She shows some admirable skepticism...

that's what he states. If we take a look at what Sylvia says before the part about

"Christian belief": it actually says:
" I think that when all is said and done, this becomes a matter of belief and faith... at least, I'd like it to be. I believe that the Shroud is a representation and not a true relic- but I don't think that should put a dent in our Christian belief. I have crosses all over my home and certainly don't believe that they're pieces of the actual structure that Jesus was crucified on, but, like the Shroud, my crosses remind me that Jesus walked the earth and died upon a cross, as so many did during Roman times." (p.199).

Furthermore, in one of her other books Sylvia talks again about the Shroud stating that she doubts it was an actual thing depicting Christ. Why? She states that
the measurements don't add up because Jesus was way more taller than the Jesus of the Shroud. Now, I call THIS "thought for food".

Nickell/Randi-there not all there cracked up to be either. If one says: "Sylvia's not all... then guess what? You're not all...either. If you say it about Sylvia- then say it about whomever (Randi...etc...).

On Montel: She may or may not sound coherent? or whatever word the reader introduces-but- I'll tell you this- you just have to be the lady asking the question about her future intended significant other/husband. She gives them a name. Almost inevitably she jokes with Montel about the fact that they also want to know where he lives, what's their name and will they be happy. Yet almost no skeptic seems to give a hoot about this. I guess you have to be the woman asking the question, to consider Sylvia as credible.

If skeptics don't pick and choose the phrases they want to discuss- it's almost like they don't have a "case". Then there's always the reader. You and I are not perfect. Sylvia B. is not perfect. We are all here to learn in this school called earth.

***