Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[BTFLCHLD]

I read the book and quite enjoyed it. I don't doubt what she has written as her experience.

GOD. I love Lindsey!

[catinthedark]

Originally Posted by carol7lynn

I stand by what I said. The woman has no morals. Excuses are meant to justify the unjustifiable. If you can't support a kid you shouldn't have them and there is no excuse for "accidental" pregnancies. I never wanted children and so I never got pregnant. Abstinence does work, and so does birth control. But you have to take responsibility for your body and educate yourself on how to effectively use it; especially if you can not afford to have a child.

Back in the 1970s, when I was in college, I didn't rely on the doctor at Planned Parenthood to educate me on how to avoid pregnancies, I went to the library and did my research. I wanted to have fun, travel, finish college and start a career so I "controlled" myself. And, I continued that practice all during my reproductive years as a married career woman and avoided accidents that way. Preventive medicine is always "less costly" than curative.

Responsible people know that, they alone, are accountable for their actions/behavior. That is what growing up is all about. If CA had been a minor at the time, I could have understood, her giving the child up for adoption so that she could finish school and establish herself in a legitimate career. But she had already left home, was shacking up with a man she hardly new (before moving in with him) and was un-apologetically engaging in felonious activities just to pay the rent and pay for her cigarettes.

Women like her make me ashamed of my own gender.

holy crap. get off your f*ckin high horse. or else ride it on out of here. you have no right to lecture or judge - either her or anyone here.

you had clearly already made up your mind about CAH before you read this book. fine. i don't care about that. but truly, how exactly can you prove she is anymore wrong, than you can prove she is right?

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

I read the book and quite enjoyed it. I don't doubt what she has written as her experience.

GOD. I love Lindsey!

Good, i'm glad it's a good read... the only thing i fear is like what Dana said... inaccuracies will make me not believe the other stuff.... not sure when my copy will arrive...

[Michelle Daya]

the level of intolerance is f__king astounding. lb is not a victim. he chose someone to have a relationship with, live with, spend 7 years with, love and eventually leave. those were his choices. i admire & respect him as a musician but there is no doubt he was not a saint. yes, he has ragged on women from his past in his music & it's blatant, & in interviews. cah has a right to write about it. it's called freedom of speech. she's exercising it & it doesn't make her a bitch, a whore or trash. just as anyone here who is spewing venom is their choice. cah's integrity was questioned and decided long before thiis book came out. why? she dared not to make lb happy, to be his god-forbid ex, to not be stevie nicks. she did drugs. so did he. if it weren't for him, she might never have. yeah, her life got messed up & if she feels the need to write about it, she should. lb's a big boy. i'm sure with everything he's experienced in his 30+ years in rock, his ex's book isn't going to be the thing that rocks him to his core. & as for what anyone's afraid his kids will read, what about what gets written here? his kids are more likely to check out the net then pick up a copy of daddy's ex's book. & putting her down for pregnancy issues? stevie. abortions. ring any bells? but that's ok. she's stevie nicks. wow. just wow.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Michelle Daya

the level of intolerance is f__king astounding. lb is not a victim. he chose someone to have a relationship with, live with, spend 7 years with, love and eventually leave. those were his choices. i admire & respect him as a musician but there is no doubt he was not a saint. yes, he has ragged on women from his past in his music & it's blatant, & in interviews. cah has a right to write about it. it's called freedom of speech. she's exercising it & it doesn't make her a bitch, a whore or trash. just as anyone here who is spewing venom is their choice. cah's integrity was questioned and decided long before thiis book came out. why? she dared not to make lb happy, to be his god-forbid ex, to not be stevie nicks. she did drugs. so did he. if it weren't for him, she might never have. yeah, her life got messed up & if she feels the need to write about it, she should. lb's a big boy. i'm sure with everything he's experienced in his 30+ years in rock, his ex's book isn't going to be the thing that rocks him to his core. & as for what anyone's afraid his kids will read, what about what gets written here? his kids are more likely to check out the net then pick up a copy of daddy's ex's book. & putting her down for pregnancy issues? stevie. abortions. ring any bells? but that's ok. she's stevie nicks. wow. just wow.

So, because his kids may also see stuff about Daddy on the internet, that justifies her writing in detail about LB trying to strangle her?

If she "loved him so deeply" and they had this fabulous seven year romance, where is her loyalty? Where is all the devotion she writes about so much in her book? I dated someone for seven years in College and post, and I still have maintain some level of loyalty to our old relationship. I do not feel the need to tell my husband all the sordid little details of what may or may not have went on in our PERSONAL relationship. I still feel protective towards what we shared. You keep comparing CA to Stevie and Lindsey's relationship, something not many of us in this thread have even done. I do think Lindsey's quotes on his relationship with CAH are relevant, even if you do not. HE SAID that only the first "year or two" with Cheri was any good, but yet stayed with her for almost a decade. HE SAID that he "allowed his relationship with CA to continue even though he knew it was doomed". HE SAID that the "spectre of Stevie disabled several long term relationships he had". (CAH and Cheri, presumably)
People like Ken Callait, who actually witnessed Carol and Lindsey together have said things like "I never thought that relationship was gonna work out. I have seen him with several women and they all ended very unhappily". You choose to believe CA's representation of her fairy tale romance with LB, but discount alot of other valid opinions, including Lindsey's own interpretation of the relationship. That makes no sense to me and is pretty ****ing appauling. I have nothing against the woman personally, but I think there are so many blatant falsehoods in her book, I have a hard time believing any of it. Christine, Stevie, Lindsey and Annie L. have all talked about what happened during the infamous Rolling Stone cover shoot and CA tells a completely different tale.

OT..but why is it necessary to bring up Stevie's alledged abortions in a discussion about CA? One or two people slam Carol, so slamming Stevie is the response? Apples and oranges.

[carol7lynn]

As usual Kelly, you hit the nail on the head. Kudos.

There are always people who just don't "get it." Frankly, this thread has gone way far a field. The point is, Carol Ann Harris was never a member of the band and is a truly immoral person of questionable character for spitefully betraying the trust of the Mac-members et al at this late date. Her observations are, therefore, not worth the paper that they are printed on. If anyone wants to buy the book, fine, but I for one would not pay one red cent for this trash. Once again,the woman is a PIG.

CarolC

[Tango]

Originally Posted by Kelly

So, because his kids may also see stuff about Daddy on the internet, that justifies her writing in detail about LB trying to strangle her?

If she "loved him so deeply" and they had this fabulous seven year romance, where is her loyalty? Where is all the devotion she writes about so much in her book? I dated someone for seven years in College and post, and I still have maintain some level of loyalty to our old relationship. I do not feel the need to tell my husband all the sordid little details of what may or may not have went on in our PERSONAL relationship. I still feel protective towards what we shared. You keep comparing CA to Stevie and Lindsey's relationship, something not many of us in this thread have even done. I do think Lindsey's quotes on his relationship with CAH are relevant, even if you do not. HE SAID that only the first "year or two" with Cheri was any good, but yet stayed with her for almost a decade. HE SAID that he "allowed his relationship with CA to continue even though he knew it was doomed". HE SAID that the "spectre of Stevie disabled several long term relationships he had". (CAH and Cheri, presumably)
People like Ken Callait, who actually witnessed Carol and Lindsey together have said things like "I never thought that relationship was gonna work out. I have seen him with several women and they all ended very unhappily". You choose to believe CA's representation of her fairy tale romance with LB, but discount alot of other valid opinions, including Lindsey's own interpretation of the relationship. That makes no sense to me and is pretty ****ing appauling. I have nothing against the woman personally, but I think there are so many blatant falsehoods in her book, I have a hard time believing any of it. Christine, Stevie, Lindsey and Annie L. have all talked about what happened during the infamous Rolling Stone cover shoot and CA tells a completely different tale.

OT..but why is it necessary to bring up Stevie's alledged abortions in a discussion about CA? One or two people slam Carol, so slamming Stevie is the response? Apples and oranges.

Some of your criticisms are quite fair. I think there was a time when Carol Ann Harris loved Lindsey. But she perhaps grew to hate the Lindsey that abused her, the Lindsey that we have never known, the Lindsey on the combination of cocaine and alcohol. At first she merely feared him, and cowered from him in those moments. Still, it's her story to tell as a survivor of domestic abuse, her right to write about it. Again, we are free to take from it what we want. I believe they both not only survived, but changed. I really believe the end of the book shows that. I think Lindsey's new life shows where he is, too.

Everyone has their own slant on history. The Rolling Stone cover shoot minutiae differs, just as any group of individual historical records differ. Witnesses at crime scenes all differ in what they saw, what they heard, the timing of events. Particularly when they are events from long ago, or when they have their own slant to get across, their particular axe to grind. But the gestalt of what they were all saying about that shoot seems very close.

I'm looking at another piece of Fleetwood Mac history, the New Zealand show- around 1980?

Mick says: (My Life & Adventures in Fleetwood Mac, 1990, page 229)
"Then, while she was hunched over, upstage of Lindsey, during her "Rhiannon" performance, he stopped playing and pulled his jacket over his head in a grotesque imitation of her pose. At that ponit he lost all control, playing anything except "Rhiannon," laughing like a mad man. Then he started to kick Stevie while she was trying to salvage the number. Sixty thousand people were watching!

Stevie says: "Rolling Stone," October 30, 1997, Issue 772 by Fred Schruers
"Lindsey was angry - just mad at me," recalls Nicks. "That wasn't a one-time thing. Lindsey and I had another huge thing that happened onstage in New Zealand. We had some kind of a fight, and he came over - might have kicked me, did something to me, and we stopped the show. He went off, and we all ran at breakneck speed back to the dressing room to see who could kill him first. Christine got to him first, and then I got to him second - the bodyguards were trying to get in the middle of all of us."

Lindsey, in that same article says:
Without quite denying such incidents, Buckingham looks genuinely a bit puzzled to hear them played back. "What I do remember," he says, "is a show where I purposely sang much of the set out of tune. We got offstage, and everyone was irate, obviously. They were talking about firing me and getting Clapton. Very well founded, because it was not a professional thing to do."

Carol Ann wasn't there, but she was certainly a part of that group. She was friends with Sara who did witness it, friends with others that were in the band as well: Storms: My Life with Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac, 2007, page 285:
"He followed her around in grotesque imitation, intentionally playing the wrong parts on his solo guitar song after song. And then, before anyone could even try to stop him, he started kicking out at her with his heavy cowboy boots, doing his best to land blows on her unprotected legs--and when he did, the kick seemed to stun her.

The audience was also stunned, Sara said. Stevie frantically tried to stay away from him steel-toed cowboy boots and the whole show fell apart."

As recent as 2003 is Lindsey is taking responsibility publicly: "MOJO" (12/2003), Take it to the Limit, (The Penguin, BLA)
Buckingham can’t remember the events, but says, with bemusement: “Oh, I wouldn’t doubt that I mimicked Stevie on-stage. And kicked her? That could have happened too.”

It's a horrible drugged up, crazy history- the entire band has their demons. It's nothing Lindsey ever wanted to talk about. They may both still have a lot history to apologise for to each other in the future- maybe they have already done that.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by Kelly

OT..but why is it necessary to bring up Stevie's alledged abortions in a discussion about CA? One or two people slam Carol, so slamming Stevie is the response? Apples and oranges.

No one here is slamming Stevie, she did what she had to do.
carol7lynn basically claimed people who have unwanted pregnancies are immoral, Stevie had several, I just find it odd that she judges CAH giving up her child for adoption but not Stevie for her unwanted pregnancies.

Originally Posted by carol7lynn

There are always people who just don't "get it." Frankly, this thread has gone way far a field. The point is, Carol Ann Harris was never a member of the band and is a truly immoral person of questionable character for spitefully betraying the trust of the Mac-members et al at this late date. Her observations are, therefore, not worth the paper that they are printed on. If anyone wants to buy the book, fine, but I for one would not pay one red cent for this trash. Once again,the woman is a PIG.

CarolC

I think it's you who just doesn't get it dear
Now are you ever going to answer my question about exactly why you're reading this book, or indeed the questions Carrie asked you?

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I think it's you who just doesn't get it dear
Now are you ever going to answer my question about exactly why you're reading this book, or indeed the questions Carrie asked you?

she said several posts back that she was reading because she wanted to know whether or not stevie and lindsey are getting back together. y'know, stevie, who's always been too busy for a man, and lindsey, who's married with kids. that stevie and lindsey

i still find the idea that CAH = amoral therefore she cannot tell her story to be an odd argument. lindsey has done some amoral things himself and yet no one here is saying he shouldn't release his music or tell HIS story. clearly there is demand for this book

it's just a shame you're so self-righteous about this, carol. i think it's fantastic that you were so vigilant about not getting pregnant, but rather than spewing your judgmental bile about how there are no accidental pregnancies, maybe you should just feel blessed that you never had to make that choice.

[Sahara]

CAH has the right to tell her story, certainly, freedom of expression, absolutely, and we can't take that away from her. But having the right to do it doesn't mean that it's something she ought to do, or make it appropriate or fair (?) or any less of a disloyal act.

Just my €0.02!

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Sahara

CAH has the right to tell her story, certainly, freedom of expression, absolutely, and we can't take that away from her. But having the right to do it doesn't mean that it's something she ought to do, or make it appropriate or fair (?) or any less of a disloyal act.

Just my €0.02!

well, maybe - but all those things are subjective. anyone here is entitled to think that she shouldn't have written the book but i can't figure out why someone who thinks that has bought it!

[Tango]

Originally Posted by Sahara

CAH has the right to tell her story, certainly, freedom of expression, absolutely, and we can't take that away from her. But having the right to do it doesn't mean that it's something she ought to do, or make it appropriate or fair (?) or any less of a disloyal act.

Just my €0.02!

I think you also make a fair point. Alls I can do is speculate, unless you want to take her at her word on the introduction, as I mentioned earlier, on page XV. Here's one guess. Maybe for her it's theraputic. Sure, to many fans Lindsey's songs, interviews, money made that visit their relationship were cloaked. But it wasn't to Carol Ann Harris, probably not to her family, her friends, those in the band, those associates that she's had. Maybe she felt humiliated. And as she said, she wants to set the record straight. Again, you can go back into the circular argument of "why now." If she intended to put this book out, should she have done it when Fleetwood Mac was at it's most famous state? The end of Tango, during Mirage? Should she wait until the children are grown? IF one can believe the book was part of her own therapy, a part of her own healing, it probably doens't matter when she puts it out. It's out. She doesn't have to be loyal to her abuser. That's part of the healing, I think.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by carrie721

she said several posts back that she was reading because she wanted to know whether or not stevie and lindsey are getting back together. y'know, stevie, who's always been too busy for a man, and lindsey, who's married with kids. that stevie and lindsey

What's hilarious about that is she has just written this in another thread:

Originally Posted by carol7lynn

Why anyone would believe a spurned ex is beyond me; especially someone of such questionable moral character.

And yet she bought her book expecting to find out if Stevie and Lindsey were getting back together

Originally Posted by Sahara

CAH has the right to tell her story, certainly, freedom of expression, absolutely, and we can't take that away from her. But having the right to do it doesn't mean that it's something she ought to do, or make it appropriate or fair (?) or any less of a disloyal act.

Just my €0.02!

Was Mick disloyal for writing his book?

It's amusing to me the amount of people who have slammed her for writing this book yet rushed out to buy it. Also people have claimed her book is full of lies, but there's no doubt the reason it took so long to hit the shelves is that the Mac's lawyers were all over it. I realise people don't want to think badly of their heroes, but this woman was there. Her view of events is bias but I don't see how or why she wouldn't be telling the truth.

[Michelle Daya]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

No one here is slamming Stevie, she did what she had to do.
carol7lynn basically claimed people who have unwanted pregnancies are immoral, Stevie had several, I just find it odd that she judges CAH giving up her child for adoption but not Stevie for her unwanted pregnancies.

bingo. i wasn't judging stevie. just saying it's a double standard. thanks for summing it up so easily.

[Michelle Daya]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

What's hilarious about that is she has just written this in another thread:



And yet she bought her book expecting to find out if Stevie and Lindsey were getting back together



Was Mick disloyal for writing his book?

It's amusing to me the amount of people who have slammed her for writing this book yet rushed out to buy it. Also people have claimed her book is full of lies, but there's no doubt the reason it took so long to hit the shelves is that the Mac's lawyers were all over it. I realise people don't want to think badly of their heroes, but this woman was there. Her view of events is bias but I don't see how or why she wouldn't be telling the truth.

& again, thank you. i find it also amusing after lurking for a year before posting that i came across horrible threads about lb's current wife. tell me, is daddy's ex's book going to hurt worse than reading those things about their mother? & some of the posters here who have slammed cah for this book were the very same posters slamming his wife & saying she's disgraceful, a pig, bitch, etc., for putting it out there. pot. kettle.