Will we ever get the official scoop on who VIP was/were?

[Brian Cronin]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

The thread had moved back to the main subject so I gave it a rest

No you didn't. You replied to every one of my responses directed at you. That's not "giving it a rest."

You seem to have honesty issues, my friend.

, the NBA has had some outstanding games since the All Star break and I’ve been very interested in developments with the presidential nominations.

But, here we are again.

Indeed.

I finally got bored enough to read this...

First off...I find it very telling that you have chosen to cut out those parts of my statements that are most troublesome to you and your "arguments", and include only those comments which you feel you have the strength to respond to.

You'll note, when I respond to someone, I include EVERYTHING they say, so no one can accuse me of quoting (and thus responding) out of context.

The same cannot be said of you.

That’s true, I didn’t respond line by line. For one thing – it was just getting too long, and it was impractical to keep doing that.

Cutting lines and taking things out of context, and then responding out of context, isn't really excused by "practicality."

If you're going to cut, cut the whole thing....not in the middle of sentences.

If this is in fact a debate, and not an ‘I’m right – you are wrong exchange’ or a ‘who gets the last word situation’ – then there needs to be central points to it.

There are, and always have been.

[Unless “ I’m right and you’re wrong” is the point for you – and I have been provided perspective on your contributions here to indicate that is likely the case]

I don't know, is "I'm right and you're wrong" the point for you? It certainly seems that way. I'm quite certain the cowards on this board who don't have the balls to speak for themselves in public, but have ZERO qualms stabbing me in the back in private, aren't really going to be the most unbiased sources of information....don't you think?

Suffice it to be said, despite what those cowards have to say about me, it has NEVER been solely an "I'm right and you're wrong" issue in ANY discussion. I'm interested in EVERYONE being in agreement about most things, because, when you boil it right down, there's really not that many things about which humanity should be in DISagreement about. And yet, here we are, constantly fighting all over the world.

I do not derive pleasure in informing people when they're wrong (with few exceptions) and I certainly don't like to BE wrong myself. No one does. I LIKE people to be correct, because it makes things so much simpler. But pride and ego get in the way, and no one will admit when they are wrong, even with the facts blaring like a siren in their ears, so here we are.

MOTA...MOTA's a guy who is always right, period. MOTA's opinions are ROCK SOLID, no matter what anyone says, even a MOUNTAIN of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Me? I am not that guy (we already have that guy.) Just because a person stands their ground and defends their positions vigorously does not therefore mean that they have an "I'm right and you're wrong" perspective. Show me facts. Show me data. Persuade me with compelling arguments. Convince me. It CAN be done (and has, many times, on this very board....but you won't ever see that, because it's a non-issue...and so, is swept away in the vast sea of posts.)

But if you're going to passive/aggressively insult me...you're not going to get ANYwhere. No one is.

And really, Geomancer, aren't you getting tired of the passive/aggressive insults...? I'm quite certain, based on our short exchange in this one single thread that you're quite easily overstimulated and fairly emotionally fragile....and I base that entirely on your reaction to three simple sentences that had nothing to do with you directly....but don't the insults get old?

Regardless of the fact that you think I'm doing exactly the same thing...I know you do. That's not the point. I only give back what I get.

And finally, why would I feel compelled to respond to each and every petty attempt at an insult?

I ask myself the same question....but, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I do it anyways.

I only agree to disagree about things which are in the realm of OPINION, not fact. It has already been established that there will be no official word concerning who VIP is/was. This is fact.

No that is an opinion of yours.

No, sorry, it is fact, based on what the word "official" means and the details of the actions involved.

Unless perhaps we define official differently. By official I also included industry insiders and did not restrict that to statements directly from VEI or VPI. That would be even better, but that is why I mentioned other channels such as Lying in the Gutters or Comic Book legends. Their value as official, would be subjective too. So official meant something beyond message board discussion.

Ok, so let's understand what the definition of "official" is:

"Official", in this case, would be information directly from both parties involved.

"Official" does NOT include sources such as Lying in the Gutters, or Comic Book Legends....because they are not party to the actions involved. Anything they could get would, of necessity, be "off the record."

Now, if you think that Lying in the Gutters or Comic Book Legends would be considered "official" word, fine. You're working with a different definition of the word official, then. I'm certain those people could easily get "anonymous", "off the record" information from the principals involved...but they would be "anonymous" and "off the record"....not official.

And that's the crux, right there.

I understand that you think "official" could include a much broader selection of sources, but that's not what official means.

And don't be so quick to dismiss a message board. You don't know who has whose ear, or who is involved with what. The people who write those "official" sources are people, just like you and me.

When someone comes along and challenges established facts, I'm not going to "agree to disagree" with that. I'm going to point out their errors in logic and reason.

That’s fair, that is what I have been doing with your posts from the beginning.

No, you wildly overreacted to two posts that had nothing to do with you directly, then proceeded to passive/aggressively insult me.

No, see, this is where you don't understand: I don't BELIEVE there will be nothing further, because you are talking about THE FUTURE, and about the FUTURE, I have only conjecture, not beliefs (aside from certain eschatological considerations that have no bearing on this conversation.)

This I agree with. If this is how you feel then this contradicts your own stand that we won’t be getting an answer and that this thread is nothing more than rehash of earlier ones. I am glad you see the reason why this thread was started.

Don't you get tired of the insults?

Are you capable of someone correcting you without feeling your masculinity threatened to the point where you have to passive/aggressively insult them?

Let's just clarify: my statement here contradicts nothing I said previously. If it seems to you that anything a statement contradicts another statement, it's because you didn't understand what was said to begin with. And no, that's not an insult. You simply didn't understand what was said.

In fact, you didn't even understand THIS statement.

And, frankly, you're just not worth explaining it a fourth, fifth, and sixth time.

And when someone asks you a direct question, please don't answer with "find it for yourself"...that's a weak copout, and tells me you cannot support your positions with evidence.

You see it as a copout, I see it as something you can and should do for yourself.

No. It's a copout. Plain and simple.

You: "This is a fact."

Me: "Oh yeah? Prove it."

You: "Go look it up for yourself."

That's a copout. It means you cannot support your positions with evidence. Allow me to introduce you to a basic tenet of Debate 101: if you make a claim, and that claim is challenged, it is up to the CLAIMANT to provide proof, not tell the challenger they can "look it up for themself."

That's something debate students learn in their first week.

Whether the challenger CAN do it for themselves is entirely irrelevant.

Aren't you tired of looking foolish yet....?

As far as "interferring", cleary you have not bothered to read a word I typed. No one can "interfere" with any topic here. It's impossible for a regular member to "interfere" in ANY discussion.

[ geomancer quote=I’m sorry but I have to be blunt and say that is empty rhetoric on your part. ]

I'm sorry but I have to be blunt and say this is a complete and utter failure to grasp the concept of what was said.

Interference is a good subject for consideration. If its not possible for a quote to interfere, -- as in any post goes -- then there would be no need for moderators.

I already qualified this, my friend. Therefore, your point is irrelevant.

There's a difference between "it's not possible for a POST (not quote) to interfere" and "any post goes."

LEARN IT.

But I think most participants would recognize that is not the case. There are lines, hazy at times, where posts are detrimental.

It’s the ‘clearly you have not bothered to read a word I said’ that was obviously hyperbole, clearly in error, and thus, empty rhetoric.

No, you clearly have not bothered to comprehend anything I've said, as demonstrated in this very post.

And I've already told you, THIS BOARD EN TOTO does NOT agree with what "you consider" inteference. It doesn't matter what *I* think...it's what the board, as a WHOLE, thinks. I am just voicing that concept.

I do not consider you to be a spokesperson for the entire board.

Neither do I. I'm telling you what is easily observable. Reporting on that which is easily observable and being the "board spokesperson" are two different things.

Again, differences that you have an incredibly difficult time grasping.

It has been made clear to me that you are not.

Ah yes...the cowards again. Once more: aren't the words of cowards who do their whispering behind backs, by their very nature, questionable?

Let's agree with the cowards: I am not the board spokesperson. Never have been, never will be. I merely report that which is easily observable.

Is that clear enough for you?

I understand that what you are saying is in line with a percentage of vocal and active members of this board.

The vast majority.

So perhaps it will help here if I clarify things. People have a right to make whatever commentary they care to make. That commentary though, once made, is also subject to commentary and wil itself be commented on.

That is correct.

But just because a person has the RIGHT to do something, doesn't therefore make it a wise of prudent thing to do.

Or is that subtlety lost on you as well....?

See, here's the difference: you're the one who complained...bitterly...about what you considered "disparagement", "disruption", "interference", "mocking"....YOU were the only, CLEARLY, who had the issue. Therefore, it behooves you to, instead of whining and complaining about what OTHER members post, to IGNORE them, if you genuinely have a problem with them...if you're TRULY concerned about peace and harmony on the board.

Now this is a curious commentary. Supposedly, I am the ‘bitter’ one and yet it is your posting that is consistently laced with sarcasm and a generally negative tone. Which is your right, and exemplifies what you are about.

My comments are laced with sarcasm in direct response to your bitter complaints. Generall negative? Only in direct response to your generally negative tone.

Only in direct response.

I believe that it is apparent that I have a different concept of message board courtesy than you do.

I believe you have a different concept of message board courtesy than the vast, vast majority of people do.

That is my own choice and personal code and any implication that it must be extended to anyone else is wrong, however I did not intend to do this.

If you didn't INTEND to do that, it's certainly not what you ACCOMPLISHED.

If others have that impression then I want to affirm that my intention was to suggest another perspective on this as well as being blunt and honest about how I intend to interact from here on out.

You call it blunt and honest. Others call it "bitter whining and complaining."

Perspective.

It's easy to spin, spin, spin, my friend.

*I*, on the contrary, have ZERO problem with anything you may have to say, and am not complaining about any of it. I simply am correcting your errors in logic and reason. I have no personal issue with you.

I am simply addressing and correcting your errors in logic and reasoning. You can choose to see this as simply trying to throw your words back in your face, but it is simply what I have been doing from the start.

Again....The Leaf made a comment, a comment you found personally offensive and insulting. A comment that, however, was not directed at you personally.

I complimented that comment, which also had nothing whatsoever to do with you.

You decided, because you were personally insulted and offended by a comment and a compliment that had nothing whatsoever to do with you, to make a very loud condemnation of those posts, which escalated into what you see before you.

You were not "addressing and correcting errors in logic" when you complained about three sentences. You were JUST complaining.

And there are no errors in my logic and reasoning, at least insofar as this conversation has gone. Why? Because I'm a slave to logic and reason. I am a student of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. It would be a completely pointless excercise in futility to waste all this time if I believed....for a single second...that I was making "errors in logic and reason."

Is that all you can do, parrot my words back at me...?

Remember: YOU threw down the gauntlet, so you cannot complain when someone with more than enough means to challenge you picks it up.

I did throw down a gauntlet, and its still thrown down. But perhaps it has become clearer to some where I am coming from. It isn’t directed at the good humor, but it is directed at the snark.

Clearer to some? Who? The cowards who don't have the nerve to say what they have to say about me to my face? The cowards who nonetheless feel the need to speak ill of me behind my back? OOOOO-K.

I believe it is you who is unused to someone with more than enough means to challenge you and more importantly, the willingness to do it.

Then, again, you have not spent any time on this board. That much is quite clear. If you were, you would have seen quite the contrary. Ask IanAlexavier, just as an example. Ask cinlach. Ask cjv.

And again....are you capable of coming up with your own original thoughts, or are you just going to parrot what I say back to me...?

The thread has "been on track" the entire time.

Oh, for sure...but it's a track you walked down...I just followed.

Commentary was made about this thread. I responded to that commentary. That commentary was responded to, and so on and so forth. But yes, I did start this thread, which isn’t too important in itself other than that yes in that sense I did start this “track” by doing that.[/quote]

Commentary was made about this thread which you found personally offensive, and felt the need to tell others how the could and could not post, which is not your place, nor is it my place.

Stop trying to sanitize your contribution in all of this.

If you're really that oblivious, I am not talking about you "starting this thread." This TRACK was started when you were personally offended by The Lead and my comments, and you decided it was your place to tell others how they could and could not post.

Yes, I see how that works. But your view is wrong. Anyone with half a brain can pinpoint EXACTLY where this started: your response to The Leaf's comment, and my compliment (which had nothing to do with you.) Again, where did you learn how to debate?

Lets really look at this particular comment.

“Your view is wrong.” Hard not to interpret that as you saying “your opinion is wrong.”

Hey, Master of the Obvious!

Since we’ve established that opinions are subjective, they are not right or wrong, but agreed with or disagreed with.

False. Patently false.

There are people of the opinion that the earth is a flat disc around which the sun, moon, and stars rotate. They are wrong. They can be proven wrong, with evidence.

However, in 1400, this was the common view amongst anyone who cared to think about it. That was the majority opinion, and anyone disagreeing with that opinion (for opinion it certainly was; they had no data to prove or disprove it) were frequently subject to punishment.

We then discovered that those opinions were, in fact, wrong.

They were proven wrong with data and evidence.

Therefore, opinions CAN, IN FACT, be wrong, if they are based on faulty information.

“Anyone with half a brain can pinpoint EXACTLY where this started” Essentially saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. This is not my position, and never has been but it is characteristic of your position and “debating style.”

Essentially saying that anyone with half a brain can figure out exactly where this imbroglio started. It's patently obvious. The third post on page 3. That's where ALLLLL of this started. If a person can't see that, they're not paying attention. I'm sorry if being blunt offends you, but clearly, in your case, it's necessary.

Can YOU figure that out....?

Let me explain where you missed it YET AGAIN: Christopher Priest knows quite well who he spoke to. But he is not VIP. He is not VEI. Therefore...follow the logic, here...therefore, anything he says WOULD NOT BE OFFICIAL, because, if you went to the people he claimed was VIP, they would DENY it...because either they 1. really AREN'T VIP, or 2. are under a binding agreement to NOT reveal that information.

What this comes down to is whether one considers Christopher Priest to be credible or not.

Wrong again.

This has nothing to do with Priest's credibility. Priest is not affiliated with VIP. Priest is not affiliated with VEI.

Therefore, anything he has to say WOULD NOT BE OFFICIAL, as the word official is DEFINED.

If you consider Priest to be credible, then it is official. Or official enough.

And by saying "enough", you have just qualified and changed the definition of the word "official."

If you think he’s lying, then it isn’t.

No one here is saying that Priest would lie. No one. So, let's all agree on that point and move on, shall we?

No one has gone on the record, within the industry, as to who VPI was. Whether that will change with the lawsuit a thing of the past, is the essence of this thread.

And as I already pointed out, you're being nosy and digging around where you don't belong. Let me explain this to you again: there is a confidentiality agreement between the parties who are OFFICIALLY involved. If anyone violates that agreement, which is certainly possible, they are SUBJECT TO LITIGATION.

This isn't rocket science.

I HAVE the answer to the question that I am satisfied with, and so does most everyone else. I do not NEED to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, and tempt people to violate agreements and expose them to potential litigation.

So why do you....?

Already addressed. Curiosity for the most part,

So, you want to expose people to litigation.

but also a consideration of mine when making future purchases and wanting to create conditions to discourage similar actions in the future.

You have no control over any of that.

If you are satisfied, good for you. Those of us interested in pursuing this will decide for ourselves where our ‘noses’ belong and where they don’t.

Why not speak for yourself, instead of trying to appear as if you have more support by using phrases like "those of us", huh?

You are laboring under the impression that anyone has disparaged this thread.

Please point out to me, in these two posts, where the "disparagement" is:

[geomancer quote= I shared my list of behaviors I consider to be trolling. That was one of them, and not the most relevant to this situation.

Well...guess what? Your "consideration" isn't shared by "the board" as a whole.

I notice, of course, that you failed to answer the question. .[/quote]

The question was addressed before and you evidently failed to register it. When someone posts a thread asking a question and a fellow poster comes in questioning the value of the thread, that falls under my definition of disparaging.[/quote]

No one questioned the value of the thread. The Leaf made a simple comment. He didn't "question the value" of the thread. In fact, I suspect that thought didn't even cross his mind.

The fact is, we all KNOW (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) who VIP is. That's the only point The Leaf was making. He didn't "question the value of the thread."

That's your wildly hypersensitive reaction, nothing more.

My definitions are not shared universally

Definitions, for humanity to communicate, MUST be shared universally...or communication ceases to exist. A LOT of people over a LOT of centuries have worked very, very hard to DEFINE concepts and ideas, specifically so WE wouldn't have to recreate the wheel every time we have a discussion.

And here you are, wanting to recreate the wheel when someone doesn't agree with you.

– nor did I suspect they were. I simply provided my own personal definition of what constitutes trolling for the sake of clarity.

And, in the process, took it upon yourself to tell others how they can and cannot post.

And you know what? No one agreed with your definition of "trolling". Therefore, who's wrong? You, or everyone else?

Again, you are not a credible spokesperson for this board.

Again with the insults.

Am I credible? A hell of a lot of people on this board think so. In fact, I daresay the vast MAJORITY of people think that I'm quite credible, on just about anything I talk about.

Am I a spokesperson for this board? No.

Never have been, never will be. Never claimed to be. I am myself, and I live or die by MY words, and MY words alone.

I see a lot of good will and good humor around here, but that is not what you represent.

You are not in a position to make that determination. Sorry.

I may not be a credible champion of good humor here, but I am doing my part in the category of civility and consideration for all members of the board as a whole, not a vocal segment of it.

No, you aren't.

Not by a longshot.

You pretend to be a champion of the silent voices among us, but, let's consider - if they are silent voices, they don't really exist on the board, right? If they're not THERE...they're not THERE. If they contribute nothing to the discourse, then, really....who are they as they relate to the message board?

You cannot consider what isn't there. You're considering ghosts? Air?

So, your "noble" cause is hollow and means nothing.

The plan is simple: be civil, and you'll get civil. Be courteous, and you'll get courteous.

Be rude, hypersensitive, and insulting, and you'll get rude, hypersensitive, and insulting.

It's not rocket science, my friend.

In real life.....not on a message board. Completely different social interaction dynamics. .

I agree. But I also recognize many who do not see that as being a positive thing.

You have taken this quote out of context, then commented on it. Therefore, that comment is invalid.

So why be one thing from the safety of a keyboard and another in ‘real life.’ Why accept lower standards online? That’s a shame.

Again, this comment is invalid, because it is based on a comment that was taken entirely out of its context. It's yet another attempt by you to character assassinate.

As far as I can tell, you're someone who's been around for a year, hasn't contributed much of anything worth note (IN MY OPINION), and now the first impression you make on me is complaining about what and how other people post on a message board.

Fair enough. Your opinion has been noted. I’ve already given mine.

Now, don't get upset and imagine that this means you're worth less and have less value as a member simply because you don't post a lot. Not true. It simply means that I have no frame of reference for you, and when your first noticeable contribution to the board is complaining about others....tell me why I should care....?

Quite frankly this notion of being upset is a better indication of your frame of mind.

Clearly, anyone who is paying any attention, can see that this whole situation has upset you greatly....hence, your reaction at a couple of harmless comments.

Unless, of course, you go around looking for fights on the internet.

I can't help but comment that you failed, once again, to answer a direct question.

Were the search functions operating, then perhaps I’d have a better indication of members’ general posting patterns. But even with context provided, it’s any given, specific post at hand that matters.

People cannot make a general determination about other people's character and personality through "any given, specific post"....just as you can't in any given word spoken by them.

It is a SUM TOTAL of their behavior, reactions, and experiences that determines who they really are....it is a jigsaw puzzle: no one piece tells the whole story.

And for you to suggest that you can tell the whole picture from one piece of the puzzle....well.....

[TKWill]

Words, words, words......

This thread needs some pictures or illustrations to describe what is being said. If I keep clicking on this thread I am going to have to check into a rehab clinic to get my scroll finger fixed. Anyone have the Cliff's Notes on this one yet?

[Chiclo]

This isn't rocket science.

Do I go around making fun of what you do?

[thePike]

Words, words, words......

This thread needs some pictures or illustrations to describe what is being said. If I keep clicking on this thread I am going to have to check into a rehab clinic to get my scroll finger fixed. Anyone have the Cliff's Notes on this one yet?

No kidding. These guys are arguing in a comic book forum and not including any pictures. If that isn't the epitome of not knowing your audience, I don't know what is.

I actually haven't read a single thing either one of them posted in this thread outside of the first couple of posts. Anything greater than one screen of text and I instantly pass for the next amusing/on topic post.

I have to read enough scientifc journals and textbooks for class to not want to do it here too...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

This isn't rocket science.

Do I go around making fun of what you do?

YES! You DO!

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Words, words, words......

This thread needs some pictures or illustrations to describe what is being said. If I keep clicking on this thread I am going to have to check into a rehab clinic to get my scroll finger fixed. Anyone have the Cliff's Notes on this one yet?

No kidding. These guys are arguing in a comic book forum and not including any pictures. If that isn't the epitome of not knowing your audience, I don't know what is.

Touche!

I actually haven't read a single thing either one of them posted in this thread outside of the first couple of posts. Anything greater than one screen of text and I instantly pass for the next amusing/on topic post.

Well, I HOPE you've at least read the one liners.

I have to read enough scientifc journals and textbooks for class to not want to do it here too...

I'm touched, really.

[siren3-4]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

I think it's best, as fans, to put all that stuff behind us and enjoy the new . . .

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

That's about all you can do. Thanks for giving it a shot!

[Geomancer]

The thread had moved back to the main subject so I gave it a rest

No you didn't. You replied to every one of my responses directed at you. That's not "giving it a rest."

You seem to have honesty issues, my friend.

I thought perhaps I might have missed one. But one way or another when I looked at the recent posts – all were on the subject, on that page at least, and not on this back and forth.
But yes, I have and will continue to respond to comments directed at me.

So no honesty issues on my part, just more misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation on your part.

First off...I find it very telling that you have chosen to cut out those parts of my statements that are most troublesome to you and your "arguments", and include only those comments which you feel you have the strength to respond to.

There is a good amount of what you say that is repetitive, or an attempt to engage in simple name calling. Perhaps you see it as something more sophisticated but it isn’t.

There are also items to which you respond and once your response has been given you’ve then said your piece and I had already said mine. To avoid needless repetition when those sub threads end, I leave them out. If you feel some pertinent points have been neglected, then I will address them. For example, the NDA matter topic has had nothing essentially new added, so quoting your re-iteration of how you feel about it and then re-stating my response is unnecessary.

You'll note, when I respond to someone, I include EVERYTHING they say, so no one can accuse me of quoting (and thus responding) out of context.

If you feel statements of yours have been placed out of context, then let me know how you feel you have been misrepresented.

Cutting lines and taking things out of context, and then responding out of context, isn't really excused by "practicality."

Again, if something specific has been taken out of context then for the record, I will try to clear that up. However you are aware, as is anyone bothering to read this, that you pack your statements with filler. For the most part what I consider to be filler, I will leave out. Comments that amount to simple baiting for example, are filler.

I don't know, is "I'm right and you're wrong" the point for you? It certainly seems that way. I'm quite certain the cowards on this board who don't have the balls to speak for themselves in public, but have ZERO qualms stabbing me in the back in private, aren't really going to be the most unbiased sources of information....don't you think?

That isn’t the point for me, no. I have mentioned from time to time already, that we passed right and wrong a while back. Now you seem to consistently exhibit this belief that name calling will goad people into doing what you want them to do. No one is “stabbing anybody in the back.” People have the right to express themselves in the way they are comfortable. It is not cowardice to avoid diving into the middle of a back and forth like this one. This is not entertaining or pleasant for a good number of people.

Hypothetically speaking, whatever people say either fits what I see with my own two eyes or it does not. Either way, for either of us to expect universal agreement with one or the other isn’t realistic or necessary is it?

Suffice it to be said, despite what those cowards have to say about me, it has NEVER been solely an "I'm right and you're wrong" issue in ANY discussion. I'm interested in EVERYONE being in agreement about most things, because, when you boil it right down, there's really not that many things about which humanity should be in DISagreement about. And yet, here we are, constantly fighting all over the world.

An interesting point. I happen to believe that the attempt by a few to compel others to agree with their own particular way of seeing and doing things is the root cause of most of the fighting in the world. The attempt to put things in terms of right and wrong instead of just different becomes frustration then anger then violence. Its so easy to get locked into us and them, but it is encouraging to see people beginning to recognize in our country how that leads nowhere – so there may be light at the end of that tunnel.

I do not derive pleasure in informing people when they're wrong (with few exceptions) and I certainly don't like to BE wrong myself. No one does. I LIKE people to be correct, because it makes things so much simpler. But pride and ego get in the way, and no one will admit when they are wrong, even with the facts blaring like a siren in their ears, so here we are.

Yes here we are. Pride and ego do get in the way. But, and this I have learned in life the hard way, hashing things out is better than letting them simmer and fester. I would rather be in a room full of people who I know I disagree with, than a room of people whose positions are unknown – who agree for the sake of avoiding the reality that they disagree. Disagreeing is no big deal to me.

Me? I am not that guy (we already have that guy.) Just because a person stands their ground and defends their positions vigorously does not therefore mean that they have an "I'm right and you're wrong" perspective. Show me facts. Show me data. Persuade me with compelling arguments. Convince me. It CAN be done (and has, many times, on this very board....but you won't ever see that, because it's a non-issue...and so, is swept away in the vast sea of posts.)

I feel that I have discarded assumptions I have made along the way. Perhaps not as often or as strongly as I could have – but I have not seen much until perhaps now to indicate any mutuality with that.

But if you're going to passive/aggressively insult me...you're not going to get ANYwhere. No one is.

That’s true. I have done this. Not that it excuses it, but are you going to claim you have not been?

And really, Geomancer, aren't you getting tired of the passive/aggressive insults...? I'm quite certain, based on our short exchange in this one single thread that you're quite easily overstimulated and fairly emotionally fragile....and I base that entirely on your reaction to three simple sentences that had nothing to do with you directly....but don't the insults get old?

And what is the basis for this belief of being overstimulated and emotionally fragile? Because I continue to respond? Yes, the insults get old but they are coming from both directions.

Regardless of the fact that you think I'm doing exactly the same thing...I know you do. That's not the point. I only give back what I get.

That’s how I see it as well from my perspective.

[RE: geomacer quote=And finally, why would I feel compelled to respond to each and every petty attempt at an insult?]

I ask myself the same question....but, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I do it anyways.

I can understand that. I was hoping that sidestepping some of them would tilt the balance towards gradually towards the things we might actually agree upon.

I only agree to disagree about things which are in the realm of OPINION, not fact. It has already been established that there will be no official word concerning who VIP is/was. This is fact.

[geomancer quote= No that is an opinion of yours.

No, sorry, it is fact, based on what the word "official" means and the details of the actions involved. [/quote]
A post or two back I did realize that ‘official’ might be the root of a genuine cause of some of the disagreement here. That’s why I tried to better define my interpretation of it. While you may continue to adhere to the definition you have provided – and it might be the exact wording from the dictionary, I was not thinking in those terms when I phrased my question.

I understand that you think "official" could include a much broader selection of sources, but that's not what official means.

And don't be so quick to dismiss a message board. You don't know who has whose ear, or who is involved with what. The people who write those "official" sources are people, just like you and me.

I had hoped when I posted early on in this thread, that I gave due credit and appreciation for the analyses given on this board. I do not feel I dismissed them. The final piece would be someone who knew a VPI member personally, saying yes they were. Credibility would depend on who it was making that admission.

When someone comes along and challenges established facts, I'm not going to "agree to disagree" with that. I'm going to point out their errors in logic and reason.

That’s fair, that is what I have been doing with your posts from the beginning.[/quote]

No, you wildly overreacted to two posts that had nothing to do with you directly, then proceeded to passive/aggressively insult me.

[/quote]

What is a eye roll, if it is not a passive aggressive insult? Do you not recognize how whatever point you are making is weakened if you follow it up by doing exactly the same thing?

Don't you get tired of the insults?

Are you capable of someone correcting you without feeling your masculinity threatened to the point where you have to passive/aggressively insult them?

I understand these probes to try and see which one sticks. But again, passive/aggressive insults are peppered throughout your postings. Nothing here has threatened me in the slightest, nor should you have felt threatened either.

And when someone asks you a direct question, please don't answer with "find it for yourself"...that's a weak copout, and tells me you cannot support your positions with evidence.

You see it as a copout, I see it as something you can and should do for yourself.

No. It's a copout. Plain and simple.

You: "This is a fact."

Me: "Oh yeah? Prove it."

You: "Go look it up for yourself."

That's a copout. It means you cannot support your positions with evidence. Allow me to introduce you to a basic tenet of Debate 101: if you make a claim, and that claim is challenged, it is up to the CLAIMANT to provide proof, not tell the challenger they can "look it up for themself."

That's something debate students learn in their first week.

Whether the challenger CAN do it for themselves is entirely irrelevant.

Aren't you tired of looking foolish yet....?

You really think either one of us can avoid the appearance of foolishness at this point?

Debate 101? You asked me about other posters and their posts in this thread. That is something you can find for yourself. What you’ve done here is get so wrapped up in a debating 101 technicality, that you’ve probably forgotten what the actual issue was. Even if you haven’t what does bringing this up have to do with anything? Aha – he’s not following debate protocol? That’s argument for the sake of being argumentative.

There's a difference between "it's not possible for a POST (not quote) to interfere" and "any post goes."

LEARN IT. .

No, there is no difference. If you do not believe that any post goes, then it stands to reason that some posts are not permissible. Why are they not permissible? Because the moderators have determined they do not fit within the accepted parameters of the board. They are interfering. But perhaps you prefer a different word, but it doesn’t change the meaning.

Neither do I. I'm telling you what is easily observable. Reporting on that which is easily observable and being the "board spokesperson" are two different things.

This was in response to me saying I do not consider you a board spokesman.

You talk about the majority. True or not, it is not all inclusive.

And as VEI grows as a company, the board attached to its website will be a natural magnet for those here to talk about Valiant Comics. That will involve change, and this is what I am speaking of. All different sorts of people with different tastes and sensibilities will come. They are already here, but their numbers will grow. Or will they be told directly or indirectly that their kind isn’t welcome here, conform or leave?

See, here's the difference: you're the one who complained...bitterly...about what you considered "disparagement", "disruption", "interference", "mocking"....YOU were the only, CLEARLY, who had the issue. Therefore, it behooves you to, instead of whining and complaining about what OTHER members post, to IGNORE them, if you genuinely have a problem with them...if you're TRULY concerned about peace and harmony on the board.

[geomancer quote= Now this is a curious commentary. Supposedly, I am the ‘bitter’ one and yet it is your posting that is consistently laced with sarcasm and a generally negative tone. Which is your right, and exemplifies what you are about. ]

My comments are laced with sarcasm in direct response to your bitter complaints. Generall negative? Only in direct response to your generally negative tone.

Only in direct response. [/quote]

After the first few responses there was mutual negativity built in. Mine has been responsive as well. From the beginning.

I believe you have a different concept of message board courtesy than the vast, vast majority of people do.

Perhaps, but message boards in general are not well regarded. Those that grow change. Those that don’t stagnate and new ones take their place. That is also characteristic of the overall online community.

[geomancer quote] That is my own choice and personal code and any implication that it must be extended to anyone else is wrong, however I did not intend to do this.]

If you didn't INTEND to do that, it's certainly not what you ACCOMPLISHED.

My declarations were unnecessary I admit that. But my subsequent responses would have been the same. I just tried to explain from the outset why I was doing it.

[geomancer quote] If others have that impression then I want to affirm that my intention was to suggest another perspective on this as well as being blunt and honest about how I intend to interact from here on out.[/quote]

You call it blunt and honest. Others call it "bitter whining and complaining."

Perspective.

Exactly, perspective. Find the best possible way to describe the actions you agree with and the worst possible way to describe those you don’t.

It's easy to spin, spin, spin, my friend.

And that’s what each of us is offering. If that seems like parroting, my apologies. Perhaps you are self aware enough to recognize that is also what you are doing. I do. If you can’t do that, then it explains a lot about you since it demonstrates what I have accurately described on many occasions as hypocrisy.

And there are no errors in my logic and reasoning, at least insofar as this conversation has gone. Why? Because I'm a slave to logic and reason. I am a student of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. It would be a completely pointless excercise in futility to waste all this time if I believed....for a single second...that I was making "errors in logic and reason."

No, there is a fairly heavy element of emotion laced throughout your responses. You do not believe you are making errors in logic and reasoning. I do not believe I am making errors in logic and reasoning. We both believe in what we are saying. We can say we disagree with each other, or we can say each other is wrong.

Is that all you can do, parrot my words back at me...?

Again with this. So many of the things you point out fit you as well as or better than me. I know my own frame of mind and when I see certain things written, they seem bizarre until I begin to speculate that you are projecting your own frame of mind or intentions onto me. And in other cases, its very evident that it’s the pot calling the kettle black. A cliché? Sure. But the point is clear.

[geomancer quote= I believe it is you who is unused to someone with more than enough means to challenge you and more importantly, the willingness to do it. ]

Then, again, you have not spent any time on this board. That much is quite clear. If you were, you would have seen quite the contrary. Ask IanAlexavier, just as an example. Ask cinlach. Ask cjv.

Its not that. Quite frankly, were I not directly involved in this, I would be skimming through it to find those posts relevant to the whatever elements did interest me. Back and forths such as this one generally do not interest me. I can understand members seeing this exchange as spam, normally that’s the way I would see it.

Stop trying to sanitize your contribution in all of this.

If you're really that oblivious, I am not talking about you "starting this thread." This TRACK was started when you were personally offended by The Lead and my comments, and you decided it was your place to tell others how they could and could not post.

Offended is too strong of a word. I did decide to respond in kind, and will continue to do so from here on out when the mood strikes just as other members freely choose to post their takes on things.

Essentially saying that anyone with half a brain can figure out exactly where this imbroglio started. It's patently obvious. The third post on page 3. That's where ALLLLL of this started. If a person can't see that, they're not paying attention. I'm sorry if being blunt offends you, but clearly, in your case, it's necessary.

I don’t mind bluntness. Despite comments you’ve made about tiring with insults/passive aggressive attacks, etc. you persist in them. I respond. I’m not going to stop responding. Perhaps the negativity might be removed, but just when I think we might both head in that direction you drone on and if you expect I will unilaterally discontinue it and stop responding, you will find you are mistaken.

You may consider you initial comments innocuous or the norm. I bluntly pointed out what they in fact were, and you seemed to take issue with that.

And as I already pointed out, you're being nosy and digging around where you don't belong.

Yet another example of you blurring your opinion with universal fact. “I think you’re being nosy…” is a fact. Remove that qualifier and you are blurring your opinion with fact and you do that a lot.

Definitions, for humanity to communicate, MUST be shared universally...or communication ceases to exist. A LOT of people over a LOT of centuries have worked very, very hard to DEFINE concepts and ideas, specifically so WE wouldn't have to recreate the wheel every time we have a discussion.

And here you are, wanting to recreate the wheel when someone doesn't agree with you.

Perhaps this is another key difference. If you do not also include that they be mutually agreed upon, then that explains a lot.

And you know what? No one agreed with your definition of "trolling". Therefore, who's wrong? You, or everyone else?

Good example. My answer is neither. My definition is correct for me. Others may have different ones. They are correct as well. It’s a disagreement, not right or wrong. That kind of absolutism is something I don’t support. It’s a natural instinctive reaction, but in my opinion essentially worth fighting against.

Again, you are not a credible spokesperson for this board.

Am I credible? A hell of a lot of people on this board think so. In fact, I daresay the vast MAJORITY of people think that I'm quite credible, on just about anything I talk about.

And if not you’ll try to browbeat them to death until they get tired of it and leave or ignore you?

In any case, here you are speaking for the ‘majority.’

[[geomancer quote= I see a lot of good will and good humor around here, but that is not what you represent]]

You are not in a position to make that determination. Sorry. .

We can either both make subjective statements about each other such as these or not. Either we both do that or neither. I am no more an expert on you than you are of me.

You pretend to be a champion of the silent voices among us, but, let's consider - if they are silent voices, they don't really exist on the board, right? If they're not THERE...they're not THERE. If they contribute nothing to the discourse, then, really....who are they as they relate to the message board? .

An important issue. I understand how people prefer to do something else with their free time than stick around when a conversation they were interested in has been ignored or diverted in a new totally unrelated direction. Thread hijacking is a generally understood concept, permissible in some places but not in others.

All you need to do is see who tries to persist in bringing any particular thread back on topic. Or notice those who fade out when it jumps tracks.

You may not care about those members, but common sense tells you they exist. They matter to me.

The plan is simple: be civil, and you'll get civil. Be courteous, and you'll get courteous.

Be rude, hypersensitive, and insulting, and you'll get rude, hypersensitive, and insulting.

It's not rocket science, my friend. .

It really is that simple. But we have already disagreed on what constitutes civility and courtesy.

In real life.....not on a message board. Completely different social interaction dynamics. .

[geomancer quote= I agree. But I also recognize many who do not see that as being a positive thing]

You have taken this quote out of context, then commented on it. Therefore, that comment is invalid. .[/quote]

Okay. My point is valid., but irrelevant to your original line of thought.

[geomancer quote= So why be one thing from the safety of a keyboard and another in ‘real life.’ Why accept lower standards online? That’s a shame. ]

Again, this comment is invalid, because it is based on a comment that was taken entirely out of its context. It's yet another attempt by you to character assassinate. [/quote]

Again, I did not intend to take your comments out of context. But the character assassination charge is hypocritical.

Now, don't get upset and imagine that this means you're worth less and have less value as a member simply because you don't post a lot. Not true. It simply means that I have no frame of reference for you, and when your first noticeable contribution to the board is complaining about others....tell me why I should care....?

[geomancer quote= Quite frankly this notion of being upset is a better indication of your frame of mind]

Clearly, anyone who is paying any attention, can see that this whole situation has upset you greatly....hence, your reaction at a couple of harmless comments. .[/quote]

I saw those comments for what they were. My responses were equally ‘harmless.’

I can't help but comment that you failed, once again, to answer a direct question.

Ok. Why should you care? There is no reason why you should care. Nor is there any reason I should care. And yet if we truly did not, none of this would have happened. So I took that as a rhetorical question. And now you have your direct response.

I had mentioned using the search function as a way of gauging general interaction. So if someone posts something, one can take a quick look and compare it to other posts.

Not as good as hearing someone speak or seeing them speak, but you can get a sense of whether someone is overwhelmingly snarky or negative, tells a lot of good jokes, bad jokes, serious, etc.

I regret not being able to do that now, but am making a greater effort to do so when I run across posters I am less familiar with.

In any case, until next time.

[Geomancer]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

I also wanted to thank you for the effort Brian.

I do not recall if Matt Brady's piece included any of greg's material. If it did not, then that would be a significant difference.

I may try and ask Christopher Priest directly if he was misquoted earlier about the potential Quantum and Woody prject.

[BloodOfHeroes]

The thread had moved back to the main subject so I gave it a rest

No you didn't. You replied to every one of my responses directed at you. That's not "giving it a rest."

<And then a whole lot more>

DANG, son. That one's worth more than a Ninjak Gold.

My favorite line?

If you're going to cut, cut the middle of sentences.

Geomancer--I tend to love ZWH's posts because he posits solid, logical positions, clearly differentiates between facts and his opinions and, as he's said, admits when he's "wrong." I keep reading that people are afraid of him or that people worship him or whatever. I don't know about that (I don't think anyone on the se boards are deserving of fear or worship), but I do know that if you want to either 1) tangle on the WWW "just because" or 2) engage in true debate you need to either a) choose a different sparring partner or b) follow the rules of debate and rhetoric and actually, well, debate.

"Official" would be someone from either VEI or VIP essentially giving a statement to the press saying, "I'm <insert name here> and I approved this message." Anything else is innuendo, second-hand, tales told out of school and, while it could be used to support an argument, would never be official. Period.

If what anyone else wants is "strong circumstantial evidence," then start a different thread.

ZWH--I'm gonna PM a link to you about an article I think you'll find interesting. Do with it what you will.

BoH

11 frickin' pages for a "no" answer.

[BloodOfHeroes]

And for the record: I'm not bashing ANYONE here, especially Geomancer (I'd welcome you to the boards, but it feels awkward, as I'm a born-again n00b. Ah, heck--WELCOME!). Anyone who likes Clay McHenry is a rock-solid guy, in my opinion.

I'm just being a stickler on the word "official," is all.

BoH

[jedimarley]

Someone owes me a new mouse.

[siren3-4]

(I don't think anyone on the se boards are deserving of fear or worship),

um . . . excuse me . . . how dare you . . .

Come, son of Jor-El . . . kneel before . . . me, I guess . . .

[myron]

Someone owes me a new mouse.

[greg]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

I also wanted to thank you for the effort Brian.

I do not recall if Matt Brady's piece included any of greg's material. If it did not, then that would be a significant difference.

I may try and ask Christopher Priest directly if he was misquoted earlier about the potential Quantum and Woody prject.

Matt Brady's articles about VIP would be written, edited, approved, and/or manipulated by Michael Lovitz.

Count on it.

In other words, Newsarama is a source about VIP information
equivalent to a 4-year-old as a source of information about Santa Claus.
Sincere? Yes. Correct?

http://www.valiantfans.com/VVVanalysis.pdf

[ncameron]

Did anyone have the 4 note tune that goes along with that image play in their head or is it just me?

-neil

[cinlach@aol.com]

So perhaps it will help here if I clarify things. People have a right to make whatever commentary they care to make. That commentary though, once made, is also subject to commentary and wil itself be commented on.

my advice is to be prepared to present these rebuttal comments at virtually every opportunity.

you'd have a lot more fun here if you'd loosen up and bit and not decide all on your own to change a culture that was not only here before you arrived, but here before i arrived as well.

that's like coming into a man's house and rearranging his fridge because you like your mustard to be on the door and not on the inside shelves.

we're going to do pretty much what we're going to do...regardless of the level of approval you show, or the number of chastising comments you make voicing your disdain about our habits.

frankly i find it rather egotistical to think you can decide all on your own how we as a community will discuss things.

have there been "off-topic" posts here, yeah...duh.

but there's also been a wealth of discussion on the topic you presented.

i think what you dismiss as "inane banter" is really "board personality".

have you ever met someone for the first time and during the initial conversations you didn't exactly know what to make of their personal quirks? only after a little more conversation do you come to realize you actually kinda dig the person you're talking with...

it's kinda like that.

so give us a chance man, don't for a second think that just because another message board (or 45, it makes no difference really) acts in a certain way that all of them do.

this is a wonderful community, with a outstanding group of people who want to like you.

you're just not giving us much to work with here...

[myron]

I asked him, and Priest says he does not know who VIP was (and even if you chose to disbelieve him, you'd take that at as a "no comment" at the worst, no?).

So with that said, is there really anything for me to do a piece on? I'd basically just be regurgitating Matt Brady's piece (which I thought was quite good, myself - he did a lot of the same stuff I'd have tried to do - he can't help it if the guy gives him what might not be a true reply).

If anyone comes up with anything else in the future, let me know, but for now, I don't think there's anything for me to write about here.

I also wanted to thank you for the effort Brian.

I do not recall if Matt Brady's piece included any of greg's material. If it did not, then that would be a significant difference.

I may try and ask Christopher Priest directly if he was misquoted earlier about the potential Quantum and Woody prject.

Matt Brady's articles about VIP would be written, edited, approved, and/or manipulated by Michael Lovitz.

Count on it.

In other words, Newsarama is a source about VIP information
equivalent to a 4-year-old as a source of information about Santa Claus.
Sincere? Yes. Correct?

http://www.valiantfans.com/VVVanalysis.pdf

you should e-mail that to Matt Brady...


has there been any newsarama articles since the end of the lawsuit??? I'm not a member there and don't ever intend to be, but I would occasionally like to know what's going on there...

[jedimarley]

Well said, cin.

[myron]

Well said, cin.

yup...cin's the man.

[jedimarley]

Well said, cin.

yup...cin's the man.

I don't know about that.

[x-omatic]

Well said, cin.

yup...cin's the man.

I don't know about that.

Are you saying cin's not a man?

[jedimarley]

Well said, cin.

yup...cin's the man.

I don't know about that.

Are you saying cin's not a man?

He likes cats.