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.