Hmm, could statements like this one offer a clue as to why there aren’t more outspoken woman skeptics?

I was gratified that you had apparently done some research on my site. Your tactics differ from mine, but that is largely due to our differing strengths. Watching your “shakedown,” I (perhaps egotistically) felt that it was yet another secondary effect of my site.

Best,

Robert S. Lancaster
webmaster,
http://www.StopSylvia.com.

I think I remember Mark saying that he didn’t want to put the flyers on the seats at the theater as he didn’t want to be found out. The place was nearly empty, but not completely empty. They would have noticed someone going up and down the seats leaving papers.

The sidewalk in front of the place was not city-owned so he could not hand out flyers outside the venue. The facility would have thrown anyone off the site as it was private property.

Sometimes the options left when you cross them all off the list leave you with what is possible.

I’m sure you can come up with a creative opportunity.

Susan

Wow! You sure dug deep for that one. My observation had nothing to do with who may have voted for the junior Bush or their ideology and everything to do with the actions of the Bush administration and how it may have influenced certain portions of our society.

Are you on the payroll of some charlatan psychic organization sent here to try and stir the pot?

And to clarify for those who may have missed the context, there’s a difference between using deceit to expose fraud and using deceit to defraud.

Overall, I agree with what you were trying to do, and generally agree with the tactics (especially the fliers). I also think it could have been more clever, or planned out better, but it definitely wasn’t a failure if you even had 1 person asking for your signature. The 2 important things to take away from this post are that A: You did SOMETHING where most of us just sit here posting comments on a skeptic blog. And B: Learn from your experiences and hone your tactics. I’m sure you didn’t just jump in and become a great “psychic”; you had to work to hone that skill. I think this is something worth doing. And if you do this, and come out with good results, it will encourage others to follow suit using the same, or similar tactics. And besides, there are always new woo peddlers, so you can get it dead wrong (not in this case), and just try something different next time that may work better.

I think that is the definition of guerilla skepticism. Keep up the good work. I will do my part locally, if I can find the opportunity. :)

If nothing else they’ve served to uplift the spirits of the people of Bhopal, India (links below) who were victims of a gas leak from Union Carbide’s (now owned by Dow Chemical) pesticide plant. They championed misplaced Katrina victims in New Orleans and have helped make people aware of a number of injustices. I find what they do to be of value. You certainly don’t have to.

As far as what Mark is doing goes, the more evidence that is available that shows Sylvia Brown et al is a charlatan the better IMHO. I can’t, in the least, see how that can be a bad thing. And anything that disrupts their process to any degree can only be a positive thing.

“In the 2009 film The Yes Men Fix the World, the Yes Men travel to Bhopal to assess public opinion on their prank, and are surprised to find that the residents laud their efforts to bring responsibility to the corporate world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

The Times Of India 12-03-2009: “Abdul Jabbar Khan of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS) says that actually there is much more poisonous waste, which the company used to routinely bury in the premises since 1969. “There is no piped water supply. People still use contaminated groundwater daily,” he says. ”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bhopal-Gas-Tragedy-Endless-nightmare/articleshow/5294330.cms

Yes, it’s all Bush’s fault. Liberals NEVER believe in paranormal nonsense. Scientology, “New Age” mysticism, “alternative medicine,” and the anti-nuclear hysteria of self-proclaimed “environmentalists” — those are PURE HARD SCIENCE, I guess.

Yes, she was mad! Mainly just in the form of complaining but she knew exactly who Mark was talking about and that’s why she ended up just dismissing him. Her thoughts are that if she doesn’t feed the fire, the audience won’t either. So once she saw that her arguing that Opal Jo Jennings and the lot were “Spirit Guides” or whatever she said they were, wasn’t going to work, she just tried to move on. The audience will always go along with her as a whole because after all, they are there to see her and will agree with her.

The bad part is that she still doesn’t care all that much because she’s still collecting a paycheck at the end of the day. She gets aggravated that she’s challenged and she chalks it up to “dark entities” but deep down, it does bother her.

If her shows keep going poorly, the word will get around and not many people will want to put money into organizing those shows. It costs alot of money to put them together plus pay her. She won’t put her own money into it! Her audience has already dramatically dropped in numbers, as seen by Mark’s video.

I’d like to comment on the #7 comment above. I’m not sure what he means by RSL’s old domain being “hijacked”. If it means that someone took it over and you don’t know who it was, I can solve that easily for you. It was Sylvia’s people. They bought the domain name.

Sincerely,
Francine

P.S.- You are much nicer than the jerk Brattus.

I love your inside information by the way. And your writing style. Keep posting!

Susan