SoulMonster

I agree with all of this

What it would take to untangle a case of "he said, they said"? Whatever it is we will likely never get it. The silver lining is that this means we can discuss this forever

So much to unpack here, so little time. Of course you are excused for thinking I am a fan of Duff, no worries. On that note, I don't consider myself a fan of any band member of GN'R. Granted, I appreciate their musicianship but that's as far as it goes. I am a diehard fan of the music I like though, and incredibly fascinated by the history of the band. You seem to have missed my point. I also trust the Simpsons guys, but not to the extent that I doesn't allow for the possibility that they are wrong. It doesn't matter whether they are Harvard educated. That does not immunize you against being wrong. And the fact that they are the creators of the cartoon doesn't mean they can't possible have forgotten that someone reached out to Duff early in the days. As we discussed above, it's not like all of them needed to have been involved in reaching out to Duff (if that even happened) necesitating mass amnesia. Nor does the fact that they wrote the cartoon rip the carpet under the argument that they might have motivation to lie about it (to avoid any lawsuit, how silly that might be). And it is not like this would require all of them being in on the lie, either, some of them could simply not know what happened and speak out in good faith. Again, my point isn't that Duff is likely correct, I don't think he is, but that we can't rule it out entirely. Because we are looking at only two possibilities: Duff is wrong in his weirdly specific memory about having talked to someone representing some cartoon writers, or the Simpsons guys are wrong about someone associated with them not having run this by Duff. In either case, we are looking at two possibilities that are both quitey unlikely (and generally speaking, conjuring up new vivid memories are more unlikely than simply forgetting something). So it is a matter of picking the possibility that sounds the least weird. I happen to agree with you that it is most likely Duff that is wrong, except that you won't even be open for the possibility that he could be correct. I find that somewhat odd, but who cares.

I am definitely leaning towards the Simpsons guys side, yes. And the fact that I am not entirely ruling out the possibility that Duff could be right is exactly this, scenarios that aren't entirely impossible. Like what I described above, and one guy lying about this to avoid litigation and the rest of the cartoon guys trusting him. Let's flip things around here. You played around with the idea that I was inclined to trust Duff because I am a fan of his (haha), could it be possible that you fail to accept it is a possible, albeit unlikely, scenario where Duff is right but you refuse to accept this because of your devotion to the cartoon? Because I would argue I am the one here open to consider both possibilities and not flat out dismiss something that is not inconceivable, while you are the one who seems to both take a somewhat fanatical stand and also be weirdly emotionally invested in what the rest of us, I assume, considers pure trivia.

Yes, but again considering that this happened before or while they wrote the first season, when they were likely brainstorming ideas and testing out concepts, it becomes less unlikely that they considered making a character based on Duff, resulting in someone in the team reaching out to him, before eventually going in a different direction and just keeping the name.

They can't both be right. One of them is either mistaken or lying. Again, I trust the Simpsons guys, too. But it would be wrong of me to entirely dismiss the possibility that they are either lying or not remembering it clearly. I have heard it happen before, people lying, I mean, or not remembering things properly. But again, I find it more likely Duff's the wrong one. Not sure what conspiracy that would be, though.

Yes, and that's what I tried to say. English is not my first language No, it is not as close to prove as it can be. Far from it. And I don't agree with your 99.9% assessment.

The OJ Simpson case is one of the most clear cases of a failed judicial system in the US. It would be really off topic to go into its details but suffice to say that I find it much more likely that Simpson was guilty than Duff being incorrect. But again, and I hate having to do this, I still believe Duff is incorrect. But to bring things back on topic again after this little foray into murder cases gone wrong, the fact that US law and justice is so fucked up interestingly is related to why the Simpsons guys could be flat out lying about things. Again, not believing they are, but also not something that can be entirely dismissed as impossible. The fear of any litigation in the US, with a flawed justice system, means that a small lie is a small price to pay to avoid any litigation which could end up in wrong sentences. And even a frivolous lawsuit that comes to a dead end quickly, is a big nuisance form a corporate perspective and can be a huge toil on a personal level. Again, not believing they are lying to position themselves in case of a lawsuit, but just mentioning this when we stumbled upon the many peculiarities and flaws of US justice. And did I mention that I believe Duff is wrong but that I can't rule out entirely that he isn't?

I disagree.

You know I love you but you truly have a problem reading right. I have emphasized and stressed and pointed out numerous times throughout these last posts that I DO NOT believe the Simpsons guys are lying. I believe they are saying the truth. How have you not been able to get that?

You don't have to be "absolutely flying high on crack" to not dismiss something that hasn't been proven to be incorrect, and the fact that the writer states it is not true, doesn't constitute a proof since there is a possibility - although remote, sure - that he is lying or the one not remembering things. Again, not arguing that Duff is most likely correct, but arguing against the notion that something has been proven here, either way.

I didn't say anything about reporting you. I have no intention of reporting you for your silly ad hominems, nor have I ever done that. Never thrown a tantrum, Mr. "admins back me up here or I will leave the forum!"? Right. And yes, I don't want you to leave - as I have stated numerous times, I think you are a great guy. A bit prone to having breakdowns, but still great.

Yes, it is a bit like saying that. A lot like saying that. OJ Simpson most likely was guilty. I would say almost certainly. Much more certain than Duff being wrong. And I don't mind at all any ridicule that may come my way simply because I don't dismiss something that has <20% likelihood. I think that's pretty obvious by now I would mind, though, dismissing anything with only a 20% likelihood of being correct (as an example) and thus being wrong in every fifth case. That I would mind.

And probably is the key word here. The cartoon guys are probably correct. Which is exactly what I am saying.

I don't necessarily believe the moderators would agree with that . But considering how many times you have thrown a tantrum and cried about leaving the forum I suppose it doesn't matter to you much anymore if you get thrown out of here.

And back to the ad hominems

You would be a poor scientist if you flat out denied anything with a >20% likelihood And that's what this is about. We all agree that Duff most likely is wrong. No wait, I insist on the qualifier "most likely" whereas others here believe it has somehow been proven.

Whether it is "good" or not can be discussed, but the fact that Duff adamantly states he was contacted at the very least is a reason to not flat out buy a contracting statement.

I definitely think fandom can make people less objective on topics like this, but I will vehemently object to being a fan of Duff. Not that I have anything against him, I don't know the guy, just that I am not a fan of him. I am a fan of the music of GN'R (or most of it) and that's how far it goes. As I see it, this is a case of he said, they said, and nothing is conclusively proven. Anyone who argues that this is solved and that they know Duff is right, or know he is wrong, will likely find me objecting. What I am though, is interested in epistemology and I will fiercely argue that again and again

I actually didn't accuse you of throwing a tantrum right now. If you ready my post properly you would have seen that that sentence started with "How is this going to end". Anyway, on topic: Is there really more to say about this? No one here actually knows what happened. We believe. I happen to believe that most likely Duff is wrong, others happen to believe he most certainly is wrong, other happen to believe he is right. It doesn't really matter, does it?

Of course we assume they should know what happened, to a larger extent than we would except Duff to know what happened. But again, the argument is that they could be lying about what happened, or at least one of them, and that is actually more likely than Duff lying, in my opinion. So my conclusion is that Duff is most likely not remembering the story as it was, and that the Simpsons guys didn't actually ask for his approval. And again you argue as if I believe Duff over the Simpson guys To answer your question: I will always believe what I consider to be more probable. In the Duff vs the Simpsons case, I believe Simpsons to most likely be correct. In your hypothetical scenario GN'R vs the Fizzy Drinks, Inc, I would believe GN'R to most likely be correct. Not so much because they wrote the song (or Simpsons created Duff beer, as you seem to think is a good argument), but more based on considerations of who are more likely to remember, who are more likely to lie, etc. But we have gone through this many times now. Hey, did you catch that I actually trust the Simpsons guys over Duff?

And here you go again with the ad hominems I actually think you only started to post in this thread because you wanted to have a go at me. How is this going to end, with you throwing a tantrum and vowing to not post on this forum again, again? Anyway, kind or ironic that you would accuse me of not changing positions in a very thread where I went from believing Duff to believing the Simpson guys (thanks to the good work of @Billy Cundy) But I won't apologize for changing my mind on something

I think it is written in such a way that many interpretations are valid. As such, any detailed interpretation where one tries to make it fit into a particular narrative, is likely a waste of time.

Maybe I simply am a little bit more careful about claiming to "know" things than you? What I know is that Duff says one thing and the cartoon guys says something else. That's fact, that's knowledge. What I believe is that Duff is wrong and the cartoon guys are right. And then you can believe things with various degree of confidence. But knowing is for when things are actually proven and there is no way you are wrong.

My mind hasn't calculated any percentages. But if I was to try to conjure a number out of my thoughts on the matter, I would probably say less than 20%. No, there is nothing surprising that Duff fans are more likely to trust him But if you read my latest post you would see I had no comments to your little "survey", but to the fact that you argued as if I trusted Duff over the cartoon guys.