Dr. wrote:
FWIW, Crosby and Hillman have no time for Rogan.....
Quote:I Have Seen That Movie, And It Wasn't Like That
BW: There is a lot of detail about Michael's last days that I hadn't ever heard before in the new version of Johnny Rogan's book...
DC: Rogan is
not actually a very good source. Johnny Rogan
thinks he knows everything, and he speaks with great authority, but he is
repeatedly wrong. If you sit down with that book, I can show you 24 mistakes in the first 7 pages. He comes off as if he really knows everything, and he is an
opinionated little son of a *****, but he is continually misinformed. And I would like to go on record as saying "Do
not take Johnny Rogan as an accurate source, because he damn well isn't." He can't even spell names, let alone get facts right.
BW: There's a funny interview where Chris Hillman runs into him sometime after that book comes out and just gives him the dickens. And Rogan recounts it, pretty much at his own expense, somewhere. He basically got the bum's rush from Hillman, and it's like a three paragraph interview.
DC: I'm not surprised. You know, Chris feels, I'm sure, very much the same way I do. The guy is... you know, he comes off opinionated as hell and acts like he really knows what the hell he is talking about and he really damn well doesn't. If he had expressed all of his misinformation as opinion, I would have said, fine, he has a right to all the opinions he wants. But he purports it to be the facts, and he is sadly mistaken.
The ByrdWatcher Interview: David Crosby
Cleveland, Ohio - Saturday, June 20, 1998 Well, yes, I can see how Rogan's book might be construed by some as being a somewhat biased, thinly-veiled, "ghost-written" McGuinn autobiography of sorts (the eternally forthcoming
A Byrd's Eye View notwithstanding). Nevertheless, each of the original five still took the time to autograph your 1st edition, no?
BTW, Don, have you noticed the recent wave of, shall we say, unstable and "irrational exuberance" sweeping through the Forum under a variety of monikers over the past week or so? There seems to be a particularly virulent strain of "my favorite group created all things and is 'bigger than Christ'" mentality currently festering on another thread in this Forum subdivision. Repeated good-guy/bad-guy attempts to elicit or provoke a response from anyone have thus far proved a complete failure and would seem to indicate a certain amount of frustration.
Although there is considerable counterpoint to the ill-informed smugness exhibited in the aforementioned thread, does one respond in the spirit of objective discussion and attempt to enlighten the unenlightened with a few facts? Or does one merely risk igniting an endless flame war by "taking the bait," responding to voluminous provocation, and "feeding a gloat troll" who evidently has more free computer time than some of the rest of us combined? How does one strike a balance between leaving ill-informed nonsense unchallenged on an otherwise intelligent forum, and potentially banging heads endlessly with volatile self-absorbed instability which evidently needs to feed an ego with a seemingly unnatural desire for attention?
As the
designated official Byrds Forum consultant, what, pray tell, might the good Dr.'s counsel or recommendation be for dealing with such a potentially unhealthy situation? Take a West Coast California approach and just be cool and laid-back about the whole thing? Adopt a more Canadian approach, as seen in the ongoing
Nick Thiel vs. "
Poshdemon/DjDxoxo" thing? Perhaps adopt a more Christian approach and "love your enemies" till they just can't take it no more? Or maybe adopt a more Islamic approach and declare an all-out
Jihad against any blasphemous "Infidel" who strays into the wrong forum spewing heresy? Or perhaps a combination of all the above?! ("It's cool, brother man, brother man. But
you're wrong and
you suck.
Die, you opinionated scum! Peace, love, and granola.")
What say ye, good Dr.?!
