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

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Hi Arlee and welcome to The Border. Let me start by saying that one thing many of us here share is that we are emotionally attached to this band. For me, personally, they have been my favorite band since the first time I heard Take It Easy on the radio back in the summer of '72. And this is why most all fans feel strongly about the band continuing to perform as the Eagles, no matter what side of the issue you are on. The issue was bound to be controversial from the moment the Classic East and West shows were announced, particularly in light of the remarks that every band member and Irving had made insisting that they would not continue following Glenn’s untimely passing. So it very simply boils down to fans who are elated that the band goes on and fans who feel extreme disappointment and betrayal.

As fans, we are consumers of the band’s product, and as band members, they are public figures who are subject to public scrutiny. So, on this public fan forum, we all have a right to express how we feel about this. As we have said repeatedly, we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated. That, of course, doesn’t mean your opinion may not be challenged by other members, and that’s okay too as long as everyone remains polite and tolerant. However, where some cross the line is when they take the focus away from the band’s actions and, instead, attack other members of this board with accusations, insults, and name-calling. No one here has ever expected all of our members to agree about everything, but we do ask that everyone respectfully disagree.

I could address specific comments in your posts, but it would just be repeating everything that has been said many times already, so I won’t bother. If you are interested in all the arguments for and against, it is here for your viewing pleasure. In any event, as others have said, there is also lots of positive, interesting information and discussion on the board, so, hopefully, you can enjoy yourself here.

[Arlee]

Hi Arlee and welcome to The Border. Let me start by saying that one thing many of us here share is that we are emotionally attached to this band. For me, personally, they have been my favorite band since the first time I heard Take It Easy on the radio back in the summer of '72. And this is why most all fans feel strongly about the band continuing to perform as the Eagles, no matter what side of the issue you are on. The issue was bound to be controversial from the moment the Classic East and West shows were announced, particularly in light of the remarks that every band member and Irving had made insisting that they would not continue following Glenn’s untimely passing. So it very simply boils down to fans who are elated that the band goes on and fans who feel extreme disappointment and betrayal.

As fans, we are consumers of the band’s product, and as band members, they are public figures who are subject to public scrutiny. So, on this public fan forum, we all have a right to express how we feel about this. As we have said repeatedly, we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated. That, of course, doesn’t mean your opinion may not be challenged by other members, and that’s okay too as long as everyone remains polite and tolerant. However, where some cross the line is when they take the focus away from the band’s actions and, instead, attack other members of this board with accusations, insults, and name-calling. No one here has ever expected all of our members to agree about everything, but we do ask that everyone respectfully disagree.

I could address specific comments in your posts, but it would just be repeating everything that has been said many times already, so I won’t bother. If you are interested in all the arguments for and against, it is here for your viewing pleasure. In any event, as others have said, there is also lots of positive, interesting information and discussion on the board, so, hopefully, you can enjoy yourself here.

Thank you. As I've stated, I understand and can respect people being against the current line-up but what I can't understand or respect is the cruel and cold comments about the family, the band, and the new line-up fans. Also the things stated that were flat-out untrue, and the fact that all of that is tolerated here.

Those are the things that seem inappropriate and wrong.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Thank you. As I've stated, I understand and can respect people being against the current line-up but what I can't understand or respect is the cruel and cold comments about the family, the band, and the new line-up fans. Also the things stated that were flat-out untrue, and the fact that all of that is tolerated here.

Those are the things that seem inappropriate and wrong.

Arlee - it seems like this is a matter of perception. I personally don't perceive comments made about the family or the band as cruel and cold, especially when taken in context of all the other discussion in the threads. As far as things stated that were flat-out untrue, if you would like to cite specific comments, I would certainly be glad to give you my take on them and I'm sure other members can as well. We pride ourselves on trying to make sure that information posted on the board is accurate and substantiated, so if you have facts to the contrary, we appreciate you bringing them to our attention.

[Arlee]

Arlee - it seems like this is a matter of perception. I personally don't perceive comments made about the family or the band as cruel and cold, especially when taken in context of all the other discussion in the threads. As far as things stated that were flat-out untrue, if you would like to cite specific comments, I would certainly be glad to give you my take on them and I'm sure other members can as well. We pride ourselves on trying to make sure that information posted on the board is accurate and substantiated, so if you have facts to the contrary, we appreciate you bringing them to our attention.

Thank you. I addressed it all in my original post, in detail (it was long, lol.) First, there was talk about how the members weren't really friends, that it was just a business arrangement. I think the point was to show something like, "see, they weren't really his friends so of course they would betray him."

Second, that Deacon had no musical experience, background, or talent, and that he didn't really have a career before this. Third, that Gill didn't have much of a career and so that is why he joined.

The out-of-line statements about the family, remaining Eagles, and fans included talk of how they're all betraying him and his memory, how terrible they are for doing this, and blame Cindy for allowing it. That they are all doing this for the money only. There was more negative talk leveled at his family but I had to stop reading it. It was said that anyone who goes to the concerts now are basically saying that Glenn didn't matter to them and his contributions meant nothing.

That was personally offensive to me, but I was most bothered about the things said about Deacon and his mother.

These things were personal attacks. There was more but I had to stop reading. These aren't exact quotes but it's the gist. I only read it once and don't want to look at it again.

I have no problem with the fact that some people don't like the new line-up. What's wrong is the personal attacks on the band, the family, and the fans.

(This part is more for the debate about the new line-up: many people don't realize that Glenn is honored at the concerts. There is happiness and tears. Henley literally states that "someone is missing" and that they're "not pretending it's the same band." He states that this is a celebration of the legacy that Glenn left us.)

[Dawn]

Speaking only for myself:

It is is not a question of honoring Glenn Frey or whether the brand is or isn't.

[WalshFan88]

Arlee-

I'm sorry you found some of the comments "untrue" or "cruel". Undoubtedly some of my own are in that group, and I'm ok with that because that's not the way I see them and others have agreed.

Simply put, my perspective is that once Deacon and Cindy decided to move forward, and Don, Tim, and Joe decided to move forward - they opened themselves up to it. I will not apologize for anything I've said about them or this abomination of a "band" now. I don't see them as personal attacks. I've never said Deacon wasn't talented. I just said that he should be doing something else than be a caricature of his dad. As far as Vince Gill, I do not like him one bit and that's just my take on it. While some may see him as the "nice guy", I see him as being too happy to jump into his old friend's role, despite his verbiage about it being bittersweet. His comments when he joined like "I always thought I'd make a good Eagle", made my stomach turn. I don't think he is talented as you might think. That's all. I think he needed the Eagles more than the Eagles needed him, regardless of his prior moderate success in the country genre. Anyone would BEG to have the Eagles on their resume, even some big name artists, and yes - it will help their career a lot.

My perspective, as I've shared in the "for those saying" thread, is that Glenn was the most important member of the band, and while I might not go if Don was gone but Glenn was there - there is simply no way to have the band called Eagles without Glenn Lewis Frey. He was everything to that band. I don't mean to offend Don fans, but I just feel he was the one with the vision and the one who contributed the most. TEHO. But yes, that does affect my stance on this, I won't lie. Still, you can't take him away and try to get me to go see the other 3 with Deacon and Vince. I just won't. The fact they had to bring 2 people in to TRY and barely scrape by in replacing Glenn's role says it all. Glenn was larger than life. I know you say they are still tributing him, but sure I don't see it. Or see enough of it. And I feel like yes, this is a shameless $ grab.

I think the best thing for me to say here is that we need to move on and realize we won't likely make each other happy here, and won't come to a resolution as I have no intention of backing down on my comments of the new group, and you are visibly upset by that. I think my only advice would be to enjoy the other threads where you can find a wealth of information about all eras of the band, look at pictures, participate in new show threads for the 3.0 group, and enjoy what the Border has to offer besides debate about the continuance of the Eagles, since it seems to bother you. Or as I suggested, find another forum.

-WF88

[WalshFan88]

Speaking only for myself:

It is is not a question of honoring Glenn Frey or whether the brand is or isn't.

Yes this. It's the fact they are going on without him, seemingly business as usual.

But it would be nice to see them show a bit more honoring of him...

[Arlee]

Originally Posted by Dawn View Post
Speaking only for myself:

It is is not a question of honoring Glenn Frey or whether the brand is or isn't.



Yes this. It's the fact they are going on without him, seemingly business as usual.

But it would be nice to see them show a bit more honoring of him...

I can appreciate what you're both saying here. I just wanted to add details of the show, just as a way of letting people know they do honor him. Not arguing, just informing.
🙂🙂🙂

[Arlee]

Arlee-

I'm sorry you found some of the comments "untrue" or "cruel". Undoubtedly some of my own are in that group, and I'm ok with that because that's not the way I see them and others have agreed.

Simply put, my perspective is that once Deacon and Cindy decided to move forward, and Don, Tim, and Joe decided to move forward - they opened themselves up to it. I will not apologize for anything I've said about them or this abomination of a "band" now. I don't see them as personal attacks. I've never said Deacon wasn't talented. I just said that he should be doing something else than be a caricature of his dad. As far as Vince Gill, I do not like him one bit and that's just my take on it. While some may see him as the "nice guy", I see him as being too happy to jump into his old friend's role, despite his verbiage about it being bittersweet. His comments when he joined like "I always thought I'd make a good Eagle", made my stomach turn. I don't think he is talented as you might think. That's all. I think he needed the Eagles more than the Eagles needed him, regardless of his prior moderate success in the country genre. Anyone would BEG to have the Eagles on their resume, even some big name artists, and yes - it will help their career a lot.

My perspective, as I've shared in the "for those saying" thread, is that Glenn was the most important member of the band, and while I might not go if Don was gone but Glenn was there - there is simply no way to have the band called Eagles without Glenn Lewis Frey. He was everything to that band. I don't mean to offend Don fans, but I just feel he was the one with the vision and the one who contributed the most. TEHO. But yes, that does affect my stance on this, I won't lie. Still, you can't take him away and try to get me to go see the other 3 with Deacon and Vince. I just won't. The fact they had to bring 2 people in to TRY and barely scrape by in replacing Glenn's role says it all. Glenn was larger than life. I know you say they are still tributing him, but sure I don't see it. Or see enough of it. And I feel like yes, this is a shameless $ grab.

I think the best thing for me to say here is that we need to move on and realize we won't likely make each other happy here, and won't come to a resolution as I have no intention of backing down on my comments of the new group, and you are visibly upset by that. I think my only advice would be to enjoy the other threads where you can find a wealth of information about all eras of the band, look at pictures, participate in new show threads for the 3.0 group, and enjoy what the Border has to offer besides debate about the continuance of the Eagles, since it seems to bother you. Or as I suggested, find another forum.

-WF88

I've read most of what you said here in other posts by you and others. People are defending themselves to me regarding things I've never said or argued about.

Again, I understand why some would be resistant to the new band. I agree it was Glenn's band. I never said it was you who said the offensive statements. I don't know if it was you or not

It's true that some things said were false. I've stated what they were.

I can think some comments were offensive just as much as folks are allowed to think otherwise.

It's offensive to me when I'm told I'm a fan who didn't think Glenn was important to the band.

Once again I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE DISLIKING THE NEW LINE-UP. I RESPECT THAT AND I CAN UNDERSTAND IT.

I'm not yelling there and it's not just directed at you.


Just in case anyone missed it again-

-I have no issue with people disliking the new line-up. I can understand their view. I can respect it. I agree it was Glenn's band.

-I can take offense to the statements that weren't true or that I felt were inappropriate just as much as people are allowed to dislike the new line-up. People share differing opinions. I understand that. I'm not arguing. I'm stating my opinion. Not trying to convince. Not arguing.

-People keep making points that I've never argued against or even said anything about.

[sodascouts]

-People keep making points that I've never argued against or even said anything about.
I feel like you're doing the same to a degree. I went back and looked through that thread, and I didn't find anything that said Deacon had no talent, or that the Freys were terrible people. But perhaps I missed them. Please link to them. I'd like to know exactly who you are calling cruel, and who you are calling a liar.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I was about to post essentially the same thing, Soda.

Arlee - Like all of us, you certainly have a right to your opinion and you even have a right to be offended by some comments. I don’t see where anyone here has disputed that, so I’m not sure why you feel that is the case. However, just because you don’t agree with what others have said doesn’t mean they are lying. And I also went back and carefully reread all of your posts and you seem to be mixing up opinions and facts, as well as, contradicting some of your own remarks. Honestly, I’m not going to spend a lot of time refuting baseless claims especially when you haven’t even read all of the posts in the thread you have such issues with. But kind in mind, when you accuse or condemn other members, you are personally attacking and offending them.



(This part is more for the debate about the new line-up: many people don't realize that Glenn is honored at the concerts. There is happiness and tears. Henley literally states that "someone is missing"and that they're "not pretending it's the same band." He states that this is a celebration of the legacy that Glenn left us.)

I would also welcome it if you could share more about how Glenn is being honored at concerts because your account differs from information that has been given by others here. Now, admittedly, I have not been to any of the shows, but from everything I’ve read and heard, Glenn is usually only mentioned once by Deacon as a prelude to Peaceful Easy Feeling, and then his picture is flashed on the jumbotron for several seconds after the song.

Maybe you can help shed some light on this, but I’ve not heard any reports of tears from the band members. Also, if Henley has said in concert that “someone is missing” and “they’re not pretending to be the same band” or that “this is a celebration of the legacy that Glenn left us”, then I had not heard this before either. If that is something he does at every show, then I do appreciate the sentiment. But, irregardless, I still have a difficult time envisioning these shows as a celebration of Glenn’s legacy when, by all accounts, they don’t even bother to dedicate a song to him. And, TBH, my perspective is that no matter what rhetoric Henley uses, they are, indeed, pretending to be the same band as long as they call themselves “Eagles”.

[Dawn]

I was about to post essentially the same thing, Soda.

Arlee - Like all of us, you certainly have a right to your opinion and you even have a right to be offended by some comments. I don’t see where anyone here has disputed that, so I’m not sure why you feel that is the case. However, just because you don’t agree with what others have said doesn’t mean they are lying. And I also went back and carefully reread all of your posts and you seem to be mixing up opinions and facts, as well as, contradicting some of your own remarks. Honestly, I’m not going to spend a lot of time refuting baseless claims especially when you haven’t even read all of the posts in the thread you have such issues with. But kind in mind, when you accuse or condemn other members, you are personally attacking and offending them.




I would also welcome it if you could share more about how Glenn is being honored at concerts because your account differs from information that has been given by others here. Now, admittedly, I have not been to any of the shows, but from everything I’ve read and heard, Glenn is usually only mentioned once by Deacon as a prelude to Peaceful Easy Feeling, and then his picture is flashed on the jumbotron for several seconds after the song.

Maybe you can help shed some light on this, but I’ve not heard any reports of tears from the band members. Also, if Henley has said in concert that “someone is missing” and “they’re not pretending to be the same band” or that “this is a celebration of the legacy that Glenn left us”, then I had not heard this before either. If that is something he does at every show, then I do appreciate the sentiment. But, irregardless, I still have a difficult time envisioning these shows as a celebration of Glenn’s legacy when, by all accounts, they don’t even bother to dedicate a song to him.

And, TBH, my perspective is that no matter what rhetoric Henley uses, they are, indeed, pretending to be tuhe same band as long as they call themselves “Eagles” .

^^^^^^

And there you have it. It is pretentious.

It is not the same band.

Someone is indeed missing.

No Glenn Frey = No Eagles.

[Arlee]

I feel like you're doing the same to a degree. I went back and looked through that thread, and I didn't find anything that said Deacon had no talent, or that the Freys were terrible people. But perhaps I missed them. Please link to them. I'd like to know exactly who you are calling cruel, and who you are calling a liar.



Sigh.

I did not call anyone a liar.

I did not call anyone cruel.

There was plenty talk about Deacon's lack of career, musical experience, and talent. As I've said, with some of it I don't know the exact wording.

Saying that they are insulting Glenn's memory, and that it's a money grab, is indeed a low blow to the family. There were other negatives said about them but I don't want to read it again.

I've stated many times that is what "I felt," "I thought," and "my opinion." (Other than the factual stuff.)

I'm not going to go back and read 125 pages or whatever it is. I have stated I had to stop reading. I've given many examples already. And, as with this post, I have to keep explaining the same stuff and saying "I never said that."

This has not been a discussion, but a series of people saying I said things I didn't say, and asking for examples, and me saying over and over "I didn't say that," and giving numerous examples. It's been a successful tactic to put me in the defensive position.

[Arlee]

I was about to post essentially the same thing, Soda.

Arlee - Like all of us, you certainly have a right to your opinion and you even have a right to be offended by some comments. I don’t see where anyone here has disputed that, so I’m not sure why you feel that is the case. However, just because you don’t agree with what others have said doesn’t mean they are lying. And I also went back and carefully reread all of your posts and you seem to be mixing up opinions and facts, as well as, contradicting some of your own remarks. Honestly, I’m not going to spend a lot of time refuting baseless claims especially when you haven’t even read all of the posts in the thread you have such issues with. But kind in mind, when you accuse or condemn other members, you are personally attacking and offending them.




I would also welcome it if you could share more about how Glenn is being honored at concerts because your account differs from information that has been given by others here. Now, admittedly, I have not been to any of the shows, but from everything I’ve read and heard, Glenn is usually only mentioned once by Deacon as a prelude to Peaceful Easy Feeling, and then his picture is flashed on the jumbotron for several seconds after the song.

Maybe you can help shed some light on this, but I’ve not heard any reports of tears from the band members. Also, if Henley has said in concert that “someone is missing” and “they’re not pretending to be the same band” or that “this is a celebration of the legacy that Glenn left us”, then I had not heard this before either. If that is something he does at every show, then I do appreciate the sentiment. But, irregardless, I still have a difficult time envisioning these shows as a celebration of Glenn’s legacy when, by all accounts, they don’t even bother to dedicate a song to him. And, TBH, my perspective is that no matter what rhetoric Henley uses, they are, indeed, pretending to be the same band as long as they call themselves “Eagles”.


I haven't contradicted myself. I know the difference between fact and opinion. I haven't made any baseless claims. As I've said, I'm not arguing. I'm not going to explain or defend myself anymore. It'd just be repeating what I've already said.

Yes my account of the concerts are exactly what I've said. Also, I've been seeing footage of the same on Youtube so I know it wasn't just at the concerts I've been to.

Vince and or Don talks about Vince's friendship with Glenn. Henley states all of this is dedicated to Glenn and all the other stuff I quoted. He also says these are no replacements since no one can replace him.

He says these songs are the legacy Glenn has left. Don says that Deacon has had mighty big shoes to fill and that he's "Doing his Poppa proud."

Yes he's also said that it's not the same band and they're not pretending it is, that it's always been Glenn's band, and that it's a celebration of the songs and what they mean to the fans.

He says "somebody is missing tonight" and that "we have lost a brother, a father, a friend."

The same picture of Glenn used at the Grammy tribute is put up on the big screen above the band as Deacon is finishing PEF. Sometimes some band members will turn and clap. I've heard that Deacon has turned and mouthed "thank you" at some shows but I was not a first-hand witness to this.

I didn't say that I saw band members cry. I've seen many audience members do this.

After the long pause for clapping after PEF, they play Ol 55 which is also very emotional.

I'm not saying any of this to try to convince or argue. I'm just responding to what you said.

[sodascouts]

Some things said here about Deacon are speculations and assumptions that aren't true.


The reason I said that is because some of my post addressed some untruths in that thread about their friendships and Deacon's background. Some things that were stated were flat-out false.


Also the things stated that were flat-out untrue, and the fact that all of that is tolerated here.


It's true that some things said were false.

This is calling people liars.


For example, that maybe he wasn't all that musical

No one said that, that I can tell.


or had a career of his own.

If you're talking about a career as a performer, he hasn't had much of one. That's not a lie.


He's played guitar and sung to smaller audiences regularly for over ten years. (YouTube "Don Was and Deacon Frey.")

This is inaccurate, Arlee, unless you're talking about playing to audiences in his living room. Yes, he's played guitar, but he's said himself that he wasn't a professional performer before this. I actually attended those performances with Don Was. They were benefits, special deals with his dad and some other performers, and they happened once a year for four years. Can you find a record of even one public performance by just Deacon Frey? A show that solely features him?


He's been a producer and a sound mixer.

Again, no one said he wasn't involved in the music business AT ALL. No one called him a "slacker" or said he wasn't "grateful, thankful, humble, appreciative" etc. Honestly, I don't know him, so I can't tell you anything about his personality, although I have actually met him once. Anyway, I believe all we have done is questioned his credentials as a performer and that, Arlee, is perfectly valid.



I have to be honest and say that some things said here have been cruel to the family and the band and insulting to the fans, including me. Honestly folks, it comes off as very selfish and insensitive.


What threw me was the more extreme comments that I thought were cold and cruel.


what I can't understand or respect is the cruel and cold comments about the family, the band, and the new line-up fans.

Those are harsh words, and yet you have no specific examples. It seems to me that you are calling people cruel here in multiple posts... did I misunderstand you? Anyway, perhaps these "cruel" remarks actually don't exist and you were exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect. If I somehow have forgotten or missed something, you can prove me wrong by finding them.


NO ONE ELSE'S opinion matters in this except the band and the family.

Well, my opinion definitely matters when it comes to whether or not I buy a ticket. They're marketing themselves to me. I get to decide whether or not I'm buying.

My decision: No thanks.

That music is not Eagles music without Glenn.

NO GLENN, NO EAGLES.

[Arlee]

This is calling people liars.



No one said that, that I can tell.



If you're talking about a career as a performer, he hasn't had much of one. That's not a lie.



This is inaccurate, Arlee, unless you're talking about playing to audiences in his living room. Yes, he's played guitar, but he's said himself that he wasn't a professional performer before this. I actually attended those performances with Don Was. They were benefits, special deals with his dad and some other performers, and they happened once a year for four years. Can you find a record of even one public performance by just Deacon Frey? A show that solely features him?



Again, no one said he wasn't involved in the music business AT ALL. No one called him a "slacker" or said he wasn't "grateful, thankful, humble, appreciative" etc. Honestly, I don't know him, so I can't tell you anything about his personality, although I have actually met him once. Anyway, I believe all we have done is questioned his credentials as a performer and that, Arlee, is perfectly valid.








Those are harsh words, and yet you have no specific examples. It seems to me that you are calling people cruel here in multiple posts... did I misunderstand you? Anyway, perhaps these "cruel" remarks actually don't exist and you were exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect. If I somehow have forgotten or missed something, you can prove me wrong by finding them.



Well, my opinion definitely matters when it comes to whether or not I buy a ticket. They're marketing themselves to me. I get to decide whether or not I'm buying.

My decision: No thanks.

That music is not Eagles music without Glenn.

NO GLENN, NO EAGLES.



You can continue arguing by yourself. I'm not here to argue. I addressed my concerns and gave my opinion.

You've again stated that I called people liars. A liar knows they are deceiving. That is a big leap for you to take. A person who sets the record straight is NOT calling someone a liar.

I didn't read further and there is no point in doing so because now you are just disparging my character, insisting more than once that I came on here saying things I didn't say, and calling people liars.

Some people will only read what you've said, that I call people liars. And then I'm known as the person who called people liars.

You are showing your bias in an unfair way and in a way that invites more conflict. I am bias too but I'm not making things up and I can understand and respect others disliking the current line-up.

[sodascouts]

I didn't read further

I think we have the real problem here. You don't read carefully.

I think that you read the other thread quickly, you got offended in a generalized way, got emotional, went off on posts being "cold and cruel" and the like.... I think that when we asked you to be specific, to go back and really look at the posts, you probably realized you couldn't actually find something that was truly cruel. Now, instead of admitting that, you're doubling down. Oh well. :shrug:

BTW, if you're truly interested in setting the record straight, you should take note of the part of my post where I correct your misunderstanding about Deacon's activities pre-Eagles. It's the third and fourth paragraphs. Cover all the rest of my post with your hands if you must, lol, but at least get informed.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I haven't contradicted myself. I know the difference between fact and opinion. I haven't made any baseless claims. As I've said, I'm not arguing. I'm not going to explain or defend myself anymore. It'd just be repeating what I've already said.

I'd prefer to drop this and just agree to disagree because this discussion has become redundant and sort of 'nit-picky'. However, I feel like I have to respond since Arlee has accused me of misrepresenting things, so although there were several instances where I felt Arlee contradicted him/herself and mixed facts and opinions, in the interest of brevity, I'll just cite one example of each that have not already been mentioned by others:

Arlee’s Post #731


If this (current tour) makes all those people happy and it helps them heal, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be against it. How could I possibly want the people who loved Glenn the most, and who he loved the most, to stop doing this thing they love and is helping them heal? I really don't understand that line of thinking.

Arlee’s Post #746


The live concerts pay due reverence to Glenn. It's a celebration of him, his legacy, and the music. It's emotional and moving. But I understand how some people would feel hurt, seeing them there without Glenn.

Sorry, but that sure appears to be a contradiction to me.

Arlee’s Post #731


There's no question the guys all loved each other. Even the Baby Eagles seem to love each other like cousins. At least two of them think the world of Azoff. He may be cutthroat at business, but to the Family Eagles he's thought of warmly and regarded as family.

This is one of the topics that Arlee claimed members had made 'flat-out untrue' statements about. The fact is that none of us here know the band members and what their true relationship was with one another. So there absolutely is a question here, which means anything any of us says about this matter is speculation and opinion rather than fact; therefore, if you disagree with Arlee, it is an opposition opinion, not a false/untrue fact.

So, let's keep it simple, just remember when posting on this board...

People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.


Yes my account of the concert are exactly what I've said. Also, I've been seeing footage of the same on Youtube so I know it wasn't just at the concerts I've been to.

Vince or Don talks about Vince's friendship with Glenn. Henley states all of this is dedicated to Glenn and all the other stuff I quoted.He also says these are no replacements since no one can replace him.

He says these songs are the legacy Glenn has left. Don says that Deacon has had mighty big shoes to fill and that he's "Doing his Poppa proud."

Yes he's also said that it's not the same band and they're not pretending it is, that it's always been Glenn's band, and that it's a celebration of the songs and what they mean to the fans.

He says "somebody is missing tonight" and that "we have lost a brother, a father, a friend."

The same picture of Glenn used at the Grammy tribute is put up on the bigscreen above the band as Deacon is finishing PEF. Sometimes some band members will turn and clap. I've heard that Deacon has turned and mouthed "thank you" at some shows but I was not a first-hand witness to this.

I didn't say that I saw band members cry. I've seen many audience members do this.

After the long pause for clapping after PEF, they play Ol 55 which is also very emotional.

I'm not saying any of this to try to convince or argue. I'm just responding to what you said.

Thanks for your clarification here.

[Arlee]

I came here because I'm a fan of Eagles in all forms. I still hurt over Glenn Frey, and I absolutely adore Deacon and love how the Uncle Eagles have taken him under their wings. (Yep, bias.) I hope you can understand I wasn't prepared for the negativity against the Eagles Family. There's a lot of it here. From my observations, there seems to be more of a bias here against the new line up.

Rather than focusing on the subject and debate the pros and cons, it became personal against me.

I didn't contradict myself. There's an obvious difference between my opinion that "I understand if people don't like the new line-up" and my opinion that "I don't understand how people can be so strongly against the Eagles continuing, and cross the line in what is said about the Eagles Family."

I think it's clear those statements aren't contradictory, but there was grasping at small things and twisting it.

The words "disengenuous" and "deflecting" kept coming to mind when reading here. For example, continually saying that I "called people liars," when there's a difference between knowingly lying and unknowingly saying something that isn't factual.

I've stated specifics about what was said about the Eagles Family that I felt were personal attacks against them and the claims that weren't true. I didn't imagine them and I gave some examples.

Liking and supporting the new line up, and being against the extreme negativity, was my opinion. And rather than debate it, I was simply told that there was nothing said that crossed the line and that I called people liars and contradicted myself. Then I kept defending myself against it.

I spent some of my first few posts responding "I didn't say that at all." And you can see it in the posts, that was true

Some said there are specific topics here for pro-new and anti-new, to avoid conflict. And yet in perusing the topics I see a lot of "anti-new line-up" comments sneaking into topics that have nothing to do with it. So it's not easy avoiding that on this board.

I have yet to find the pro-new topic.

The topics of the new guests, Gill and Deacon, are buried.

Now, to actually debate the new line up rather than spend more space having to fend off accusations and denials, I offer this:

(1) It was said that Deacon may read this board and be hurt. The response was that he's old enough to handle it, and should be prepared for it. IMO, no one can be prepared for that. Especially in their twenties while taking on this enormous task while grieving your father. I have such a soft spot for the young lad, and some of the things said about him hit a nerve.

(2) There are some here who state that they don't believe Glenn would've wanted the Eagles to continue, despite what the Eagles Family says. It seems a bit odd to think that any of us would know what Glenn wanted more than the people he was closest to for 25-45 years.

(3) I don't think they're doing it for the money. And what's wrong with getting paid? This is their passion. Many people find paying jobs they're passionate about. Also, Henley is in a lot of pain and has been for years. He is very well off so I believe that for him, it's his calling. (As he stated in HOTE.)

(4) Finally, I'd like to know, if you're against the Eagles continuing, what change would make it OK for you. Right now, Gill and young Frey are billed as guests. Does that lessen the blow?

Also, it was stated here that the guys should instead pursue their solo careers. But they want to play together. If they like playing together, why do you feel it wrong to do so?

If it's because they sing Eagles songs, remember they've also done this in their solo shows for years. And many of the songs Walsh sings at Eagles shows were in fact his.

So there's been a lot of crossover for a long time. So what specifically is the issue that makes you feel it's wrong?

While I am pro-new-line-up, I can ALMOST understand being against using the name. But I don't see any other reason to be against them continuing. So is that the reason? Or is it something else I haven't thought of?

And if it is only the name that is bothering you, I admit I can't understand the amount of hatred over that one thing.

That is all and thank you.

[WalshFan88]

I came here because I'm a fan of Eagles in all forms. I still hurt over Glenn Frey, and I absolutely adore Deacon and love how the Uncle Eagles have taken him under their wings. (Yep, bias.) I hope you can understand I wasn't prepared for the negativity against the Eagles Family. There's a lot of it here. From my observations, there seems to be more of a bias here against the new line up.

Rather than focusing on the subject and debate the pros and cons, it became personal against me.

I didn't contradict myself. There's an obvious difference between my opinion that "I understand if people don't like the new line-up" and my opinion that "I don't understand how people can be so strongly against the Eagles continuing, and cross the line in what is said about the Eagles Family."

I think it's clear those statements aren't contradictory, but there was grasping at small things and twisting it.

The words "disengenuous" and "deflecting" kept coming to mind when reading here. For example, continually saying that I "called people liars," when there's a difference between knowingly lying and unknowingly saying something that isn't factual.

I've stated specifics about what was said about the Eagles Family that I felt were personal attacks against them and the claims that weren't true. I didn't imagine them and I gave some examples.

Liking and supporting the new line up, and being against the extreme negativity, was my opinion. And rather than debate it, I was simply told that there was nothing said that crossed the line and that I called people liars and contradicted myself. Then I kept defending myself against it.

I spent some of my first few posts responding "I didn't say that at all." And you can see it in the posts, that was true

Some said there are specific topics here for pro-new and anti-new, to avoid conflict. And yet in perusing the topics I see a lot of "anti-new line-up" comments sneaking into topics that have nothing to do with it. So it's not easy avoiding that on this board.

I have yet to find the pro-new topic.

The topics of the new guests, Gill and Deacon, are buried.

Now, to actually debate the new line up rather than spend more space having to fend off accusations and denials, I offer this:

(1) It was said that Deacon may read this board and be hurt. The response was that he's old enough to handle it, and should be prepared for it. IMO, no one can be prepared for that. Especially in their twenties while taking on this enormous task while grieving your father. I have such a soft spot for the young lad, and some of the things said about him hit a nerve.

(2) There are some here who state that they don't believe Glenn would've wanted the Eagles to continue, despite what the Eagles Family says. It seems a bit odd to think that any of us would know what Glenn wanted more than the people he was closest to for 25-45 years.

(3) I don't think they're doing it for the money. And what's wrong with getting paid? This is their passion. Many people find paying jobs they're passionate about. Also, Henley is in a lot of pain and has been for years. He is very well off so I believe that for him, it's his calling. (As he stated in HOTE.)

(4) Finally, I'd like to know, if you're against the Eagles continuing, what change would make it OK for you. Right now, Gill and young Frey are billed as guests. Does that lessen the blow?

Also, it was stated here that the guys should instead pursue their solo careers. But they want to play together. If they like playing together, why do you feel it wrong to do so?

If it's because they sing Eagles songs, remember they've also done this in their solo shows for years. And many of the songs Walsh sings at Eagles shows were in fact his.

So there's been a lot of crossover for a long time. So what specifically is the issue that makes you feel it's wrong?

While I am pro-new-line-up, I can ALMOST understand being against using the name. But I don't see any other reason to be against them continuing. So is that the reason? Or is it something else I haven't thought of?

And if it is only the name that is bothering you, I admit I can't understand the amount of hatred over that one thing.

That is all and thank you.

Arlee, with all due respect, considering the fact that it is now almost three months since your posting about this, I think it's time to drop the subject, especially about your posts here and our response to said posts. It really doesn't apply to the nature of the thread, either. I'm happy to share my thoughts directly to you, provided that you won't flip out over my response. I don't pull any punches regarding 3.0, if you noticed.

I'm happy to share my take, once again, but you probably won't like what I'm about to tell you.

I'm going to respond to your points, top to bottom and I'm going to leave it at that. If I seem cold or calloused, I am. I've done but lost all respect for Don Henley and the rest of the band for that matter. I also don't "feel bad" for Deacon in regards to any criticism. Nor do I hold back my thoughts on the current band, it's members, and any side personnel that factored into the Eagles continuance. So just a heads up.

About the seepage of anti 3.0 in other threads, especially positive 3.0 ones: I personally try to avoid doing it. I won't rain on your parade in a concert review/hype thread. I don't see very much if at all of it in those threads, if I'm honest here.

Regarding the "pro"-current Eagles: the threads for that would be any concert review threads, or pre-concert anticipation threads for new shows. Also I'd like to just point out that you can find other threads that have nothing to do with the new Eagles good or bad that are a wealth of information, great pictures, fun games, etc. It isn't all doom and gloom, and you can avoid most of it. So I don't believe that it is that hard to avoid Arlee. I think the Border offers a lot more than 3.0 talk.

Other threads: This thread "Looks like the band..." is for both sides to discuss their feelings together on the current lineup. If we think we can talk about something in an open thread for both parties, that's where those posts go. The "For those saying..." thread is only for those of us against the new Eagles, our safe space from personal attacks and vitriol thrown the way of the so called naysayers of 3.0. Something I'm not ashamed about, but I'm glad we have an open platform where we can say how we feel without having to respond to the other side or deal with any conflict. It's where posts that are more negative about the current lineup go and it's more intense. It's our soapbox and I'm glad we have it. I personally try to keep any 3.0 banter to either this "Looks like the band" thread or the "For those saying..." thread. I prefer posting in the for those saying thread as there is no conflict as all posters that post in that thread are on the same page and I personally don't feel like having to explain my thoughts for the millionth time to pro-3.0 posters.

As far as negativity and a bias to be against the current lineup: Yes, there is negative reactions here to the new Eagles. Yes, there are a lot of us here that are upset about this and, yes, a lot of us are very outspoken about it. I personally feel once the band decided to move forward, they opened themselves up to said negative comments and "extreme negativity". You may disagree, and that's fine. We disagree here.

As far as the topics about Vince and Deacon: Personally I have zero interest in discussing either of these two men. I don't hold Vince in very good regard at all, and I'm pretty much neutral to Deacon, so you won't see me bumping those threads all that often. However, the Eagles Guests board is a perfect example where you can talk about these two guys and you will likely find other pro-3.0 supporters who are happy to join in. I recommend bumping those threads yourself if you'd like to see more discussion about Vince Gill and Deacon Frey. I promise not to rain on your parade in those threads. I'm sure it will be a positive area.

Now I'm moving on to the numbered questions/points.

1) I'm in the camp that thinks he's old enough to handle it and again, once he moved forward with this and put himself in the public spotlight, you are naturally going to get people who don't like you or something you do. I personally don't feel bad for Deacon in this regard. I'm sorry for the loss of his father, but I don't think he is immune from comments from anti-3.0 posters, I'm sorry but I just don't. Certainly not now. My only suggestion would be to just ignore posts that you feel are unfair to Deacon, and promote him in the appropriate threads. I don't hate Deacon Frey. I don't even dislike him really. But I also don't love him or have a "soft spot" for him. I'm disappointed with him choosing to join the band but I don't think he's a bad guy. With time I like to think he will move on to his own job, and that he will mature as time goes on.

2) I personally do not agree with the sentiment that we don't know him as well as they did, or that we shouldn't speculate. I have just as much of a right to say what I think Glenn would want as they do. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way or think it's ridiculous, but I do. I don't buy the whole "who are we to say" line. I just don't. And I certainly don't feel like what we've heard Glenn say or just pick up on is invalid at all.

3) Of course it's for the money! If the whole line about it being "for the music" is to be bought, why can't they stay busy doing what they love as solo artists or as a group with an entirely new name? They'd still be doing what they love, without tarnishing the band's history at the end. They aren't the Eagles. It is my personal opinion that Glenn Frey was the most important member of the band by a long shot. You may agree or disagree. But there can't be an Eagles without Glenn. I'm sure Don fans might feel the same about Don but Glenn was the Eagles to me and nothing will ever change that. He was their Steve Jobs. THE guy. As far as Henley's pain, it must not be bothering him too awfully bad. If I was Don, I'm set for life in terms of money, I'd not spend my last years in pain just because you love the music. I don't buy that. It's about $. Being under the Eagles banner doesn't make it more fun nor does it mean "you love it more" or you are doing it because you just love it. You could (and should) love it with any members with any name. ;)

4) Good question. First, I'd have to have it that this never happened with them now. This would be prior to doing 3.0 as it's too late to make it better now, I'm soured on all of them from here on out. I would have been ok with them under a new name, as their own band. I'd also prefer that they not do any Frey material. If they were to do Frey material I'd want them to keep it to just a couple hits. TIE or something. I'd also like it for them to never have brought Vince Gill along. I can't stand that guy. Bringing Deacon along is fine though. And I'd like them to do one of those concerts under the billing of a public tribute for Glenn. And no, having them labeled as guests does NOT lessen the blow at all. Going out under the Eagles name and being seemingly all business as usual is an abomination and should be treated as such. It's very wrong!

Again, as I referenced above if they don't want to play solo shows, they CAN play together, but under a new name as an entirely different outfit. That option is very much doable. And I'd be fine with them singing Eagles songs that weren't Glenn's except a couple hits maybe. As far as the hatred only over the name, I think you are undervaluing the importance of the Eagles name and how much of it had to do with Glenn alone. It isn't something to be taken lightly here.

In conclusion:

Arlee, I really hope we can at least agree to disagree here, and maybe even exchange a parting e-handshake. We won't ever see eye to eye on this matter and it's just going to lead to more anguish for you and I both to deliberate on this topic any more than we have. I personally am trying to step back in 3.0 talk somewhat as I have a lot on my plate in my personal life right now but I did want to respond to this, even for no other reason than to clarify my stance and defend my posts on this matter. I hope I answered your questions and responded to the points you've made in a way that you might not agree with, maybe even are against, but that we can agree to just leave it be with hopefully no hard feelings. I have no ill will against you and I'm certainly hoping that we can discuss other things in other threads if you so choose. I'm personally open to that. I certainly don't mean to offend you directly. But how I feel about this is how I feel. I wouldn't ask you to hold back your thoughts if the tables were turned. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Life is short and I really don't want to spend it arguing with people I likely will never meet. However, I am an outspoken guy and I share how I feel about things, at times in a very forward manner. I really don't want to keep arguing with the pro side. I would like to discuss new news about the current Eagles and I'm keeping that to the other anti-3.0 thread. Less conflict there.

[Arlee]

Arlee, with all due respect, considering the fact that it is now almost three months since your posting about this, I think it's time to drop the subject, especially about your posts here and our response to said posts. It really doesn't apply to the nature of the thread, either. I'm happy to share my thoughts directly to you, provided that you won't flip out over my response. I don't pull any punches regarding 3.0, if you noticed.

I'm happy to share my take, once again, but you probably won't like what I'm about to tell you.

I'm going to respond to your points, top to bottom and I'm going to leave it at that. If I seem cold or calloused, I am. I've done but lost all respect for Don Henley and the rest of the band for that matter. I also don't "feel bad" for Deacon in regards to any criticism. Nor do I hold back my thoughts on the current band, it's members, and any side personnel that factored into the Eagles continuance. So just a heads up.

About the seepage of anti 3.0 in other threads, especially positive 3.0 ones: I personally try to avoid doing it. I won't rain on your parade in a concert review/hype thread. I don't see very much if at all of it in those threads, if I'm honest here.

Regarding the "pro"-current Eagles: the threads for that would be any concert review threads, or pre-concert anticipation threads for new shows. Also I'd like to just point out that you can find other threads that have nothing to do with the new Eagles good or bad that are a wealth of information, great pictures, fun games, etc. It isn't all doom and gloom, and you can avoid most of it. So I don't believe that it is that hard to avoid Arlee. I think the Border offers a lot more than 3.0 talk.

Other threads: This thread "Looks like the band..." is for both sides to discuss their feelings together on the current lineup. If we think we can talk about something in an open thread for both parties, that's where those posts go. The "For those saying..." thread is only for those of us against the new Eagles, our safe space from personal attacks and vitriol thrown the way of the so called naysayers of 3.0. Something I'm not ashamed about, but I'm glad we have an open platform where we can say how we feel without having to respond to the other side or deal with any conflict. It's where posts that are more negative about the current lineup go and it's more intense. It's our soapbox and I'm glad we have it. I personally try to keep any 3.0 banter to either this "Looks like the band" thread or the "For those saying..." thread. I prefer posting in the for those saying thread as there is no conflict as all posters that post in that thread are on the same page and I personally don't feel like having to explain my thoughts for the millionth time to pro-3.0 posters.

As far as negativity and a bias to be against the current lineup: Yes, there is negative reactions here to the new Eagles. Yes, there are a lot of us here that are upset about this and, yes, a lot of us are very outspoken about it. I personally feel once the band decided to move forward, they opened themselves up to said negative comments and "extreme negativity". You may disagree, and that's fine. We disagree here.

As far as the topics about Vince and Deacon: Personally I have zero interest in discussing either of these two men. I don't hold Vince in very good regard at all, and I'm pretty much neutral to Deacon, so you won't see me bumping those threads all that often. However, the Eagles Guests board is a perfect example where you can talk about these two guys and you will likely find other pro-3.0 supporters who are happy to join in. I recommend bumping those threads yourself if you'd like to see more discussion about Vince Gill and Deacon Frey. I promise not to rain on your parade in those threads. I'm sure it will be a positive area.

Now I'm moving on to the numbered questions/points.

1) I'm in the camp that thinks he's old enough to handle it and again, once he moved forward with this and put himself in the public spotlight, you are naturally going to get people who don't like you or something you do. I personally don't feel bad for Deacon in this regard. I'm sorry for the loss of his father, but I don't think he is immune from comments from anti-3.0 posters, I'm sorry but I just don't. Certainly not now. My only suggestion would be to just ignore posts that you feel are unfair to Deacon, and promote him in the appropriate threads. I don't hate Deacon Frey. I don't even dislike him really. But I also don't love him or have a "soft spot" for him. I'm disappointed with him choosing to join the band but I don't think he's a bad guy. With time I like to think he will move on to his own job, and that he will mature as time goes on.

2) I personally do not agree with the sentiment that we don't know him as well as they did, or that we shouldn't speculate. I have just as much of a right to say what I think Glenn would want as they do. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way or think it's ridiculous, but I do. I don't buy the whole "who are we to say" line. I just don't. And I certainly don't feel like what we've heard Glenn say or just pick up on is invalid at all.

3) Of course it's for the money! If the whole line about it being "for the music" is to be bought, why can't they stay busy doing what they love as solo artists or as a group with an entirely new name? They'd still be doing what they love, without tarnishing the band's history at the end. They aren't the Eagles. It is my personal opinion that Glenn Frey was the most important member of the band by a long shot. You may agree or disagree. But there can't be an Eagles without Glenn. I'm sure Don fans might feel the same about Don but Glenn was the Eagles to me and nothing will ever change that. He was their Steve Jobs. THE guy. As far as Henley's pain, it must not be bothering him too awfully bad. If I was Don, I'm set for life in terms of money, I'd not spend my last years in pain just because you love the music. I don't buy that. It's about $. Being under the Eagles banner doesn't make it more fun nor does it mean "you love it more" or you are doing it because you just love it. You could (and should) love it with any members with any name. ;)

4) Good question. First, I'd have to have it that this never happened with them now. This would be prior to doing 3.0 as it's too late to make it better now, I'm soured on all of them from here on out. I would have been ok with them under a new name, as their own band. I'd also prefer that they not do any Frey material. If they were to do Frey material I'd want them to keep it to just a couple hits. TIE or something. I'd also like it for them to never have brought Vince Gill along. I can't stand that guy. Bringing Deacon along is fine though. And I'd like them to do one of those concerts under the billing of a public tribute for Glenn. And no, having them labeled as guests does NOT lessen the blow at all. Going out under the Eagles name and being seemingly all business as usual is an abomination and should be treated as such. It's very wrong!

Again, as I referenced above if they don't want to play solo shows, they CAN play together, but under a new name as an entirely different outfit. That option is very much doable. And I'd be fine with them singing Eagles songs that weren't Glenn's except a couple hits maybe. As far as the hatred only over the name, I think you are undervaluing the importance of the Eagles name and how much of it had to do with Glenn alone. It isn't something to be taken lightly here.

In conclusion:

Arlee, I really hope we can at least agree to disagree here, and maybe even exchange a parting e-handshake. We won't ever see eye to eye on this matter and it's just going to lead to more anguish for you and I both to deliberate on this topic any more than we have. I personally am trying to step back in 3.0 talk somewhat as I have a lot on my plate in my personal life right now but I did want to respond to this, even for no other reason than to clarify my stance and defend my posts on this matter. I hope I answered your questions and responded to the points you've made in a way that you might not agree with, maybe even are against, but that we can agree to just leave it be with hopefully no hard feelings. I have no ill will against you and I'm certainly hoping that we can discuss other things in other threads if you so choose. I'm personally open to that. I certainly don't mean to offend you directly. But how I feel about this is how I feel. I wouldn't ask you to hold back your thoughts if the tables were turned. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Life is short and I really don't want to spend it arguing with people I likely will never meet. However, I am an outspoken guy and I share how I feel about things, at times in a very forward manner. I really don't want to keep arguing with the pro side. I would like to discuss new news about the current Eagles and I'm keeping that to the other anti-3.0 thread. Less conflict there.

Thanks! E hand-shaking now.

My response on your first paragraph then moving on...

I was trying to stick with the topics at hand, rather than it be about me and what I've supposedly said & done wrong. I stated why I didn't respond before now -- because I kept having words put in my mouth. I was repeatedly defending myself. I'm not going to be in that position. Saying it's been three months is a non-issue to me. I really care what fellow Eagles fans think and it was really bothering me. Saying it's time "I" drop the subject I think is unfair, because there were things said about me that I was responding to

Thanks for pointing the way to the non-negative threads. I know you disagreed that they were hard to find, but you acknowledged some "anti-new" comments will show up. So, thank you.

I appreciate you answering my questions on-topic about the "what and why" of being against the new line-up. Very detailed!

I'm in the camp that agrees with Henley when he said he's not going to spend a lot of time defending it because he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

I do "feel bad" for Deacon for any criticism he might get, LOL. I feel like he's my son. 😊 And I can't know what he went through or is going through.

While I disagree with what you've said about the new line-up, I will say that I would be devasted if I lost faith and respect for something I held dearly (I'm making the assumption you did.) So on that level, I can relate.

I definitely don't underestimate the name or Glenn's role in it. He's the one who came up with it. And if I ever got a tattoo, it'd be an Eagle.😁

So if I understand correctly, it would be ok with you if they had a different name and sang very few songs that Glenn sang lead, but it wouldn't sit completely ok with you. Thanks for clarifying the "why."

I agree you have a right to say what you think Glenn would want. We have a right to think and say whatever we want. I just don't agree that anyone would know his wishes better than his family or friends would.

[WalshFan88]

Thanks! E hand-shaking now.

My response on your first paragraph then moving on...

I was trying to stick with the topics at hand, rather than it be about me and what I've supposedly said & done wrong. I stated why I didn't respond before now -- because I kept having words put in my mouth. I was repeatedly defending myself. I'm not going to be in that position. Saying it's been three months is a non-issue to me. I really care what fellow Eagles fans think and it was really bothering me. Saying it's time "I" drop the subject I think is unfair, because there were things said about me that I was responding to

Thanks for pointing the way to the non-negative threads. I know you disagreed that they were hard to find, but you acknowledged some "anti-new" comments will show up. So, thank you.

I appreciate you answering my questions on-topic about the "what and why" of being against the new line-up. Very detailed!

I'm in the camp that agrees with Henley when he said he's not going to spend a lot of time defending it because he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

I do "feel bad" for Deacon for any criticism he might get, LOL. I feel like he's my son. 😊 And I can't know what he went through or is going through.

While I disagree with what you've said about the new line-up, I will say that I would be devasted if I lost faith and respect for something I held dearly (I'm making the assumption you did.) So on that level, I can relate.

I definitely don't underestimate the name or Glenn's role in it. He's the one who came up with it. And if I ever got a tattoo, it'd be an Eagle.😁

So if I understand correctly, it would be ok with you if they had a different name and sang very few songs that Glenn sang lead, but it wouldn't sit completely ok with you. Thanks for clarifying the "why."

I agree you have a right to say what you think Glenn would want. We have a right to think and say whatever we want. I just don't agree that anyone would know his wishes better than his family or friends would.

I understand not wanting to drop the subject of your initial posts but I think it just stirs things up. I think it's best if we leave that to water under the bridge.

Thank you for acknowledging my hopefully detailed response as to the how and why of my being against 3.0 and thanks for at least considering the other perspective. I appreciate it greatly.

[Carolyn]

While I like some of the Eagles songs, I wouldn't consider myself a big fan of the band. If one of their songs comes on the radio, I don't rush to turn the station; but on the other hand, I think I've only purchased 2 of their songs, with one having a sentimental value to me having to do with when I first met my now-husband.


But because it seems that Matt and my father -- and our families -- frequently bond over either talking about our businesses, their competitiveness on the golf course, or music of the 70s and 80s, I try to pick-up little pieces of information I can occasionally insert into the conversation, as well when it comes to music -- and this is one of the sites that has been very helpful in that regard.


That said, there is one topic that is somewhat oft discussed on this site where I just find myself shaking my head and either closing my laptop, or just bouncing over to another site -- but as I am now sitting in my office waiting for my husband to stop by and take me to dinner at Clancy's, I've decided to share my 2 cents concerning all the opinions from fans who feel it is wrong for the band to continue on without Mr. Frey.


To be clear, I don't really care too much either way whether they do or don't tour, as we saw them last year -- and while they were not the worst or the best band we saw all year -- we don't really have plans to see them again.


But what I find so disrespectful to the Frey family is when people post messages professing on one hand how much Glenn Frey and his music meant to them -- but on the other hand, they express such vile toward the decision to carry-on touring without him.

Don't they stop to think for one second that there is no one who would better know what Mr. Frey's wishes would be, than his own wife and family -- and trust that his own family loved their husband and father so much that they would never give their stamp of approval to the band carrying on without him, if they didnt believe that is what he would have wanted.


And do they realize that, as a parent who I trust loved his children very much, there is likley no one in the world Mr. Frey would want to see help to fill the void on that stage each night, other than his own son.

I never met Mr. Frey, but my husband met him a few times in NYC. The last time my husband, Matt, met him was about 5 years ago when Matt was rushing out of the building he worked at in NYC as an architect on his way to catch the train back home to Boston, and Mr. Frey happened to be walking by and called out to Matt and then walked with my husband to the train station, and he asked Matt what happened with the band he had with his brothers that used to play some of the clubs in the city. Matt explaioned that had just been a way for them to help cover their expenses while they were going to college.


Matt also told Mr. Frey how we had gotten married and I was pregnant with our first child at the time, and Mr. Frey congratulated him and told him how having a family takes a lot of compromise & patience and told Matt, "but it is so worth it." He also asked Matt how long it took him to realize he wanted to marry me, and Matt told him he knew the second he saw me.


Matt said Mr. Frey stopped walking for a second and looked at Matt and said, "Yeah, that's exactly how it happens."

The point of sharing this here is not to make you think we have some perfect marriage -- as we have our share of disagreements, as well.


But it is clear to me from that brief conversation Matt had with Mr. Frey, that the most important people in his life were his wife and children -- and they likely knew his opinions and wishes better than anyone else -- and as long as they support the band continuing on -- I really don't believe anyone else should be questioning what Mr. Frey would -- or wouldn't -- have wanted his legacy to be.


I'll admit that I am sensitive about this topic, as it is a discussion my parents have been raising with us more and more frequently over the last 2 years.


I hate it, as I know that we are ultimately talking about their wishes of what they want to see happen to the businesses they each built from the ground-up after they are no longer with us -- and, honestly, I just don't want to think about that day when I will no longer have them in my life.


But I am also a realist, so I know it's better for us to plan and hear them out on what they want, and be involved in the decision, than to be surprised and overwhelmed when, God forbid, that day comes.


We first dealt with my mother's beautiful spa, which neither my sister or I have much interest in running -- which makes us feel so bad, as we know she had always hoped one of us would want to take it over some day. Fortunately, we reached a good compromise, as we convinced my mother to hire a manager to run the business for her, and then she can still reap the benefits of being the owner and have the flexibility she said she is now ready for, as she is now in her early 60s and said there are days she just wants to sleep later in the morning, only go to the spa 2 or 3 days a week and she enjoys coming to our house to spend time with her grandchildren, and go to her sister and mother's house and spend more time with them, and she wants to have the ability to travel, which she never really had time to do for most of her life.


It's a very successful business my mother has built, and my sister and I will appreciate having it - and, who knows, maybe one day one or both of us will want to take it over.


My father's law firm is a different matter. I went to law school, but after interning at my father's office and feeling suffocated that he was trying to control my life by putting pressure on me to join his firm after passing the bar and keeping the same long, crazy hours he
did on a daily basis, I rebelled and dropped out of college my last year, as I knew in my heart that I didn't want to spend the remainder of my 20s living the fast pace of the city, and I really yearned to live on the Cape and eventually have my own real estate agency, the way my aunt did.

But I was smart enough to finish all my required class-time; but did not write or submit my final papers to earn my J.D. and then take the bar.


While my father has promoted several lawyers to be partners in his firm, he still maintains over 80 percent control of the respected firm he built. He told me that he very much wants to give my sister and I equal interest in his firm, but he won't be able to do that, if I don't become a lawyer. I have resisted this, because I really love my life the way it is, having my agency almost within walking distance to my home and the kindergarten and elementary school our oldest now attends. I also love being able to have my husband stop by my office to have lunch together a few times a week -- so I really don't want to go back to the grind of dealing with a long commute and sitting in rush-hour traffic.


So we've come up with a great compromise. I had already been discussing with Matt how I don't like wasting money on leasing the office space I have, and I'd prefer to invest the money into buying my own little building, since the agents I have actually enjoy spending a lot of time in the office, so I need more room to accommodate everyone. So my father has decided he'd like to go in on this space with me, as he'd like to open a small satellite office for his firm on the Cape, and that way I can take over handling all the closings for not only my office's work, but also oversee a lot more closings on behalf of my father's firm -- and with the 2 of us sharing office space together, my father can oversee my agency and any closings when I am not available, and I can oversee his satellite law practice when he's not there.


Additionally, Matt has decided he wants to have office space there, as well, for his architectural and construction businesses.


I still can't bear to think of a day when I may no longer have my parents around, but I am glad we have ironed-out the plan on how we can proceed with their businesses, if that day ever comes. I honestly thought my parents would naturally leave each other's business to the other surviving spouse, but they both feel they wouldn't want to take over each other's businesses -- and my mother is not a lawyer -- so they'd rather the business be passed along directly to my sister and me -- and all their remaining assets will, of course, go to the remaining spouse.

So now I'm just looking for the perfect space along the waterfront that Matt and I can renovate into fitting into the style of the quaint Cape Cod community from the exterior, while maintaining open and beautiful office working spaces with lots of exterior windows for our staff and clients to enjoy the seaside community.


In the same way my parents have discussed their wishes of what they would like to see happen with their businesses when they are no longer here -- and the way Matt and I have discussed how fortunate our children will be to have such exposure to the businesses my parents started, as well as my real estate agency, and Matt's architectural & construction business, as well as the robotics and artificial intelligence company he co-owns with his brother -- nothing would please us more than to see them want to carry-on our legacy.

But, if they don't want to want to take over running any of our businesses one day -- we hope to at least inspire them to chase after their own dreams.


While I respect everyone's right to express their opinions about a band -- my opinion is that it is disrespectful to think the family Mr. Frey loved and cared for would endorse the band carrying on in their husband's and father's absence -- if they thought for even one second that it is something he would not have wanted to occur.

To question their decision is the equivalent of saying you feel you knew Mr. Frey's wishes moreso than his own family.

[WalshFan88]

All I'm going to say about this are three simple things... I don't feel like discussing 3.0 with the other side, I'd rather focus on discussing it only with likeminded people in the appropriate thread (for those saying...).

1. You yourself say you aren't as big of a fan of the band as some here. And you probably aren't as much of a Glenn fan as some here. So maybe you aren't as emotionally invested as some here. Especially Glenn fans and those that thought he was very important if not most important to this band. And that's ok, there is nothing wrong with being a casual fan as long as you don't discredit those who are as I said, emotionally invested and care very deeply about the band and it's history.

2. We very much have a right to discuss this without being filtered or censored, and we have a right to a thread where the people that are against this can discuss it without having to listen to the other side complain about our position on the continuance of the Eagles. I personally am sick of trying to explain myself and the points I and the others have made to people who are either 3.0 supporters or just can't understand our viewpoint. I really wish they would just leave us be about it.

3. As far as the "who are we to say" "how do we know better than" vibe I'm getting from this post (it's been exclaimed many times already) - I've said many times that we can say what we think Glenn would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with that, contrary to popular belief. Nor do I subscribe to this idea that it would be impossible for the family not to have known Glenn's true wishes about an Eagles without him in it. It is very possible that they didn't know his wishes at the end and maybe he changed them over time. Maybe we do know better than the family, maybe we don't. But there is nothing wrong with speculating about it. Regardless, I don't support their decision and I personally don't feel bad at all for doing so.

I'm sorry, but if the threads that discuss our distaste for the current band bother you (particularly "for those saying" and "looks like the band"), you can avoid it fairly easily I think. Neither side is going to change their minds. I know I won't!

[Carolyn]

All I'm going to say about this are three simple things... I don't feel like discussing 3.0 with the other side, I'd rather focus on discussing it only with likeminded people in the appropriate thread (for those saying...).

1. You yourself say you aren't as big of a fan of the band as some here. And you probably aren't as much of a Glenn fan as some here. So maybe you aren't as emotionally invested as some here. Especially Glenn fans and those that thought he was very important if not most important to this band. And that's ok, there is nothing wrong with being a casual fan as long as you don't discredit those who are as I said, emotionally invested and care very deeply about the band and it's history.

2. We very much have a right to discuss this without being filtered or censored, and we have a right to a thread where the people that are against this can discuss it without having to listen to the other side complain about our position on the continuance of the Eagles. I personally am sick of trying to explain myself and the points I and the others have made to people who are either 3.0 supporters or just can't understand our viewpoint. I really wish they would just leave us be about it.

3. As far as the "who are we to say" "how do we know better than" vibe I'm getting from this post (it's been exclaimed many times already) - I've said many times that we can say what we think Glenn would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with that, contrary to popular belief. Nor do I subscribe to this idea that it would be impossible for the family not to have known Glenn's true wishes about an Eagles without him in it. It is very possible that they didn't know his wishes at the end and maybe he changed them over time. Maybe we do know better than the family, maybe we don't. But there is nothing wrong with speculating about it. Regardless, I don't support their decision and I personally don't feel bad at all for doing so.

I'm sorry, but if the threads that discuss our distaste for the current band bother you (particularly "for those saying" and "looks like the band"), you can avoid it fairly easily I think. Neither side is going to change their minds. I know I won't!



WalshFan --We are very different, in that I actually like to hear and read contrary viewpoints to my own, as I have found if you only listen to like-minded people-- you miss out in learning a whole lot.

In fact,this is why, despite not agreeing with many of the sentiments I read in a certain thread, I continued to read on, as I was actually hoping somewhere in there someone would have posted a link to a story that would have indicated that Mr. Frey or his family had specifically stated that upon his death he did not want the band he founded to continue to tour.


But I never found such a reference.

On the contrary, I came upon a story in which Mr. Frey's wife was interviewed. And while she expressed how emotional it was to not see her husband on the stage, especially during the first shows, she went on to say:


"As a mother, I couldn't be more proud of Deacon and his performance and his talent," she said. "I know that his dad would be as proud of him as I am. I think it'sa wonderful thing — not just for our family — but for the fans to be able tosee the music continue on and have another generation, another iteration ofwhat it means. It's incredible."


No offense, WalshFan -- but if I am looking for a cue on whether Mr. Frey would have supported having the band continue on in his absence -- and how Mr. Frey would have felt about having his son tour with the band he founded -- I will side with believing Mrs. Frey expressing how she feels -- and how she knows -- not is guessing or assuming --but actually states she knows "that his dad would be as proud of him as I am."

Here's a link to that story:

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/may/09/glenn-freys-family-keeps-legacy-alive-with-tour-bo/

Again, if you choose to believe that you, as a fan, knew better than his own wife what Mr. Frey would have wanted -- you are entitled to that opinion.

Just as I am entitled to believe that it is disrespectful for any fan to think they knew what Mr.Frey would have wanted more-so than his own wife.

[WalshFan88]

WalshFan --We are very different, in that I actually like to hear and read contrary viewpoints to my own, as I have found if you only listen to like-minded people-- you miss out in learning a whole lot.

In fact,this is why, despite not agreeing with many of the sentiments I read in a certain thread, I continued to read on, as I was actually hoping somewhere in there someone would have posted a link to a story that would have indicated that Mr. Frey or his family had specifically stated that upon his death he did not want the band he founded to continue to tour.


But I never found such a reference.

On the contrary, I came upon a story in which Mr. Frey's wife was interviewed. And while she expressed how emotional it was to not see her husband on the stage, especially during the first shows, she went on to say:


"As a mother, I couldn't be more proud of Deacon and his performance and his talent," she said. "I know that his dad would be as proud of him as I am. I think it'sa wonderful thing — not just for our family — but for the fans to be able tosee the music continue on and have another generation, another iteration ofwhat it means. It's incredible."


No offense, WalshFan -- but if I am looking for a cue on whether Mr. Frey would have supported having the band continue on in his absence -- and how Mr. Frey would have felt about having his son tour with the band he founded -- I will side with believing Mrs. Frey expressing how she feels -- and how she knows -- not is guessing or assuming --but actually states she knows "that his dad would be as proud of him as I am."

Here's a link to that story:

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/may/09/glenn-freys-family-keeps-legacy-alive-with-tour-bo/

Again, if you choose to believe that you, as a fan, knew better than his own wife what Mr. Frey would have wanted -- you are entitled to that opinion.

Just as I am entitled to believe that it is disrespectful for any fan to think they knew what Mr.Frey would have wanted more-so than his own wife.

There is nothing for me to learn from the side that supports the band moving on. It's an abomination, plain and simple. There is nothing that I gain from hearing the other side and their comments that support 3.0. Instead it just leads to infighting and drama. So it's smartest just to stick with discussing it with people who are likeminded. I will never change my opinion on the band continuing. There is nothing you or anyone else could show me or say that will change that.

References to Glenn not wanting the band to continue aren't out there in plainly spoken terms as you were hoping. But I think there is more than enough out there that you can infer that from, but I'm not going to go track them all down for you as I don't have the time and frankly, my guess is even if I did provide said inferences, it wouldn't matter anyway because you'd still side with Cindy or not accept them. I don't feel it will change either of our minds, let me put it that way.

As far as me thinking that I know better than Cindy Frey is "disrespectful", that isn't the worst thing I've been called, so it's like water off of a duck's back at this point. But it further points out why anti-3.0 posters don't want to mingle with pro-3.0 posters. Because words like disrespectful is about where it starts and goes downhill from there. I prefer to call out the "Eagles" and the family in an environment where those kinds of comments aren't posted but rather we rally around each other and agree how terrible it is that these guys are continuing on. Because there, there is camaraderie and there is no worry of someone saying it's disrespectful to think a certain way. Of course, you are entitled to that opinion, Carolyn. I'm not offended and mean no offense, but I guess do get a little tired of the other side telling us how wrong we are for saying what we say, thinking what we think, and being against the Eagles continuing without Glenn. It just doesn't help any.

I do regret posting in this thread today. I'll know better to ignore it next time, and stick to the anti-3.0 thread from here on out.

[chaim]

We have heard these same things countless times. Hearing them over and over again won't help anyone to "learn" anything. I really don't think Austin's point was to avoid different opinions. It was avoiding the SAME arguments over and over and over and over and over again. And his (and my) side having to justify themselves over and over and over and over again and replying to the same things over and over and over and over again. We have our own thread now, but still we have to go through this over and over and over and over again.

[sodascouts]

I genuinely don’t care whether the Eagles continue touring, or not – which is why I do not place myself in the “for” or “against” them continuing to tour threads -- and since I have already made that point clear, I do not approve of my comments being moved into a thread devoted to people supporting the tour.

C'est la vie, it's par for the course when you venture onto a website controlled by a fan.

If you had actually read even a small portion of the thread, you would have seen that this is not a thread devoted wholly to people supporting the tour.

If one chooses to venture onto a message board and post, one should take the trouble to inform oneself as to the nature of the threads. This is true regardless of who runs it.

You have found the time to write some of the lengthiest posts in the history of this board. Find time to educate yourself on the threads.

[Pippinwhite]

@Soda -yep, yep, and yep.

@Carolyn -- I am genuinely neutral on the subject of whether the Eagles should tour without Glenn or not. Which is why I stay out of those threads. I have opinions, but not much to gain and little to contribute. I'd strongly advise you to do the same.

And something else: Sodascouts owns the board. Of COURSE it's moderated by fans! I don't know what else you expected. Why else would we be here, if we weren't fans? It's not a community talk forum. It's an Eagles forum. So that's who/what we talk about. And she's moved threads I started to more apropos parts of the forum. No big deal. That's just to keep stuff in places where it belongs. It's not a matter of whether you "appreciate" it or not. This isn't your sandbox. It's Soda's sandbox, she pays the data/server fees, and we abide by her guidelines. If you have a problem with your posts being moved, then don't post, or if you do, don't gripe about it being moved. You now know it could happen. Those are the guidelines. If anything is moved or deleted, either Soda did it, or one of the moderators did, in keeping with the guidelines. So please don't jump on another member about "moving" a post. They don't have the permission to do it. There are posting guidelines on this forum. I suggest you read those, too. Here they are: https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?450-Netiquette-Guidelines

And that's all I have to say about that. Well... all I'm going to say, anyway.

[WalshFan88]

Well said Pippinwhite!

[WalshFan88]

Carolyn, the only thing I see that is "disrespectful" here is your latest post towards Soda and Pippinwhite. I was upset by your initial posts, but I feel like this latest post is a step too far.

I was very disappointed to read some of what you read. I think it was condescending and quite rude and I also think you completely missed their points they were trying to make to you.

Soda knows how to run this site, she's been doing it for years. I think the way the board is set up now is perfectly fine. No one needs to be telling her how to run it unless they want to help foot the bill to run said site. The Off-Topic section is fine the way it is, most people don't treat it as their own self-important personal blog where they go on ad nauseam about their own life and how great it is and namedrop celebrities that they've met. There is a "what's happening in your life" thread but its used for occasional updates about how we are doing and it's usually used to wish each other well and also to have some two-sided discussion about our lives without going off the rails about it at the same time. It's more of a "how are you doing lately?" thing. Again it's not treated like a blog page or a Facebook feed. IMO it shouldn't be.

I'm not even going to comment on the photo thing. Other than to say "c'mon!" with the "certain individual" posted a photo challenge comment. Why so passive-aggressive? You know it was Soda, just say her name. Have the intestinal fortitude to say it if you are going to call her out for it!

Pippinwhite also didn't deserve the condescending "I feel sorry for you" bit. Maybe she isn't afraid of saying how she feels, but simply chooses not to. Not because she's afraid of backlash but because she doesn't want to discuss it. Regardless, it wasn't a very nice thing to say. I think Pippinwhite made some good points there, and it seems you glossed right over them to just focus on the fact she isn't sharing her thoughts.

Again, you yourself say you aren't so vested in the Eagles. So again, I must ask - why are you here? If it's just a place to vent or to discuss your life, there are free blog platforms out there or chat rooms, and of course I'm sure you've heard of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Because to me, to come to a site dedicated to fans of a rock n' roll band just to have a place to talk about yourself doesn't really make sense. It's just not the place for it. I'm wanting to make it clear, it's totally fine to want to talk about your life at length and give updates, but a message board for Eagles fans and fans of the individual members is not the right venue for said postings. I also wonder that if you aren't vested in the Eagles, why you care so deeply about what people say about them continuing on without their leader, Glenn Frey? It seems like you have an interest!

I told myself I wouldn't respond to this again but I really felt like standing up for Soda and Pippinwhite after what I felt was a poorly-veiled insult-ridden post. IMO, it was a passive-aggressive personal attack.

I think it's time to take a step back Carolyn and maybe find another platform to post on. I truly think it would serve you better and you'd probably have more of an audience to engage with. Honestly, I mean that.

[FreyFollower]

I just had to laugh when I read the responses by Soda & Pippin. I honestly don't mean that in a condescending way, as for whatever reason the Eagles or certain a certain members of the group seem to have a very deep meaning in your lives.

Listen, if whatever it is about the band that makes someone spend their money and time building a fan site and moderate it on a consistent basis for years brings them joy in some way -- I'm not knocking it. There are certainly plenty of things I do, such as cooking and baking, that some people think is a waste of time, as well.


I have just never been enamored by a celebrity to the point that I would invest so much of my time in energy into them -- as I guess I am a little more selfish, as I'd rather spend that time and money on investing it in myself.


So you find it humorous for persons to invest themselves in a musical act or artist. You yourself aren't a big fan of the Eagles, only like a few songs, don't own a complete album. You imply that running such a fan site would be a waste of time. So I guess I'm wondering why you are spending your time here. Kinda like myself going on a site for sports fans, in effect ridiculing their dedication, and yet taking my time to make long posts there. Since I am only mildly interested in sports, I would not "invest my time and energy" there.

[WalshFan88]

So you find it humorous for persons to invest themselves in a musical act or artist. You yourself aren't a big fan of the Eagles, only like a few songs, don't own a complete album. You imply that running such a fan site would be a waste of time. So I guess I'm wondering why you are spending your time here. Kinda like myself going on a site for sports fans, in effect ridiculing their dedication, and yet taking my time to make long posts there. Since I am only mildly interested in sports, I would not "invest my time and energy" there.

Amen.

[chaim]

There is a third way to handle these long posts (in addition to reading or not reading), which is what I do. I read the bits that interest me and skip the bits that don't.

I guess there isn't a lot to learn from people with different views after all since everything seems to get an "I feel bad for you", "I had to laugh" etc response. People who reply to these posts are wrong in every sentence. People who don't like long, rambling posts seem to be wrong. Our attitudes about celebrities are wrong. And yes, I know, my interpretations of her posts are wrong as well, which makes this part of my post pointless, does it. C'est la vie.

[New Kid In Town]

Carolyn - Who are you kidding when you say you did not mean to be condescending and rude to Soda and Pippin. That is exactly what your post was. It was also mean and nasty in your condescending way of mocking them.
Soda has run this site for years and done a wonderful job. If you don't like it than don't come to the site.
I was not going to say this but your nasty and condescending post made me change my mind. Why do you have to go on and on bragging about your wonderful, successful, fantastic life in every post. WHO CARES ! I guess you were never taught it was rude to brag about yourself. There are MANY successful people here who do not brag about their life the way you do. You do not know Soda or Pippin and your rude, condescending comments were uncalled for. Like Fryfollower said, if you don't care that much about the band, than why waste your time here. I am sure you could find more to do in that wonderful, successful, fantastic life you brag about in every post.

[WalshFan88]

There is a third way to handle these long posts (in addition to reading or not reading), which is what I do. I read the bits that interest me and skip the bits that don't.

I guess there isn't a lot to learn from people with different views after all since everything seems to get an "I feel bad for you", "I had to laugh" etc response. People who reply to these posts are wrong in every sentence. People who don't like long, rambling posts seem to be wrong. Our attitudes about celebrities are wrong. And yes, I know, my interpretations of her posts are wrong as well, which makes this part of my post pointless, does it. C'est la vie.

Well said, chaim!

[WalshFan88]

Carolyn - Who are you kidding when you say you did not mean to be condescending and rude to Soda and Pippin. That is exactly what your post was. It was also mean and nasty in your condescending way of mocking them.
Soda has run this site for years and done a wonderful job. If you don't like it than don't come to the site.
I was not going to say this but your nasty and condescending post made me change my mind. Why do you have to go on and on bragging about your wonderful, successful, fantastic life in every post. WHO CARES ! I guess you were never taught it was rude to brag about yourself. There are MANY successful people here who do not brag about their life the way you do. You do not know Soda or Pippin and your rude, condescending comments were uncalled for. Like Fryfollower said, if you don't care that much about the band, than why waste your time here. I am sure you could find more to do in that wonderful, successful, fantastic life you brag about in every post.

This.

I couldn't agree more.

[chaim]

Well said, chaim!

I don't enjoy speaking/writing like that, but now and then I just...can't be quiet.

[WalshFan88]

I don't enjoy speaking/writing like that, but now and then I just...can't be quiet.

Same. I was set to not respond to her again, but that last post just really bothered me to the point I felt I was going to say what I've been thinking all along. It felt good to clear the air.

[Arlee]

[......]

But what I find so disrespectful to the Frey family is when people post messages professing on one hand how much Glenn Frey and his music meant to them -- but on the other hand, they express such vile toward the decision to carry-on touring without him.

Don't they stop to think for one second that there is no one who would better know what Mr. Frey's wishes would be, than his own wife and family -- and trust that his own family loved their husband and father so much that they would never give their stamp of approval to the band carrying on without him, if they didnt believe that is what he would have wanted.


And do they realize that, as a parent who I trust loved his children very much, there is likley no one in the world Mr. Frey would want to see help to fill the void on that stage each night, other than his own son.

[.....]

To question their decision is the equivalent of saying you feel you knew Mr. Frey's wishes moreso than his own family.


Amen and THANK YOU! I had sick feeling when I read some of the things that were said on this so-called Eagles fan site. It's one thing to be against them touring without Mr. Frey. It's a whole other thing to say disrespectful and hurtful things about his closest loved ones.

It's ironic that you, as a semi-sort-of fan, have more consideration and respect for those loved ones than some people here have shown.

Thank you for your comments and story.

If anyone wants to come back at me and argue, it would be a waste of time. I've had enough negativity, and I've already said my piece. We all have our opinions and it's likely they won't change, no matter how much back and forth there is.

[Arlee]

If one chooses to venture onto a message board and post, one should take the trouble to inform oneself as to the nature of the threads. This is true regardless of who runs it.

You have found the time to write some of the lengthiest posts in the history of this board. Find time to educate yourself on the threads.


Easier said than done. A similar statement was made to me at one point and when I tried to explain why it wasn't that simple, I was basically told, "Yes it is." That's not only untrue but unfair. (There are what, thousands of topics?)

As for two specific examples, the title of the anti- 3. thread can easily be misinterpreted to mean it's a debate area, as I thought at first.

Also, more than once I was told there is a "pro 3." thread but I was also told the title didn't reflect that, and I'm still not sure where that is. I think it might be this one.

I think it would be helpful if the "anti- 3." people would realize and accept that they are going to continue to see posts from folks who don't agree and are a bit rattled by what they read here ---- strong and numerous opinions against Frey's band mates and family, and especially when such opinions are on what is supposed to be a fan site.

This is the highest-profile Eagles fan site and it pops up when someone is doing general searches. Fans will continue to find this site and innocently come into it, and some will be miffed or disappointed or whatever, when they see such things said about the family and the band.

Walshfan88 said something about getting tired of explaining and defending that opinion. None of you have to do that.

We're not going to change each others' minds, but it would be helpful to accept that people aren't going to be happy with the way the family and the band is being treated here.

It's your site, and I respect that. You can ban, or make it private, or hell even make it all an anti-3. site. Otherwise, the pro-3. people will continue to come, and be disappointed, and have an opinion, and express it.

[WalshFan88]

Easier said than done. A similar statement was made to me at one point and when I tried to explain why it wasn't that simple, I was basically told, "Yes it is." That's not only untrue but unfair. (There are what, thousands of topics?)

As for two specific examples, the title of the anti- 3. thread can easily be misinterpreted to mean it's a debate area, as I thought at first.

Also, more than once I was told there is a "pro 3." thread but I was also told the title didn't reflect that, and I'm still not sure where that is. I think it might be this one.

I think it would be helpful if the "anti- 3." people would realize and accept that they are going to continue to see posts from folks who don't agree and are a bit rattled by what they read here ---- strong and numerous opinions against Frey's band mates and family, and especially when such opinions are on what is supposed to be a fan site.

This is the highest-profile Eagles fan site and it pops up when someone is doing general searches. Fans will continue to find this site and innocently come into it, and some will be miffed or disappointed or whatever, when they see such things said about the family and the band.

Walshfan88 said something about getting tired of explaining and defending that opinion. None of you have to do that.

We're not going to change each others' minds, but it would be helpful to accept that people aren't going to be happy with the way the family and the band is being treated here.

It's your site, and I respect that. You can ban, or make it private, or hell even make it all an anti-3. site. Otherwise, the pro-3. people will continue to come, and be disappointed, and have an opinion, and express it.

I think we've made it pretty clear Arlee which thread is for what purpose when it comes to 3.0. We've taken some of the work out of it for you. Still, I agree with Soda that before you post it's a good idea to find out what the thread is about.

As far as anti-3.0 people - we don't need to accept anything. There is nothing wrong with anything we've said, contrary to your (and a few others') belief. Maybe it's time that pro-3.0 people learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members of this message board.

Comments like Carolyn's are simply unacceptable.

[Arlee]

I think we've made it pretty clear Arlee which thread is for what purpose when it comes to 3.0.
[.....]

As far as anti-3.0 people - we don't need to accept anything. There is nothing wrong with anything we've said, contrary to your (and a few others') belief. Maybe it's time that pro-3.0 people learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members of this message board.

[.....]



My perspective is not wrong. It's my perspective. I stated that yes, we're being told it's all easy to find, but that in my experience it is not.

There is no reason for you to be arguing that point with me. You have a different perspective. If it bothers you that much, keep arguing with yourself.

"There's nothing wrong with anything we've said"? Come on. Of course there is. In a debate of this length, there will be "something wrong" said by people from all sides.

As for your over-generalizing statement that pro-3 people need to "learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members," it seems like that happens more from "your" side. But I hadn't thought about it and I don't know for sure. It's another inane, immature argument that can go on forever. "Your side is meaner!" "No, YOUR side is meaner!"

Then there is "I don't have to accept anything!" I DON'T CARE what you accept or what you don't. Maybe you need to re-read what I stated --- that it would be easier if you accepted that people will disagree with you.

You admittedly won't accept that people will disagree with you. That will only hurt you. I have no stake in that claim.

And yet you seem to be throwing out random argumentative statements just for the sake of arguing.

You are bringing in minor, nonsensical arguments that have nothing to do with the Eagles. You want to argue whether people will disagree with you? You want to tell someone their personal perspective is wrong? Have fun with that.

You are now arguing about arguing.

[WalshFan88]

My perspective is not wrong. It's my perspective. I stated that yes, we're being told it's all easy to find, but that in my experience it is not.

There is no reason for you to be arguing that point with me. You have a different perspective. If it bothers you that much, keep arguing with yourself.

"There's nothing wrong with anything we've said"? Come on. Of course there is. In a debate of this length, there will be "something wrong" said by people from all sides.

As for your over-generalizing statement that pro-3 people need to "learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members," it seems like that happens more from "your" side. But I hadn't thought about it and I don't know for sure. It's another inane, immature argument that can go on forever. "Your side is meaner!" "No, YOUR side is meaner!"

Then there is "I don't have to accept anything!" I DON'T CARE what you accept or what you don't. Maybe you need to re-read what I stated --- that it would be easier if you accepted that people will disagree with you.

You admittedly won't accept that people will disagree with you. That will only hurt you. I have no stake in that claim.

And yet you seem to be throwing out random argumentative statements just for the sake of arguing.

You are bringing in minor, nonsensical arguments that have nothing to do with the Eagles. You want to argue whether people will disagree with you? You want to tell someone their personal perspective is wrong? Have fun with that.

You are now arguing about arguing.

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that personal attacks on board members are not allowed like the ones Carolyn made and that the pro-3.0 side needs to stop making them is "inane immaturity". You might want to familiarize yourself with the board rules, Arlee. They aren't nonsensical arguments. Of course they don't have anything to do with the Eagles - they are personal attacks from one member to another. But might I add this talk is more on topic than some here who insist on using the board as their personal blog, which really is quite weird if I'm totally honest. I'm really taken aback by the fact that you are trying to justify the attacks made here.

I stand by my statement that the anti-3.0 side hasn't said anything wrong in the terms of our viewpoints and comments on the Frey family, Deacon, and the other band members. I also stand by my statement that our side isn't the one making statements and insults towards the other side. I stand by that 110%. I have nothing that I regret saying or feeling or thinking when it comes to Eagles 3.0. I have no guilt. Because in my heart and in my mind I know I'm not the bad guy here. I also know that I call a spade a spade and when I see someone attack the administrator of the site and another member, I'll say something.

I'm not arguing the fact that others disagree with me. Obviously that is going to happen, and it's truly water off of a ducks back at this point, it doesn't phase me in the slightest. When I said we don't have to accept anything I meant we don't have to accept the nasty posts from the pro side to us about our comments. Obviously I accept others don't agree with our viewpoint. That's a given. But I truly don't care, either.

One thing is for sure, we will never see eye to eye, and it's best if we just avoid any further discussion with each other.

[WalshFan88]

WalshFan -- Just because you may not agree with my opinion about something -- does not give you the right to falsely accuse me of making a personal attack. I believe you have come close to libeling my reputation


It isn't an accusation, Carolyn. Your post to Soda and Pippinwhite was condescending and was full of insults. It wasn't your opinion. You don't get to say it's your opinion to cover up the fact you were attacking someone, however passively you may do it. Your reputation is self-earned.

[Arlee]

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that personal attacks on board members are not allowed like the ones Carolyn made and that the pro-3.0 side needs to stop making them is "inane immaturity". You might want to familiarize yourself with the board rules, Arlee. They aren't nonsensical arguments. Of course they don't have anything to do with the Eagles - they are personal attacks from one member to another. But might I add this talk is more on topic than some here who insist on using the board as their personal blog, which really is quite weird if I'm totally honest. I'm really taken aback by the fact that you are trying to justify the attacks made here.

I stand by my statement that the anti-3.0 side hasn't said anything wrong in the terms of our viewpoints and comments on the Frey family, Deacon, and the other band members. I also stand by my statement that our side isn't the one making statements and insults towards the other side. I stand by that 110%. I have nothing that I regret saying or feeling or thinking when it comes to Eagles 3.0. I have no guilt. Because in my heart and in my mind I know I'm not the bad guy here. I also know that I call a spade a spade and when I see someone attack the administrator of the site and another member, I'll say something.

I'm not arguing the fact that others disagree with me. Obviously that is going to happen, and it's truly water off of a ducks back at this point, it doesn't phase me in the slightest. When I said we don't have to accept anything I meant we don't have to accept the nasty posts from the pro side to us about our comments. Obviously I accept others don't agree with our viewpoint. That's a given. But I truly don't care, either.

One thing is for sure, we will never see eye to eye, and it's best if we just avoid any further discussion with each other.



I'm tempted to say "I didn't say that!" over and over for the umpteenth time, but this time I won't be sucked in.

There is a history here of twisting my words or putting words in my mouth. This time I won't argue or defend myself or try to show what I actually said. I know the truth and it's there in black and white.

It's just downright bizarre. In my 20-some years being on message boards here and there, I've NEVER seen or experienced anything like it to this degree.

You backtracked what you said. I stated it would be easier if people would accept that people will disagree. Your response: "I don't have to accept anything."

That was an unnecessary argumentative response. I have no control or concern about what you accept and what you don't. I don't know why you'd argue that, but that's not my concern.

I've repeatedly said there is no point in arguing certain things. That we won't change minds. I accept that we have differing opinions.

You stated that you don't have to accept that. That is on you. I can't do anything about that, so like I said, you can keep arguing about arguing by yourself.

[FreyFollower]

Lord, have mercy! AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!:faint:

[chaim]

Austin, if "I feel sorry for you" (or was it "sad"?) in the context above is not an attack, just an opinion, by all means let her have the last word. She probably needs to have it more than you do.

[WalshFan88]

Austin, if "I feel sorry for you" (or was it "sad"?) in the context above is not an attack, just an opinion, by all means let her have the last word. She probably needs to have it more than you do.

Oh I will. I've decided I'm not gonna discuss anything with her again. I took the bait this time because I was so upset by her post to Soda and PW but I'll learn not to engage with her again.

[Arlee]

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that personal attacks on board members are not allowed like the ones Carolyn made and that the pro-3.0 side needs to stop making them is "inane immaturity". You might want to familiarize yourself with the board rules, Arlee. They aren't nonsensical arguments. Of course they don't have anything to do with the Eagles - they are personal attacks from one member to another. But might I add this talk is more on topic than some here who insist on using the board as their personal blog, which really is quite weird if I'm totally honest. I'm really taken aback by the fact that you are trying to justify the attacks made here.

[......]



I never said anything close to this.

And whatever debate you've got going with Carolyn is not my concern.


(Ok, I admit I got sucked back in. In my last post I said I wouldn't defend myself from people putting words in my mouth. But this is just ridiculous )

[moonrambler]

There is nothing for me to learn from the side that supports the band moving on. It's an abomination, plain and simple. There is nothing that I gain from hearing the other side and their comments that support 3.0. Instead it just leads to infighting and drama. So it's smartest just to stick with discussing it with people who are likeminded. I will never change my opinion on the band continuing. There is nothing you or anyone else could show me or say that will change that.

What if Glenn himself said it?

I would understand people still not wanting to see the band even so, but would it still seem like an "abomination"?

[WalshFan88]

What if Glenn himself said it?

I would understand people still not wanting to see the band even so, but would it still seem like an "abomination"?

I'd need audio or video proof of him saying that he wanted the band to continue when he's gone. I don't trust anyone's word of mouth when it comes to this stuff as there are a lot of biased supporters out there. Even audio can be doctored, but I'd prefer that or even better, video rather than words on a new page. Or someone claiming Glenn said something to them or something they've read.

[FreyFollower]

Personally, I don't think that the topic was ever discussed, because I don't think the idea ever occurred to ANYONE. When Glenn quit, the band stopped. When the group tried to restart when Glenn wasn't ready, it was shut down. When Glenn got sick, the tour was rescheduled till he could join them. At the beginning of each year, there was a meeting to see if everyone was on board for a tour.(I'm assuming that means that it wouldn't go on if they weren't.)

I don't think they ever thought it would be acceptable to the fans to have anyone else standing in that front and center spot. Joe admitted that they frankly never paid any attention to Deacon. He was off into his own thing, producing hip hop and rap. Except for some shows with his dad, he apparently hadn't done any performing. Why would anyone have ever considered someone so young, inexperienced, and didn't even usually play that type of music be a candidate?

Not until Don Henley saw Deacon at his Dad's memorial. He heard how well he could sing Eagles' songs, how he had the composure to do it, and how much he looked like Glenn. He had stumbled on to a plan. Don waited for a time, and asked Cindy. If it had ever been discussed, why would he have to ask her? I don't think it had ever occurred to Deacon either.

Just stating my opinion, I'm not arguing with anyone.

[Arlee]

Austin, if "I feel sorry for you" (or was it "sad"?) in the context above is not an attack, just an opinion, by all means let her have the last word. She probably needs to have it more than you do.


Oh I will. I've decided I'm not gonna discuss anything with her again. I took the bait this time because I was so upset by her post to Soda and PW but I'll learn not to engage with her again.


Just a factual observation: WalshFan88 actually had the last word with Carolyn. I don't care if that's considered good or bad. But the truth is the truth. That doesn't always come out here.

[FreyFollower]

Just a factual observation: WalshFan88 actually had the last word with Carolyn. I don't care if that's considered good or bad. But the truth is the truth. That doesn't always come out here.
Note:WF88 DID have the last word because Carolyn did not reply. As you will see in the quotes you posted, Chaim advises him not to reply any further if she does respond, letting her have the last word. And WF88 says that he WILL, and won't respond further.
Nobody said she HAD the last word. Just that he would let her next time.
Yes, you are right.
Have we really come to this?:help:

[chaim]

Just a factual observation: WalshFan88 actually had the last word with Carolyn. I don't care if that's considered good or bad. But the truth is the truth. That doesn't always come out here.

Do I REALLY have to explain what I meant? Alright, I'll explain what I meant.

I wrote that believing that the arguing was going to continue, but suggested that Austin wouldn't participate anymore. I said it BECAUSE Austin had had the last word at THAT point. It is very simple, not hard to grasp.

[sodascouts]

The last time Don Henley & co. tried to go on tour as the Eagles without Glenn Frey, Glenn threatened to sue in order to shut it down.

Just sayin'.

But all this theoretical crap doesn't matter to me anyway, because again, my rule is simple:

No Glenn, No Eagles.

[FreyFollower]

I would have to agree. And I would say that I do not base my personal convictions (on anything) on what I think is popular, what someone else thinks, or what someone else may or may not have thought. To believe a certain way doesn't mean I demonize someone who believes differently.
But like religion and politics, I think persons have already made up their mind on this issue, and most interchanges on the topic with opposing thinkers just lead to heated arguments. We can all still come together on things we DO agree on, and enjoy conversations about a band or persons that we love.

[Arlee]

Note:WF88 DID have the last word because Carolyn did not reply. As you will see in the quotes you posted, Chaim advises him not to reply any further if she does respond, letting her have the last word. And WF88 says that he WILL, and won't respond further.
Nobody said she HAD the last word. Just that he would let her next time.
Yes, you are right.
Have we really come to this?:help:


Do I REALLY have to explain what I meant? Alright, I'll explain what I meant.

I wrote that believing that the arguing was going to continue, but suggested that Austin wouldn't participate anymore. I said it BECAUSE Austin had had the last word at THAT point. It is very simple, not hard to grasp.



Lol that's a great spin. But ok. And yes, we have come to this. As I indicated earlier, people have started arguing about arguing.

Edited to add: my last post about "the last word" was unnecessary, and I apologize for it. I got pulled in and although I stand by everything else I've said, I shouldn't have made that comment. Again, sorry.

[chaim]

Lol that's a great spin. But ok. And yes, we have come to this. As I indicated earlier, people have started arguing about arguing.

The "spin" was all yours. Leave me out of it.

[chaim]

There was a gentleman here a while ago who misunderstood something I said. I explained what I actually meant, but he was certain he knew my intentions better than I did myself. Said that we have a misunderstanding that cannot be resolved. Looks like there's another person who knows my thoughts better than I do. Oh yes I forgot: "lol".

[chaim]

Aarghh, writing these negative - and even sarcastic - posts has started to make me feel bad. And I'm sure I'd like all of you in person very much and these little things could be settled in less than a minute. Internet communication distorts things. I'll try to leave this one now.

[FreyFollower]

Lol that's a great spin. But ok. And yes, we have come to this. As I indicated earlier, people have started arguing about arguing.

Edited to add: my last post about "the last word" was unnecessary, and I apologize for it. I got pulled in and although I stand by everything else I've said, I shouldn't have made that comment. Again, sorry.

Well, I had "no horse in that race" and couldn't care less who had the last word. But it seemed to me that there was a misunderstanding in this instance. I don't try to "spin" things, nor do I try to stir up arguments. I appreciate your added comments, and please, let's just leave it at that.

[Arlee]

There was a gentleman here a while ago who misunderstood something I said. I explained what I actually meant, but he was certain he knew my intentions better than I did myself.
[....]


You don't say! Boy do I know that feeling!

[groupie2686]

The last time Don Henley & co. tried to go on tour as the Eagles without Glenn Frey, Glenn threatened to sue in order to shut it down.

Just sayin'.

But all this theoretical crap doesn't matter to me anyway, because again, my rule is simple:

No Glenn, No Eagles.

When did they try to tour without Glenn and Glenn threatened to sue them? I haven't heard that before. Was this during their 1980-1994 hiatus?

[Arlee]

Well, I had "no horse in that race" and couldn't care less who had the last word. But it seemed to me that there was a misunderstanding in this instance. I don't try to "spin" things, nor do I try to stir up arguments. I appreciate your added comments, and please, let's just leave it at that.


Ok, sounds good to me. :-)

[CAinOH]

When did they try to tour without Glenn and Glenn threatened to sue them? I haven't heard that before. Was this during their 1980-1994 hiatus?

Not necessarily tour, but this was in 1990. Found this quote:


Things had changed enough by 1990 for Henley and Frey to take a stab at writing together.

The idea was to include two or three new songs in a greatest hits album that would be released in conjunction with a U.S. tour.


But Frey ultimately backed away.


"I wasn't ready," Frey says now of that period. "I had just remarried . . . had just had major surgery to remove a section of my large intestine--a congenital thing since birth--that left me laying on my back in Cedars-Sinai with a bunch of staples in my stomach.


"When something like that happens, you lay back and say, 'What's important?' The answer to me was write songs in the morning, play golf in the afternoon and have dinner with my beautiful new wife who was just pregnant with our first child. The timing was bad for me."

Came from here: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-22-ca-60744-story.html

And was it in HOTE where they talk about the "almost" reunion, and in one of the interviews, one of them says something like, "Shut it down, he's [Glenn] going to sue"...?

[FreyFollower]

When did they try to tour without Glenn and Glenn threatened to sue them? I haven't heard that before. Was this during their 1980-1994 hiatus?

Timothy references it in the "History" movie where he mentions that they were all in the studio, and he said they got a call from Glenn saying, "I'm not doing this". Of course Azoff was pushing it.

You can hear Glenn speaking about this period in some "Strange Weather" interviews.

Remember how crushed Henley said he was when they first broke up. He said he had never wanted to be a solo artist. So his running the group had not been an option, (I feel) or he would have done it.

But because of the lawsuit, we know in '90, anyway, Glenn was not okay with them doing Eagles projects without him.

[sodascouts]

Yes, I'm talking about in 1990 when they first tried to reunite; Glenn had initially expressed interest in a reunion and things progressed pretty far, but he wound up backing out. They briefly considered going ahead anyway but Glenn threatened to sue if they did so without him.

When I have a bit more time, I'll dig out some quotes.

[WalshFan88]

Good point Soda!

Chaim - you said nothing wrong, fwiw.

[sodascouts]

This is from Don Felder's book:

"In November [of 1990] Irving called to tell me 'We're on' [regarding an Eagles reunion]. [...] I arrived at a little rehearsal hall in North Hollywood. [...] Glenn was supposed to fly in from Aspen any day with two or three songs he'd written, but he never showed. He supposedly sent a message through Irving instead saying that he had his songs already written and would meet us in the studio. We carried on, rehearsing a couple numbers Don was going to sing and one great ballad called 'People Can Change,' which Don wrote for Timothy to sing. We all believed it was aimed at Glenn. [...] Over the next day or two, we started recording tracks that Don would sing, convincing ourselves that Glenn could come in later and play his guitar or add whatever he felt they needed. He kept putting us off until Irving arrived, stone-faced. 'Glenn's not coming to the party,' he said, his dismay evident. 'He's decided not to do it. It's over.'

[...]

We looked at each other and shook our heads in disbelief. Someone said, 'Well, if he doesn't want to do it, let's just go ahead without him.'

[...]

Glenn threatened to go to the press and say we weren't the Eagles without him. He said he'd even file a lawsuit to stop us from going ahead. He issued a series of increasingly angry statements, enough for us to say, 'OK, maybe we really shouldn't do it.'"


I agree with Glenn.

Hmm. I think we have our answer as to whether he'd want the Eagles to continue without him...

[chaim]

As humble as Glenn could be as a musician, he knew his place in the band.

[WalshFan88]

Thanks for that quote Soda.

Chaim - I completely agree. It was Glenn's band and he was their fearless leader. He knew an Eagles without him cannot be legitimate. It's a fraudulent thing now. Maybe not legally, but that's what it is.

[sodascouts]

At the time, Don Henley admitted they needed Glenn as well. He admitted that without him, it wasn't truly the Eagles. From pg 238 on Don Felder's book:

"Don [Henley] summed it up. 'Without Glenn on board, it would just be like Don Henley and his backing band.'"

Apparently, he's cool with pretending "Don Henley and his backing band" is the "Eagles" now, though.

[WalshFan88]

At the time, Don Henley admitted they needed Glenn as well. He admitted that without him, it wasn't truly the Eagles. He said:

"Without Glenn on board, it would just be like Don Henley and his backing band."

Apparently, he's cool with pretending "Don Henley and his backing band" is the 'Eagles' now, though.

Yeah, I wonder what changed his mind? ($$$$$$)

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Yeah - the question about whether or not Glenn would have approved of the band continuing as the Eagles now has been discussed on the board several times already since the announcement that they would do so.

Based on Glenn's past behavior and spoken words, there is plenty of evidence, some of which has just been posted, to suggest that he would not have approved. But, the most telling thing for me are the statements that the band members made after his death about the band being over, and then after they changed their minds, not once has anyone declaratively stated that he would have been okay with it. The closest that you can get to this are several statements by the band members that they "think" Glenn would approve. If Cindy Frey or anyone else were aware that he wished the band to continue, I believe that they would have just came out and said so.

Even if there was evidence that Glenn would have been on board with this, it really would not significantly change the way I feel about it. I would definitely have felt better about the band member's decision and wouldn't feel as betrayed by them as I do now. However, I would have also felt that Glenn was misguided and that the band would not be legitimate. And, like I've said before, I still would not be interested in seeing the band without him unless it was a tribute concert in his honor. So, once again, count me in too ...

#NoGlennNoEagles

And finally, regardless of the answer to the question, I personally feel he would be very proud of his son even if he disapproved of the band's decision to continue.

[moonrambler]

I'd need audio or video proof of him saying that he wanted the band to continue when he's gone. I don't trust anyone's word of mouth when it comes to this stuff as there are a lot of biased supporters out there. Even audio can be doctored, but I'd prefer that or even better, video rather than words on a new page. Or someone claiming Glenn said something to them or something they've read.


Even if there was evidence that Glenn would have been on board with this, it really would not significantly change the way I feel about it. I would definitely have felt better about the band member's decision and wouldn't feel as betrayed by them as I do now. However, I would have also felt that Glenn was misguided and that the band would not be legitimate. And, like I've said before, I still would not be interested in seeing the band without him unless it was a tribute concert in his honor. So, once again, count me in too ...

#NoGlennNoEagles

I appreciate the answers to my own particular question. I was curious how fans would feel if there was evidence he would approve of this. It's done quite often now, although I'm not sure how often this happens when a founding member has passed on. Quite a few bands are touring without someone who was an integral band member.

[sodascouts]

I appreciate the answers to my own particular question. I was curious how fans would feel if there was evidence he would approve of this. It's done quite often now, although I'm not sure how often this happens when a founding member has passed on. Quite a few bands are touring without someone who was an integral band member.

Moonrambler, in light of what I posted:


Glenn threatened to go to the press and say we weren't the Eagles without him.

How would you feel about the "Eagles" continuing without Glenn if you knew for a fact that he did NOT wish them to do so?

I leave that question open to any supporters of this "new lineup."

PS. Good to see you again!

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Excellent question, Soda. I don't believe in all our discussions, the question has ever been asked in reverse like this.

And WB from me too, MR. Hope all has been well with you. With regard to bands bringing in replacements, I think each situation is different. In the case of the Eagles, if this had happened early in their careers before the band's legacy was well- established, I believe I would have been okay with it albeit very sad. But, in the twilight of the band's career when they have nothing to gain but a bigger bank account, NO WAY! I would have felt the same way if it had been any of the remaining members. But, this is particularly true of Don and Glenn who were the only remaining founding members and the ones responsible for writing and singing the band's most memorable songs. As I've said several times ... to quote Kenny R. - "you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em'.

[moonrambler]

Moonrambler, in light of what I posted:

How would you feel about the "Eagles" continuing without Glenn if you knew for a fact that he did NOT wish them to do so?

I leave that question open to any supporters of this "new lineup."

PS. Good to see you again!


Excellent question, Soda. I don't believe in all our discussions, the question has ever been asked in reverse like this.

And WB from me too, MR. Hope all has been well with you. With regard to bands bringing in replacements, I think each situation is different. In the case of the Eagles, if this had happened early in their careers before the band's legacy was well- established, I believe I would have been okay with it albeit very sad. But, in the twilight of the band's career when they have nothing to gain but a bigger bank account, NO WAY! I would have felt the same way if it had been any of the remaining members. But, this is particularly true of Don and Glenn who were the only remaining founding members and the ones responsible for writing and singing the band's most memorable songs. As I've said several times ... to quote Kenny R. - "you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em'.

Thank you, Soda and Dreamer.

I am uncomfortable about the band touring in this version as Eagles and have not gone to a concert. I think I can understand why they feel compelled to do so and don't think it's just a money grab. Being Eagles is their life to a large extent.

To me, they do not seem like Eagles without Glenn. I had a difficult enough time accepting the band as Eagles each time a band member left voluntarily.

If we knew for a fact that Glenn did not want them to continue touring under the band name without him, then I would be completely against it. I honestly don't think that's the case, though or I doubt that his wife and son would have gone along with it.

At this point, most bands of that era have lost someone, and a lot of them have continued to tour under the band name anyway. I don't know how their biggest fans generally feel about it, though, because I don't pay attention. For instance, with the movie last year, it highlights the fact that Queen tours without Freddie. Before they started doing that, I couldn't imagine they ever would. But then again, Freddie was not a founding member.

[Arlee]

This is from Don Felder's book:

"In November [of 1990] Irving called to tell me 'We're on' [regarding an Eagles reunion]. [...] I arrived at a little rehearsal hall in North Hollywood. [...] Glenn was supposed to fly in from Aspen any day with two or three songs he'd written, but he never showed. He supposedly sent a message through Irving instead saying that he had his songs already written and would meet us in the studio. We carried on, rehearsing a couple numbers Don was going to sing and one great ballad called 'People Can Change,' which Don wrote for Timothy to sing. We all believed it was aimed at Glenn. [...] Over the next day or two, we started recording tracks that Don would sing, convincing ourselves that Glenn could come in later and play his guitar or add whatever he felt they needed. He kept putting us off until Irving arrived, stone-faced. 'Glenn's not coming to the party,' he said, his dismay evident. 'He's decided not to do it. It's over.'

[...]

We looked at each other and shook our heads in disbelief. Someone said, 'Well, if he doesn't want to do it, let's just go ahead without him.'

[...]

Glenn threatened to go to the press and say we weren't the Eagles without him. He said he'd even file a lawsuit to stop us from going ahead. He issued a series of increasingly angry statements, enough for us to say, 'OK, maybe we really shouldn't do it.'"


I agree with Glenn.

Hmm. I think we have our answer as to whether he'd want the Eagles to continue without him...

I personally don't know what Glenn Frey would want or what he said. However, nothing that Felder says can be considered the gospel truth.

[WalshFan88]

If we knew for a fact that Glenn did not want them to continue touring under the band name without him, then I would be completely against it. I honestly don't think that's the case, though or I doubt that his wife and son would have gone along with it.

I'm not so sure, moonrambler.

I think if the money was right, they might just change their minds!

[WalshFan88]

I personally don't know what Glenn Frey would want or what he said. However, nothing that Felder says can be considered the gospel truth.

Eh, I think in this particular case you can pretty much trust him on this, Arlee.

Regardless, even in HOTE they basically said Glenn put the woes on the band reforming without him when he didn't show up to the studio. I don't see any reason not to believe Don Felder in this case. And trust me, I don't believe everything he says either regarding his so-called mistreatment by Glenn and Don, and some of his portrayals of their behavior - but when it comes to the Eagles reforming I see no reason he'd lie about it.

If one looks hard enough there is plenty of evidence stating Glenn did not think an Eagles without him in it was ok. There is also more than enough things you can infer or pick up on that he didn't think the Eagles should move on without him.

[WalshFan88]

Based on Glenn's past behavior and spoken words, there is plenty of evidence, some of which has just been posted, to suggest that he would not have approved. But, the most telling thing for me are the statements that the band members made after his death about the band being over, and then after they changed their minds, not once has anyone declaratively stated that he would have been okay with it. The closest that you can get to this are several statements by the band members that they "think" Glenn would approve. If Cindy Frey or anyone else were aware that he wished the band to continue, I believe that they would have just came out and said so.

Amen to this, especially the bolded part.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I think it is natural to just assume that Glenn's family knew what his wishes were regarding this issue, but I have not yet seen anything to convince me that this is the case. As I said earlier, if they knew that Glenn would have approved, why all the proclamations that the band was over following his death? In all of his accounts about how the decision to continue was made, Don himself never says that he knew Glenn would have approved. Furthermore, to my knowledge, Cindy has only given one interview since Glenn's death and she also never mentioned it. In fact, she mentions several times that her reason for giving her blessings is because she feels it is comforting and healing for her family. Specifically, here is what she stated "I think it's a wonderful thing — not just for our family — but for the fans to be able to see the music continue on and have another generation, another iteration of what it means. It's incredible."

While, of course, I wish the best for the Frey family, with all due respect to Cindy, I fundamentally disagree that another iteration of the band is a good thing.

And I understand the reluctance to question Felder's account of what Soda quoted. However, as WF said, his account of this particular incident is consistent with several accounts by others, including Glenn himself. Therefore, I agree that there is no reason to doubt Felder about this.

[CAinOH]

I personally don't know what Glenn Frey would want or what he said. However, nothing that Felder says can be considered the gospel truth.

But we just don't have Felder's word on this. As I and others pointed out, it was talked about (and confirmed) in HOTE.

[moonrambler]

I'm not so sure, moonrambler.

I think if the money was right, they might just change their minds!

Boy, I'd hate to think that they would change their minds to get more money even if they knew for a fact that Glenn would not approve.


I think it is natural to just assume that Glenn's family knew what his wishes were regarding this issue, but I have not yet seen anything to convince me that this is the case. As I said earlier, if they knew that Glenn would have approved, why all the proclamations that the band was over following his death? In all of his accounts about how the decision to continue was made, Don himself never says that he knew Glenn would have approved. Furthermore, to my knowledge, Cindy has only given one interview since Glenn's death and she also never mentioned it. In fact, she mentions several times that her reason for giving her blessings is because she feels it is comforting and healing for her family.

I would guess they don't know for sure and may never have talked about it. All I am saying, though, is I think they don't know for a fact that Glenn would have disapproved. In that case, they probably would have said so and not given their blessing to the band continuing.

Although Glenn obviously did not approve of an Eagles without him in 1990, that was nearly 30 years ago and the band had been split up for a long time at that point. He didn't want the Eagles to get back together without him. This is an entirely different situation.

[WalshFan88]

But we just don't have Felder's word on this. As I and others pointed out, it was talked about (and confirmed) in HOTE.

Exactly, CA!

[WalshFan88]

Although Glenn obviously did not approve of an Eagles without him in 1990, that was nearly 20 years ago and the band had been split up for a long time at that point. He didn't want the Eagles to get back together without him. This is an entirely different situation.

I don't see it as being all that different. He knew an Eagles without him was an abomination and a fraud, and I do ​think that would carry over to the Eagles moving on without him after he died.

He clearly thought he had to be there for it to be the Eagles (which he does!) in 1990, so why would it change later on?

[YoungEaglesFan]

Answering Soda’s question, if it was known that Glenn would be against them touring I would not support the lineup. I don’t think it changes the issue of the lineup being legitimate as that’s a separate issue but I would not see them personally (similar to how I treat Fleetwood Mac at this point). I’m not sure how Glenn would feel about it. I think having a tour like they are now he wouldn’t be too opposed (all guesswork on my part) but new music he’s be against. I think his son being apart of it all complicates it. Besides Bernie touring with the band, the band wasn’t really doing much and I don’t think saw that period as much more than just making money and playing music. But I’m really not sure how he would feel about it. The one hesitation I have about using Glenn’s statements regarding touring without him in the 90’s is that the band would be drastically changing the legacy of the band while as this current situation is just a continuation of a line of primarily money making tours. I think the two situations have some differences that could lead to Glenn having different views on the band touring without him

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Boy, I'd hate to think that they would change their minds to get more money even if they knew for a fact that Glenn would not approve.



I would guess they don't know for sure and may never have talked about it. All I am saying, though, is I think they don't know for a fact that Glenn would have disapproved. In that case, they probably would have said so and not given their blessing to the band continuing.

Although Glenn obviously did not approve of an Eagles without him in 1990, that was nearly 30 years ago and the band had been split up for a long time at that point. He didn't want the Eagles to get back together without him. This is an entirely different situation.

MR - I think you make a reasonable argument and, I, for one, appreciate when we can have a civil discussion even though we disagree. However, it just goes to show that no matter how many times and ways we debate this topic, most fans are firmly set in their beliefs and no amount of talking is likely to sway them. I'll just add that after Glenn passed, every member's gut instinct was that the band was over and most fans felt the same way. For me, that tells me all I need to know. The example Soda cited may have been from the 90's, but Glenn had actually remained fairly consistent throughout the band's history about what he believed kept them legitimate. It's certainly possible he changed, but I can't be persuaded. In any event, as I said before, even if he did have a change of heart really wouldn't change the way I feel about it anyway. So, the big fan debate goes on and likely will for years to come. :ack:

[moonrambler]

MR - I think you make a reasonable argument and, I, for one, appreciate when we can have a civil discussion even though we disagree.

I don't think we disagree. I just became curious when I saw this comment:


I will never change my opinion on the band continuing. There is nothing you or anyone else could show me or say that will change that.

I realized there probably is only one person who might possibly be able to change opinions on this topic, and that would be Glenn. So I wondered if opinions might change if there was actual evidence Glenn wanted the band to continue. I understand that we don't have that.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I don't think we disagree. I just became curious when I saw this comment:



I realized there probably is only one person who might possibly be able to change opinions on this topic, and that would be Glenn. So I wondered if opinions might change if there was actual evidence Glenn wanted the band to continue. I understand that we don't have that.

Yeah - I guess for me it's a moot point because, like I said before, whether or not Glenn would have approved or not is really not much of a factor for me. Even if they had his blessings (which I don't believe they did), I would still not consider the Eagles without Glenn as a legitimate band.

[WalshFan88]

Yeah - I guess for me it's a moot point because, like I said before, whether or not Glenn would have approved or not is really not much of a factor for me. Even if they had his blessings (which I don't believe they did), I would still not consider the Eagles without Glenn as a legitimate band.

I definitely feel the same way Dreamer, even if Glenn supported the Eagles moving on without him I personally wouldn't go see a show, but wouldn't have a problem if others did or with the band if they continue. I wouldn't be as disgusted with some of the band if Glenn did want it. I guess that's the difference for me. I wouldn't go regardless, but I wouldn't be nearly as upset about it if it was proven Glenn did want this.

But me personally - No Glenn No Eagles.

I don't think Glenn would support it and I think we've gained enough insight that it's not just a wild guess, either.

[Arlee]

[......]

Although Glenn obviously did not approve of an Eagles without him in 1990, that was nearly 30 years ago and the band had been split up for a long time at that point. He didn't want the Eagles to get back together without him. This is an entirely different situation.

I agree, 1990 is a completely different situation. Of course he would be against the band touring. The band was his baby, he was alive, and he had entertained the idea of starting the band up again.

Anything Felder says means nothing. However, it was said in HOTE that Glenn put the brakes on.

I've read a few times that Glenn stopped the reunion because of his illness. Of course he would want the band to wait for him.

As for now, it's hard to believe his band mates, his wife, and his children would be doing this if they ever thought Glenn would be against it.

Has it occurred to anyone that if Glenn were truly against this, he would have made legal arrangements that would stop it?

Obviously he made plans for the finances and ownership of the band after his demise. He put almost all of his estate in a trust. He was prepared.

If he hadn't made legal and financial plans in the event of his death, I doubt that the joining of Gill, and especially Deacon, would have gone so smoothly.

Very early on and in the years since, Henley and Frey learned a lot about money and lawyers and band business and finances. By 2015 I'm sure they had made the plans they wanted for the band.

[sodascouts]

Well, we can't know, and we've all been able to find reasons to either believe Glenn's comments still hold true or dismiss what he said, depending on whether or not his comments aligned with our views.

I guess we're at an impasse. Big surprise there.

[Arlee]

Well, we can't know, and we've all been able to find reasons to either believe Glenn's comments still hold true or dismiss what he said, depending on whether or not his comments aligned with our views.

I guess we're at an impasse. Big surprise there.


I think that is clear and the same thing could be said at any point along the way for the last year and a half.

There has been an ongoing debate here about what Glenn would have wanted.

I haven't seen any earlier of mention what I just brought up, that Glenn most likely would've made legal provisions regarding whether or not the band would or could continue.

I could have easily missed if this was talked about or not.

But I am curious about people's thoughts and information on it, if they have any.

[Brooke]

Arlee, if that were true then none of the members would have acted they way they did when Glenn died. They all acted shocked and even said they couldn't go on, at first. He was in the hospital for weeks. I don't think he had any time to prepare something like that when he got so sick they put him in a coma.

[Arlee]

Arlee, if that were true then none of the members would have acted they way they did when Glenn died. They all acted shocked and even said they couldn't go on, at first. He was in the hospital for weeks. I don't think he had any time to prepare something like that when he got so sick they put him in a coma.


No, I didn't say that they did it at the last minute. I suppose that is possible, but not likely.

I said that it's almost certain there were legal directions in place regarding what would and wouldn't happen to the Eagles entity after he was gone. And probably very detailed with every "I" dotted and "T" crossed. Probably in Henley's will, too.

As I said, Henley and Frey learned hard lessons and gained immense wisdom over the years dealing with lawyers, their music, the Eagles, other band members, etc.

It's his business, his baby. Of course it would be in his will.

There didn't seem to be a huge legal ordeal for the family and band to come together and to keep going. I think that says a lot.

(Steely Dan comes to mind. That was sad.)

PS I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything. I just hadn't thought of the legalities & the will before. I haven't seen it mentioned but I may have missed it.

[sodascouts]

I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that in his/her will. Have you?

[WalshFan88]

There didn't seem to be a huge legal ordeal for the family and band to come together and to keep going. I think that says a lot.

We don't know what went on behind closed doors. I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.

[WalshFan88]

I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that in his/her will. Have you?

Definitely not.

[Arlee]

We don't know what went on behind closed doors. I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.

That's why I said "there didn't seem to be." I didn't rule out that there may have been some problems. Even so, they obviously worked them out.

I would think there would be contracts and agreements and maybe negotiations involved. But no, I don't know for sure how it went.

[Arlee]

I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that in his/her will. Have you?



Definitely not.


Oh come on. I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted, but I think we could at least agree on this point.

We all know the Eagles was and is a business. We the public have gotten a couple little peeks where legal business dealings happened in the band.

The business was and is going to keep making money whether the band continued or not.

Henley and Glenn were both smart enough to know all this. We know the Eagles meant everything to them. They have both invested a lot into the Eagles and have been legally burned.

All bands are businesses. So of course some of them would be dealt with in a will. Look how many members end up suing each other otherwise. As I mentioned, Steely Dan is a prime example.

I was just wondering if this had been pondered here before. It sounds like it hadn't been.

[sodascouts]

Oh come on. I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted, but I think we could at least agree on this point.

We all know the Eagles was and is a business. We the public have gotten a couple little peeks where legal business dealings happened in the band.

The business was and is going to keep making money whether the band continued or not.

Henley and Glenn were both smart enough to know all this. We know the Eagles meant everything to them. They have both invested a lot into the Eagles and have been legally burned.

All bands are businesses. So of course some of them would be dealt with in a will. Look how many members end up suing each other otherwise. As I mentioned, Steely Dan is a prime example.

I was just wondering if this had been pondered here before. It sounds like it hadn't been.

No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).

So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

[Arlee]

No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).

So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

I've made it very clear that I don't know for sure, and it seems to me unlikely that nothing would be in the will about the Eagles. I've used words like "probably" and "likely" and "I think" several times. I also said "I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted."

It was clear enough that there was no need for me to put it in every sentence.

I think we're getting off track but that's nothing new.



So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

No one ever has? The Eagles is a business that has legally been fought for and fought about for decades. It continues to make money. So it seems unlikely he wouldn't put anything about it in his will.

Before I brought this up, people were adamant that Glenn held the Eagles firmly in his heart and tight enough in his fist that he was willing to sue if they took off without him.

It was very clear what my point was. I didn't bring this up so it can be turned into another petty argument over wording but that's where it went.

Edited to add: I just remembered that according to reports, Glenn left everything to his wife and she's the executor. I think that might include his earnings and future earnings, his part, his wishes for his share or his stake, etc regarding the band (despite the idea expressed here that no such thing would be mentioned in a will.)

[WalshFan88]

No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).

So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

Agreed. I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.

[Arlee]

Agreed. I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.


No. That has nothing to do with what I said. No.

I kept trying stick to the actual topic --- one that I thought was fairly innocuous. But no, you guys can't have that. You have to deflect with false accusations.

Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is a fair, legitimate, realistic thought and idea, one that I couldn't possibly see as being controversial, and you guys couldn't even handle that.

Deflect away. Continue to be disingenuous. Keep turning legitimate questions and ideas into a fight. As I've said before, I'm not going to get pulled down into the mud.

Congratulations! :applause: You've once again successfully chased away another idea and opinion you didn't like! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[WalshFan88]

No. That has nothing to do with what I said. No.

I kept trying stick to the actual topic --- one that I thought was fairly innocuous. But no, you guys can't have that. You have to deflect with false accusations.

Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is a fair, legitimate, realistic thought and idea, one that I couldn't possibly see as being controversial, and you guys couldn't even handle that.

Deflect away. Continue to be disingenuous. Keep turning legitimate questions and ideas into a fight. As I've said before, I'm not going to get pulled down into the mud.

Congratulations! :applause: You've once again successfully chased away another idea and opinion you didn't like! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

You keep saying that is not what you said or that we are misunderstanding you, but I don't see how that is the case. It's pretty clear what you are writing here.

The only "actual topic" here is discussing the Eagles moving forward without Glenn. Us saying that we've never heard of something like that going into a will is not off topic, nor is disagreeing or having a problem with your post, Arlee or saying that IMO it's grasping for straws to justify 3.0. We aren't fighting. I personally have never heard of something like that going into a rockstar's will. Ever. And I feel that is perfectly fine to say. And I think Soda's post was spot on about it.

And as far as the last sentence - please do us all a favor and save the drama for your mama!

[Arlee]

You keep saying that is not what you said or that we are misunderstanding you, but I don't see how that is the case. It's pretty clear what you are writing here.

The only "actual topic" here is discussing the Eagles moving forward without Glenn. Us saying that we've never heard of something like that going into a will is not off topic, nor is disagreeing or having a problem with your post, Arlee or saying that IMO it's grasping for straws to justify 3.0. We aren't fighting. I personally have never heard of something like that going into a rockstar's will. Ever. And I feel that is perfectly fine to say. And I think Soda's post was spot on about it.

And as far as the last sentence - please do us all a favor and save the drama for your mama!


I point out that you deflect and chase away opinions you don't like, and your response is that I'm being dramatic. Oh the irony.

And no, apparently it is not clear to you what I'm writing. But I'm done explaining myself.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

On this board we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated. That, of course, doesn’t mean your opinion may not be challenged by other members, and that’s okay too as long as everyone remains polite and tolerant.

There are thousands of discussions on the board where fans disagree about different topics. Of course, that will always be the case – there is no way to expect us all to agree about everything. But, there are some disagreements that are very civil and others that are very contentious and argumentative. The confrontational types of discussion inevitably boils down to the same things – disrespect for others opinions, misunderstanding or misrepresenting your's or other’s opinions, and personal attacks on members. This is why these behaviors are against our Terms of Service.

Arlee, unfortunately, many of your posts fall into this category. If all you have to contribute to the board is to be combative and insulting to other members, then perhaps this isn’t the right place for you.

As I often say, there may not be a right or wrong in how we feel, but there is a right and wrong in how we express ourselves.


I point out that you deflect and chase away opinions you don't like, and your response is that I'm being dramatic. Oh the irony.

And no, apparently it is not clear to you what I'm writing. But I'm done explaining myself.

Thank you for this. I agree that it is futile to continue with these circular discussions. I will be glad to discuss this further with you if you want to send me a PM, but I don't want to continue taking the thread off-topic. Thanks.

[Arlee]

On this board we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated. That, of course, doesn’t mean your opinion may not be challenged by other members, and that’s okay too as long as everyone remains polite and tolerant.

There are thousands of discussions on the board where fans disagree about different topics. Of course, that will always be the case – there is no way to expect us all to agree about everything. But, there are some disagreements that are very civil and others that are very contentious and argumentative. The confrontational types of discussion inevitably boils down to the same things – disrespect for others opinions, misunderstanding or misrepresenting your's or other’s opinions, and personal attacks on members. This is why these behaviors are against our Terms of Service.


Upon reading the part above, I was going to respond "Amen, thank God someone said it."

But then I saw it was directed at me:


Arlee, unfortunately, many of your posts fall into this category. If all you have to contribute to the board is to be combative and insulting to other members, then perhaps this isn’t the right place for you.



That isn't true about any of my posts. I've disagreed but wasn't combative or insulting.

You may be just looking at what I've been accused of. There's no proof any accusations are true. I've said dozens of times, "I didn't say that." After stating that, no one offered proof because there is none.

When people put words in my mouth or twist what I say, it leads to where we are now. Because people start to believe it.

Many don't read everything. They might scan. They see it said more than once that I called people names and they might think it's true. And yes, I was repeatedly accused of that but it wasn't true.

So, why is that OK?

I even offered an apology recently. Not because I called people names or was combative or insulting. But because I thought my comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have posted it. I'm willing to apologize and admit when I'm wrong.

With this recent issue, I made a simple, innocuous statement. But I happen to like the new line up, so someone had to make it about that. I was accused of grasping at straws to justify the new line up. I was also told I'm dramatic because I said people were deflecting. (Which actually proved my point.)

So, considering your post to me, how is that OK?

I think with a quick look around the board, anyone can see that anti- new line-up is the more prominent view. That's OK, but people's biases against the new line-up are clouding judgment.

They've been hurtful, dismissive, and argumentitive to others, not realizing these are real people who are more than their Eagles opinion.

[chaim]

Upon reading the part above, I was going to respond "Amen, thank God someone said it."

But then I saw it was directed at me:




That isn't true about any of my posts. I've disagreed but wasn't combative or insulting.

You may be just looking at what I've been accused of. There's no proof any accusations are true. I've said dozens of times, "I didn't say that." After stating that, no one offered proof because there is none.

When people put words in my mouth or twist what I say, it leads to where we are now. Because people start to believe it.

Many don't read everything. They might scan. They see it said more than once that I called people names and they might think it's true. And yes, I was repeatedly accused of that but it wasn't true.

So, why is that OK?

I even offered an apology recently. Not because I called people names or was combative or insulting. But because I thought my comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have posted it. I'm willing to apologize and admit when I'm wrong.

With this recent issue, I made a simple, innocuous statement. But I happen to like the new line up, so someone had to make it about that. I was accused of grasping at straws to justify the new line up. I was also told I'm dramatic because I said people were deflecting. (Which actually proved my point.)

So, considering your post to me, how is that OK?

I think with a quick look around the board, anyone can see that anti- new line-up is the more prominent view. That's OK, but people's biases against the new line-up are clouding judgment.

They've been hurtful, dismissive, and argumentitive to others, not realizing these are real people who are more than their Eagles opinion.

If you're referring to the last word issue, I did find it insulting when I explained to you what I had actually meant, but you said something like "Nice spin, lol. But ok". It's all fine now, but at the time I found that comment insulting since I had just honestly explained what I had meant with my earlier post and you refused to accept it for no reason. The way I explained it - the tone of my post - wasn't exactly civilized, I admit and I regret that. Too much feeling involved.

I also found the "But the truth is the truth. That doesn't always come out here." addition in the first post combative since I'd had no problem being corrected about the Timothy/bicycle issue and had actually said that correcting me was the right thing to do. In the "last word" case, of course, like you said, it was totally unnecessary since it had nothing to do with what I had meant.

[chaim]

And Arlee, in your edited addition you say you "got pulled in". Who exactly pulled you in and how? I certainly didn't.

[WalshFan88]

I agree chaim.

I think at this point I'm just going to avoid interactions like this in the future with a few who can't seem to understand what we are saying or keep saying we are misunderstanding them. They don't go anywhere.

[Arlee]

If you're referring to the last word issue, I did find it insulting when I explained to you what I had actually meant, but you said something like "Nice spin, lol. But ok".

I wasn't referring to that issue. But regarding that, as I said before, I shouldn't have made the post at all. So again, I apologize that I said it and made you feel insulted.



[......]It's all fine now, but at the time I found that comment insulting since I had just honestly explained what I had meant with my earlier post and you refused to accept it for no reason.

Feeling unheard and insulted isn't a good feeling. That’s exactly how I've felt here. So I get it. I've said almost your exact words a few times on the board and it's never mattered. It's always just caused more of the same.



The way I explained it - the tone of my post - wasn't exactly civilized, I admit and I regret that. Too much feeling involved.

Thanks for that.



I also found the "But the truth is the truth. That doesn't always come out here." addition in the first post combative [........]

I said “the truth doesn't always come out here” because of how words have been put in my mouth and me frequently having to say “I didn't say that!” That particular comment was a general statement that wasn't directed to any one person in particular.



Thanks for using examples of what I actually said and just sticking with the issue without deflecting, twisting words, making empty accusations, and insulting me. I've felt that from other comments to me on the board and pointed it out at the time. And the results were more of the same. It's frustrating, hurtful, and just makes everything worse. (I'm not singling anyone out. I won't go back to see who said what. It's an endless cycle.)

[Arlee]

And Arlee, in your edited addition you say you "got pulled in". Who exactly pulled you in and how? I certainly didn't.

Thank you for asking. Against my better judgement, I'm going to answer your question. You asked. Also, I acknowledge that I allowed myself to be pulled in.

For the sake of space and time I kept out extra words & repeats. But I kept in the main point of every post.

Sodascouts
If one chooses to venture onto a message board and post, one should take the trouble to inform oneself as to the nature of the threads…

Me
...I tried to explain why it wasn't that simple, I was...told, "Yes it is.”...

WalshFan88
...we've made it pretty clear Arlee which thread is for what...before you post it's a good idea to find out what the thread is about.

Me
There is no reason for you to be arguing...You have a different perspective.

Me
...it would be helpful if the "anti- 3." people...accept that they [will] continue to see posts from folks who don't agree and are a bit rattled by what they read here....We're not going to change each others' minds, but it would be helpful to accept that…

WalshFan88
...we don't need to accept anything. There is nothing wrong with anything we've said…

Me
… In a debate of this length, there will be "something wrong" said by people from all sides.

WalshFan88
Maybe it's time that pro-3.0 people learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members…

WalshFan88
... Saying that personal attacks on board members are not allowed like the ones Carolyn made and that the pro-3.0 side needs to stop making them is "inane immaturity". You might want to familiarize yourself with the board rules, Arlee... I'm really taken aback by the fact that you are trying to justify the attacks made here.

Me
I never said anything close to this….whatever debate you've got going with Carolyn is not my concern.

WalshFan88
...When I said we don't have to accept anything I meant we don't have to accept the nasty posts....

Me
I stated it would be easier if people would accept that people will disagree. Your response: "I don't have to accept anything."

I've repeatedly said there is no point in arguing certain things…..we won't change minds….we have differing opinions.

~~~~~~~~

Me
….I personally don't know what Glenn Frey would want or what he said….Has it occurred to anyone that if Glenn were truly against this, he would have made legal arrangements….He was prepared.... Henley and Frey learned a lot .... By 2015 I'm sure they had made the plans they wanted for the band.

Sodascouts
...we've all been able to find reasons to either believe Glenn's comments still hold true or dismiss what he said

Me
…I haven't seen any earlier of mention what I just brought up ...I'm not trying to convince anyone...I just hadn't thought of the legalities & the will before….

Sodascouts
...So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

Me
...I've made it very clear that I don't know….. I've used words like "probably" and "likely" and "I think"..... I also said "I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted."

The Eagles is a business that has legally been fought for and fought about ... It continues to make money… seems unlikely he wouldn't put anything...in his will. ...Glenn left everything to his wife and she's the executor…that might include his earnings and future earnings...his wishes for his...stake, etc

WalshFan88
….I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.

Me
No. That has nothing to do with what I said. No...I kept trying stick to the actual topic --- one that I thought was fairly innocuous. But no...You have to deflect with false accusations.

Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is fair, legitimate…I couldn't possibly see as being controversial … You've once again successfully chased away another idea and opinion you didn't like...

WalshFan88
….please do us all a favor and save the drama for your mama!

Me
I point out that you deflect and chase away opinions you don't like, and your response is that I'm being dramatic…

I've Always Been a Dreamer
On this board we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated.... confrontational types of discussion inevitably boils down to the same things – disrespect for others opinions, misunderstanding or misrepresenting your's or other’s opinions, and personal attacks on members. ….

Me
….I was going to respond "Amen, thank God someone said it."

But then I saw it was directed at me:

I've Always Been a Dreamer
Arlee, unfortunately, many of your posts fall into this category. If all you have to contribute to the board is to be combative and insulting to other members, then perhaps this isn’t the right place for you.

Me
That isn't true about any of my posts….

With this recent issue, I made a simple, innocuous statement....

I was accused of grasping at straws to justify the new line up. I was also told I'm dramatic because I said people were deflecting....considering your post to me, how is that OK?


------------------

Ok, Arlee in the present here. That's more than enough proof. Despite what's been said, I've stayed on topic and was careful with my words to avoid offending. That didn't do any good.

Accusations fly and there is no proof and no consequences.

The last post by “I've Always Been a Dreamer” is over the line. It's outrageous, insulting, and outright lies. There was nothing to back it up.

It's noteworthy that in these posts, I wasn't even arguing about the new line up being ok or why they should be accepted, etc. I don't see why people wanted to argue. As I said, those posts were innocuous.

This is an anti- new line-up board. I think the mods should just admit that and stop the false claim that all opinions are respected and tolerated here. They clearly are not.

[chaim]

Thank you for asking. Against my better judgement, I'm going to answer your question. You asked. Also, I acknowledge that I allowed myself to be pulled in.

For the sake of space and time I kept out extra words & repeats. But I kept in the main point of every post.

Sodascouts
If one chooses to venture onto a message board and post, one should take the trouble to inform oneself as to the nature of the threads…

Me
...I tried to explain why it wasn't that simple, I was...told, "Yes it is.”...

WalshFan88
...we've made it pretty clear Arlee which thread is for what...before you post it's a good idea to find out what the thread is about.

Me
There is no reason for you to be arguing...You have a different perspective.

Me
...it would be helpful if the "anti- 3." people...accept that they [will] continue to see posts from folks who don't agree and are a bit rattled by what they read here....We're not going to change each others' minds, but it would be helpful to accept that…

WalshFan88
...we don't need to accept anything. There is nothing wrong with anything we've said…

Me
… In a debate of this length, there will be "something wrong" said by people from all sides.

WalshFan88
Maybe it's time that pro-3.0 people learn how to act like adults and discuss it without insulting other members…

WalshFan88
... Saying that personal attacks on board members are not allowed like the ones Carolyn made and that the pro-3.0 side needs to stop making them is "inane immaturity". You might want to familiarize yourself with the board rules, Arlee... I'm really taken aback by the fact that you are trying to justify the attacks made here.

Me
I never said anything close to this….whatever debate you've got going with Carolyn is not my concern.

WalshFan88
...When I said we don't have to accept anything I meant we don't have to accept the nasty posts....

Me
I stated it would be easier if people would accept that people will disagree. Your response: "I don't have to accept anything."

I've repeatedly said there is no point in arguing certain things…..we won't change minds….we have differing opinions.

~~~~~~~~

Me
….I personally don't know what Glenn Frey would want or what he said….Has it occurred to anyone that if Glenn were truly against this, he would have made legal arrangements….He was prepared.... Henley and Frey learned a lot .... By 2015 I'm sure they had made the plans they wanted for the band.

Sodascouts
...we've all been able to find reasons to either believe Glenn's comments still hold true or dismiss what he said

Me
…I haven't seen any earlier of mention what I just brought up ...I'm not trying to convince anyone...I just hadn't thought of the legalities & the will before….

Sodascouts
...So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

Me
...I've made it very clear that I don't know….. I've used words like "probably" and "likely" and "I think"..... I also said "I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted."

The Eagles is a business that has legally been fought for and fought about ... It continues to make money… seems unlikely he wouldn't put anything...in his will. ...Glenn left everything to his wife and she's the executor…that might include his earnings and future earnings...his wishes for his...stake, etc

WalshFan88
….I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.

Me
No. That has nothing to do with what I said. No...I kept trying stick to the actual topic --- one that I thought was fairly innocuous. But no...You have to deflect with false accusations.

Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is fair, legitimate…I couldn't possibly see as being controversial … You've once again successfully chased away another idea and opinion you didn't like...

WalshFan88
….please do us all a favor and save the drama for your mama!

Me
I point out that you deflect and chase away opinions you don't like, and your response is that I'm being dramatic…

I've Always Been a Dreamer
On this board we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated.... confrontational types of discussion inevitably boils down to the same things – disrespect for others opinions, misunderstanding or misrepresenting your's or other’s opinions, and personal attacks on members. ….

Me
….I was going to respond "Amen, thank God someone said it."

But then I saw it was directed at me:

I've Always Been a Dreamer
Arlee, unfortunately, many of your posts fall into this category. If all you have to contribute to the board is to be combative and insulting to other members, then perhaps this isn’t the right place for you.

Me
That isn't true about any of my posts….

With this recent issue, I made a simple, innocuous statement....

I was accused of grasping at straws to justify the new line up. I was also told I'm dramatic because I said people were deflecting....considering your post to me, how is that OK?


------------------

Ok, Arlee in the present here. That's more than enough proof. Despite what's been said, I've stayed on topic and was careful with my words to avoid offending. That didn't do any good.

Accusations fly and there is no proof and no consequences.

The last post by “I've Always Been a Dreamer” is over the line. It's outrageous, insulting, and outright lies. There was nothing to back it up.

It's noteworthy that in these posts, I wasn't even arguing about the new line up being ok or why they should be accepted, etc. I don't see why people wanted to argue. As I said, those posts were innocuous.

This is an anti- new line-up board. I think the mods should just admit that and stop the false claim that all opinions are respected and tolerated here. They clearly are not.

I asked that question thinking that you were referring to my "last word" thing. My mistake. Incidentally, you didn't copy+paste the part from your comment Soda was actually referring to with her "...OF COURSE..." post. Now it looks like she was reacting to nothing. I don't wish to take sides in this wider "battle" at this point, because it seems like everyone feels quite genuinely what they're saying, just wanted to point that one out.

[WalshFan88]

I asked that question thinking that you were referring to my "last word" thing. My mistake. Incidentally, you didn't copy+paste the part from your comment Soda was actually referring to with her "...OF COURSE..." post. Now it looks like she was reacting to nothing. I don't wish to take sides in this wider "battle" at this point, because it seems like everyone feels quite genuinely what they're saying, just wanted to point that one out.

I agree. I also felt like she cherrypicked some of her own statements. I didn’t see her copy and paste her “that’s a great spin” type of comments she’s made.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Ok, Arlee in the present here. That's more than enough proof. Despite what's been said, I've stayed on topic and was careful with my words to avoid offending. That didn't do any good.

Accusations fly and there is no proof and no consequences.

The last post by “I've Always Been a Dreamer” is over the line. It's outrageous, insulting, and outright lies. There was nothing to back it up.

It's noteworthy that in these posts, I wasn't even arguing about the new line up being ok or why they should be accepted, etc. I don't see why people wanted to argue. As I said, those posts were innocuous.

This is an anti- new line-up board. I think the mods should just admit that and stop the false claim that all opinions are respected and tolerated here. They clearly are not.

So you say you have been careful not to be offensive. And then you call me a liar. If that’s not an offensive personal attack, then I don’t know what is.

If you wish to continue posting here, one thing you must understand is that you don’t get to decide what is or is not acceptable because you don’t own this board. I don’t own it either, but I am a moderator, and I was trying to give you fair warning that your posts are crossing the line in terms of complying with our Terms of Service. This is my opinion after carefully reading your posts. However, based on feedback received from other members, I am not alone in the conclusions I have drawn. Regardless of your intentions, it is a fact that many of your posts are perceived as being combative and insulting by other members.

My statement was “On this board we try to be tolerant of all opinions, as long as they are respectful and substantiated”. That is a true statement. What we do not tolerate is trolling and personal attacks and disrespectful insults towards our members. When you continue to engage in this type of behavior after being warned, there are consequences here.

And another fair warning, do not reply to my post here and continue hijacking this thread. If you have further concerns and complaints about this board, please address them with myself or the board admin in a PM.

[Arlee]

Did some poking online and found info about the legal aspects that I brought up.

Background:

Me
Has it occurred to anyone [Glenn] would have made legal arrangements ...

Sodascouts
I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that in his/her will. Have you?

WalshFan88
Definitely not.

Me
...I would think there would be contracts and agreements and maybe negotiations involved…

Sodascouts
…. I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).
So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

Me
... seems unlikely he wouldn't put anything...in his will…future earnings ...his wishes for his...stake...

WalshFan88
….I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.

Me
...Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is fair, legitimate …


---------------------------------------------------


It seems that what I suggested is common. (I bolded the relative parts.)


From
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/band-agreements-band-entities-band-trademarks-and-copyrights-41346 :

“In order to avoid disputes later, a band needs a band agreement which states how the band will divide their profits and which provides how decisions shall be made, how departing band members will be paid and the rights to use the band name after a break up or a band member departs…..”


From
https://bandzoogle.com/blog/creating-a-band-agreement-what-you-need-to-know :

“Being a musician is a business. If you’re in band, one of the most important elements…is having an effective band agreement.

Without agreement among the members of your band, whether verbal, written on a napkin….texted, or written by an entertainment lawyer..., some key issues will need to be negotiated .... Or you may need to rely on the law, which may not provide appropriate solutions for your situation.

The Band Name
….Does anyone have more control regarding the band name? May the band only use the name if everyone is still performing together? May any majority of the members performing together use the name? Does the name follow Person A, whether she’s in the band or not? How about only Person A and Person B may use the band, regardless of whether anyone else is still in the band?”

New and Former Members
Who has the authority to add a member?

How much money, if any, is owed to a former band member? ...what’s the formula regarding royalties and any other income from recordings made while the former member was a member?

What happens if a band member gets sick, disabled or dies?.. ….



---------------------------------------------------


https://vlaa.org/band-partnership-agreements/


Google “Internal Band Agreement 101”

[Arlee]

I asked that question thinking that you were referring to my "last word" thing. My mistake. Incidentally, you didn't copy+paste the part from your comment Soda was actually referring to with her "...OF COURSE..." post. Now it looks like she was reacting to nothing. I don't wish to take sides in this wider "battle" at this point, because it seems like everyone feels quite genuinely what they're saying, just wanted to point that one out.

No wider battle here. You asked, I answered. Your question didn't say it was specific to the "last word" issue. But I see you said "my mistake," so that's good. I had thought that issue was settled anyway, since I apologized.

Sodascouts was referring to my suggestion that was the whole point of the discussion, that I thought there would be some legalities involved regarding the band after Glenn departed, and that it would have been decided ahead of time. It seems clear that was the discussion and that is what sodascouts was referring to. If it was something else, I don't know what it could be.

[Arlee]

I agree. I also felt like she cherrypicked some of her own statements. I didn’t see her copy and paste her “that’s a great spin” type of comments she’s made.

May I remind you that I was answering Chaim's question of why I felt "pulled in," so I "cherry-picked" only what pertained to the question. So, you misrepresentated the issue. I hope a mod reminds you of board rules.

Here is what was said::

Chaim:
And Arlee, in your edited addition you say you "got pulled in". Who exactly pulled you in and how? I certainly didn't.

Me:
Thank you for asking. Against my better judgement, I'm going to answer your question. You asked. Also, I acknowledge that I allowed myself to be pulled in. For the sake of space and time I kept out extra words & repeats. But I kept in the main point of every post. .
----------------

And to add to you,
Sodascouts was referring to my suggestion that was the whole point of the discussion, that I thought there would be some legalities involved regarding the band after Glenn departed, and that it would have been decided ahead of time. It seems clear that was the discussion and that is what she was referring to. If it was something else, I don't know what it could be.

[Arlee]

Dreamer,

Ok I've replied to you by PM but I have a request. I think it's fair of me to say that you stated some pretty bad things about me and without example, and they're not true. I ask that this please stop. Thank you. It's happened a lot to me on this board and no examples were offered then, either. And no one was called on the carpet. If there's a basis for any of these false accusations, why won't anyone show me where?

Below is an example of what I think has been severe and undeserved. I haven't been given any examples so I have no idea what this is referring to. That's not really fair to me.






What we do not tolerate is trolling and personal attacks and disrespectful insults towards our members. When you continue to engage in this type of behavior after being warned, there are consequences here.






Another request: there are many things said that I felt were inappropriate to me by WalshFan88. I ask that you tell them to stop. I've sent you details but I already listed a few.

I too wish the thread hadn't got hijacked but that's not on me.

Thank you.

[chaim]

No wider battle here. You asked, I answered. Your question didn't say it was specific to the "last word" issue. But I see you said "my mistake," so that's good. I had thought that issue was settled anyway, since I apologized.

Sodascouts was referring to my suggestion that was the whole point of the discussion, that I thought there would be some legalities involved regarding the band after Glenn departed, and that it would have been decided ahead of time. It seems clear that was the discussion and that is what sodascouts was referring to. If it was something else, I don't know what it could be.

Yes, a wider battle here. I was referring to a brief interaction (three or four posts) between me, Austin and you. (Granted, it was a smaller battle inside a wider battle, haha.) You copy+pasted posts from a "battle" that has been going on for months. I suggested that Austin stop arguing with Carolyn, but I won't take sides in this "fight" between you and some people here.

[chaim]

Actually now that I re-read your earlier post regarding the "last word" issue, you said:

"my last post about "the last word" was unnecessary, and I apologize for it. I got pulled in and although I stand by everything else I've said, I shouldn't have made that comment. Again, sorry."

My initial post to Austin had nothing to do with you. You posted a comment about it. Then I explained to you what I had actually meant. You said "nice spin". Later you apologized, but added that you got pulled in. That certainly looks like I pulled you in when I was explaining myself. Why not just say that you were wrong. Why this thing about being pulled in?

And are you also saying that the "truth is the truth. The truth doesn't always come out here" (based on misunderstanding what I had said) in your initial comment to me was written with the best of intentions without a slightest hint of being combative or pulling other people in? The tone in my explanation to you wouldn't have been as harsh as it was without those comments. But I got pulled in.

[chaim]

Once again I find myself being uncomfortable with things I've written. I slipped into the sarcastic mode again in the post above. Also, I found myself basically arguing over nothing. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm dead wrong. Peace to everyone. It's a beautiful, sunny day here.✌

[WalshFan88]

Once again I find myself being uncomfortable with things I've written. I slipped into the sarcastic mode again in the post above. Also, I found myself basically arguing over nothing. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm dead wrong. Peace to everyone. It's a beautiful, sunny day here.✌

You're fine, chaim.

Peace to you as well!

[sodascouts]

May I remind you that I was answering Chaim's question of why I felt "pulled in," so I "cherry-picked" only what pertained to the question. So, you misrepresentated the issue. I hope a mod reminds you of board rules.

Actually, I feel my quotes were misrepresented. In particular, the way you present this:




Me
Has it occurred to anyone [Glenn] would have made legal arrangements ...

Sodascouts
I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that in his/her will. Have you?

WalshFan88
Definitely not.

Me
...I would think there would be contracts and agreements and maybe negotiations involved…

Sodascouts
…. I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).
So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap.

Me
... seems unlikely he wouldn't put anything...in his will…future earnings ...his wishes for his...stake...

WalshFan88
….I think there is some grasping for straws at this point in trying to justify them moving on without Glenn.

Me
...Suggesting that he may have put something in his will regarding the Eagles is fair, legitimate …

Your little edits... leaving out some of the things you said as if I were questioning the notion that Glenn would make any kind of legal arrangement pertaining to anything related to the Eagles, misrepresents my intention.

My replies were specifically addressed to your implication that if Glenn wanted to stop the Eagles from continuing without him, he would surely have made provisions to force the matter legally in his will.

That, after all, was the purpose of this line of speculation in the first place... to suggest that the absence of such a provision indicates that he must have been fine with the Eagles continuing without him.

I find fault with that line of speculation, because a provision forbidding a band's continuance is not something that a person would be likely to put in a will, as you suggested. Hence my reply (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=384737&viewfull=1#post384737):


"I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that [ forbidding his band to continue without him ] in his/her will. Have you?"


I added the bracketed information this time to ensure there's no more confusion.

That's also what was the basis for my other reply (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=384751&viewfull=1#post384751), which I here present unedited (the bolded part is what Arlee left out):


"No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).

So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap."



That's right, folks. Arlee actually deleted the part of the sentence that explained what I was referring to so she could make it look like I was referring to her comment about contracts and negotiations. I leave you to decide how ethical that was.

Anyway, I have yet to see an example of someone forbidding their band to continue in a will, or alternatively requiring it to continue. Some powers end with one's life.


I won't take sides in this "fight" between you and some people here.


Yeah, no need, chaim. At this point, there's not much to it. Arlee is pulling in quotes from so long ago to create her narrative that I actually had to look one up to see when I posted it... one of the ones she posted on April 19 was from March 30! She's still talking about it now, but the most recent post of mine she quoted was from almost two weeks ago.

I debated over whether I should even reply at this point but I felt the misrepresentation of my posts needed clarifying, especially since they were so long ago that people might have forgotten the originals and assumed Arlee's "edits" were legit.

In short, that link (https://bandzoogle.com/blog/creating-a-band-agreement-what-you-need-to-know) does not address my point: it is unheard of for a musician to forbid a band from continuing without him/her via a will.

(That link doesn't even talk about wills - it just suggests that bands should be sure to sort out legal matters when they form, which is a pretty obvious point that no one has contested.)

It's not hard to figure out why no one tries to control what a band does via a will. Wills are for distributing property to beneficiaries, not controlling what people do in the future.

The closest you can come is making a gift conditional - like "I bequeath my house to my daughter on the condition she doesn't demolish it" - but you can't say "I forbid my wife from living in the house we co-own if she marries again" in your will. She partially owns that house. Likewise, the Eagles name wasn't solely Glenn's so he can't make it a gift to anyone, or take it away from anyone who currently has ownership in it.

Dead men don't own things and they don't control things.

The best you can do is make your wishes known and hope people comply with them once you're gone.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

This ^^^

Spot on, soda.

[Arlee]

Actually now that I re-read your earlier post regarding the "last word" issue, you said:

"my last post about "the last word" was unnecessary, and I apologize for it. I got pulled in and although I stand by everything else I've said, I shouldn't have made that comment. Again, sorry."

My initial post to Austin had nothing to do with you. You posted a comment about it. Then I explained to you what I had actually meant. You said "nice spin". Later you apologized, but added that you got pulled in. That certainly looks like I pulled you in when I was explaining myself. Why not just say that you were wrong. Why this thing about being pulled in?

And are you also saying that the "truth is the truth. The truth doesn't always come out here" (based on misunderstanding what I had said) in your initial comment to me was written with the best of intentions without a slightest hint of being combative or pulling other people in? The tone in my explanation to you wouldn't have been as harsh as it was without those comments. But I got pulled in.



Yes, a wider battle here. I was referring to a brief interaction (three or four posts) between me, Austin and you. (Granted, it was a smaller battle inside a wider battle, haha.) You copy+pasted posts from a "battle" that has been going on for months. I suggested that Austin stop arguing with Carolyn, but I won't take sides in this "fight" between you and some people here.


Good God I can't even apologize without someone finding fault. I thought we were ok and done with this, but you keep poking at me. Please stop. Thank you.

[Arlee]

You're fine, chaim.

Peace to you as well!

That's not really for you to say. Chaim's posts were directed at me. Please just stop. You've been guilty of being inappropriate to me more than anyone else. Please leave it alone

[Arlee]

Actually, I feel my quotes were misrepresented. In particular, the way you present this:



Your little edits... leaving out some of the things you said as if I were questioning the notion that Glenn would make any kind of legal arrangement pertaining to anything related to the Eagles, misrepresents my intention.

My replies were specifically addressed to your implication that if Glenn wanted to stop the Eagles from continuing without him, he would surely have made provisions to force the matter legally in his will.

That, after all, was the purpose of this line of speculation in the first place... to suggest that the absence of such a provision indicates that he must have been fine with the Eagles continuing without him.

I find fault with that line of speculation, because a provision forbidding a band's continuance is not something that a person would be likely to put in a will, as you suggested. Hence my reply (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=384737&viewfull=1#post384737):


"I have never heard of any rock star ever putting something like that [ forbidding his band to continue without him ] in his/her will. Have you?"


I added the bracketed information this time to ensure there's no more confusion.

That's also what was the basis for my other reply (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=384751&viewfull=1#post384751), which I here present unedited (the bolded part is what Arlee left out):


"No, I don't think it's been suggested that he would try to control what happened with his band via his will before... because I don't think anyone has EVER tried to do that before (that I'm aware of).

So saying OF COURSE he would have, when NO ONE ever has, is quite a leap."



That's right, folks. Arlee actually deleted the part of the sentence that explained what I was referring to so she could make it look like I was referring to her comment about contracts and negotiations. I leave you to decide how ethical that was.

Anyway, I have yet to see an example of someone forbidding their band to continue in a will, or alternatively requiring it to continue. Some powers end with one's life.




Yeah, no need, chaim. At this point, there's not much to it. Arlee is pulling in quotes from so long ago to create her narrative that I actually had to look one up to see when I posted it... one of the ones she posted on April 19 was from March 30! She's still talking about it now, but the most recent post of mine she quoted was from almost two weeks ago.

I debated over whether I should even reply at this point but I felt the misrepresentation of my posts needed clarifying, especially since they were so long ago that people might have forgotten the originals and assumed Arlee's "edits" were legit.

In short, that link (https://bandzoogle.com/blog/creating-a-band-agreement-what-you-need-to-know) does not address my point: it is unheard of for a musician to forbid a band from continuing without him/her via a will.

(That link doesn't even talk about wills - it just suggests that bands should be sure to sort out legal matters when they form, which is a pretty obvious point that no one has contested.)

It's not hard to figure out why no one tries to control what a band does via a will. Wills are for distributing property to beneficiaries, not controlling what people do in the future.

The closest you can come is making a gift conditional - like "I bequeath my house to my daughter on the condition she doesn't demolish it" - but you can't say "I forbid my wife from living in the house we co-own if she marries again" in your will. She partially owns that house. Likewise, the Eagles name wasn't solely Glenn's so he can't make it a gift to anyone, or take it away from anyone who currently has ownership in it.

Dead men don't own things and they don't control things.

The best you can do is make your wishes known and hope people comply with them once you're gone.


I didn't misrepresent anything. I used your words and you were very clear that you thought it's never happened. Those are your words.

Once again, I was not arguing but you've tried to turn it into one.

I simply did a little research and found that it is indeed very common. That's all I was putting out there.

This could've been an interesting conversation for the board, but you and WalshFan88 shot down my suggestion pretty quickly and very clearly.

Please just stop with the accusations. I did nothing wrong.


That's right, folks. Arlee actually deleted the part of the sentence that explained what I was referring to so she could make it look like I was referring to her comment about contracts and negotiations. I leave you to decide how ethical that was.

I cannot believe you actually think it's ok to say something like this about me. Saying that I edited to try to make it look like something else and suggest I'm being unethical?

I was honestly trying to show what was said before. Why would I possibly copy and post the whole thing? I was showing context to my post, just trying to show this:

I made a suggestion.
Some thought what I suggested wouldn't happen, even never happened.
I found information that it has happened.

That is ALL I was trying to do. You were very clear in your words.

And I have no idea why you're finding fault with me for referring to a post from 3/30. It really looks like you're reaching to find fault with everything I do or say.

I didn't look at dates and even if I did it wouldn't occur to me we aren't supposed to respond to posts over a month old.

So what exactly is the cut-off for responses to a post? 30 days?

[Arlee]

What we do not tolerate is trolling and personal attacks and disrespectful insults towards our members. When you continue to engage in this type of behavior after being warned, there are consequences here.



In this quote you publicly accused me of pretty serious transgressions. I wouldn't troll or insult people. I asked for evidence.

Everything I've been accused of, I'm never given evidence.

I started pointing out pretty early on that I never said things that a couple of posters said I did. Over and over.
And no mod ever stepped in to put a stop to it.

So people began to believe I've said all this terrible stuff.

And never offered evidence.

You publicly said these things about me. It's not fair that I'm not allowed to respond or given proof or get an apology.

This is a perfect example of if it's said enough, people will start to believe it.

[chaim]

Good God I can't even apologize without someone finding fault. I thought we were ok and done with this, but you keep poking at me. Please stop. Thank you.

I stopped about sixteen days ago.

[WalshFan88]

I stopped about sixteen days ago.

Same. I think it's time to just ignore it and move on...

[chaim]

To anyone who's interested, the reason I kept coming back to this apology thing was that I didn't see it as much of an apology after the one who offered it said "not because I called people names or was combative or insulting. But because I thought my comment was unnecessary". Because I DID find it combative and insulting. I felt it was more than "unnecessary".

BUT, again I found myself slipping into the sarcastic mode with "I got pulled in"and all that. That kind of thing only makes things worse and doesn't give any long-term satisfaction even for me. On the contrary it makes me feel worse. So I better stop.

[chaim]

In other words I was using insulting language again.

[sodascouts]

I cannot believe you actually think it's ok to say something like this about me. Saying that I edited to try to make it look like something else and suggest I'm being unethical?



I didn't just say it. I SHOWED it (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=385080&viewfull=1#post385080).

Sorry, Arlee. The proof is there in black and white. No blustering your way out of this one.

[chaim]

I HAVE explained why I don't consider it much of an apology anymore. First was the "I got pulled in", which started to bother me later. Take responsibility for your own words. Then the "not because I was....combative or insulting". It WAS both of those IMO.

I have tried to explain the same thing several times, but apparently it looks like I'm making a new attack every time.

Arlee thinks it was a genuine apology, I don't. Disagreement there. I can live with this disagreement now that I have explained myself. My part in this mess started when I made the suggestion that someone let another person have the last word.

[Arlee]

To anyone who's interested, the reason I kept coming back to this apology thing was that I didn't see it as much of an apology after the one who offered it said "not because I called people names or was combative or insulting. But because I thought my comment was unnecessary". Because I DID find it combative and insulting. I felt it was more than "unnecessary".

BUT, again I found myself slipping into the sarcastic mode with "I got pulled in"and all that. That kind of thing only makes things worse and doesn't give any long-term satisfaction even for me. On the contrary it makes me feel worse. So I better stop.

I had disagreed about who got the last word. Period. It was dumb of me. It was unnecessary. It was none of my business. I shouldn't have said it. I apologized.

But I honestly don't see how my opinion about who got the last word can be construed as insulting or combative.

Also, you keep saying you're regretting the things you've said, and that you used insulting language, and yet you don't address me or apologize. I'm ok with that. If you think you don't owe me an apology, that's ok.

I don't hold it against you. I see you being reasonable a lot and you're honest when you feel you've crossed the line. I even thought we were ok there for a bit and I was glad for that.

There are only 2-3 people here that have, in my opinion, in my perception crossed the line in their accusations and insults. With no examples, no acknowledgement, no apologies.
(I've Always Been a Dreamer reminded me that perception is what counts.)

I've offered olive branches when I felt I was in the wrong, and even when I felt I wasn't. I've tried to explain when I've been misunderstood, I've apologized, I've acknowledged when I was out of line, I've asked for examples.

There's never been any attempt to debate, or to say that I may have point. It's been "Arlee Bad" from the get.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there anymore. It's not doing any good. Thanks again for at least acknowledging your part in it.

[Arlee]

I HAVE explained why I don't consider it much of an apology anymore. First was the "I got pulled in", which started to bother me later. Take responsibility for your own words. Then the "not because I was....combative or insulting". It WAS both of those IMO.

I have tried to explain the same thing several times, but apparently it looks like I'm making a new attack every time.

Arlee thinks it was a genuine apology, I don't. Disagreement there. I can live with this disagreement now that I have explained myself. My part in this mess started when I made the suggestion that someone let another person have the last word.

Wait, I'm confused. Why do you keep coming after me and then say you regret it then do it again? You don't like my apology. I get it. Maybe you thought my post directed to sodascouts was to you?

I just responded to your previous post. Looks like I spoke too soon. I was offering an olive branch again. This time it got smacked down before I could even offer it.

BTW, you continually bring up my comment that I got pulled in. I later acknowledged that I allowed myself to get pulled in. I even bolded it. So I've already taken responsibility. Even before you suggested it

[chaim]

I had disagreed about who got the last word. Period. It was dumb of me. It was unnecessary. It was none of my business. I shouldn't have said it. I apologized.

But I honestly don't see how my opinion about who got the last word can be construed as insulting or combative.

Also, you keep saying you're regretting the things you've said, and that you used insulting language, and yet you don't address me or apologize. I'm ok with that. If you think you don't owe me an apology, that's ok.

I don't hold it against you. I see you being reasonable a lot and you're honest when you feel you've crossed the line. I even thought we were ok there for a bit and I was glad for that.

There are only 2-3 people here that have, in my opinion, in my perception crossed the line in their accusations and insults. With no examples, no acknowledgement, no apologies.
(I've Always Been a Dreamer reminded me that perception is what counts.)

I've offered olive branches when I felt I was in the wrong, and even when I felt I wasn't. I've tried to explain when I've been misunderstood, I've apologized, I've acknowledged when I was out of line, I've asked for examples.

There's never been any attempt to debate, or to say that I may have point. It's been "Arlee Bad" from the get.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there anymore. It's not doing any good. Thanks again for at least acknowledging your part in it.

You apologized for the "last post" in the last word issue, and your last post at the time was the "nice spin" thing. That post I found insulting and combative.

As for who had had the last word at that point was beside the point, because I was referring to possible future posts.

[FreyFollower]

Well, for the last five pages or so, I'd say most everyone has felt misunderstood, misrepresented, and generally aggravated. More explanations haven't appeared to be helping either way.:sigh:

To whomever may agree, how about we burn that bridge and move along? "Sometimes to keep it together, you gotta leave it alone".:nod:

[chaim]

And Arlee...I apologize for the sarcastic tone in some of my posts. It may happen again, but I try to avoid it.

I don't regret bringing up the issues I have, which I don't see as "coming after you". I regret the sarcastic tone.

[chaim]

Wait, I'm confused. Why do you keep coming after me and then say you regret it then do it again? You don't like my apology. I get it. Maybe you thought my post directed to sodascouts was to you?

I just responded to your previous post. Looks like I spoke too soon. I was offering an olive branch again. This time it got smacked down before I could even offer it.

BTW, you continually bring up my comment that I got pulled in. I later acknowledged that I allowed myself to get pulled in. I even bolded it. So I've already taken responsibility. Even before you suggested it

Ok, this might be a case of a language barrier. I understand that allowing yourself to get pulled in means that someone tries to pull you in. English isn't my first language, so perhaps I misunderstood that phrase.

[chaim]

Well, for the last five pages or so, I'd say most everyone has felt misunderstood, misrepresented, and generally aggravated. More explanations haven't appeared to be helping either way.:sigh:

To whomever may agree, how about we burn that bridge and move along? "Sometimes to keep it together, you gotta leave it alone".:nod:

Wise words. This kind of internet bickering is frustrating, because face to face such a minor issue would be settled in a minute, but in the internet it becomes this huge battle that goes on for weeks. People don't necessarily visit the forum everyday, so a minor thing seems even more major when we see after several days what the other one has written and respond to that.

[Arlee]

Well, for the last five pages or so, I'd say most everyone has felt misunderstood, misrepresented, and generally aggravated. More explanations haven't appeared to be helping either way.:sigh:

To whomever may agree, how about we burn that bridge and move along? "Sometimes to keep it together, you gotta leave it alone".:nod:


Thank you. And OMG using that quote is perfection.

[Arlee]

Ok, this might be a case of a language barrier. I understand that allowing yourself to get pulled in means that someone tries to pull you in. English isn't my first language, so perhaps I misunderstood that phrase.



And Arlee...I apologize for the sarcastic tone in some of my posts. It may happen again, but I try to avoid it.

I don't regret bringing up the issues I have, which I don't see as "coming after you". I regret the sarcastic tone.


Thank you. I said "coming after me" because you seemed to have a lot of posts where you kept bringing up the apology, even after I explained then left it alone and then even posted what I thought of as an "olive branch." I kept thinking we were done with it. I'm just explaining why I used that phrase that you mentioned.

But I don't think it would do any of us any good for me to "explain" and stand up for "the apology" anymore.

So again, thanks for those last couple posts. It's appreciated. I hope we really are ok now.

[Arlee]

I didn't just say it. I SHOWED it (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=385080&viewfull=1#post385080).

Sorry, Arlee. The proof is there in black and white. No blustering your way out of this one.


No blustering my way out of this one? Very nice.

BTW, your edits are misleading. It's very clear what you and I and Walsh were talking about. But I'd never call you unethical like you did me. That's a personal attack that I wouldn't do.



Has it occurred to anyone that if Glenn were truly against this, he would have made legal arrangements that would stop it?


…...Glenn most likely would've made legal provisions regarding whether or not the band would or could continue.


….. it's almost certain there were legal directions in place regarding what would and wouldn't happen to the Eagles entity after he was gone…..


PS I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything. I just hadn't thought of the legalities & the will before…..


I would think there would be contracts and agreements and maybe negotiations involved. But no, I don't know for sure how it went.


… I don't know for sure, and it seems to me unlikely that nothing would be in the will about the Eagles. I've used words like "probably" and "likely" and "I think" several times. I also said "I'm not going to argue or pretend I know for sure what Glenn wanted."



I think this makes it clear. You never acknowledged this was possible. And you knew it was.

Yes I used the word “will” sometimes. But I also said “contracts” and “legalities” and “agreements” and “legal provisions.”

I'm flummoxed and honestly don't know why you didn't want to acknowledge what I suggested was in fact very common. And then on top of that you turned it around suggesting I'm unethical.








I was honestly trying to show what was said before.[.... ] just trying to show this:


I made a suggestion.
Some thought what I suggested wouldn't happen, even never happened.
I found information that it has happened.

[....]

And I have no idea why you're finding fault with me for referring to a post from 3/30. It really looks like you're reaching to find fault with everything I do or say.

I didn't look at dates and even if I did it wouldn't occur to me we aren't supposed to respond to posts over a month old.

So what exactly is the cut-off for responses to a post? 30 days?

[FreyFollower]

More relevant Eagles' lyrics:

"I can't believe it's happening again"
"I sit here and wonder, baby, what we're really learning"
"It's time to leave behind some things from yesterday"
And "wasted time".

Good day to all.

[chaim]

Thank you. I said "coming after me" because you seemed to have a lot of posts where you kept bringing up the apology, even after I explained then left it alone and then even posted what I thought of as an "olive branch." I kept thinking we were done with it. I'm just explaining why I used that phrase that you mentioned.

But I don't think it would do any of us any good for me to "explain" and stand up for "the apology" anymore.

So again, thanks for those last couple posts. It's appreciated. I hope we really are ok now.

Not sure if we're ever really been anything but ok. I see this whole thing now as disagreeing about a few words in a post rather than being enemies. Like I've said, I'm sure that if we had been face to face, it would have been solved in a minute.

[sodascouts]

But I'd never call you unethical like you did me. That's a personal attack that I wouldn't do.

Actually, I told people that they could judge for themselves whether or not what you did was ethical. My exact words:


Arlee actually deleted the part of the sentence that explained what I was referring to so she could make it look like I was referring to her comment about contracts and negotiations. I leave you to decide how ethical that was.


I was confident that people would come to the same conclusion I did once the original posts were shown against your edits. :)

You move the goalposts. When you see your original argument isn't working, you try to pretend you never made it, or that you meant something else entirely, and you just keeping repeating that new narrative again and again and again. Now we have another post of edited stuff to create the illusion that this was what you were saying all along... it's ridiculous. All of the original stuff is still there to read, after all. I guess the mentality is that if you repeat something enough times, and with enough righteous indignation, people will start to believe it. But nobody believes it. People just get sick of it.

[WalshFan88]

I think this makes it clear. You never acknowledged this was possible. And you knew it was.

Yes I used the word “will” sometimes. But I also said “contracts” and “legalities” and “agreements” and “legal provisions.”

I'm flummoxed and honestly don't know why you didn't want to acknowledge what I suggested was in fact very common.

We never acknowledged it because it's very highly unlikely to have happened and have never heard of it. The links you referenced were more of a "proof of concept" IMO and not really saying who does this. I believe Glenn Frey was not ok with the band continuing on. And I strongly believe that he didn't have anything in his will or any kind of document that the Eagles could/should/will continue on without him. Glenn knew his importance to the band. In my book, he was number one in terms of importance and while still remaining humble he knew that an Eagles without him couldn't be legitimate or ok. Just look how he handled the band trying to move on in the studio without him. And there has been plenty of other things over the years that you can pick up on that makes me quite confident when I say what I do. If you don't agree with me or think I'm crazy, that's fine but that's my viewpoint and it isn't going anywhere, much like you probably will keep thinking we shouldn't say we know better than the family. But it is what it is.

But here's the thing. Here's the bottom line for me, WalshFan88, when it comes to the continuance of the Eagles. I'm speaking for me, myself, and I here. No one else. This is the simplest I know how I can put it.

If Glenn was ok with this, and there was legitimate proof that he was, I would still think that it's not the Eagles. However, I would not feel the resentment and anger I do towards them now. I would just be neutral about it and I still wouldn't go to see them live. But I wouldn't be anywhere near as upset. If they changed the name, I would probably go see them and encourage them moving on, in the right way. And if Glenn wanted the Eagles to continue and they still changed the name out of respect, well all I can say is I would hold Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit in a LOT higher regard than I do now and again, I would go see them. To me No Glenn means No Eagles, even if we knew he was ok with it. But I would personally not be so vehemently against it and so outspoken about it if we knew in fact he was ok with it. But we don't. In fact, I think there is enough evidence to say he was against it. But there is no proof that he was for it, and with said evidence that he would have been against it makes me feel the way I do now. No one will convince me that I'm wrong for feeling the way I do or saying the things I say, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual for the pro-3.0 folks. I'm not going to get you to stop thinking that I'm cruel, negative, etc.

No one here is going to change their own minds over words on a screen. And no one is going to change anyone else's either. I really think it's best if we just drop this subject (the ongoing drama between Arlee, Soda, Dreamer, Chaim, and I). Somehow I don't see that happening though. We just need to move on. And I think it's best for those who are upset by anti-3.0 posters to just ignore or avoid the posts when those of us talk negatively about the new Eagles. And the anti-3.0 posters can avoid the positive posts. And we can come together about other topics like the music, the band's history, and even off topic subjects and try to be cordial with one another. Otherwise we are just going to go around in circles like we are now about things that have been going on for what seems like an eternity. Let's get off this crazy carousel for once.

[WalshFan88]

Actually, I told people that they could judge for themselves whether or not what you did was ethical. My exact words:



I was confident that people would come to the same conclusion I did once the original posts were shown against your edits. :)

You move the goalposts. When you see your original argument isn't working, you try to pretend you never made it, or that you meant something else entirely, and you just keeping repeating that new narrative again and again and again. Now we have another post of edited stuff to create the illusion that this was what you were saying all along... it's ridiculous. All of the original stuff is still there to read, after all. I guess the mentality is that if you repeat something enough times, and with enough righteous indignation, people will start to believe it. But nobody believes it. People just get sick of it.

Amen to the bold points above.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well - The thing is we're all guilty of playing right into Arlee's hands. As long as we keep responding to her posts, we are giving her exactly what she is looking for. She has absolutely no interest in contributing positively to this board. All of her posts are intentionally designed with derogatory or otherwise inflammatory comments about sensitive topics to bait users into confrontations. That, my friends, is the classic definition of trolling. The personal attacks, trolling, and ignoring warnings of moderators are all violations of our Terms of Service, which she just blatantly disregards.

Quite honestly, the last several pages of this thread are an embarrassment to the board as far as I'm concerned - that is simply my opinion. All I have left to say is that the only way to stop this is at this point is for all of us to do just that - we all must stop responding to her. I suggest that we all let her talk to herself and if she continues, let the admin/mods deal with it.

[chaim]

Well, personally I wouldn't mind if the last few pages were deleted since they have nothing to do with the topic.

[chaim]

....deleted from my "Just let her have the last word, Austin" comment onwards.

[Arlee]

Actually, I told people that they could judge for themselves whether or not what you did was ethical. My exact words:



I was confident that people would come to the same conclusion I did once the original posts were shown against your edits. :)

You move the goalposts. When you see your original argument isn't working, you try to pretend you never made it, or that you meant something else entirely, and you just keeping repeating that new narrative again and again and again. Now we have another post of edited stuff to create the illusion that this was what you were saying all along... it's ridiculous. All of the original stuff is still there to read, after all. I guess the mentality is that if you repeat something enough times, and with enough righteous indignation, people will start to believe it. But nobody believes it. People just get sick of it.



I'm not sure why you're keeping this going.

I wish you'd just stop trying to provoke me. I keep trying to ignore it and move on, but it's not easy when you continue to twist my words and your own words then seem to play dumb when you get caught.

I think my last post clearly shows your argument looks disingenuous. You insisted I was just talking about a will. And you were the one who brought in the word "ethical." You know what you were insinuating. Otherwise, why even say the word.

You must have forgotten, you already admitted it:



[......]Saying that I edited to try to make it look like something else and suggest I'm being unethical?



I didn't just say it. I SHOWED it (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?7389-Looks-like-The-Band-is-on-a-full-fledged-tour-next-year!-How-do-you-feel-about-that&p=385080&viewfull=1#post385080).
[....]

Your words and your posts show that you seem to have it out for me. You continue to instigate.



.....
I guess the mentality is that if you repeat something enough times, and with enough righteous indignation, people will start to believe it.....

This is exactly what I have said more than once. All the ridiculous accusations against me have been repeated but not backed up.

How about this: I disagree with everything you've said about me. You disagree with everything I've said about you. Can we just leave it at that? That old idea "agree to disagree?"

[Arlee]

We never acknowledged it because it's very highly unlikely to have happened and have never heard of it. The links you referenced were more of a "proof of concept" IMO and not really saying who does this.

I believe Glenn Frey was not ok with the band continuing on. And I strongly believe that he didn't have anything in his will or any kind of document that the Eagles could/should/will continue on without him. Glenn knew his importance to the band. In my book, he was number one in terms of importance and while still remaining humble he knew that an Eagles without him couldn't be legitimate or ok. Just look how he handled the band trying to move on in the studio without him. And there has been plenty of other things over the years that you can pick up on that makes me quite confident when I say what I do. If you don't agree with me or think I'm crazy, that's fine but that's my viewpoint and it isn't going anywhere, much like you probably will keep thinking we shouldn't say we know better than the family. But it is what it is.

But here's the thing. Here's the bottom line for me, WalshFan88, when it comes to the continuance of the Eagles. I'm speaking for me, myself, and I here. No one else. This is the simplest I know how I can put it.

If Glenn was ok with this, and there was legitimate proof that he was, I would still think that it's not the Eagles. However, I would not feel the resentment and anger I do towards them now. I would just be neutral about it and I still wouldn't go to see them live. But I wouldn't be anywhere near as upset. If they changed the name, I would probably go see them and encourage them moving on, in the right way. And if Glenn wanted the Eagles to continue and they still changed the name out of respect, well all I can say is I would hold Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit in a LOT higher regard than I do now and again, I would go see them. To me No Glenn means No Eagles, even if we knew he was ok with it. But I would personally not be so vehemently against it and so outspoken about it if we knew in fact he was ok with it. But we don't. In fact, I think there is enough evidence to say he was against it. But there is no proof that he was for it, and with said evidence that he would have been against it makes me feel the way I do now. No one will convince me that I'm wrong for feeling the way I do or saying the things I say, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual for the pro-3.0 folks. I'm not going to get you to stop thinking that I'm cruel, negative, etc.



I may not agree with some of this, but I completely respect your opinion. While I do believe there must have been something in the contracts, etc. about this, I know that I don't know for sure. That is just my opinion

I thought it was a valid point that might be batted about. I didn't think it would end up like it did.

I posted the links if anyone wanted to read further. I thought the quotes I posted about it gave a lot of info.





No one here is going to change their own minds over words on a screen. And no one is going to change anyone else's either. I really think it's best if we just drop this subject (the ongoing drama between Arlee, Soda, Dreamer, Chaim, and I). Somehow I don't see that happening though. We just need to move on. And I think it's best for those who are upset by anti-3.0 posters to just ignore or avoid the posts when those of us talk negatively about the new Eagles. And the anti-3.0 posters can avoid the positive posts. And we can come together about other topics like the music, the band's history, and even off topic subjects and try to be cordial with one another. Otherwise we are just going to go around in circles like we are now about things that have been going on for what seems like an eternity.
Let's get off this crazy carousel for once.


Amen, but this crazy carousel had nothing to do with trying to convince what Glenn would or wouldn't want or whether or not the band should continue. I wasn't positing that. I’ve said many times that we don't know for sure and we won't change minds.

This current craziness all came from my thought that there might be something in contracts, final wishes, wills, etc. regarding the band continuing. Then everything got weird.

I wouldn't know what the contracts or the will said, so I wasn't arguing about what they stated for sure. I can guess. I have my ideas. But I don't know for sure.


This was a nice, normal discussion. I appreciate it. :-)

[Arlee]

Well - The thing is we're all guilty of playing right into Arlee's hands. As long as we keep responding to her posts, we are giving her exactly what she is looking for. She has absolutely no interest in contributing positively to this board. All of her posts are intentionally designed with derogatory or otherwise inflammatory comments about sensitive topics to bait users into confrontations. That, my friends, is the classic definition of trolling. The personal attacks, trolling, and ignoring warnings of moderators are all violations of our Terms of Service, which she just blatantly disregards.

Quite honestly, the last several pages of this thread are an embarrassment to the board as far as I'm concerned - that is simply my opinion. All I have left to say is that the only way to stop this is at this point is for all of us to do just that - we all must stop responding to her. I suggest that we all let her talk to herself and if she continues, let the admin/mods deal with it.

You've said this about me before. I told you then that I had no idea what brought that about. I asked for examples.

You're using the same words, and again I ask for examples.

As with before, the words you use are harsh and insulting.

I want people playing into my hands? What do you mean by that and what did I say to show that or to show that is "exactly what [I'm] looking for"?

Please give examples where I have been "derogatory" or "inflammatory."

I acknowledge that I once said something flippant and stupid. I apologized a few times for it. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're referring to.

When I brought up the possibility of contracts, that wasn't meant to start a fight. I thought it was a good possibility that could be discussed. I didn't know if this was something that anyone knew anything about or thought of before.

I once again respectfully ask for examples.

[CAinOH]

Is the upcoming European tour the last one for the Eagles?

https://kbgo.iheart.com/featured/big-95-morning-show/content/2019-05-17-don-henley-says-eagles-next-european-tour-could-be-their-last/?fbclid=IwAR2BUQqmDkMX774M4p0NdlxcuRRshA-g4qyLkrb6NatRFxxtcSV7UpcdaA8

[FreyFollower]

Uh-huh. The "Classic" concerts "could be their last shows". Their North American tour was only going to be a few dates, and "could be their last". Now their world tour dates "could be their last"....just like their Grammy performance was "probably the last". I think everyone realizes that they are in their 70's, and any performance (or day) could be their last. But it seems barring something tragic, (or maybe even then, considering the past) --their European shows ...probably won't be their last.

[chaim]

"This could be our last" is good for the ticket sales. I read it as "This could be our last. (But of course it won't be.)"

[WalshFan88]

"This could be our last" is good for the ticket sales. I read it as "This could be our last. (But of course it won't be.)"

And that's exactly the right way to read it.

I'd love for them to be done. But as long as they keep that cash cow on life support, I don't see that happening. People need to stop paying for watered down, mediocre Eagles-lite shows and encouraging this.

[CAinOH]

I just posted it. Didn't say I believed it. :)

Plus, there's always the "Vegas residency" gig. That seems to be a popular venue now-a-days.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

And thank you for posting it, CA. Honestly, I hope and pray for the day that the band really does hang it up for good. However, I definitely don't get my hopes up too high. There is the old saying, "I'll believe it when I see it.". However, I'm not even sure that is true. As they so frequently remind us, they always 'reserve the right to change their mind'. :hand: C'mon guys - it's time ... no, actually, it's past time! Your time was up in 2016!

[sodascouts]

It COULD be.

I doubt it WILL be.

This part of Don's statement is the absolute truth: "There will come a time, no matter what your heart and mind wants, when your body says you’ve got to stop."

That's when it will end: when he is physically incapable of touring. And right now, he looks like he could do it a few more years. It's very possible that they might not go to back to Europe if shows there are not as lucrative as domestic shows or a Vegas residency, though.

This is an interesting comment: "I need to work. So in spite of all the pain and physical punishment, we do it because it keeps us alive. You get the blood flow. You get the energy from the crowd. And at the end, when the people are standing and cheering, that’s when the sense of wonder and gratitude flows."

That rings truer to me than "We're doing it for the fans" or "it keeps the music alive" or the other BS justifications proffered for the continued touring.

Of course, he could get all that doing Don Henley solo shows or playing with the same guys under another name, but then there wouldn't be as much money involved!

[WalshFan88]

It COULD be.

I doubt it WILL be.

This part of Don's statement is the absolute truth: "There will come a time, no matter what your heart and mind wants, when your body says you’ve got to stop."

That's when it will end: when he is physically incapable of touring. And right now, he looks like he could do it a few more years. It's very possible that they might not go to back to Europe if shows there are not as lucrative as domestic shows or a Vegas residency, though.

This is an interesting comment: "I need to work. So in spite of all the pain and physical punishment, we do it because it keeps us alive. You get the blood flow. You get the energy from the crowd. And at the end, when the people are standing and cheering, that’s when the sense of wonder and gratitude flows."

That rings truer to me than "We're doing it for the fans" or "it keeps the music alive" or the other BS justifications proffered for the continued touring.

Of course, he could get all that doing Don Henley solo shows or playing with the same guys under another name, but then there wouldn't be as much money involved!

My thoughts exactly.

[Dawn]

It COULD be.

I doubt it WILL be.

This part of Don's statement is the absolute truth: "There will come a time, no matter what your heart and mind wants, when your body says you’ve got to stop."

That's when it will end: when he is physically incapable of touring. And right now, he looks like he could do it a few more years. It's very possible that they might not go to back to Europe if shows there are not as lucrative as domestic shows or a Vegas residency, though.

This is an interesting comment: "I need to work. So in spite of all the pain and physical punishment, we do it because it keeps us alive. You get the blood flow. You get the energy from the crowd. And at the end, when the people are standing and cheering, that’s when the sense of wonder and gratitude flows."

That rings truer to me than "We're doing it for the fans" or "it keeps the music alive" or the other BS justifications proffered for the continued touring.

Of course, he could get all that doing Don Henley solo shows or playing with the same guys under another name, but then there wouldn't be as much money involved!

Amen.