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

[Dr. Solar]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

I was thinking about Chief of the Dia Tribe

Nice! ZING!

[Dr. Solar]

First off

I

have chosen to cut out those parts of

statements that are most troublesome

and include only those comments which

one can accuse me of quoting (and thus responding) out of context.

True!

Z, you *SQUEE*!

[The Harbinger]

Even if Priest isn't in the settlement, couldn't there still be repercussions if he rats out the real identity of VIP. Not just Priest either, but anybody out there that knows their true identity. Sure VIP can deny it, but it seems like there would be some punishment for those people even if they're not involved in the VIP/VEI settlement, just because they revealed the identity.


I'm thinking of it in the same terms as giving away the whereabouts of a dude in the witness protection program, but that could be just a stupid analogy.

[ManofTheAtom]

Even if Priest isn't in the settlement, couldn't there still be repercussions if he rats out the real identity of VIP. Not just Priest either, but anybody out there that knows their true identity. Sure VIP can deny it, but it seems like there would be some punishment for those people even if they're not involved in the VIP/VEI settlement, just because they revealed the identity.


I'm thinking of it in the same terms as giving away the whereabouts of a dude in the witness protection program, but that could be just a stupid analogy.

Not unless Priest signed a document saying that he can't speak about it, but if he had then he wouldn't have said as much as he did.

Plus, VIP tried to screw him as well with their Q&W imitation.

It's doubtful that he has any loyalties to them... but, again, best way to find out is to ask him.

He'll either speak or have no comment.

Anything else, is pure speculation

[Fanboy375]

OK, I admit, it was me.

This thread is taking away from other topics, which may or may not be a bad thing. LOL


Jonathan

[xodacia81]

this is like a bad version of Spartacus. I am feeling as if we won't ever find out who they were and further I do not give a rip. I just want things to move past this point so we can all concentrate on enjoying any and all new material VEI produces. VALIANT is back and we should focus on the positives we know about instead of dwelling on the negatives of a shadowy and uncertain past more barren than the surface of the moon.

[Fanboy375]

this is like a bad version of Spartacus. I am feeling as if we won't ever find out who they were and further I do not give a rip. I just want things to move past this point so we can all concentrate on enjoying any and all new material VEI produces. VALIANT is back and we should focus on the positives we know about instead of dwelling on the negatives of a shadowy and uncertain past more barren than the surface of the moon.

AMEN!!!

[Chiclo]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

With the power to KILL A YAK from 200 yards away... with MIND BULLETS!

That's correct . . .

I know the correct line.

I just prefer the "kill again" version.

[Fanboy375]

Although it seems to be keeping MOTA busy. LOL

Just kidding MOTA (well alittle anyway)



Jonathan

[siren3-4]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

With the power to KILL A YAK from 200 yards away... with MIND BULLETS!

That's correct . . .

I know the correct line.

I just prefer the "kill again" version.

I hate to break it to you skippy . . there is no kill again version . . .

[Chiclo]

[siren3-4]

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

I was thinking about Chief of the Dia Tribe

I LOVE it!

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

That's just dumb.

Demonstrating once again that it's simply not possible for someone to say something you don't agree with without you insulting them.



Thanks for being consistent, kid!

They can deny it all they want, but Priest would have no motive to lie and say that person X is VIP when VIP is really person W.

Oh, MOTA, MOTA, MOTA....no one said ANYTHING about PRIEST lying. Read it again, kid! You didn't read it the first time. Read it AGAIN, COMPREHEND it, and then get back to me.

Comprehension is KEY to ANY successful communication.

If Priest said that person W was VIP, what possible reason could there be not to believe him?

MOTA, MOTA, MOTA....are you really THAT incapable of understanding complex concepts...? Is subtlety just a completely foreign concept to you? Come on. Seriously!

Do you KNOW what the difference between OFFICIAL and UNOFFICIAL is?

The point of this thread is "is it possible to get an OFFICIAL (that's OFFICIAL) answer to who VIP was?"

Priest is NOT official. Priest is UNofficial. OFF the record.

Is there any reason to disbelieve him? NO! But that DOESN'T MATTER. There will be no OFFICIAL word, because there legally CANNOT be. If there IS word from an OFFICIAL SOURCE, that source would be SUBJECT TO LITIGATION. POSSIBLE? YES. LIKELY? NO.

Slow down....read it again...and COMPREHEND.

You know, I really REALLY wonder sometimes why I EVER get involved in discussions around here that involve SUBTLE and COMPLEX concepts. MOST of the guys around here are smart enough so that it doesn't fly over their heads, but a small minority just doesn't EVER get it.

I should just stick to "PRE-UNITY GOOD! ACCLAIM BAD!"

The possible reasons would be that he's an *SQUEE* or that he has an interest in helping VIP keep its identity secret.

Since VIP already tried to screw him, I doubt that he has any interest in helping them out.

Read it again, MOTA. You didn't comprehend it the first time. Please try again.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Naturally.

What would Priest or Bright tell us that we don't already "know"...?

But it wouldn't be official. That's the point.

Who VIP really is since at least one of them already knows.

Once again: What would Priest or Bright tell us that we don't already "know"...?

Priest was approached by VIP the morning of the auction, so he knows who they are. He even partially identified them as someone who supported Q&W (which is a very short list).

There's what we assume based on circumstantial evidence (i.e. VIP = Dynamic Forces), and there's what we know (i.e. Priest spoke with VIP and knows who they are).

Again, subtlety is totally lost on you. You have no idea what "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" means. You already have the answer. You're not going to get a better answer.

I'm not going to teach you otherwise.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

[greg]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

I was thinking about Chief of the Dia Tribe

I LOVE it!

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

This thread was fun and interesting

until it got long and boring

It is still mildly amusing

What is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different the definition of.........?

Tenacity!

Tenacious Z should SO be my new custom sig.....

I was thinking about Chief of the Dia Tribe

I LOVE it!

I am sad, however, to lose my Two Dogs and CEAR....may it rest in peace....

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

[greg]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

I was afraid people who know Spanish would ask, "What is a "Day" tribe?"
(And what about the Noche Tribe?)

[Dr. Solar]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

I was afraid people who know Spanish would ask, "What is a "Day" tribe?"
(And what about the Noche Tribe?)

Que es, este... "day" que le dices?

(please excuse my dear aunt sally's spanish)

[Chiclo]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

Isn't that where Falco rocked many of us?

On the dais, on the dais, on the dais. Rock me on the dais...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

I was afraid people who know Spanish would ask, "What is a "Day" tribe?"
(And what about the Noche Tribe?)

Well, duh...I'm Blade!

[Geomancer]

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

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

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. 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.

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, 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. It has been made clear to me that you are not. I understand that what you are saying is in line with a percentage of vocal and active members of this board.

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.

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.

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

*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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

“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.”

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. If you consider Priest to be credible, then it is official. Or official enough. If you think he’s lying, then it isn’t. 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.

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

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.[/quote]

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. My definitions are not shared universally – nor did I suspect they were. I simply provided my own personal definition of what constitutes trolling for the sake of clarity.

Again, you are not a credible spokesperson for this board. I see a lot of good will and good humor around here, but that is not what you represent. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

[greg]

(I wonder how many people will ask "who are the Dias?")

Isn't that where Falco rocked many of us?

On the dais, on the dais, on the dais. Rock me on the dais...