I didn’t say the score was officially reclassified in 2003. I quoted head referee Robert Mruczek publicly announcing that the score would be reclassified and declaring the matter closed. Obviously you can interpret that however you’d like. But if you’re suggesting that this public announcement should be ignored because it isn’t an “official” public announcement, then I must respectfully differ with you, sir, on your painfully limited notions of historiography. Harumph!

When I contacted Robert Mruczek about the timeline (I do have a threshold to maintain) he didn’t really critique the way I presented his quote from 2003. But if you have a better way to describe the divergent scores than anyone else I’ve spoken with, I’d most certainly love to hear it.

I corrected the incorrect article a vs the — thanks for the proofreading. As for me twisting things around… please.

“On the FunSpot thread discussing the reclassification of Steve Wiebe’s score, user Rick calls Billy M the “current record holder.””

Actually, Rick calles Billy “a current record holder”. The context indicates that Rick thinks Billy shouldn’t be involved in the decision making since he also has a score on that title, which at the time, was actually 3rd place.

You are twisting some things around my friend.

I wish I’d known of this guideline sooner.

Lemme know if you have additions or corrections.

Here was the score situation when FunSpot started

Most of the specific falsehoods Jason lists are subjective (exactly when did Billy Mitchell start snubbing Steve Wiebe over his involvement with Mr Awesome? How did Nicole Wiebe feel about the men she told to stay out of her house?)

But one of Jason’s assertions is based on clear objective criteria. He states it forcefully, without ambiguity, as a fact. And if it were true, it would undercut the central premise of the film. But even a quick look reveals that it’s not anywhere near that clear.

As far as his statements of fact and falsehood, I think the best you could say is that Jason is strongly backing one side of an ongoing argument. Which is fine. If that’s what he wants to do, then he should go right ahead. But it seems awfully hypocritical to stand up for truth and honesty by using one-sided distortions to attack something as a one-sided distortion.

Big picture — hypocritical infighting is what made the internets great, so I just need to learn to let it go.

Jason says there are dozens and dozens of falsehoods contained within The King of Kong.

Zota says that one of those dozens and dozens of falsehoods may or may not be a falsehood, depending on who you ask, due to poor documentation of the event four years ago.

Is that pretty much it? That one of the dozens and dozens of falsehoods contained within the film is in dispute?

And here’s Walter Day saying that the score wasn’t actually reclassified

I feel like I’ve been able to piece together a sketchy idea of what happened, but this stuff is harshly disputed, poorly documented, and thoroughly spun. A lot of it depends on who you are and which way you look at it.

Other people are certain about all the facts and they know exactly who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. If you want to know what definitely happened, just ask one — and only one — of them.