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

[MaryCalifornia]

*As I've said before, I realize it matters emotionally and the "pro" camp recognize it is different... but does it matter enough to bring the Eagles to a halt?

And this is the crux of all of the disagreement on this board the past year, right Soda? That Glenn's death was not enough to bring the Eagles to a halt. Glenn's hardcore fans view this with surprise, extreme disappointment and a firmly held belief that he is not getting the respect he is due.

Would Mick Jagger's death halt the Stones? Probably. Jon Bon Jovi? Bono? Probably. What is the difference? Obviously, that the Eagles have never had a lead singer and that there are still plenty of songs to be sung by their original singers. (Queen defies this theory:roll:.) But even regardless of who sings lead on what songs and who is brought in to perform with them, my point is, if you have 1) the remaining members want to tour; 2) HUGE money 3) a majority of the set list still sung by the original singers - whose legacy WOULD be enough to halt this?

And I say this in an attempt to comfort the Glenn fans. I know I won't change your minds, but with all of the elements in play here that we now know are in play, there was never a chance that his death would halt the band - not a chance. I say that NOBODY's death could have halted anything similar to the machine that is the Eagles. There is too much at stake personally, professionally, financially for those remaining behind.

[WalshFan88]

This is especially true when the living are making money by cheapening the past. They cheapened the Eagles sound when they replaced Glenn.

While the ethical aspect may be subjective, there is no denying that the music they are making now does not sound the same as it did with Glenn. I guess the question is: does it matter?*

I fear to some, that question was entirely dependent on another question: "Are the 'Eagles' marketable without Glenn?" As soon as they found out the answer was "yes", then the question "Does it matter" was answered with a "No."

*As I've said before, I realize it matters emotionally and the "pro" camp recognize it is different... but does it matter enough to bring the Eagles to a halt?

Well said, especially with the cheapening comment. I agree with FP, inferior product at the same old prices. Not too many businesses can get away with it.

[WalshFan88]

Soda – I believe you are dead on with your remark that the band's sound was cheapened when Glenn was replaced. As maryc2130 said, ‘the band evolved with Don and Glenn standing shoulder-to-shoulder', and, to me, that's the way it should have ended. And I can say with 100% certainty that if we were talking about Don here, God forbid, I would be saying exactly the same thing.

And to further address the arguments that the band should be enjoying life – I couldn't agree more; but, I believe they should seek options other than capitalizing on the ‘Eagles’ name. Because the ‘Eagles’ that Glenn was such an integral part of crafting and nurturing for over 45 years deserves better. His incomparable vision and contributions to the band should have been immortalized with unconditional dignity, and not compromised for the enjoyment, benefit, or catharsis of the remaining members. The best way to honor and preserve a legacy is to LEAVE IT ALONE!

Exactly.

They may have been standing shoulder to shoulder, but one could also make the argument that it was Glenn that asked Don, not the other way around. He was the most powerful person in the Eagles by a long shot IMO. "The" guy. They often made decisions together but even Don would say it was Glenn's band. While I agree Don was also key to the band's success, I feel that Glenn was the guy. I just feel that he always knew what was best for his band. Including choosing to step back and let Don sing more, which I never agreed with but I respected it.

[WalshFan88]

And this is the crux of all of the disagreement on this board the past year, right Soda? That Glenn's death was not enough to bring the Eagles to a halt. Glenn's hardcore fans view this with surprise, extreme disappointment and a firmly held belief that he is not getting the respect he is due.

Would Mick Jagger's death halt the Stones? Probably. Jon Bon Jovi? Bono? Probably. What is the difference? Obviously, that the Eagles have never had a lead singer and that there are still plenty of songs to be sung by their original singers. (Queen defies this theory:roll:.) But even regardless of who sings lead on what songs and who is brought in to perform with them, my point is, if you have 1) the remaining members want to tour; 2) HUGE money 3) a majority of the set list still sung by the original singers - whose legacy WOULD be enough to halt this?

And I say this in an attempt to comfort the Glenn fans. I know I won't change your minds, but with all of the elements in play here that we now know are in play, there was never a chance that his death would halt the band - not a chance. I say that NOBODY's death could have halted anything similar to the machine that is the Eagles. There is too much at stake personally, professionally, financially for those remaining behind.

I think Glenn was getting tired. I think if he hadn't passed, he would have probably stopped the band at some point. He didn't have the drive anymore, as Don apparently does. If Don died, that retirement and halting the Eagles would have happened simply because I don't think he felt like touring much anymore and I think it would have ended anyway, and certainly because losing Don. I think if Glenn was alive, the Eagles would have stopped touring in a couple years.

[EagleInKansas]

How can the past be cheapened? It's the past. It has already happened. Everything that happened within the band "in the past" is already secure. No No. 1 hits or Grammys are being taken away, they're not downgrading albums from platinum to copper. They're not releasing Hotel California with a newly distorted Don Felder guitar solo. We haven't found out that the Eagles were lip-synching throughout the 1970s.

So what is cheapened? Everything is the same. Now is different, but the past hasn't changed.

[MaryCalifornia]

There's nothing more sad than seeing a once-famous performer who no longer has a voice. We hope they are honest by showing us who is there to help, otherwise it's just a bunch of old guys pretending.

I don't know about Joe, but Don and Timothy are still touring solo and don't seem to have lost much of anything as far as their voices, according to the reviews of those who attended the shows. I listened to the Grand Ol' Opry show on Sirius (which was a high quality feed, I disregard anything from YouTube recorded on mobile phones) and they sounded fantastic, like they always have. I honestly don't think that Don, Tim and Joe require any more backup help now than they ever have, not yet anyway.

[MaryCalifornia]

I think Glenn was getting tired. I think if he hadn't passed, he would have probably stopped the band at some point. He didn't have the drive anymore, as Don apparently does. If Don died, that retirement and halting the Eagles would have happened simply because I don't think he felt like touring much anymore and I think it would have ended anyway, and certainly because losing Don. I think if Glenn was alive, the Eagles would have stopped touring in a couple years.

Exactly. In the case you give, #1 in my equation would be a "no" if Don died and Glenn wanted to be done. That would end it. But when the answers to #1, #2, and #3 are all "yes" - it's not a question of the deceased's level of respect or talent, nothing is going to stop it.

[Freypower]

How can the past be cheapened? It's the past. It has already happened. Everything that happened within the band "in the past" is already secure. No No. 1 hits or Grammys are being taken away, they're not downgrading albums from platinum to copper. They're not releasing Hotel California with a newly distorted Don Felder guitar solo. We haven't found out that the Eagles were lip-synching throughout the 1970s.

So what is cheapened? Everything is the same. Now is different, but the past hasn't changed.


You totally contradicted yourself there.

Of course the past hasn't changed. That is not the objection.

[EagleInKansas]

Everything from the past is the same is obviously what I meant. Context clues. And yes, it is being argued that the past has been cheapened. How?

[Freypower]

Everything from the past is the same is obviously what I meant. Context clues. And yes, it is being argued that the past has been cheapened. How?

Despite what some are attempting to argue, the longer the 'Eagles' continue to perform without Glenn Frey, with others singing his songs, his legacy will diminish & he will be forgotten. That is already happening with the enthusiasm some are showing for this lineup.

[Freypower]

And this is the crux of all of the disagreement on this board the past year, right Soda? That Glenn's death was not enough to bring the Eagles to a halt. Glenn's hardcore fans view this with surprise, extreme disappointment and a firmly held belief that he is not getting the respect he is due.

Would Mick Jagger's death halt the Stones? Probably. Jon Bon Jovi? Bono? Probably. What is the difference? Obviously, that the Eagles have never had a lead singer and that there are still plenty of songs to be sung by their original singers. (Queen defies this theory:roll:.) But even regardless of who sings lead on what songs and who is brought in to perform with them, my point is, if you have 1) the remaining members want to tour; 2) HUGE money 3) a majority of the set list still sung by the original singers - whose legacy WOULD be enough to halt this?

And I say this in an attempt to comfort the Glenn fans. I know I won't change your minds, but with all of the elements in play here that we now know are in play, there was never a chance that his death would halt the band - not a chance. I say that NOBODY's death could have halted anything similar to the machine that is the Eagles. There is too much at stake personally, professionally, financially for those remaining behind.

I don't understand this at all. What is at stake?

Personally - they have nothing to prove. So why do this?
Professionally - this exercise is not furthering their careers in any way. It is simply an exercise in making money.
Financially - I guess if their sole purpose in life now is to make even more money, I suppose that works.

So the Eagles 'machine' could have been brought to a halt because Glenn Frey died. Well, we can't have that, can we. We can't allow an 'inconvenient truth' such as a brutal reminder of mortality to stop the juggernaut, can we.

So please tell me how you think a Frey fan such as myself is supposed to be comforted by your assertion that they had all these other songs still sung by their original singers. Who cares about the Frey songs. They aren't important. HE wasn't important, is what you are saying. He didn't matter at all.

Well, I wish you joy of it.

[EagleInKansas]

Despite what some are attempting to argue, the longer the 'Eagles' continue to perform without Glenn Frey, with others singing his songs, his legacy will diminish & he will be forgotten. That is already happening with the enthusiasm some are showing for this lineup.

This is just wrong.

[EagleInKansas]

Especially because his literal legacy is the one singing some of the songs.

[YoungEaglesFan]

It's becoming abundantly clear the band needs to keep touring to feed the beast.

This isn't just sad- it is shameful.

I just don’t see that at all. If it that was true, it’s been true for a long time

[YoungEaglesFan]

I think Glenn was getting tired. I think if he hadn't passed, he would have probably stopped the band at some point. He didn't have the drive anymore, as Don apparently does. If Don died, that retirement and halting the Eagles would have happened simply because I don't think he felt like touring much anymore and I think it would have ended anyway, and certainly because losing Don. I think if Glenn was alive, the Eagles would have stopped touring in a couple years.

Glenn was doing stuff with hotel California, personal memoirs, he was always more public and open than don was. He was probably more in favor of the documentary than Don was. I don’t see that being true

[Freypower]

Especially because his literal legacy is the one singing some of the songs.

I fail to see how having his son sing his songs is preserving his legacy.His son is his offspring, who had nothing to do with his career. And of course, his son is only singing SOME of his songs. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make it any better that it is his son who is involved.

At some point both sides in this debate are going to have to agree to disagree. In my view none of this need have, or should have, happened.

[YoungEaglesFan]

How can the past be cheapened? It's the past. It has already happened. Everything that happened within the band "in the past" is already secure. No No. 1 hits or Grammys are being taken away, they're not downgrading albums from platinum to copper. They're not releasing Hotel California with a newly distorted Don Felder guitar solo. We haven't found out that the Eagles were lip-synching throughout the 1970s.

So what is cheapened? Everything is the same. Now is different, but the past hasn't changed.

I’ve been saying this for a long time. The only people who believe the legacy is being tainted are those who don’t like the 3.0 lineup which is the minority

[YoungEaglesFan]

I fail to see how having his son sing his songs is preserving his legacy.His son is his offspring, who had nothing to do with his career. And of course, his son is only singing SOME of his songs. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make it any better that it is his son who is involved.

At some point both sides in this debate are going to have to agree to disagree. In my view none of this need have, or should have, happened.

I don’t think this tour strengthens Glenn’s legacy but I cannot understand how it ruins or dimishes his legacy. Has Don Felder or Randy Meisner been dimished for not touring past HFO? Legacies aren’t built with tours based to make millions. They are built in their prime. The music they made and the story they told is the legacy. That was built in the 70’s and was only changed with the addition of LROOE. Which is still largely forgotten by most people for better or worse

[MaryCalifornia]

So please tell me how you think a Frey fan such as myself is supposed to be comforted by your assertion that they had all these other songs still sung by their original singers. Who cares about the Frey songs. They aren't important. HE wasn't important, is what you are saying. He didn't matter at all.

Well, I wish you joy of it.

C'mon FP - I didn't say any of these things, nobody has ever said these things on this board, I don't know how you extrapolate what you are saying here from my post. My point was that knowing what we know now (#1, #2 and #3 are all true - we didn't know these things when Glenn died or in the year after) I now can see in hindsight that with the dynamics of the Eagles band NOBODY's death could have stopped it, NOBODY would be "enough".

Also, please don't say that someone else has nothing to prove personally or professionally in their business activities. In this case it smacks of ageism. Are you criticizing them for continuing to tour solo and make solo records?

[WalshFan88]

Glenn was doing stuff with hotel California, personal memoirs, he was always more public and open than don was. He was probably more in favor of the documentary than Don was. I don’t see that being true

I meant touring. Not with side projects or documentaries or memoirs.

Before Glenn died, and the HOTE tour was going on, there was a lot of information about it being the last tour, and that Glenn was wanting to wrap the band up. If he had not died, I think the band would be done about now if not in a year or two. He wasn't against other projects, but he was tired of touring and his health wasn't the best. I think he would have stopped it not long after HOTE.

There was plenty to indicate that he was wrapping up the Eagles before he died.

[WalshFan88]

I’ve been saying this for a long time. The only people who believe the legacy is being tainted are those who don’t like the 3.0 lineup which is the minority

Oh, I don't think for a second we are *that* small of a population. Outside of this board, I think there are probably just as many or close to it of those who wouldn't go than there are that would go. We just don't see it because they don't post. We might be a lesser population, but it's probably more 60/40 than 80/20. JMO.

[YoungEaglesFan]

I meant touring. Not with side projects or documentaries or memoirs.

Before Glenn died, and the HOTE tour was going on, there was a lot of information about it being the last tour, and that Glenn was wanting to wrap the band up. If he had not died, I think the band would be done about now if not in a year or two. He wasn't against other projects, but he was tired of touring and his health wasn't the best. I think he would have stopped it not long after HOTE.

There was plenty to indicate that he was wrapping up the Eagles before he died.

But he also told Bernie at the last concert, that wasn’t their finally goodbye. The always hinted at things being the end. They operated it year to year

[YoungEaglesFan]

Oh, I don't think for a second we are *that* small of a population. Outside of this board, I think there are probably just as many or close to it of those who wouldn't go than there are that would go. We just don't see it because they don't post. We might be a lesser population, but it's probably more 60/40 than 80/20. JMO.

I don’t think the casual fan of any band thinks about that stuff. Look at how many bands tour with many key members missing. They don’t think about this stuff nearly enough to overcome their desire to hear music they love.

[WalshFan88]

But he also told Bernie at the last concert, that wasn’t their finally goodbye. The always hinted at things being the end. They operated it year to year

Agree to disagree YEF.

There was even a thread here talking about it but maybe that was before you joined and don't remember.

"Final goodbye" can be translated to a lot of things, YEF. It didn't indicate future shows. Final goodbye could mean just seeing each other again, simply put.

I think there is more evidence to support that he was getting rid to quit touring than there are against it.

[WalshFan88]

I don’t think the casual fan of any band thinks about that stuff. Look at how many bands tour with many key members missing. They don’t think about this stuff nearly enough to overcome their desire to hear music they love.

Maybe not casual fans, but I've commented about them in the 3.0 thread. They probably could not pick the guys out of a lineup and tell who's who. Just know the songs and the names. There are a lot of hardcore fans out there too.

[YoungEaglesFan]

I also want to say, that just because I believe the anti 3.0 group to be the minority, I don’t think their opinion is less valid or less important than the majority

[WalshFan88]

I also want to say, that just because I believe the anti 3.0 group to be the minority, I don’t think their opinion is less valid or less important than the majority

Thanks, YEF.

[WalshFan88]

Austin...Me and a lot of Kiss fans in the KISSFAQ forum don't believe that Gene and Paul really want Kiss to continue without them. We feel they're saying that to justify Tommy and Eric in Ace's and Peter's makeup.

That could be true... Because they've certainly taken a lot of heat for that. I'm ok with Tommy and Eric being in the band, but do your own makeup design. Eric Carr and Vinnie Vincent did it, why not Tommy and Eric! Because they aren't Ace/Peter. I'm not the worlds biggest Tommy fan. I probably have more respect for Singer at this point than I do Thayer. Thayer just rubs me the wrong way. From interviews I've seen, he's all rough and tough and trying to put on an act and that's what it is, an act. He tries to be a tough guy. :rofl: He'd do better if he was an actor or an athlete or something. But that fake machismo gets old fast.

[Freypower]

C'mon FP - I didn't say any of these things, nobody has ever said these things on this board, I don't know how you extrapolate what you are saying here from my post. My point was that knowing what we know now (#1, #2 and #3 are all true - we didn't know these things when Glenn died or in the year after) I now can see in hindsight that with the dynamics of the Eagles band NOBODY's death could have stopped it, NOBODY would be "enough".

Also, please don't say that someone else has nothing to prove personally or professionally in their business activities. In this case it smacks of ageism. Are you criticizing them for continuing to tour solo and make solo records?

You know very well I have absolutely no criticism of their solo careers. In my view this is what they ShOULD be doing.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Agree to disagree YEF.

There was even a thread here talking about it but maybe that was before you joined and don't remember.

"Final goodbye" can be translated to a lot of things, YEF. It didn't indicate future shows. Final goodbye could mean just seeing each other again, simply put.

I think there is more evidence to support that he was getting rid to quit touring than there are against it.

That is true. Agree to disagree is a good idea

[Dawn]

Oh, I don't think for a second we are *that* small of a population. Outside of this board, I think there are probably just as many or close to it of those who wouldn't go than there are that would go. We just don't see it because they don't post. We might be a lesser population, but it's probly more 60/40 than 80/20. JMO.

This is certainly my experience -- and frankly in this era of fake news and fake people trolling discussion boards, Instagram, facebook groups, Twitter, etc to manipulate public & political opinion and promote self serving agendas .... it's crazy. For sure, I don't think the music industry is immune. Insert Rolling Eyes.

Inside the Social Media Black Market

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html

[Dawn]

Agree to disagree YEF.

There was even a thread here talking about it but maybe that was before you joined and don't remember.

"Final goodbye" can be translated to a lot of things, YEF. It didn't indicate future shows. Final goodbye could mean just seeing each other again, simply put.

I think there is more evidence to support that he was getting rid to quit touring than there are against it.

I agree. Glenn was a warrior but the HOTE tour was over the top INTENSE. He had other interests he was actively pursuing. I believe 21 years was enough.

[Dawn]

That could be true... Because they've certainly taken a lot of heat for that. I'm ok with Tommy and Eric being in the band, but do your own makeup design. Eric Carr and Vinnie Vincent did it, why not Tommy and Eric! Because they aren't Ace/Peter. I'm not the worlds biggest Tommy fan. I probably have more respect for Singer at this point than I do Thayer. Thayer just rubs me the wrong way. From interviews I've seen, he's all rough and tough and trying to put on an act and that's what it is, an act. He tries to be a tough guy. :rofl: He'd do better if he was an actor or an athlete or something. But that fake machismo gets old fast.

My bold ... Amen to that!

[Annoying Twit]

In other bands that I know, when family members get involved both in onstage and offstage capabilities, people seem to like it. Many mailing list members for one band made sure that they visited the merchandise stall on one concert tour as it was manned by the son of the artist.

I personally cannot see anything wrong with that. I consider it something that I saw a famous musician's son (same musician, different son) go onstage to play guitar (and play one of his own songs) at 15, and in the decades since to see him develop into a very capable musician and songwriter in his own right.

If a band ended up in the extreme case of having no original members through slow attrition (rather than just giving the name to an unconnected band) then I would have no problem with that. However, I'd judge them on their own merits, and in some situations where things similar to this have happened, I've been uninterested as the magic has gone. But, I wouldn't say that the band shouldn't continue; just that I personally don't wish to buy live or recorded product any more. (As I have decided for some artists where the quality of their product has declined.)

If Eagles did decide to pass the band off to a second generation, then I wouldn't see anything morally or legally wrong with that. They built the band; they get to decide what to do with it. I'd definitely give any new product of theirs a good listen to. However, for me to decide to continue supporting the band, I'd have to like it.

[sodascouts]

This is especially true when the living are making money by cheapening the past. They cheapened the Eagles sound when they replaced Glenn.



I am quoting myself here because I want to clarify this statement which I believe has been misunderstood by some. I do not believe they can change what's past, so they can't cheapen the past in that sense. Let me put it in more commercial terms; they are "damaging the brand" by presenting themselves as the Eagles. They are making their living presenting themselves as the Eagles and playing "cheaper" versions of the songs. Thus, they "cheapen" the Eagles's sound in that sense.

Therefore, I have to disagree with Freypower and others who believe Glenn will be forgotten due to this egregious error in judgment. I do not hold that extreme opinion, because I remember to step outside the emotion of the moment and keep a "big picture" perspective regarding that matter.

I have said this elsewhere, but we must remember that as upsetting as all of this is, and as much as I loathe it, this too shall pass.

Whenever this ends, as mercifully it must, this relatively short and painful period is what will be forgotten. The albums will remain. That is the Eagles' legacy.

Let's think about this for a moment. Will a few years of touring done long after the Eagles' heydey, with ticket prices so expensive that most of the Eagles' fanbase can't even go, trump some of the greatest selling albums and most loved songs of the 20th century? Will people forget that it's Glenn Frey's voice they're hearing on those albums because some other guy (whose name they probably can't even recall) and Glenn's son (whom they only care about due to his connection to Glenn!) toured as the Eagles for a few years at the tail end of their existence?

Methinks not.

[longtimeeaglesfan]

When Glenn sang Take it to the Limit on their tour, do people also consider that cheapening of the Eagles' sound? Maybe only slightly because it was just one song as opposed to the six Frey lead vocal songs now being sung by Deacon or Vince?

My preference is always to hear the songs as sung by the original lead vocalists and whenever there is a substitution, I don't believe the audience gets the total experience as they would otherwise. I would rather see them expand their setlist to include other songs that had Don, Joe or Timothy as the original lead vocalist and maybe have TITTL and one other Glenn song performed as a tribute.

I am glad I had the chance to see them twice with Glenn, but I am still looking forward to seeing them again in their current lineup configuration.

[My My]

Soda--I have never posted in any of these contentious threads as I am not by nature an argumentative person. There have been many times I have thought about it, but then stopped and thought again. I think for the most part, a small number of people have posted and reposted their thoughts on the Eagles (or Eagles 3.0) continuing to tour in various threads. Some posts have been loud and aggressive, some snarky and hurtful (possibly unintentionally), and some thoughtful. These posts have come from both sides. Full disclosure, I am not against them touring now and went to see them last October in Louisville. I enjoyed seeing them again after 37 years. Were they the "real" Eagles, the Eagles of my youth? No, of course not. Most importantly, Glenn was gone, my favorite Eagle, my favorite songs. Also, "my" Eagles were not 70 year old men. But these were the Eagles that I had a chance to attend a concert with my son, who had become a become a big fan.

Although I guess this puts me on the "other side", I wanted to let you know that I agree with you about the Eagles legacy. Their legacy is that music from the seventies that still resonates today. Their legacy is why many on this board became fans and attended concerts in the guys' later years. I even think of the HFO years as later years, ones that were made possible by their legacy. To me, my "real" Eagles were those 20 something guys who sang those beautiful songs onstage, sounding just like their wonderful albums. For me, the Eagles were a moment in time, and that time was the seventies. I'm glad I was there for the ride...

[Dawn]

I am quoting myself here because I want to clarify this statement which I believe has been misunderstood by some. I do not believe they can change what's past, so they can't cheapen the past in that sense. Let me put it in more commercial terms; they are "damaging the brand" by presenting themselves as the Eagles. They are making their living presenting themselves as the Eagles and playing "cheaper" versions of the songs. Thus, they "cheapen" the Eagles's sound in that sense.

Therefore, I have to disagree with Freypower and others who believe Glenn will be forgotten due to this egregious error in judgment. I do not hold that extreme opinion, because I remember to step outside the emotion of the moment and keep a "big picture" perspective regarding that matter.

I have said this elsewhere, but we must remember that as upsetting as all of this is, and as much as I loathe it, this too shall pass.

Whenever this ends, as mercifully it must, this relatively short and painful period is what will be forgotten. The albums will remain. That is the Eagles' legacy.

Let's think about this for a moment. Will a few years of touring, done long after the Eagles' heydey, so expensive that most of the Eagles' fanbase can't even go, trump some of the greatest selling albums and most loved songs of the 20th century? That people will not appreciate that it's Glenn Frey's voice they're hearing on those albums because some other guy whose name they probably can't even recall and Glenn's son (whom they only care about due to his connection to Glenn!) toured as the Eagles for a few years at the tail end of their existence?

Methinks not.

Thank you Soda. It is comforting to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel and I'm trying but I am concerned The Beast will never go quietly into the good night.

There are a couple of reasons I feel this way but at the end of the day it all comes down to this:

With Glenn Frey no longer in the equation we are witnessing just how little time and effort it took for The Beast to rear it's ugly head and crank up the money making machine to FULL SPEED.

What really sickens me is in two years they couldn't find (afford) the time to honor Glenn with a tribute concert for fans.

I have much more to say on this topic (tribute) and will do so in the proper thread.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

MC – I appreciate your attempt to comfort Glenn fans and know your heart is in the right place. But with all due respect, I took very little solace from your post. First of all, I want to repeat that I have always been an Eagles fan first and foremost and I would have felt exactly the same way if Don Henley had preceded Glenn in death. I can’t buy the argument that Glenn’s death could not have halted the Eagles. In fact, all of the band members pronounced on numerous occasions that it had done exactly that. Then, they made a conscious decision to go back on their word. I don’t understand what was at stake for them personally or professionally if the band had quit. As I have pointed out numerous times, there were many options available to them - they could have continued to perform solo, collaborate with other artists, or even perform together under another name. So, the way I see it is the only thing at stake was the money. It would take a very naïve person not to know that some fans would not respect their decision, but that apparently didn’t matter to them. So, yes, there is criticism and they should not be immune to it, IMO.

The Beatles permanently disbanded after their breakup and John Lennon’s death and they didn’t have a single lead singer either. I have total respect the decisions they made – they demonstrated vision, wisdom, and integrity at a very young age. They secured their band’s legacy forever and, individually, went on to forge new paths for themselves. So, yes, this is the standard and expectation myself and others held the Eagles to. Whether the Eagles legacy is tarnished or not, only time will tell. But, the closer they move towards becoming caricatures of their former selves and passing the band on to a second generation will do nothing to help it, that’s for sure. I do, however, agree with Soda’s last post that Glenn, as one of the band’s two principle songwriters and vocalists, will not be forgotten when the final chapter of this band is written. But, none of this changes the sadness, disappointment, and betrayal I feel by my favorite band. Others, obviously, accepted a different standard than I – so I guess we can chalk it up to different value/belief systems. And, no words, no matter how many times they are repeated, will change how I feel about the choice to continue – I just fundamentally believe it was the wrong thing to do.

[YoungEaglesFan]

I think that was a thoughtful post Dreamer and I think it’s a good note to leave this thread on

[Dawn]

I agree 100%. Wrong. And IMHO not just on one level. Many.

[Dawn]

Soda--I have never posted in any of these contentious threads as I am not by nature an argumentative person. There have been many times I have thought about it, but then stopped and thought again. I think for the most part, a small number of people have posted and reposted their thoughts on the Eagles (or Eagles 3.0) continuing to tour in various threads. Some posts have been loud and aggressive, some snarky and hurtful (possibly unintentionally), and some thoughtful. These posts have come from both sides. Full disclosure, I am not against them touring now and went to see them last October in Louisville. I enjoyed seeing them again after 37 years. Were they the "real" Eagles, the Eagles of my youth? No, of course not. Most importantly, Glenn was gone, my favorite Eagle, my favorite songs. Also, "my" Eagles were not 70 year old men. But these were the Eagles that I had a chance to attend a concert with my son, who had become a become a big fan.

Although I guess this puts me on the "other side", I wanted to let you know that I agree with you about the Eagles legacy. Their legacy is that music from the seventies that still resonates today. Their legacy is why many on this board became fans and attended concerts in the guys' later years. I even think of the HFO years as later years, ones that were made possible by their legacy. To me, my "real" Eagles were those 20 something guys who sang those beautiful songs onstage, sounding just like their wonderful albums. For me, the Eagles were a moment in time, and that time was the seventies. I'm glad I was there for the ride...

From 1994 to 2015 (21 years) Glenn Frey toured and performed with the Eagles. He died @6 months after the last tour ended. All told I think they did about 480 shows.

As someone who has followed the band since they began (the 70's) i must say each decade and tour has had it's great moments -- my only real regret is missing Glenn's solo After Hours concert at the Wiltern.

Since I do not support the current lineup I am very appreciative of my collection of Eagles albums and solo efforts.

[sodascouts]

I know that sometimes it's better to go out with a bang than a whimper.

I was just thinking of this the other day, in terms of the poem from where the phrase originates - T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men": "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." The world might not have ended, but this is the way the band ends. All the disappointment, all the anguish, all the despair of that line is now applicable to what was my favorite band, and it just cuts me to the quick. Are they now the "hollow men"? Well, they are not literally caught between life and death and they do act, but their actions are spiritually bereft. Something essential is definitely missing.

[Dawn]

I was just thinking of this the other day, in terms of the poem from where the phrase originates - T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men": "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." The world might not have ended, but this is the way the band ends. All the disappointment, all the anguish, all the despair of that line is now applicable to what was my favorite band, and it just cuts me to the quick. Are they now the "hollow men"? Well, they are not caught between life and death and they do act, but their actions are spiritually bereft. Something essential is definitely missing.

Wow, this really resonates with me. Thank you.

[Freypower]

When Glenn sang Take it to the Limit on their tour, do people also consider that cheapening of the Eagles' sound? Maybe only slightly because it was just one song as opposed to the six Frey lead vocal songs now being sung by Deacon or Vince?

My preference is always to hear the songs as sung by the original lead vocalists and whenever there is a substitution, I don't believe the audience gets the total experience as they would otherwise. I would rather see them expand their setlist to include other songs that had Don, Joe or Timothy as the original lead vocalist and maybe have TITTL and one other Glenn song performed as a tribute.

I am glad I had the chance to see them twice with Glenn, but I am still looking forward to seeing them again in their current lineup configuration.

I understand what you are saying here, but if they were to do more songs sung by the three remaining members it really would be Henley & his backing band, because Walsh & Schmit have hardly any Eagles songs to work with. They won't bring back I Don't Want To Hear Any More or Guilty Of The Crime & they're not going to introduce Last Good Time In Town or Do Something (although PMIAR could be reintroduced as that was played on the HFO & HOTE tours). Also if they reduce the number of songs that used to feature Glenn then they really do run the risk of marginalising his memory completely. What they are doing is bad enough.

The band's sound was not cheapened by Glenn singing TITTL because he co wrote it & played on the record.

[Freypower]

I was just thinking of this the other day, in terms of the poem from where the phrase originates - T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men": "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper." The world might not have ended, but this is the way the band ends. All the disappointment, all the anguish, all the despair of that line is now applicable to what was my favorite band, and it just cuts me to the quick. Are they now the "hollow men"? Well, they are not caught between life and death and they do act, but their actions are spiritually bereft. Something essential is definitely missing.

That speaks to me. Eliot was so wonderful at conveying that sense of despair.

[Freypower]

I am quoting myself here because I want to clarify this statement which I believe has been misunderstood by some. I do not believe they can change what's past, so they can't cheapen the past in that sense. Let me put it in more commercial terms; they are "damaging the brand" by presenting themselves as the Eagles. They are making their living presenting themselves as the Eagles and playing "cheaper" versions of the songs. Thus, they "cheapen" the Eagles's sound in that sense.

Therefore, I have to disagree with Freypower and others who believe Glenn will be forgotten due to this egregious error in judgment. I do not hold that extreme opinion, because I remember to step outside the emotion of the moment and keep a "big picture" perspective regarding that matter.

I have said this elsewhere, but we must remember that as upsetting as all of this is, and as much as I loathe it, this too shall pass.

Whenever this ends, as mercifully it must, this relatively short and painful period is what will be forgotten. The albums will remain. That is the Eagles' legacy.

Let's think about this for a moment. Will a few years of touring, done long after the Eagles' heydey, so expensive that most of the Eagles' fanbase can't even go, trump some of the greatest selling albums and most loved songs of the 20th century? Will people forget that it's Glenn Frey's voice they're hearing on those albums because some other guy whose name they probably can't even recall and Glenn's son (whom they only care about due to his connection to Glenn!) toured as the Eagles for a few years at the tail end of their existence?

Methinks not.

Soda, as you addressed some of this to me, you have explained this eloquently & I take some comfort in your words. I do hope the fans remember, because I still do not feel that Glenn received the recognition or respect he deserved, to the point where even a tribute concert is apparently not considered necessary.

We will have to forget all this & keep him in our hearts, as you say, and continue to hear his voice & relive our own individual memories.

[Brsullivan123]

Unfortunately we will never have the original lineup but I will definitely go and enjoy these shows

[EagleInKansas]

I think part of the reason these arguments become so emotional is that each side can feel the other's pain. I can relate to those who think Glenn's death should have ended the Eagles. Until a resumption was announced, I believed that any band who performed songs without their original singer or singers lacked legitimacy. I never expected it to happen to my favorite band, which is far too mild a term to describe what the Eagles mean to me.

I must admit I have been in denial, and it's lingering. I don't really want it to go away, because then I would again have to confront depression and, eventually, acceptance. The days and months after Glenn's death were some of the darkest of my life, almost as sad as the days and months after my mother died. I had to say goodbye to someone I never met but whom I loved. I couldn't listen to the Eagles much because I was trying to wrap my head around the reality that they no longer existed.

I didn't discover the Eagles, the Eagles discovered me. My earliest memories are of playing The Long Run album on my grandmother's record player. I've known all the words to all the songs since I could speak in complete sentences. The band shaped my personality. I'm loyal and I love unconditionally and I am all in on my passions because of the Eagles. Every time I hear one of their songs, it's like the first time. Their concerts are pure euphoria.

I appreciate all of you, even through our disagreements, for being Eagles fans. It's a bond that, even though we're strangers, connects us all, and I am grateful for that. There is nothing I love talking about more than the Eagles. I am very much an introvert, but I'll break into conversations about the band at their concerts and share my enthusiasm with anyone who will listen.

All of us loved Glenn Frey, myself included. I remember driving with my mom and sister to an outlet music store in central Ohio and purchasing "Strange Weather" on audio tape. I remember listening to "Soul Searchin'" in the back room of my one-floor house while watching Saturday afternoon baseball on mute. I remember singing "The Heat is On" at a church lock-in 20-plus years ago.

A new Eagles era is comforting and healing for me. Maybe that is a selfish viewpoint, but the Eagles have always been there when I needed to feel better. I saw my last Eagles show with my mom on October 20, 2010. They didn't tour again until HOTE in 2013, and by then my mom had passed away. But I was at the first HOTE show in Louisville, and life sort of felt OK again.

I don't begrudge anyone for shunning this era of the Eagles, and I hope no one begrudges me for needing it. This time I need healing from Glenn's death. He died almost three years to the day as my mom, just five days apart. Quite frankly, this is an easier goodbye than discovering the news of Glenn's death on Twitter and trying to process the end six months after I watched the penultimate HOTE show in Arkansas. I'm not sure I would have ever truly processed the end of the Eagles I knew without Deacon and the new era.

I know this won't last forever, and I know it's not the same. It sucks that I can't talk about the upcoming shows with the majority of the people on this board, but I can still enjoy and even love them for what they are. I know I really will have to say goodbye eventually, but for now the Eagles -- the band -- are alive, which means Glenn's spirit remains and his memory is alive, too.

[maryc2130]

MC – I appreciate your attempt to comfort Glenn fans and know your heart is in the right place. But with all due respect, I took very little solace from your post. First of all, I want to repeat that I have always been an Eagles fan first and foremost and I would have felt exactly the same way if Don Henley had preceded Glenn in death. I can’t buy the argument that Glenn’s death could not have halted the Eagles. In fact, all of the band members pronounced on numerous occasions that it had done exactly that. Then, they made a conscious decision to go back on their word. I don’t understand what was at stake for them personally or professionally if the band had quit. As I have pointed out numerous times, there were many options available to them - they could have continued to perform solo, collaborate with other artists, or even perform together under another name. So, the way I see it is the only thing at stake was the money. It would take a very naïve person not to know that some fans would not respect their decision, but that apparently didn’t matter to them. So, yes, there is criticism and they should not be immune to it, IMO.

The Beatles permanently disbanded after their breakup and John Lennon’s death and they didn’t have a single lead singer either. I have total respect the decisions they made – they demonstrated vision, wisdom, and integrity at a very young age. They secured their band’s legacy forever and, individually, went on to forge new paths for themselves. So, yes, this is the standard and expectation myself and others held the Eagles to. Whether the Eagles legacy is tarnished or not, only time will tell. But, the closer they move towards becoming caricatures of their former selves and passing the band on to a second generation will do nothing to help it, that’s for sure. I do, however, agree with Soda’s last post that Glenn, as one of the band’s two principle songwriters and vocalists, will not be forgotten when the final chapter of this band is written. But, none of this changes the sadness, disappointment, and betrayal I feel by my favorite band. Others, obviously, accepted a different standard than I – so I guess we can chalk it up to different value/belief systems. And, no words, no matter how many times they are repeated, will change how I feel about the choice to continue – I just fundamentally believe it was the wrong thing to do.

As YoungEaglesFan said, this is a thoughtful post, although I disagree with quite a bit of it. I'm not going to address it, though, because I'm pretty sure it was directed at Mary California.

This isn't the first time that I've been confused because someone has addressed something MC or Mary C. I know it's a pain to use the longer versions of our names, but given the similarities of our names and initials, I'm asking that people please do that when they address one of us! :)

I know Mary California was here first and most people know her, and more of the posts are addressed to her. But not all! :grin:

Thank you! Sorry about going off-topic!

[New Kid In Town]

Soda – I believe you are dead on with your remark that the band's sound was cheapened when Glenn was replaced. As maryc2130 said, ‘the band evolved with Don and Glenn standing shoulder-to-shoulder', and, to me, that's the way it should have ended. And I can say with 100% certainty that if we were talking about Don here, God forbid, I would be saying exactly the same thing.

And to further address the arguments that the band should be enjoying life – I couldn't agree more; but, I believe they should seek options other than capitalizing on the ‘Eagles’ name. Because the ‘Eagles’ that Glenn was such an integral part of crafting and nurturing for over 45 years deserves better. His incomparable vision and contributions to the band should have been immortalized with unconditional dignity, and not compromised for the enjoyment, benefit, or catharsis of the remaining members. The best way to honor and preserve a legacy is to LEAVE IT ALONE!

Dreamer my thoughts exactly. I have not posted in this thread because I feel I spoke my peace in Eagles 3.0 and everyone knows how I feel. However, after reading all the posts I decided to give my 2 cents again. This is just MHO, but this version of the Eagles is nothing but a money grab tour before they call it quits. Don and Irving are playing on the emotions of fans who never got the chance to see them before Glenn died. People have even stated this in their FB post. They are afraid another member could pass and that would be the end and they never saw any version of the Eagles. Deacon was added by Don and Irving to make this version more "legit". It tugs at people's heart strings to see Deacon on stage looking like a young Glenn and playing his songs. The prices are in some cases more expensive than HOTE Tour. The concerts at MSG and the Prudential Center(NJ) have been heavily advertised on my local NY/NJ stations. They even added a second night at the Garden. 52 shows is a lot of concerts in one year, with a ton of money to be made. I am among the group of people who feel this whole new version cheapens the legacy of the band. To understand how we Glenn fans feel, those who favor this version should ask themselves how they would feel if it was Don who passed and he was replaced. And, please don't say it could not be done. Their are some very good tribute bands who have singers who sound almost exactly like Don and could be used. Well, Don, Joe & Tim are all 70 now and they can't keep doing this much longer. Like Soda said, this too will pass.

[groupie2686]

I think part of the reason these arguments become so emotional is that each side can feel the other's pain. I can relate to those who think Glenn's death should have ended the Eagles. Until a resumption was announced, I believed that any band who performed songs without their original singer or singers lacked legitimacy. I never expected it to happen to my favorite band, which is far too mild a term to describe what the Eagles mean to me.

I must admit I have been in denial, and it's lingering. I don't really want it to go away, because then I would again have to confront depression and, eventually, acceptance. The days and months after Glenn's death were some of the darkest of my life, almost as sad as the days and months after my mother died. I had to say goodbye to someone I never met but whom I loved. I couldn't listen to the Eagles much because I was trying to wrap my head around the reality that they no longer existed.

I didn't discover the Eagles, the Eagles discovered me. My earliest memories are of playing The Long Run album on my grandmother's record player. I've known all the words to all the songs since I could speak in complete sentences. The band shaped my personality. I'm loyal and I love unconditionally and I am all in on my passions because of the Eagles. Every time I hear one of their songs, it's like the first time. Their concerts are pure euphoria.

I appreciate all of you, even through our disagreements, for being Eagles fans. It's a bond that, even though we're strangers, connects us all, and I am grateful for that. There is nothing I love talking about more than the Eagles. I am very much an introvert, but I'll break into conversations about the band at their concerts and share my enthusiasm with anyone who will listen.

All of us loved Glenn Frey, myself included. I remember driving with my mom and sister to an outlet music store in central Ohio and purchasing "Strange Weather" on audio tape. I remember listening to "Soul Searchin'" in the back room of my one-floor house while watching Saturday afternoon baseball on mute. I remember singing "The Heat is On" at a church lock-in 20-plus years ago.

A new Eagles era is comforting and healing for me. Maybe that is a selfish viewpoint, but the Eagles have always been there when I needed to feel better. I saw my last Eagles show with my mom on October 20, 2010. They didn't tour again until HOTE in 2013, and by then my mom had passed away. But I was at the first HOTE show in Louisville, and life sort of felt OK again.

I don't begrudge anyone for shunning this era of the Eagles, and I hope no one begrudges me for needing it. This time I need healing from Glenn's death. He died almost three years to the day as my mom, just five days apart. Quite frankly, this is an easier goodbye than discovering the news of Glenn's death on Twitter and trying to process the end six months after I watched the penultimate HOTE show in Arkansas. I'm not sure I would have ever truly processed the end of the Eagles I knew without Deacon and the new era.

I know this won't last forever, and I know it's not the same. It sucks that I can't talk about the upcoming shows with the majority of the people on this board, but I can still enjoy and even love them for what they are. I know I really will have to say goodbye eventually, but for now the Eagles -- the band -- are alive, which means Glenn's spirit remains and his memory is alive, too.

This was beautiful, EIK, thank you for sharing. I don't support the Eagles without Glenn, and your post helped me understand where the other side is coming from. This is such an emotional issue for many of us, perhaps it's best if we all agree to disagree about this, and allow all of us to love the Eagles and honor Glenn's memory in whatever way each of us feels is best.

[Dawn]

Dreamer my thoughts exactly. I have not posted in this thread because I feel I spoke my peace in Eagles 3.0 and everyone knows how I feel. However, after reading all the posts I decided to give my 2 cents again. This is just MHO, but this version of the Eagles is nothing but a money grab tour before they call it quits. Don and Irving are playing on the emotions of fans who never got the chance to see them before Glenn died. People have even stated this in their FB post. They are afraid another member could pass and that would be the end and they never saw any version of the Eagles. Deacon was added by Don and Irving to make this version more "legit". It tugs at people's heart strings to see Deacon on stage looking like a young Glenn and playing his songs. The prices are in some cases more expensive than HOTE Tour. The concerts at MSG and the Prudential Center(NJ) have been heavily advertised on my local NY/NJ stations. They even added a second night at the Garden. 52 shows is a lot of concerts in one year, with a ton of money to be made. I am among the group of people who feel this whole new version cheapens the legacy of the band. To understand how we Glenn fans feel, those who favor this version should ask themselves how they would feel if it was Don who passed and he was replaced. And, please don't say it could not be done. Their are some very good tribute bands who have singers who sound almost exactly like Don and could be used. Well, Don, Joe & Tim are all 70 now and they can't keep doing this much longer. Like Soda said, this too will pass.

Thanks NKIT, so nice to see you! Absolutely agree with your opinion though I do think they will continue to tour in one lineup form or another as long as they can sell fans on the idea this could be the last run.

"Accept no substitutes" - Don Henley

[travlnman2]

I think they may have changed their minds when they saw the KCH

[Dawn]

I think the deal to co-headline Azoff's Classic East/West in summer 2017 was being considered/planned well before the KCH in December 2016. Seems it would have to be.

[travlnman2]

I think the deal to co-headline Azoff's Classic East/West in summer 2017 was being considered/planned well before the KCH in December 2016. Seems it would have to be.

You might be right.

I have never liked Irving. He has destroyed the promotion industry as well as allowed the scalpers to scam every fan who wants to by a ticket.

He also sabbatoged thenrelease of Chinese Demcoracy

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Here is what Don said in his Rolling Stone interview in the fall of 2017 regarding Deacon and putting the band back together ...

"It's extraordinary what that young man has done. I saw him sing "Peaceful Easy Feeling" at his father's memorial service. As difficult as that might have been, he was so brave and composed. I'm sure, on the inside, he was churning. After a few months went by, I thought, "Why not see if he would like to be in the band?"

And ...

Did you ever question whether it was right to continue without Glenn?
"Yes, I did. The only way it felt justified to me was to have family blood in the band."

So contrary to all of his statements of denial about continuing, by his own admission, Don was already thinking about reforming the band within months after Glenn’s passing.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I just went back and reread the last several pages of this thread, and was overcome by emotion. Yes - I was literally moved to tears.

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful, sincere, and respectful comments. It just reinforces for me what I already knew - this type of heartfelt communication is so much more powerful and persuasive in gaining understanding of others viewpoints than finger-pointing and confrontation.

WELL DONE BORDERERS!!!

[Annoying Twit]

Don H was clearly thinking about an Eagles reunion in 2016, but clearly hadn't decided by then. And, if you read articles from the time, it seems that it wasn't just his decision.

E.g. in September 2016, he was reported to have said:



At some point in the future, we might work our way round to it (reforming). You know, Glenn has a son, who can sing and play quite well, and one of the only things that would make sense to me is if it were his son (who played with us)


But, in November 2016, he is reported to have said:



(That story) really p**sed me off, frankly, because I hadn't talked to the kid (Deacon) about it or his mother, so it's just another lesson in keeping my mouth shut.


The latter quote is from an article saying that Don H has ruled out a reunion including Deacon, but if you read Don H's actual words, he doesn't. He was just annoyed that the discussion was in the press before he'd talked to the Frey family about it.

But, about the same time, the Washington Post reported Don H to have said:



I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band.


So, it's clear that in late 2016 Don H was still undecided about whether Eagles would continue.

The formal reports that Eagles would reform were in March of 2017. So, about three months after the Nov. 2016 statement that Eagles wouldn't continue.

Clearly, something changed his mind in the meantime. We can't know what caused him to change his mind, but I wonder if discussions with the Frey family were instrumental in this. Again, this is just random guessing, but I wonder if the Frey family, particularly Deacon, responded positively to Don H. shooting his mouth off in September 2016.

[sodascouts]

Obviously Deacon responded positively eventually at any rate, and I daresay they have made this venture very much worth his while. However, regarding Don's contradictory statements: I'm afraid Don has proven in this past year that he is fully prepared to dissemble about his plans for continuing the "Eagles" in interviews. It's very possible that what changed was simply the amount of money he was offered for the "Eagles" to headline the Classic East/West concerts. Certainly, his change of heart came at precisely the right time for them to fill that slot. One cannot know, but unfortunately, I have ceased to regard Don's word as trustworthy.

[maryc2130]

I just went back and reread the last several pages of this thread, and was overcome by emotion. Yes - I was literally moved to tears.

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughtful, sincere, and respectful comments. It just reinforces for me what I already knew - this type of heartfelt communication is so much more powerful and persuasive in gaining understanding of others viewpoints than finger-pointing and confrontation.

WELL DONE BORDERERS!!!

Agreed! I've been able to read the last few pages, and not feel like I want to tear my hair out. LOL. Also, I definitely have a little more compassion for the other side. Yes, we disagree about the band continuing, but we're all united in loving the band, so hopefully that will give us enough common ground to keep things civil, and continue to be a little more tolerant of each others' views!

[Dawn]

Obviously Deacon responded positively eventually at any rate, and I daresay they have made this venture very much worth his while. However, regarding Don's contradictory statements: I'm afraid Don has proven in this past year that he is fully prepared to dissemble about his plans for continuing the "Eagles" in interviews. It's very possible that what changed was simply the amount of money he was offered for the "Eagles" to headline the Classic East/West concerts. Certainly, his change of heart came at precisely the right time for them to fill that slot. One cannot know, but unfortunately, I have ceased to regard Don's word as trustworthy.

You are not alone. I also do not regard Don Henley as trustworthy.

[UndertheWire]

I've just seen a picture of a young man playing guitar on stage and I assume that's Will Henley. However, I didn't see him the wider shots, so possibly he only played on a few songs. Deacon looks like he's settled into the rock-star image and looks rather fabulous.

Also, a few different songs on the setlist. How Long, Ol'55 and one of Vince Gill's songs.

[Dawn]

Wait, so Vince Gill actually did one of his own songs? What's next? A duet with a female country western singer nah ... they wouldn't.

[Annoying Twit]

Wait, so Vince Gill actually did one of his own songs? What's next? A duet with a female country western singer nah ... they wouldn't.

To me this is an indication that Vince is being treated more like a band member than a sideman. The other band members get to sing solo songs. Except for Tim for some unknown reason. (I'd really like to hear Tim do a song from Leap of Faith.) Look at all of Joe's solo songs. Both Glenn and Don H have sung solo songs at Eagles concerts in the past. I can't see anything wrong with Vince being given the opportunity to sing a solo song.

Nor can I see anything wrong with a duet with a female guest singer particularly if it's someone very talented and with a distinctive voice such as Shawn Colvin. I'd particularly enjoy it if instead of just singing a random hit, they re-interpreted an Eagles song as a duet.

[buffyfan145]

Do want to point out too that Vince's new song was written about an scary experience he had as a child that also relates to the "Me Too" movement so some of it is promotion for that as it's looking to be his next solo song.

[Dawn]

Personally, I would not be surprised to see more Vince Gill in the spotlight doing his own songs and arrangements as well as more "family members" climbing on board the mother ship.

[Dawn]

To me this is an indication that Vince is being treated more like a band member than a sideman. The other band members get to sing solo songs. Except for Tim for some unknown reason. (I'd really like to hear Tim do a song from Leap of Faith.) Look at all of Joe's solo songs. Both Glenn and Don H have sung solo songs at Eagles concerts in the past. I can't see anything wrong with Vince being given the opportunity to sing a solo song.

Nor can I see anything wrong with a duet with a female guest singer particularly if it's someone very talented and with a distinctive voice such as Shawn Colvin. I'd particularly enjoy it if instead of just singing a random hit, they re-interpreted an Eagles song as a duet.

The brand needs repackaging. Poor Deacon is carrying alot of weight on his shoulders.

[chaim]

Vince Gill singing his song(s) in a Eagles concert is something I don't get, but luckily I don't have to.

[Annoying Twit]

The brand needs repackaging. Poor Deacon is carrying alot of weight on his shoulders.

I think 'the brand' is being handled in good way, given the sad loss of Glenn.

Deacon is carrying a fair amount of weight on his shoulders. But, it seems, doing a good job of it.

I notice the huge cheers when Deacon and Vince are introduced.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Vince Gill singing his song(s) in a Eagles concert is something I don't get, but luckily I don't have to.

I totally agree with you, chaim. But, obviously, the ideas about what should or should not happen at an Eagles concert vary widely among the fanbase.

And, AT, of course, it would be expected that the current lineup will receive lots of applause at these shows. After all, the people who want to 'boo' them aren't in attendance.

[Freypower]

To me this is an indication that Vince is being treated more like a band member than a sideman. The other band members get to sing solo songs. Except for Tim for some unknown reason. (I'd really like to hear Tim do a song from Leap of Faith.) Look at all of Joe's solo songs. Both Glenn and Don H have sung solo songs at Eagles concerts in the past. I can't see anything wrong with Vince being given the opportunity to sing a solo song.

Nor can I see anything wrong with a duet with a female guest singer particularly if it's someone very talented and with a distinctive voice such as Shawn Colvin. I'd particularly enjoy it if instead of just singing a random hit, they re-interpreted an Eagles song as a duet.

Of course he's being treated as a band member. He is in the photo which you must have seen.

The fact that he has absolutely no history or connection or anything to do with what used to be the Eagles, except for the Common Thread project, is apparently irrelevant.

[Annoying Twit]

Of course he's being treated as a band member. He is in the photo which you must have seen.

The fact that he has absolutely no history or connection or anything to do with what used to be the Eagles, except for the Common Thread project, is apparently irrelevant.

Yes, he's in the photo. But, singing a song of his own at a concert (and hopefully future concerts) makes him even more integrated in the band, to me.

Vince had also guested on Don H's album Cass County. Joe inducted Vince into the Hollywood Rock Walk. There are plenty of band members out there who had less connection to bands that they joined before they joined, but still became important members over time.

What's more important than any previous connection is whether the new member is right for the band. And I think that Eagles have chosen very very wisely to add Vince to the lineup. Also Vince is very enthusiastic about being in the band, which helps a lot. He's not just a hired hand going through the motion in a band he doesn't really care about (which has happened with some other bands.)



And, AT, of course, it would be expected that the current lineup will receive lots of applause at these shows. After all, the people who want to 'boo' them aren't in attendance.

There is a middle ground between considerable enthusiasm and booing. The amount of enthusiasm I hear in the responses is more than I would expect for a new member of a band that the audience wasn't especially pleased to see.

[Dawn]

Were all the band members introduced including Will Henley on guitar as well as the string and horn sections and who did the intros?

[Dawn]

Were all the band members introduced including Will Henley on guitar as well as the string and horn sections and who did the intros?

Reportedly Will Henley has joined the tour until he starts college in Fall 2018.

Credit -FannyBeTender :bow:

[tac0mao6]

why shouldn’t you be excited? if not, why buy the ticket?
i know the raging debate continues and they are entitled to
their opinions too, but i think it’s sad that hate takes over in
some other threads.
i’ll be going to the houston show in june .. my 1st eagles show
and i’m over the moon
would i like to have seen glenn, randy, bernie and don f?
i love the music from that lineup and i would just about sell my soul
for an opportunity to go back in time, but since that isn’t
possible, i’m giving the current lineup a chance and am not gonna
let the haters ruin it for me
be excited shun ... enjoy the show :grooving:

[shunlvswx]

Believe me. I'm excited, but I'm just keeping my excitement inside instead of posting it. I didn't even want to post that I finally got tickets.

[Dawn]

So far it looks like Three Henleys and Two Freys.

[YoungEaglesFan]

why shouldn’t you be excited? if not, why buy the ticket?
i know the raging debate continues and they are entitled to
their opinions too, but i think it’s sad that hate takes over in
some other threads.
i’ll be going to the houston show in june .. my 1st eagles show
and i’m over the moon
would i like to have seen glenn, randy, bernie and don f?
i love the music from that lineup and i would just about sell my soul
for an opportunity to go back in time, but since that isn’t
possible, i’m giving the current lineup a chance and am not gonna
let the haters ruin it for me
be excited shun ... enjoy the show :grooving:

My thoughts exactly. I would do anything to see them with even just Glenn in the HOTE but the best I could do is see them at the classic east. And it means so much being able to see your favorite band. I am seeing them either once or twice this year. The haters on here can really be a drag but seeing them love overcomes all of that. The love of the music easily outdoes the negativity on here

[Dawn]

My thoughts exactly. I would do anything to see them with even just Glenn in the HOTE but the best I could do is see them at the classic east. And it means so much being able to see your favorite band. I am seeing them either once or twice this year. The haters on here can really be a drag but seeing them love overcomes all of that. The love of the music easily outdoes the negativity on here

Let's stop with the hater labels. How pathetic can you get.

[tac0mao6]

The haters on here can really be a drag but seeing them love overcomes all of that. The love of the music easily outdoes the negativity on here

wish i saw more of the love

btw, congrats on achieving rebel status :grin:

[groupie2686]

So far it looks like Three Henleys and Two Freys.

Who's the other Henley? Is another of Henley's kids on tour with him?

[New Kid In Town]

Who's the other Henley? Is another of Henley's kids on tour with him?

Hi Groupies, I assume the other Henley is Annabelle, his oldest child. She is 22 years old. She toured with Don in 2016 and did his make up for his Cass County Tour. I guess Taylor is also touring with them too. Don's younger daughter Sophie and Otis Frey are still in high school.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Let's stop with the hater labels. How pathetic can you get.

I’m sorry but when I see consistent attacks on Don, Tim, Joe, and their kids it’s hard to see otherwise. Not all are like this. I thought people who didn’t agree with the tour were supposed to not comment on tour posts. I stopped commenting on the 3.0 thread out of respect of your concerns but it’s fair for you to come to this and Call me pathetic? Really? I call some haters because when even their stance in a tour photo is being criticized, it’s getting way out of hand and not at all tied to the issue of Glenn. When the band is coldly called the “mothership”it’s dehumanizing them. I don’t see a reason for why the 3.0 thread to exist anymore. The issue hasn’t changed since they reunited. The amount of discussion that has taken place is redundant and it leaves the board fractured. You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with. I’m not saying forget about Glenn and accept the lineup but I don’t like that a place that consistently undermines the current band lineup is still in existence for more than a year. I don’t like the tone with which people have spoken to me and if I complain it’s brushed aside. That’s ok. I can handle that but some people are sick of it. I’ve made dumb and brash comments (this could be considered one) but I’ve tried (I think successfully) to change. I don’t see an equal effort

[YoungEaglesFan]

Okay - I'm going to repost essentially what I wrote earlier in another thread just to clear up any misunderstandings ...

"I know all the different threads are confusing. But I think right now they are probably the best compromise we can come up with. Here's how I am thinking about it in order to keep it straight in my little brain ...

The 'No Glenn; No Legit Eagles' thread is for those who disagree with this lineup/tour and just want to vent.

The tour threads are for those who are excited about the shows and just want to celebrate.

Then, last but not least, the 'How do you feel about this years full-fledged tour' thread is for those who want to debate the pros and cons of this lineup/tour.

Again, I know all this may seem pretty clumsy, but, at least for right now, it seems to be the best way to keep the peace. As much as we try, I can't think of anything that is going to make everyone happy, but we'll do the best we can.'

But as we moderators have also warned repeatedly ... name-calling and pointing fingers at other members is disrespectful and against the Terms of Service and can earn you a strike. And yes - it is also very negative. So if you want to be positive and don't want others to rain on your parade, then please don't do it.

I apologize for using hater. I didn’t see it as an offensive comment but if others don’t like it I’ll drop it. I think that is a fair compromise Dreamer

[EagleInKansas]

I’m sorry but when I see consistent attacks on Don, Tim, Joe, and their kids it’s hard to see otherwise. Not all are like this. I thought people who didn’t agree with the tour were supposed to not comment on tour posts. I stopped commenting on the 3.0 thread out of respect of your concerns but it’s fair for you to come to this and Call me pathetic? Really? I call some haters because when even their stance in a tour photo is being criticized, it’s getting way out of hand and not at all tied to the issue of Glenn. When the band is coldly called the “mothership”it’s dehumanizing them. I don’t see a reason for why the 3.0 thread to exist anymore. The issue hasn’t changed since they reunited. The amount of discussion that has taken place is redundant and it leaves the board fractured. You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with. I’m not saying forget about Glenn and accept the lineup but I don’t like that a place that consistently undermines the current band lineup is still in existence for more than a year. I don’t like the tone with which people have spoken to me and if I complain it’s brushed aside. That’s ok. I can handle that but some people are sick of it. I’ve made dumb and brash comments (this could be considered one) but I’ve tried (I think successfully) to change. I don’t see an equal effort

This is perfect, YEF. The comments about Timothy's stance in a publicity photo are completely absurd and have no basis in anything even approaching reality. At one's most skeptical, no conclusion could possibly be drawn on what the "arms folded" look means or even that it means something at all -- which of course it does not. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? And how can we not view the person who makes remarks like that as bitter? As YEF said, Timothy's stance has nothing to do with Glenn and the person in the band who has the most to do with Glenn, his own son, is being treated as if he were a pawn in some heartless scheme by Don Henley. It's crazy. We have to be better than that.

[Freypower]

I’m sorry but when I see consistent attacks on Don, Tim, Joe, and their kids it’s hard to see otherwise. Not all are like this. I thought people who didn’t agree with the tour were supposed to not comment on tour posts. I stopped commenting on the 3.0 thread out of respect of your concerns but it’s fair for you to come to this and Call me pathetic? Really? I call some haters because when even their stance in a tour photo is being criticized, it’s getting way out of hand and not at all tied to the issue of Glenn. When the band is coldly called the “mothership”it’s dehumanizing them. I don’t see a reason for why the 3.0 thread to exist anymore. The issue hasn’t changed since they reunited. The amount of discussion that has taken place is redundant and it leaves the board fractured. You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with. I’m not saying forget about Glenn and accept the lineup but I don’t like that a place that consistently undermines the current band lineup is still in existence for more than a year. I don’t like the tone with which people have spoken to me and if I complain it’s brushed aside. That’s ok. I can handle that but some people are sick of it. I’ve made dumb and brash comments (this could be considered one) but I’ve tried (I think successfully) to change. I don’t see an equal effort


If you & EIK are going to attack me, please have the decency to do so directly.

I called out what I saw in that photo. I knew it would offend the supporters. I saw (I repeat the word) truculence, defiance, defensiveness. You didn't see that. Fine. But I DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT THE WAY YOU SEE IT.

Despite what you claim, a publicity photo of these people has everything to do with the fact that Glenn is no longer with them. I look at them without him & I see three completely different people from the people I used to admire. I won't elaborate.

The band was called the mothership by Glenn Frey, of all people. I do realise that you think that his opinions & definitions are now irrelevant, but that is what he called it.

Whether you like or not, the board will remain fractured, because it does not matter how often you tell people like me to shut up & be done with it, the more alienated we become.

[Freypower]

This is perfect, YEF. The comments about Timothy's stance in a publicity photo are completely absurd and have no basis in anything even approaching reality. At one's most skeptical, no conclusion could possibly be drawn on what the "arms folded" look means or even that it means something at all -- which of course it does not. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? And how can we not view the person who makes remarks like that as bitter? As YEF said, Timothy's stance has nothing to do with Glenn and the person in the band who has the most to do with Glenn, his own son, is being treated as if he were a pawn in some heartless scheme by Don Henley. It's crazy. We have to be better than that.

This is a personal attack on me; I am bitter & out of touch with reality. I agree that I am bitter. As for reality, the reality I see saddens & angers me.

I did not even mention Deacon Frey in that post, but as you have brought it up, yes, I believe that he is being used as a pawn.

I apologise to Soda for these two posts but as I was being attacked, I felt I needed to respond. However, you can delete them if you must. I really don't care any more.

[YoungEaglesFan]

If you & EIK are going to attack me, please have the decency to do so directly.

I called out what I saw in that photo. I knew it would offend the supporters. I saw (I repeat the word) truculence, defiance, defensiveness. You didn't see that. Fine. But I DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT THE WAY YOU SEE IT.

Despite what you claim, a publicity photo of these people has everything to do with the fact that Glenn is no longer with them. I look at them without him & I see three completely different people from the people I used to admire. I won't elaborate.

The band was called the mothership by Glenn Frey, of all people. I do realise that you think that his opinions & definitions are now irrelevant, but that is what he called it.

Whether you like or not, the board will remain fractured, because it does not matter how often you tell people like me to shut up & be done with it, the more alienated we become.

I am being completely honest here, I did not pay attention to who was saying what. I was paying attention to what was being said not who was saying it. I don’t understand at all how you think what I said is equal to me saying shut up and be done with it. I did not say that and made specific comments over and over to address that. The mothership comment isn’t an issue within itself. It becomes an issue when it’s being used NOW after Glenn is gone. I knew don and Glenn called the eagles the mothership and that their solo careers deviated it from but I would never find an eagles fan refer to the band with a such cold and business like term. It’s unique to now. I would have also commented on that thread but that is your thread not mine. I will repeat this part because I have said this before many a time, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A THREAD TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS. I do not think they are good for the board to have so much negativity repeated but I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD “SHUT UP AND MOVE ON”. Sorry for the caps but I found it necessary to make that point clear. I merely think that if we didn’t have the thread it would be good. There isn’t a thread made specifically for pro 3.0 people to make arguments for it. These concerts thread are just discussion about the tour. The anti 3.0 group makes consistent argument points and debates against common pro 3.0 beliefs. But the pro 3.0 does not. It just talks about the concerts which is inherently pro 3.0 but it’s not argumentative. It’s just positive and happy conversation which is not any different than tour talk from HOTE, LROOE or any other tour

[sodascouts]

I apologize for using hater. I didn’t see it as an offensive comment but if others don’t like it I’ll drop it.

Thank you for that apology. I hugely resent being referred to as a "hater" of the Eagles and so I react strongly to it.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Thank you for that apology. I hugely resent being referred to as a "hater" of the Eagles and so I react strongly to it.

I am sorry for causing that reaction. Poor word choice. I can apologize to the anti 3.0 thread if you deem it appropriate

[sodascouts]

No, that thread has another purpose. This thread is for discussion between pro and con. An apology in here will suffice.

[WKMB55]

When I looked at the newest publicity photo, I didn't see anything deep or meaningful. I saw a picture of 5 bandmates possibly having some fun. If you look at some of their photos over the years there is some amusing stuff. If I remember correctly, in one photo Glenn wasn't wearing the pants to his suit. In another, Timothy is dressed like a bunny. There is one of Joe with really big shoes on the wrong feet and the others pointing at them. My opinion is that after the hundreds of photos they have had taken over the years, they don't take posing for pictures seriously. As I get older (in my 60's now) I want to enjoy life while I still have it and get rid of some of the worry about how I am perceived. Most people I talk to in my age group feel the same. Maybe Don, Joe and Timothy do too. As I understand it, this is a publicity photo that was posted along with concert information and on some ticket sales sites. Discussion on websites is a great way to generate interest in the subject being talked about. So if they post a photo that some might feel is controversial and discussions ensue then it is more attention/publicity focused on the band.

[Freypower]

I am being completely honest here, I did not pay attention to who was saying what. I was paying attention to what was being said not who was saying it. I don’t understand at all how you think what I said is equal to me saying shut up and be done with it. I did not say that and made specific comments over and over to address that. The mothership comment isn’t an issue within itself. It becomes an issue when it’s being used NOW after Glenn is gone. I knew don and Glenn called the eagles the mothership and that their solo careers deviated it from but I would never find an eagles fan refer to the band with a such cold and business like term. It’s unique to now. I would have also commented on that thread but that is your thread not mine. I will repeat this part because I have said this before many a time, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A THREAD TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS. I do not think they are good for the board to have so much negativity repeated but I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD “SHUT UP AND MOVE ON”. Sorry for the caps but I found it necessary to make that point clear. I merely think that if we didn’t have the thread it would be good. There isn’t a thread made specifically for pro 3.0 people to make arguments for it. These concerts thread are just discussion about the tour. The anti 3.0 group makes consistent argument points and debates against common pro 3.0 beliefs. But the pro 3.0 does not. It just talks about the concerts which is inherently pro 3.0 but it’s not argumentative. It’s just positive and happy conversation which is not any different than tour talk from HOTE, LROOE or any other tour


You said, and I quote:

The amount of discussion that has taken place is redundant and it leaves the board fractured. You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with.

There were some extremely hurtful posts made by some in the 3.0 thread which said a great deal more than talking about the concerts. While some of that is gone, it is false to say it never occurred.

[YoungEaglesFan]

You said, and I quote:

The amount of discussion that has taken place is redundant and it leaves the board fractured. You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with.

There were some extremely hurtful posts made by some in the 3.0 thread which said a great deal more than talking about the concerts. While some of that is gone, it is false to say it never occurred.

I said things on there I regret. I feel that was a long time ago and I was very new to the board and I learned things that changed my opinion. So I feel I learned from those mistakes. I assume you are referencing me, if not I’m not exactly sure what is being referenced. I said that I feel that unless new information is added to change the nature of the debate, I feel it’s unnecesssry. But that’s just my opinion

[FannyBeTender]

I'm going to post this, and then I'm done.

I came to the Border for one reason: Timothy B. Schmit

Timothy is the reason I re-discovered the Eagles. He is the reason I found the Border.

I have purposely stayed away from the argumentative threads and the threads that have descended into pointless bickering for a couple of reasons:

I HATE conflict.
I DO NOT CARE if the Eagles tour for another 5-10 years or stop touring tomorrow. Doesn't bother me one way or another.


Those Who Oppose the Current Lineup: I understand where you guys are coming from. I felt it with my favorite group's remaining members (or member now). I would never take away your feelings or opinions because they are genuine.

Those Who Support the Current Lineup: I understand where you are coming from too. You cannot understand all of the anger and bitterness over the current situation/band. I would never take away your feelings or opinions because they are genuine as well.

Both sides need to come to an agreement at some point. It may not happen for a few years. It may never happen. I know that. But at this point, I've had enough.

Please understand: This is NOT an attack on ANYONE. I'm simply stating my opinion from what I feel is a NEUTRAL viewpoint. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

I wish you all well and hope you can find peace with the situation.

[Dawn]

Hey Fanny, I have enjoyed you immensely and will miss you. i appreciate your thoughtful post and wish you all the best. Timothy is a Sacramento kid and an amazing bass player and singer/songwriter. Loved him in POCO and the Eagles. He will always have a special place in my heart. Take care and thanks again for your kind words. Blessings, Dawn

[WalshFan88]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the comments on Tim's "stance" in the picture. I thought the same as FP did, but I didn't post it. Now I will, in defense of her. If you want to throw digs, go right ahead but they mean nothing to me.

YEF - there will never be a time for one side to stop talking while the other side gets to continue on. It will never happen. I will accept your apology, but you are way off with your comments about us all being "haters". I vehemently oppose.

[WalshFan88]

You’re entitled to a place to talk but at some point it just has to be done with. I’m not saying forget about Glenn and accept the lineup but I don’t like that a place that consistently undermines the current band lineup is still in existence for more than a year.

"You are entitled to it, but after awhile it just has to stop"...is a contradiction if I've ever heard one. So which is it, YEF? The former or the latter? Because it's the former. To me if you take away the negative 3.0 posts but leave up the excitement threads and the pro 3.0 posts, it's not fair. I feel the way Soda and Dreamer and the mods are handling it now is more than fair for everyone and I give them kudos for maintaining it in a climate that isn't very pleasant at times.

I'm sorry the fact that the board still has threads for people to discuss their displeasure in the band members and them continuing on upsets you so much. You have to accept that it will be undermined by some who feel like I do. Maybe if you'd like to have a message board that meets your satisfaction you can go create one and invite all of the likeminded people that you know and insist on only pro-3.0 posters comment or post there. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[WalshFan88]

I'm going to post this, and then I'm done.

I came to the Border for one reason: Timothy B. Schmit

Timothy is the reason I re-discovered the Eagles. He is the reason I found the Border.

I have purposely stayed away from the argumentative threads and the threads that have descended into pointless bickering for a couple of reasons:

I HATE conflict.
I DO NOT CARE if the Eagles tour for another 5-10 years or stop touring tomorrow. Doesn't bother me one way or another.


Those Who Oppose the Current Lineup: I understand where you guys are coming from. I felt it with my favorite group's remaining members (or member now). I would never take away your feelings or opinions because they are genuine.

Those Who Support the Current Lineup: I understand where you are coming from too. You cannot understand all of the anger and bitterness over the current situation/band. I would never take away your feelings or opinions because they are genuine as well.

Both sides need to come to an agreement at some point. It may not happen for a few years. It may never happen. I know that. But at this point, I've had enough.

Please understand: This is NOT an attack on ANYONE. I'm simply stating my opinion from what I feel is a NEUTRAL viewpoint. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

I wish you all well and hope you can find peace with the situation.

FBT, I bid you adieu.

I'm sorry if the heated debates wore on you too much. I understand. I've enjoyed your posts here and I hope at some point you will feel like coming back either when the debating is avoidable or has ceased. I don't think either side will agree on it. The ones on the pro side are just as outspoken as we are on the con side and I think there is no good solution. The continuation of the "Eagles" has certainly drove a wedge between the two camps of Eagles fans that were previously friends and liked each other. I'm not innocent here, but I'm not the only one. At some point it will naturally calm down or I think we will forever be separated as far as Eagles fans go. I feel the mods/admin are doing a good job considering the admittedly hasty environment. I agree in that I don't think we are ever going to change each others minds as far as those for and against 3.0.

I wish you well,

-WF88/Austin

[sodascouts]

The conflict is unfortunate. We try to keep it in only a couple of active threads so that people can avoid the conflict if they do not enter those threads. Most of the time, members are good about keeping to that. When they slip, I move their posts.

However, its existence is inevitable. This is a controversial topic.

Nevertheless, I am always sad to see good people leave over it.

[YoungEaglesFan]

"You are entitled to it, but after awhile it just has to stop"...is a contradiction if I've ever heard one. So which is it, YEF? The former or the latter? Because it's the former. To me if you take away the negative 3.0 posts but leave up the excitement threads and the pro 3.0 posts, it's not fair. I feel the way Soda and Dreamer and the mods are handling it now is more than fair for everyone and I give them kudos for maintaining it in a climate that isn't very pleasant at times.

I'm sorry the fact that the board still has threads for people to discuss their displeasure in the band members and them continuing on upsets you so much. You have to accept that it will be undermined by some who feel like I do. Maybe if you'd like to have a message board that meets your satisfaction you can go create one and invite all of the likeminded people that you know and insist on only pro-3.0 posters comment or post there. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What I’m trying to say is a bit nuanced but I’m failing to establish my point. I feel that it’s not fair for me to say you guys should be kicked out of a thread. It’s your opinion and I cannot take that away. But I feel that the anti 3.0 lineup thread is a lot different than the concert posts. I think it prolongs the arguments. I also think that arguments for the lineup should stop on concert posts. I think the long term fix is just to let people who go to the concerts talk about them but the topic is largely dropped from both sides. I don’t want it to seem that I’m saying “shut up and forget about it”, I just feel that it’s best for the forum if the topic is less prevelant. That’s just my opinion

[Delilah]

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A THREAD TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS. I do not think they are good for the board to have so much negativity repeated but I DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD “SHUT UP AND MOVE ON”. Sorry for the caps but I found it necessary to make that point clear. I merely think that if we didn’t have the thread it would be good. There isn’t a thread made specifically for pro 3.0 people to make arguments for it. These concerts thread are just discussion about the tour. The anti 3.0 group makes consistent argument points and debates against common pro 3.0 beliefs. But the pro 3.0 does not. It just talks about the concerts which is inherently pro 3.0 but it’s not argumentative. It’s just positive and happy conversation which is not any different than tour talk from HOTE, LROOE or any other tour

I believe there is some merit to what YEF is saying here. It seems as if the pro 3.0 camp is relegated to the concert threads for discussion of the new line-up without being descended upon by the naysayers. But if we ourselves complain about something, we are taken to task for doing so in that “positive only” thread. We are told to come here for that. However,

1. Sometimes people would like to state a grievance but not engage in debate or argument about it or feel like they are being attacked; see the 3.0 and “for those who” threads.

2. Trying to discuss something here inevitably results in getting mired in the same redundant circular debates in which nothing is resolved.

3. Posting anything risks inviting the same old tired comments that have been repeated endlessly by some quarters for months. I mean, is it really necessary to post for the 500th time that these concerts are a cash grab and (shocker!) Azoff is in it for the money?

I realize by this last point I will be accused of trying to “silence” the other side. B/c the new norm seems to be that if the pro-3.0 side expresses frustration about something, we are trying to silence people. If the anti-3.0 side does it, they are “venting.”

The anti-3.0 posters now have 3 threads in which to express their anger and frustration, including this one which is now under their domination. They have two “supporters need not apply” threads in which their assertions can go unchallenged, pro-3.0 members are not allowed to defend themselves against mischaracterized posts, and the mind-reading powers of those who claim to know what the band members are thinking and feeling go unquestioned.

I am not saying we supporters of the new line-up need a thread where we can vent without being bothered by those who oppose our views. I’m just saying perhaps give us some of leeway if we do have something to say in defense of the band in the only threads where we are supposed to be insulated from name-calling and attacks—the concert threads.

[sodascouts]

I believe there is some merit to what YEF is saying here. It seems as if the pro 3.0 camp is relegated to the concert threads for discussion of the new line-up without being descended upon by the naysayers. But if we ourselves complain about something, we are taken to task for doing so in that “positive only” thread. We are told to come here for that. However,

1. Sometimes people would like to state a grievance but not engage in debate or argument about it or feel like they are being attacked; see the 3.0 and “for those who” threads.

2. Trying to discuss something here inevitably results in getting mired in the same redundant circular debates in which nothing is resolved.

3. Posting anything risks inviting the same old tired comments that have been repeated endlessly by some quarters for months. I mean, is it really necessary to post for the 500th time that these concerts are a cash grab and (shocker!) Azoff is in it for the money?

I realize by this last point I will be accused of trying to “silence” the other side. B/c the new norm seems to be that if the pro-3.0 side expresses frustration about something, we are trying to silence people. If the anti-3.0 side does it, they are “venting.”

The anti-3.0 posters now have 3 threads in which to express their anger and frustration, including this one which is now under their domination. They have two “supporters need not apply” threads in which their assertions can go unchallenged, pro-3.0 members are not allowed to defend themselves against mischaracterized posts, and the mind-reading powers of those who claim to know what the band members are thinking and feeling go unquestioned.

I am not saying we supporters of the new line-up need a thread where we can vent without being bothered by those who oppose our views. I’m just saying perhaps give us some of leeway if we do have something to say in defense of the band in the only threads where we are supposed to be insulated from name-calling and attacks—the concert threads.

Wow. I find this astonishing.

I had complaints from people about how they didn't like that they couldn't say anything good about the shows they were going to without controversy erupting, so I asked everyone to keep it positive so threads about the shows didn't get nasty.

Now, that's not good enough.

I said we needed to keep controversy to one thread (two now but this is essentially the only active one) so that the rest of the board wasn't overtaken by drama.

Now that's not good enough.

I asked we keep one thread for ranting (not two, one - this was split from the other). Now one thread is too many. One.

Delilah, every other thread on this board is off limits for dissing Eagles 3.0. Every. Other. Thread.

If that's not acceptable to you.... well, I don't even know what to say.

[Delilah]

Those Who Support the Current Lineup: I understand where you are coming from too. You cannot understand all of the anger and bitterness over the current situation/band. I would never take away your feelings or opinions because they are genuine as well.

Both sides need to come to an agreement at some point. It may not happen for a few years. It may never happen. I know that. But at this point, I've had enough.

Please understand: This is NOT an attack on ANYONE. I'm simply stating my opinion from what I feel is a NEUTRAL viewpoint. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

I wish you all well and hope you can find peace with the situation.

Thank you for your contributions, FBT. I bolded this part b/c this is what I find ironic about this situation. The thing is, I do understand, at least to some extent. I’m a Randy fan; I know it hurts to think your favorite member has been forgotten or marginalized. Of course the circumstances are different; Randy left the band many years ago. But the end result is similar—the band going on without Glenn can be perceived to be saying he wasn’t all that important. So I do get it, at some level.

But in Glenn’s case, I simply cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking he didn’t matter. How can that be? When I go see them perform this summer, I know I will be thinking of Glenn. And I’m not the only one. When Vince or Deacon sing, it will be Glenn’s songs they will be singing, not theirs (except for Vince solo material). I will always think of them as Glenn’s songs. I still think of the WW guitar solo as Glenn’s solo. That will not change no matter what.

[UndertheWire]

My problem is that with all these instructions about what and where you can post, it's just easier to not bother and that isn't healthy for a message board. I try (but sometimes fail) to express how I feel rather than tell others how they should feel. I know I learn a lot from people who think differently but who have expressed themselves. For me, it's important to see the other side so I can try to understand. As a songwriter once wrote "You know you can't change the world, but you can change yourself". This is a fight in which there are no winners.

[New Kid In Town]

I believe there is some merit to what YEF is saying here. It seems as if the pro 3.0 camp is relegated to the concert threads for discussion of the new line-up without being descended upon by the naysayers. But if we ourselves complain about something, we are taken to task for doing so in that “positive only” thread. We are told to come here for that. However,

1. Sometimes people would like to state a grievance but not engage in debate or argument about it or feel like they are being attacked; see the 3.0 and “for those who” threads.

2. Trying to discuss something here inevitably results in getting mired in the same redundant circular debates in which nothing is resolved.

3. Posting anything risks inviting the same old tired comments that have been repeated endlessly by some quarters for months. I mean, is it really necessary to post for the 500th time that these concerts are a cash grab and (shocker!) Azoff is in it for the money?

I realize by this last point I will be accused of trying to “silence” the other side. B/c the new norm seems to be that if the pro-3.0 side expresses frustration about something, we are trying to silence people. If the anti-3.0 side does it, they are “venting.”

The anti-3.0 posters now have 3 threads in which to express their anger and frustration, including this one which is now under their domination. They have two “supporters need not apply” threads in which their assertions can go unchallenged, pro-3.0 members are not allowed to defend themselves against mischaracterized posts, and the mind-reading powers of those who claim to know what the band members are thinking and feeling go unquestioned.

I am not saying we supporters of the new line-up need a thread where we can vent without being bothered by those who oppose our views. I’m just saying perhaps give us some of leeway if we do have something to say in defense of the band in the only threads where we are supposed to be insulated from name-calling and attacks—the concert threads.

Hi Delilah, I pretty much agree with most of what you said. We have been arguing about this since March 2017, when "Eagles 3.0" was first announced. This is a very emotional topic for most people and nothing will change the pro vs con people's mind. Perhaps Soda will want to create a new threat to positively discuss everything concerning this new version of the Eagles. IMHO, everyone deserves a right to say how they feel as long as they do not lodge a personal attack against someone. Most people have been great about expressing their opinion without getting nasty. I thought the concert threads were for the "pro Eagles" people to discuss their experience at a concert they attended or plan to attend. I have tried to stay out of that thread. I think most people have no objection with people expressing their support and seeing this "new " version of the Eagles I certainly do not. I hope they go and have a wonderful time. I do think it can get confusing where to post as people seem to be posting in all three threads. However, I do think Soda and Dreamer have been great about trying to keep the negative comments out of the concert thread. I guess it just comes down to everyone just being respectful to each other. Just my 2 cents......

[Delilah]

Wow. I find this astonishing.

I had complaints from people about how they didn't like that they couldn't say anything good about the shows they were going to without controversy erupting, so I asked everyone to keep it positive so threads about the shows didn't get nasty.

Now, that's not good enough.

I said we needed to keep controversy to one thread (two now but this is essentially the only active one) so that the rest of the board wasn't overtaken by drama.

Now that's not good enough.

I asked we keep one thread for ranting. Now one thread is too many. One.

Delilah, every other thread on this board is off limits for dissing Eagles 3.0. Every. Other. Thread.

If that's not acceptable to you.... well, I don't even know what to say.

I’m not sure if you understood what I was trying to say. I’m not used to posting this early in the a.m. so maybe my post wasn’t clear. I’m not saying what is going on is “unacceptable.”

Anyway, never mind.

[sodascouts]

Hi Delilah, I pretty much agree with most of what you said. We have been arguing about this since March 2017, when "Eagles 3.0" was first announced. This is a very emotional topic for most people and nothing will change the pro vs con people's mind. Perhaps Soda will want to create a new threat to positively discuss everything concerning this new version of the Eagles. IMHO, everyone deserves a right to say how they feel as long as they do not lodge a personal attack against someone. Most people have been great about expressing their opinion without getting nasty. I thought the concert threads were for the "pro Eagles" people to discuss their experience at a concert they attended or plan to attend. I have tried to stay out of that thread. I think most people have no objection with people seeing this "new " version of the Eagles I certainly do not. I hope they go and have a wonderful time. I think Soda and Dreamer have been great about trying to keep the negative comments out of the concert thread. I guess it just comes down to everyone just being respectful to each other. Just my 2 cents......

I understand what you guys are saying about the virtues of allowing conflict in the concert threads rather than keeping them positive, but do we really want all the Pre-Concert anticipation threads to become variations of "got my ticket - hope all those people who don't like that don't get mad..." [more insults] [drama ensues].

Fanny left because she didn't like that there was conflict in a couple threads! People complain about "All the hate" when it's limited to a couple threads! Imagine if it were in every thread!

Yes, it would allow people to gripe without having to come in here, but even they would probably regret it after seeing what the board would become.

[sodascouts]

I’m not sure if you understood what I was trying to say. I’m not used to posting this early in the a.m. so maybe my post wasn’t clear. I’m not saying what is going on is “unacceptable.”


Obviously, I did misunderstand, then. I am reading this in an airport and my plane is boarding so I won't be replying for a while!

[shunlvswx]

I can tell you what I'm a little upset about. Anything we post gets twisted. The reason why I didn't post the new photo is because I had a feeling the ones who don't like this current version is going to talk bad about the picture and I was right. Or post a video and they will come up with something to talk bad about the video or even an article. IMO that's what gets me.

What also gets me and I'm very confused about is we talked bad about Don, Joe and Timothy but when its comes to their individual boards, you're all nice and forgot that you hate them especially Don. I thought I was going to hear something negative about Timothy's fall. (side note: thank you Dreamer for putting up that get well soon thread on Timothy. I do appreciate that thread you made for us to wish well wishes for Timothy). That's what I get very confused about. That's probably the reason why we're (mainly me) on eggshells posting stuff because we know its going to get talked down in another thread.

I take stuff seriously and I do get hurt when I see negative stuff especially I'm part of that group. That's just me and I've been like that all my life. Maybe I need to stop listening or read negative stuff and not let stuff gets to me. Yes I should stay out of the negative thread, but its hard not to read when you have to click on it to say you read the thread so you will know when a new reply has been posted in another thread. I try to stay out of these arguments which IMO never stops. Anything new that pops up will always be talked down and that's why these arguments keep popping up.

[buffyfan145]

I understand how you feel too Shun and I've gone through this in other fandoms. I too get too invested in things and sometimes have to take a step back from it if it's causing me too much stress, which it has. This is part of the reason I don't post that much at all across the whole board, and if I do it's just replying to things and I carefully word now what I have to say (and some of it had nothing to do with the band but other things that I've said in the past about various things). I know I haven't been that vocal but that's because I have been avoiding a lot of it as I don't need that stress. But I do feel too I have to be careful about what I say or post because of others reactions on both sides so I just really mostly read now and probably one day will stop coming over here as I feel this fandom has gotten too toxic on both sides. I've seen it happen in all my fandoms, especially for my TV shows, whenever there is a divisive issue so I shouldn't be surprised. It's the way the world is now and it's very nasty at times so I'd just rather not be a part of it and focus on better things.

[chaim]

When I say something negative about the current lineup these days, usually it's just a remark and not something I'm willing to fight about or defend for weeks. I say it and then move on. I said that it makes me sick to see the name "Eagles" on top of that otherwise nice picture. I said it and I'm done with that. If someone strongly disagrees and tells me so, it's perfectly fine. I will still think what I think, but I won't be "fighting my corner" about it. So I really don't think that I'm destroying other people's fun here with occasional remarks like that.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

You know what - I'm so freakin' disgusted right now that I can hardly think straight. Therefore, I'm not going to say a whole lot until I can regain my composure.

But, I will say this. I hate to see anyone leave here because the mission of this board has always been to create a fun place for Eagles fans all over the world to discuss their favorite band. That's, obviously, a lot easier said than done. But, the only person paying the bills to maintain this site is Nancy. So, even if you don't like the rules around here, you need to respect them. We have bent over backwards to try to make this fair for everyone, so if we have failed and you are miserable, then do yourself a favor and step away from the negativity. If anyone doesn't like what they read in other threads, DON"T GO THERE. But, if you choose to read them, than that's on you - so enough with the complaining. This whole new ridiculous outrage started because some choose to call other members 'haters', not because of the way the threads are structured. So, it's really simple - stop the name-calling and finger-pointing and maybe this toxic envioronment will improve.

[YoungEaglesFan]

my main point from earlier is that I want to one day have it so that there aren’t threads where we discuss the Glenn issue anymore. The only 3.0 thing that would be talked about ideally would be those who just want to talk about their concert experience. I said emotionally so it came across poorly. But I will try to be an example of someone who can comment about the tour but not make it about Glenn and his replacments. I think that’s a possible solution. I feel bad about the hater comment. In my context I was just finding a word to describe people who rejected the new lineup. It was lazy and foolish. But I meant no offense and it’s something I wouldn’t take offense if I was told it. But again I don’t get to decide how others should feel. I just hope the issue becomes irrelevant on here at some point.

[Brooke]

My problem is that with all these instructions about what and where you can post, it's just easier to not bother and that isn't healthy for a message board. I try (but sometimes fail) to express how I feel rather than tell others how they should feel. I know I learn a lot from people who think differently but who have expressed themselves. For me, it's important to see the other side so I can try to understand. As a songwriter once wrote "You know you can't change the world, but you can change yourself". This is a fight in which there are no winners.

And this is me too, UtW.


When I say something negative about the current lineup these days, usually it's just a remark and not something I'm willing to fight about or defend for weeks. I say it and then move on. I said that it makes me sick to see the name "Eagles" on top of that otherwise nice picture. I said it and I'm done with that. If someone strongly disagrees and tells me so, it's perfectly fine. I will still think what I think, but I won't be "fighting my corner" about it. So I really don't think that I'm destroying other people's fun here with occasional remarks like that.

Chaim, perfect.

I pretty much avoid these threads because I hate conflict. I do not like to argue. Not one of us here can change anything about what this band does, so what is the point? We might as well all do our own thing, (go see and enjoy or don't go) and forget about it! Live and let live!

And that is my comment about this whole mess.

[Dawn]

Haters is an inflammatory highly offensive term and was used specifically in reference to fans who are not supportive of the new version of the Eagles.

It was not a harmless, unintentional mistake. It was deliberate name calling and made worse when faced with the inevitable push back it turned into a whole different issue in a ridiculous attempt to shift the blame away from the name callers to the way the board is operated and structured.

Second, many non supporters are long time fans who have followed the band since the early 70's when the Eagles opened for other bands/artists dreaming of the day they would be headliners. Like me. Others actually met and knew Glenn Frey like Soda/Nancy the owner/operator of this incredible website and moderators and Border members who traveled from all over the US and from overseas to attend certain concerts and events as a group in support of Glenn Frey solo concerts and with the Eagles. The feelings over the loss of Glenn and what has happened since run very deep.

Haters as you call any of us is wrong on many levels but none so egregious as allegations made in this thread that are best left not personally addressed. At least not at this time.

[Annoying Twit]

Yes, 'haters' is an inflammatory term. And inflammatory terms never help.

Clearly some people have extremely negative feelings towards Eagles, e.g. a photo being labelled making someone feel 'sick', and a need to express these emotions.

How would these emotions best be described?

[YoungEaglesFan]

Haters is an inflammatory highly offensive term and was used specifically in reference to fans who are not supportive of the new version of the Eagles.

It was not a harmless, unintentional mistake. It was deliberate name calling and made worse when faced with the inevitable push back it turned into a whole different issue in a ridiculous attempt to shift the blame away from the name callers to the way the board is operated and structured.

Second, many non supporters are long time fans who have followed the band since the early 70's when the Eagles opened for other bands/artists dreaming of the day they would be headliners. Like me. Others actually met and knew Glenn Frey like Soda/Nancy the owner/operator of this incredible website and moderators and Border members who traveled from all over the US and from overseas to attend certain concerts and events as a group in support of Glenn Frey solo concerts and with the Eagles. The feelings over the loss of Glenn and what has happened since run very deep.

Haters as you call any of us is wrong on many levels but none so egregious as allegations made in this thread that are best left not personally addressed. At least not at this time.

I don’t know what else to tell you. The word hater is a word I’ve seen used a lot. It was used intentionally at the moment but I can tell you it’s a mistake. I’m the only one who used the word so it’s not fair to blame others in this thread for my mistake. It’s mine alone. But I didn’t try shifting blame away. In the same comment I owned up to using the comment I made my complaint. I wasn’t shifting blame. I wasn’t even blaming anyone in my complaint. I cannot stress enough that I do not find the word hater inflammatory or highly offensive. It was not the proper word to use and it was disrespectful but I would never use a word that I felt was highly inflammatory or offensive on purpose. I was called a don fanboy before and I let it go. I’m not saying that means what I said is ok but there wasn’t such a strong reaction to that as there is to this. I can wonder why but I’m not a victim in this situation, so I have limited grounds to complain about how I was treated. I regret using the word towards you, FreyPower, Walshfan, Soda, Dreamer, Chaim, New Kid In Town and others. There are a select few that the word would apply to but that isn’t relevant in this discussion. I was using hater as just a word for someone who has a great dislike for something. I felt it was appropriate. It wasn’t. I own up to and I’ll try harder to use better language

[YoungEaglesFan]

This is not a shift in blame as this was in the past but I felt frustrated when I was called a troll by people in the anti 3.0 forum. I felt that was not fair and I felt offended by that. I feel the word troll and hater are on similar footing. Maybe others don’t but I did. It’s in the past now but I just wish in this instance something was said. Name calling is never appropriate be it by me or anyone else and I hope that it can be solved. I will have to grow from this

[Annoying Twit]

I don’t know what else to tell you. The word hater is a word I’ve seen used a lot. It was used intentionally at the moment but I can tell you it’s a mistake. I’m the only one who used the word so it’s not fair to blame others in this thread for my mistake. It’s mine alone. But I didn’t try shifting blame away. In the same comment I owned up to using the comment I made my complaint. I wasn’t shifting blame. I wasn’t even blaming anyone in my complaint. I cannot stress enough that I do not find the word hater inflammatory or highly offensive. It was not the proper word to use and it was disrespectful but I would never use a word that I felt was highly inflammatory or offensive on purpose. I was called a don fanboy before and I let it go. I’m not saying that means what I said is ok but there wasn’t such a strong reaction to that as there is to this. I can wonder why but I’m not a victim in this situation, so I have limited grounds to complain about how I was treated. I regret using the word towards you, FreyPower, Walshfan, Soda, Dreamer, Chaim, New Kid In Town and others. There are a select few that the word would apply to but that isn’t relevant in this discussion. I was using hater as just a word for someone who has a great dislike for something. I felt it was appropriate. It wasn’t. I own up to and I’ll try harder to use better language

I would think that it would be reasonable that you could express your opinion if you wish to, but finding the appropriate language is going to be very difficult.


This is not a shift in blame as this was in the past but I felt frustrated when I was called a troll by people in the anti 3.0 forum. I felt that was not fair and I felt offended by that. I feel the word troll and hater are on similar footing. Maybe others don’t but I did. It’s in the past now but I just wish in this instance something was said. Name calling is never appropriate be it by me or anyone else and I hope that it can be solved. I will have to grow from this

I agree that inappropriate language has been used by both sides. I'm not sure if the word 'troll' was used directly on me, but I was accused of trolling.

[Dawn]

perhaps you might need to go back and read your convo commiserating about haters with Tac.

[Annoying Twit]

perhaps you might need to go back and read your convo commiserating about haters with Tac.

To whom is this addressed?

[YoungEaglesFan]

I would think that it would be reasonable that you could express your opinion if you wish to, but finding the appropriate language is going to be very difficult.



I agree that inappropriate language has been used by both sides. I'm not sure if the word 'troll' was used directly on me, but I was accused of trolling.

I tend to agree. I have a poor record of saying what I intend to say.

[YoungEaglesFan]

perhaps you might need to go back and read your convo commiserating about haters with Tac.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that.

[Dawn]

Trolls as in posters who engage in baiting, stirring the pot, etc not the same as hater.

[Dawn]

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that.

Your post 329

[Dawn]

To whom is this addressed?

Sorry, not you.

[Annoying Twit]

Your post 329

(Here the 'you' is YEF, not me.)

I note that in that conversation, that Tac wasn't criciticsed for his/her language:


why shouldn’t you be excited? if not, why buy the ticket?
i know the raging debate continues and they are entitled to
their opinions too, but i think it’s sad that hate takes over in
some other threads.
i’ll be going to the houston show in june .. my 1st eagles show
and i’m over the moon
would i like to have seen glenn, randy, bernie and don f?
i love the music from that lineup and i would just about sell my soul
for an opportunity to go back in time, but since that isn’t
possible, i’m giving the current lineup a chance and am not gonna
let the haters ruin it for me
be excited shun ... enjoy the show :grooving:

(My emphasis)

I'm clearly not expecting everyone to agree with the bolded bit. But, is that a reasonable way to express an opinion on here? It does mention the h-word, but it's the subsequent post that was criticised.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Trolls as in posters who engage in baiting, stirring the pot, etc not the same as hater.

I still found the term belittling. I’ve never made comments intended to make people angry. Quite frankly arguments on here stress me out. I don’t enjoy this, it happens but I don’t like it at all. I felt it was an unfair assertion that just because I held particular views, I must be trying to stir the pot, and not have an actual discussion

[Dawn]

Whatever They can share the credit and the blame. Either way it's like the boy who cried wolf too many times. Not listening or wasting my time on this. I am officially in the disgusted aisle now.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Whatever They can share the credit and the blame. Either way it's like the boy who cried wolf too many times. Not listening or wasting my time on this. I am officially in the disgusted aisle now.

Feel how you feel. I’m entitled to feel the wronged, just like you are. I cannot make you feel the same way as me, so be it

[chaim]

Yes, 'haters' is an inflammatory term. And inflammatory terms never help.

Clearly some people have extremely negative feelings towards Eagles, e.g. a photo being labelled making someone feel 'sick', and a need to express these emotions.

How would these emotions best be described?

Not sure what we're getting at here. I said how I felt about a picture with a band name above it, and almost everyone "expresses emotions". Why should it be described in some way? Do I need a label? :headscratch:

[WalshFan88]

Haters is an inflammatory highly offensive term and was used specifically in reference to fans who are not supportive of the new version of the Eagles.

It was not a harmless, unintentional mistake. It was deliberate name calling and made worse when faced with the inevitable push back it turned into a whole different issue in a ridiculous attempt to shift the blame away from the name callers to the way the board is operated and structured.

Second, many non supporters are long time fans who have followed the band since the early 70's when the Eagles opened for other bands/artists dreaming of the day they would be headliners. Like me. Others actually met and knew Glenn Frey like Soda/Nancy the owner/operator of this incredible website and moderators and Border members who traveled from all over the US and from overseas to attend certain concerts and events as a group in support of Glenn Frey solo concerts and with the Eagles. The feelings over the loss of Glenn and what has happened since run very deep.

Haters as you call any of us is wrong on many levels but none so egregious as allegations made in this thread that are best left not personally addressed. At least not at this time.

Well said Dawn.

[Freypower]

Not sure what we're getting at here. I said how I felt about a picture with a band name above it, and almost everyone "expresses emotions". Why should it be described in some way? Do I need a label? :headscratch:

Well, you're with me. I also took exception to that photo, specifically the image of Schmit standing with his arms folded. I found the body language negative & said so. I was instantly labelled bitter & out of touch with reality. I won't requote it, but what made it worse was that this was not even addressed to me personally. Putting it in the 'other' thread did not mean I was not going to see it & comment on it

All I have been trying to say is the 3.0 people are going to have to accept that the anti 3.0 people will never accept this situation. They complain they are victims. I'm afraid I disagree. The real victims are fans of Glenn Frey who miss him & have no subsitute for him.

However I believe that after two long years, fans of Glenn Frey may have something to be pleased about. I will head over there.

[Freypower]

I can tell you what I'm a little upset about. Anything we post gets twisted. The reason why I didn't post the new photo is because I had a feeling the ones who don't like this current version is going to talk bad about the picture and I was right. Or post a video and they will come up with something to talk bad about the video or even an article. IMO that's what gets me.

What also gets me and I'm very confused about is we talked bad about Don, Joe and Timothy but when its comes to their individual boards, you're all nice and forgot that you hate them especially Don. I thought I was going to hear something negative about Timothy's fall. (side note: thank you Dreamer for putting up that get well soon thread on Timothy. I do appreciate that thread you made for us to wish well wishes for Timothy). That's what I get very confused about. That's probably the reason why we're (mainly me) on eggshells posting stuff because we know its going to get talked down in another thread.

I take stuff seriously and I do get hurt when I see negative stuff especially I'm part of that group. That's just me and I've been like that all my life. Maybe I need to stop listening or read negative stuff and not let stuff gets to me. Yes I should stay out of the negative thread, but its hard not to read when you have to click on it to say you read the thread so you will know when a new reply has been posted in another thread. I try to stay out of these arguments which IMO never stops. Anything new that pops up will always be talked down and that's why these arguments keep popping up.


Sorry, no.

I have not made ONE comment on any video that has been posted. And I have not seen any other such comments from people on my side.

Why would anyone say anything nasty about Tim's fall? Really. They haven't and it is a ridiculous suggestion that such a thing could have happened.

I don't 'hate' Don, Joe & Tim. I just don't. I have too much history with them to do that. But I have lost a huge amount of respect for them. So yet again, that word is being used.

Regarding articles & that photo, people have the right to comment on it, just as you do. I made a comment, which I stand by, for which I have now been shot down in flames. I accept that; I also believe I had every right to make the comment.

Look, I understand that you & YEF & others would like this to stop, but I take strong objection to being misrepresented in this way.

[WKMB55]

I looked at the photograph. I formed an opinion. I expressed it. It doesn't matter how many other posts I read from people who have similar or differing opinions, mine isn't going to change (and I have no desire to change anyone elses) so I don't have anything new or different to add. If others want to discuss my post it is their choice but I won't be responding. I don't ask or expect it from anyone else and I quit offering explanations or justifications for my thoughts years ago.

[Freypower]

I looked at the photograph. I formed an opinion. I expressed it. It doesn't matter how many other posts I read from people who have similar or differing opinions, mine isn't going to change (and I have no desire to change anyone elses) so I don't have anything new or different to add. If others want to discuss my post it is their choice but I won't be responding. I don't ask or expect it from anyone else and I quit offering explanations or justifications for my thoughts years ago.

I just want you to know I had no problem with what you said about the photo. Your view is as valid as mine.

[sodascouts]

I just want you to know I had no problem with what you said about the photo. Your view is as valid as mine.

Agreed.

[UndertheWire]

About the photo... I thought it was a little strange that Deacon was holding a guitar and, yes, I had a cynical thought that it was his way of claiming legitimacy but then I decided it's just his way of bringing his father into the picture.

[WKMB55]

Thank you, Freypower. I respect your opinion as well. A lot of different people can look at the same picture and all might interpret it differently. That's life. Those who visit this site know pretty much how the others feel although I'm still undecided on a number of things. Some things have happened that even in my wildest imagination I couldn't have seen coming. Sadly the dynamics of everything associated with the Eagles changed forever the day Glenn passed.

[sodascouts]

Sadly the dynamics of everything associated with the Eagles changed forever the day Glenn passed.

Exactly.

[WKMB55]

Underthewire, my son was in his mid twenties when my husband/his father passed unexpectedly. It was a real struggle for him to come to terms with the situation and how to honor his father. Then he tried to take it upon himself (but I wouldn't let him) to try to do things that would make me happy because that is what his father had always done. These are things people who have never been in this situation don't fully understand and how could they? I'm willing to give Deacon some extra understanding.

[Dawn]

"You are entitled to it, but after awhile it just has to stop"...is a contradiction if I've ever heard one. So which is it, YEF? The former or the latter? Because it's the former. To me if you take away the negative 3.0 posts but leave up the excitement threads and the pro 3.0 posts, it's not fair. I feel the way Soda and Dreamer and the mods are handling it now is more than fair for everyone and I give them kudos for maintaining it in a climate that isn't very pleasant at times.

I'm sorry the fact that the board still has threads for people to discuss their displeasure in the band members and them continuing on upsets you so much. You have to accept that it will be undermined by some who feel like I do. Maybe if you'd like to have a message board that meets your satisfaction you can go create one and invite all of the likeminded people that you know and insist on only pro-3.0 posters comment or post there. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Excellent post Austin you make some very good points. :thumbsup:

Dawn

[maryc2130]

I feel that if Timothy had been taking that stance on an old picture with the band before Glenn died, the negative comments would not have been made. Maybe that's not true, but to me, because people don't like the concept of Eagles 3.0, they try to find things in this new iteration of the band to support that view. It's human nature, in a way. I could be wrong, and if i am, I apologize, but it does seem that way to me.

[Dawn]

I just don't care for the styling.

[chaim]

Well, you're with me. I also took exception to that photo, specifically the image of Schmit standing with his arms folded. I found the body language negative & said so. I was instantly labelled bitter & out of touch with reality. I won't requote it, but what made it worse was that this was not even addressed to me personally. Putting it in the 'other' thread did not mean I was not going to see it & comment on it

All I have been trying to say is the 3.0 people are going to have to accept that the anti 3.0 people will never accept this situation. They complain they are victims. I'm afraid I disagree. The real victims are fans of Glenn Frey who miss him & have no subsitute for him.

However I believe that after two long years, fans of Glenn Frey may have something to be pleased about. I will head over there.

The word 'sick' came from my brief post. I find the comment about the "need to express these emotions" patronizing. Sure, it's an intellectual sounding phrase, but I don't see any great signifigance in it here. Everyone has a "need to express emotions" - whether they hate the current band or love it.

EDIT:

Guess I just don't enjoy being singled out when I only make occasional brief comments about the "issue".

[Annoying Twit]

Not sure what we're getting at here. I said how I felt about a picture with a band name above it, and almost everyone "expresses emotions". Why should it be described in some way? Do I need a label? :headscratch:

I'm not talking about just one thing, or you in particular. It's seeing example after example of very many things all put together.

When people give in to hate, it becomes a self-fuelling fire, as the hate generates outrage, which leads to interpretation of everything in that light, which leads to further outrage, which deepens the hate.

This is what I believe that I'm seeing in some corners here. That people have become so obsessed with what is going on that they are interpreting everything through that filter. And building outrage on outrage.

Looking at the photograph, we have a picture of a band with the current members, and two of the members are holding their guitars. This is a very normal and unexceptional thing to happen. I don't think that Deacon is trying to 'legitimise' his position in the band, he's just a guitarist and singer in a band who is holding a guitar. He was invited in by the current members, and has done a very good job in the band. That makes him fully legitimate, and I don't think there is any further striving for legitimacy that he needs to address by holding a guitar in a picture.

That the picture is being picked apart and interpreted in the way that it is is just another example of this. By itself, it wouldn't be that significant. But as a pattern that has now been going on for over a year, the sum total is incredibly significant in my eyes.

As for why the emotion needs to be express. I wouldn't say 'needs', but it is reasonable that if people are part of a community and that they are unhappy with what is happening in that community, that they can express and discuss these opinions.

And directly for Chaim, I'm sorry if you found my language 'patronising' or 'an intellectual phrase'. I used formal language, but this is part because I wasn't sure how to express my opinion. I had asked several times what language was appropriate but didn't really get an answer.

[chaim]

I'm not talking about just one thing, or you in particular. It's seeing example after example of very many things all put together.

When people give in to hate, it becomes a self-fuelling fire, as the hate generates outrage, which leads to interpretation of everything in that light, which leads to further outrage, which deepens the hate.

This is what I believe that I'm seeing in some corners here. That people have become so obsessed with what is going on that they are interpreting everything through that filter. And building outrage on outrage.

Looking at the photograph, we have a picture of a band with the current members, and two of the members are holding their guitars. This is a very normal and unexceptional thing to happen. I don't think that Deacon is trying to 'legitimise' his position in the band, he's just a guitarist and singer in a band who is holding a guitar. He was invited in by the current members, and has done a very good job in the band. That makes him fully legitimate, and I don't think there is any further striving for legitimacy that he needs to address by holding a guitar in a picture.

That the picture is being picked apart and interpreted in the way that it is is just another example of this. By itself, it wouldn't be that significant. But as a pattern that has now been going on for over a year, the sum total is incredibly significant in my eyes.

As for why the emotion needs to be express. I wouldn't say 'needs', but it is reasonable that if people are part of a community and that they are unhappy with what is happening in that community, that they can express and discuss these opinions.

So you were actually defending us with those words. If so, it's nice and appreciated. If there had been the word 'too' at the end ("...express their emotions too.") I probably wouldn't have misunderstood.

I haven't read every post here lately. What I saw was a word from my post singled out and I only post occasionally these days. Felt like I'm supposedly leading some kind of a "hate" group here.

[Annoying Twit]

So you were actually defending us with those words. If so, it's nice and appreciated. If there had been the word 'too' at the end ("...express their emotions too.") I probably wouldn't have misunderstood.

I haven't read every post here lately. What I saw was a word from my post singled out and I only post occasionally these days. Felt like I'd leading some kind of a "hate" group here.

That wasn't an attempt to defend or criticise anyone, but an attempt at an objective description of the situation.

In general, I am saying that it looks to me as if some people have given in to hate, and of course I don't expect them to be happy with this characterisation or accept it in any way.

[chaim]

That wasn't an attempt to defend or criticise anyone, but an attempt at an objective description of the situation.

In general, I am saying that it looks to me as if some people have given in to hate, and of course I don't expect them to be happy with this characterisation or accept it in any way.

Have I "given in to hate" when I make an occasional disapproving comment here and there? And therefore do I fit in your characterisation? Just curious where you see the line.

[Annoying Twit]

Have I "given in to hate" when I make an occasional disapproving comment here and there? And therefore do I fit in your characterisation? Just curious where you see the line.

I'm not sure that there is a 'line', and wouldn't put myself in the position of judging who has crossed it.

But, it's not an 'occasional disapproving comment here and there' that I'm talking about. It's far more than that.

[chaim]

I'm not sure that there is a 'line', and wouldn't put myself in the position of judging who has crossed it.

But, it's not an 'occasional disapproving comment here and there' that I'm talking about. It's far more than that.

No, you're not in the position. Just asked where you see it.

[chaim]

Now that we've established and covered the "given in to hate" category and proclaimed that certain people belong there I guess it's only fair to discuss the "anything goes/blind adulation" category next, if there is one. :mrgreen:

[sodascouts]

Your initial instincts were right about Annoying Twit, chaim. Annoying Twit has pulled this kind of thing before.

Here's what should happen:

Group 1: "It upsets me when you call me a hater."

Group 2: "OK. I won't do that anymore."

And we move on.

But that wouldn't be any fun, would it, AT?

Annoying Twit only comes "out to play" when there's a fight, and loves to keep it going; he'll take you around and around and around, typically by asking disingenuous questions and bloviating, just for the sake of it. I find that type of behavior far more troubling than anything you, I, or anyone else on either side with genuine feelings has displayed.

[Annoying Twit]

Now that we've established and covered the "given in to hate" category and proclaimed that certain people belong there I guess it's only fair to discuss the "anything goes/blind adulation" category next, if there is one. :mrgreen:

I have no objection if anyone asks that question either explicitly or ambiguously aimed at me. And I'd just answer it calmly. E.g.

A good question to ask to establish whether people are in that position is: what would be acceptable?

E.g. if we had a Guess Who situation and Don Felder somehow obtain legal ownership of the Eagles name and put a band together and toured, then I'd strongly object to that.

E.g. if we had a 10CC situation and Don H put together a brand new band including all new musicians and toured as Eagles, then I would be unimpressed by that.

Hence, I don't think that 'anything goes' as I can describe some plausible eventualities that I wouldn't like.

I do think that the current situation with Don H, Tim, Joe, Deacon and Vince does 'go', and is a bonus compared to having no Eagles at all after Glenn's passing. I don't personally think that means that I will accept anything no matter what, nor that I'm blind in my adulation. I was concerned before the first concert whether Deacon could provide the goods after seeing the odd youtube video. But, I was conclusively proved wrong and I was happy to be proved so. However, that wasn't just me accepting anything. If Deacon had been an embarrassment or if Vince hadn't fitted in, I believe I would have recognised that and said so.

[chaim]

I have no objection if anyone asks that question either explicitly or ambiguously aimed at me. And I'd just answer it calmly. E.g.

A good question to ask to establish whether people are in that position is: what would be acceptable?

E.g. if we had a Guess Who situation and Don Felder somehow obtain legal ownership of the Eagles name and put a band together and toured, then I'd strongly object to that.

E.g. if we had a 10CC situation and Don H put together a brand new band including all new musicians and toured as Eagles, then I would be unimpressed by that.

Hence, I don't think that 'anything goes' as I can describe some plausible eventualities that I wouldn't like.

I do think that the current situation with Don H, Tim, Joe, Deacon and Vince does 'go', and is a bonus compared to having no Eagles at all after Glenn's passing. I don't personally think that means that I will accept anything no matter what, nor that I'm blind in my adulation. I was concerned before the first concert whether Deacon could provide the goods after seeing the odd youtube video. But, I was conclusively proved wrong and I was happy to be proved so. However, that wasn't just me accepting anything. If Deacon had been an embarrassment or if Vince hadn't fitted in, I believe I would have recognised that and said so.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. For the most part I don't have a clue what you're saying.

[sodascouts]

I take stuff seriously and I do get hurt when I see negative stuff especially I'm part of that group. That's just me and I've been like that all my life. Maybe I need to stop listening or read negative stuff and not let stuff gets to me. Yes I should stay out of the negative thread, but its hard not to read when you have to click on it to say you read the thread so you will know when a new reply has been posted in another thread. I try to stay out of these arguments which IMO never stops. Anything new that pops up will always be talked down and that's why these arguments keep popping up.

I do think you need to stop reading the two negative threads if they are so upsetting to you. It actually seems to me that if you stop reading those threads, most of your anxiety will go away because you won't be subjected to all the negativity that is causing you so much distress. Just scroll past the two negative/controversial threads to see new replies elsewhere. I strongly urge you to try it.

[UndertheWire]

Here's a suggestion. Perhaps we could all try to be a little nicer and try to find common ground rather than fighting. Rather than classifying people as "for" or "against" recognise them as individuals with opinions that fall somewhere on the scale between strongly for and strongly against but with whom we share a love of the music.

Today, my yoga class ended with encouragement to "let go that which no longer serves".

[Annoying Twit]

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. For the most part I don't have a clue what you're saying.

TL;DR:

There are some situations that I would strongly dislike, and some that I would find unacceptable.

Hence, I don't think I just accept everything blindly. But, I find the current Eagles and their activities since touring started not just acceptable, but a good thing.

EDIT: I do think that it is worthwhile to discuss this, so I am happy to discuss my own viewpoint and accept critiques of it.

[chaim]

TL;DR:

There are some situations that I would strongly dislike, and some that I would find unacceptable.

Hence, I don't think I just accept everything blindly. But, I find the current Eagles and their activities since touring started not just acceptable, but a good thing.

Oh. I wasn't referring to you at all.

[Freypower]

I'm not talking about just one thing, or you in particular. It's seeing example after example of very many things all put together.

When people give in to hate, it becomes a self-fuelling fire, as the hate generates outrage, which leads to interpretation of everything in that light, which leads to further outrage, which deepens the hate.

This is what I believe that I'm seeing in some corners here. That people have become so obsessed with what is going on that they are interpreting everything through that filter. And building outrage on outrage.

Looking at the photograph, we have a picture of a band with the current members, and two of the members are holding their guitars. This is a very normal and unexceptional thing to happen. I don't think that Deacon is trying to 'legitimise' his position in the band, he's just a guitarist and singer in a band who is holding a guitar. He was invited in by the current members, and has done a very good job in the band. That makes him fully legitimate, and I don't think there is any further striving for legitimacy that he needs to address by holding a guitar in a picture.

That the picture is being picked apart and interpreted in the way that it is is just another example of this. By itself, it wouldn't be that significant. But as a pattern that has now been going on for over a year, the sum total is incredibly significant in my eyes.

As for why the emotion needs to be express. I wouldn't say 'needs', but it is reasonable that if people are part of a community and that they are unhappy with what is happening in that community, that they can express and discuss these opinions.

And directly for Chaim, I'm sorry if you found my language 'patronising' or 'an intellectual phrase'. I used formal language, but this is part because I wasn't sure how to express my opinion. I had asked several times what language was appropriate but didn't really get an answer.

I repeat, I am not a 'hater' and once again, I object in the stongest possible fashion to the use of this word which demonises me & basically says that nothing I say has any validity.

[chaim]

8)
I repeat, I am not a 'hater' and once again, I object in the stongest possible fashion to the use of this word which demonises me & basically says that nothing I say has any validity.

You are not a 'hater' and everything you say has validity.

EDIT:

And you're certainly not in some category defined by somebody else.

[Annoying Twit]

I repeat, I am not a 'hater' and once again, I object in the stongest possible fashion to the use of this word which demonises me & basically says that nothing I say has any validity.

You quoted my post, so I presume that you are referring to me. I didn't use the word at all.


Oh. I wasn't referring to you at all.

Again, you quoted my post. I therefore thought that the text underneath the post referred to me for that reason.

[chaim]

Again, you quoted my post. I therefore thought that the text underneath the post referred to me for that reason.

Nothing I said or did implied I was talking about you.

[Freypower]

You quoted my post, so I presume that you are referring to me. I didn't use the word at all.



Again, you quoted my post. I therefore thought that the text underneath the post referred to me for that reason.


I quoted your post where you said 'where people give in to hate'. I bolded it for you. Please don't continue to deny that is what you said.

[Annoying Twit]

I quoted your post where you said 'where people give in to hate'. I bolded it for you. Please don't continue to deny that is what you said.

I'm not denying that I said what I said, but I didn't use the word ending in 'r'. I was very careful not to.


Nothing I said or did implied I was talking about you.

It was said right underneath a quote of my post?!?!?!?! How does that not imply that you were talking about me?

[chaim]

It was said right underneath a quote of my post?!?!?!?!

Relax. I was referring to the discussion about those "given in to hate" - and suggested (as a joke, by the way) that perhaps we should discuss a possible group that is just the opposite. "If there is one", I said. I didn't say the group exists and certainly not that you belong in one.

[Annoying Twit]

Relax. I was referring to the discussion about those "given up to hate" - and suggested (as a joke, by the way) that perhaps we should discuss a possible group that is just the opposite. "If there is one", I said. I didn't say the group exists and certainly not that you belong in one.

I now strongly suspect that we are talking at cross purposes. It might be best to end it here as the misunderstanding doesn't seem to be resolving.

[chaim]

I now strongly suspect that we are talking at cross purposes. It might be best to end it here as the misunderstanding doesn't seem to be resolving.

You misunderstood the meaning of my post. I explained what I actually meant. What is there left to resolve?

[sodascouts]

Here's a suggestion. Perhaps we could all try to be a little nicer and try to find common ground rather than fighting. Rather than classifying people as "for" or "against" recognise them as individuals with opinions that fall somewhere on the scale between strongly for and strongly against but with whom we share a love of the music.


Sounds like a plan. Let me clarify a few things along those lines, for the record:

1. Do I recognize that Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit are talented men with a great deal to offer despite my loss of respect for them for engaging in this venture, which I am strongly against?

Yes.

2. Do I violently hate them, rejoicing when they are in pain?

No... and if your life experiences lead you to believe that it's commonplace for people to relish the pain and suffering of those who disappoint them, then you need to associate with different people.

3. Do I think anyone who supports the group calling themselves the Eagles, regardless of degree, is a bad person?

No. Several people I call my friends are going to shows.

4. Do I recognize that they have a right to their opinion?

Yes.

5. Do I react badly to getting labeled, judged, and harangued for my opinion?

Yes.

6. Am I willing to recognize that people get heated and let it go when things settle down?

Yes.

I'm ready for things to settle down.

[UndertheWire]

There are people who I like and respect who are strongly against this version and there are people I like and respect who are enthusiastic about it. I don't like feeling I'm expected to pick a side.

[WalshFan88]

As for why the emotion needs to be express. I wouldn't say 'needs', but it is reasonable that if people are part of a community and that they are unhappy with what is happening in that community, that they can express and discuss these opinions.

I would definitely say need. We are very much entitled to that.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Sounds like a plan. Let me clarify a few things along those lines, for the record:

Do I recognize that Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit are talented men with a great deal to offer despite my loss of respect for them for engaging in this venture, which I am strongly against?

Yes.

Do I violently hate them, rejoicing when they are in pain?

No... and if your life experiences lead you to believe that it's commonplace for people to relish the pain and suffering of those who disappoint them, then you need to associate with different people.

Do I think anyone who supports the group calling themselves the Eagles, regardless of degree, is a bad person?

No. Several people I call my friends are going to shows.

Do I recognize that they have a right to their opinion?

Yes.

Do I react badly to getting labeled, judged, and harangued for my opinion?

Yes.

Am I willing to recognize that people get heated and let it go when things settle down?

Yes.

I'm ready for things to settle down.


I think this was a good post soda. Thank you for making a good post in a time where I have made a mess of the thread

[Freypower]

I'm not denying that I said what I said, but I didn't use the word ending in 'r'. I was very careful not to.



What a pointless exercise in semantics. Actually, 'given in to hate' is possibly an even stronger condemnation.

I'm sorry, Soda, but I had to respond to that.

[tac0mao6]

well, that blew up into an EF4 .. aimed at a misidentified target to boot .. over use of the word that defines the very behavior it was used to describe:
“to feel intense or passionate dislike for a specified person or thing”

it is what it is

@youngeaglesfan — I truly regret you bore the brunt of that EF4 simply for agreeing with the statement that I made. You got marched out to face the
firing squad and did nothing to deserve it.

Let go of the animosity and let the love of this remarkable band be what
shines thru.

Travellin’ on . . .

[sodascouts]

well, that blew up into an EF4 .. aimed at a misidentified target to boot .. over use of the word that defines the very behavior it was used to describe:
“to feel intense or passionate dislike for a specified person or thing”

it is what it is

@youngeaglesfan — I truly regret you bore the brunt of that EF4 simply for agreeing with the statement that I made. You got marched out to face the
firing squad and did nothing to deserve it.

Let go of the animosity and let the love of this remarkable band be what
shines thru.

Travellin’ on . . .

While I understand the urge to justify yourself, it's unfortunate that you waited until after things were dying down to do it. I hope this doesn't rile things up again.

I'll just say that speaking for myself, I think your term literally applies to how I feel about this venture. I really do intensely dislike it! Indeed, I think you could argue that my emotions are strong enough to be classified as "hate" when directed towards the choice that they made. Literally, I hate that they did this.

However, I think you'll agree that the connotation of the word... the informal meaning that goes beyond the literal... is a bit worse than just someone who hates something.

The connotation is that the person who is a "hater" is a rather unpleasant person. It's personal criticism. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Maybe you don't agree with it. Maybe you don't think it would be an insult to be called a "hater." Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, I do ask you to consider the following:

You know, at this point, that the group you are describing finds it insulting. You have two choices:

1. Continue to insist that it's OK to call them that, despite their feelings.

2. Respect their feelings.

I say Option 2 is the better choice.

[Delilah]

well, that blew up into an EF4 .. aimed at a misidentified target to boot .. over use of the word that defines the very behavior it was used to describe:
“to feel intense or passionate dislike for a specified person or thing”

it is what it is

@youngeaglesfan — I truly regret you bore the brunt of that EF4 simply for agreeing with the statement that I made. You got marched out to face the
firing squad and did nothing to deserve it.

Let go of the animosity and let the love of this remarkable band be what
shines thru.

Travellin’ on . . .

Indeed.

For many of us, the word “hate(r)” has a strong negative connotation that we find highly objectionable. It was even used in an above comment with the adverb “violently.” But the word as it is often used today has been so casually thrown about, even in most trivial of situations, that it has lost the intensity of meaning depending on the context. Younger people, e.g. millennials use it in memes, gifs, T-shirt’s, etc. (“haters gonna hate”). Taylor Swift even uses the word multiple times in one of her catchiest, most infectious pop songs. The word “Nazi” also has a strong, highly distasteful association for many, yet it too has become one of today’s colloquialisms (soup Nazi, grammar Nazi, etc).

So when YEF says that he doesn’t find the word highly offensive, I believe him. It appears some of the indignation over the use of the word arises from a generational gap in understanding how it is meant. Surely no one actually thinks YEF sees some objectors as wearing white robes and burning crosses on Don Henley’s front lawn (?!) but that seems to be how it was taken.

Another thing is that YEF clearly said he was using the word to apply to some posters, not everyone who objects to the current line-up. As someone astutely pointed out, the like or dislike for what is happening with the band varies; there are those who strongly oppose the Eagles continuing on without Glenn, but they have accepted it and tolerate it and seldom post. Others may comment on occasion to address a specific issue. Still others criticize and lament but do so in a way that is not overly hostile or angry. A very, very small percentage seem to go out of their way to be as cynical and negative about every aspect of the new line-up as possible. It’s understandable why someone, esp. a younger person accustomed to commonly used online expressions, would be inspired to use the word when addressing some of the posts of the latter group, which have been collecting and gathering for some time now (something that it appears AT was addressing).

I do not wish to offend anyone with what I am saying and am not trying to stir the pot. But I feel badly for what happened to YEF, who did apologize and tried to explain (and pointed out that he too, was called an objectionable name).

[Dawn]

In the context of how and why the term was being used it is very clear the intent was to devalue the opinions of persons who do not support the current lineup.

But I will agree "it is what it is" -

An epic fail.

Fans who believe without Glenn Frey this is not a legitimate venture do exist and efforts to invalidate their thoughts/feelings and opinions by branding them as Haters is offensive and has been met with strong opposition. As it should be.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Delilah expressed my feelings on what happened better than I could have, and I appreciate that. Although I meant no harm, I was too broad and I didn’t use a more thougtful word. “Haters” is a word I feel applies to a very, very, select few but even then I need would have needed to be specific to avoid people like those who felt anger about being labeled that word. But that isn’t really important because I should have used a more accurate and less demeaning word.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Thank you YEF, I appreciate your apology and your willingness to ‘own’ it. I have to agree that, unfortunately, you took the brunt of the blame for this most recent incident, when clearly several others also used the word 'hate'. You apologized and I believe you are sincere, so apology accepted. And I have to agree with FP that it is ridiculous to defend using the term so long as you don’t include an ‘r’. Just like if I say someone is trolling, then I’m calling them a troll. The difference here is that ‘trolling’ is specifically against the board’s Terms of Service, so if someone is displaying those characteristics, then it needs to be called out for what it is; whereas, it isn’t productive or respectful to use name-calling as a general rule and take the chance of offending others. As Soda said, the better option is to be respectful and not offend. If you truly don’t want to offend others, then before you hit the ‘Submit Reply’ button, think about what you are writing. If in doubt, then don’t post it.

As far as the varying degrees of opinion, that is true on both sides of this issue. If there are those that are cynical and negative about every aspect, there are just as many on the other side that cannot accept any criticism of the band whatsoever. One thing we all have to remember is that it takes two sides to keep this debate going. Neither side is all right or all wrong. If you are here, you are contributing. If you want no part of this, then opt out. If you want to participate, then stop complaining, do not troll, be respectful, and as UTW said recognize your fellow members “as individuals with opinions that fall somewhere on the scale between strongly for and strongly against but with whom we share a love of the music”.

[Dawn]

Again, IMHO it is the CONTEXT in how and why the term was used that matters. Intolerance, indignation, resentment that fans who don't support the current lineup exist and are free to express their opinions. Cynical, harsh, negative as those opinions may be at times, they are valid. If you feel like someone is raining on your parade, grab an umbrella. Or find another discussion board where diverse opinions aren't welcomed nor accomodated. I promise you that is the easy solution.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Thank you for your post Dreamer and I appreciate those who made productive posts in an unfortunate situation. I think the issue is now solved. I will try harder to think more before posting. I’ve said it before but I will put more effort. I don’t feel victimized or anything as I did make a poor comment and I don’t think anyone else said anything that was worthy of condemnation. I’m grateful my apology has been accepted and that we can move forward

[Ive always been a dreamer]

You're welcome, YEF.

And I agree, this poor dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.

[chaim]

Thank you for your post Dreamer and I appreciate those who made productive posts in an unfortunate situation. I think the issue is now solved. I will try harder to think more before posting. I’ve said it before but I will put more effort. I don’t feel victimized or anything as I did make a poor comment and I don’t think anyone else said anything that was worthy of condemnation. I’m grateful my apology has been accepted and that we can move forward

I haven't been here enough lately to know what exactly you have said before (the 'hater' stuff), but I dig your recent posts as they seem sincere. Whenever someone is able to look in the mirror so to speak, I like it.

[MaryCalifornia]

If there are those that are cynical and negative about every aspect, there are just as many on the other side that cannot accept any criticism of the band whatsoever.

Thank you for the nice post Dreamer. I have no objection to others being cynical and negative about everything - that is their right and I would not oppose or try to silence their thoughts or argue with them. What I do object to and where I feel like I have to call it out (I did not in this case but others did) is when someone goes one step further than their own opinion and ascribes emotions, motivations or intentions to Don, Joe or Tim that are based on absolutely nothing - no facts, no knowledge, no quotes from the guys, nothing. It's important to stick to available facts and the "I feel" or "I think" form, and not try to assert how the guys are feeling or why they are doing something - we can't possibly know unless we're citing a quote or some other reliable information.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Thanks, MC - Point taken. I would just add, however, that, as we have said before, this is an emotional issue. Of course, when we comment on something, we don't know what the guys are thinking, but we do know how it makes us feel, which is fair game. I agree that the lesson here is that we try to describe our perceptions in those terms rather than what the band members are intending or thinking. But, on the other side of the coin, if someone expresses how they interpret or perceive something, it can be respectfully challenged without jumping down their throat or totally dismissing their feelings.

[MaryCalifornia]

Agree with all of this Dreamer, thank you. It's unfortunate that semantics and nit-picky details are so important, but with a board like this, all we have is the written words, so it does make a difference.

[WalshFan88]

Again, IMHO it is the CONTEXT in how and why the term was used that matters. Intolerance, indignation, resentment that fans who don't support the current lineup exist and are free to express their opinions. Cynical, harsh, negative as those opinions may be at times, they are valid. If you feel like someone is raining on your parade, grab an umbrella. Or find another discussion board where diverse opinions aren't welcomed nor accomodated. I promise you that is the easy solution.

This.

It may be more ok to use in some younger people, but it's very offensive to those of us who it was directed at. Hate/hater is a strong word and shouldn't be used loosely. Even moreso when directed at a person or group of people. Don't even get me started on the young folk today that go around saying 'haters gonna hate'. Dumbest saying ever, if you ask me. It's a bad way to defend your viewpoint. It's a poor way for the user of the phrase to write someone off.

I am glad YEF has apologized (thank you), but I think Dawn is right. It comes down to how it was meant at the time that was the issue. Not a perceptual issue.

[New Kid In Town]

YEF - I am a little late with this (for which I apologize) but I just wanted to let you now I accept your apology. We all will have to agree to disagree and just agree that we are all Eagles fans.

[WalshFan88]

YEF - I am a little late with this (for which I apologize) but I just wanted to let you now I accept your apology. We all will have to agree to disagree and just agree that we are all Eagles fans.

That we are!

[redstorm1968]

Anger occurs in the stages of grief and I believe that it is exactly what is going on here. For people that do not know, Glenn Frey's importance cannot be understated here on this site. 'The Border' was a Glenn Frey board that became an Eagles board. Now it seems to be reverting.

One thing I have to point out is the name-calling. "Haters" was not the first shot fired on this board. I remember "Remainders" and "Frauds," so there are really no innocents. (In fact, I am actually surprised that Irving Azoff hasn't been all over those "fraud" comments. You know how he loves to sue.)

Also, people are not using the phrase "IMO" hardly at all anymore but posting what they think as if it is a fact. (That used to be a rule here, I think.)

Moreover, I don't think it's fair to say to other fans "We have been fans since 1973, so we are better and know more." or "If you don't agree with REAL fans that have been on this board since it's inception, you can get out. It's our ball." <obviously paraphrasing here> That's just an ugly attitude to take. I quit the board but missed the Eagles fan camaraderie too much, so I came back. I thought that if I gave it some time, things would die down but they obviously haven't. Who knows when they will?

Finally, in trying to understand the opposition's thinking, I have had an epiphany. I am a big Allman Brothers fan. When Duane Allman died, and then Berry Oakley a year later, they did not quit and then had some of their biggest hits. Having said that, I was/am a massive Gregg Allman fan, so if what was left of the AB (only two original members left now) reformed, I would not like it a bit. I don't know how I would react. Probably in exactly the same way the deniers here are.

I love the Eagles. Can we get back to talking about them now?

[WalshFan88]

Anger occurs in the stages of grief and I believe that it is exactly what is going on here. For people that do not know, Glenn Frey's importance cannot be understated here on this site. 'The Border' is a Glenn Frey board that became an Eagles board. Now it seems to be reverting.

What's wrong with that?

One thing I have to point out is the name-calling. "Haters" was not the first shot fired on this board. I remember "remainders" and "frauds," so there are no innocents here. (In fact, I am surprised that Azoff has not been all over those "fraud" comments.)

Irving's got other things to do. Like counting all of his money and buying mansions. He wouldn't worry about some stranger's opinion on an Eagles fansite. It's not like I am a public figure who said it on the news or something. Also I'd like to just say that it is NOT fraud, in the legal sense where it's actually a crime. It's just that the idea of an Eagles without Glenn seems fraudulent to me.

Also, people are not using the phrase "IMO" hardly at all anymore but posting what they think as fact. That used to be a rule here, I think.

I actually agree here, sometimes you think it's already known by others that it is subjective opinion and forget the three letter acronym. But yes, that's true.

Moreover, I don't think it's fair to say to other fans "We have been fans since 1973, so we are better and know more." or "If you don't agree with REAL fans that have been on this board since it's inception, you can get out. It's our ball." <paraphrasing here) That's just ugly attitude to take. I quit the board but missed the Eagles fan camaraderie too much, so I came back. I thought that if I gave it time, things would have died down but they obviously haven't.

As Dreamer and others have said. It's an emotional issue. Either both pro AND con sides will die down the banter or it won't stop. I don't think anyone will ever get over what feels to us is unthinkable and very wrong. And I don't think the pro side is about to stop trying to argue it. Hence, it will go on. If it becomes to much, I'd just avoid these threads like this. There are positive threads here.

Finally, in trying to understand the opposition's thinking, I have had an epiphany. I am a big Allman Brothers fan. When Duane Allman died, and then Berry Oakley a year later, they did not quit and then had some of their biggest hits. Having said that, I was/am a massive Gregg Allman fan, so if what was left of the AB (only two original members left now) reformed with Betts, I would not like it a bit. I don't know how I would react.

IMO, until you are put into the situation, no one knows how they'd react. I certainly didn't when Glenn died and I just assumed the Eagles were over. When it was talked about that they were doing two shows, I knew it was only beginning and it pissed me off, point blank. I didn't know which way I'd lean until it became reality. I have personal life friends who love the fact Deacon is filling Glenn's shoes. It's a mixed bag. I'm glad you can admit you don't know how you'd react.

I love the Eagles. Can we get back to talking about them now?

Depends on which Eagles. ;) I'd love to go back to Survivor games and fun camaraderie on the board. But as long as these threads exist (which they should IMO), it will sour some people's experience even if they avoid the threads just because they know they exist and so they overlook the good for the bad.


See bolded points above.

[Dawn]

People are talking about them.

As for the age thing, I am just a few years younger than Glenn Frey was when he passed away. When I talk about being a long time fan and seeing the band when they were opening for other acts and dreaming of the day they would be the headliner - that is a nod to their incredible journey and legacy ... as well as a reminder of Glenn's infamous words of wisdom: "People don't run out of dreams. People just run out of time."

I am sorry some people appear to have a chip on their shoulder about this board and don't like or appreciate the way it is operated. There are other options.

[redstorm1968]

I am sorry some people appear to have a chip on their shoulder about this board and don't like or appreciate the way it is operated. There are other options.

Another "get out of here" post. Not unexpected.

What I meant was that it doesn't make a person more of a fan or a better fan to have known about them from their inception. We got here as soon as we could. ;)

[YoungEaglesFan]

See bolded points above.

I agreed with a lot of that. Especially the last part. I’d love to do some survivor games though I’m not sure what else we could that hasn’t been done yet. It’d be great if the band released something soon so we could talk about that. The HC rerelease was nice but I think would be thrilled with a HOTE dvd or the rest of the capital center concert. I think that when something that has to do with the eagles in their heyday there is less arguing than when there is little else to talk about. Let’s hope they give us something good to talk about

[redstorm1968]

Thank you for your civil reply, WalshFan88. I believe that there are no winners when we fans don't get along. I'd like to get back to that, if possible.

[WalshFan88]

I agreed with a lot of that. Especially the last part. I’d love to do some survivor games though I’m not sure what else we could that hasn’t been done yet. It’d be great if the band released something soon so we could talk about that. The HC rerelease was nice but I think would be thrilled with a HOTE dvd or the rest of the capital center concert. I think that when something that has to do with the eagles in their heyday there is less arguing than when there is little else to talk about. Let’s hope they give us something good to talk about

This (the bolded part)....this would definitely help, I think. And if not, it's something to talk about in other threads. I think the Eagles in their heyday is something we all can appreciate regardless of our position on them continuing.

[Dawn]

Another "get out of here" post. Not unexpected.

What I meant was that it doesn't make a person more of a fan or a better fan to have know about them from their inception. We got here as soon as we could. ;)

No one is claiming they are more of a fan or a better fan.

As for the suggestion that you have other options - there are other threads you can participate in as well as other fan sites you can join if you choose not to stay.

[Dawn]

There is a whole tour to talk about. 50 plus play dates. I really don't see what the problem is. :shrug:

[sodascouts]

As for the suggestion that you have other options - there are other threads you can participate in as well as other fan sites you can join if you choose not to stay.

This is what I don't get. Tired of talking about this issue, reading about it? Fed up with conflict? Just want to talk about the Eagles? You don't have to go to another site. Just go to another thread!

There are literally only two active threads on this site where we talk about this issue. Ironically, it usually only bleeds over to other threads when somebody is complaining about these threads and others react! When it does, I move the posts. I suppose there might be an exception or two, but the exception proves the rule.

So yes, you can talk about the Eagles now; you always could. If you have chosen to spend most of your time posting in the few negative threads instead of contributing to the many positive threads, that's on you.

[WalshFan88]

This is what I don't get. Tired of talking about this issue, reading about it? Fed up with conflict? Just want to talk about the Eagles? You don't have to go to another site. Just go to another thread!

There are literally only two active threads on this site where we talk about this issue. Ironically, it usually only bleeds over to other threads when somebody is complaining about these threads and others react! When it does, I move the posts. I suppose there might be an exception or two, but the exception proves the rule.

So yes, you can talk about the Eagles now; you always could. If you chose to spend most of your time posting in the few negative threads instead of contributing to the many positive threads, that's on you.

Agreed.

[EagleInKansas]

That's as may be & is to be expected. What jars with me is the fact that Henley felt this was a suitable subject to discuss with the audience. Glenn never did that. He talked to the audience about what they could expect from a show. He never once boasted about the size of the entourage.

This is a straight-up lie. Before Take it Easy every night, Glenn talked about the hundred-plus crew members who made the show possible. When discussing them last night, Don said the crew members were "the people who do the real work."

I know you're off in the merry world of non-facts and that I and the truth are not welcome here, but there needs to be some oversight from time to time.

[chaim]

This is a straight-up lie. Before Take it Easy every night, Glenn talked about the hundred-plus crew members who made the show possible. When discussing them last night, Don said the crew members were "the people who do the real work."

I know you're off in the merry world of non-facts and that I and the truth are not welcome here, but there needs to be some oversight from time to time.

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

[EagleInKansas]

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

And predictably, I'm the bad guy. Not the people calling the band a farce, or greedy, or saying Deacon is riding his dad's coattails, or that Timothy is defiant, or that Don's body language is bad, or that Don is wrong for talking about the road crew, or that the band is pathetic, or that they regret adding Deacon (who is only there via nepotism), or that the concert reviewers are shameful. Etc. Etc. Etc. But me, the person who has actually been there and can provide at least some context and accuracy to the hostile, malicious untruths people have free reign to concoct out of thin air in the name of "loving the band." I'll be the bad guy. It's all good.

[chaim]

And predictably, I'm the bad guy. Not the people calling the band a farce, or greedy, or saying Deacon is riding his dad's coattails, or that Timothy is defiant, or that Don's body language is bad, or that Don is wrong for talking about the road crew, or that the band is pathetic, or that they regret adding Deacon (who is only there via nepotism), or that the concert reviewers are shameful. Etc. Etc. Etc. But me, the person who has actually been there and can provide at least some context and accuracy to the hostile, malicious untruths people have free reign to concoct out of thin air in the name of "loving the band." I'll be the bad guy. It's all good.

Not a chance then. Just thought I'd ask. :-)

[Freypower]

Hey everyone - Please do us a favor and ignore this post. The oversight of the board is the responsibility of the moderators and admin. We will take care of this later when we get a chance.

Please do, Dreamer.

However, I have been accused of lying. I did no such thing. For a start I don't remember Glenn Frey ever thanking the crew at the shows I attended, although I suppose he must have done on occasion.

Secondly there is a very large difference between thanking the crew & just listing the number of people on the tour.

Do what you like with the post but I want it on record, however briefly, that I did not lie & that EIK has interpreted Henley's words entirely differently from how I did. If he thanked the crew, that was not quoted in the post I referenced.

I won't address the follow up post where for the second time, I have been indirectly attacked in an extremely hostile manner.

[EagleInKansas]

Please do, Dreamer.

However, I have been accused of lying. I did no such thing. For a start I don't remember Glenn Frey ever thanking the crew at the shows I attended, although I suppose he must have done on occasion.

Secondly there is a very large difference between thanking the crew & just listing the number of people on the tour.

Do what you like with the post but I want it on record, however briefly, that I did not lie & that EIK has interpreted Henley's words entirely differently from how I did. If he thanked the crew, that was not quoted in the post I referenced.

I won't address the follow up post where for the second time, I have been indirectly attacked in an extremely hostile manner.

This is all fine and well, and it would be perfectly acceptable if these kind of "Glenn wouldn't have..." inaccuracies and completely baseless speculation weren't such a pattern. It typically goes like this: Someone says something totally without merit but also inarguable, like "Timothy wouldn't be standing like that if Glenn was in the band," gets rightly called out for it, and then the person calling out gets attacked for being sensible or for word choice.

Saying you don't remember what Glenn used to say makes one wonder why you claimed to know what Glenn DIDN'T used to say in the first place. Attempting to interpret Don Henley's comments about the crew make one wonder why the word of someone who has heard him say it two nights in a row wouldn't be deemed more reliable than someone just guessing.

Untruth, lie...it's all the same. Your intentions were to paint Don Henley into an unfavorable light compared to Glenn Frey, and you did so with what you now admit is misinformation. It's OK for me to answer your aggressive incorrectness with equally aggressive facts. I said nothing about you as a person, but your reporting of facts was based in sheer negativity and bitterness and they were wrong, to boot. My word choice is not the issue.

[Freypower]

This is all fine and well, and it would be perfectly acceptable if these kind of "Glenn wouldn't have..." inaccuracies and completely baseless speculation weren't such a pattern. It typically goes like this: Someone says something totally without merit but also inarguable, like "Timothy wouldn't be standing like that if Glenn was in the band," gets rightly called out for it, and then the person calling out gets attacked for being sensible or for word choice.

Saying you don't remember what Glenn used to say makes one wonder why you claimed to know what Glenn DIDN'T used to say in the first place. Attempting to interpret Don Henley's comments about the crew make one wonder why the word of someone who has heard him say it two nights in a row wouldn't be deemed more reliable than someone just guessing.

Untruth, lie...it's all the same. Your intentions were to paint Don Henley into an unfavorable light compared to Glenn Frey, and you did so with what you now admit is misinformation. It's OK for me to answer your aggressive incorrectness with equally aggressive facts. I said nothing about you as a person, but your reporting of facts was based in sheer negativity and bitterness and they were wrong, to boot. My word choice is not the issue.


It is not 'misinformation'. We were talking about two different things. You said you were talking about Henley thanking the crew. I was talking about this:

“We brought 14 semi-tractor-trailer trucks full of stuff, four backup musicians, five string players, five horn players, four security guys, 82 crew members …. and one accountant,” he said.

That is not 'thanking 'the crew. That is listing them. I have not seen any comment about Henley talking about the 'real work' as you call it. You just shoehorned that in there out of nowhere so that you would not have to deal with what I actually was talking about.

I know very well you are determined to drive me away from here. I find the language you are using towards me offensive in the extreme.

In terms of my not remembering what Glenn may have said about the crew, I was trying to say that he was more proactive in engaging with the audience, or at least that was how he came across to me. Perhaps I could have expressed myself better but I don't think what I said merited such a vitriolic response, or being called a liar.

[sodascouts]

And predictably, I'm the bad guy. Not the people calling the band a farce, or greedy, or saying Deacon is riding his dad's coattails, or that Timothy is defiant, or that Don's body language is bad, or that Don is wrong for talking about the road crew, or that the band is pathetic, or that they regret adding Deacon (who is only there via nepotism), or that the concert reviewers are shameful. Etc. Etc. Etc. But me, the person who has actually been there and can provide at least some context and accuracy to the hostile, malicious untruths people have free reign to concoct out of thin air in the name of "loving the band." I'll be the bad guy. It's all good.

Woah. You need to calm down, EIK. You're getting way too worked up over these posts.

I don't think you should visit the "rant" thread, since you find its content so infuriating. It's bad for your blood pressure.

[EagleInKansas]

And there we go again. Common sense and rationality is deemed as ranting, but endless amounts of hate (let's call it what it is) aimed at the namesake of this very website is somehow level-headed. Like I said, I'll be the bad guy. It's fine. I'm clearly totally unhinged here. Let me rein it in with some wild theory like why did Don add a string section? Glenn never would have done that. Discuss.

[EagleInKansas]

It is not 'misinformation'. We were talking about two different things. You said you were talking about Henley thanking the crew. I was talking about this:

“We brought 14 semi-tractor-trailer trucks full of stuff, four backup musicians, five string players, five horn players, four security guys, 82 crew members …. and one accountant,” he said.

That is not 'thanking 'the crew. That is listing them. I have not seen any comment about Henley talking about the 'real work' as you call it. You just shoehorned that in there out of nowhere so that you would not have to deal with what I actually was talking about.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. This side is so adverse to facts and truth that "I have not seen any comment..." is somehow taken as reliable while "Hey, I was THERE and actually heard what he said, with context" is somehow discredited. While it may not technically be a lie by intention, presenting an argument while dismissing facts, eyewitness accounts and accuracy is dishonest. Period.

[sodascouts]

And there we go again. Common sense and rationality is deemed as ranting, but endless amounts of hate (let's call it what it is) aimed at the namesake of this very website is somehow level-headed. Like I said, I'll be the bad guy. It's fine. I'm clearly totally unhinged here. Let me rein it in with some wild theory like why did Don add a string section? Glenn never would have done that. Discuss.


I think what makes you seem out of control, EIK, is how angry you seem to be at other posters.

We have lots of people on the board who support Eagles 3.0. We have lots of people on the board who are critical of those who don't support Eagles 3.0.

But you're the only one on the board who seems furious at us.

And yes, it does come off a bit... over the top.

So, I suggest you take a deep breath and step away for a bit.

[Freypower]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This side is so adverse to facts and truth that "I have not seen any comment..." is somehow taken as reliable while "Hey, I was THERE and actually heard what he said, with context" is somehow discredited. While it may not technically be a lie by intention, presenting an argument while dismissing facts, eyewitness accounts and accuracy is dishonest. Period.


I am not dismissing your eyewitness account. My point is that you introduced a separate topic from what I was discussing, which presumably Henley ALSO ACTUALLY SAID.

Are you now denying he made the comment I was actually discussing?

[EagleInKansas]

No. Within four seconds of a three-hour show, he did run down the list of people on tour. You got me there.

I am not angry in the slightest. Just baffled.

[WKMB55]

Front men like Glenn are a rarity. Don and Glenn's personalities are/were completely different. In my opinion, that is why they wrote such amazing music together. Henley's the only one who really knows why he said what he did.

[EagleInKansas]

Just a few days ago, soda, you said that the Eagles must regret putting Deacon Frey in the band. Even though they clearly LOVE having him out there and that Deacon himself says he is having the time of his life? How is that somehow OK to say, but when I call it ridiculous, which it is, I am angry? I do plenty well at recognizing my emotions. I feel sad for people who make inane comments like that. Of COURSE they don't regret having Deacon in the band. But you just get to say it as if it's fact, and when challenged, well, the other person must be ranting. Reflect on that, please.

[EagleInKansas]

Front men like Glenn are a rarity. Don and Glenn's personalities are/were completely different. In my opinion, that is why they wrote such amazing music together. Henley's the only one who really knows why he said what he did.

There is no "why!" He just said it. Hey, everybody, this is a big tour! OK, now the next song. That's what it is. This isn't a thing.

[sodascouts]

Just a few days ago, soda, you said that the Eagles must regret putting Deacon Frey in the band. Even though they clearly LOVE having him out there and that Deacon himself says he is having the time of his life? How is that somehow OK to say, but when I call it ridiculous, which it is, I am angry? I do plenty well at recognizing my emotions. I feel sad for people who make inane comments like that. Of COURSE they don't regret having Deacon in the band. But you just get to say it as if it's fact, and when challenged, well, the other person must be ranting. Reflect on that, please.

Well, maybe if you went back and re-read my post, you will find that I actually did not state it as fact.

Seriously, though, going into that thread and getting worked up is not doing anything but causing you to go off on people. I can't know how you feel, but I can see the results. You're going into attack mode, and that's when it becomes a problem.

[EagleInKansas]

I. Am. Not. Worked. Up. Continuing to say it doesn't make it true, contrary to the theme of this message board.

Ok, you didn't state it as fact. Let's have a discussion about it then. If it was a rational thought you should be able to defend it rationally. Why do you believe the Eagles would or should regret adding Deacon to the band? You first.

[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?

[sodascouts]

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?

As someone with epilepsy, I appreciate your sensitivity. However, "frothing at the mouth" is not a "seizure put down" but a well-accepted idiomatic phrase for becoming enraged, going back several hundred years.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/foam+at+the+mouth

Indeed, its origins in this context are actually not related to seizures per se, but rather rabies; an animal with rabies frothed at the mouth as it went insane.

Just a little FYI.

[WalshFan88]

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?

Clarification:

It was not meant in a negative way. It was simply meant that no one should get so worked up about something to put their physical health at risk. It's been used plenty of times to describe someone so upset they might have a stroke. Also, the blood pressure comment is very much in the same vain. While I feel EIK is being at times very aggressive, I don't want anyone to get worked up to the point of being ill because of someone's post about a rock band. That's all. Nothing more.

[EagleInKansas]

Soda, I am legitimately sympathetic regarding your condition. Health scares are quite sobering. I hope you have your epilepsy under control.

[MaryCalifornia]

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.

Well, how did they view his words?!:rofl: (I'm being serious, not snarky) Without being there, my guess is that this was scripted banter with the end goal of making a joke about only having one accountant. Which sounds funny when describing the scale of the tour. (I do think one tour accountant is normal, though. I had a friend who did it for the Eagles during the European leg of HFO, and he also did it for Depeche Mode, Pearl Jam, U2, Neil Young and others. It was awesome - any show I could make it to, I got to pick my seat. Unfortunately, I only made it to Pearl Jam. And yes, he worked for Irving. And yes, he said Timothy was nice haha)

[MaryCalifornia]

As someone with epilepsy, I appreciate your sensitivity. However, "frothing at the mouth" is not a "seizure put down" but a well-accepted idiomatic phrase for becoming enraged, going back several hundred years.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/foam+at+the+mouth

Indeed, its origins in this context are actually not related to seizures per se, but rather rabies; an animal with rabies frothed at the mouth as it went insane.

Just a little FYI.

Soda, I know you have epilepsy. Thank you for the definition and the link - my bad for objecting. Now we all know the Admin doesn't have a problem with these types of phrases directed at others.

[Dawn]

Well, how did they view his words?!:rofl: (I'm being serious, not snarky) Without being there, my guess is that this was scripted banter with the end goal of making a joke about only having one accountant. Which sounds funny when describing the scale of the tour. (I do think one tour accountant is normal, though. I had a friend who did it for the Eagles during the European leg of HFO, and he also did it for Depeche Mode, Pearl Jam, U2, Neil Young and others. It was awesome - any show I could make it to, I got to pick my seat. Unfortunately, I only made it to Pearl Jam. And yes, he worked for Irving. And yes, he said Timothy was nice haha)

I don't have time to find the links to the reviews -- they were posted in the concert review threads.

[sodascouts]

Soda, I know you have epilepsy. Thank you for the definition and the link - my bad for objecting. Now we all know the Admin doesn't have a problem with these types of phrases directed at others.

That's right. I won't scold anyone for using commonplace idioms. However, you don't have to apologize. I realize your heart was in the right place. In fact, if we look beyond the phrase to the intent, I think that while there was nothing wrong with the phrase in and of itself, it was too harsh in the context of the post. I'd actually deleted the phrase before you'd posted, ironically, for that reason.

[Freypower]

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.


As this appears aimed at me, I suppose I should have not have included the 'Glenn wouldn't have listed the personnel' stuff. But it doesn't matter. Either way I'm pilloried for taking exception to Don Henley listing the personnel.

Equally, to raise one of EIK's points, I never said that Glenn Frey would not have allowed Timothy Schmit to stand with his arms folded. What I said was that Schmit's pose in that photo rubbed me the wrong way. Again, I was pilloried for making the comment. It was how I felt about it; I never asked anyone to share my views.

I realise that the people in favour of this enterprise believe that absolutely no criticism should be made of Henley, Walsh & Schmit, EVER AGAIN, for ANY reason WHATSOEVER.

So it would appear that those of us who are against it are now being told in no uncertain terms to go away.

I am considering my position.

[MaryCalifornia]

I realise that the people in favour of this enterprise believe that absolutely no criticism should be made of Henley, Walsh & Schmit, EVER AGAIN, for ANY reason WHATSOEVER.

So it would appear that those of us who are against it are now being told in no uncertain terms to go away.

FP, of course it is directed at you - again. If you're going to continue to post the way you do, you should expect some push back when you state things about the guys as fact. Criticism of the guys, all of them, has been an accepted part of this board since its inception. You know that nobody is telling you to go away. And, you know that nobody is saying you can't post your opinion.

[MaryCalifornia]

As this appears aimed at me

I just saw your post #295 in this thread - "They're not going to bring back I Don't Want to Hear Any More..." - but then they did. Crazy how these guys do stuff! Even though you sounded pretty confident in your assertion and didn't qualify it with "I doubt they will...", I understand that this was merely a prediction and have no problem with it, even if it is flat out wrong. This is different from the "Timothy Stance" post and the "What Glenn Said in Concert" post that others have objected so strenuously to. I let those posts go without comment, because 1)I respect you and know you are emotional when you post and 2) I stay out of the 3.0 thread, as instructed. I don't think anyone is trying to stifle you, they are just trying to make sure that any representations made about individual guys on this board are accurate.

[chaim]

For the record:

I am not against EIK or anyone else coming here* to offer insight and possible corrections. What I will not take without commenting is what was at the end of the post, which was this:

I know you're off in the merry world of non-facts and that I and the truth are not welcome here*, but there needs to be some oversight from time to time.

Totally pointless insults and it doesn't make the case any better. On the contrary, it makes one forget what was said about the actual issue and concentrate on the insult.

* EIK's post was originally in the "No Glenn, no legit Eagles" thread (whatever the full title is). That's what both of us are referring to when we say "here". I thought we're still there when I was writing this post.

[EagleInKansas]

I still have to wonder why the things I say are pointless insults, but, still, calling the band pathetic, or a fraud, or saying Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails, are legitimate points. My words are the rantings of a madman, but name-calling and actual insults are just opinions. I am good with calling the band a fraud being an opinion as long as my assessment that people are ignoring the truth be treated similarly. I've not called any names or suggested that anyone is insane or "frothing at the mouth" simply for saying something inflammatory.

For the record, I don't believe Don is above criticism. I happen to not criticize any of the Eagles, including Glenn, but there are some arguments that I can understand. Why did Don change his mind? That's legitimate. Was Bernie asked to remain with the band? No real way of knowing, but worth thinking about. Also, why does Don not introduce the backup band during shows? Glenn used to. It happens to be my opinion that Don respectfully and lovingly wanted that to be a "Glenn thing" so he is leaving it alone. But I would understand someone taking issue with that.

I don't understand having a problem with Timothy's stance or Don's supposed body language or Don mentioning the number of people on tour just to make a Glenn-like innocuous joke. That's why I'm so "aggressive" in challenging those claims. I'm hoping those who make them are equally aggressive in defending and supporting, but instead I get name-calling. The true sign of not having an argument.

I'm still willing to be educated on all of these topics. Calling me insane or saying that I am going ballistic is a waste of everyone's time. My words are chosen thoughtfully and carefully. If they're aggressive, they're in response to what I believe to be blatantly ignoring reality.

[chaim]

I still have to wonder why the things I say are pointless insults, but, still, calling the band pathetic, or a fraud, or saying Deacon is riding Glenn's coattails, are legitimate points. My words are the rantings of a madman, but name-calling and actual insults are just opinions. I am good with calling the band a fraud being an opinion as long as my assessment that people are ignoring the truth be treated similarly. I've not called any names or suggested that anyone is insane or "frothing at the mouth" simply for saying something inflammatory.

For the record, I don't believe Don is above criticism. I happen to not criticize any of the Eagles, including Glenn, but there are some arguments that I can understand. Why did Don change his mind? That's legitimate. Was Bernie asked to remain with the band? No real way of knowing, but worth thinking about. Also, why does Don not introduce the backup band during shows? Glenn used to. It happens to be my opinion that Don respectfully and lovingly wantd that to be a "Glenn thing" so he is leaving it alone. But I would understand someone taking issue with that.

I don't understand having a problem with Timothy's stance or Don's supposed body language or Don mentioning the number of people on tour just to make a Glenn-like innocuous joke. That's why I'm so "aggressive" in challenging those claims. I'm hoping those who make them are equally aggressive in defending and supporting, but instead I get name-calling. The true sign of not having an argument.

I'm still willing to be educated on all of these topics. Calling me insane or saying that I am going ballistic is a waste of everyone's time. My words are chosen thoughtfully and carefully. If they're aggressive, they're in response to what I believe to be blatantly ignoring reality.

Insulting other forum members is what I'm talking about obviously.

[EagleInKansas]

When? I believe that facts are irrelevant to many people posting about the band. It's purely emotion. How is that an insult? And why is calling me insane not an insult?

[chaim]

When? I believe that facts are irrelevant to many people posting about the band. It's purely emotion. How is that an insult? And why is calling me insane not an insult?

Read what I actually said. Maybe then I'll continue this discussion. Otherwise I'm done.

EDIT:

I was being kind of rude there, wasn't I. Was probably having a bad moment. :mrgreen: Anyway, I wish people would get along. I'm interested in what both "sides" have to say about stuff, although I may essentially belong in the "no Glenn, no Eagles" sandbox. Even though I don't consider the band 'Eagles' anymore I don't share every single view with just one "side". I'm sure a lot of people are the same.

AND I think you had a valid point in what you said about Don talking about the crew. But what came after - aimed at Freypower as well as everyone else in that thread - ruined it for me.

[EagleInKansas]

Fair enough. I did feel as though the argument was intentionally dishonest, though I can acknowledge the plausible deniability over whether it was truly "lying." I treated it as somewhat of a final straw because of the other points, which I've outlined, that seem to have no regard for the truth. I apologize for how that was expressed.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

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.

Yes we did, MC. But, I also said this in Post 431 …
“One thing we all have to remember is that it takes two sides to keep this debate going. Neither side is all right or all wrong. If you are here, you are contributing. If you want no part of this, then opt out. If you want to participate, then stop complaining, do not troll, be respectful, and as UTW said recognize your fellow members “as individuals with opinions that fall somewhere on the scale between strongly for and strongly against but with whom we share a love of the music”’.

And this in Post 437 …
“Thanks, MC - Point taken. I would just add, however, that, as we have said before, this is an emotional issue. Of course, when we comment on something, we don't know what the guys are thinking, but we do know how it makes us feel, which is fair game. I agree that the lesson here is that we try to describe our perceptions in those terms rather than what the band members are intending or thinking. But, on the other side of the coin, if someone expresses how they interpret or perceive something, it can be respectfully challenged without jumping down their throat or totally dismissing their feelings”.

You claimed to agree with both of these statements. I know I’m old, but since when did EIK’s behavior become appropriate? It’s certainly not according to our Terms of Service (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1). I’m sorry, but even if you believe every word that EIK wrote, it doesn’t excuse the malicious manner in which it was delivered. As a matter of fact, his posts were so offensive that, like chaim, I totally lost sight of any meaningful points he was trying to make.

Less than two weeks ago, EIK wrote a very moving and conciliatory post in this same thread that I thought was very heartfelt and then there’s this. Here’s one statement from EIK in an attempt to justify his recent actions:

“Untruth, lie...it's all the same. Your intentions were to paint Don Henley into an unfavorable light compared to Glenn Frey, and you did so with what you now admit is misinformation. It's OK for me to answer your aggressive incorrectness with equally aggressive facts. I said nothing about you as a person, but your reporting of facts was based in sheer negativity and bitterness and they were wrong, to boot. My word choice is not the issue”.

So, yes, EIK did, in fact say several things about this member as a person, and, yes, EIK’s word choice(s) are very much the issue. In the rules of adult behavior, anyone is entitled to express their opinion and/or version of the facts, but they are not entitled to express it in the contemptible demeanor that EIK used.

So, you can’t have it both ways - you reprimand someone for saying ‘frothing at the mouth’, and then excuse it when someone else accuses someone of ‘malicious untruths’ and ‘endless amounts of hate’; or criticize one member for speculating about what someone is thinking, but totally overlook when someone ascribes motivations and intentions to another.

I’ll end this by repeating that I have absolutely no problem with someone respectfully expressing their opinion or even correcting someone about facts; however, the tone of EIK’s recent posts crossed the line of common decency and are totally indefensible and unacceptable. In fairness to those who follow the rules here, we should never condone this kind of intolerable behavior. If so, then I will probably need to take leave myself for a while. Irregardless, I have no intention of trying to engage in any meaningful debate with someone who is so emotional. And sometimes you can’t take everything back with a simple apology – there are consequences.

[EagleInKansas]

I have separated the person from the argument in each of my posts. The arguments were malicious, grounded in bitterness and hate. The argument, I felt, was dishonest. That's what debate is -- attacking an argument. Expressing anger doesn't make one an angry person. An argument and an opinion is not a definition. I don't know any of you and I would not characterize. But I will characterize arguments, and that's what I have done.

For the record, I am a he. Probably a rarity here, so no offense taken to the opposite pronoun.

I am not taking back what I said, per se, but I am apologizing for the way I expressed frustration over what I feel are off-base assessments. I was never "worked up" or "frothing at the mouth" or "ballistic" or "insane" or on the verge of a stroke or elevated blood pressure. I was lying in bed watching my wife read a book. But it does become aggravating to see arguments out of nowhere like Tim's stance or Don's joke, all designed to discredit the people involved in the band.

My post was heartfelt. I have loved the band for my entire life. I became disappointed when my attempt to find common ground was eventually forgotten in favor of "Why is Timothy standing like that?" I honestly don't mean to harp on that point, but it is an illustration of how anything can be turned into a way to express displeasure with the band. That's when we're no longer arguing on merit, but purely on emotion. I am not attempting to excuse my emotional comments, I am simply hopeful that they can be viewed in and placed into the proper context.

[TimBFan]

Were all the band members introduced including Will Henley on guitar as well as the string and horn sections and who did the intros?

I only remember Vince and Deacon being introduced and their names on the stage screens, and to my knowledge they didn’t mention Will. He seemed very young, very shy and was only out of the deep shadows a couple of times.

[Freypower]

I have separated the person from the argument in each of my posts. The arguments were malicious, grounded in bitterness and hate. The argument, I felt, was dishonest. That's what debate is -- attacking an argument. Expressing anger doesn't make one an angry person. An argument and an opinion is not a definition. I don't know any of you and I would not characterize. But I will characterize arguments, and that's what I have done.

For the record, I am a he. Probably a rarity here, so no offense taken to the opposite pronoun.

I am not taking back what I said, per se, but I am apologizing for the way I expressed frustration over what I feel are off-base assessments. I was never "worked up" or "frothing at the mouth" or "ballistic" or "insane" or on the verge of a stroke or elevated blood pressure. I was lying in bed watching my wife read a book. But it does become aggravating to see arguments out of nowhere like Tim's stance or Don's joke, all designed to discredit the people involved in the band.

My post was heartfelt. I have loved the band for my entire life. I became disappointed when my attempt to find common ground was eventually forgotten in favor of "Why is Timothy standing like that?" I honestly don't mean to harp on that point, but it is an illustration of how anything can be turned into a way to express displeasure with the band. That's when we're no longer arguing on merit, but purely on emotion. I am not attempting to excuse my emotional comments, I am simply hopeful that they can be viewed in and placed into the proper context.


Whether you like it or not, you continue to attack ME, the individual, not just my arguments. Every time you say my arguments are grounded in bitterness or malice, every time you call me a liar, you attack me as a person.

You ARE harping on what I said about Tim's stance. I said he never used to stand in what I considered a (MY WORDS) truculent, defiant, way. I realise how that upset people. However, I repeat that it was my opinion and a very emotional one. I never claimed it as FACT. I called it as I saw it. I realise that of course I should have said nothing. The 'discredit' thing is more problematic. I am not really sure why I should continue to bathe in admiration for these men after the actions which they have taken to which I am completely opposed.

The stuff about what I claimed Glenn said in concert was wrong. I apologise for having said it. I did attempt to say that I thought he was more proactive with the audience, but I guess that's making another unfavourable comparison to 'discredit' Don Henley, isn't it, so there is no point in elaborating on it any more. I repeat, I was wrong in making that claim.

While you have called me the epithets I have repeated above, not to mention 'aggressive' I have not called you any names at all. You say you wish people to defend themselves. Every time I have tried to do so, you have become more & more strident in your attack on me. I have stated twice now that you attacked me indirectly, but not addressing yourself to me personally (you haven't even done me the courtesy of addressing me by my board initials). Instead of attempting to clear the air you have just continued with it even after Dreamer's post above.

So I hope in vain that I have made myself clearer, but as with Dreamer, I guess there is no point in continuing in this atmosphere.