Warn the girls you care for about this

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

?

SI

you want an illustrated diagram?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you want an illustrated diagram?

no pix, pls, thx

SI

[Rizon]

A couple months ago my co-worker told me about how gang members were going to go around next weekend with their car lights off and kill people who flashed them.

I laughed for about 10 minutes straight. I thought everyone knew this urban legend.

She swore up and down that her father knew this cop that said it was true. After a little bit of pestering, it turns out her father knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this cop. I told her it was an urban legend, but she refused to believe it. I even told her to call the local sherriffs office and ask them.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I heard that headlight one at least 10 years ago. I can't believe it is still making its way around.

As for the drug one started by this post, only a slight bit of critical thinking was needed. If such a drug existed, why would tubal ligations and vasectomies continue to be performed? C'mon people.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Rizon

She swore up and down that her father knew this cop that said it was true. After a little bit of pestering, it turns out her father knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this cop.

The most fascinating part of the urban legend psychology, to me, is right there.

People who hear the story and believe it, for whatever reason, then want to retell it, But when doing so, they consciously decide that there are too many links in the story-telling chain -- they know they won't be credible if they say "my buddy's girlfriend had an ant and uncle who..." and so they contract the links in the chain to something like "my aunt and uncle did this..."

I always wonder how it is that people know the story is not believable based on the number of "who knows this guy who..." steps in the telling process, but they themselves believe it so stridently that they are willing not only to overlook the weaknesses in the story-telling, they actually edit them out in their own re-telling.

I had a friend who told the "dog from Mexico was a rat" story, and at first said it actually happened to his aunt and uncle. I knew the story as bogus, and pressed -- then he corrected himself and said it wasn't really his aunt and uncle, but a friend's. How can you make that mistake? Are you confused about who is in your own family? Of course not.

Hard to explain.

[cuervo72]

And in this case, the e-mail even stated Please COPY (NOT FOWARD), similarly looking to remove links in the story-telling chain.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

As for the drug one started by this post, only a slight bit of critical thinking was needed. If such a drug existed, why would tubal ligations and vasectomies continue to be performed? C'mon people.

Because vasectomies give guys an excuse to shave their nuts?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The most fascinating part of the urban legend psychology, to me, is right there.

It's one of the great Internet mysteries, right up there with "Why can't people forward something they find amusing without feeling the need to add George Carlin's name to it?"

[Tom_Cruise]

Hey man I've done research! Did you know there are using Progesterex as a street drug!!!!!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Tom_Cruise

Hey man I've done research! Did you know there are using Progesterex as a street drug!!!!!

Tom, can you give us at least one secret of the universe?

[Tom_Cruise]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Tom, can you give us at least one secret of the universe?

rkmsuf rkmsuf rkmsuf rkmsuf rkmsuf. rkmsuf.

rkmsuf
rkmsuf

rkmsuf if I gave you a secret of the universe how would I know you use it for good. Besides. I know about secrets! I've done research! Did you know there are people using secrets as a street drug!?

[rkmsuf]

Tom, I have to ask you what all of America wants to know. Are you gay? Is Katie just a front?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The most fascinating part of the urban legend psychology, to me, is right there.

People who hear the story and believe it, for whatever reason, then want to retell it, But when doing so, they consciously decide that there are too many links in the story-telling chain -- they know they won't be credible if they say "my buddy's girlfriend had an ant and uncle who..." and so they contract the links in the chain to something like "my aunt and uncle did this..."

I always wonder how it is that people know the story is not believable based on the number of "who knows this guy who..." steps in the telling process, but they themselves believe it so stridently that they are willing not only to overlook the weaknesses in the story-telling, they actually edit them out in their own re-telling.

I had a friend who told the "dog from Mexico was a rat" story, and at first said it actually happened to his aunt and uncle. I knew the story as bogus, and pressed -- then he corrected himself and said it wasn't really his aunt and uncle, but a friend's. How can you make that mistake? Are you confused about who is in your own family? Of course not.

Hard to explain.

On some level, it has to do simply with storytelling impact, I think. You may not be editing the chain to make the story more beleivable, but to make it more interesting. My dad's roommate's brother's landlord's . . . etc. is just a less tight and less impactful beginning to a story than my dad's old roomate . . .

Just like the story "I was in Hawaii, and the hotel I stayed in had these hot hula girls" is better than "I was in Hawaii, and the hotel that I was going to stay in, but then they messed up my reservation because their computers apparently had some problem with double booking through Orbitz when I made the reservations, so I had to go to this other hotel with a voucher from the first place. Anyway, that first hotel had these really hot hula girls in the lobby."

The second story may be more true, but the first story lets you get to the meat of it (I saw hot girls) while avoiding lots of pointless fluff.

It's probably a bit of both actually--trying to make it more believable and a tighter story.

[cuervo72]

Wow, that reminds me of the story of when I was on my honeymoon, and we were staying at Disney's Coronodo Springs resort for 4 days (we spent the first 3 days on one of Carnival's ships, which had a smelly Lido deck, and a topless sunbathing deck but I wasn't allowed to go up there so I didn't see anything, and I couldn't eat all I wanted because I was getting sick which really sucked), and when we got there they didn't have a king bed like we had reserved so they "freed" another room to put us in, but the reason nobody had been put in that room was because the toilet was backed up, so we had to wait outside for a while before they found us another room, but it was good in the end because they only ended up charging us for three days.

[cuervo72]

Pretty similar, except we didn't see any hot hula girls. I think they were at the Polynesian.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

On some level, it has to do simply with storytelling impact, I think. You may not be editing the chain to make the story more beleivable, but to make it more interesting. My dad's roommate's brother's landlord's . . . etc. is just a less tight and less impactful beginning to a story than my dad's old roomate . . .

Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star.
Lone Starr: What?
Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Starr: What's that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing!

SI