Art Bell

[Mr. Fidget]

   *whew* Art I finally read the email, it was my first from them... and I was a bit intimidated.
   It turns out to be targeted marketing based on my social media profile... you're still in the clear.
No "pesky" questions to ruffle your feathers... yet.
Your blacklisting stands, hysterically so!

They were pushing this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/world/the-outlaw-ocean.html?partner=card&_r=0

[SciFiAuthor]

You mad bro?

I've enjoyed his shows in the past, and liked the guy.  After all that's gone on though, I find the Art Bell worship here can be a bit much - especially the way he gets his fans so excited, only to quickly bail out.  I stop by the forum anyway, so I comment on it.  Then what I hear back is 'it's just a radio show'.  If that's the case, why all the fervor from those posters over something they say is 'just a radio show'?.


Just so you know, I pointed out his surprise at the music royalty fee mess to suggest he may not be as informed on current news topics as people think he is, even issues within the radio industry - with comments made about 'the world needing his voice' and all that.  Not because I thought it was part of some plan to set up an excuse to quit.

The problems at Sirius were also known, although not as an ongoing general news story the way the music royalty fee issue is.  If the problems he had with Sirius were truly the reason he quit, then he doesn't do his homework.


And don't get so upset, it's just a radio show

No, wasn't mad. I just don't get your level of negativity. You didn't listen. Didn't lose any money. You have no dog in the fight, yet you bitch your ass off about Art and goddamned nearly everything. That makes no sense. It's like you feel entitled to bitch about everything, even when you didn't even partake of what you're bitching about.

[Chronaut]

I don't see a great deal of difference with Art's story than with any other tale that rests on the supposed veracity of the teller rather than the details of the story itself. We are in religious belief territory here. Are you telling me that the only reason that I am supposed to believe it is because I can't prove it's false? Unfalsifiable theories are always weak, as you ought to know.

I can't tell if you're intentionally misrepresenting the process of reasoning to bolster your baseless/illogical conclusion, or if you just don't understand empirical reasoning.

There's no evidence that Art has lied about his story.  None.  If any evidence came to light that he lied about it, that would falsify his story.  The only unfalsifiable theories here are the ones that paint him as a liar, because they're all based entirely on subjective interpretations of circumstances rather than objective facts.  Which, yes, renders them worthless.

I think we involve fewer assumptions if we simply assume that an elderly man (who had already shown signs of iffy judgement in previous months) got tired of a gig he wanted out of, and threw out an excuse because he knew that he had used up most of the other ones and needed something a bit more convincing. It's handy because it can't be easily disproved, but also relies on the good faith (some might say 'pathetic credulity') of his audience to accept it.

Taking the facts at face value - facts which also happen to be consistent with each other, btw, is logical, not credulous.  Concluding that all of the stalker incidents were fabricated/staged over a course of months, that false police reports were filed and publicly posted, and that the neighbors and Heather are part of a fairly involved conspiracy to manufacture an excuse that he didn't even need if he just wanted to quit - that's the epitome of "pathetic credulity."  There isn't one breath of evidence to support that convoluted read of the situation.  On the other hand, all of the existing facts and statements and testimony from multiple parties including the Nye County Sheriff's Office, all conform to the stalker story we've been told.

So this is clearly a case where "when you hear hoofbeats in Central Park, think 'horses' not 'zebras.'"

It's certainly a 'simple' explanation, in the sense of being naive and credulous.  I don't think it's particularly sophisticated either.

Cynicism and patronization are not valid substitutes for a rational argument, fyi.  If abiding by Occam's razor is "naive and credulous" then let's just throw out everything we've learned since the Dark Ages, because all of us witless stooges who have been basing our conclusions on the preponderance of objective data must have been sprinting down the wrong road for centuries...  :

You are also guilty of making an assumption about Art. Multiple assumptions in fact, about his character and motives that you are not entitled to make. As this is Burns Night, I should point out that the Scottish courts have three possible verdicts in trials: 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'not proven'.  Art hasn't proved his case, that's all, and all you are doing is assuming that he's being honest because you like him on the air.

This applies more strongly to the baseless accusation that Art Bell is a liar.  You're the one making the allegation; it's up to you to prove it.  But you can't, because even with 20+ years of public history to draw upon, nothing in that vast body of evidence demonstrates that Art Bell is a liar.  The data speaks for itself.  Say what you will about the man, "emotional," "impulsive" or what have you, he's never been known to be a liar.

For 'a number of people' read 'employees'. What would we do when faced with this story coming from a man we never knew? Well, give them the benefit of the doubt, I guess, up to a point; but that benefit wouldn't extend as far as believing everything without corroborating evidence.

The several months of intermittent incidents he reported at his home - some of which happened live on the air, the testimony of his neighbors to the police, the police reports themselves, Heather's confirmation of her phone call to the police...we have all of the corroborating evidence that we could reasonably expect to have, and it all supports his story.  I'm not saying that you have to believe it, just that disbelieving it is a position unsupported by a single objective fact.  Some people mighty call that "unintelligent" or "pathologically cynical."

I prefer to simply describe it as "irrational."

[Mr. Fidget]

You mad bro?

No, wasn't mad.

Did you see that?
*smack*, a flipper right to the p*b guesses department.

[Ciardelo]

I can't tell if you're intentionally misrepresenting the process of reasoning to bolster your baseless/illogical conclusion, or if you just don't understanding empirical reasoning.

There's no evidence that Art has lied about his story.  None.  If any evidence came to light that he lied about it, that would falsify his story.  The only unfalsifiable theories here are the ones that paint him as a liar, because they're all based entirely on subjective interpretations of circumstances rather than objective facts.  Which, yes, renders them worthless.

Taking the facts at face value - facts which also happen to be consistent with each other, btw, is logical, not credulous.  Concluding that all of the stalker incidents were fabricated/staged over a course of months, that false police reports were filed and publicly posted, and that the neighbors and Heather are part of a fairly involved conspiracy to manufacture an excuse that he didn't even need if he just wanted to quit - that's the epitome of "pathetic credulity."  There isn't one breath of evidence to support that convoluted read of the situation.  On the other hand, all of the existing facts and statements and testimony from multiple parties including the Nye County Sheriff's Office, all conform to the stalker story we've been told.

So this is clearly a case where "when you hear hoofbeats in Central Park, think 'horses' not 'zebras.'"

Cynicism and patronization are not valid substitutes for a rational argument, fyi.  If abiding by Occam's razor is "naive and credulous" then let's just throw out everything we've learned since the Dark Ages, because all of us witless stooges who have been basing our conclusions on the preponderance of objective data must have been sprinting down the wrong road for centuries...  :

This applies more strongly to the baseless accusation that Art Bell is a liar.  You're the one making the allegation; it's up to you to prove it.  But you can't, because even with 20+ years of public history to draw upon, nothing in that vast body of evidence demonstrates that Art Bell is a liar.  The data speaks for itself.  Say what you will about the man, "emotional," "impulsive" or what have you, he's never been known to be a liar.

The several months of intermittent incidents he reported at his home - some of which happened live on the air, the testimony of his neighbors to the police, the police reports themselves, Heather's confirmation of her phone call to the police...we have all of the corroborating evidence that we could reasonably expect to have, and it all supports his story.  I'm not saying that you have to believe it, just that disbelieving it is a position unsupported by a single objective fact.  Some people mighty call that "unintelligent" or "pathologically cynical."

I prefer to simply describe it as "irrational."

smackdown. The Senda kitten thoughtfully rebuked. Good post.

[Chronaut]

smackdown. The Senda kitten thoughtfully rebuked. Good post.

Honestly it's far more troubling to me when intelligent people employ the same logical fallacies that the "Moon landing hoax conspiracy" people employ, than it is when dumb people do it.  It's been an insidious trend - once uneducated people on the internet misappropriated "skepticism" to mean "disbelief of everything, including the facts," rather than its true meaning of "letting the preponderance of facts speak for themselves," suddenly reason itself became fair game.  Now it's fashionable to be so cynical that evidence itself has become suspect.  And at least here in America, this has so broken the capacity for rational thought that our entire society is imploding under the gravity of its own bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc89KUnWlvU

[CornyCrow]

I'm still angry about the Sirius radio I bought.

Me too.  That piece of manure.  But, this time I bought an internet radio, and I'm happy with that.  It is way more reliable than the Sirius and has a much better selection.

[Mr. Fidget]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<satire>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Art Bell has been seen wearing a pirate t-shirt.

Few places on the planet are as lawless as the high seas, and pirates are very dangerous.

According to the New York Times reporter who emailed me today, pirate ships intentionally dump more oil into the ocean every three years than the BP and Exxon Valdez spills combined.

Why would he lie?

Murder has been caught on camera and the culprits posed for selfies.

Art also has been known to pose for selfies.

It is obviously no more than a coincidence.

I can't believe Art poisoned the ocean, murdered his crew, and posed for selfies!

That is preposterous!

Just because no country is willing to investigate, does not mean Art got away with it.

Sea slaves are trafficked onto boats and dispatched sometimes for years offshore to catch fish destined for pet food.

Art has pets.

Stowaways are tossed overboard and left to die in the middle of the ocean.

I kind of feel like Art did that to me, but that does not mean he is really a pirate...

t-shirt, or no.

[SciFiAuthor]

... When painted into a corner, your garden variety dumbass will say almost anything to get himself out of a bind, and feign outrage if it isn't believed. It's trailer trash bluster and rhetoric.

You're right in what you said, but forget the equally trailer trash tabloid effect where knowns become conflated and take on a life of their own as juicy hypotheses. Well, I've been watching the story unfold like everyone else, and I see absolutely no reason in anything Art's said to doubt his story. Perhaps if I was angry with him for leaving the air I might conflate things, but I've seen no cause for it.

You will make multiple assumptions throughout every day of your waking life. You can't navigate your way through a typical day otherwise. If you constantly need verification and reassurance over every detail of your existence then you might as well shut yourself in all day.

We're not talking about day to day assumptions made out of necessity. It's an invalid comparison. You and others seem to be out to find some sort of alternative truth to the story, that Art wanted to quit or made up a story or whatever. To do that, you must make fundamental assumptions, and I'm asking why. There's no inconsistency that I've seen in the story. Why the need for the assumptions?

It sounds like your razor needs the strop. I don't see a great deal of difference with Art's story than with any other tale that rests on the supposed veracity of the teller rather than the details of the story itself...

No, I'm saying that everything has been consistent. Look, you can say "he made it up" but you haven't given me anything solid from which to consider that assertion. You're just assuming he made it up because people sometimes make things up.

No, but people don't usually roll over in that situation either. Be honest, wind the clock back twenty years when he was building the show and hungry for success, and imagine someone gave him a similar ultimatum.

That happened lol. I think it was the first or second retirement in '97 or '98. 

I think we involve fewer assumptions if we simply assume that an elderly man (who had already shown signs of iffy judgement in previous months) got tired of a gig he wanted out of, and threw out an excuse because he knew that he had

I prefer the version with only one assumption: Art's telling the truth. Past that, he made terrible decisions throughout. He said as much.

At least we have a point of agreement here. It's certainly a 'simple' explanation, in the sense of being naive and credulous. I don't think it's particularly sophisticated either. You are also guilty of making an assumption about Art ... Burns Night.

You leave Burns out of this. If I wanted to discuss 18th century poems about mice, I'd do it in the Politics section. No, I think what you consider to be naïve and credulous is really just an absence of automatic cynicism. To the habitually cynical, nothing can ever be as it seems, a cigar is never a cigar, and everyone is a crook. I can buy into that, so long as I have a reason. But in this case, I haven't been given a reason.

For 'a number of people' read 'employees'. What would we do when faced with this story coming from a man we never knew? Well, give them the benefit of the doubt, I guess, up to a point; but that benefit wouldn't extend as far as believing everything without corroborating evidence.

Well, that's the funny thing here, some of the more extreme theories involve assumptions about the corroborating evidence itself, i.e. the police reports. First it was that the reports didn't exist, and when they did exist they were fraudulently made or some shit like that. It was ridiculous and stupid. 

I think people are analysing this because it looks like the old boy has gone off his onion, and people are perplexed by it all. And before Onan puts his cleats on and starts treading on my face again ...

I think they're needlessly perplexed. If I had to pull a gun on someone on my property who appeared to be repeatedly stalking me, I'd freak out. I'd make better decisions regarding the situation, but I'd still freak out. I think anyone would. As far as the mercurial decisions, like we haven't seen him make decisions like that before, "all in" and such.

I was trying to recall a crazy story that happened over here a while back, of a man who faked his own death - with the connivance of his wife - to claim on the insurance.

I see what you did there. You're giving Falkie covert financial advice in the guise of a post to someone else. I'm onto you and your nefarious plots. I suspected you were evil the moment I heard your accent.

[onan]

Art isn't here, we are still talking about him. Art wins.

[GravitySucks]

Art isn't here, we are still talking about him. Art wins.

Damn. Will we at least get Particpation trophies?

[onan]

Damn. Will we at least get Particpation trophies?

Oh yes. you will get a trophy, a trophy indeed.

[creepygreenlight]

Art isn't here, we are still talking about him. Art wins.

People are still talking about how much he sucks for quitting again.
And how much Heather sucks.

Art isn't exactly winning right now...

[onan]

People are still talking about how much he sucks for quitting again.
And how much Heather sucks.

Art isn't exactly winning right now...

No such thing as bad publicity.

Who was it that said "the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."?

[CornyCrow]

People sometimes think that because something is now politically incorrect (having been simply frowned upon), it has somehow gone out of fashion. Sleeping with the boss is a time-tested and proven way to get ahead, for a certain kind of woman. Yes, those women are still around. Where would they go?

Pi, this is much more common than lots may think.  In my observation in several companies that are household names, both the male manager and the female aspirant are usually married.  Years back the male might have made the first move but after feminism and endless office memos against that, it seems that women tend to be more aggressive.  I was kind of shocked when I first realized this was going on and was so prevalent.  These women, the ones that I knew, were very intelligent and observant people.  You'd never suspect, normally, that they would do such things.

When I was in college I was similarly amazed at the girls, who would go in groups, flying together to Vegas and other places during school breaks.  I found out that they were actually prostituting themselves to make extra money for school. 

I don't know how to react, except that in a business environment a lot happens that is unethical and competition is rough and people will press for any advantage that they can get.  I've never taken part, but that's because my conscience would haunt me and I have a marvelous husband.  Maybe others are in different situations.  I had a really icky problem once with a manager who was a lesbian.  Ugh!  Not my thing.     

[SciFiAuthor]

No such thing as bad publicity.

Who was it that said "the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."?

[bateman]

No such thing as bad publicity.

Who was it that said "the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."?

How well do you think Cosby Show box sets are selling these days?

[onan]

How well do you think Cosby Show box sets are selling these days?

Everything has a shelf life.

[Taco Bell]

How well do you think Cosby Show box sets are selling these days?

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Damn. Will we at least get Particpation trophies?

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

No such thing as bad publicity.

Who was it that said "the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."?

Oscar Wilde

[onan]

Oscar Wilde

Thank you sir.

[SixWeekTenure(tm)]

Everything has a shelf life.

The activity in the MITD thread is down to about 15 regulars during showtime these days. Stick a fork in it.

[GravitySucks]

The activity in the MITD thread is down to about 15 regulars during showtime these days. Stick a fork in it.

What did you do when you ran out of fingers.

[CornyCrow]

No, I'm serious, they have it together when it comes to the cheese, way better than grated cheddar like at taco bell.

Those pre-grated cheeses don't melt properly and the taste is off.  There is an additive to get them not to smoosh together that ruins the cheese.   

[SixWeekTenure(tm)]

What did you do when you ran out of fingers.

I used the number of affiliates that still carry the show. Five.

[trostol]

how did this thread get derailed off the taco talk?

[Taco Bell]

[GravitySucks]

I used the number of affiliates that still carry the show. Five.

You are a man of facts sir. You must be heavily invested in the outcome of this show. Did you get in the pool for the networl's last day?

[trostol]

maybe this taco