Hahaha, didn't take long to be able to read a post and be able to tell the poster just by the content. Some of you WOULD criticize Mike no matter what he says.
"He's not being honest!" "He's too honest!" "He's only telling his side of the story" "He shouldn't give all those details!"
Please.
All of this - all the statements, the tweeets, the re-tweets - are all made in the context of the relationship between the parties and we are NOT those parties. How do any of you know for a fact that the "Portnoy/Petrucci" comment was meant with malice? How do you know that wasn't an olive branch of sorts for John? We should have learned from Lennon/McCartney, Jagger/Richards, and/or Simmons/Stanley that these things are complicated and not easily analyzed from the outside.
As for the playing of songs/suites, while there are no legal restrictions generally, the parties can agree to anything they want. If DT was willing, and received what they felt was fair compensation in return (need not be money) they can certainly agree that they will not perform some or all of the suite. This is not uncommon at all, and I don't see what the uproar is. Mike can ask for whatever he wants, and DT can give him whatever they want. Why is the idea of two entities reaching an agreement on something so offensive to so many people (especially if you don't have an axe to grind against one or both of the entities)?
My problem isn't that he gives details and is honest, it's that he presents them when everyone else has moved on, and typically in a seemingly contrived way to make light of himself. If he wants to be open and talk about the situation, whatever... It's hard to believe it's still a thing by now, but he can say what he wants, it's just that for the sake of everyone, he should try not to be an arse.
Also, that statement may not have been meant with malice, but it sure makes it sound like "the magic of DT is gone without me". That may not have been what he meant, and if it isn't he should probably be a little more more clear. If it is what he meant, then I completely disagree with him 100% and I think it's a rude and pointless comment.
Also, of course this stuff is complicated. If you think it shouldn't be analyzed from the outside, I would think you would have a problem with MP tweeting and Facebooking everything to the public. That's why I think it's more respectful of the current members of DT to move on and keep it private.
Also, I don't think anybody is offended by the idea of an agreement, just with him acting as if he wrote and deserves creddit for 100% of the 12SS.