From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: that'd be in the butt, bob
Date: 24 Jul 1992 01:32:08 GMT
Organization: Kibo's Outhouse
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.117

artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor) writes:

  +> OK, cutting through the noise of what constitutes "proof" or not,
  +> A friend of mine whose truth and memory I trust claim to have seen the
  +> episode.  He estimates the date between 1986 and 1988, 

I was never able to keep up with TV schedules, but when did the Newlywed
Game go off the air?  My recollection of these stories seemed to circulate
from the 1970s, but it's pretty damn hazy.

   [...deleted...]

Then ahill@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com writes:
  
  +If so, then this is a case of life imitating UL, since I heard the Newlywed
  +Game "in the butt" story long before the 86-88 timeframe (like, during the
  +late 70's), and it probably started l-o-o-o-n-g before that.

Thanks for posting this observation, Andy.  BTW, Anson, I don't have 
your post anymore, but how does Andy's and Ellyn's timeframes jive with 
when you recall seeing that episode?

This brings up several issues.  While the question of whether urban
legends have any basis in fact is hardly the primary motivation for
their examination, it does present an interesting dimension to the
legend itself.

Since many urban legends indeed are false, and examination by various
individuals have shown no evidence supporting them, you would expect
that many people who follow them (e.g., on this newsgroup) would have
some difficulty just accepting someone's first hand recollection.

I draw a parallel to the enduring belief among many of those familiar
with the UK television program "Captain Pugwash" who will continue to
insist that they heard the names of characters on the program as
double entendres (e.g., "Master Bates", "Seaman Staines", etc.) when
they were younger despite the testimony of the show's creator and 
an examination of the tapes of the program.  The mind is an odd duck,
at times.

The brusque manner in which snopes taunts Anson (and others) is
disconcerting at times, but there is some validity on his point that
there is nothing to suggest that the comment was actually televised
on TV.  Many posters have commented on this thread and others that
"I can believe it happened, given XXXX."  This is not surprising.
Many urban legends have that quality of plausibility; it helps make it
a great story.

Again, not all urban legends are false, and this one could still be 
true (for instance, if a tape of such emerges); but since many, if not
most urban legends are false, and the fact that this story has multiple
recollections of conflicting times, details, and very similar parallel
story that supposedly took place in Zimbabwe as posted by Mark Stobbs 
will make it quite difficult for many to accept it just on the basis
of one's personal recollection.

Finally, if I recall correctly Anson, you responded strongly to
snopes and said something to the effect that you were not impressed
by Brunvand's "proof" and methods of inquiry based on some of those
books you read.  But I hope that you don't mean to say that just
because someone researching in an area uses methods that you don't
respect doesn't mean that you won't try to support your position
with the best that you can.


Terry "Sorry to inject some boring points into this newsgroup" Chan
--
Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov                           I disclaim all disclaimers.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban