to belittle other because of what they believe. Religious people can just as easily ridicule you for not believing in a God (which is me just guessing, based on your comments, if I can even consider them that). Hmm, why is life so complex? It could be that a God made everything, it could not be. Odds are, no one will ever know for sure. You CANNOT prove or disprove religion. Try. You'll fail. My point is, you're being extremely hypocritical by not even showing any form of humane respect for others' beliefs. Let people shovel their hard-earned (or not) money into some crazy lunatic's estate. I don't care, it's not my money. Nor is it yours, so you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Oh yeah, and by the way, I'm only fourteen. I'm guessing you're a lot older, but please, try to act half of my age. You're making yourself look very insecure about yourself by insulting others. You're behaving no better than a grade-school bully. And please, don't jump on my case and label me as a "religious freak"or whatever you like to call people who happen to follow what people have been thinking for tens of thousands of years. I'm not even sure what I believe in, but one thing is for sure -- I'm not ruling anything out just because I think it's below me, unlike you, my friend.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 21:31 [Link] »
Now when you said it's easy to predict the future and you made some of your own, the predictions you made were elementary compared to real psychics. They were easy ones.
Well, you said, and I quote "How can you make a prediction about the future and get them right if your not pychic" [sic]. That's how: you make vague claims based on the odds. And that's what the vast majority of psychics do. It's when you get into really specific stuff, like "Shawn Hornbeck is dead and was kidnapped by a Mexican" that you run the risk of being very, very wrong. But Sylvia was playing the odds, and the odds are that when a child has been missing for four years following a kidnapping, that child will probably be dead, and the killer will probably not be found until any predictions as to his identity are long forgotten. But, sometimes when you play the odds, you lose spectacularly, as Sylvia did.
When I started talking to her about myself she stopped me and said I don't want to know anything so she could prove to me that she was real. In the middle of the reading she brought up something out of the blue that was off the subject we were talking about and said she saw me getting some money between 700 to 800 dollars soon.
Right, so it's not possible that after you made your appointment that the psychic googled your name, or that when you told her your name, she remembered reading your father's obituary, and knew that common sense dictated some sort of monetary compensation arriving as a result. But that's hot reading. It's more likely that the psychic did cold reading, offered you a typical fortune cookie "you will soon recieve a large sum of money" message, and that your natural confirmation bias has conflated it into something other than what it was. Although I predict that if you deign to click on those links, you still won't actually consider the prospect that you might be romanticizing your memories, or that you might have been conned. Look, I'm psychic!
or the Jesus thing i'm glad you brought that up. You said when people doubted he showed proof. Well why did they still crusify him.
Because he was a political rabble-rouser with a habit of speaking out against authority and breaking shit in temples. Because without a martyr, his movement would have been just another forgotten messiah cult like the poor Apollonians. Or, and here's the kicker when it comes to Sylvia, it could be that when it got really important that he show some proof of his powers, he refused to. Sure, walking on water is all well and good when trying to convert the credulous, but FSM forbid he use it to prove his case and save humanity two thousand years of debate.
Sylvia could show proof and people would still doubt her. I remember when she said Bush would be the president again during elections and you might say that was a lucky guess but isn't it kinda funny that she picked him when everyone hated him and it looked like there was no way he would win the elections.
Wow, she had a fifty-fifty chance (less than that when you figure in the smear campaign against John Kerry and the incumbent advantage), and she got it right. Color me unimpressed. Meanwhile, she was wrong about the Aniston wedding, the troops coming back from Iraq, the pregnancies of Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lopez, and the defeat of Gov. Schwarzenegger, not to mention the whole "Shawn Hornbeck is dead" thing. Seems like more misses than hits to me. And when she misses, hoo boy, does she miss big. I mean, it's pretty tough to justify "dead" instead of "alive." Not quite as hard as it is to justify "alive and enslaved in Japan" instead of "dead."

Yeah, Sylvia could show proof and people would still doubt her. But the thing is, she hasn't shown proof, and her refusal to participate in James Randi's Challenge shows that she doesn't have any intentions of showing that proof in anything like the near future. So until she shows that proof, people should doubt her. In fact, until she shows some proof, no one should believe her. Because all she's proven at this point is that there really is such a thing as too much makeup.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 22:16 [Link] »
James Randi's test may be designed to prove such psychic abilities, but it doesn't mean it's an effective test.
The point of the Randi test is that the claimant performs his or her supernatural powers under controlled conditions. So, if Sylvia can prove to herself that she has supernatural powers, and she can perform them on command in Montel's studio, then why not in a situation where any ability to cheat is taken into account? Whether or not it's an effective test is beside the point, if she won't submit to a test where she isn't allowed to cheat, then why should we believe her?
I'm fully aware of the string theory (and it's many derivatives) so I can certainly talk about this theory if you truly wish to try and understand it fully. The basic point is that everything is connected and comes from the same source (as spiritualists have been saying for centuries.) Now I could go into the scientific terms if you want, but I'd prefer that everyone can understand what's being said here. The whole universe is made of a series of strings that are so infinitely small that they cannot be detected by current technology. With every movement and thought, every person in the world creates disturbances and vibrations through these strings. And so everybody interacts with the Universe in such a way that their vibrations can be felt everywhere by anyone sensitive enough.
For someone who is "fully aware" of String Theory (and I'm not sure how many "derivatives" a theory that has not been tested or generally accepted can have...I can think of 11-D, 4D, and M-theory, but that's about it), you sure do have it wrong. The basic idea is that the most fundamental particles of the universe--quarks, leptons, gravitons, etc.--are made of tiny "strings" which may be open or closed, but each of which has a specific vibrational frequency. These vibrations help determine the qualitative properties exhibited by the particles at the level where we can observe them and their effects.

And that's about the point where you veer off into la-la land, because there is nothing in any scientific string theory about people affecting these vibrations with their minds, or that the vibrations of the strings can be "felt" by people. I'm not sure where to begin with how wrong that all is, without first saying that string theory is not yet supported by anything but abstract calculations which, to work, require the universe to have some very odd properties, even in the context of quantum oddness. First, "vibrating strings" is a model, not what is actually happening. It's a method of trying to explain the wave-particle duality of matter and energy without duality; it's not actual little strings being plucked by people's brains. Second, the vibrations determine what kind of particle you see; causing "a disturbance" in the vibrations would require changing one type of particle into a wildly different type, and suddenly you're talking alchemy. Which, incidentally, isn't a science either. And finally, these are sub-sub-microscopic packets of vibrational energy which may require new spatial dimensions in which to move. They cannot be "felt" by anything, except inasmuch as you "feel" photons hitting your eyes and "feel" electrons exciting in your body when you lick the outlet.

If you want to find out about scientific string theory, read the scholarly books, not woo-sites that think you can consciously affect the fundamental particles of the universe.

Not all of the "miracle stories." And yes, recently historians and scholars have pieced together exactly how the timeline described in the bible actually happened. So yes, it's being proven as a historical document in that sense.
Please, cite your sources. Because I seem to recall historians and scientists using a history of the world that's longer than 6,000 years. Of course, you fail to address things like the lack of evidence of Hebrew slavery, the 40 years of wandering, the global flood, Herod's extremely long lifespan, the plagues of Egypt, Herod's extermination of the young male children, or even the existence of Jesus or pretty much anyone in the OT. The Iliad is a better historical document.
The idea that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are from 2 different tribes was a simple outlandish theory put forth by a single person. It's not even widely accepted. The actual belief, currently, is that Genesis 1 & 2 describes 2 different creations. Chapter 1 happening, some kind of global disaster, and then Chapter 2 happening. Notice how man and woman are scavengers in chapter 1, and then suddenly farmers in chapter 2. Try reading it yourself, instead of reading others' interpretations.
I have read it myself. And, strangely enough, I've read the works of several scholars who make the documentary hypothesis, but I've never seen your special little theory before. And you know, when it comes to the original Hebrew and the history of the ancient Jews, I think I'll defer to other people's interpretations, rather than my reading of the KJV.
The reason there is only 1 "reputable scientist" in the entire documentary is that the scientific community trashes anybody that doesn't believe their narrow view of existence. They always have. Look at the discovery of the world being round, to name a simple example.
Wait, who discovered that the world was round? Oh, right, scientists. Folks like first century Greek astronomer Ptolemy accepted the curvature of the Earth as established fact, and no educated person in the Western world for more than two thousand years has ever thought otherwise. What science "trashes" is people who present ideas and concepts as fact without any supporting evidence. If you can back up your claims with solid evidence and observation, then the only thing science has on you is the ability to review and attempt to replicate your findings. Science is self-correcting.

Meanwhile, folks like Ramtha and the What the Bleep jackasses peddle the same "spiritual" woo they've been shoveling since Ptolemy's day, just wrapped up in the popular scientific language. Woo is non-correcting, and makes huge claims without any evidence whatsoever, attributing it to magic or God or "quantum string vibrations." As the man said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you've got the proof, then science is all for it. But when you make claims without proof, you deserved to be trashed, because such claims are trash.

I like, though, how you started this thread with "the information presented is presented by leading scientists in just about all fields" and then once that's shown to be quite the opposite of the truth, you say "well, it's because science *always* trashes the real revolutionaries." Is science a source of authority for supporting your woo-claims, or is it the man who's keeping them down by not accepting them? I call bullshit.

Science will always be "best guess based on human interpretation of results." That's why it's always changing.
Yes, exactly. That's the power of science. It recognizes that knowledge is tentative, and that there's always new information to be considered.

Meanwhile, your "What the Bleep" woo is not the best guess based on anything. It's a steady stream of buzzwords with a gooey center of newage psychic bullshit.

As far as "changing the world with the power of concentration", explain how numerous scientists can find quarks in subatomic particles simply by believing them to be in one specific spot?
Um...they can't. Not the least of the problems with this is that quarks can't be directly observed, nor can particles at that scale be well-defined in terms of space. I think you tried to understand something about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and wave-particle duality, and instead your head exploded. But thanks for trying. Next time, ask about something that actually happens.
But the truth is, quarks are always found where they believe they will be, and each scientist finds it in a different area. Now if your mind has the power to create on a subatomic level, how do you think it affects the larger world? Fearful people will always try and discredit. But everybody is so quick to jump on any evidence that it's not real and dismiss any evidence that says it is. Scientists always sweep anything under the carpet that doesn't fit in with their view of how the world works and where it came from.
The subatomic world is very different from the macroscopic one. Time is not fluid, space may be quantized, and there are all sorts of effects that never make it to the level of human observation. So even if you could make quarks suddenly appear every time you are near, it wouldn't mean a whole lot of diddly-shit to the macroscopic world.

The fact is, scientists dismiss "evidence" that you can affect the world with your mind because there is no such evidence. In fact, the vast majority of evidence suggests that the universe operates according to basic laws, which are constant and more or less uniform at all scales, at all places, at all times. Gravity is always defined by the same expression, the speed of light in a vacuum is always c, and no matter how hard you think at it, you can't change that. If the universe operated according to the whims of various observers, there could be no science. Science requires regularity, repeatability, probability, etc, all things that would go out the window if you could change the world by thinking about it hard enough. No matter how many people believe it, 2+2 will never equal 17.

If you've got the proof that reality can be altered by concentration, then click your heels together Dorothy and change the elementary charge of an electron. If all of matter suddenly explodes, I owe you a Coke.



Amber, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 22:33 [Link] »

Ok now your not making sense. The psychic I went to wasn't an appt. made. I just walked in and she gave me a reading and she only had my first name. I never saw her before in my life. My father also died when I was eight and I had my reading when I was 20 years old. So she didn't read it in an obituary. Can you explain that one now. You cannot deny psychics. There real whether you want to believe or not. I don't see how you see that Sylvia gets more misses than hits. If that were the case she wouldn't be so popular. She has been estimated that she is over 80 percent accurate I believe. With the money issue the psychic got the amount she said i was going to recieve correct. I recieved my last social security of $736 a week and a half later and the psychic had told me I would recieve between 700-800 in a week. Oh my gosh she couldn't give me an accurate amount but it was pretty close. Does that not make her psychic. Where did you come up with Jesus broke stuff in the temple. Where does it say that in the bible cause I don't remember hearing about that. You seem like the type of person that is so unhappy with your own life that you like to put other people down just to make yourself feel better. Did something bad happen to you that made you so bitter.



Connor, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 22:41 [Link] »

Amber, Jesus actually did break stuff in the temple, but only because people turned it into a marketplace. He broke tables and things like that. Also, people need to remember that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally. For all we know, Adam and Eve could have been nations, not individual people. Many things in the Bible don't make sense, but that it is because people think every single word in the book is relevant. It was written at least 2000 years ago, remember...



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 22:55 [Link] »
Ok now your not making sense. The psychic I went to wasn't an appt. made. I just walked in and she gave me a reading and she only had my first name. I never saw her before in my life. My father also died when I was eight and I had my reading when I was 20 years old. So she didn't read it in an obituary.
So she predicted that you would recieve a check you received regularly? Wow, amazing. A little fortune cookie advice, and you're a believer. Tell me, was this visit made around the same time as tax season, or Christmas bonuses, or any of the other numerous times during the year when the average person might receive an additional bit of money?

Of course it wasn't, silly me.

You cannot deny psychics. There real whether you want to believe or not.
Yes, I can deny psychics. I deny that psychics, psychic powers, precognition, ESP, telepathy, and psychokinesis exist. See, I just did it. I'll believe when I see proof, and quite frankly, your anecdote doesn't cut it. Show me the same reading in a controlled environment, where the ability to cheat has been accounted for. Show me the Randi Challenge answered successfully. It's a simple request. Then I'll believe.
I don't see how you see that Sylvia gets more misses than hits. If that were the case she wouldn't be so popular. She has been estimated that she is over 80 percent accurate I believe.
Well, I can say that Sylvia gets more misses than hits because she makes statements and predictions on television, which are recorded, and then they don't come true. I can say that because the evidence supports it. What the evidence doesn't support is her claim to 80% accuracy. When McDonald's says "McDonald's has the best food in the world," I don't take it as truth. I take it as self-promotion. Sylvia is no different.

As far as your appeal to popularity, according to popularity the Backstreet Boys are a better band than the Beatles. What's popular isn't always right, because people are often stupid.

Does that not make her psychic.
No, it makes her lucky, or it makes your memory unreliable (no slight to you, no one's memory is all that reliable for most things, just ask anyone who interviews eyewitnesses). One successful prediction does not a psychic make.
Where did you come up with Jesus broke stuff in the temple. Where does it say that in the bible cause I don't remember hearing about that.
Sigh. Matthew 21:12-13: "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." It's also told in Mark 11 and Luke 19.
You seem like the type of person that is so unhappy with your own life that you like to put other people down just to make yourself feel better. Did something bad happen to you that made you so bitter.
No, I'm not unhappy with my life. I'm not bitter, and I'm not putting down anyone who doesn't deserve it. Sylvia Browne is a vulture who preys on the vulnerabilities of the grieving to increase her status. She very much deserves to be put down.

And even if I were bitter, hateful, and led a miserable life, Sylvia Browne would still be a fraud. My mindset has nothing to do with the fact that she makes predictions and gets them wrong more often than she gets them right. My lifestyle wouldn't change the fact that Shawn Hornbeck was not buried under two boulders and that no firefighter who died in the 9/11 attacks had his body lost in water. Nothing about me changes the fact that she lies to people in order to sell books and psychic phone calls. Period.



Amber, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 23:10 [Link] »

I didn't recieve this check regularly. I was suppose to quit getting them once I finished high school but for some reason they sent me one when I was 20. And this reading happened during the summer so it wasn't around any holiday or tax return. Nice try. and also she got the amount right and time I would get it. You can't just make that up. Argue all you want but you won't make any sense if you do. and another thing I just remembered. I went to another psychic besides the one I was talking about and I asked her how many kids she saw me having and what they would be. She said three, two boys and a girl. I have two boys now and i'm 6 mo. pregnant with my baby girl. No one can make a lucky guess like that. It's unpredictable what someone will have or at that how many they will have. I also mentioned to her I was fixing to have my tubes tied cause I didn't want kids. and she goes, oh no you will have kids and I told her no I wouldn't.



borealys, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 23:21 [Link] »

I can vouch for it being true that it's possible to overestimate a so-called psychic's accuracy in memory. Even though I don't believe in that stuff, I have gone a couple of times, with my friends, to a little tea house that sometimes has fortune tellers. Good for a laugh, or whatever. Anyway, one evening the fortune teller told me that I worked in "education or health care" ... and surprise, surprise, I was in fact training as a speech-language pathologist, a field with connections to both education and health care. I figured that was the perfect example of playing the odds. I'm female, after all. A reasonably safe set of guesses.

Then, just a few weeks ago, I found the card she gave me, with some of her scribbled notes from the reading on it. And what did I find? She actually told me that I was in administration, organization, education or health care! Even not believing in it, I still overestimated her accuracy after the fact.

Obviously, just an anecdote and not meant to prove anything except that yes, it is extremely easy to give these people more credit than they deserve in hindsight.

I'm still waiting for the farmer and the sandy-coloured dog and the doctor named Rob to turn up...



Tom Foss, 2007.01.24 (Wed) 23:44 [Link] »
And this reading happened during the summer so it wasn't around any holiday or tax return. Nice try.
See, it's just as I predicted. Told you I was psychic.
You can't just make that up.
Actually, you can. And for all I know, you did (as borealys notes, whether or not you realize it). That's the problem with anecdotal evidence: all I have to go on is your fallible memory. Forgive me if I don't trust you on matters of the highly improbable.
Argue all you want but you won't make any sense if you do.
Actually, it makes perfect sense if you know anything about the human desire to believe in things. Not to mention confirmation bias and the fallible memory thing, which borealys covers quite nicely.
and another thing I just remembered. I went to another psychic besides the one I was talking about and I asked her how many kids she saw me having and what they would be. She said three, two boys and a girl. I have two boys now and i'm 6 mo. pregnant with my baby girl. No one can make a lucky guess like that. It's unpredictable what someone will have or at that how many they will have.
Bullshit. First, the average American family has 2-3 kids. Once you established that you still considered children an option (by asking how many kids you would have), the psychic played the odds and gave you a figure well within the norm. Second, once three children were established as the prediction, there were four options for the genders: MMM, MMF, MFF, FFF. That's a one in four chance of being correct, which are damn good odds. Furthermore, in this age of contraception and medical knowledge, as well as women's rights granting them the ability to choose whether or not to have sex or to have children, the matter of having kids is, to a high percentage, well within human control. It's quite possible that, since you have remembered this prediction since your youth and believe in psychics, you have made it self-fulfilling. When a psychic tells you something that is within your control, and you are inclined to believe them, then you will tend to bring that event about. So, no, this was far from unpredictable.
I also mentioned to her I was fixing to have my tubes tied cause I didn't want kids. and she goes, oh no you will have kids and I told her no I wouldn't.
Yes, because most young women who would ask a psychic "how many kids will I have," are actually seriously thinking about an expensive, invasive voluntary sterilization. Even I could see through that, and it's no surprise that a 'psychic' would.


todd, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 00:05 [Link] »

i can't believe people are still tring to justify sylvia and phchic ability to be real after seeing this utter failure of a reading. what suckers!



Jason Spicer, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 00:31 [Link] »

Tom Foss, everybody knows the universe is held together with duct tape. And what's inside duct tape? That's right. Tiny strings. And where is duct tape usually found? Precisely where a person observes it. Just like Heisenberg said they would. Seems like a psychic prediction to me.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 00:57 [Link] »

Of course! It's so simple! Why didn't I see it before?



Glen, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 04:19 [Link] »

I am more apt to believe it is a possibility that there are people among us that are extrodinarily correct in their predictions or readings, or just plain lucky, then I am to believe it is a gift. If some truely had the gift, they would be right all the time. As far as God is concerned, I have to be a bit more realistic. Taking only the depiction of creation for example, I compare it to a high budget Hollywood blockbuster. C'mon, one being, creating everything in 6 days, that is true ficton if I've ever herd it. I guess what seems to be the majority of us, simply has to have something to believe in. So be it psychics, God or the tooth fairy, it seems some simply HAVE to believe in something.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 04:38 [Link] »

First and foremost, we want to take this opportunity to extend our heartfelt thanks to Tom Foss for doing most of the heavy lifting while we've been otherwise engaged. We've barely been able to keep up with the luke-warm stream of idiocy that so many people seem to be pissing all over this thread, but every time we've seen some horrendously fucked up statement that we really, really wanted to reply to (two prime examples spring to mind: the completely and totally inaccurate "definition" of string theory, and the uncritical and contradictory "defense" of that asinine What the Bleep Do We Know? movie), Tom Foss jumped in and said exactly what we wanted to say, and then some. Wow — he must be psychic. Thanks, Tom, for helping us out here. We would be drowning in unanswered idiocy right now if not for you. Thanks also go out to the other rational people who are fighting the good fight against the inexorable tide of stupidity in this thread.

To Connor: we aren't going to call you a religious freak — we're going to call you a person who opened his mouth before he engaged his brain. In our book, fourteen is quite old enough to be embarrassed by such behavior. We won't bother to address your amazingly outlandish assertions that we don't respect people's right to believe whatever they want to believe — you can go ahead and read the entire post we wrote on that subject if you want to inform yourself (it shouldn't be too hard for a wunderkind to find, especially since we provided the link). But please don't tell us that we don't have the right to piss all over religion simply because you like to be "politically correct." Perhaps someday, when you've gained a bit more insight into concepts such as critical thinking and liberal (read: "fairly and evenly distributed") skepticism, you'll realize just how utterly wrong you are. Religion is a silly, faith-based belief system just like any other. Christianity equals Islam equals psychics equals Bigfoot equals holocaust denial. It's all the same shit. Our advice: stop placing religion on a special pedestal above reproach. This crappy excuse for a civilized social compact has gotten a free pass for far too long, and some of us are simply not going to put up with it any longer. We call spades "spades" around these here parts, Connor.

To those who, in stunningly brilliant leaps of sluggish thought, brought up Edgar Cayce as a "real psychic": the man was a complete bullshit artist, just the same as Sylvia Browne. In fact, we touched on his less-than-stellar track record once before in response to another commenter who advised us that if only we read about Cayce in the book There is a River, we would be converted on the spot:

And before you lean on Cayce to "prove" the paranormal, you should do a little research. Cayce has been pretty thoroughly debunked over the years. For example, he predicted that in 1958 we would discover a death ray that was used on Atlantis (we don't see that anywhere in the history books), that 1933 would be a good year in the US (Great Depression anyone?), and that China would be a Christian Nation by 1968 (we think that China would disagree), among many other demonstrably false claims. We suggest reading from a source that isn't biased toward Cayce before you make his story recommended reading. The Skeptic's Dictionary outlines some of his failures, as well as some of the myths about the man. We advise that people check that out before bothering to read There is a River.

Yeah, see — all of those predictions Cayce made? If you haven't been paying attention for the last century or so, they were just plain wrong — and that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Cayce's failures. So while we appreciate that some people can see Sylvia Browne for what she is — a money-grubbing sideshow act — we have to wonder why anyone would buy into the same line of silly crap just because it's packaged under the moniker of "Edgar Cayce."

Anecdotes do not evidence make, folks. Track records proclaimed by PR people do not prove anything. We're interested in facts and evidence. If you'd like to contribute anything useful to this discussion, you'll have to do better than an aimlessly vague "lots of scientists think this" or a complete distortion of actual scientific research that can be easily rebutted with five wisely spent minutes on Google Scholar. That shit just won't cut it here.



Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 07:26 [Link] »

actually your wrong just like I thought you would be. Three is not the norm for having kids. I see all the time with couples who only have two or have five and on top of that they don't all have two boys and then a girl in that order. You know first the boys and last the girl like I was told. How is it a one in four chance. Some might go boy girl boy or girl, boy, boy. When I told you I saw this lady during the summer how do you say that was just how you predicted. You can't pick every season of every month. Psychics don't do that. You can't explain it very well can you. and if it was so easy to be psychic I think there would be a lot more people in this world trying to trick. What do you mean all you have to do is go on my fallible memory. I never told them anything. I went through some hard times with my husband and went to both psychics who did not know eachother and they both said the exact same things. They didn't know my situation or exactly what I was going through and hit the bullseye right on and what would happened to us which they got right. So if it is so easy to be psychic why don't you tell me what it was I went through with my husband that was so hard. The psychics could do it can you. I want detail like they gave me too.



Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 09:02 [Link] »

and don't ask me questions first cause you have the same information as the pyschics did and they were able to tell me what it was that I was going through and what the outcome would be and it came true and in detail at that.



dikkii, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 09:18 [Link] »
How is it a one in four chance. Some might go boy girl boy or girl, boy, boy.

Amber, or whatever your real name is, your "dumb" act is sensational. May FSM strike me down, but yours is the best impersonation of complete and utter cluelessness that I've seen in a long time.

I'm showing my lovely wife your comments and we're ROTFL!!! I said to her, I said, "She almost had me fooled - but then I breathed a sigh of relief when I realised that no one could be that stupid."

Many thanks for the giggles - it's nice to know that not all the commenters here are taking the commenting seriously.

To everyone else - get a grip, it's just an act. Anyone as brainless as the person "Amber" is portraying simply can't exist - her head would spontaneously implode.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 09:21 [Link] »

Amber, why don't you try getting controlled conditions, rather than your inherently fallible memory?

Did you record what the psychic said? If not, then I'm not trusting anything you say. Psychics, like magicians, often rely on the faults in human memory and always on the faults in our perception.



Rockstar, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 10:30 [Link] »

A "bad cop" way of saying unsinkable rubber ducks:

You can't fucking fix stupid.

You can fix fat and ugly but you just can't fix the fact that no matter how often this bitch is wrong, there will still be morons out there that believe psychic powers exist.



Elizabeth, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 10:38 [Link] »

I just want to say I don't believe in anyone who proclaims to be psychic!!! End of story and all of those who do are going to Hell. So have fun all you morons!



Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 10:42 [Link] »

What, now your mad cause you can't come up with a good answer. Sorry but everything i've been saying is true. I wouldn't be going through this much if it wasn't.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 11:16 [Link] »
What, now your mad cause you can't come up with a good answer. Sorry but everything i've been saying is true. I wouldn't be going through this much if it wasn't.

And now you change the subject to our emotions because you can't answer our criticisms.

Are you going to tell us that 2+2=5, but only when we're angry, next?



Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 11:30 [Link] »

I can tell i'm not wanted on this page which doesn't bother me one bit. I thought I would just try to open up someone elses eyes. If I could just change one person it would be worth it. I know just as well as anyone else on this page that tom foss won't be able to tell me what it was that I went through with my husband as the psychics did for me and helped me through my turmoil which had no info what so ever on my situation.
Tom Foss, you can not tell me your not a bitter resentful person cause if you weren't you wouldn't be using such hate and profanity against someone even if you truly believe in your heart that they were doing wrong. I know a little about psychology. I love my life and things couldn't be better and even someone such as Suddam Hussein himself, I do not hate even though he brutally murdered thousands of innocent people. I believe he's a lost inexperienced soul who still has a lot to learn in life. I hope the best for him on the other side. I'm guessing you do not believe in the afterlife also from the impression i've gotten from you. There was a period in my life when I was like most of you on this page. I was bitter and hateful and always thought of ways to hurt someone either mentally or physically. Ever since I started listening to Syvlia, she has enlightened my life and has brought God closer to my heart. How can you call that evil. Haven't you noticed that the people who believe in God and Sylvia are not hateful people and the other ones like on this page which I get the impression who either do not believe in God or somewhat believe in him are hateful people who use profanity. It's like you guys are ready to get out the pitch forks and torches and get together in a group to go crusify someone. Tom foss, you still haven't given me a good reason why they crusified Jesus. Because he broke things in a Temple. You a first left out that those things he broke were used by thieves. Jesus wanted the Temple to be Holy. I don't see any wrong doing in that. Jesus showed proof and yet they still crusified him. This is a good example of how ignorant people can truly be. Hint, Hint. With that being said I will leave you all to the never ending comments of hate and resentment that will never get you nowhere except to be pissed off all the time. Sincerely, Amber Ps, that is my real name, what purpose would it serve to make up a false name. um, none.



Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 11:47 [Link] »

God bless to you all!



MikeyJerz, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 12:29 [Link] »

I think ur alll fucked in the head ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 12:41 [Link] »
First and foremost, we want to take this opportunity to extend our heartfelt thanks to Tom Foss for doing most of the heavy lifting while we've been otherwise engaged. We've barely been able to keep up with the luke-warm stream of idiocy that so many people seem to be pissing all over this thread, but every time we've seen some horrendously fucked up statement that we really, really wanted to reply to (two prime examples spring to mind: the completely and totally inaccurate "definition" of string theory, and the uncritical and contradictory "defense" of that asinine What the Bleep Do We Know? movie), Tom Foss jumped in and said exactly what we wanted to say, and then some. Wow — he must be psychic. Thanks, Tom, for helping us out here. We would be drowning in unanswered idiocy right now if not for you.
Ooh, I'm all a-tingle! Thanks, Two Percent Company, you made my day.
actually your wrong just like I thought you would be. Three is not the norm for having kids. I see all the time with couples who only have two or have five and on top of that they don't all have two boys and then a girl in that order. You know first the boys and last the girl like I was told. How is it a one in four chance.
It's called an average, lady. Some families have thirteen kids, others have none, but at the end of the day, when the government conducts its census every ten years and adds up the results (then divides by the number of families), the average has consistently been between two and three children per family for the last fifty damn years. Look up "fertility rate," and learn some grade school math. Furthermore, if you quoted the psychic accurately, then she didn't say "you will have two boys and then a girl, in that order," she said "you will have two boys and a girl." That's not a sequence, that's a brief description, and it's a one in four chance. And even if you think it was a sequence, there's still a 50% chance on each one that she's right. Still very good odds. But the way you quoted her answer would be the way that any parent would quickly describe their kids, regardless of what order they arrived in. "I have two boys and a girl" doesn't say anything about what order they were born in.
When I told you I saw this lady during the summer how do you say that was just how you predicted.
Have you ever heard of question marks? I suggest you employ them. Anyway, if you'll look at my post in question, after I suggested that you went during a time when many people receive extra income, I predicted that your response would be "no, I went during a totally different time, so ha!" and then replied back to that predicted response: "Of course it wasn't, silly me." I knew what you were going to say before you even said it. Does that not make me psychic?
You can't explain it very well can you. and if it was so easy to be psychic I think there would be a lot more people in this world trying to trick.
I live in a small farming town in Illinois, and there's at least one psychic palm reader tarot card whatever in the downtown area. There are a lot more people trying to trick. Cold reading is laughably easy.
What do you mean all you have to do is go on my fallible memory. I never told them anything.
I mean, since I wasn't in the room with you while you got your psychic readings, the only information I have about them comes from your biased account from your fallible memories. As borealys demonstrated above, we do not remember things perfectly, and things like confirmation bias and the will to believe cause us to remember things as we wish they had been, rather than as they actually were. So I can't debunk your specific psychic reading on your words, though I doubt (based on my knowledge of how psychics operate) it was anywhere near as specific as you recall.
I went through some hard times with my husband and went to both psychics who did not know eachother and they both said the exact same things.
Oh god, my irony meter broke. Yes, they both said the exact same things because most psychics give most people the exact same goddamn readings. When you're vague enough to be right, you're going to be vague enough to match most other vagueries. It's why most psychics say that bodies are "near water" or that your loved ones say something nice and glib from beyond the grave.
So if it is so easy to be psychic why don't you tell me what it was I went through with my husband that was so hard. The psychics could do it can you. I want detail like they gave me too.
Come to my apartment, I charge $75 dollars an hour. I'm getting a letter...either an "f" or a "u"...does that mean anything to you?
and don't ask me questions first cause you have the same information as the pyschics did and they were able to tell me what it was that I was going through and what the outcome would be and it came true and in detail at that.
Don't worry, in the end, you'll remember the same about me. I'm getting a message from the spirit world...it's saying "you may already be a winner."
Tom Foss, you can not tell me your not a bitter resentful person cause if you weren't you wouldn't be using such hate and profanity against someone even if you truly believe in your heart that they were doing wrong.
What the hell? I use profanity in casual conversation, lady, and I'll certainly turn it toward horrible people like Sylvia Browne. Let me turn it back on you: your life must be pretty desperate and meaningless if you need so much to believe that there are people with the ability to see the future. Your life must be pretty sad if it's so necessary for you to believe, despite all the evidence, that Sylvia Browne is the real deal and not a moneygrubbing phony bitch.
I know a little about psychology.
Lady, you don't know a little about math or punctuation. And you certainly don't know enough about psychology to say that "if you use swear words about people, then you must be angry and bitter." I couldn't be happier, and I don't need magical psychic powers in my life to attain that contentment.
I'm guessing you do not believe in the afterlife also from the impression i've gotten from you.
Wow, maybe you're the psychic. No, as you may have guessed, I don't believe in unproven bullshit.
There was a period in my life when I was like most of you on this page. I was bitter and hateful and always thought of ways to hurt someone either mentally or physically.
Um...actually, I'd guess that that's not like most of the people here at all. Maybe you were a terrible person, but I don't typically go around thinking about how to torture people. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Ever since I started listening to Syvlia, she has enlightened my life and has brought God closer to my heart. How can you call that evil.
Because she is a fraud with no special abilities, and she has suckered you and thousands of other people who are looking for guidance into buying her bullshit books about Jesus and magic and the spirit world. She has profited from your vulnerability and gullibility, and she has sold you a line of garbage that does not come from her amazing ability to see the future and talk to the dead, but comes straight out of her ass. That is pure, unadulterated, unabashed fucking evil.
Haven't you noticed that the people who believe in God and Sylvia are not hateful people and the other ones like on this page which I get the impression who either do not believe in God or somewhat believe in him are hateful people who use profanity.
No, I've noticed that the people who believe in God and Sylvia on this page have been universally judgmental. I've noticed that few if any of them can use proper grammar and punctuation, and not a one can post without making some basic philosophical fallacy. I've noticed that they simply ignore the real world and all the evidence which tells them that Sylvia Browne is a fraud, and justify or wish away her mistakes. Meanwhile, I've noticed that the nonbelievers use curse words, and that every credulous asshat thinks "curse words=mean and hateful." Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
Tom foss, you still haven't given me a good reason why they crusified Jesus. Because he broke things in a Temple. You a first left out that those things he broke were used by thieves. Jesus wanted the Temple to be Holy. I don't see any wrong doing in that. Jesus showed proof and yet they still crusified him.
Actually, I did give you a good answer: Jesus was a political rabble-rouser, who spoke out against the ruling body and raised a group of unruly, riotous followers from the lower class. Crucifixion was the Roman execution style for political prisoners.

Furthermore, if you had any reading ability whatsoever, you'd see that he didn't break things belonging to thieves. The people who ran the temple had allowed merchants and money-changers to operate on the premises. Jesus wasn't a fan of that, he called them "thieves" and broke their shit. Their presence in the temple was sanctioned by the ruling bodies, so what Jesus did was illegal. That, in combination with his little rebellion, was enough for him to hang.

But, the point about showing proof, which you also missed, was that when it came down to his trial before Pilate and Herod, Jesus refused to show his abilities, or even to say anything in his own defense. Had he just demonstrated a stroll across a swimming pool or a traditional loaves and fishes trick, he could have convinced his captors, converted hundreds of thousands, and saved the world the whole problem of conflict between Christians and Jews. For some reason, Jesus was perfectly willing to show off his skills when it came to the sea-tossed doubtful or wedding parties, but when it came to people with some power and credibility, he was silent. Maybe Jesus wouldn't have taken the Randi Challenge after all.

With that being said I will leave you all to the never ending comments of hate and resentment that will never get you nowhere except to be pissed off all the time. Sincerely, Amber Ps, that is my real name, what purpose would it serve to make up a false name. um, none.
I'm not pissed off all the time. I'm not even pissed off right now. I am a little sad that people can grow up and sire children when they are so obviously credulous judgmental asshats, but that'll pass. As for using a fake name, it might be so that you didn't look like such a moron under your real one.
God bless to you all!
Oh, I see, it's "hateful" when you say "fuck you," but when you wrap up the same sentiment in a glib religious salutation, then it's okay. It's hateful ideas, not hateful language, that show a hateful person, Amber.


SpnKick540, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 12:58 [Link] »
Whether or not it's an effective test is beside the point, if she won't submit to a test where she isn't allowed to cheat, then why should we believe her?
My comment on James Randi's test was not aimed at Sylvia, a woman whom I never claimed to believe to be the real deal.
(and I'm not sure how many "derivatives" a theory that has not been tested or generally accepted can have...I can think of 11-D, 4D, and M-theory, but that's about it)
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the different theories are branched off to prove the existence of either 10 or 26 dimensions. Different String Theories Of course, this is a bunch of shit because "main stream scientists" didn't agree with the Indian mathematician whom said there are actually only 8 or 24 dimensions. They said (not verbatim) 8 is not a rational number. So we're just going to add 2 to it so it equals 10. This threw off the calculations of the higher number as well. Apparently if things don't go in multiples of 10, they can't be correct. I seem to remember the Mayan counting system using a system of 12's. And their system being able to handle far more complex ideas (including the concept of 0). Here's an example of mainstream scientists inserting their own bullshit to skew others' results.
If you want to find out about scientific string theory, read the scholarly books, not woo-sites that think you can consciously affect the fundamental particles of the universe.
My information comes primarily from The Official String Theory Page I think that's about as direct as you can get.
Because I seem to recall historians and scientists using a history of the world that's longer than 6,000 years
All sources cited in "The Genesis Race". Documented quite well. And I don't believe in a 6000 year history of the world. That is but a short chapter in the planet's history. A history that's full of oddities that are widely dismissed because it doesn't fit into the paradigm that is widely taught in schools.
I have read it myself. And, strangely enough, I've read the works of several scholars who make the documentary hypothesis, but I've never seen your special little theory before.
Then you haven't ventured very far from your comfort zone have you?
Wait, who discovered that the world was round? Oh, right, scientists.
Wait, who denied the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe for so long? Oh, right, scientists. Now remember, the greatest "scientists" of that time were trying to come up with formulas and explanations to explain the rotation of the stars, moon, and sun around the Earth. They came up with very complex explanations of course, but it was their governing principle that was off. Who's to say that the governing principles that science now bases all of it's calculations and experiments on are correct? Open your mind just a tiny bit there.
Meanwhile, your "What the Bleep" woo is not the best guess based on anything. It's a steady stream of buzzwords with a gooey center of newage psychic bullshit.
So much name calling and rage. Breathe.
I think you tried to understand something about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and wave-particle duality, and instead your head exploded. But thanks for trying. Next time, ask about something actually happens.
It's true I'm not trained in any sort of advanced physics theory. Perhaps I should re-read pieces I've read before...it's been 7 years.
...the vast majority of evidence suggests that the universe operates according to basic laws, which are constant and more or less uniform at all scales, at all places, at all times.
Agreed. Except that Newtonian physics doesn't apply to objects that are extremely small or celestial bodies that are immensly large.
Gravity is always defined by the same expression
Scientists still can't explain gravity. They can only surmise how it appears to work. My whole point on people changing their "world" around them does not apply to changing laws of physics. It's believed that the world is more like the matrix than people want to believe. "Some rules can be bent, others can be broken." I don't think the rule of 2+2 can be altered, as an example.
Science requires regularity, repeatability, probability, etc, all things that would go out the window if you could change the world by thinking about it hard enough.
The first part of this statement is quite correct, and quite honestly is the shortcoming of the scientific mind. Psychic ability can't be conformed to such standards because human factors are involved...not unchanging laws of the universe. A psychic is a channel interpretting information they are picking up on. The person's interpretation can't be controlled anymore than a person's ability to take a standardized IQ test.
If you've got the proof that reality can be altered by conentration, then click your heels together Dorothy and change the elementary charge of an electron.
Why would anyone want to change that? And why would you ask such an assanine question like that? A person's reality is not defined solely by the chemical make-up of their surroundings. Their reality is defined also by their perception of the world around them as well as events they bring to themselves. I end this response with an exercise in opening your mind. The scientific world agrees that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely transferred from form/object to the next". Human beings put out all kinds of energy. (i.e. bioelectricity) Mathematicians can prove (even if by mathematics alone) that other dimensions exist (and we obviously can't see them). When somebody dies, if they're energy, which can't be created or destroyed, then isn't it possible they simply move into another dimension which we cannot see? And if they're energy which can't created or destroyed, isn't it possible that they've always existed in some form (past lives)? Now I know you'll immediately jump on the existence of other dimensions only being a theory, but please keep in mind that many theories remained theories until we had the technology to prove them.


Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 13:47 [Link] »
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the different theories are branched off to prove the existence of either 10 or 26 dimensions. Different String Theories Of course, this is a bunch of shit because "main stream scientists" didn't agree with the Indian mathematician whom said there are actually only 8 or 24 dimensions. They said (not verbatim) 8 is not a rational number. So we're just going to add 2 to it so it equals 10. This threw off the calculations of the higher number as well. Apparently if things don't go in multiples of 10, they can't be correct. I seem to remember the Mayan counting system using a system of 12's. And their system being able to handle far more complex ideas (including the concept of 0). Here's an example of mainstream scientists inserting their own bullshit to skew others' results.
Sir, please stop pretending you know how string theory operates, especially when the only site you can provide was directed at children. Brian Greene, one of the leading scientists in the field (and a first-class asshole) works on 11-dimensional string theory. James Gates (a much nicer guy) and his team think they have found a string theory that fits within the four known dimensions of spacetime. These are different variations on the same theory. The thing is, these different theories didn't come from Indian navel-gazers making guesses about the universe. They came out of mathematical equations. Things like how large the exponents are in certain equations determine how many spatial dimensions are necessary. For instance, when you talk about three dimensions (volume), your units are cubed (to the third power). Greene's equations had terms to the 11th power, thus necessitating eleven spatial dimensions (and at least one dimension of time). Dr. Gates's 4-D work seems much more likely, but the determination of the dimensions still comes out of math, and not out of Indians' proclamations.
My information comes primarily from The Official String Theory Page I think that's about as direct as you can get.
Not really. I've spoken to Brian Greene in person, and I've been to one of James Gates's lectures. That's about as direct as you can get, without actually doing the equations yourself.
All sources cited in "The Genesis Race". Documented quite well. And I don't believe in a 6000 year history of the world. That is but a short chapter in the planet's history. A history that's full of oddities that are widely dismissed because it doesn't fit into the paradigm that is widely taught in schools.
You mean The Genesis Race: Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origins of the Species ? A book that covers the same ground that Chariots of the Gods covered decades ago, and was thoroughly debunked? See, the problem with positing extraterrestrial origins is that you first have to prove the existence of extraterrestrials. Your book is bogus woo. It is not taught in schools because it cannot back up its claims. Please try again.
Then you haven't ventured very far from your comfort zone have you?
Far enough to know that "The Genesis Race" isn't accepted as mainstream history, science, or theology.
Wait, who denied the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe for so long? Oh, right, scientists.
No, actually, religion denied that. At the time, most scientists were religious people, and the Bible dictated that the Earth was the unmoving center of the universe. When Copernicus came around, so did scientists, and again it was fairly well accepted when Galileo brought it up again years later, and was jailed for it. By the religious. You're 0 for 2.
Now remember, the greatest "scientists" of that time were trying to come up with formulas and explanations to explain the rotation of the stars, moon, and sun around the Earth. They came up with very complex explanations of course, but it was their governing principle that was off.
They were working with an incomplete set of data (which neglected gravity), and with a religiously-imposed bias. And yet folks like Tycho Brahe were able to very accurately determine the movements of the other heavenly bodies, even with a flawed model (and it's Brahe's discovery of stellar parallax that helped put the nail in the coffin of geocentrism, much to his dismay). Science worked from a flawed model and then updated the model when new evidence showed the flaws. That's the way it operates, pure and simple. Which isn't to say that the old model had no validity: it accurately described the apparent motions of the planets and stars from the point of view of the Earth.

And in fact, Brahe proposed a model where the sun revolved around the Earth, and all the other planets revolved around the sun, which in light of relativity was actually very accurate, and is indistinguishable mathematically or observationally from the heliocentric model.

Who's to say that the governing principles that science now bases all of it's calculations and experiments on are correct? Open your mind just a tiny bit there.
If I open my mind as far as yours, my brain will fall out. No scientist claims that everything science is based on is correct, just that it represents the current findings and works. And it does work, which suggests a high level of correctness. And even in your model of the geocentrism debate, heliocentrism didn't require science to throw out all its governing principles. Quite the contrary: it was the governing principle of evidence and self-correction that required science to accept the new model.
So much name calling and rage. Breathe.
What is with people thinking that you have to be angry to use curse words? A spade is a spade, and newage bullshit is newage bullshit.
Agreed. Except that Newtonian physics doesn't apply to objects that are extremely small or celestial bodies that are immensly large.
Newtonian physics doesn't apply to anything, technically. On our level of perception, Newtonian physics gives very accurate estimates. You can use the quantum or relativistic equations on the same level and achieve even more accurate estimates, you just don't usually have to. It's all part of the same physics, just different levels of accuracy. And those physical laws, so far, are constant at every point in the universe.
Scientists still can't explain gravity. They can only surmise how it appears to work. My whole point on people changing their "world" around them does not apply to changing laws of physics. It's believed that the world is more like the matrix than people want to believe. "Some rules can be bent, others can be broken." I don't think the rule of 2+2 can be altered, as an example.
Scientists can't explain how gravity works, but they have two very good models for just that, and they have equations which show the precise forces involved. And thart force, whether due to gravitons or spatial curvature, is constant throughout the universe (so far). When you say things like "it is believed," you may want to add "by nutjobs." Because The Matrix was a movie, not a scientific theory. And it's certainly not accepted as an accurate model of anything (except an overrated movie) by anyone who does any study of the universe. You cannot bend spoons with your mind, you cannot fly, and you cannot learn kung fu while you sleep.
The first part of this statement is quite correct, and quite honestly is the shortcoming of the scientific mind. Psychic ability can't be conformed to such standards because human factors are involved...not unchanging laws of the universe. A psychic is a channel interpretting information they are picking up on. The person's interpretation can't be controlled anymore than a person's ability to take a standardized IQ test.
If psychics can't be held to standards of repeatability, then how come they can use their abilities with such apparent "accuracy" and regulairty on Montel, or at appointed readings? Humans are subject to the same unchanging laws of the universe as everything else. And despite human factors being involved, the social sciences seem to be able to make some pretty accurate statements. When it comes right down to it, if psychics can't be held to the same standards of reliability that we expect from any other profession, then why believe in them? Why pay them? Why buy their books? If they can't perform better than chance, then why buy into their bullshit at all? Psychic power should give them an edge over pure chance, and such an edge has not been shown. What's the difference, then, between real psychic ability and total guesswork? I invoke Occam's Razor.
Why would anyone want to change that? And why would you ask such an assanine question like that?
When in Rome...
A person's reality is not defined solely by the chemical make-up of their surroundings. Their reality is defined also by their perception of the world around them as well as events they bring to themselves.
No, a person's experience and perception of reality is determined by their interpretations of their surroundings. The actual reality is very much determined by the chemical make-up of the universe. We live in a common world, whether or not we perceive it as such.
I end this response with an exercise in opening your mind. The scientific world agrees that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely transferred from form/object to the next".
Not quite, but close.
Human beings put out all kinds of energy. (i.e. bioelectricity) Mathematicians can prove (even if by mathematics alone) that other dimensions exist (and we obviously can't see them).
Actually, mathematicians can't prove that dimensions exist which we can't perceive. They may be able to suggest it, but they can't prove it. And to my knowledge, multidimensional mathematics aren't trying to prove the existence of higher dimensions, so much as trying to understand them if they ever come up.
hen somebody dies, if they're energy, which can't be created or destroyed, then isn't it possible they simply move into another dimension which we cannot see?
If someone dies, and they are energy, and higher dimensions exist, then...well, no, it's still really not all that possible. You're confusing spatial dimensions with the sort of thing they talk about on Sliders. Energy never goes through a change where it can only be found in width or depth. Furthermore, while the human body puts out lots of energy, it's all understood energy. There's no magical soul energy seeping out of people. Bioelectricity gets transferred to the atmosphere as heat, or to the decaying cells of the body, speeding up their death. It doesn't just disappear into Dimension X. If there is a soul-energy, it can't be defined by any tools that measure energy, and it has no demonstrable effect on the real world. So, like Sagan's invisible intangible dragon, what's the difference between it existing and not existing?
And if they're energy which can't created or destroyed, isn't it possible that they've always existed in some form (past lives)? Now I know you'll immediately jump on the existence of other dimensions only being a theory, but please keep in mind that many theories remained theories until we had the technology to prove them.
Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing about science. Theories are proven, and yet they are still tentative. Gravity and atomic theory are still "just theories," despite having the "technology to prove them." When the woo-vians can show that there is a previously unknown packet of energy that exists in humans and continues to exist in the same or a similar form after the human expires, then you can talk about "theories." Right now, you have nothing but ideas cribbed from bad sci-fi movies, and a poor understanding of anything scientific.


The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 13:48 [Link] »

Amber, you dear, sweet, deluded fool. We appreciate your wish for an imaginary friend to think well of us — really, thanks so much. Of course, you could easily be one of those wacky fundamentalists who use "God bless you" as more of a threat or barb than a true sentiment of compassion. Either way...it really matters very little to us — as a pleasantry or an attack — though we suppose you'll find that difficult to believe. Strange — you don't seem to have any difficulty believing in, oh, just about anything else.

A word of advice: read Bronze Dog's Doggerel series thoroughly before you continue to make the same boring, tired, ridiculous errors that so many before you have made. Tom Foss has already linked to several of these pieces, which we're guessing you didn't bother to read. In particular, you might wish to read one Doggerel entry in particular, which addresses the amazingly contrived bullshit you've managed to ejaculate in your next-to-last comment.

If you are truly unable to see how silly you sound, and where you've gone so utterly wrong in this discussion, then you have actually managed to get one thing right: you are "not wanted on this page." Or this website, for that matter. We don't like people who can't be bothered to read up on their own incredibly stupid yet very, very common fallacies. Bronze Dog didn't pull these out of his ass, you know; all rational folks have been faced with countless examples of the particular bullshit he calls out for as long as humans have been able to debate abstract concepts. So not only are your stories unimpressive and bland from an evidentiary perspective, but your "defense" of them is so commonplace and badly done that, frankly, you're just boring.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 13:53 [Link] »

Oh I just adore people like Elizabeth, who said:

I just want to say I don't believe in anyone who proclaims to be psychic!!! End of story and all of those who do are going to Hell. So have fun all you morons!

See, all the people who believe the fictional stories about psychics are morons, but all the people who believe the fictional stories about Jesus have it right. Evidence be damned — Elizabeth just knows. This kind of crap typifies the rock-headed behavior of most of these fuckheaded asshats.

Ryan, you're 100% correct — you can't fix stupid. Maybe we can sterilize it out of the gene pool, though...?



SpnKick540, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 14:28 [Link] »

Damn, you're quick Tom. Well, I guess I can only respond to a couple things.
1.) The existence of Extraterrestrials should be proven by mere vastness of the Universe. It's pretty small minded to believe that in the entire Universe, we're the only life that exists.
2.) The information in "The Genesis Race" cannot be dismissed, even if the conclusions jumped to by the author can.
3.) No matter how intelligent you are, you can't explain how 6 major civilizations all sprung up out of nowhere at approximately the same time and why all 6 of them take no credit for their advancement...but rather give credit to "outside help."
4.) The use of profanity may not demonstrate anger, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate intelligence. So many other words in the English language.

That being said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on these matters. Both of us seem quite intent on needing to prove the other wrong so we can be right. Not sure what the drive to need to be right is all about. Whatever. Live and let live.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 14:57 [Link] »
1.) The existence of Extraterrestrials should be proven by mere vastness of the Universe. It's pretty small minded to believe that in the entire Universe, we're the only life that exists.
Probability alone is not enough to prove the existence of something. Yes, it's fairly likely that there is some other form of life somewhere in the universe. It is significantly less likely that said life is intelligent, and much less likely than that that they have any kind of interplanetary travel. Furthermore, there is a nonzero possibility that the Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life on it. So, no, the vastness of the universe does not prove anything.
2.) The information in "The Genesis Race" cannot be dismissed, even if the conclusions jumped to by the author can.
Actually, yes it can. Once the author has assumed the existence of aliens without proof, all other information in the book (especially since the presence of those imaginary aliens are in the title) is suspect. The author shoots his credibility by making the initial claim with no proof, and any subsequent statements are just as likely to be fabrications and/or intentionally twisted or misleading.
3.) No matter how intelligent you are, you can't explain how 6 major civilizations all sprung up out of nowhere at approximately the same time and why all 6 of them take no credit for their advancement...but rather give credit to "outside help."
No, I can't, because that never actually happened. Archaeologists and historians have a good idea of where the first human societies appeared and how they spread. As to the credit to "outside help," none of them mention aliens, and most gods of ancient cultures (and contemporary ones) are myths made to explain an otherwise frightening world. Michael Shermer did a nice piece in Why People Believe Weird Things on the correlation between increasing risk and increasing contact with unpredictable environments, and increasing belief in the supernatural.
4.) The use of profanity may not demonstrate anger, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate intelligence. So many other words in the English language.
Words are words. I'm intelligent enough to call "What the Bleep" a poorly-conceived film that makes frequent use of editing tricks and outright fabrications to mislead the viewer into believing the poorly disguised dogma of a cult, which they coat in a thin veneer of pseudoscientific technobabble, but that doesn't have quite the same bite as calling it bullshit. Both express the same sentiment, but one has more punch. There are so many words in the English language, and I try to use them all.
That being said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on these matters. Both of us seem quite intent on needing to prove the other wrong so we can be right. Not sure what the drive to need to be right is all about. Whatever. Live and let live.
I have no intent on proving you wrong. I have the intent to make you prove yourself right. There's a big difference. It's up to you to show the evidence for soul-energy and consciously manipulating superstrings. It's not up to science to disprove every crackpot mystical notion and deliberate misunderstanding of basic principles, it's up to the woo-peddlers to prove that their claims hold water. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far nothing you've said measures up. I don't feel the need to prove myself right, my statements are backed up by mountains of scientific evidence. All you have are misunderstandings, equivocations, and magic.


Amber, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 15:08 [Link] »

You people waste so much energy trying to take down a 70 year old woman. Why don't you use your energy for something useful like trying to stop and take down Osama Ben Laden and let the rest of us watch what we want to on tv and believe what we want to believe. Also, you could take some English and professional writing courses so you would not have to use all of that disgusting language.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 15:19 [Link] »
You people waste so much energy trying to take down a 70 year old woman. Why don't you use your energy for something useful like trying to stop and take down Osama Ben Laden
Non sequitur. First, I use very little energy in typing this. Second, where would I go to take down bin Laden? I certainly don't have the resources to find him alone, and it's not as though the military is actually looking for him. No, I think it's a fine use of my free time to try to get stupid people to not believe in the stupid shit they see on TV. If people in general were more intelligent and more skeptical, there'd be a hell of a lot fewer people like bin Laden.
and let the rest of us watch what we want to on tv and believe what we want to believe.
Believe what you want to believe. Just realize that when you believe things without or in spite of proof, other people are going to believe (quite accurately) that you're a complete idiot.
Also, you could take some English and professional writing courses so you would not have to use all of that disgusting language.
Pot? Kettle? Absence of color? Lady, you haven't used a single question mark in your entire tirade. Your spelling is atrocious and your grammar is worse. I've taken English courses, I've been a semi-professional writer, and I choose to use strong words to convey strong emotion. I don't find any words to be "disgusting," I find words to be words. Just letters arranged semi-arbitrarily in order to convey meaning. And four-letter words convey a very specific sort of meaning. I don't have to use curse words, I want to. On the other hand, I do find some actions, beliefs, and people to be disgusting, and Sylvia Browne is a good example of all three. See, words don't hurt anyone, but fleecing them when they're vulnerable, pulling the mystical woo-wool over their eyes, and turning them into mindless sheep does hurt people. And anyone who does that is disgusting.


Bob, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 15:54 [Link] »

Sounds to me like Tom is out to disprove all joy in the world. What's wrong Tom? Did you not take it so well when you found out Santa wasn't real?



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:03 [Link] »

Santa's not real?! Bob, you motherfucking cocksucker, why did you have to go and ruin it all?

That's it, I'm going to be a miserable, hateful, cynic out to disprove all joy in the world from now on. Too bad — I was enjoying life until Bob had to come along and fuck everything up. Damn.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:05 [Link] »

Yes, there's so much joy in a painted harpy falsely telling two grieving parents that their son is dead and buried between two boulders. I want to deny everyone the joy of falsely hearing that their daughter had been shot, or that their missing granddaughter was not actually dead, but had been sold into the Japanese slave trade. Sylvia Browne brings so much joy to the world, and I just want to crush it all under my bootheel.



Bob, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:08 [Link] »

lol Me an' my big mouth. Shouldn't have let that one slip. Now we're gonna have 2 miserable, hateful, cynics out to disprove all joy in the world. My apologies Jeff.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:16 [Link] »

I appreciate the apology, Bob, but you may perhaps have missed the more important intentional irony in my reply, in that I am in total agreement with Tom Foss' reply (as well as everything else he has thus far written on this thread).

Attempting to address and even combat the evil and stupidity in the world is far more a sign of wanting to help humanity and increase the eventual joy in the world than anything else. Thinking that there is something wrong with absolutely justified and appropriate outrage...that's apathy, Bob, and it leads to more of the same old problems in whatever new form may arise.

I'm not generally one of those "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" kind of guys, but seriously: if you're not part of the solution, at least get the fuck out of the way of the people who are trying to make some kind of contribution.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:27 [Link] »

Very well said, Jeff. Thanks.



Bob, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:32 [Link] »

Tom seems to be quite well read and studied on things I'll probably never understand. So if you don't mind answering a question for me, what is your take on life? Is it birth and death, period. Or is there anything more to it?



Tom Foss, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 16:45 [Link] »

I haven't seen any evidence for anything else. The way I see it, after you die, no matter what lies in that undiscovered country (whether or not one exists), what you do does not affect the people in this world. Whether Aunt Mildred goes to Heaven or Hell or gets reincarnated or rides around behind Hale-Bopp, nothing she does in the afterlife will ever affect this life.
Meanwhile, what we do in this life can have demonstrable effects. So, effectively, the afterlife doesn't matter. What matters is the world of the here and now. What we do here will actually affect other people. So we might as well try to make life better here, because we can't say with any certainty that there's anything else.
And if there is more than birth and death, bonus.



Bob, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 17:01 [Link] »

Thank you for your response. That's well thought out, as all of your replies seem to be. To even acknowledge the possibility by your last phrase shows the ability to grow.



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 17:10 [Link] »

TO MOMMAW WHO CLAIMS THAT THE "BIBLE CLEARLY STATES NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH "SPIRITUALISTIC PEOPLE" OR "MEDIUMS"...NUMBER 1...NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE WILL YOU FIND A REFERENCE TO THE WORDS "SPIRITUALISTIC PEOPLE" OR "MEDIUM" (REGARDING A PSYCHICS) AND...NUMBER TWO.... TO CORRECT YOUR MISGUIDANCE, TO SUM IT UP, MATTHEW 7:15 DOES THIS QUITE WELL BY SAYING "BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS, WHICH COME TO YOU IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING, BUT INWARDLY THEY ARE RAVENING WOLVES."

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADVISE PEOPLE TO GET IT RIGHT, I SUGGEST YOU DO THE SAME!



DRU ID, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 18:02 [Link] »

AS A 2ND GEN. PSYCHIC OUCH! IF YOU CAN LOCATE A CLIP OF THATS INCREDIBLE (FRAN TARKINGTON HOST) MY MOM IS THE WOMAN IN TUCSON THAT LOCATED THE MISSING BOY IN IOWA AND HAD NEVER BEEN TO IOWA.HER NAME WAS MARIE AND SHE DID NOT CHARGE $ FOR HER GIFTS. SHE OFTEN WORKED WITH POLICE ETC.HER BIGGEST GIFT WAS CALLED PSYCHOMETRY (LOOK IT UP) THO' OTHERS WOULD SAY HER GIFT WAS COMPASSION.PLS.DON'T SEND MONEY OR ASK ME FOR HELP AS I AM STILL A FLEDGLING NOVICE.THX 4 LETTING ME HAVE A SAY IN THIS CONTROVERSY.IT IS SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN BE SO MEAN AS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FOLKS WHO ARE TRULY IN NEED. MY BEST ADVICE IS THAT PRAYER WORKS AND ALL PRAYERS ARE HEARD BUT THE ANSWERS COME WHEN WE ARE STILL AND OPEN TO HEARING THE REPLY.EVERY DAY THERE ARE STILL MIRACLES HAPPENING BUT SO MANY DON'T RECOGNIZE THEM. DRU



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:38 [Link] »

CONNOR, WELL PUT FOR A 14 YR OLD. I COMMEND YOU ON YOUR STRENGTH AND BELIEFS.

TOM & AMBER...GET A ROOM!

LOL!



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:43 [Link] »

Sandy: look down at your keyboard. Are your fingers in the "home" positions? Good, that means you've mindlessly absorbed your keyboarding class just as you've mindlessly absorbed catechism. Now look at your left little finger, the "pinky," as it is known colloquially. Move it one key to the left. That's what we in "the biz" like to call the "caps lock" key. Please press it once, right now, and never touch it ever, ever again.

We've already issued a warning about the ALL CAPS comments. If you can't observe simple netiquette, even when a specific request is made, then please refrain from posting anything on our website. We do own it, after all, and we will ban and/or delete any commenters who we feel are getting out of control, no matter what the actual content of their comment may be.

As to what little content there is in your comments, Sandy, we would suggest a more careful reading of your bible. Yes, that fucking obnoxious rag contradicts itself and the observable facts more often than not, but if you insist on taking it to heart, you may perhaps wish to take a gander at Deuteronomy 18:10-11 and II Kings 21:6, for a start. The bible usually makes it abundantly clear that anybody except God or his agents on Earth who performs wacky, zany, supernatural stunts is "bad." mommaW's usage of the words "spiritualistic people" and "mediums" was a fair interpretation of the bible's "warnings," updated to use the common parlance of modern Western civilization.

Not that we believe in biblical ramblings or psychical proclaimers, but you should probably get your facts straight (and your caps lock deactivated) before spouting off about stuff you really don't know.



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:44 [Link] »

JEFF, FROM TWO PERCENT, YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE HOOT! I LOVE YOUR COMMENTS....EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM!

TOM, ARE YOU A PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR?? YOU REMIND MY OF MY PHILOSOPHY 101 PROFESSOR FROM COLLEGE.



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:47 [Link] »

IN CASE ANYBODY IS WONDERING....I SPELLED IT WRONG ON PURPOSE TO SEE WHO WOULD BE THE QUICKEST ONE TO POINT IT OUT.

LOL! ROFLMAO!



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:51 [Link] »

This website is great! Two Percent, I followed your instructions on the Cap Lock...and it worked fine. Guess I'm not blonde to the roots!!

LOL! I'm going to tell my friends about this site. I truly find it amusing! Keep up the great work!



SANDY, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 23:53 [Link] »

This website is great! Thanks for the instructions on the Cap Lock! I am truly enjoying watching the comments roll in and Two Percent...glad to meet you!



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 00:08 [Link] »

We thank you, Sandy, and we appreciate your enthusiasm. As a note, a quick scan of your comments doesn't reveal any blatant misspellings...so we're not sure what you were referring to there. Unless the post from DRU ID was also one of yours...?

One quick word of advice: slow down your posts just a bit, and you won't get caught by our moderation software. It's an automatic thing based on too many comments from the same user at once — don't worry, you're not being moderated for content at this time.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 00:11 [Link] »

Memo to DRU ID — the caps lock tutorial applies to you as well. Lose the caps, or refrain from commenting. Frankly the all caps messages just give us a headache. Hey, a site's got to have some standards, even if they're as debauched as ours.

And you know, DRU, all this time we've been pretty sure that psychics weren't real. But if your mom told you that they are, well, then that's all we need. We humbly apologize for all the mean comments we've made about psychics, and we'll be packing it in for good now that DRU's mom has put us in our place.



ANNE, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 00:19 [Link] »

My best friend just called and told me about this website...and she really put me on to a great site!

I truly like the fact that the website is monitored and the website talks back to you....how inventive!

Two Percent, you've got my vote and Sandy, thanks for telling me about this website! Girl, you were right...this is fascinating and just like you said, some of the people on here actually have something of interest to say.

I really enjoyed reading Tom's comments (you said I would). And as for Sylvia Browne....she is a rip off artist tha takes peoples money to the tune of $700 for a 20 minute phone reading. What a hoax. Montel is really ruining his reputation by attempting to do for Sylvia Browne what Oprah did for Dr. Phil. Sorry Montel, but it just won't work. Sylvia tells everybody the same old shit....

"There is no message, they are happy on the other side. There is no time clock over there. They are busy attending lectures or going to concerts. They love you and they drop pennies, send birds and butterflies and ring the phone."

"Who is that person behind you with the round face? Who is the tall, thin man? Who is the short, fat woman with the grey hair?"

Give me a frigging break. Do people really fall for this bullshit??? I guess so if they are stupid enough to pay $700 to talk to this bitch for 20 minutes, then they need to lose their money.

I think the funniest thing is that she has written a book about animals going to the other side. WooooooW! I hope I don't get to heaven and have to take care of every horse, cow, dog, cat, guinea pig and hampster I ever had as a kid growing up on a farm. I guess I will have to shovel horse shit for all of eternity, but not nearly as much horse shit as Sylvia Browne shovels here on this planet. LOL!



Lauren, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 07:31 [Link] »

No, I've noticed that the people who believe in God and Sylvia on this page have been universally judgmental. I've noticed that few if any of them can use proper grammar and punctuation, and not a one can post without making some basic philosophical fallacy. I've noticed that they simply ignore the real world and all the evidence which tells them that Sylvia Browne is a fraud, and justify or wish away her mistakes. Meanwhile, I've noticed that the nonbelievers use curse words, and that every credulous asshat thinks "curse words=mean and hateful." Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

LMAO! Thanks for the laugh Tom.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 09:07 [Link] »

What's really freaky about a lot of these trolls: I think we actually have something approaching militant apathy.

They accuse us of being evil, hateful, cynical, and of wanting to "disprove joy".

Why?

Because we actually give a shit about things like love and justice, and actually want to have justice carried out against depraved, amoral leeches like Sylvia Browne.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 09:17 [Link] »

For these people, "joy" is synonymous with "fantasy." "Joy" is a world where everything happens according to some plan, or where you have complete control over even your physical reality (or both...explain that one), where magic exists and is validated by science, when science isn't trying to cover it up. They can't fathom that some people actually take joy in chaotic, unpredictable, scary reality. And when we try to express that reality to them, it compromises their fantasies, and thus we're "destroying" their immature joy.

Essentially, "joy" is remarking how beautiful the Emperor's new clothes are, and we're the party poopers who point out his dangly bits.



TJ, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 10:16 [Link] »
For these people, "joy" is synonymous with "fantasy."
Incorrect assumption.


Linda, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 10:46 [Link] »

Didn't they recently find body parts of people in the sewers of New York? They would be in water. Some bodies were never recovered until then. I do believe there are some people out there that are good psychics. I am not sure Sylvia is, but from experience, some do know their stuff.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 11:13 [Link] »

For Bob.

If that doesn't work, get a copy of "All You Need is Love" by the Beatles and listen to it several thousand times. I hope by then, you'll learn how my skepticism makes me feel. Then, when some jerk comes along and tries to smash the CD/mp3 player/whatever, you'll know how you made me feel.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 11:27 [Link] »

TJ:

Incorrect assumption.

It's not an assumption if it's based on observation. This is what the evidence suggests. Please enlighten us if there is some other definition of "joy" employed by the credulous, which accounts for why debunking frauds is considered "hateful."

Linda:

They would be in water.

See, this is why psychics nearly always say that they're seeing water or bodies are near water or in water. It can be justified by anything. For 9/11, in this thread, we've already seen sprinkler systems, puddles of water, fire hoses, and even smoke invoked as possible justifications for Sylvia's clear miss.
No, Linda, if he were in the sewer, a "hit" would have been "I'm seeing shit and rats and the occasional alligator. Does this have any significance to you?"



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 12:57 [Link] »
See, this is why psychics nearly always say that they're seeing water or bodies are near water or in water.

Exactly, Tom. On a planet that's not only inundated with water over the vast majority of its surface, but actually has liquid water occasionally fall from the sky or spontaneously spurt up out of the ground, claiming that anything is "near water" or "in water" is a remarkably safe bet. And that's not even getting into the literal multitude of methods and materials that humans have concocted for technologically transporting, storing, and implementing water in a variety of structures and systems (which we've erected and installed damn near everywhere) — or the more simplistic fact that life as we know it tends to require the presence of water, however minutely in some cases, in order to function. (It's no coincidence that most major centers of urban civilization are "near water," folks.) Seriously, anyone still attempting to defend the trite and massively overused "near water" cliché is pretty damn close to losing the privilege of being considered capable of functioning in human society.

Bronze Dog — thanks very much for your latest Doggerel piece (the latest in a long line of fantastic posts). Not only are we loving, passionate, and compassionate skeptics, but we're also huge fans of Futurama, and we can think of plenty of times when that brilliant show brought a lump to our throats. ("Luck of the Fryrish," "The Sting," and "Jurassic Bark" come to mind, as well as the excellent final episode of the first run.) Why silly, misguided creduloids (and apathetic "neutrals") seem to think that a carefully considered devotion to not accepting any old bullshit as "fact" should mean that we are somehow devoid of positive human emotions, relationships, goals, and motivations is quite beyond us. Oh, wait — perhaps it's because they're silly, misguided creduloids.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 14:30 [Link] »

To the apathetic neutrals:

If there was a mechanic in town who you knew was screwing people left and right (and you had evidence that their work was bunk), would you tell people not to go to him?

Or would you just say "Oh well, even though I have proof that he screws people sometime, we can't prove he always screws people"?

If you pick option B I hope you die of syphillis. Now wake up.



t. burger, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 14:45 [Link] »

im so glad i clicked on the aol link! this had got to be the best site i have ever stumbled upon. and i just love how no matter what people say to try and disprove or discredit u "two percent" people, u always come up with an even better response. i must say that while i would like to believe that someone could tell me my future (it would make my decisions in life a lot easier), i dont beleive any of these people who claim to be psychic. as proven post after post, anyone could have come up with a load of crap to explain where the firefighter was much better than sylvia. with her my main problem (besides the lies) is that she has such an attitude. you could say she uses a tone like "you guys are idiots" and i just think she could be a little more sensitive. but then again since when do scam artists care about feelings? maybe her tone is caused by the fact that she does think "you are guys idiots" because u sit around and listen to her crap AND believe it instead of finding a more constructive way to spend ur day. funny how the non-believers are supposed to be such horrible people, yet u believers are sitting here supporting someone who uses other peoples crisis to make an obnoxiously large profit. and thats not horrible, right? and if u say there are real psychics out there but they just arent in it for the money ad fame, then i say yeah because they know they are full of shit (oops did i use profanity?) and dont want the public to know it. one or two people whose psychic happenened to seem to be right, well even i get a feeling about something happening and it really does. so what lucky guess



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 14:59 [Link] »

"Disprove joy".......interesting phrase, really. I am not sure how one proves or disproves an emotional state...unless, of course, "joy" in this case translates to bullshit. One definitely can disprove bullshit. In fact, to anyone reading this discussion without their blinders on, that has pretty much been accomplished here several times over.



Sarah, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 15:41 [Link] »

I can see why this site is called the 2% Company. 2% of the post are intelligent at best. Bashing others may make you feel smarter and more powerful then the person you're attacking, but intelligent, self secure individuals don't have to degrade another person to feel better about themselves. It may serve you better to examine your own motives for posting, then to dissect Ms. Browne's motives. Only the lowest of human beings would associate a "blessing" from another person with a vulgar cuss word. Again, 2% Company was an excellent choice of names for your site.



Rockstar, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 16:14 [Link] »

Oh sweet fucking Thor...

Bashing others may make you feel smarter and more powerful then the person you're attacking, but intelligent, self secure individuals don't have to degrade another person to feel better about themselves.

Sarah, we're proving Sylvia wrong so that she is exposed for the fraud she is. If you choose to go live in Magic-Happy land where there are people with magic powers and a man that lives in the sky, fine. But I've done my job proving to you that there is no such thing as psychics. You just keep on believing, there is no sinking an unsinkable rubber duck, and you can't fix stupid.

An intelligent person would review the evidence:

1. No psychic has ever proven their "ability" under controlled conditions (meaning they aren't allowed to cheat).

2. They are constantly wrong.

Using this evidence, I choose to believe that there is no such thing as psychic powers. Tell me, oh intelligent one, what criteria do you base your belief on?

It may serve you better to examine your own motives for posting,

Again, to prevent people from taking medical advice from this woman, to prevent police from wasting time on her "leads", to prevent hard-working people from wasting money on her "readings", etc.

then to dissect Ms. Browne's motives.

To make a shitload of money off morons who believe in magic for no reason.

Only the lowest of human beings would associate a "blessing" from another person with a vulgar cuss word.

Go back and read that comment. Did it come off as nice to you?

Well Bless the HolyTtittyfucking Christ out of you!



Tom Foss, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 16:29 [Link] »

Thanks, Rockstar. I wasn't sure how to approach that one. Turns out, the proper approach was "let Rockstar do it."

I do have one thing to add:

Again, 2% Company was an excellent choice of names for your site.

Sarah, make sure when you start your own website, you give it a similarly apt name. I suggest "Smug Judgmental Bitch, LLC."



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 17:21 [Link] »

It never ceases to infuriate me when apathetic nihilists like Sarah defend vile, depraved con artists like Sylvia Browne.

Do they really have no sense of right and wrong?

Oh, and Sarah, anything said with pure, unadulterated hate can be made into a curse. Just take a look at what Bill O'Reily and friends did with "Merry Christmas" when he declared war on general, sincere expressions for a season of generosity and togetherness.

Now, he's tainted "Merry Christmas" with a message of "You'd better treat us Insano Fundie Christians as superior beings and stop standing up for actual moral values!"

That's why I switched to wishing people a Happy Decemberween. People like you burned down Christmas and are dancing on the ashes.

Sorry for ramply derailing, there, but it's imperative that these people learn basic humanity so that they can move beyond the world of empty buzz phrases and deal with the real world, full of people who can feel joy and pain.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 19:06 [Link] »

Oh, and thanks for mentioning "Jurassic Bark": I've had a lump in my throat since reading your comment. Also got that lightheadedness that made me question my driving ability a little bit ago.

So, as revenge, I'll mention one big thing that came up during my drive in addition to the things you've mentioned:

Data's daughter, Lal



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 19:18 [Link] »

I'll direct this to Sarah, though it could just as easily be aimed at the countless morons who have been defending Sylvia Browne above, despite the clear evidence to the contrary:

Bashing others may make you feel smarter and more powerful then the person you're attacking, but intelligent, self secure individuals don't have to degrade another person to feel better about themselves.

Bashing people who hold stupid beliefs doesn't make me feel smarter than idiots like you, Sarah — the reason I feel smarter than you is because I am smarter than you. I can safely say that because of your moronic habit of clinging to beliefs that have been shown to be incorrect, time and time again. It takes a special kind of rock-headed desperation to continue to buy into Sylvia Browne's line of crap, and I have nothing but loathing for those who fall into this category. Without people like you enabling her, Sylvia Browne would be nothing more than that crazy old bat down the street who smells like Polygrip and cat pee.

In addition to being smarter than you, I am also more compassionate toward others judging by the fact that you don't seem to give a flying assfuck about the harm that Sylvia Browne is doing to her "clients." If you'd prefer to be a heartless bitch, and a deluded fucking moron, go right ahead — but don't you dare expect the rest of us to follow your cowardly, apathetic lead.

People like you, Sarah, are what's most wrong with the world today. As Ryan has said, you can't fix stupid, and no matter how clear we make it that people like Sylvia Browne are fucking using you, there will always be people dumb enough to believe. There's no doubt in my mind that we would all be better off without you (and without the rest of the fuckheaded asshats who have made similar comments above), and I sincerely hope that, if you manage to reproduce, your children are wise enough to disregard your ignorance instead of carrying it into the next generation.

You know, this series of comments has shown me two things quite clearly — how glad I am when I find new people who share my frustrations with the rampant idiocy in the world, and how fucking sick I am of the dipshits perpetrating that idiocy, while all the while shitting on those who are trying to make a change for the better.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.26 (Fri) 19:34 [Link] »

The world is a beautiful, crazy place, and human beings are wonderful creatures capable of so much more than we see today if we could just care enough to learn about this crazy, beautiful world.

And these trolls, who deny all this, call US, of all people, cynics!



TJ, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 00:28 [Link] »

It's not an assumption if it's based on observation. This is what the evidence suggests. Please enlighten us if there is some other definition of "joy" employed by the credulous, which accounts for why debunking frauds is considered "hateful."
While their joy may appear fantasy to you, it is not fantasy to them. Your own perception is what dictates, in your world, that joy equals fantasy to them. I'm not defending Sylvia Brown, I'm defending their right to believe whatever makes them happy. While your observations may lead you to your conclusions, they're not proven facts. So please don't insult your scientific background by trying to pass them off as such.
The fact of the matter is that skeptics, by definition, are supposed to have open minds, even if they have doubts. The world of skepticism has turned to cynisism in recent times. Try speaking with any of the leading BBC media skeptics about anything of a paranormal matter and see what kind of sarcastic, insulting remarks are fired back.
While nothing of a paranormal nature has been proven, many scientists have conducted tests where this is a margin above chance recorded in statistics. These margins, while not definitive proof of the existence of psi activity do leave many scientists with the thought "Something is going on, we just don't know what."
I'd recommend reading works by Michael Prescott outlining certain falsified claims of James Randi and persons of his association.
Now before the flaming begins, please keep in mind that I'm not defending Sylvia and I'm not stating the existence of psi activity, but simply acknowledging that leading scientists can neither prove or completely disprove its existence.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 01:43 [Link] »

No one has denied their right to believe what makes them happy. The problem is that they keep trying to "prove" the garbage they believe using pseudo-scientific "evidence". They can believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus if they want to, but if they try to "prove" their existence to those of us who know garbage when we see it, they will be attacked for it. After all, they came here, we didn't go to them.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 01:51 [Link] »
While their joy may appear fantasy to you, it is not fantasy to them. Your own perception is what dictates, in your world, that joy equals fantasy to them.
It's not my world, it's everyone's world. And in this objectively-defined world, Sylvia Browne's supposed abilities are pure fantasy.
I'm defending their right to believe whatever makes them happy
I'm pretty sure this got covered before. People have every right to believe whatever they want. And other people have every right to believe that they're idiots for it. No one has a right to be shielded from reality, and I feel no compunctions against combating ignorance, no matter what it may do to some people's bliss.
While your observations may lead you to your conclusions, they're not proven facts. So please don't insult your scientific background by trying to pass them off as such.
You're mixing your jargon. Facts are things to be observed, such as the fact that the "you're trying to disprove joy" canard has come up in one form or another by the credulous as a response to this debunking. I observed this fact and drew a conclusion (more accurately a hypothesis, I suppose) from it. Nothing has been "proven," though several things have been fairly well disproven. Among them, the validity of the "you're anti-joy" remarks and Sylvia Browne's psychic powers.
The fact of the matter is that skeptics, by definition, are supposed to have open minds, even if they have doubts. The world of skepticism has turned to cynisism in recent times.
Open minds, but not so open that their brains fall out. The problem is, you include "doubt" as if it's not part of the definition of skepticism. Sure, skeptics ought to keep an open mind, but that's far less central to the basic idea of skepticism than a healthy serving of doubt. It's doubt that causes us to examine phenomena so carefully, it's doubt that causes us to look for natural explanations and accept Occam's Razor. The open mind comes in once the doubt has been satisfied.

As far as cynicism's link to skepticism, I'd say that that's mostly a non sequitur. Whether we are hopeless romantics or sarcastic bastards doesn't change the fact that Sylvia Browne, and most others of her ilk (if not all) are total frauds who rely on methods of fleecing the suckers that have been used by them and their predecessors for centuries. Skeptics have debunked everything from psychics to dowsing to conspiracy theories to creationism for hundreds of years, and yet people still buy into the same garbage, sometimes in new quantum packaging, that snake oil peddlers and sideshow barkers have been hawking for time immemorial. It's enough to make anyone a little cynical.

Then again, the skeptics are also the ones who are making claims to the beauty and majesty and mystery of this incredible world we live in. We're the ones reminding society that human ingenuity built the pyramids, that awesome natural forces carved the grand canyon, and that the stars need not be teeming with interstellar travelers to be fascinating and beautiful. It's the credulous who say that we couldn't have gotten where we are without outside help, that there must be magic and aliens and divine plans to explain everything, nature itself is not enough, humans themselves are not enough, we aren't smart enough to go to the moon, we aren't strong enough to build Stonehenge, there has to be something unseen to account for the shortcomings of humanity and the natural world.

That's the height of cynicism, TJ. Skeptics are romantics, willing to believe that the universe is beautiful and interesting on its face, but the credulous can't accept that that's enough. They have to invent something more amazing, more astounding, and ultimately more mundane, because they cannot accept that the universe is already far more incredible than any magical fairy woo they could come up with.

Try speaking with any of the leading BBC media skeptics about anything of a paranormal matter and see what kind of sarcastic, insulting remarks are fired back.
For good reason. Paranormal claims are made without proof and without reason, and usually without attention to prior debunkings. When the paranormal folks can put up some evidence to support their claims, the skeptics' tone will get a hell of a lot less dismissive. Until then, it's the same-old, same-old, and it's hard to fault scientists for bristling at having to debunk the same garbage so often. Besides that, have you seen the condescending, mean-spirited tones used by people like Sylvia Browne and Alison DuBois when they talk about skeptics and scientists? At least the rational have something to back up any of their supposed high-and-mighty airs.

Although, I'd like to see some examples of these sarcastic, insulting media skeptics. Especially if they show more backbone than America's credulous, demure, often invisible media skeptics.

While nothing of a paranormal nature has been proven, many scientists have conducted tests where this is a margin above chance recorded in statistics.
Citations? Anything to suggest that this is statistically significant and not an expected deviation? Any details whatsoever?
I'd recommend reading works by Michael Prescott outlining certain falsified claims of James Randi and persons of his association.
Three sentences into Prescott's defense of Out of Body Experiences was all I needed to dismiss him as a woo-vian. I suppose I could read more, but it's late, and OBEs have been thoroughly debunked as supernatural and explained as the death-rattle of an oxygen-starved brain time and time again, through scientific study after scientific study. I'd recommend watching season one of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! for a handy refutation of the Near Death Experience.
Now before the flaming begins, please keep in mind that I'm not defending Sylvia and I'm not stating the existence of psi activity, but simply acknowledging that leading scientists can neither prove or completely disprove its existence.
The burden of proof is on those claiming that psi exists, not those claiming that it doesn't. And you're right, no leading scientist (in fact, no following scientist either) has been able to prove the existence of psi. In fact, no psi-peddler has been able to prove it either. There is no (zero, zilch, nada) evidence for the existence of psi, no successful double-blind trials, no confirmatory controlled experiments, just the occasional charlatan who can't perform once the possibility of cheating is eliminated. Until some solid evidence, some statistically significant figures, some controlled double-blind confirmations can be produced, it can be said with a very high degree of certainty that psi does not exist. I don't need to search every inch of the world to be secure in my statement that unicorns, leprechauns, and the Kool-Aid Man are fictional, and until I hear that deafening "Oh yeah," no one has any reason to believe otherwise.


The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 01:58 [Link] »

Thanks, TimmyAnn, and Tom Foss! Allow us to expand on that, if you will.

The world of skepticism has turned to cynisism in recent times.

Incorrect assumption. (Sorry, TJ, we couldn't resist.)

Hey, you can be reasonable and rational, TJ, but you're still wrong about this. Skepticism hasn't turned to cynicism. Perhaps some skeptics have (the BBC media skeptics you refer to, perhaps), which is a very different thing, but the real point is that the average idiot's perception of skepticism has distorted it into what they perceive as "cynicism." Your "skepticism has turned to cynicism" assertion is akin to the assertions of those complete idiots who constantly claim that because one scientist (or ten, or a hundred, or whatever) made a mistake, science and the scientific method are therefore invalidated (a claim we've had to counter countless times since this site's inception — take a look around). And such claims are just preposterous.

We're not cynical. We probably wouldn't be so enthralled by, for example, skeptical optimist Carl Sagan's work if we were. We personally wouldn't be trying to point out the bullshit for those who don't recognize it, if in the end we had no hope that it would make any difference. Cynicism is a basic, inherent doubt in the positive potential of humanity (not the same as the doubt employed by skeptics) — or, similarly, doubt in the positive potential of humans themselves, before assessing each individual's potential. We don't have that. When we actually witness the negative potential of specific individuals, then we certainly distrust, despise, and — yes — demean them as the useless flaps of skin on the flesh of society that they are.

As for humanity in general, we're actually quite optimistic; if not, we would have closed ourselves off from the world a long time ago, and not bothered to share our opinions and ideas in the first place, which we do in order to prod and encourage other capable individuals (and ourselves!) toward that positive potential. But when some asshole comes along and demonstrates quite conclusively that he/she/it isn't capable of grasping very basic concepts, nor of absorbing those concepts when they're spelled out for them repeatedly, then we simply have no interest in "helping" them achieve anything. They're dead weight, and we're of the opinion that we should let the dead weight slough off so the rest of humanity might have a chance at realizing its virtually limitless potential. Is that "cynical"? We don't believe so; not even remotely.

And you're "right," in a way: paranormal phenomena haven't been "disproved" — but this is for the very practical reason that it is impossible to conclusively and universally disprove such claims (which has been discussed elsewhere, by ourselves and others, ad nauseam). But the fact remains that the claims offered are non-starters — the claimants indulge in goalpost-moving, evasion, cheating, and excuses, none of which are anything we haven't seen before. The claims themselves are unoriginal, just the same old crap being rehashed over and over; only the pseudoscientific babble or "spiritual" holy-hokem changes from generation to generation, or from decade to decade. There comes a point where it's not about "ignoring" potentially valid claims...not about "open minds" at all...it's about ignoring the same damn bullshit that people keep recycling to waste the time of those who have already "been there, done that." And by those who have "been there, done that," we're referring to the scientific community as a whole, a self-policing, self-correcting entity that is constantly expanding a base of knowledge that not only holds up to rigorous testing, but has provided, in a remarkably short period of time, countless practical and useful results — entirely unlike the spheres of paranormal/supernatural woo (including religion), which have been explored for literally tens of thousands of years with not one practical or useful result. These people have yet to invent a mode of transportation, devise a tool to accommodate larger workloads than humans are capable of, develop cures or solutions for any diseases or injuries, provide a means of lightning-fast mass communication, or anything else. And the scientists? Been there, done that.

Even if you're not defending Sylvia Browne...even if you're defending the creduloids "right to believe whatever makes them happy," which was never in danger from anyone here (all we have challenged is the validity of those beliefs, and the native capacity for rational thought that holding such beliefs suggests)...do you really not see that these fucks are wasting valuable time and resources — including their own brains — which could be put to so much better use?

That's all we're after, TJ. We're not cynics — we truly do believe in the positive potential of humanity. We just want to see it at least somewhat come to fruition in our own lifetimes, and the idiots who support utter bullshit artists like Sylvia Browne, as well as the bullshit artists themselves, are dragging us down. We're not cynics, TJ — we're just pissed off at these fucks.



No name, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 09:52 [Link] »

It is sad to see someone using/exploting these gifts to the extent that this woman has. There are many psychics in the world who do not advertise and are very very good and you don't have to give them any information at all. For any reader to charge that kind of money is ludicrous and makes good honest readers look very bad. I am not speaking of store front psychics either. A really good read doesn't have to advertise nor promote herself in this fashion. They are usually very quiet about their abilities and shun the limelight.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 11:37 [Link] »

I've heard so much about these real psychics who shun the limelight. Frankly, just hearing a bunch of "true believers" telling me that they exist is enough for me. Who needs evidence? Hell, I don't even need a detailed anecdote — a vague, general claim works fine for me.

Actually, I feel that I should share a similar pet peeve. Whenever I see those mall Santas pretending to be the real thing just to get people to come to the mall, it makes me so mad. Santa does exist, and he would never work in a mall. Santa doesn't have to advertise or promote himself in this fashion. He is usually very quiet about his abilities and he shuns the limelight. He's very private, and he lives far away, but he exists.



Hughie, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 12:07 [Link] »

Listen and Think! Silva said he died in water, the girlfriend said it was 911. OK then! Think about it. Fireman goes into tower's to get people out, firemen outside are pouring tons of water into the Towers. OK, now think. Could fireman have been in a place, i.e. where he is knocked down, or trapped and water is filling up the space where he is. I would think that it is in the realm that this could have happened with so much water a person maybe drowned. People have drowned in just a few inches of water before. THINK!



Tina, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 13:18 [Link] »

Some years ago a friend recommended a website to me and I hung around it for years mostly to help people who were trying to New Age self medicate, and also to make some friends. I've run from that site like the plague because Browne admirers are there (and I would not be surprised if she herself posted under an alias) and they are totally nuts. Her "reincarnation" beliefs translate into people who think they have beefs with living people carried over from some bullshit "previous life." I know people who have been hurt by assholes who think they knew them and owe them from a previous life. So she and her ilk are far from harmless. Run fast and long.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 13:49 [Link] »

Er...sorry about that weird formatting. Here's what it's supposed to look like, if you want to delete that weird one.

Listen and Think! Silva said he died in water, the girlfriend said it was 911. OK then! Think about it. Fireman goes into tower's to get people out, firemen outside are pouring tons of water into the Towers. OK, now think. Could fireman have been in a place, i.e. where he is knocked down, or trapped and water is filling up the space where he is. I would think that it is in the realm that this could have happened with so much water a person maybe drowned. People have drowned in just a few inches of water before. THINK!

Hey, as long as you're exhorting people to think, perhaps you should do so yourself. Furthermore, you should learn to fucking read. This idiocy has been covered already in this thread. As for the firemen outside pouring water in, take a look at what Cheryl wrote above:
Vibes? Helping people? I remember the smell. I remember the smoke, dust and fire. And that was at Ground Zero 4 weeks after 9-11. Sylvia's scam was sophmoric. The only water in the Towers came from busted sprinklers. The firemen never reached the floors to hook up their hoses. The help I saw rendered in Manhattan was tanglible and active. Would Sylvia or Emily understand what that means? Probably not.

Even if the firefighters had been able to hook their hoses up, just how much water would have to survive the heat and collect in a single place in the collapsing building to be enough for a person to drown, let alone be "lost in water"? Sure, it's possible that a firefighter drowned in a puddle. But is it likely? Is it confirmable without a body?
All of this, naturally, ignoring the fact that no matter what, her statement that the reason they couldn't find a body was because it was lost in water, is a clear miss. And everything after that is clearly flailing to try to cover up her blatant error.

Tina: That's scary and stupid. People come up with enough bullshit reasons to have problems with each other without invoking bullshit reincarnation on top of it. Thanks for sharing that.



SANDY, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 13:54 [Link] »

TwoPercent, I am definitely not DRU.
I thought I had misspelled philosophy...thought it should have been phylosophy. Guess I was right the first time.

Love your website and I'm so glad that people are smelling the coffee when it comes to Sylvia Browne. I truly hate the fact that she is ripping off people by the millions, then claiming she isn't sure she will have enough money to keep her "church" going for another month! What a joke. Between her readings and her son's readings, she should be well fixed for the rest of her life.

Most true psychics charge zero for their "gift". Anytime that someone claiming to be psychic puts a price on their "gift"....watch out. All they care about is lining their wallet and they are nothing but con-artists who take people for all they can get.

Tom, your comments are great! Definitely not boring!



SANDY, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 15:11 [Link] »

TWOPERCENT???
Do you have a place to rant and rave about American Idol??? If so, I would love to have the link address!
Thanks!



TJ, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 19:41 [Link] »
Open minds, but not so open that their brains fall out. The problem is, you include "doubt" as if it's not part of the definition of skepticism. Sure, skeptics ought to keep an open mind, but that's far less central to the basic idea of skepticism than a healthy serving of doubt. It's doubt that causes us to examine phenomena so carefully, it's doubt that causes us to look for natural explanations and accept Occam's Razor. The open mind comes in once the doubt has been satisfied.
I rephrase the definition, as I was going on memory of definition. You are correct. Skepticism defined really is "Inquiry, consideration or doubt." Notice the first 2 words please. Occam's Razor may be invoked in many scientific studies and controversies. But please keep in mind that the operative part of this statement goes like this "...the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one." Tends, not always. Please explain the last part of your statement as the wording is throwing me a little. Are you saying that an open mind comes after doubt? In my understanding of the Scientific Process, an open mind is essential at all parts of testing. Part of problems with evaluations of results is handled by criteria that is stated to "cause bias of results." Meaning, if you go into an experiment thinking that it's going to prove the hypothesis wrong, your mind (ah, the complexities of the human mind) will favor results that support your bias. I believe "woo-vians" say something to the effect of "You will only see things that confirm your beliefs. It is for this reason that the phrase 'seeing is believing' should really read 'believing is seeing.'" My interpretation is that you will only see something when you believe it. I'm guessing this only applies to the psychic realm. Or something like that. Don't quote me on that please. My point is that the statement from the scientific method and the spiritualist method seem to be saying the same thing. The only difference is that "woo-vians" ask that you believe it to see it while scientists/skeptics ask that you have no expectations on seeing it or not. Okay, now comes the part that sceptics dread (mostly because they all believe they've "been there, done that") and believers wait for. The rebuttal in favor of the legitimacy of the need for research in the field of parapsychology.
Although, I'd like to see some examples of these sarcastic, insulting media skeptics. Especially if they show more backbone than America's credulous, demure, often invisible media skeptics.
I would ask that you read this article to show but a small example of what I'm talking about. The Amaz!ng 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005
Three sentences into Prescott's defense of Out of Body Experiences was all I needed to dismiss him as a woo-vian. I suppose I could read more, but it's late, and OBEs have been thoroughly debunked as supernatural and explained as the death-rattle of an oxygen-starved brain time and time again, through scientific study after scientific study.
Some truth exists in everything, but nothing holds the entire truth. This is why you will never be open to the possibility of psi-existence. You will always read the metaphorical "first 3 sentences" iin life and form your opinion. A condition does exist which is proven by oxygen starvation to the brain, but this phenomenon does not explain everything about people's claims on OBE's as they apply to near death experiences...namely the part about the euphoric feelings that are usually stated as "indescribable" or some word of the sort. Medical Evidence for NDEs Please read more than the first 3 sentences before making up your mind. Remember, scientists go into research without expectation of results. That's part of science's metaphorical "bible" about why results can be skewed..."expectation of end results due to previous knowledge."
Citations? Anything to suggest that this is statistically significant and not an expected deviation? Any details whatsoever?
Well here's something I happened to come across in my search, which took 2 seconds, for such citations and support. The following will be blockquoted, but is not a quoted statement from Tom Foss.
In 1985, the parapsychologist Charles Honorton claimed that the ganzfeld had proved the existence of psi. In response, the American skeptic Ray Hyman published a review in which he pointed out 99 flaws in the original experiments.Eventually, Hyman and Honorton issued a joint statement in which they agreed that the ganzfeld experiments seemed to show something happening that couldn?t be accounted for by statistical error. But they disagreed about whether this effect constituted evidence for psi.

This outcome encouraged experimenters to tighten up their procedures. Honorton developed a computerised version of the experiment designed to eliminate many of the flaws noted by Hyman - in particular the possibility that target images chosen by researchers were not truly random.

Claims of positive results re-emerged. From a six-year autoganzfeld study, Honorton?s lab claimed a hit rate of 34%, a conclusion supported by the Koestler unit's findings, reported in the 1990s.


For the full article, here Scepticbusters
Tom Foss quotes will now continue.
When the paranormal folks can put up some evidence to support their claims, the skeptics' tone will get a hell of a lot less dismissive. Until then, it's the same-old, same-old, and it's hard to fault scientists for bristling at having to debunk the same garbage so often.

I offer the following as a point of view that may help you understand why winning things such as the James Randi challenge will never prove the existence of psi-phenomena. So What!
...Sylvia Browne's supposed abilities are pure fantasy.
...though several things have been fairly well disproven. Among them, the validity of the "you're anti-joy" remarks and Sylvia Browne's psychic powers.
Besides that, have you seen the condescending, mean-spirited tones used by people like Sylvia Browne and Alison DuBois when they talk about skeptics and scientists?

Allison Dubois' show, "Medium" has a betterr track record than she does, agreed.
Now forgive my use of the word "dude" here, but it feels like a "dude moment."
DUDE! I stated twice in one posting that I don't support or defend Sylvia Brown. Let's all say it together now. TJ does not support or defend Sylvia Brown
I'd recommend watching season one of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! for a handy refutation of the Near Death Experience.

I've watched their show before. They're a prime example of using sarcasm, hostility and cynisism to aid any of their points made. Not to mention that their expose on parapsychology consulted no experts. They would rather, apparently, consult recreational parapsychologists with amateur, at best, knowledge of instruments used. If you ask me, that's pretty cowardly.
I don't get angry at much, and I work very hard on things that do anger me. However, they downright anger me with how abrasive, borderline abusive, they are at the mere suggestion of the validity of para-psychology in any form.
I don't need to search every inch of the world to be secure in my statement that unicorns, leprechauns, and the Kool-Aid Man are fictional, and until I hear that deafening "Oh yeah," no one has any reason to believe otherwise.

Well I'll agree with you there. Nobody really has to prove anything to anyone. If people like you exist that are smart enough to discern what's real and what's bs, then make your opinions and allow others to make theirs. Everybody is human. Everybody deserves the chance to make up their own damn minds. My own observations have led me to form the hypothesis that "Science has replaced the church. In their strife to eliminate dogmatic views that religion forced, and forces upon people, they have become the very thing they seek to rid the world of. Science has now moved into a position where 'they' tell you what's real and 'they' tell you what's not." Any thoughts on this hypothesis? I haven't a clue how to test it in the midst of cynical skeptics.
I would ask that if you want to make your point, you steer clear of adding examples such as "The Kool-Aid Man", a character of which no spiritual person has ever claimed to really exist, out of your examples of fictional beings. I'm sure "woo-vians" don't believe in it just the same as you. It's probably insulting to some, and it's an example of the sarcasm shown to exist in Media Skeptics.
You know, even that, really, is not a problem in my eyes. It's only a mere suggestion. The only part that actually bothers me about this statement is the final thought in which you communicate the belief that only when you, yourself, see proof, should anyone in the world believe in such phenomena. That's elevating you to the status of totalitarian, monarch and any other ruling being in people's minds. I ask you to rephrase this statement as I rephrased my statement about the definition of skeptics.
As for the representative from the Two-Percent Company, I find your response a little like the assistant coach from "American Pie" that stands next to the coach and repeats the main point of the speech for emphasis. The entire time I was reading your response I kept hearing "Culmination!" and "...till you SCORE!" in the back of my mind. I think most of your statements in my direction were answered in my rebuttal to Tom. If I missed anything, please re-post it for emphasis.
Now then, let's try to keep things civil in this debate. It's just now getting interesting to me.




Nes, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 19:44 [Link] »

I love how every single "true" "psychic" refuses to take money. Nope, no chance that even a single one would be out for themselves. And of course, none of them would ever take a test to prove their abilities, they're too moral or something to do that. Or their powers don't work in those situations.

Talk about an unfalsifiable hypothesis...

For Amber's husband trouble, since I didn't notice anyone else mentioning it: My guess would be that he was either abusive or having an affair and the "psychics" told her to leave him, and they are now divorced.



TJ, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 19:46 [Link] »

A lengthy response has been posted, but is currently pending as possible spam. I hope it makes it through the filter because it took 45 minutes to type out and insert links...I'm not as fast as Tom.



Elvira, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 20:02 [Link] »

I hate to break it to you people, but you'll never see a REAL psychic on television. Those that truly have the gift don't generally want it because it is a blessing and a curse. I have a friend who is an empath and can see the future some. I can't count the number of times I have heard her say that she doesn't want it simply because along with the good comes the bad.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 20:13 [Link] »

I hate to break it to you, Elvira, but the reason that none of us will ever see a real psychic on television is because there are no real psychics. Yes, we know that it would be lovely to live in a world with magic and fairies and little gnomes that live in our asses, but that's not the world we live in, and no matter how much people delude themselves, that reality isn't going to change.

I don't know your "psychic friend," so I don't know if she's delusional or simply lying to you, but I do know that she falls into one of those two buckets. The truly stupid thing is that it isn't even hard to explain the "unexplainable powers" of so-called psychics if you just do a little homework first. Once you understand the human tendencies and the cognitive phenomena that make simple guesses (and cold reading) seem like they are magically obtained, it becomes ever so easy to debunk woo-woo bullshit. I guess what fucking frustrates me is that all of the people who are falling all over themselves to praise psychics clearly haven't bothered to do even the most cursory of legwork, and yet they feel that they belong in this conversation just the same. But they don't.

Let me spell it out to be as clear as possible — educate yourselves, or please fuck off. We love conversing with intelligent people who have taken the time to bone up on the subject matter, but we loathe wasting our time with morons who can't be bothered to meet us even a quarter of the way. So really, if all you have to say is "psychics are real" without bothering to construct a logical argument, then go away.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.27 (Sat) 23:46 [Link] »

Hey, TJ, what scientist molested you as a child, causing you to have such a dim view of science? No, wait — you must have been interested in science, and then some pocket-protectored geek kicked your narrow ass, causing you to look elsewhere for answers. Right?

Oh, that's right, we forgot — just because that's a standard creduloid response to skeptics who don't buy their woo, it doesn't follow that we should make the same stupid statements to you. Our bad — we got caught up in your wave of nauseating crap for a second there. We have to admit, though: statements like those certainly sidestep quite neatly any need to engage the brain, which makes a response so much easier to write. Without any coherent and consistent thought, the words flow like diarrhea, don't they?

Seriously: go fuck yourself, TJ. We are so fucking sick of pseudointellectual fucks like you spouting off the same old tired bullshit comments at every turn, and then thinking that they're making valuable, intelligent contributions to a discussion. There isn't a single thing you've said so far — not one, you philosophical microbe — that we couldn't find elsewhere on our site from any number of complete idiots. We've heard them all before; we've answered them all before; and, quite frankly, none of them were stumpers.

Fuck, if we have to hear one more time how science is a religion (which is just fucking stupid, and pretty clearly demonstrates that you have little to no grasp of how scientific inquiry is conducted), or how we don't have an open mind unless we pander to every single asinine claim of magical woo to darken our doorways (science learns from previous investigation and experimentation precisely so that we don't have to do the same fucking tests over and over and over again, asshole), we're going to fucking rip someone's nuts off. We're just in that kind of mood right now. So, in all earnestness, if this kind of vacuous shit is all you have to say, then you are not welcome to continue to post here. Keep it up, and you will be moved to the Urinal where idiotic comments go to die; persist after that, and you'll eventually be banned. Addressing the same points we've countered over and fucking over again isn't a "useful" discussion to have; and thus far, that's all we've seen from you.

By the way: no, you didn't "answer" our statements — you didn't even address them. You stated that "skepticism has turned to cynicism." We called you on this bullshit, and went to some lengths — still being remarkably civil, at the time — to explain why it is complete bullshit. You, on the other hand, made no mention of our response. You evaded the issue entirely in your most recent response, perhaps because you realized just how fucking obtuse your original assertion was, but you're too fucking pigheaded to acknowledge it; though, to be honest, we're not banking on your ability to even recognize how stupid and off-base your original assertion was.

Oh, and to clear up your utterly fucking confused and incoherent assessment of our comment, we wrote our response long before we saw Tom Foss' reply, you fucking asshat. Unlike you, we just happen to like to take our time to polish things up (a lesson you could really fucking learn from, considering the contradictions, backpedaling, and revisions you constantly make with your assertions), and it therefore sometimes takes us a little longer to get a comment published. The fact that Tom Foss happens to largely agree with what we say — and have said hundreds of times before — on our own fucking site has very little to do with what we decide to write when we respond to idiots. And the fact that much of what we wrote was echoed (in advance, from the readers' perspective) by Tom's comments merely speaks to the fact that Tom has likely trod a similar path to ours when it comes to trolls like you. So while you may hear irrelevant lines from recent movies playing in your head when you read our comments, every time we see a post from you, what we hear is the unmistakable throbbing of a moron-induced migraine coming on. We're sick of your tired, clichéd ramblings, and if they don't stop, we will put a stop to them ourselves.

It's clear that you have no grasp of the topics you are spouting off about, and that you have no desire to educate yourself. Instead, you seem to take joy in extended rounds of mental masturbation. Well, go find another partner for your little circle jerk, TJ — we're not interested in pulling the tiny stump of your cerebral pud.



Ronnie, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 08:33 [Link] »

I just stumble onto this site and I love it! I am surprised at how many people are offended by the language used. You have to think of the 2% ers as Simon Cowell of American Idol. They aren't a@#holes, they are just blunt and they come to the point. People loathe Simon because they don't want to hear the truth. They love Paula because she just smiles and gives them her same set of pat responses (good try, maybe next time, maybe with a few voice lessons, you're a trooper and so on). I myself don't believe in the bible. I believe it is a good book with a lot of special effects and cool characters but the story is too long and drawn out so it loses it's target audience. I do believe however in treating others as I would wish to be treated and trying to live my life the best way that I can. I believe that any religion who's core is love of self and others rocks and I believe that any religion that excludes people based on color, sex, background, differing religious beliefs, etc. scares the crap out of me! I believe that we shape out own destinies. I believe that if you allow it, a psychic can shape yours for you. If you were a die hard believer and you went to a psychic and she told you you would have four children. Three boys and one girl. If what you really wanted was a girl and the first three times were boys, you would believe that the fourth would be a girl right? Why are so many of you missing what's right there. These hucksters study birth ratios (girls/boys) in their cities/states. They study the weather. They read facial reactions. People, even no reaction is a reaction. They pay attention to things like, car keys, earrings, jewelry, watches, clothing, shoes, etc. I mentiones earrings, jewelry and watches seperately beacause this woman I know who does the fake psychic thing says that small earrings usually means a reserved woman, the decorativeness of a watch gives them a hint to the level of seriousness concerning the individual and the lack of to the excessive wearing of jewely let's them know certain things about that individual. Low self esteem, trying to prove something, shy, etc. They study body language and a lot of it is guess work. Be warned, especially if you are walking past one of those places and the lady walks out and says that your soul/ spirit/ chakra/etc. was calling out to hers. Tell her in an amazed voice, Oh my GOD you're right! It's telling you to f*#@ off! Onto the 2%ers. I don't think the 2% ers imagined that people would mistake their comments as psychic bashing. I have learned an awful lot by reading the facts and opinions posted and gleefully jotting down names of books and so forth. I am going to do something totally assanine right now. I am going to submit four incidents that happened to me between the ages of 7-14. All that I ask is that you all make like Simon Cowell and leave Paula Abdul and Randy wher they belong. In rehab and on Oprah name dropping! Right DAWG! Ugh, I hate myself for that last one. I'll post it right after this one. Some people have to believe in the unbelievable, it's the only way some of them stay sane.



Ronnie, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 09:32 [Link] »

Facts: We didn't have a television until right before my tenth birthday. My sister and I are 5 years apart and the only thing that I would fake to get out of school was an illness. My mother would never lie for any of her children (that really sucks A**, especially seeing as how I was the best behaved) and she said that the only way we would miss school is if we were bleeding profusely through the mouth and nose!

#1 (7 yrs. old) Had a bad dream about my Grandparent's house being on fire and my Grandmom throwing boxes out of the window. My Mother didn't believe me until (she told me later) she spotted a newspaper as we were leaving from out of the corner store. Three houses next to my Grandparent's burned down but theirs only received smoke damage. Also the boxes my Grandma threw out ofthe window smashed my Grandads rose bush.

#2 (7 yrs. old) I had a dream my Father's best friend was playing the statue game but I didn't like
it. I kept crying telling him to get up but he wouldn't. I told him that it was wet and cold and he would get dirty. Three days later my Father came by to tell us that some teens had found his friend's corpse by a sewage drain and had mistook him for a mannequin.

#3 (11 yrs. old) Early one morning before school I was arguing with my Mother's boyfriend. I was ignoring him to the best of my abilities and he was becoming the adult voices in the Charlie Brown cartoons. I opened the fridge but all I saw was a construction site. Now we were told that my Mom's boyfriend worked inside houses installing sinks, tubs and what not. I saw him and some guy lugging this big tube and then it fell and the image flashed to the hospital and some doctor putting this silver thing on his finger with this blue sponge stuff in the inside. As fast as it came the image was gone. My Mom's boyfriend didn't come home from work like he was supposed to and my Mother started to get really worried. She was wondering what could have possible happened to him so I told her. She didn't believe me until he walked in the door with the exact contraption I had described and on the correct hand that I had named.

#4 (14 yrs. old) One night while missing my cousins like crazy, I fell into a fitful sleep. I dreamed that I had left my body and went to their house to check on them (I looked down and could see my sleeping self). Their kitchen window was open with the screen in and the backdoor was open about 1.5"-2". I couldn't be sure wether I was really astrially projecting or not so I thought of a way to prove or disprove it. I walked over to my cousin and pinched him on the arm. He felt it and looked behind him after yelling OUCH! His Mom and brother were in the kitchen with him. He was standin about 3.5' away from the door, his Mom was sitting at the kitchen table about 1.5' away from him and his brother was standing behind her leaning on the freezer. They asked him what had happened and he said that someone had pinched him. When my Mother woke me up the next day, I told her what had happened. She called my Aunt to say good morning and to ask her what fun stuff were they up to yesterday. My Aunt told her how her crazy son swore someone pinched him and there wasn't anyone behind him at all. My Mother called my Grandmom to tell her the latest and my Grandmom took me to see a priest. Let's just say after he finished telling me that I was the devil's mistress and was showing my allegiance to Satan by channeling his demonic
visions, I learned to keep my fu***ng mouth shut! I never thought of it as a gift only as a curse, so I prayed to whatever power or powers that be to remove it and if that power to remove it lay only with me I would quash it. As Pat Benatar would say, "Hit Me With Your Best Shot!" I'm not offended by a half a dozen FU**S, Da**S or any other form of lovely caustic banter.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 13:23 [Link] »
I rephrase the definition, as I was going on memory of definition. You are correct. Skepticism defined really is "Inquiry, consideration or doubt."
Argumentum ad Websterum is not really a valid philosophical trick.
Notice the first 2 words please. Occam's Razor may be invoked in many scientific studies and controversies.
No, Occam's Razor is invoked in all scientific studies and controversies.
But please keep in mind that the operative part of this statement goes like this "...the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one." Tends, not always.
Actually, Occam's Razor says that you shouldn't invent unnecessary entities to explain observed phenomena. The whole "simplest answer" thing is kind of a layman's version. The idea is that you shouldn't have unnecessary hypotheses; if your potential explanations are "people made these crop circles by this method" and "aliens made these crop circles by this other method," and you have no evidence for the existence of aliens or the other method, you're best off picking the human alternative. So, with psychic phenomena, one explanation relies on known methods of human trickery and charlatanism, the other relies on untestable unproven undemonstrated magical abilities. To prove the latter, first you have to prove that there is such a thing as psi. Until then, the other explanation is the best there is.
Please explain the last part of your statement as the wording is throwing me a little. Are you saying that an open mind comes after doubt? In my understanding of the Scientific Process, an open mind is essential at all parts of testing.
We were talking about skepticism, which, while important to the scientific method, is not the same thing. Doubt is far more central to skepticism than an open mind is; as you noted, "doubt" is in the damn definition.

And sure, an open mind is important in science. Just not so open that your brains fall out. Your mind should be open primarily to the evidence and the possibility of being wrong (i.e., doubt).

Part of problems with evaluations of results is handled by criteria that is stated to "cause bias of results." Meaning, if you go into an experiment thinking that it's going to prove the hypothesis wrong, your mind (ah, the complexities of the human mind) will favor results that support your bias.
Um...no. First, hypotheses are not shown to be "right" or "wrong." They are shown to be "supported" or "unsupported." And indeed, there is a psychological bias which may figure into some testing. But you really don't seem to have much of an idea of the scientific process...the point of most experimentation is to put a hypothesis under rigorous review, to try to do everything possible to show it to be unsupported. It's why every hypothesis is tested and retested repeatedly by different scientists in different places, trying every method possible to show whether or not it is valid. If the evidence supports it, and if it is the most supported possible answer, then it can make its way toward the realm of theory. And it's methods like these that help eliminate any personal biases. Even if the initial scientist has some bias that causes him to misinterpret the data in a way which supports his hypothesis (not unheard-of, but difficult to do with some types of data), the other scientists who review his findings will not be burdened by the same emotional connection. It's that method of applied doubt, by which peer review is conducted, which makes bias insignificant in scientific pursuits.
I believe "woo-vians" say something to the effect of "You will only see things that confirm your beliefs. It is for this reason that the phrase 'seeing is believing' should really read 'believing is seeing.'" My interpretation is that you will only see something when you believe it.
Yes, it's called "confirmation bias." Scientists are well aware of it, and it's ironic that you'd attribute that trait to the woo-vians, who never seem to apply it to themselves. The difference between science and woo is that good scientists don't make up absurd justifications for observed phenomena, even when they contradict the expected results. Just because Michelson and Morley were looking for evidence of the invisible ether, the medium through which light was propagated, doesn't mean that they were unable to see the results, which showed that the speed of light was constant and the ether was nonexistent. Your interpretation is wrong, at least in regards to science. In regard to woo, however, if a woo-vian believes in something, they will make every possible explanation, regardless of sensibility, regardless of data, to justify their woo explanation for it. In this case, sure, believing is seeing, because believing in woo is like willful and selective blindness.
I'm guessing this only applies to the psychic realm. Or something like that. Don't quote me on that please. My point is that the statement from the scientific method and the spiritualist method seem to be saying the same thing. The only difference is that "woo-vians" ask that you believe it to see it while scientists/skeptics ask that you have no expectations on seeing it or not. No, scientists and skeptics ask that you believe what the evidence shows.
Okay, now comes the part that sceptics dread
Oh, I watched this video! "This is the banana, the atheists' nightmare..."
(mostly because they all believe they've "been there, done that") and believers wait for. The rebuttal in favor of the legitimacy of the need for research in the field of parapsychology. I would ask that you read this article to show but a small example of what I'm talking about. The Amaz!ng 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005
Okay, I read it. I like the strawman in this quote.
So it’s ironic that actual science was hardly touched on. Instead it was one speaker after another reinforcing the conceit, almost universal among conference participants, that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.
While most skeptics, from Shermer to Randi, will state that everyone is vulnerable to the bullshit spouted by woo-flingers, they certainly won't exempt themselves from that distinction. Randi does believe that having a magician, who specializes in trickery, on-hand to study people who may be employing the same methods, is a useful thing. It's a belief that has been supported by decades of supportive evidence. Any magician, and Michael Shermer (in "Why People Believe Weird Things") will tell you that scientists and smart people are sometimes among the easiest to fool. Randi would note that scientists tend to look for elaborate explanations to things, when most woo-peddlers and magicians' methods are deceptively simple. Shermer would tell you that smart people are very good at making smart rationalizations and justifications for beliefs they came about for non-smart reasons. So, yes, it's natural that the folks at the Amaz!ng Meeting would be making special effort to mention that scientists and intelligent folks are not immune to woo; it's precisely those people who believe they have such an immunity, and need to be most wary of it.
Communicating Skepticism to the Public, the manual handed out at the media workshop, contains a brief passage that illustrates the gulf between science and the skeptics. In part three, “The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude,” we learn how to become a media authority: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”
When you look at the "authorities" referenced on everything from mainstream news to History and Discovery Channel specials, which cite as experts crackpots like Fred Zugibe and Ralph Rene, this seems to be the case. Somehow, it seems that this quote-mine was probably not taken as an example of how a skeptic can get on TV, but how the people that need to be skeptically evaluated do.
You can’t just say you’re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you’ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. “As head of your local skeptic club, you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.”
Okay; and this is a bad thing...why? Skepticism is a trait which any person can (and should) hone. If that's what it takes to get a skeptical perspective on your local news station's story about ghosts or crop circles or whatever, then why not?
On the whole, the media manual is a well-intentioned and useful guide to dealing with a mass media that doesn’t always care about truth and accuracy. And if the skeptics are willing to bend the rules here and there, at least it’s in the service of a worthy cause.
What rules? Do these rules say "the head of a local and small skeptic's club is not a reliable expert, but psychics and conspiracy theorists are"?
After noting that Sylvia Brown-a huckster psychic who appears often on CNN’s Larry King Live-is known as “claws” among JREF staff because of her long fingernails, Randi expressed the hope that while scratching herself, she would tear an artery and die, a prospect which evoked hearty laughter from the audience. Later, as I looked over the books for sale by notable skeptics, I overheard a JREF staff member explain to a potential customer that The Ancestor’s Tale, the weighty new hardback by Richard Dawkins, was “excellent for bludgeoning a creationist.” Needless to say, the siege mentality and the spirit of scientific inquiry have never exactly been bedfellows.
So, what then. Scientists and skeptics are meant to tolerate vultures like Sylvia Browne? They're meant to tolerate hateful, backward, anti-science lunatics like the Creationist movement? We're meant to treat these groups with kid gloves, because they sure would do the same for us, yessir? Bull-fucking-shit. Sylvia Browne has, in-between lying to grieving parents, called Randi a liar on national television, and has spread vicious vitriol about any and all skeptics. Creationists would like nothing more than the total destruction of science and the naturalistic worldview, and will do everything from attacking science in the courtroom to saying that school boards have "rejected God" for rejecting Creationism. There is no point, no value, and no sense in being anything but blunt with morons who would just as soon see that you cease existing.

And I'd like to see that Randi quote in context, thank you very much.

In this environment a discussion of possible evidence in favor of chiropractic would have been inconceivable.
Really? Did you try? Or did you just assume that because people made fun of chiropractics for not having any evidentiary basis for their work, they wouldn't be open to just such a basis. The fact of the matter is that chiropractics is built on principles that were arbitrarily determined over a hundred years ago, and have not been shown to be true (quite the opposite, actually) in the interim. If someone had actual scientific evidence that subluxations exist and chiropractics is not just a form of soothing but potentially fatal massage, it would be absolutely welcomed by skeptics.
Alternative medicine is a favored target of skeptics, despite the fact that no scientific discipline is ever perfect or complete and that we can expect at least some trends from the periphery of medical practice to be taken up eventually within the scientific mainstream. Granted, certain aspects of alternative medicine are obviously fraudulent, such as ear candling and magnetic bracelets, but to denounce anything at all that’s outside accepted, traditional medicine is to promote a view of science more akin to religion - with its unreflective, ossified dogmas - than science as it actually exists.
Funny, there are still people who practice ear candling and magnetic bracelets, so it must not be very obvious, must it? Could part of that be because people selling their bracelets and necklaces and whatnot can appear on TV as experts to the general public, without any media checking on their claims? No, certainly not, I'm sure. And this is the same garbage that the woo spew. "Science doesn't know everything!" That's right, science doesn't know everything, and some would say that it doesn't "know" anything, since all scientific knowledge is tentative. Does that mean that we should accept alternative medicine, because it might work? Does it mean that we should wait until every possible method of alternative medicine is disproven until we make fun of it? Or perhaps it means that we should reject claims which have no evidentiary backing, as scientists do. As soon as someone shows that some alternative medicine actually has an effect that's better than what has been achieved by regular medicine, scientists will accept those findings. Of course, then it will be just "medicine," not "alternative." In the meantime, these claims that herbs and leaves and shit can have magical effects, or can have effects that are greater than those of medicine derived from the same herbs but where the doses and impurities are controlled, are deserving of every bit of ridicule that they receive.
When the topic did turn to science, the discussion most likely focused on optimum tactics in the battle against irrationalism.
Shameful! Terrible! Disgusting! Why, you'd think that they were at a skeptics' convention instead of a scientific symposium!
For instance, when a husky, white-haired gentleman raised the topic of evolution during a small-group discussion with Dr. Shermer, his point was simply that skeptics should refer to it as the “law of evolution” rather than the “theory of evolution.” This way, creationists would have to stop saying, “it’s only a theory, not a fact.” Shermer, who was having none of it, allowed a JREF staff member to respond that no scientist would take this suggestion seriously. Another skeptic vociferously disagreed and stated that we must begin referring to evolution as a law. After this the discussion meandered along pointlessly, with no one stating the obvious: that evolution can’t be referred to as a law because it’s not a law.
Actually, many scientists do refer to evolution as a law. The problem is in the definition of "evolution" in these cases. What some refer to as the "fact of evolution" or, perhaps more brazenly, the "law of evolution" is the actual observed change in species due to random mutation. Meanwhile, there is the "theory of Natural Selection" (sometimes called the "theory of evolution") which states how certain species survive while others go extinct.
In contrast to atoms that have no choice but to obey the law of gravity, species don’t have to evolve. Often the species knocked out by natural selection are precisely those that have evolved too far and become overspecialized. So it’s not as if you become extinct if you disobey the “law of evolution.” Beyond that, the very idea reeks of vitalism, as if biology has its own laws separate from physics. To top it off, the whole point of evolution is that you don’t need transcendent laws of nature (or a creative deity, for that matter) to explain the emergence of novel life forms.
Oh dear FSM, every sentence of this is patently ridiculous. 1. Yes, species do have to evolve. There's no magical off-switch for genetic mutation. Whether or not that evolution presents any advantage or faces any selection pressure is a different matter. But everything, from humans to sharks, continues to evolve regardless of how well-suited they are to their environment. 2. There is no such thing as "evolved too far." There are creatures that are so well-adapted to one environment that they cannot survive in another one, or that they cannot survive when their environment changes, but this is part of the process of natural selection. 3. You can't disobey the law of evolution, just as you can't disobey the law of gravity. That's why it's a law. 4. Why wouldn't biology have its own laws separate from physics? First off, they wouldn't be "separate," they'd be "in addition to;" it's not as though the laws of physics are supplanted by laws of biology. Second, chemistry has its own laws (the Ideal Gas Law, the Law of Multiple Proportions), why not biology (which also has laws, like Mendel's Law of Inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg Principle)? 5. What the fuck? No, you asshat, the point of evolution is that the laws of nature are the only thing necessary to explain the emergence of novel life forms. The point of evolution is that you don't need anything but the known mechanisms of the universe.

The main reason against calling evolution a law is that laws are things we can generally assume to be constant throughout the universe, and it's conceivable (however unlikely) that there are unknown species which do not mutate.

In his bestselling handbook on logical and not-so-logical thinking, Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermer describes a great many “weird” ideas harbored by ordinary people. What he fails to mention is that the chief source for weird ideas in the modern world is none other than science itself, starting with Copernicus’ assertion that the earth is in motion around the sun, an observation that flies in the face of common sense...he history of science can be summarized as the story of weird ideas displacing “common sense.” As long as skeptics view the world in terms of science versus weirdness, they are guaranteed to remain parochial in their outlook.
Note that in the battle of "science vs. weirdness," common sense is not mentioned. Common sense is a source of knowledge; like any source of knowledge, it is tentative and subject to change. The things we take as "common sense" are things which we can perceive on the level of human experience, so it's little surprise that the vast majority of things that this author mentions as scientific principles that go contrary to common sense are things that are too large, too small, or too specialized for there to be a common consensus about them. The rotation of the Earth and the structure of the atom are things which, while they may impact our common sense, are also beyond our ability to directly observe. It only stands to reason that science would supplant these "common sense" beliefs, when science can measure them more directly.

None of this changes the fact that, while some scientific principles may require a rejection of "common sense," science is certainly not the main source for crazy beliefs. If it were, the crazy beliefs would be changing, but psychics, conspiracy theorists, homeopaths, and chiropractors have been practicing the same bullshit for hundreds of years. Science may be the source for their new woo justifications, but it's hardly the source for the woo ideas themselves. Those are self-perpetuating.

Telepathy is a pretty strange idea. According to Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe, scientific evidence for its existence has been accruing for decades. So do we follow the evidence and, at the very least, provisionally grant the possibility that telepathy is real, or do we simply banish it as being too weird? While the former is the scientific approach, the latter appears to be the favored response of skeptics.
See, this is terribly, terribly wrong. Science would not "provisionally grant the possibility that telepathy is real," science grants that all possibilities are potentially real, but accepts or rejects them based on the evidence. If there is solid evidence for telepathy, then let Radin bring it on. Let it be evaluated and tested under the general scientific method of testing hypotheses: that there are alternative and better explanations. If it passes, then science will provisionally accept it as real. Until then, both scientists and skeptics will continue to reject it in favor of better-supported explanations.

And the article goes on to discuss a possible challenge to Randi's million. It suggests that the only way to prove ESP is with statistics (isn't that true for most causality?) and that some researcher has produced a billion-to-one result in favor of ESP. I'd like to see the controls on that experiment, and I daresay that Randi would too. Dawkins is said to have made a glib response that proof of the paranormal would make it normal and invalidate Randi's need to pay, but such a possibility is already covered in the rules of Randi's Challenge.

In the end, it's clear that the article is written with countless misconceptions about science, strawmen about scientists and skeptics, and a poor understanding of most of the terms it uses. The fact that a year later, we have yet to hear any of this great evidence in favor of ESP suggests further that the study was bunk to begin with, and nowhere do I see a magical condemnation of Randi, Shermer, or anything else in the skeptical movement. What I see is a creduloid who is quite able to denounce creationism and ear candles as nuttery, but who clings to ESP and telepathy and chiropractics as viable possibilities. I see someone who doesn't understand science, and who redefines "paranormal" at the end of his article to better support his claims. Finally, I see someone claiming that there should be people to be skeptical of the skeptics, without realizing that those people are the skeptics themselves. No beliefs are more often subjected to skeptical criticism than the ones that a good skeptic holds himself, or the ones held by other skeptics.

Some truth exists in everything, but nothing holds the entire truth. This is why you will never be open to the possibility of psi-existence. You will always read the metaphorical "first 3 sentences" iin life and form your opinion.
I'll be open to the possibility of psi-existence when someone shows positive evidence for it, and not before. when an article clearly demonstrates its bias in the first three sentences, then no, I don't feel the need to follow the rest of it. When an experiment is shown to be flawed and poorly-controlled at the start, then no, I don't feel the need to accept its findings. When someone can show me evidence for psi that isn't the result of such an experiment or such a bias, then I will believe it.
A condition does exist which is proven by oxygen starvation to the brain, but this phenomenon does not explain everything about people's claims on OBE's as they apply to near death experiences...namely the part about the euphoric feelings that are usually stated as "indescribable" or some word of the sort.
Actually, it does. First off, how can you make any claims about subjective "indescribable" feelings? Hell, doctors have a tough time diagnosing the cause of pain even when it can be described in detail. When the brain starts to die and the nerves are firing at random, feelings of euphoria (from any number of causes: stimulation of the pleasure centers, release of huge amounts of endorphins, etc.) is to be expected. People experience feelings of euphoria any time dopamine receptors are activated; when people experience serious injury, the brain's response mechanism to deaden the pain receptors can be "euphoric." There is a very well-described explanation for these phenomena; claiming that it doesn't explain some "indescribable" quality of subjective experiences doesn't add up to positive evidence for supernatural OBE/NDE experiences.
Remember, scientists go into research without expectation of results. That's part of science's metaphorical "bible" about why results can be skewed..."expectation of end results due to previous knowledge."
Actually, scientists usually have a good idea about what the results will look like. See, theories make testable predictions, so when you're testing something covered by a theory, you usually have some kind of model (mathematical, biological, whatever) about what the results will look like. Sometimes, you're surprised, in which case you'll probably run through the experiment a few more times, make necessary calibrations, triple-check the controls, and have someone else check your results.

From your article on NDEs:

From a well respected and, in my opinion, scientific journal like the Scientific American I always expect a well documented and scientific article, and I don’t know how thoroughly peer-reviewed the article from Shermer was by the editorial staff before publication.

SciAm is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. This is a basic mistake, and I wonder about the reliability of the author's scientific credentials at this point.

According to this theory, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, they all were clinical dead due to anoxia of the brain caused by inadequate blood circulation to the brain, but only 18% reported NDE.
Actually, according to most descriptions of NDEs that I've read, not all patients will report an NDE. In just the same way that not everyone experiences hallucinogenic drugs the same way (the same sort of hallucinogens which have been used in studies to create experiences just like the ones described by NDE-people), not everyone's brains will respond to anoxia in the same way. Amazingly enough, the statistic cited in the studies mentioned in the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about NDEs was...you guessed it, "nearly 18 percent."

Perhaps I'll be able to give this article some more attention later, but I'm in a hurry (despite the length of this reply). Needless to say, it appears that as the writer discusses at length the idea that consciousness exists separate from the brain (then why does brain damage cause people to behave and think differently?) and that scientists haven't located the area of the brain devoted to memory (which sounds suspiciously like a deliberate misunderstanding of current theory as to brain operations), without ever explaining why people of different religious backgrounds tend, in NDEs, to see the sort of 'afterlife' that they have been conditioned to expect, and without explaining the results of Dr. James Whinnery's centrifuge tests which showed NDEs in cases where death was not a risk.

I'll save some space and not re-quote your "Scepticbusters" column. In the portion you gave (I have not yet gone back to look at the article, except to see that it's from that accredited and peer-reviewed scientific journal "Financial Times), the figure "34%" is quoted. Needless to say, this number is absolutely meaningless without a context as to how the experiment was conducted. There are tests in which 40% is well within the realm of pure chance, so sue me if I'm not super-impressed. The portion also states that, while there were 99 observed flaws in the experiments (suggesting fantastic procedural controls on the part of the parapsychologists) the second experiment was designed to eliminate "many" of the flaws. Strange, I would have thought they'd want to eliminate them all. I wonder what their results were in the first test. Notice that we're given no figures, so we can't know if "34%" were a rise or a drop from the previous attempt. If the figure in the first test, before the tighter controls were implemented, were significantly larger than 34, doesn't that suggest a less otherworldly explanation for the observed phenomena? If success rate drops when elements of cheating are removed, doesn't that suggest that cheating was used?

I offer the following as a point of view that may help you understand why winning things such as the James Randi challenge will never prove the existence of psi-phenomena. So What!
And I offer the following counterargument: if someone wins Randi's million, it will mean one of two things: 1. That someone was able to beat the researchers' ability to recognize the possibility of cheating. 2. That someone demonstrated positive evidence of paranormal ability under controlled conditions. If the second is the case, then that's the first step toward acceptance of paranormal phenomenon. That is evidence, actual evidence collected under controlled conditions for the existence of some paranormal effect. How is that anything but helpful to parapsychologists? Will they be immediately accepted as science? Certainly not. One successful test is not enough for proof of anything. But it means that there is the possibility for more successful tests, and it will lead to far more rigorous examinations of the phenomenon. No, one 'victory' won't be enough to change everyone's minds. But one repeatable, testable, positive victory sure as hell would be a major step towards legitimacy.

Of course, the point of this author's justification for not going after Randi's million is obvious: they have no such positive test. There is no such evidence. The authors of Skeptical Investigations can complain about Randi's test not proving anything all they want, but it sure sounds to me like "I don't want your stupid money anyway! Who needs you?" It's hard to criticize Randi's test for not proving anything when you haven't proved anything either.

Allison Dubois' show, "Medium" has a betterr track record than she does, agreed. Now forgive my use of the word "dude" here, but it feels like a "dude moment." DUDE! I stated twice in one posting that I don't support or defend Sylvia Brown. Let's all say it together now. TJ does not support or defend Sylvia Brown
That's right, you said that. The thing is, I was talking about people who believe in Sylvia Browne, on a post about Sylvia Browne, in response to your response to a comment made about the mindset of people who believe in Sylvia Browne. I understand that you don't believe in her; that doesn't change the fact that my statement as to "fantasy" and my subsequent statements thereof were referring primarily to the people on this thread who support Sylvia Browne and who claim (in some fashion) that debunking her abilities is akin to disproving joy.
I've watched their show before. They're a prime example of using sarcasm, hostility and cynisism to aid any of their points made.
They explain this in the first episode. While the hostility is generally deserved, and the sarcasm is part of their bit, the use of profanity and whatnot is because they would have to spend time and money in courts (whether or not they were right) for calling people liars and frauds, but no one can sue them for calling them motherfuckers.

And I'd like to see some of this cynicism you speak of; except when they're getting a little deep into their libertarianism, P&T are champions of human ability and the awesomeness of the natural world. What exactly do you mean by cynicism?

Not to mention that their expose on parapsychology consulted no experts. They would rather, apparently, consult recreational parapsychologists with amateur, at best, knowledge of instruments used. If you ask me, that's pretty cowardly.
I'd like to know what 'experts' you're talking about. Are we mentioning the renowned cryptozoologists consulted in their episode on Cryptozoology? Or the leading experts in moon landing hoaxes and pro-divine claims of the Shroud of Turin, as they did in "Conspiracy Theories" and "Signs from Heaven"? Or are we talking about their use of real scientists like Dr. Whinnery in the NDE episode?

Not to mention the fact that the "experts" get plenty of face-time on History Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC, CNN, and whatnot. Seems like P&T are the only ones talking to real scientists.

I don't get angry at much, and I work very hard on things that do anger me. However, they downright anger me with how abrasive, borderline abusive, they are at the mere suggestion of the validity of para-psychology in any form.
You know what angers me? People who claim that "science doesn't know everything" is positive evidence for any phenomenon.
My own observations have led me to form the hypothesis that "Science has replaced the church. In their strife to eliminate dogmatic views that religion forced, and forces upon people, they have become the very thing they seek to rid the world of. Science has now moved into a position where 'they' tell you what's real and 'they' tell you what's not." Any thoughts on this hypothesis? I haven't a clue how to test it in the midst of cynical skeptics.
I guess you'd test it by subjecting it to a little thought experiment. P1: Science has displaced the church by making claims of reality. P2: The church's claims to reality are based on dogma and ancient writings. These claims are not based on observation of reality. P3: Science's claim to reality is based on evidence and a rigorous method of testing hypotheses to see if they have validity with regards to the evidence. These claims are based on observation of reality. C1: Science has not replaced the church by making claims to reality, because Science's claims to reality are based on observation thereof.

Doesn't seem to stand up, but what do I know?

I would ask that if you want to make your point, you steer clear of adding examples such as "The Kool-Aid Man", a character of which no spiritual person has ever claimed to really exist, out of your examples of fictional beings. I'm sure "woo-vians" don't believe in it just the same as you. It's probably insulting to some, and it's an example of the sarcasm shown to exist in Media Skeptics.
Yes, it's sarcastic. The idea is that I'm rattling off fictional characters. Most woo-vians also disbelieve in leprechauns and unicorns. The point is that there is equal evidence for the existence of all three, just as there is equal evidence for the existence of God, psychic power, and the efficacy of chiropractics. My point stands, no matter what examples I use to support it.
You know, even that, really, is not a problem in my eyes. It's only a mere suggestion. The only part that actually bothers me about this statement is the final thought in which you communicate the belief that only when you, yourself, see proof, should anyone in the world believe in such phenomena. That's elevating you to the status of totalitarian, monarch and any other ruling being in people's minds. I ask you to rephrase this statement as I rephrased my statement about the definition of skeptics.
You're right, I suppose that was poorly phrased. The point is, I don't necessarily need to see evidence first-hand of psychic phenomena in order to accept it (though it would be nice, and though if I did see such evidence, I'd immediately question it and subject it to further testing). I just need to see the results of reliable testing, done in a controlled environment and repeated with similar results by different researchers in other controlled environments. In other words, once it has successfully run the gauntlet that other scientific theories must go through, then I will accept it. Provisionally. And until that point, until it has been subjected to the same set of controls and whatnot that science demands, until then no one has any reason to believe in it.


Tom Foss, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 13:39 [Link] »

Oh, and while the Two-Percenters made a very nice (and far more succinct) rebuttal to your claims, TJ, since we're in the habit of recalling pop culture references with regard to woo claims, I thought I'd paraphrase the Barenaked Ladies. It seems strangely appropriate.

Woo-hoo-hoo! It's all been done, Woo-hoo-hoo! It's all been done, Woo-woo-woo! It's all been debunked before!
Sure, it doesn't scan, but damn if it doesn't fit.


A Fan of 2 Percent Co, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 13:47 [Link] »

This site is a wonderful resource. I used to believe in a lot of crazy things until I came across sites like this. In fact, I love reading sites such as this and SkepticsDictionary.com. It certainly helps put rest to most of my doubts of the so called "psychic realm."
However, I would like to thank the representative of the 2 Percent Company for thoroughly proving TJ's comments about the hostility of some of the skeptics out there today. While the statement about the entire skeptical community being cynical in the present days is quite an overestimation of rubbish remark, it does show that this type of behavior exists.
The constant personal attacks and threats to completely ban TJ certainly showed at least me why all these people whom claim to know "genuine psychics" also claim that these so-called "genuine psychics" don't show themselves. I mean, faced with people such as the 2 Percent Company (whom apparently used less than 2 percent of their brain when typing the last response) are waiting for them?
Seriously, gentleman, this site is absolutely wonderful. While the constant use of profanity doesn't seem to bother most people in the least, personally insulting someone up and down in your response is absolutely uncalled for. Especially when TJ made only one sarcastic remark (which didn't appear to be a personal attack, but rather a general statement about his overall feelings of the response), cited all of his points (as he was asked), and asked nicely that everything be kept civil.
Being a genuine skeptic of all things psychic, I can say that it's this kind of mentality displayed by the 2 Percent Company that absolutely insults the skeptics community. Gentleman, by all means use the colorful metaphors to strengthen the conviction of your statements. But keep things civil towards people whom are genuinely trying to argue points following our own rules of citing sources and showing evidence. (even if the evidence is not substantial)
The next time one of these woo-vians (as they are called) post a lot of information that has been covered several times already, why not simply direct them towards those topics instead of trying to completely tear them down in aggressive attempts to make them appear completely ignorant. TJ seems to have at least read a few things. I mean, look at the source of most of his links (a lot of which I've read before). "SkepticalInvestigations.org".
All of that aside, you guys have a great thing going on here. I love the site and look forward to its updates. Much love to you.



The Shunned (a.k.a. TJ), 2007.01.28 (Sun) 14:21 [Link] »
Thanks, TimmyAnn, and Tom Foss! Allow us to expand on that, if you will.
I apologize if your statement did not come after reading Tom Foss's. This opening statement is misleading. Especially since you open your argument against me with information from the same post the Tom used. Thank you "Fan of 2 Percent Company" for requests that the 2 Percent Company simmer down a bit. It's not needed, but it's appreciated. I've seen these kinds of guys everywhere. They're just following what science has told them is real. Quite honestly, there's quite a bit of data against the parapsychology. But explaining to them that there is more in existence than the material world is a bit like this anecdote I was heard.
Draw a wall on a piece of paper. Draw a person standing on the left side of that paper. Now imagine you're that 2 dimensional person on that sheet of paper. If someone came up to you and told you there was more than 2 directions to go around that wall, what would that person say to you?
I'll credit a philosopher acquaintance named Brian Hutchinson for passing that story onto me. I'm not sure if it's an original story by him though. The world of 3 dimensional existence (4 if you count time) knows that there are several directions to go around the wall. But try explaining it to someboy that exists in only 2 dimensions. If I'm going to be banned from the site for continuing to post such information, then I'll just stop now. The 2 Percent Company seems very intelligent to me. So I thought I could have debates here, and not arguments and flaming. Aside from Tom Foss (most of the time), to me, it is apparent that civil debates in the field of parapsychology cannot exist. If my perception of this situation is wrong, I apologize. Thanks to Tom Foss for responses citing sources that I could read. Thanks to "Fan of 2 Percent Company" for that web address to SkepticsDictionary.com. I'll read through it sometime.


Bronze Dog, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 15:13 [Link] »

There's often little point to being civil towards the class of woo trolls who implicitly or explicitly claim that skeptics are inhuman monsters incapable of love or joy or any of those wonderful things.

Also, from my personal experiences online, I've NEVER encountered a skeptic anything like the cynical stereotype they describe. I think it's all psychological projection: They're the ones who always claim things like saying humans are incapable of building big stone structures, flying to the moon, inventing the microchip, etcetera.

The inherent message of skepticism is hope: We can learn anything if we're just willing to put aside our preconceptions and experiment. So, naturally we get angry when someone tramples over that hope and tells us that it's pointless, or that some cow is too sacred to put aside.

And before some troll starts talking about alleged unwillingness to experiment with psychics: There are lots of skeptical challenges out there. The problem with experimenting with psychics and their supporters: They always insist on cheat-friendly conditions.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 15:28 [Link] »
The next time one of these woo-vians (as they are called) post a lot of information that has been covered several times already, why not simply direct them towards those topics instead of trying to completely tear them down in aggressive attempts to make them appear completely ignorant. TJ seems to have at least read a few things. I mean, look at the source of most of his links (a lot of which I've read before). "SkepticalInvestigations.org".
Once my comments make it out of the spam filter, there will be just that sort of step-by-step debunking. The problem is, and I feel for the company on this one, it's not as if we haven't done precisely that sort of linking repeatedly in the past. 2%'s rants are filled with that sort of post, linking to the Skeptic's Dictionary, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and Bronze Dog's Doggerel posts, among other places, to show where this stuff has been covered before. I agree that perhaps they were a little harsh on TJ, but he did dodge their point, insult them, and make the same claim again without any reference to their debunking.

As for SkepticalInvestigations.org, from what I've seen, it claims to be "skeptical" of folks like Randi and Shermer, while trying to claim the existence of psi, supernatural OBEs, and other manner of paranormal phenomena. "Skeptical Investigations," in that regard, sounds a lot like Newspeak.



A Fan of 2 Percent Company, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 15:39 [Link] »
There's often little point to being civil towards the class of woo trolls who implicitly or explicitly claim that skeptics are inhuman monsters incapable of love or joy or any of those wonderful things.
Mr. BronzeDog, I agree with you on this statement that there is often little point. I like that you used often, but I don't understand why you didn't recognize that TJ's responses did not fall into that "often" category. TJ was being civil and not calling skeptics/scientists "inhuman monsters incapable of love or joy." And so I believe he deserved the same civility.
Also, from my personal experiences online, I've NEVER encountered a skeptic anything like the cynical stereotype they describe.
I think if you read TJ's link to "The Amaz!ng 3 Meeting - Las Vegas" you'll see a pretty good example of cynicism as I did. Granted, most of the skeptical community is not the cynics that "woo-vians" claim them to be, but there are certainly some prime examples that enforce their claims. I guess I'm just saying that when somebody is civil to you, why not be civil back? When somebody is rude, arrogant, and abusive to you, it'd still be preferable if people were still civil back, but I guess it's more justified in the latter than the former. I'm not denying that anything after those statements needs reconsideration. Just the ones I quoted.


Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 16:00 [Link] »

Human memory is not the write-once DVD-R that we generally take it for, Ronnie. The brain is an amazing hunk of meat, but it is far from infallible. Let me give you an example.

When I was younger, I vividly recall listening to people talk — to me, to others, or on the phone — and realizing that I was somehow saying the same words that they were saying at the same time they were saying them. By my recollection, I just somehow knew what they were going to say, and the words came out of my mouth without thinking. From what I recall, I did this all the time, and I was always right. That's pretty amazing, isn't it?

The problem is that, despite the fact that I absolutely recall doing this all the time to all of the members of my family, and despite the fact that the memory is still strong and clear in my mind today, no one in my family corroborates this memory. Instead, when I've asked about this, they've told me that I often repeated what they said...but after they said it. Suddenly, my remarkable ability has been reduced to nothing but a common, easily explained, annoying habit; perhaps a mild case of immediate echolalia.

I could tell you a handful of stories like this, in which I recall remarkable, amazing occurrences, mostly involving things that I was able to do (like the story I thought I told to my mother about ghostly, anthropomorphic hot dogs and hamburgers roaming the basement of our house which I thought frightened her enough to avoid the basement for months), but invariably I've found that my recollections just aren't backed up by those around me.

There's a reason for this: human memory is both fallible and malleable to an alarming degree. The mind is capable of bending, twisting, and sometimes outright creating memories of events that never happened, or that happened in ways very different from the memories we end up with. And that is why anecdotes — even those which are delivered soberly, rationally, and without a hint of ulterior motives — can never be considered as acceptable, valid proof of any given hypothesis.

Even if my parents did back my story about my precognitive abilities, that wouldn't make them any more believable. Consider the possibility that they could have originated the altered or phony memory for some reason and passed it on to me. If this was the case, then they would end up "corroborating" my account when I later asked them about it, but the corroboration would be based on a fabrication that they began.

Of course, another possible scenario is that I did manage to say the same words as someone at the same time they said them, but that instead of the multitude of times I recalled doing this, I only did it once or twice. Suddenly, this "power" is easily explained as either pure luck, or because the conversation closely mirrored one I had heard before, making it remarkably easy to predict (how often are we forced to engage in pretty much identical conversations, with different people, because of similar circumstances? How often do we "learn our lines" from the spontaneous first version of the conversation, and repeat them by rote in the next? For example, when making multiple phone calls in one day to announce the death or birth of a loved one, or to seek a job, or to share an interesting moment seen on television?). It's certainly possible that one or two occurrences of this "phenomenon" could have made such an impact on me that my brain exaggerated it into something larger than it ever was, and it became, in my mind, a "gift" that I used every day.

Whatever the truth of individual incidents, whatever the stories we remember, the point is that anecdotes, while they are interesting and while they are sometimes good jumping points for further study, do not constitute proof. They are unverifiable stories, and nothing more. Further, trying to disprove an anecdote after the event has taken place is an exercise in futility. Without the rigor of scientific observation already in place at the time of the event, it's impossible to limit the potential factors that may have come into play. This is precisely why anecdotes are dismissed out of hand in scientific studies — they just aren't useful.



A Fan of 2 Percent Company, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 17:09 [Link] »
2%'s rants are filled with that sort of post, linking to the Skeptic's Dictionary, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and Bronze Dog's Doggerel posts, among other places, to show where this stuff has been covered before.
I couldn't agree more with you about information already being well documented and linked on this site and several others. I think it would've wasted less energy to direct TJ to those sites instead of a 7 paragraph venting spree.
As for SkepticalInvestigations.org, from what I've seen, it claims to be "skeptical" of folks like Randi and Shermer, while trying to claim the existence of psi, supernatural OBEs, and other manner of paranormal phenomena. "Skeptical Investigations," in that regard, sounds a lot like Newspeak.
Well, it does appear there is an agenda behind investigating the skeptics themselves. I think they do that in a court of law as a tactic. Attack the credibility of the person putting forth the information. But if facts are facts, then it holds up. Can't say that their accusations have actually held up though. Anyway, I look forward to reading your step-by-step response to TJ. Thanks again Tom.


Tom Foss, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 17:23 [Link] »

I apologize for my poor formatting, this is what the post should look like:

I rephrase the definition, as I was going on memory of definition. You are correct. Skepticism defined really is "Inquiry, consideration or doubt."
Argumentum ad Websterum is not really a valid philosophical trick.
Notice the first 2 words please. Occam's Razor may be invoked in many scientific studies and controversies.
No, Occam's Razor is invoked in all scientific studies and controversies.
But please keep in mind that the operative part of this statement goes like this "...the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one." Tends, not always.
Actually, Occam's Razor says that you shouldn't invent unnecessary entities to explain observed phenomena. The whole "simplest answer" thing is kind of a layman's version. The idea is that you shouldn't have unnecessary hypotheses; if your potential explanations are "people made these crop circles by this method" and "aliens made these crop circles by this other method," and you have no evidence for the existence of aliens or the other method, you're best off picking the human alternative. So, with psychic phenomena, one explanation relies on known methods of human trickery and charlatanism, the other relies on untestable unproven undemonstrated magical abilities. To prove the latter, first you have to prove that there is such a thing as psi. Until then, the other explanation is the best there is.
Please explain the last part of your statement as the wording is throwing me a little. Are you saying that an open mind comes after doubt? In my understanding of the Scientific Process, an open mind is essential at all parts of testing.

We were talking about skepticism, which, while important to the scientific method, is not the same thing. Doubt is far more central to skepticism than an open mind is; as you noted, "doubt" is in the damn definition.

And sure, an open mind is important in science. Just not so open that your brains fall out. Your mind should be open primarily to the evidence and the possibility of being wrong (i.e., doubt).

Part of problems with evaluations of results is handled by criteria that is stated to "cause bias of results." Meaning, if you go into an experiment thinking that it's going to prove the hypothesis wrong, your mind (ah, the complexities of the human mind) will favor results that support your bias.
Um...no. First, hypotheses are not shown to be "right" or "wrong." They are shown to be "supported" or "unsupported." And indeed, there is a psychological bias which may figure into some testing. But you really don't seem to have much of an idea of the scientific process...the point of most experimentation is to put a hypothesis under rigorous review, to try to do everything possible to show it to be unsupported. It's why every hypothesis is tested and retested repeatedly by different scientists in different places, trying every method possible to show whether or not it is valid. If the evidence supports it, and if it is the most supported possible answer, then it can make its way toward the realm of theory. And it's methods like these that help eliminate any personal biases. Even if the initial scientist has some bias that causes him to misinterpret the data in a way which supports his hypothesis (not unheard-of, but difficult to do with some types of data), the other scientists who review his findings will not be burdened by the same emotional connection. It's that method of applied doubt, by which peer review is conducted, which makes bias insignificant in scientific pursuits.
I believe "woo-vians" say something to the effect of "You will only see things that confirm your beliefs. It is for this reason that the phrase 'seeing is believing' should really read 'believing is seeing.'" My interpretation is that you will only see something when you believe it.
Yes, it's called "confirmation bias." Scientists are well aware of it, and it's ironic that you'd attribute that trait to the woo-vians, who never seem to apply it to themselves. The difference between science and woo is that good scientists don't make up absurd justifications for observed phenomena, even when they contradict the expected results. Just because Michelson and Morley were looking for evidence of the invisible ether, the medium through which light was propagated, doesn't mean that they were unable to see the results, which showed that the speed of light was constant and the ether was nonexistent. Your interpretation is wrong, at least in regards to science. In regard to woo, however, if a woo-vian believes in something, they will make every possible explanation, regardless of sensibility, regardless of data, to justify their woo explanation for it. In this case, sure, believing is seeing, because believing in woo is like willful and selective blindness.
I'm guessing this only applies to the psychic realm. Or something like that. Don't quote me on that please. My point is that the statement from the scientific method and the spiritualist method seem to be saying the same thing. The only difference is that "woo-vians" ask that you believe it to see it while scientists/skeptics ask that you have no expectations on seeing it or not.
No, scientists and skeptics ask that you believe what the evidence shows.
Okay, now comes the part that sceptics dread
Oh, I watched this video! "This is the banana, the atheists' nightmare..."


(mostly because they all believe they've "been there, done that") and believers wait for. The rebuttal in favor of the legitimacy of the need for research in the field of parapsychology.
I would ask that you read this article to show but a small example of what I'm talking about. The Amaz!ng 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005

Okay, I read it. I like the strawman in this quote.
So it�s ironic that actual science was hardly touched on. Instead it was one speaker after another reinforcing the conceit, almost universal among conference participants, that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James �Amazing� Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. �Scientists are easily fooled,� explained Randi, �because they think they know.� But only skeptics really know.

While most skeptics, from Shermer to Randi, will state that everyone is vulnerable to the bullshit spouted by woo-flingers, they certainly won't exempt themselves from that distinction. Randi does believe that having a magician, who specializes in trickery, on-hand to study people who may be employing the same methods, is a useful thing. It's a belief that has been supported by decades of supportive evidence. Any magician, and Michael Shermer (in "Why People Believe Weird Things") will tell you that scientists and smart people are sometimes among the easiest to fool. Randi would note that scientists tend to look for elaborate explanations to things, when most woo-peddlers and magicians' methods are deceptively simple. Shermer would tell you that smart people are very good at making smart rationalizations and justifications for beliefs they came about for non-smart reasons. So, yes, it's natural that the folks at the Amaz!ng Meeting would be making special effort to mention that scientists and intelligent folks are not immune to woo; it's precisely those people who believe they have such an immunity, and need to be most wary of it.

Communicating Skepticism to the Public, the manual handed out at the media workshop, contains a brief passage that illustrates the gulf between science and the skeptics. In part three, �The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude,� we learn how to become a media authority: �Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you�re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you�re not.�
When you look at the "authorities" referenced on everything from mainstream news to History and Discovery Channel specials, which cite as experts crackpots like Fred Zugibe and Ralph Rene, this seems to be the case. Somehow, it seems that this quote-mine was probably not taken as an example of how a skeptic can get on TV, but how the people that need to be skeptically evaluated do.
You can�t just say you�re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you�ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. �As head of your local skeptic club, you�re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.�
Okay; and this is a bad thing...why? Skepticism is a trait which any person can (and should) hone. If that's what it takes to get a skeptical perspective on your local news station's story about ghosts or crop circles or whatever, then why not?
On the whole, the media manual is a well-intentioned and useful guide to dealing with a mass media that doesn�t always care about truth and accuracy. And if the skeptics are willing to bend the rules here and there, at least it�s in the service of a worthy cause.
What rules? Do these rules say "the head of a local and small skeptic's club is not a reliable expert, but psychics and conspiracy theorists are"?
After noting that Sylvia Brown-a huckster psychic who appears often on CNN�s Larry King Live-is known as �claws� among JREF staff because of her long fingernails, Randi expressed the hope that while scratching herself, she would tear an artery and die, a prospect which evoked hearty laughter from the audience. Later, as I looked over the books for sale by notable skeptics, I overheard a JREF staff member explain to a potential customer that The Ancestor�s Tale, the weighty new hardback by Richard Dawkins, was �excellent for bludgeoning a creationist.� Needless to say, the siege mentality and the spirit of scientific inquiry have never exactly been bedfellows.

So, what then. Scientists and skeptics are meant to tolerate vultures like Sylvia Browne? They're meant to tolerate hateful, backward, anti-science lunatics like the Creationist movement? We're meant to treat these groups with kid gloves, because they sure would do the same for us, yessir? Bull-fucking-shit. Sylvia Browne has, in-between lying to grieving parents, called Randi a liar on national television, and has spread vicious vitriol about any and all skeptics. Creationists would like nothing more than the total destruction of science and the naturalistic worldview, and will do everything from attacking science in the courtroom to saying that school boards have "rejected God" for rejecting Creationism. There is no point, no value, and no sense in being anything but blunt with morons who would just as soon see that you cease existing.

And I'd like to see that Randi quote in context, thank you very much.

In this environment a discussion of possible evidence in favor of chiropractic would have been inconceivable.
Really? Did you try? Or did you just assume that because people made fun of chiropractics for not having any evidentiary basis for their work, they wouldn't be open to just such a basis. The fact of the matter is that chiropractics is built on principles that were arbitrarily determined over a hundred years ago, and have not been shown to be true (quite the opposite, actually) in the interim. If someone had actual scientific evidence that subluxations exist and chiropractics is not just a form of soothing but potentially fatal massage, it would be absolutely welcomed by skeptics.
Alternative medicine is a favored target of skeptics, despite the fact that no scientific discipline is ever perfect or complete and that we can expect at least some trends from the periphery of medical practice to be taken up eventually within the scientific mainstream. Granted, certain aspects of alternative medicine are obviously fraudulent, such as ear candling and magnetic bracelets, but to denounce anything at all that�s outside accepted, traditional medicine is to promote a view of science more akin to religion - with its unreflective, ossified dogmas - than science as it actually exists.
Funny, there are still people who practice ear candling and magnetic bracelets, so it must not be very obvious, must it? Could part of that be because people selling their bracelets and necklaces and whatnot can appear on TV as experts to the general public, without any media checking on their claims? No, certainly not, I'm sure. And this is the same garbage that the woo spew. "Science doesn't know everything!" That's right, science doesn't know everything, and some would say that it doesn't "know" anything, since all scientific knowledge is tentative. Does that mean that we should accept alternative medicine, because it might work? Does it mean that we should wait until every possible method of alternative medicine is disproven until we make fun of it? Or perhaps it means that we should reject claims which have no evidentiary backing, as scientists do. As soon as someone shows that some alternative medicine actually has an effect that's better than what has been achieved by regular medicine, scientists will accept those findings. Of course, then it will be just "medicine," not "alternative." In the meantime, these claims that herbs and leaves and shit can have magical effects, or can have effects that are greater than those of medicine derived from the same herbs but where the doses and impurities are controlled, are deserving of every bit of ridicule that they receive.
When the topic did turn to science, the discussion most likely focused on optimum tactics in the battle against irrationalism.
Shameful! Terrible! Disgusting! Why, you'd think that they were at a skeptics' convention instead of a scientific symposium!
For instance, when a husky, white-haired gentleman raised the topic of evolution during a small-group discussion with Dr. Shermer, his point was simply that skeptics should refer to it as the �law of evolution� rather than the �theory of evolution.� This way, creationists would have to stop saying, �it�s only a theory, not a fact.� Shermer, who was having none of it, allowed a JREF staff member to respond that no scientist would take this suggestion seriously. Another skeptic vociferously disagreed and stated that we must begin referring to evolution as a law. After this the discussion meandered along pointlessly, with no one stating the obvious: that evolution can�t be referred to as a law because it�s not a law.
Actually, many scientists do refer to evolution as a law. The problem is in the definition of "evolution" in these cases. What some refer to as the "fact of evolution" or, perhaps more brazenly, the "law of evolution" is the actual observed change in species due to random mutation. Meanwhile, there is the "theory of Natural Selection" (sometimes called the "theory of evolution") which states how certain species survive while others go extinct.


In contrast to atoms that have no choice but to obey the law of gravity, species don�t have to evolve. Often the species knocked out by natural selection are precisely those that have evolved too far and become overspecialized. So it�s not as if you become extinct if you disobey the �law of evolution.� Beyond that, the very idea reeks of vitalism, as if biology has its own laws separate from physics. To top it off, the whole point of evolution is that you don�t need transcendent laws of nature (or a creative deity, for that matter) to explain the emergence of novel life forms.

Oh dear FSM, every sentence of this is patently ridiculous.
1. Yes, species do have to evolve. There's no magical off-switch for genetic mutation. Whether or not that evolution presents any advantage or faces any selection pressure is a different matter. But everything, from humans to sharks, continues to evolve regardless of how well-suited they are to their environment.
2. There is no such thing as "evolved too far." There are creatures that are so well-adapted to one environment that they cannot survive in another one, or that they cannot survive when their environment changes, but this is part of the process of natural selection.
3. You can't disobey the law of evolution, just as you can't disobey the law of gravity. That's why it's a law.
4. Why wouldn't biology have its own laws separate from physics? First off, they wouldn't be "separate," they'd be "in addition to;" it's not as though the laws of physics are supplanted by laws of biology. Second, chemistry has its own laws (the Ideal Gas Law, the Law of Multiple Proportions), why not biology (which also has laws, like Mendel's Law of Inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg Principle)?
5. What the fuck? No, you asshat, the point of evolution is that the laws of nature are the only thing necessary to explain the emergence of novel life forms. The point of evolution is that you don't need anything but the known mechanisms of the universe.

The main reason against calling evolution a law is that laws are things we can generally assume to be constant throughout the universe, and it's conceivable (however unlikely) that there are unknown species which do not mutate.

In his bestselling handbook on logical and not-so-logical thinking, Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermer describes a great many �weird� ideas harbored by ordinary people. What he fails to mention is that the chief source for weird ideas in the modern world is none other than science itself, starting with Copernicus� assertion that the earth is in motion around the sun, an observation that flies in the face of common sense...he history of science can be summarized as the story of weird ideas displacing �common sense.� As long as skeptics view the world in terms of science versus weirdness, they are guaranteed to remain parochial in their outlook.
Note that in the battle of "science vs. weirdness," common sense is not mentioned. Common sense is a source of knowledge; like any source of knowledge, it is tentative and subject to change. The things we take as "common sense" are things which we can perceive on the level of human experience, so it's little surprise that the vast majority of things that this author mentions as scientific principles that go contrary to common sense are things that are too large, too small, or too specialized for there to be a common consensus about them. The rotation of the Earth and the structure of the atom are things which, while they may impact our common sense, are also beyond our ability to directly observe. It only stands to reason that science would supplant these "common sense" beliefs, when science can measure them more directly.

None of this changes the fact that, while some scientific principles may require a rejection of "common sense," science is certainly not the main source for crazy beliefs. If it were, the crazy beliefs would be changing, but psychics, conspiracy theorists, homeopaths, and chiropractors have been practicing the same bullshit for hundreds of years. Science may be the source for their new woo justifications, but it's hardly the source for the woo ideas themselves. Those are self-perpetuating.

Telepathy is a pretty strange idea. According to Dean Radin, author of The Conscious Universe, scientific evidence for its existence has been accruing for decades. So do we follow the evidence and, at the very least, provisionally grant the possibility that telepathy is real, or do we simply banish it as being too weird? While the former is the scientific approach, the latter appears to be the favored response of skeptics.
See, this is terribly, terribly wrong. Science would not "provisionally grant the possibility that telepathy is real," science grants that all possibilities are potentially real, but accepts or rejects them based on the evidence. If there is solid evidence for telepathy, then let Radin bring it on. Let it be evaluated and tested under the general scientific method of testing hypotheses: that there are alternative and better explanations. If it passes, then science will provisionally accept it as real. Until then, both scientists and skeptics will continue to reject it in favor of better-supported explanations.

And the article goes on to discuss a possible challenge to Randi's million. It suggests that the only way to prove ESP is with statistics (isn't that true for most causality?) and that some researcher has produced a billion-to-one result in favor of ESP. I'd like to see the controls on that experiment, and I daresay that Randi would too. Dawkins is said to have made a glib response that proof of the paranormal would make it normal and invalidate Randi's need to pay, but such a possibility is already covered in the rules of Randi's Challenge.

In the end, it's clear that the article is written with countless misconceptions about science, strawmen about scientists and skeptics, and a poor understanding of most of the terms it uses. The fact that a year later, we have yet to hear any of this great evidence in favor of ESP suggests further that the study was bunk to begin with, and nowhere do I see a magical condemnation of Randi, Shermer, or anything else in the skeptical movement. What I see is a creduloid who is quite able to denounce creationism and ear candles as nuttery, but who clings to ESP and telepathy and chiropractics as viable possibilities. I see someone who doesn't understand science, and who redefines "paranormal" at the end of his article to better support his claims. Finally, I see someone claiming that there should be people to be skeptical of the skeptics, without realizing that those people are the skeptics themselves. No beliefs are more often subjected to skeptical criticism than the ones that a good skeptic holds himself, or the ones held by other skeptics.

Some truth exists in everything, but nothing holds the entire truth. This is why you will never be open to the possibility of psi-existence. You will always read the metaphorical "first 3 sentences" iin life and form your opinion.
I'll be open to the possibility of psi-existence when someone shows positive evidence for it, and not before. when an article clearly demonstrates its bias in the first three sentences, then no, I don't feel the need to follow the rest of it. When an experiment is shown to be flawed and poorly-controlled at the start, then no, I don't feel the need to accept its findings. When someone can show me evidence for psi that isn't the result of such an experiment or such a bias, then I will believe it.
A condition does exist which is proven by oxygen starvation to the brain, but this phenomenon does not explain everything about people's claims on OBE's as they apply to near death experiences...namely the part about the euphoric feelings that are usually stated as "indescribable" or some word of the sort.
Actually, it does. First off, how can you make any claims about subjective "indescribable" feelings? Hell, doctors have a tough time diagnosing the cause of pain even when it can be described in detail. When the brain starts to die and the nerves are firing at random, feelings of euphoria (from any number of causes: stimulation of the pleasure centers, release of huge amounts of endorphins, etc.) is to be expected. People experience feelings of euphoria any time dopamine receptors are activated; when people experience serious injury, the brain's response mechanism to deaden the pain receptors can be "euphoric." There is a very well-described explanation for these phenomena; claiming that it doesn't explain some "indescribable" quality of subjective experiences doesn't add up to positive evidence for supernatural OBE/NDE experiences.


Remember, scientists go into research without expectation of results. That's part of science's metaphorical "bible" about why results can be skewed..."expectation of end results due to previous knowledge."

Actually, scientists usually have a good idea about what the results will look like. See, theories make testable predictions, so when you're testing something covered by a theory, you usually have some kind of model (mathematical, biological, whatever) about what the results will look like. Sometimes, you're surprised, in which case you'll probably run through the experiment a few more times, make necessary calibrations, triple-check the controls, and have someone else check your results.

From your article on NDEs:

From a well respected and, in my opinion, scientific journal like the Scientific American I always expect a well documented and scientific article, and I don�t know how thoroughly peer-reviewed the article from Shermer was by the editorial staff before publication.

SciAm is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. This is a basic mistake, and I wonder about the reliability of the author's scientific credentials at this point.

According to this theory, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, they all were clinical dead due to anoxia of the brain caused by inadequate blood circulation to the brain, but only 18% reported NDE.
Actually, according to most descriptions of NDEs that I've read, not all patients will report an NDE. In just the same way that not everyone experiences hallucinogenic drugs the same way (the same sort of hallucinogens which have been used in studies to create experiences just like the ones described by NDE-people), not everyone's brains will respond to anoxia in the same way. Amazingly enough, the statistic cited in the studies mentioned in the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about NDEs was...you guessed it, "nearly 18 percent."

Perhaps I'll be able to give this article some more attention later, but I'm in a hurry (despite the length of this reply). Needless to say, it appears that as the writer discusses at length the idea that consciousness exists separate from the brain (then why does brain damage cause people to behave and think differently?) and that scientists haven't located the area of the brain devoted to memory (which sounds suspiciously like a deliberate misunderstanding of current theory as to brain operations), without ever explaining why people of different religious backgrounds tend, in NDEs, to see the sort of 'afterlife' that they have been conditioned to expect, and without explaining the results of Dr. James Whinnery's centrifuge tests which showed NDEs in cases where death was not a risk.

I'll save some space and not re-quote your "Scepticbusters" column. In the portion you gave (I have not yet gone back to look at the article, except to see that it's from that accredited and peer-reviewed scientific journal "Financial Times), the figure "34%" is quoted. Needless to say, this number is absolutely meaningless without a context as to how the experiment was conducted. There are tests in which 40% is well within the realm of pure chance, so sue me if I'm not super-impressed. The portion also states that, while there were 99 observed flaws in the experiments (suggesting fantastic procedural controls on the part of the parapsychologists) the second experiment was designed to eliminate "many" of the flaws. Strange, I would have thought they'd want to eliminate them all. I wonder what their results were in the first test. Notice that we're given no figures, so we can't know if "34%" were a rise or a drop from the previous attempt. If the figure in the first test, before the tighter controls were implemented, were significantly larger than 34, doesn't that suggest a less otherworldly explanation for the observed phenomena? If success rate drops when elements of cheating are removed, doesn't that suggest that cheating was used?

I offer the following as a point of view that may help you understand why winning things such as the James Randi challenge will never prove the existence of psi-phenomena. So What!
And I offer the following counterargument: if someone wins Randi's million, it will mean one of two things: 1. That someone was able to beat the researchers' ability to recognize the possibility of cheating. 2. That someone demonstrated positive evidence of paranormal ability under controlled conditions. If the second is the case, then that's the first step toward acceptance of paranormal phenomenon. That is evidence, actual evidence collected under controlled conditions for the existence of some paranormal effect. How is that anything but helpful to parapsychologists? Will they be immediately accepted as science? Certainly not. One successful test is not enough for proof of anything. But it means that there is the possibility for more successful tests, and it will lead to far more rigorous examinations of the phenomenon. No, one 'victory' won't be enough to change everyone's minds. But one repeatable, testable, positive victory sure as hell would be a major step towards legitimacy.

Of course, the point of this author's justification for not going after Randi's million is obvious: they have no such positive test. There is no such evidence. The authors of Skeptical Investigations can complain about Randi's test not proving anything all they want, but it sure sounds to me like "I don't want your stupid money anyway! Who needs you?" It's hard to criticize Randi's test for not proving anything when you haven't proved anything either.

Allison Dubois' show, "Medium" has a betterr track record than she does, agreed. Now forgive my use of the word "dude" here, but it feels like a "dude moment." DUDE! I stated twice in one posting that I don't support or defend Sylvia Brown. Let's all say it together now. TJ does not support or defend Sylvia Brown
That's right, you said that. The thing is, I was talking about people who believe in Sylvia Browne, on a post about Sylvia Browne, in response to your response to a comment made about the mindset of people who believe in Sylvia Browne. I understand that you don't believe in her; that doesn't change the fact that my statement as to "fantasy" and my subsequent statements thereof were referring primarily to the people on this thread who support Sylvia Browne and who claim (in some fashion) that debunking her abilities is akin to disproving joy.
I've watched their show before. They're a prime example of using sarcasm, hostility and cynisism to aid any of their points made.
They explain this in the first episode. While the hostility is generally deserved, and the sarcasm is part of their bit, the use of profanity and whatnot is because they would have to spend time and money in courts (whether or not they were right) for calling people liars and frauds, but no one can sue them for calling them motherfuckers.


And I'd like to see some of this cynicism you speak of; except when they're getting a little deep into their libertarianism, P&T are champions of human ability and the awesomeness of the natural world. What exactly do you mean by cynicism?

Not to mention that their expose on parapsychology consulted no experts. They would rather, apparently, consult recreational parapsychologists with amateur, at best, knowledge of instruments used. If you ask me, that's pretty cowardly.
I'd like to know what 'experts' you're talking about. Are we mentioning the renowned cryptozoologists consulted in their episode on Cryptozoology? Or the leading experts in moon landing hoaxes and pro-divine claims of the Shroud of Turin, as they did in "Conspiracy Theories" and "Signs from Heaven"? Or are we talking about their use of real scientists like Dr. Whinnery in the NDE episode?

Not to mention the fact that the "experts" get plenty of face-time on History Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC, CNN, and whatnot. Seems like P&T are the only ones talking to real scientists.

I don't get angry at much, and I work very hard on things that do anger me. However, they downright anger me with how abrasive, borderline abusive, they are at the mere suggestion of the validity of para-psychology in any form.
You know what angers me? People who claim that "science doesn't know everything" is positive evidence for any phenomenon.
My own observations have led me to form the hypothesis that "Science has replaced the church. In their strife to eliminate dogmatic views that religion forced, and forces upon people, they have become the very thing they seek to rid the world of. Science has now moved into a position where 'they' tell you what's real and 'they' tell you what's not." Any thoughts on this hypothesis? I haven't a clue how to test it in the midst of cynical skeptics.

I guess you'd test it by subjecting it to a little thought experiment.
P1: Science has displaced the church by making claims of reality.
P2: The church's claims to reality are based on dogma and ancient writings. These claims are not based on observation of reality.
P3: Science's claim to reality is based on evidence and a rigorous method of testing hypotheses to see if they have validity with regards to the evidence. These claims are based on observation of reality.
C1: Science has not replaced the church by making claims to reality, because Science's claims to reality are based on observation thereof.

Doesn't seem to stand up, but what do I know?

I would ask that if you want to make your point, you steer clear of adding examples such as "The Kool-Aid Man", a character of which no spiritual person has ever claimed to really exist, out of your examples of fictional beings. I'm sure "woo-vians" don't believe in it just the same as you. It's probably insulting to some, and it's an example of the sarcasm shown to exist in Media Skeptics.
Yes, it's sarcastic. The idea is that I'm rattling off fictional characters. Most woo-vians also disbelieve in leprechauns and unicorns. The point is that there is equal evidence for the existence of all three, just as there is equal evidence for the existence of God, psychic power, and the efficacy of chiropractics. My point stands, no matter what examples I use to support it.
You know, even that, really, is not a problem in my eyes. It's only a mere suggestion. The only part that actually bothers me about this statement is the final thought in which you communicate the belief that only when you, yourself, see proof, should anyone in the world believe in such phenomena. That's elevating you to the status of totalitarian, monarch and any other ruling being in people's minds. I ask you to rephrase this statement as I rephrased my statement about the definition of skeptics.
You're right, I suppose that was poorly phrased. The point is, I don't necessarily need to see evidence first-hand of psychic phenomena in order to accept it (though it would be nice, and though if I did see such evidence, I'd immediately question it and subject it to further testing). I just need to see the results of reliable testing, done in a controlled environment and repeated with similar results by different researchers in other controlled environments. In other words, once it has successfully run the gauntlet that other scientific theories must go through, then I will accept it. Provisionally. And until that point, until it has been subjected to the same set of controls and whatnot that science demands, until then no one has any reason to believe in it.


TimmyAnn, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 18:40 [Link] »

On several occasions I have been in a bar and saw a person and thought, "Oh, there's________" (insert name of a friend I hadn't seen in ages). Then I got a closer look and they looked nothing like the person I thought they were. Then a minute later I saw that friend on the other side of the room. On one other occasion, I was walking home at night and saw something on the sidewalk and thought it was a dead or injured bat. When I got closer, I saw it was a crumpled paper bag and looked nothing like a bat. A few blocks later, there was an injured bat lying on the sidewalk. (While his/her friend circled overhead, so I got the hell out of there!) Now, I don't know how to explain these incidents, but I DO KNOW that I have never claimed to have psychic abilities, since they do not exist. Interesting anecdotes? I think so (or at least I hope so, since I have told them to people on several occasions). Proof that I have mysterious powers? Absolutely not. Even if these so called psychics manage to make some correct "predictions" on occasion, it doesn't change the fact that they have no more magical abilities than I do. Maybe some of them have had experiences like mine and actually believe they have "the gift", and these are the so called "real" psychics people keep talking about The ones making money off of their "powers" are just plain crooks, no different than any other con artist scamming people out of their money.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 19:06 [Link] »

Exactly, TimmyAnn! Who hasn't had weird things happen to them? As we all know, it's far easier to remember the weird "hits" than it is to remember all the times you walked down that same street and had other thoughts that didn't "come true." That's a very human tendency, and one that needs to be understood in order to see why psychic claims are bullshit.

As a note, this is what we mean when we say that people need to educate themselves in order to understand our basic arguments. Without a knowledge of subjective validation, cold reading, and other "tricks of the trade," how can anyone be expected to see these psychics for what they really are? That's why we keep trying to get the information out there, and that's why we get so pissed off when people show no desire to even look at the material we refer them to.



Nes, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 19:29 [Link] »

Yeah, human memory is terrible. I saw a show on NatGeo, or maybe Discovery, about UFO's, possibly specifically about Roswell (I don't remember, no joke intended!). Anyway, this team that was investigating people's memories (and maybe UFO stories, again, I don't remember the specifics here) got about 5 people together for what they were told was a nature hike. They were given helmets with cameras so the researchers could see what the people saw and compare it to their recollections later. So the guide takes the people out, explains some of the flowers and such, and about 15 mins. into the hike, they get to a fake weather balloon crash that the researchers set up. The pieces of the weather balloon were guarded by one uniformed man with a gun cradled in his hands. He never moved nor raised his gun. Just before getting to the crash, the guide said that "something" had crashed and that the military were guarding it, and to just keeping moving and they won't be bothered. So, they walk on by.

Three months later, the people are interviewed about what they saw that day. Most (if not all) identified the weather balloon as UFO (flying saucer, not the actual meaning of the word) debris. Some people recalled seeing several soldiers, some said that the soldiers yelled at them or pointed guns at them, one said she used the person next to her as a human shield. None of that happened, and, even more surprising, at least one of the people had never even looked in the direction of the soldier, yet had an elaborate recollection of what he (or they) looked like and did.

The point is, even at only three months, memory can be completely unreliable.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 20:12 [Link] »

Thanks again, Bronze Dog and Tom Foss. We admit (and we've clearly said recently) that we are particularly harried lately, so our patience is more likely to wear thin more quickly. But we offer no apology whatsoever to TJ for our response. Was it harsh? Yep, and deservedly so, in our opinion. As Tom Foss noted:

I agree that perhaps they were a little harsh on TJ, but he did dodge their point, insult them, and make the same claim again without any reference to their debunking.

We tend to extend respect to people like TJ up until the point that they start ignoring our points and just spewing crap all over our site (just read our original response to him, which everyone should agree was respectful). There can be no doubt that the comment from TJ that preceded our rude response completely ignored the points we had made in our first reply. Instead of addressing anything we said, he simply tossed a snide remark at us. And to be clear, it wasn't the snide remark that torked us off — it was the dodge, and the continuation of the "debate" without so much as acknowledging our points. Once that happens, it becomes clear to us that the conversation is useless, and in such circumstances, our respect for tools like TJ tends to evaporate pretty quickly. We can understand how some people might see this as too harsh, and that's fine, but we are what we are. If anyone thinks that TJ is still worth debating, then please go right ahead — we won't stop you. But it's clear to us that it's a waste of time and effort to continue to try to explain reality to him. Yes, we have been here before, and even we grow tired of it sometimes, especially when we're already exhausted from that pesky "real life" thing, as we are right now.

We'll also reiterate and expand on Bronze Dog's point, in that, not only do we get angry when someone tramples over the hope we bear for human accomplishment and discovery, but, as we've pointed out hundreds of times on this website already (and numerous times within this very thread), we get incredibly pissed off when we're forced to answer the same ridiculous claims and "challenges" over and over again. To any who thought we were being "unfair" to TJ, please — please — read through the rest of this website. Search for words like "psychics" or "woo" or "scientific method," for example. See some of the shit we've had to put up with for the past two years. Our anger at TJ has little to do with his incredibly condescending attitude towards us, and far more to do with the simple fact that we're fed up with him and those like him, whom we've dealt with more often than any small group should ever have to. We've always said that we aren't here to try to debate those who are beyond help, and it's abundantly clear to us that TJ is beyond help. Yes, he uses citations, and yes, he clearly takes time to author his lengthy comments, but he also ignores too many counterpoints, and spews utter nonsense at every turn, despite people patiently explaining his errors to him. Hey, go ahead and think that we were too rude, but no one can find such fault with Tom Foss' replies to TJ, and despite Tom's immense patience and his comprehensive replies, TJ is still clinging steadfastly to his initial positions.

Just take a look at the number of times that Tom Foss thoroughly refuted the assertions TJ made — we don't know what that number is, but it's pretty large. Now take a look at the number of times that TJ acknowledged Tom's arguments, and conceded a point to reality. Find any yet? Neither did we. Instead he has danced, and backpedaled, and changed the subject, all the while tossing out more examples of ignorance and misinformation that then have to be refuted all over again. (For fuck's sake, he couldn't even comprehend Tom's usage of the Kool-Aid Man as an absolutely correct analog for any other fictional concept!) Please: help us to understand why TJ's actions thus far warrant respect. We really and truly don't believe that they do.

So what's the use of continuing with TJ? We'd rather spend our time with those who are willing to listen to reason — no matter what allowances their beliefs initially make for unfounded and unsupported phenomena — than with those whose minds are already firmly and irrevocably mired in the realm of woo (or any other misguided drivel that is totally separate from the realms of observation and testing).

If you want to see a perfect example of another similar exchange, go look up our dialogue with Anton. He was perfectly polite, and he always cited sources, but he showcased the same behaviors that TJ has been displaying: an unwillingness to respond to our points (or, all too often, a tendency to misrepresent them entirely), and an unwillingness to educate himself. Like TJ, Anton also had a penchant for lengthy posts that demanded equally lengthy replies, even though we had thoroughly covered this same ground both with other commenters, and even with Anton directly. How long should something like that be allowed to go on? Eventually, despite Anton's civil demeanor, there just came a point when it was time to stop wasting time and to just discontinue the conversation as pointless. Note that our eventual response to Anton — to either bone up on what he was talking about, or stop posting — was essentially the same as our response to TJ, and we certainly didn't pull our punches with Anton in any way.

And finally, for those who want to continue to claim that we aren't "open" to checking into claims of the paranormal, or that we haven't been down this road before, we've got two words: Safari Tom.

So we understand that some people think we were too harsh, and that some of those people are even fans of ours. But we would be remiss if we offered an apology for a comment that we wholeheartedly believe was appropriate and deserved.

Could we have said something more like the following?

Since you failed to even acknowledge our polite reply to you, TJ, and instead chose to snidely dismiss our arguments, we don't feel that this conversation is worth continuing. You clearly have no desire to educate yourself, and it has become exceedingly tedious to read your misinformed diatribes over and over again. What you are engaged in is not an intelligent dialogue: it is mental masturbation, and we aren't interested in participating.

Sure, we could have. But other than the colorful language, what's the fundamental difference between that and what we did say?

TJ got a fair chance to engage in an intelligent discussion, and he utterly failed to deliver. As we said, anyone else is free to continue the discussion, but we'll take our leave of him. It simply eats up too much time and effort to continue to respond to his points when he can't be bothered to respond to ours. Of course, even though we aren't going to be conversing with TJ any more, our patience with his presence on our website only goes so far. Just as you wouldn't invite an asshole to lounge about your house indefinitely, we're not interested in inviting one to hang about our site until the cows come home.



Nick Lombardo, 2007.01.28 (Sun) 22:06 [Link] »

What the fuck is wrong with you people?



JACK, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 00:10 [Link] »

I GET ONE THING FROM THE BLOGS, AND WHO DISCOURSES ON THEM. FOUL LANGUAGE IS A FACTOR IN LOW INTELLIGENCE. THE MORE USED, THE LOWER THE IQ. IT DOES SEEM THAT BLOGS ARE MAINLY USED BY THE LOWER IQS.



Tom Foss, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 00:44 [Link] »
I GET ONE THING FROM THE BLOGS, AND WHO DISCOURSES ON THEM. FOUL LANGUAGE IS A FACTOR IN LOW INTELLIGENCE. THE MORE USED, THE LOWER THE IQ. IT DOES SEEM THAT BLOGS ARE MAINLY USED BY THE LOWER IQS.
I'd like to see the correlation in your study. You know what I find is that the more a person uses Capslock, the lower their IQ. And when a person says "Blogs are mainly used by the lower IQs" it indicates to me that they're on the intellectual level of mayonnaise.

I'm not sure if TJ will be checking this out again, but if he does, he may want to take a look at this:

The world of 3 dimensional existence (4 if you count time) knows that there are several directions to go around the wall. But try explaining it to someboy that exists in only 2 dimensions.

And the problem with the analogy here is that the two-dimensional person, in order to be a two-dimensional person, must exist in a two-dimensional universe. And in such a universe, there are only two ways to get around a wall. You can't explain the alternative to him because not only does he have no language to express concepts like "up" and "over," but those concepts do not exist in his universe.

And, if he existed in a 3-D universe, he would have to have some measure of depth; there is no matter without that property (and, if you want to get technical, no energy either). So even if he were only an atom thick, explaining the matter of getting over the wall would be as simple as taking him over it.

And no, it's not an original creation. At the very least, it hearkens back to Edwin Abbot's "Flatland."



beepbeepitsme, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 00:45 [Link] »

And the people who complain the most about language are usually ultra concervative rightwing religious nutballs who type everything in capital letters.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 01:29 [Link] »

The idea that using "foul language" reflects on one's intelligence has always baffled me. I have known people who were dumber than a bag of hammers who wouldn't say "shit" if they had a mouthful of it. I have also known people who were very, very intelligent who fuckin' swore like fuckin' crazy. When judging one's intelligence, the words one chooses to express ideas are far less important than the ideas being expressed. The idea that swearing means your less intelligent is one of those things parents tell their kids in order to try and get them to stop swearing. Just like Santa and the Easter Bunny are things parents tell kids to make them behave. Parents say all kinds of untrue crap to kids. At some point the intelligent people figure out that Santa doesn't exist and Fido didn't go to live on a farm. I'm not saying that all intelligent people choose to swear, just that some do and it doesn't make them any less smart. I'm not sure if you just haven't figued out that what you've been told about that is bullshit, or if you do know that but find it much easier to attack someone's naughty language than to refute their argument on its merits.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 01:56 [Link] »

I saw that program as well, Nes. The truly amazing part to me was that even when the subjects were confronted with their own camera views from that day, some of them still stuck with their made-up memories of military violence and intimidation. It's amazing how powerful the mind can be, even in the face of contradicting evidence.



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 11:03 [Link] »

Doggerel #57: "You Use Bad Words!"



Rockstar, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 11:19 [Link] »
What the fuck is wrong with you people?

We don't like drive-by trolls. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I GET ONE THING FROM THE BLOGS, AND WHO DISCOURSES ON THEM. FOUL LANGUAGE IS A FACTOR IN LOW INTELLIGENCE. THE MORE USED, THE LOWER THE IQ. IT DOES SEEM THAT BLOGS ARE MAINLY USED BY THE LOWER IQS.

Dear Ass-face:

I could care less about your opinion on my intelligence. The fact remains - if my argument is sound, it doesn't matter my IQ.

Fuck off.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 16:16 [Link] »

Um, at the risk of being attacked, I can't pass up the opportunity to make a small gesture toward correcting a very common mistake. The expression is actually "I couldn't care less" meaning that you don't care even the tiniest bit. "I could care less" would mean that you do care at least a little bit.
Having said that, though, I totally agree that if your argument is sound, a few "foul" words makes no difference. People who make a big deal out of someone's "bad" language are often avoiding the more difficult task of disputing the other party's argument. It's like calling someone ugly because you can't come up with a response to their question.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 16:18 [Link] »

"I could care less" would mean that you do care at least a little bit.

Right. Some A-hole said something silly, so I care a little.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.29 (Mon) 18:08 [Link] »

Oh, okay, then.



Nadia, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 13:01 [Link] »

YouTube video showcasing a couple of Browne's lies.

The real tragedy is that people invested their time and emotions into this farce.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zKyzBe0CA2Q

Is she still on the air? I don't watch Montel... but has he bothered calling her out since?



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 14:29 [Link] »

Looks like this conversation has died. *sigh*



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 14:33 [Link] »

Looks like this conversation has died. *sigh*

(If this appears twice, I apologize, but after I clicked "post" the first time, the screen went blank and my post never appeared when I closed the page and came back. I even refreshed it several times.)



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 15:54 [Link] »

Sorry again about the spam filter, TimmyAnn. Since Tony left, it's just been moping around and zapping innocent commenters left and right.

I wish I could also say I'm sorry about this conversation dying, but holy crap I could use a nap! If you're interested, there's an interesting conversation going on over at another Rant.



Ashley, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 17:22 [Link] »

OK so my mom watched her and believes her.. I think that she (sylvia brown) is a bunch of bs... I was watching her on CNN one night and was able to have callers call in and talk to her and the one thing that another reporter asked her was "ok, so if you are supposively psychic, then where is Natalie Halloway?" I don't understand how she can just sit there and go on about how she knows about all these people who are "dead" and what not.. Everytime she is on Montel, I have to turn in because I absolutely hate her among with all of the other liars....



Madonna , 2007.01.30 (Tue) 17:52 [Link] »

I am so glsd that there are others people out there see through crap. I tell people all the time that she is full of crap. Where I live they even have so-call- Sylvia groupies. Which I personally feel is very sad. Some of them can beleive in her but they can not beleive in Jesus Christ. I feel so sorry for theose weak mined people. Montel must be getting some kind of kick back from her, because she is always on his show.



j. val, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 18:13 [Link] »

WoW, I Can't Believe That SYLVIA BROWNE Is a total fake!! This Is Going To Kill Me. I Might Have To Get On Some Kind Off Sleep Aid. Is It Really True,I Mean Did She Really F # % K Up On National T.V. And On The Montel Show ? I Cant Believe It ! By The Way Any One Know Fridays Topic On The JERRY SPRINGERs SHOW, Please Let Me Know. I Think Its Something To Do With
" People Who Have No Life Of Thier Own"
Replys Dont Bother Send'em To Some One Who Could Care Less :)



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 18:23 [Link] »

With all the real comments that our spam checker has been moderating, how the hell does this get through? I mean a quintuple post (I deleted the other four) over the span of two minutes?! Hell, that's supposed to be stopped!

Good thing the content of j. val's message was so well-written, and carefully thought out, huh? Can someone tell me what side of this argument he's actually on?



LitMsSunshine, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 18:40 [Link] »

I think people really should boycott Montel Williams show, which is as much at fault as Sylvia Browne is to promote fraud!
People should send letters to the producers of the show conveying how irresponsible it is for a national talkshow to promote her/give false impression that she is real and have people believe in this balony - she talks of trolls, and make up lies about people's lives without a single hesitation. And people believe this because Montel William is sitting right next to her supporting her. This is dangerous stuff!! People can actually believe her bullshit predictions and act upon it. We should also have Sponsors of Montel William show cancel/stop renewing their contracts with Montel William untill they take her off the show. She is truely evil to lie through her teeth like that about issues that could be grave to those who are asking them.



xiangtao, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 20:04 [Link] »

In addition to banning those who repeatedly use ARGUMENTUM AD CAPSLOCK could you also get rid of comments that repeatedly use u and ur in place of you and your/you're? And please, for the love of sweet baby jesus titty fucking christ can some people learn the proper ways to use who and whom? It really is not that difficult.



James Russell, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 20:13 [Link] »

In my openion the only one that she is truly fooling in Montel. And truth be told he knows she is so full of BS as I think we have all learned over the years. Her answers are so short and if you really watch when she answers a question she is so fast, always scratching on her head, which any phycologist will tell you that this is a sign of a lie, but as soon as she is off with a person, she will just blow off the poor person and move on to another. And by the way, if she is so good, why could she not predict Montels illness. And oh, do we all remember years back when she sat on Montels stage and said that Bill Clinton will be the first US president to come back and pull a third term. And she should be sued for sitting on his stage and saying that Leonardo DiCaprro was gay...... Sylvia give it a rest. You made your money... You took from the public... you got your much needed face lift.........MOVE ON



William Melton, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 20:27 [Link] »

Hello Everyone It just came to you all that she is a lying fake ?? Everyone wants to believe there is someone that can connect them with a family or friend that has "passed on" She should be made to reimburse the "Believers" that bought her blasphemous book !! I am so glad that so many people have finally realized her true colors !! Why didn't she predict her downfall ???
She and Montel should be held accountable for fraud !! I am sorry he is in poor health but Sylvia should have warned him !! But he is above and beyond himself and I think he is using his bad health to promote himself further !! They BOTH are lying, thieving, crooks !!
William



William Melton, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 20:45 [Link] »

xiangtao are you that anal that you are sitting in front of your computer correcting grammar ???
And STOP using language like you did in your comment concerning Jesus !! Be more respectful !! But I bet you are a young, low self-esteemed, BOY that gets his rocks off thinking he is smarter than thhose posting our thoughts !!
Hey Idiot, you can't ("should l I say cannot?) correct thoughts !!! And one other thing, you always, always begin Jesus with a capitol J !!



xiangtao, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 21:04 [Link] »

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. That should have read

sweet baby Jesus titty fucking christ

My bad. As for your analysis of who I am, how many times in this series of comments have we seen people make assumptions like this based on one comment and be horribly off the mark? Also, I do not correct grammar because I am anal. I'm simply trying to help out those who might be trying to have an intelligent conversation but seem to lack the tools to do so.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 21:21 [Link] »

You know, xiangtao, if William hadn't said anything, I would have. You'll notice that every time that we say "Jesus Christ in drag," we capitalize both the J and the C. Later, we may also start capitalizing the "D" in "drag" just to drive home how much we respect both Jesus and cross dressers. You, however, even blasphemed in your correction since you left it as "christ."

Oh, sorry. I meant: u evn blasphemed in ur correctoin since u left it as christ ("lower case c.) d00d? wtf?!?! Idot.

William: please don't chastise anyone for "taking the Lord's name in vain" on our site. If that's the kind of thing that gets your panties in a bunch, then we suggest that you push off and look for more puritanical harbors. I mean for the love of Jesus Christ getting fucked up the ass by a concrete dildo, just look around our site a little and you'll see that we don't subscribe to your silly taboos.

Was that a little gratuitous?



SANDY, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 22:58 [Link] »

I'm still laughing over TwoPercent's "mental masturbation" comment! Good one and so once again you "hit the nail on the head".....lots of mental masturbation on the net! LOL



SANDY, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 23:10 [Link] »

Xiangtao, if I wanted an English lesson, I would log on to www.fucku2.com or is it www.FuckU2.com or is it www.FUCKUTWO.com or www.FUCKYOUTWO.com. I am so confused. I don't remember the correct spelling so must I google or GOOGLE???? LOL!!



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 23:15 [Link] »

Sandy, do you actually have a point?



Tom Foss, 2007.01.30 (Tue) 23:29 [Link] »
Xiangtao, if I wanted an English lesson, I would log on to www.fucku2.com or is it www.FuckU2.com or is it www.FUCKUTWO.com or www.FUCKYOUTWO.com. I am so confused. I don't remember the correct spelling so must I google or GOOGLE???? LOL!!
See, this is all a matter of intent.

If you're looking for abuse, go to FuckYouToo.com.

If you're looking for a site to vent your hatred for Bono and the Edge, go to FuckU2.com.

Incidentally, who the hell is the third guy in U2? How much must it suck to be Greg or whatever his name is? "Hi, I'm Bono, this is the Edge, and this is...Steve."



SANDY, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 00:07 [Link] »

Tom Foss, I think you and TwoPercent are the only ones who actually got my point. Bronze, my point is....what difference does it make??? To really SPELL it out for you, the point is NOTHING, zero, zip, nada. And to be absolutely clear and concise, what difference does it make how someone types their message as long as it is delivered??? To spend time pointing out grammatical errors is, in my humble opinion, just a lack of anything to offer. People who have nothing to offer (Sylvia Browne types) always prey on the weakness of others (the grief sricken types).

Did you understand that point?

Ask yourself, do you shop for postage stamps?? Do you truly care what is on the stamp you buy?? If you do, then you would never begin to understand my poinl. LOL!!



Tom Foss, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 00:23 [Link] »

Actually, speaking as an English major, I have to disagree. Punctuation is very important, especially in a medium like the Internet. Words are impersonal little things, and every little bit of punctuation and formatting you can stick into written language to make your intent more clear ultimately ends up helping the reader out. Whether it's punctuation or italics or (FSM forbid) emoticons, these little symbols add a bit more sense to your writing.

And we could all stand to be more sensible on the Internet.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 01:43 [Link] »

Besides, "ur" isn't an error it's deliberate stupidity. On a cell phone where it can take three pushes of a key to get the letter you want, I can somewhat understand abbreviating (although, I don't understand why people text in the first place when they could talk , but I digress...). On the internet, though, typing "your" is really not that much more difficult than "ur" and doesn't make the poster look like a dipshit.



SANDY, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 08:52 [Link] »

TIMMY ANN, I totally agree with you, there are lots of dipshits who are too lazy to type and choose to abbreviate.

TOM FOSS, I also agree with you. I was wrong. I over reacted to the ignoance of another person and truly should have thought before responding.

SANDY now removing foot from mouth! LOL!!

TOM FOSS, English Major! No wonder your commentary is so interesting!



xiangtao, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 14:08 [Link] »

I choose to not capitalize christ as it is a title rather than an actual pronoun. As I don't accept Jesus as any sort of messiah, I choose not to give the title respect. As to the grammar, as I said before, I don't correct it out of some desire to look smart or belittle anyone. I am trying to help those who are trying to participate in an intelligent (at times) discourse. Bad grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. does nothing to contribute to your ideas and it does a great deal to detract from them. You are much less likely to have your comments regarded with any degree of seriousness if your writing is horrible.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 14:33 [Link] »

xiangtao — you do know that my colleague, Tom (from the Two Percent Company), was completely and utterly joking, right? Did the "we respect both Jesus and cross dressers" not drive that point home? Chill, guy — nobody here (who has thus far had anything valuable to contribute) gives two flying titty-fucking shits about J-man or his christitude. You're among friends in that regard.

Now, I have a confession to make: I'm really, really obsessive (some might say "anal") about the written word, and at the gut level, I come down on the side of those who complain about the atrocious spelling and grammar (and "time-saving" abbreviations) used constantly in Internet communications. I also completely agree that seeing such horrible written and verbal skills on display makes it rather difficult for me to take the contributor seriously, and often entirely eclipses any point they may be making. I literally flinch when my eyes scan across a misspelling (even my own!) or a sentence that requires pretzel-like contortionism in order to even partially parse its intent.

But...I also recognize that others might find our use of profanity around here just as disconcerting and even distracting from our points. Honestly, I don't give a shit, and I think they're fucking idiots to suggest that "bad, bad words" indicate a lack of intelligence or a valid point, but they do, in fact, suggest just that. And suggesting that someone's point is invalid simply due to their spelling and/or grammar, while making perfect sense to me on pure instinct, is as flawed an observation as theirs that swearing invalidates my points.

All that said, do I laugh hysterically at some of the more egregious offenders? Fuck, yeah! Some of these people are such poor communicators I fall into a laughing fit akin to interminable hiccups (or "hiccoughs," for you really anal folks). And, what's more, a lot of them really are idiots with no valid point, completely aside from not being able to properly and clearly convey a simple message in writing.

So I try to sift through the amazing assortment of writing styles on the Intarwebs in my search for intelligent observations and assertions, and I try not to let style (or the lack thereof) drown out content; but it's on a case-by-case basis, you know? And, if not statistically, at least anecdotally, those with the worst grasp of written communication are often those with the worst grasp of reality and sanity, and vice versa.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 14:55 [Link] »

It annoys me too even though I'm a huge offender. The only time I'm at a computer is work, so I get interrupted by some moron that thinks they have a problem every 10 seconds or so.

My pet peeve is "your" substituted for "you're".

And Jesus was an axe-wielding homosexual serial killer.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 15:28 [Link] »

Good point, Rockstar — there are always possible extenuating circumstances beyond "he's a fucking moron." I used to make fun of my brother-in-law all the time when he'd e-mail from his Blackberry, because those damn things make it so hard to construct a coherent sentence, especially on the go, and he sounded like an idiot. Or "Idot," as I believe we're supposed to spell it now. The potential reasons for bad writing in the modern age — however likely or unlikely in a given case — are reason enough to judge each contribution individually before jumping to conclusions.

I was utterly surprised by your final statement. I didn't know that Jesus had an axe. And if he did, shouldn't that be "Axe"? William's going to be so mad at you.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 15:58 [Link] »

That's silly. If he'd had an axe, he could've chopped down the cross.



xiangtao, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 16:04 [Link] »

Yes, I clearly undersdstood that Tom's comment was a joke. I was merely explaining my motivations for what I chose to capitalize or not.

I do see a difference between using abbreviations and bad grammar and using profanity. While I quite often see the most profane utterings imaginable come form highly intelligent people, I have yet to meet anyone with half a brain who uses u or ur in their writings.



Raven, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 19:33 [Link] »

Wow, I love the anti-Christian sentiment. Too bad ome of you guys can't hustle people who aren't like you into big showers and gas them like the Nazis, because it sounds like you'd enjoy that. Cause all people of one religion are evil, right? People throughout history have honored that sentiment deeply.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 20:12 [Link] »

"All people of one religion are evil"? Fuck, Raven, are you that oblivious to what's actually going on here?

If what you've taken away from our website is that we and the majority of our regulars are "anti-Christian," Raven, then you're suffering from severe tunnel-vision. We're anti-religionall religions, any religion, because there really just isn't any fundamental difference between any two you might care to pick.

Let's keep in mind what religion the folks who actually used gas chambers tended to flock to — that's right: Christianity. Do we think this condemns all Christians, for all time? Nope, and we'd never say such a thing, since we judge people by their words and deeds, rather than some arbitrary collection they find themselves a part of. The religion itself, like all religions, has condemned its die-hard adherents to their own deluded worldview for all time...unless they're willing to wake the fuck up.

And as we've explained patiently a thousand times, asshat, and then impatiently a thousand times after that: we're perfectly willing to live and let live. The "faith folks" — particularly certain groups of Christians, which is why they get singled out so often — have made their positions on the matter quite clear, and we're not about to go meekly into their "gas chambers" — actual, metaphorical, political or otherwise — just because they claim (outrageously) to have cornered the market on "truth." They picked the fight, you stupid fuck, and they've been fucking with everyone else in the political, cultural, legal, scientific and military arenas for over a millennium; now you're going to slam us for not just lying down and taking it? Go fuck yourself.

We don't have to "watch ourselves" when it comes to someone else's sacred cows, asshole. Isn't it funny how Christians don't have a problem with eating actual cows, despite the Hindus' opinions on the matter? Well, we don't have a problem with ridiculing ridiculous belief systems that make no consistent, coherent sense, no matter what the believers' opinions on the matter might be. We respect your right to believe in fucking grotesquely illogical concepts; we have no respect for fucking grotesquely illogical concepts themselves.



TimmyAnn, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 20:41 [Link] »

Three of my best friends are Christians and I have no intention of "hustling them into a big shower". We get along just fine, because they don't try to convince me that there is a "God" and I don't try to convince them there isn't. We have an unspoken "agree to disagree" policy. The people who come to this site never just say "I believe in God because I have faith" and leave it at that. They always try to convert us to their side. Christians (and other religious people) have every right to believe what ever the hell they want, but when they come here and try to "prove" the existence of this "God" and accuse those of us who don't believe what they do of being joyless, horrible people, well, they are asking for trouble. So who are you to condemn 2% for giving them what they asked for?



Bronze Dog, 2007.01.31 (Wed) 23:49 [Link] »

Project much, Raven?

We'd be content to keep everything on the debate table if the fundies weren't trying to give themselves special privileges while attempting to legalize discrimination against atheists.

After all, some states have (unconstitutional) clauses that try to outlaw atheists from running for office.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 10:14 [Link] »

Awwww...another xian fuck who feels oppressed because we don't hold his beliefs in ancient mythology in high reverence like him.

Well asshole, as a xian you believe that I should burn in fire forever just because I say

Fuck you holy spirit, I deny the shit out out of you.

Who is the evil one now?

So who is the



st3ve-(), 2007.02.01 (Thu) 13:18 [Link] »

she may be dumb and stupid and full of shit, but she was smart enough to make millions being dumb, and a liar



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 13:26 [Link] »

Yep, she's very wealthy. Then again, if I lacked all vestiges of compassion, empathy, and humanity, and if I didn't mind exploiting people who were suffering the loss of a loved one, I could probably do Sylvia's psychic bullshit act far better than she could. If only I was a complete cocksucker, I, too, could be rolling in the dough.

Of course, it isn't about how good she is at her job — I think we've shown quite clearly that she isn't very good at pretending to be a psychic. The bottom line is that people in pain want to feel better, and some of them will cling to anyone or anything that can ease their suffering. The fact that Sylvia exploits people when they are at their weakest is precisely why we get so angry with her and her ilk.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 13:40 [Link] »

As has already been said numerous times in this thread, there are plenty of folks who could easily do what Sylvia does...but would never, ever choose to actually do so, because we're not interested in dishonestly sucking money from the credulous and psychologically fucking them up for years.

Assholes like Sylvia are into that kind of thing: sucking and fucking. That's why we call them "whores."

And for those who are still trodding the "Sylvia sucks, but other psychics are real" line, take a stab at viewing these clips from Larry King Live. This fucking Rosemary Altea whore can't even give Randi a straightforward yes-or-no answer, without wandering off on masturbatory tangents — and she trots out the same old bullshit regarding the Randi Challenge that has been debunked a million times before (like the "there is no million dollars" crap — do these people think Randi is going to carry one million in cash around in a briefcase to dramatically reveal when asked? It's called prudence and utilization of modern financial institutions, fuckholes). She even laughs when Randi tries to patiently explain to thick-as-a-stump Larry King that the Randi test is tailored to the challenger's specific claims — laughs, as if not having one "predetermined" test for any of thousands of wildly different claims is somehow humorous, instead of obviously fucking scientific (why, for instance, would you show Zener cards to someone claiming to be able to psychically diagnose disease?).

These people are tools, and deserve far more than ridicule — let them prove their "powers" in court, defending against lawsuits, if they're so "confident" in their abilities. It wouldn't be hard — just call Randi as a witness, and take his fucking challenge.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 13:49 [Link] »

I don't think the Fat Bitch is stupid; on the contrary I think she is quite bright.

I also think she is an evil piece of shit that should be pushed off the Empire State Builiding...head first into a tack.



Eric, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 14:28 [Link] »

I realize I'm a little late for replying to TJ here, but I just did want to point out that I was actually at the Amazing Meeting 3. While I can't claim to have heard every single thing Randi said, I never heard Randi expressing any wish that Sylvia Brown would claw out an artery, certainly not in front of any audiences I was in.

Also, the "So What" piece by Auerbach on SkepticalInvestigations.com is the biggest piece of bullshit strawmannery I have ever read. All it proves is that Auerbach can just barely outthink a "skeptic" who he has personally made up and gets to write the dialog for.



Jason Spicer, 2007.02.01 (Thu) 23:05 [Link] »

Hey now. What's the 2% Co have against prostitutes? I think we need a better word than "whore" to describe creatures like Sylvia. "Ghoul" would be closer, though "psychics" actually prey upon the bereaved. I suppose they feed on the dead in a sense. Anyhow, even in the pejorative sense used in your post, "whore" is much too kind a word.



Ronnie, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 03:17 [Link] »

Thank you Tom!



bing, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 04:46 [Link] »

although i believe sylvia is fake, as i believe all phychics are fake to the degree she is tring to be, however she isn't doing anything priests and pastors don't do every day---- take money from stupid people who believe in blind faith.
and if your catholic, tring to screw you in the ass.
litterally !
but i'm sure the religious people can justify the gay, rapist priests, i just don't buy it. they should rot with sylvia.



bing, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 04:49 [Link] »

psychics



GOD777, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 18:09 [Link] »

oh my head hurts. I tried to read all the comments
Has anyone ever passed the Randi Challenge?



Jean, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 19:47 [Link] »

I actually live in New York, across the river from the towers. I lost people I knew and loved, friends of the family (my dad was a paramedic who, thank god, was not there that day), people from my neighborhood, and my good friend Mary Jane Palombo lost her father. It's sick that this bitch would capitalize on someone's pain in this way.



GOD777, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 20:05 [Link] »


1.) The existence of Extraterrestrials should be proven by mere vastness of the Universe. It's pretty small minded to believe that in the entire Universe, we're the only life that exists.

IF there are extraterrestrial life forms out in the universe and IF they are intelligent and IF this inteligence is advanced enough to build spacecraft that can travel billions of light years in no time at all from their planet to ours they probably would be smart enough to know not to come here . . . ever.



GOD777, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 21:16 [Link] »

oh and two percent company can any of you name one time you were ever proven wrong while you were debating in these rants?



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.02 (Fri) 23:04 [Link] »

To answer your first question, GOD777: nope, no one has ever won James Randi's challenge or, for that matter, even passed the preliminary tests (to our knowledge). The overwhelming reason for this seems to be that few would-be claimants are even capable of defining their "powers" such that a preliminary test can be conducted. The underlying reason for that problem is, of course, the simple fact that "psychics" are fake.

To answer your second question: off the top of our collective head, we can think of a few times when we made mistakes and/or misstatements and were corrected by commenters. For example, dikkii caused us to reexamine the founding premise of one of our posts, eventually eliciting from us a large disclaimer about a fundamental error we made. On that same thread, we retracted our comments about Bernie after learning more about his positions and having further discussions with him. A few readers pointed out a basic flaw in our reasoning in another post, which we acknowledged. We corrected our wording at the request of two readers elsewhere, and more recently, we gratefully accepted a correction on some loose wording that we used. In addition, we frequently receive excellent counterpoints to some of our stated positions in the Score — which, since we haven't had time to correct them all, inspired part of our first birthday Rant, in which we invited any and all to offer opinions on our statements and positions in that section of our site — a section that remains (and will remain, for the foreseeable future) a work in progress.

We're sure there are others, but that's not a bad list off the tops of our heads. Was there anything in particular you were wondering about?



bing, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 02:55 [Link] »

JEAN
your story sums it all up. it just isn't right.
i hope that you, your dad, mary jane, and everyone in new york finds peace and direction as you pick up the pieces and live with this nightmare in your everyday lives



CAPRI, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 05:41 [Link] »

My Very First Post. By: CAPRI

(I will be covering several issues touched upon in this thread)


1. Slyvia Browne...only ONE of many a modern-day "Snake Oil" salesmen. I believe someone referred to these people as "carney's", and rightfully so. What truly bother's me is the likes of these people (James van Prague, John Edward, Sylvia Browne, etc.) getting such publicity and recognition. They make millions! You would think that in our modern day of high technology, we wouldn't "fall" for such things, but I see the opposite is true. What KILLS me, is that these vampires (and I say that because they suck (wow! a site where I can actually use the word "suck"!) the lifeblood out of those who are clueless enough to expose themselves and be around them) They systematically prey upon those who are usually at their lowest point in life (loss of a loved one, missing child, etc.). I, even, hav come close to falling for these people as well when I lost my sweet sister suddenly in 2000. At the time I actually very seriously considered flying out to CA and paying the $1000 sitting fee to get a personal session with Van Prague. I was out of my mind with grief and was willing to turn anywhere, to anyone, and pay any amount, if it would help take away the pain. Thankfully there are legitimate services such as Griefnet, Hospice, and even "Bereavement" Counselors. I strongly suggest anyone who is in need to seek out these resources before going to a "psychic" or someone who claims they can "talk to the dead". (What was I Thinking??).

2. I also want to point out that many people, even with the added advantage of the easy availability of technology around them, still do not take advantage of it. I mean, with just a little true research, you can find out the Truth. This bothers me so much during voting season. DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT'S PUMPED AT YOU VIA A CATHORADE TUBE FOLKS~! You can research your candidate and find out so much more truth than what you are told by the Media. I hav worked in the Media for many years (Radio~On-the_Aire Personality) and you don't sell newspapers, or commercials, or get ratings if people don't watch your station, listen to your show, or read youtr paper. And most of the GP (Gen. Public) doesn't watch anything "mild"...they like CONTROVERSY! So the media must dredge up something to create that controversy...whether real...or not. Treat Everything you see as though it was Not True, until you can prove it as satisfactory for yourself. One case that constantly is a source of disillusionment: our President, George Bush. I love him! I mean on Sept 12th we all were reeling wondering what happened the previous day and how it was even possible (Clinton slashed Military AND intelligence funding, that's how! But I digress...) People bashing our President for the Iraqi war pisses me off! What are we supposed to do....? Nothing??? You're kidding, right? The man has the balls to step up to the plate and do what has to be done...and the media bashes him for it?? Under 3000 American lives would hav been lost here in the states in our military in INACTIVE duty! 3000 lives is a Phenomenol success! Ask your grandparents about WWII and how many lives were lost...ask your Uncle about the Vietnam policing action...over 50,000 lives lost there...and remember...WE DIDN'T START THIS! 9/11 was laid at OUR doorstep...started on OUR soil....so DON'T believe all of the hype and crap the media pumps at you. The media's pro-democratic slant will be our downfall if we aren't careful... (OK, I'm not talking restricting Freedom's of Speech, folks...so simmer down...but there should be more responsible journalism...) Is that too much to ask?

3. On Religion: The Bible is a book that has been written, edited, and translated, by MAN. Those who adhere to such an organization so strictly are usually those who look to that organization, and the belonging to it, for a sense of belonging to something "important", or something "more important", than they are. I was heartened to find this site, as I thought (and hav been made to feel) that I am "wrong" for my belief that we are born, we die, and that's it. I mean up to 30 years ago, "religion" taught us that pets "don't go to Heaven". If animals don't, why would we? Isn't Man simply an animal with a more developed brain stem? I hav other reasons, of course, but it's late because I totally read most of this thread. I mean I WANT to believe in the "AfterLife"... Heck, who wouldn't? We ALL want to "live forever" (well, I would) but I just don't believe it to be so. Most religious fanatic will tell you (when the back & forth point/counterpoints of an debate are done) that it boils down to "Faith", and I just don't hav it. My mind believes more in the facts of Science. (Which I will then hear; "You're Intelligence is faith's enemy"). What? "God" created me with a brain and then ask's me not to use it? I then compare this "God" to a sadistic little boy who is toying with an anthill. He knows he by far more intelligent and more powerful than the ants. He knows that he can control them through many different methods, yet insist's on the ants giving, of their own limited "free will", total submission and belief. Now, if that is not Sadistic, what is? Ah, I am preaching to choir here I believe, so I will just say (In my best "Forest Gump" voice) "And that's all I hav to say about that". *wink* ~CAPRI

P. S. Another thing I like to say to the religious fanatic's (this one I use when I'm in a hurry and don't hav time for a long debate) is that Jesus was an Alien and that I'm going to Burn in Hell. lol.

God, I hope I'm wrong about that.

But now that I'v commented on Religion, and Politics (well, somewhat) I guess the only thing I didn't cover is Sex, but my wealth of knowledge in that field would take far too long to type out so for now I will hav to politefully decline... *grin*

Thanks for the site!



GOD777, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 08:49 [Link] »

There is only one thing I can say about all of that.
Yes to the 1st, yes to the 3rd but no to the 2nd.

I agree with researching your candidate, you want to know who your voting for. But the rest I can't agree with. Bush is an idiot. I'm sure he's a nice guy and that niceness is probably what got him reelected when standing next to John Kerry who's stiff as a board. But Bush is not the kind of person you want running your country. And 9/11 is what bush used to sucker us into this war; kind of like how psychics sucker you into giving them money when your greiving. No I'm not saying we should have done nothing, but we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We're not the world police! We should stop butting our heads into other people's problems that don't affect us! If you want to send your troops somewhere how about North Korea, They're the ones building actual weapons of mass destruction! Or afganistan to find the guy who planned 9/11 Osama Bin Laden (And though maybe Clinton slashed funds but when he was president we had Osama. and he was about to send troops to get him when his presidency ended and he gave all that intelligence to Bush who didn't do anything with it)



GOD777, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 08:53 [Link] »

We didn't "have him" but we knew his exact location and were about to have him



Diane, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 11:09 [Link] »

Hey, If the author of this article would clean up his language I'd pay attention to it. Its terrible to allow such poor use of the English language to pass as professional work. There is no excuse for spewing 4 letter words. Its cheap and easy and doesn't require more meaningful and expressive statements. Also, there are children reading this garbage. I am personally very offended by this article and website.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 13:39 [Link] »

Motherfuck! We are so fucking sick of people bitching about our use of profanity. Our patience is officially worn out with people who drop this particular nugget of shit on our doorstep, so if that's all you have to say, then don't say anything at all.

We've answered this complaint dozens of times, as well as numerous times on this very thread. So not only didn't you bother to check out our site before posting this useless tripe, you didn't even bother to read the comments that preceded yours. If you had, you'd see that our answer to this annoying and idiotic assertion is always the same: they are words. Sometimes words that you might consider offensive are the best words to use. Sometimes they convey a meaning that no other words can convey in the same way. If you think that using such words conveys a lack of intelligence, you are wrong. There is no correlation between using (or not using) profanity and intelligence — both highly intelligent people and utter morons engage in this behavior. And finally, if you can't see our arguments because you are too wrapped up in the "bad language," then you are a narrow-minded idiot, and we'd like you to leave our site.

So we don't give a flying assfuck if you are offended by our language, Diane. You may not believe this, but we didn't start our site to cater to your desires. Further, you came to our site, and you have absolutely no innate right to not be offended. We set the ground rules here, and we have made it quite clear that profanity is a-okay on our site. So you can take your puritanical offense and stick it where the sun don't shine. That would be up you ass, in case you weren't clear on that.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.04 (Sun) 18:17 [Link] »

This isn't American Idol: Substance is always more important than style in logical discourse.

That said, Diane, I see precisely zero substance in your comment. Why did you consciously choose to waste your time saying exactly nothing?



Grumblecakes, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 02:38 [Link] »

I wanted to say I just found this website, and I love it!

I especially like Diane's comment that "there are children reading this garbage". If a child read all the way through this post and ALL the comments, they'd have such a rich context of opinions, personalities and language that the swearing wouldn't even phase them.

I had a "psychic" moment myself just a few hours ago. I saw a news headline that said Actor Arrested for Murder: Man Falls Down Elevator Shaft. Before I clicked on the link, I thought "it's an actor from Oz". And it was. (Granville Adams)

Sure, it gave me chills up my spine for a second, but then I thought of all the reasons I had for jumping to that conclusion:
-Oz was one of my favorite shows, so it's always in my brain somewhere,
-Oz featured at least two elevator shaft murders,
-Thinking about arrests and murder made me think of a show that was based around... arrests and murder,
-I would have thought of Oz either way, and if it was some other actor I wouldn't even remember my premonition right now.

It's pretty easy to see that my psychic abilities were just a coincidence. Unless there's someone out there willing to pay me for my gift, in which case I see great happiness for you if you give me $1000, and someone with the initial J really needs to speak to you from beyond the grave.



NikkaBestaRaiseUp, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 05:04 [Link] »

Wow, What a bunch of crap... I wonder why peoples stupidity and egerness for retardation get the best of them sometimes. I really could care less about this Brown lady, or any of you angry fools who choose to sit here and bash some con-artist. All you care about is letting your mouth flap with untruth and rage. Get a job, get a life, get a Nintendo, get some damn beer. GET SOMETHING!!!
Before you end up getting socked by someone because of your OPINION.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 05:17 [Link] »

What the fuck is your problem, NikkaBestaRaiseUp? "Egerness (sic) for retardation"? What does that even mean? For that matter, what does " letting your mouth flap with untruth and rage" mean? If you think we are wasting our time, I suggest that it is a waste of your time to post about aour wasting our time. The reasons for trying to "debunk" this Browne bitch and her ilk have been explained many times on here. Did you even read the thread before throwing in your.....well, I was going to say two cents, but it's more like a ha'penny, isn't it. (Evidently not or you'd know that "I could care less" says exactly the opposite of what you probably meant.) Get lost before I figure out a way to "sock" you over the internet, not for your opinion, but for expressing it in such a stupid way on a board on which you are not even welcome.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 07:34 [Link] »

Another militant apathist. Giving a care is a waste of time, and we should just let evildoers run free without criticism, since spending time doing something productive for society is a far more serious crime than making money a lazy way.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 11:01 [Link] »

There was a time I was worried I was running low on doggerel to dissect. Not anymore. This thread's trolls will probably say it all.



lisa, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 13:21 [Link] »

I can't stand to watch Montel on Wednesdays when Sylvia Brown is on. I make that my day to watch something else. Come on Montel!!!



rockstar, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 13:29 [Link] »

any of you angry fools who choose to sit here and bash some con-artist.

You troll said blog. Which one of us needs something to do?

All you care about is letting your mouth flap with untruth and rage.

Provide evidence of "untruth" or withdraw the claim.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 13:34 [Link] »

Awesome, Bronze Dog! Even if this thread has been inundated with wave after wave of utter idiots, at least two good things have come out of it: a number of intelligent new visitors, and more Doggerel!

I would like to take NikkaBestaRaiseUp's challenge, though. Let me see...

Job...check. Several of them, actually.

Life...check. Just one, but I'm hoping to prolong it as much as I can. And it's even fun and fulfilling at times.

Nintendo...check. The original, in fact. I also have Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Playstation, and Playstation 2. Not to mention a few emulators. I could also probably track down the old IntelliVision at my parents' house. Of course, what with my life and my jobs, I rarely get the opportunity to sit down and play with any of these consoles.

Beer...check. I'm not the biggest drinker, but I like a good beer from time to time.

"Something"? Well, aside from a life, several jobs, a collection of gaming consoles, and the occasional beer, I also have — hmm...one, two, three, four — well, a lot of other "somethings." So...check.

Am I special or unique with all these wonderful "possessions"? Of course not. I'm sure the majority of people posting comments here have at least two of them — even NikkaBestaRaiseUp. What many of us have, however, that NikkaBestaRaiseUp doesn't have, is basic human compassion and a quite noble and purposeful outrage at those who would take advantage of others for nothing more than greedy personal gain. In short: we give a shit. Folks like NikkaBestaRaiseUp are, at best, useless vermin who leech off of the achievements of others, whether those others are achieving positive or negative goals. The NikkaBestaRaiseUps of the world contribute nothing to civilization on their own, either good or bad.

Here's a suggestion, NikkaBestaRaiseUp: try taking a stand that doesn't add up to a sum total of "Don't take a stand." Until you do, your net worth as a member of the human species is precisely nil.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 15:51 [Link] »

Job: Check.
Life: Check.
Nintendo: 8-bit (original from my childhood, still works), Super, 64, Gameboy Monochrome (one line of dead pixels), Color, Advance, DS, and most recently, Wii. Also got a PS1, 2, and PSP. Only one on that list that I had to replace was the PSP: Dropped the first from a not-inconsiderable height.
Beer: Sorry, I'm a teetotaler.
Something: D&D, Anime, possibly Skeptiplomacy in my future. Star Trek, Doctor Who (more recent addition). Got plenty to keep me occupied when I take a break from standing up for truth, justice, all that stuff.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 17:08 [Link] »

Grumblecakes said:

It's pretty easy to see that my psychic abilities were just a coincidence. Unless there's someone out there willing to pay me for my gift, in which case I see great happiness for you if you give me $1000, and someone with the initial J really needs to speak to you from beyond the grave.

Exactly! This stuff happens to everyone. The difference between us and the "true believers" is that, when this kind of thing happens, they immediately proclaim "magic," while we tend to think about the reasons for the "phenomena" which are almost always pretty straight-forward and mundane.

And as long as we're checking ourselves against Nikka's "challenge," here's my entry:

Job...check. I'd love to uncheck this one, so if any creduloids want to send their money to me instead of Sylvia Browne, I'd appreciate it. I'll even give you some vague predictions just like Sylvia, if that's your thing. But unlike Sylvia, I'll admit up front that I have no psychic powers. Such a deal!

Life...check. Although right now it consists of catering to the feeding, diapering, and rocking of a three-week-old baby, that still counts. Besides, I had an action-packed life before the kid came, and I'm told that eventually I'll have one again. When she turns 25, maybe?

Nintendo...check. I have the emulator for the original, so that counts. I also have a working Atari 2600, and a working Apple IIgs, as well as an emulator for Colecovision, and one for various arcade games (MAME, that is). I have a Playstation as well, but that gets far less use than the systems listed above.

Beer...check. While my true drinking medium has always been hard liquor, I still have quite a bit of beer in the fridge. For the past few years, it's mostly been Guinness.

Something...check. In fact, lately I have so many somethings, that I don't have enough time to do them all. That whole "we're so busy we can't even reply to the comments on this post" thing might have been a tip-off.



Eric, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 17:18 [Link] »

Job: Done.

Life: All set on that.

Beer: Here's the problem. We have tons of beer left over from our SuperBowl party, and I just don't drink much beer. So if any of you other untruthful rage-spewing mouth-flappers need some help with getting a beer, let me know. I'm happy to provide.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 17:25 [Link] »

Eric, I'm seeing a whole new industry opening up: e-Beer. Now if only we can figure out how to reduce a brew to binary data for the transfer. Does anyone foresee any bandwidth limits?



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 18:19 [Link] »

Might want to ask the homeopaths for help. They've got some spiral wire you can wrap around a homeopathic remedy (10 times, of course) which converts it into sound which you play for 10 seconds to transfer to a bottle of water.



interupt, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 20:24 [Link] »
Might want to ask the homeopaths for help. They've got some spiral wire you can wrap around a homeopathic remedy (10 times, of course) which converts it into sound which you play for 10 seconds to transfer to a bottle of water.

Is that a WAV file or Mp3?



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.05 (Mon) 20:32 [Link] »

Actually, I think it's some proprietary file format. Can't remember if it's a 1 or a 0, though.



~CAPRI, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 02:08 [Link] »


OK "God777"..I hav to refute part of your response..(but thank you for responding..I even looked up this site especially to see if I got a response)

You wrote:
No I'm not saying we should have done nothing, but we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We're not the world police! We should stop butting our heads into other people's problems that don't affect us!

We are a Super Power and as such, hold much global responsibility. Time after time we hav helped defend many many a country or even aid in it's own civil unrest. I am going to say something now that I *know* you will (probably) disagree with, because there is no "proof". However, it is the truth that Iraq DID help funnel monies to Osama and part of those monies were financial aide that we provided! It's not something that can be "proven" to the GP, or that is known widely, but a relation of mine has a very high clearance in the Gov't and Iraq has sponsored terroist attacks on us by not only helping Osama, but other terrorist cells as well. I will not keep bantering this point, because again, it's not "documented intelligence", but it is true.

You also wrote:
If you want to send your troops somewhere how about North Korea, They're the ones building actual weapons of mass destruction!

Remember I said we are a Super Power? Well, who is the next up and coming "Super Power"? CHINA. 4 Billion on the globe and almost 2 Billion in China...that's a hefty resource alone. We don't really hav to worry about N Korea because China will keep them in check. We hav an agreement (another thing I was told but can't "prove") with them that they will monitor N Korea, not to mention it's in their best interest as N Korea sits right on their a**. If you think all this too incredible.. that's OK. But everything this relation tells me (and no, he doesn't tell me everything, but some issues he discusses) winds up bing true, not to mention he is a genius. (not like me, I'm a regular idiot..lol). I know this is not helping my arguement, but I offer it as why I take the stand that I do.

And, you wrote:
Or afganistan to find the guy who planned 9/11 Osama Bin Laden (And though maybe Clinton slashed funds but when he was president we had Osama.

I would love to head-on blame Clinton for letting Osama "fall through his fingers", because he did. He didn't pass anything onto the Bush Admin...notthing that truly made Bush aware of any unusual threat, anyway. Do you know how many intelligence reports we get Every Single Day of possible bombings, conspiracys, terrorist attacks, infiltrations, or just planned border crossings, etc? You could pull one of those outlines and say "Hey! We got a warning!" but the truth is we get them all the time. We're pretty good at garnering enough information to quash it. But what Clinton passed on was nothing different than many threats that are received at that level and never happen. With that said, I will also tell you two other things: 1. That we could go back and blame Clinton, or even as far back as Ronald Regan for not getting Osama...we've had opportunity after opportunity...heck...Ollie North tried to warn us. He even was slammed on National TV for breaking the law to try and get that sand-nigger and he was laughed at! My point is you can go to either party, Democrat or Republican, and point the finger, but it does no good. That 9/11 attack IS our business...it was HERE. And those, my friend, were CIVILIAN lives. We are against an enemy that hates us just because we exist. they see our wealth as a personal affont to them because we don't offer them the same instead of working for it themselves. They see our freedom of religion as "forcing of religion" when they don't realize the hypocrisy of their own non-tolerance of anything but absolute adherence to the Q'uron (sp?). Most of the Bedouin mind-set is a backward thing. They supress their people in many forms, denying education, women's rights, etc. The basic culutral is very different too...they see the 'past' as something in front of them, yet the 'future' is the scarey unknown creeping up behind them. Most in the western world see their "future" as right in front of them, and the past as what's behind them... This crafty enemy see's it's militant, extremeist style as their ticket to 'Eternal Life' just because a book that was written thousands of years ago says so. Most terrorist cells are the refugees of that primitive mindset. I sometimes can't believe it still exists today, but oh yes they are there. And hard to get as they don't live in any one place...they move like nomads dwelling in caves like animals and in the houses of anyone who lets them. It's a hard enemy to find. But one thing is that we SHOULD be behind our President who says "Not on My Watch". This isn't even helping another country...it is Defending our own. And I believe we should go for Iran next if they don't back off, and fix the god-damned problem once and for all. This war was not about oil, it wasn't about who's Dad wanted to get a Dictator, it was about a henious act commited on US soil and taking out those responsible, at least partly. It's about sending a message that No, even during these times, we won't just lay down and "take it". Most of this generation has never had to experience war, but those freedoms we hav, all come with a price. Your grandfather or his father I'm sure was part of it. As 'civilized" as we like to think we are, we are still animals, and we need to protect ourselves, because we hav run into a very cunning enemy who is hell-bent on our extinction. These ate very survivalistic times. If you look at history, the cycle of bondage to freedom brings you back to bondage if you allow the populus to rely too heavily on it's gov't. We are relying on our gov't way too much to support us with our hands out when it's we who should be behind it 100%. To ignore history and not understand it is to repeat it. And I like living in our modern-day Rome. I just don't want us to paper-trail or document ourselves to death while the city burns around us. It's time for some common sense and fuck those 'politically correct' soapboxer's. But no one has the balls because everyone is worried about getting re-elected and what CNN will say. 2. Lastly, let me say that WHOEVER was in office on 9/11.....the other party would criticize. It's been a hotbed issue
for over 5 years and talk about the ratngs... Think about it...if Clinton was in office...whatever he did people would be clammouring.. so try to keep it in check and not react like it's all one man or one party's fault that we don't hav Osama yet. I say 'yet' because it's just a matter of time. We WILL get him.

P.S.
To make this relevant to Sylvia Browne...she still sux. She should be sued like that "Miss Cleo" was for ripping people off who are so in pain they are willing to believe any con-artist, even bad fakes like her.

P. S. S.
To 2% Tom and Jeff... I don't hav a job...just ask my husband..all I do is sit on the couch and eat bon-bon's all day.. *wink*



~CAPRI, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 02:20 [Link] »


Hey! I bet I hav you all beat! I still hav the Original Nintendo with the Original Mario Bros!

And I'm a wino...some Sierra Nevada from time to time, but when I drink, I like a nice 1990 Chateau Margaux....yum.

Maybe Sylvia Browne should drink more...then she'd be nicer, maybe?



interupt, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 03:50 [Link] »

Satire at its finest.

Nice job -CAPRI

:)



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 04:23 [Link] »

You are aware that there is an "e" in the word "have", right?



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 04:29 [Link] »

By the way, it's nice to know that your relative with the "very high clearance in the government" is taking that responsibility so seriously.



brian woods, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 10:14 [Link] »

bottom line is this: SHE NEEDS TO BE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS BECAUSE HE STILL LOVES HER UNCONDITIONALY.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 10:20 [Link] »

Bottom line is this: SHE NEEDS TO BE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF PRIAPUS' PENIS, BECAUSE HIS PENIS LOVES HER UNCONDITIONALLY.



~CAPRI, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 11:47 [Link] »

TimmyAnn (are you confused with that name?)
lol

Actually my relation is very dependable and has attained this position because of discretion. Most in the business know what they can say, and not say... we talk about a lot of things...but nothing that's ever jepoardized Nat'l Security...you're kidding, right? You can go to a GSA Conference and hear the same from just laymen..



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 13:55 [Link] »

Well, okay then, if it is all stuff you could hear elsewhere, why mention that (s)he has this "very high clearance in the government" in the first place if not to suggest that (s)he told you things that no one else could have?
Gee, the comment about my screen name is so clever.I haven't heard anything like that before...well, not in the last day or two, anyway. Not that it's any of your business, but no, I am not "confused" the name has a meaning to me which is none of your business. I do know however that there is at least one real "Timmy Ann", though, since on a whim I did a search and found pictures from her family reunion. I'm sure she has never heard that one, either. Perhaps you should look her up and ask her your "funny" question.



RockstarRyan, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 14:34 [Link] »

How would Sylvia be saved by The Blood Of Jesus? Would she rub It all over herself, go all Ebenezer Scrooge and shout "I'm a humbug"? Or does she need to drink It like Indiana Jones had to in the Temple of Doom?

And where do you get The Blood Of Jesus? I think it'd be funny to have some and throw it all over my afeist friends and watch them burn...



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 14:41 [Link] »

Afeist?



Innocent Bystander, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 18:34 [Link] »

I think this point was lightly hit a while back about some Indian mathematician giving equations to the String Theory.

Of course, this is a bunch of shit because "main stream scientists" didn't agree with the Indian mathematician whom said there are actually only 8 or 24 dimensions. They said (not verbatim) 8 is not a rational number. So we're just going to add 2 to it so it equals 10. This threw off the calculations of the higher number as well. Apparently if things don't go in multiples of 10, they can't be correct.

Not entirely true, not entirely untrue.

The mathematician being referred to is Srinivasa Ramanujan. You can read some basic information about him at Srinivasa Ramanujan And he's mentioned in connection to the String Theory on Why 10 Dimensions? He didn't come up with the String theory as suggested, but his theorems do apparently fit in very well within it, aside from his idea that there are actually 24 dimensions unless generalized to 8. (this is slightly different than the 26/10 theories out there).

I think I read somewhere that scientists added the alleged 2 extra dimensions to "preserve the symmetry of the string." (13th footnote, page 346 of "Hyperspace") It goes on to say: "However, two of these vibratory modes can be removed when we break the symmetry of the string, leaving us with 24 vibratory modes, which are the ones that appear in the Ramanujan function."

Now granted, Ramanujan is a self-taught mathematician, but I think he's far from the...how was it Tom put it?

...Indian navel-gazers making guesses about the universe.

This is just my input on the situation. By the way, this is the longest thread with the most tangents to the original post that I've ever read all the way through. It's almost given me a headache.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 19:52 [Link] »

No offense intended, ~CAPRI, but to us, there does seem to be some interference between reality and your take on it. You seem to be drinking a little more of the Kool-Aid than we're really comfortable with. Rather than addressing all of your points, though, we just want to touch on a few top-tier issues.

First, let's set aside this high-level government contact of yours. Assuming that this person exists, and that they are in fact sharing the stated information with you (a scary prospect, as TimmyAnn noted above), there is still a significant problem: you have provided no supporting evidence for any of the statements that this person is supposed to have made. Vague references to the "GSA Conference" don't cut it, ~CAPRI — for all we know, you could be talking about the Gay Straight Alliance, the German Studies Association, or the Geological Society of America. Links, baby! We could really use some links that do a good job of backing up your claims, if you wish to earn any credibility. Whether we're inclined to believe you or not, there's just no evidence that any of your claims are legitimate. And we're not just talking about public evidence; we're talking about private evidence. Think about it — if there was proof of any of the assertions that you claim this associate made, don't you think the Bush administration would be shouting these facts from the rooftops? This stuff would exonerate the fuck out of them! And yet — nothing. As a result, we are highly dubious of your assertions.

Second, and this one is really top-tier, we really should never have invaded Iraq. We didn't do it to "help the Iraqi people," and we didn't do it to "stop terrorists." We did it because our president is an idiot who was looking for an excuse to overthrow Saddam as revenge for his daddy. Was Saddam a bad man? Yes, absolutely — scum of the Earth and all that, we agree. Do we think he was the kind of person who might have wanted to help terrorists who targeted Americans? Sure, he'd probably have jumped at the chance, assuming it was presented in just the right way. But there is simply no evidence we've seen that Iraq had any ties to 9/11, and there is evidence suggesting that Bush was rabidly exploiting the opportunity that 9/11 afforded him to pay back his pop's old adversary. Hell, invading Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 is about as sane as invading Boston in retaliation for 9/11 because one of the planes took off from Logan International Airport (and as sane as any Bostonians thinking that they were recently the target of a terrorist attack). In fact, invading Boston would have made more sense since there's a demonstrable connection there!

Now, stating that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in no way means that we should lay down and "take it" when we are attacked. It means, quite simply, that we should retaliate against those who attacked us, instead of lashing out at some semi-random enemy that had nothing to do with the attack. Not only has this administration wasted time, money, and lives in a war that had no connection to the events of 9/11, they have also, by the way, failed to find or kill Bin Laden. One might argue that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that so much of our focus is in Iraq.

Look, ~CAPRI, you seem like a nice person. And you're welcome to your opinions. But we simply don't agree with you here. In addition, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that this thread is about the odious Sylvia Browne, and not about 9/11, Bush, or Iraq. So let's stay on topic, and discuss politics on other, more relevant threads.



SANDY, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 22:57 [Link] »

I'm still furious to see that Sylvia Browne and others who proclaim their abilities are making tons of money through vast scores of followers who spew their vile philosophy onto unsuspecting, grief-stricken human beings. I truly wish that every person who claims that they can speak to the dead, and who charge money for this "service", would be given the immediate opportunity to talk to the dead via one shot to the forehead!



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 23:36 [Link] »

That's a bit extreme. I'd prefer mandatory application into the JREF Challenge or jail time.



~CAPRI, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 04:02 [Link] »

TimmyAnn... wow I hit hot button I guess.. Be Careful... your boy-named-Sue- Latent-homosexual-tendencies are showing.. ROFL.

And Two Percent.. Yes, I knew I was dead in the water with no "proof".. especially with the insistance that I kept reading the other night that people provide it with their claims. That doesn't make it invalid. Just means you don't choose to believe...which..hey..I can't blame you. You don't know me and I could be an 84 year old black man living in Poughkeepsie for all you know.. In time I am hoping the Truth will come out. But for now it's like the media frenzy after the 2000 election here in Palm Beach County, FL... what a joke! There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with that election! But can I "prove" it? (Well, kinda..I was here..and no one objected the day of until the Media reported that night the election to Bush...then Gore...then back to Bush again... Then all of a sudden claims made that State Troopers were pulling people over the day before stopping Dem's from voting...it was such a bunch of BS...all over nothing). But Bush can't "shout it from the rooftops" because what's involved is too "Un-PC" which we hav become so obsessed with. If you disagree, OK. But it can't be "us"...unless you are referring to everyone who programs the site. Iraq wasn't over Bush #1's fulfillment to take out Sadam, and it wasn't over oil, it was to take out a source of terrorist sponsorship, plain and simple. But you're right, this should be continued on another thread...I was just responding to what God777 wrote to me...but, OK, we got off topic.
I know you deal with all types here so my goal is not to cause you more strife. IMO it's not the differing opinion, it's the person who doesn't get involved with what's going on in the world that bothers me more. At least those here (well, most) seem to fall into the more educated catagory.
There are some numbers/stat's I'd like to post...
So ... um... where's the political thread?

~CAPRI

P. S. And no I'm NOT a "nice" person! Why would you start a horrible rumor like that??

*grin*

P. S. S. I don't even like Kool-Aid...



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 04:37 [Link] »

FYI, CAPRI, I'm a heterosexual female, you fucking ass. I haven't made fun of your name just because you are named after a fruit drink, a brand of cigarettes tailored to the female smoker and a style of high water pants. If you have nothing better to do than make fun of my screen name (which as I said has a meaning to me..I mean, for all you know, it could be in honor of my baby brother and sister who died or something, asshole) then maybe you should try to find something to occupy your time. Why don't you try standing on your head and stacking BB's or something? Get the fuck off my case, this thread is supposed to be about Sylvia Browne, not about what a moron you are. This is the last post I am wasting on you, hope you enjoyed it. To ervyone else, sorry about wasting this space. I'm done with her now.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 12:07 [Link] »

I'd prefer mandatory application into the JREF Challenge or jail time.

That would just be awesome, awesome, awesome to hear a judge say "Ms. Browne, you are hereby ordered to win the million dollars and prove once and for all that you have the powers you claim, or spend the rest of your days in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison".



~CAPRI, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 12:57 [Link] »

TimmyAnn..OK...we all know you feel strongly about your name... good for you.

And, BTW, ~CAPRI is an isle...off Naples, Italy...it is what the car, the fruit drink, the cigarettes, etc. are all named after as well....it is the Original CAPRI and most cars are named after islands..but with your worldly knowledge, I can tell you already knew that, didn't you? lol...



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 13:26 [Link] »

~CAPRI, seriously, chill out. You brought screen names into this — completely irrelevantly, I might add — and TimmyAnn brought up some perfectly valid reasons for leaving screen names alone, whether they apply in this case or not. (For all you knew, it was TimmyAnn's actual name, provided by some interesting parents. Making fun of someone's name is something third-graders do because they can't make any valid assessment of another person's qualities and contributions. Grow up.) Not to mention, of course, that TimmyAnn's screen name had absolutely zero to do with your dialogue — while I won't accuse you of ad hom (because you didn't use the insult as a method of argument), I will accuse you of a very pathetic attempt at a takedown. Give it up, and get over it.

And is there any more disinformation you would like to spread? I've been through six cars in my automotive history — the Datsun Maxima, the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, the Toyota Celica, the Pontiac Sunfire, the Ford Mustang, and the Toyota Yaris. Not a single one of them is named for an island.

Not that my limited and anecdotal experience is the end-all, be-all of automobile nomenclature etymology, but I highly suspect that an official list of model names would reveal that a small percentage of cars are named after islands, as opposed to the "most cars" you suggest. (As a note, recent marketing trends seem to indicate a tendency toward euphonious and largely meaningless names that may or may not be loosely derived from actual words.) Frankly, it seems quite absurd that you would make such an assertion so matter-of-factly, and continues to shed a dubious light on most of your claims and "facts."



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 13:59 [Link] »

Thank you, Jeff.
Now, on to something related to the topic at hand:
At work I was making conversation with a coworker in the break room and I mentioned this thread. He seemed like a smart enough guy, but then he said, "People have to realize that she's not going to be 100% right." He seemed to think that my point was that the only mistake Browne's defenders were making was that they wouldn't admit she was wrong this one time!! In order to keep peace in the workplace, I didn't correct him and (I'm not proud of this) I said, "Yeah, I mean if they want to think she's for real, that's fine, but to keep trying to prove she was right on this one is silly." To my credit, I did mention briefly that I didn't believe she was for real. I was floored that this guy thought she just makes an occasional mistake because psychics aren't 100% right. It reminds me of what Lewis Black said about how people who believed.....something,damn, I can't remember what, maybe it was people who believed what Jerry Falwell said......should be required to wrap their heads in aluminun foil so we can identify them more easily.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 14:41 [Link] »

Jeff:

That's really not fair. You've never heard of the Escalade Islands of the coast of Cadillac? What about the esteemed Fiat Lagoon? You have to have heard of the Isle of Model-T that sank into the Fjords of Ford back in the 30's, right?

[/smart ass]



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 15:03 [Link] »

Make that "off" the coast of Cadillac, and have[/i] to have heard...



Tom Foss, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 17:02 [Link] »

Is Monte Carlo an island? If so, it's the only one I can think of besides Capri. Most cars, I'd say, are actually named after animals. There are obvious ones like Mustang, Eagle, and Ram, and more obscure ones, like Impala, Tercel, and Tiburon, but I think there are quite a few more of those than of anything else.



Jason Spicer, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 00:04 [Link] »

So how come Sylvia and other "psychics" aren't sued or charged with fraud, or at least false advertising (wouldn't that be cool if the FTC put these creeps out of business)? I wouldn't think their speech is protected by the First Amendment, since it is commercial speech, and they are fleecing people. I don't see how putting the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer gets them off the hook. Stock brokers have a responsibility to not knowingly mislead their customers, even though they are basically trying to predict the future.

It would be one thing if the woo merchants weren't charging for their readings, but since they are, the financial damage is pretty easy to show, even if their marks don't feel cheated, never mind the pain and suffering they cause to people like the woman in the video.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 00:24 [Link] »

The video is gone!!!!!!!



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 01:14 [Link] »

Oh, now there's a new one!!



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 01:19 [Link] »

Oh, Jesus-tap-dancing-Crist!!!!!!! It's worse than the first one (which is actually stil there after the new one.) What a useless bitch!!!!



~CAPRI, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 01:35 [Link] »

You can't sue for claims made in advertising, Jason... you also cannot hold someone to a promise of marriage for contract/torte law. Those are the 2 exceptions.

And most cars (prob within my generation, I don't follow the new ones with all the number names) were named after islands...and locations. You're kidding right? This is the best you can bitch about? Let's see... Catalina...Grenada..Cimmeron....Corsica...DeVille..Lincoln.. just to name a few ... plus the Monte Carlo and Capri reference. And did someone mention Sable? I think that's one too...had a discussion on this years ago because of my name... {S DUH.. of course I remember it..just not all the names we came up with...
Also locations/cities like Bonneville, Verseilles, Porsche (for de Porsche), Cronos, Vancouver, Tahoe, New York(er)..Paris(enne).. I hav a big list somewhere...they even made a joke about it in the movie "A Fish Called Wanda"... I think Impala is an island off gallapogos (sp) ...there's a corvette island somewhere too I believe..
Maybe if we change "most" to "many" will better pacify you...I didn't think the statement about car names was as important to check on typo-meaning as when talking about the evolution of our political history in the making... I made the latter a priority when I previously responded....the afore subj was just a quick note since I was in a hurry this aft...like I said, we'll change the "most" to "many"...now relax...

I typed the screen-name comment after a negative comment to see if this was an emotion-based person, or logic based person. If they intended it emotionally at me, that's what they would react to...and guess what? You got it...Bin-GO. Hard to tell OL typing sentences....no tone or inflection for delivery...but my hunch was right.

Now...again I ask.. where's that political thread?



Tom Foss, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 02:50 [Link] »

Is Lincoln named for a place, or a President? Was Sable named for a place (Cape Sable or Sable Island are all I can find, and those are pretty obscure) or the luxurious mink-like animal? Cronos is one of the various spellings of the Greek Titan, which puts it alongside things like Taurus, named after mythological entities. Impalas are gazelle-like animals, which look a lot like the animal depicted in the Impala logo.

Personally, I can't believe I left Jaguar off my list of animal-based car names.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 03:40 [Link] »

How about the Mercury Cougar and the Ford Pinto.....assuming the latter wasn't named after the bean.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 09:15 [Link] »

~CAPRI, you're being incredibly dense. Stop it.

Once again, you have failed to provide any links or evidence to back up your assertions, many of which are so easily countered it's quite pathetic that you're offering them in any serious manner.

As an important note — if you read nothing else in this comment, read this paragraph — Jeff focused on your "most cars are named after islands" proposition as an example. He could have "bitched" about pretty much anything you said — that was a quick and easy counterpoint, and a fun romp down memory lane. The point was not the names of cars themselves; the point was that you continue to make assertions with no ability or willingness to provide evidence of your claims, and this speaks to the incredible lack of credibility you have thus far displayed on our website.

Here's a prime example of what we're talking about:

You can't sue for claims made in advertising, Jason...

What?! Where did you get that from? Of course you can take legal action for false advertising! In fact, you don't even have to show actual injury in order to take said action:

To establish a violation under the Lanham Act, consumers and competitors must prove the following: (1) the advertiser made false statements of fact about its product; (2) the false advertisements actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the target population; (3) the deception was material; (4) the falsely advertised product was sold in interstate commerce; and (5) the party bringing the lawsuit (known as the "plaintiff") was injured as a result of the deception.

Actual loss is not required to show an injury. All that is needed is a reasonable basis for the belief that the plaintiff is likely to be damaged as a result of the advertising. An example of such damage would include ads that deceive consumers who are the target population of both the advertiser and the plaintiff. The penalties for a Lanham Act violation include the plaintiff's lost profits, the additional profits to the advertiser resulting from the deceptive ad, treble damages, and attorneys' fees.

In addition to the FTC Act and the Lanham Act, which are federal statutes, most states, including Illinois, also have laws proscribing false advertising. Illinois is one of many states that has enacted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Under the Act, a "deceptive trade practice" includes such practices as "palming off," misrepresentation, product disparagement, and bait-and-switch advertising.

Of course, most psychics can protect themselves with the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer — this "fine print" loophole covers many other forms of deceptive advertising as well. This, we imagine, is why many psychics have avoided legal trouble for false advertising.

In addition, to address the rest of Jason's question, you most certainly can be charged with fraud for false advertising, under certain circumstances. Once again we find ourselves wondering where you get your "facts" from, ~CAPRI — or, perhaps, what controlled substances you use for "inspiration." There are three things that prevent most psychics from being charged with fraud. First and foremost, their victims would have to press charges, and that seldom happens with true believers. Second, they would have to show intent to defraud, and knowledge by the psychic that the information given was false. Since some psychics can claim to actually believe their own bullshit, it isn't easy to prove these points. You'd have to show that the psychic in question was knowingly lying and not just delusional, a distinction that is nigh impossible to make in a court of law. And third, psychics (like many other groups, as noted above) can use fine print to protect themselves. In this case, the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer covers a lot of wrongdoing.

And that, ~CAPRI, is an actual answer to the question asked, complete with evidence to support it. See the difference between what we said and your bullshit answer?

And with regard to your ongoing argument about car names, suffice it to say: neither the Cimarron (an American territory), the DeVille (which seems to simply mean "Town Car"), the Lincoln (you may have heard of the person this would most likely be named after), the Monte Carlo (which is not an island, but one of Monaco's four quarters), the Sable (which is more likely named for the sleek animal than the Canadian island), the Bonneville, the Versailles, the Vancouver (all three are long-used family names that the places are named after), the Porsche (named after the founder of the company, Ferdinand Porsche), the Cronos (likely named for the Greek titan, or just because the Japanese marketers liked the sound of it — which happens quite often in the automotive industry), the New Yorker, the Parisienne (both named quite literally for the inhabitants or the style rather than the locations, and Paris isn't an island, though it includes two islands in its city limits), the Impala (pretty clearly named after the famously swift ungulate — especially given the logo Tom Foss helpfully provided — rather than the Galapagos-proximal island you've invented out of thin air), nor the Corvette (pretty fucking clearly named — reportedly by soapbox racer maven Myron Scott — for the small and agile gunships, which in turn derive their names from the French word for the same: corvair) are named after fucking islands. We might be convinced to grant you the Tahoe, though the lake is a lot more influential and well-known than the island — half a point there. Same story with the Catalina, which shares its name with quite a lot of other things, and the Granada (which isn't even spelled the same as the island — Grenada — but is spelled like various other locations, none of them islands) — half a point each for those. Out of your whole ridiculous list, we'd give you full points for the Corsica (sure, why not?) and the Capri (because, as you correctly pointed out, a lot of things are named after the Italian island).

"Suffice" it to say (yes, when we provide "sufficient" counterpoints, we provide plenty, and we're not pulling ours out of our asses), out of your list of nineteen automobile appellations, you get 3½ points, giving you a success rate of just over 18%. Far from a passing grade.

But again — fuck all of that. The point is, and shall remain until you figure it the fuck out, that you keep spouting off about things you clearly don't know, many of which are not only illogical and demonstrably untrue but widely known to be untrue, and you then expect people to take you seriously as a source of useful information. We could easily continue to counter your myriad unsupported claims, and provide links as well — but we're pretty fucking sick of doing so. Do your own research and find your own links, for once, before pulling shit out of your ass and smiling triumphantly as you fling it on the table.

And don't trot out the old "I was testing you!" canard with regard to TimmyAnn's screen name. That's the kind of shit so many of the "true believers" inevitably pull when they get called on their bullshit. So all it tells us is that you got called on your bullshit. With your track record so far, it doesn't even matter if this claim is true or not — it's an asshole move either way.

Finally, you expectorated:

Now...again I ask.. where's that political thread?

Like we're withholding the answer from you somehow? If you're looking for political threads (plural), try reading. Like most blogs, ours is divided into categories or topics. There may even be one labeled — wow — "Government & Politics," of all things! In addition, it's important to note that just because you find a thread "about politics," it doesn't mean that you're free to slap down any political ramblings you have rattling around in your head on that post. Just because you want to talk about a given topic, it doesn't mean that we are obligated to provide you with a forum and hear you out. Rather than looking for a place to drop your preconceived diatribe, why not read our posts and comment on the topics that we have brought up? For the record, that's usually how it's done.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 10:21 [Link] »

The career of Ralph Nader comes to mind with this statement:

Of course you can take legal action for false advertising! In fact, you don't even have to show actual injury in order to take said action
.

And if people want a forum to be heard, I always suggest getting your own blog. Not being a smart ass here, some people don't know how to go about it. It's real easy; try blogger.com and you can start right away.



Innocent Bystander, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 15:10 [Link] »

Did you know that in the state of Florida, you can get a "psychic license" for a sum of around $300 without even the slightest test or proof of any kind of academia (should any of it be considered legitimate) in the field? It's basically pay the fee and you're a licensed psychic.
I've heard a few alleged, "genuine" psychics' response to such a practice. They all seemed rather insulted that you don't have to be tested or show credentials or anything.
Apparently there is a school of metaphysics somewhere around Clearwater. Because of that, they believe you should have to show some proof of studies or certification. Imagine that?! A school of metaphysics in the same area as a major hub for Scientologists. Coincidence?
That fact aside, I guess this is the proof that some psychics actually believe in their woo-powers and that nobody actually takes them seriously. Is it because of things like this license that psychics can't be sued?



lalaland, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 15:40 [Link] »

Just wanted to say it took me 3 days to read this from start to finish ... WOW
What a ride!!!!
Thank you one and all and can't wait to see what comes next!!



~CAPRI, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 20:35 [Link] »

They are names of places... and islands... and locations... cities... whatever... you can say they are for something else... but they ARE names of islands/locations/cities.... period.

And what's your name? Are you Jeff? or Tom? Or speaking of uncontrolled substances, are you just going to hide behind the name? I hav no idea of whom I am talking to, or whom is making these assertations... well, whom-ever-you-are...if you look at the legal elements of contract law, (and if you are going to Edit me, I wish you would do it consistently as I did say Contract/ Torte) and torte law as exactly what I iterated, you cannot sue for claims made in advertising, nor promises of marriage. Another exception, but can also get into the criminal side, is you cannot make a contract with a minor. Learn the facts. They are in any first year law book. As far as filing a lawsuit...I can file against whoever I want...you can file suits all day long..you just can't win and the case will probably get thrown out because of lack of merit...it's like firing someone...you can fire them, just you are then held to the consequences if you do so unfairly... So...anyone can file...but to hav a legal basis for a lawsuit, the elements are exceptioned by the above (*yawn* again, promise of marriage and advertising. Did you also know that there's no sales tax on advertising? That's right...newspapers, radio TV...they get to keep it all..at least last time I checked that was true.. but I digress..) I could get into anti-trusts, monopoly fiduciaries, etc as there's a myriad of things to say are "exceptions", (but I am talking basic elements here... ) they are deemed invalid as well but the premise of exceptions is mainly those two...marriage "contract" cannot be bound and advertising is not considered "information". .. that goes also to (the most widely debated legal term by any jury ever) 'Reasonable Man Standard'...which applies to all laws, civil and criminal and yes, is the most widely mis-interpreted phrase, as "reasonable doubt" does NOT mean "shadow of a doubt"...it means.. REASONABLE (more of a "common sense" connotation, wouldn't you say? *grin*) Doubt.
If you look at your cite of Lanham, elements 4 and 5 involve the actually selling of an item, and then further damages that resulted in "injury", which they either then went for compensation or punitive...depending.. but it was not suing for Advertising alone. If I took out an ad that says "I'm SuperMan! I can Fly to the Moon! My (widget) helped me do it!"...you can't do a thing about it... (I doubt any reputable station would air the spot, but we are talking hypotheticals here) BUT..if I sell you something that claims it can help you "fly to the moon"...and it doesn't, that's different. When someone sues in cases like that, it's not a suit based solely on the advertising alone, it was probably for the product's failure to deliver, or negligence, infringment, or fraud...probably involved some rep (acting agent) or some other charge. That's exactly how Browne gets away with it. She doesn't hav to "claim" anything...and she doesn't really "advertise" ... it's all promotions that promise...nothing. Most of her books, etc, do it for her..shows like Montell give her National exposure, and what has she really "promised"? Exactly. Nothing. (Wait, if you call, she promises to talk with you for a specified amount of time..but that's about it).
Whereas I like an exchange of ideas, I also can spot "bullshit" when I see it, hence exhibit A: when I was Right On about the agenda of TimmyAnn's comment yielding the exact response I thought it would were it not a ploy at emotional manipulation, rather than a geunine query. (See also, "Exhibit B: The Very Confused Name-Calling "Useless Bitch").
I hav also stated that if you don't believe me, fine, you don't hav to accept what I say as fact, I just offer it, as it is credible, as are my sources. But again, you don't "have" to believe me..just because you don't know what a GSA conference is, doesn't mean they don't exist. And just because you don't know the credibility of the person I quoted about the facts of terroist support in Iraq by Saddam doesn't mean it's invalid...but I gave you that one from the get-go. (Is that a undefinable legal term??? "Get-go"??) lol.. It's really No Big Deal. What IS a Big Deal is that you Heard it...that it planted the seed of what you hav been subjected to for over FIVE years, when (and I am hoping) the Truth will come out some day, just like the JFK-related files...but sadly it also may take 40+ years. But at least it opens the mind to what is Really going on...and it offers the message about positive reiforcement of the values (yes I know you will disagree with this too I am sure!) that this country was built on. You hav to understand that this is what Osmam Bin Laden wants....the terrorist cells, the Saudis, Pakistani's, Afghani's....they WANT this because they hate our freedoms and are using it against us...they WANT the division of this nation, they LIKE the back-biting and they are all counting on people creating ill-will and dis-harmony because if you are planning on taking down someone, the more dis-jointed and un-united they are..the better!

One thing my intellect has taught me is that while I know perfection is absolute, the world we live in is not, so common sense enters at some point because we don't hav to re-invent the wheel at every turn.


Disclaimer Disclaimer Disclaimer

::::smiles triumphantly:::::



dikkii, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 21:27 [Link] »
::::smiles triumphantly:::::

He should have added  

:::::sound of Kool-Aid being stirred:::::  

This reminds me of a story involving Al Jourgensen of Ministry. During their last tour of Australia, they were playing on the Big Day Out bill.

Apparently Jourgensen, who was nursing a serious smack habit at the time, would frequently smile blissfully for no apparent reason.

The story goes that Jourgensen had developed severe incontinence as a result of his addiction and was forced to wear Depends (pronounced Deep-Ends) brand adult diapers.

Whenever he smiled, that was him relieving himself.

Not wearing one by any chance, ~CAPRI?



Tom Foss, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 21:49 [Link] »
They are names of places... and islands... and locations... cities... whatever... you can say they are for something else... but they ARE names of islands/locations/cities.... period.
Two points here. First, you seem to ignore your original remark:
most cars are named after islands
You've since expanded the parameters to make it appear that you were right, but your original statement is still very much wrong.

Second, my first name is Thomas. I share that name with Thomas Jefferson. In the chronological sense, I was named after him (i.e., he was named before me, by about three hundred years). But the fact is that I was not named after him in the traditional sense; I was named after my father (and consequently end my signature with "Jr.").

So, yes, some of the cars mentioned share names with places. In some cases, this is clearly the intention (as with the Monte Carlo, the Capri, and probably the Tahoe) --these automobiles were named after places. But in other cases, the connection is far more specious, to the point of being laughable. Do Lincoln cars really take their name from the Capital of Nebraska? Are Sables really named for a couple of obscure islands, or for mammals with a history of being associated with luxury? Are we to believe, then, that Ford takes its name from a town in Kansas rather than the founder of the company? You have shifted the goalposts on your original statement and expanded the parameters in each subsequent comment, until you really aren't saying much at all. Yes, some cars share their names with places, but in most of these cases, that's the same kind of coincidence that connects me to Tom Jefferson. There's no intent, no homage, and thus, no point for you to continue acting as though you're right on this matter.

I can't say as I've been following your political comments, but I will say this: Osama bin Laden doesn't give a gliding pigeon's genitals about division in our country. What he wants is general support for his cause: removing Western cultural influences from the Middle East and replacing Western-friendly, secular regimes with his particular brand of fundamentalist Muslim ideologue. More specifically, he wanted the closure of an airport (I believe it was located in Saudi Arabia, but I can't remember the details on this point...anyone know about this?), the removal of (comparatively) liberal secular dictator Saddam Hussein and his woman-friendly, non-Koranic regime, and the implantation of a fundamentalist government in Iraq. He received the first and second rewards early on, and with the Iraqi constitution saying that they will default to the Koran on all legal matters, and women being publicly beaten for not wearing the proper covering, it sure looks like he's gotten the third request as well.

So, you're right in that bin Laden is getting precisely what he wants, but wrong in being so self-centered that you think he actually cares about the political climate over here. That stopped being a concern once the terror actually was spread.



~CAPRI, 2007.02.08 (Thu) 22:59 [Link] »

[~CAPRI's latest idiotic comment has been moved to the Scribbled Above the Urinal post since she is incapable of staying on topic, unable to provide any evidence for her asinine claims, and unwilling to pay attention to the evidence presented by others. Also she is an insufferable moron. Feel free to read any and all of her future comments there, if you feel like wasting some time — Ed.]



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 00:56 [Link] »

"Scribbled Above the Urinal", that reminds me of something I saw in a book about graffiti. Apparently someone had written above a urinal "What are you looking up here for? Are you ashamed of it?" and someone else had replied, "No, but neither am I fascinated by it."



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 02:42 [Link] »

That's about it, ~CAPRI. You're done. You're done posting freely on this site, and you will now be moderated in order to allow us to wade through your bullshit at our leisure and decide if any of it needs to be seen. You've got your head so far up your own ass that we're surprised you can't lick the horseshit right out from between your own teeth. We're not even sure where to begin with your latest round of utter crap.

Maybe we can begin by answering your abominably stupid question about who wrote our latest response. As most six-year-olds could probably guess (assuming that, unlike you, they can read and parse what is written on the screen in front of them), when one of our members writes a comment on their own, it is signed by name, and when we write a comment as a group, it is signed from the entire crew as a group. How can we make this any fucking easier for you to grasp? And while we don't begrudge anyone their Net-anonymity, we do find it pretty hypocritical to be taken to task for ours by someone using the screen name "~CAPRI." Is that the name on your birth certificate, you stupid twat? Complete with a tilde? Yeah, we didn't think so. So how about a nice, warm cup of Shut The Fuck Up?

And how about this statement, which we already corrected once, but which apparently still hasn't sunk in:

...you cannot sue for claims made in advertising...

For the last fucking time, yes you fucking can, asshole. The Lanham Act details the civil actions that can be taken for various trademark violations and false advertising. Fucking read the act if you don't want to take our word for it. Or just search it for the word "civil." To make it as easy as possible for you to completely fail to bother to parse what we're saying and still perhaps learn something (which we're not confident you will), here's a brief synopsis of an article that fucking spells out what we're saying:

Ask lawyers about the federal Lanham Act, and most would recognize it as the statute that protects trademarks. But businesses that advertise — and especially lawyers who represent those businesses — are also familiar with Section 43(a) of that Act, which is the short but broadly phrased provision permitting business competitors to sue one another for false advertising, among other things.

[Our emphasis]

Once more, for the cheap seats: the Lanham Act permits "business competitors to sue one another for false advertising." Sue one another. Is this sinking in yet? Your continued refusal to accept reality is a hallmark of all of your arguments, ~CAPRI, and we're fucking sick of it. So stop playing your pathetic Perry Mason imitation by spewing out a bunch of nonsense that you think sounds all official and lawyerly, and go fucking educate yourself.

Then there's this fucking rockheaded assertion:

If I took out an ad that says "I'm SuperMan! I can Fly to the Moon! My (widget) helped me do it!"...you can't do a thing about it... ... BUT..if I sell you something that claims it can help you "fly to the moon"...and it doesn't, that's different. When someone sues in cases like that, it's not a suit based solely on the advertising alone, it was probably for the product's failure to deliver, or negligence, infringment, or fraud...

Holy fucking hell, you are this dense, aren't you? What the fuck do you think an advertisement is? If someone makes silly claims for no reason, that's not an advertisement, it's a speech. Of course they have to be selling something, you moron. Do you actually believe we suggested otherwise? Wake the fuck up. And no, there doesn't have to be fraud or negligence involved in order to take legal action for false advertising. Read the fucking sources we cited, and you'll see that:

Courts have formulated the following elements for a claim under § 43(a) [of the Lanham Act]:
  • The defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising.
  • That statement must have actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the audience.
  • The deception must have been material, in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decision.
  • The defendant must have caused its goods to enter interstate commerce.
  • The plaintiff must have been or is likely to be injured as a result.

Yes something has to have been sold (via interstate commerce, since this is a federal law), but not to the plaintiff. In addition, we don't see any mention of fraud being a requirement for legal action. If you bothered to fucking read the article, you wouldn't see any mention of it, either.

We'll leave it to our readers to decide if we "edited" your comment. We're fucking baffled as to how you can make that assertion.

As for your further automobile naming bullshit, let's recap, shall we? You said:

...most cars are named after islands...

[Our emphasis]

Jeff countered this claim with a short — and admittedly anecdotal — list, and an assertion that this was highly unlikely, along with reiterating our primary complaint with you, which is and has been the whole time your lack of citations, references, or evidence. In short, you were called on your bullshit.

So you said:

...most cars (prob within my generation, I don't follow the new ones with all the number names) were named after islands...and locations...

[Our emphasis]

Here, you backpedaled, expanding your assertion from just "islands" to "islands...and locations" (and, incidentally, changing the time frame to "within [your] generation," which we didn't and wouldn't fault you for). We countered again, taking every example you offered to task, to demonstrate that very few of them, if any, were named after islands.

So you come back with:

They are names of places... and islands...and locations...cities...whatever...you can say they are for something else...but they ARE names of islands/locations/cities....period.

[Our emphasis]

And you backpedaled yet again, now saying that "they ARE names of islands/locations/cities." Guess what, you abysmally stupid prick? Jeff of the Two Percent Company isn't named after Jeff Goldblum. Tom of the Two Percent Company isn't named after Tom Berenger. Possessing a similar or identical name, and being named after something, are two very different things. (Since our initial writing of this comment, Tom Foss has nicely illustrated this point as well, in his comment.) This isn't a semantic game; we're not fucking with your use of language. You fucked up, you were utterly wrong, and you've been backpedaling ever since because you're too much of an arrogant idiot to acknowledge that you are just plain incorrect.

To your continued unreasoned arguments regarding TimmyAnn's screen name and reactions to your bullshit diatribes, we'll say only two things.

One: you have apparently failed to grasp our point that, whether you were covering for your lack of tact, or whether you were really "testing" TimmyAnn's reactions, you're an asshole. Fucking make a point, back it up, and see for yourself who will react with reasonable counterpoints. If you're here to play games, then go fuck yourself with a chainsaw set on purée.

Two: blind to any attempts to correct your asinine behavior, you asserted:

...I was Right On about the agenda of TimmyAnn's comment yielding the exact response I thought it would were it not a ploy at emotional manipulation, rather than a geunine query.

Right, asshole. So if you're in a debate with someone, and you punch them in the face, and they retaliate, then that suggests that they were never interested in a genuine discussion? Interesting "logic" there, you fucking moron.

We're not going to waste time on your asinine and automated parroting of Bush's "they hate us for our freedom" catchphrase, or on your vague JFK conspiracy theory crap, or your "the Truth is out there" balderdash. Instead, we are simply going to inform you, again, that you are now on the moderate list for our site, and that if you leave any more fucking stupid-ass comments like the ones you have left thus far — comments that lack all vestiges of evidence and which ignore the evidence that others have placed in front of you that handily refute your moronic assertions — you will be moved to the Urinal to languish with the rest of the thick-skulled ignoramuses. Got it? You're a fucking dipshit, and you won't be wasting any more of our readers' time.

"Smiles triumphantly"? Yeah, we'd laugh at your "clever" attempt at humor if you weren't such a complete idiot. And, as TimmyAnn pointed out, the word actually is have, you imbecile. There's no need to place it in quotation marks the one time you fucking spell it right. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?



SmarterThanYou (~CAPRI), 2007.02.09 (Fri) 04:39 [Link] »

Yup..I AM Right...and you're Wrong.

You just can't Stand it, can you?

And...O Great Wise One...it IS on my Birth cerficate....but wait...you want proof of that?? Oh wait, how is it possible?? Oh wait..I se.. YOU make the rules...Get Real, Jr.

How thick are those glasses anyway?

How pathetic.

What the fuck is wrong with me?? What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can only beat a dead horse of an issue TO DEATH (ie island names) and not really hav any validity with ANYTHING else you've been blowing? I mean did you hav fantasies of fucking your mother when you were a kid? There...now that I'v reduced myself to your level....maybe you will understand if you weren't so busy masterbating to yourself while your parrots watch from the website side-lines...

I'm done with YOU.

P/S...Guess what nimrod? I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion. Keep hiding behind the website, pal....methinks you're gonna need it! It will be your only claim to fame in life...and my daughter made her first website at NINE YEARS OLD. But I guess people like you can't fathom that someone like me exists...I could purchase you're whole family...and this is what you offer? Sorry...but no, you don't win. I do.

Now take your ball an go home, little boy who wants to play Macheivelli....




SmarterThanYou (~CAPRI), 2007.02.09 (Fri) 04:40 [Link] »

Yup..I AM Right...and you're Wrong.

You just can't Stand it, can you?

And...O Great Wise One...it IS on my Birth cerficate....but wait...you want proof of that?? Oh wait, how is it possible?? Oh wait..I se.. YOU make the rules...Get Real, Jr.

How thick are those glasses anyway?

How pathetic.

What the fuck is wrong with me?? What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can only beat a dead horse of an issue TO DEATH (ie island names) and not really hav any validity with ANYTHING else you've been blowing? I mean did you hav fantasies of fucking your mother when you were a kid? There...now that I'v reduced myself to your level....maybe you will understand if you weren't so busy masterbating to yourself while your parrots watch from the website side-lines...

I'm done with YOU.

P/S...Guess what nimrod? I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion. Keep hiding behind the website, pal....methinks you're gonna need it! It will be your only claim to fame in life...and my daughter made her first website at NINE YEARS OLD. But I guess people like you can't fathom that someone like me exists...I could purchase you're whole family...and this is what you offer? Sorry...but no, you don't win. I do.

Now take your ball an go home, little boy who wants to play Macheivelli....




SmarterThanYou (~CAPRI), 2007.02.09 (Fri) 04:40 [Link] »

Yup..I AM Right...and you're Wrong.

You just can't Stand it, can you?

And...O Great Wise One...it IS on my Birth cerficate....but wait...you want proof of that?? Oh wait, how is it possible?? Oh wait..I se.. YOU make the rules...Get Real, Jr.

How thick are those glasses anyway?

How pathetic.

What the fuck is wrong with me?? What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can only beat a dead horse of an issue TO DEATH (ie island names) and not really hav any validity with ANYTHING else you've been blowing? I mean did you hav fantasies of fucking your mother when you were a kid? There...now that I'v reduced myself to your level....maybe you will understand if you weren't so busy masterbating to yourself while your parrots watch from the website side-lines...

I'm done with YOU.

P/S...Guess what nimrod? I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion. Keep hiding behind the website, pal....methinks you're gonna need it! It will be your only claim to fame in life...and my daughter made her first website at NINE YEARS OLD. But I guess people like you can't fathom that someone like me exists...I could purchase you're whole family...and this is what you offer? Sorry...but no, you don't win. I do.

Now take your ball an go home, little boy who wants to play Macheivelli....




interupt, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 06:21 [Link] »

Oh..

-Capri was serious...

-carefully backs away-



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 07:41 [Link] »

Call the waaaaambulance. It seems Capri/SmarterThanYou is unable to take the stress of being told to stay on topic as well as being outdone in the subjects switched to. Also in critical condition due to counter-evidence given.

It's especially funny talking about 'sinking' to our level, when all he's done is change style while remaining at zero substance.



Tom Foss, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 09:10 [Link] »
And...O Great Wise One...it IS on my Birth cerficate....but wait...you want proof of that?? Oh wait, how is it possible?? Oh wait..I se.. YOU make the rules...Get Real, Jr.
Damn. You don't even know who you're responding to. I'm the "Jr.," dipshit, and I didn't have anything to do with the Two Percenters' response (though I often wish I did).
How thick are those glasses anyway?
Not half as thick as your skull.
How pathetic.

What the fuck is wrong with me?? What the fuck is so wrong with you that you can only beat a dead horse of an issue TO DEATH (ie island names) and not really hav any validity with ANYTHING else you've been blowing?


You know, it's interesting. You bring the issue up, you backpedal and insist on being right in every post you write subsequent to bringing it up, but when someone responds directly to your latest comment, they're the ones beating the dead horse? You're a special person. How short is that bus anyway?
I mean did you hav fantasies of fucking your mother when you were a kid? There...now that I'v reduced myself to your level....maybe you will understand if you weren't so busy masterbating to yourself while your parrots watch from the website side-lines...
Again, Capri, you're failing to make any sort of sense. Your inability to read others' comments and understand the criticisms and evidence leveled at you makes your commenting a shitload more like masturbation than anything anyone else has written.
I'm done with YOU.
Good, because everyone else was done with YOU three posts ago.
P/S...Guess what nimrod? I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion.
What the hell are you talking about? "I bet you a thousand dollars I get you on my show"? That's an easy bet to win. If the 2-percenters don't go on your show, does that mean they get $1000? Sounds like a fantastic fucking deal.

By the way, is your studio a cardboard box? Do you get broadcast on Cable Access, or is this straight to YouTube?

Keep hiding behind the website,
Fucking hilarious. Yeah, these guys are hiding, all right. The bright red background helps them blend in with the Internets.
pal....methinks you're gonna need it! It will be your only claim to fame in life...and my daughter made her first website at NINE YEARS OLD.
Oh damn, it reproduced. I like how you're trying to make it out like a weblog is something that only little kids make. Yeah, I made websites when I was fucking thirteen, and they were full of animated GIFs and fanfic. A far cry from a blog debunking moronic claims and ripping into fucked-up asshats like yourself.
But I guess people like you can't fathom that someone like me exists...
Sadly, no. I've seen far worse arrogance and stupidity.
I could purchase you're whole family...and this is what you offer? Sorry...but no, you don't win. I do.
You ought to purchase a fucking grammar book. It's "your," not "you're." And it's interesting that you're suddenly claiming this amazing wealth, as if it's a valid tactic in arguments. Guess what: money can't fix dipshit. And you've got the dipshit real bad.
Now take your ball an go home, little boy who wants to play Macheivelli....
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Not only have you obviously never read Machiavelli, but you don't even have a clue what he said or stood for. I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with debating assholes in weblog comments.

Fucking dumbass.



Tom Foss, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 09:23 [Link] »

By the way, if you're so smart, why did you press "post" three times?

Dipshit.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 10:03 [Link] »

I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion.

So what's the bet? I need a thousand bucks!



Tom Foss, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 12:39 [Link] »

I wonder if "SmarterThanYou" is on Capri's birth certificate.

Hm...there's a cosmetic college near me named Capri. And a riverboat casino called Isle of Capri. I'll bet Capri's named after them!



~CAPRI, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 16:17 [Link] »

[~CAPRI (a.k.a. SmarterThanYou) is now banned from our site for immense stupidity, and for demonstrating her complete inability to grasp reality. Just for the record, we never edited any of her comments at all. We did replace some of her comments with editorial remarks (like this one), but in those cases her comments were moved in whole to the Scribbled Above the Urinal post. The fact that she keeps accusing us of editing her comments either means that she is delusional, or that she is outright lying. We wouldn't put either of them past her.

~CAPRI has now violated our comment policy repeatedly and in numerous ways. In addition, she has tried to circumvent our comment moderation by using a false e-mail address — yet another violation. After her earlier triple post, which we found hilarious, we were going to take a "wait and see" approach, but we've reconsidered as a result of her most recent idiocy — Ed.]



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 20:44 [Link] »

"Show" implies a verbal debate. The inherently least honest form thereof. One of the big downsides is that you can't attach hyperlinks or easily copy/pasted references to your voice that'll let people see that your assertions are empty (in the case of Capri) or properly backed up by evidence. Kind of dishonest to not give your opponent the proper amount of time to research for a response where necessary.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.09 (Fri) 22:37 [Link] »

You know, up until her latest comment, we were thinking that ~CAPRI had finally done something useful — she'd made us laugh our asses off! With no insult to interupt, we'd kind of gone in the opposite direction: from "~CAPRI is seriously demented" to "~CAPRI is utterly farcical" (we're leaning back the other way now, as a note). Sure, all of her comments have been chock-full of misspellings, atrocious grammar, idiotic assertions, and rampant stupidity, but that triple post is just a beautiful, special flower of dipshititude. (We especially loved the playful spelling of "Machiavelli" — what a creative way of displaying utter ignorance while pretending to know actual facts and references.) Just outstanding! In fact, it was so hilarious that we decided not to move it to the Urinal. Hell, we even decided to keep her triple post intact! We're going to leave all three as ~CAPRI's own little homage to idiocy. We just have a few brief points to address, merely to clean up the ~CAPRI drool on this thread, and then we'll stop acknowledging her banned ass.

So, ~CAPRI:

  • Your assertion that your birth certificate actually says "~CAPRI" complete with a tilde (which is precisely what we said) is yet another example of the fictional world in which you live. No, we don't have any proof that this isn't what it says on your birth certificate, but we'd be willing to bet — what, a THOUSAND DOLLARS? — that you are once again full of shit. Then again, as you've shown time and time again, it's much easier to make assertions without any evidence whatsoever than it is to provide evidence of your claims. Oh, wait — you wouldn't know that, would you? Because you've never once bothered to provide evidence for any of your claims. So it's hard for you to compare the difficulty. Our bad.
  • Now you have a show and untold fortunes? Wow, we'd be so impressed if: a) we believed you (evidence might help there, too); and b) having a show and being wealthy were actually impressive characteristics in and of themselves, regardless of hopeless stupidity. Forgive us if we don't believe you on either count, though, given your track record. But even if you had both, we'd remind you that the thread you hijacked is primarily about what kinds of nonsense can be found on network television shows, and we're pretty sure that any "show" you might have is a far cry from a network television show (wrapping tin foil around a walkie-talkie antenna doesn't mean you're on the air, you ignorant wretch). In addition, it wouldn't matter to us if you were freaking Oprah (we don't give a shit about her, either) — fame and fortune don't change the fact you are, and to all appearances will remain until your dying day, an ignorant asshat.
  • You can't imagine how upset we are to learn that you reproduced (if that claim is true, which we won't take for granted, coming as it does from you). We feel very, very sorry for your daughter and we sincerely hope that she one day sees what a dipshit you are, and manages to shake free of your influence to lead a productive life.

While you have been banned, and we likely won't hear much from you again, we would appreciate the thousand dollars that you owe us — because if you think we'd actually attend or participate in any "show" you put on, you're not just stupid and deluded, but so deeply entrenched in a fantasy world of your own making that not even the "jaws of life" could pluck you out. So: we'll take that in cash, since we really don't trust that you'd provide a legitimate and bankable check.



NowURJustBoring (~CAPRI), 2007.02.10 (Sat) 02:02 [Link] »

[And another vomitous mass spills forth from ~CAPRI's keyboard, and lands in the Urinal. We aren't normally ones to bandy words like "psychosis" around, folks...but you gotta wonder — Ed.]



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.10 (Sat) 02:07 [Link] »

Oh, my miserable god! Someone please put a stake through this crazy bitch's heart once and for all! She is relentless!



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.10 (Sat) 02:13 [Link] »

By the way, didn't she say she was "done". See, I said that I was done with her and I have not addressed her directly since. That's what I meant by "done". She says she's done and here she is again. Of course, she is obviously unclear about whom she is addressing, so maybe that has led to some confusion regarding specifically with whom she is "done" as well.



FROMPARADISe2YOU (~CAPRI), 2007.02.11 (Sun) 00:00 [Link] »

[If you're wondering how we know that this is also ~CAPRI, see the Urinal for an explanation — Ed.]



Jason Spicer, 2007.02.11 (Sun) 01:49 [Link] »

All I have to say about ~CAPRI is that anybody who's trying to enlighten us about torte law had better be talking about dessert. A clear case of bait and switch.

I agree with FROMPARA... that it would seem that Montel is complicit by giving Browne a regular forum and profiting from her appearance. I would think that the two victims in the video would be able to sue him for something. But they probably signed a waiver to be on the show. Still, the FTC and the FCC should both be able to do something about it.

The only case I can find in which the authorities went after a "psychic" is the infamous Miss Cleo episode: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/25/psychic.lawsuit/. She was sued by the FTC and 9 state AGs. A nice satirical take: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-11-2005-76547.asp.

Of course, Miss Cleo wasn't sued for the fraud of pitching woo. She was sued for various unsavory business practices, including calling people on do-not-call lists, charging for time customers spent on hold, charging for calls not made, having the ""psychics"" read from a script instead of providing an "actual" reading, claiming that the readings and the first three minutes of each call were free when they weren't, and so on.

So, right, if they're delusional, good at lying, or just don't leave a damning paper trail, it seems the authorities don't swoop in because the woovians just might be legit.

Of course, that doesn't let Sylvia off the hook. I think any jury shown the video at the start of the thread would convict. There really can't be any reasonable doubt that she's just pulling things out of her ass.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.11 (Sun) 17:59 [Link] »

Well, I wish you right, but the fact is that there could easily be people on the jury that feel the same way as all the people who are here defending Browne and trying to "prove" that she is not only the real thing, but wasn't even wrong in these two cases.



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.11 (Sun) 18:17 [Link] »

I meant to say, "Wish you WERE right", obviously. In fact, actually, I meant to say, "I wish I thought you were right". I just got home from work and I guess I need a nap.



Jason Spicer, 2007.02.11 (Sun) 18:45 [Link] »

I could be guilty of wishful thinking, but any competent lawyer should be able to weed out the true believers from the jury pool during voir dire. Even people who give the paranormal the benefit of the doubt should be able to tell Browne is full of it. Only the hard core woovians would make any room for the nonsense on display in the video.



interupt, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 08:06 [Link] »

Listen 2%ers I really thought it was originally satire. Reading those posts just started becoming such a twisted mess, I had an epiphany that it was so fucking loopy it just HAD to be a joke.

Of course now I just HAVE to commence legal action for pain and suffering. Can you forward me your legal representative so we can start discussing damages?

And Two Percent.. Yes, I knew I was dead in the water with no "proof".. especially with the insistance that I kept reading the other night that people provide it with their claims. That doesn't make it invalid. Just means you don't choose to believe...which..hey..I can't blame you. You don't know me and I could be an 84 year old black man living in Poughkeepsie for all you know.. In time I am hoping the Truth will come out.

Not according to your AOL Page



GOD777, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 16:35 [Link] »

CAPRI wasn't doing satire he's just stupid and what pain and suffering, or are you joking?



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 17:48 [Link] »

I'm pretty sure that "interupt" is indeed joking, and ~CAPRI was a she, not a he.



interupt, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 18:21 [Link] »

I was being very tongue in cheek.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.13 (Tue) 19:05 [Link] »

As noted, GOD777, interupt was indeed joking. We admit, it's sometimes hard to tell such things on the web, but we can't stand emoticons or actual (eww) graphical smilies, so we all have to do our best. You get the hang of it after a while, once you've seen who the regulars are and what kinds of comments they tend to contribute. No worries.

And interupt — everybody, in fact — you really haven't seen a "twisted mess" until you've seen ~CAPRI's latest attempt at...whatever the fuck she's attempting. Despite our previous statements, we will be approving her most recent comment over on the Urinal for the purposes of edification and information. Then we'll post our own comment on it afterward.

It's some pretty reprehensible stuff, folks.



Lauren, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 14:21 [Link] »

You guys are so awesome. I have been reading this on and off since I first saw it when it was linked on AOL about a month ago. (I actually cant believe you guys are still talking about it.. although it seems it has eveolved into a "lets bitch about everything else" thing. ) But I really enjoy the guys at 2% and especally Tom Foss. You really know how to put up a good argument and put the "ashats" in their place. (thats my new fav word by the way) So basically I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading this and I hope the chaos continues.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 17:45 [Link] »

I hope you liked my contributions, but Tom Foss really knows how to stick it to them.

I tend to get really annoyed by a lot of people who don't seem to care about the fact that "psychics" are making money off of an ability that remains completely elusive under proper test conditions. In other words, they're acting unethically, we're pointing it out, and suddenly we're evil censorship moguls out to crush other people's opinions.

Sorry, but we aren't really dealing with opinion: We're dealing with FACTS, all of which are pointed against Sylvia Browne and such.

Of course, that annoyance gets me quite ranty, as above, rather than very nicely point-for-point like Tom Foss.



Tom Foss, 2007.02.16 (Fri) 17:52 [Link] »

Gosh, I'm getting a swelled head :).

You may notice, however, that while I'm good on backup, I'm not much of a solo artist, as the long stretches of silence on my socioreligiopolitical blog can attest. In other words, I'm Ringo.



Akusai, 2007.02.17 (Sat) 05:35 [Link] »
In other words, I'm Ringo.
Shit, Tom I hope not. That means that in 35 or so years you'll be on late-night infomercials making a sad, pathetic buck by pimping CD collections of classic skeptical music. I don't want to see that. You're too good for that.

Maybe you can be George. Known popularly for your skills at backup, your solo work will have a small but dedicated audience and be highly critically acclaimed.

In either case, at least you're not Paul.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.21 (Wed) 14:39 [Link] »

In other words, I'm Ringo.

Definitely not! Aside from Peter Criss, he may be the richest crappy drummer of all time.



Tribble, 2007.02.21 (Wed) 20:13 [Link] »

Well I'm glad someone's posting about this woman! She's horrible! I stopped watching Montel after I wrote him an e-mail asking him to please do a show about psychic con artists a few years ago.

I never got a reply.

At the time only James Randi was challenging Sylvia. ;p Enuf Said.

I personally am very angry she is hurting people the way she is. I was duped once too when I was very young out of some amount of money (large at the time for me as I was a poor student in college) & well anyhow, I was angry. For those who write, "How can she be hurtful?" or "Oh she must be doing some service!" NO SHE ISN'T.

Trust me, the betrayal you feel when you realize the person you trusted just took your money & lied to your face is awful. It's the worst! & anyhow, I learned a valuable lesson about naivete & btw, I had thought since someone who seemed as reasonable as Montel Williams at the time believed in psychics perhaps they could do me a service when I was at a vulnerable point in my life then.

Boy was I wrong ! & seriously, I am damn glad someone is finally showing Sylvia for who she is.



Lasha Cable, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 18:14 [Link] »

The way I look at it is, for someone to charge 750 bucks for a reading is out of their mind anyway. Psychics shouldn't use their gift as personal gain.

It's a gift, not a privilage. I would know. Don't worry, I predict that Sylvia will get hers one of these days soon...I say within the next year.

Blessed be.



GOD777, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 18:28 [Link] »

Psychics don't have any gift they're all either lying con artists or are delusional and really believe that they are psychic. Either way they're not psychic. Psycho maybe but not psychic.



Akusai, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 19:36 [Link] »
Blessed be.

With a send-off like that, you might be more interested in reading this post.

That said, I refused to blessed be, by you or anyone else.



Belinda, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 20:02 [Link] »
The way I look at it is, for someone to charge 750 bucks for a reading is out of their mind anyway. Psychics shouldn't use their gift as personal gain.

It's a gift, not a privilage. I would know.

I would have though anyone reading any part of this thread would have had more sense than to claim that psychics had any gift apart from the gift of bullshitting someone. And then to say something as off the wall as...."I would know" Really, the mind boggles.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 22:40 [Link] »

Oh, it is boggling. But there's really a simple explanation here, Belinda — Lasha Cable didn't read the post or the comment thread before leaving a comment. That's standard operating procedure for the credulous. I know.



Jenna, 2007.04.09 (Mon) 17:00 [Link] »

Well, I have finally finished reading this entire thread and I have to say that ~CAPRI has to be the the stupidest, most self-righteous person I have seen on this site! I've heard of people with actual accreditation in disciplines such as Law and Politics having insurmountable egos, but to hear asinine statements and outlandish claims without any evidence to back them, such as these that have been vomited all over this blog by ~CAPRI, is beyond me. And now it seems that it has been a month since the last post, and I have missed out on an engaging conversation. I truely cannot add any comments or opinions that have not already been addressed by 2% or Tom Foss. But I am glad that there are still people like me who care out there. James Randi is my hero.



TimmyAnn, 2007.04.13 (Fri) 18:39 [Link] »

Boy Howdy! That one is not only SPAM, it is complete and total gibberish!



TimmyAnn, 2007.06.18 (Mon) 19:48 [Link] »

Emily was forced to cum desperately. The schooner new balance shoes anchored off on. He.

What the fuck? Okay, that is the funniest SPAM I have ever seen! Usually it's some mundane sentence interrupted by filth, this one is filth interrupted by "new balance shoes"!



TimmyAnn, 2007.06.18 (Mon) 20:11 [Link] »

Oh, sure, I finally learn how to do the block quotes and it doesn't work!



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2007.06.18 (Mon) 20:18 [Link] »

[He types, briefly emerging from the swamp that has engulfed the Two Percent Company for months...]

You almost had it, TA — "blockquote" is what you're looking for, not "quote." Reading it in the plain text e-mail, though, I was totally with you. The vagaries of HTML are a mystery that will last through the ages. Hell, just getting fully table-less designs to work in backward-compatible browsers is a bitch.

And yeah, that was an interesting example of spam. It's like watching porn that's interrupted with a thirty-second Gatorade spot halfway through. Hmm...actually not a bad idea, considering how sweaty some folks get watching porn. (Note to the Gatorade folks: I get a cut if this works out for you.)



TimmyAnn, 2007.06.18 (Mon) 20:28 [Link] »

Ah, okay, thanks, Jeff! Sorry to be such a whiner ... again! With all the different boards I go to, I get so confused, I've even been known to e-mail things with [b] in front of it and [/b] after it instead of clicking the big "B" on the tool bar to get bold type. That's embarrassing!

The Gatorade idea is a damn good one! Hope you get your cut!



Jessi, 2007.07.31 (Tue) 22:29 [Link] »

Hey guys, just wanted to say I love, love your website! I've only recently discovered it and have been reading voraciously (only turning away occasionally when my eyes start bleeding due to the appalling grammer and atrocious spelling from some of the posters). I was brought up as a christian, my whole family are christians, and I got to about 18 years old firmly believing in everything the bible said and my parents told me, untill (to the absolute dismay of my parents) I started dating an athiest (bloody athiests). He was the first person to actually question me on my beliefs, no one had ever done that before, and I couldn't even explained to him why I believed the things I did (which probably made me sound like a gullible moron) because I had always believed everything the church told me without question. But after I started questioning my own faith as a result of his questioning, I began researching what I was believeing and what the other religions and world views were. Still looking and the things I've believed in blindly are still crashing down around my ears but at least, thanks to you guys, I can laugh at it!
Keep it up



Christine D, 2007.08.16 (Thu) 20:42 [Link] »

I enjoyed reading this site very much. I used to read Sylvia Browne's books. I was very depressed, and I guess I was an easy target. I needed to feel there was a purpose to my life. Then one day I simply woke up and said literally, "This is fucking crap!". I threw that shit off of me as fast as I could. I've actually become much happier since then. Her shit is total poison. Thing is though, while I still feel frustrated by the people who still believe in her, at the same time I understand them. They are sad, desperate people. She's the bitch who takes advantage of them. I especially feel sorry for the grieving parents that she ROBS! If there is a hell, let her go straight to it! ZOOM!



T, 2007.11.01 (Thu) 11:54 [Link] »

PLEASE PLEASE TAKE THIS OFF YOUR SITE. I AM THE WOMAN WHO WAS SO EMBARASSED BY THIS IDIOT. PLEASE HAVE RESPECT FOR MY LOST LOVE AND NOT MAKE JOKES. THIS WAS A VERY HARDWORKING, LOVING MAN WHO IS NOW AT THE CENTER OF SB'S LIST OF MISTAKES. PLEASE - REMOVE THIS. THANK YOU



The Two Percent Company, 2007.11.01 (Thu) 22:39 [Link] »

T — we have no idea whether or not you really are the woman from the video. However, that makes little difference, since we believe that the request itself is genuine, and therefore deserves a proper response. A while back, we saw that this same request was made to Robert Lancaster on his Stop Sylvia Browne site. Robert chose to remove the video then. At that time, after discussing this internally, we at the Two Percent Company chose to leave it in place.

Do we feel sorry for this woman? Sure. But the purpose of making the video available is to show that Sylvia Browne is a bullshit artist — plain and simple. We feel for this woman, but what she did is on the public record. And frankly, information like this needs more visibility, not less, if we are ever to have any hope of a less credulous society.

In addition — and this is very, very important to understand — this woman didn't do anything wrong. Yes, she believed in the "mystical powers" of someone like Sylvia Browne, but then, so do many other people. We didn't come away from the clip feeling that this woman was an idiot, we came away from it feeling that Sylvia Browne was a heartless bitch whose abilities to even pretend to be psychic are utterly shitty. We came away from it feeling sorry for Sylvia's victim. Frankly, any embarrassment she might feel is misplaced. She shouldn't be embarrassed by her behavior in this clip. She lost someone she loved, and was looking for solace, a purely human and compassionate thing to do; Sylvia Browne, on the other hand, callously leveraged this woman's pain for her own benefit, in a horribly transparent series of made-up "visions." The only person who should be embarrassed here is Sylvia Browne.

What should this woman be embarrassed by? Well...her continued belief in psychics, as far as we can tell. From Robert Lancaster's site, we see this excerpt of the letter that he received:

I am a believer in this psychic world.... to an extent. When you lose someone as close as I did... you reach out for it all. I truly believe there ARE gifted people who are connected spiritually. Unfortunately, Sylvia Browne is not one.

We understand that losing someone can cause you to take some pretty extreme steps to ease your pain; whether or not we ourselves would take this particular step is beside the point, as we're all human — and therefore fallible and fool-able. But after experiencing Sylvia Browne's utter lack of psychic abilities first hand, we'd think that you would at least temporarily suspend your belief "in the psychic world" pending further experience. We're sorry that this woman is still leaving herself open to more pain and grief at the hands of these self-serving assholes, but taking down the link to this video isn't going to help her, or anyone else. We are purveyors of information, and suppliers of our own perspective on the information we provide. We can do neither of these things if we do not provide the information in the first place.

The bottom line here is that this is an important piece of evidence debunking Sylvia Browne. Removing it from the public record is simply not acceptable to us. So, with all due respect, the video will remain on our site.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



T, 2007.11.02 (Fri) 09:35 [Link] »

Robert Lancaster - did the right thing and removed my photo at the request I maThis tragice loss has devasted many many people & to be made a joke of constantly is sickening. Apparently you have never lost anyone close to you - to feel so much pain to not exploit him any further. Yes, I understand you want to show SB is a fraud - BUT IT IS AT OUR EXPENSE. SEMPTEMBER 11th... Any family membr would be just as upset over this as I am. Please if you have any compassion, take down the video clip out of respect for this lost Firefighter.
~ For the record; I did not attend that show for Sylvia Browne...was invited last minute. I did ask my question... and stood there dumbfounded debating if I should tell her what a fraud she is in front of the entire show or just let her mistake be enough. And definately not expecting The Montel show to air such a disgrace....
Please... I do not want to go back & forth, I am asking you out of respect for the man I lost tragically...to please discontinue this.
Thank you.



Lauren, 2007.11.02 (Fri) 13:08 [Link] »

To be honest this video made me realize what a fake she was. If it wasnt for this I probably would still believe my dad was waiting for me somewhere.
And that had to be the nicest reply I have ever seen you make 2% co... it was weird not to see some insults thrown in there. But then again there was no need for them.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.11.02 (Fri) 16:32 [Link] »

Actually, we think that Robert did precisely the wrong thing — but that's his decision on his site, and we respect that decision. We're sorry for your loss. We're also sorry that you incorrectly perceive that it is you being laughed at when people watch this video. It isn't. It's Sylvia Browne.

We have no idea why you feel that this video paints you in a bad light, or why you think people are laughing at you. We have no idea why you feel that exposing Sylvia Browne comes at your expense. Your feelings on the subject are, we must say, misplaced. No one is laughing at you. No one is making a joke of you. In fact, it's exactly the opposite: rational, compassionate people feel nothing but sympathy for you — for your loss, and for your treatment at the hands of that malicious cunt, Sylvia Browne.

On another note, we suggest that you choose your words much more carefully in the future. Shame on you for wrongly assuming that we've never lost anyone close to us — we're not even sure where this preposterous assertion keeps coming from, but too many people have made it in unsuccessful efforts to "invalidate" our perspectives on death and loss. We extend to you the respect of assuming that you're human, that you feel pain and loss, and that you have lived a life as all of us have; please extend the same simple courtesy to us. And shame on you for dropping September 11th on us as if you are the only one who suffered on that day. All of our members grew up in the New York City area, and have always had family and friends who live and work in the city; at the time of September 11th, some of our members lived within sight of the World Trade Center, and one member worked in its shadow (literally). So please don't assume that we weren't directly impacted by that event.

The availability of this video is a good thing. We have no doubt that many people have watched this and seen that not only is Sylvia Browne not psychic, but that she is also a heartless bitch — as evidenced by her treatment of this woman (you, perhaps), who, need we reiterate, did nothing to be ashamed of in this video. Lauren's comment should be enough to reinforce the positive impact of this video. As we said, it's important to keep this record available.

Like you, we have no desire to continue to go back and forth on this. Our answer stands — the link to the video stays. We ask that you respect our decision, whether you agree with it or not.



EA462, 2007.12.14 (Fri) 22:32 [Link] »

If she was real or anyone was really able to 'talk to the dead' wouldnt they want to use thier 'girft' for good and help people who are lost and confused free of charge? People are so fucking selfish it makes me sick to my stomach. Fuck sylvia and anyone who wants to charge for help out of a icky situation.



Gina, 2008.04.25 (Fri) 18:04 [Link] »

I believe that we can 'SEE' into the lives of others, but I dont believe that it is a psychic ability, I think it goes back to basic instincts that have matured. Human evolution, shit if anyone could just shut up for a few and listen I"m sure any one of us could 'Predict' what the hell is going to happen, common sense, knowledge, experience and a little old fashioned gut instinct, plus some well needed internal silence, shut your brain off in other words for a few and get in touch with reality. Animals can sense the world aroudn them, believe me we could too, but its hard for most people I see posting here, your all too damn busy being pissy and anal to learn anything.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.04.26 (Sat) 11:37 [Link] »

And yet, we've managed to learn quite a lot anyway. Amazing, isn't it?

You had a point to make, Gina, and that was a pleasant surprise. But try not to meander into irrelevant, nonsensical, armchair psychoanalysis if you comment here again. It's silly, and annoying.



Bronze Dog, 2008.04.26 (Sat) 16:23 [Link] »

The old "She's not psychic, she's intuitive!" line. How does she 'intuit' stuff like the names of people's guardian angels and the names of ghosts haunting people's places.

Besides, it's my experience that woos are the ones who are anal and pissy. They HATE questions. They hate curiosity. They hate it when we express either, because it means that we're violating the tiny little box of their inexperience they like to try to pigeonhole us as well as the rest of the universe into. That's why woos react so venomously to skeptics.



TimmyAnn, 2008.04.28 (Mon) 19:01 [Link] »

Damn, I was going to say something, but I am just too damn busy being pissy and anal to remember what it was!



TeamSwitzerland, 2008.06.03 (Tue) 14:57 [Link] »

This provided major lulz.

First off, as we can all see, Sylvia Browne is pretty awful.

I've read up on so many of her mis-predictions, public screw ups, and the vile way she treats people, that I wonder how in the world someone like this can go on and on and on about SHIT, and people still worship her! It is blatantly obvious she has no clue what she is talking about. One thing that really bugged me, was she referred to Natalie Holloway as: "That girl in Aruba". She has a name. For all of you who aren't yet convinced of this woman's evil, I am honestly surprised. You should know anyone who charges $750 for a phone call is lying to you.

that rant felt good, i do want to say that you are very good writers.



chris, 2008.07.08 (Tue) 02:22 [Link] »

I have returned tonite from seeing sylvia at a show I am a ve spiritualperson and so love talking of life after life but this was elementary and found her quite crass and not loing inher delivery i do think that she has good intentions but it is taking our ownpower away to find ways to our own answers ...we do not need sylvia ..she needs us to give up on our own intuitions ...please try a more respected messages from ekhar tolle deepak chopra gangaji these will empower youself not make you question there intentions ...and others tha need syvias messages take out of them what you need and fits right in your gut the rest throw out
peace



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.07.08 (Tue) 09:48 [Link] »

Well, you got it half right, chris. Sylvia does seem to be more crass and crude than most other "psychic" sideshow acts on the market today. That much is true. But your directive to ignore her in lieu of the equally asinine Tolle and Chopra is fucking hilarious.

Here's a thought — why not ignore all of the people spewing bullshit and just go live your life? Stop leaning on people who don't fucking know you, and whose only interest in you is to collect your money, and start leaning on your family, your friends, and yourself. That way, when you lean, you'll actually have a chance of being supported.



jenneane, 2008.07.27 (Sun) 03:43 [Link] »

She didnt reply because she need no too!!!! It is complety UNDERSTANDABLEHow you can say a person who is clearly out to help us all find the love of GOD is out to hurt us?!??!?!?
CLEARLY - YOU HAVE READ NONE OF HER BOOKS - which clearly ask us to seek our own truths, findings and BELIEVINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The Two Percent Company, 2008.07.27 (Sun) 12:37 [Link] »

Who didn't reply? Sylvia Browne? To what? We realize that "she need no too," and that it's "completely UNDERSTANDABLEHow," but perhaps you could back up your assertion (once you define it, whatever it precisely is — which we haven't the foggiest, honestly) with some actual arguments or facts...? Other than the fact that you are stupidly and blindly defending a make-believe psychic (probably Sylvia, though we made references to Allison DuBois as well), we can't even parse what the fuck it is you're trying to say, you twit.

You know, we opened this post with the following paragraph:

There are two things that we can be certain of in this world. The first thing is that self-proclaimed psychics will make asses of themselves on at least a semi-regular basis. After all, when you make a living by pulling predictions out of your ass, you're bound to pull out big handfuls of utter shit from time to time. The second thing we can be certain of is that, no matter how many times these "psychics" are shown screwing the pooch on national television, hordes of their weak-minded groupies will continue to fawn all over them, making excuses for their fuck-ups and defending their real honest-to-gosh spirit medium powers.
[Our newly added emphasis.]

The, ah, "weak-minded groupie" in this scenario? That'd be you, jenneane. Thanks for proving us completely right, putz. Feel free to make your personal favorite psychic rich by shelling out the bucks to read books that help you "find the love of GOD." How's that working out for you? It's working out gangbusters for them.



TimmyAnn, 2008.07.27 (Sun) 13:08 [Link] »

Let's all hope that English is not jenneane's first language.



Bronze Dog, 2008.07.27 (Sun) 17:21 [Link] »

I know my instincts say otherwise, but I'm not entirely sure that comment isn't sarcastic.

Sylvia Browne exploits vulnerable people for profit. There's no getting around that. There's no response because she is forever getting caught. Ivory tower elitists like you try to distract people by making false hoops we have to jump through before we can call an evil person evil. Heck, I don't have a great deal of confidence that Sylvia writes her own books.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



Charlene Dewbre, 2008.07.30 (Wed) 04:09 [Link] »

Just another hack job. You know who's genuinely worse than Sylvia Browne in my mind? Montel Williams, who gave this dipshit a stage and a national voice.

If there is an afterlife (and since I can't die and come back to report on the subject, I'll just have to go on believing that I'll be worm food) my dearest wish is that all the people that these con artists have fleeced exact revenge for their loved ones.



Jason Spicer, 2008.08.03 (Sun) 02:35 [Link] »

It just occurred to me how much ivory it would take to build a tower. No wonder elephants are in trouble.

Exercise for readers: Would jenneane's post pass the Turing Test? I'm actually not sure, but I suspect it might, purely on the basis that a computer wouldn't say something that incoherent.



Anne, 2009.01.12 (Mon) 22:42 [Link] »

Well, I have got to say, this website is a refreshing change fron the idol worshippers of her Royal Highness of Screwedupness...I fell off the Sylvia Browne wagon long ago due to her wanton crudeness to others-She USED TO BE about helping others seeking spiritual guidance, but over the years greed hath taken over and mounted her fully from behind, if you know what I mean! And I fully agree-anyone charging the amount she does and still gets her predictions wrong... well let's just say she has a special reservation table at the head of the line in Hell!



Ron, 2009.11.02 (Mon) 22:38 [Link] »

Sylvia Browne cannot predict what time she will wake up the next day without setting an alarm clock.



TimmyAnn, 2009.11.09 (Mon) 19:48 [Link] »

Hell, she couldn't predict gas after a beef & bean burrito!



sherif egyptian retard, 2010.12.02 (Thu) 02:45 [Link] »

Sylvia Brown looks like a classic Jew whore con artist. The fact she is peddling her shit on day time TV means she wants to market her bullshit scam and get some more publicity. Remember the SS Officer in "The Pianist". He has a conversation with some Jew scum, and closes the conversation with,
"isn't that what you Jews like to do, make money?" For them its all about making and taking money from others whether they have it or not. They sold junk credit default swaps and mortgage backed derivative bullshit to Europe knowing the damage was already done by them in the US and they effectively ruined the US and European economies while lining there pockets. All Jews care about is Jews, no one else. They are scared to death of the whole world because they have been fucking everyone and everything for so long which is why they have to control everything and use invasive remote neural monitor technology to fuck with people. I don't need to monitor or EMF wave attack people, but they seem to have a need to do so. They killed Jesus 2000 years ago and are telling the whole world that Christ and GOD don't exist. There is only Lucifer/Yahweh huh? Well who made Lucifer buddy. Their the only immigrant group in the US that pledges loyalty to Israhell first while having dual citizenship. And then miraculously they all get elected to positions of power and influence in the USA. They did 911 and have no right to talk about it ever. I guarantee you once they completely fuck over the USA like they did everywhere else, you are going to see a bunch of Southern US military generals(probably German-Americans) go rogue and pull a Hitler on Israel, regardless of any Zio controlled elitist bullshit. We are going to see a real holocaust on the Jews 21st century style with all the fixings. No latkas and pro-Jew hollywood bullshit in the aftermath of the disasters they created for everyone and the disasters that will be delivered right back to them. The USA is the last country and peoples the Jews will fuck with the way they fucked with every other country in the past. Am I psychic like Sylvia Brown, lol. You're not going to see me on Montel peddling my informed opinions. I say what needs to be said, if you want to hear the truth then listen. If not, I could give two shits and you can have a nice day. Call me now bumbaclot on my 900 number, only $6.16 per minute for your reading. Call me now. By the way, real psychics are cursed and know that it isnt a gift, they don't charge money or market their abilities for profit. Its fucking painful to see horrible shit happening before it happens and thats why real psychics advise and consult without a need for fame, profit or fortune, because they want to keep the bad shit from happening to those they want to help. Fucking Jew motherfuckers.



The Two Percent Company, 2010.12.03 (Fri) 16:00 [Link] »
By the way, real psychics are cursed and know that it isnt a gift, they don't charge money or market their abilities for profit. Its fucking painful to see horrible shit happening before it happens and thats why real psychics advise and consult without a need for fame, profit or fortune, because they want to keep the bad shit from happening to those they want to help.

Except, presumably, for the Jew psychics who, despite the pain of their curse, cannot overcome their Jew desire for power, fame and money. Right?

Hey, sherif — time to up your dosage. Preferably of arsenic. We'd argue against your points, but...what points?



Ryan W., 2010.12.03 (Fri) 17:38 [Link] »

Wow. An anti-Semite psychic 911 conspiracy theorist who believes in Jesus and thinks Lucifer and Yahweh are the same being in Judeo-Xian mythology.

I'm impressed.




— • —


— • —

Enter your comment below

Name —
E-mail —
URL —
Remember me?
Subscribe to this Rant? (We'll notify you of new comments.)

Comments —
(Allowed HTML: a href, b, i, br, ol, ul, li, blockquote)



Please Post only once; if you do not see your comment immediately, Refresh the Rant page.
Your comment will autopreview above, if you have Javascript enabled.

Read the Two Percent Company's Comment Policy before diving into the deep end.


To subscribe to this Rant without commenting, fill in your e-mail address below:




|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Amazon.com


Recommended by us:


Recommended to us:

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]