No Syd haters here, no haters at all actually. You certainly have a point when it comes to Roger's lack of empathy, but Syd combining hallucinogens to his fragile mental state seems to be the ultimate cause of his demise.

(07-25-2010 10:55 AM)The Pict Wrote:  

(07-25-2010 10:41 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  Roger was not responsible for Syd having a mental breakdown. Roger was not responsible for Syd doing too many drugs and worsening his mental state. Roger was not responsible for the band as a whole deciding that they needed to move forward without Syd, owing to his increased inability to work.

There are more than enough things to legitimately blame Roger and his ego/attitude for, without making things up. Syd was not well. Exactly how unwell he was and to what degree he was unwell we'll probably never know, but trying to say that it is not true or that he was a victim of Roger's dastardly ego is not going to change the fact that he was in fact, a sick man.

So yeah, I'd say your post was wildly inaccurate.

Well I can see I've logged onto a Syd-haters forum here. So be it.

Where have I accused Waters of causing Syd's breakdown? (waiting...)

See? I didn't. But I doubt whether his lack of empathy will have helped matters. After all, nobody likes a bully.

Where did I say I hate Syd? Where did anyone say they hate Syd? Saying that he had mental issues is not hating. That's called stating the obvious. He was not well. All it takes is two eyes and an ability to read to see that. If saying something factual about a person, as much as you may not like that fact, is now equivalent to "hating" them, we should just start lying about everything all the time.

I have never disagreed that Roger had control issues. He had them from day 1 to the day he left the group and then even after that. However you're conveniently forgetting something in your zeal to blame Roger for everything. The whole band were behind him. Nick, Rick and David all supported the decision to drop Syd from the group and just move on without him. If you've seen any documentaries or read any interviews they've done about it, you'd have known they readily admit to it now. None of them wanted to put up with Syd's increasingly problematic behavior. They all couldn't deal with him anymore and didn't know what else to do. It's not like Roger started barking orders at them and demanded they go along with it or else.

I'm far from Roger's biggest fan and have quite publicly criticized him for what happened to group toward the end of the 70s and early 80s, but there does come a point when you need to step back and ask yourself if you're too biased to be objective anymore.

(07-25-2010 11:09 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  If you've seen any documentaries or read any interviews they've done about it

I know the story very well. I read my first Syd article in 1974 (Nick Kent, NME). I have read many books about PF and Syd, and seen many documentaries. Possibly all of them. I also grew up in Cambridge (England) and went to the same school as David Gilmour, and am therefore fully aware of Syd's formative social and geographical influences, and the local folklore surrounding him. I should therefore be grateful if you would refrain from talking down to me.

(07-25-2010 11:09 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  There does come a point when you need to step back and ask yourself if you're too biased to be objective anymore.

I agree - you should.

(07-25-2010 11:28 AM)The Pict Wrote:  

(07-25-2010 11:09 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  If you've seen any documentaries or read any interviews they've done about it

I know the story very well. I read my first Syd article in 1974 (Nick Kent, NME). I have read many books about PF and Syd, and seen many documentaries. Possibly all of them. I also grew up in Cambridge (England) and went to the same school as David Gilmour, and am therefore fully aware of Syd's formative social and geographical influences, and the local folklore surrounding him. I should therefore be grateful if you would refrain from talking down to me.

(07-25-2010 11:09 AM)Electrophile Wrote:  There does come a point when you need to step back and ask yourself if you're too biased to be objective anymore.

I agree - you should.

LOL. That's rich. The guy who called the rest of us amateurs and told us to "get our facts right" is going to get pissy and demand that people not talk down to him. Oh the hilarity. Try practicing what you preach, brother. I don't care where you grew up, where you went to school, who you know or who you don't know.

As to my second point which you totally and completely missed -- I'm not biased. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about or why you claimed I was. I can speak objectively about all of them, without a moment's hesitation. This is about you blaming Roger for Syd getting kicked out of the group when it was a band decision and this is about you saying Syd wasn't really sick, it was just "convenient" for Roger to say that he was. Which is an out and out lie, and you know it.

You obviously have some kind of issue with Roger or about Roger and that's for you to resolve, not the rest of us. You want to rant and rave about how much of an asshole you think he was, by all means -- start a "Roger is a big old asshole" thread in his forum and stop crowding up this thread with it. This thread is for talking about what would have happened to Pink Floyd had Syd not developed the problems he did and was subsequently dropped from the band.

I saw your post pre-edit. Nice lady. Anger issues? Mmm.

"Liz Kerner and Roger Waters - separated at birth?"

Who the hell is Liz Kerner? That's not my name. Not even remotely close. Also, I'm glad you saw my post pre-edit. I'm glad you saw my post post-edit as well. None of that has anything to do with this thread or why this crap got started in the first place. You said something that was wrong. People commented on that. You got pissy. Not my problem. Certainly not anyone else's either. It's actually rare for me to defend Roger that insistently anyway, but when I need to I will. That doesn't mean I am Roger or that I'm biased in his favor -- quite the opposite actually.

Like I said in the beginning though, you need to take a walk.



And I am one HELL of a lady, TYVM.

The Pict...ENOUGH, I am very, very close to considering this to be an attempt to simply piss people off, and that's against the rules. Have a discussion, even argue about it, BUT, make sure you are not crossing the line by attempting to make your opinions everyone's facts. And FYI, calling people here amateur's in your first few posts...really? Perhaps you should read the forum a bit more closely, I'm sure you'll find some very, very knowledgeable people here, and perhaps, just perhaps you can/may enjoy your stay here.

I'm bitterly dissapointed to find out that after 25 years of total devotion to Pink Floyd that I'm still an amateur. I think I deserve a promotion.

(07-26-2010 08:44 PM)Floydy Wrote:  I'm bitterly dissapointed to find out that after 25 years of total devotion to Pink Floyd that I'm still an amateur. I think I deserve a promotion.

You know, there are always people who can't get it into their heads that the rest of us have also read all the books and the articles about the band. Some like to think that they have esoteric knowledge or insights, when the truth is we know very little about these secretive guys. Not more, probably, than we know about the ancient Picts.

(07-26-2010 08:44 PM)Floydy Wrote:  I'm bitterly dissapointed to find out that after 25 years of total devotion to Pink Floyd that I'm still an amateur. I think I deserve a promotion.

What I personally find funny is that, by labelling us as amateurs, he implies that he himself is a professional. Oh well...