I think that is one thing we won't get.

OK, was a visitor on this board and in this thread for more than 500 pages now... finaly decided to sign up.

That being said... on a side note...
During the Jovitalk registration process there is one anti-spam-question "First name of BJ guitarist?" I tried Phil, Bobby, Philipp, Bob, Robert and Philosophus. Didnt work. I was really surprised when i tried Richie and it was accepted...

But what I really wanted to say:

Its a little hard for me to understand, why people have such hard problems in believing Jons statement about the overdose. Sure, its an article from a non reliable "source" that quotes a "source"... but still...

People, think about it: What is the situation that both Jon and Richie are in? Both dont talk, both try to avoid definite statements, Jon says Richie is still a member, Jon says Richie will be back. Richie doesnt say anything like that. Its a situation where one blames the other of being the reson for the situation as it is.

What creates that kind of mess? Most of the times its stupid statement that pisses off one with the other not even noticing what he said. As I see it, Jons overdose-statement perfectly qualifies.

In my eyes this scenario totaly makes sence and explains everything whats going on and whats being said and written:
- Richie and Jon are not very much blood brothers from the beginning of the tour anyway. Sucky album, bad timing, Richies solo tour, no solo songs on the tour, etcetcetc
- Tour is on the way, they dont talk too much. But then one day (before Calgary) they come to talk about their daughters, private life... and Jon - maybe in some kind of pissed mode about Richie complianing about lots of stuff - makes that kind of statement. Richie walks off and decides not to come back.
- Richie calls Jon before Calgary show
- Jon knows damn well what he said and why Richie isnt there - but as a CEO he takes the point that Richie didnt appear to work. He knows damn well too though that he needs Richie with BJ and so decides to put the "personal reasons". That one leaves them both enough room to breathe.
- Richie is pissed beyond believe and needs a time out from the tour, from Jon, from the band, waiting for an apology
- So now here they sit, both too proud to call each other... despite of all contractual and/or legal issues that might be involved with one single word that could turn the page into a wrong direction.

If u ask me, in that context, all of Jons statements make sense, Richies Dailymail interview makes sense ("makes it hard for me to come back"), Richies tweets make sense...

So, as I see it, Richie is not out for good. But its Jons part to make the call.


-----------
Btw: Pls excuse my english, not a native speaker, hope u understand what im trying to say though...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/usshowbiz...departure.html

More from the Daily Crap.

ok so now he doesn't have personal problems?

Bahaha! Nice entrance. Welcome to the circus... I mean the community :)

Of course not, he has personal issues, its very different you know...........................

Richie come back or F off.

I find this Daily Mail stuff a little unsettling. They must have some kind of source or link to keep going on about this story. I may be wrong, but I don't think any of the other British papers have shown quite the same level of interest. Who exactly is Richie talking to? Or who is talking for him?

That last article was regurgitating the same things already said in the previous one though. Nothing new in there.

I agree. It's more than the occasional article by Perez Hilton. The MailOnline really seems to be pushing it. The author is the same from the previous article, George Stark. That said, who knows. This latest piece seems to be a revamped version of something I've already read, with the added line about coming back for Hyde Park. What's strange and fishy is that line first came out as an exclusive for The Sun, while in this article it's cited as a MailOnline exclusive.

Which is partly what's bothering me. They're throwing in a new "quote" here or there, but yeah, it's the same stuff each article. So why keep at it? Why keep pushing this story?

Are they lining up the big 'Exclusive' interview when Richie can talk (if he is barred from talking at the moment)