The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Casey Buck on September 11, 2009, 02:36:17 PM
-
Remember last season when Make Your Mark (formerly Barker's Marker$) had its rules changed so that the $500 that was given out at the beginning of the game was still won, if the contestant decided to leave the markers in their original positions, and lost? We had quite a heated (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=194489\") argument (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16292\") over this.
Well, Steve Gavazzi posted last night (http://\"http://www.golden-road.net/index.php/topic,12575.msg199608.html#msg199608\") that:
Actually, it turns out that the rules to Barker's Marker$ were never supposed to be changed. Drew explained the game incorrectly on the air, and the staff decided on the fly to make his wrong rules the "new rules," partly to avoid embarrassing him and partly because nobody wanted to be the one who had to tell him he'd made a mistake. The game was subsequently retired specifically because of this incident.
-
It got Super Saver'd, 'cept by production and not the host (which isn't completely fair, since Bob was production too).
And is the staff really that afraid of him? Is he really a dictator around the set? Is Bob wearing a Drew Carey costume?
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'225668\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 12:01 PM\']And is the staff really that afraid of him? Is he really a dictator around the set? Is Bob wearing a Drew Carey costume?[/quote]
Depends on who you ask, from the looks of it. And it seems like those furthest away from the situation purport to have the best knowledge of it.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'225667\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 02:36 PM\']We had quite a heated (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=194489\") argument (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16292\") over this.[/quote]
We sure did. And now in retrospect, this statement finally makes sense:
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
But of course at the time, it was so much more important to play the "I know something you don't know" card.
-
...? Uhhhhh, huh? At least we know why they changed the rules to a game and then didn't play it the rest of the season. I'm surprised no one thought of it before. The thing is, I don't see how dropping a game entirely enters the equation unless, like $uper $aver, lawyers or Standards and Practices gets involved. Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?
-
Great, more ammunition for the "Droofus Sucks" crowd.
-
[quote name=\'Casey Buck\' post=\'225667\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 02:36 PM\']Remember last season when Make Your Mark (formerly Barker's Marker$) had its rules changed so that the $500 that was given out at the beginning of the game was still won, if the contestant decided to leave the markers in their original positions, and lost? We had quite a heated (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16006&view=findpost&p=194489\") argument (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16292\") over this.[/quote]
Hmm...that's a pretty rare occurrence around here...
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225679\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 04:07 PM\']Great, more ammunition for the "Droofus Sucks" crowd.[/quote]
You're not helping.
-
Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?
Generally yes, but in this case it doesn't disadvantage the contestant. They may have cleared the rule change (and rewritten the bible) after the fact.
-
I should know better. Being Pro-Drew is too much of a disadvantage in these endless TPIR wars.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'225687\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 03:08 PM\']
Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?
Generally yes, but in this case it doesn't disadvantage the contestant. They may have cleared the rule change (and rewritten the bible) after the fact.
[/quote]
Does that mean that as long as the contestant doesn't get disadvantaged, S&P doesn't care? Is this the logic behind Barker's "Oh, what the heck, you win!" moments?
-
If that's the reason for the game getting shelved, wow, that's really dumb, by all parties involved.
That being said, I do consider the source.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225689\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 06:27 PM\']I should know better. Being Pro-Drew is too much of a disadvantage in these endless TPIR wars.[/quote]
You are trying way too hard to lose your "good guy" status.
If you want to comment on the job Drew is doing, go right ahead. If your viewpoint happens to be in the minority, so be it.
If, on the other hand, you want to make snarky comments about the debate because you're not happy about your minority viewpoint, you can learn to do that through a moderator's filter. As Don said, you're not helping.
BTW, this is coming from somebody who, if pushed, is probably ever-so-slightly on the pro-Drew side too.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225692\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 06:03 PM\']You are trying way too hard to lose your "good guy" status.[/quote]
You are right. I've worked too hard to get that status and I don't want to lose it. (See posts from 2003 to around 2007 if you want to know how obnoxious I used to be)
I'll try not to let disagreements affect me too personally. I have a bad tendency to get too passionate when I'm on a "minority" side of an opinion.
Thank you for that reality check. I do genuinely appreciate it.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225692\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 07:03 PM\']If, on the other hand, you want to make snarky comments about the debate because you're not happy about your minority viewpoint, you can learn to do that through a moderator's filter.[/quote]Wow. So you can be as snarky and vitriolic towards Drew as you wish, but if you voice your displeasure over the constant tainting of TPIR threads because of the people who are snarky and vitriolic towards Drew, you get threatened? Nice.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Step Up was quietly retired over similar reasons.
-
Straying from the point a bit, "Make Your (Barker's) Mark(ers)" wasn't even that enthralling of a game to begin with. After its initial playing in the 36th season with the new title, I'd almost forgotten it was in the lineup. I hardly doubt it'll be missed. I know I won't.
-
So they're retiring a game because:
A: Drew didn't get the rules
B: Nobody had the balls to tell him that he didn't know the rules
C: Apparently nobody thought that the game was worth saving, since A and B happened in the first place
[quote name=\'Mr. Brown\' post=\'225668\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 02:01 PM\']And is the staff really that afraid of him? Is he really a dictator around the set? Is Bob wearing a Drew Carey costume?[/quote]
From what I've read here (unless I've been reading wrong), Drew has attained some power, but here's my thing...who's giving him that power in the first place, and if he's become a "dictator", why didn't anybody have the balls in the first place to tell him something along the lines of "Your input is appreciated, but you're here to host, and if we don't like the job you're doping, we have no qualms about firing you"? Richard Dawson was a douche, but hey, Feud had the highest ratings for some time.
I'm just offering input from my POV. if there's something I''m missing here, please fill me in, cause I have no idea what the heck is going on.
-
[quote name=\'MTCesquire\' post=\'225699\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 05:06 PM\']Straying from the point a bit, "Make Your (Barker's) Mark(ers)" wasn't even that enthralling of a game to begin with. After its initial playing in the 36th season with the new title, I'd almost forgotten it was in the lineup. I hardly doubt it'll be missed. I know I won't.[/quote]When you boil down everything, it is a chrome-d up version of Double Prices, except you have a one-in-four chance of winning a $500 bonus (in addition to the prizes) if you were to play randomly.
If you were to take the game from "here's your prize!" to "We'll be right back!" there are seven different things that Drew has to know or have the contestant do. If you don't count repetitions of the same thing (like the pricing element in Plinko), that's as complicated as things get in terms of pricing games. If your host can't remember a seven-step game, then maybe he's not the host for you.
I like the guy as a person, he's as funny as all get-out, but he's not really a good fit for TPIR, and he's trying to mold the show instead of molding his performance to what the show needs. If you can find the happy medium of "guy who will do-si-do with the contestant during Cliff Hangers" and "Guy who knows the games and will up-sell a DSW" then we've got something.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225695\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 07:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225692\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 07:03 PM\']If, on the other hand, you want to make snarky comments about the debate because you're not happy about your minority viewpoint, you can learn to do that through a moderator's filter.[/quote]Wow. So you can be as snarky and vitriolic towards Drew as you wish, but if you voice your displeasure over the constant tainting of TPIR threads because of the people who are snarky and vitriolic towards Drew, you get threatened? Nice.
[/quote]
I don't know what point you're trying to make other than trying to slyly throw the mods under the bus, but who was snarky and vitriolic towards Drew, who, last I checked is not a forum member?
-
...And why were they changing the name from "Barker's Bargain Bar" in the first place, do you think?
-
Being Pro-Drew is too much of a disadvantage in these endless TPIR wars.
What wars? You have your opinion and I have mine.
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'225701\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 05:39 PM\']I like the guy as a person, he's as funny as all get-out, but he's not really a good fit for TPIR, and he's trying to mold the show instead of molding his performance to what the show needs. If you can find the happy medium of "guy who will do-si-do with the contestant during Cliff Hangers" and "Guy who knows the games and will up-sell a DSW" then we've got something.[/quote]
Richard Dawson was a comedian who knew how to mold his persona to FF and was great at it.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'225707\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 09:50 PM\']What wars? You have your opinion and I have mine.[/quote]
Right and I'll learn not to shoot my mouth off next time.
Truce? :)
Also, what Travis said.
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'225703\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 09:10 PM\']...And why were they changing the name from "Barker's Bargain Bar" in the first place, do you think?[/quote]I think someone's signals got crossed, or did I miss something?
Is it possible someone thought that it just wasn't that big of a deal and/or an improvement? I know jobs seem to be turning over, but I can't imagine Drew doing anything worse than saying "Oh, whoops," then going back to whatever he was doing.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225708\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 09:01 PM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'225707\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 09:50 PM\']What wars? You have your opinion and I have mine.[/quote]
Right and I'll learn not to shoot my mouth off next time.
Truce? :)[/quote]
Truce? You can't have a truce if there isn't a war ;-)
-
[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'225710\' date=\'Sep 12 2009, 01:05 AM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'225703\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 09:10 PM\']...And why were they changing the name from "Barker's Bargain Bar" in the first place, do you think?[/quote]I think someone's signals got crossed, or did I miss something?
[/quote]
If so, I must have missed something too.
On topic -- a tidbit from the past. "Barker's Markers" was also known as "Make Your Mark" on the '94 NPIR fiasco, starring, as Matt Ottinger used to call him, 'Soapboy' Doug Davidson.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'225687\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 05:08 PM\']
Do rules changes have to be cleared with S&P first?
Generally yes, but in this case it doesn't disadvantage the contestant. They may have cleared the rule change (and rewritten the bible) after the fact.
[/quote]
Yes, it does. The change encourages the contestant to not switch the marker, which is a terrible move odds-wise.
Granted, if a contestant knows the rules and/or game well enough, it shouldn't be an encouragement, but honestly, how many people outside this forum know the rules to Barker's Markers? Or have even heard of the Monty Hall problem, for that matter?
On a more general note, I'm not surprised that this was the final straw that broke Barker's Markers's back. The game seemed like it was hanging by a thread for years. It was only played a few times a year...the rules aren't actually all that straightforward...lots of contestants got confused by it...the game takes an incredibly long time to play (only a half-minute less than Ten Chances!)...and not much of a payoff, since the prize package is just three middle-tier prizes (treadmills, armoires, etc).
-
Need we forget a playing of Eazy as 123 in 2003 where Barker screwed up the rules on air?
Easy as 123 (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afq_kRVIXUg\")
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'225835\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:38 AM\']Need we forget a playing of Eazy as 123 in 2003 where Barker screwed up the rules on air?[/quote]
Oh, let's not!
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225675\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 03:52 PM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
But of course at the time, it was so much more important to play the "I know something you don't know" card.
[/quote]
That's not the card I played. I know it's fun to take little shots where you can, though. Let me know when you devise a good way to protect the best interests of those who work/worked at the show who may or may not provide information which isn't always suitable for the masses. You of all people understand this and have withheld information in the past.
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' post=\'225835\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:38 AM\']Need we forget a playing of Eazy as 123 in 2003 where Barker screwed up the rules on air?
Easy as 123 (http://\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afq_kRVIXUg\")[/quote]
But this didn't cause the retirement of Eazy as 1-2-3...
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225848\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:14 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225675\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 03:52 PM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
But of course at the time, it was so much more important to play the "I know something you don't know" card.
[/quote]
Let me know when you devise a good way to protect the best interests of those who work/worked at the show who may or may not provide information which isn't always suitable for the masses.
[/quote]
Ooh ooh. I know. Pick me. Pick me. It's called Not Saying Anything. Saying that you know but can't share contributes absolutely zip to the conversation, so don't do it.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225849\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 02:17 PM\']Ooh ooh. I know. Pick me. Pick me. It's called Not Saying Anything. Saying that you know but can't share contributes absolutely zip to the conversation, so don't do it.[/quote]
Does this apply, say, when someone in the business says "Look for a big announcement coming up?" We have quite a few respected members here who have been known to share such tidbits.
I didn't rub anything in anyone's face and more than Matt did by taking a shot at me. He said "in retrospect this comment finally makes sense" which implies that no one had an understanding of what I even said at the time.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225854\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:41 AM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225849\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 02:17 PM\']Ooh ooh. I know. Pick me. Pick me. It's called Not Saying Anything. Saying that you know but can't share contributes absolutely zip to the conversation, so don't do it.[/quote]
Does this apply, say, when someone in the business says "Look for a big announcement coming up?" We have quite a few respected members here who have been known to share such tidbits.
[/quote]
No, as long as said announcement does indeed come. Delaying time-sensitive information is a different animal altogether.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225854\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 02:41 PM\']Does this apply, say, when someone in the business says "Look for a big announcement coming up?" We have quite a few respected members here who have been known to share such tidbits.[/quote]
Difference between what you do and they do, John: They usually work in the business. You host a message board and know a few people that work in the business. Revealing Drew's flub wasn't going to help/hurt anyone, but you DID choose to play the "I'm cooler than you are" card by being vague about a situation that no one ever would've known about unless they were there.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225858\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 02:58 PM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225854\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:41 AM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225849\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 02:17 PM\']Ooh ooh. I know. Pick me. Pick me. It's called Not Saying Anything. Saying that you know but can't share contributes absolutely zip to the conversation, so don't do it.[/quote]Does this apply, say, when someone in the business says "Look for a big announcement coming up?" We have quite a few respected members here who have been known to share such tidbits.[/quote]No, as long as said announcement does indeed come. Delaying time-sensitive information is a different animal altogether.[/quote]
How is any of this "time-sensitive?" They weren't going to play the game again, and the explanation wasn't going to change. It's not as though there was an expiration date on it.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225867\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 12:35 PM\']How is any of this "time-sensitive?" They weren't going to play the game again, and the explanation wasn't going to change. It's not as though there was an expiration date on it.[/quote]
Exactly. I'm saying that delaying time-sensitive info is ok. Not what Jon did.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225868\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 03:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225867\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 12:35 PM\']How is any of this "time-sensitive?" They weren't going to play the game again, and the explanation wasn't going to change. It's not as though there was an expiration date on it.[/quote]Exactly. I'm saying that delaying time-sensitive info is ok. Not what Jon did.[/quote]
I think you need to read your post again, then, because that's the exact opposite of what you said.
And I still don't see where the concept of "time-sensitive info" even comes into play here to begin with.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225871\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225868\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 03:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225867\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 12:35 PM\']How is any of this "time-sensitive?" They weren't going to play the game again, and the explanation wasn't going to change. It's not as though there was an expiration date on it.[/quote]Exactly. I'm saying that delaying time-sensitive info is ok. Not what Jon did.[/quote]
I think you need to read your post again, then, because that's the exact opposite of what you said.
And I still don't see where the concept of "time-sensitive info" even comes into play here to begin with.
[/quote]
No, it isn't. Time sensitive info refers to the "Big announcement coming soon" example Jon gave. I'm saying that's completely different.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225871\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:12 PM\']And I still don't see where the concept of "time-sensitive info" even comes into play here to begin with.[/quote]Today is September 14. If you knew that one month from TPIR would debut a new game and said so on the board, we'd acknowledge it, speculate a bit and have the full discussion of the game October 14. That's what I think "time-sensitive" means here. But if you knew that a game was having its rules changed or was being retired today and the reason why, what benefit does it serve to have waited this long before disclosing it? It's not going to change. That's what I think the difference is.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225872\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:21 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225871\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 01:12 PM\'][quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225868\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 03:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225867\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 12:35 PM\']How is any of this "time-sensitive?" They weren't going to play the game again, and the explanation wasn't going to change. It's not as though there was an expiration date on it.[/quote]Exactly. I'm saying that delaying time-sensitive info is ok. Not what Jon did.[/quote]I think you need to read your post again, then, because that's the exact opposite of what you said.
And I still don't see where the concept of "time-sensitive info" even comes into play here to begin with.[/quote]No, it isn't. Time sensitive info refers to the "Big announcement coming soon" example Jon gave. I'm saying that's completely different.[/quote]
I don't believe I've ever heard of "time-sensitive" being used that way before. I've always seen it refer to things that need to happen now, not things that can't happen yet.
And I'm still not sure why this is even an issue. When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225874\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:30 PM\']But if you knew that a game was having its rules changed or was being retired today and the reason why, what benefit does it serve to have waited this long before disclosing it?[/quote]
Well, if I've been told, "Such-and-such could get fired if this information gets out too early," then it serves the purpose of not getting that person fired.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225848\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:14 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225675\' date=\'Sep 11 2009, 03:52 PM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
But of course at the time, it was so much more important to play the "I know something you don't know" card.[/quote]
Let me know when you devise a good way to protect the best interests of those who work/worked at the show who may or may not provide information which isn't always suitable for the masses. [/quote]
"According to my eyes at The Eye, there is an actual reason to the MYM change. I can't give specifics right now, but from the looks of things, you're probably not going to like it."
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225879\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:47 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.[/quote]
Why? Are you really that bad at reading between the lines? Or is it just because it's people from Golden-Road?
-
The change encourages the contestant to not switch the marker, which is a terrible move odds-wise.
But the contestant is still free to decide whether or not to switch; they simply don't forfeit the cash in order to do so.
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225879\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:47 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]
Seconded.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225880\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:50 PM\']Why? Are you really that bad at reading between the lines? Or is it just because it's people from Golden-Road?[/quote]
Well, speaking for myself, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with whether people are from Golden Road or not, and I think my decade-plus reputation around the interwebs ought to account for something when I say that. And when I see:
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any 'not-too-cryptic allusions'. I see an argument trying to be won by "I know, but I'm not telling." Now maybe because you're closer to it, you think it's a lot more obvious to the rest of us that when one of you says something like that then it MUST have something to do with Drew. But I can honestly say that now, a year later, when one of you finally spells out what the reason was, that reason never occurred to me. The statement finally makes sense.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225883\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:04 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225880\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:50 PM\']Why? Are you really that bad at reading between the lines? Or is it just because it's people from Golden-Road?[/quote]Well, speaking for myself, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with whether people are from Golden Road or not, and I think my decade-plus reputation around the interwebs ought to account for something when I say that.[/quote]
Not directed at you, Matt.
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225883\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:04 PM\']And when I see:[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any 'not-too-cryptic allusions'. I see an argument trying to be won by "I know, but I'm not telling." Now maybe because you're closer to it, you think it's a lot more obvious to the rest of us that when one of you says something like that then it MUST have something to do with Drew. But I can honestly say that now, a year later, when one of you finally spells out what the reason was, that reason never occurred to me. The statement finally makes sense.[/quote]
Okay, there you've got a point. I was thinking about my own statements when I wrote that. For what it's worth, I didn't even know the whole deal with the game until around May (although I knew long before then that it was dead).
I dunno...maybe I'm just more willing to accept that when John doesn't spell things out, he's doing it for a reason.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225886\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:12 PM\']I dunno...maybe I'm just more willing to accept that when John doesn't spell things out, he's doing it for a reason.[/quote]
Absolutely. And since you know him better, that certainly makes sense. I think one of the problems (and the difference between this and when somebody else -- myself included -- does it) is that this 'insider" card was played in the middle of a heated, divisive argument. Really, nothing good could possibly come of that. Honestly, maybe on Golden Road, John saying "you guys are just going to have to trust me" carries more weight than it does here. Here, in this particular instance, it just came across as condescending to the other side, who were making some decent points without having to couch them in secrecy.
-
[quote name=\'pacdude\' post=\'225882\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 01:59 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225879\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:47 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]
Seconded.
[/quote]
Thirded. Filled with win, both of you.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225896\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 06:32 PM\'][quote name=\'pacdude\' post=\'225882\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 01:59 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225879\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:47 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]
Seconded.
[/quote]
Thirded. Filled with win, both of you.
[/quote]
Fourthed. It reminds me of the mystery host of the game show pilot from a few years ago. It caused a huge fustercluck on the board, all over a game show host. I'd rather you just not speak instead of dangling a carrot in front of me, then pulling back and giggling wildly as you do so.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'225899\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 03:38 PM\']Fourthed. It reminds me of the mystery host of the game show pilot from a few years ago. It caused a huge fustercluck on the board, all over a game show host.[/quote]
An artificially and intentionally created one, at that.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'225899\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 06:38 PM\']Fourthed. It reminds me of the mystery host of the game show pilot from a few years ago. It caused a huge fustercluck on the board, all over a game show host. I'd rather you just not speak instead of dangling a carrot in front of me, then pulling back and giggling wildly as you do so.[/quote]
If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation. I hate sitting on information. The whole reason I say as much as I do is in hopes of somebody figuring it out on their own.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation. I hate sitting on information. The whole reason I say as much as I do is in hopes of somebody figuring it out on their own.[/quote]
Then keep it to yourself. There are not nearly as many big TPIR fans as there are on Golden Road, so when you play that game, you're not gonna get as many "Ooh! Ooh! Tell us! Tell us!" as you would over there.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' post=\'225909\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:10 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation. I hate sitting on information. The whole reason I say as much as I do is in hopes of somebody figuring it out on their own.[/quote]Then keep it to yourself. There are not nearly as many big TPIR fans as there are on Golden Road, so when you play that game, you're not gonna get as many "Ooh! Ooh! Tell us! Tell us!" as you would over there.[/quote]
Which, again, is not what I want, since when I do it, I can't elaborate.
For God's sake...isn't someone allowed to do something without a freakin' ulterior motive beyond hoping people will think for a few seconds?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'225899\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 06:38 PM\']Fourthed. It reminds me of the mystery host of the game show pilot from a few years ago. It caused a huge fustercluck on the board, all over a game show host. I'd rather you just not speak instead of dangling a carrot in front of me, then pulling back and giggling wildly as you do so.[/quote]
If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation. I hate sitting on information. The whole reason I say as much as I do is in hopes of somebody figuring it out on their own.
[/quote]
Understood, and I can understand hating to fight the urge not to speak up. However, when you do throw the carrot out there, it opens the possibility of a) speculation that runs from plausible to just ridiculous. From there it usually turns into disaster.
That's why some of us say it's better to just not bring it up at all. When it's okay to spill the beans, then watch the response.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'225912\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:15 PM\']Understood, and I can understand hating to fight the urge not to speak up. However, when you do throw the carrot out there, it opens the possibility of a) speculation that runs from plausible to just ridiculous. From there it usually turns into disaster.
That's why some of us say it's better to just not bring it up at all. When it's okay to spill the beans, then watch the response.[/quote]
I greatly appreciate getting a reasonable response like this, as opposed to "Shut up, and congratulations to everyone else who's insulted you."
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225914\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:22 PM\']I greatly appreciate getting a reasonable response like this, as opposed to "Shut up, and congratulations to everyone else who's insulted you."[/quote]
You asked a question, you got an answer, and I was pleased to see other people (who are also guilty of nothing more than answering the question you asked) speaking up.
Sorry it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225926\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:03 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225914\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:22 PM\']I greatly appreciate getting a reasonable response like this, as opposed to "Shut up, and congratulations to everyone else who's insulted you."[/quote]You asked a question, you got an answer, and I was pleased to see other people (who are also guilty of nothing more than answering the question you asked) speaking up.
Sorry it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.[/quote]
Yes, and then you came in and acted like your usual, arrogant self.
Brandon was the only person who gave an explanation, or even anything close to it. And you, of course, just felt like being a jackass.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225930\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:12 PM\']And you, of course, just felt like being a jackass.[/quote]Steve, that's at least the second time in a week you've called someone that, with me being the first. For someone who isn't always the friendliest gent, I don't think it's warranted to continue such name-calling. The fact that you've seemed to find it necessary to deride a good number of people recently might make you want to step back and examine yourself before continuing on the warpath.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'225934\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:29 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225930\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:12 PM\']And you, of course, just felt like being a jackass.[/quote]Steve, that's at least the second time in a week you've called someone that, with me being the first.[/quote]
If the shoe fits...
(Although I honestly don't remember saying that. Wouldn't surprise me, though.)
(And do you really think this is the first time I've called Lemon that?)
-
Steve, haven't you been warned about such name-calling?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225935\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:31 PM\'](And do you really think this is the first time I've called Lemon that?)[/quote]
Considering I've been suspended for less, I'm sure kinda hoping it will be the last.
-
It just baffles me that someone with such apparent connections maintains less of a maturity level than my eleven year old sister.
-
[quote name=\'Kevin Prather\' post=\'225938\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:41 PM\']Steve, haven't you been warned about such name-calling?[/quote]
Between Moe Lemon, Larry Mosher, and Curly Shark, I'm just not sure I give a damn at this point.
-
[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'225942\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:46 PM\']It just baffles me that someone with such apparent connections maintains less of a maturity level than my eleven year old sister.[/quote]Connections mean nothing. That speaks to the people around you, not you. Kanye West is probably one of the most connected recording artists in the world. Didn't help him last night.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225948\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:07 PM\']Between Moe Lemon, Larry Mosher, and Curly Shark, I'm just not sure I give a damn at this point.[/quote]
Real mature. You stay classy.
/Wonder what name Steve will call me after I post this?
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225951\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:23 PM\']Wonder what name Steve will call me after I post this?[/quote]Shemp Raygor, of course.
-
I'll go off the board and select "Pete Best" for 50.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225930\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:12 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225926\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:03 PM\']
Yes, and then you came in and acted like your usual, arrogant self.[/quote]
Brandon was the only person who gave an explanation, or even anything close to it. And you, of course, just felt like being a jackass.
[/quote]
Why do we continually have to be treated to ridiculous bickering sessions between the both of you in these public forums? Frankly, I think you both need to grow up, condense the tit-for-tat messages into an email thread and keep it between yourselves.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation.[/quote]
Oh, I absolutely think you enjoy doing this. I think you enjoy it with every fiber of your being.
Speaking of fiber, I think you need a little more of it in your diet.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225940\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:45 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225935\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:31 PM\'](And do you really think this is the first time I've called Lemon that?)[/quote]
Considering I've been suspended for less, I'm sure kinda hoping it will be the last.
[/quote]
I got two weeks in the hole because someone took down a video I linked to. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'225955\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation.[/quote]Oh, I absolutely think you enjoy doing this.[/quote]
Then you don't know me nearly as well as you appear to want to think you do.
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225958\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:52 PM\'][quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'225955\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation.[/quote]Oh, I absolutely think you enjoy doing this.[/quote]
Then you don't know me nearly as well as you appear to want to think you do.
[/quote]
Just to step outside the current mele, that last sentence reminded me of him (http://\"http://www.crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/images/benstiller.jpg\").
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225958\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:52 PM\']Then you don't know me nearly as well as you appear to want to think you do.[/quote]What?
-
[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225958\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:52 PM\'][quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'225955\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225905\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:02 PM\']If you think I enjoy doing this, you really need to reexamine the situation.[/quote]Oh, I absolutely think you enjoy doing this.[/quote]
Then you don't know me nearly as well as you appear to want to think you do.
[/quote]
And you appear to want people to think I appear to want to think I know you even though I don't, when in fact I do, regardless of how it may appear.
-
[quote name=\'TheLastResort\' post=\'225961\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:58 PM\']And you appear to want people to think I appear to want to think I know you even though I don't, when in fact I do, regardless of how it may appear.[/quote]
Okay, I know that was a crack at me...but screw it. That's funny. :-)
-
[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'225954\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 06:38 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225926\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:03 PM\']
Yes, and then you came in and acted like your usual, arrogant self.[/quote][/quote]
First off, I seriously, seriously don't appreciate you attributing words to me that I did not speak.
Secondly, I would invite you to take a step back and reflect on exactly how the "bickering" in this thread has been anything but one-sided, and how agreeing with two other people in this thread is such a heinous offense. Because that, apparently, is the "arrogance" that you tried to attribute to me.
(Notice I didn't say "tell me," because frankly I don't have any interest in discussing something like that with someone who's going to look at usernames and make a knee-jerk reaction. Just reflect on it.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225968\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 10:19 PM\'][quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'225954\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 06:38 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'225926\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 08:03 PM\']
Yes, and then you came in and acted like your usual, arrogant self.[/quote][/quote]
First off, I seriously, seriously don't appreciate you attributing words to me that I did not speak.
Secondly, I would invite you to take a step back and reflect on exactly how the "bickering" in this thread has been anything but one-sided, and how agreeing with two other people in this thread is such a heinous offense. Because that, apparently, is the "arrogance" that you tried to attribute to me.
(Notice I didn't say "tell me," because frankly I don't have any interest in discussing something like that with someone who's going to look at usernames and make a knee-jerk reaction. Just reflect on it.)
[/quote]
My mistake and sincere apologies to you (and to others who may have misinterpreted something about you because of my error) regarding the misquote. When I hit reply I removed the wrong quote code.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225883\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 05:04 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225880\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:50 PM\']Why? Are you really that bad at reading between the lines? Or is it just because it's people from Golden-Road?[/quote]
Well, speaking for myself, I can tell you that it has nothing to do with whether people are from Golden Road or not, and I think my decade-plus reputation around the interwebs ought to account for something when I say that. And when I see:
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'194636\' date=\'Aug 20 2008, 05:04 PM\']Perhaps if everyone understood why the Make Your Mark change was implemented, it would stand to reason why some [of us] get frustrated.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any 'not-too-cryptic allusions'. I see an argument trying to be won by "I know, but I'm not telling."[/quote]
I think you are implying that I had some sinister plot by "playing a card" on the members here. I don't get any gratification by withholding information and I think that my number of years providing accurate information both on this site and Golden-Road.net would lead most to believe that I have reasons behind withholding some info and not others. There is a whole lot that just doesn't get discussed and I was only trying to interject in a thread that was going crazy. (It's not as if I started the thread.) I guess I should not be surprised since I have interpreted your posts to mean that you have an issue (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11719&view=findpost&p=136214\") with certain forum members, but I would have thought you were more mature than interpreting something I post as "I know something you don't know!" (Take note that the original post cited no sources -- sorry Don!)
[quote name=\'pacdude\' post=\'225882\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:59 PM\'][quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'225879\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:47 PM\'][quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' post=\'225875\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 04:33 PM\']When we know something that we can't reveal the details of, would you really prefer for us to stay completely quiet about it instead of making not-terribly-cryptic allusions to it?[/quote]Yes.
[/quote]
Seconded.
[/quote]
I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
Wow, was that poisoning the well (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well\").
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 10:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take Price is Right threads and turn them into pissing contests.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 10:45 PM\']I guess I should not be surprised since I have interpreted your posts to mean that you have an issue (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11719&view=findpost&p=136214\") with certain forum members,[/quote]
Holy cow, I'm just honestly flummoxed by this one. You've held onto a flippant remark I made almost three years ago about Don winning bragging rights, and somehow that's supposed to mean I have a problem with "certain forum members"? I mean really, somebody else please tell me what I'm missing here. I don't know what kind of grudge you've been holding all this time, but I can tell you it is staggeringly misplaced.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 07:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
Or make the motion that if you have information, that you state who or where you got it from (and not just the "my friend/my source/people I know who work there, etc. vague cryptic shit). I'll do it. And I believe that would go a long way to clarifying what is speculation and conjecture (or in the case of the "Bob's a god Roger's a hero" fanb0is, "wishfull thinking"). In doing so this will hopefully put an end to the...deliberate misinformation (how tactful am I! ;) that's being put forth about TPIR, and the tedious arguments still being caused by it.
There is a common practice on these supposedly anonymous boards among individuals who wish to be seen as authorities or as someone having insider info, that when they're challenged, especially when they're confronted or confounded by facts, or by someone who actually has genuine insider knowledge (especially if that information contradicts the essense of what they believe), that these individuals predictably;
a.) Revert to bitchy personal attacks on their challenger.
b.) Bring up something inflamatory, usually not relevant to the issue, but something that is guaranteed to inflame and therefore to distract.
Or, they simply use the infamous Changeup Pitch; (definition; in baseball, a pitch whose deceptive delivery is meant to confuse).
As in the baseball metaphor regarding debate; “When the facts are on your side, pitch the facts. When the law is on your side, pitch the law. When neither one is on your side, pitch a Changeup!”.
So I make a motion that if you cannot say who or where you got your information from, then STFU.
But hey, it's just my opinion.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 10:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
Wait, we're supposed to take your word that your sources are unimpeachable, but you're allowed to take potshots at somebody else's sources? I'm seriously missing the logic in that.
-
C'mon, pentellit, don't pour gasoline on this.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
Please tell me where Bart Eskander's wife became an oracle for all things TPiR, because as an outsider - that's not who I'd look to first.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'225999\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:01 AM\']C'mon, pentellit, don't pour gasoline on this.[/quote]
The Password is........"Accelerant"
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225992\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:40 PM\']Holy cow, I'm just honestly flummoxed by this one. You've held onto a flippant remark I made almost three years ago about Don winning bragging rights, and somehow that's supposed to mean I have a problem with "certain forum members"? I mean really, somebody else please tell me what I'm missing here. I don't know what kind of grudge you've been holding all this time, but I can tell you it is staggeringly misplaced.[/quote]
No grudge. I took offense to how you phrased your response to my previous post as if I am just an "overzealous fanb0i" or an "amateur historian."
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'225994\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:44 PM\']There is a common practice on these supposedly anonymous boards among individuals who wish to be seen as authorities or as someone having insider info, that when they're challenged, especially when they're confronted or confounded by facts, or by someone who actually has genuine insider knowledge[/quote]
Wait...if someone has "insider info," and they are challenged or confronted by someone else who has "insider knowledge" --- the latter is right?
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'225996\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:48 PM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'225977\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 10:45 PM\']I would like to make the motion that we no longer allow users to take statements from the wife of someone who gets fired as the ultimate source of information.[/quote]
Wait, we're supposed to take your word that your sources are unimpeachable, but you're allowed to take potshots at somebody else's sources? I'm seriously missing the logic in that.
[/quote]
That's understood and if there was precedent that I had set with misinformation, I would hold no issue.
(I take personal note that I try to avoid these confrontational threads for a reason...)
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226003\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:08 PM\']Wait...if someone has "insider info," and they are challenged or confronted by someone else who has "insider knowledge" --- the latter is right?[/quote]
If the former is vague, and not forthcoming, and the latter is up front and states their source or sources, uh yeah "the latter is right".
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226004\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:20 AM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226003\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:08 PM\']Wait...if someone has "insider info," and they are challenged or confronted by someone else who has "insider knowledge" --- the latter is right?[/quote]
If the former is vague, and not forthcoming, and the latter is up front and states their source or sources, uh yeah "the latter is right".
[/quote]
You and I will have to have an in depth conversation about sources again sometime. :)
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226003\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:08 AM\']No grudge. I took offense to how you phrased your response to my previous post as if I am just an "overzealous fanb0i" or an "amateur historian."[/quote]
Again, honestly, my head is just swimming here. Then why bring up the three-year old post? I don't even see what the point of that was.
As for the other, you have taken offense at something I never said to you. I don't believe I've ever called anyone an 'overzealous fanb0i' and just about everybody on this forum is an 'amateur historian', myself included.
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226004\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:20 AM\']If the former is vague, and not forthcoming, and the latter is up front and states their source or sources, uh yeah "the latter is right".[/quote]Here's the thing though: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that most of your sources are no longer affiliated with the show, through the firings or quitting or what have you. They likely aren't risking their current employment to make whatever statements they say. The people who CGJ and Gavazzi get their info from are. They obviously don't want someone they know and presumably like getting fired, so they pass the info while withholding their source. You enjoy a degree of freedom they don't, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're more right. Just more free.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226005\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:25 PM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226004\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:20 AM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226003\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:08 PM\']Wait...if someone has "insider info," and they are challenged or confronted by someone else who has "insider knowledge" --- the latter is right?[/quote]
If the former is vague, and not forthcoming, and the latter is up front and states their source or sources, uh yeah "the latter is right".
[/quote]
You and I will have to have an in depth conversation about sources again sometime. :)
[/quote]
Yes John, if the former is unwilling to disclose their sources, or stand by their information, then yes that would clearly mean that "the latter is right". And again I say, if someone is not willing to divulge their "sources", then STFU.
(And you and I can have and in depth conversation anytime you'd like. :)
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'226007\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:41 AM\']Here's the thing though: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that most of your sources are no longer affiliated with the show, through the firings or quitting or what have you. They likely aren't risking their current employment to make whatever statements they say. The people who CGJ and Gavazzi get their info from are. They obviously don't want someone they know and presumably like getting fired, so they pass the info while withholding their source. You enjoy a degree of freedom they don't, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're more right. Just more free.[/quote]
Well, call me Shemp.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'226006\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:36 AM\'][quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226003\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:08 AM\']No grudge. I took offense to how you phrased your response to my previous post as if I am just an "overzealous fanb0i" or an "amateur historian."[/quote]
Again, honestly, my head is just swimming here. Then why bring up the three-year old post? I don't even see what the point of that was.
As for the other, you have taken offense at something I never said to you. I don't believe I've ever called anyone an 'overzealous fanb0i' and just about everybody on this forum is an 'amateur historian', myself included.
[/quote]
I will be glad to take this offline (I know, unheard of) and perhaps I'm misreading. I do know that you brought up a 1+ year old post of mine and seemed to take a shot at me.
I have no trouble withholding all future information if this is what the balance of the forum membership requests. I don't post anything to show any sort of "holier than thou" status. Regardless of what others may think, I am often interested in setting the record straight as my only agenda.
Perhaps I should write a book. :)
-
[quote name=\'CarShark\' post=\'226007\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 09:41 PM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226004\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 12:20 AM\']If the former is vague, and not forthcoming, and the latter is up front and states their source or sources, uh yeah "the latter is right".[/quote]Here's the thing though: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that most of your sources are no longer affiliated with the show, through the firings or quitting or what have you. They likely aren't risking their current employment to make whatever statements they say. The people who CGJ and Gavazzi get their info from are. They obviously don't want someone they know and presumably like getting fired, so they pass the info while withholding their source. You enjoy a degree of freedom they don't, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're more right. Just more free.
[/quote]
To the contrary. The days of Barker's Inquisition are over, especially now that Barker and Dobkowitz are gone.
Yes, there are some changes in staff being considered, but that is typical of any corporate takeover.
-
What concerns me the most out of the whole sources crap is that everyone at Price knows Scott Robinson has/had a relationship with G-R.net. By posting this "insider" information, you could easily give some of The Powers That Be an impression that he could be your source. Thus putting him in jeopardy.
And that to me is kind of reckless. By not being more forthcoming with your sources, you could be putting his career in danger just purely from a former association he had/has with G-R.net whether you realize it or not.
The reason I say this is because you've stated many times Roger was your source all those years. Now that he's gone, who's your guy on the inside. It certainly isn't "Droofus" or "Mikey," I'm not sure he'd give G-R.net the time of day. So of course the mind wanders as to how you come about all this info while admitting you've lost your source. The mind reasons that Scott would be it.
Just think about that next time you post some "insider info."
-
Not that anything I seem to post is believed by many, only out of respect for Scott will I bother to say that Scott is not a "source" for any Price information. In fact, I think you will notice that he won't even post on our site or on this site when any topic relates to Price. (I don't think I even needed to say this.)
With about 100 people working around that place, there are an awful lot of possibilities when it comes to people who don't mind being liberal.
I think you will also find that I don't post anything that isn't common knowledge around the studio amongst the staff and crew.
-
[quote name=\'ClockGameJohn\' post=\'226027\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 01:03 AM\']Not that anything I seem to post is believed by many, only out of respect for Scott will I bother to say that Scott is not a "source" for any Price information. In fact, I think you will notice that he won't even post on our site or on this site when any topic relates to Price. (I don't think I even needed to say this.)
With about 100 people working around that place, there are an awful lot of possibilities when it comes to people who don't mind being liberal.
I think you will also find that I don't post anything that isn't common knowledge around the studio amongst the staff and crew.[/quote]
That's good. It always just seemed like Scott would be easily blamed should someone at the show get tired of leaks.
-
I think you will find that is precisely why Scott distances himself greatly from posting on our site and this one.
-
By not being more forthcoming with your sources, you could be putting his career in danger just purely from a former association he had/has with G-R.net whether you realize it or not.
Think about what you just said. You want someone to name Charley Lipschitz as his source of information to protect Scott. Do you know what the consequences of doing that are likely to be? 1) Charley Lipschitz will stop sharing information, and 2) Charley Lipschitz' job is in jeopardy because he is now known to have leaked "sensitive" information about the show.
A source who is "outed" stops being a source. See Plame, Valerie (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame\") and Throat, Deep (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat\").
Scott does not leak information on game show boards. He values his job.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'226034\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 01:30 AM\']
By not being more forthcoming with your sources, you could be putting his career in danger just purely from a former association he had/has with G-R.net whether you realize it or not.
Think about what you just said. You want someone to name Charley Lipschitz as his source of information to protect Scott. Do you know what the consequences of doing that are likely to be? 1) Charley Lipschitz will stop sharing information, and 2) Charley Lipschitz' job is in jeopardy because he is now known to have leaked "sensitive" information about the show.
A source who is "outed" stops being a source. See Plame, Valerie (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame\") and Throat, Deep (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat\").
Scott does not leak information on game show boards. He values his job.
[/quote]
I understand that. I never said John needed to name and out his sources, just be more upfront as he safely can.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'226034\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:30 PM\']A source who is "outed" stops being a source. See Plame, Valerie (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame\") and Throat, Deep (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat\").
Scott does not leak information on game show boards. He values his job.[/quote]
Today's TPIR is not like it was during The Barker years. The staff and crew no longer have to live in fear and dread like they did during the Barker-Dobkowitz regime. This is no longer the "Barker Inquisition".
As far as "sources" go, it's not like they're spies and we're leaking classified military secrets on these boards. If a person who works on the show reveals that the colors on the turntable are being changed, or that the work days are longer, this is not Top Secret information. My 75 year old mother has more "sources" i.e. friends on Price, stage 33, and at TV City than all the pseudo authorities on these boards together, and the good news is that people are enjoying working on Price again. They don't have to live in fear like they did during the Barker days, (and if they are, then most likely there's a reason for it). The people that Corporate slated for firing are gone - Drew Carey is a nice guy - the crew is getting overtime again - and there's candy in the candy drawer again! Life is good on TPIR. I said "good", not easy, because there's no way it could be easy with a new host, new producer, and new director, but at least it's not the hell hole it was.
/And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and still live out his life without ever being outed?
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226061\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:09 AM\']/And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and still live out his life without ever being outed?[/quote]
Actually, no, he outed himself four years ago. (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat\")
/don't think I wasn't curious to see what a basic Wiki search on "deep throat" would turn up
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'226065\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 01:15 PM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226061\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:09 AM\']/And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and still live out his life without ever being outed?[/quote]
Actually, no, he outed himself four years ago. (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat\")
[/quote]
Yes, and everybody said "Who?" and yawned.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'226065\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:15 AM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226061\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:09 AM\']/And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and still live out his life without ever being outed?[/quote]
Actually, no, he outed himself four years ago. (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_throat\")
/don't think I wasn't curious to see what a basic Wiki search on "deep throat" would turn up
[/quote]
So he did live out his life without ever being outed by persons other than himself?
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226069\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:27 AM\']So he did live out his life without ever being outed by persons other than himself?[/quote]
1) If so, he couldn't have outed himself, because he'd already be out.
2) Once he did out himself, it's temporally impossible for anyone else to out him.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'226075\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:52 AM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226069\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 10:27 AM\']So he did live out his life without ever being outed by persons other than himself?[/quote]
1) If so, he couldn't have outed himself, because he'd already be out.
2) Once he did out himself, it's temporally impossible for anyone else to out him.
[/quote]
So he was not outed by persons other than himself before he died?
-
Are you really not capable of reading those two lines and making the conclusion yourself?
That is correct, he was not outted by any other person before he died.
-
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'226083\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 11:52 AM\']Are you really not capable of reading those two lines and making the conclusion yourself?[/quote]
My original statement was "...didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and live out his life without ever being outed?" Mr. Armadillo, what conclusion did I miss?
[quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'226083\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 11:52 AM\']That is correct, he was not outted by any other person before he died.[/quote]
Thank you.
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226093\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 03:43 PM\']without ever being outed?"[/quote]
If I may, I think I see where we're having a problem. I believe that the point pentellit is making is that Deep Throat's identity was successfully protected by the people who promised to protect it for years and years and years and years, and that ultimately, the only reason his identity became known is because he (along with his family) divulged it himself. In other words, when she said "without ever being outed" she specifically and pointedly meant "without ever being outed by somebody else". Several people (myself included, at first) saw the original post to mean that his identity remained secret his entire life, which of course was not the case.
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226061\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 01:09 PM\'][quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'226034\' date=\'Sep 14 2009, 11:30 PM\']A source who is "outed" stops being a source. See Plame, Valerie (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame\") and Throat, Deep (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat\").
Scott does not leak information on game show boards. He values his job.[/quote]
Today's TPIR is not like it was during The Barker years. The staff and crew no longer have to live in fear and dread like they did during the Barker-Dobkowitz regime. This is no longer the "Barker Inquisition".
[/quote]
The WGMC will see you in his throne room after the show, Miss... Miss... Tellit?
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'226094\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 02:59 PM\'][quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226093\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 03:43 PM\']without ever being outed?"[/quote]
If I may, I think I see where we're having a problem. I believe that the point pentellit is making is that Deep Throat's identity was successfully protected by the people who promised to protect it for years and years and years and years, and that ultimately, the only reason his identity became known is because he (along with his family) divulged it himself. In other words, when she said "without ever being outed" she specifically and pointedly meant "without ever being outed by somebody else". Several people (myself included, at first) saw the original post to mean that his identity remained secret his entire life, which of course was not the case.
[/quote]
And that concludes today's episode of Words Have Meanings. Next week, our panelists will be Ruta Lee and Robert Mandan.
:)
-
[quote name=\'pentellit\' post=\'226093\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 02:43 PM\'][quote name=\'Mr. Armadillo\' post=\'226083\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 11:52 AM\']Are you really not capable of reading those two lines and making the conclusion yourself?[/quote]
My original statement was "...didn't "Deep Throat" divulge all that insider info and live out his life without ever being outed?" Mr. Armadillo, what conclusion did I miss?[/quote]
Chris L. stated this:
1) If <someone else had outed him>, he couldn't have outed himself, because he'd already be out.
Since we had already established that he did, in fact, successfully out himself, the conclusion that he could NOT have been outed by anyone else logically follows.
-
The point is that if Woodward and Bernstein had divulged Deep Throat's identity during the Watergate era when he was leaking all of that info, W & B could have kissed their source of info goodbye. See my post about Lipschitz, Charley.
-
This is why I love this forum. We can go from TPIR to Deep Throat in no time flat.
-
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'226108\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 04:35 PM\']This is why I love this forum. We can go from TPIR to Deep Throat in no time flat.[/quote]
There has to be some connection between the 70's TPiR and Linda Lovelace.
/Oh... THAT "Deep Throat."
//Use as directed.
-
[quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'226133\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 08:36 PM\']/Oh... THAT "Deep Throat."[/quote]
There's another one--the (in)famous one from Welcome Back Kotter.
/"I must go home. . .and gargle."
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'226096\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 04:04 PM\']And that concludes today's episode of Words Have Meanings. Next week, our panelists will be Ruta Lee and Robert Mandan.[/quote]
After yesterday's Pyramid, I'm not sure Robert Mandan's words do have meanings. :-)
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' post=\'226134\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 09:39 PM\'][quote name=\'TeppanYaki\' post=\'226133\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 08:36 PM\']/Oh... THAT "Deep Throat."[/quote]
There's another one--the (in)famous one from Welcome Back Kotter.
[/quote]
And he allowed the sweathogs to simply call him either "deep" or "throat".
So what's this I hear about Make Your Mark being retired?
-
[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'226108\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 04:35 PM\']This is why I love this forum. We can go from TPIR to Deep Throat in no time flat.[/quote]
And usually Barker was the only link betwixt.
-
[quote name=\'dale_grass\' post=\'226162\' date=\'Sep 16 2009, 09:12 AM\'][quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'226108\' date=\'Sep 15 2009, 04:35 PM\']This is why I love this forum. We can go from TPIR to Deep Throat in no time flat.[/quote]
And usually Barker was the only link betwixt.
[/quote]
Very LOL funny!