CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting Options

[emouse]

Wow, there must be no real news because this conversation has gone straight into the ground.

[Dr.Rockso]

That's what I like to see; man with goals. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I get so tired of arguing for arguements sake. Seems to be a minority opinion in this thread though.

I personally hope we get this thing to '11'. After that, I'm out.

[otakusensei]

Nope, no news at all. And this conversation is sounding more and more like the legal conversation that sank Thread 7.

Anyone want to take a bet on what thread number we'll be at on Aug 9th?

[Endroren]

I personally hope we get this thing to '11'. After that, I'm out.

"Why don't you just make ten longer and make ten be the top number and make that topic a little longer? "

"[pause] This topic goes to eleven."

[Dr.Rockso]

Nope, no news at all. And this conversation is sounding more and more like the legal conversation that sank Thread 7.

Anyone want to take a bet on what thread number we'll be at on Aug 9th?

I'd say we should start a pool but then we'd have people intentionally trying to get threads shutdown (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Dr.Rockso]

"Why don't you just make ten longer and make ten be the top number and make that topic a little longer? "

"[pause] This topic goes to eleven."

Haha. Bit late, tho. Made that joke at least two threads ago (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

[Ancient History]

Funny I don't recall it going so badly, what I recall fairly clearly is you likening non-payment of freelancers to gang rape and then being mystified when people take issue with that. With that level of self delusion going on memory distortion is bound to occur.

My point in this instance continues to be can people perhaps find another option from an intellectual standpoint?

Edit: For refrence

Funny, I remember you took that example and ran with it in a bold, new direction even after I'd edited the original post.

[DireRadiant]

Some topics are inflammatory by nature and and do not need to be added as fuel to an already hot topic.

As far as I know the subject of rape does not have relevance to the CGL speculation.

[Kid Chameleon]

Why does rape keep coming up in these threads? First AH and now this, is it really that good of a talking point?

I didn't bring up rape. I randomly picked a he said, she said case of battery.

[Kid Chameleon]

To draw the parallel you are making, do YOU think that Tiger eyes is a credible source?

From what I know of Jennifer, I find her a credible source of what she saw and heard. Of the situation? Not enough to determine the entire situation.

[Cabral]

However, we are really arguing over a definition here. You are seperating truths from absolute truths, and intention lies from unintentional lies.

Disclosure of all facts known to you is not a lie of omission because certain facts are unknown to you.

By your logic, if "I say Tiger Eyes was asked to perform inappropriate financial actions and was right for leaving", whether I was lying would depend wholly on whether she asked to or not and have nothing to do with whether it was a reasonable conclusion from the facts at hand or whether it was my intention to mislead.

Meh, Newton's laws clearly supersede that, ...<snip>

My physics is a bit rusty but I am unaware of anything in Newtonian physics that allows for perpetual motion. In any case, did Aristotle lie because Newton presented theories disputing Aristotle? Did Newton lie because he was not aware of quantum mechanics and string theory?

There is an important distinction between a truthful statement and a correct one, as well as between a dishonest statement and an incorrect one.

[emouse]

There is an important distinction between a truthful statement and a correct one, as well as between a dishonest statement and an incorrect one.

There was a series and book called "The Day the Universe Changed" by James Burke. Each episode or chapter focused on a particular event or series of events which led to a discovery which completely changed the way we saw the world. He makes an important point at the beginning that we shouldn't see prior views of the world or the people who saw it that way as stupid. Based on the information they had at the time those views were mostly correct. In the same way that we see our current view of the universe as correct based on the information we have now. But it's entirely possible that in the near future we could discover something that completely changes our world view and makes what we believe to be truth now just as silly as believing that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it.

[MindandPen]

Would you please stop trying to put words in people's mouth? Just because you are willing to jump to conclusions quickly doesn't mean those who are being more cautious and circumspect in their own judgements are doing anything but ... being cautious and circumspect in their own judgements.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is?

-M&P

[MindandPen]

As far as I know the subject of rape does not have relevance to the CGL speculation.

If this was not such a "touchy" topic, I might make a smartassed joke right about now.

-M&P

[Taharqa]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is?

Huh?

[Doc Chase]

If this was not such a "touchy" topic, I might make a smartassed joke right about now.

-M&P

This is my reaction, sir.

[Deadmannumberone]

Huh?

It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

[Congzilla]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is?

-M&P

Oh snap; someone got Bill Clinton'd.

[Ancient History]

"Slick Willied"

[crizh]

Just because you are willing to jump to conclusions quickly doesn't mean those who are being more cautious and circumspect in their own judgements are doing anything but ... being cautious and circumspect in their own judgements.

If you're interested and can find a copy you should give Germany's Master Plan - The Story of an Industrial Offensive (Borkin and Welsh, 1943) a read, fascinating stuff.

When I posted that a couple of pages back it spurred me to see if the book could be found online. I stumbled across a follow-up book Borkin wrote nearly 30 years later.


I've been reading it all day and came across this wonderful excerpt

(emphasis added)

Until we have this permission, however, there is absolutely nothing we can do, and we must be especially careful not to make any move whatever, even on a purely informal, personal, or friendly basis, without the consent of our friends. We know some of the difficulties they have, both from business complications and interrelations with the rubber and chemical trades in the United States, and from a national standpoint in Germany, but we do not know the whole situation—and since under the agreement they have full control over the exploitation of this process, the only thing we can do is to continue to press for authority to act, but in the meantime loyally preserve the restrictions they have put on us [emphasis added]. 15

That is Standard Oil in 1938 being 'cautious' and 'circumspect' faced with the possibility that their 'friends' at I.G. Farben might be actively arming Germany and actively preventing Standard Oil from gaining access to the technologies I.G. had developed to free Germany from dependency on Natural Oil and Rubber.

When there exists a real possibility that someone you have a business relationship with is an evil scumbag the 'cautious' and 'circumspect' thing to do is to assume that this is indeed the case and act accordingly to protect yourself from worst case scenarios.

The language I have quoted above bears a distinct similarity to the sort of political double-speak that has been issuing from CGL and it's supporters over the last few weeks.

As to whether or not Jen' is telling the truth. That's just ludicrous. If someone accused me of attempting to falsify royalty reports and it wasn't true you better believe I would come out all guns blazing to publicly deny it. I'd give serious consideration to starting a civil slander suit or at least publicly threatening to do so if a retraction wasn't immediately forthcoming.

[apologies for Godwin-ing the thread but it seemed better than the other thing...]

[Doc Chase]

That's a good point. Claiming a private citizen in a position of power is falsifying financial statements would fall well within the purview of defamation laws. That the other side has been conspicuously silent on this matter is...well, conspicuous.

[Congzilla]

That's a good point. Claiming a private citizen in a position of power is falsifying financial statements would fall well within the purview of defamation laws. That the other side has been conspicuously silent on this matter is...well, conspicuous.

I wouldn't consider it conspicuous at all. This is now in litigation; LLC would have to be an idiot to respond and I am sure CGL's lawyers have told him as much. That is assuming he would bother in the first place.

[Deadmannumberone]

That's a good point. Claiming a private citizen in a position of power is falsifying financial statements would fall well within the purview of defamation laws. That the other side has been conspicuously silent on this matter is...well, conspicuous.

All Jen would have to prove is that she felt CGL/IMR was defrauding Topps of royalties and the case would fall flat.

[Cabral]

That's a good point. Claiming a private citizen in a position of power is falsifying financial statements would fall well within the purview of defamation laws. That the other side has been conspicuously silent on this matter is...well, conspicuous.

Okay, I only did a quick search, but I only found that what Tiger Eyes* was asked to do violated her personal ethics, CGL's contractual obligations and was potentially illegal. Without addressing her ability to fully evaluate CGL's contractual obligations, I don't see any real basis for a slander case.

I don't think there is anything conspicuous about the silence. Particularly if they want to convey that there are no hard feelings towards former employees and freelancers.

[Congzilla]

Okay, I only did a quick search, but I only found that what Tiger Eyes* was asked to do violated her personal ethics, CGL's contractual obligations and was potentially illegal. Without addressing her ability to fully evaluate CGL's contractual obligations, I don't see any real basis for a slander case.

I don't think there is anything conspicuous about the silence. Particularly if they want to convey that there are no hard feelings towards former employees and freelancers.

Instead of deleting the Origins event listings for the games they no longer manage they have linked to Sandstorm's site so I would definitely say that is the case.

As far as liable is concerned if Catalyst gets threw the bankruptcy hearings and contracts negotiations unscathed, which is very possible, there are some things that have been said that could certainly warrant a civil case. Especially since said comments could possibly be shown to have cost the company lost profit, production, and staff.