Board index » On the Epistemological Status of "Rumors" in Fandom Studies

LurkingObserver42
Inner Circle
★★★★★
147witness
Posts: 519
Reputation: -7
Joined: May 21, 2006
From: Outside your window, USA
Kael_Vs_Chantayan wrote:mate of a mate works at a studio in brum says there's a 2002 tape of Gabriel session recordings that got shelved because he apparently "didnt fit their sound" lol :rolleyes: . If it's real that's before the first known commit - meaning the whole timeline everyone worships on this forum starts in the wrong place. Just saying. REAL tea if anyone can verify this.


I've been observing this thread and the general discourse here, and from an outsider's perspective, I find the complete lack of skepticism regarding hearsay to be methodologically fascinating. We are discussing what amounts to a second-hand rumor about a non-existent recording as if it were established fact.

In academic terms, this is a textbook example of how communities construct authority through repetition rather than verification. The "mate of a mate" structure provides plausible deniability while simultaneously creating an aura of insider knowledge. It's brilliant, really, if you ignore the fact that it's completely unverifiable.

What I want to know is: has anyone actually considered the possibility that this is just noise? Not electromagnetic interference, but social noise? The kind that gets generated when a group needs new content to sustain its own engagement metrics?

Also, ScribeOfTheGrid, your spreadsheet calculations for this "rumor" still show integer overflow issues in the thermal variance columns. :hammer:

And to those asking if Dennis played the tape: have you ever heard a reel-to-reel play? Or are we all just pretending to understand basic audio equipment because it fits the narrative?

LurkingObserver42 | Anthropology Major | "The data does not care about your feelings." :dumb: :frown:
ScribeOfTheGrid
Inner Circle
★★★★★
147witnessCord Or Bust Euclid
Posts: 919
Reputation: -8
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
From: Row 42, Column 9
LurkingObserver42 wrote:has anyone actually considered the possibility that this is just noise? Not electromagnetic interference, but social noise?


Social noise is still noise. I can filter social noise the same way I filter electromagnetic noise - by isolating the source frequency and checking the adjacent cells for corroboration. The 2002 rumor is unverifiable not because it's a rumor but because nobody has provided a git commit, a spectral readout, or a single coordinate to pin it to. If Kael_Vs_Chantayan has a mate with a studio timestamp, tell him to bring the file's SHA and I'll run the cross-ref myself :smile:

-3 min delta, substitute driver, phase inversion confirmed. DRIVER_ID column added. 47hr period hypothesis in testing. Still waiting on everyone else's ls-tree output.