|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 | ||||||||||
Stuart Cumberland Loyal user 289 Posts |
This is TOO funny.
I was checking my logs on my website and saw http://www.randi.org., Thought I'd check it out. Well, it seems my very good friend Wert made a posting that you all should read. Now, I'm not trying to be funny here... you can't make comments like I make (being critical of critical Randi and his critical followers) and expect folks to just sit back and take it. I'm tough. But I never thought my comments would make it back to JREF! But the commentary that the folks at JREF made me laugh my freaking head off! Here's the link about all of you "woo-woos" and typical magicians with no sense at all can look at: JREF Thread Sure doesn't make a good case for "reasonable" skeptics, although, there IS some very good commentary there. Not all buy into the skeptic stuff. It was fun watching them turn against themselves and argue. Hee hee. I haven't seen that much name calling since I last visited alt.magic! Fame is great, and a sincere thanks to Wert for posting it (no hidden dig here, seriously... thanks, my hit counter has gone through the roof thanks to your post). If you look at the amazing amount of posts that some of the JREF folks make and simply calculate the time they spend on this stuff, it puts magicians to shame. Some of these guys have too much time on their hands, I'd say! Man, this is TOO funny. I love this stuff. Cheers Blair FREE Newsletter reveals inside money-making secrets of successful mentalists & psychics! www.Mental-List.com |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3222 Posts |
Bartlewizard,
I enjoyed your discussion with jdclarkson. I found his arguments convincing. You also made a lot of good points. I do require clarification about one issue. You referred to the people who did not believe that any psychics are real as "Shut-Eyes". A point of many of the posters here is that there has been no credible evidence that any psychics are real so far. Thus anyone who believes in them in the absence of evidence is also a "Shut-Eyes", since they too are forming an opinion in the absence of evidence. Absence of dis-proof and absence of proof are symmetric. So if I understand your argument, then if someone says they believe psychics are real, then they are a "Shut-Eyes" too? Keeping a truly open mind on a particular issue is a personal thing which people have to decide for themselves. If someone has a religious or mystical experience, you can choose to believe them or not. Making a choice either way is shutting your eyes to to the opposite possibility. If YOU have the religous or mystical experience, then that is different. The movie "Contact", a movie I really enjoyed, discussed the concept of "faith" and belief, which we all adopt to some extent or another. It was also about tolerance, and about respecting other peoples beliefs. If someone chooses not to believe in something, and you cannot prove them wrong, then how is that any worse than if they are agnostic about the issue and you cannot prove them wrong, or they are believe, and you cannot prove them wrong? In many cases, saying "I know something", might be weaker than saying "I don't know", but if it still cannot be proven incorrect, then it might be correct! In the end, a psychic either is for real, or they aren't, regardless of anyone's beliefs. My problem with the psychics is that they all appear fake. I have never seen one make any prediction that could not have been done easily by either modifying statistics, i.e. throwing out the failures, OR where the spectator(s) actually told them everything, i.e. the cold-reading technique. Sure, they could be real, but I don't believe it. I choose not to believe it because it is the simplest explanation that they are fake. Could I be wrong? Sure. Do I believe I am? No. If I told you I was using my psychic abilities to arrive at the conclusion that all psychics but me were fake, could you seriously say I was wrong based on your own arguments? Would you believe me? I do think that all psychics I have ever seen or heard are fakes. I won't believe in a real one until they impress me by doing something I could not do myself.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
Quote:
You referred to the people who did not believe that any psychics are real as "Shut-Eyes". Actually Bill, it's the opposite. "Shut-eyes" is a term magicians use to describe those in the psi business that do not use trickery (or at least admit to it) ie. 'real psychics'. Quote:
Could I be wrong? Sure. Spoken like a true skeptic. Quote:
If I told you I was using my psychic abilities to arrive at the conclusion that all psychics but me were fake, could you seriously say I was wrong based on your own arguments? Would you believe me? I wouldn’t believe you. But I also wouldn’t go on a warpath to try and discredit you either. I would just say to myself, “there goes that crazy man, Bill…” JR |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Quote: Actually, I simply requested that you cease sending me Private Messages. There was no agreement.
On 2003-05-15 11:14, Bambaladam wrote: As to your personal life, if you mention something in a public forum, Bamba, it's fair game for comment. You mentioned in this thread that people declare love fraudulently, and I offered my conditional condolences to you. The condition was, as I stated, the assumption that you were speaking from personal experience rather than making pronouncements about other people's motives, feelings, and behavior or some general truth. If, however, you were, in fact, merely making broad generalizations about fraudulent love, then your request that we leave your personal life out of the discussion is redundant, don't you think? Quote: Don't worry too much, Bamba, if I can understand your points. I'm pretty sure I can keep up with you! Actually, I think we may have finally reached some point of strong agreement. I have never (I think) used the word "fraudulent" to describe either John or Sylvia, or any other person who claims to hear voices, although I do think the risk of fraud and abuse is great. I agree that the potential for fraud and abuse is insufficient basis to level an accusation of fraud and abuse. I prefer the statement, "In the absence of data, there is no reason for me to believe that Sylvia and John talk to dead people."
However, most everything you say makes a lot of sense to me, though I wonder if you got my point. Quote: Yes, even the greatest orators seem to develop speech impediments when they die... and sudden amnesia about trivial details like their names, their genders, the cause of their death... even if they have died at all. It is, truly amazing.
I mean, for all I know, it COULD be very difficult to understand what the dead say. Quote: Have we moved from one invisible (love) to another (ghosts)? The principle should be the same, though, and you failed to address it. I agree that we cannot prove or disprove whether ghosts exist. But, we certainly could observe, count, and evaluate anything that a ghost is supposed to be doing in the physical universe. That's really not so tough...
A basic problem with epistemology is it is impossible to create an unquestionable model of truth or knowledge. And without that, it becomes most difficult to discuss the realities of the "invisible" like, say, ghosts....I disagree with a scientific approach to that which cannot be empirically observed ... Quote: Well, if we don't have enough knowledge to form an opinion, then the safest course, I suggest, is to adhere to my statement: "We do not have enough data to support a belief in these things." Saying that since we cannot know everything, we must believe anything, doesn't seem like good policy to me. By that reasoning, we would never reject any claptrap of an idea. The point is, at some point, we must act, and we must base our action on some estimate of the probablity that something is real. Scientific method allows us to do that. Perhaps not infallibly, but it's better than just believing without data, don't you think?
...I am suggesting we are not knowledgeable yet to assume knowledge of these things. So, until we have more data, I think that I will not whistle in cemeteries to keep away the ghosts.
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
I don't think the notion of other members' posts being "fair game" is conducive to an environment where "magicians help magicians". Also, I'd like to know where you got the idea I thought you had ever accused anyone of fraud. My post was not adressed to you. You have on several occasions explicitly stated you do not enjoy conversing with me.
What's the point here? You think I'm stupid? You wouldn't be the first. However, I don't relly know what value this is to anyone, so I still kind of feel like an explanation would be dandy. And your excuse for trying to once more make assumptions about my personal life is as solid as mine would be had I said "you obviously don't respect the dead" quoting your passage on not whistling. Fraudulent love is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) and most popular tropes in western art and storytelling. It's in almost every movie. I don't think one needs to bring in my personal experiences in relationships to assume I have been in touch with the idea. Yawn yawn yawn. If you want to write to me, be no less civil than you would feel entitled to expect of me. Simple rule. /bamba |
|||||||||
Stuart Cumberland Loyal user 289 Posts |
JD,
Sorry, but I completely missed your post. I wasn't planning to make any more comments, but as you DID answer a question I asked, I felt I should. (Sorry for the delay, I really did miss your post completely). You said: Quote:
Actually, the accepted protocol is that the burden of coming forward with evidence rests with the proponent of the positive proposition, since, as you point out in a previous post, it is impossible to "prove" a negative. So, it is not up to the skeptics to disprove anything. It is the burden of those who claim to speak to dead people to offer the evidence. Respectfully, I'm sure you believe this sincerely, but it does not answer my original question. I'm not interested in arguing semantics. In law, the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. I know THAT is an accepted protocol. My question--again, respectfully--is this: who the heck created *that* "accepted protocol"? So if I claim to be a real whatever, it's your position that a skeptic can accuse me of fraud and I have to prove it? Huh? You truly have me lost, J.D.... maybe I'm reading what you said incorrectly, but I don't think so. Why don't I think so? Because I've met many skeptics who feel as you do. Believe it or not, most of us have no problem with *sincere* skeptics. It's the closed minded aggressive ones that slap the whole lot of you in the face. James Randi is the leader of that pack. To my mind, there are two distinct skeptics. 1. The very sincere skeptic. "I'm open to what you are saying, but I'm just not convinced it's real". Using John Edward as an example, a sincere skeptic would NOT rule out that he's talking to the dead, but is not convinced he is either. And that's fair. 2. The aggressive closed minded skeptic. "Everything is fake. FAKE! FAKE! NO PROOF! COLD READING!! SCAM!!! Everything you say I'll discount, call you names, and argue with..." On the JREF board, they repeat, over and over to come up with solutions instead of complaining about Randi's protocols. Then, when someone does, they argue how it won't work. (Some would call that pessimism). Why do most skeptics, if they are as sincere as they pretend to be, have to attack all people who believe...and get defensive when those they attack strike back? Instead of *attacking* Sylvia Browne on Larry King, mocking her, taunting her, bullying her... why don't they just act human? Randi should force his membership to read a book called "How To Win Friends And Influence People". To me, his ilk are just an angry mob with too much time on their hands. Yes, you read it right. Too much time on their hands. Guys, who aren't even magicians, "spying" on a magicians forum and posting on the JREF forum about all of us "woo-woo" folks. My new big question is why aren't they out there shutting down the REAL bad folks, doing the gypsy switches on innocent people. Why? And why do they hide behind cheesy handles and nothing else? They claim they want the truth, but hide in the shadows. They talk really big, but do very little. Cheers Blair Discover the stuff that the JREF don't want you to see!www.Mental-List.com |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Quote: Yes, Bamba, it is a simple rule. And, frankly, I think I have been very civil to you. I would, however, encourage you to re-read your post (of which the quotation above is but a snippet) to see if you have been civil.
On 2003-05-16 04:16, Bambaladam wrote: If you'd like to address the ideas I presented about the major issues, and do so in a civil tone, then I'd be happy to engage you. I would not, however, be very interested in continuing along this line. I have responded in this case merely because I think people deserve the courtesy of a reply. To discourage further vitriol, however, I'll not respond again to that kind of post from you. Cheers. Quote: This expression always amuses me. Semantics? If you mean you don't want to use words, then I am at a loss as to how we will communicate our ideas. If you mean "meaning" (definition of semantics), then I truly am baffled. I think we should, in fact, discuss (argue) about meaning.
On 2003-05-16 09:12, Blair Robertson wrote: Quote: As a private defense attorney who represents people accused of crimes, Blair, I am quite aware of this approach. It is merely a re-statement of the protocol that the proponent of a proposition bears the burden of proof. The State accuses (is the proponent of the proposition) and, therefore, bears the burden of proof.
In law, the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. I know THAT is an accepted protocol. Quote: Oh, philosophers, logicians and other people who are probably smarter than either of us and who realize that since one cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof must rest with the proponent of the positive proposition. Even you, yourself, in subscribing to the "legal theory" are adhering to the protocol, Blair.
My question--again, respectfully--is this: who the heck created *that* "accepted protocol"? Quote: No, Blair, it is not my position, and honestly, I think I do an adequate job of describing my position for myself; please, therefore, don't do it for me. My position is that the proponent bears the burden. If a skeptic claims that someone is a fraud, (s)he bears the burden of proving it. You and I probably agree here, so don't argue too much with me! I have also stated that I don't think that the mere fear of the possibility of fraud and abuse is sufficient reason to actually allege fraud and abuse.
So if I claim to be a real whatever, it's your position that a skeptic can accuse me of fraud and I have to prove it? Huh? Quote: I doubt that I have you lost. You have misstated my position and then argued with your own misstatement. Really, Blair, you don't need to do that. You have enough valid points without raising strawmen.
You truly have me lost, J.D.... maybe I'm reading what you said incorrectly, but I don't think so. Why don't I think so? Because I've met many skeptics who feel as you do. I will suggest strongly that you have no idea what I feel and that your experience with (other) skeptics is no proof of what I believe or feel. Your statement does make you seem blatantly prejudiced, however: you have not only labeled me, but treated the entire class (of skeptics) as some single-minded entity with identical opinions... Quote: I am not sure who this monolithic "us" is that you refer to, but I am noticing your tendency to group people into immutable categories. So, let's see. What can we agree about here? I do in fact believe that some posters on this forum have no problem with open-minded skeptics. And, you and I probably agree that James Randi is, at times, not the smoothest or most persuasive spokesperson for the skeptical point of view.
Believe it or not, most of us have no problem with *sincere* skeptics. It's the closed minded aggressive ones that slap the whole lot of you in the face. James Randi is the leader of that pack. Quote: Then why do you, in the next paragraph, lump them all into the same category?
To my mind, there are two distinct skeptics. ... Quote: I suspect most people become defensive when others treat them like idiots. Perhaps, if you don't want "them" to become defensive, you should treat them differently? I see your open-mindedness is (momentarily?) lacking here! If you will tone it down, Blair, I'd be willing to discuss it further with you.
Why do skeptics, if they are as sincere as they pretend [italics added by jdclarkson for emphasis] to be, have to attack all people who believe and get defensive when people like me treat them like they're idiots? Let me summarize my position, and perhaps the points on which we agree. 1) When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is with them. 2) Not all claims need to be proven, I suppose. Sylvia may have no interest in proving to me, for example, that she hears voices and that those voices are from dead people. 3) Each of us must, at some point, decide upon actions and to decide upon actions, we must evaluate how likely (or reliable) certain claims are. 4) If the proponent of a claim offers no acceptable data to support the claim (whether the claim is that (s)he hears voices or the claim is that a given psychic is a fraud), then I will adopt the stance that there is simply no reason to believe the claim, and I will not act upon it. So, to make it more specific with respect to John and Sylvia. My own position is this: it is possible that dead people speak to them, but I don't think it is very likely. Since I have not seen any data, offered under conditions that preclude trickery, to support their claim, I will not act upon their claims as though they are true. Likewise, I have not seen anything that Randi has offered with respect to John and Sylvia that is hard, cold data indicating fraud. I, therefore, do not act as though Sylvia and John are frauds. (I wouldn't sell my farm, though, on their advice!) Do you find anything unreasonable in my position? Do you think we may be closer to agreement than it originally seemed?
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Stuart Cumberland Loyal user 289 Posts |
Quote:
Do you think we may be closer to agreement than it originally seemed? Yes! Very much so! Quote:
If a skeptic claims that someone is a fraud, (s)he bears the burden of proving it. You've answered my question. No further questions. BTW, I sincerely apolgize to everyone for my slip up. JD DID quote me correctly: Quote:
... however, I was refering to category number two in my original post. To be clear, I DO NOT, as JD implied with legal finesse, group ALL skeptics as narrow minded. Thank you for clearing things up. Cheers Blair FREE Newsletter reveals inside money-making secrets of successful mentalists & psychics! www.Mental-List.com |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
Quote:
As a private defense attorney who represents people accused of crimes, Blair, I am quite aware of this approach. It is merely a re-statement of the protocol that the proponent of a proposition bears the burden of proof. The State accuses (is the proponent of the proposition) and, therefore, bears the burden of proof. John, if Sylvia wanted to hire you as a defense attorney in a fraud case 1) would you accept the case? 2) How would you present her case if James Randi and his followers were judge and jury? Just curious. And what happened to the dancing peppers? JR |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Quote: Hi, Jim!
On 2003-05-16 11:25, Jim Reynolds wrote: Since Sylvia would be the accused. Under our system, Randi could not be both the accuser and the jury, so your hypothetical is a bit difficult to deal with. Let's assume, though, that Sylvia is the accused, Randi is the accuser, and the jury is comprised of a cross-section of the public. Let's make the further (formidable) assumption that the jury consists of all smart people. Randi, in that case, would bear the burden of proof. If it were a criminal matter, he'd have a burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. If it were a civil action, he'd have the burden of proving with a mere preponderance of the evidence. He might prevail in a civil action. He'd fail, I think, in a criminal action. What would my defense be? I'd probably merely cross-examine the heck out of Randi, goad him into one of his temper tantrums, and then rest my case. In a criminal case, Sylvia would have to do little more (if even that). Now, Jim, honestly, I am not sure I would take Sylvia on as a client in a civil matter... hmmm, well, maybe, if the fee were right.... after all, in my profession, whoever pays me is right (at least for the purposes of the trial, or until the money runs dry, whichever first occurs...)
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts |
Quote:
Let's make the further (formidable) assumption that the jury consists of all smart people. Instead of smart people, let’s assume Randi followers;) Quote:
He might prevail in a civil action. How so? What is the preponderance of the evidence in your view? That things do not exist if they can not be explained? Quote:
What would my defense be? I'd probably merely cross-examine the heck out of Randi, goad him into one of his temper tantrums, and then rest my case. Too easy. jdclarkson: Mr. Randi, I want the truth… Randi: (standing up yelling) You can’t handle the truth! So your strategy would be to goad him, rather than show that his ‘evidence’ is nothing more than opinion? Remember, the jury is on Randi’s side. Making him look bad could backfire. Quote:
Now, Jim, honestly, I am not sure I would take Sylvia on as a client in a civil matter... hmmm, well, maybe, if the fee were right.... after all, in my profession, whoever pays me is right (at least for the purposes of the trial, or until the money runs dry, whichever first occurs...) You bet you would. How could you not? The publicity! You could certainly do better than Mark Geragos:) Only question would be if you were willing to put up with the wrath of Randi, and his followers, for making him look bad? JR |
|||||||||
wert Regular user 164 Posts |
Quote: I sincerely hope that you're not referring to me here.
On 2003-05-16 09:12, Blair Robertson wrote: I've been a magician for over 20 years thank you very much. Having been a member of these forums for quite a while, I dispute (and resent) your baseless accusations of "spying". You publicly complain about the postings at the JREF (where, not surprisingly, your statements are being dissected) whilst simultaneously PM'ing me here, thanking me for giving you publicity for your website. I stand by any opinions that I've posted here or at the JREF. Your willingness to blatantly stereotype and misrepresent the views of your detractors is reason enough for me to discontinue reading and posting anything further to this thread. Further PM's received from you will be deleted unread. |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-05-16 09:49, jdclarkson wrote: I guess writing "yawn" three times is kind of rude, but I still don't think it's too bad considering you a) after saying you don't enjoy talking to me answered my post to someone else and b) for the umpteenth time tried to drag my personal life (or your perceptions or "conditional" feelings regarding it) into a discussion with no other discernible motivation than to end up in another unpleasant argument with me. I apologise for writing "yawn", although I can't say I feel it was entirely unjustified. I can't see anything else in my post that could possibly be considered less than civil. Once more I am accused of being uncivil in very vague terms. If anything in my last post to you beyond writing "yawn" was upsetting PLEASE POINT IT OUT SO I CAN AVOID OFFENDING YOU IN THE FUTURE. Quote:
If you'd like to address the ideas I presented about the major issues, and do so in a civil tone, then I'd be happy to engage you. I would not, however, be very interested in continuing along this line. I have responded in this case merely because I think people deserve the courtesy of a reply. To discourage further vitriol, however, I'll not respond again to that kind of post from you. I was very happily and civilly discussing those very same major issues before you wrote to me, once again in an offensive manor. I agree I may not have taken offense had that post come from someone else, but you know of our history and how difficult our discussions have been. It is incomprehensible that you would wish to share your ideas with me. You have on several occasions accused me of lacking the intellectual capacity to keep up with your thoughts, and you think I am uncivil and rude. Why would you want to hear how I feel about these things? Why seek my opinion out unless you are simply trying to provoke yet another rude exchange from me? Why try to mock me and suggest things about my love life? And how do those things add up to being "very civil"? Regarding your thoughts on major issues, if you want to know, I feel you added little to my post preceeding yours when I stated we were in many cases in agreement. There seems to be nothing new or pressing for me to respond to. If I missed anything vital, please elaborate. Also, please don't respond to me out of courtesy. If you want to say anything, say it. If not, please just don't. I would not be hurt if you did not respond. In fact, it would be better if you did not, assuming it is not something you want to do or would enjoy. /bamba |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts |
Quote: Not so much a comment on my view of what the preponderance of the evidence is, Jim, as a pretty good idea of how juries react. Circumstantial evidence is, in fact, good evidence. And, in a civil action, remember, you do not need a unanimous decision of the jury. Civil matters are much easier to prove than criminal matters (at least in theory).
On 2003-05-16 13:52, Jim Reynolds wrote: Quote:
jdclarkson: Mr. Randi, I want the truth… Jim, although I think skepticism could use a better spokesperson at times, I am not much of a Randi basher. To the extent that he holds people's feet to the fire with respect to the need for evidence of paranormal claims, I think that's a good thing (with apologies to Martha Stewart). To the extent that he is perceived to level accusations of fraud, I wish he'd "kick it down a notch" (with further apologies to Emeril). I can, though, understand Randi's frustration. Besides, it would be infinitely more interesting and beneficial to find even just one person with indisputable paranormal powers than to discover that Randi may be cranky, don't you think?
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Stuart Cumberland Loyal user 289 Posts |
Quote:
I stand by any opinions that I've posted here or at the JREF. Your willingness to blatantly stereotype and misrepresent the views of your detractors is reason enough for me to discontinue reading and posting anything further to this thread. Come on, wert. You can't possibly be THAT easy to shut down? You seem to have picked a minor point and missed some of the major "blatant stereotyping" I made in my posting... like WHO are you, where do you live, etc. (My name is Blair, I live in Ottawa, and have nothing to hide) Hey, I never called any names like "woo-woo". And I publicly thanked you and privately thanked you as well for giving me the publicity.... I guess you don't see the humor in that, sorry. What were you hoping I would do? Disecting my comments? I read the "dissecting" and it made me laugh, and even had the guts to post the link to it. What do I have to fear? Randi? Come on wert. Don't quit the game now! Seriously. If you're gonna post stuff and sent a boatload of people to my site (teaching illogical woo-woo magicians how to make money as a psychic), please tell... what did you expect me to say? BTW, JD & I posted above about an error I unintentionally made, and I think I made it clear about what skeptics I respect and disrespect. (Thanks again JD). Anyway, I think Thank You for the traffic is very appropriate. If you don't want to comment on my other points, that's your personal choice. Have a good weekend everyone! Blair FREE Newsletter reveals inside money-making secrets of successful mentalists & psychics! www.Mental-List.com |
|||||||||
Dynamike Eternal Order FullTimer 24148 Posts |
Quote:
On 2003-01-22 05:42, Manfredo wrote: A fake. What's happening with Sylvia after the Montel Williams show ended? |
|||||||||
Scott M Special user Apex, NC 524 Posts |
I saw her on a recent ad for a juicer with Montel Williams hosting the commercial. She was giving readings. Her voice sounded like a deep smoker and her physical appearance didn't reflect the product she was pushing with Montel...one of health.
I also see her books in the 'used' or 'for sale' bin at Boarders and B&N. New Age is getting OLD. -Scott M |
|||||||||
Logan Five Inner circle Northern California 1434 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-09-28 12:38, Scott M wrote: No, it's just Abraham Hicks and few others are more popular at the moment.
Self concept is destiny..
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Sylvia Browne (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.16 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |