It's not a matter of scientific word-for-word prove anything. It's more a matter of does it mean anything like how it is being paraphrased and discussed. If you say they exist, then can you please give at least a bit of information so that they can be tracked down?
I refer to the discussion before about whether or not someone claims that it was Glenn's 'dying wish' that Eagles continue without him. When I did track down the sources of these comments, they meant nothing like how they were being portrayed. Similar for some of the mis-characterisations (not saying they were deliberate) that Delilah has pointed out.
Hence, I think if people are going to talk about comments, then it's quite reasonable for others to ask if the original comments (and commentator) can be identified so that they can be read and compared to the current conversation. I don't think this counts as a 'prove everything you comment on' challenge, and would say that that itself is a mischaracterisation of what I am asking for.
I honestly don't have the time right now to start looking through old comments for obvious reasons. And I won't mention (screen)names, because I don't want to start personal fights with anyone over old comments. Most likely the comment/comments was/were in this thread.
Just to be clear (I intend to re-read this entire thread), are you saying that:
A: someone has said that you(we fans including you) have no right to question the decisions that the band has made?
And:
B: that people have said that as this is an Eagles forum you(we fans including you) shouldn't ever post anything negative?
It is going to be some effort to read through who said what, so I just want to check I have this right.
EDIT: If anyone else wishes to point out anything to look for, please do. To save repeated work.
WW & Dawn - Amen.
FP - Welcome Back ! I am looking forward to your always thoughtful posts.
As for Queen, no. AL does not pretend to be Freddie. Go and enjoy yourself.
AT - Chaim is right. Those statements were made and are in this thread.
This thread is way too big for me to go back through it, but there was a fairly recent post in a shorter thread I can easily recall. I've just quoted the part about the Eagles, since the rest of it was about Deacon.
So, I daresay chaim did not twist that poster's meaning. Posts implying that we should be supportive of the band's new lineup on an Eagles board are a reality.
Perhaps you should give people a little more credit, AT.
I noticed that, too. Funny how that is.Originally Posted by chaim