Snopes debunked: Kato's heritage & Newlywed Blooper
MyShadow97
the operators of the website twice and the information was ignored or
pooh-pooed. It seems they are more interested in perpetuating legends than
finding out the truth about them.
For those interested, I am posting the information here.
Item #1: Kato's Heritage
What is posted on the Snopes site is a mixture of wrong or irrelevant
information and pointless speculation. The Green Hornet's assistant Kato was
indeed Japanese before World War II began:
LISTEN TO PROGRAM OPENING FROM 1938:
http://www.serialsquadron.com/radio/listen/GH-38-05-05-PoliticalRacket.wav
Then, during the war, any mention of his nationality was removed from the
program introductions until after the war was over, at which time he came to be
identified in program openings as Filipino.
LISTEN TO PROGRAM OPENING FROM 1945:
http://www.serialsquadron.com/radio/listen/GH-45-08-16-TheImpostor.wav
Most episodes of the program re-released in syndication to radio stations in
the 1960s and later were not pre-1939, and so didn't feature the Japanese Kato
that some people may have remembered, hence the confusion.
Item #2: The Legendary Newlywed Game Blooper
I do not have a recording of this one to post but the truth about it is as
follows:
The "Up the butt, Bob" clip did not appear on the show proper. The content
would necessarily have been censored out of the original taping.
It was broadcast on a non-pay cable TV channel in the fall of 1983 on one
episode of a series of two or three weekly Newlywed Game Bloopers programs,
which appeared on a non-pay cable TV channel (such as WTBS) at that time, which
I think was airing the Dick Clark/Ed McMahon Bloopers show then also. The
series of three or four one-hour programs was aired at about 8pm on Monday
evenings.
Many other often very funny bloopers were broadcast on the programs and they
were funny enough for me to mark their start times in my TV guide so I wouldn't
miss the next episode. In the show which aired the clip in question, a black
couple was asked by Bob Eubanks to "Name a place where you have never made
whoopee." The husband, noticeably somewhat embarrassed, but apparently desiring
to participate as sincerely as possible, gave his answer very
straightforwardly: "That would be up the butt, Bob," and the audience erupted
into convulsive laughter, for quite a bit of time. The husband, who looked to
be a fairly tough guy, with sharp features, short haircut and serious
expression, was noticeably unamused, if not strongly pissed off, as everyone
present including his wife was enjoying a pretty damn big laugh at his expense.
I remember seeing the clip very vividly because despite the man's apparent
displeasure, it WAS very funny, and "Up the butt, Bob," became a catch phrase
around our house for the next week or so -- a pretty funny rejoinder to
virtually any question: "Where should I put the Pepsi?" etc. I know when the
program was broadcast because it was during a time I was at home watching a lot
of TV while recovering from an illness, the only period when I had time to sit
around doing things like highlighting my choice of TV shows in our local
newspaper's TV guide.
I have little doubt that this clip, originally edited out of the broadcast
program, was shown WITHOUT the permission of the couple, who may not have even
known it existed, since it would not have been aired on the original broadcast,
and that the husband in the clip, who never laughed along with the rest or
showed any sign of thinking what he said was funny at all, voiced objections
(perhaps not so formally, either) to Mr. Eubanks about what he thought of being
made a laughing stock on national TV, and perhaps his workplace too, without
notice, and that this is the reason Mr. Eubanks offers a reward for any
evidence or recording of the clip. Why offer a reward if it doesn't exist? The
answer is, because it DOES exist, it DID happen, and the reward offer is quite
sincere and there in attempt to collect any existing home recordings made of
the show, which he would like to prevent from seeing the light of day again, so
he will not be sued, or worse, by the party he offended by showing the blooper
without any advance notice.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:I have little doubt that this clip, originally edited out of the broadcast
>-:program, was shown WITHOUT the permission of the couple, who may not have even
>-:known it existed, since it would not have been aired on the original broadcast,
>-:and that the husband in the clip, who never laughed along with the rest or
>-:showed any sign of thinking what he said was funny at all, voiced objections
>-:(perhaps not so formally, either) to Mr. Eubanks about what he thought of being
>-:made a laughing stock on national TV, and perhaps his workplace too, without
>-:notice, and that this is the reason Mr. Eubanks offers a reward for any
>-:evidence or recording of the clip. Why offer a reward if it doesn't exist? The
>-:answer is, because it DOES exist, it DID happen, and the reward offer is quite
>-:sincere and there in attempt to collect any existing home recordings made of
>-:the show, which he would like to prevent from seeing the light of day again, so
>-:he will not be sued, or worse, by the party he offended by showing the blooper
>-:without any advance notice.
Why offer a reward if the clip doesn't exist? For much the same
reason that OJ Simpson vowed to search for the real killer until he's
brought to justice. Apparently OJ is convinced that the real killer
is a professional golfer - he certainly spends a lot of time on the
course looking.
As for showing the clip without permission - contestants on such shows
sign a release before taping that pretty well protects the production
company from any repercussions such as your fantasy entails.
--
The time for action is past! NOW is the time for the senseless bickering
MyShadow97
was real enough, though, and the fact that the couple may have signed a release
does not mean they would have been specifically aware of the secondary use of
the blooper footage; in fact, it is more likely that they would have no
knowledge that the footage even existed since it would not have appeared in the
original broadcast, and reasonable to assume that they didn't see the Bloopers
broadcast at all, only reacted to surprise backlash and jokes from friends who
had seen it. As I said, the guy wasn't amused on camera. No reason to believe
he would have thought the situation any more funny off-camera.
If the clip didn't exist, Eubanks would simply say it didn't exist, and that's
all. There would be no reason to offer what appears to be a completely
legitimate and payable reward for homemade video copies of it.
All I can say is, if I ever got a phone call from that contestant in which he
told me he'd bust my head if I ever showed that clip again, I'd bury it as far
as possible and offer a reward for any outstanding home video copies of it too.
The true story of why the reward is offered may differ from my idea, but
whatever the story, Eubanks clearly does NOT want the clip to surface again,
and, for whatever reason, clearly would prefer those who saw it to completely
forget it was ever aired. Only he and the contestants know the real story.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:I readily admit my idea about the reward is completely speculative. The program
>-:was real enough, though, and the fact that the couple may have signed a release
>-:does not mean they would have been specifically aware of the secondary use of
>-:the blooper footage; in fact, it is more likely that they would have no
>-:knowledge that the footage even existed since it would not have appeared in the
>-:original broadcast, and reasonable to assume that they didn't see the Bloopers
>-:broadcast at all, only reacted to surprise backlash and jokes from friends who
>-:had seen it. As I said, the guy wasn't amused on camera. No reason to believe
>-:he would have thought the situation any more funny off-camera.
>-:
>-:If the clip didn't exist, Eubanks would simply say it didn't exist, and that's
>-:all. There would be no reason to offer what appears to be a completely
>-:legitimate and payable reward for homemade video copies of it.
>-:
>-:All I can say is, if I ever got a phone call from that contestant in which he
>-:told me he'd bust my head if I ever showed that clip again, I'd bury it as far
>-:as possible and offer a reward for any outstanding home video copies of it too.
>-:
>-:The true story of why the reward is offered may differ from my idea, but
>-:whatever the story, Eubanks clearly does NOT want the clip to surface again,
>-:and, for whatever reason, clearly would prefer those who saw it to completely
>-:forget it was ever aired. Only he and the contestants know the real story.
How much would Eubanks have to pay his publicist to keep his name on
your mind if the speculation about the clip went away?
Ulo Melton
wrote:
>Item #1: Kato's Heritage
>
>What is posted on the Snopes site is a mixture of wrong or irrelevant
>information and pointless speculation. The Green Hornet's assistant Kato was
>indeed Japanese before World War II began:
>
>LISTEN TO PROGRAM OPENING FROM 1938:
>http://www.serialsquadron.com/radio/listen/GH-38-05-05-PoliticalRacket.wav
>
>Then, during the war, any mention of his nationality was removed from the
>program introductions until after the war was over, at which time he came to be
>identified in program openings as Filipino.
>
>LISTEN TO PROGRAM OPENING FROM 1945:
>http://www.serialsquadron.com/radio/listen/GH-45-08-16-TheImpostor.wav
The claim snopes.com is dealing with is "The nationality of Kato, the
Green Hornet's valet, was abruptly changed from Japanese to Filipino
in radio broadcasts after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
1941."
The clips you've made available are from 1938 and 1945, a little too
far to either side of the Day That Will Live in Infamy. If you can
produce a couple from very shortly before and after that day, you'll
have a case.
>Item #2: The Legendary Newlywed Game Blooper
>
>I do not have a recording of this one to post but the truth about it is as
>follows:
I feel a duty to warn you that this approach will be as unsuccessful
here as it was at snopes.com.
>Why offer a reward if it doesn't exist?
It's a way of saying "put up or shut up."
--
Ulo Melton (melt...@sewergator.com)
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
Lots42
There was a 'TV Show Bloopers' in the past few months where they collected a
whole bunch of gameshow hosts from times past, none I'd be able to name without
help.
The clip was flogged throughout the show and only shown in it's entirety at the
very end.
I acknowledge that the above is no evidence whatsoever but maybe it could point
someone in the right direction.
--
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Theodore Roosevelt)
Merujo, Mostly Lurker
"Lots42" <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote in message
news:20021005091642...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> I thought the nonsense with the Newleywed Blooper was settled once and for
all.
> There was a 'TV Show Bloopers' in the past few months where they collected
a
> whole bunch of gameshow hosts from times past, none I'd be able to name
without
> help.
> The clip was flogged throughout the show and only shown in it's entirety
at the
> very end.
Precisely. Game Show Funniest Moments. It's been on twice in the past six
months. And, for the record, it wasn't the husband who says it, and it
wasn't "up the butt." The wife (lookin' pretty bad, in that 70's sort of
way) says, "In the ass." (Ass being mostly bleeped by ABC, but clearly
obvious.) I'm just surprised that no one has sent the Snopes folks a copy. I
can get one from one of the folks on alt.showbiz.gossip, I'd bet. (I posted
to a.s.g about the "in the ass" clip moments after I watched it. Didn't
think to post it here.)
Cheers,
Melissa Jordan, former denizen of a.f.u., just lookin' around and passing
through
Mitch Barrie
<merujoh...@comcast.net> wrote:
# And, for the record, it wasn't the husband who says it, and it
# wasn't "up the butt." The wife (lookin' pretty bad, in that 70's sort of
# way) says, "In the ass."
See, this is why no one will believe you people.
I admit y'all had me going for a while there, but when people who
claimed to have seen the clip can't even agree on what they saw,
it does tend to color your testimony.
Mitch
Lee Ayrton
>
> I remember seeing the clip very vividly because despite the man's
I am not disputing your claim, but you should be aware that there have
been several experiments designed to illustrate that vivid memories are
not at all as accurate as we imagine them to be. Practical examples can
be easily found in the fan-boy arguments about the wording of the opening
crawl and title in the original release of the movie ST*R W*RS. Personal
anecdotes are not generally considered indisputable proof in AFU.
> I have little doubt that this clip, originally edited out of the
> broadcast program, was shown WITHOUT the permission of the couple, who
> may not have even known it existed, since it would not have been aired
Consider: "Photo release."
Lee "These days they often include the phrase `throughout the universe
forever'" Ayrton
--
"It's the sort of thing that would have stuck in my mind, had I heard
it." Brett Buck on the power of oral tradition in AFU.
Jami JoAnne
On public tv there was a tv special on gameshows with people like Ben Stien and
at the very end they showed a Newly Wed's clip where a woman was asked where
the weirded place they made whoopee was and she said, "Oh that would have to be
up the ass" Course ass was bleeped.
~Jami JoAnne Russell~
http://roleplayer.iboardplus.com/index.cgi
http://www.geocities.com/merideth_the_red/fat.html
Jami JoAnne
>claimed to have seen the clip can't even agree on what they saw,
>it does tend to color your testimony
Well, Mitch, I saw the woman say "in the ass" too. And I have to say Snopes
does ignore corrections. On the subject of the former Days Of Our Lives star
who's rumored to have been a man - I keep pointing out she did not play twins -
she played triplets. Susan Banks, Sister Mary Moria, and their brother, Thomas.
Also they refuse to aknowledge that there was a Countess Elizabeth Blathory.
The real royalty who had about 600 virgin women killed so she could bath
in/drink their blood.
Ulo Melton
<merujoh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Precisely. Game Show Funniest Moments. It's been on twice in the past six
>months. And, for the record, it wasn't the husband who says it, and it
>wasn't "up the butt." The wife (lookin' pretty bad, in that 70's sort of
>way) says, "In the ass." (Ass being mostly bleeped by ABC, but clearly
>obvious.) I'm just surprised that no one has sent the Snopes folks a copy. I
>can get one from one of the folks on alt.showbiz.gossip, I'd bet. (I posted
>to a.s.g about the "in the ass" clip moments after I watched it. Didn't
>think to post it here.)
That clip has been at snopes.com for well over two years. It doesn't
match MyShadow97's vivid recollection very well.
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/newlywed.htm
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/video/newlywed.rm
Merujo, Mostly Lurker
news:7cttpu4gubbda3un7...@4ax.com...
> See, this is why no one will believe you people.
Who's this "you people" buddy?
> I admit y'all had me going for a while there, but when people who
> claimed to have seen the clip can't even agree on what they saw,
> it does tend to color your testimony.
Well, Mitch, color my testimony black and white and pretty straightforward:
http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/video/newlywed.rm
Thanks very much to the poster who offered up this link. As you can see,
Olga does look pretty bad in that 70's sort of way. Big hair, missing a
tooth, lovely. I think my testimony was spot on, thank you very much.
- M.R.J.
Chris Clarke
"Merujo, Mostly Lurker" <merujoh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Thanks very much to the poster who offered up this link. As you can see,
> Olga does look pretty bad in that 70's sort of way. Big hair, missing a
> tooth, lovely.
You will, of course, be providing us with a photo so that we might judge
whether you're qualified to make statements like that.
Chris "your post makes you seem rather ugly in a 1980s sort of way"
Clarke
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Lon Stowell
MyShadow97 <mysha...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
>If the clip didn't exist, Eubanks would simply say it didn't exist, and that's
>all. There would be no reason to offer what appears to be a completely
>legitimate and payable reward for homemade video copies of it.
Hmm, perhaps you were out of the country when the clip was aired
on a prime time TV special just this summer. It was even featured
in teasers for what was a rather pedestrian blooper show, clip and
all.
>The true story of why the reward is offered may differ from my idea, but
>whatever the story, Eubanks clearly does NOT want the clip to surface again,
>and, for whatever reason, clearly would prefer those who saw it to completely
>forget it was ever aired. Only he and the contestants know the real story.
Given that it WAS aired recently and you've offered no cites
for your position, would guess the only way you'll be featured
on the website would be in the 'handwaving loonie' section.
You got the quote wrong, but Mr. E. was there for the replay.
--
[Please add your own clever saying here]
Lon Stowell
It could be total lack of interest in that blooper special, but
willing to bet there ARE taped copies out there that could yield
the clip in the event someone is still disputing its existence.
It was presented at the end of a very boring show with Mr. E
and Stone Phillips was nowhere on the show....
And no, I frankly didn't care enough to write down the quote or
tape the show...other than the morbid curiosity to see whether
or not the clip existed. [and totally missed any discussion of
whether it was originally aired or not....there was a fascinating
curry recipe on the Food Network and I hate curry. ]
Viv
uttered:
[snip]
> And I have to say Snopes does ignore corrections. [snip]
>Also they refuse to aknowledge that there was a Countess Elizabeth Blathory.
>The real royalty who had about 600 virgin women killed so she could bath
>in/drink their blood.
Methinks her name was Bathory. And while it appears probable that she was a
monstrous serial killer, the drinking/bathing in blood story appears to be
pure fiction. So if you are putting her forward as a vampire, you are buying
a myth. <http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial8/bathory/>
Aristocrats aren't necessarily royalty, by the way. Even if they have royal
ancestors. The British standard is that if one's grandparent was monarch
one is entitled to be called "Prince" or "Princess". One generation further
and royal status is lost. Other monarchical countries have similiar
conventions.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
The AFCA Kid
>Also they refuse to aknowledge that there was a Countess Elizabeth Blathory.
>The real royalty who had about 600 virgin women killed so she could bath
Well, or she's not really urban legend material in the way "Gang Initiation
Night" is. I notice Gilles DeRais doesn't make an appearance, either.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
MyShadow97
was changed overnight. I don't think it was. In fact it appears it took about 5
years. What I object to is the fact that on the Snopes page it gives the
impression he was never Japanese at all. The radio "expert" is wrong, as are
many old time radio writers who look at the old programs with rose-colored
glasses. I went through 100 Green Hornet programs from various years to find
out the truth of the situation. And it is this: Kato from the program's
inception to just before the war is "Japanese valet Kato" (sound clip 1 from
1938) During the war years (and I checked many programs from 1939 to 44) his
nationality is simply not mentioned; he's simply "faithful valet Kato." In 1945
(sound clip 2), and from then on, he's "trusted Filipino valet Kato," and that
is that. There's not a question of whether he was Japanese, he absolutely was.
In a 1990s comic book series the authors cleverly incorporated the rewriting of
history into the Green Hornet legend by saying Britt Reid lied about his
friend's heritage to save him a trip to the interment camp.
Regarding the Newlywed thing, if a clip is now being shown with a woman saying
"in the ass" in response to a similar question, it's not the same clip I saw,
it's a replacement. What I saw was a clip broadcast in fall 1983 on a "Newlywed
Game Bloopers" special, on cable, which aired on a Monday evening, in which
after the question was asked, "Name a place you have never made whoopee," the
husband, a slim, athletic-looking black man with short haircut dressed in a
suit, said, as politely as he could, and with a completely straight face,
"Well, that would be up the butt, Bob," then the wife lifted a sign that said
"in the kitchen" and everyone laughed at him, which seemed to make him angry.
It doesn't matter that a release was signed by the contestants, it is perfectly
possible for the guy to have gotten angry if he found out that the clip was
shown perhaps years after it was shot, without his having received any sort of
notice, and the result for him was plenty of grief in his life from people
constantly walking up to him and saying "up the butt, Bob."
A "replacement" clip featuring the same type of response said by another person
certainly wouldn't have offended the person in the clip I saw; that's probably
why it's being used. Same joke, no repercussions.
MyShadow97
something that may not even be true over time can be as real as a true memory
to someone after a while.
The thing is, with the "up the butt" blooper, those of us who saw it "fixed"
the memory AT THE TIME, not years afterward. We who had seen the Newlywed Game
Bloopers show repeated the phrase as a joke for weeks after the show aired and
the guy said it, and it was never anything but "well, that'd be up the butt,
Bob," spoken in a low voice, as the original contestant had said it -- and all
of this happened long before there was ever any controversy or doubt that the
event took place; at least 17 years before I ever even knew the thing had
received "urban legend" status. I know the date is correct because I know
exactly when I was released from the hospital in 1983, and sitting around
watching too much TV while recovering.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:
>-:Regarding the Newlywed thing, if a clip is now being shown with a woman saying
>-:"in the ass" in response to a similar question, it's not the same clip I saw,
>-:it's a replacement. What I saw was a clip broadcast in fall 1983 on a "Newlywed
>-:Game Bloopers" special, on cable, which aired on a Monday evening, in which
>-:after the question was asked, "Name a place you have never made whoopee," the
>-:husband, a slim, athletic-looking black man with short haircut dressed in a
>-:suit, said, as politely as he could, and with a completely straight face,
>-:"Well, that would be up the butt, Bob," then the wife lifted a sign that said
>-:"in the kitchen" and everyone laughed at him, which seemed to make him angry.
>-:
>-:It doesn't matter that a release was signed by the contestants, it is perfectly
>-:possible for the guy to have gotten angry if he found out that the clip was
>-:shown perhaps years after it was shot, without his having received any sort of
>-:notice, and the result for him was plenty of grief in his life from people
>-:constantly walking up to him and saying "up the butt, Bob."
>-:
>-:A "replacement" clip featuring the same type of response said by another person
>-:certainly wouldn't have offended the person in the clip I saw; that's probably
>-:why it's being used. Same joke, no repercussions.
Great - now perhaps you could explain the "magic bullet" in the
K*nn*dy *ss*s*n*t**n. - I'm sure the world could benefit from your
particular blend of logic and history.
Ulo Melton
wrote:
>I'm aware of the limitations of memory and that repeated reinforcement of
>something that may not even be true over time can be as real as a true memory
>to someone after a while.
To anybody but you, right?
>The thing is, with the "up the butt" blooper, those of us who saw it "fixed"
>the memory AT THE TIME, not years afterward.
Or so it seemed, years afterward.
>We who had seen the Newlywed Game
>Bloopers show
Well, move that damn cat, so the rest of us can see it.
MyShadow97
you might also engage in polite discussion about the conjectural if you wish.
And regarding other historical mysteries, I have found they can be better
solved by developing questions worth asking rather than trying to answer
existing questions. Lizzie Borden was cleared of double murder in 1892 because
certain questions simply weren't asked of her, and others asked in he inquest
were disallowed in the final trial. The selectivity of questioning produced the
desired result: a not guilty verdict.
All this goes to show you can pretty much set up any sort of answer you want
depending on how you phrase a question.
The Kato question at the Snopes site is poorly phrased, and posted to
deliberately elicit a "false" response where it doesn't belong. Was Kato's
nationality changed? Absolutely. Did it happen during WW2? Yes. Did it happen
as a result of the Japanese conflict in the Pacific? Yes. Did it specifically
change on Dec. 8, 1941? Probably not. But all those positives add up to more
than a dead "false," and looking at the evidence eliminates the "doubt" they
want to perpetuate. But, clearly, the Snopes people are satisfied with their
original question and unwilling to ask others, so the page remains as is year
after year, despite any new information that might become available. Cause
that's how they want things to be.
MyShadow97
and I experienced a mass hallucination and mutual identical memory warping
rather than that we viewed a Newlywed Game Blooper Show once and all remember a
funny moment from it the same way.
I didn't videotape the program at the time and can't produce one from my head;
the thing to do to follow up on this would be to find someone who did videotape
it. TV guides from Sept. and/or Oct. 1983 would also confirm the programs
existed.
Jami JoAnne
>Night" is. I notice Gilles DeRais doesn't make an appearance, either.
Well, the thing is they were talking about an English (queen? Some sort of
British royalty) who was rumored to have done what Blathory REALLY did.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>-:It will take more than smart remarks to convince me that my brother and friends
>-:and I experienced a mass hallucination and mutual identical memory warping
>-:rather than that we viewed a Newlywed Game Blooper Show once and all remember a
>-:funny moment from it the same way.
>-:
>-:I didn't videotape the program at the time and can't produce one from my head;
>-:the thing to do to follow up on this would be to find someone who did videotape
>-:it. TV guides from Sept. and/or Oct. 1983 would also confirm the programs
>-:existed.
Is this an AOL technique, not bothering to quote the people who
disagree with you, or is it something you figured out all by yourself?
Who knows what your brother and friends might have experienced? It is
YOUR memories that seem to be at odds with what everyone else recalls,
and provided documentation for.
Ulo Melton
wrote:
>I didn't videotape the program at the time and can't produce one from my head;
>the thing to do to follow up on this would be to find someone who did videotape
>it. TV guides from Sept. and/or Oct. 1983 would also confirm the programs
>existed.
You'll be getting right on that, then?
MyShadow97
purposes; if he continued to save them in the 80s I might be able to check them
next time I visit them.
Chris Clarke
mysha...@aol.comnospam (MyShadow97) wrote:
> It will take more than smart remarks to convince me that my brother
> and friends and I experienced a mass hallucination and mutual
> identical memory warping rather than that we viewed a Newlywed Game
> Blooper Show once and all remember a funny moment from it the same
> way.
You seem to misunderstand what's going on here.
There may be one or two people in AFU who care whether you believe what
you're telling us. I suspect far more of us could not care less.
We didn't seek you out to attempt to persuade you that you're wrong.
You're the one making the claim. The burden is on you to persuade us.
And we WANT to believe you. Nothing would make us happier than for your
brother or one of your friends to provide us with a video copy of the
moment in question. You'd be a frigging hero around here if you could
provide such evidence.
What you've provided instead is the argument that we should believe you
because you're somehow, magically yet imperceptibly, different from
every other clown that's walked through here with extraordinary claims
backed up with a "because I said so."
Bring us some concrete evidence. Concrete evidence is not your saying
"because I said so". It's a copy of the video, a notarized transcript on
Newlywed Game stationery, a court record from the sekret defamation
lawsuit "up the butt v. Eubanks", the carbon-dated skeletal remains of
the gerbiloid life form the aliens implanted in you that same weekend, a
poorly-copied audio recording of your fillings playing classified
instructions to the Canadian Invasion Forces, or something similar.
Ulo Melton
wrote:
>And we WANT to believe you. Nothing would make us happier than for your
>brother or one of your friends to provide us with a video copy of the
>moment in question. You'd be a frigging hero around here if you could
>provide such evidence.
Which reminds me, we really need to establish an AFU Bunkers' Fund as
an incentive to all those who harbor sekrit information proving a UL
is true. I, for instance, will pay two-fifty to anybody who can
provide proof of a gerbilectomy. Others might offer a prize for a pane
of irregular glass, accompanied by Ye Olde Notaryzed Documente
certifying it flat at its manufacture in the seventeenth century, or
for an emergency room report detailing the seven varieties of semen.
Prizes for dead cats are best not offered.
MyShadow97
he's called Japanese, I'll post them too. And I'll look for the TV guides, but
they can't prove anything beyond the fact that the shows existed.
So is it produce conclusive evidence or don't bother to discuss a topic in
here, or what? That's not very adventurous.
Chris Clarke
mysha...@aol.comnospam (MyShadow97) wrote:
> So is it produce conclusive evidence or don't bother to discuss a topic in
> here, or what? That's not very adventurous.
Oh, you can discuss them all you want: it's what AFU is here for. Just
don't claim you know an urban legend is 100% really really true and the
FAQ is wrong unless 1) you can back it up, or 2) you enjoy being made
sport of by disorganized gangs of bored cynics.
Dan Norder
>of British royalty) who was rumored to have done what Blathory REALLY did.
>~Jami JoAnne Russell~
As has already been said, the name is Bathory, and most modern sources agree
that she probably did not drink or bathe in the blood of her victims.
--
Dan Norder
Great Halloween masks at www.maskstore.com
The AFCA Kid
>Well, the thing is they were talking about an English (queen? Some sort of
>British royalty) who was rumored to have done what Blathory REALLY did.
Could you be more specific? A cursory examination of the "horrors" and
"history" section didn't reveal anything like you describe.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>Methinks her name was Bathory. And while it appears probable that she was a
>monstrous serial killer, the drinking/bathing in blood story appears to be
>pure fiction.
Actually, how strong is the evidence she even just had anyone murdered? There
apparently was some land-grab motivation in her indictment and the
prosecution's case is based on coerced testimony from alleged associates, isn't
it? Is there anything here, or similarly with De Rais, that would hold up in an
modern, Western court?
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Jami JoAnne
>"history" section didn't reveal anything like you describe.
I'm thinking it's Bloody Mary but I'm not going to search thru them all right
now.
Jami JoAnne
>that she probably did not drink or bathe in the blood of her victims.
Yeah, right. And I'm a super model. I don't agree with most modern sources
anymore since they wish to do things like claim the Jews weren't slaves to the
Eygptians.
TMOliver
>>As has already been said, the name is Bathory, and most
>>modern sources agree that she probably did not drink or
>>bathe in the blood of her victims.
>
> Yeah, right. And I'm a super model. I don't agree with most
> modern sources anymore since they wish to do things like
> claim the Jews weren't slaves to the Eygptians.
Were the BoR not in effect, I'm sure that's one of those claims
which depends upon which set and sort of evidence you accept and
is subject to about 17 versions of revisionism. The status of
an ethnic group which didn't practice Judaism and (according to
their chroniclers, somewhat removed in time and less than
objective in perspective)claimed to have left Egypt with
spectacular assisatnce is certainly "legend" is not ul.
The Hungarian Countess Bathory, like a her near neighbor over
the Carpathians, Vlad Dracul/"The Impaler", was likely to have
been a lady unpopular by modern standards and probably crueler
than either Leona Helmsley and a greater money-grubber than
Martha Stewart, but a lot of the gossip written about her was of
the tabloid sort, put about by contemporaies and later observers
who had a vested interest in her
downfall/defamation/denigration.
Out of the list of English queens of whom we know much, "bathing
in blood" doesn't even make the first page of gossip. Ass's
milk, maybe, but milking asses probably required Avar
stableboys/milkmaids, hard to find at local livestock auctions.
Look at lady Macbeth, by most Historical (v. hysterical)
accounts a Queen in Scotland, not of Scots, or maybe just the
spouse of a guy who was a king. After the chop job that tabloid
dramatist did on her, nobody wants to shake hands anymore and
she gets dissed on the world's stages.
TM "Don't even believe what you see, JJ!" Oliver
TMOliver
>>Could you be more specific? A cursory examination of the
>>"horrors" and "history" section didn't reveal anything like
>>you describe.
>
> I'm thinking it's Bloody Mary but I'm not going to search
> thru them all right now.
The poor lady. Unattractive, apparently subject to the same
trend toward obesity that troubled her old Dad. married to a
traveling RC for whom a light lunch and a few paragraphs from
his Missal meant more than a quick bit of sheet-wrinkling in a
Nooner with his new bride. Unable to conceive, and by all
acounts frustrated. Dysfunctional family, with somewhat tenuous
sibling relationships.
The "Bloody" in her name was an absolute fabrication pinned on
her by (BoR invoked). No bloodier than her contemporaries,
although she hosted but apparently did not attend a handful of
public barbecues encouraging orthodoxy and traditionalism among
local worshippers.
TM "all the fault of her ornery little sister" Oliver
Mitch Barrie
<bob....@verizon.net> wrote:
# Great - now perhaps you could explain the "magic bullet" in the
# K*nn*dy *ss*s*n*t**n. - I'm sure the world could benefit from your
# particular blend of logic and history.
Nothing this guy has said has warranted being an asshole to him.
Mitch
Mitch Barrie
(MyShadow97) wrote:
# Well, the sound files are posted for Kato. If I find any later ones in which
# he's called Japanese, I'll post them too. And I'll look for the TV guides, but
# they can't prove anything beyond the fact that the shows existed.
You really should, since you are attempting to correct the snopes
site, which says, "he was 'described as a Filipino of Japanese
descent at least two years earlier' than the events of 7 December
1941. The 'Japanese descent' part of his character may have been
downplayed thereafter, but he had indeed been identified as a
Filipino well before 1941."
I agree that you have shed new and interesting light on this, and
that it would be reasonable for the Snopeses to update their
article a little, but nothing they say explicitly contradicts
what you are saying.
Mitch
Lee Rudolph
>Which reminds me, we really need to establish an AFU Bunkers' Fund as
>an incentive to all those who harbor sekrit information proving a UL
>is true. I, for instance, will pay two-fifty to anybody who can
>provide proof of a gerbilectomy.
Here's a possible lead (not that I hold out much hope).
According to "Foreign bodies in the gastrointestinal tract", by
Stack LB - Emerg Med Clin North Am - 01-Aug-1996; 14(3): 493-521
An unusual object rarely seen is the insertion of a rodent,
typically a gerbil, which has been anesthetized (Fig. 10)...
"Figure 10" (which I have not seen, having only electronic access
to the text of this journal) is captioned "A gerbil in the rectum
as a result of autoeroticism. (Courtesy of Alfred S. Gervin, MD.)"
Perhaps a would-be bunker bolder and brasher than I might undertake
the teleinterrogation of Drs. Stack and/or Gervin; mere recovery
of the x-ray photo is, of course, valueless (see Dr. York's many
worthy comments in the archives, for example,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4vo3l4%24mm7%40panix.com>).
Lee "the `anesthetized' is, to me, a k00l nudie tail" Rudolph
MyShadow97
from Japanese to Filipino after the attack on Pearl Harbor." and give it a
yellow circle which means "undetermined or ambiguous veracity." It should be a
green dot instead, because the word "Japanese" was eliminated from the program
sometime after 1938 and the explicit nationality change to Filipino took place
in 1945. The statement as phrased there is true, not ambiguous.
Their "Claim" on the next page is overspecifically phrased: "The nationality of
Kato, the Green Hornet's valet, was abruptly changed from Japanese to Filipino
in radio broadcasts after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941," and is
false because of the phrasing, but it's a qualified false. The nationality WAS
changed, just not abruptly. References to Japanese descent were first
elimnated, then the change to Filipino was made after the war was over.
There's no existing recorded evidence that Kato was ever described as "Filipino
of Japanese descent," or that Kato was ever been "indeed identified as Filipino
well before 1941." The shows I have from 1939 and 1940 simply call Kato
"faithful valet Kato." The mixed-heritage idea is story-making by the "expert"
they quote.
A note here on old-time radio "experts" in general -- many, many of them are
thoroughly unable to look at their subject manner in any way close to
objectively. Perhaps this is because many of the programs looked back upon with
the greatest amount of nostalgia were the war-years programs, which were pumped
up in memory afterward as bright moments during dark times. For many years no
recordings were available of these high-nostalgia-value programs and as a
result many books on old time radio, especially those written "affectionately"
are terribly unreliable as they contain more reverie than fact, and plenty more
inaccuracies than the Kato thing. For example, ask most old time radio authors
about how the Lone Ranger and Tonto met and they will tell you about an ambush
in a canyon in which all the Texas Rangers but one is killed, and the Indian
who helped nurse the one survivor back to health. This origin story first
appeared not on the radio but in the 1938 Lone Ranger movie serial, and was
afterward incorporated into the radio show. Originally, the Lone Ranger had no
explicit origin and met Tonto when he helped him escape from a collapsing mine.
Another author insists that the sound effect of a man being turned inside out
in the notorious "The Dark" episode of the program Lights Out was created using
spaghetti. If you listen to the show, you will hear someone's hand being moved
across a rubber balloon. In fact, it seems as if for a period in the 1960s it
was almost fashionable to fabricate legendary stories about radio shows of the
good-old-days and the more tall the tale and rosy the glasses the better. These
authors thought the shows would never be heard again, so they could make up any
sort of fantasy they wanted to. This has changed with the new technology
available which has allowed people to share recordings of the shows in greater
quantity. In short, it is highly recommended for anyone researching radio drama
to skip the books by the "experts" and listen to the programs themselves.
Vicki Robinson
> An unusual object rarely seen is the insertion of a rodent,
> typically a gerbil, which has been anesthetized (Fig. 10)...
>
>Lee "the `anesthetized' is, to me, a k00l nudie tail" Rudolph
>
Yabbut, if the gerbil is inserted for erotic purposes, how much fun is it if
it's been anesthetized? Might as well use a potato.
Vicki "Not that I'd know, or anything. I'm just saying." Robinson
--
Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Resources:
http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/mediation/mediation.html
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/
Lee Rudolph
>it's been anesthetized?
Shows what happens when I cut quotations to save space. "Upon awakening,
the movement of the gerbil within the rectum provides unique rectal
stimulation" (Stack, _op. cit._).
>Might as well use a potato.
>
>Vicki "Not that I'd know, or anything. I'm just saying." Robinson
Lee "you want fries with that?" Rudolph
John David Galt
> Were the BoR not in effect, I'm sure that's one of those claims
> which depends upon which set and sort of evidence you accept and
> is subject to about 17 versions of revisionism. The status of
> an ethnic group which didn't practice Judaism and (according to
> their chroniclers, somewhat removed in time and less than
> objective in perspective)claimed to have left Egypt with
> spectacular assisatnce is certainly "legend" is not ul.
The "supernatural assistance" has mostly been explained. (Which, like
the theory of evolution, neither confirms nor denies the notion that it
was orchestrated by God, but at least it no longer requires his help.)
The Jewish Exodus took place in about 1500 BC. Right around that same
time, the largest volcanic event ever recorded took place -- the explosion
of a Greek island named Thera. This explosion, 10 times the size of
Krakatoa (or about 50,000 megatons), wiped out the Minoan civilization and
was the inspiration for Plato to write the fable of Atlantis almost 1,000
years later.
Now consider the "supernatural assistance" that the Exodus received, as
depicted in "The Ten Commandments." (Moses predicts these events, but
that could just mean he knew someone aboard a ship and so got the news
before everyone else.)
First, the light of day "goes out" for a few minutes. The movie makes
this look like an eclipse, but a cloud of smoke from a volcano is a
reasonable explanation. Thera is about 300 miles due north of the
Egyptian coast.
Then, there is a rain of burning matter from the sky. Ash and debris
from the burning of the Minoan cities.
Third, God kills everyone else's firstborn sons at night, while sparing
families that smear blood on their doorposts. This one can't quite be
literally true, but it doesn't take that much imagination to realize
that the sea breeze blowing in from the smashed cities is full of stuff
you really don't want to inhale.
And finally, the parting of the Red Sea. Ever hear of seismic tidal
waves?
I rest my case.
Daniel Ucko
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>TMOliver wrote:
>> Were the BoR not in effect, I'm sure that's one of those claims
>> which depends upon which set and sort of evidence you accept and
>> is subject to about 17 versions of revisionism. The status of
>> an ethnic group which didn't practice Judaism and (according to
>> their chroniclers, somewhat removed in time and less than
>> objective in perspective)claimed to have left Egypt with
>> spectacular assisatnce is certainly "legend" is not ul.
>
>The "supernatural assistance" has mostly been explained. (Which, like
>the theory of evolution, neither confirms nor denies the notion that it
>was orchestrated by God, but at least it no longer requires his help.)
>
>The Jewish Exodus took place in about 1500 BC. Right around that same
>time, the largest volcanic event ever recorded took place -- the explosion
>of a Greek island named Thera. This explosion, 10 times the size of
>Krakatoa (or about 50,000 megatons), wiped out the Minoan civilization and
>was the inspiration for Plato to write the fable of Atlantis almost 1,000
>years later.
[etc.]
Christopher Brookmyre's "Not The End Of The World" is an enjoyable
book, but it is fiction. I'm sure it's based on some interesting
thought on the matter of relgion and miracles, but neither of these
subjects are appropriate for AFU. Please take this post to
alt.bible.errancy or somewhere other, more appropriate group.
Regards,
Daniel 'Thera-bly BoRing' Ucko
--
'I myself have always disliked being called a "genius." It is
fascinating how quick people have been to intuit this aversion and
avoid using the term.'
- The Debt to Pleasure, John Lanchester
Lee Ayrton
> I didn't videotape the program at the time and can't produce one from my
> head; the thing to do to follow up on this would be to find someone who
> did videotape it. TV guides from Sept. and/or Oct. 1983 would also
> confirm the programs existed.
No need to consult musty stacks of TV Guide. Digesting "The Complete
Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows":
NEWLYWED GAME, THE
First telecast January 7, 1967
Last telecast August 30, 1971
Broadcast History:
Jan 1967-Jan 1971 ABC Sat 8:00-8:30
Jan 1971-Aug 1971 ABC Mon 8:00-8:30
There was a daytime version on ABC from July 1966-Dec 1974, and a
syndicated version from 1977 to 1980, all hosted by Bob Eubanks.
There is no disputing that a clip of something similar to the UL has aired
within the past few years. However, the clip doesn't match the the UL
exactly (NB: mutation is a requirement for ULhood) and there is no known
documentation to show that the clip actually aired in either the original
network or syndication versions of the show. This opens the question of
just how the UL and the clip are related.
The clip exists, the UL exists. What, exactly, is your point?
--
"It's the sort of thing that would have stuck in my mind, had I heard
it." Brett Buck on the power of oral tradition in AFU.
Lee Ayrton
>
> It doesn't matter that a release was signed by the contestants, it is
> perfectly possible for the guy to have gotten angry if he found out that
> the clip was shown perhaps years after it was shot, without his having
> received any sort of notice, and the result for him was plenty of grief
> in his life from people constantly walking up to him and saying "up the
> butt, Bob."
Dear [X] Applicant [ ] Appellant [ ] Apparition:
AFU Motto Contest entries must not be topic-specific, to be considered
they should be applicable across a wide range of subjects. They should
also be brief, generally no longer than 75 characters. For example, you
might condense the above to "It doesn't matter, it is perfectly possible"
-- althought it should be noted that this last is better suited as a Sig
Contest entry. Please re-write your AFU Motto Contest entry and submit it
during the application period during September, along with the traditional
two-fifty fee and return postage.
If you wish, you may append "...and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an
idiot" to your long-form entry quoted above and submit it when the JamiJo
Impression Contest re-opens.
Best of luck in your pursuits,
Lee Ayrton, Newbie 2/c
Rubber Stamping Cubicle 23B
AFU Mail Room
Alan Barclay
Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Yabbut, if the gerbil is inserted for erotic purposes, how much fun is it if
>>it's been anesthetized?
>
>Shows what happens when I cut quotations to save space. "Upon awakening,
>the movement of the gerbil within the rectum provides unique rectal
>stimulation" (Stack, _op. cit._).
Where 'unique' is short for 'extremely painful'?
John Francis
I don't know - he seems to display a level of sheer bloodymindedness
wilfull ignorance, and self-importance rivalling your nearest AFU neighbour.
The AFCA Kid
>>As has already been said, the name is Bathory, and most modern sources agree
>>that she probably did not drink or bathe in the blood of her victims.
>
>Yeah, right. And I'm a super model.
Like Tori Spelling?
> I don't agree with most modern sources
>anymore since they wish to do things like claim the Jews weren't slaves to
>the
>Eygptians.
Well, you'd have to look at the, you know, evidentiary basis. But if there is
some new discovery, or sound footing for revisionism, I see no good reason to
cling to something because it's a good story.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
MyShadow97
An urban legend grew from a clip broadcast in 1983 not on the daytime Newlywed
Game (it couldn't have been, the key phrase would have been censored) which
apparently caused some sort of problem which resulted in Bob Eubanks denying
the clip's existence yet at the same time offering a reward for any taped
copies of the clip in question.
The clip that apparently caused the stir was neither of the clips with similar
content that are described at Snopes.com, which both apparently feature a
woman. The clip that started the UL was originally broadcast in one of a series
of special programs entitled "Newlywed Game Bloopers" on a non-pay cable
channel. In the scene, a man was asked to name a place where the couple hadn't
made whoopee, and his answer was a straightforward "that would be up the butt,
Bob." He was clearly not amused at all by the wild laughter that came in
response to his comment, as his wife lifted a sign that said "in the kitchen."
I don't know why Bob Eubanks would have decided to deny the clip ever existed.
I have offered the possibility that since it was first shown probably years
after it was taped, its airing as a blooper, not as part of the original
program, may have been a surprise to the couple involved, possibly an
unpleasant one, and that a strong complaint or threat of a lawsuit from the
contestant who may not have been happy about the clip being aired may have been
the reason for Eubanks' offer of a reward. I have no proof of any of these
things, I just remember the guy's expression as the audience laughed at him; he
looked something between appalled and furious. I've suggested that the man's
displeasure may be the reason Bob Eubanks might have wanted to take action to
eradicate the clip from public memory.
Apparently at least one other clip featuring a woman giving a similar answer to
the same question has been now shown on new game show blooper programs. If the
original clip did cause some sort of problem, it's reasonable to assume that
showing the new clip or clips featuring a woman may be Eubanks' way of trying
to bury the issue using misdirection.
Consider: the clip featuring the woman can't possibly be the legend-creating
clip; if an "up the butt" clip never existed, how could one be shown now?
The answer to this question must be that the clip featuring the woman
necessarily must not be the clip the existence of which was denied. The clip
featuing the woman CAN'T be the one that caused the urban legend to evolve,
because it DOES exist!
Something else must have caused the original confusion, and I did see that
something. It was a guy saying "well, that would be up the butt, Bob," in
response to the question, not a woman saying "up the ass," and then getting
pissed off at the audience hysteria after his response. The clip was funny, but
at someone's expense. Someone who no doubt signed a release, but, it seems to
me, someone whose feelings were hurt or ire was raised because the clip was
broadcast, nonetheless.
If you want to look up something that might shed light on things, look up
Newlywed Game Bloopers, a series of specials broadcast weekly for about 4 weeks
over perhaps WTBS or another non-pay cable station in 1983-1984, not the
regular Newlywed Game series.
Dan Norder
>>agree that she probably did not drink or bathe in the blood of her victims.
>
>Yeah, right. And I'm a super model. I don't agree with most modern sources
>anymore since they wish to do things like claim the Jews weren't slaves
>to the Eygptians.
>~Jami JoAnne Russell~
So what you are saying is that facts should be ignored and information on
reference websites rewritten because you cling to outdated and false ideas?
I'm sure they'll get right on that...
Dan Norder
>content that are described at Snopes.com, which both apparently feature
>a woman.
Do you have proof of this? Simple thing, really. Until then you are just
another person who "remembers" something that we have no real evidence of.
>Apparently at least one other clip featuring a woman giving a similar answer
>to the same question has been now shown on new game show blooper programs.
>If the original clip did cause some sort of problem, it's reasonable to assume
>that showing the new clip or clips featuring a woman may be Eubanks' way of
trying
>to bury the issue using misdirection.
Every thread needs a wild, nonsensical conspiracy theory.
>Consider: the clip featuring the woman can't possibly be the legend-creating
>clip;
Sure it can. Easily. It's a perfect match, except for the slight mutation of
the phrase, which is extremely common when stories are retold and spread.
To state otherwise is a sign of desperation and delusion.
>if an "up the butt" clip never existed, how could one be shown now?
Bob may not have remembered the incident, especially since it wasn't exactly
like the story going around. So they find it, they air it, he admits he was
wrong and something like the UL really did happen, end of story.
>The answer to this question must be that the clip featuring the woman
>necessarily must not be the clip the existence of which was denied. The
>clip featuing the woman CAN'T be the one that caused the urban legend to
evolve,
>because it DOES exist!
Boy, you are so not making any sense. Existence or nonexistence of anything is
not the determining factor on whether an urban legend can get started.
But, yes, I'm sure you have perfect memory and can never be mistaken about
anything you think you saw and phrases you think you heard.
Viv
On 07 Oct 2002 02:08:16 GMT, mysha...@aol.comnospam (MyShadow97) uttered:
>My point is that the material on the Snopes site is incaccurate.
[snip more unsubstantiated assertions]
The material on the Snopes site is DOCUMENTED.
Your memory, no matter how vividly detailed, is UNDOCUMENTED.
You keep suggesting that other people should go and look up stuff that you
maintain will prove your memory correct. And then you offer speculation as
to how documented events could, through a series of wildly imaginative
scenarios, somehow tie in with your memories. That is not how
debunking/bunking works.
Nobody in the field of debunking is suggesting that every event in human
history is untrue unless documented. But without corresponding evidence
it's certainly UNPROVEN.
You want snopes to change their article? PROVE that you're right, don't
just say so.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
Viv
uttered:
>>Could you be more specific? A cursory examination of the "horrors" and
>>"history" section didn't reveal anything like you describe.
>
>I'm thinking it's Bloody Mary but I'm not going to search thru them all right
>now.
Mary I of England was known as Bloody Mary for the executions of
heretics/apostates she ordered with the full support of the apparatus of
Church and State, yes.
What possible connection that might have with the illicit serial killings
attributed to a minor aristocrat (not remotely related or even royal) in
another country I can't imagine.
Gee, I wonder why snopes didn't change their article. The paragraph you
apparently want them to add to reads:
"Some confuse the mirror witch with Mary I of England, whom history
remembers as "Bloody Mary." An expanded version of that confusion has it
that this murdering British queen killed young girls so she could bathe in
their blood to preserve her youthful appearance."
<http://www.snopes2.com/horrors/ghosts/bloody.htm>
The snopes article goes on to utterly debunk any possible accuracy to this
"bathing in virgin blood" pertaining to Mary I of England. If I was
sub-editor, I'd actually recommend some trimming in the section debunking
the mirror-witch/Mary I identification anyway. It deserves one paragraph,
not three.
Adding Bathory would be even more discursive from the Bloody Mary Worth in
the mirror story. As the variations in names of the mirror witch (aka Bloody
Mary) don't include an Elizabeth or any variation thereof, what purpose
would confusing the issue by mentioning Elizabeth Bathory here serve?
Just because one person finds a historical figure fascinating doesn't mean
that reference sources have to pander to that special interest in articles
with only tangential relevance.
MyShadow97
answering the person who asked me what my complaint was, not trying to prove
anything.
John David Galt
> Christopher Brookmyre's "Not The End Of The World" is an enjoyable
> book, but it is fiction.
Haven't seen it. My data is mostly from the History Channel.
> I'm sure it's based on some interesting
> thought on the matter of relgion and miracles, but neither of these
> subjects are appropriate for AFU. Please take this post to
> alt.bible.errancy or somewhere other, more appropriate group.
I see no reason to distinguish religious BS stories from other BS stories.
MyShadow97
aren't what I saw in the Newlywed Game Bloopers show. And yes, I know, I won't
post any more about it till I can come up with some visible proof, which
doesn't seem likely. Maybe it's worth looking into, though, if the $1000 offer
still holds.
Viv
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> uttered:
Johnjohnjohnjohnjohnjohnjohn.
This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
Kirk" Smythe
--
"Words were indeed insubstantial. They were as soft as water, but they were
also as powerful as water and now they were rushing over the audience,
eroding the levees of veracity and carrying away the past."
Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax sees the need for www.urbanlegends.com
R H Draney
news:3DA0989C...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us:
> The Jewish Exodus took place in about 1500 BC. Right around that
> same time, the largest volcanic event ever recorded took place --
> the explosion of a Greek island named Thera. This explosion, 10
> times the size of Krakatoa (or about 50,000 megatons), wiped out
> the Minoan civilization and was the inspiration for Plato to write
> the fable of Atlantis almost 1,000 years later.
>
> Now consider the "supernatural assistance" that the Exodus
> received, as depicted in "The Ten Commandments." (Moses predicts
> these events, but that could just mean he knew someone aboard a
> ship and so got the news before everyone else.)
>
> First, the light of day "goes out" for a few minutes. The movie
> makes this look like an eclipse, but a cloud of smoke from a
> volcano is a reasonable explanation. Thera is about 300 miles due
> north of the Egyptian coast.
>
> Then, there is a rain of burning matter from the sky. Ash and
> debris from the burning of the Minoan cities.
>
> Third, God kills everyone else's firstborn sons at night, while
> sparing families that smear blood on their doorposts. This one
> can't quite be literally true, but it doesn't take that much
> imagination to realize that the sea breeze blowing in from the
> smashed cities is full of stuff you really don't want to inhale.
>
> And finally, the parting of the Red Sea. Ever hear of seismic
> tidal waves?
>
> I rest my case.
You are Immanuel Velikovsky...I'll take my two-fifty in a gift
certificate, please....r
Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
Are you talking about Bob Eubanks' $10,000 offer? On the somewhat recent
blooper show where the woman says "in the ass", Bob apologizes for telling
numerous people over the years that they were wrong, and says he's going to
"put the urban legend to rest" by finally showing the clip. So, it would seem
like Bob considers it to be a dead issue because in his mind he's already shown
the clip.
-Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
2002 RSG-Anchorage Champion
MyShadow97
>blooper show where the woman says "in the ass", Bob apologizes for telling
>numerous people over the years that they were wrong, and says he's going to
>"put the urban legend to rest" by finally showing the clip. So, it would seem
>like Bob considers it to be a dead issue because in his mind he's already
>shown the clip.
Or, he'd like us to consider it a dead issue, because he's shown us a different
clip than the one that caused the original stir, which for whatever reason he'd
prefer would replace it in public memory.
Why should he should say a clip he once broadcast and owns the rights to
doesn't exist, offer a substantial reward for evidence of it, then after many
years, suddenly rebroadcast it?
It doesn't make sense to hold a piece of videotape back from release and offer
a reward for it if it is completely innocuous as the clip featuring the woman
seems to be. It DOES, however, make sense to hold back some videotape if the
broadcasting or distribution of that tape could start up some sort of trouble
for him. By substituting a present-day clip on a new show featuring a woman
saying "in the ass" for the original 1970s or 80s clip in which a man said
"that would be up the butt, Bob," Eubanks has fulfilled the audience's desire
to see something and probably avoided a lawsuit or other trouble by apparently
entirely talking anyone out of the idea of going back and finding the original
controversial clip someplace.
Except, maybe, me.
Mitch Barrie
wrote:
# I don't know - he seems to display a level of sheer bloodymindedness
# wilfull ignorance, and self-importance rivalling your nearest AFU neighbour.
Heh.
Mitch
Phil Edwards
>Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
>Kirk" Smythe
On the grounds that this thread could do with a bit of drift, allow me
to introduce the noted English monarch, Henry Theodore Meredith.
There's this guy called Theodore - or, as he spelled it, Tudur - who's
a landowner in Anglesey; when Owain Glyndwr's rebellion breaks out,
two of his sons basically deliver the island to Glyndwr. Henry IV
eventually puts paid to the rebellion, although not to Glyndwr.
Tudur's third son, Meredith - or, as he spelled it, Maredudd - has a
son, who he calls Owain. Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur becomes a page to
Henry IV's son Henry V; since English people have trouble with Welsh
names (and I can assure you that 'Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur' isn't
the half of it) he does the usual thing of turning one of his
patronymics into a surname. Unusually, he goes for his grandfather's
name, becoming Owen Tudor rather than Owen Meredith.
Owen Tudor marries Henry V's widow; not bad going for a lad from the
valleys (of Anglesey). His son marries a descendant of John of Gaunt,
who was (hurry it up - Ed.) who was dead royal; *his* son is therefore
also royal, and is in fact the royalest person left standing when the
Wars of the Roses grind to a halt. Enter Henry VII and the rest of the
Tudors, who were in fact Theodores and should have been Merediths.
Well, I thought it was interesting.
ObUL: Queen goes on walkabout, meets member of public who doesn't know
who she is, hilarity ensues. It's not much, but it'll have to do - I
can't think of any royal-based ULs.
Phil "JAMS O'DONNELL" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"Why do people always assume that one thing I said
is somehow related to something else I said?" - Burroughs Guy
Phil Edwards
>"Some confuse the mirror witch with Mary I of England, whom history
>remembers as "Bloody Mary." An expanded version of that confusion has it
>that this murdering British queen killed young girls so she could bathe in
>their blood to preserve her youthful appearance."
><http://www.snopes2.com/horrors/ghosts/bloody.htm>
>
>The snopes article goes on to utterly debunk any possible accuracy to this
>"bathing in virgin blood" pertaining to Mary I of England. If I was
>sub-editor, I'd actually recommend some trimming in the section debunking
>the mirror-witch/Mary I identification anyway. It deserves one paragraph,
>not three.
It deserves three words. 'This is nonsense.' (My first draft was in
double figures, but the adjectives weren't really helping.)
I do think debunkers lose the plot sometimes. "Mary I of England
(1553-1558) was anything but a famed beauty terrified of losing her
looks -- she was a matronly, fortyish woman who had about as much
sense of style as a dust mop." It Doesn't Matter - we could discover
that all the pictures were inaccurate (I'm sure they *are*, by
contemporary standards of photo-realism) and that in reality she had
the looks of Bjork and the style of Catherine Deneuve, and it wouldn't
change a thing. History doesn't have to be probable. The question
isn't whether she would have been likely to bathe in blood - would
Richard III have been likely to personally lead a cavalry charge
directly against the enemy standard, heavily outnumbered and *wearing
his crown*? - it's whether she did. Or rather, it's about whether
there's any reason to entertain the idea that she did - which there
patently isn't. It's a fantasy wrapped in a misunderstanding wrapped
in a warm flour tortilla with guacamole and sour cream.
Phil "these are a few of my favourite things (apart from Bjork)"
Lee Rudolph
>It's a fantasy wrapped in a misunderstanding wrapped
>in a warm flour tortilla with guacamole and sour cream.
YM "mushy peas".
Lee "Pierre FitzAmand" Rudolph
Mitch Barrie
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
# I see no reason to distinguish religious BS stories from other BS stories.
People tend to get much more excited about religious stories
because, well, because they are religious. This leads to turmoil
and gnashing of teeth which is unwelcome here.
Now do you understand?
Mitch "giving him a chance" Barrie
Phil Edwards
>Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>It's a fantasy wrapped in a misunderstanding wrapped
>>in a warm flour tortilla with guacamole and sour cream.
>
>YM "mushy peas".
That would explain a lot.
>Lee "Pierre FitzAmand" Rudolph
Bloody Normans.
Phil "*and* the Saxons got all the albumen" Edwards
Deborah Stevenson,,,
You've been given a reason--it's contra the conventions of the people with
whom you're trying to converse. On the bright side, we're cool with bits
of froth flying from people's mouths.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Deborah Stevenson,,,
>Owen Tudor marries Henry V's widow; not bad going for a lad from the
>valleys (of Anglesey). His son marries a descendant of John of Gaunt,
>who was (hurry it up - Ed.) who was dead royal; *his* son is therefore
>also royal, and is in fact the royalest person left standing when the
>Wars of the Roses grind to a halt. Enter Henry VII and the rest of the
>Tudors, who were in fact Theodores and should have been Merediths.
Should have been the Mortimers anyway.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Lee Ayrton
> This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
>
> Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
> Kirk" Smythe
Damn. I was told it was "Theodolite".
Lee "Or was it Theologaster?" Ayrton
Timothy McDaniel
Viv <wy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Aristocrats aren't necessarily royalty, by the way. Even if they
>have royal ancestors. The British standard is that if one's
>grandparent was monarch one is entitled to be called "Prince" or
>"Princess".
Not quite. Children of a monarch, children of a son of a monarch,
eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Also
wives and widows of a prince. Also any exceptions the sovereign
chooses to make (eight in the last century).
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-26
>Other monarchical countries have similiar conventions.
House rules^Wlaws.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Timothy McDaniel
Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>would Richard III have been likely to personally lead a cavalry
>charge directly against the enemy standard, heavily outnumbered and
>*wearing his crown*?
Bosworth had no Boswell, so we're in doubt about a lot of things,
including the location of the battle and why you'd march in front of
that marsh that way. As I recall my most recent reading of a relevant
history, the one story with any detail says that Dickon wasn't
outnumbered heavily when he charged Henry Meredith's guard -- but then
Lord Stanley realized he could give the throne to whoever he wanted by
charging, and he did charge Dick3, leading to heavy outnumbering, a
crown on a bush, the eight wives of Henry VI, Broody Mary, Gloriana,
and other Good Things (with a Bad Man and Weak King).
Timothy McDaniel
Viv <wy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Mary I of England was known as Bloody Mary for the executions of
>heretics/apostates she ordered with the full support of the apparatus
>of Church and State, yes.
This topic may have a large weight over it labelled "Ban On Religion
and Ban On Politics", so we should tread carefully.
I will just note that killing of heretics/apostates with the full
support of the apparatus of Church and State was by no means limited
to Mary I (Thomas More managed some executions, frex) or England or
that time period. England is just unusual in having the identities of
the heretics/apostates flip-flop quickly and repeatedly.
Tim "Vicar of Bray" McDaniel
Anthony McCafferty
<lay...@ntplx.net> writes:
>On or about Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Viv of wy...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>> This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
>>
>> Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
>> Kirk" Smythe
>
>Damn. I was told it was "Theodolite".
"Theobromine"
Anthony "Yes, it was 'James "Tea" Kirk' that they called him" McCafferty
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On or about Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Viv of wy...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>> This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
>>
>> Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
>> Kirk" Smythe
>
>Damn. I was told it was "Theodolite".
>
>
>Lee "Or was it Theologaster?" Ayrton
As long as it wasn't "Theology." That ain't allowed around here.
Boron (in nomine) Elgar
Phil Edwards
Absolutely. But then, in effect it *was* the Mortimers until the first
one died of a surfeit of anything going and the second got murdered
(almost certainly) by the third (probably). Admittedly, if Richard II
had had his way it would have been the Mortimers earlier on, but would
we really want Richard II to have his way?
Phil "for God's sake" Edwards
Ray Depew
: I see no reason to distinguish religious BS stories from other BS stories.
Who *is* John Galt, anyway? And why should we keep him out of the AFUniversal
Killfile?
--
Ray
Ed Kaulakis
> "Impeach duh-be-yuh"
You show potential. We don't do politics here, though. So quit that.
Ed "please" Kaulakis
Bob Ward
<kaulaki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>-:
>-:> "Impeach duh-be-yuh"
>-:
>-:You show potential. We don't do politics here, though. So quit that.
>-:
>-:Ed "please" Kaulakis
>-:
>-:
Check out his stellar record in AFCA...
--
The time for action is past! NOW is the time for the senseless bickering
Bruce Tindall
What's the consensus on comments in sig files, though, which
the quoted comment was? I kinda had the idea that *above* the
double hyphen, there was an out-and-out BoP and BoR, whereas
the policy for below-the-belt was "we rilly rilly wish you would
be sensitive to the existence of the Bans On Stuff above the
double hyphen, and think rilly rilly hard about whether you want
to say things like 'Impeach duh-be-yuh' even there when you're
posting to the 'fu."
Or maybe it's not.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Viv
uttered:
>In article <m5t1qug0a7qo8go1q...@4ax.com>,
>Viv <wy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>Mary I of England was known as Bloody Mary for the executions of
>>heretics/apostates she ordered with the full support of the apparatus
>>of Church and State, yes.
>
>This topic may have a large weight over it labelled "Ban On Religion
>and Ban On Politics", so we should tread carefully.
>
>I will just note that killing of heretics/apostates with the full
>support of the apparatus of Church and State was by no means limited
>to Mary I (Thomas More managed some executions, frex) or England or
>that time period. England is just unusual in having the identities of
>the heretics/apostates flip-flop quickly and repeatedly.
You are of course, correct. My point, such as it was, was merely meant to
distinguish her as an instigator of judicial executions rather than a woman
who could in any way be described as a serial killer.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
Phil Edwards
McDaniel) wrote:
>As I recall my most recent reading of a relevant
>history, the one story with any detail says that Dickon wasn't
>outnumbered heavily when he charged Henry Meredith's guard -- but then
>Lord Stanley realized he could give the throne to whoever he wanted by
>charging, and he did charge Dick3
Stanley? That fence-sitting, coat-turning, Manx-landowning renegade? I
had no idea, but I can't say I'm surprised. A poor do.
>leading to heavy outnumbering, a
>crown on a bush, the eight wives of Henry VI, Broody Mary, Gloriana,
>and other Good Things (with a Bad Man and Weak King).
And that's History.
Phil "which has since come to a ." Edwards
Phil Edwards
McDaniel) wrote:
>I will just note that killing of heretics/apostates with the full
>support of the apparatus of Church and State was by no means limited
>to Mary I (Thomas More managed some executions, frex) or England or
>that time period. England is just unusual in having the identities of
>the heretics/apostates flip-flop quickly and repeatedly.
I believe the first English monarch to have heretics burned at the
stake was none other than Henry Meredith. Henry VIII had 90 heretics
(Catholic and Protestant) burned at the stake in 37 years; Mary had
nearly 300 burned in four years. According to my handy
comburendometer, this makes Mary approximately 30 times bloodier in
this respect than her father, but his hands were hardly clean. Even
his immediate successor, Edward VI, burned a few Anabaptists (or, as
we'd call them, Baptists; the Ana- part referred to infant baptism).
Phil "dodging the BoT" Edwards
Simon Slavin
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>And finally, the parting of the Red Sea.
John, we do have the Ban On Religion here. Much as I hate to
invoke the 'slippery slope' argument, you are arguing over a
religious matter -- one which is very important to some people.
I've posted detailed analysis of the plagues, how they relate
to each-other and to various things that might have happened
along the Nile shelf -- to another group. Long-running
arguments about religion wouldn't be good for this group.
Daniel Ucko
wrote:
>In article <pdCcnf4x1oV...@News.GigaNews.Com>,
>Ed Kaulakis <kaulaki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>AFCA kid sig-wrote:
>>> "Impeach duh-be-yuh"
>>
>>You show potential. We don't do politics here, though. So quit that.
>>
>>Ed "please" Kaulakis
>
>What's the consensus on comments in sig files, though, which
>the quoted comment was? I kinda had the idea that *above* the
>double hyphen, there was an out-and-out BoP and BoR, whereas
>the policy for below-the-belt was "we rilly rilly wish you would
>be sensitive to the existence of the Bans On Stuff above the
>double hyphen, and think rilly rilly hard about whether you want
>to say things like 'Impeach duh-be-yuh' even there when you're
>posting to the 'fu."
Always thought the consensus was that .sig files are fair game for
individual expression, though Billy the AFCA kid here does push the
envelope more egregiously than most .sigs I've seen. My opinions
notwithstanding, I wish the Kid wouldn't. As an imperative, the Kid is
banging head to rock, in that none of us that I know is in a position
to impeach 'duh-be-yuh' regardless of their wishes on the matter. The
Kid's action is not even as good as wearing a badge with 'everyone can
see you staring at my breasts' on the lapel, which at least is funny
once but irritating after a while. The AFCA kid (7 posts in three
days, about average) seems happy to head them off at the pass on the
BoMP, but on the BoP and BoR Kid doesn't even want to form a posse. I
foresee an unfortunate end to the AFCA Kid, gunned down in the dark by
a man who used to ride with the Kid but is now a lawman, yes siree, or
maybe the AFCA Kid will wind up in a cell for D&D and sober up in time
to save Rock Ridge from Hedley Lamarr.
Daniel 'he rode a blazing killfile, he wore a shining BoP' Ucko
--
'I myself have always disliked being called a "genius." It is
fascinating how quick people have been to intuit this aversion and
avoid using the term.'
- The Debt to Pleasure, John Lanchester
Rick Tyler
McCafferty) wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.43.021007...@sea.ntplx.net>, Lee Ayrton
><lay...@ntplx.net> writes:
>
>>On or about Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Viv of wy...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
>>>
>>> Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
>>> Kirk" Smythe
>>
>>Damn. I was told it was "Theodolite".
>
> "Theobromine"
>
Thiotimoline.
-- Rick "Resublimated at that" Tyler
__________________________________________________________________
"Ignorant voracity -- a wingless vulture -- can soar only into the
depths of ignominy." Patrick O'Brian
Paul Tomblin
>Thiotimoline.
>
>-- Rick "Resublimated at that" Tyler
Now I'm getting a feeling of deja vu.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"The Americans have said ``Ni'' and they want their shrubbery"
- Harry Teasley predicts a Bush victory, 8Mar2000
Burroughs Guy
> On the bright side, we're cool with bits
> of froth flying from people's mouths.
That's good to know.
Lon Stowell
MyShadow97 <mysha...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>My point is that the material on the Snopes site is incaccurate.
OK, lets see of any of the clue-by-fours have found an appropriate
target. Will add the AOL handicap, since otherwise it wouldn't
even be a fair discussion.
>
>Game (it couldn't have been, the key phrase would have been censored)
That personal opinion, uncited, is gonna cost you a penalty stroke.
>apparently caused some sort of problem which resulted
And here you get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct, the uncited
waving of hands in the air and repeating the same tired lack of
argument as in your original post. Instant replay must be
done only by an NFL official, you lose the down and a timeout.
>the clip's existence yet at the same time offering a reward for any taped
>copies of the clip in question.
The head office is thinking of fining you unless you can produce
cites for any such reward.
>The clip that started the UL was originally broadcast in one of a series
>of special programs entitled "Newlywed Game Bloopers" on a non-pay cable
>channel.
Excessive use of non-specificity without a suitable disclaimer is
a felony in most jurisdictions. A judge who watched the recent
prime-time blooper special might also find you guilty of
perjury in the AOL degree.
>I have offered the possibility... [yawn] (snip) [/yawn]
In chat rooms, "possibilities" are sufficient evidence. However,
am amazed that the clue-by-fours have failed to give you the
distinct impression that well, money talks, and "possibility" walks.
>I have no proof of any of these
>things,
A pathetic attempt at plea bargaining at best.
> I've suggested that the man's
>displeasure may be the reason Bob Eubanks might have wanted to take action to
>eradicate the clip from public memory.
? I've suggested ? Hell, I can suggest all sorts of revisions
to UF articles. Hopefully the maintainers will suggest I
pretend these "suggestions" are gerbils.
As for your "suggestion", got any reasone why the clip, which
was acknowledged by Bob Eubanks to be the one in question, WAS
aired? Did Dick Clark have Tony Soprano take care of the
husband so he wouldn't mess up the party?
>If the original clip did cause some sort of problem, it's reasonable to assume
I believe you may have mispletted "it is sheer unadulterated bullshit
to keep claiming without proof...."
>showing the new clip or clips featuring a woman may be Eubanks' way of trying
>to bury the issue using misdirection.
Ooooohhhhh, I LOVE IT. A Sekrit Blooper Kabal Konspiracy!!
Didja ever notice how that android playing Dick Clark never
ages?
>
>Consider: the clip featuring the woman can't possibly be the legend-creating
>clip; if an "up the butt" clip never existed, how could one be shown now?
Ya know, ya got us there Agent 86. How clever of you to notice.
[snip] Oh fuck, the hell with this bozo, burned out the damn
batteries in my fuckwit alarm again.
Lon "this is not an epenthic and I have great possibilities and
theories why not..." Stowell
Lon Stowell
MyShadow97 <mysha...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>On the somewhat recent
>>blooper show where the woman says "in the ass", Bob apologizes for telling
>>numerous people over the years that they were wrong, and says he's going to
>>"put the urban legend to rest" by finally showing the clip. So, it would seem
>>like Bob considers it to be a dead issue because in his mind he's already
>>shown the clip.
>
>Or, he'd like us to consider it a dead issue, because he's shown us a different
>clip than the one that caused the original stir, which for whatever reason he'd
>prefer would replace it in public memory.
That wasn't Bob Eubanks in the prime time special. That was an
evil clone invented by the nefarious Doctor H. for the specific
purpose of destroying the credibility of America's Favorite Alltime
TV Host.
No, wait. Clearly if you look at the tapes, you can see the rivets
along the left side of the clever mechanical fake put on the show
by the right-wing Anabaptist Prohibitioners [they use only dry water]
as an example of the depravity of modern disneyesque TV.
No, whoops, that isn't the trvth, I can prove that during the
break, when the camera was still on, you can see Bob Eubanks
proclaiming his innocence on national TV with the famous clip
entitled "I did not have tape with that woman!"
NO NO NO, its really a plot by the commie pinko bunnyist fag
radicals. You see the real reason Bob Eubanks can't produce the
tape of the woman is that at the time of the original taping,
Bob Eubanks WAS that woman... that's right you heard it here
first, Bob Eubanks is a transsexual.
>Except, maybe, me.
Yeahhhhhh, thats it.
Lon Stowell
Lon "James Chocolate Kirk sounds just too silly" Stowell
--
[Please add your own clever saying here]
Lon Stowell
Ray Depew <r...@ftc.agilent.com> wrote:
>John David Galt (j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us) flouts the BoR:
>
>: I see no reason to distinguish religious BS stories from other BS stories.
>
>Who *is* John Galt, anyway?
Lon "...now that we really need him" Stowell
LakeFXDan2
>On or about Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Viv of wy...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>> This is afu. We Don't Do Religion Here.
>>
>> Vivienne "we prefer to have our unending arguments about James Theodotus
>> Kirk" Smythe
>
>Damn. I was told it was "Theodolite".
>
>
>Lee "Or was it Theologaster?" Ayrton
James Thalidomide Kirk?
Dan "No, wait, that was the Tribbles ... " Hartung
Hugh Gibbons
John Galt isn't allowed here either. There's a Ban on Politics.
Jon Miller
>On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:32:12 -0700, John David Galt
><j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
># I see no reason to distinguish religious BS stories from other BS stories.
>
>People tend to get much more excited about religious stories
>because, well, because they are religious. This leads to turmoil
>and gnashing of teeth which is unwelcome here.
>
Except if the gnashing of teeth is accompanied by the sound of the door
slaming behind the uni students leaving in disgust because no one would
do their homework for them.
Jon "a sophomoric jibe" Miller
Jon Miller
>gambit...@aol.comNOTMALE (Jami JoAnne) writes:
>
>>>As has already been said, the name is Bathory, and most modern sources agree
>>>that she probably did not drink or bathe in the blood of her victims.
>>>
>>Yeah, right. And I'm a super model.
>>
>
> Like Tori Spelling?
>
>>I don't agree with most modern sources
>>anymore since they wish to do things like claim the Jews weren't slaves to
>>the
>>Eygptians.
>>
>
> Well, you'd have to look at the, you know, evidentiary basis. But if there is
>some new discovery, or sound footing for revisionism, I see no good reason to
>cling to something because it's a good story.
>
Au contraire, mon cher. This is AFU. The only good reason to cling to
something is because it's a good story. Evidence, schmevidence, who
cares what's right?
Jon "Truth? What is that?" Miller
Jon Miller
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:52:14 +0000 (UTC), tm...@panix.com (Timothy
>McDaniel) wrote:
>
>>As I recall my most recent reading of a relevant
>>history, the one story with any detail says that Dickon wasn't
>>outnumbered heavily when he charged Henry Meredith's guard -- but then
>>Lord Stanley realized he could give the throne to whoever he wanted by
>>charging, and he did charge Dick3
>>
>
>Stanley? That fence-sitting, coat-turning, Manx-landowning renegade? I
>had no idea, but I can't say I'm surprised. A poor do.
>
I guess that's a Pondian difference. I can't imagine knowing anything
at all about Stanley other than through his actions at Bosworth Field.
Come to think of it, I can't imagine going through "real" history books
to research it without being prodded by Sharon Kay Penman.
Jon "highly recommended" Miller