Identity of leaker known...?!

[Markus Asraelius]

That's why I dont read books!!!!

Too boring

You have to pick up the right book.

[boston]

ooops, 

[pilferk]

ooops,?

Too late...I saw the original...



But I won't tell.

Not that I even understood your post.

Sent a PM your way.

[kyrie]

I've never questioned you on the validity of the email, I'm simply curious to see what if anything else you asked.

And I've said, over and over, there was nothing else pertinent there.  But, again, apparently you're not reading it.

You replied before I edited the post. Yes. I see you did answer the question later.

The quotes I posted were exactly what he said.

But not in exact relation to what was asked or when he said it.

He was asked about the other tracks on the CD. The question he was asked was not reprinted in the article.

You misread his quote perhaps. The "I think" was in reference to the NUMBER of tracks, NOT about what they sounded like. So he's been fuzzy on two seperate issues here.

No, I read it perfectly fine.  It just doesn't come from where you say it came from.  He was never asked "how many tracks were on the CD".  The statement you're attributing to a question came from a statement where no questions were asked.

Thus, he volunteered the information. Who cares if he was ASKED how many tracks there were, he CHOSE to give a statement. What the fuck do you think he was talking about when he made that statement? Another fucking CD? The entire article was about the IRS leak.

I didn't paraphrase at all. I posted the exact quote earlier in this thread.  Although he wasn't asked a direct question, he VOLUNTEERED info on the number of the tracks, and he was unsure of it. Maybe he was covering his ass. But no one twisted his words.

Read what I wrote.  You paraphrased the supposed quesion the quote was attributed to.  There was no question.  You're not twisting HIS words, you're twisting the words of the interview/statement to paint a picture that doesn't exist.

No question was printed. Fine. Then he volunteered the fucking statement. Tell me how you interpret his words then? When he said there was a certain number of tracks, then said "I think", he was actually talking about pink elephants?

From your first statement on the subject?  Again, we know why you broke your word.....

This is getting pathetic. I said I would reply again when it was clear there would be no response. I didn't break my word, I kept it as I said, and now you're crying because I dispute your theory. If you can't handle that, you're using the wrong medium.

There's no credibility factor here and you know it. 

2 pieces of music...both from the same CD...both heard by Trunk (he said he listened to the rest on the way home).  One you believe him to remember, one you don't.  Bit of a stretch, at best.

I believe he SHOULD remember TWAT. Yet he's never spoken of it. Which causes doubt to exist in my mind.

I would have asked more questions had I been you. Actually I did, but that's a moot point.

Maybe because you needed more answers.  I didn't/don't.

You are 100% correct. I need more answers before I choose to believe Trunk.


Again, if you want to ask more questions, fire away.  Find a way to get him to respond....

Again, you're speculating.  Prove it.  Of course, you can't.  NOTHING in the above statements has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING we're discussing here.  Unless you see something up there that says "I forged a handshake deal with management to not ever discuss anything to do with the CD" (obviously not true, since he did discuss some details).

YOUR private opinion vs his words.  Not a very strong case, again.

You are 100% correct! Bingo! I'm speculating!!!

Now, guess what? When you said "he can't say NO if he made an agreement" - I'm paraphrasing you this time - YOU ARE ALSO SPECULATING.

I only know what you post.  You claimed legal knowledge. You use the term, you're responsible for the discussion and the turns it takes.

You're taking things said in two different posts and trying to meld them together to fix your mistake. I don't believe for a second you thought I was referring to a court ordered gag order, because it's common fucking knowledge that it never went to a court.

Wrong. He could very well say that.

No, he couldn't.  Otherwise it would violate the agreement.

Did we not just cover this? YOU don't know any more than I do anything about any agreement, other than the fact that from the evidence I presented from past coverage of the issue, he co-operated and there was a verbal C&D given initially.

You don't know if he was asked to deny shit or not. Don't pretend you're privy to this info. I've admitted I'm speculating, at least be a man and do the same. The ONLY info you have is your email, which had ONE question and one question only that related to this issue.

So, the only way he would be unable to comment is if Better WAS on the CD.  And, in that case, he'd have to say "no comment", because NOT talking about something means NOT talking about it.  Not lying about it.

You have zero proof of this. The only thing blown to hell is your argument. You have no idea any more than I do what Trunk was told/argeed to. End of story.

Stop trying to come off as the great seer, because it's damn obvious that ANYTHING could have been agreed to by Trunk, including but not limited to not listing specifics, denying the existence of tracks, and not talking about track names.

Au contraire. You made the mistake.  You called it a gag order...after, earlier, talking about having some sort of legal knowledge.  What you need to do is say what you mean....or back up what you say. 

Common phrase. I'm not going over this again. It was common knowledge that this never went to court, I thought you were intelligent enough to put two and two together and realize that I was using this term to indicate a non-official agreement to shut up about certain info.

I was wrong. Obviously you couldn't put that together.

LOL....nor do you have any idea what the agreement would entail.  But look at the layout above.  It's the way it would sorta have to work...unless you can present a more logical or feasible situation.

It's a catch-22..and you're caught firmly in the middle.

What this amounts to is "my speculation is better than your speculation." You've made posts on here sounding as if you KNOW what an agreement with Trunk would entail when you don't know any more than I do.

A reasonable situation is that he can't give specifics and must deny knowing what is on the CD. In three years, he gave only vague statements regarding anything other than the track actually aired.

And, again, you assume Trunk  failed to identify it (I've yet to see anyone actually ask him for track titles in an interview or in his statements).  You speculate he didn't mention the title because he didn't know it.

You're right, no one asked him names, but they did ask him for descriptions. You'd think he might volunteer the names if he could. Speculation, again, but it's got merit.

Ah, so now another nameless, faceless, unverifiable internet source vs the words of Eddie Trunk himself.  Still not such firm footing.

I admit that later on. Which is why my #1 source of info in suspecting this is the Trunk CD is public statements about it.

Since I don't know them, frankly, I don't care. I'd be more interested if THEY posted.

They did.  Read back a ways.

The SOURCE posted? Or someone representing the source? I saw dark referring to a source and gigger referring to a souce - big difference.

You keep quoting sp1at's interview, but don't know who gigger is?   That's sorta funny, actually.....

Now who's twisting words?

I never said I don't know who gigger is. I said I DON'T KNOW HIM. Do you see the difference in THOSE two statements?

I also know WHO dark is, but I don't KNOW him. Difference between seeing someone posting and actually knowing them.

[boston]

that is a long post, maybe a little toooo much

[Z]

I keep seeing these long ass replies from you two having stopped reading them pages ago.

Do both of you realize that all this time you are spending on equally well thought out and articulate posts are going nowhere.

You two haven't gotten anywhere yet.

You're both squared off nose to nose spinning your wheels with neither moving the other one inch.

Who cares where they came from. ?The truth may never come out. ?I'm happy that I have them not giving a fuck where they came from.

They came from some disc somewhere and CITR was a flat out gift from the gods. ?Enjoy 'em.

And be further thankful that Axl has come out of his shell.....if he ever was really in one.....and is preparing to regain his crown as the "King of Rock".

[darknemus]

A couple of things:

A. Boston - interesting post before your edit.

B. kyrie, check your PMs when you get a chance, please.

C. I don't know Pilferk personally (as in, we've never met) but I know him well enough over 3+ years of online communication that I feel I can trust him impilicitly when it comes to any information that he shares.

-darknemus

[kyrie]

In the greater context, TWAT's lack of mention suddenly becomes important. Not an independant issue at all. I don't believe he couldn't pull the title out of the chorus, we all got it on the very first try.

So either he skimmed so fast that we really can't rely on him, he missed it entirely, or for some reason unknown, he has chosen not to talk about it.

All of that impacts on the third track and whether it's Better or Prostitute.

Denial to some random email is not going to get him in shit.

Not so.  TWAT, again, is a seperate issue.  You can try to shoehorn it in to this one, simply to fit your fantasy, but....well, again, more speculation that one has anything at all to do with the other.  Rampant, unsupported speculation.  You're assuming a "greater context" when, in reality, you haven't proved a link that would create one.

Denial in some random email that he knew was going to be shared might, though, eh?

Bravo, you've clued into the fact that ALL of this is speculation.

Except, that is, the words from Trunk himself:

"No, it wasn't".

You already know what I think of Trunk's response.

TWAT becomes an item of interest when talking about the idea that Trunk has failed to mention track names.

I'm sure YOU do.  But I think it's pretty clear that it's true.  Especially considering ALL Eddie's statements on a number of different issues, and not just the ones concerning IRS/GnR.

Eddie's statements on other issues don't have much relevance here IMO. Is he a respected radio personality? Yes. But I don't take his word over others just because of it, nor does it make him infallable.

Because:
a) He's a public figure who trades on his reputation
b) He has an impeccable repuation and is well respected in the music industry
c) He's widely regarded as something of a music historian
d) He's neither nameless, nor faceless.

Public figure means nothing. Weiland is a public figure and wrote a childish diatribe on a website. Pee Wee Herman was a public figure.

Reputation in the music industry - this I would give some weight if it weren't for the nature of this issue.

Being a music historian has NOTHING to do with this issue.

D is the only point you make that really has much merit.

It seems to me you're saying you know pretty much nothing about Eddie EXCEPT what those very brief public comments say.  That, right there, says all it needs to about your "opinion".  It's not informed, it's COMPLETELY speculative.

I know the basics of who he is, I've never listened to his show.

You put far too much faith on that fact that he's a "pubic figure."

What you are doing, in fact, is taking comments not specifically about THIS situation, and trying to apply them to it.  That, in and of itself, isn't valid.  In addition, the quotes don't nearly mean what you assert they mean in many cases.  Again, you warp or attribute meaning to them to support your "theory"......

Again. Was Eddie talking about Pink elephants? No, he was talking about the leak.

Show me a SINGLE quote I have paraphrased beyond recognition.

I've done so repeatedly.  You must've, once again, missed them.  Hell, you even misread what I said about paraphrasing. Not the quotes...the context/questions of the quotes.

You haven't done it once. You tried and failed miserably. His comments were in regards to the CD, the fact that a question was not printed or not asked does not CHANGE his comments. His comments were clear, he qualified his answer because he was not sure of it.

So, to sum it up: You have no proof, whatsoever.  What you have is complete speculation vs a categoric statement by Trunk,himself.  That's pretty much what I thought.

The "proof" is in the public statements. It's public statements vs. your Trunk email. And some sources going both ways. Could I be wrong? Yup. Could you be wrong? Yup.

[kyrie]

Goddamn.  Get in the ring, fuckers.

It's not nearly worth that.....at least not to me.

I fight for things that are important. Like my family.  Or my life.  Or beer. 

Which leads me to this:

Those reading this should know that, if I bumped into kyrie at the local bar, I'd acutally buy him a couple.

And we'd have a loud, boisterous discussion about something, I'm sure.

But the point is, I don't want anyone to think, on my end, that this is anything other than spirited debate.

Cheers. And I agree fully on those points. I'm a stubborn arse, but it's not personal.

[kyrie]

A couple of things:

A. Boston - interesting post before your edit.

B. kyrie, check your PMs when you get a chance, please.

C. I don't know Pilferk personally (as in, we've never met) but I know him well enough over 3+ years of online communication that I feel I can trust him impilicitly when it comes to any information that he shares.

-darknemus

Thanks dark.

[ARC]

I think this is the right thread to bring up my idea about post length.

I seriously think that a post should have a maximum word limit, say 150 words, thus ending the ridiculously long posts such as seen in this thread. This is a message board. The nature of the word 'message' does not imply essay-length posts. It is somewhere to exchange opinions and ideas quickly and easily, a virtual staccato conversation if you will.

I just think that if you are having to write more than 150 words to explain your point then your point cannot be very good in the first place...

[pilferk]

He was asked about the other tracks on the CD. The question he was asked was not reprinted in the article.

Again, he wasn't asked anything.? You attributed a question where there wasn't one.? Pretty obvious, eh?? But continue to rant away....

You assigning context to the question, again, goes to the credibility factor....you're specifically trying to shoehorn the comments to fit your agenda.

Thus, he volunteered the information. Who cares if he was ASKED how many tracks there were, he CHOSE to give a statement. What the fuck do you think he was talking about when he made that statement? Another fucking CD? The entire article was about the IRS leak.

Again, it goes to how credible your opinion is.? You attribute context where there wasn't any, to try to shoehorn the comments into your "theory".

No question was printed. Fine. Then he volunteered the fucking statement. Tell me how you interpret his words then? When he said there was a certain number of tracks, then said "I think", he was actually talking about pink elephants?

I interpret them, given his "()", as just what they are.? A parenthetical addition to a statment voluntairly given.? Not a response to any direct question, which would change the meaning, to some extent.? I don't try to interpret them in order to bolster a fantasy.

This is getting pathetic. I said I would reply again when it was clear there would be no response. I didn't break my word, I kept it as I said, and now you're crying because I dispute your theory. If you can't handle that, you're using the wrong medium.

There's no credibility factor here and you know it.?

Sure there is, but I don't pretend that you wouldn't deny it.? You have to deny it.? But, like lots of things you deny having merit, it does.

I believe he SHOULD remember TWAT. Yet he's never spoken of it. Which causes doubt to exist in my mind.

Again, you're assuming it was there, or that he'd want to give it a name, or that there wasn't an agreement preventing him from actually naming tracks on the CD, or 200 other reasons why.....speculating, once again.? And again.? And again.? And doing so simply to be able to bolster your "theory"....

You are 100% correct. I need more answers before I choose to believe Trunk.

No, you want more info because....well, you do.?I didn't need any more because...well, I didn't.  Remember, dark said he had a track list 3 years ago.  I talk to dark, regularly.  Put 2 and 2 together, and you have a pretty good idea of why I asked only the question that I did, and didn't ask about TWAT.

 If you want more answers, gett Eddie to respond.? That doesn't mean he's not correct...or reliable...

And whether YOU believe Trunk or not isn't relevant because YOUR opinion on his reliability isn't relevant.? Nor does it make him any less right.

You are 100% correct! Bingo! I'm speculating!!!

Now, guess what? When you said "he can't say NO if he made an agreement" - I'm paraphrasing you this time - YOU ARE ALSO SPECULATING.

Again, no I'm not.? If you think so, lay out something that is an alternative to the situation I laid out.? It's a pretty easy logical construct to understand.? Hell, I held your hand all the way through it.? You've provided, not surprisingly, no evidence to contradict it.

You're taking things said in two different posts and trying to meld them together to fix your mistake. I don't believe for a second you thought I was referring to a court ordered gag order, because it's common fucking knowledge that it never went to a court.

Your exact quote was:
"And has anyone considered that Trunk might be under a gag order as to what songs are out there?"

You called it a gag order.? You used the term.? If it's not what you meant, use a different term.? It's quite simple really: Say what you mean.

Did we not just cover this? YOU don't know any more than I do anything about any agreement, other than the fact that from the evidence I presented from past coverage of the issue, he co-operated and there was a verbal C&D given initially.

You don't know if he was asked to deny shit or not. Don't pretend you're privy to this info. I've admitted I'm speculating, at least be a man and do the same. The ONLY info you have is your email, which had ONE question and one question only that related to this issue.

No, because I've laid out, logically, why it's true.? Provide an alternative to my logic, and I'll consider it.? But, so far, all you've done is rant.....and provide nothing but speculation.? No proof, no evidence, nothing.

You have zero proof of this. The only thing blown to hell is your argument. You have no idea any more than I do what Trunk was told/argeed to. End of story.

No, I have a logical construct that covers all the reasonable bases.? You just don't like it.? Which isn't too surprising.....

Stop trying to come off as the great seer, because it's damn obvious that ANYTHING could have been agreed to by Trunk, including but not limited to not listing specifics, denying the existence of tracks, and not talking about track names.

So, your supposition is that someone who trades on their reputation would agree to an outright lie, compromising their integrity, to "help out"?? That's your assertion?? Wow....that's just.....you don't really expect anyone to believe that, do you?

Talk about fantasies.

I'm not any seer.? But I'm not blind, either.

Common phrase. I'm not going over this again. It was common knowledge that this never went to court, I thought you were intelligent enough to put two and two together and realize that I was using this term to indicate a non-official agreement to shut up about certain info.

It's not a common phrase.? It's a very specific thing.? I guess I DO have to quote definitions for ya, huh?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gag%20order

If you're not talking about that very specific thing, use better terminology.? 'Nuff said.

I was wrong. Obviously you couldn't put that together.

I can only put together the pieces I'm given.? When 1/2 the puzzle pieces are left out, it's tough to get a clear picture, ya know?

What this amounts to is "my speculation is better than your speculation." You've made posts on here sounding as if you KNOW what an agreement with Trunk would entail when you don't know any more than I do.

I have a logical construct of the agreement laid out.? If you think there is any other possible way the agreement would go down, without making an assinine assertion like he'd compromise his integrity and lie, present it.

A reasonable situation is that he can't give specifics and must deny knowing what is on the CD. In three years, he gave only vague statements regarding anything other than the track actually aired.

How is it reasonable to assume he'd lie?

You're right, no one asked him names, but they did ask him for descriptions. You'd think he might volunteer the names if he could. Speculation, again, but it's got merit.

It has merit? How so.? It's rampant and unfounded.? It has no merit, unless you're somehow psychic.

I admit that later on. Which is why my #1 source of info in suspecting this is the Trunk CD is public statements about it.

Public statements which have nothing to do with this situation, directly.? Shaky, at best.? Ludicrous, at worst.

Since I don't know them, frankly, I don't care. I'd be more interested if THEY posted.

The SOURCE posted? Or someone representing the source? I saw dark referring to a source and gigger referring to a souce - big difference.

Read your quote above.? You said "They".? Since you'd just referred to dark and gigger......you can see how, once again, you weren't exactly clear.

Now who's twisting words?

"I don't know them".? Again, if you meant "I don't know them, personally", maybe that's what you should have said.? "I don't know them" gives the distinct impression? you don't know who they are.

[pilferk]

You already know what I think of Trunk's response.

Except, once again, your opinion on his response is irrelevant.? You can't prove him wrong.? You can't prove he's being disingenious.? You can't prove he's lying.? You can rampantly speculate all those things, with no basis for it, and for reasons unknown, but you can't prove it.? Period.

TWAT becomes an item of interest when talking about the idea that Trunk has failed to mention track names.

To you, because you want to shoehorn it into your fantasy.? But that doesn't actually mean it's relevant.

Eddie's statements on other issues don't have much relevance here IMO. Is he a respected radio personality? Yes. But I don't take his word over others just because of it, nor does it make him infallable.

Really?? So past behavior isn't any sort of predictor of future behavior?? Looking at quotes, in relation to other items, has no bearing on his current words?

If that's so, you just killed your own arguement.

The fact is, you have no reason to believe Eddie would lie, or is wrong.? No earthly reason.? You want to have one, so you continue to try to desperately cling to anything that might give the appearance of one...but that doesnt' mean it actually exists.

Public figure means nothing. Weiland is a public figure and wrote a childish diatribe on a website. Pee Wee Herman was a public figure.

Reputation in the music industry - this I would give some weight if it weren't for the nature of this issue.

You mean an issue dealing with reliability which speaks directly to his reputation and credibility?? Yeah, right...nothing to do with this whatsoever.?

Being a music historian has NOTHING to do with this issue.

So, the fact the guy is proven to be knowledgeable AND have pretty good recall on the subject has nothing to do with this?? Yeak, OK.

I know the basics of who he is, I've never listened to his show.

You put far too much faith on that fact that he's a "pubic figure."

So you admit you know basically nothing about him.? That speaks volumes....

No, I put faith in the fact he's Eddie Trunk.? Knowing what I know about him.....it's NOT JUST the fact he's a public figure.  Way to take THAT quote out of context...

Again. Was Eddie talking about Pink elephants? No, he was talking about the leak.

No, but he wasn't answering a direct question either.

You haven't done it once. You tried and failed miserably. His comments were in regards to the CD, the fact that a question was not printed or not asked does not CHANGE his comments. His comments were clear, he qualified his answer because he was not sure of it.

In your opinion, of course.? And I'd venture that opinion is more than a wee bit "warped" on the subject.

It doesn't change his comments.? It changes the way you represented the comments.? In order to further your "theory".....

The "proof" is in the public statements. It's public statements vs. your Trunk email. And some sources going both ways. Could I be wrong? Yup. Could you be wrong? Yup.

So, like I said, no proof.? Because the public statements aren't specifically about this issue.? At all.? So they don't really prove anything.

So, it's your SPECULATION about his public statements vs Eddie's own words on the subject.?

Again, reading that...I have to go chuckle.

[pilferk]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I'm begining to agree, actually.

Is everyone else who might actually be reading this thread bored, too?

[Siliconmessiah]

Yeah, why not make a recap?

Was the leaked tracks from management? Or did they come from Mr.Trunk?

[estrangedpaul]

Ok, so instead of reading through 11 pages of mindless debate, does anyone know the identity of the leaker yet?

[pilferk]

Recap:

They didn't come from management.

Trunk says Better was not on the CD he had.

Kyrie, for some reason, thinks Trunk is lying or is just flat out wrong. ?

There's the recap...

[jameslofton29]

Is everyone else who might actually be reading this thread bored, too?

Its not really the fact that its "boring", its just that you guys keep going in circles. You say pretty much the exact same thing in every post, and neither of you will budge an inch. Although I think you are both great debaters.


Someone needs to leak Prostitute, then we can see what direction your little debate over the Trunk cd goes.

[noGnoG]

Thanks for the recap! Saved me some hours, I guess.

[unoturbo]

Without starting more pointless arguments or 500 word replies that no-one reads.....

What about the alternate version of Better; the one with the solo's in the right place and the real drums? Where did this come from? I've tried to read most of this thread but havn't seen it mentioned.