3rd Headliner?

[mrtourette]

Given the difficulty that some people have anyway separating your personal opinions/suggestions and hard fact the introduction of the possibility that anything less than a definite statement (which seems to be hard for some to identify) may be deliberately untrue is likely to cause a few heads to explode. Regardless of what you say now the revelation that you've deliberately posting things that you knew weren't true is likely to tarnish your reputation amongst those who struggle to understand the difference between you saying someone is definitely playing and other prediction/suggestion that you make. In the throng and desperation for any kind of clue or hint details get forgotten, and all you'll get next year is "you're probably just bullshitting again to wind us up" no matter what guarantees you lay down that certain things will never be lied about.

[eFestivals]

Oh well, how sad never mind.

If people aren't able to recognise what is *CLEARLY* a definitive statemnent and what isn't then they're going to have massive problems understanding anything about their life and the world anyway.

I've misled no one into thinking a band is playing when it's not.

[mrtourette]

Well yeah, its not be your fault that people are stupid but if their stupidity means your credibility is affected because they can't understand what they're being told then it should be of some concern.

Edited May 14, 2012 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

Well yeah, its not be your fault that people are stupid but if their stupidity means your credibility is affected because they can't understand what they're being told then it should be of some concern.

I'm not going to worry about people who cannot understand plain English. What i write is written for those of average intelligence and upwards, so it'll only morons will get confused or think there's been any dip in credibility.

[gazza_20]

If that's how you've chosen to view what I've said I doubt there's anything I can say to change your mind.

But just consider this: I've never once previously said anything like this* in 13 years of running efests, and it undermines the credibility of what I might post in the future. Why would I chose to say something like that, bearing those facts in mind?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

At some point in the run up to the line up being announced, perhaps even only for a day or so Blur where down as a strong rumour & Neil said he had some info to suggest it may well be them... In my honest opinion you didn't seem to think it would be the Cure, you said several times in debates with myself & others you felt they may not be suited/big enough/doing Latitude/etc... if you honestly did know it was them well in advance & you where throwing out 'curve balls' or what ever, then congratulations you did a brilliant job. But I thought this forum provided credible rumours and information, I see no reason why you would want or need to 'fool'/trick people, leave that to Strictly & Virtual festivals aye?

Oh & I sincerely hope that 'morons' comment wasn't aimed my way.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Frankly Mr Shankly

[mrtourette]

That's my point - as stupid as stupid people may be, having a lot of people here ensures the longevity of the site so why risk damaging the reputation or USP of efestivals amongst the idiots.

[eFestivals]

At some point in the run up to the line up being announced, perhaps even only for a day or so Blur where down as a strong rumour & Neil said he had some info to suggest it may well be them... In my honest opinion you didn't seem to think it would be the Cure, you said several times in debates with myself & others you felt they may not be suited/big enough/doing Latitude/etc... if you honestly did know it was them well in advance & you where throwing out 'curve balls' or what ever, then congratulations you did a brilliant job. But I thought this forum provided credible rumours and information, I see no reason why you would want or need to 'fool'/trick people, leave that to Strictly & Virtual festivals aye?

Oh & I sincerely hope that 'morons' comment wasn't aimed my way.

the vast majority of what I posted was straight up. There was a short-ish period when I knew stuff but wasn't saying, instead continuing along the lines of stuff I'd said before I knew anything.

There was no 'tricking' going on. There was not-saying-stuff-I-knew going on.

[eFestivals]

That's my point - as stupid as stupid people may be, having a lot of people here ensures the longevity of the site so why risk damaging the reputation or USP of efestivals amongst the idiots.

because there's not only me and the users here in the loop of these things.

[mrtourette]

Yeah sure, I just found it odd that you'd admit to deceiving people for fun (even if it's for a good reason ie protecting sources) rather than just saying "at that point I didn't know, later on I did and it was still before the initial announcement so go swivel". It may not be true but at least it wouldn't introduce the risk of idiots not understanding, affecting the credibility of the site amongst aforementioned idiots (who unfortunately are needed to keep the site popular and viable) and contributing to this situation being brought up every single time you post something about future headliners for the next several years

[AcademicPistol]

rather than just saying "at that point I didn't know, later on I did and it was still before the initial announcement so go swivel".

[eFestivals]

Yeah sure, I just found it odd that you'd admit to deceiving people for fun (even if it's for a good reason ie protecting sources) rather than just saying "at that point I didn't know, later on I did and it was still before the initial announcement so go swivel". It may not be true but at least it wouldn't introduce the risk of idiots not understanding, affecting the credibility of the site amongst aforementioned idiots (who unfortunately are needed to keep the site popular and viable) and contributing to this situation being brought up every single time you post something about future headliners for the next several years

the only person who seems to have a huge issue with not understanding it is you.

Oh well, never mind. I can't say I write what I do for people like you.

[RichieParf]

the only person who seems to have a huge issue with not understanding it is you.

Oh well, never mind. I can't say I write what I do for people like you.

[eFestivals]

You seem to have taken on the role of the shopkeeper who tells a customer that the item they're looking for is somewhere that it actually isn't, and then calls them a prick for complaining. It's rude and unnecessary at best. Either by your own admission or in an attempt to cover yourself, you've bullshitted at some point, and you deserve the moaning.

Nope. I've told people who is playing. I never once said that someone was playing that (as far as I know) wasn't, or that someone wasn't playing that was.

I did, however, keep going with some speculative angles after I knew they weren't as I was presenting them as being, for very good reasons. And all I've done is fessed up to do that.

Everything else being said here are the inventions of others, not related to anything I've done.

No one was being misled, because nothing I said that was against what I knew was said with any certainty.

[mrtourette]

the only person who seems to have a huge issue with not understanding it is you.

Oh well, never mind. I can't say I write what I do for people like you.

[Justiceforcedave]

I'm sure if the site was in it's infancy you'd probably be more willing to be polite to the nitwitts, morons and nickompoops.

[eFestivals]

As usual you miss the point in your rush to get an insult in.

I actually like this site and am trying to defend it against unnecessary accusations and it's credibility being questioned, something that you don't seem to be interested in given your "if you don't understand it you can fuck off, I don't pander to idiots attitude". You made reference to the number of people using this site and others and the struggles in maintaining such a site earlier in the year but you recently seem to have adopted such a bullish (bullying?) attitude towards making the site a pleasant place and easy-to-understand atmosphere that it seems you'd rather have a handful of intellectual posters than hundreds with a majority being muppets, or that you're happy people thinking you're bullshitting just so you can say "told you so" when you're proved right rather than having a credible site. Which is your perogative, I'm just saying that I'd rather you did pander to people if it means the longevity of the site is guaranteed.

My credibility is being questioned, yup. But not with anything sensible, and not referencing what I've said and done.

If you care to notice, my credibility was being questioned when I threw that very first comment in - someone had dragged out a post of mine where I'd said "the Cure - 94% not playing".

I merely said that I might - just might (I've not bothered to check back on dates, and I honestly can't remember) - have posted that after I knew that The Cure were playing.

I said that on the basis that I'd known for a while they were headlining when I finally said that I knew they were headlining - because that's the truth of things.

You say my credibility has been damaged. How? I've only ever been able to say when I'm able to say - and in the meantime it can be necessary to cover my tracks.

I believe that's easy enough to understand - but of course you can't please all of the people all of the time, and I've always realised that and as a result incorporated that into how I choose to do things. It's not about trying to only have "intellectual posters" (after all, it doesn't take high intellect to separate speculation and opinion from definitive statements), but the day I start pandering to muppets is the day that I'll shut efestivals down.

I'm not a whore who will abandon principles - or even common sense - for money.

[eFestivals]

I'm sure if the site was in it's infancy you'd probably be more willing to be polite to the nitwitts, morons and nickompoops.

those who have been around since 1998 can tell you differently.

[mrtourette]

If you care to notice, my credibility was being questioned when I threw that very first comment in - someone had dragged out a post of mine where I'd said "the Cure - 94% not playing".

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

The only thing I don't understand and you keep failing to address it when I ask, is that if as you say you where aware that the Cure where going to headline for some time before, why did you a couple of days before the announcement put Blur up as a 'strong rumour' & say you had sources suggesting it maybe them? Was that deliberately done to throw people off of the scent too?

[Vieuphoria]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmasQ3lO8M&feature=player_detailpage#t=6s

[eFestivals]

The only thing I don't understand and you keep failing to address it when I ask, is that if as you say you where aware that the Cure where going to headline for some time before, why did you a couple of days before the announcement put Blur up as a 'strong rumour' & say you had sources suggesting it maybe them? Was that deliberately done to throw people off of the scent too?

I'm not going to get too specific, but if I posted something saying I had sources telling me something then I did.

It might have been the case that I knew those sources were wrong. I wouldn't have said that I believed those sources were right, so no one would have been misled.

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

Blur where put down as a 'SR' on the R&L rumours bit, only for a bit, possibly less than a full day even, but I specifically remember that they where & if that isn't 'misleading' then I don't know what is. But fair enough, this 'argument' is getting boring.

[eFestivals]

Blur where put down as a 'SR' on the R&L rumours bit, only for a bit, possibly less than a full day even, but I specifically remember that they where & if that isn't 'misleading' then I don't know what is. But fair enough, this 'argument' is getting boring.

If that was the case then the Blur rumour I had would have been as credible as other things which were listed as SR.

Rumours are just rumours. The blow in and can disappear just as quickly. Anyone who takes anything more from them is where any error lies.

I'm pretty sure that Green Day became a SR at some point too, even tho I was saying that I had what I believed to be solid info that they weren't playing from a source who had proved himself accurate with GD info previously - and that was because I had other info which should have been (tho I always did have doubts, off the back of that first info) as credible as it gets.

So ... if that Blur thing was after I knew about The Cure, it was being treated on an equal basis with everything else that I was doing that was public facing.

Until I was ready to say what's what, I was working things in no different a way to how I had been.

[gazza_20]

If that was the case then the Blur rumour I had would have been as credible as other things which were listed as SR.

Rumours are just rumours. The blow in and can disappear just as quickly. Anyone who takes anything more from them is where any error lies.

I'm pretty sure that Green Day became a SR at some point too, even tho I was saying that I had what I believed to be solid info that they weren't playing from a source who had proved himself accurate with GD info previously - and that was because I had other info which should have been (tho I always did have doubts, off the back of that first info) as credible as it gets.

So ... if that Blur thing was after I knew about The Cure, it was being treated on an equal basis with everything else that I was doing that was public facing.

Until I was ready to say what's what, I was working things in no different a way to how I had been.