Unmissable bargain on eBay

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:37 am

I've got my bid in already.

Anyone else want to bid against me HERE?

by **Feather** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 12:38 pm

Ha b****y ha!! You never miss a trick, do you? lol!

by **Pixie** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 1:06 pm

ROTFL

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 2:22 pm

Well I think the 'earpiecegate' scandal has been a really amusing incident.

Of course it's anecdotal and proves nothing (so far) but Sally Morgan's made an absolute pig's ear of handling the situation.

I wonder how her career will advance now?

Not that it matters, if she's deposed as Britain's 'most loved psychic' there'll be another ~~business person~~ psychic ready to take her place and a credulous audience ready and willing to lap it all up.

by **Pixie** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Well I think the 'earpiecegate' scandal has been a really amusing incident.

Of course it's anecdotal and proves nothing (so far) but Sally Morgan's made an absolute pig's ear of handling the situation.

I wonder how her career will advance now?

New book coming out and TV show!

Not that it matters, if she's deposed as Britain's 'most loved psychic' there'll be another ~~business person~~ psychic ready to take her place and a credulous audience ready and willing to lap it all up.

Now now Umbongo. Just because she has been accused of cheating by a couple of women who state that they quite clearly heard a softly spoken ~~Englishman~~ Irishman who sounded like a heckler, feeding Sally the info via her earpiece. Two crimes allegedly on the night in question..one of fraud and the criminal price of a packet of crisps. Suspect

None of this means that Sally is not worthy of her title. None of this proves that she can't communicate with the departed. Shame on you!

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 3:06 pm

Sally's never proved that she can communicate with the dead.

This incident doesn't prove that she was cheating (the evidence is insufficient) but the default position isn't that therefore she's genuine until proven otherwise. Remember, critical thinkers don't use the Argument to Ignorance fallacy when considering claims.

I've seen you on SL being very 'skeptical' regarding the claims of cheating. Now only if you could apply the same level of skepticism to her claims of being a medium.

by **Pixie** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 7:15 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Sally's never proved that she can communicate with the dead.

This incident doesn't prove that she was cheating (the evidence is insufficient) but the default position isn't that therefore she's genuine until proven otherwise. Remember, critical thinkers don't use the Argument to Ignorance fallacy when considering claims.

I've seen you on SL being very 'skeptical' regarding the claims of cheating. Now only if you could apply the same level of skepticism to her claims of being a medium.

I like it when you go all serious on me Bongo..it excites me!

I don't care much for Sally and the rest of the 'entertainers'. I have no problem with these people writing books about the subject to make a few quid but I can't be doing with all this stage crap and flashy websites. Sally is on at our local venue in a few weeks but I wouldn't pay money to see her. I personally would expect to find a genuine medium from word of mouth. Their reputation should speak for itself, no flashy website, no advertising, no crap and no need to have your details beforehand or at all. You can't rule out cold reading, I know that but then it's down to the individual if they accept the communication or they decide that the medium is a damn convincing con.

I don't think Sally will come any worse off for this and she is getting publicity (just in time for new book lol) lol!

by **KitKat** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 7:38 pm

What's needed is a transcript of the live radio show recording which started all this.
Makes me laugh how all the "usual suspects" (the skeptics) who normally place such store on examining and analyzing transcripts and recordings .... the very ones who in this case choose to ignore or gloss over the 'detail', the source of the matter ... are now "quoting" from hearsay and articles published in the press etc (or themselves penning such articles), and as it gets passed along the line more stuff is added on or subtracted to enhance their own agendas. Soooo hypocritical.

I would have thought, if this libel case is indeed to be taken seriously, the essential ingredient before it could even get off the ground would be a properly transcribed paper version of the radio show recording to work from. Perhaps, behind the scenes, they may just be working on that. Who knows ...

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 7:41 pm

Pixie wrote:I like it when you go all serious on me Bongo..it excites me!

Ah! My type of woman then!

"Come up and see me - and talk serious to me"

If, and for me it's a huge if, mediumship is ever shown to be real then I'm pretty certain it won't be because of celeb mediums and their act. SM, and those like her, are business people, not psychics.

But I have also noticed that on many forums that 'skeptics' very quickly jumped on this as if it's proof that SM has been cheating by having info fed to her. It just goes to show that these skeptics are just as quick to accept something they want to be true as many believers are.

Yes, the allegation is plausible, but it's not proven.

I actually can't see the point of someone feeding a psychic with "David, pain in the back, died quickly" (or whatever it was) when it's incredibly easy to make that sort of thing up anyway (as indeed they do). If info was being relayed, wouldn't it have been a bit more substantial?

Anyway, all good fun.

I'm sure there'll be die hard fans who'll always believe no matter what but if her popularity wanes a bit, perhaps the TV bosses might think it's time for a new face.

And notice how I've resisted the quip about her not seeing this coming?

by **KitKat** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 7:51 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:But I have also noticed that on many forums that 'skeptics' very quickly jumped on this as if it's proof that SM has been cheating by having info fed to her. It just goes to show that these skeptics are just as quick to accept something they want to be true as many believers are.

Precisely! That's the very point I've just been making in my post - (we cross-posted there).

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 20 Oct 2011, 11:40 pm

KitKat wrote:(we cross-posted there).

Yes, I got the cross posting message when I posted...... but had to go for my tea!

It also appears a bit odd to me that when the first woman who phoned into the radio show making the claim said she hoped that someone else who was also a witness would phone in to corroborate her story, that this other person just happened to be listening to the radio programme at the same time and actually phoned in - or was it 2 or 3 others? (I haven't followed it up enough to know)

It all seems a bit dodgy to me - but, you should never conclude anything from insufficient data.

by **Pixie** on Fri 21 Oct 2011, 8:17 am

Umberto Cocopop wrote:
It also appears a bit odd to me that when the first woman who phoned into the radio show making the claim said she hoped that someone else who was also a witness would phone in to corroborate her story, that this other person just happened to be listening to the radio programme at the same time and actually phoned in - or was it 2 or 3 others? (I haven't followed it up enough to know)

It all seems a bit dodgy to me - but, you should never conclude anything from insufficient data.

Sue said twice that she 'hoped someone will ring in and back my story'

This is from one of my posts on S/L, I thought the same thing Bongo.

What annoys me is that this is an accusation of cheating. The whole thing is a farce. Even if is proved that Sally cheated via the ear piece, it doesn't prove that she can't communicate with the dead. Yes, it creates doubt etc but this accusation of cheating has kicked off the whole 'She is cheating, she is a fake, they all are fake, there is no afterlife' mentality.

But this is always going to be the problem with these celeb mediums who work in this way. I think that once a medium goes down that particular road, they may as well just be in it for the money as any credibilty will take second place to popularity. Popularity means that you have to be seen to deliver the goods. That and the bills on a mansion must be massive! lol!

Comforting the grieving shouldn't come with a high price tag in my opinion. The reality of it though is that it does. Death is an expensive business, my brothers and I have just found that out as the bills for mums funeral have come in. In death, mum was treated with respect and dignity. The undertakers did their job and delivered what they promised to. Where is the respect or dignity for the deceased and their families who pay money to see mediums who can't deliver the goods? This isn't aimed at Sally in particular. It is for those who have been exposed as cheating. Even if they have genuine abilities, they have cheated at some point and given false hope or comfort to those who are grieving. Where is the respect for the dead in that?

I'm all for exposing the cheats but the evidence has got to be better than this or it starts to resemble some kind of witchhunt. As it is, if there is a conspiracy within the Sally camp, then they really need to tidy thier acts up because they are crap at it.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Fri 21 Oct 2011, 10:49 am

Pixie wrote:What annoys me is that this is an accusation of cheating. The whole thing is a farce.

Sally should have simply done what skeptics do and said "prove it". Then kept quiet.

Pixie wrote:Even if is proved that Sally cheated via the ear piece, it doesn't prove that she can't communicate with the dead.

But if she can communicate with the dead it invites the question as to why she cheats.

I could appear to levitate on stage! But what if someone caught me out attaching a hidden wire to my belt to lift me up - it could be argued that cheating in this manner doesn't prove I can't actually levitate; but it's not much of an argument is it?

Pixie wrote:Yes, it creates doubt etc but this accusation of cheating has kicked off the whole 'She is cheating, she is a fake, they all are fake, there is no afterlife' mentality.

We should actually all have this mentality to begin with!

Remember, Sally Morgan has never actually proved that she has psychic ability - so it would be very foolish to accept that she has it unless someone proves otherwise.

This allegation should be treated in exactly the same way that her 'ability' should - assume it's false unless it can be proven to be true.

by **Feather** on Fri 21 Oct 2011, 11:33 am

Gut feeling can't figure in this situation but I'm afraid mine is that she is a fraud. There, I've said it. Norty me.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Mon 24 Oct 2011, 8:20 pm

http://slsingh.posterous.com/thats-entertainment-or-an-experiment-or-neith

Details on the 'test' by the end of the week.

I wonder whether it will be pitched as some sort of preliminary test for the JREF $1,000,000 prize?

Knowing skeptics, I expect it will.

Just because this approach has never worked in the past, that's no excuse to give the dead horse another bloody good flogging!

Surprisingly, I agree with that Donnis bloke - who ever he is.....

It will create publicity, it will please the skeptics as they're always pleased to get publicity, but it will have no impact whatsoever on belief. Even if Sally's career gets destroyed, it will just be an opportunity for someone else to fill the gap and exactly the same believers who handed their cash over to Sally will be handing it over just as willingly to her replacement.

by **KitKat** on Mon 24 Oct 2011, 9:33 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:I wonder whether it will be pitched as some sort of preliminary test for the JREF $1,000,000 prize?

Yes of course that is the intention. Yer man Simon Singh grabs the opportunity here to drop in the usual MDC shpiel. LOL! He even refers to the Magic Man as being a scientist! Just listen to the podcast, Umbo - ... erm ... that's if you're not doing anything else (I know you can only manage one thing at a time) bless ....

Simon Singh phones into Joe Duffy's RTE Radio programme and airs his questions for Sally Morgan. He also discusses Peter Popoff, Derren Brown, Joe Power and other stuff ... Oh yeah ... he mentions Brian Dowling as well

You can listen to the programme on air as broadcast here:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

Scroll down to Podcast titled:
Liveline Podcast - psychic Sally Morgan

Read more: http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=medpsy&thread=10181&page=1#151816#ixzz1bjUFWrwe

Spiritlove even gets a mention in that thread also.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Fri 28 Oct 2011, 11:20 am

Here we go: Sally Morgan challenged

Yes, if she passes the test she can go for the JREF $1,000,000. Either I'm psychic or this was completely predictable.

My predictions are:

Sally won't take the test; and
Believers will not be influenced by this challenge in any way whatsoever.

The test they've come up with looks sound (although it's been designed without Sally's input) but I doubt whether anyone really understands it if they don't already know about this type of testing and why it's done the way it is.

As usual, it's just skeptics doing things from their own perspective and expecting others to 'get' their point of view. If you want to influence people you have to understand things from their point of view and disseminate information etc. in a way that is meaningful to them.

It would be interesting to see what believers in general make of this test challenge.

by chekaban on Fri 28 Oct 2011, 12:31 pm

Test looks ok to me. Can't see any problem with it, oh except of course that Sally Morgan whatever her excuses may be will not take up the offer.

I predict that because I'm psychic.

by **Feather** on Fri 28 Oct 2011, 1:04 pm

That is what I predict too and it has nothing to do with being psychic---because I'm not.

by **Pixie** on Fri 28 Oct 2011, 2:53 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Here we go: Sally Morgan challenged

Yes, if she passes the test she can go for the JREF $1,000,000. Either I'm psychic or this was completely predictable.

My predictions are:

Sally won't take the test; and
Believers will not be influenced by this challenge in any way whatsoever.

The test they've come up with looks sound (although it's been designed without Sally's input) but I doubt whether anyone really understands it if they don't already know about this type of testing and why it's done the way it is.

As usual, it's just skeptics doing things from their own perspective and expecting others to 'get' their point of view. If you want to influence people you have to understand things from their point of view and disseminate information etc. in a way that is meaningful to them.

It would be interesting to see what believers in general make of this test challenge.

What good will it do her to take a test which is organised by skeps and backed by the Amazing Randi? I wouldn't take it either. She will fail, whether she is psychic or not. How many non-believers will make a judgement on her if it's a no show which I expect it will be? She didn't take the test therefore she must be a fake?

Waste of time. I'm getting bored with the story now. Sleep

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Fri 28 Oct 2011, 3:29 pm

Pixie wrote:What good will it do her to take a test which is organised by skeps and backed by the Amazing Randi? I wouldn't take it either.

Well this highlights an important problem with this type of thing.

When people assess information/propaganda/persuasion/etc. one of the first things they do is what's known as "source validation". They look to see whether the source of the information is credible (to them) and if it's not, they won't take it seriously.

I once said that we ought to stop using the label "skeptics" if we're aiming to be educational in nature. Very few agreed but I was saying it because of this very problem. And it's not a trivial one - it is a major problem for those attempting to engage with others with different beliefs.

Pixie wrote:She will fail, whether she is psychic or not.

Well, the truth is that the actual design of this test would mean that it would be very unlikely that anyone could pass it through chance guessing, but if they genuinely did have mediumistic ability then passing would be much more likely.

But here's another problem. How many people in the intended target audience (believers in psychics) actually understand the rationale and methodology of this type of test?

Very few, if any, would be my guess. So why hasn't the rationale and test procedure been published and explained? Without this clarification, it's far too easy for people to simply say that the test is "designed for her to fail".

Pixie wrote:How many non-believers will make a judgement on her if it's a no show which I expect it will be? She didn't take the test therefore she must be a fake?

Non-believers, correctly, take the stance that psychic claimants do not have genuine ability unless they can prove they do so a no-show for the test will just confirm their conclusion. What would be interesting is the non-believers' reaction if Sally turned up and passed!

OTOH, believers, incorrectly, tend to take the stance that psychic claimants do have genuine ability unless it's proved they don't. A no-show for the test will not therefore affect their stance on the issue.

by **KitKat** on Sun 30 Oct 2011, 1:45 am

Looks to me as though this libel threat is all just a big bluff anyway.

http://slsingh.posterous.com/sally-morgans-lawyer-sends-me-an-email

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Sun 30 Oct 2011, 4:04 pm

Sally will definitely not be turning up to be tested either.

But... this from Simon Singh today:

"Psychic Sally Challenge is going ahead. We hope she changes her mind.
Room full, so only come if you've already notified MerseysideSkeptics"

So the place will be packed out with skeptics who'll be turning up to an event that we already know isn't going to take place.

That'll learn them silly woo-woos!

The next laugh will be when they do a write up explaining what a success it was.....

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Mon 31 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm

Breaking news from the Merseyside Skeptics (on Twitter):

"Sad to say that Sally didn't come along, but the challenge remains open
to her. Our challenge will be an annual affair though. Details soon"

Right, so skeptics again come up with a stupid idea that achieves absolutely nothing and when it doesn't work, they turn it into an annual event.

It's not clear whether Sally will be challenged annually to not turn up or whether they'll challenge other psychics to not turn up each year.

I suspect that not a great deal of thought has gone into this. It's a bit like going train spotting during a rail strike!

by **KitKat** on Tue 01 Nov 2011, 6:26 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:It's not clear whether Sally will be challenged annually to not turn up or whether they'll challenge other psychics to not turn up each year.

It's apparently going to be an "open shop" to 'psychics' everywhere.

This whole affair is really just one big joke...

Read latest here: http://slsingh.posterous.com/part-2-my-open-reply-to-my-legal-pen-pal-psyc

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Tue 01 Nov 2011, 6:58 pm

KitKat wrote:It's apparently going to be an "open shop" to 'psychics' everywhere.

Ah ha! I think I've detected a very cunning plan.....

Invite all of the UK's psychics along to be tested and when none of them turn up, the skeptics have proved all the psychics in the UK are fake in one go!

Now that's smart, real smart.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Wed 02 Nov 2011, 2:02 pm

As if the whole challenge idea wasn't stupid enough to begin with, I've now just come across info that shows that some idiots have been publishing personal details about Sally Morgan and her lawyer on Twitter.

See: Hayley Stevens

Are they too thick to work out what this sort of tactic looks like to others?

by **KitKat** on Wed 02 Nov 2011, 7:41 pm

Just read that link. Yes, I agree with what the blogger is saying ... but in the same breath, something is bothering me. I may be totally off course here, but in the back of my mind I seem to have a vague memory of something very similar to this occurring a few years back ... where a member of one or two skeptic forums (I was reading about it on one of the forums at the time it was happening) ... this member had disclosed personal details about a psychic or alleged 'woo' that they had been pursuing, causing great distress to that person. The skeptic was coming back there and posting threats and innuendos against this person - clearly hoping for backing by her fellow forum members and trying to justify her actions. I remember at the time feeling almost sick to my stomach over this horrid carryon. As I have said, my memory may well be playing tricks on me - my brain may be lying to me (lol), but in my recollection , the culprit there was none other than the author and blogger in that link above(?). No doubt, I will be corrected if someone in the know can say differently (?)

by **Pixie** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 8:46 am

I can't find anything regarding that KK...

The only thing I can find is a bit of a hoo ha over some cat hair (leopard I think) where the person was questioning Hayley's objectivity. She has been accused of being a 'cyber bully' something which she denies. I do find her online persona to be rude at times....and contradicting.

Arrogance is boring

It annoys me to no end when people make a conversation or a situation all about themselves, they hi-jack something with their sense of self importance and you are supposed to be interested despite the fact that there are bigger issues at hand. I mean, seriously, is humanity really that ego driven that every tiny little thing has to suddenly become about certain people and how very wonderfully clever/special/gifted/young/creative/powerful/right they are

Hayley's Blog

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/

Erm....you write a blog love.

In fact I have decided to stop using twitter and facebook for a while because the way people behave and talk and show off is really quite depressing. I don’t have time for my own drama – why the hell would I have time for anyone elses?Especially when it’s usually so superifical?

YOU WRITE A BLOG which is crammed with your opinions, your rants, what you are havin for tea, how many letters of complaint you have written, being a veg, Facebook status's which annoy you, everything else what annoys you. Do a count on how many times the letter I is used in the context of 'me'!!! FFS

She can't hog up cyberspace banging her own drum and then whinge about other people talking about themselves. Silly mare. Rolling Eyes

Shameful I say...shameful

Is it me?

by **KitKat** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 9:02 am

This was long before she had a Blog. I would like to be wrong in this instance (but don't think I am). To give her the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she has learned through her own experience and that's why she feels so strongly now about the matter.

by **Pixie** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 9:22 am

KitKat wrote:This was long before she had a Blog. I would like to be wrong in this instance (but don't think I am). To give her the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she has learned through her own experience and that's why she feels so strongly now about the matter.

Maybe so KK but maybe it would be an idea for her to acknowledge her past mistakes (if this is the case) to show this understanding?

Internet comments (especially forums) have a habit of disappearing unless you are quick (as she was with a bloke on Facebook) and take a screen shot.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 9:36 am

Unless it was on UKS, I wouldn't know.

Skepticism, to me, has taken several steps backwards in the last few years. There's little or no thought going into anything - all they're doing in copying what Randi has done in the past (silly stunts, pointless challenges, etc.)

However, although I don't really know Hayley at all, I find her to be a breath of fresh air when it comes to 'grass-roots skepticism'. I've seen her comment on a few things and she's quite prepared to look at what skeptics are doing and question and criticise it as well as doing the same for other ideas.

I'm sure she'll have made mistakes in the past but overall, skepticism would be in a better state if a few more of them were like Hayley.

There's too much group mentality in skepticism. If you don't toe-the-line then you're not 'one of us'; but their myopic, egocentric view of how to do things is not good. Things like unquestioning support for whatever they do is not what skepticism should be about - they need more people like Hayley but don't realise it.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 10:02 am

There's also an interesting exchange on the JREF forum here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7723564#post7723564

Look at the sort of pillocks who get excited by this sort of confrontational challenge. Is this really critical thinking in action? Is this sort of thinking and behaviour likely to 'educate' believers?

If I was a leader in the skeptical community, I'd be very concerned that we were attracting in such mindless hotheads.

by **KitKat** on Thu 03 Nov 2011, 10:09 am

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Unless it was on UKS, I wouldn't know.

It was!

That is where I read it. She was flitting between UKS and an obscure site called Bad Psychics, lol. I believe the main details of the story were over on Bad Psychics, but this was before I had ventured to knock on their door (innocent angel that I was).

by **KitKat** on Sun 06 Nov 2011, 10:31 am

Pixie wrote:
KitKat wrote:This was long before she had a Blog. I would like to be wrong in this instance (but don't think I am). To give her the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she has learned through her own experience and that's why she feels so strongly now about the matter.

Maybe so KK but maybe it would be an idea for her to acknowledge her past mistakes (if this is the case) to show this understanding?

Would be good if we could find the actual thread and related story and refer to it; (1) to check whether I am right in putting the two posters together and (2) whether I'm right or wrong there could be a lesson for all of us there. Umberto, any chance you could do a bit of investigating there?

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Sun 06 Nov 2011, 10:43 am

There's nothing on UKS.

by **KitKat** on Sun 06 Nov 2011, 10:43 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:There's nothing on UKS.

Well, that's definitely where I read it.

Probably about 3 years ago ... I wouldn't know where to look on there because I can't remember the name of the thread or even who it was about. I just remember it was a long thread.

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 1:03 am

KitKat wrote:Well, that's definitely where I read it. Probably about 3 years ago ... I wouldn't know where to look on there because I can't remember the name of the thread or even who it was about. I just remember it was a long thread.

I just searched Hayley's posts and she hardly posted on there and what was there was nothing controversial.

I don't think she'd had more than one account so it's probably someone else.

by **Pixie** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 2:39 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:There's nothing on UKS.

Now.

Doesn't mean that there never was!

by **Pixie** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 3:00 pm

Umberto Cocopop wrote:
If I was a leader in the skeptical community, I'd be very concerned that we were attracting in such mindless hotheads.

I read through this lot!

You kicked his arse there Umbo

Impressive....

I got meself quite excited which brought on a flush

That's my compliment quota for non-believers used up for the year so make the most of it. lol!

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 3:04 pm

Pixie wrote:Now.

Doesn't mean that there never was!

I never deleted content.

Although I did clear out the junk section once to save space (and a £50 fee for further database storage).

by **Umberto Cocopop** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 3:07 pm

Pixie wrote:That's my compliment quota for non-believers used up for the year so make the most of it.

But..., but..., but..., I thrive on compliments!

by **KitKat** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 3:11 pm

Nowt for it then, apart from painstakingly reading through every single thread to try and find it - when it's most likely been cleared out into the junk anyway .. I really don't fancy that, but it's still annoying though. That is the name I remember attributed to that situation. It's not exactly a name you would get mixed up with - and I remember it even moreso for the fact that she didn't post very much on UKS (something that you have pointed out, Umbo).
Oh well ... I suppose some things are best forgotten ...

by **Pixie** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 4:12 pm

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/2011/06/20/the-new-rules-of-hayley-stevens/

I admit that from what I have already read...I'm not really that into Hayley. I keep reading her blog etc. She's obviously an intelligent young lady and very passionate about her views on life, especially the paranormal. I read the above blog post and all the comments. It shows immaturity imo. While I agree that it's not on for people to make abusive posts, I think Hayley is showing a side to herself that is a far cry from any 'friendly skeptic'. If you put your opinions into the public domain via blogs, podcasts or whatever else, you have to accept that not everybody will agree with everything that you say but seemingly she is only interested in the opinions of people who do agree with her, everybody else can go f off?

She's become a little bit too full of her own self-importance which I don't care for. From what I am seeing, she is not as 'up for debate' as she would have us believe. I would guess that KK is right but that's going by what I have read.

I am Pixie now feck off before I pop a cap in your ass:lol!:

by **KitKat** on Mon 07 Nov 2011, 9:56 pm

lol

Spoiler:: http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=medpsy&thread=10232&page=1#152107

by **Pixie** on Tue 08 Nov 2011, 6:47 am

Lol. Erm I am Jon Donnis.This is MY forum!

Now feck off!

Edited my post. It was early, I was half-asleep. Just re-read through the thread and spoiler...brain is now engaged. (ish)

As you were.....

Note to self....stop posting until you have woken up Pixie you stupid cow. (smacks my own ass) THWACK!

by **KitKat** on Wed 09 Nov 2011, 12:47 am

Ha Ha ... Pixie, sorry to put your brain through such torture so early in the morning.

by **Whiskers** on Thu 17 Nov 2011, 11:02 pm

I don't know how I missed this. Earpiecegate!

This whole story seems to have died a death. Did Sally Morgan sue anyone?

by **KitKat** on Thu 17 Nov 2011, 11:21 pm

Whiskers wrote:I don't know how I missed this. Earpiecegate!
This whole story seems to have died a death. Did Sally Morgan sue anyone?

I don't think that was ever the idea. The legal team was brought in basically to silence her critics. Maybe that's worked. shrug

by **lar-lar** on Mon 21 Nov 2011, 10:00 am

The post you're talking about (and can't find) was on UK'S. Have you gone through your posts kk? That may be the best way to find it as I remember your response to it.