Why wouldn't you look for as much information as you can to make sure you're correct in your assumptions? It's like saying "Hmm, I'm a huge Ritchie Blackmore fan; I'm going to invest in my life savings to follow Deep Purple around on this last tour" and totally and willfully ignoring that Ritchie left the band two decades ago.
Don't you at all question the validity of drawing a conclusion when you KNOW that you don't have the full story?
Not applicable here. Those that are drawing conclusions are drawing conclusions based on Mike's own comments. There is no "full story" necessary. What's more, there is no "full story" available, so trying to fill in the blanks requires speculation. But, again, it isn't even necessary to get to that stage because, again, any back story isn't what people are largely commenting on. People are commenting on the fact that he can't help himself from publicly taking shots at his former bandmates. If he "tended his own garden," "stayed in his own lane," or however you want to put it, there wouldn't be anything to comment on. But he doesn't. He airs it out. Why or what might underlie that is irrelevant.
So you're saying that the issue is the airing out? I can get behind that. I don't have any beef with that. I personally wouldn't probably be talking about my shit on Twitter. It is what it is, though.
This may be my bad... I thought he explicitly said that he would not be releasing a live DVD because of "drama from DT". I could have sworn I read that.
He did reference "drama," but we have no idea what that means without speculating. It could mean he has asked and DT withheld consent. It could mean he was told, "Yeah, that's fine. Talk to the lawyers to make sure it is all handled correctly" and he didn't want to be bothered and subjectively felt that, since they used to be like family, he shouldn't have to jump through those hoops. It could mean that he didn't even bother asking because of any number of imagined boogeymen exist in his own mind. It could be any number of things. Again, we just don't know, and you are speculating that his comment means something that is actually attributable to the band.
You're right, we don't know. But here's where the rubber meets the road: I'm NOT saying "Mike is RIGHT". I'm saying "we don't know so I give both parties the benefit of the doubt". So if we don't know, how can you (collective) conclude that he's wrong? That's where the other information comes in.
A car pulls into your driveway, driven by a man. Your wife gets out, completely naked, holding a used condom and says, "I can't talk about it now, but there's more to this than it seems". What do you do? Do you say "well, the backstory is irrelevant, and you're naked, with a condom with a man's semen in it, clearly not mine, and I want a divorce."? What if it turns out that the driver is a gay nurse who found your wife after she was abducted and the condom is evidence that she stole so that she could catch the perps? Wouldn't you want the back story?