|
Post by calamitykate on Dec 22, 2006 16:19:52 GMT
If that's what you want to think then that is up to you. The fact that you are wrong about Tracy for a start, you should ashamed of yourselves, badmouthing people you don't know. That's just not very nice. Yes, she should have checked. No, she didn't log in everyday during her op and post-op recovery. It's very easy to log-in without checking everything else on the site, she probably thought it was all sorted. Don't be so mean Rachel you are being very, very naive if you believe that anyone takes so little notice of their website that they don't notice that someone else has written blatant lies about them. A website is for publicity purposes, right? And presumably Tracy only has the one? Anyone with ANY brain at all either A) Gets someone else to write their bio and then checks it VERY carefully; after all, this is possibly the first thing anyone reads about them or B) Writes it themselves. You may moan about everyone here insulting Tracy; you are, in fact, insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend that ANYONE could reasonably not know what is on their OWN website. Get real.
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Dec 22, 2006 16:21:52 GMT
Careful ck, you'll be told to stop being mean and be nice soon! (Hugs everyone)
|
|
|
Post by hotchic on Dec 22, 2006 16:25:57 GMT
Sorry Koolg, you guys are too quick for me....happy Christmas to you too!
|
|
|
Post by calamitykate on Dec 22, 2006 16:36:50 GMT
Careful ck, you'll be told to stop being mean and be nice soon! (Hugs everyone) Oh, don't worry. When I tell someone how daft they are being, it is in a very, very caring way. Just trying to help them, you see? Enlighten them, if you like. They so seldom appreciate it but it's the cross I must bear, being the patronising cow kind person I am.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 22, 2006 18:20:08 GMT
As the owner of the site, she has a responsibility to check EVERYTHING written on it. Yes, you have people you trust on the site doing things for you, as does Jon, but he still checks everything on the forum. It's just excuses. I would NEVER let anyone write something about me on my own site without me checking it before and after. Honestly if what she claims is true, then she is really really dumb, I am sorry, but as a professional whose site is there to promote her, it is in her best interests to see exactly what is on there. Again we have yet to find out who actually wrote it, another mystery
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 22, 2006 18:22:27 GMT
It is not about being nice, it is about finding the truth. You state we are wrong about her. Show me some evidence?
In fact EVERYTHING I have so far said about her has been proven to be true, and NO ONE can offer any evidence to the contrary
But this is about business. Her site is for her own promotion, it would be idiotic not to check.
As for being mean, i consider someone who pretends to talkto the dead and then makes money from it to bemuch meaner.
I know you are young Rachel, very young, i would guess maybe 16, and i am sure when youhave a few more years of life experience you will understand exactly what we are talking about.
For now you are enamoured by your hero.
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Dec 22, 2006 19:44:05 GMT
Don't insult my intelligence, just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are! I'm a fair bit older than 16, nice try at the insult yet again, but I will take it as a compliment rather than an insult. I have my beliefs, you have yours. Who's to say who is right until we pass over. Tracy is not my hero! I respect her as a person. She is a good person, a NICE person. I know she is the latest person you guys are trashing but I think you need to spare a thought for peoples feelings, as she is a real human being, just as you and I are. I'm not saying that she's stressing about any of this because I am sure she isn't even aware, if she is I doubt she'd be at all bothered, not feeling the need to prove herself to people who just want to do her down. What other up and coming mediums are you going to be picking on over the next few weeks? Do they have to be on TV to get attacked or will church dems do?
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Dec 22, 2006 20:37:04 GMT
Rachel? you should know that everyone is proven guilty until their innocent on here.;D
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Dec 22, 2006 20:41:19 GMT
So it seems!
|
|
|
Post by calamitykate on Dec 22, 2006 21:14:43 GMT
Rachel? you should know that everyone is proven guilty until their innocent on here.;D Nope. But just because someone adopts a wistful, "seeing distant angels" expression and claims to be in contact with Dead Auntie Gwen, doesn't mean that they are telling the truth. And until they are proven to be telling the truth, we assume they are either A) Lying or B) Mad because nobody "psychic" has EVER, EVER given anyone reason to believe that they can REALLY contact the dead. Not when all means of cheating have been removed. Where mediums are concerned, I would say that this is a much healthier and more sensible attitude than "You're psychic, you say? Wow! Amazing! Here, have £50 and tell me about my childhood".
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 22, 2006 21:51:12 GMT
It is interesting to note that NONE of the Higgites ever answer any of the points or questions put by anyone else.
Thats tell me a lot.
Its the old fingers in ears LA LA LA syndrome
|
|
|
Post by abcde on Dec 22, 2006 22:27:48 GMT
Rachel? you should know that everyone is proven guilty until their innocent on here.;D The 'burden of proof' - an interesting idea. The idea behind it is that it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Just like in a court of law. If Tracy Higgs claims to be psychic then it is up to her to provide proof or evidence beyond reasonable doubt. That means tangible evidence; not personal anecdotes. Skeptics take the stance that her claim is unproven until/unless such proof or evidence comes forward. That is the logical way to approach claims.
|
|
|
Post by hotchic on Dec 22, 2006 23:15:40 GMT
What did I not answer Jon?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 22, 2006 23:27:38 GMT
Just general points and questions I ask.
Go back, read my posts they are always a good length.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Dec 23, 2006 10:52:44 GMT
Rachel? you should know that everyone is proven guilty until their innocent on here.;D The 'burden of proof' - an interesting idea. The idea behind it is that it is up to the person making the claim to prove it. Just like in a court of law. In that case that should apply to the claims on here that the offending piece was knowingly placed on her site. The detractors must prove that. Sceptics can't have it both ways. I have no reason do defend this woman but i believe in fair play.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 23, 2006 12:18:03 GMT
There is only two explanations LR.
1.Tracy put the material on her site 2.Someone she employed put it on her site
Either way it was put on her site in an attempt to mislead people. The fact she has not publicly named this imaginary employee, nor fired them suggests she herself wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Dec 23, 2006 12:23:09 GMT
It wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead people. It was an error, which has since been removed.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 23, 2006 13:33:25 GMT
Who wrote it? Why did they write it?
How can it NOT be an attempt to mislead people?
How can it be a mistake to physically sit at a pc, and write a line of text that is pure fantasy?
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Dec 23, 2006 13:38:10 GMT
And more to the point, where did that information come from in the first place? If you are going to write a Bio about someone, you need a source of information.
The same information that is still being used on the Maidstone spiritual Development Centre site.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Dec 23, 2006 14:06:20 GMT
Who wrote it? Why did they write it? How can it NOT be an attempt to mislead people? How can it be a mistake to physically sit at a pc, and write a line of text that is pure fantasy? The answer maybe that she considers that none of your business.
|
|