Looks like The Band is on a full fledged tour next year! How do you feel about that?

[Dawn]

I have read two reviews - each written by persons who seem to be on the same page in terms of how they view Henley's words and the context in which they were made.

[sodascouts]

Well, I'll just let everyone judge for themselves, EIK, if you are worked up or not.

[EagleInKansas]

Snarky regarding the accountant, yes. Don Henley can be snarky. Stop the presses.

[EagleInKansas]

Well, I'll just let everyone judge for themselves, EIK, if you are worked up or not.

Ok, we're done with that now. Asked and answered. Let's have the discussion. Please tell me why the Eagles would regret touring with Deacon.

[sodascouts]

There's nothing to "discuss" there... only an opportunity for you to go ballistic. No thanks!

[WalshFan88]

Any chance of bringing us the truth with slightly less venom?

No doubt.

[WalshFan88]

Calm down EIK, I wouldn't want you to have a stroke over something like this.

And as chaim said, try to deliver what you consider the "truth" without going on attack or doing so with a venomous attitude. I'm with Soda, there's nothing to discuss with you if you are going to fly off the handle about it. Not worth it.

[MaryCalifornia]

Dreamer and I were just discussing this exact situation two days ago starting at post #436 in this thread - ascribing intentions and emotions to the guys and stating it as fact. In this most recent instance, it is actually ascribing actions of one guy (incorrectly? incompletely? without full knowledge?) in order to contrast with the actions of a second guy, for the sole purpose of criticizing the second guy.

I think that, to a person, everyone on here over the years, has stated incorrect facts at one time or another or made mistakes - it is a result of being so invested and interested in the details of the band and every guy in it. BUT, if you are trying to say what one guy would or wouldn't do in order to shame one of the other guys, you'd better be REALLY careful that you are 100% accurate with your words on the board, OR, be clear that it is your opinion and not stated as fact.

[EagleInKansas]

I'm beyond willing to talk. I'd like arguments presented on why Glenn would never allow Timothy to stand with his arms crossed, even though a quick Google search would tell me Don and Joe have stood with their arms crossed on separate Rolling Stone covers.

I'd like arguments presented on why Don's "accountant" line is out of bounds even though Glenn said "Lord knows I've tried" after singing "you can spend all time making money" and has consistently stated money as one motivation for continuing to tour.

I'd like arguments presented on why the Eagles regret bringing Deacon aboard even though it has been stated multiple times on the record that he would be and was the sole catalyst for their resumption.

I'd like arguments on why it's ok to say Deacon is riding his dad's coattails when he more than has the chops and when his vocal performances are the highlight of the show.

My position is that those are all baseless, ridiculous comments and that, when challenged, people claim the challenger is just some ranting madman. No one has yet even attempted to sufficiently support those claims, instead turning to name calling.

But I'm going to bed. I may return tomorrow to check on the status of these arguments, but I'm pretty sure I know where they're headed. Absolutely nowhere.

Sincerely,
Mr. Ballistic

[MaryCalifornia]

Also, can I just say that I don't think seizure (frothing at the mouth) and stroke "put-downs" are funny or cute. At all. Can we find another way to communicate?