Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnL
You could have God descend from the clouds and tell these people that Stevie is not the cause of Lindsey's firing and they still wouldn't believe it. She is the Anti-Christ and Mick is her messenger. Don't you know that by now?
Seriously...I would give up the fight. They thrive on it. I do love the hypocrisy of the statement about Bekka Bramlett or however you spell her name. Sure...bring on new members as long as they are replacing Stevie.
And for all the statement claiming that Lindsey's wife and family are spewing the truth. Well, lets see. How about we get Chris Nicks to chime in here. Would that be taken as gospel? Ridiculous!! They know what Lindsey has told them. He has never taken responsibility for any of the trouble he has caused in the band. He wants his way and he wants it now or he will threaten to not participate.
And for all of those folks PO'd that Stevie didn't participate in the recording and it became Buckingham/McVie...well give this some thought. They have agreed since 1981 that they go back and forth between band and solo efforts. Now all of the sudden she is supposed to give that up and participate in something just because he says so. Take a hike control freak!!
|
Stevie was supposed to participate in what became the BuckVie album, because everyone else in the band is on it! Not just because Lindsey said so, like he holds that kind of sway. And why couldn't that be called a Fleetwood Mac record anyway? Stevie had nothing to do with that either right? The only member who gets to decide what is and is not Fleetwood Mac is her apparently.
You take umbrage at Stevie being made the villain of the piece, but it's OK for Lindsey to be the villain? Explain to be how that's the superior, logical viewpoint? Just because you don't like Lindsey?
The hypocrisy is on all Stevie's side sorry. She should have been fired already based on the rules they're applying to Lindsey. But money talks right? So that justifies the unfairness of the situation?