Karaoke Forums

What the he77.
If you see anything in another thread that you'd like to comment on - copy it and bring it here to spar in and leave those threads alone!

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Infinite likes!

_________________
-Chris

But it should be a sticky....

Yes, please make this sticky. I actually enjoy reading their arguments.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

All you have to do is pick any thread and wait. Mr. Staley will eventually wedge his vendetta against SC into the conversation, I'll have no choice but to respond, etc.

It takes two people to argue,,, hmmm,, I wonder who is the second person??? and who is the first???

"Deflect, mislead and confuse" is more your (condescending) style.

Do you think Mr. Staley should be able to use this forum as a platform to present unchallenged misinformation and untruths about SC? When you suggest that I should just ignore him, that's really what you're saying.

I have a responsibility to correct incorrect information about Sound Choice, and I will continue to do that. You can look back over the entirety of my participation over this board, and you'll never see a single instance of my turning a thread about an unrelated topic into a thread about SC. The same cannot be said of Mr. Staley.

It's interesting that you had a few years to present your "misinformation and untruths" in an "unchallenged" forum. And now you complain that someone's keeping an eye on you and pointing out your very own hypocrisy? How cute is that?

Your "responsibility" has always been to your client, period. You either ignore the truth when you have no other option, or you omit selected portions of truth as long as it serves your purpose. Your proclaiming that SC had "a contractual relationship" with publishers that have sued them for copyright infringement is a perfect example.

You have your own brand of F.U.D.

And you don't mind being the goomba on the playground because it's all you seem to know.

How about this thread that is actually titled "Non SC/karaoke question for Timberlea"?
It instantly spiraled into a thread all about SC once you jumped into the fray.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23252

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

You mean the thread that featured this comment, to which my response was directed:



I didn't make that thread about SC. "thewraith" did.

The Wraith posted six times in that thread with only one reference to SC in his third post.
You posted eleven times in that thread directing the topic completely away from how KJs get licensed in Canada, to SC investigation, SC settlement arrangements, and SC income.
You did indeed drive that thread into an SC discussion by your own style of responding, just as your challenge to put up an example prompted me to do so.

You are no different from Chip in that regard; he also sees opportunity to advance his agenda when someone's comment relates in any way to his view of your activities and can't resist the urge to reply. Just as every positive SC comment does not need to be instantly refuted with a negative one, the reverse is also true. Arguments don't start until the second player weighs in; such is the case in every derailed thread.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I don't respond to "negative" SC comments. I respond to requests for information and statements that contain incorrect information, both of which applied in that thread from the very beginning of the comments about SC.

I cannot leave those two categories unanswered. If I left questions unanswered, I would be criticized for ignoring people. (And believe me, that's happened lots of times when I took more than a day to respond to a question.) In the second category, allowing incorrect information to go unchallenged would lead to that information being accepted as true.

If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it, but your wrath is properly directed at the people who assert the incorrect, false, or misleading information in the first place.

And obviously you ignored entirely and did jump in the thread that was titled:
"Non SC/karaoke question for Timberlea"

Specifically EXcluding SC and asked about "ALL THE OTHER" manufacturers. But you had to stick your response in there because you felt you needed to defend the accusation of a lack of investigations? Do I need to pull the documentation of APS that proves there was in fact, a lack of investigations?

You weren't responding to "correct misinformation" at all, you were trying to deflect from the truth because that would sting a little. Sorry, nice try.
SC was specifically EXCLUDED from the thread, but you had to make it about SC. And this is exactly how you twist an untruth into you being some sort of victim.

So this statement is actually 100% untrue:

(1) The thread wasn't about SC,
(2) The title specifically excluded SC and,
(3) The thread was directed to timberlea but,
(3) You jumped in and made your argument in defense of Sound Choice.

Cracks me up how often you accuse me of lying and you turn around pull this crap.

Are you high?

Well there you go again:

Deflecting with insults.

Incorrect information should be corrected, but saying is not offering any information to correct anything (in fact, APS later demonstrated that the information offered by the wraith could have been correct at that time). All your comment there did was to leave room to bait additional discussion unrelated to that thread thereby derailing the thread into a discussion about SC (something you are trying to mislead me into thinking you didn't do).

You seem to feel you need to offer false information characterizing me as wrathful.
I am not offering wrath here, I was simply responding to your challenge to find a single instance where you turned a thread about an unrelated topic into a thread about SC.
I appreciate when you do correct false information that it is posted here with true information and facts to back it up. It would be great if it always happened that way. I have learned a lot since you began participating in the discussions on this forum.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

You're welcome.
It was my idea.

Your Pal,

Yeti

You didn't like my first example, so I'll offer a second. I must admit though, in this example you are only a technical infringer.
However, you did turn it to SC as the first responder to the thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31909&p=401184#p401184

P.S. It has been six months and the link to the pirate site still works. I hope it hasn't expired from your list.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Ha!

thewraith derailed the thread... fact.. first to mention SC in the thread that excluded it... hypocrisy to bash James for responding.

second thread did not exclude SC.. and James' response was factual and nothing more.

regardless of your stance with SC... you can't make up facts.

_________________
Never the same show twice!