In a recent article Life after Live in a Dutch magazine, Ed responds to the allegations brought forward by Chad Taylor (secret contract, leadsinger bonus). Sort of.

Without specifically denying anything, Ed says he does not recognize himself in the stories. "Lots of misunderstandings and an incorrect picture of my character", he says. "Live split indefinitely. Will we ever reconcile? Hard to tell, but I don't see it happening anytime soon."

Should it not hurt after twenty years of Live? Ed seems liberated other than left alone. "I had an enormous need for change. If you play in the same band for twenty years, you reach a point of saturation. I wanted something new, I wanted to keep developing. That's why I took this road. When all those disturbing stories started circulating, end of last year, I could let it slip easily. I was so focussed on my new album, my new songs, that I barely gave it attention."

http://www.livexs.nl/Joomla/201005036350/E...en-na-Live?ed=3

Sociopaths usually speak their intentions w/o calling too much attention to themselves. I think Ed's desire/prophecy to be the end all & be all with Live is on videotape for all to see. It's in a thread called: 'Root of Live Hiatus'
http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2824 (by the way, the posters on the otherside of this argument haven't been seen here in months). There may have been a master plan scheme to be in a band then eventually control the helm. (take this with a grain of salt too )

Only he (Ed)was slow to disentegrate what was to me a soundtrack to my 20's & 30's. The progression to commerical garbage has taken most of us into this debate. He's a cold calculating a-hole. His response does all Live fans a disservice and basically tells us he doesn't care that you care and want a sensible answer. Socio's will spin and deflect and lie only until they are Unsheathed to the core when they are made to bare their souls either in jail or in front of their god......sometimes they never turn the corner of sensibility.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: May 4 2010, 10:45 pm

Damn, you're getting a little out there even for me dude.

Like I said, grain of salt but it's something that could be considered a psychological slant on things. (Or an interesting hypothetical)

This post has been edited by OutToDry: May 4 2010, 11:13 pm

Is this becoming a drunk posting thread?

Yeah that one was a little too rich for me.


lol I like how Nick said that Ed would be in jail if he did something illegal. Like all illegal crimes are worth jail time. In Nick-World the prison system would be packed with jay walkers and such.
Not to say what Ed did is as trivial as that, but there are other punishments. You'd think being ordered to pay back x-amount to the others or something.

Or hell maybe what Ed did was technically legal? Who knows, he may even win the court case if there is one, that's not to say it was imorale and still not disgusting. But seriously Nick, your argument is now "Well Ed's not behind bars, so CT HAS to be in the wrong?" ... god. (sorry gotigrz)

Well, fucking speaking your language and fucking based on your fucking posts, all I can say is FUCKING READ THE BOARD, or at least my messages before directing your "fury" at me because I am a very wrong person to do that. So you call it double0standarts without having an insight? Good luck.


Give me a quote.

This post has been edited by +Ed+: May 5 2010, 2:39 am

Yeah, it's a whole lotta to do...

this sounds juicy. A few of your posts suggest you are in posession of more facts than most of us and im sensing some personal dealings with ed...perhaps relations of some kind? spill the beans sally! you couldnt possibly make this thread more interesting!!! Omg did you guys, like, do it?

Isn't that what people are doing for both sides?



Fair enough.


Well all I can say to you and Deku


is
What about the Gallagher brothers?

Tell this kind of thing to someone who hasn't had to listen to the stories of families figuratively knifing each other over wills, real estate, pets and even children.



This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: May 5 2010, 6:58 am

Ok in a lot of cases it is, not every case obviously.

Sorry. I modified my answer slightly. I remembered the Gallagher brothers.

We could spend all day pointing out sets of brothers who have either split or stayed together over things, that's got nothing to do with the situation though.

Adam being a stand up guy, (which all my experiences with him have been really positive) sticking with Ed isn't proof of anything. My dealings with Pat, Chad and Chad have been that they're all really great guys too ... Ed's the only one I've met (twice) who came off as a bit of a dick both times.

First of all, maybe you should read my posts before you go off on me and start carpet-bombing f-bombs all over the place. I swore ONCE - and if you check my posts you'll see I'm pretty restrained. Also, I have never dissed or bashed any member of the band.

Secondly, my fury was directly generally, and was prompted (like fan frustration with various band members) by a bunch of examples.

You wanted a quote:

That's from http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...opic=3034&st=45


This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: May 5 2010, 7:23 am

But the fact that family members - especially brothers - can hate each other like no one else does point to the fact that being family doesn't guarantee anything. (Hey, shouldn't gotirz show up to point out the story of Cain & Abel right about now? )


It's all good man.


You guys have me at a bit of a disadvantage since I haven't met Live that often, although I used to hang out with people who had met or dealt with them for business. (I haven't seen them for a while since they were an ex-gf's friends and when she left, they left). So the only people I know who have met Live more than once met them a long time ago, and weren't part of fan interactions.
First time was back in the early 90s, when they thought the guys were the epitome of nice and humble - all of them.
Then around 97, when I met them too, they were a bit more rock star. I remember one of my friends telling me that the word was that Ed had always been prone to being moody - and that's why he was so into Eastern religion. I kind of let this pass because it was just gossip. Around 99 I met them again as a fan, during the hanging-out-with-D-Rod phase. Everyone was kind of rockstar-y and I thought Ed was being a bit of a twat because he seemed like he was really into the role. On the other hand, that's people seemed to expect of them, so I thought maybe it was a persona. The last time was in the early 2000s when I unexpectedly saw Ed in a pub. He was mega pissed-off about some other group in the bar being too noisy, but it wasn't in a rock star way and he didn't do or say anything to them.
So you know, I don't have really firm opinions about what kind of people they are now based on my interactions or those of my former friends.

But then I'm a really cynical person and have found that brief personal interactions aren't always a good guide to what someone's really like.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: May 5 2010, 7:43 am