Quote:
Originally Posted by sandmage
Talking about strawman...
1. Never said for money. And, that was what last year, I genuinly feared would happen.
2. How was I supposed to know that?
Meat and Jim carefully kept their private lifes private. A month after Jim died, you break with inside stories that would never gotten out if he was alive.
I needed to know what kind of person you are. I've been a bit provocative, I know. But, now I know, thank you.
What I said above about what my guess would be? This is how it looks to me. If it is true, Patti would even have my sympathy for it, had she not started her "attacks" on Meat. But it is what I read between the lines. You are the one with all the facts. I know nothing, and never claimed to know. You give clues and innuendos and literally say one should read between the lines. And now you claim I made this up?
I hope that you keep your promise and respect Meat and Jim's private life in the future.
As for me having never contributed to this forum? The last time I wanted to start was before Braver was released. Meat presented his track listing. Someone posted links to all the original demos and ridiculed Meat's ability to sing. Meat eploded in the forum, and for my timezone the next day collapsed on stage.
I simply decided, that in this forum, I had nothing to add.
In most of my messages, I wished Patti well. And I continue to do so!
That negative light, dear ThatWriterGuy, was your making.
|
You're certainly on a (t)roll today.
When I advocated for reading between the lines, I did so with the caveat of approaching those areas from an intelligent point of view based on the evidence available to you, left by the people who were there and involved at the time (and those who have spoken, at length, to the individuals involved at said time). You skipped that part and instead made up your own story. Well done. Have a cracker.
As for promises - I make no such promises to you about any of the above. I am free to discuss what I like, as I like, as it happened as pertains to the truth. The relevance here is that I see no merit in discussing this beyond what I have already discussed and disclosed thus far. This should be obvious. See point one again.
The editor in me offers this advice: You contradict yourself, openly, within your very first point above.
Bravo.
Feel free to point out the 'innuendos' within my original reply with regards to either Jim or Meat. As far as I'm aware, there are none, and as I must be aware in order to form innuendo, well, you can see where this is going.
So here we are. I'm here, telling you the truth as it is. You're here, insisting that there's some kind of conspiracy, that Patti needs a psychiatrist and had fallen in love with Meat Loaf, and that I'm out for personal gain.
I have only two responses to this:
1. You're a better fiction writer than I.
2. With all the love in the world: you're the one who needs the psychiatrist.
Make sure it's someone good.
