That website wouldn’t be a hack of snopes, would it?
Mjollnir That copy of For Him Magazine is the one that is referenced at the bottom of the snopes page. Apparently, that is their source.
Greetings, Father
No, but what a great idea! My I have it?
Or, for that matter, may I have it, Father?
Libertarian wrote:
I take it you’re not going to confess immediately to having reported false memories.
Neither have I any intention of twisting my penis around my neck and pissing in my ear. Is there some reason I should?
Hell, I don’t care if you have any intention of twisting your penis around your neck, I’m just rather surprised that that’s a valid option for you.
Sorry, Gaudere, he’s taken.
Libertarian wrote:
With your penis? As long as you’re peaceful and honest about it, it’s not my place to say.
But on the issue of false memory, there have been people on this thread who have pointed to similarities between this new `smoking gun’ and your own reports of the alleged incident in defense of you, and on the basis of this have accused DavidB and Snopes of squirming and not being able to admit they were wrong.
By denying that this new clip is the incident you saw, you avoid confounding your own previous statements, but instead you confounded your defenders, who out of a sense that you had been done an injustice, proceded to serve a like injustice against DavidB, for which no apologies have been forthcoming, and you vindicate the skeptics who can now point to this incident as a case-in-point of how little evidence it takes to convince reasonable people of an undefendable proposition.
Any reason you should confess to relating false memories? None at all. You have won the fickle crowd, and you now have more power in your concession than you ever had in your objections.
Point, and game. But the tournament isn’t over yet.
You mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Enjoy.
Lib mentioned this thread to me this evening, so of course I’ve read through it. It gave me the same kind of headache I experienced last time.
All I can think of is, i-t-’-s b-a-c-k!
The video ya’ll describe is not the episode that I recall viewing last fall. I might take a look at it, but nope, it was the husband who gave the answer while the wives were off stage. My thought was that “she’s gonna kill him” after the initial element of surprise left me when I watched it. Lib, I believe, saw the same episode years earlier.
David: You are absolutely right. Lib is taken.
Gaudere: He’s full of surprises. (smile)
Douglips: Thanks!
Johnny Angel
How delightfully Machiavellian! A tournament!
Yes, if I were to announce, “That’s it! That’s the one!”, my minions could begin a celebration of our victory over David’s minions. We might require that they sit in ashes while dressed in sackcloth. I could explain away the obvious variances between the video David found and my own recollection by declaring that they are trivial details. I could whip up a majority mob into a frenzy of political clout, and secure for myself not only a vindication, but a nice cold dish of revenge.
“It is not enough that I succeed; other men must fail.” — Genghis Khan
Gaudere
It’s just that I have a really long and supple neck.
oh dear god, i don’t know what to think now…
“in the ass” is not the one libertarian saw? this is a separate but equal “that’d be the butt” episode?
ok, sports fans, we now have not only a confirmed “in the ass” from 1977 (doctored video/conspiricy theory suspicions aside), but a reported “up the butt” in addition, this time said by the husband while the wife was offstage.
“in the ass” confirmation leads me to believe the host’s recollection of the facts are in question.
so… lib and edlyn… what time period to you recall this episode to be? (not when you saw it, you both claimed this was recently), but when it was originally taped?
I’d find it funny as hell to find out there were at least two separate up the butt episodes 
I need to go to bed now…
Zuma
When you wake up, go read Up The Butt, Bob. It might help you sound less drunk.
Damn, I hate it when a good conspiracy theory is shattered by the facts. In light of Lib’s statement that this is not the clip that he saw, I am now forced to agree with Snopes conclusion that the the story is “sort of” true.
While I still think dismissing Lib’s story as a “false memory” is a bit harsh, this does shoot a XXL sized hole in my theory of events. I guess this puts the whole thing back at square one.
Bummer.
gEEk
Libertarian wrote:
But at what cost? You would have to admit your memories had been imperfect, tearing down your own objections to skeptics who cry false memory. Wrong twice in one tragic stroke! No, you were wise to seize the moral high ground, and bide your time. You already know DavidB’s weakness – he seems to actually care for these puny humans. That will be his undoing.
Johnny Angel
Let me tell it to you straight.
I didn’t take any moral ground, high, low, or otherwise. I didn’t calculate anything, i.e., what effects my response might have, what cost it might be to me (or anyone else), how David might react, and so on. I didn’t consider whether I was being wise or foolish.
I simply answered David’s question, namely, that the video he found was not the footage I saw. I didn’t tell David that for any reason whatsoever other than to tell him the truth. I didn’t think of it as a war, a battle, a tournament, or anything else like that. And I don’t ever mind being proved wrong about anything.
Y’know, not everyone in the world is a Sanguine.
Sayeth gEEk:
Why? It just makes him as human as the rest of us. I would go so far as to say that we’ve all had false memories at one time or another. That’s just part of the human condition. When someone falls for an urban legend, it really doesn’t reflect negatively on them, but it points out some fascinating things in our species and society. That’s what makes studying them so much fun.
Libertarian wrote:
Relax, nobody thinks you do. That’s just a way of talking about it.
The issue is not whether you mind it, but whether you are gracious about it, and I have no reason to doubt you would be. Though, I’m afraid I suspect that anyone who thinks he doesn’t mind being proven wrong has never allowed himself to believe he was wrong to begin with.
However, that’s not what you’re talking about. You’re saying that you don’t have some kind of chess game in mind in this debate, you are just presenting what you believe to be the case, and I believe you. My contention is that there is always a chess game going on, though the players don’t always know they’re playing. But this is, as I said, just a way of speaking.
gEEk wrote:
Keep in mind that by no means is calling Libertarian’s testimony false memory tantamount to accusing him of lying, or of being stupid or crazy. Among the problems with false memory is that is an artifact of the brain’s normal cognitive facilities. Another problem is that false memories can be sufficiently vivid as to preclude a person from ever being convinced that they are false. The issue is not whether a person is stupid for having memories, but whether the person is mistaken for trusting in the vivacity of memories as a source of verification.
Johnny Angel
Your suspicions notwithstanding, how do you think I got from Marxist Existentialist Atheist to Libertarian Objectivist Christian?
Assuming you meant “veracity of memories”, I have conceded (repeatedly) that my memory might be false, pending the presentation of any reasonable evidence contrary to what I remember, which reasonable evidence I have (repeatedly) enumerated.
Arguments are not evidence. “False memories are of so-and-so nature” is not evidence. “Snopes says this is an urban legend” is not evidence. “I’m tired of Lib’s obstinacy” is not evidence.
“Bob Eubanks doesn’t remember it” is tenuous evidence that is countered by the evidence of my own memory. The presentation of Eubanks’ dirth of recall as a refutation of my memory is Neanderthal in its conception. As I had explained in some detail, there are any number of reasons why his own memory might be faulty; therefore, holding his memory up as a refutation of mine (and those who corroborate mine) is patently absurd.
I remember seeing the episode. (A few) people who say they never saw it claim post facto that neither did I. What reasons might motivate them to disparage my memory are legion: jealousy ("Damn! I wish I’d seen it!); existentialism (“Well, I never saw it. Therefore it never happened.”); influence of authority (“Snopes says it’s doubtful, so it must be a false memory.”); and malassociation, or post hoc ergo propter hoc (“I heard it first as an urban legend before I heard it from you.”) to name just a few.
You can speculate all you want about whether my memory is false. But that’s all you’re doing — speculating.
Libertarian wrote:
You lost a bet?
No, I mean vivacity, in the sense used by Hume, “Impressions and ideas resemble each other in all other respects but force and vivacity.” I would add “immediacy” to Hume’s differentiae, because what is at issue in the debate over false memory is whether relative degrees of force and vivacity of ideas are relevant to determining to what degree those ideas came from impressions. That is, does the fact that you can vividly remember it, so that you can describe it in detail, lend credence to your account as evidence?
You may have conceded the logical possibility of your memory being in error, but you have not conceded that the burden of proof lies with you in this case.
An argument is a set of two or more statements such that one of which is claimed to follow from the rest where are reguarded as providing evidence for the truth of that one.
But it is an argument based on evidence. I mean, next you’ll be saying evidence isn’t evidence.
You may find for your own part that it doesn’t make sense to weigh the testimony of Bob Eubanks over your own, or more broadly, against that of the many who report seeing the episode in question. I don’t expect to convince you otherwise. But I do want to say that the rest of us are well within reason to hold the former as a personalization fallacy, and the latter as an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I’ll stipulate that. You remember seeing the episode.
Bob Eubanks could argue ipso facto that if he didn’t see it, you didn’t see it either. But if anybody else made that claim, I wouldn’t put much weight on it.
Ad hominem.
As opposed to what? Going out and doing something about it? We’re presenting arguments, and responding to counter-arguments. What else do you want?