In fact Luke has been "THE singer" from 1990 until 1998 (even with Byron). Did you ever watch the "TOTO - Greatest Hits Live...And More" DVD from 1990? He did run the show almost alone. It's my favourite DVD and the only thing I can say is: Kudos to Luke!

And: if journalist always ask the same silly questions that have been answered a 1000 f**g times before, what can you do? Talk about the weather?

First off, what's with the negative attitude? And about saying the same things, that was my point basically, the interviewer is always asking the same questions so Luke has to say the same things. Nothing negative about that.

And about the singing thing, Luke WAS the singer during those years but so what? It's 2008 and Bobby was Toto's lead singer from 1998 to 2008, I thought it was funny how Luke said he "the singer" when Bobby clearly was the lead singer. And do you seriously think that the 1990 video represents the entire concert? Byron sang the majority of the songs during that whole tour and was the lead singer whether you like it or not. Luke sang songs, yes but so did David, Jenny and Jackie too.

+1

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

If you don't like the interview, or dispute what is in it, fine. Keep your argument about the facts.

I didn't say I didn't like it, I said it was OK and then stated some opinions about it. Is that wrong? No, it's not.

"First off, what's with the negative attitude?"- stick to the facts.

WHAT facts? Can you say it again and be a little clearer? I stated my opinion about the interview (and said it was an ok interview) and you say "stick to the facts"? What are you talking about?

Whether Osch99 is negative or not is not relevant to the the discussion of the interview and is about your opinion of HIM and not about the interview. If you think the article is OKand want to explain why its OK(or why its not OK), no problem. Telling someone that they are negative in a discussion is an ad hominem fallacy and may be hurtful or offensive to them. Try to put principles before personalities.

Thanx, Joe, great read.
Ya know what, maybe I'm wrong, but I think one of the reasons Robin got upset is cuz Osch99 asked him whether he has ever watched the "Toto Greatest Hits Live and more" {or at least the Paris gig in 1990}. Doh!!...talking about "silly" questions *lol!!!*

Ciao,
Elly

soul brothers and sisters, have a beer and let's share this from the 1990 Paris show:

Love and Peace!

can't drink while on duty... but my job requires me to watch the vid ! Thanks!