Friday, June 4, 2010

Saturday Night, June 5, 2010. Call 'Rochelle'

Not to be missed; this Saturday (tomorrow), June 5th, StarClear is hosting a phone interview live with the mysterious Rochelle Moore on StarClear Radio (internet).

Saturday June 5, 2010
(From Ireland) Rochelle Moore
Paranormal Author and Celtic Witch

The time:

Great Guests and Live Callers
From All Over The World

Have You Ever Had A
Paranormal Experience?

You Can Listen To Our Radio Show
On Any Computer in the World

Listeners can call us on the show
at: +1.262.565.6186

Our telephone number is also
A free call from any Skype system.
Click here to download Skype
and call us free from
anywhere in the world.

Live Every Saturday

Los Angeles 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Vancouver 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Denver 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Chicago 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Santiago, Chile 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
New York 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Miami 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
San Paolo, Brazil 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM
London 9:00 PM - 11:00 PM
Dublin 9:00 PM - 11:00 PM
Belfast 9:00 PM - 11:00 PM
Amsterdam 10:00 PM - 12:00 AM
Berlin 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM
Budapest 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM
Prague 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM
Zürich 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM
Johannesburg 11:00 PM - 1:00 AM

Here is their website.

I encourage everyone to call if possible. StarClear was notified of all the shady dealings with Moore, given all the info here and in many other sites, and still decided to go forward with this dubious guest.

Please note - if you call: you will likely be hung up on. Anyone in the last few weeks who inquired about Moore/the interview in the chatroom was deleted and banned, with the admonishment to "go do something positive".
(EDIT: True to form, people were deleted and banned from numerous chatroom questions and comments during the interview.) 

UPDATE, 6/22/10: Since this post, many further developments have occurred. Jeffrey found out today, ironically and painfully, that Rochelle Moore had actually stolen two of his own works (from a 2007 Pravda article) and put them in her Beyond The Third Eye book. This has caused both Amy and he great distress, and Chops is sorry that they had to find the truth the hard, and very personal way. Chops appreciates their honesty, and that they were willing to come forward with this information over at Fluffies and engage everyone in conversation. In the spirit of cooperation (and a highly unusual move), Chops has deleted some content from this post that both Amy & Jeff found very offensive. Chops gave this much thought before doing so, and decided that the comments regarding Amy in particular were unwarranted, since they were largely a spillover over the frustration with our warning being unheeded.

Chops might have been a little snippy in our criticism. At this time Chops does believe that both Amy & Jeff are sincere, and while we do not agree with all facets of their views, we apologize for being a tad shitty in our attitude towards them both.


  1. I think Amy has picked some of the more ... unique terms for 'intuitive'. Shove a clair in front of something and it is bound to sound impressive.

    Bill of Spiritual Rights

    1) You have the right to freely explore any and all traditional or alternative spiritual ideologies.

    (okay, fine like I needed someone to write this down for me)

    2) You have the right at any time to abandon any spiritual practice which is not beneficial to your well-being.

    (aka, you can change your mind)

    3) You have the right not to follow any religion's, person's, or group's spiritual rules.

    (again, no s*** Sherlock)

    4) You have the right to practice spirituality without paying money to another human being, and without permission to practice from another human being.

    (what? so the collection plate is NOT mandatory? I've been hoodwinked!)

    5) You have the right and power to defend yourself against spiritual attack and from the negative emotional energy of other people.
    (*cracks knuckles* oh what that doesn't include violence does it?)

    Violet Tatersticks

  2. You 2 are both idiots. Haha....and, to Sehnga, I highly doubt you have been around enough schizophrenics to be able to "diagnose" one off of the internet. I've been working in the emergency medical field for the last 15 years and I can spot a "psych" person a mile away. I assure you Amy is not one. I don't even know her but I can tell that she is not. "Psych" people scare the crap out of me because they can be so unpredictable. When you've had numerous Schizophrenics try to kill you, like I have, then you can make a valid assumption on whether someone like Amy has a psychiatric illness.

  3. Making a comparison and a diagnosis are two very different things, which you would know if you were a medical professional, which it is painfully obvious you are not.

    The second thing any marginally-knowledgeable person would know is the huge difference between a schizophrenic during a psychotic break or dissociation, and one whose symptoms are well-controlled with treatment.

    Also, when one says "numerous schizophrenics," you don't capitalize the 's.'

    It's an ordinary noun & condition - not a proper noun. ;)

  4. Disgusting and immature. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time than to unfairly rip people apart? The false accusations you project onto good people like Amy Lamb is a reflection of how vile and ugly you are on the inside. I hope you will make the decision to cease doing harm to people and to focus instead on caring for yourself and creating some good in the world. But if not, please keep your ugliness hidden. We don't want to see it.

  5. I made an observation based on her fantastical story and my personal experiences. I didn't say she was, I mentioned the numerous similarities.

    Reading comprehension seems to be a difficulty for anonymous commentators here. :)

    I would suggest you don't expose yourself to things you don't like, rather than telling other people to change to suit you.

    Opinions or thoughts you don't like aren't necessarily negative, either; you might consider not automatically seeing so much of the world in a negative light. ;)

  6. The anonymous poster sounds very much like the ex member of Facebook, (who turned out to be a RM sock) called Moon Elder; nasty and stupid with it! lol

  7. I'm happy to allow them their voice here. ;)

    Maybe one day there will be an actual, substantial rebuttal of some sort, not just name-calling. lol

  8. As someone somewhere else said, they hide behind "Anonomouse" (yes that's my own silly spelling) and look ever so brave!

    Or, they, who ever they are, simply can't work the comments facility correctly... . I have trouble with ever comment I post :(

    Or perhaps they don't want to name themselves because it would shame them... make them look bad (which it does anyway) because "they" are a self claimed famous, well renowned author; hmmm?

  9. If this blog format causes comment troubles for you, it's duplicated over on WP. Same name and all.

    As far as anonymity; anyone who can't even be bothered to use a pseudonym is obviously trolling. :)

  10. I suppose it is kinder to assume she is mentally ill than a liar and a fraud. Of course, there are other disorders whose symptoms include a grandiose view of the self and pathological lying.

    And this would also explain why the host saw nothing wrong with her guest. Birds of a feather...

    Dead Ráibéad

  11. <"Of course, there are other disorders whose symptoms include a grandiose view of the self and pathological lying.">

    True; it just reminded me of a friend, and the similarities were quite striking, and in some parts, identical.

  12. How do you know the decision to have RM on was entirely Amy's alone? Did she seek out RM as a guest? Did she want to cancel the appearance but was not allowed to? You don't have these answers. Why speak ill of someone you don't know when you don't even know if it was her choice or not to have RM on? Seems to me there may be a bigger picture here. Unfair to target her, isn't it? She may simply be doing her job. She may be a wonderful person who would also have also had you on to do a show to discuss what ideas you have to offer the world.
    Blessed Be,

  13. ..and perhaps Amy and Jeff (and the admin of ZTalk) had all this info and put RM on anyway. ;) That would indicate utter irresponsibility to their viewers, as RM has indisputably been proven numerous times to be a plagiarist. (At best.)

    That indicates that their ethics are crap, no matter how much 'white light' they sling. They actively promoted & hotlinked a plagiarists materials to the public, when they had foreknowledge of that information weeks before the show. They complimented and agreed with her throughout the show.

    So the question comes back to you: did Amy not want her on, and yet lie her way through the show, or did she knowingly ignore the information previously given and present RM to the public as if she was legitimate? I already know the answer.

    Incidentally, Amy has not been 'targeted' - she has a public page out there, and I commented on it. I haven't read Jeff's, or I'd likely comment on that, too. That's what blogs are for. ;)

  14. To attack a public figure in such a manner is considered and act of libel and is illegal in the US. You are certainly not a mental health professional and if you were you would certainly not diagnose a client that wasn't in front of you. Who's really the crazy person and the fool? I would prepare to get served if I were you. Don't you have better things to do with your life? Apparently not. :)

  15. Please see the very first post of this blog here:

    for clarifications of legal definitions, including slander and libel. It was my very first blog post to assist people such as yourself. :)

    I assume you intended this comment:

    "You are certainly not a mental health professional and if you were you would certainly not diagnose a client that wasn't in front of you."

    ..for the anonymous poster who previously diagnosed Amy - with great assurance - several posts above yours.

    Further clarification: none of the following words have the same meaning:


    I recommend:

  16. You must be suffering quite a lot to do this with your time and psychologically diagnose and attack people that you do not know. What happened to each his/her own? If you don't like a radio show, no one is forcing you to listen.

    The spiritual subject matter of her program obviously makes you very uncomfortable. The opposite of love is FEAR and it is quite clear that you live in quite a lot of it. People always attack what they fear and do not understand. We will pray for you that your hatred, judgment and fear will be replaced with understanding and compassion.

  17. Another stellar internet diagnosis from yet another person accusing me of internet diagnosis.


  18. <"Another stellar internet diagnosis from yet another person accusing me of internet diagnosis.">

    The term is called 'gas-lighting' Sehnga, and I am sure it also involves projection. It's a trick abusive and manipulative people use, and who also tend to be the sort with that grandiose opinion of themselves.

    Dead Ráibéad

  19. While familiar with the technique (seriously old hat), I've never heard that particular unique term for it before. Ty! :)

    *tosses carrots*

  20. PS: Five will get you ten on who that was; except we can't bet if we agree. lol

  21. Well at least it's wound it's sorry way down from righteous indignation from on high to a pathos (or bathos) laden plea for compassion and clemency. I also know how those who suffer frequently regress to a child-like state and they do indeed have *my* sympathy. Myself, I'd rather have someone's respect but hey! People are different that way and there is no way in this galaxy I'd extend my respect to that lot.

    'Scuse me, I'll just nip out and see if there's a hallmark card for this situation - a sort of reverse sympathy card " I/we would like you to extend your deepest sympathy to me/us " that they can send you.

    A bit sad that AND pathetic ( but not in a good way ).

    Pinky Fluffy

  22. It is sad.

    My sympathy stops, however, when it extends itself to taking advantage of other people. Which is what started the entire RM thing after all.

    They've made an effort to make this a really big deal - when the comment about Amy was simply a side thought on the RM topic.

  23. It certainly sounds as though you've picked up someone's shill there. I'm especially amused that said pretentious individual has the gall to tell someone what they can and cannot say on their own blog. Now isn't an attempt at non-authoritative *arbitrary censorship* followed by pointless snivelling a "negative" thing? I would call it so. Especially in so ridiculous a forum as someone else' blog?

  24. Anonymous, I really would suggest that you actually read up on some statutes and precedental decisions before you even fantasize about telling someone what is "legal" to post in their blog? It most certainly is *NOT* illegal to attack a public figure in a blog post or we'd have a couple million political bloggers facing civil suits - which is the only kind that *could* possibly be brought. A little more research and a lot less fantasized threats and you might have your eyes opened a bit.

  25. Oh! no, no, no! That is the trouble with online communication, one loses the vocal nuances which indicate irony.

    In this case when I say they have my 'sympathy', I mean the kind of sympathy which compels one to hunt a rabid animal down to it's lair and put it's sorry arse under the ground. It may be sick (which is an unfortunate thing), but my sympathy does not extend to allowing it to live and infect and hurt others around it. I have been and will continue to pursue this/these creatures to try my best at the little I can do to help erase and decontaminate the places they lurk in.

    I am entirely of your point of view *bows*

    Madame Pinky

  26. Oh my! I just knew the "legal action" comment would turn up sooner or later!

    "They've" done it before and here it a link to the earliest known evidence!