Wedding Dress Guy

image 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. Like seemingly everyone else on the internet, I recently checked out his eBay auction of his ex-wife's wedding dress. I read through his rant about his ex-wife and enjoyed his remarks, such as his statement that he was selling the dress "to get enough money for maybe a couple of Mariners tickets and some beer." I also laughed at the pictures of him posing in the white dress. I didn't suspect that the story was a fake (I should have known better!), which of course it is, as Nicole Brodeur uncovered in this Seattle Times article. Wedding Dress Guy is named Larry Star. He mentioned a sister in the story, but she doesn't exist. He mentioned that he had no kids with his ex-wife, but he does. I guess this is another case of how you can sell anything on eBay, as long as you weave a good story around it. And the dress did sell: for $3,850. For that price, the buyer gets a used wedding dress and a phony story. It's amazing what some people will spend their money on.

eBay Sex/Romance

Posted on Fri Apr 30, 2004


He's still hot in that dress though 🧛
Posted by Umaro  on  Fri Apr 30, 2004  at  12:03 PM
Actually, the buyer bailed... he's looking for a second buyer... at least according to E! News Network... and you know what hard-hitting journalists those guys are...
Posted by John  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  12:58 AM

Honestly, you didn't smell a rat when you read that listing on eBay? I didn't buy it for a second.

I don't mean to imply that that somehow makes me better or smarter than you, but I'm surprised that a guy who spends a lot of his time dealing with and reporting on hoaxes was taken in by what seemed to me to be an obvious bullshit story.
Posted by Bob  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  05:29 AM
Really, Bob, you weren't taken in by it when there was a big message on this site telling you it was fake. There's no wya to know whether you would or would not be taken in by it. So, just shut up.
Posted by Philip  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  09:43 AM
It was entirely plausible sounding to me -- his rants were much like those I've heard from jilted spouses.

I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax, though. Embroidering the truth, yes. But he had the dress, he was divorced, he is bitter, he was really selling it. The rest could be attributed to now-standard marketing lies, such as "near mint condition" "minor wear and tear" and "rare!!!!L@@K!!!!"
Posted by cvirtue  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  11:12 AM
It's not really a hoax, more of a yarn.
It must have been a really quiet day in Seattle when the Times editor decided that this was a story worth pursuing. What an expose!
Posted by Rummaging  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  03:07 PM

Okay I admit I bought into it...until he said the Today Show wanted him. That's when I got suspscious.

Posted by Palaytia  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  03:21 PM
Now he's got a website too! Did somebody say perfect game? for the site.
Posted by Rummaging  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  03:37 PM

I didn't originally see anything on this site about the story. I believe I first heard about it on Fark. Why so snotty? I didn't say anything rude; I only said that I was surprised that someone who deals with hoaxes every day didn't smell a rat in this story.

I think I was suspicious of it in part because there have been several similar stories on eBay in recent months. Remember "Satanic Toaster?" How about the guy who was selling his hard drive supposedly because his ex-wife had loaded it with porn?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat May 01, 2004  at  08:10 PM
Hey, Unless he misrepresented the item he was listing in the auction, who cares about the personal stuff? This guy wrote a real attention grabber. I am just so thankful for the laughter that I shared with friends and family that I couldn't care less about fact or fiction. Ebay is a marketing format - and Larry Star did that better than anyone else!!!
Posted by B.  on  Sun May 02, 2004  at  03:03 AM
Bob, I knew what you meant (and I would have responded sooner but I was up in LA for the day). I was kind of surprised at myself for not smelling a rat earlier since, like you said, I deal with this stuff all the time. But I figured the story didn't sound that implausible. I mean, the brilliant marketing strategy was adding the pictures of himself in the dress. Those aren't a hoax. So why the need to falsify the story itself? It didn't really improve it much. Like Rummaging said, this is really more of a yarn than a hoax. The dress itself is real. Now if he had said the dress was haunted 🐛... that would be another matter.
Posted by Alex  on  Sun May 02, 2004  at  11:33 AM
Man, I feel sorry for anyone who calls this a hoax. Does that mean every time you see a commercial on TV you think those people are REAL! It's marketing, not a hoax.
Posted by Bridget  on  Mon May 03, 2004  at  08:46 AM
If someone to advertise a solar-powered clothes dryer and then sell you some clothesline would you not cal that phony? would you not call it a hoax? - The fools selling junk on ebay don't have to follow the rigorous standards commercial and industrial advertisements do

Let the buyer beware
Posted by J  on  Tue May 04, 2004  at  01:18 PM
Hello all,
No, this was not a hoax. I have an actual dress, and wanted actual money for it. The story was satire, tongue-in-cheek, based on my marriages as well as friends' unfortunate relationships. I wrote something funny, and people laughed. The media took everything way too seriously. I received no remuneration for the dress whatsoever. No one questions any comic's act about their family, yet my veracity is in question. Hell, Brett Butler made a career out of ranking on her "old man". The beating I take in various columns and chat sites are well worth it because of the handful of people that I've touched that told me I've made a positive difference in their relationships. If I have made you laugh, then my job is done. If you are still cynical about being 'deceived' then you should really lighten up and take a good look at the world around you because there is alot more shit out there than this fat guy making a joke in a wedding dress. Thanks. From the heart of my bottom.
Posted by Larry Star  on  Wed May 19, 2004  at  03:12 AM
Uh, sorry, Mr. Wedding Dress Guy, but it most certainly WAS a hoax. Context is everything, you see. When a person goes to an eBay auction, they have the expectation that the information given about the item being sold is accurate. In fact, eBay's rules say that a seller who lies in his auction can be kicked off the service.

The comparison to a comedian's act is not particularly apt. Most observers will realize that a comedian is exaggerated for comedic effect, therefore there is no hoax.

The fact that you had satiric intent does not change the matter. Most hoaxes have satiric intent. Trust me, this is something that I know a little bit about.

Saying "there is alot more shit out there than this fat guy making a joke in a wedding dress" also changes nothing. It reduces to "two wrongs make a right." They don't (not that I'm accusing you of doing anything criminal. For the record, I'm not.) What other people do does not change the nature of what YOU do.

Bottom line: Yes, it was a hoax. It wasn't Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, but it WAS a hoax, in that it was intended to deceive people.

Being a hoaxer doesn't make you a bad person; if it does, I'm bound for Hell. It was a funny story, but it WAS a hoax. No one's calling you a criminal here. I think YOU need to chill out.
Posted by Bob  on  Thu May 20, 2004  at  03:04 AM
Bob, I disagree. Whatever the terms of service say, the eBay listings are full of funny stories, tales of heartbreak and made-up things. It's part of its charm.

Hoax is a little bit strong and more than a little judgemental. It was a guy with a sense of humour, telling a funny story through the medium of online auctions.

If anything, I would call hoax on the Seattle Times for *exposing* it as a hoax. It's not news to *reveal* that a guy a telling a joke might be embellishing his story.

Also, Larry, if you read this, protect the brand my friend. Where's the mystique if you rise to the bait on every nobody's blog? If I can't persuade you to do that, then at least come and have a go at me on my site 😊
Posted by Rummaging  on  Thu May 20, 2004  at  12:58 PM
No, I'm not being judgmental at all. I'm merely saying that what Wedding Dress Guy did meets the definition of a hoax. Calling it a "hoax" is not a condemnation at all. The fact that other people do similar things on eBay does not change the characteristics of what HE did.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu May 20, 2004  at  04:11 PM
What the hell? How can this be a hoax if the item he sold is exactly as described? A hoax would be, if he said he is selling a wedding dress but doesn't have one, or ships a freaking milk bone instead. Who cares about the personal stuff? That just spices the auction up!!!! Who cares if it was from the ex wife or ur best friend handed it to you, or you found it in a garbage dumpster. Bottom line is.....the buyer gets what is advertised. Not to mention, the buyer didn't even pay!! If anyone is a hoaxter, its the wanna be buyer. How come there is hardly any mention of that??

Anyhow, Larry, I cried tears reading the auction, it was a job mega well done. People need to stop (anal)yzing everything. Most miss the point anyhow 😊 and that shows the true intelligence. So, consider the source, lol. Best wishes for your future!!
Posted by Katie  on  Fri May 21, 2004  at  08:15 PM
Katie, you miss the point I've made repeatedly. It doesn't MATTER if other people do the same thing; that doesn't in any way change the nature of what YOU'VE done. On eBay, rightly or wrongly, people tend to bid on items based at least in part on the story behind the auction. Suppose I listed a pen for sale and I said that the pen was owned by President Kennedy even though it wasn't. Would you not expect that some people might bid higher for the pen based on the story I told than they would have if I was truthful and said that it was an ordinary pen NOT owned by a famous person? According to your argument, it isn't a hoax because, after all, the bidder got a pen. Again, just so I'm not misunderstood, I am NOT saying that Wedding Dress Guy committed a crime; I'm merely saying that his misleading listing WAS a hoax. Still disagree? Please contact me--I have boxes full of Richard Nixon's broken pens, an electric toothbrush formerly owned by Princess Diana and a pair of size 13 Nikes that Denzel Washington gave me. I'd LOVE to sell them to you.
Posted by Bob  on  Fri May 21, 2004  at  08:57 PM
Well Bob,

Apparently YOU are STILL missing the point. He did not advertise a dress that was worn by princess Diana, but a wedding dress. And no one accused you of saying it was a crime. I think you need to relax a bit 😊. Bottom line still is......what ever you advertise on eBay has to be exactly that. He described the dress, with humor may I add. And the buyer would have received exactly that. He did NOT say that is was the queen of France or anything like that, which would have been a lie and a hoax. Nor did I ever say that if other people list items falsely it makes it ok for others. I buy and sell on eBay myself, so I have a clean perspective. Again, what is overlooked is the fact that Larry never got paid to begin with. The buyer is the hoaxter. Would he have paid, he would have received the dress in the pictures (I would hope,lol). If not, than that would be another issue in its self.
Why would his story make u bid higher?? Because it was from his Ex wife, or because he drives a crappy truck?? Please enlighten me? 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.

Have a great weekend
Posted by Katie  on  Fri May 21, 2004  at  09:43 PM
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.
Posted by Charly  on  Fri May 21, 2004  at  09:46 PM
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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat May 22, 2004  at  02:37 AM
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. 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.
Posted by Charly  on  Sat May 22, 2004  at  08:39 AM
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:

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.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Sat May 22, 2004  at  11:30 AM
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.
Posted by Bob  on  Sat May 22, 2004  at  08:36 PM
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...
Posted by fooboy  on  Wed May 26, 2004  at  04:05 PM
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.
Posted by Bob  on  Thu May 27, 2004  at  02:52 AM
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.
Posted by fooboy  on  Thu May 27, 2004  at  03:25 PM
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.
Posted by Bob  on  Fri May 28, 2004  at  03:11 AM
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.
Posted by Steve  on  Wed Jun 02, 2004  at  11:20 AM
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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Jun 02, 2004  at  04:17 PM
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.
Posted by Bob Terwilliger  on  Thu Jun 24, 2004  at  09:37 AM
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.
Posted by Bob  on  Fri Jun 25, 2004  at  03:07 AM

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.
Posted by Charly  on  Fri Jun 25, 2004  at  03:22 PM
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.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jun 25, 2004  at  04:48 PM
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
Posted by Katie  on  Fri Jun 25, 2004  at  06:09 PM
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.
Posted by Bob Terwilliger  on  Fri Jun 25, 2004  at  08:04 PM
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.
Posted by Dianne  on  Sat Jun 26, 2004  at  02:09 AM
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.
Posted by Bob  on  Sat Jun 26, 2004  at  03:41 AM
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.
Posted by Bob Terwilliger  on  Sat Jun 26, 2004  at  03:27 PM
I will say one last thing, oh condencending one. Please pay attention to what's being said to you here. Katie refuted your analogies, as they didn't exactly pertain to this dicussion as such. As for our opinons, "however sincere", the same can be said about you and yours.
As for this discussion, we've presented to you facts beyond refute, and you refer back to the dictionary, and offer thinly vieled insults to the legitimacy of our arguments, rather the formulating any of your own that actually go to further your point. You make wide misinterpretations, and at the same time make narrow minded interpretations. I have to say that, while stimulating, this has also been one of the most frustrating discussion I've ever taken place in. And for that, I thank you. That said, be more open-minded in the future. Nothing you've said here even hints that you've attempted to entertain any notion differing from yours in the slightests. I at least will admit to trying to see it from your standpoint....😛
Posted by Bob Terwilliger  on  Sat Jun 26, 2004  at  03:34 PM
Thank you Bob T., very well put! This discussion is obviously not getting anywhere. Bob has made up his mind, no matter what. Its kind of funny, my comments are perceived as insulting, when the same can be said for you Bob. You are taking this rather personal. I was simply outspoken using your own claims as to being an expert, and using your own examples. They did not come from me. Did I ever say I dont believe in dictionaries? You need to stop putting words in my mouth and stick to the facts, but as we have already seen, that
Posted by Katie  on  Sat Jun 26, 2004  at  06:31 PM
This is really quite simple. Like most people, when I want to find out the meaning of a word, I turn to the dictionary. It is the accepted authority on word meaning. Since those of you who disagree with me have cited NO outside authority, what you have is merely your OPINION. Unfortunately, your OPINION is contradicted by what the authorities say. If you were right and I was wrong, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the authoritative sources would agree with you? Katie has suggested that I might be misreading the dictionary. Here (yet again) are some dictionary definitions of the word "hoax." Please show me where I am misreading any of them re the Wedding Dress Guy auction. "An act intended to deceive or trick.
Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means." "v : To deceive by a story or a trick, for sport or mischief; to impose upon sportively." "n : deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage [syn: fraud, fraudulence, dupery, put-on] v : play a joke on or subject to a hoax." Please not that the oft-brought-up topic of humor is directly addressed in these definitions (as in the notion that the Wedding Dress auction can't possibly be a hoax as it was humorous). As for the issue of "deception," WDG has admitted that he made up the story. That is, by definition, deception. Katie, I find it funny that you say that I have NO idea what kind of person you are (even though what I said was complimentary), then in the next breath, you say that a "person like you" would never get close enough to you to know. Sounds like you're making some assumptions of your own there. Of course, I never said that I WANTED to "get close to" you. I'm sincerely confused as to why you would think I had any interest in that. My interest here is solely to debate the "hoaxiness" (to coin a word) of the Wedding Dress Guy auction. If you're truly choosing to discontinue debating with me, that is, of course, your perogative. I stopped posting to this thread a few weeks back. Then, suddenly, it was revived (much to my surprise) by someone else (I forget who) so I responded. From MY point of view, in the absence of any actual FACTS that refute what I have been saying all along, this hasn't really been a "debate" for at least a month now. As I've said before, when OPINION is in conflict with FACT, FACT wins every time.
Posted by Bob  on  Sun Jun 27, 2004  at  02:42 AM
Bob, I think everyone has noticed how confused you are lol. Again you are putting words in my mouth. I cant seem to get away from these postings, lol. I never claimed or stated you WANTED to get close to me, I simply said you never would to begin with as in your so called compliment you said your sure I am a nice person in many respects blabla. Bob, I am done with this, I wont go over and over the same points anymore. I have made myself clear and that
Posted by Katie  on  Sun Jun 27, 2004  at  07:24 PM
This has been a waste of time and emotion on many of your parts. Step back and I'm sure you will be able to see what has happened. The Wedding Dress Guy was having fun. He took some photos of a dress he wanted to sell, came up with a story, and tried to sell it. His story caught ebay by storm and a bidding way ensued. The story was fabricated for the sole purpose of entertaining those who would read it (according to its author). This is a pretty simple and accurate summation of events I'm sure everyone would agree with. The sentence before last settles the argument: the Wedding Dress Guy created the story for the purpose of humorous entertainment, which by definition is a hoax regardless of whether or not he received any kind of monetary compensation. The determining factor is the original author's intent. Since his intent was to fabricate a story to "make people laugh," his action constitutes a hoax pure and simple. This argument has gone on far too long. It seems people have gotten emotional and have been defending the Wedding Dress Guy against a perceived attack against being called a hoaxster as if that were an insult. In reality, it is a compliment and shows that he accomplished perfectly what he set out to accomplish. Well done. Let's us just thank the Lord he wasn't selling lingerie!
Posted by Milicent  on  Mon Aug 02, 2004  at  03:41 AM
Thank you, Milicent. You've very nicely summed up what I was saying all along: that the Wedding Dress Guy auction meets the dictionary definition of "hoax." Thank you again for your input.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Aug 02, 2004  at  04:33 AM
:-P he's my hero! Him and the Kool-aid man! 😉
Posted by Neko  on  Thu Dec 16, 2004  at  09:24 AM
The dress was real, his wife was real, and Larry Star is for sure REAL - so the story around had a little comedy added - everyone including you got a laugh, now he is still reaping the benefits of being creative. Yes, he was on the Today show and many others. He now has a book, a website, merchandise and his band is even more popular because of it. Maybe you are just jealous, not that you didn't think of it but because he looks better in the dress you dream about.
Posted by J Downey  on  Tue Jun 28, 2005  at  03:32 PM
nice to see ordanary people instead of anorexic models modeling a dress
Posted by Eva  on  Fri Mar 24, 2006  at  06:26 PM
Never would buy the worn wedding dress! Same should be сшито only for you, it bears spirit of pleasure of your family
Posted by Kat  on  Wed Jun 18, 2008  at  10:46 AM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.