Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdkopper
...I do know because I pay attention...
I do believe Richie missed his daughter, I also believe he was an intoxicated mess, and I do believe Richie was left out creatively...I think Richie's frustrations got the best of him due to severe drug and alcohol abuse... It doesn't have to be just one thing... Usually when people act out abruptly, it's ...
Based on things said in interviews, public behaviors, paying attention, and using common sense, [I believe] we know the full story!!! ...
|
Fixed that for you.
(FYI: what one
knows is not the same as what one
believes or
thinks; and
knowing something is not the same as
surmising or
concluding, based on information gathered from a variety of sources. That would be
theory.)
Anyway... Buckle up; this might get long. Really long, even by my standards. Cos I got a lot of 'splainin' and some 'pologizing to do. But I just had an epiphany.
You're right. It really
doesn't matter. (
Mark that down, but stay tuned because it's gonna get even better.).
You (and from this point forward "you" refers to you and others here, who hold opinions similar to yours) believe we know everything there is to know about this situation; so you'll continue to hold Richie's behavior (past and present) against him. The "why" isn't important because you're sure you already know all his reasons and you don't think they justify his actions, or perhaps because you find his actions inexcusable, regardless of his reasons. You know that he hurt Jon's feelings, let the band down, didn't care about the fans, and
may have jeopardized a tour, which only by the grace of God (or creative accounting) managed to
make hundreds of millions of dollars instead of losing that amount.
So until he has paid whatever penance you deem acceptable and has groveled his way back into your good graces, and probably kissed Jon's ring - or something - you have decided that he doesn't
deserve to be allowed back into the band.
And since you see his playing as sloppy, rusty, or less than perfect, and you
know that he's so ****ed up from drinking and drugging, or too busy shagging his teenage girlfriend, that it's never going to get any better, he's never gonna be more than an inconvenience or a burden anyway, and the band has enough problems without adding a ****ed-up, washed-up, guitar player who can't play any better than the lead singer can sing, especially since neither of them can command the stage like they used to. Even if his vocal harmonies (also less than perfect) and his on-stage chemistry with Jon brings back some of the magic that's been missing for 5+ years, and even if he and Jon both looked happier to be performing together than either of them have semed to be on his own, that doesn't change the way you see things. Richie's always gonna be an unreliable loser as far as you're concerned.
I get that.
Using your criteria for "knowing", based on all the comments I've read for the last 5 years, I know that's how you see things. And I finally understand why you see things that way.
I absolutely and totally disagree with the biggest part of it, because I'm
just as sure that we
don't know the whole story. Just a few weeks ago, Richie said flatly that, yes, there IS a backstory; but he's not going to discuss it because it would be classless to do so. Last October in Chicago, he said that people were pissed off because they wanted to know what happened; then he said, "and I ain't telling!" Those two statements, without anything else, should show anyone who's paying attention that there are
some things that
haven't yet been made public, and may
never be. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, at the very least,
those details are missing from the "full story" that you know. I realize that we may
never know the full story because everybody knows this band doesn't do tell-alls. However, until we do, which may be never, I
personally don't think we should cast stones.
But that's the hitch. (
And here's the 'even better' part I promised). Not only do I agree that you were right about it not mattering, but I also have to concede that
Seb was right (God help us!), or partially right. Not about everything; but about a couple of the things he said about my posts. I say 'partially', because I still don't think I've been guilty of trying to wipe Richie's slate clean, or re-writing history, or not connecting dots; and I'm pretty sure that I've never told people that their opinions are wrong. But I suppose that I have attempted to hold people to
my personal standards by implying that
they shouldn't judge without all the facts. And the fact is, that's not my call. People are free to think and judge as they see fit. Because the other thing Seb was right about is that that's
my problem, not theirs. Just because
I think it's unfair to judge without all the facts and just because
I don't think all the facts are in, doesnt mean everyone should see it that way.
So, consider this a
mea culpa to any of you who feel like I've challenged your right to think what you want to think about Richie (or anything else). It was never my intent to imply that you were wrong if you didn't see things the way I did. My only goal was to point out things in a different light. In the future, I will do my dead-level best to stay out of the way when you start slinging arrows and just walk away from the sandbox when
I think you're having way too much fun dredging up ancient history or just digging up dirt. I promise to stop trying to break the death-grip some of you have on your anger and resentment, since from your point of view, it's entirely justified.
You win. I've dropped the sword, put down my shield. To coin another phrase.
I can almost hear the victorious shouts of "Finally! No more novel-length posts. No more repeated babbling of nonsense!!" I feel your sighs of relief from here.
Ding! Dong! The witch is dead! Go forth and celebrate! Hang 'im high, if you want, with no further interference from me.
In other words, carry on, my friends!