Identity of leaker known...?!

[axlsalinger]

3. Was Mike Piazza used as a herring for Trunk to introduce a demo disc that he was given personally?

Recently there were a couple of threads about those "Metal guys" and their radio show, where they talked about GNR and the leaks. Well in one of these conversations, they seemed to be heavily implying that the disc may have been given to Piazza by none other than Zakk Wylde, and that the "I received it in the mail" story was made up to protect the real source.

Just more fuel to the fire, but Zakk may very well have had access to this type of stuff.

[Bartlet]

frozen_Inferno:  I act like a what?

[Neemo]

3. Was Mike Piazza used as a herring for Trunk to introduce a demo disc that he was given personally?

Recently there were a couple of threads about those "Metal guys" and their radio show, where they talked about GNR and the leaks. Well in one of these conversations, they seemed to be heavily implying that the disc may have been given to Piazza by none other than Zakk Wylde, and that the "I received it in the mail" story was made up to protect the real source.

Just more fuel to the fire, but Zakk may very well have had access to this type of stuff.

thats man

wow!!! are you serious? any real info on it. like an article or anything??

[Steel_Angel]

frozen_Inferno:? I act like a what?

are you on drugs?... why do you ask so many questions? n00b.

[kyrie]

The only way tracks came from clubs is if they were recorded as they were played. So then, under that theory, Axl played instrumentals and two versions of TWAT?

It doesn't fly.

actually with the proper equipment, you can rip a cd to a hard drive while it's playing. of course that would mean the dj equipment would have to be hooked up to a pc of some sort.
My friend is a part time dj for parties and bars. he has a laptop that he hooks up to his equipment and some of his music is kept on it, and he says that he's ripped cd's that people have asked him to play while he was playing them.

Hmm, interesting, but still I think unlikely... if Axl saw a PC/laptop around, I'd like to think he'd twig...

It'd be like seeing Winnie the Pooh next to the beehive and not worrying about the honey.

[Bartlet]

frozen_Inferno:? I act like a what?

are you on drugs?... why do you ask so many questions? n00b.

Coz you make no sense. I'm just trying to understand you...!

[Steel_Angel]

frozen_Inferno:? I act like a what?

are you on drugs?... why do you ask so many questions? n00b.

Coz you make no sense. I'm just trying to understand you...!

Oh!, No U Di'NT!

[pilferk]

Editing headers is child's play, so don't make it sound difficult. You've chosen not to post it, which affects the weight I would give it. It's unfortunate that I didn't get a reply from Trunk, but such is life. If he happens to reply later, I'll post it, with a lovely little 127.0.0.1 in place of the IP's in the header.

I chose to contact Trunk rather than Jarmo. Keep in mind I'm not questioning that you got a mail from Trunk, I'm questioning Trunk's memory AND motives.

Yes, I know. ?The point is....editing it all masks my personal information, but doesn't validate the email.

So there's no point to it. You have the whole gist.? Is better on the cd? No it wasn't.? That's the nutshell. Anything else there was irrelevant.

And you're questioning Trunks memories and motives based purely on speculation, and twisting his quotes around to meet your fantasy.

He made public comments STATING his memory was fuzzy in regards to the TRACKS ON THE CD & THE NUMBER OF TRACKS. Those are PROVEN statements from Trunk. That he, two years later, told you something about BETTER leaves LOTS of room for questioning, since he couldn't pinpoint the # of tracks without "I think". It's not "my opinion", it's "my opinion based on Trunks own words."

On this item? You're right, I can't 100% say it, but the fact that he was iffy before certainly makes me suspect he might be iffy now. Especially when I'm not the only one questioning him, and one of the others he is correctly predicted leaks that happened.

He made A PUBLIC COMMENT that said his memory was fuzzy about the specifics ON WHAT THE TRACKS SOUNDED LIKE. ?Adding an parenthetical "I think", and attributing that to being hazy is, again, being overly analytical on his semantics. ?And it's not proof he was wrong. ?You're speculating, simply to try to twist the situation to fit your fantasy. ?No proof is no proof.

And it is your opinion, based on zip, zero, nada. ?Nothing remotely conclusive or concrete except speculation.

Again, your OPINION vs an actual eyewitness account. ?Sounds sorta silly, don't it?

In what way were those quotes taken out of context? When asked how many tracks were on the CD, he said "I think." For all we know, he didn't hear the full CD and missed Better. Or, misidentified it. Or can't speak about song titles.

In the way all quotes are taken out of context. ?Read the entire interview(s) and you'll see exactly how. ?I'm not going to be your English teacher. ?But, first and foremost, he was never asked "how many tracks were on CD". ?He was asked to describe what else was on the CD. Second, the (I think) was taken direclty from his press statement issued at the time, not an interview. ?Again, you're assigning context where there is none. ?You've done it all through this discussion. ?You paraphrase to fit your agenda, not to reflect what was actually talked about.

 ?And he said he listened to the remainder of the tracks on his commute home. ?As to the rest...speculation with no proof. ?And on the "can't speak about song titles", again...theory blow to hell..but we'll get to that in a sec.

Good. You went back to my original quote. It's 5PM Thursday roughly. I've had days with hundreds of emails. I tend to put them in priority and answer them. Those that I'm not answering, I discard. In general, after two days, I've answered anything I intend to, because the next day's shit has already come in.

Ah, so Trunk is supposed to adhere to your standards of "email reply timelines". ?Didn't realize we all needed to do things your way. ?

Again, I think everyone knows why you replied.....and it had nothing to do with your "appropriate time frame" having passed.

It's a free forum my friend. Fact is, I'm starting to suspect it's a blow to your ego that not everyone agrees with you. I'll open my mouth when and where I see fit. If I'm wrong in the end, I'll own up to it.

Sure it is a free forum. ?It's still interesting when someone says they're not going to talk about something...and then they do. ?Adds a certain "credibility factor", ya know?

As for your suspicion, rest at ease, nothing on this forum is, was, or ever will be a blow to my ego. ?This forum, and this discussion, is an interesting way to pass time. ?Which is why your rantings, quite frankly, are such good theater. ?Nothing that happens here has any ramifications on "real life", and, quite frankly, the subject itself is pretty miniscule on the global importance scale. ?But i do llike to debate....that's for sure. ?Check the "old" political threads.

IRS was written on the CD and played on the show. In that instance, I don't think anyone would care if he talked about it's name - it was well known. What management would be concerned with is keeping the other tracks quiet. Say someone has CITR, and they know a CD was out there with TWAT - that might make people work. IRS was blown. Other names were not.

My point is...2 years later he remembered it well enough to identify it for Splat. ?Yet you don't think him capable of doing the same when saying, definitively, something else wasn't there. ?An odd juxtoposition, eh?

You said you didn't ask about TWAT - did he mention it at all? You don't need to have asked him for it to have come up in the conversation. Aside from you saying "Was better on the CD", did you ask him ANYTHING about the CD?

Now maybe you understand why we question this email that wasn't posted, because there's a bunch of other worthwhile questions. And apparently, they were not asked.

No, I asked him if Better was on the CD leaked to him. ?It was the only quesiton I wanted answered...

He answered my question, which wasn't about TWAT. ?I only asked about Better. ?How many times do I have to say the same thing? ?If you think there are other worthwhile questions to be asked....find a way to get him to respond.

Oh my lord. You're referring to a gag order given out by a JUDGE, which we know DID NOT happen in this instance.

What would be FAR more likely, since Trunk was cooperating and no judge was ever involved, was that Trunk made some kind of agreement. I.E. Don't give out specifics, don't give out track names.

Funny how he hasn't given specifics or names...

Lots of speculation, with not a whit of proof or evidence to support it. ?

Oh, and YOUR statement, which I answered:

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

Gag orders are only issued by judges. ?If you meant something else, you should have said it.

And, again, if Trunk were under some sort of legal (or even friendly) agreement with Sanctuary, he couldn't say "No, it wasn't" anymore than he could say "Yes, it was". ? Any assertion otherwise is a fallacy. Period.

You're basing your whole argument on an official gag order that did not happen. From Trunk's own description of meeting Axl's reps, this was a friendly exchange - a don't do it again. I can't even remember if a C&D was issued, but a C&D can be given by a lawyer, what you refer to as a "gag order" is given by a judge.

Nothing is blasted to hell.

Management could have put ANY stipulations on him and you have no idea what they might be.

No, you referred to a gag order. ?A gag order is a gag order. ?Anyone who has any experience in the legal world knows that. ?If you didn't mean a gag order...don't call it one.
And it is blasted to hell. ?Any sort of agreement with management, friendly or otherwise, would have resulted in a strict "no comment". ?Period. ?Again, see Trunk's response to his XM termination.

And neither do you have any clue what his agreement (if any) with management included. ?So anything you say on the subject is rampant speculation with not one iota of proof to support it. ?Not that that's surprising. ?That description describes your entire argument on this subject.

Better does not sound like a typical GNR track name, based on their past. In fact it's probably the simplest name for a track out of any GNR song. "Alone" is also in the chorus. It would be equally suspect as the title to someone who didn't know the title beforehand.

The word is repeated over and over and over in succession. ? But it's a moot point anyway. ?He couldn't guess a title of something that wasn't there, in any event. ?

That's possible, but the point here is, other sources have said it WAS the Trunk CD. That same source? basically said which tracks were gonna leak prior to them leaking, and they did. This to me makes the source more credible than an email you got from Trunk with no followup questions based on shit he heard three years ago that he may or may not want to talk about at this point.

ONE other source, (Intensity) who now isn't so sure. You also have dark and gigger saying otherwise. ?In addition, all Intensity's info about the leaks came from one source. ?I know that source. ?They believe the exact same thing I do. ?In fact, I'm sure they just had a good chuckle reading your above paragraphs. ?But it's not my place to out that person on a public forum.

I sent no followup questions to Trunk because I needed no more answers. ?And I'm not going to pester him now because, quite frankly, I still don't need any more answers.

That you find an internet poster with 3rd hand, unverifiable, questionable information more credible than words from Trunk, himself, speaks volumes about the lengths you'll go to to try and hang on to your fantasy. ?Any judge or counselor in the land would LAUGH at that statement...

[pilferk]

You have a point in this case, but only in regards to Better. There Was A Time is a well known track name and those words are all over the song. Yet he never mentioned it. Even Dark says that was on the Trunk CD. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know what track that was if he actually listened to the full CD.

Lets recap:

Two sources say TWAT was on the Trunk CD.
TWAT was a known title at the time Trunk got the CD.
Trunk claimed to have at least skimmed the CD in the car, although he wasn't 100% sure on the number of tracks on the CD.
Trunk never, once, said TWAT was a title, instead he said he didn't know what the other tracks were, and that he knew IRS because the CD said it.

This guy couldn't put two and two together? When asked about the other tracks he said he didn't have the names. I would at least expect "It might have been that song TWAT" or "I think it was that song TWAT." It lends credence to the idea that he was asked not to talk about track names or specifics.

But see, I only need to make the point in reference to Better.? Why he didn't talk about TWAT, or if he knew the song title or not, is an independant issue.? Perhaps he wasn't sure, so didn't want to comment.? Perhaps he just couldn't pull the title out of the chorus. Perhaps you're right, and he was asked NOT to give out the actual titles on the CD (which is exactly why he COULD deny that Better was there....he wasn't confirming what was there).? Perhaps about 200 other reasons. All of it is speculation. You're speculating on motivations with no evidence or proof that they're correct.? It's the "what if" game....

And again, it's amusing you'd bring up the fact that, when he's not sure, he qualifies his answers that way.? But then, in his response to me, answers definitively.? I think that's really all you need to know on the subject.

He's pretty good at being clear with what he wants to say.

When did he deny hearing the song? Are you referring to TWAT or Better? If he didn't hear one track, there easily could have been more shit he hasn't heard.

Better.? He denied it was on the CD.

You weren't there either. You've put all your chips on Trunks words, and every time I see them, another contradiction appears.

Exactly my point.? Thus, why I contacted one of the two people we knew were there.? I'd actually offer up that Trunk is a damn site more believeable than ME OR YOU, if we HAD been there, because he's more credible, in general.

No, every time you see them you try to interpret them further to fit your fantasy.? That's not a contradiction.? It's supposition...where none is really needed.

So, now...I've layed out a very compelling case.

So far, you've not provided one iota of actual evidence or proof to support your opinon.? ? What you have provided is quotes, taken out of context or who's questions you've paraphrased beyond recognition, which you then interpret to support your position (and which have NOTHING, really, to do with the item at hand, since they weren't asked at the time of, or in conjunction with, the Better leak) and a whole lotta speculation.? How about you provide a bit more, now.? Lets see your evidence....why you cling so desperately to this "theory".? Have at it.? Lay it all out.? Lets see it.

[kyrie]

Yes, I know.  The point is....editing it all masks my personal information, but doesn't validate the email.

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

EDIT: You answered this question later in your response. Nothing. Which is not what I would have done.

And you're questioning Trunks memories and motives based purely on speculation, and twisting his quotes around to meet your fantasy.

The quotes I posted were exactly what he said.

He made A PUBLIC COMMENT that said his memory was fuzzy about the specifics ON WHAT THE TRACKS SOUNDED LIKE.  Adding an parenthetical "I think", and attributing that to being hazy is, again, being overly analytical on his semantics.  And it's not proof he was wrong.  You're speculating, simply to try to twist the situation to fit your fantasy.  No proof is no proof.

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.

In the way all quotes are taken out of context.  Read the entire interview(s) and you'll see exactly how.  I'm not going to be your English teacher.  But, first and foremost, he was never asked "how many tracks were on CD".  He was asked to describe what else was on the CD.  Again, you're assigning context that's not in the interview.  You've done it all through this discussion, and continue to do it.  You paraphrase to fit your agenda, not to reflect what was actually talked about.

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.

Ah, so Trunk is supposed to adhere to your standards of "email reply timelines".  Didn't realize we all needed to do things your way. 

Again, I think everyone knows why you replied.....and it had nothing to do with your "appropriate time frame" having passed.

I used my standards of judgement. Quit crying. I'm not holding him to anything, but 4/5ths of the working week went by.

Sure it is a free forum.  It's still interesting when someone says they're not going to talk about something...and then they do.  Adds a certain "credibility factor", ya know?

Again. Quit crying. I did EXACTLY what I said I would.

My point is...2 years later he remembered it well enough to identify it for Splat.  Yet you don't think him capable of doing the same when saying, definitively, something else wasn't there.  An odd juxtoposition, eh?

Lets see. Track name written on CD. Track aired on show.

Other track name unknown, not aired on show, skimmed in the car, MAYBE.

One of these things aren't quite like the other, one of these things are not the same...

You said you didn't ask about TWAT - did he mention it at all? You don't need to have asked him for it to have come up in the conversation. Aside from you saying "Was better on the CD", did you ask him ANYTHING about the CD?

Now maybe you understand why we question this email that wasn't posted, because there's a bunch of other worthwhile questions. And apparently, they were not asked.

No, I asked him if Better was on the CD leaked to him.  It was the only quesiton I wanted answered...

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

Lots of speculation, with not a whit of proof or evidence to support it. 

Your private thoughts VS. Public record. And I quote, directly from identified sources, just so you don't accuse me of paraphrasing again when I haven't:

"Not all of the calls were complimentary, however. One was from GN'R management, which issued a verbal cease-and-desist order. - MTV"

VERBAL CEASE AND DESIST.

"I could not have been cooler in how I co-operated at the time. I even offered to strip it from my rebroadcast, which they were unaware of at the time. I could have duped it, played it 10 times, put it on my site. - Metal Sludge"

CO-OPERATED.

"Because Trunk often deals with the same management company and has a professional relationship with them, he didn't argue with the request. - MTV"

DIDN'T ARGUE.

There was NO OFFICIAL GAG ORDER. Trunk did whatever was asked of him. We do not know what that includes. One would assume it simply referred to the airing of tracks, but who knows.

Gag orders are only issued by judges.  If you meant something else, you should have said it.

You know damn well that I wasn't referring to a gag order in the specific legal context. That's a pretty common phrase, I refuse to believe you're that ignorant.

And, again, if Trunk were under some sort of legal (or even friendly) agreement with Sanctuary, he couldn't say "No, it wasn't" anymore than he could say "Yes, it was".   Any assertion otherwise is a fallacy. Period.

Wrong. He could very well say that.

No, you referred to a gag order.  A gag order is a gag order.  Anyone who has any experience in the legal world knows that.  If you didn't mean a gag order...don't call it one.

Again. You made a mistake and want to weasel out of it. That's a common phrase. Need I spell everything out for you?

There's such a thing as common sense.

I've had experience, quite a lot, in the legal world, dealing with technical evidence and data forensics. I'm not a lawyer, however. Just to be clear.

As you just found out, Trunk's exchange with management was AFAIK a handshake deal, based on a verbal cease and desist from lawyers. The specifics of his cooperation are not known by YOU, and they are not known by ME. They COULD entail not talking about tracks or specifics, in addition to obviously not broadcasting/distributing the songs in any way. They COULD entail plausible denial when it comes to questions like "is this song on the CD." Despite your insistance, nothing prevents Trunk from saying NO when asked if a song was there.

And it is blasted to hell.  Any sort of agreement with management, friendly or otherwise, would have resulted in a strict "no comment".  Period.  Again, see Trunk's response to his XM termination.

Bullshit. You don't know what any agreement would entail. He could have been told not to mention specifics. His termination under a contract does not equate to some kind of handshake deal.

I'm speculating. I could be wrong. You are also speculating, so stop trying to portray it like "It must be a strict no comment" - that is 100% baseless on your part. Look into words like "could" and "maybe", you're missing a few dozen of them in your posts.

The word is repeated over and over and over in succession.   But it's a moot point anyway.  He couldn't guess a title of something that wasn't there, in any event. 

Your theory, not mine. The point is, Better is far less easy to guess than You Could Be Mine. Or There Was A Time, for that matter, a song Trunk also failed to identify.

ONE other source, (Intensity) who now isn't so sure.

WRONG. The source I was referring to is NOT Intensity, but another poster who predicted the leaks on at least two forums a day in advance and was correct (I'm referring to the instrumental leaks, but he/she even got the short TWAT correct if I recall, and said there would be no CITR instrumental. Could be a lucky guess of course).

You also have dark and gigger saying otherwise.  In addition, all Intensity's info about the leaks came from one source.  I know that source.  They believe the exact same thing I do.  In fact, I'm sure they just had a good chuckle reading your above paragraph, and the one further down about this subject.  But it's not my place to out that person on a public forum.

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

[kyrie]

But see, I only need to make the point in reference to Better.  Why he didn't talk about TWAT, or if he knew the song title or not, is an independant issue.  Perhaps he wasn't sure, so didn't want to comment.  Perhaps he just couldn't pull the title out of the chorus. Perhaps you're right, and he was asked NOT to give out the actual titles on the CD (which is exactly why he COULD deny that Better was there....he wasn't confirming what was there).

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.

Perhaps about 200 other reasons. All of it is speculation. You're speculating on motivations with no evidence or proof that they're correct.  It's the "what if" game....

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

He's pretty good at being clear with what he wants to say.

I beg to differ.

You weren't there either. You've put all your chips on Trunks words, and every time I see them, another contradiction appears.

Exactly my point.  Thus, why I contacted one of the two people we knew were there.  I'd actually offer up that Trunk is a damn site more believeable than ME OR YOU, if we HAD been there, because he's more credible, in general.

Trunk is more credible, in general? Why? Because he's a radio host? Since I don't know the guy personally, I'm not about the speculate as to whether he's more credible than me or not. Or you. What I am doing is basing things of public comments he has made. And based on those comments, in which he has refrained from giving specifics, definitively picking a number of tracks, or naming any track on the CD besides IRS, I choose to question his response to you.

So far, you've not provided one iota of actual evidence or proof to support your opinon.    What you have provided is quotes, taken out of context or who's questions you've paraphrased beyond recognition

Show me a SINGLE quote I have paraphrased beyond recognition.

My theory is simple, based on similarities between the Trunk CD and the leaks, Trunk's inability to identify ANY of the other tracks on the CD in ANY *PUBLIC* statement, his inability to pinpoint the NUMBER of tracks definitively, and comments from at least one and possibly two sources (I have no idea who Mr. I's source is and for all I know it's the same person who predicted the leaks so thus one and MAYBE two), the CD Trunk got was likely to have the same contents as what's now been leaked. With the exception of CITR, which I do think at this point came from another source.

As to Dark's source, I asked him some followup questions and he hasn't replied yet. Which is fine since not much time has gone by. But dark indicated his info is three years old as well. We learnt of the title to Better only recently, and I'm curious to know how versed Dark's source is on GNR/titles etc.

The problem with these "sources" is, and it applies to me, you, dark, gigger, etc., is that unless they go on record, none of us can so much as question their statements, so how much weight should we really give them?

[pilferk]

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.

The quotes I posted were exactly what he said.

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

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.

Assigning context where there was none.

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.

He VOLUNTEERED info and qualified it. ?Didn't qualify his reply to me. ?Speaks volumes, no?

I used my standards of judgement. Quit crying. I'm not holding him to anything, but 4/5ths of the working week went by.

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

Again. Quit crying. I did EXACTLY what I said I would.

I disagree. ?As I said....sure shows a "credibility factor".

Lets see. Track name written on CD. Track aired on show.

Other track name unknown, not aired on show, skimmed in the car, MAYBE.

One of these things aren't quite like the other, one of these things are not the same...

But heard both pieces of music ONCE, presumably. ?And could confirm it was on CD by listening. ?It wasn't the name he was confirming. ?We knew the name of the track he played, already. ?It was the piece of music.

2 pieces of music...both from the same CD, in your opinion...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 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.

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

Your private thoughts VS. Public record. And I quote, directly from identified sources, just so you don't accuse me of paraphrasing again when I haven't:

"Not all of the calls were complimentary, however. One was from GN'R management, which issued a verbal cease-and-desist order. - MTV"

VERBAL CEASE AND DESIST.

"I could not have been cooler in how I co-operated at the time. I even offered to strip it from my rebroadcast, which they were unaware of at the time. I could have duped it, played it 10 times, put it on my site. - Metal Sludge"

CO-OPERATED.

"Because Trunk often deals with the same management company and has a professional relationship with them, he didn't argue with the request. - MTV"

DIDN'T ARGUE.

There was NO OFFICIAL GAG ORDER. Trunk did whatever was asked of him. We do not know what that includes. One would assume it simply referred to the airing of tracks, but who knows.

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 know damn well that I wasn't referring to a gag order in the specific legal context. That's a pretty common phrase, I refuse to believe you're that ignorant.

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.

Wrong. He could very well say that.

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

Either he can talk about the contents, and spill his guts if he remembers things, on all subjects.

Or he can't talk about the actual contents.

In either case, his statement of "No, it wasn't" is valid. ?In the first scenario, he'd be fine.

In the second scenario, if Better wasn't there, he wouldn't be actually talking about the contents.

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.

Blown to hell.

Again. You made a mistake and want to weasel out of it. That's a common phrase. Need I spell everything out for you?

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. ?

There's such a thing as common sense.

I agree. ?Display some. ?We're on a forum. ?If you use a common legal term, after asserting legal knowledge, and then want it to mean something else...qualify it. ?Or back it up.

Bullshit. You don't know what any agreement would entail. He could have been told not to mention specifics. His termination under a contract does not equate to some kind of handshake deal.

I'm speculating. I could be wrong. You are also speculating, so stop trying to portray it like "It must be a strict no comment" - that is 100% baseless on your part. Look into words like "could" and "maybe", you're missing a few dozen of them in your posts.

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.

On the "coulds" or "maybe's"...considering your posts, I wouldn't comment to much on that. ?ALL you do is speculate. ?I've yet to see any actual proof.

Your theory, not mine. The point is, Better is far less easy to guess than You Could Be Mine. Or There Was A Time, for that matter, a song Trunk also failed to identify.

Your OPINION. ?Certainly not fact.

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.

Notice the common thread in all your arguments?

WRONG. The source I was referring to is NOT Intensity, but another poster who predicted the leaks on at least two forums a day in advance and was correct (I'm referring to the instrumental leaks, but he/she even got the short TWAT correct if I recall, and said there would be no CITR instrumental. Could be a lucky guess of course).

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

And the instrumentals leaking (general timeframe)? ?Not what I would base credibility on. ?The knowledge of when, about a day before each, was too widely known.

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.

As for dark and gigger, well...

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

And dark originally leaked (through someone else) the original crappy IRS....and helped (dark can correct or refresh my memory) Saint Saiya (who got them from Wes) to get other tracks out there.

[Lord Kayoss]

Goddamn.  Get in the ring, fuckers.

[ARC]

This thread reads like a bad Dan Brown novel...

[pilferk]

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".

I beg to differ.

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.

Trunk is more credible, in general? Why? Because he's a radio host? Since I don't know the guy personally, I'm not about the speculate as to whether he's more credible than me or not. Or you. What I am doing is basing things of public comments he has made. And based on those comments, in which he has refrained from giving specifics, definitively picking a number of tracks, or naming any track on the CD besides IRS, I choose to question his response to you.

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.

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.

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"......

And again...in every other instance where he has wanted to be vague or non-specific, he's done so. ?Yet, not in his response to me.

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.

My theory is simple, based on similarities between the Trunk CD and the leaks, Trunk's inability to identify ANY of the other tracks on the CD in ANY *PUBLIC* statement, his inability to pinpoint the NUMBER of tracks definitively, and comments from at least one and possibly two sources (I have no idea who Mr. I's source is and for all I know it's the same person who predicted the leaks so thus one and MAYBE two), the CD Trunk got was likely to have the same contents as what's now been leaked. With the exception of CITR, which I do think at this point came from another source.

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.

As to Dark's source, I asked him some followup questions and he hasn't replied yet. Which is fine since not much time has gone by. But dark indicated his info is three years old as well. We learnt of the title to Better only recently, and I'm curious to know how versed Dark's source is on GNR/titles etc.

I know the answer, but I'll let dark answer for himself, if he so chooses. ? It's sorta a moot point, since, again, you won't be able to "validate" the source.

The problem with these "sources" is, and it applies to me, you, dark, gigger, etc., is that unless they go on record, none of us can so much as question their statements, so how much weight should we really give them?

Thanks for making my point for me. ?All of the above (including dark and gigger, who I trust) vs an actual statement by Trunk. ?A definitive, non wishy washy, non qualified statement from someone who actually held the CD in ?his hands, listened to it, and has a professional repuation for pulling archaic music knowledge from his brain, on air, at a moments notice, concerning 30 year old rock acts with one or two hits.

I'm sorry...after reading that...I need to go have a good laugh.

[pilferk]

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.

[pilferk]

This thread reads like a bad Dan Brown novel...

Jeesh, I hope it's nearly that entertaining for everyone else.

But, well....I doubt it is.

I just hope we're not boring everyone.

[NickNasty]

honestly, does it matter at this point who the leaker/leakers are? does it affect the tour or anything else officially related to the band? whoever they are and whatever source they got the leaks from, they did us a fine service in giving us a taste of CD, but i think the whole issue is being driven to the point of nonsense.

[Bongo]

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

Too boring

[Mr.Intensity]

I just really want to hear "Prostitute" now............