Karaoke Forums

Indeed. The great Staley is speechless!

This is one for the record books.

I believe the mods should leave these posts up.

Harrington unraveled total misconception of actual facts within his possession that Mr. Staley does not. ( I base this on knowing that Harrington would have access to sensitive information that the public does not. )

Chris brilliantly used the same methods Mr. Staley uses to counter him.

My conclusion is that Mr. Staley has brought this on himself and the record should show that by maintaining the posts.

I agree that the posts should stand and be on the record for all to see...the good the bad and the ugly

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

Apparently Bazza, once again, you're just not "getting it."

I see I'll have to illustrate it for you:

Here's the bait that Chris is using, it's a partial phrase and of course, taken out of context:



Here's the full statement:



I've asked him if he reports the pirates he helps....he's never answered.

So, if you like; I'm still waiting on him.....

So there's no reason to wait.
(a) If he reports the pirates he helps, then he's not "helping them" is he?

But we already know that he has a ve$ted interest in helping them.

(b) If he doesn't report the pirates he helps they he will have to "freely admit that he doesn't report pirates"

Either you do, or you don't. There's no room for a gray-area here.

You're free to make your own conclusions as he has made his.

The point is: Chip Staley doesn't help pirates -- can you say the same for Chris?

In the meantime, I'm not about to be baited further.

Funny how Mr. Staley takes Chris as baiting when Chris has now started using the same posting methods of Mr. Staley.

( Mr. Staley's long diatribe to follow. )

Ah, the old bait-and-switch...

It really is quite brilliant to see how you argue. It's all about taking snippets out of context and running with them.

You were arguing that we must be hiding something by putting "old licenses" behind a protective order. You contend that because SC is not presently producing *new* music, there is nothing to be gained by keeping those "old licenses" from being publicly disclosed.

Well, there is something to be gained. SC presently has about 7,500 tracks in active licensing. These are products that are being sold or sublicensed right now. Disclosing the contents of those licenses to competitors puts SC potentially at a competitive disadvantage. SC is presently competing with CB, PHM, etc., for sales. The fact that SC is not putting out a new product every month does not mean we have exited the marketplace, and only a fool would think so. SC has products that it is selling *today* that are the subject of those licenses. I don't know how I could make it any clearer to you.

[/quote]

1. Check the name.

2. If what you were saying were relevant to the discussion, you would have a point. The discussion was about the licenses. SC is currently producing karaoke music under the existing licenses. The term "producing" has two meanings, only one of which is relevant to the licensing discussion. Don't extrapolate my statement into something I didn't say, just because you are looking to apply it somewhere else.

As I read through this forum (not just this thread), it strikes me that the true baiters are those who cheer or boo either side of an argument with snotty remarks and add nothing else to the conversation. I'm all for giving a pat on the back when in agreement with someone, but I don't see the usefulness in needling someone from the peanut gallery during a serious discussion. It just breeds more of the same and spreads to those who are actually trying to make a relevant point.

My hope in coming here is to read and learn something I hadn't already mastered in third grade elementary school.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

1. Check the name.

2. If what you were saying were relevant to the discussion, you would have a point. The discussion was about the licenses. SC is currently producing karaoke music under the existing licenses. The term "producing" has two meanings, only one of which is relevant to the licensing discussion. Don't extrapolate my statement into something I didn't say, just because you are looking to apply it somewhere else.[/quote]

sorry on the name brain cells not connecting.

the question I believe was NEW music. NO one either here on this board or in the USA has seen any NEW karaoke music from SC in quite a while.


Damn Shakespeare was right.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

earthling...

You are correct and I am guilty.

I just get my buttons pushed sometimes when I see the blah, blah, blah...

I will try to just ask questions, as I do often, instead of making comments from the fringes.