I'm going to keep this short and sweet since the topic is old and I was offline for a while.
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".
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.
He chose to comment on the contents and number of tracks on the CD. Regardless of if he was asked a direct question, it holds relevance. "Bush: We had good info on Iraq. I think. ... but since I'm volunteering this, you can't question me on it later" - imagine how that would fly.
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"....
My source, Mr. I's source both confirmed TWAT was there. Dark's source also believe TWAT was on the CD, dark posted that in this very thread. Now I have questioned dark's source, but I have no reason to believe TWAT *wasn't* on the CD. But yeah, it's speculation.
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.
I want more info because I'm more likely to believe the simple scenario (tracks leaked from a known source) than the more complex one (multiple leaks), if only because security has been so tight over the years.
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 are 100% speculating when you claim to know what Trunk did or didn't agree to. There's no if's or maybe's about it, you DO NOT KNOW. Neither do I.
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.
I've already answered this. It's common knowledge that it never went to court. Gag order is a term that people use in common speech to refer to all kinds of deals, not just an official legal term.
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.
Because your argument is logical, it's true? Your argument is speculation - you have no idea what Trunk may have agreed to. You have no proof, no evidence, no nothing yourself. The only credible thing you can say here is "I think."
No, I have a logical construct that covers all the reasonable bases. You just don't like it. Which isn't too surprising.....
I like it fine, but because something's logical does NOT make it true.
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?
Telling someone Better was not on the CD would not compromise Trunk's integrity. You overestimate the public's interest in this; you also neglect the fact that if he did lie, OR was mistaken (and keep in mind I'm leaning to the latter), it would have been either under an agreement or simply due to the fact that he had very little time with the CD.
Please don't tell me the crux of your argument rests on one or two enteries from dictionary.com.
I can do that equally well:
"A gag order is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public." - Wikipedia (you can check the edit history to ensure I didn't recently edit that).
Dictionaries are not always up-to-date, dictionary.com is not comprehensive, and they don't always note when words/phrases are used outside of their original, intended meaning (or when they do, it's often years after the phrase has been altered by public usage). Equally, Wikipedia is open to anyone's opinion - but clearly I'm not the only person who saw "gag order" as being something that might be beyond a legal order by a judge.
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.
Funny, your claim that you know what Trunk agreed to sounds awfully similar.
Public statements which have nothing to do with this situation, directly. Shaky, at best. Ludicrous, at worst.
Talking about the content and number of tracks has everything to do if this situation, whether you like it or not.
"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.
Since they were posting in this thread, I assumed it would be obvious that I knew of them. Especially since I have already communicated with dark in this thread - and you MUST be aware of it, because I referred to that in a post to YOU.
You clearly you either weren't aware of it, or had forgot - either way, it's no fault of mine.
Author