Libby, I think we should get back to the OP.
If you want to make 10 g’s I know an easier way.
Ken
David, you have a persistent quirk of always asserting that, if some has the audacity to agree with your personal rationale, they’re not ‘listing to reason’.
As someone else said in a different context, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
OOPS! Damn. That should, of course, have been “disagree” . . .
Crap. I really need to get my “boardfingers” back. That should have been “listening”.
{walks away, muttering darkly)
Lib said:
Almost everything I’ve posted so far, I’m afraid. You ignored the similarity with the Perkins story, claiming it wasn’t at all relevant. When I pointed out that you were wrong, you didn’t address it.
You claimed that my statement was akin to you saying my wife and I have never made love because you never saw it. I pointed out the flaws in that statement. You didn’t address them.
I pointed out the way the story acts like an urban legend. You didn’t address it.
I pointed out that your version is different from other versions. You didn’t address it.
I pointed out that if your fiance saw it recently, then a tape should be available. You didn’t address it.
I addressed the faulty nature of memory. You didn’t address it.
Phil noted that the evidence should be easily available, but is nowhere to be found. You have not addressed that.
You have not addressed why the urban legend site is wrong, other than to say you are certain you remember it.
You have not addressed the other variants of this legend.
You did address some of the other points, but did so in a fairly poor manner, I’m afraid – such as the censorship issue.
You did not address how it is that so many people can remember it so differently, yet you are certain that you are right.
Actually, I have, but as I’ve noted, you are not being objective about it. I strongly suspect that if somebody else posted something similar, you would be right here alongside me pointing out that the evidence is against them. That is normally what I would expect from you.
David:
Well, I don’t know. But a few minutes on a few search engines don’t turn up any references to it except one newsgroup and the Snopes page. Using “newlywed game butt” as search criteria, I get about 15,000 references to live ass fucking, and only those two to the “up the butt, Bob” thing. Isn’t it possible that skeptics have so insulated themselves from contact with other people that they have imagined a controversy where none exists?
Phaedrus:
Oh yeah? How?
Melin:
Good point about the ten grand. Maybe if it was a million, like that Randi guy?
Lib, here’s a link to help you in your search for the $10,000 thing:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/butt.bob/thatd_be_the_butt_bob.html
It is an e-mail that was posted in alt.folklore.urban. Unfortunately, they didn’t keep the posting date on it. But they did keep the e-mail address, so if it’s still valid, you can ask him about it. Or you can post about it in alt.folklore.urban. But I warn you, if anybody here thinks I’ve been too blunt or nasty about this, I am a pussycat compared to those folks. If you go in there and say that you are sure you remember it, they will rake you over the coals.
Lib wrote:
Surprise, surprise. Porn rules the net. Film at eleven! 
Seriously, though, where else did you expect to see it, but on pages dedicated to urban legends?
Um, I’m not sure what this means. Frankly, I don’t think skeptics think there is a controversy! But how have skeptics “so insulated themselves from contact with other people”? This sounds like the old Lib who made wrong assumptions about atheists…
Libby, it’s easy.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000521-2.html
Read my post at 4:04 am.
Can we get back to the OP now?
David:
Nonsense. I explained how you are comparing a singular detail (host or substitute) with an entire story line (question, answer, laughter). Perkins would be germane if no one ever actually cut their finger. No one is saying that Eubanks wasn’t there.
I concede you that criticism, but that criticism hasn’t anything to do with whether a man said “up the butt, Bob”.
I most certainly did address that. Look at the post from 10:16 AM.
Op cit.
What the heck do you think I’m searching the internet for?
The record contradicts that assertion. I acknowledged that I might have seen something along the lines of SNL, but I will not acknowledge that I am completely insane and experienced nothing like what I remember.
Melin explained why it might not be, and I haven’t started an earnest search for it. Yet.
Did you skip the OP altogether?
Why should I? Just because a bunch of paranoid skeptics have started making up variations of something real means nothing.
That’s your opinion, and I disagree.
You are straining gnats and swallowing camels, I’m afraid.
Come on you guys.
You don’t want me to bring the old Phaedrus back do you? 
LET’S GET BACK TO THE OP!!!
This thread started off good but we are sidetracking what could be a good discussion of hyperglycemicskepticism!
If I may venture to jump into the middle of this:
If you are on a jury, your job is to render a verdict based on the evidence presented to you. (As you noted.) Melin was, perhaps rather heatedly, suggesting that you brought to the evidence adduced by Lib a preconception that the event had not occurred, and evaluating Lib’s evidence on the basis of that, rather than the other way around. Certainly Lib and Edlyn’s testimony may be invalid, the product of faulty memory, etc. But not necessarily.
You have put yourself in the position of having to prove a negative, i.e., that an event with testimony extant never happened (and that therefore those who are testifying are mistaken in their recollections). To do this would require, as someone pointed out, that you assure yourself that every episode was taped, that the tape had not been edited to remove things that did in fact air, and then review the tape of every episode, to eliminate the possibility that it did in fact occur – a time-consuming but possible operation.
We are, I think, all aware of the possibilities for error extant in any “eyewitness” testimony. But a flat-out assertion that they eyewitness must be wrong, because the star and producers of the show cannot recall any such incident, combined with the fact that eyewitnesses have been wrong in the past, is failure to be properly skeptical. On those grounds, Nixon had nothing to do with Watergate, and Bill Clinton is a faithful husband, and nobody should have investigated further.
“Life is like a new suit of clothes. If it doesn’t fit, make alterations.”
–the old woman in Silverado
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.
So believe away. Call me and Bob Eubanks if you find the evidence to support your memory. I’m not going to wait by the phone.
Phaedrus:
Yes. Please. However, this has been a pretty good illustration of hyperskepticism in action, to wit, not only is evidence that disagrees with my own superior to mine, mine does not even exist. And there you go.
“That would be in the boat, Bob.”
“That would be in the tub, Bob.”
Any number of things similar to it could have been said.
I have misheard many things that–once I rewound and listened carefully, saw that something was pronounced “not perfectly” and at first hearing could have been construed to be something else.
That’s one of the benefits of watching only programs that you have taped. The better benefit is to not have to sit thru commercials.
Poly, you seem to be making the same mistake that Melin seemed to make. You seem to be assuming that I have never looked into this before. FYI, I have been interested in urban legends for many years. I have written at least one newsletter article and given at least one presentation on the subject. I used to participate a bit on alt.folklore.urban, and even have a couple of my posts in their archives (on glass as a solid). I even wrote a short blurb on the Newlywed Game urban legend for a recent issue of our newsletter. (Not available yet on the web)
In other words, this is not a case of me coming in here and saying, “Aha! Lib is wrong because I know I’m right!” This is a case of me having examined the evidence before – several times over – and knowing that there are people out there who are absolutely sure that they saw the episode. Lib is only one of them. The evidence says it didn’t happen. I’m sorry that Lib is so sure it did, but like I said above, it is now obvious to me that nothing I say or do will change his mind.
Lib said:
Where do you go? The only place to go, Lib, is into an objective stance. What is your evidence? Your memory, which is contradicted by the memories of many other people. That’s it. That is all you have. Yet we have all the things we’ve already discussed. This is not hyperskepticism – this is a simple objective, rational look at the evidence. And if it didn’t involve your own personal memories, I’d bet you’d be on our side. 
Libby, what do you think of inconsistent skepticism as a more accurate name for hyperskepticism?
David: The memory of many other people strikes me as argumentum ad populam and trying to prove a negative, IMHO.
Mjollnir:
Not bad. Now that is certainly possible despite that I have a better than average ear for phonemics.
Poly:
One of the things that David is ignoring is that I did not know this was an urban legend until 24 hours ago. I had not heard it from any other source. None. Not one. I told several people about it for a couple of weeks after it happened, and then pretty much filed it away in memory until I saw the outrageous claim made by Snopes.
David:
I really do like you though, and hope we can find some kind of common ground on something some day. I know you’re not being mean to me or anything. But you need to put this into perspective. You are asking me to deny my own recollection based on arguments about hypotheticals. Would you do that yourself? I hope not. What you offer isn’t evidence. It’s arguments.