Can you Help Reunite Live?, FB campaign Options

[Existentialist]

I actually admire that he's silent. I never thought his silence implied guilt. I thought that his 3 lifelong friends who all had corroborating stories about Ed's stealing and had sufficient evidence to pursue a lawsuit over it implied guilt.

[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.

[Bremang]

Ed and CCP are doing fine on their own.

This comment of Chad's is probably just for publicity.

Live's next move should be fine with or without Ed because it will likely involve past works.

Ed should be silent because of the lawsuit.

Now somebody please go to the NY Supreme Court Records building and print out everything that shows up on the minutes aside from what is viewable on SCROLL. Thanks.

[Pokey]

it will likely involve past works.

Now THIS is what I'm looking forward to!

[OutToDry]

In a nutshell, it's probably the past works.

[Pokey]

In a nutshell, it's probably the past works.

I'm psyched about the past works. I was listening to Mall Rat today and it was just giving me chills. The outro to that song is amoung Live's best. The way the song kicks back into gear after the tempo slows down and Ed whistles, coupled with Ed's voice in the "we got a mall rat hey now now now" part is pure magic. Need more of this.

[Existentialist]

I agree that this "LIVE reunion" has to do with the ability to release old works.

[briburge]

Sometimes people need to hear how fucked up they are and how much of a douchebag tool they look like before embarrassing themselves further. I know several nice older women who have had the misfortune of meeting him and they have all expressed to me that they can't stand the guy and feel very sorry for his wife. I also know that if LIVE reunites, he won't be permitted at their shows. That's how LIVE feels about him. As for my being the poor soul? If you only knew. My life couldn't be any richer, son!

based on your post i need to tell you how fucked up you are and how much of a douchebag tool you look like and to shut up before your embarrass yourself further.

This post has been edited by briburge: Apr 3 2011, 1:29 pm

[Existentialist]

Success!!!! You walked right into the trap, moron!

[zmanpga]

I'm not embarrassed at all. I'm a shoot from the hip, tell it like it is type of person. A few people have met me at TGF shows, so they can tell you if I'm an asshole or a good guy.

Aitkens..your an asshole IM KIDDING!! I met you and I think your a good dude who enjoys good music and cold beer

[Gruno]

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.

Step forward for whom? For you (the fans) or for He and Chad etc.? Again, why is there such strong thought put forward by some here that he should comment on the lawsuit -- even to say, "I can't respond for legal reasons"?

Ed (along with the rest of LIVE) owes none of us an explanation for anything. It is THEIR business. If either side wants to mend things, they can do so on their time & wherever they wish to do so; via lawyers -- in person -- phone call --etc. It is not our place to judge them on how they go about things since we know little to nothing about what is really going on. We don't have to be privy to any of what is said or what they agree to. We, as fans, don't need to know about any of that stuff. How did this change into picking sides and such?

[Pokey]

Step forward for whom? For you (the fans) or for He and Chad etc.? Again, why is there such strong thought put forward by some here that he should comment on the lawsuit -- even to say, "I can't respond for legal reasons"?

Ed (along with the rest of LIVE) owes none of us an explanation for anything. It is THEIR business. If either side wants to mend things, they can do so on their time & wherever they wish to do so; via lawyers -- in person -- phone call --etc. It is not our place to judge them on how they go about things since we know little to nothing about what is really going on. We don't have to be privy to any of what is said or what they agree to. We, as fans, don't need to know about any of that stuff. How did this change into picking sides and such?

Of course he doesn't owe us anything. But therefor no complaints should then be made about people piecing together what we do know and drawing our own conclusions. I believe personally putting out his side would have looked better for him. He doesn't have to, it's my opinion. Thought people would be able to work that out.

Its not about picking sides, it is how it is. If the circumstances were different then I might think more positively of Ed, but just personally not enjoy his music. Nick is the only one going on about how he thinks CCP are trying to turn everyone against Ed. He neglected the fact that there were questions over Ed's character long before this happened. Hell even before Live split. Hell Nick was someone who awhile ago himself was questioning Ed's character.

I just want the music (again something Nick seems hardly interested in, see again rubbing people the wrong way). And while we wait for more music this sort of stuff will inevitably be discussed. If you don't want to judge or get involved then awesome, go for you life. No one is stopping you from holding back your judgement.

[briburge]

Success!!!! You walked right into the trap, moron!

remarkable comeback.

[Existentialist]

Uh oh..we have an MD psychiatrist and a PHD psychologist trying to fight a battle of the minds!

[Bremang]

The interviewer wasn't being a prick or attacking him...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.

He doesn't NEED to respond publicly, sure. But Other than legal reasons I see no reason not to.

Hell if it were legal reasons that he was advised not to speak about it then simply saying so would be a step forward.

Ed did in fact say he can't talk about it because of the pending lawsuit.

Legal reasons could bar Ed from speaking about the breakup, don't need other reasons. This may be the case pursuant to their stipulation listed in the docket. CCP haven't given details of the breach either ever since the lawsuit commenced, probably because they're barred.

The interviewer definitely seemed like he was attacking Ed. He remarked saying that it has taken Ed much longer to write a good album. He was forcing the issue about the breakup after Ed said he didn't want to talk about it. Ed using the term mischaracterization the way he did is in no way a sign of guilt.

But therefor no complaints should then be made about people piecing together what we do know and drawing our own conclusions.

Piecing together what we do know so far is not sufficient to conclude anything about the breakup. Just look at the bs on Facebook right now.


Amazingly lightning crashes is playing in the distance as I type.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Apr 3 2011, 4:20 pm