• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

StopSylviaBrowne.com

Ooh, you know what would be cool?

If you had a graphic that looked like a shadow of Sylvia cast against a wall, with her kind of hunched over, and at an angle where her talons kind extended about 15 feet (which, really, isn't that much of a stretch.) Nails like that are always what I envision someone committing identity theft having.

Also, why does someone who charges somewhere in the range of $700 for a half hour session, colour her own hair?
 
Dustin said:
Once the site gets going I think we should Google Bomb it to the top as far as searches for "Sylvia Brown" go. Adding it to the Wikipedia article on "Sylvia Brown" would be the first step.


Also...Legally speaking the previous poster who mentioned the things you should steer clear of is correct. Inorder for it to Libel for instance it must be proven to be false. Meaning if you claim she "isn't actually psychic" she must actually prove she IS psychic in a court of law inorder for your claims to be considered libel. Which is of course impossible.



BTW be sure to make a message forum on the site and i'll be one of the first to join.


Keep us all updated on when the site will be going up and it's progress.
Click to expand...

Careful there on the defamation laws. In the UK, the claimant (i.e. the person claiming to have been defamed) doesn't have to prove that the statement is inaccurate in order to successfully sue for defamation; just that the statement has damaged their reputation, and caused them loss. However, the truth of the statements in question is a DEFENCE for the defendant. But that means the burden of proof is on the defendant, which makes it easier to successfully sue for defamation.

Hey, I didn't say the UK law made much sense, but that's how it is. It's perfectly possible that US law is different, but I just wanted to add a note of caution. Dustin, if you're a US lawyer then apologies, I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes!

Matt
 
Loss Leader said:
...she has no psychic powers.
Click to expand...

Careful, here. It would be better to phrase it "She has shown no evidence of possessing psychic powers, as that term is commonly understood." And then add something like, "The seeming accuracy of any of Ms Browne's prophecies, statements and observations can, so far as is known, be explained by other means." Also, I've heard the National Geographic ask a question it may be handy to quote: "If a natural explanation works, why look for a supernatural explanation?"

I write denials for immigration applications almost daily. The first thing I want to do is avoid saying something that would likely be challenged in court; the second thing is, if there's no way around it, to say it in such a way that the judge will likely agree with what I say. Generally, this means phrasing an opinion more as your impression than as your judgment, and saying nothing that can't be backed up by demonstrable fact. It also means making sure that your statements and conclusions are derived directly from the facts of the case, and that you make no leaps of logic.

Think of it this way: Everything on your web site should be written solely for the judge and jury who will ultimately hear your defamation case. Forget Sylvia and her attorneys, forget the unwashed masses, forget us; your ultimate audience is the court that could break your bank balance for the rest of your life.

I can send you some sample verbiage, if you like.
 
Last edited:
matt-r said:
It's perfectly possible that US law is different, but I just wanted to add a note of caution.
Click to expand...

It's right to be cautious but I assume the US situation is different, otherwise Kaz would have operated by now.

Good luck with the project, RSL! I don't know what I can do to help, but do feel free to ask!
 
matt-r said:
It's perfectly possible that US law is different, but I just wanted to add a note of caution.
Click to expand...

Laws vary by State, but the general principle is that libel is anything a jury says it is. OTOH, they teach journalism students that there are three possible defenses against a charge of libel: truth, fair comment, or absence of malice. Truth is considered to be an absolute defense; if the contested statement is judged true, there is no libel.
 
Last edited:
I also think this is a worthy project undertaken by a worthy man, and I'd like to offer my help, too, in whatever form it might take.

I suspect as you begin to research content for the site you will run into limitations of time. When that happens, ask us to do some research for you which you can then vett before posting.
 
Blogged! with lots of "Sylvia Browne" references to get google finding Rob's site.

I suspect as you begin to research content for the site you will run into limitations of time. When that happens, ask us to do some research for you which you can then vett before posting
Click to expand...
Absolutely. PM me if you need help trawling thru the net
 
RSLancastr said:
As the site grows, I will post notices here.
Click to expand...
Excellent idea and I'm certainly up for contributing. I'd collated a couple of analyses of transcripts of hers from King broadcasts and then measured her "success" count. Could dust them off for discussion here before writing up for you.
 
matt-r said:
Careful there on the defamation laws. In the UK, the claimant (i.e. the person claiming to have been defamed) doesn't have to prove that the statement is inaccurate in order to successfully sue for defamation; just that the statement has damaged their reputation, and caused them loss. However, the truth of the statements in question is a DEFENCE for the defendant. But that means the burden of proof is on the defendant, which makes it easier to successfully sue for defamation.

Hey, I didn't say the UK law made much sense, but that's how it is. It's perfectly possible that US law is different, but I just wanted to add a note of caution. Dustin, if you're a US lawyer then apologies, I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes!

Matt
Click to expand...

It does make it easier to sue for libel, but most solicitors will tell you not to bother (having recently looked at this myself) unless you are prepared to pour a whole lot of money at it. In other words, if you aren't rich/famous, don't bother trying to sue for libel.

But I can confirm that for the most part, the US system is the opposite of the UKs.
 
What would be usefull would be a running tally of predictions made. I see a partial list on her Wiki entry. Over time, of course, it will be the most devestating part of your site.

Let slip the dogs of war and all that.
 
I would be happy to help google bomb your site....if someone would tell me how.....
 
I think a lawsuit would be interesting. You could ask that she demonstrate her power in a controlled environment and, well, there you go.
 
Beady said:
Careful, here. It would be better to phrase it "She has shown no evidence of possessing psychic powers, as that term is commonly understood."
Click to expand...

I disagree. I mean, I agree that Beady's way is safer and easier. But I believe that you will prevail in a defamation suit even if you come out and state that she has no psychic abilities whatsoever. I mean, let's throw down the gauntlet; that's what defamation trials are all about.
 
RSLancastr said:
I want to read them all [her books], but want to put as little cash into her coffers by doing so as possible.
Click to expand...

Have you considered shoplifting? I'm sure it's morally justifiable for such a good cause.


jazzalta said:
What a ridiculous project. So much for "an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the supernatural" website. Seems to me I stumbled on yet another mean-spirited, negative-filled rant of psychic haters. Adios.
Click to expand...

Mostly right - apart from:
Not ridiculous
Not mean-spririted
Not negative-filled
And how did you stumble? Did you accidentally register, login and make 11 posts?

If you're pro-Sylvia you're in the wrong place.

Sorry, that should read - If you're pro-Sylvia you're in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom