Bit fed up of Mike Love topics?

[Jason]

But Jason, really? A permanent ban for resurrecting a few threads to prove a point, when the murdered children pictures wanker still posts freely on here.

Trust me, I'd LOVE to override that decision but I cannot override another moderator.

[Heysaboda]

Let's all just agree that Mike Love was part of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, song writing partnerships in history, and we'll leave it at that!!

[leggo of my ego]

I'm a bit fed up of members who apparently have so much time on their hands that they resurrect long-dead threads, post a fucking period in the thread, and clutter up the forum as a result.

You're all on notice. I deleted all of the unnecessary period posts - if this happens again, that member will be banned permanently. It's one thing to post funny stuff in a thread but quite another to clutter up the board for no logical reason.

We got a baby sitter for the first time in months. We went out, I had a few drinks, and...........it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Though it wasn't illogical, it was to prove there are too many Mike threads all saying the same thing. Cold light of day though, probably annoying so I'm sorry.

But Jason, really? A permanent ban for resurrecting a few threads to prove a point, when the murdered children pictures wanker still posts freely on here.

Funniest thing I've read for ages 

So is this "post a period, get banned" thing a joke or not?

What about just post a "?" is that ban worthy also?

[Jason]

If it's done for no other reason than to clutter a thread or bump a thread that does not need to be bumped, it will be at the moderator's discretion. Most likely it would be the three-strikes rule. Seven days, then a month, then permanently.

[leggo of my ego]

If it's done for no other reason than to clutter a thread or bump a thread that does not need to be bumped, it will be at the moderator's discretion. Most likely it would be the three-strikes rule. Seven days, then a month, then permanently.

OK. its all clear to me now!

So once you've been suspended twice your are in dangerous territory - or I guess that the "death sentence" might
be waived in certain circumstances? 

[Paulos]

A period is the same as a full-stop right?

[runnersdialzero]

Jeez!

"Post periods, you're permabanned. Be extremely mean-spirited and insult other users literally on an almost daily basis, banned for a month. Post pictures of dead children, hey, you're gonna get yelled at and banned for like a week or two. Watch out!"

[Gertie J.]

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Smilin Ed H]

Look. Mike since about 1977 has no understanding of how good the Boys' legacy could've been, BUT...
He wrote Warmth of the Sun. Jesus, it's a work of art. Everything came together. Who else wrote lyrics that apt?
And don't get me started on his singing. I know it kinda goes belly up around 1976 and it's downright terrible until the last few years, BUT how many great songs did he sing so well/ All I Wanna do, anybody?

However sh*t Mike may have been since the mid 70s (and I'm inclined to agree), you can't just wipe out the greatness of is contributions earlier than that - although I also believe the revisionists can't lay all the blame at David Leaf's door - there were clearly issues before Leaf came on the scene and Jon Stebbins' book about Dennis should be a starting point.

[KittyKat]

I'd like to see a ban on resurrecting any threads over a year old, for any reason. I hate the "no top posting!" mania some anal folks have that dates back to when DOS operating systems still roamed the earth.  If a person finds an interesting topic in search, then they can cut and paste and quote an item from it and start a new discussion, but start a new thread. It's annoying to see a new post and think there's fresh content, when the first post on the thread is from years ago, and the thread is full of links that no longer work and red x's where photos used to be.

[drbeachboy]

I'd like to see a ban on resurrecting any threads over a year old, for any reason. I hate the "no top posting!" mania some anal folks have that dates back to when DOS operating systems still roamed the earth.  If a person finds an interesting topic in search, then they can cut and paste and quote an item from it and start a new discussion, but start a new thread. It's annoying to see a new post and think there's fresh content, when the first post on the thread is from years ago, and the thread is full of links that no longer work and red x's where photos used to be.

I have no problem opening an older thread if the post has more news on the subject. Why have 25 threads on the same exact same thing? Who cares about old links, I come here to read, not play show and tell.

[runnersdialzero]

I'd like to see a ban on resurrecting any threads over a year old, for any reason. I hate the "no top posting!" mania some anal folks have that dates back to when DOS operating systems still roamed the earth.  If a person finds an interesting topic in search, then they can cut and paste and quote an item from it and start a new discussion, but start a new thread. It's annoying to see a new post and think there's fresh content, when the first post on the thread is from years ago, and the thread is full of links that no longer work and red x's where photos used to be.

It befuddles me why people get so angry and take so seriously the bumping of older threads on internet messageboards. People get real worked up about it, don't they?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Sort of regretting that last Babycham now.

[Smiling Pets]

I'd like to see a ban on resurrecting any threads over a year old, for any reason. I hate the "no top posting!" mania some anal folks have that dates back to when DOS operating systems still roamed the earth.  If a person finds an interesting topic in search, then they can cut and paste and quote an item from it and start a new discussion, but start a new thread. It's annoying to see a new post and think there's fresh content, when the first post on the thread is from years ago, and the thread is full of links that no longer work and red x's where photos used to be.

It befuddles me why people get so angry and take so seriously the bumping of older threads on internet messageboards. People get real worked up about it, don't they?

I don't understand either, I read Smiley Smile for pleasure, and don't get worked up about the content.

[Don Malcolm]

The best thing about "Periodgate" is that it's managed to make this particular page almost content-free....only two posts out of the previous fourteen even mention the ostensible thread subject!!

You guys are AWESOME!! 

[Micha]

A period is the same as a full-stop right?

You know, Paulos, when I first read the mod's post about "period posts" and didn't understand at first what he was talking about I wanted to post exactly what you did now, but felt kind of embarrassed...

The phrase though goes much better with your avatar than mine. Now we know what you're thinking about in that photo!

Say, I wonder what people mean when they post just a full-stop?

[KittyKat]

I understand why people don't want five threads about the same topic when it's a fresh topic. But reviving threads started in 2004 and last posted on in 2009? That's just being annoying.  Posting a "." on more than one thread is being a complete troll, even on more recent threads, and if a poster does that enough, then it's kosher to ban them.

The only thing I would consider is whether those people are posting a "." because they're trying to delete what they wrote. The board makes it impossible to delete one's posts completely. If you want to reconsider what you posted, you have no choice but to erase it and put a placeholder such as "." in.

[Jason]

I must admit that "periodgate" made me laugh.

For the record, the moderators won't just ban first and ask questions later with regards to the period issue. We're aware that some folks post them to replace a post they wish to edit. But if it's a situation where a period (or any other single character) that adds nothing to a thread, then yes, we'll delete the periods. If it becomes a problem, it will be at the moderator's discretion on how to proceed.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

For any WWE fans, I find Mike Love similar to John Cena. John Cena sells the most merchandise, and is the face of the WWE. Yet when ever he enters an arena, about half the audience is booing him. On Beach Boys message boards, I bet a good number of the topics are about Mike Love. If he were a WWE charactor, he would get pushed as a main eventer because he brings a big response. Also, Mike makes himself to be the good guy because he never did drugs and his positivity is the reason the Beach Boys were so big. In the same way, John Cena is pushed as the good guy. Many fans think he should turn heal. Although, Mike tried that at the HoF speach and it didn't help.

[urbanite]

In a British newspaper recently, maybe the Guardian, there was an article titled There Are a Lot of Fallacies About Me, about Mike Love.  What was never asked of Mr. Love was "what are the fallacies?"

[oldsurferdude]

In a British newspaper recently, maybe the Guardian, there was an article titled There Are a Lot of Fallacies About Me, about Mike Love.  What was never asked of Mr. Love was "what are the fallacies?"

Uh, ain't goin' there-wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.

[drbeachboy]

In a British newspaper recently, maybe the Guardian, there was an article titled There Are a Lot of Fallacies About Me, about Mike Love.  What was never asked of Mr. Love was "what are the fallacies?"

Uh, ain't goin' there-wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.

[Micha]

In a British newspaper recently, maybe the Guardian, there was an article titled There Are a Lot of Fallacies About Me, about Mike Love.  What was never asked of Mr. Love was "what are the fallacies?"

Uh, ain't goin' there-wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.

You can only think in extremes, can ou? For instance, I think Mike is not a ver good entertainer. But he's no evil dumbass either.

(Damn, one of the kes on m keboard just broke while I'm tping! Wonder wh?)