Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2000, 09:25 PM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
A while ago, there was a long thread in which Libertarian insisted he'd seen an episode of The Newlywed Game in which a contestant was asked where the strangest place she'd made whoopee was, and she said, "That'd be the butt, Bob."

This was known to many as an urban legend and a long argument ensued in which Libertarian said he saw it (as did his then-fiance/now wife, and some other folks) and others asked him to prove it.

This went back and forth for a while, and even migrated a bit onto the snopes site (before their current message board, when they had a more old-fashioned one).

Anyway, why am I bringing this up again?

Because snopes has updated the legend with an audio and video clip of something close to this -- close enough that I think the rest of the "details" could have been filled in through the same process of false memories that I mentioned in the original thread.

I was unable, for whatever reason (including quite possibly my own technical inabilities in this area) to run the video, but did run the audio. It deals with this question and has a woman answering. The answer is "whistled" out, as they generally did for that show (one reason we gave for it being virtually impossible that it could have been heard the way it was claimed), but you can tell it was probably a body part.

In any event, I suspect Libertarian, his wife, whoever, probably saw this episode, and it's the one they were thinking about.

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/newlywed.htm

-- David
  #2  
Old 05-29-2000, 10:07 PM
Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 20,228
I was able to view the video, and the first thing I noticed was his really bushy beard.

In the original thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=22386

On page 3 Libertarian says:
Quote:
Before having seen the alleged urban legend at Snopes, my recollection was that it was answered by a fairly large black man with real bushy burns.
Although not black, the guy has a really bushy beard and 'burns.

I hope Libertarian sees this thread, this could very well be what he saw.
  #3  
Old 05-29-2000, 10:21 PM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Thanks for finding the thread. I thought I'd archived it, so I didn't even bother to try.
  #4  
Old 05-29-2000, 10:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,081
Hmmmm. Now, that episode may have been taped, but would it have gone out on the air, if at all? This WAS a taped show, and I doubt that 1. It would have gone out, or 2. If it did go out the local program directors would air it.
__________________
If you say "Gullible" slowly, it sounds like "Orange".
  #5  
Old 05-30-2000, 10:26 AM
Earl Snake-Hips Tucker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SEC
Posts: 14,132
FHM magazine last year had a tape date for the episode where this supposedly happened. I don't know what their source was.

When someone said something improper, there was a "cuckoo" sound, I think, but they didn't cover up the mouth.

(I have not seen this clip, yet.)
  #6  
Old 05-31-2000, 07:01 AM
zuma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,020
Wow. Jeez, I never participated in the original thread, but if I had, I no doubt would have thrown all the arguments at Libertarian that most of the original posters did.

Thing are funny in retrospect... while those of us here are generally hardcore skeptics, and while all evidence did indeed point to his being wrong on this one, the law of averages caught up with us.

Occasionally, we're wrong. completely wrong. He was dead-on right on all counts... who would tape the newlywed game?
maybe bob eubanks had a faulty memory after all! I guess once in a while, it's easy to say that after 20 years of an unusual tale which cannot be documented, maybe once in a great while we can be wrong.

While a few hardcore internet geeks would be aware of the bob eubanks 10k reward, most people would not be. as a hardcore net geek myself, this was the first i ever heard of it.

I'd like to apologize on behalf of everyone who doubted you, Libertarian. The "up the butt" vs. "in the ass" differences are inconsequencial. It really did happen.

I guess on behalf of all the skeptics who ripped you a new asshole, understand that this was an anamoly.. usually the simplest answer is the correct answer.. after 20+ years no definitive proof had surfaced to substantiate this claim. But once in a while, someone comes along to remind us that we can be dead-wrong in our assumptions, and we all learn from these mistakes.

Anyway, I hope you're still around and are still reading this. It wasn't a false memory, and you were most certainly not wrong.. Thanks for sticking to your guns and making a lot of us think about holding firm to our positions with what now has proven to be tenuous evidence

Although if you come back and claim to have awoken in an ice-bath with a missing kidney, I'll start pulling my lovely hair out.
  #7  
Old 05-31-2000, 07:15 AM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Zuma said:
Quote:
Thing are funny in retrospect... while those of us here are generally hardcore skeptics, and while all evidence did indeed point to his being wrong on this one, the law of averages caught up with us.

Occasionally, we're wrong. completely wrong. He was dead-on right on all counts...
Um, I wouldn't at all go that far. His version, along with the urban legend version, is rather different than what actually happened. It wasn't a black couple. You couldn't hear her answer (because it was censored). We're not even entirely sure what the answer was because it was censored (we can guess, obviously). As the snopes page now says about the truth of the legend, "Sort of."
Quote:
I'd like to apologize on behalf of everyone who doubted you, Libertarian. The "up the butt" vs. "in the ass" differences are inconsequencial. It really did happen.
Please don't do us any favors. As you said, you weren't involved in that discussion. There are still some problems with the story, and I still think his memory was contaminated by the legend, whether he knows it or not.
Quote:
It wasn't a false memory, and you were most certainly not wrong..
But it was. Unless the couple was black. Maybe not completely false, but false nonetheless.
  #8  
Old 05-31-2000, 07:27 AM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292

Douglips' message from another thread


[Moderator Hat: ON]
Douglips started a new thread on this same subject. There's no reason to have two on the exact same thing, so I'm reposting his message here and locking the other.
[Moderator Hat: OFF]

Douglips' Message:

Eons ago, Libertarian launched a thread called Up the Butt, Bob in which he and his now lovely bride maintained that they saw the famous episode of The Newlywed Game in which a contestant responds to the question "Where is the strangest place you've made love" with "Up the Butt, Bob" or some variation thereto. This episode was generally thought not to exist, and therefore all reports of sightings have been regarded skeptically.

The thread ended up with Libertarian frustrated at all the skeptics taunting him that it didn't happen, but realizing that it was near impossible to prove either way, so he gave up but swore to return when he had concrete evidence.

The thread also spawned a Trapper John M.D. to its MASH, a gen-yuu-wine Straight Dope column Did some Japanese soldiers hold out for years after WWII?. Of course, the column has nothing to do with butts or The Newlywed Game.

Back on topic, the folks at Snopes have recently updated their page on this legend, Up the butt, Bob, with the new status Sort of. Here is a quote and an episode and date from this page:
quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently a Newlywed Game clip has come to light that may or may not be the origin of this legend. In a 1977 "Maternity Day" episode, Hank Perez guessed that his wife Olga would say the strangest place she'd ever had the urge to make whoopee was in their car on the freeway. When the wives were brought in to provide their answers to the same question, here is what transpired:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[prelude snipped - douglips]

Olga: I'm trying to think. Umm . . . [Turns to husband.] Gee Henry, what did you say?

Bob: Hey, don't ask him. He can't help you out at all.

Olga: Is it in the ass? [Last three words bleeped]

Bob: No no no . . . no . . . what I'm talking about is the weirdest location, the weirdest place . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can also download a video clip of the episode, as well - I haven't seen it as my computer is currently ill, but the link is on the snopes page.

So, it's not quite the exact fit that would entitle Lib to walk around town for a month with David B. on a leash wearing nothing but a diaper and a large sign saying "I was wrong", but at least it's within the realm of possibility that Lib saw said episode and retroactively changed the dialog in his mind to "Up the Butt, Bob" when he read of the urban legend.

Now, what is there to debate you ask? Whether or not I should have reopened that monster of a thread instead of posting a new one. The damn thing had well over 200 posts and I didn't think a new post tagged on the end would be helpful. The only reason this is in GD is because the original thread was also here - I hope that the wrath of David or Gaudere will not rain down too harshly upon me for this. Perhaps for the diaper comment, though...
__________________
I'd give my left buns-cheek for a Wally sig.
  #9  
Old 05-31-2000, 09:18 AM
douglips is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 1,375
That's me, uber-dork. Thanks for cleaning up my mess, David.

Oh, and by the way, one of the first reasons given on the old thread why Libertarian could not have heard "up the butt" was because it would have been bleeped out, and in fact "in the ass" was.
  #10  
Old 05-31-2000, 01:49 PM
Dumbguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Posts: 1,158
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I seem to remember this clip is shown in the Michael Moore movie 'Roger and Me'.
  #11  
Old 05-31-2000, 01:56 PM
Milossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Once, 200 mi. from Felch
Posts: 3,709
I don't really have anything to add, except that I remember the thread in question, and it was one of my all-time favorites since I've been here.

Lib was so convinced that he was right, and you guys were pretty merciless. It was one of the best kick-back-with-a-lawn-chair-and-a-cold-one spectator threads I can ever remember.
__________________
3124
  #12  
Old 05-31-2000, 02:06 PM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
The real point of the OP on the original thread is that true skeptics simply disbelieve everything that they encounter. Quoth Lib:

Quote:
But does hyperskepticism in general lead to a jaded and dull intellect the same as hyperfaith? I think it does. And I think I will take all claims that popular stories are urban legends with a grain of salt from now on.
At least with snopes, this is clearly not the case. The fact that they changed the status in light of the new finding illustrates this. As with Dopers, snopesters want to get at the truth, not become hyperskeptics.
  #13  
Old 05-31-2000, 02:13 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
I just watched the clip. The couple is quite dark-skinned, and one or both might well be of African extraction. Black.

The woman, Olga, was asked the strangest place she and her hubby had ever "made whoopie."

She replied "in the ass."

I don't thinkk there's much wiggle room here David. Your point about false memories is absolutely true--memory is a tricky business and often unreliable.

But Libertarian was right.
  #14  
Old 05-31-2000, 02:20 PM
yosemite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Back in California.
Posts: 9,237
Well, I was one of Lib's defenders on the original thread.

It just didn't make sense that he would unwaveringly claim to have such specific memories (as did his fiance) if they were all completely false and imaginary.

While his memory was a little faulty, it's obvious he saw what he did, and that in essence, he was right. Maybe not 100% correct in every detail, but c'mon. He got the gist of it. To those of you who were insisting that his whole memory was false, I think this is a Big Time vindication of Libertarian.

Of course I give David a lot of credit for bringing up this thread, with the new Snopes information.
__________________
"Space travelers alight, befester, nebulate"—Arcata, Calif's hilarious Police Log.
  #15  
Old 05-31-2000, 05:47 PM
Raza's Avatar
Raza is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Atl-N, 34°09'N 84°05'W
Posts: 1,572
[a hijacking, but I'll return you to the same point]

This reminds me of a UL that was being addressed on one of the UseNet groups several years ago. The brief version is: girl and boyfriend hack her husband into pieces, take pictures of themselves with the various body parts, then take the film to be developed. Film processor notifies, police; couple arrested when they go to claim their glossies.

The overwhelming prevailing opinion was that it didn't happen, because no one could be that stupid. There was the usual absence of specifics such as location, names, and so forth. It was dismissed with prejudice as a false UL, despite one or two pleas from posters that it really happened.

By an odd stroke of luck I found the evidence. I was teaching at police training organization at the time, and one of the homicide instructors knew the original investigating officer. He had copies of the case report and photos of the scene, as well as the amateur photos.

The truth was: the girl and boyfriend did hack up her husband, and they did take pictures of the severed body parts, solo and with themselves. But they did not take the film to be developed; the camera was discovered at the crime scene, and the film was developed by the police.

So, the irony portion of the story was false, but the core of the story was very true, which I suppose garners it a "sort of" designation. The parallel to this thread is that after the evidence and full story became known to the UseNet group, some were saying that the cynics had become too cynical by denying that anything even close to the legend could have happened.

Personally, I think cynicism is a good thing if you have enough faith.
  #16  
Old 05-31-2000, 06:07 PM
Mojo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: witless protection progrm
Posts: 2,540
Quick partial hijack-
Raza, the events you were talking about were posted on a website entitled "Natural Born Losers". On it, the author claimed that they were done in by the person who did the film developing. The site's mirror is here (WARNING: VERY EXPLICIT IMAGES) http://www.grotesque.com/html/losers.htm .
  #17  
Old 05-31-2000, 08:45 PM
douglips is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I seem to remember this clip is shown in the Michael Moore movie 'Roger and Me'.
I don't believe so, I just watched this movie on Sunday night and don't recall seeing the clip. Bob Eubanks does feature in the movie, but the raciest stuff is Bob telling casual ugly (i.e. anti-semitic and homophobic) jokes in a one-on-one with the camera.
__________________
I'd give my left buns-cheek for a Wally sig.
  #18  
Old 06-01-2000, 07:08 AM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Andros said:
Quote:
I just watched the clip. The couple is quite dark-skinned, and one or both might well be of African extraction. Black.
Hmmm. Well, like I said, I couldn't see the clip (just got a frozen first frame), but what I saw looked white, if fuzzy. I can't say either way and was going by what somebody else had said.
Quote:
I don't thinkk there's much wiggle room here David. Your point about false memories is absolutely true--memory is a tricky business and often unreliable.

But Libertarian was right.
He was apparently right that he had seen something similar to what he'd described. However, he was not simply "right." For one, he insisted that he heard her say it (even going so far as to argue that it would not have been censored). Since it was "cuckood" out, we know that is not true. Other parts of what he said aren't true either.

For example, he had said:
Quote:
One of the contestants (I think it was the first one asked) responded with almost no hesitation, "I guess that'd have to be up the butt, Bob."
The clip doesn't bear this out. There was, in fact, quite a bit of hesitation. And she didn't say what he claims she said.

He also said:
Quote:
Immediately, a sustained roar of hysterical laughter welled up from the audience as the show's director switched from camera to camera, capturing the friendly and innocent smile of the caught-off-guard guest, the expression of stunned amazement on Bob Eubanks' face, and the knee slapping, side grabbing chortles, chuckles, and screams from the delighted audience.
Now, as I noted, I didn't see the clip, so you'll have to tell me if any part of this is correct. But the audio clip I heard doesn't seem to bear this out. Eubanks didn't stop in "stunned amazement," but rather kept on going and told her that she had to name a place. I don't think there was enough time on the audio clip to go through all the camera changes Lib mentioned, but, again, I'll have to rely on somebody else to help with that.

I think what we have here, in general, is something related to another message posted in this thread. There seems to be a feeling that just because evidence is found of something, that means it's not an urban legend any more. Not true. Jan Harold Brunvand, the dean of urban legends, makes the point in many of his books that something can have a true beginning and still turn into an urban legend (or, in reverse, something can be an urban legend and eventually something will happen that goes along with it).

Did Lib see something similar to what this clip shows? Probably. Was that "contaminated" with the urban legend version, which is different from what actually appears to have been said? Again, I would say probably. This is why snopes categorized its veracity as "sort of."
  #19  
Old 06-01-2000, 08:11 AM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
David B said:

Quote:
Did Lib see something similar to what this clip shows? Probably. Was that "contaminated" with the urban legend version, which is different from what actually appears to have been said? Again, I would say probably. This is why snopes categorized its veracity as "sort of."
Having lurked through the original thread, and now having watched the clip, I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed in Snopes for continuing to attempt to weasel out of admitting they were wrong.

Quote from Snopes:

Quote:
Is this the "smoking gun" urban legend aficionados have been waiting for? It's hard to say for sure, because some of the key details of this clip don't match the details of the legend.
Oh, so we insist that the actual event that inspired a story that has been circulating for years corresponds in every detail with the current version of the story? Come on guys, haven't we all played telephone when we were kids? Don't you remember that a simple message passed through even a small number of people can become hopelessly garbled? Plus, I'm sure hundreds of amatuer comedians have altered the story to suit their tastes or audience.

So the couple ain't black, big deal, they sure ain't WASPs from New York either.

So she said "In the ass" instead of "That'd be the butt, Bob." "That'd be the butt, Bob" is far funnier IMHO, and thus, as reasonable edit from the original for someone telling to story to get a laugh.

So it was bleeped out, rather than said openenly. Again, much funnier if it goes over the air for all to hear.

If we are going to try to make a chicken and egg argument, the most reasonable conclusion to draw IMHO is that this clip is in fact the beginning of the "urban legend". If it is, then the story is not an urban legend, it is an account of an actual event that has been altered through repeated retellings.

If you want to say that the story came first, then I'm gonna want to see some proof, such as air dates for the episode versus earliest documented sighting of the proposed UL.

Until then, I'm gonna have to say that Lib was right, this is not an urban legend, it actually happened.

gEEk
  #20  
Old 06-01-2000, 09:16 AM
Esprix is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,258
My question is, who got Bob Eubank's $10,000 dollar reward for finding the clip? Snopes seems to imply no one has either claimed it, or it hasn't been paid out yet.

I'd still be surprised if the thing actually aired, or if it just showed up on a bloopers show or tape somewhere. Even being "cuckooed" out, that still seems a mite racy for the time period it would have been showed.

By the by, when I went to check the video clip this morning, the link didn't exist, so I'm not sure if it's still there or not. The audio link worked, though. Seems fairly convincing to me, niggly little details aside.

Esprix
__________________
Lessons My Father Taught Me
George N. "Bud" Lutton, Jr.
May 11, 1927 - December 11, 2003
Thanks for everything, Dad.
  #21  
Old 06-01-2000, 11:25 AM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Quote:
If it is, then the story is not an urban legend, it is an account of an actual event that has been altered through repeated retellings.
Hmm, "It's not an urban legend, it's a story that's been altered through repeated retellings." What, exactly, do you think an urban legend is?

As David so wisely pointed out, a story can be true and still be a UL. Peruse snopes a bit more - you'll find plenty of examples. Some UL's have no basis in fact, some have a little, and some have a lot. This doesn't make them any less ULish. If Lib were to find a tape exactly as he remembers the event, proves his case, and gets Eubank's money, the story is still a UL.

And I agree with snopes' "Sort of" assessment. There is a real event similar, but most definitely not the same as the commonly remembered event. To give this one a status of "True" would be a gross misrepresentation of the evidence.
  #22  
Old 06-01-2000, 11:27 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
You're right, David, my bad. I should have said, "Lib wasn't wrong."

Or as Arnold Judas Rimmer once said, "We won't be apart . . . we just won't be together."


Reckon Lib's going to add his $0.02 to the thread?
  #23  
Old 06-01-2000, 11:44 AM
Raza's Avatar
Raza is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Atl-N, 34°09'N 84°05'W
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Raza, the events you were talking about were posted on a website entitled "Natural Born Losers". On it, the author claimed that they were done in by the person who did the film developing.
Thanks, Mojo; I sent an e-mail to the "curator" of that site with as many details as I could remember, so perhaps it will be corrected.
  #24  
Old 06-01-2000, 12:07 PM
douglips is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
Posts: 1,375
I hope instead he will take some more time to make memories with Edlyn for the day they get on The Newlywed Game.

Quote:
Bob Eubanks: Where's the strangest place you've made whoopee?

Libertarian: That'd be in a country where jackbooted thugs did not break down the doors of peaceful, honest citizens just to steal their constitutionally obtained firearms, Bob.
__________________
I'd give my left buns-cheek for a Wally sig.
  #25  
Old 06-01-2000, 12:09 PM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
tdn said:

Quote:
And I agree with snopes' "Sort of" assessment. There is a real event similar, but most definitely not the same as the commonly remembered event. To give this one a status of "True" would be a gross misrepresentation of the evidence.
Which commonly remembered event are you speaking of? According to Snopes there are many versions of this tale floating around. To simply pick one and say "See, the actual event doesn't match this tale so we don't have to admit we were wrong" seems a little disengenous. The fact of the matter is, the event in question, i.e. reference to anal sex in response to a question on the Newlywed game, did in fact occur.

Regarding the definition of urban legend,
according to the alt.folklore.urban FAQ:

Quote:
An urban legend:

1. appears mysteriously and spreads spontaneously in varying forms
2. contains elements of humor or horror (the horror often "punishes" someone who flouts society's conventions).
makes good storytelling.
3. does NOT have to be false, although most are. ULs often have a basis in fact, but it's their life after-the-fact (particularly in reference to the second and third points) that gives them particular interest.

I'll admit that because part 3 of the definition includes the caveat that the story does not have to be false, this tale is not expressly disqualified. But how do we distinguish between a funny true story and a UL using this definition? Or are you claiming that the UL status is not related to veracity at all, but merely a label describing the fact that the story has survived so long?

Often the main evidence for a story being a UL is the lack of verifiable evidence of the event. In this case, the evidence has been found and is irrefutable (unless you think someone faked this clip) and as such I still think that this former UL has been shown to be true.

gEEk
  #26  
Old 06-01-2000, 01:17 PM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Quote:
gEEk said:
Which commonly remembered event are you speaking of? According to Snopes there are many versions of this tale floating around.
Good point. However, there seem to be some trends in the different versions, and the newly uncovered evidence is pretty unlike the rest. Most versions say "Up the butt, Bob" or "In the butt, Bob.", and rarely if ever "In the ass." That may seem like a small detail but to UL afficianados such small details morphing are a big deal.

Quote:
But how do we distinguish between a funny true story and a UL using this definition?
Often the line between the 2 is pretty blurry. Off hand, I would say that if a funny true story gets told around the water cooler or spreads via e-mail, and begins to morph, that's enough to call it a UL, although maybe not in the strictest definition of the term.

Quote:
Or are you claiming that the UL status is not related to veracity at all, but merely a label describing the fact that the story has survived so long?
I would go with that. There are certainly some stories that can be traced back to their roots quite clearly, and we can still call those ULs. An example that comes to mind is a bit of scarelore that went around last Summer/Fall. Do you remember getting an e-mail about a woman that sniffed a bottle of bargain perfume in a parking lot, passed out, and got robbed? That was directly traceable to a real (though dubious) event. But I'll bet we'll see that e-mail coming around in another few years.

Quote:
In this case, the evidence has been found and is irrefutable (unless you think someone faked this clip) and as such I still think that this former UL has been shown to be true.
I agree. But I don't think it goes from being a UL to a former UL just because evidence has been found. It stays a UL, but the status changes. Just as we would still think of King Arthur as a legend even if proof of his existance had been found.
  #27  
Old 06-01-2000, 02:11 PM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
tdn said:
Quote:
But I don't think it goes from being a UL to a former UL just because evidence has been found. It stays a UL, but the status changes. Just as we would still think of King Arthur as a legend even if proof of his existance had been found.
Fair enough. Although I think that the status would change from legend to history, but that's a minor quibble. You are correct that all of the fiction based on him would remain legend.

My major gripe here is not with the definition of UL used by Snopes and alt.folklore.urban, but with the manor in which it was applied in this case. The people who derided Libertarian's claim maintained that his story could not be true because it was an urban legend. Now that we have established that a UL is not neccessarily false, we see the flaw in their arguments.

In fact, his story was true, and the fact that the tale technically can still be called an urban legend does not change the fact that those involved on this board and on the Snopes board owe him an apology for the contempt and abuse they heaped upon him.

Although I merely lurked, I too was guilty of assuming that he could not have seen the episode, as I was convinced it never happened. This merely serves to prove to me once again that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

gEEk
  #28  
Old 06-01-2000, 02:28 PM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Quote:
In fact, his story was true, and the fact that the tale technically can still be called an urban legend does not change the fact that those involved on this board and on the Snopes board owe him an apology for the contempt and abuse they heaped upon him.
You are absolutely right. Lib, if you are lurking, I apologize for whatever I may have said that you found insulting.

Quote:
This merely serves to prove to me once again that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ooh, may I quote you on that? That's beautiful!
  #29  
Old 06-01-2000, 02:37 PM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
Quote:
Quote:
This merely serves to prove to me once again that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ooh, may I quote you on that? That's beautiful!
Absolutely, but it's not original. I have no idea who said it first or where I heard it.

gEEk
  #30  
Old 06-01-2000, 04:32 PM
Arnold Winkelried is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,826
A humble question here, since I haven't seen the video clip or listened to the audio clip, but if her answer is "bleeped", how does anyone know what the contestant said?
  #31  
Old 06-01-2000, 07:21 PM
B. Hamilton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Victoria, TX
Posts: 9
I know some of you are having trouble viewing the video clip. I read this info on AFU. Maybe it will help you see it. I was too dense to understand the instructions.

Mr. Draney so graciously posted this:
Quote:
I got the "page not found" too, so I checked...there's something screwy with the link from Snopes that caused it to prefix the current page onto where the link is supposed to reach...I copied the location of the video clip itself, which for anyone too lazy to do it himself is:

pnm://real.a-b.radix.intervu.net/s3/hitplay/videos/e000504001.0128.rm

and pasted it directly into Real Player
Bev Hamilton
  #32  
Old 06-01-2000, 07:49 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Thanks, Bev.

Arnold, while I was primed for it and am therefore possibly biased, I believe that the woman said "in the ass" from reading her lips. While it's entirely possible that she said something else, her lip movements were consistent with that phrase.

gEEk, you said:

Quote:
The people who derided Libertarian's claim maintained that his story could not be true because it was an urban legend.
You have a good point. But the fact remains that Lib and Edlyn were not completely correct. They remembered stuff that simply didn't happen (in this clip, of course--I suppose it's possible there was another similar situation). Urban Legend does not necessarily equal False, but it never equals True.
  #33  
Old 06-01-2000, 09:38 PM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
gEEk said:
Quote:
My major gripe here is not with the definition of UL used by Snopes and alt.folklore.urban, but with the manor in which it was applied in this case. The people who derided Libertarian's claim maintained that his story could not be true because it was an urban legend. Now that we have established that a UL is not neccessarily false, we see the flaw in their arguments.
While some of us may have pointed out that it was an urban legend, I don't know that any of us said "This can't be true because it's an urban legend." I admit I haven't gone back and checked, and it's possible I'll have to eat my words, but in general I remember saying, "Show us the evidence and we'll change our minds. But we don't think you can show us the evidence because it doesn't exist." Were we wrong about the tape not existing? Apparently so -- or, rather, something similar to that which was claimed does exist. But as somebody else already noted, the way Snopes and the rest of us reacted shows that Lib was wrong about "hyperskeptics." We said that if he showed us the evidence, we'd change our minds. Somebody found the evidence, snopes changed the status of the UL, and I immediately (upon hearing about it) posted this thread. We saw the evidence and said, "Hmmm. Guess something like it did happen." That said, his version was still different than the one on the tape, as we've noted.
Quote:
In fact, his story was true
In fact, it was not, as I've already described. It was close, but not 100% true.
Quote:
and the fact that the tale technically can still be called an urban legend does not change the fact that those involved on this board and on the Snopes board owe him an apology for the contempt and abuse they heaped upon him.
I don't think he was the target of "contempt and abuse." In fact, he specifically noted, when somebody accused me of making it sound like he was an idiot, that he never thought that at all. I was talking about memory and ULs. Again, I haven't gone back to check, but I don't recall "contempt and abuse" being directed at Lib by any regular around here.
  #34  
Old 06-01-2000, 09:56 PM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Ok, I went directly to Hitplay.com, did a search, and ran the clip that way. While the quality wasn't very high (I couldn't, for example, make out at all what she had said thru lip reading), it was enough that I could tell this was not a black couple. Dark, yes, but maybe of Pakistani or Indian descent, from what I could see. A nit, perhaps, but a main part of the legend (if not necessarily part of Lib's version) is the, shall we say, "black" use of language, which these folks did not use.

Also, there were no shots whatsoever of the audience, again contradicting what Lib swears he saw.

So, I stick with what I said earlier -- he may have seen this episode (though we still have no verification that it ever actually aired -- I'd like to know for sure whether it was put on the air or in a bloopers tape), but his memory of the incident was contaminated by the UL.
  #35  
Old 06-01-2000, 09:58 PM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Oh, and since we're discussing memory, here's a link to a Chicago Tribune article from today about a long-term study showing how people's memories change over the years, get contaminated, etc.

http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/...010211,FF.html
  #36  
Old 06-02-2000, 03:34 AM
yosemite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Back in California.
Posts: 9,237
Oh David, come on. You're wiggling and squirming a little too much here. He did see a "Newlywed Game" show, with dark skinned people, a man with a bushy beard, and a reference to "up the ass/butt". No, the details are not 100% correct. Yes, he got a few details warped. But come ON. To nit-pick about the fact that the couple was perhaps not black (but dark-skinned nonetheless) is beneath you. Give me a break. Just eat your words, and get it over with. You may not have come right out and said that Lib was imagining the whole thing in the original thread, but you came close enough. Many of you did. And I understand his frustration about it all now. He knew he saw something about "Up the butt" (or ass - whatever) on the "Newlywed Game" and now here's the proof.

Give me a fricking break. He saw it a long time ago, he "filled in the blanks" of some sketchy memory with a few details that weren't 100% correct, but dammit, bottom line, he SAW IT. His insistence was genuine. I believed that there must be something to it during the original thread, and I was right in believing that he saw something as well. Dammit. Just eat your words. At least partly. Don't dick around with "Is it still an UL?" crap. Maybe it still is, maybe not. Don't dick around with how faulty memory can be. Sure it can! But in this case, I don't frigging care. Lib saw it, and he got enough details correct to verify that he saw it. This isn't a court of law, and he's not a witness under oath.
__________________
"Space travelers alight, befester, nebulate"—Arcata, Calif's hilarious Police Log.
  #37  
Old 06-02-2000, 04:37 AM
billehunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 528
a. I can't make out what she says myself, but if snopes says she says it, I trust 'em.

b. The 'sort of' thing is a total cop-out. The exact phrasing and the race thing may make for a better UL, but the core story is clear: someone on the newlywed game answered anal sex in response to the weirdest place they'd made whoopee. And in fact, it now seems that happened.

If tomorrow it's discovered that Neil Armstrong did say "Good Luck" to Mr. Gorsky, then it's true. Even if the guy was really Mr. Gordon. Even if the speaker was Buzz Aldrin.
  #38  
Old 06-02-2000, 06:59 AM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Yosemitebabe said:
Quote:
Oh David, come on. You're wiggling and squirming a little too much here.,
Actually, I'm not wiggling and squirming at all. I'm pointing out facts. Which thing that I've said is wrong?
Quote:
He did see a "Newlywed Game" show, with dark skinned people, a man with a bushy beard, and a reference to "up the ass/butt".
Probably, yes. I've already said that.
Quote:
No, the details are not 100% correct. Yes, he got a few details warped.
Actually, he got several points wrong that he insisted he was right about -- such as being able to hear the comment and the content of said comment, and such as seeing the camera flit around to the audience, which it didn't.
Quote:
To nit-pick about the fact that the couple was perhaps not black (but dark-skinned nonetheless) is beneath you.
I'm sorry you feel discussing the facts is beneath me, but I have just been trying to work out all the details here. I already explained why the contestants' being black was an issue.
Quote:
Give me a break. Just eat your words, and get it over with.
No, you give me a break. I have no words to eat (unless you can find some). At the time when Lib was first discussing this, we asked for evidence. He had none, and neither did anybody else. Some was finally provided, so snopes changed their mind and so did I. I'm not sure where the problem is here.
Quote:
You may not have come right out and said that Lib was imagining the whole thing in the original thread, but you came close enough.
Oh, I "came close enough." Well, since you can apparently read minds, tell me what I'm thinking now.
Quote:
Give me a fricking break. He saw it a long time ago, he "filled in the blanks" of some sketchy memory with a few details that weren't 100% correct, but dammit, bottom line, he SAW IT.
No, the bottom line is actually one I've already stated -- he probably saw it, but his memories were tainted by the UL. So it still goes back to what we said about memory in the first thread, though not as much as we first thought.
Quote:
His insistence was genuine. I believed that there must be something to it during the original thread, and I was right in believing that he saw something as well. Dammit. Just eat your words.
Again, what words would you like me to eat -- specifically?
Quote:
Don't dick around with "Is it still an UL?" crap. Maybe it still is, maybe not. Don't dick around with how faulty memory can be. Sure it can! But in this case, I don't frigging care.
Well, you know what? I don't base my posts on what you care about. I have been discussing the entire subject. If you don't care about a part of it, don't read it.
Quote:
Lib saw it, and he got enough details correct to verify that he saw it. This isn't a court of law, and he's not a witness under oath.
Then why are you acting like his defense attorney and badgering the witness?
  #39  
Old 06-02-2000, 07:02 AM
David B is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 7,292
Billehunt said:
Quote:
b. The 'sort of' thing is a total cop-out.
No, actually, it's not, as has already been explained at least once in this thread.
Quote:
The exact phrasing and the race thing may make for a better UL
And there you have it. The story is sort of true. Not completely, because things changed in the normal UL version. Sort of. Just like snopes said.
Quote:
If tomorrow it's discovered that Neil Armstrong did say "Good Luck" to Mr. Gorsky, then it's true. Even if the guy was really Mr. Gordon. Even if the speaker was Buzz Aldrin.
No, it would not be. You can't say, "The story is true, even though it wasn't that person who said it and even though those weren't the words he said." If you have that many discrepancies, it's not a true story.
  #40  
Old 06-02-2000, 07:37 AM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 4,329
I also read through the original thread when it was active. Wasn't one of Libertarian's main points that he had never heard the UL and thus could not have been influenced by a preconceived notion? He saw what he saw. Why do some here keep saying his memories were tainted by the UL? How could that be?

I watched the clip. I've seen lighter-skinned people than that guy who called themselves "black." Maybe it was the beard.
  #41  
Old 06-02-2000, 08:16 AM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
David B said:

Quote:
While some of us may have pointed out that it was an urban legend, I don't know that any of us said "This can't be true because it's an urban legend." \
On 01-14-2000 at 08:46 AM David B said:
Quote:
It's an urban legend, Lib. Nothing personal -- I thought the story I related showed that. Yes, many people think they saw it. They didn't. Because it never happened.
Now granted you didn't say "It can't be true because it's an urban legend." But I think this is pretty close. And the truth of the matter is, he did see it. Unless you are gonna claim he was lying?

As far as the heaping of abuse on Lib, again from David B (btw, I'm not picking on you on purpose, but you did ask for examples)
Quote:
You know what, Lib, it just occurred to me that I don't really give a damn if you believe this. It doesn't hurt me or anybody else. It's an urban legend. Lots of people believe them as fact. You are not alone. It is pretty obvious that nothing I say -- no amount of evidence -- will convince you that you're wrong. Why? Because the one piece of evidence that would do it cannot ever be found, because it doesn't exist. You are sure that you saw something. That something isn't anywhere. People have been searching for it for years, and you think you'll find it with an Internet search? Won't happen. You want to believe paranoid conspiracies that skeptics are making up stories just to make believers in this urban legend look bad? That's your perogative, but it makes you look silly, IMO.
Makes him look silly eh? Of course, he was right, and he did indeed see the episode he described. Granted, after 2 pages of back and forth you were frustrated with what you saw as his obstinance. But put yourself in his position. If you had seen the show and come here describing it, would you have admitted you were wrong on the basis of the "evidence" you posted?

On the matter of Lib getting some details messed up, in his original OP he mentions that he went to Snopes after seeing the episode and before posting. It's very possible that he got some details confused between the show he saw and the description he read on Snopes. I think it is clear that he did see the episode in question, it is the clip that is the basis for the UL and in fact a lot of us (myself included) are guilty of basically calling him a liar.

gEEk
  #42  
Old 06-02-2000, 09:04 AM
RM Mentock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 3,202
Quote:
gEEk wrote:
My major gripe here is not with the definition of UL used by Snopes and alt.folklore.urban, but with the manor in which it was applied in this case. The people who derided Libertarian's claim maintained that his story could not be true because it was an urban legend. Now that we have established that a UL is not neccessarily false, we see the flaw in their arguments.
I went back through the thread, but I guess I missed something. Where did this occur in the thread?
__________________
rocks
  #43  
Old 06-02-2000, 09:20 AM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
RM Mentock said:
Quote:
I went back through the thread, but I guess I missed something. Where did this occur in the thread?
Did you see the quote from David B I referenced above? While I admit that the wording is different, I think that the meaning is the same. David tells Lib that the story is an urban legend and he couldn't have seen it because it didn't happen. Seems pretty clear to me.

Also, andros said:
Quote:
Urban Legend does not necessarily equal False, but it never equals True.
Not according to alt.folklore.urban, as I quoted before from their FAQ:

Quote:
An urban legend:

1. appears mysteriously and spreads spontaneously in varying forms
2. contains elements of humor or horror (the horror often "punishes" someone who flouts society's conventions).
makes good storytelling.
3. does NOT have to be false, although most are. ULs often have a basis in fact, but it's their life after-the-fact (particularly in reference to the second and third points) that gives them particular interest.
The way I understand, as tdn explained it to me, the veracity of the story is really not germane to its being called an urban legend, rather, it is the life of the tale after the fact, how it spreads, becoming part of our collective folklore.

gEEk
  #44  
Old 06-02-2000, 10:13 AM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Quoth the divemaster:

Quote:
Wasn't one of Libertarian's main points that he had never heard the UL and thus could not have been influenced by a preconceived notion?
Yes, that was one of his points, but it is a faulty one. Throughout my life I have collected tons of stories that I just knew were true. No amount of logical debunking could have proved me wrong. Imagine my shock to find most of them listed on snopes. That is the nature of ULs. They disguise themselves as truth, and can fool the best of us.

When Lib said he never heard the UL, I think what he meant was that he never heard it as a UL. There is nothing unusual about this. When most of us hear these stories, they are usually presented as "check out this amazing true story", not "I heard this UL today."

The fact that Lib recounted the story in nearly exactly the same format as everyone else, and not remotely as the event actually happened, suuggests that he had, in fact, heard it before. He just didn't recognize the wolf in sheeps clothing.
  #45  
Old 06-02-2000, 10:41 AM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
Unfortunately, the only way to resolve the issue of whether this clip is the one Lib saw would be for him to come forth and tell us.

In his original OP Lib said that "I know this happened except possibly for irrelevant details", implying that there were differences between what he saw and what was described on Snopes. I never saw him describe those differences, so I have no idea what they may be.

It's too bad that Lib went to Snopes before posting his OP, it would be interesting to note any discrepencies.

gEEk
  #46  
Old 06-02-2000, 11:03 AM
tdn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 35,871
Said gEEk:

Quote:
Unfortunately, the only way to resolve the issue of whether this clip is the one Lib saw would be for him to come forth and tell us.
Yup. It would be interesting to hear his response to this. Anyone know where he got himself off to?
  #47  
Old 06-02-2000, 11:40 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
gEEk,

Quote:
It's very possible that he got some details confused between the show he saw and the description he read on Snopes.
you're saying that reading a description on Snopes changed Lib's story? Do you really mean to say that?

If so, it means that your definition of "true" is tha same of my definition of "almost true." By your reasoning, Bill Clinton was telling the truth about Monica--he just "got some details wrong."

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer. As I tried (not very well) to say earlier, a "basis in truth" does NOT make something true. Lib saw an episode. It was somewhat as he claimed it to be. That's cool, I'm all in favor of that. I think it's a great story and all. But just because he wasn't wrong doesn't mean he was right.

You might dismiss this as semantic quibbling, but I don't think it is.

-andros-
  #48  
Old 06-02-2000, 01:57 PM
gEEk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 102
andros said:

Quote:
you're saying that reading a description on Snopes changed Lib's story? Do you really mean to say that?
That's exactly what I am saying. Having seen the episode at some point in the past (I don't recall if all of this happened quickly, or if his OP came some time after the episode aired) he reads the description on Snopes. Now, does it not seem likely to you that details of the story on Snopes would be fresher in his mind than the episode he saw some time in the past? So in relating it to us, he relied on the copious information provided on the web site to buttress his imperfect recollection of the actual event. Does that make his story untrue? Of course not.

A few questions, in the hopes of clearing this up:

Do you think that this clip is the one Lib saw?

Do you think this clip is the basis for the UL?


Quote:
But just because he wasn't wrong doesn't mean he was right.
Ok, so were Snopes, Bob Eubanks et al right or wrong when they said it never happened?

Did it "sort of" happen or did it actually happen?

I'm not dismissing this as semantic quibbling, I just think you're wrong. As I see it, there is no real question here, assuming this is the clip he saw. I don't think there is much doubt that this is the basis for the UL, and thus, the story is not "sort of" true, it is true, despite being bastardized over time.

gEEk
  #49  
Old 06-02-2000, 05:20 PM
warinner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 133
gEEk wrote:

Quote:
Ok, so were Snopes, Bob Eubanks et al right or wrong when they said it never happened?
I think snopes has been trolled or it is an elaborate troll by snopes.

I am far from convinced that the clip is genuine.

- snopes gives absolutely no details on the provenance of the clip other than it is from 1977. Was it actually aired? Is it an outtake? Just who came up with this clip? Given the popularity of the Newlywed Game and the "butt, Bob" legend, one would think that this clip would have been a staple of blooper tapes for years.

- While urban legends have many variations, if the clip was actually aired, I'd expect someone somewhere to get the date and some details right. Problem is that people remember the "butt, Bob" story predating 1977 (though maybe their memory is faulty too).

- Why would Bob Eubanks deny it? Wasn't his job to elict embarassing admissions from the contestants? Why wouldn't he just say, 'Oh yeah, it happened in 1977, but she said "in the ass"'?

- I think the 'in the ass' punchline is very new, a feature of the recent email variations on the story. It seems odd that the staple 'That'd be the butt, Bob' punchline would circulate for years and again nobody would have remembered the original quote.

Maybe those pictures of Britney are real.

Andrew Warinner
  #50  
Old 06-02-2000, 06:14 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
I don't think there is much doubt that this is the basis for the UL, and thus, the story is not "sort of" true, it is true, despite being bastardized over time.
Suppose, then.

Suppose wayyyyy back in the mists of antiquity, a river flooded. It was a big flood, the kind that only happen once every couple decades.

Suppose that the river, in turn, dramatically raised the level of the lake into which it emptied. The kind of high water that only happens once in a century.

Suppose that many of the locals living near the banks of the river and lake were caught by surprise. Some died in the raging turbulence of the swollen river, many more lost their houses and farms and livestock and children.

Suppose that when the waters subsided, a few people returned to their former homes by the banks of the river and the shores of the lake.

Suppose . . .



Shall I then believe that the story of Noah is true?


"Based in truth" does not establish truth.

-andros-
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017