Art Bell

[GravitySucks]

The bold part is definitely true. But "invested" can be used in a negative way, depending on the context, and I have often seen it used that way here and elsewhere. Connotation is the point here and unless you're clearly talking investment/finance, it can be a bitch. Hell, in terms of context, I got yelled at here because I said that, yes, even a coffee cup can be used as a weapon in particular circumstances. In return, I got "It's only a coffee cup, you idiot" or words to that effect.

I respect Shredni too and I overlook his sharp tongue because of the overwhelming value of what comes out of his mouth. Also, I think he means no harm, although it may sound like he does. Honestly, I'm neutral on Heather. For me, she's just a starting point for a larger conversation about things bigger than her and MITD. But if someone like me tries to springboard from Heather, the response is usually all about Heather. That's one reason this thread is in a rut.

well Yeah

[onan]

So....to find out what all the hate is about do I really need to go back a 1000 pages to see what DP has said?

I mean true, I don't have a life but still...............

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. wisdom, foolishness, belief, and incredulity.

[DarKPenguiN]

Whether Art does pursue you Legally or not, and whether or not he wins or loses the case if he does, and regardless of the purse-size of any such win, the key bit is this; does Art Bell have GROUNDs to persue DarKPenguiN. A freind, had a Defamation Lawyer look over your record at Bellgab over the past couple weeks and that Attorney reported back thusly:

"Art Bell has a strong case against DP.  The legal standard for libel has been met, including actual malice, which applies to public figures in some instances.  He’s done a smart job of laying the foundation for damages in this case.  A promissory estoppel argument could remove the shield of Section 230 immunity.  If DP has few assets, Art may consider a criminal complaint for cyberstalking, a Class C-3 felony in his venue, for which the required elements have likewise been met."

You, DP, can take any objections you may have with this assessment up with _your_ Attorneys (not with me) but there you have it, from an actual Lawman.

Your "lawyer friend" had nothing better to do than read my posts for free on the week of a Holiday?

Must not be very good- Or have lots of time on his hands.

Or  both...

whats your "lawyer friend" say about the Gunderson video and why art never went after him?

-Anyhow, like I said before. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but I'm sleeping quite well tbh.

[Value Of Pi]

As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. Get the picture? You laughing now? Coffee is for closers.

Translation? And can you do it without ruining the joke? I do sense humor -- that's coming through.

[phrodo]

Your "lawyer friend" had nothing better to do than read my posts for free on the week of a Holiday?

Must not be very good- Or have lots of time on his hands.

Or  both...

whats your "lawyer friend" say about the Gunderson video and why art never went after him?

-Anyhow, like I said before. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it but I'm sleeping quite well tbh.

Although you have posted several GBs of drivel -- it would likely only take about 10 minutes to read a few of your rants to see what he needed to know about your "lather, rinse, repeat" mentality. Wow ... a Class C Felony -- that comes with up to 15 years prison time in Michigan. Maybe you can make some new friends there.

[DarKPenguiN]

Although you have posted several GBs of drivel -- it would likely only take about 10 minutes to read a few of your rants to see what he needed to know about your "lather, rinse, repeat" mentality. Wow ... a Class C Felony -- that comes with up to 15 years prison time in Michigan. Maybe you can make some new friends there.

Yup, because I'm sure I'll make the most wanted list and a manhunt will ensue over expressing opinions and bringing up publicly available information thats been online for over a decade and is still sitting there for anyone to find. Art bell needs to go after youtube as well, I suppose.

What kind of Nation do you think we live in? You thought police are scary motherfuckers.

I'll add there are still blogs out there speculating that Art killed ramona after he has threatened lawsuits. Edit- I dont buy it so I'm not misunderstood-Edit off-There are still 'supposed' stalkers and terrorists out there keeping Art Bell and family paralyzed with terror. but "OH NOES the penguin brought up the public Gunderson video" and must be dealt with.

-The only reason anything is even being said towards me from Art is because I'm talking here in front of his fanbase (less WHAT ive said than where ive said it) and he doesnt like me anyhow. I challenge you to see how much shit there is online that really may cross a line and is still  there. Everything ive said is available in the gunderson video and ive even asked if Gunderson was lying or faking it and where the proof of that was (and why if he was faking or lying did nothing happen to him?) beyond that I gave opinions and speculation FAR MORE TAME than millions of other posts,blogs and theories plastered all over the inteweb.

IF I'm the radar at all- Its quite silly when it seems there are far bigger issues (like relentless Terrorism) that should be Arts concern and not a penguin posting public information and offering opinions, even unpopular ones.

[ge30542]

okay, if everyone's finished posting tonight, i'll turn out the lights, okay, are we through?, goodnight.

[HumanBeing]

okay, if everyone's finished posting tonight, i'll turn out the lights, okay, are we through?, goodnight.

Everyone is on their knees in a circle listening to the GabCast

[WOTR]

The way you waste the letter "u" by adding it to words unnecessarily, it's not surprising that you didn't have one handy when you really needed it.

Best quote yet.  Being Canadian I howled with laughtur.

[paladin1991]

Everyone is on their knees in a circle listening to the GabCast

I haven't listened to it yet.  Did ART show up?

[HumanBeing]

I haven't listened to it yet.  Did ART show up?

Heard he is the producer

[WOTR]

Why should I , or anyone else have decency towards Arts fans when he himself has no decency towards you.
Edit- You are right, I am/was just passing time and honing my skills for the real virtual battles to come. Normally I troll in tandem with a group (we play both sides btw...Coordinating on skype) but none of my friends really know anything about Bell and knowledge of the subject matter is crucial. i swear to god I am here completely on my own, dont know nighttrain (although hes welcome to PM me if he wants to join some future trolling fun on other subjects), dont know MV, have nothing to do with noory and premrat, etc..etc... I was truly an Art bell fan up until Sirius and actually used to troll noory until he proved himself a gentelmen and Art proved himself a flake. thats the truth.

Hilarious.  I looked at the number of pages of responses that this thread has had since I last posted and figured that either
A.) Art has announced his return.
or
B.) DP is back to posting.

Funny that people continue to respond.  "Hi, I'm a troll.  I will tell you how I work and tell you that I will put out this bait after telling you that is all that it is, and hope you take it so as I can amuse myself."  And then people take the damn bait.

On that note, I would be willing to play the other side of your trollish argument.  Art has always respected me in the morning...   I would say "skype me", but that seems unlikely.

So, what topics do you usually troll where a group of you get together?

[Chronaut]

whats your "lawyer friend" say about the Gunderson video and why art never went after him?

The weird thing about that Gunderson video (which I watched all the way through, btw) isn’t that you’re trying to cite it as evidence that Art Bell “lied” about his son’s case (an absurd claim in itself, since two people interpreting the same facts in different ways isn’t a lie, and won’t appear as a lie on a lie detector test).

The weird thing about it is that at the end, Ted Gunderson is talking about a massive government operation involving the abduction and Satanic ritual abuse and murder of thousands of American children by our congressmen, senators, and presidents.  But you haven't even mentioned that part.  Why?

If you think Gunderson is a credible source (and you profess to), then why is your outrage focused exclusively on the long and pointless “he-said/he-said” crap about the lawsuit that Art Bell filed against Gunderson?  Wouldn’t the wholesale abduction, abuse, and slaughter of thousands of children stolen from playgrounds across the US by the CIA at least merit a mention when you cite that video?

Gunderson also claimed that the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building was a government operation, not a domestic terrorism act perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, a crime for which he was convicted and executed.

Which raises a logical paradox:  you blithely claim that Art’s son wasn’t kidnapped because the conviction for that crime was later overturned on a legal technicality.  You say that since the conviction was overturned later, then Art Bell’s claims that it was kidnapping previous to the trial, constitute a lie (which is just silly, c’mon).  But if the law is the one and only arbiter of truth, as you assert with regard to Art Bell’s situation, then by that same standard, Gunderson lied about the government blowing up one of its own buildings, since the legal documents prove that McVeigh committed that crime.

So you’ve demonstrably employed two opposing standards to the same Gunderson video, and, you’ve chosen to focus your outrage at a twisted rendition of the facts presented within it to libel Art Bell, while completely ignoring the far greater crimes that Gunderson discusses involving child sacrifices by a massive conspiracy of Satan-worshipping GOP politicians that reaches to presidents Reagan and Bush, according to Gunderson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

How do you explain these contradictions?  Don’t you think that the ritual slaughter of children is a more significant issue than the tiresome legal intricacies of the libel suit against Gunderson?  And how can you rationalize the use of legal judgements as "evidence" that Art Bell lied, without using the legal documents that refute Gunderson's claims about the OKC bombing as evidence that Ted Gunderson lied?

[DarKPenguiN]

The weird thing about that Gunderson video (which I watched all the way through, btw) isn’t that you’re trying to cite it as evidence that Art Bell “lied” about his son’s case (an absurd claim in itself, since two people interpreting the same facts in different ways isn’t a lie, and won’t appear as a lie on a lie detector test).

The weird thing about it is that at the end, Ted Gunderson is talking about a massive government operation involving the abduction and Satanic ritual abuse and murder of thousands of American children by our congressmen, senators, and presidents.  But you haven't even mentioned that part.  Why?

If you think Gunderson is a credible source (and you profess to), then why is your outrage focused exclusively on the long and pointless “he-said/he-said” crap about the lawsuit that Art Bell filed against Gunderson?  Wouldn’t the wholesale abduction, abuse, and slaughter of thousands of children stolen from playgrounds across the US by the CIA at least merit a mention when you cite that video?

Gunderson also claimed that the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building was a government operation, not a domestic terrorism act perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, a crime for which he was convicted and executed.

Which raises a logical paradox:  you blithely claim that Art’s son wasn’t kidnapped because the conviction for that crime was later overturned on a legal technicality.  You say that since the conviction was overturned later, then Art Bell’s claims that it was kidnapping previous to the trial, constitute a lie (which is just silly, c’mon).  But if the law is the one and only arbiter of truth, as you assert with regard to Art Bell’s situation, then by that same standard, Gunderson lied about the government blowing up one of its own buildings, since the legal documents prove that McVeigh committed that crime.

So you’ve demonstrably employed two opposing standards to the same Gunderson video, and, you’ve chosen to focus your outrage at a twisted rendition of the facts presented within it to libel Art Bell, while completely ignoring the far greater crimes that Gunderson discusses involving child sacrifices by a massive conspiracy of Satan-worshipping GOP politicians that reaches to presidents Reagan and Bush, according to Gunderson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

How do you explain these contradictions?  Don’t you think that the ritual slaughter of children is a more significant issue than the tiresome legal intricacies of the libel suit against Gunderson?  And how can you rationalize the use of legal judgements as "evidence" that Art Bell lied, without using the legal documents that refute Gunderson's claims about the OKC bombing as evidence that Ted Gunderson lied?

I already covered that part.

Ted Gunderson is a crazy motherfucker and the more I learn about him the crazier he seems to be. I even specifically stated that the scariest thing about Gunderson is that he was in charge of a good portion of the FBI on the W Coast and evidently Olympic security. Its scary to me knowing he had that much power, put together cases and was responsible for arrests and shit. Makes you wonder who has positions of power today.

I was citing the stuff relevant to Art bell only which contained legal documents and statements from ted that (if he had lied or forged the docs) could have landed him in serious trouble- But didnt.

I even said that leaves 2 options.

a) He was lying and forged documents and Art bell just didnt give a shit and let it go... I personally cannot believe this because Art had already sued him once before and it seems it would be an open/shut case to sue him again,. Plus Art bell is no stranger to litigation.

OR

b) It was true (that part of it anyhow)

I even went as far as to state that a broken clock is right twice a day.

Gundersons credibility imho isnt very good. Its downright scary- But he showed documents and stated things that he wasnt sued over by someone who had sued him a year or two prior to making that video. Why would he then decide to let things go? If I had got $$$ once already and someone went public with lies about me a second time (along with forged docs) it would not only mean they didnt learn their lesson but would also mean another jackpot and the potential of that person having criminal charges for forgery or something- I cannot see having a sudden change of heart and decide not to sue a second time.

Also look how pissed Art was at me for only posting about what was in the Video? Him letting the whole thing go is a stretch imho when gunderson was right there, giving lectures using his real name and posting videos. Would have been easy to get him if hed done wrong imho and Arts anger at me tells me he would certainly not have just "let it go" with Gunderson .

I'm not giving Gunderson my support on his wild satanic mcmartin preschool stuff.

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT- Gunderson would have been great trolling material but sadly I didnt know too much about him...

[WOTR]

Let me put it this way, I care about him about just as much as he cares about us and especially those who he really screwed.

Poor dear... I can't tell you how betrayed I personally felt when my favourite actor put out a horrid stinker of a movie that I paid $20 to go see.  I'm still in therapy.

[Robert]

The problem is, this is exactly what she projects. Her attitude towards the chair she's sitting in is probably one of the most confusing things for listeners. How is her being the host, even temporarily, supposed to make any sense when she keeps repeating "I don't really want to be here but here I am"?

Yes, the stalker, okay. It still sounds beaucoup weird and disconcerting, like she's not that interested in doing this for real. Forget the delicate situation, it sounds all wrong, like she's setting a course for failure. Which, of course, contrasts greatly with the happy talk about upcoming shows and guests.

Meanwhile, if I do listen, even a little, I'm listening for any indication of Art doing a show. Pretty hard to know which way is up from the way she talks.

You're right.  In the situation that's the closest precedent I've been in the audience to, it's like when Judy Jarvis got sick & her son & producer Jason took over while she got treatment.  What we're wondering is whether it's actually more like the situation when he took over again after she died.  In the 1st situation, he didn't want to be there but was keeping the seat warm (as hosts on C2C used to say re Art Bell).  How were people later to treat his show after that possibility was precluded & the show was renamed?  You said were a seat warmer before, now we're supposed to take seriously that you want to carry on her legacy?  Are you a different person?

I take [Redacted] at her word that she wouldn't be doing this if not for Art's insistence and her belief that he'll be back on mic.  I think it likely that she wouldn't even have become his producer if she thought she'd have to continue for years, but that she did it to get the ball rolling.  I don't think she's even looking at this as a career move, but that she's more interested in another field entirely.

[Robert]

The forum has been overrun by Pinkerton "wannabes" as of late.  None want to leave the comfort of their chair or the glare of their screen- but all are determined to get to the bottom of all mysteries provided by MITD.

Well, duh, that's what MITD & C2C have always been about!

[Robert]

An interesting observation at the human rights museum that was pointed out to me by a co-worker... They had 100 major events posted on a timeline- philosophies and writings that influenced human rights and moved them forward.  Conspicuous by their absence was the constitution and the American civil war.  The war kind of makes sense (otherwise you would have to include many wars fought on "humanitarian" grounds.)  However, it was interesting to see that the curator did not consider the constitution to be worthy of mention as moving human rights forward.  I wonder to what extent listing slaves as 3/5 of a person and allowing slavery to continue played in the decision...

The anti-slavery forces wanted them to count as 0, while the pro-slavers wanted to count them as 1 each.

[Chronaut]

 

I already covered that part.

Ted Gunderson is a crazy motherfucker and the more I learn about him the crazier he seems to be. I even specifically stated that the scariest thing about Gunderson is that he was in charge of a good portion of the FBI on the W Coast and evidently Olympic security. Its scary to me knowing he had that much power, put together cases and was responsible for arrests and shit. Makes you wonder who has positions of power today.

I was citing the stuff relevant to Art bell only which contained legal documents and statements from ted that (if he had lied or forged the docs) could have landed him in serious trouble- But didnt.

I even said that leaves 2 options.

a) He was lying and forged documents and Art bell just didnt give a shit and let it go... I personally cannot believe this because Art had already sued him once before and it seems it would be an open/shut case to sue him again,. Plus Art bell is no stranger to litigation.

OR

b) It was true (that part of it anyhow)

I even went as far as to state that a broken clock is right twice a day.

Gundersons credibility imho isnt very good. Its downright scary- But he showed documents and stated things that he wasnt sued over by someone who had sued him a year or two prior to making that video. Why would he then decide to let things go?

I'm not giving Gunderson my support on his wild satanic mcmartin preschool stuff.

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT- Gunderson would have been great trolling material but sadly I didnt know too much about him...

I must've missed a bunch of posts over the holidays, thanks for summing it up again.

So, your sole source of information to discredit Art Bell is “crazy, scary, and not very credible,” you’re saying.  Hmm.  But the documents themselves are credible, you say.

Okay fine, if we grant the veracity of the documents that Gundenson went over in somniferous detail, then they still don’t say anything about Art Bell being a liar, as I recall.  Because, like I said, it’s a matter of interpretation.  Art had every reason to see the situation exactly as he described it at the time he described it, so you might argue that he was incorrect (I wouldn’t make that argument tbh), but making a mistake isn’t a lie.  And for the record, most people hearing the facts of that situation would agree with Art Bell’s assessment of it, because it was clearly morally wrong, if not legally wrong.

Frankly I’m kind of amazed that anyone can have a 25+ years career in public broadcasting, and yet this is your best evidence of a “lie.”  Is this really the most convincing evidence you have?

Because if it is, I have a newfound respect for Art Bell’s honesty and integrity â€" I doubt that anyone here could talk on the air for 20+hrs/week for decades, and share so much personal information about the events in their lives, and not make many far more significant self-contradicting statements and so forth.

Is this really all you’ve got?

[DarKPenguiN]

I must've missed a bunch of posts over the holidays, thanks for summing it up again.

So, your sole source of information to discredit Art Bell is “crazy, scary, and not very credible,” you’re saying.  Hmm.  But the documents themselves are credible, you say.

Okay fine, if we grant the veracity of the documents that Gundenson went over in somniferous detail, then they still don’t say anything about Art Bell being a liar, as I recall.  Because, like I said, it’s a matter of interpretation.  Art had every reason to see the situation exactly as he described it at the time he described it, so you might argue that he was incorrect (I wouldn’t make that argument tbh), but making a mistake isn’t a lie.  And for the record, most people hearing the facts of that situation would agree with Art Bell’s assessment of it, because it was clearly morally wrong, if not legally wrong.

Frankly I’m kind of amazed that anyone can have a 25+ years career in public broadcasting, and yet this is your best evidence of a “lie.”  Is this really the most convincing evidence you have?

Because if it is, I have a newfound respect for Art Bell’s honesty and integrity â€" I doubt that anyone here could talk on the air for 20+hrs/weeks for decades, and share so much personal information about the events in their lives, and not make many far more significant self-contradicting statements and so forth.

Is this really all you’ve got?

Yeah outside of speculation thats about it and if thats based on a bit of speculation in the sense there might be some reason Art never pursued this that I dont know about- Which I find hard to believe but...

The only reason I brought it up was because I was speculating about all of arts retirements and how the story never adds up and I was trying to establish how Art takes an  event and then turns it into something "more" which I feel the Gunderson video shows (unless its based on forgery and such which takes us full circle) but I wasnt making light of what happened or even trying to be an asshole for bringing it up. I was trying to use it to prove my point and that was all.

Then I was attacked by everyone for even bringing it up. Honestly, I didnt expect it to even be that big a thing since thats been online forever and I figured it would be discussed and we would move on from there. Then all the threats and shit started coming and here we are-

I'm honestly surprised it became as big a part of the discussion as it has.

[phrodo]

Yeah outside of speculation thats about it and if thats based on a bit of speculation in the sense there might be some reason Art never pursued this that I dont know about- Which I find hard to believe but...

The only reason I brought it up was because I was speculating about all of arts retirements and how the story never adds up and I was trying to establish how Art takes an  event and then turns it into something "more" which I feel the Gunderson video shows (unless its based on forgery and such which takes us full circle) but I wasnt making light of what happened or even trying to be an asshole for bringing it up. I was trying to use it to prove my point and that was all.

Then I was attacked by everyone for even bringing it up. Honestly, I didnt expect it to even be that big a thing since thats been online forever and I figured it would be discussed and we would move on from there. Then all the threats and shit started coming and here we are-

I'm honestly surprised it became as big a part of the discussion as it has.

Hey dumbass -- you kept repeating yourself and citing the existence of the stupid video on YouTube as proof Art is a liar. And then kept repeating yourself and referring to a LIAR's video on YouTube as your proof. YouTube only takes videos down for copyright infringement. It had been discussed here and dismissed ... but you REPEATEDLY brought it up again.

I'm surprised you can dress yourself in the morning.  :

[Value Of Pi]

You're right.  In the situation that's the closest precedent I've been in the audience to, it's like when Judy Jarvis got sick & her son & producer Jason took over while she got treatment.  What we're wondering is whether it's actually more like the situation when he took over again after she died.  In the 1st situation, he didn't want to be there but was keeping the seat warm (as hosts on C2C used to say re Art Bell).  How were people later to treat his show after that possibility was precluded & the show was renamed?  You said were a seat warmer before, now we're supposed to take seriously that you want to carry on her legacy?  Are you a different person?

I take [Redacted] at her word that she wouldn't be doing this if not for Art's insistence and her belief that he'll be back on mic.  I think it likely that she wouldn't even have become his producer if she thought she'd have to continue for years, but that she did it to get the ball rolling.  I don't think she's even looking at this as a career move, but that she's more interested in another field entirely.

Not familiar with the Jarvis clan but that sounds reasonably analagous. It never fails to amaze me how people in organizations large and small sit around and convince each other that because something seems reasonable to them, the public will buy into it too. PR and ad agencies tear their hair out over this problem because they are attuned to the audience's point of view while their clients often aren't.

[DarKPenguiN]

Hey dumbass -- you kept repeating yourself and citing the existence of the stupid video on YouTube as proof Art is a liar. And then kept repeating yourself and referring to a LIAR's video on YouTube as your proof. YouTube only takes videos down for copyright infringement. It had been discussed here and dismissed ... but you REPEATEDLY brought it up again.

I'm surprised you can dress yourself in the morning.  :

-See, here we go again.

Youtube may only pull it for copyright issues BUT Art never sued Gunderson or it would have never been up there  to begin with. Art sued Gunderson for something  a guest said on a radio show, but did nothing about this.Hence the reason I take the stuff on the video about Art bell to be true.

So, it may have been discussed here and "dismissed" by the same people who think there are Terrorists and stalkers after Art and yet him taking pictures at midnight in the snow is totally understandable. Some of you people would buy anything you're told as long as it places your hero in a positive light.

I have repeatedly  brought it up mainly in response to questions- I havnt kept bringing up for no reason. i'll keep bringing it up with people want to still discuss it (as you seem to)

-

[WOTR]

The anti-slavery forces wanted them to count as 0, while the pro-slavers wanted to count them as 1 each.

I get that... and I understand the reasons behind it (political power and representation.)  I also understand that without allowing slavery to continue and guaranteeing that it could continue, southern states would not have supported it and that the civil war would likely have come sooner than it had.

However, it was a document that supported slavery (or certainly allowed it to continue.)  Specifically, article 1 section 9 declares that the government will not interfere with states importing slaves (aside from allowing them to profit to the tune of $10 a head.) 

Article 4,Section 2 basically states that no person deemed to be a slave in one state shall be able to flee to another.  They are to be returned to their owner..."but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

I understand why these sections were included- and they were repealed. However, the constitution was (I believe) used for the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case where people of African ancestry (free or slave) were not allowed to become citizens protected under the constitution and as such were not allowed to bring action in federal court...

Basically, I question if the original text should be included in the top 100 best thoughts, documents and philosophies of the last 2000 years.

***Sorry, I forgot article 5 which guarantees that the slave trade would continue for a minimum period of time...

[Robert]

Not familiar with the Jarvis clan but that sounds reasonably analagous. It never fails to amaze me how people in organizations large and small sit around and convince each other that because something seems reasonable to them, the public will buy into it too. PR and ad agencies tear their hair out over this problem because they are attuned to the audience's point of view while their clients often aren't.

Heck, I've been in a situation like that of a PR or ad agency when people have turned to me to present something to make it more credible.  Some of them think that my credentials alone would do that, & it takes some convincing to show them that's not going to go over for many.

I think being able to stand back & not be a true believer sets me apart from many people.  Unfortunately it's probably hurt me somewhat in a competitive world because of the doubts I have about my own beliefs & accomplishments.

[Robert]

Basically, I question if the original text should be included in the top 100 best thoughts, documents and philosophies of the last 2000 years.

Eh, originally or as amended, the US Constitution is just committee work.

[The King of Kings]

Until your identity is posted online for all rabid Art Bell fans to see.
Then you can keep looking over your shoulder.

What do you think that is going to do.

Let's say you dox him and put his info up here or somewhere else.  Knowing someone's name and where they live that is associated to an account on a dopey art bell fan forum is going to do what?

It's laughable that you think some art bell fan is going to be so enraged by some dopey poster saying negative things about art bell that they would act in anyway.  Honestly, what are they going to do?  Message someone on Facebook about him saying mean things about Art Bell?  Send pizzas to his house?  Inform the local authorities that someone there is saying mean things about art bell on the internet?

Good grief.  Some of you are so fucking stupid.

[phrodo]

-See, here we go again.

Youtube may only pull it for copyright issues BUT Art never sued Gunderson or it would have never been up there  to begin with. Art sued Gunderson for something  a guest said on a radio show, but did nothing about this.Hence the reason I take the stuff on the video about Art bell to be true.

So, it may have been discussed here and "dismissed" by the same people who think there are Terrorists and stalkers after Art and yet him taking pictures at midnight in the snow is totally understandable. Some of you people would buy anything you're told as long as it places your hero in a positive light.

I have repeatedly  brought it up mainly in response to questions- I havnt kept bringing up for no reason. i'll keep bringing it up with people want to still discuss it (as you seem to)

-

That idiot settled out of court -- because he was wrong -- and will die in prison. You'll likely do the same. But the Felony charges could be more tricky to wriggle out of. You're going on ignore -- congrats - you're my first. Fuck off. Soon. Like you keep promising to do. 

[Chronaut]

 

Yeah outside of speculation thats about it and if thats based on a bit of speculation in the sense there might be some reason Art never pursued this that I dont know about- Which I find hard to believe but...

Did I miss something?  I’ve gone over that Gunderson video three times, and I still don’t see anything worth talking about, and certainly nothing substantial enough to file a lawsuit over.  Art sued Gunderson and his talk show guest over the despicable on-air allegations leveled against him, and he won that suit (they settled out of court, iirc).  Nothing in this subsequent video even comes close to the level of outrage associated with those allegations.  Why would Art Bell bother to file a second suit over a video showing Gunderson bitching about it and reading from court transcripts?  What’s so hard to believe about a guy not giving a shit about this remarkably tepid but somewhat dickish video?  Sure, Gunderson calls him a liar.  But his logic is all fucked up, as I explained earlier â€" you can’t apply a subsequent court ruling to statements made before the trial, to retroactively demonstrate that Art was “lying.”

A more compelling point would be this:  if Gunderson believed all of this stuff, then why didn’t *he* file a countersuit against Art Bell?  Apparently even Gunderson didn’t think it was worth the trouble, so why would Art?

The only reason I brought it up was because I was speculating about all of arts retirements and how the story never adds up and I was trying to establish how Art takes an  event and then turns it into something "more" which I feel the Gunderson video shows

But it doesn’t show that at all.  Apparently Art’s son initially told the authorities and his father a somewhat different story than later came out in court, and Art believed him.  I would’ve believed him too, frankly.  And Art went on the air and told that story as it was told to him and as he saw it.  I see no proof otherwise here.

But apparently you do (can you cite a specific quote or document that was available to Art before he made his statement about the situation, that demonstrates foreknowledge of deceit? Because I don't see that here, maybe I missed it).  And then you use this facile example to extrapolate that all of Art’s stories “don’t add up.”

Well, it takes more than one extremely weak and questionable interpretation like the one you’ve offered here, to demonstrate a pattern.

That’s why I asked for another example.

But apparently you don’t have one, so all that’s left are your suspicions.  You realize that doesn’t make a sound argument, right?  Honestly I can’t even understand how anyone could get miffed by Gunderson’s video, let alone base an entire argument impugning the character of someone over it.

So what’s your point with all of this?  You seem to want us to share your suspicions about Art’s reasons for quitting, but the one example you’ve offered isn’t very compelling, and you say you don’t have anything else to show us.

Is your point that we’re fools for taking Art’s recent statements at face value?  Do you think there haven’t been incidents at his house?  If so, how do you explain the police reports?  Do you want us to think the Nye County Sheriff’s Office is defrauding the public by issuing falsified incident reports?  And do you honestly believe that Art’s dispute with Gunderson makes a strong enough case to implicate the police in some kind of conspiracy here?  Which is motivated by, what â€" Art’s reluctance to just tell people “I decided to quit and/or take a break because I’m not enjoying doing the show?”  Do you honestly think that a conspiracy is a more reasonable interpretation here, than just taking the facts we have and concluding that Art got spooked by the creepy shit going on over there and bowed out over it?

I’m just not clear on what you’re trying to say.  What, in your opinion, is the big deal here?

[Value Of Pi]

What do you think that is going to do.

Let's say you dox him and put his info up here or somewhere else.  Knowing someone's name and where they live that is associated to an account on a dopey art bell fan forum is going to do what?

It's laughable that you think some art bell fan is going to be so enraged by some dopey poster saying negative things about art bell that they would act in anyway.  Honestly, what are they going to do?  Message someone on Facebook about him saying mean things about Art Bell?  Send pizzas to his house?  Inform the local authorities that someone there is saying mean things about art bell on the internet?

Good grief.  Some of you are so fucking stupid.

At least some of the people saying stuff like this were trying to give DP a taste of his own medicine, IMO, but it had no obvious effect. Real trolls can't be affected this way, but the ignore button is very effective.