TPiR, what did I miss? Options

[pentellit]

The issue is why she was making those markings. Bob Barker is a lot of things, but he is not stupid enough to assign a black woman to discriminate against black people.

She made the markings for the same reason that everyone before her had made the markings, to limit the number of African American contestants. "Dobkowitz reprimanded Blitz for choosing too many black contestants in one Show, citing to Blitz that "You and I don't have a problem with it, but Barker doesn't like it. He is not pleased!" (Thank you tpirfan28, I didn't have that one!)

There are alternate explanations for this. I've put one of them forward, and you've dismissed it out of hand -- and without explaining why ..."

I prefer facts over excuses. No explanation is necessary because the facts in this case, and in all the other 10 or so lawsuits against Bob Barker speak very clearly and very consistently.

[Unrealtor]

There are alternate explanations for this. I've put one of them forward, and you've dismissed it out of hand -- and without explaining why ..."

I prefer facts over excuses. No explanation is necessary because the facts in this case, and in all the other 10 or so lawsuits against Bob Barker speak very clearly and very consistently.

The record will show that I don't often jump into other people's back-and-forth debates or back Steve up in arguments, but...

By claiming you prefer facts over excuses, you are in fact giving an excuse for never addressing his request that you explain your dismissal of the idea. There's nothing that makes claims made in a lawsuit facts. By definition, they're one side of a story, backed up only by an assertion that everything presented is truthful. On April 25 of this year, in the Paul Alter thread, you implied that Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz would be willing to lie in giving their side of the story, yet here you cite the claim filed against CBS - one claim, not "10 or so" - as "fact". It's having to have it both ways - what one person says while insisting they are truthful must be true, but what another person says while they insist they are truthful might not be true, solely depending on your opinion of their trustworthiness. Unless there was some admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, the fact that there was a settlement only means that there was some monetary amount where both sides thought that they would come out ahead.

I can believe that Barker was a badly-behaved egomaniac, and I can believe that Roger would have done whatever he had to to keep Barker happy. His job was to keep the show running smoothly, and if the talent isn't happy, that's hard to do. Believing it doesn't make it true.

[pentellit]

There are alternate explanations for this. I've put one of them forward, and you've dismissed it out of hand -- and without explaining why ..."

I prefer facts over excuses. No explanation is necessary because the facts in this case, and in all the other 10 or so lawsuits against Bob Barker speak very clearly and very consistently.

The record will show that I don't often jump into other people's back-and-forth debates or back Steve up in arguments, but...

By claiming you prefer facts over excuses, you are in fact giving an excuse for never addressing his request that you explain your dismissal of the idea. There's nothing that makes claims made in a lawsuit facts. By definition, they're one side of a story, backed up only by an assertion that everything presented is truthful. On April 25 of this year, in the Paul Alter thread, you implied that Bob Barker and Roger Dobkowitz would be willing to lie in giving their side of the story, yet here you cite the claim filed against CBS - one claim, not "10 or so" - as "fact". It's having to have it both ways - what one person says while insisting they are truthful must be true, but what another person says while they insist they are truthful might not be true, solely depending on your opinion of their trustworthiness. Unless there was some admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, the fact that there was a settlement only means that there was some monetary amount where both sides thought that they would come out ahead.

I can believe that Barker was a badly-behaved egomaniac, and I can believe that Roger would have done whatever he had to to keep Barker happy. His job was to keep the show running smoothly, and if the talent isn't happy, that's hard to do. Believing it doesn't make it true.

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

There really is no reason to spend time debating and debunking excuses or made up scenarios that never happened. Why waste the time?

PS "...one claim, not "10 or so" - as "fact" " Actually references to Barker's racism came up in several different testimonies from different witnesses.

[TeppanYaki]

If people would read the court docs

Please point us (at least myself - but since you're trying to prove a point) to these documents in question if you're bringing them up. It'd help.

[Steve Gavazzi]

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

First, you say there are "thousands of pages." Then you say your side of the debate would be easier if people would "read the court docs."

You're kidding, right?

[pentellit]

If people would read the court docs

Please point us (at least myself - but since you're trying to prove a point) to these documents in question if you're bringing them up. It'd help.

LA Superior Court: Parkinson v. Barker, Barker v. Hallstrom, Reigert v. Barker, Paris v. Barker, Freim v. Barker, Jordan v. Barker, Clement-Henry v. Barker, Curling v. Barker.

[pentellit]

There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony by dozens of witnesses in the ten or so lawsuits against Bob Barker. If people would read the court docs, that would eliminate the back-and-forth debates because that many different people telling essentially the same facts is compelling.

First, you say there are "thousands of pages." Then you say your side of the debate would be easier if people would "read the court docs."

You're kidding, right?

No Mr Gavazzi, I didn't say it would make my side of the debate easier, I said it would eliminate the back-and-forth debates if people would read the court docs.

As for reading the court docs, I would think that you would like to be informed.