BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 10, 2018, 08:08:40 AM
Interesting how he just revealed the content of his character on an old show.

I remember several shows where he was admonishing the behavior of some military members that were refusing to serve in Bosnia under the UN flag saying it was their duty to follow orders.

Now I’m listening to a show shortly after the Phoenix lights case where he talks about heing stationed in Okinawa. He says he was called in and told by his Captain to stop cohabiting with a local Japanese woman. He then said he refused to comply.

So I guess as long as it comes to sex lawful orders don’t count.

Also don't forget he on multiple occasions claimed to have been flying high enough to warrant oxygen masks while in the Air Force, but wait Art I thought you were just a helicopter medic, or a DJ, or a watch officer at the age of 18? He was so full of it we'll probably never know the truth, he may have raised money to help orphans get over from Vietnam, but I doubt he did more than simply help raise it. In case anyone has forgotten Art constantly inflated his own importance in every conceivable scenario. Except of course when he was totally hoodwinked and spread the false story of a "companion" to Hale-Bopp... he had NOTHING to do with that....  :

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 22, 2018, 09:11:14 PM
I remember him shilling HGH and thinking ''why is he pushing this garbage?'', and him not correcting the record when it was claimed he had 15 million listeners. 

Radio reports the number of listeners in cumulatives for the week, so that's 3 million per night for five days - not 15 million per show.  The population of the US was 300 million then, so for the 15 million to be accurate, one person out of every twenty men, women, and children in the country would have had to be listening to the show every night.  To a show that started at 1 am on the east coast.

The deception is starting to make more sense now.  I wonder if he didn't write and post the comments attacking Filipinos on the internet himself because he was mad at Ramona or something.  Why would someone else do that in his name?

Actually I believe he said in court that it was less than that. I read through the entire court transcript from when he was suing for a laughably large amount of money because of the whole slander thing. When you read through it you realize how absurd the whole case was and how petty and childish Art was. Art was suing the radio host because someone else came on and kinda sorta said something was up with Art and potentially some sort of molestation.

Skimming it again he claims to have about 6.8 million in 1999, what I think we can all say his peak time was. So on a good night he was pulling about 1 million listeners.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 22, 2018, 08:05:19 PM
Ok, honesty it is.  Very few people in this country have ever heard of Art Bell, and few of those have even thought about him this century

To the extent there is a legacy, it's nearly nonexistant

This. He was fairly well known in the radio world but outside of his quite insular listening audience he and his legacy are unknown. Those who do admire him or simply know about his legacy will certainly become quite deflated about him as more information about the real Art Bell comes out.

Can't say I'm surprised about any of this in the slightest, it was all there for anyone who wasn't an ardent fan to see.

Quote from: GravitySucks on May 21, 2018, 06:25:22 AM
Is that peach fuzz or mold on the penis head?

I'm actually surprised these Billy Cultists even post here anymore. No one believes this absurd fantasy that a loser Swiss farmer is the center of contact with an entire alien species. It's such a childish fantasy that it leads me to the game I like to play with people like this, "Stupid or Lier?" 

Quote from: ericdxx on May 22, 2018, 07:38:57 AM
The only measurement of credibility here is time.

Do you think you can just come in here and disrespect members who has been here for years and years?

I hope you're joking about all of this. You're acting like this is some sort of enlightened literary discussion group weighing the pros and cons of Aristotelian philosophy, this is Bellgab and you're ridiculous. 

For everyone now speculating that Art committed suicide, he and Ramona both believed that when you are suffering from a terminal illness or just an illness in general that you had to suffer and die, and that committing suicide would be cheating god. Fucked up belief but that's what they believed. I was listening to an old Malachi Martin show and this was discussed, Art said that his wife believed this and he was somewhat inclined to also believe it, that was right after Martin said Jack Kevorkian was literally a demon who was sending people to hell...  :


Now Art was quite a hypocrite on several topics but he was also very superstitious and I find it hard to believe he would do something like this. But who knows maybe he did. We all just have to wait and find out, after all we are talking about a 70 something year old man with COPD, it shouldn't be all that shocking that he just died in his sleep. 

I find it hilarious that all of this makes Snoory seem light years better than her, and certainly more classy. I mean the guy did seem really upset about Art's death, gave a little speech about what he meant to him and then a little tribute show. He won't be talking about it nonstop for weeks on end.

Quote from: mv on April 19, 2018, 06:53:33 PM
and that's why i allege they wanted the exclusive on the death announcement; it represented a one-shot promotional mechanism.  some might think i'm awful for believing that, but i believe it.  shove off. 

i think they hoped to announce art's death exclusively and then corral all subsequent news mentions of art's death around their own announcement on their own website, where a plug for the show would be conspicuously inserted.  their announcement would have been linked to or referenced by a swath of news outlets/bloggers/twitter/fb, etc.

instead, with things failing to go their way (thanks, NCSD), it didn't work out like that.  far from it.

more evidence of this tendency toward awkward, conspicuous self- insertion:

Honestly that post is really all you need to know about her. She's clinging to the scraps of a now deceased radio talk show host like it's the last can of peaches after Ed Dames' "Kill Shot" comes.

Can someone actually fill me in on where she is apparently squatting on the Bell compound? I stopped paying attention some time ago and have missed a bit of the story.

So I think we can all safely say that those of us who were quite critical of her and her "on air performance" right after Art left are all quite vindicated. She's a total mental patient who's only friend was an easily fooled man who was never her friend. It's sad, it's pathetic, and it's the legacy of C2C.

Let's all just take a moment to realize that Art went from "West Coast AM" with a handful of affiliates to nearly a thousand in the span of a decade, quit multiple times, then in the end his legacy is left with a former phone sex operator broadcasting out of a bunker to 45 people. Kinda makes you think about how much of life is just a dark comedy.

Quote from: Juan on April 15, 2018, 05:43:41 AM
As I’ve said before, I worked in broadcasting. Tape back then cost a good bit of money to buy and required a lot of space to store. Television, in which I worked, is more expensive than radio, but at the stations where I worked, shows were kept for a week at most. File video was stored for a longer time, but that amounted to any a few minutes per broadcast week. Point being, how many of the old Art shows actually exist? When iHeart claims ownership, does it actually have physical copies, or is it only talking about copyright?

Second, releasing the old shows would cost iHeart money, too, as they would have to be digitized. That means finding a working, appropriate tape player and having at least one employee dub the tape over. That has to occur in real time. If it’s a four hour show, it would take about four hours to digitize. That’s a lot of expense, though it might be monitized by broadcasting the shows. Paying to digitize Art’s shows would be less expensive than creating new content. And iHeart needs content for all those stations.

Anyway, I’m all in favor of bombarding iHeart with emails. I’ll channel Keith and send one from each of my accounts.

Considering the fact that even back in the day they would play "Best of" shows and would sell shows I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of DAT tapes of the show. I say this because you'll sometimes hear a "Best of " show somewhere that is remarkably clear and static free, and that leads me to believe they were saved in some way.

Quote from: DanTSX on April 15, 2018, 09:07:33 AM
/x/ is speculating that she is a long lost daughter....

I find that to be the least probable of the possible explanations.

It's quite silly but at the same time really humorous.

The main fact discounting this theory is that he's never appeared to be helpful or communicative to any of those he's left behind.

Quote from: AppealPlay on April 15, 2018, 08:44:53 AM
They had a weird relationship.  Really makes me wonder what went on between she and Art...

It's really strange to think that she would even say that. Shouldn't his wife and family be involved in those sorts of things? Not some low-rent late night talkshow host with a few hundred people listening.

Just goes to show you the strange people who were in orbit around Art, and still are...

Quote from: Up All Night on April 15, 2018, 05:15:58 AM
Anyone know if Art had previously stated what his preference was to be after dying, ie to be buried, or to be cremated with instructions of where to scatter the ashes...

Thrown down Mel's hole?

On a serious note I found out about his death the day after while listen to U7 and they cut in to say he had died. Very sad in one sense and not so sad in another, I think we all really feel that way and with time and distance we can all have a more objective view of who Art was and who he wasn't. Great entertainer and talkshow host, in real life though was he that great of a guy, not really. But you can take him as you want, now especially because he's gone.

We all had fun with Art over the years, but let's try not to deify him.

Quote from: Roswells, Art on February 13, 2016, 07:44:38 PM
Make us do all the work? Damn Commie.

"Damn Commie"?

You should have given me a pre-trigger-warning-warning!

You can't say that!!

Can someone give me a short re-cap on what has been going on for the past couple of weeks?

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 07:22:39 PM
Most of the Wikis are much better than they were a few years ago based on tests of accuracy and wikipedia itself has been shown to be no better or worse than highly respected encyclopedias.  Again, the links are there on the site.  So, I'd say that RationalWiki is much better evidence for a claim than your opinions which don't seem to be based on everything except for, perhaps, out of date evidence.

That's true about Wikipedia en mass, but rational wiki, come on it's a very biased source. My claims are not out of date they are that his judicial philosophy was based much more upon strict constitutionalism and that how he supported his arguments was simply brilliant. You're the one who started off this entire back-and-forth by calling him scum, and that you were glad he was dead, and that he only ruled for the rich. You're simply obfuscating the original argument which you made. Just because someone disagrees with you, or are more conservative, that doesn't make them right-wing or some stooge of "the right-wing boogie man". 

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 07:10:05 PM
There were no facts in Claudius' post, just one or two claims.  "Conservatives" are confused by such things as what is a fact, what is a claim and what is an opinion.

From RationalWiki: Scalia considered himself a textualist and a Constitutional originalist, a rather meaningless term. "Textualism" means he interpreted laws by their plain meaning. For example, if there was a law on sex crimes and it mentions "forcible rope," he would've viewed this obvious error as referring to tying people up, not nonconsensual sex.[5] His originalist view was that he, and only he, knows exactly what James Madison meant (though Scalia was proven to not know what Antonin Scalia meant[2]). In many instances it is fairly cut-and-dried, such as his support for the constitutionality of the death penalty on the grounds that the Framers would never have thought of it as cruel and unusual. However, given that they all died around 150-200 years before the invention of the Internet, it is unknown exactly how he is able to discern their opinions on matters such as internet security. He believed that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to... recounts in Florida, that axes shouldn't be carried in public but rocket launchers might be permissible,[6] and the Eighth Amendment prevented forcing him to read a 2700-page health care bill, but not torture.
In reality though, he was just a cultural warrior dressed in a robe, and he is willing to abandon his supposed originalism so long as it serves his ideological agenda.

Anybody who wants to read the links for themselves should go here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia

Quoting a source like Rational Wiki is not evidence for a claim. Quoting any Wiki is seriously dubious.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 07:03:35 PM
Citizen's United was from many years back?

I really don't care how he rationalized his vote and to say Citizen's United 'may benefit the rich' is being deliberately obtuse.

It was also easily his most significant vote where he overruled a legislature, which kind of contradicts what you previously wrote.

I agree that my comment that his sole concern was to help the rich and hurt the poor was an oversimplification, his sole motivation was a wide range of standard far right wing positions (hating gay people, no separation of [right wing] church and state) and if he claimed to be doing so to favor the elected legislature over the unelected judges then he'd write that.

Yes, it was 6 years ago. Not ancient history, but it's clear that you have no real knowledge of the Court, or of Scalia himself. You have one case which you present. And you use that one because everyone knows about that case.

I wasn't aware that right-wing people were in favor of flag burning? He wasn't ruling to favor anyone, not the judges, not the legislature, he simply viewed the constitution in its rawest form. I don't agree with him on many (if not almost all) of his rulings, but if you read what he wrote (and you were able to be objective) you would see that he was a judicial genius. His explanations are simply awesome. Yet I don't agree with them.

But I can be objective.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 06:54:46 PM
Citizen's United?

He had no problem inserting his opinions over the legislature in support of his ideological views.

Do you have any proof of your claim?

He provided a detailed explanation as to why he joined the majority, it in no way has anything to do with "the rich". While the ruling may benefit the rich that is an irrelevant point, what matters is the logic behind his ruling.

Also I like how you pick one case from many years back to support your case. If he really only ruled in favor of the rich and "that was all he considered" then there surely must be a long trail and legally dubious arguments made by Scalia in order to support his "rich" masters.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 06:49:00 PM
As a 'human' he loved the rich and hated the poor, and despite his equally phony claims of respect for the U.S Constitution those were the sole things he looked at in deciding his vote, not anything that the U.S Constitution actually said.

Do you actually have proof of this claim? Because if you have actually read his dissents, interviews, and other writings it's pretty hard to support your claim. 

His stance in a nutshell most of the time was, "This issue shouldn't be decided by the court, this is an issue for the legislative to figure out."

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 06:44:32 PM
I don't understand this need to only say nice things about a person when they die.  Scalia was pond scum in life and he's pond scum in death and I'm not going to hold off saying that just because he's dead. 

If you insist on phony politeness after a person has died, then, with respect, I think it's you who is the moron.

Why do you say he was pond scum? Do you simply disagree with his judicial opinion, or is there more to it than that?

Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 27, 2016, 12:42:17 AM
That image is not from the recent Vanity Fair piece.

Even so, that`s soft porn?? Come on, man. You guys ever have a girlfriend?

I never called any of it soft core. I mean I don't hold it against her.

On a better topic, no one ever says this except me because I follow Dutch politics but Geert Wilders' hair and Trump's hair is far too similar.

I have to disagree.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 27, 2016, 12:29:51 AM
Both, I've authored quite a few novels at this point. Not everyone that makes their living writing is a NYT best seller. In fact, most aren't.

What are the novels, I'm honestly curious.

George Noory playing some sexy sax while I write this .... how nice of him.

Quote from: Coffeeman on January 27, 2016, 12:26:45 AM
Yeah...there's no effective difference. Go back to the Trump thread.

Sure there is, someone is an author when their book/work is published. I can write books all day and I'm a 'writer', but I'm no author.

Quote from: venix on January 27, 2016, 12:26:37 AM
I'm willing to bet that this thought didn't enter into his mind. I don't think he thought that throwing Heather to the wolves would hurt her and I don't think he thought that posting this at the start of Heather's show would distract the audience and take away from her show.

That is why there has been no answers yet.

I bet he will answer once the show is over.

My question: Why choose an unknown with no experience over all the other "talent" at the network (some who had supported the network in the two years you weren't able to be there)?

She's cheap, she was a part of the show, and she was gullible enough to be thrown into this.

Quote from: littlechris on January 27, 2016, 12:17:53 AM
Wow, didn't know that.

Oh I did... 

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 27, 2016, 12:21:52 AM
Absolutely none. I stay afloat, but only through writing for others in addition to my own stuff. Stephen King I am not.

So you're not an author then, that's what you're saying?

Writer yes, author no.