Whatever. I'm not interested in have a BS discussion over symantics. Mick, John, and Christine decided that, because of renewed interest in Fleetwood Mac, they were going to do another project as Fleetwood Mac. Given the choice, Stevie would have been involved in the project. Stevie decided not to do that, thus the band was forced to do that project without her. It's pretty simple. If you want to debate something relevant, please do. But if you're going to have an argument over symantics, please count me out.

As I recall, both Chris and Stevie "retired" from the band during the BTM era. Chris didn't want any involvement but got suckered into it and layed down tracks at the last minute for Time.

I used to work in a treatment center, klonipin is a benzodiazapine that can be used to help detox people from alcohol... However; I have a hard time believing she took them like "vitamin c" for eight years and did not know they were addictive. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Actually, Christine only retired from the road. As of the last show on the BTM tour, both Chris and Stevie intended to continue recording with Fleetwood Mac, but only "the boys" would tour. Then Rick quit in 1991, followed by Stevie later that same year, followed (briefly) by Billy in early 1993. There was an interview from 1993 recently posted in the Christine forum where she said that she was planning on doing another album with Fleetwood Mac, but that she didn't know her plans beyond that point.

Well, as one of our most brilliant directors says 'words are important' so sometimes comes out from me this quixotic attitude about the way things are said. In any case, short, more likeable version: I don't agree. Nobody forced them to go on with the project, and they knew how Stevie was at the time so I doubt it was a huge surprise for them to see her go. :wavey:.

Romy

Are you positive? Were you involved directly in any of the discussions? Could it not be possible that Warners was putting a lot of pressure on the band, especially after a year of free publicity, to do another project? Could somebody from the label not have said "listen, we need another album and/or tour soon, or Fleetwood Mac is history on this label?" I certainly don't know if these types of discussions did or did not happen, but I do know enough about the industry to know that these discussions can't be ruled out. Anyway, it's not like dumber things haven't happened to Fleetwood Mac.

In any event, whether "Stevie forced them" or whether they "decided to," is irrelevant. It was Stevie's decision that created the situation, not the band's. Fleetwood Mac had a history of changing personnel, and Stevie knew this. She knew, but didn't necessarily like, that the band wasn't going to split just because she left.

That woman is EVIL, I tells ya! EEEVIL!!!!

:laugh: :xoxo:

How bout one over semantics? :laugh:
:laugh: :xoxo: Lo, gaze unto the dark heart of Stevie Nicks!!!

Well, I didn't say that :rolleyes: I understand why she left the band. I'm not even saying I disagree with her decision. And, I loved the "Time" band. So, for me, it wasn't all bad. However, can anybody honestly say it was a decision that benefitted her career or the band's? If anything, she came off as washed-up, and Fleetwood Mac came off as a souped up cover band. I don't know how well they would have come off live as the BTM band without Christine, but I'm positive that the the tours would have gotten more attention and that the album (assuming there would have been one) would have sold more than SA or "Time" combined. That's not to say they would have been a hit, just that they would have been better off together.

:laugh: Hey, I've never claimed to be a goood spelllerrr.

:laugh: Just teasing yer. In a prissy speller sort of way. I can't help it, it's a disease. I better get some Klonopin. :wavey:

It seems to me what you just argued was not a case of "Stevie forced them," but rather Warner Brothers. And yes, this is a case of semantics...but one that by your own contradictions you invite.

Amber and I must recall something you don't. I was replying to her post:

Maybe she said she took it for "nerves" or whatever euphemism she wants to label her mental health issues. Most of the time she talks about using klonipin she words it in a way that gives the impression she took it for drug addiction. I'm not the only one who got that impression. She downplays the real reason, but recently I think she actually said the word psychiatrist when talking about being put on klonipin. It was within the past few months I heard or read her say a psychiatrist gave it to her. It's refreshing to see her being more candid about this subject. There's nothing for her to be ashamed of if people know she had mental health treatment. It's always been obvious to me she has issues that required medication. It's not a crime. Cocaine was not the right drug and klonipin wasn't either, but it's not hard to see Stevie needed some help in the 80's and 90's that was too long in coming. Seems she's got a handle on it now. :nod: It's great to see her doing so well. :)

:angel:

I know. I was just having a little fun riffing on the "Stevie's a fame-hungry, man-leaving, band-ruining, lying, conniving, calculating bitch" silliness that goes around sometimes. She's EEEVIL, I tells ya! :laugh: