You think "Just in time" could possibly fit better on TC than say, Closer would?

Putting aside the obvious fact that if either of those songs turned up in the middle of TC it wouldn't really work, but you get the point.

His argument was merely that you can't have pride while playing music that other people write. My response covered him completely. I agree with you that CCP's pride may very well have been hurt when they had less creative input.



Well, I have quite a few times. If I don't respond to a post, it's often because I agree with it. I prefer not being duplicative. In fact, I first came on the scene just to tell a certain person to shut up with the annoying echo.



lol god no. I'll argue cause there's a point I'd like to make or explore about Live.



First, I didn't mention anything about hurtful. It seemed hurtful.

Disrespect implies that Ed was morally wrong for his decision. However, the opposing rights of Ed and CCP do not lead me to conclude that Ed was disrespectful. CCP deserved to have artistic input in Live. Ed deserved to pursue his art or business. Despite my sympathy for CCP, and the seemingly coercive nature of Ed's ultimatum, I don't have enough information to make an informed decision about the morality of the ultimatum, and therefore not enough to accurate gauge the level of respect. At the very least there was notice and consent. Still, I really need more information. Same goes for all moments that Ed acquired more creative input away from CCP.



Empathy is key. Stay sensitive but keep objectivity. That's just me talking.



Whoomp there it is

Being hurt doesn't equal being disrespected.

But to argue disrespect – you probably need the full picture. You don't know about Ed. You only know about CCP's blog/facebook. He did the right thing IMO and kept the band/family problems private. There's no way for us to impartially keep score between the four of them.



Yup, no one's opposing that argument



Actually the OP started by saying that the legacy is shat on now, so saying that Ed shat on it is actually what you would consider the redundant point (though they're actually two different topics).

On a side note, I wish you stop telling people to quit talking about whether Live should keep their name. I think it's a really interesting point as to whether a new lead singer for Live should warrant a name change.




Wrong. Disappointment is still a vested interest, FansOL is where it is meant to be heard.



Wrong! lol

because that's what "as far as I can tell" means! Means I can't draw the conclusion that he was disrespectful cause I'm not privy to the info. Jesus Christ Pokey!

Neither of them sound like Live very much to me. Its hard to tell.

Well I'm glad you took the time to respond to all my points, I disagree with almost all of them, you certainly like twisting and turning your way through an argument, but I'll pull out at this stage, its not worth the time or effort to respond to it all again. You just strike me as someone who looks at everything like you're in a court room. Your whole point of Ed not being disrespectful is completely nullified by your point that we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. If people can't say Ed was disrespectful, then by the same token you can't say he was respectful because as you say we don't know.
We should all just sit here in total silence and post nothing except for what goes on behind our own closed doors.

Personally, I just made a stir fry.

Your whole point about separating the difference between being hurt and being disrespected is really really nitpicking. Hell there is no right answer, if Chad found Ed's actions disrespectful does that make them so if Ed never intended them to be that way? The result is still the same, someone feels disrespected by his actions. Is ignorance to your own actions a solid excuse to protect you from being labeled disrespectful?
Seriously, this is one of the stupidest arguments the board has thrown up recently.

I stand by my opinion, get on board and look forward to the new music, be open and give it a chance. Or get off the ride.
Ah hell what do I care, let them bitch and moan and not get their own way, I'm getting my way and that's all I care about now. I put up with shitty album after shitty album from Live for years so now I get to listen to hopefully what will be a massive return to form. True not in the ideal situation of Ed being back and being at his best and the band writing with him as a group again, but I'd rather this than Ed coming back and doing things the way they were done for SFBM.
So I guess people should just bitch and moan all they want, it aint gonna change anything.

Actually, we agree. I was saying that the arguments other people were making does not show for sure that Ed was being disrespectful....as you and I both explain, we don't know. I'm not saying that he definitely wasn't disrespectful. I told you several times, we need more info. But even with the limited knowledge, I'm open to the idea that Ed was not disrespectful, because the separation happened over a long time, and there were tons of other forces at play. I'd say the biggest argument for potential of a sign of disrespect would have been the secret contract. But we know even less about that whole ordeal.





Happens all the time. Respectful and hurtful at the same time. Truth hurts sometimes. Ed had the right to take control of his art, and it would hurt no matter what when he told CCP.



thats the spirit

Wow, this diatribe by the lawman is enough to make anyone's head spin. I goes the length of the spectrum of confusion. If this your way of practicing your craft.....good luck.....you'll not find much success trying to win over juries......you're all over the place circling yourself into oblivion. It's true, you just want to argue....no bones about it. As Rick James used to say.......bitch....enjoy yourself.

So you say Ed wasn't being disrespectful, he wasn't being respectful either ... what you're saying is you have absolutely no idea what happened and refuse to weigh in on the matter? It didn't sound like that. Or by offering up the polar opposite view were you trying to make that exact point? That we know nothing? If not, why not just say that instead of coming across like your point is that Ed was being completely respectful and nothing but the perfect gentleman through all this.

Of course Ed CAN do whatever he wants (Dad can we get ice cream?? "Of course we CAN") but should he have done it? I'm sure he could have done it in a lot less hurtful way judging by CT's reaction. We all know CT is volatile with his emotions and wears his heart on his sleeve. But you have to believe there could have been a better way all parties could have solved this that would have avoided or at least lessened the blow of the outcome. Ed's hands are not clean in this. Neither are CCP's, but I still say their biggest crime was putting up with it way too long and letting things fester.
I'm sure there were dozens of back stage fights, they told us about fights happening as far back as the TC days. It's not as if Ed could have been completely oblivious to the fact they were unhappy. Their mistake in my eyes was not pulling the pin sooner.

The thing is you say Ed had to right to take control of "his" art, Live was not his. Live was "theirs". If he so desperately wanted to write on his own and to as he says, grow as an artist, like so many other lead singers have done, he could have had the conversation about going solo earlier. Hell maybe he did, maybe he wanted to go solo and they didn't want him to. It's possible.
But CT never mentioned any of that, and I just can't see CT writing out right lies like that.
If Ed came out and said "yeah in 2005 I approached them about wanting to go on as a solo artist for awhile and they said no", then we would have a story on our hands and I would not out right call Ed a liar much like I wouldn't with CT.
But he's said dick all about it. He doesn't have to say anything about it, but it's not helping his case in my eyes (not that I'm sure he believes he has any case to answer for). But I don't see how staying silent about it is absolving him on any wrong doings or means people can't point the finger at him for certain things. You really lean heavily on your innocence until proven guilty thing it seems. The thing is with that is that once someone is proven guilty, that meant they were guilty all along, even when they were lawfully "innocent". So yeah we may not have concrete proof of Ed's wrong doings and lack of care and love for his brothers, but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

Again, doesn't matter. It's done, the band split. All of this friction and complete differences just highlights the fact that they're 2 completely opposite functioning parties now and its best they are apart it seems. Bring on new Live, bring on new TGF - that's the music I want. If people want Ed's music they aren't getting it with Live, they can follow his solo career if thats what they want to listen to. But it appears people can't grasp that concept.

head spinning? confused? sounds like you alright. don't worry about me i'll be just fine

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jan 19 2012, 7:28 am

We'll agree to disagree Bremang, I gotta say dude, you must be absolutely exhausting to know in person, do you go all lawman on everyone about everything all the time?

not enough to say for sure - only refuting those who were making claims as if they knew for sure, because its a big allegation on their part.



in part, yup.



because I don't try to make a point or a claim without some explanation.




that's Ed's choice really. I'd say if he knew he had to move on, he should have.




If its a hurtful subject and chad is super emotional anyway, how are you "sure" that Ed could have easily put it in a much less hurtful way?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jan 19 2012, 8:04 am

i know that. but I'm still saying that Ed has the right to take control of his own art, which meant separation from the band obviously.





whats wrong with his timing?






lawsuit, private matter, reasons to not talk. can't blame him for that .




cause the things are big allegations, unverified.



i lean on its all speculation till proven.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jan 19 2012, 8:07 am

ha...just school and FANS O motherfuckin L.

So why don't you go balistic when we have a moron running around here telling everyone that TGF is finished and that it meant next to nothing to KM. And god knows all sorts of other things that he passes off as absolute fact when its even a more clear cut case than this.




But you seemed to fail to see that you were arguing your explanation so hard that its pretty easy to come across that rather than A point of view, its YOUR point of view.
Are you saying that if the bulk of the people here were ripping CCP apart for destroying Live that you would be defending them as valiantly as you are with Ed, pushing their point of view to make a point that maybe their side of the story is correct?



Because I am only going on the testimonies and evidence given. Surely you would do the same in your trials or whatever you do. CCP offer up their side of the story, just because the other party doesn't offer up anything in return doesn't mean you ignore everything that you've been given thus far.

How would a murder trial go if all these people directly involved with the situation gave testimonies and accounts of why the accused is guilty, the guilty then offers nothing but "well, I didn't do it" as an argument. Or in this case "it was a mischaracterisation LOL". Do you think the whole thing would just get thrown out of court? People are going to work with what they are given.

It's an extreme example, I know, but the same principles apply. No I can't be so sure that Ed couldn't have done it any other way and that he treated the situation with maximum care and respect. But based on everything offered up, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards being sure he was a royal dick that was the "driving force" in destroying the band.

Edit:

I still think if Ed offered up his side of things, why he did what he did, how he feels, what his thought process was. Or even showed the slightest bit of remorse or sorrow over the whole thing, he refuses to talk about it ... if he opened up I think he could gain a lot more empathy and understanding. People still may not agree with him, but he'd at least be offering something. He just brick walls it and plasters a massive smile on his face, says he wants to move on, and then plays Lightning Crashes ... he does nothing at all to show me that anything other than a slight variation of CT's side of the story is the truth.

No he doesn't have to do any of that, its his right to keep things to himself, but personally I don't see how that helps his image in all of this. But the key is that he doesn't appear to care.
I'm giving you reasons as to why I think CT's side of things is along the lines of accurate, your argument against that is "well maybe thats not the case?" "But we don't know that" "thats not been proven". They're all "what ifs" type arguments. You wanted my reasoning, this is part of it.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Jan 19 2012, 8:13 am