Talk:Darrell Benvenuto

Shouldn't the word claimed be included in the controversy? 733 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I fixed the article accordingly.  --Douglas Muth 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "have claimed that they did not recieve payment" is unnecessarily hedging. -- Sine 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more like covering your ass. Unless you can verify the claim, that's all it is: a claim. Facts, opinions and claims on the internet are all seperate things. 733 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a claim, but it's not something which could be verified other than, as it is, by refering (and in this case linking to) where the statement is made. -- Sine 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. However, linking to a claim doesn't make it a fact, which is what you would be implying unless you add the caveat. You don't know for a fact that these people are telling the truth. That's not to say they're lying, but a fact is a provable statement. You could say, fairly, "there have been disputes over payments", or "people have called into question whether Darrell Benvenuto pays his bills" and both of these would be true. But if you make the statement "Darrell Benvenuto doesn't pay his bills", you are either claiming first-person knowledge of this or are citing some end authority, like a court. If you can't prove it, it's not a fact, just like the plural of ancedote isn't data. 733 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. So we can never say that they did or did not receive payment, only that they claimed not to. I don't see the problem with that. If we can't say something, then we shouldn't, whether or not we can ever have the ability to. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What about "have stated that they did not receive payment"? It's a more neutral wording (to my mind) and flows better with the reference to the statements. -- Sine 19:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "stated" would be fine with me. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is confusing. What is the relationship between WinterVision of the controversy and Benvenuto's company? (posted by) 12.108.7.35

12.108.7.35, the relationship is thus...

Med Systems Comany became (or was absorbed into) Vision.

Vision (if I recall) became WinterVision (???)

75.7.254.145 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Guest of Honor?
A google search for "darrell benvenuto" guest of honor only turns up 4 matches, none of which mention any actual GoH appearances.

Searching for "darrell benvenuto" keynote does not turn up anything of relavence to him giving keynote speeches.

Accordingly, I marked that section as not citing refernces. --Douglas Muth 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried a search for "darrel benvenuto" guest of honor (only 1 "L") and it looks like he was indeed a "special guest" of ConFurence 7, 9, and 10, but nothing about being a formal GoH. -- Frizzy 23:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tales from the Reservation/AJA
You guys might hate me for it, but I put him to the test regarding that story.

With how it went, the guy would never pass a polygraph test - in other words it's at least 80% probable he's lying about the reason.

(I don't know about the rest of you, but I HATE being lied to)

75.7.248.205 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)