Funny T-Shirts

Exploding Golf Balls
Blows up in a cloud of powder!

reading the whole topic here I'd say..

Katie hit the nail..... ALL THE WAY.....

Calling this "show" a hoax just misses the whole point.

Why? Let's count on the facts..... Ebay: It expects the seller to describe the item on auction accurately. The "mint condition" argument does not work. You got to be accurate. I personally followed the auction for some days, and I had a LAUGH! = PRICELESS!!!!!
If you fall for it.. Who to blame? Ever thought of blaming yourself?
Misleading (extended) information..... Now who did NEVER call in at work because mom, dad, the kids, the sister, the brother, or grandma was sick, or some other close person passed away and there was that funeral?
Who NEVER tried to be a "HOAXTER" then ?????

Leave the church in town.
It's toughy to deny your own child. But this is up to Larry. This is what he has to deal with it by himself.

Bottomline is. His story was GREAT. He gave everyone a laugh, and it was THAT good, he even catched the public media's attention. I also wish him the best, and thank him for the few moments of laughter, he gave me.
Looking further deep into it..... He's a smart ass, who deserves what he gets out of it. Unusual ways, for unusual people.
But he ain't no hoax. He did not betray, nor steal, nor nothing. NOBODY got hurt, except those who don't have enough fun within themselves to laugh about it, with the initial assumption of someone has a bright side of humour.

With that said..... Bravo Katie for hitting the point just more precisely than anyone else could have said, Larry for the outstanding idea and the laughter, and also Bob, for the opportunity to look into things from another angle. No matter what, I personally think you sound more bitter, in a serious way, than Larry ever did with his auction background.

Katie, what exactly is the reason for the personal attacks? You know NOTHING about me. If you ran a check on this website, you'd find out rather rapidly that hoaxing is something I know a fair amount about. Implying that someone who doesn't agree with you is somehow mentally deficient is often the tactic of a person who doesn't debate well. Putting that aside, I think I make it pretty clear in my last posting how making up facts about an item you offer for sale on eBay can and DOES raise the bidding. No, he didn't claim that the wedding dress was worn by the Queen (nor did I say that he DID. It's called an ANALOGY!) but he DID falsify the facts about the dress. Also, the fact that the bidder defaulted on paying doesn't change the original hoax. I sinply can't follow your "logic" on that. I fail to see how the fact that his story made people (including me, by the way) laugh NOT a hoax. As for humorous intent, MANY hoaxes are intended to make people laugh. My friend Alan Abel has been perpetrating humorous hoaxes for the past half-century. Joey Skaggs has been doing the same sort of thing since the 60's. I've been doing similar things for at least the past 20 years. You might want to look up the definition of "hoax" in the dictionary. Your argument seems to be more with Mr. Webster than me.

Bob,
I will team up here again with Katie. She set very valid points. I cannot see any personal attack within her posts. She is questioning. Perhaps, if one takes it personal then she may just have touched some weak spot? Since you've suggested, here is the link, and the definitions: Hoax: 1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hoax&r=67 You see? It's a matter of how you look at things. None of the above 2 definitions applies to this case. Not in my opinion. And if you admit you have been doing hoaxes yourself, what's the point of being that biased and judgemental?? This just does not make any sense to me. All what Larry did was excellent marketing. Copywriting in a top class, and outstanding humerous way. What made his auction famous was not the fact WHAT he wrote down. It was the way HOW he wrote. This made the auction become the most viewed auction ever on ebay, and made the people bid like crazy. Back to Katie, her comparison was all correct. You've compared the dress with "Nixon's broken pens", or other celeb items. And this would make the difference all the way. That was her point, and it's valid. Since you've compared apples and oranges.

Seems like a bit of tempest in a teapot brewing here over the definition of a hoax. I've gotta say that even if Bob says it's a hoax, that doesn't mean he's condemning it. Bob has been behind quite a few hoaxes himself. You can read about some of his exploits here:

http://www.mediaman.com.au/interviews/pagani.html


Maybe you want to call what Larry Star did clever marketing, instead of a 'hoax.' That's fine. It's just a question of semantics. Clever marketers are born hoaxers. They know you're never just selling a product... you're really selling an image. You take a boring product and wrap it in an exciting story, and sell it that way.

Part of the clever marketing behind the image of modern marketing itself is to disassociate it from hoaxing, because hoaxes conjure up negative connotations. Like P.T. Barnum always claimed, he wasn't hoaxing people, he was just entertaining them.

Yes, Alex, this IS something of a tempest in a teapot. All I've ever said is that what Wedding Dress Guy did fits the definition of a hoax. I've been very careful to say, over and over, that I wasn't being judgmental (which is why I kept repeating that it wasn't a crime or anything like that. I didn't want to be misconstrued.) Sorry, folks, but it DOES meet the definition of "hoax." Definition #1: hoax n. An act intended to deceive or trick. Definition #2: hoax \Hoax\, n. [Prob. contr. fr. hocus, in hocus-pocus.] A deception for mockery or mischief; a deceptive trick or story; a practical joke. --Macaulay. Definition #3: hoax \Hoax\, v. t. To deceive by a story or a trick, for sport or mischief; to impose upon sportively. --Lamb. OK, which of those DOESN'T apply here? These definitions even address the notion that "it made me laugh, therefore it isn't a hoax." Sorry, but as I've tried to explain repeatedly, humorous intent does not make something NOT a hoax. As for the "insult" toward me from Katie, how's this: "Because your statement makes no sense!!!!!! Maybe you are jealous because you are not as original?? Since you are so on the uppy the up with the regulations, maybe you should educate yourself somemore to get the facts straight, you being an expert and all." My facts ARE straight. I'm sorry that the actual definition of "hoax" doesn't agree with yours, but it just doesn't. It doesn't make you a bad person, it merely means that, in this instance, you are incorrect.

He got stiffed on the ebay sale! The winning bidder never bought the item. Maybe it isn't a straight up hoax but more of a slick sales pitch...

Fooboy, that "point" has been made and refuted several times now. The fact that he was stiffed on the sale does NOT make what he did NOT a hoax. Here's an analogy for you: I con you into giving me your Rolex watch. It turns out that it isn't a REAL Rolex, but a fake. That in no way proves that I DIDN'T con you in the first place. What B does does not change what A did in the first place. Events move forward, not backward.

Speculation not related to the FACT he was stiffed. You read what I wrote, but my meaning was not clear.

He has a slick story, he didn't sell the steak he sold sold the sizzle. First rule of salesmanship. Tell a golf loving customer you like golf. Give the customer a tube of golfballs. Then, sell the product. He did not hoax anyone, but had a great pitch.

I didnt see anyone post where he got stiffed. I thought it was an interesting sidenote.

Fooboy, as I've said before, this thing most certainly WAS a hoax. Check my post below where I give not one, not two, but THREE definitions of "hoax." This fits ALL of them. As Alex has pointed out, the problem here seems to be that, at least to some people, "hoax" has a negative connotation. Since they laughed at what he wrote on eBay, they think that Wedding Dress Guy's story just CAN'T be a hoax. It fits the definition, though, so that's that.

Bob, I must say that after reading through all the responses, you have swayed my opinion and I have to agree with you. Given the definition of "Hoax", this fits. Although the dress is exactly as represented in the original EBay sale, the story going along with it is not. Whether or not the story does (or should) have any bearing on the final purchase price, it is not true. Whatever the reasons, Mr. Wedding Dress Guy intentionally fabricated the story with the intent to deceive. Although I am agreeing with you, I also want to make the point that I am in no way tying any negative connotations to the whole story, however it IS a hoax.

Steve: Thanks for saying that. Yes, you got it exactly right. I, too, wasn't being negative about the issue when I said it fit the definition of "hoax." It just does.

Cranky Media Guy, perhaps if you could look beyond your own misguided perceptions, you'd see that Katie is right. She aptly hit the nail squarely on the head, when she said that this case cannot be called a hoax. That you are so offended that she so soundly put you in your place doesn't negate the fact that she indeed did, and that she is indeed correct. Rather then trying to find reason to be so put-out, you should consider that perhaps you aren't right here. It doesn't hurt to step beyond your ego every once in awhile and admit that you're as fallible as the rest of humanity, and that you might not always be right.

That he embellished his personal information in the auction doesn't make the whole sale a hoax. He presented the item as it stood, even going so far as to mention how he thought it looked like a shower-curtain. He certainly didn't exaggerate the quality of the dress, which was the focal point of the auction. If he'd presented it as something other then it was, then you'd have a case.

If sales were influenced by his personal story, well then that's incidental and rather arbitrary. It's not as if he's selling his life, such as it were. And that's really all there is to this discussion, at least the way I see it. Though I'll be the first to admit that I've never been the brightest of fellows.

Oh, and Cranky Media Guy, please don't be offended by what I said. I'm just calling it as I percieve it, and do not mean to anger you with my remarks. Thanks.

Bob, I hope this is THE last time I will be forced to address this (non)issue. Even if you think I was uncivil to Katie (which, if I was, was entirely in response to her snotty remarks about me), that wouldn't change the facts here. Every person who has disagreed with me about this issue has brought up the same points, which I have repeatedly addressed. The bottom line is, the Wedding Dress Guy eBay auction meets the dictionary definition of "hoax." I have supplied several definitions of the word below, each of which supports my position. As I've said before, at this point you aren't arguing with ME, you're arguing with the dictionary--actually several of them. If, for some reason, you think the dictionaries are wrong, I suggest you contact them. Until the published definitions change, however, I'll stick with them.

Bob,

You just cannot take anyone else's opinion, and even the fact they are right, isn't it?

Have you ever thought of that fact, that it's YOU who misreads the dictionaries, and the definitions of the word HOAX? As of right now, you are the one bending the truth, and turn around other contributors statements and opinions. Even your very own one...
Maybe you reread your very own opener?? How does it start? Let me remind you...... "My last shred of faith that there is anything real remaining on the Internet has now gone. Wedding dress guy has turned out to be a hoax." With this opener, you were the one giving the meaning hoax a bad name. You did not bother to soften it up, after your lacking on substantial and valid points. Further down the road you said a hoax does not need to be negative. Well, I sure read the dictionary different. A hoax is something willingly and purposely falsified, with bad intention. This very case is at the very most only a prank. It fits perfectly in the same category as all those funny fake phone calls. No one would call them hoaxes. Well, probably you do?
I for myself found Katies, and Bobs posts very thoroughly, and well put.

Bob, none of the statements you attribute to me were actually MADE by me. They were made by Alex, who owns this website. It isn't ME who can't read, apparantly. As for "misreading" the dictionaries, would you please show me where I'm doing that? I've give example definitions from THREE of them below; please show me where I am "misreading" them. The definitions are plain enough. Sorry, I'm not the one being stubborn here.

Dear Cranky, Bob, Alex, or whoever . I was actually not going to bother with this anymore, but will add my 2 cents one more time. Why are you soooo defensive? Did we hit a soft spot there? What floors me the most are the silly (putting it mildly) examples you use to compare and keep bringing up for trying to justify this as a hoax. You have changed your story several times now and just cannot handle anyone else‰Ûªs opinion. You think you are right and that‰Ûªs that. Even a so called expert would normally be willing to look at this from a different angle. You have called me snotty, lol. Why, cause I am right , and so many other people here placing comments? What is up with these weird examples, like broken Nixon pens, shoes Denzel wore, or fake Rolexes etc.? When will you understand, that‰Ûªs not what he advertised? Have you ever read eBays rules and regulations? The heck with your dictionary, has nothing to do with anything. Anytime someone makes a comment on how they thought the auction was funny or the buyer never paid, you just cannot let go of that and only comment on that instead of looking at the entire picture. What really got this auction rolling was the fact that he himself modeled the dress, THEN came his comments. Even with just a plain description of nothing but the dress, he still would have received the same responses he got, or at least very similar. As long as the winning bidder gets exactly what is shown in the picture and in the item description, this is not a hoax, nor fits the definition of one! When you sell and advertise a broken Nixon pen, but it turns out it is not something Nixon owned, than you have a case, just to use one of your own examples. If you are an expert you should know these things. His personal story has nothing to do with the dress. I doubt that you will understand that, but I thought I mention it one more time, lol. I think you are so stuck in your way of thinking, and your ego wont allow you to admit you are wrong about this, but so be it. You have completely misread ALL comments anyone has made (my guess would be on purpose) that did not agree with you. You cant back anything up with your own words. All you do is refer to links and bring up silly examples that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and claim to be an expert, which does not automatically mean that you are right. And oh PLEASE spare us with another example of someone selling a broken Nixon pen, Rolexes and and and. But Im sure you will twist it around again to something weird.
HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEKEND ALL!! TGIF

I have to agree with Katie here.

You are stubborn to the point of annoyance. And while it's good to have strong convictions, there comes a point where you have to bite the bullet and admit you were wrong. And you are. There's absolutely no shame in admitting it. Noone's going to think badly of you if you do.

Look man, the dress was represented as nothing more then what it was. His story about the circumstances behind how he came to sell the dress on E-Bay may have been embellished (ok, a few points were complete bullshit..), but that's arbitrary. He didn't misrepresent the dress itself, which to reiterate (as you either didn't understand the first time, or simply ignored it), was the focal point of the auction! People could clearly see what they were getting when they bid on the dress! Had he passed it off as the Shroud of Turrin or something as proposterous as that, then yeah, you'd have a case. But he didn't, and you don't. It's really that simple. There's no need to hash this out further. REALLY.

I think the real problem with this disagreement you guys are having regarding whether or not this was a hoax is that you both see things very differently. You have all made your points very well. As a person who tends to see both sides of an issue, I don't know which of you to fall in behind. I am not emotional about this at all, and emotions seem to be clouding some thinking here. I did see the auction, but now can't remember what the original verbiage was. If what he said in his initial post was all true, then I personally would consider the auction itself to not be a hoax, even if everything he later added was. However, had I bid on the dress after he added his false comments, I probably would've felt "hoaxed", or at least a fool. Had a big company bid on it and won, I wonder if it would've considered it to be? Certainly the big shots would've worried over whether it made the company look foolish. I wonder if a prospective buyer had emailed Larry and asked if his story were really true, what he would've said? Not that that has any bearing on whether it was a hoax or not. This is why there are grey areas in law, and why meanings get changed, and new words made up. The definitions in very old dictionaries do not always match current definitions. Maybe the definition of hoax will be changed one day due to very arguements like these. In any case, IMHO, in the strictest sense of the definitions, this was indeed a hoax. Loosely defined, it was simply a prank.

Katie, et al: While I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you say, you are simply wrong in this instance. Opinion, no matter how sincere, does NOT make fact. You may believe the Earth is flat with every fiber of your being but my photos of the round planet disprove that. By the way, Katie, that is called an "analogy." You might want to look that up in the dictionary. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in them. The bottom line here is that dictionaries are the definitive experts on word meaning. I have provided several examples of dictionary definitions of the word "hoax." Not one person who disagrees with me has been able to dispute those definitions. Rather, you are all insisting on your own, conjured-up definitions. That's your right, of course, however you have NO right to assume that anyone will agree with you. I'm certainly no fan of Rush Limbaugh's but I agree with him when he says, "Words have meanings." They do and we find those meanings in the dictionary. Katie, I don't know why you seem to have the need to try to insult me, but you haven't succeeded in winning this debate. I have presented you with facts in the form of dictionary definitions; you have provided nothing but an (incorrect) opinion. It is not ME who is being stubborn here. It is you. I don't doubt that you're a nice person in many respects. You just happen to be wrong about this particular issue.

No Bob, for all your fancy exposition, you are the one that's wrong.

Now, I normally wouldn't continue to has out a matter such as this, but I've never met someone so completely arrogant in my life! That you are so completely wrong hasn't gotten through to you, simply because your ego won't let you entertain the notion.

You've been soundly put in your place over this matter time and again, and yet you still stubbornly defend your broken, misguided stance. I wish I had the bravado you do. Or maybe it's best I don't.

Look man, the concepts put forth to you are easy to understand, if your ego will allow you to.

If we take your definitions of a hoax into account, it only applies to the dress itself, as it was the item up for bid on E-Bay.
The circumstances behind his aquisition of the dress as well as his life story, are incidental and irrelivent, as he presented the dress as it was. The consumer knew the condition and quality of the product that he or she would be getting when he or she bid on it. The item itself was not misrepresented, and as such, the auction was not a hoax.