Typically when you put something in quotes in means that is exactly what is said. So when you put "We are better and happier now without Mike". Boom. it made it seem like you are quoting James and not just interpreting his words.
AND
"We are better and happier now without Mike" is not something James ever said, so he cannot be quoted on it, so don't present it like he did say it. You have argued in the past against assuming meanings from quotes, now you're arguing in favor of it. Stop. He didn't say it. We could read the 'implications' a thousand different ways, but you presented that as something he said, when he didn't, end of story. I'm sorry you don't like being called out on something as plain and obvious as this, but them's the facts, chief. Boom.
Yup. You guys are right. You win. You won the battle. You got one. I technically speaking, misquoted James, and was sloppy in my drafting of my post. Boom. Call me out all day long when I'm wrong. I deserve it as much as the next guy. I was wrong on that singular point.
As for the war? I stand by the underlying argument. James was, according to the article I quoted above (and any misprints, mistakes, misstatements from this point forward are therefore the responsibility of the author of the underlying piece, as I am only quoting that article), "not sad at all" that Mike left. Since "happy" is, according to the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, and using definition number 2 of said word, the antonym of "sad" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/happy), it is reasonable, though not entirely conclusive, to interpret the statement "not sad" as in fact meaning "happy". Since we do have other evidence, including the fact that the band is "excited" as well (considered a "related word" to "happy", also as per Merriam-Webster [https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/excited]), this is not merely an assumption subject to the "we just don't know" false understanding of my argument, but rather a conclusion drawn on the totality of the evidence.
Stadler, I don't want to win anything. Fine, you are right, James and MP are equally to blame, or James is more to blame if that is the argument you are trying to win. I was just explaining the usage of quotes.
You are tenacious.
It's not at all about winning. It's just very frustrating to hear people like Mladen say it's "objective" and act all incredulous, like someone is trying to argue "Margot Robbie is a troll with a penis" and then when I give examples that show it's not, I get nitpicked for technical errors and mocked for having the conversation to begin with, and told I'm the one who's biased. Then cue the obligatory "off topic" posts, and what-not.
Anyway...
I hate snippets, so I don't give them much credence, but I think I'm with most of the group so far: I like what I hear, but I need to hear more to be convinced that the vocals are the real deal and that it's not more generic, yet very well-played genre prog metal. I've said this before (and it has nothing to do with Mike or any other individual musician), but I get skittish when musicians try to play in a genre. The best music, in my opinion, is that which blurs genres. Maiden was never pure "heavy metal"; they had prog influences. Crimson wasn't just "prog", they had jazz influences. Sabbath wasn't just "metal", they had prog and blues influences (some of the mid-period Ozzy stuff was almost progressive itself). I think that was the magic of early Dream Theater; they were a band that was an amalgamation of Journey, Maiden, Rush, Sabbath, Metallica, Elton John, and Deep Purple.
The initial keyboard part reminds me of something, but I can't quite place it...