Hey, everybody, I just got back from Saturn. Edlyn, thanks for the new info. Phil, thanks for all the great ideas. David, does your friend happen to remember the toll-free number for the video? If he does, I’ll order it.
Now, if I may make a comment on skepticism. I think it is an essential attribute, and is a very useful tool for a free moral agent. It is very useful for Christians especially in order to discern the false prophets we were warned about. But like anything else, it can be carried to ridiculous excess.
If I had a friend, even a cyber-friend like one of you, who told a story like this, and it was an urban legend that I, but not he, had heard before, then I, like you, would probably raise the point to him. Then if he said yes, but, I would probably say something to the effect of “are you sure”? But I would like to think that if he insisted enough, despite all my objections and attempts to reason with him, I would gladly concede the benefit of the doubt to him. Not that I necessarily expect that from y’all. I’m just saying that’s the way I am.
I don’t know Bob Eubanks. But I do know Gaudere (well, okay, I know her better than I know Bob Eubanks). If Gaudere said that she had seen this show, and I hadn’t, and she stuck it out despite all the flack, I would believe her. That’s what I think is a healthy kind of skepticism, one that bends when it is obvious that it is no longer appropriate.
I really do hope I can track this one down, though. Unlike the tooth, this has the potential for solid documentation as Phil has pointed out.
But in the spirit of this thread, let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose I were to order the tape David mentioned, and suppose it contained the airing in question, and suppose I were to report it back here. Would you believe me then, or would you want me to send it to the urban legend guy? But wait, that’s not all. If the urban legend guy then published a retraction on his web site … would you believe him?
And why?