Can you Help Reunite Live?, FB campaign Options

[OutToDry]

LIVECan you help to reunite LIVE? If FB can start a revolution and over throw governments then why can’t it bring LIVE back together? Your turn.



http://www.facebook.com/thegraciousfew#...150151071378909



There ya, go. It's all in the hands of one person now.

[Pokey]

As for Ed's silence: Don't read anything further into it. Why does Ed need to say anything publicly? Why does he have to address this at all publicly? Why should he be chastised for handling things the way he sees fit? When did this ALL become public record? Yes, the lawsuit filing is public and those records are understandable, but just because someone is silent does not mean those allegations are true (or false) --- it just means that person chooses to not air things publicly, for good or bad.

Some here have applauded Chad Taylor for "wearing his heart on his sleeve" and being very "passionate" with his public messages. Ed's silence isn't looked at as "he is showing great restraint by not responding" or "He must also be hurting through this all". No. What we get with the majority here is just how "silence must mean guilt" and "of course he can't respond because he is a d*ck".

A lot stems from an interview of Ed by some Dutch guy where he tried to bring up the subject of the law suit and the surrounding issues. The interviewer wasn't being a prick or attacking him. Simpley trying to get some information as a good interviewer should. Ed's reaction to this was just awkward, uncomfortable and reeked of guilt to me. He was getting defensive and a little aggressive. His body language was telling. His answers were even more incriminating. The whole overuse of the word "mischaracterisation" was telling. I know you can't tell a whole story from that. But it's a part of it.
But the Ed bashing has come from all forms even down to people's personal experiences with him. A public profile has been compiled over the last few years and it just doesn't paint a pretty picture.

He doesn't NEED to respond publicly, sure. But Other than legal reasons I see no reason not to. Responding publicly doesn't mean getting into a shit slinging match. Hell if it were legal reasons that he was advised not to speak about it then simply saying so would be a step forward.
So no, the alone silence is not an admission of guilt. But it's one of a whole array of things that just fits the puzzle.

Like I said before, I'm willing to look at the whole picture, it's just that nothing to me seems to really point in Ed's favour. If silence was the only thing making me doubt his innocence then I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Hell I idolised the dude for years. It's not easy to not give him the benefit of the doubt. But its the fact that there are so many other factors at play that can't be ignored as to why I see the silence as nothing more than him not wanting to deal with a mess he made.

Nick on the other hand is just seeing the want of CCP to reform Live as an admission of them being wrong. Ignoring all other reasons as to why they could possibly want this reunion. As I said, I personally think it's a strange move as well. But I very highly doubt it is purely economically driven which is the point he loves to make. That CCP are nothing without Ed. As a fan of the band from 1991, to me that is offensive. Nick shows absolutely no love for Live's music at all.
I've said it before, it's like someone claiming they're a football fan. He's picked a team, he'll read the game stats, buy and promote the merchendice, read the results ... but he won't watch the games. As I said, he rubs people the wrong way. He's not a victim.