Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue

JC Martin wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > JC Martin wrote:
> >
> >>mikesgruv@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ray wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JC Martin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Note that Phil didn't take a firm stand here. Read in between the
> >>>>>lines. "GD's legacy...one way or another..."
> >>>>
> >>>>True. However assuming that Phil is telling the truth here he was not
> >>>>involved in this decision and was not even notified of it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Indeed -- but if you read what Archive is saying, they take
> >>>responsibility for going beyond what the dead wanted. Phil may have
> >>>known that they were banning downloads of the boards, and not known
> >>>that streaming of the boards and downloads of audience recordings was
> >>>also being taken away. So he could honestly express surprise and
> >>>opposition to what actually happened, when what most people are
> >>>complaining about -- eliminating downloads of the boards -- was
> >>>something he actually did know about.
> >>
> >>Ray knows that
> >
> >
> > Yes, I do, and I agree. However when you and I had that exchange that
> > information was not yet public.
> >
> >
> >>and I've already pointed it out. It's in the details.
> >>Phil's statement was very carefully worded and didn't say anything in
> >>respect to his knowledge of any given time frame of events or what his
> >>exact feelings were on the issue of vault royalties. Of course Phil's
> >>knows what's going on. He's stretching the truth.
> >
> >
> > What Mike provided is a plausible scenario. We do not know, however,
> > if it's the truth or not. And for you to assert otherwise is to go
> > beyond the available facts.
>
>
> *LOL* Available facts??? We're talking about nothing BUT plausible
> and/or implausible scenarios. This ain't a scientific experiment here
> or a course in logic.

By 'available facts' meant the available information on the issue that
is factual instread of merely rumor or conjecture. As in: it is a fact
that Phil said "I was not part of this decision-making process and was
not notified that the shows were to be pulled."

You, however, have taken the available facts and reached a definitive
conclusion that cannot be definitely established from it -- your
definitive claim notwithstanding, we do not know that Phil was in fact
stretching the truth here. It's only a plausible scenario.

BTW, Re- your claim that "Phil's statement was very carefully worded
and didn't say anything in respect to his knowledge of any given time
frame of events": By any reasonable interpretation of Phil's
statement, Phil stated that he did not know that the shows were going
to be pulled before said event occurred. And to assert otherwise is to
assert that Phil was lying. [lie: 2 : to create a false or misleading
impression (Websters.com)]

HTH,
Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
    ... > Ray wrote: ... >> JC Martin wrote: ... That's not splitting hairs - that's accusing Phil of lying about ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
    ... > Ray wrote: ... >> JC Martin wrote: ... Like this from Phil: "I was not part of this decision-making process ... > think he's proved that he has a better vision of the GD legacy than any ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
    ... > Ray wrote: ... >> JC Martin wrote: ... > I haven't talked in depth with my Phil connection yet. ... > the guy shares equal cut with his band members. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Phil On The Archive.org Issue
    ... > Ray wrote: ... >> beyond the available facts. ... > Is one "available fact" that whatever Phil writes is 100% truth? ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Phils post about archive
    ... > Ray wrote: ... >> JC Martin wrote: ... >> Yes - lying. ... Whether in your mind Phil lying is the worst in him or not, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading