Facts Here (was Re: Drains and Whirlpools)
the dark girl
>In article <5337....@amiga.actrix.gen.nz> twi...@amiga.actrix.gen.nz (Tony Wills) writes:
>>What is this, sci.skeptic? You guys aren't trying to introduce facts into
>>this group are you?
>
>I wish people would lose this silly notion that "facts" are somehow
>unwelcome here. Urban folklore is a fascinating field. I guarantee you
>that the people who work in this field want all the facts they can get.
i don't see that it would be that heinous a
misuse, either, to use this group as a place
to gather facts in order to either confirm
a legend's status as an UL or verify it as a
true account.
gypsy
--
gypsy@popeet!c3.com women and elephants never forget
Tom Neff
>I don't see that it would be that heinous a misuse, either, to use this
>group as a place to gather facts in order to either confirm a legend's
>status as an UL or verify it as a true account.
No indeed. But keep in mind that just because something "really
happened" doesn't mean it can't become an urban legend!
Many ULs become identified as such when observers start hearing all
sorts of variant versions of a superficially plausible story. At that
point it's clear that the tale has "legs" and is propagating under its
own steam. That doesn't mean that it wasn't originally true in some
form. But it becomes increasingly hard to find quite where it started.
A related pitfall is the "but it really happened to me" citation. An
example is the "wrong Kit Kat" story (see a.f.u articles _passim_).
Somebody along the way popped up and announced "wait a minute -- this
really happened to me!" Does that mean we screech to a halt and
disqualify it as an urban legend? No way! It's still told all over the
Western world in various guises, and THAT'S what makes it interesting.
The base text is certainly plausible; if it's really reenacted now and
then, so much the better -- we know a propagation vector for the story.
TJ Wood WA3VQJ
>Somebody along the way popped up and announced "wait a minute -- this
>really happened to me!" Does that mean we screech to a halt and
>disqualify it as an urban legend? No way! It's still told all over the
>Western world in various guises, and THAT'S what makes it interesting.
Remember JHB's tracing of the "Green Stamp and the Gynecologist" story?
He found that there was an underlying true story, but it wasn't as "good"
as the UL it spawned!
Terry J. Wood
--
INTERNET: t...@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw
UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw
And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you,
On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson
Tony Wills
> In article <5337....@amiga.actrix.gen.nz> twi...@amiga.actrix.gen.nz (Tony Wills) writes:
> >What is this, sci.skeptic? You guys aren't trying to introduce facts into
> >this group are you?
>
> I wish people would lose this silly notion that "facts" are somehow
> unwelcome here. Urban folklore is a fascinating field. I guarantee you
> that the people who work in this field want all the facts they can get.
Trouble is, you're treating this as soc.folklore.urban, and I'm treating it
as rec.folklore.urban. Did I forget to put a :-) at the end of that line?
> Things we say ABOUT folklore should be true to the extent that we can
> manage. That is distinct from the content of the lore itself, which one
> assumes is often "untrue." (The truth or falsity of the underlying text
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is not, in fact, of primary interest, since once a story passes beyond a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> certain number of hearers its continued transmission depends entirely on
> its narrative durability, regardless of factual basis.)
What I was commenting on of course was the production of information related
to the scientific proof/denial of said text, and here you too are saying
these facts are not of primary interest. So were you just taking that line
of mine out of context to make a general statement?
Personally I am actually greatly interested in the factual basis of these
urban legends (which most seem to have [I'll get abused for that statement
:-) ]), I am not particulary excited by the human fuzzy storage processes
which confuse things to the extent that the story is seen as having no
factual basis. (I might actually read sci.skeptic if it didn't tend to end
up in a shouting match every time [another generalisation ;-) ])
What I do find amusing is that so many skeptics refuse to believe any story
that is interesting enough to make it's way to urban legend status.
--
_
o(_) (c) Tony Wills 19** | WARNING : .sig construction site
/ /\ twi...@actrix.gen.nz | Hard hats musty, deformed at all times.
NZAmigaUG |
All the world should live in alt.folklore,
unfortunately some die in sci.skeptic -AJW 1991