Whennn was the last time Mike got to write with Brian alone in a room?

[HeyJude]

So Mike and Brian went along with Al's idea.

No. Brian and Mike went along with Joe Thomas’ idea, more or less. Al wasn’t part of the production company running the whole thing. That was Mike, Brian, and Joe Thomas. It appears Al was *less involved* in the operational setup of C50 than he was in the pre-1998 touring “Beach Boys.”

[HeyJude]

The Beach Boys entity includes both Brian and Mike, a fact you may not like.  It is easy for me, (and even others perhaps) speaking for myself, because I can easily support all the members.

To be honest, your recent posts suggest you support the business ethics and rights of BRI as a corporation more than you do any of the corporation’s or the group’s constituent members.

[filledeplage]

The Beach Boys entity includes both Brian and Mike, a fact you may not like.  It is easy for me, (and even others perhaps) speaking for myself, because I can easily support all the members.

To be honest, your recent posts suggest you support the business ethics and rights of BRI as a corporation more than you do any of the corporation’s or the group’s constituent members.

What do you mean by BRI ethics?

In fact, I have no opinion one way or another (because I am not privy to their business, nor should I be) but do know that they appear to be the last word. And, respect an established entity.  And, I respect the late-ish 1960's historical context, being established post Pet Sounds, so the band, could "self-determine" their future.  

And, I guess it seemed a "rite of passage" at the time, and they would have to find their own way, succeed or fail, largely on their merits, and take their lumps along the road.  So, I guess I was proud of their new theme, branding (Cyrus Daliin)  and concept, as they emerged.  Not proud of "some" but proud of "all." That was a huge step into the unknown.

But, I attempt to look at facts and not at "factions and positions." It is counterproductive, after all this time.

[Cam Mott]

So Mike and Brian went along with Al's idea.

No. Brian and Mike went along with Joe Thomas’ idea, more or less. Al wasn’t part of the production company running the whole thing. That was Mike, Brian, and Joe Thomas. It appears Al was *less involved* in the operational setup of C50 than he was in the pre-1998 touring “Beach Boys.”

Still went along with Al's idea.

[HeyJude]

Yes, just like every person on the planet that eats pizza is “going along with my idea” that pizza is awesome.

Congratulations to every fan across the globe who had the “idea” for the band to reunite and do a tour. Mike and Brian were using YOUR idea!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

 

Mike ditched everybody else and went back to touring the name with his solo group.  Mike is too much of a coward to ever tour under his own name and must use the BBs brand name for his group. What is hard to understand about that?

[Cam Mott]

Yes, just like every person on the planet that eats pizza is “going along with my idea” that pizza is awesome.

Congratulations to every fan across the globe who had the “idea” for the band to reunite and do a tour. Mike and Brian were using YOUR idea!

Sorry "every fan", it was Al's idea.

[Mike's Beard]

Anyone not wishing to answer a certain question, I am posting this for your convenience for future use.

Honestly though, why would someone want to refuse to answer a question in the middle of a back-and-forth messageboard discussion? It's not an answer to say "they just don't want to answer". Again - that has the nutritional value of eating paper. You know there's a reason. Because they have determined that there's no way they can answer the question without saying something that reflects poorly on a person they are trying to defend. They know there's some logic in the question they are being posed, but they feel the bigger-picture motive of strict defense of the topic at hand is to be prioritized, so no backing down, just avoiding the question. Right? At least let's agree on that. We can agree that it's someone's "right" to do that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there's another reason for why. That's more or less what's happening here, and you know it. Same thing that happens in politics.

Am I off base in saying this?

I don't know why some people won't answer a question put to them and it's not for me to second guess why. I can understand the frustration that must be felt from repeatedly having a question ignored. Personally I don't back down from anything that is asked to me.

[Cam Mott]

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

I answered your question,  your follow up question was irrelevant to the convo in my opinion. That was my answer.

[Cam Mott]

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Disclaimer: As I said several places earlier in the thread in case anyone missed it, all my opinion from published or public material, I have no inside knowledge and may be wrong.

[Jim V.]

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Source for that, Mr. Cruz? Or are you just stating opinions as fact again?

[Howard Beale]

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Disclaimer: As I said several places earlier in the thread in case anyone missed it, all my opinion from published or public material, I have no inside knowledge and may be wrong.

The Gospel according to Mr. Cruz

[CenturyDeprived]

Nobody did anything to stop the reunion or quit the reunion. The reunion ended and Brian, Mike and Al did nothing to keep it going.

Disclaimer: As I said several places earlier in the thread in case anyone missed it, all my opinion from published or public material, I have no inside knowledge and may be wrong.

The Gospel according to Mr. Cruz

 

[CenturyDeprived]

And you managed to not answer the bolded question. You related to Cam Mott by chance? I'll try again. Leaving fair or whatever out of it.

In your opinion, is it honorable that Mike decided to end The Beach Boys as a creative entity to tour with the same name on his own?

I'm still waiting for Cam to answer my question regarding if people with mental illness should possibly be talked to in different manner than people without mental illness, which I posed to him in another thread. He answered a completely different question than the one I asked. Sort of like asking someone what their favorite brand of automobile is, and they say Burger King.

I answered your question,  your follow up question was irrelevant to the convo in my opinion. That was my answer.

Sorry, but you answered everything BUT my question.
 
My original question was just a general question, not about OMR, or even about anyone in the band:

 
And in your estimation, people who suffer mental illness should be treated/talked to exactly the same way by those around them as the way emotionally well-adjusted people who do not suffer mental illness should be treated/talked to?

Your response (bringing OMR into the convo, which had zero to do with what the question asked - the Burger King response to the favorite automobile question):

Imo mental illness would have nothing to do with it, if Brian thought Mike was too cocky then Mike should apologize. If the band was fed up with OMR then Brian should apologize. I'm going to guess that neither expected the other to apologize and thought of it as the normal back and forth of family and friends in a band together.

However, to that, sir, I do agree with you; if Brian thought Mike was too cocky then Mike should apologize. I'm sincerely glad we can agree on this. Still, my original question (which has zero to do with OMR) remains unanswered, because you answered solely about OMR, which was not the question.

To which, my reply was:

Even if you think this was totally normal back and forth stuff, you didnt answer my question. As a general rule of thumb, not just necessarily about this OMR incident, how would you answer my question I posed to you above, Cam?

 

To which you said:

My answer was mental illness had nothing to do with it imo.

What's the "it" you are talking about? You keep talking about OMR, which was NOT my question.  Then you say:

To be clear, I answered your question. Mental illness has nothing to do with whether people owe each other an apology, if you owe an apology or are owed an apology it is regardless of mental illness. People should be civil to each other regardless of mental illness.

Again – I largely agree with that sentiment, but it’s not my question; you are implying I mentioned an apology (which I did not).
So, WITHOUT mentioning items that are not part my question (OMR, apologies), can you answer my original question? I changed the color to yellow so it’s very clear. It’s a general question. I understand it’s a complex subject too. If you don’t have an answer for it, that’s ok, but just say so; let’s do away with pretending that any of your answers (regarding OMR or apologies) have anything to do with what I asked.

[Cam Mott]

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

[CenturyDeprived]

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

[Cam Mott]

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

Regardless of mental illness, everyone should do their best to treat everyone as they need to be treated. Cousins who grew up together and worked together would know what each other needed, where as fans who never knew either one and were speculating from second-hand info shouldn't judge.

[CenturyDeprived]

I didn't "bring OMR into it", you commented on Wirestone's comment about my comment on OMR and I answered in that context.

I know you previously answered in that context. So if I now remove OMR from the equation, and ask you to respond to my question independently of any OMR discussion, is that something you would be able to do?

Regardless of mental illness, everyone should do their best to treat everyone as they need to be treated. Cousins who grew up together and worked together would know what each other needed, where as fans who never knew either one and were speculating from second-hand info shouldn't judge.

Fair enough. I would really like to think that everyone involved at the time had enough purely instinctual knowledge to do the right thing. I'm not so sure that was always the case, especially considering their dysfunctional backgrounds- and I think it's quite idealistic to blanketly assume such (if you really indeed do), but hell, what do I know. By that same train of logic, you should also say there's no way that anyone should judge Murry's actions.  He watched his kids grow up and do what they needed too, right?  I honestly am not in any way comparing the two mens' actions, and I think Mike is many miles above Murry in terms of a human being; I'm only saying that it's odd how some people can only find other people's actions questionable when there is perceptable physical evidence of abuse, thus enabling questionable emotional treatment to happen.

[GhostyTMRS]

Reading through this thread and I'm reminded of something Melinda said in the Brian Wilson A&E Biography. She said that if Brian had been diagnosed with cancer they would have sent him up to UCLA Medical real quick, but mental illness?..."Oh, we don't talk about that".
This is true, actually. The pre-1970's wasn't exactly an era of enlightenment when it came to handling or even recognizing psychological or emotional problems. Locking someone away for life or lobotomizing them or both was an attractive option (just ask the Kennedys).