The Mike Portnoy Appreciation/Discussion Thread (merged)

[cramx3]

No one is saying he doesn't have the RIGHT to say whatever he wants.

It's just disheartening and disappointing that THIS is what the fuck he wants to say.

It's known as manners and civility.  Grow up, MP.

No kidding.  Just cuz people *can* say whatever they want doesn't mean they *should*.  It's way easier to go through life telling everyone to "fuck off" than it is to adjust yourself to your surroundings.

And yet there are pages and pages here of people metaphorically telling Mike to "fuck off" (I absolutely believe that not buying Mike's art because of things he says in the press is a metaphorical "fuck off") and utterly failing to adjust themselves to the "surroundings" (i.e. that Mike is as Mike does, and that this is between Mike and James).   

Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

Come on, that's an awfully big assumption to make (not buying something because of comments = fuck off)

[Lethean]

Stadler, come on.  It's not between Mike and James.  If it was, we wouldn't know anything about it, because the two of them would be talking/not talking, working it out/ignoring each other/beating each other up between themselves and we wouldn't know anything about it.

Instead, Mike's bringing it to all of us.  So he better be prepared for the consequences.  For some fans, the consequences might be "yeah, right on, I never liked LaBrie, you rule Mike".  But for others, it could be "I'm tired of your behavior and it makes me enjoy your art less.". Or "I still enjoy your art, but I'm tired of your behavior.". Etc etc etc.

If one doesn't want people commenting on something they say in public, they shouldn't say it in public.

[Dedalus]

"He needs to stop saying he "writes" songs, he's just an arranger/lyricist"

But this is true. There is no evidence that he can properly write songs without the help of a composer. And that is not a problem.
The problem (at least for me) is that much of the public is sure that he is a modern Beethoven.

[Stadler]

You can make the decision for any reason you want; I have no beef with that at all.  I have myself (No thanks, Amob! Metal Allegiance! Winery Dogs!).   I'm not referring to any one person here, but as a general proposition, there ARE people here who HAVE said "I won't buy his music because he's a dick".   

I actually have no fundamental disagreement with the naysayers; I've already said that "we don't know" means they very well may be right.  Mike very well could have purposefully been jabbing directly at James.  And someone like Bosk clearly knows more about this than I do, so I'm loathe to argue with him.  I just object to the weight of the speculation and judgment.  There's a lot of pretty hard core psychoanalysis being done here, and I just find that uncomfortable to watch.  And some of the commentary (not necessarily here) is just flat out mean.  It reminds me of when he initially left, and the initial hate storm that ensued (especially at one particular site, not here).

[bosk1]

He's a rock n roll drummer

And this makes him exempt from criticism...why again? 

Look, I know he is NOT popular around here...

What are you even talking about?  He is incredibly popular here--probably moreso than any online community outside of his own social media.

You can make the decision for any reason you want; I have no beef with that at all.  I have myself (No thanks, Amob! Metal Allegiance! Winery Dogs!).   I'm not referring to any one person here, but as a general proposition, there ARE people here who HAVE said "I won't buy his music because he's a dick".   

I actually have no fundamental disagreement with the naysayers; I've already said that "we don't know" means they very well may be right.  Mike very well could have purposefully been jabbing directly at James.  And someone like Bosk clearly knows more about this than I do, so I'm loathe to argue with him.  I just object to the weight of the speculation and judgment.  There's a lot of pretty hard core psychoanalysis being done here, and I just find that uncomfortable to watch.  And some of the commentary (not necessarily here) is just flat out mean.  It reminds me of when he initially left, and the initial hate storm that ensued (especially at one particular site, not here).

Honest, open criticism of his specific words and/or actions isn't hate, bashing, or psychoanalysis.  I think you are being too sensitive to someone you are a fan of and are not viewing things objectively.

[The Walrus]

You can make the decision for any reason you want; I have no beef with that at all.  I have myself (No thanks, Amob! Metal Allegiance! Winery Dogs!).   I'm not referring to any one person here, but as a general proposition, there ARE people here who HAVE said "I won't buy his music because he's a dick".   

But how does that equate to 'fuck off'? I think MP can be churlish towards DT and James LaBrie, so I don't want to support him. Big leap to go from that to 'fuck off', which actually contains some vehemence and animosity.

[bosk1]

You can make the decision for any reason you want; I have no beef with that at all.  I have myself (No thanks, Amob! Metal Allegiance! Winery Dogs!).   I'm not referring to any one person here, but as a general proposition, there ARE people here who HAVE said "I won't buy his music because he's a dick".   

But how does that equate to 'fuck off'? I think MP can be churlish towards DT and James LaBrie, so I don't want to support him. Big leap to go from that to 'fuck off', which actually contains some vehemence and animosity.

Well said.  (I've been agreeing with you a LOT in this thread)

[The Walrus]

You can make the decision for any reason you want; I have no beef with that at all.  I have myself (No thanks, Amob! Metal Allegiance! Winery Dogs!).   I'm not referring to any one person here, but as a general proposition, there ARE people here who HAVE said "I won't buy his music because he's a dick".   

But how does that equate to 'fuck off'? I think MP can be churlish towards DT and James LaBrie, so I don't want to support him. Big leap to go from that to 'fuck off', which actually contains some vehemence and animosity.

Well said.  (I've been agreeing with you a LOT in this thread)

The end times are surely upon us. 

[Stadler]

Stadler, come on.  It's not between Mike and James.  If it was, we wouldn't know anything about it, because the two of them would be talking/not talking, working it out/ignoring each other/beating each other up between themselves and we wouldn't know anything about it.

Instead, Mike's bringing it to all of us.  So he better be prepared for the consequences.  For some fans, the consequences might be "yeah, right on, I never liked LaBrie, you rule Mike".  But for others, it could be "I'm tired of your behavior and it makes me enjoy your art less.". Or "I still enjoy your art, but I'm tired of your behavior.". Etc etc etc.

If one doesn't want people commenting on something they say in public, they shouldn't say it in public.

Well, from the P/R forums, you should know my response already. That someone does something that might have consequences doesn't mean that ALL consequences are justified. I'm not a fan of the "I'm entitled because they did so-and-so" argument.  It's part of my overall beef with social media; thirty years ago, we'd know about none of this and in my opinion, we were better for it.  If you personally decide that what someone's supposed mindset is fair game to deciding whether to follow them or not, so be it.  That's your prerogative.   But admit it and own it, don't try to sell it; don't hide behind the "well HE did it first!"  It doesn't sound that much more mature than some of us are claiming Mike is. 

This is no different than what I deal with as a Kiss fan.  Every couple months there's an interview where Paul and/or Gene are throwing Peter and/or Ace under the bus for drugs they might have taken back in 1976.   And yet there is CLEARLY more going on behind the scenes than we know, because while Peter is off on an island somewhere, Ace and Gene appear together frequently (Ace fired his band and took Gene's as his own), Gene is all over Ace's new solo album, and Paul was on the one before.  You might wish it didn't happen, but it does, and you move on or not. 

And I'm forced to ask:  with all the so-called bonhamie between Jordan and John and Mike, if what Mike is saying is SO egregious, why isn't there more acknowledgement on that level?   

[bosk1]

Nobody (or almost nobody) said it was "SO egregious."  Again, it seems to be you and a couple of others overreacting and being incredibly defensive about some very mild criticism.

[KevShmev]

"He needs to stop saying he "writes" songs, he's just an arranger/lyricist"

But this is true. There is no evidence that he can properly write songs without the help of a composer. And that is not a problem.
The problem (at least for me) is that much of the public is sure that he is a modern Beethoven.

I have actually seen quite a few fans on social media refer to Morse/Portnoy as the modern day Lennon/McCartney, which makes me every single time.  McCartney, Lennon and Morse are/were all prolific and great songwriters who you could put in a room by themselves for a week and they'd come out with tons of great tunes all ready to go.  Portnoy, not so much.

[The Walrus]

Nobody (or almost nobody) said it was "SO egregious."  Again, it seems to be you and a couple of others overreacting and being incredibly defensive about some very mild criticism.

Look, if you want to beef over Trump with Stadler, keep it back in the P/R forum. Oh wait...   

[bosk1]

Wait, what?   

[lonestar]

 


God I love this shit....leave it to yet another bout of diarrhea of the mouth from MP to get some solid pointless banter rolling here. Pure entertainment.

[cramx3]

God I love this shit....leave it to yet another bout of diarrhea of the mouth from MP to get some solid pointless banter rolling here. Pure entertainment.

Can't deny that    At least MP provides endless entertainment in some form

[Lethean]

Stadler, come on.  It's not between Mike and James.  If it was, we wouldn't know anything about it, because the two of them would be talking/not talking, working it out/ignoring each other/beating each other up between themselves and we wouldn't know anything about it.

Instead, Mike's bringing it to all of us.  So he better be prepared for the consequences.  For some fans, the consequences might be "yeah, right on, I never liked LaBrie, you rule Mike".  But for others, it could be "I'm tired of your behavior and it makes me enjoy your art less.". Or "I still enjoy your art, but I'm tired of your behavior.". Etc etc etc.

If one doesn't want people commenting on something they say in public, they shouldn't say it in public.

Well, from the P/R forums, you should know my response already. That someone does something that might have consequences doesn't mean that ALL consequences are justified. I'm not a fan of the "I'm entitled because they did so-and-so" argument.  It's part of my overall beef with social media; thirty years ago, we'd know about none of this and in my opinion, we were better for it.  If you personally decide that what someone's supposed mindset is fair game to deciding whether to follow them or not, so be it.  That's your prerogative.   But admit it and own it, don't try to sell it; don't hide behind the "well HE did it first!"  It doesn't sound that much more mature than some of us are claiming Mike is.

I'm not sure I'm really following here...  Entitled to what?  Entitled to call him names? No.  Entitled to send him hate mail? No.  Entitled to show up at his door and bother his wife?  No.  Entitled to not buy his albums?  Absolutely.  Entitled to post about not liking his behavior?  Absolutely.   

As far as social media goes - it's not necessarily true that we'd know none of this without it.  Maybe we'd just have to wait to read about it in music magazines, but at the end of the day an interview is still an interview.  Mike apparently wants us to know about these things, otherwise he wouldn't say it. 

As for "he did it first" - yeah, that's immature if you're comparing apples to apples.  If any of us were slinging mud, it would be uncool.  But you seem to be equating not buying his albums as the immature response.  It's not.  Or commenting about not liking his behavior.  It's not. 
If you want to talk about entitlement, he's not entitled to keep his fanbase for all eternity.  He worked hard for that fanbase and deserved the recognition he got, but he was also lucky to have so many fans. (Not in a bad way - I say the same about the rest of DT).  But just because someone is a fan, doesn't mean they will be for life.  Doesn't mean they have to buy his work for the rest of eternity or they're telling him to f off.  If his behavior is putting people off, he can continue as he has been and continue to lose some fans, or change his behavior.  It's his choice.

And I'm forced to ask:  with all the so-called bonhamie between Jordan and John and Mike, if what Mike is saying is SO egregious, why isn't there more acknowledgement on that level?

Maybe they don't want to engage.  Most fans are happy that they don't - why join the fray?

[Dedalus]

I have actually seen quite a few fans on social media refer to Morse/Portnoy as the modern day Lennon/McCartney, which makes me every single time.  McCartney, Lennon and Morse are/were all prolific and great songwriters who you could put in a room by themselves for a week and they'd come out with tons of great tunes all ready to go.  Portnoy, not so much.

[hefdaddy42]

Good grief.

[Stadler]

I'm not sure I'm really following here...  Entitled to what?  Entitled to call him names? No.  Entitled to send him hate mail? No.  Entitled to show up at his door and bother his wife?  No.  Entitled to not buy his albums?  Absolutely.  Entitled to post about not liking his behavior?  Absolutely.

Well, nominally, yes, but when the latter bleeds in to the former... it's one thing to comment "I don't like that", but there's a fair amount that goes beyond that.  A LOT of psychoanalysis talking about his thoughts and feelings, his perception of self-worth, his intents and his desires.   I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't think putting your art out there entitles others to have free reign to make unsubstantiated suppositions about your mental state. And at face value, it just seems so arbitrary that the opinion that "I don't care for the vocals in my band" seemingly opens Mike up to a complete psych eval, but the opinion "And I couldn't be happier with the path I've been on since that experience with [A7X]". is seemingly ignored, called a lie, or called delusional.         

As far as social media goes - it's not necessarily true that we'd know none of this without it.  Maybe we'd just have to wait to read about it in music magazines, but at the end of the day an interview is still an interview.  Mike apparently wants us to know about these things, otherwise he wouldn't say it.

Fair enough; you're right.  I think it does fan the flames though.  We knew Viv Campbell hated Dio and vice-versa from Kerrang! but it wasn't a big deal.   

As for "he did it first" - yeah, that's immature if you're comparing apples to apples.  If any of us were slinging mud, it would be uncool.  But you seem to be equating not buying his albums as the immature response.  It's not.  Or commenting about not liking his behavior.  It's not. 
If you want to talk about entitlement, he's not entitled to keep his fanbase for all eternity.  He worked hard for that fanbase and deserved the recognition he got, but he was also lucky to have so many fans. (Not in a bad way - I say the same about the rest of DT).  But just because someone is a fan, doesn't mean they will be for life.  Doesn't mean they have to buy his work for the rest of eternity or they're telling him to f off.  If his behavior is putting people off, he can continue as he has been and continue to lose some fans, or change his behavior.  It's his choice.

You'd have zero argument from me if it was limited to "i don't like his response" and a quiet disregard for his art. I don't at all think he's entitled to any part of his fanbase. I've bailed on certain things myself, for various reasons.  No criticism of that, but for some of those here, it's well beyond that.  Not everyone, but some.

And I'm forced to ask:  with all the so-called bonhamie between Jordan and John and Mike, if what Mike is saying is SO egregious, why isn't there more acknowledgement on that level?

Maybe they don't want to engage.  Most fans are happy that they don't - why join the fray?

But don't they have more invested in it?   If it's not enough to spur them into action - presumably to support their "colleague" - doesn't that provide some standard as to the appropriateness of others' reactions?  If James and John are taking the high road for their (non) reaction, what does that say for the pages and pages of reactions here?

[Stadler]

And for the record, lumping Mike in with Lennon/McCartney is ludicrous on every level, and that's no disrespect to Mike.  I love Neal Morse, but honestly, I think even having him in the conversation is a stretch. 

[Samsara]

Can we stop with people trying to call "psychoanalysis" foul? (Sorry Stads, not just you.)

What are people supposed to do on a message board, and a thread, dedicated to a famous musician who can't stop putting his foot in his mouth? Just smile and nod? People examine what is said, what happens, and draw their own conclusions as to things. And there is nothing wrong with that -- AT ALL. There is nothing I've personally posted in this thread about MP that I wouldn't (if he felt so inclined, and no, I don't think he ever would) sit down and ask him if given the opportunity.

It's called speculation, and trying to understand the situation. And that's the very point of a message board. MP speaks, we talk about it, try to understand why he does and says things, and then come to our own conclusions about it.

I am sure, at home, off tour, on a Tuesday night, Mike Portnoy is just the same middle age old fart (with a few more toys) like the rest of us. But he's a famous old fart with tons of fans -- fans that actually give a shit about his music, his career, and his life (all of us fit into that in some manner). Why is trying to figure out his motivations something taboo among some of you? Stads, I'm lookin' at you, kid. And a few others. LOL.

It is the very point (well, one among many) of message boards.

*edited to fix a spelling error.

[KevShmev]

   I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't think putting your art out there entitles others to have free reign to make unsubstantiated suppositions about your mental state. 

Mike Portnoy has talked about his mental state (his alleged OCD) in public many times, and even wrote lyrics about it (Constant Motion), so once he puts it out there, it is natural for the public to react and talk about it.

[eric42434224]

Forming an opinion about this is fine.  Forming an opinion that is different, or even diametrically opposed is fine too.
Forming an opinion, judging, criticizing, others about their opinion on this can be fine too......if it is done with respect....but it still starts to creep into the territory of Tending Someone Else's Garden.
Certain people who espouse the Garden Doctrine, should be more aware when they start tilling someone else's cabbage.

I dont have a lot of emotional investment in Mike Portnoy.  I personally like his drumming better than Mangini, and the Portnoy era of DT is my favorite.
However, watching the video, Mike acted like a douche.  People act like douches all the time, and say things out loud before the brain can filter it.
I wont go so far as to say it was purely malicious, but people tend to speak truth when they make off hand jokes.  He said it as a joke because he is an attention whore, but there was truth in it, as in something Mike really believes.  He got caught on a hot mic, and has to live with that.  I think the VOLUMES of evidence in his comments over the years supports that conclusion.Can we know what was in his head 100%?  No, but I think the video and past behavior supports this position beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO.

[bosk1]

Can we stop with people trying to call "psychoanalysis" foul?

Yeah, I've been trying to say that for a few pages now, but couldn't manage to quite find the words.  But that captures it perfectly.  Granted, there is a line where it becomes inappropriate.  And that's for me or the mods to step in, if we determine it has gone too far.  The vast majority of posts have been just fine in that regard.  There's no need to "call foul" and try to shut down discussion just because you don't like where the discussion is going.

[Stadler]

Can we stop with people trying to call "psychoanalysis" foul? (Sorry Stads, not just you.)

No offense taken; it's a legit point (even if I respectfully disagree with it). 

EDIT:  I just read Bosk's post, and to be clear, I'm not trying to "shut down" conversation.  And any interpretation that speculates I'm telling anyone what do to or how to do it is flat out wrong.  I think it's far more appropriate to say that I'm just trying to inject a component into the conversation that considers the sensitivity of speculating on a third party's mental state, or at the very least leaves the door open to the fact that the speculation may be incomplete or wrong.  Saying "it's my opinion" doesn't excuse people from being insensitive or inaccurate.  People are (or can be) complicated, and may (or may not) be consistent or rational in their statements or feelings.  Someone implied in a previous post (might be another thread here) that Mike was a "hypocrite" based on his actions in light of the words of the 12-Step Suite, yet I'm pretty sure the majority of people here have at least one interaction or involvement with Mike that does comport with humility and kindness. I know I have, and I've only met him once for a matter of minutes.

If no one wants to talk about that, so be it.  I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep over that, and amazingly, we'll probably find out that life goes on. 

What are people supposed to do on a message board, and a thread, dedicated to a famous musician who can't stop putting his foot in his mouth? Just smile and nod? People examine what is said, what happens, and draw their own conclusions as to things. And there is nothing wrong with that -- AT ALL. There is nothing I've personally posted in this thread about MP that I wouldn't (if he felt so inclined, and no, I don't think he ever would) sit down and ask him if given the opportunity.

It's called speculation, and trying to understand the situation. And that's the very point of a message board. MP speaks, we talk about it, try to understand why he does and says things, and then come to our own conclusions about it.

I am sure, at home, off tour, on a Tuesday night, Mike Portnoy is just the same middle age old fart (with a few more toys) like the rest of us. But he's a famous old fart with tons of fans -- fans that actually give a shit about his music, his career, and his life (all of us fit into that in some manner). Why is trying to figure out his motivations something taboo among some of you? Stads, I'm lookin' at you, kid. And a few others. LOL.

It is the very point (well, once among many) of message boards.

It's a hard point to make in any general way, but to me there's a line there somewhere.  And I think the premise isn't about "speculation" as much as it is reciprocity.  Mike is taking guff for, in simplified manner, his negative opinions regarding the performance of a person in his (former) band.  I'm just struggling to understand how his (negative) opinion, based on one or more performances that said singer may have given, and conversations that NONE of us were privy to between the two is negative (childish, immature, etc.) but our (negative) opinions, based on speculation, innuendo and admittedly incomplete information, is beyond reproach?

More specific to your comment, I don't classify some of the statements I'm reacting to as "trying to figure out his motivations"; there are some statements here that leave little doubt that there's no "figuring" intended.  If it was just "figuring out", I don't think I would have posted.

I get that message boards are speculative in nature, and believe me, I love that part of it as much as the next guy.   But when we're talking about a specific human being aren't there boundaries?  Aren't there limits?  Especially toward someone that I know for a fact some of you would walk up to, shake hands and accept that signed poster from?  We're doing a lot to criticize his decorum, manners, and Where do our obligations for same begin?  Or don't they? 

These are honest questions; I'm not making a rhetorical point here, and I'm not trying to be overly critical; many of you (most? I hope?) are my friends and none of this is personal, and I've already said that I don't actually disagree with all of the substantive points here.  I'm just throwing out the idea that there may be boundaries to the "consequences" that we mentioned above.   I'm not perfect, but I try not to do it in the P/R threads, and I think the same thing applies here.   Maybe it's a matter of semantics, I don't know.

[hefdaddy42]

He's not a complete piece of shit with no redeeming qualities.

But in this instance, he fucked up.  And it's just the latest in a long line of similar fuckups.  To the extent that he is no longer granted the benefit of the doubt which I might extend to someone else without said history.  And it definitely does speak to what I would call a character flaw of occasionally being a mannerless fuck, at the very least.

But that's all.

[eric42434224]

It's a hard point to make, but to me there's a line there somewhere.  And I think the premise isn't about "speculation" as much as it is reciprocity.  Mike is taking guff for, in simplified manner, his negative opinions regarding the performance of a person in his (former) band.  I'm just struggling to understand how his (negative) opinion, based on one or more performances that said singer may have given, and conversations that NONE of us were privy to between the two is negative (childish, immature, etc.) but our (negative) opinions, based on speculation, innuendo and admittedly incomplete information, is beyond reproach?

No, Mike is NOT taking "guff" for his opinion of JLB.  He is taking "guff" because he shared this opinion in PUBLIC in a douchey manner.  BIG difference.
And also, no one is saying anyone's opinion is beyond approach.

I get that message boards are speculative in nature, and believe me, I love that part of it as much as the next guy.   But when we're talking about a specific human being aren't there boundaries?  Aren't there limits?  Especially toward someone that I know for a fact some of you would walk up to, shake hands and accept that signed poster from?  We're doing a lot to criticize his decorum, manners, and Where do our obligations for same begin?  Or don't they?  (Honest questions; I'm not making a rhetorical point here). 

Mike being a gracious person in person to a fan is wholly separate from him trashing a former band mate, in public, in a douchey manner.  And it isn't the first time...its a pattern, and he deserves to e called out for that behavior.  He can also be applauded for signing a drum head for a fan.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Look, I'm not trying to be overly critical here; many of you (most? I hope?) are my friends and none of this is personal, and I've already said that I don't actually disagree with all of the substantive points here.  I just don't think there are no boundaries to the "consequences" that we mentioned above.   I'm no more perfect than the next guy, but I try not to do it in the P/R threads, and I think the same thing applies here.   Maybe it's a matter of semantics, I don't know.

No one is saying there are no boundaries, and no one has suggested such.  That appears to be only an argument you are having with yourself hypothetically.

[eric42434224]

He's not a complete piece of shit with no redeeming qualities.

But in this instance, he fucked up.  And it's just the latest in a long line of similar fuckups.  To the extent that he is no longer granted the benefit of the doubt which I might extend to someone else without said history.  And it definitely does speak to what I would call a character flaw of occasionally being a mannerless fuck, at the very least.

But that's all.

Hef, you don't really know me, but I was lurking back as far as 6DOIT, and I'm pretty sure it was a different board.  I don't always agree with you...well most of the time I do....but I must say I truly LOVE how you get your point across so effectively in such short and concise posts.

You are my favorite on DTF.org.

Sorry Bosk.....you ban me too much so you can't be my favorite.

[lonestar]

Seems someone else has been drinking that hefdaddy42 Kool aid.... And it's so delicious...

[bosk1]

It's a hard point to make, but to me there's a line there somewhere.  And I think the premise isn't about "speculation" as much as it is reciprocity.  Mike is taking guff for, in simplified manner, his negative opinions regarding the performance of a person in his (former) band.  I'm just struggling to understand how his (negative) opinion, based on one or more performances that said singer may have given, and conversations that NONE of us were privy to between the two is negative (childish, immature, etc.) but our (negative) opinions, based on speculation, innuendo and admittedly incomplete information, is beyond reproach?

No, Mike is NOT taking "guff" for his opinion of JLB.  He is taking "guff" because he shared this opinion in PUBLIC in a douchey manner.  BIG difference.
And also, no one is saying anyone's opinion is beyond approach.

I get that message boards are speculative in nature, and believe me, I love that part of it as much as the next guy.   But when we're talking about a specific human being aren't there boundaries?  Aren't there limits?  Especially toward someone that I know for a fact some of you would walk up to, shake hands and accept that signed poster from?  We're doing a lot to criticize his decorum, manners, and Where do our obligations for same begin?  Or don't they?  (Honest questions; I'm not making a rhetorical point here). 

Mike being a gracious person in person to a fan is wholly separate from him trashing a former band mate, in public, in a douchey manner.  And it isn't the first time...its a pattern, and he deserves to e called out for that behavior.  He can also be applauded for signing a drum head for a fan.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Look, I'm not trying to be overly critical here; many of you (most? I hope?) are my friends and none of this is personal, and I've already said that I don't actually disagree with all of the substantive points here.  I just don't think there are no boundaries to the "consequences" that we mentioned above.   I'm no more perfect than the next guy, but I try not to do it in the P/R threads, and I think the same thing applies here.   Maybe it's a matter of semantics, I don't know.

No one is saying there are no boundaries, and no one has suggested such.  That appears to be only an argument you are having with yourself hypothetically.

Exactly.  And the point about his VERY redeeming, endearing qualities not being mutually exclusive from strong opinions about when he crosses a line is a VERY good one.  A large number of people who have expressed disappointment when he does something like this are the same people that have praised him for all the really, REALLY cool things he has done (and continues to do).  Everybody says they go the extra mile for people.  Mike Portnoy proves it.  Repeatedly.  And nobody can ever take that away from him.  But that doesn't mean he is above reproach when he steps in it, and he has stepped in it so often that he has alienated a lot of fans.

Sorry Bosk.....you ban me too much so you can't be my favorite.

Eh...no offense taken? 

[eric42434224]

Seems someone else has been drinking that hefdaddy42 Kool aid.... And it's so delicious...

Hell, I eat the powder out da pouch Brah.  Drinking Hef-Aid is for lightweights.  Soon I will cooking it on a spoon and mainlining it.

[bosk1]

Seems someone else has been drinking that hefdaddy42 Kool aid.... And it's so delicious...

Hell, I eat the powder out da pouch Brah.  Drinking Hef-Aid is for lightweights.  Soon I will cooking it on a spoon and mainlining it.

Then you are almost ready to be inducted into our sacred order.  Almost...

[lonestar]

Seems someone else has been drinking that hefdaddy42 Kool aid.... And it's so delicious...

Hell, I eat the powder out da pouch Brah.  Drinking Hef-Aid is for lightweights.  Soon I will cooking it on a spoon and mainlining it.

My man

[eric42434224]

Seems someone else has been drinking that hefdaddy42 Kool aid.... And it's so delicious...

Hell, I eat the powder out da pouch Brah.  Drinking Hef-Aid is for lightweights.  Soon I will cooking it on a spoon and mainlining it.

My man

Back at ya....from a 20 yr veteran of front and back of the house (full & part time).  Hell, I still do catering gigs about 5-10 times a year with my old Chef/Restaurant.

[Lethean]

I'm not sure I'm really following here...  Entitled to what?  Entitled to call him names? No.  Entitled to send him hate mail? No.  Entitled to show up at his door and bother his wife?  No.  Entitled to not buy his albums?  Absolutely.  Entitled to post about not liking his behavior?  Absolutely.

Well, nominally, yes, but when the latter bleeds in to the former... it's one thing to comment "I don't like that", but there's a fair amount that goes beyond that.  A LOT of psychoanalysis talking about his thoughts and feelings, his perception of self-worth, his intents and his desires.   I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't think putting your art out there entitles others to have free reign to make unsubstantiated suppositions about your mental state. And at face value, it just seems so arbitrary that the opinion that "I don't care for the vocals in my band" seemingly opens Mike up to a complete psych eval, but the opinion "And I couldn't be happier with the path I've been on since that experience with [A7X]". is seemingly ignored, called a lie, or called delusional.

Well - I don't think putting your art entitles others, but making comments about your thoughts/feelings on a subject kind of does.  And for what it's worth, I don't think the psychoanalysis is a "consequence" that he "deserves" to have happen - I think that's just part of human nature.  I've read a lot of psychoanalysis of Neil Peart for example, and I think it makes sense because of what he's said/written about his feelings and his fan interactions, etc.  It's just natural that people try to read between lines, try to "figure him out" so to speak.  Maybe it's none of our business, but then he (Neil, MP, whoever) is putting it out there so it's only natural for us to talk about that and speculate and posit this and that and agree and disagree with each other's interpretations.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, although in Mike's case, if someone actually said he's delusional, I guess that's kind of a bad thing.  I don't recall anyone really doing so.  I feel like a lot of this is directed at Samsara's post and when I read it, I'll admit that I thought "there's a lot of assumptions in there."  But, without having just reread it, I don't think Samsara was presenting any of it as fact; just speculation.

As for "he did it first" - yeah, that's immature if you're comparing apples to apples.  If any of us were slinging mud, it would be uncool.  But you seem to be equating not buying his albums as the immature response.  It's not.  Or commenting about not liking his behavior.  It's not. 
If you want to talk about entitlement, he's not entitled to keep his fanbase for all eternity.  He worked hard for that fanbase and deserved the recognition he got, but he was also lucky to have so many fans. (Not in a bad way - I say the same about the rest of DT).  But just because someone is a fan, doesn't mean they will be for life.  Doesn't mean they have to buy his work for the rest of eternity or they're telling him to f off.  If his behavior is putting people off, he can continue as he has been and continue to lose some fans, or change his behavior.  It's his choice.

You'd have zero argument from me if it was limited to "i don't like his response" and a quiet disregard for his art. I don't at all think he's entitled to any part of his fanbase. I've bailed on certain things myself, for various reasons.  No criticism of that, but for some of those here, it's well beyond that.  Not everyone, but some.

I think we're kind of on the same page.  I really take exception to the idea that not buying his music is telling him to F off.   I don't think what most have posted here crosses any sort of line.  But if people were to engage in harassment and things like that, then yeah, I think it would be overboard.

Maybe they don't want to engage.  Most fans are happy that they don't - why join the fray?

But don't they have more invested in it?   If it's not enough to spur them into action - presumably to support their "colleague" - doesn't that provide some standard as to the appropriateness of others' reactions?  If James and John are taking the high road for their (non) reaction, what does that say for the pages and pages of reactions here?

It doesn't say anything.  This is a fan forum, and fans discuss things.  it's part of the nature of being fans.  It's two totally different things.  What good would come of them being "spurred into action?"  Probably not much.  Maybe they have more invested in it, but maybe they think the best thing to do is ignore it and keep being positive.