Author Topic: American Bible Challenge season 2 premiere date (Read 22087 times)

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2013, 12:48:49 PM »

Pre-testing to avoid mis-matches will solve that problem.

clemon79 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2013, 01:36:41 PM »

Pre-testing to avoid mis-matches will solve that problem.

The match-up is irrelevant, considering the speed round is not even played with the other team on the stage. I have to think there was enough screening to ensure the contesti knew something about the source material.

PYLdude · « **Reply #17 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:44:37 PM »

It\'s the fact that getting through casting is tough, and they have the 10-minute bible study before should help them get at least one.

Bright lights of television and nerves be damned of course.

(are you for real?)

clemon79 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 22, 2013, 05:37:45 PM »

Bright lights of television and nerves be damned of course.

(are you for real?)

He has a sorta point; these guys should be screened enough to be remotely capable in a round where they are given all of the information in advance, in a tournament where they are ALL supposed to be experts in the source material.

My point to Jimmy was merely that jiggering the matchups through testing does not affect the possibility of a goose-egg one way or the other.

TLEberle · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2013, 11:30:25 PM »

There\'s a documentary that features several Mastermind contenders who managed to put up anemic numbers in their specialty round; and that\'s the one where you\'re expected to know the topic inside and out.

The zero on TABC is certainly notable given the particulars, but I\'m not going to criticize them or laugh at them. It is possible that they were given a topic, studied it but none of that material came up, or they merely didn\'t retain it.

chad1m · « **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2013, 01:39:03 AM »

I didn\'t think that this warranted a large post on its own, but I think it\'s worth posting here to further discredit this self-made expert. Recently, our intrepid blogger announced that he was adding a new blogger, Nicole Tillman, a previous game show contestant. This account made a couple of posts... but as you can tell, those come from a cache because the links no longer exist. I tweeted this person to see if she was actually associated with this site, since I couldn\'t imagine someone of merit would be and she said that she hasn\'t \"posted any blogs ever.\" By this time, all \"Nicole Tillman\" posts are down and the name no longer appears as a contributor.

tl;dr: Ol\' Scott made a fake account based on a real person to post news as if he had additional contributors.

aaron sica · « **Reply #21 on:** April 26, 2013, 03:00:32 AM »

It\'s the fact that getting through casting is tough, and they have the 10-minute bible study before should help them get at least one.

Bright lights of television and nerves be damned of course.

(are you for real?)

He is, but after Chad Mosher\'s investigative report, Nicole Tillman ain\'t. Maybe she\'s nothing more than his blow-up doll..

PYLdude · « **Reply #22 on:** April 26, 2013, 03:31:03 AM »

I think that\'s illegal, isn\'t it?

aaron sica · « **Reply #23 on:** April 26, 2013, 03:37:42 AM »

Not sure of the legalities of it, but if I was Nicole Tillman I would be irate...

PYLdude · « **Reply #24 on:** April 26, 2013, 04:06:23 AM »

Don\'t know about irate...but I\'m pretty sure having your identity stolen so some schmuck can give his blog another ego stroke is something that\'d at least go unappreciated.

itiparanoid13 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 26, 2013, 07:15:39 AM »

He has a history of doing fake aliases to make it seem like anyone cares. On the posts where he went after me, he left all the comments himself but under fake names. Was easy to tell because he then tried to go to my site and leave the same comments with the same names. He just forgot about the IP moderation on him. Kinda easy to tell.

If nothing else, looking through his hysterically fake \"inside information,\" he\'s got a vivid imagination at least. I\'ll give him that.

jjman920 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:34:36 AM »

This whole thing reminds me of an SNL sketch from last year with Jamie Foxx.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #27 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:41:16 AM »

I think that\'s illegal, isn\'t it?

Not sure, although I\'m curious as to whether she\'d have a case in terms of her name being used falsely. My legal side* wants to say she could.

At the very least, it\'s highly unethical, and would likely result in an immediate F in any class, or termination at a job. Fortunately for him, it\'s just a piddly little blog. Unfortunately for him, she could possibly take legal action.

*I watch Matlock from time to time. And no, I\'m not 75 years old.

clemon79 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 26, 2013, 11:21:22 AM »

Not sure, although I\'m curious as to whether she\'d have a case in terms of her name being used falsely. My legal side* wants to say she could.

I suspect she would have to prove actual damages, and he\'s simply not important enough to have really caused her any hurt.

TLEberle · « **Reply #29 on:** April 26, 2013, 04:31:33 PM »

I don\'t like the idea of \"as long as the defendant is a nothing-burger moron a-hole blogger you can\'t sue because there\'s no damages.\" You\'re certainly right that she probably hasn\'t been financially harmed but he\'s still done something wrong and shouldn\'t skate for it.

/sir, you are unfit to have Dick Clark as your avatar picture. John Davidson would be more fitting for someone of your caliber.