You're smoking something, What is it? Options

[Arizona_Skies]

Everclear without Art Alexakis
Pumpkins without Billy Corgan
Bush without Gavin Rossdale
3EB without Stephan Jenkins
Nirvana without Kurt

But, don't worry... LIVE has a new singer.

This is a joke right? Complete with a Karaoke singer, how about that?

Peace

[Bremang]

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.

With Nick, most people post what I think before I do. I can always count on people jumping on it. I still question the guy at times. I see a lot of responses to Nick that are absurd too. Sometimes hes got an interesting point mixed in with the trolling, but its a point that people don't want to hear, and his reputation here shuts people off to it right away.

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.

I'll have to be more careful next time to make myself clear, or maybe just be careful to not read into whats not there.

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?

Yeah I've said that before. If everyone here was crazy Ed fans, and hating on CCP without knowledge, I'd be telling people to get real.

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.

Thats fair, thats the way to go about these talks. Keep it in speculation but take into account all the other possibilities. Don't say Ed's got an ego for buying a house when you don't know anything about it.

As for trials, thats why we all take an oath at the stand, making sure we agree to disclose everything truthfully. if you don't speak up, thats on you. so the analogy is not a match. There are plenty of reasons for him to not speak up about it in public.