Comments on: Sylvia Browne: Enemy of Free Speech http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:19:12 +0000 By: Insineratehymn http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-35385 Insineratehymn Wed, 07 May 2008 22:30:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-35385 The case of Sylvia Browne suing people just for criticizing her reminds me of another group that does exactly that: <a href="http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/" rel="nofollow">Scientology</a>. The case of Sylvia Browne suing people just for criticizing her reminds me of another group that does exactly that: Scientology.

]]> By: Rob http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-25508 Rob Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:05:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-25508 Here is some of my own forecasting. Sylvia will make a big error exposing her fraud, and in the end result will be the doom of the Montel Williams show. Then Sylvia, and Rosie O'Donell will start their own show called "Intuitive Thought From a Big Mouth". Here is a poll if you believe in Sylvia or not: http://www.apopularitycontest.com/display_poll.php?ID=157 Here is some of my own forecasting. Sylvia will make a big error exposing her fraud, and in the end result will be the doom of the Montel Williams show. Then Sylvia, and Rosie O'Donell will start their own show called "Intuitive Thought From a Big Mouth". Here is a poll if you believe in Sylvia or not: http://www.apopularitycontest.com/display_poll.php?ID=157

]]> By: James Bradbury http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14521 James Bradbury Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:51:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14521 <blockquote>Probably that's because doing so would make it obvious that they were just going with what they thought was a safe, or at least safely unfalsifiable, guess.</blockquote> It sound to me like that's exactly what she didn't do, hence the public embarassment. Most "psychics" are at least smart enough to stay away from being tested properly. But that is exactly what we should encourage people to demand. Search YouTube for James Randi and you'll find some entertaining clips including Yuri Geller - "I'm not feeling strong tonight" and Peter Popoff getting rumbled - one of Randi's best.

Probably that's because doing so would make it obvious that they were just going with what they thought was a safe, or at least safely unfalsifiable, guess.

It sound to me like that's exactly what she didn't do, hence the public embarassment. Most "psychics" are at least smart enough to stay away from being tested properly. But that is exactly what we should encourage people to demand.

Search YouTube for James Randi and you'll find some entertaining clips including Yuri Geller - "I'm not feeling strong tonight" and Peter Popoff getting rumbled - one of Randi's best.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14512 Ebonmuse Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:27:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14512 An update: the StopSylviaBrowne website has posted a <a href="http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/response_attempttosilence.shtml" rel="nofollow">response</a> to her frivolous legal threat letter. It does my heart good to see someone like Robert Lancaster standing up for their rights without apology against a bully. Even better, Lancaster's letter brings up the threat of an anti-SLAPP countersuit, not to mention the possibility of having disciplinary charges brought against her lawyers with the state bar for filing a suit they knew to be meritless. Clearly, Mr. Lancaster knows very well that the best thing to do when attacked by someone with no credibility is to hit back even harder. I'm glad to see him standing firm, and though I'm sure Browne and her lawyers are going to drop this matter as swiftly as possible, I'm going to contact him and see if he'd accept a donation to defray any legal expenses he might already have accrued. I encourage others to do likewise. <blockquote>You should've heard her and Montel trying to get her out of THAT one. When she was told the autopsy showed nothing, she said "I don't care...[blah, blah]" - as if she knew more than the person who performed the autopsy!</blockquote> No surprise there: when a "psychic" is caught out in an obvious error, their predictable (hah!) response is to stand firm, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look. To do anything else would be to admit their powers have failed them, and while they may mouth words of false humility on occasion, owning up to specific blunders seems to be the one thing they almost never do. Probably that's because doing so would make it obvious that they were just going with what they thought was a safe, or at least safely unfalsifiable, guess. An update: the StopSylviaBrowne website has posted a response to her frivolous legal threat letter. It does my heart good to see someone like Robert Lancaster standing up for their rights without apology against a bully. Even better, Lancaster's letter brings up the threat of an anti-SLAPP countersuit, not to mention the possibility of having disciplinary charges brought against her lawyers with the state bar for filing a suit they knew to be meritless.

Clearly, Mr. Lancaster knows very well that the best thing to do when attacked by someone with no credibility is to hit back even harder. I'm glad to see him standing firm, and though I'm sure Browne and her lawyers are going to drop this matter as swiftly as possible, I'm going to contact him and see if he'd accept a donation to defray any legal expenses he might already have accrued. I encourage others to do likewise.

You should've heard her and Montel trying to get her out of THAT one. When she was told the autopsy showed nothing, she said "I don't care...[blah, blah]" - as if she knew more than the person who performed the autopsy!

No surprise there: when a "psychic" is caught out in an obvious error, their predictable (hah!) response is to stand firm, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look. To do anything else would be to admit their powers have failed them, and while they may mouth words of false humility on occasion, owning up to specific blunders seems to be the one thing they almost never do. Probably that's because doing so would make it obvious that they were just going with what they thought was a safe, or at least safely unfalsifiable, guess.

]]> By: Nes http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14488 Nes Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:13:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14488 As sad as I am to admit it, I did hold <i>some</i> belief in psychics for a while after giving up on deities. While I had my doubts before I saw it, the episode that Michelle relates was definitely the last nail in the coffin for that belief... As sad as I am to admit it, I did hold some belief in psychics for a while after giving up on deities. While I had my doubts before I saw it, the episode that Michelle relates was definitely the last nail in the coffin for that belief...

]]> By: Michelle http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14485 Michelle Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:12:31 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14485 Don't forget the time on Montel when a couple asked how their daughter died, and Sylvia matter-of-factly said <b>"She was shot!"</b> The couple understandably looked incredulous, then went on to explain how their daughter had just collapsed in her room, and the autopsy couldn't reveal any reason for her death. You should've heard her and Montel trying to get her out of THAT one. When she was told the autopsy showed nothing, she said "I don't care...[blah, blah]" - <b><i>as if she knew more than the person who performed the autopsy!</i></b> She's such a fraud, and not even a well-spoken one at that. She always strikes me as someone who's on the edge of a mental breakdown - and sounds as if she's smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day since her teens. I wouldn't trust her to walk my dog, never mind give me "psychic readings"! Don't forget the time on Montel when a couple asked how their daughter died, and Sylvia matter-of-factly said "She was shot!" The couple understandably looked incredulous, then went on to explain how their daughter had just collapsed in her room, and the autopsy couldn't reveal any reason for her death. You should've heard her and Montel trying to get her out of THAT one. When she was told the autopsy showed nothing, she said "I don't care...[blah, blah]" - as if she knew more than the person who performed the autopsy! She's such a fraud, and not even a well-spoken one at that. She always strikes me as someone who's on the edge of a mental breakdown - and sounds as if she's smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day since her teens. I wouldn't trust her to walk my dog, never mind give me "psychic readings"!

]]> By: Jack Norton http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14438 Jack Norton Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:28:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14438 Just to be fair, though Sylvia barely deserves it, there is a nicotine vaccine called NicVax in the FDA approval process. This will basically create an immune response that will keep nicotine from entering the brain. Still, hardly proof of being "psychic". Just to be fair, though Sylvia barely deserves it, there is a nicotine vaccine called NicVax in the FDA approval process. This will basically create an immune response that will keep nicotine from entering the brain. Still, hardly proof of being "psychic".

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14435 Ebonmuse Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:28:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14435 My website host had some sort of server hiccup, I think. When I checked Daylight Atheism yesterday morning before going to work, I noticed that all the data since January 31 - posts, comments - had somehow disappeared. I filed a support ticket with my host, but by the time I got home, the missing data was back. I still don't know what happened, but I'm definitely going to be more careful about making daily backups from now on. My website host had some sort of server hiccup, I think. When I checked Daylight Atheism yesterday morning before going to work, I noticed that all the data since January 31 - posts, comments - had somehow disappeared. I filed a support ticket with my host, but by the time I got home, the missing data was back. I still don't know what happened, but I'm definitely going to be more careful about making daily backups from now on.

]]> By: Void1 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14433 Void1 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:21:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14433 What happened to this post? It disappeared for a few days before re-appearing. Were you trying to make a rumour that Sylvia Browne shut the post down? What happened to this post? It disappeared for a few days before re-appearing. Were you trying to make a rumour that Sylvia Browne shut the post down?

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14330 Alex Weaver Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:21:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/sylvia-browne-enemy-of-free-speech.html#comment-14330 <blockquote>If claims like this were accepted by the court system, it would be impossible to criticize any person or corporation that held a trademark on its name, because merely to mention that name without permission would be an infringement of the trademark holder's rights.</blockquote> Shhh! You'll George W. Bush ideas! x.x

If claims like this were accepted by the court system, it would be impossible to criticize any person or corporation that held a trademark on its name, because merely to mention that name without permission would be an infringement of the trademark holder's rights.

Shhh! You'll George W. Bush ideas! x.x

]]>