Looks like The Band is on a full fledged tour next year! How do you feel about that?

[chaim]

For the record:

I am not against EIK or anyone else coming here* to offer insight and possible corrections. What I will not take without commenting is what was at the end of the post, which was this:

I know you're off in the merry world of non-facts and that I and the truth are not welcome here*, but there needs to be some oversight from time to time.

Totally pointless insults and it doesn't make the case any better. On the contrary, it makes one forget what was said about the actual issue and concentrate on the insult.

* EIK's post was originally in the "No Glenn, no legit Eagles" thread (whatever the full title is). That's what both of us are referring to when we say "here". I thought we're still there when I was writing this post.

[EagleInKansas]

I still have to wonder why the things I say are pointless insults, but, still, calling the band pathetic, or a fraud, or saying Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails, are legitimate points. My words are the rantings of a madman, but name-calling and actual insults are just opinions. I am good with calling the band a fraud being an opinion as long as my assessment that people are ignoring the truth be treated similarly. I've not called any names or suggested that anyone is insane or "frothing at the mouth" simply for saying something inflammatory.

For the record, I don't believe Don is above criticism. I happen to not criticize any of the Eagles, including Glenn, but there are some arguments that I can understand. Why did Don change his mind? That's legitimate. Was Bernie asked to remain with the band? No real way of knowing, but worth thinking about. Also, why does Don not introduce the backup band during shows? Glenn used to. It happens to be my opinion that Don respectfully and lovingly wanted that to be a "Glenn thing" so he is leaving it alone. But I would understand someone taking issue with that.

I don't understand having a problem with Timothy's stance or Don's supposed body language or Don mentioning the number of people on tour just to make a Glenn-like innocuous joke. That's why I'm so "aggressive" in challenging those claims. I'm hoping those who make them are equally aggressive in defending and supporting, but instead I get name-calling. The true sign of not having an argument.

I'm still willing to be educated on all of these topics. Calling me insane or saying that I am going ballistic is a waste of everyone's time. My words are chosen thoughtfully and carefully. If they're aggressive, they're in response to what I believe to be blatantly ignoring reality.

[chaim]

I still have to wonder why the things I say are pointless insults, but, still, calling the band pathetic, or a fraud, or saying Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails, are legitimate points. My words are the rantings of a madman, but name-calling and actual insults are just opinions. I am good with calling the band a fraud being an opinion as long as my assessment that people are ignoring the truth be treated similarly. I've not called any names or suggested that anyone is insane or "frothing at the mouth" simply for saying something inflammatory.

For the record, I don't believe Don is above criticism. I happen to not criticize any of the Eagles, including Glenn, but there are some arguments that I can understand. Why did Don change his mind? That's legitimate. Was Bernie asked to remain with the band? No real way of knowing, but worth thinking about. Also, why does Don not introduce the backup band during shows? Glenn used to. It happens to be my opinion that Don respectfully and lovingly wantd that to be a "Glenn thing" so he is leaving it alone. But I would understand someone taking issue with that.

I don't understand having a problem with Timothy's stance or Don's supposed body language or Don mentioning the number of people on tour just to make a Glenn-like innocuous joke. That's why I'm so "aggressive" in challenging those claims. I'm hoping those who make them are equally aggressive in defending and supporting, but instead I get name-calling. The true sign of not having an argument.

I'm still willing to be educated on all of these topics. Calling me insane or saying that I am going ballistic is a waste of everyone's time. My words are chosen thoughtfully and carefully. If they're aggressive, they're in response to what I believe to be blatantly ignoring reality.

Insulting other forum members is what I'm talking about obviously.

[EagleInKansas]

When? I believe that facts are irrelevant to many people posting about the band. It's purely emotion. How is that an insult? And why is calling me insane not an insult?

[chaim]

When? I believe that facts are irrelevant to many people posting about the band. It's purely emotion. How is that an insult? And why is calling me insane not an insult?

Read what I actually said. Maybe then I'll continue this discussion. Otherwise I'm done.

EDIT:

I was being kind of rude there, wasn't I. Was probably having a bad moment. Anyway, I wish people would get along. I'm interested in what both "sides" have to say about stuff, although I may essentially belong in the "no Glenn, no Eagles" sandbox. Even though I don't consider the band 'Eagles' anymore I don't share every single view with just one "side". I'm sure a lot of people are the same.

AND I think you had a valid point in what you said about Don talking about the crew. But what came after - aimed at Freypower as well as everyone else in that thread - ruined it for me.

[EagleInKansas]

Fair enough. I did feel as though the argument was intentionally dishonest, though I can acknowledge the plausible deniability over whether it was truly "lying." I treated it as somewhat of a final straw because of the other points, which I've outlined, that seem to have no regard for the truth. I apologize for how that was expressed.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Dreamer and I were just discussing this exact situation two days ago starting at post #436 in this thread - ascribing intentions and emotions to the guys and stating it as fact. In this most recent instance, it is actually ascribing actions of one guy (incorrectly? incompletely? without full knowledge?) in order to contrast with the actions of a second guy, for the sole purpose of criticizing the second guy.

Yes we did, MC. But, I also said this in Post 431 …
“One thing we all have to remember is that it takes two sides to keep this debate going. Neither side is all right or all wrong. If you are here, you are contributing. If you want no part of this, then opt out. If you want to participate, then stop complaining, do not troll, be respectful, and as UTW said recognize your fellow members “as individuals with opinions that fall somewhere on the scale between strongly for and strongly against but with whom we share a love of the music”’.

And this in Post 437 …
“Thanks, MC - Point taken. I would just add, however, that, as we have said before, this is an emotional issue. Of course, when we comment on something, we don't know what the guys are thinking, but we do know how it makes us feel, which is fair game. I agree that the lesson here is that we try to describe our perceptions in those terms rather than what the band members are intending or thinking. But, on the other side of the coin, if someone expresses how they interpret or perceive something, it can be respectfully challenged without jumping down their throat or totally dismissing their feelings”.

You claimed to agree with both of these statements. I know I’m old, but since when did EIK’s behavior become appropriate? It’s certainly not according to our Terms of Service. I’m sorry, but even if you believe every word that EIK wrote, it doesn’t excuse the malicious manner in which it was delivered. As a matter of fact, his posts were so offensive that, like chaim, I totally lost sight of any meaningful points he was trying to make.

Less than two weeks ago, EIK wrote a very moving and conciliatory post in this same thread that I thought was very heartfelt and then there’s this. Here’s one statement from EIK in an attempt to justify his recent actions:

“Untruth, lie...it's all the same. Your intentions were to paint Don Henley into an unfavorable light compared to Glenn Frey, and you did so with what you now admit is misinformation. It's OK for me to answer your aggressive incorrectness with equally aggressive facts. I said nothing about you as a person, but your reporting of facts was based in sheer negativity and bitterness and they were wrong, to boot. My word choice is not the issue”.

So, yes, EIK did, in fact say several things about this member as a person, and, yes, EIK’s word choice(s) are very much the issue. In the rules of adult behavior, anyone is entitled to express their opinion and/or version of the facts, but they are not entitled to express it in the contemptible demeanor that EIK used.

So, you can’t have it both ways - you reprimand someone for saying ‘frothing at the mouth’, and then excuse it when someone else accuses someone of ‘malicious untruths’ and ‘endless amounts of hate’; or criticize one member for speculating about what someone is thinking, but totally overlook when someone ascribes motivations and intentions to another.

I’ll end this by repeating that I have absolutely no problem with someone respectfully expressing their opinion or even correcting someone about facts; however, the tone of EIK’s recent posts crossed the line of common decency and are totally indefensible and unacceptable. In fairness to those who follow the rules here, we should never condone this kind of intolerable behavior. If so, then I will probably need to take leave myself for a while. Irregardless, I have no intention of trying to engage in any meaningful debate with someone who is so emotional. And sometimes you can’t take everything back with a simple apology – there are consequences.

[EagleInKansas]

I have separated the person from the argument in each of my posts. The arguments were malicious, grounded in bitterness and hate. The argument, I felt, was dishonest. That's what debate is -- attacking an argument. Expressing anger doesn't make one an angry person. An argument and an opinion is not a definition. I don't know any of you and I would not characterize. But I will characterize arguments, and that's what I have done.

For the record, I am a he. Probably a rarity here, so no offense taken to the opposite pronoun.

I am not taking back what I said, per se, but I am apologizing for the way I expressed frustration over what I feel are off-base assessments. I was never "worked up" or "frothing at the mouth" or "ballistic" or "insane" or on the verge of a stroke or elevated blood pressure. I was lying in bed watching my wife read a book. But it does become aggravating to see arguments out of nowhere like Tim's stance or Don's joke, all designed to discredit the people involved in the band.

My post was heartfelt. I have loved the band for my entire life. I became disappointed when my attempt to find common ground was eventually forgotten in favor of "Why is Timothy standing like that?" I honestly don't mean to harp on that point, but it is an illustration of how anything can be turned into a way to express displeasure with the band. That's when we're no longer arguing on merit, but purely on emotion. I am not attempting to excuse my emotional comments, I am simply hopeful that they can be viewed in and placed into the proper context.

[TimBFan]

Were all the band members introduced including Will Henley on guitar as well as the string and horn sections and who did the intros?

I only remember Vince and Deacon being introduced and their names on the stage screens, and to my knowledge they didn’t mention Will. He seemed very young, very shy and was only out of the deep shadows a couple of times.

[Freypower]

I have separated the person from the argument in each of my posts. The arguments were malicious, grounded in bitterness and hate. The argument, I felt, was dishonest. That's what debate is -- attacking an argument. Expressing anger doesn't make one an angry person. An argument and an opinion is not a definition. I don't know any of you and I would not characterize. But I will characterize arguments, and that's what I have done.

For the record, I am a he. Probably a rarity here, so no offense taken to the opposite pronoun.

I am not taking back what I said, per se, but I am apologizing for the way I expressed frustration over what I feel are off-base assessments. I was never "worked up" or "frothing at the mouth" or "ballistic" or "insane" or on the verge of a stroke or elevated blood pressure. I was lying in bed watching my wife read a book. But it does become aggravating to see arguments out of nowhere like Tim's stance or Don's joke, all designed to discredit the people involved in the band.

My post was heartfelt. I have loved the band for my entire life. I became disappointed when my attempt to find common ground was eventually forgotten in favor of "Why is Timothy standing like that?" I honestly don't mean to harp on that point, but it is an illustration of how anything can be turned into a way to express displeasure with the band. That's when we're no longer arguing on merit, but purely on emotion. I am not attempting to excuse my emotional comments, I am simply hopeful that they can be viewed in and placed into the proper context.

Whether you like it or not, you continue to attack ME, the individual, not just my arguments. Every time you say my arguments are grounded in bitterness or malice, every time you call me a liar, you attack me as a person.

You ARE harping on what I said about Tim's stance. I said he never used to stand in what I considered a (MY WORDS) truculent, defiant, way. I realise how that upset people. However, I repeat that it was my opinion and a very emotional one. I never claimed it as FACT. I called it as I saw it. I realise that of course I should have said nothing. The 'discredit' thing is more problematic. I am not really sure why I should continue to bathe in admiration for these men after the actions which they have taken to which I am completely opposed.

The stuff about what I claimed Glenn said in concert was wrong. I apologise for having said it. I did attempt to say that I thought he was more proactive with the audience, but I guess that's making another unfavourable comparison to 'discredit' Don Henley, isn't it, so there is no point in elaborating on it any more. I repeat, I was wrong in making that claim.

While you have called me the epithets I have repeated above, not to mention 'aggressive' I have not called you any names at all. You say you wish people to defend themselves. Every time I have tried to do so, you have become more & more strident in your attack on me. I have stated twice now that you attacked me indirectly, but not addressing yourself to me personally (you haven't even done me the courtesy of addressing me by my board initials). Instead of attempting to clear the air you have just continued with it even after Dreamer's post above.

So I hope in vain that I have made myself clearer, but as with Dreamer, I guess there is no point in continuing in this atmosphere.