Just Skimmed Through STORMS

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by Nico

I'm a little confused because the chapter where Carol describes Lindsey's horrible seizure appears chronologically in the book before the incident of him cutting off most of his hair/beard...yet, there was some video posted in the "Rumours" board of Lindsey during the time he had the seizure/spinal tap and he had no beard. So was there more than one seizure or is her version of history off?

I think this is a way safe bet...

[D.W-Suite]

I've just finished reading it and to be honest, I rather wish that I hadn't, she's completely destroyed my high opinion of Go Insane, I still love that whole album, but now I just dunno what to believe, and I don't think I can ever have as much respect for Lindsey again over the whole 'pulling of hair out car window' scene.

Did anybody else get fed up of this whole 'mystical' **** she kept spoonfeeding us?

[David]

Originally Posted by Nico

I'm a little confused because the chapter where Carol describes Lindsey's horrible seizure appears chronologically in the book before the incident of him cutting off most of his hair/beard...yet, there was some video posted in the "Rumours" board of Lindsey during the time he had the seizure/spinal tap and he had no beard. So was there more than one seizure or is her version of history off?

Even Mick gets it wrong (in his book). He assigns two different years to the event.

But if we believe the newspapers like the Washington Post or the Philly Enquirer, Lindsey had his seizure in July 1978 while showering in the hotel during a Fleetwood Mac tour. That means he was clean-shaven.

[GlennGlenn]

Originally Posted by David

I think Lindsey is violent.

Obviously , something happened, because this book somehow cleared his lawyers and had to be vetted as well. The craziness and hair pulling episodes (Australia is one I can think of) must have some grain of truth. I'd prefer to call him "intense," not violent.

[Nico]

I would really take it all with a grain of salt. I'm sure Lindsey had/has a very bad temper. He just looks like he does. But then again, there are two sides to every story. Perhaps Carol Ann conveniently painted over many of her own discretions to her benefit, since the general public- even Lindsey's biggest fans- don't know that much about his personal life to base any opposing case on. So she could basically say what she wants, within the legal boundaries.

I have to also think that a lot of his problems could be related to the fact that he was abusing tons of dangerous drugs/alcohol and appeared to have serious health problems on top of all that. No excuses, but it could be a factor.

[RockALittle250]

I enjoyed the book because CAH throughly described her great respect for every member of the band, and at the same time did not hold back the truth. I appreciated her candor, because it was not one-sided or partial towards herself.

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was indeed violent and abusive towards women. After reading about his abuse towards CAH, it is clear that he wasn't being "intense"...he was very violent. Behavior like that is called Domestic Abuse, and CAH was clearly like a lot of abused women who deny that it will ever happen again.

The fact is, CAH was with Fleetwood Mac for a good 7 years, and she was there and we were not. She has the journal writings and recordings to prove it, and she states this clearly in the book.

[GlennGlenn]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

I enjoyed the book because CAH throughly described her great respect for every member of the band, and at the same time did not hold back the truth. I appreciated her candor, because it was not one-sided or partial towards herself.

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was (and maybe still is) indeed violent and abusive towards women. After reading about his abuse towards CAH, it is clear that he wasn't being "intense"...he was very violent. Behavior like that is called Domestic Abuse, and CAH was clearly like a lot of abused women who deny that it will ever happen again.

The fact is, CAH was with Fleetwood Mac for a good 7 years, and she was there and we were not. She has the journal writings and recordings to prove it, and she states this clearly in the book.

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

[David]

Originally Posted by RockALittle250

I think many people who say the book is composed of lies or exaggerations are just afraid to face the truth, such as the fact that Lindsey was indeed violent and abusive towards women.

I always wanted to see Lindsey & Barbara Nicks in a set-to.

I'd lay 10 to 1 on ol' barb.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by GlennGlenn

A lot has been discussed about this book, BUT the fact remains, Lindsey's lawyers had to agree to a LOT of this and I am sure that the book was "vetted" by BOTh his lawyers & the publishers for possible "libel." What she says MAY be exaggerated, BUt I am sure that it is TRUE!!

This thing about "vetting" the book is mythical. You cannot "vet" a book as to matters involving only 2 people, if one is the writer.

Yes, when the writer is a journalist who has no personal knowledge of an event, then he would usually get verification from at least 2 independent sources, before he states something as fact. So, when Carl Bernstein claimed that Hillary and Bill Clinton were going to get a divorce, since he doesn't know that himself and Hillary and Bill aren't talking, he'd have to "friends of the Clintons" say it to him. Bernstein's book may have been vetted, but when you are writing about yourself, there is no vetting.

Look at the Scott McClellan book that just came out. Everyone in Washington claims he is lying, but he's writing about what was said to him, what he said, what he saw, what he thought. There's no way to vet that, especially as many of the people in meetings with him (Cheney, Libby, etc. wouldn't talk).

You can check facts, but you can't verify whether personal exchanges happened or not. If you're a publisher and want to check facts, you can find out if someone traveled to England in 1983. You can see if they filed a police report in 1979. See if they really went to the Betty Ford clinic. But you really can't verify what went on in their own home.

Also, there is no prior restraint on speech in America. You can't stop something from coming out before it's published. Even if it's full of lies. That book didn't have to be "cleared" with Lindsey's lawyers. From the rumors, we understand that it was 10 years in the making. So maybe they saw drafts of it first. But you can write a book about somebody without them seeing any part of it, until the thing hits the stands.

If it's copyrighted material or trade secret, like the secret Coke recipe, yes you can stop it before it hits the press. But if it's a book about your love affair, you don't get a chance to "clear" it before it is published. All you can do is threaten to sue after it comes out.


Even then, if something is not really a factual matter, but an event subject to differing interpretations, then you can't sue for libel because an OPINION is protected from defamation.

When you're talking about something inimate that happened between 2 people who were mostly alone together, you can't "vet" it and you can't win a libel suit based on it, because it's strictly he said/she said.

Here in America, where the plaintiff would have the burden of proof in a defamation suit, people only win libel suits when there are disinterested third parties who can be called upon to say there was no drunken brawl in the Hokey Pokey in January 2006 directly after the Super Bowl. If someone just describes what happened alone at their house and you think they're lying, you could try to take them to court on that, but your case would go nowhere.

Regarding CAH's book, aside from the incident at Christine's house, there are no witnesses to any of the physical events that Carol describes. She talks about the "you're all alike" matter starting at a concert, but she says everyone at the concert thought Lindsey was being loving and attentive towards her. They stopped her and told her how caring her boyfriend was. So, onlookers thought she was being caressed and not strangled, like she says she was. That's similar to the time when she says that Stevie accosted her back stage. She said no one else could tell what Stevie was doing, because Stevie was blocking their view. So, the only 2 incidents that happened in public weren't perceived by anyone else, the way they were perceived by Carol.

Since most of the passages in CAH's book had no witnesses other than herself, there would be no one available to verify what she says or dispute it either.

As for Carol's audio diaries that confirm everything she said, that's one of the problems with the book. If she'd said she was writing from memory, you could forgive the inaccuracies. But she says that she is using her journals and audio recordings and that assertion is used to give everything the false patina of authenticity. Yet, she still gets most of the objective facts wrong, even using her "records." How could you actually forget the name of a video you worked on as one of your very first professional designing jobs?

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by David

I always wanted to see Lindsey & Barbara Nicks in a set-to.

I'd lay 10 to 1 on ol' barb.

They might have had many. I noticed that this last tour Lindsey dedicated NGBA to Barbara. Had to wonder what was up with that. Funniest thing was when Javier said they would go to the house to pick up Stevie and Barbara Nicks would ask them why they didn't go join Vietnam.

Stevie said that her father adored Lindsey and that was one of the reasons why she could never lose contact with LB, even when things were difficult between them. She never said too much about Barbara liking him.

I did notice though at AHI when Barbara was standing with everyone she pointed out that Lindsey's father and brother had died of a heart attack. Lindsey usually wouldn't mention that himself. I found it rather a touching personal moment.

Michele

[mgikallaroundme]

Originally Posted by michelej1

They might have had many. I noticed that this last tour Lindsey dedicated NGBA to Barbara. Had to wonder what was up with that.

Stevie said that her father adored Lindsey and that was one of the reasons why she could never lose contact with LB, even when things were difficult between them. She never said too much about Barbara liking him.

Michele

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

Excellent post above. You clearly understand general public misconceptions regarding the total lack of accountability or validation in book publishing.

[Liza]

I have to say I really enjoyed reading this book, but saying that there is a lot to take into consideration. She was with the band for a long time, they had an interesting time, and met some interesting people but it was a crazy time for them all, the incredible fame, drugs, relationships etc. Probably most of them don't remember when this or that happaned, they probably don't remember much! But saying all that and at the same time, I took it 'as a whole' with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it. Worth reading as long as you don't take it too seriously.

[Gailh]

Originally Posted by Liza

I have to say I really enjoyed reading this book, but saying that there is a lot to take into consideration. She was with the band for a long time, they had an interesting time, and met some interesting people but it was a crazy time for them all, the incredible fame, drugs, relationships etc. Probably most of them don't remember when this or that happaned, they probably don't remember much! But saying all that and at the same time, I took it 'as a whole' with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it. Worth reading as long as you don't take it too seriously.

I quite enjoyed the book but I think she might have been selective with some of her memories. I doubt if she could have got away with describing the incident at Christine's if it hadn't happened because if it was not true Lindsey could have used Christine as a witness.

In the UK the law does allow publication to be stopped if you get an injunction on the grounds that the allegations are untrue. Sometimes this is only temporary and can be appealed against. I don't know too much about it but I know it is possible.

Gail

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by mgikallaroundme

Stevie never had to say much about Barb liking him to convince me of anything. Even after Jess's death Barbara dragged her own 80 something year old ass to Lindsey's solo show. He didn't dedicate that song to thin air ya know. He also dedicated it to his beloved wife during the SYW tour. I think he's got a sentimental fondness for that tune.

I know Barbara was in the audience at least twice at 2 different UTS shows.

Michele

[BTFLCHLD]

Originally Posted by michelej1

The messed up chronology, the wrong names, this is all stuff that could have been verified, but it wasn't. That gives me no confidence in her ability to get the subjective details, the ones that can't be verified correct.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with this information.