Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Details of the actual attack aside, I think there is no question LB was violent in some manner, which to me is the point

But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

[ajmccarrell]

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Not EVERYONE agrees on the Rolling Stone cover shoot either. Stevie is the only one mentioned, at least of anything I've read, that says that she and Lindsey "made out". Lindsey himself contradicts that. Stevie, historically, exaggerates things. Besides, ALL of them were so coked up, I don't know how any of them remember anything.

Actually, Lindsey has said they were "freaking" everyone out after the shoot by making out. That's one story that he and Stevie have related that match - the only difference being how long it lasted - and with his toking mind trying to calculate it....anyway, I totally agree with you about the coke - if any details are right it's a miracle coming from that lot!

[ajmccarrell]

I remember that as being Stevie that made the "freaking out" remark. I even remember a post on Buckinghamnicks.net about this very topic and their opposing views. Either way, so much of their "chemistry" is scripted, as indicated by the mike placement instructions given by Mick Fleetwood, that it's hard to tell what is real and what is said for drama and promotional reasons. They're all attuned to the fact that the rumour mill is what keeps them going.

[LukeA]

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

[Peestie]

Originally Posted by LukeA

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working.

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Peestie

Or when he trashed his M1 on the last tour because it stopped working.

OMG, the lady next to me was scared. His face got so beet red and he had this expression of, well, she thought he was going to start throwing things at the crowd next. lol! Like I said, he probably has the same temper. Perhaps he has learned to control it better, but tempers like that don't just miraculously disappear.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by LukeA

And lets not forget that it doesn't necessarily take a woman for Lindsey to express his anger physically- remember his ridiculous blowup when he found out that he *might* not be on the Peter Jennings/ABC NYE 2001 show?

I've witnessed a few other similar examples with my own eyes in person. Fact of the matter is, Lindsey can't handle himself when things can't go his way... and this shortcoming didn't magically disappear when he met Kristen & had kids.

I don't know about that. . .

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

But there is a question: I question it. Q.E.D., right?

But on the level of rhetoric or even logic, how can you conclude that something is beyond question after pushing aside its details?

That's like saying "Never mind what happened on April 14, 1912; the Titanic unquestionably ran aground."

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If we know someone has been violent, why do we care about the details? I mean does it really matter if he threw his guitar at her or he kicked her instead? They are both violent acts which support the conlcusion that he was violent, which is sad.

I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

And, though it is interesting to know why, the Titanic sank regardless of the details -- so the conclusion is still valid

The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I think you're really missing the point. It matters if he neither threw his guitar nor kicked her.

Those pesky details are all we have from which to draw conclusions, since we weren't witnesses.

The conclusion that the Titanic ran aground would be no more valid than the conclusion that she was raptured skyward by UFOs.

No, I am not. The point is he was violent.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions. It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts. Of course, LB denies either happened (actually, he did not really deny it, he said something happened and then essentially demurred) -- but that is par for the course for him when called out

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, I am not. The point is he was violent.

Man, you're fast. But you just keep missing the point, strand. You keep insisting he was "violent" at that incident, but you have no DETAILS other than contradictory & befogged accounts from one or two members of the band. Please reread my post on those accounts. Pay special attention to the legitimate questions I raise.

Are you actually arguing that he was not violent or that the Titanic did not sink, regardless of why, which we know happened?

(sigh) I'm arguing that we do not know for certain whether he was violent onstage in New Zealand. Again, please reread my post on the matter. In it, I refer you to the description of the account in Mick Fleetwood's 1990 book because that it the first presentation of the incident to the (American) public.

The facts remain that the Titanic did sink and LB was violent on two occasions.

So you keep saying . . . (sigh)
You keep harping on "facts" but you have thus far not presented me with any.

It is interesting to know the details, but they are irrelevant to the conclusion, unless you consider throwing a guitar at someone and/or kicking them not to be violent acts.

How do you know he threw a guitar at Stevie or kicked her violently? Did you read Mick Fleetwood's book?

[michelej1]

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.

Originally Posted by CADreaming

Btw, never heard about the 1979 photo shoot - sounds intriguing!

I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

Over in the opposite corner, Buckingham's girlfriend, Carol, is sitting on a couch, looking very sad, being consoled by Christine. Fleetwood paces the perimeter of the stage, visibly worried about something. What's going on? Do all these emotional currents add up to anything? The band, back onstage now, plays another song. I don't want to know the reason why I love you. Stevie, smiling, shares a mike with Lindsey; what can they be thinking? Christine looks sharply at McVie. I don't want to know....Fifteen million people bought the album with this song on it. Maybe because part of the fascination of Fleetwood Mac is that you do want to know.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by michelej1

Actually, when Stevie first mentioned New Zealand, she said that Lindsey kicked or did something to her. She didn't know that he kicked her. I think she assumed that he kicked her because she could guess that it was during GYOW and he was holding his guitar. I would say that if he'd thrown his guitar at her, she would have remembered that initially -- not only in recent years. He threw it at her and she ducked or else she would have been dead? I don't think she would have forgotten that one for a few decades.

Christine didn't say what Lindsey did, she just said she knows that as the first time she ever reacted that way. You could argue that Lindsey must have done something extraordinary for her to react in that fashion. Would just pulling his jacket over his head and mocking Rhiannon have been enough? We don't know.

Of course, now she has remembered that. But she didn't initially.



I just looked. It was 1980. This is what was actually written.

It still doesn't say that they were "making out". I think they would have mentioned that if it had in fact happened. It looks like some playful flirting but not much more than that. Certainly I don't see anything about "everyone freaking out". I see a jealous girlfriend and an ex and her ex flirting with one another.