Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

There was no standing unlike the 1994 lawsuit, which at least had some truths behind it.

Beneficial owners (and copyright owners) have rights to inquire about their work.  

"Standing" is your right to inquire.  

Yeah, we understood that pages ago.  So you're happy with the assertions in the original complaint that that judge dismissed?  Then there were the appeals that subsequent judges dismissed.  All of that works for you because of "standing".

Debbie KL - I would be less happy if there was no right-to-appeal. It is not whether it is morally right or wrong, but the right to your day in court and the right of appeal.  

I understand.  Morals aren't especially important in this argument.

To me, it is the "legal" right not "whether it is right."

just admit Mike was wrong!

Well, Smile Brian - I am not on the stand!  

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Is a rock star molesting or killing someone the only way that you can bring yourself to admit that someone was wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?

What kind of a question is that?

There is not a question of criminal activity. This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

[CenturyDeprived]

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Is a rock star molesting or killing someone the only way that you can bring yourself to admit that someone was wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?

What kind of a question is that?

There is not a question of criminal activity. This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

What kind of a question? Simple: it's the kind of question you won't actually answer, because you answered it with a question, not an answer.

Amazing, defending Mike is so noble a cause that even *other* celebrities' truly reprehensible (far, far worse than Mike) actions cannot be qualified by FDP as wrong... even the question of Glitter and Spector is avoided, because to answer it would then lead to the must-duck-at-all-costs question of where FDP would draw the line.  Simply amazing.

If Mike admitted that he himself approved the phony person who was "harmed" by the CD, would you then finally admit that he acted in a terrible way, and that this was a true low point?  Or would you massage your argument to find another way to spin it?

[HeyJude]

This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

I'd say that is a gross oversimplification, even keeping strictly within the legal realm.

I think Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation factored actual emotion and morals into his warp speed calculations more than this.

Whenever someone says I'm being obnoxious or a jerk or whatever, I'm just going to say it's a business and legal matter and that they can take it up with my lawyer if they think it's actionable. I'll see how that works out for me with relationships in life.

Divorce filing? Just a legal matter, nothing more. Child custody dispute? Just a legal matter.

Seriously, the group members are people too, and maybe the reason Mike comes off so poorly in all of this is that he was part of spewing PAGES of vitriol at Brian and Al. Maybe Al didn't like being raked over the coals in a lawsuit he wasn't even a party to.

I guess if Brian ever actually did say "Hey Mike, how come your lawsuit said I didn't do anything but collect checks between 1967 and 2002?", he shouldn't be perhaps off-put if Mike's answer is "Brian, you're talking about a business interest and intellectual property issue, nothing more?"

And *seriously*, after Mike readily admits in the RS article that the "songwriting credits" issue, also very much a "business interest" and "copyright law" issue, still grinds his gears over 20 years after he WON the lawsuit, we're supposed to believe that a defense of Mike's actions in the 2005 suit amount to simply "hey, it was just business?"  

[CenturyDeprived]

This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

I'd say that is a gross oversimplification, even keeping strictly within the legal realm.

I think Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation factored actual emotion and morals into his warp speed calculations more than this.

Whenever someone says I'm being obnoxious or a jerk or whatever, I'm just going to say it's a business and legal matter and that they can take it up with my lawyer if they think it's actionable. I'll see how that works out for me with relationships in life.

Divorce filing? Just a legal matter, nothing more. Child custody dispute? Just a legal matter.

Seriously, the group members are people too, and maybe the reason Mike comes off so poorly in all of this is that he was part of spewing PAGES of vitriol at Brian and Al. Maybe Al didn't like being raked over the coals in a lawsuit he wasn't even a party to.

I guess if Brian ever actually did say "Hey Mike, how come your lawsuit said I didn't do anything but collect checks between 1967 and 2002?", he shouldn't be perhaps off-put if Mike's answer is "Brian, you're talking about a business interest and intellectual property issue, nothing more?"

And *seriously*, after Mike readily admits in the RS article that the "songwriting credits" issue, also very much a "business interest" and "copyright law" issue, still grinds his gears over 20 years after he WON the lawsuit, we're supposed to believe that a defense of Mike's actions in the 2005 suit amount to simply "hey, it was just business?"  

The business of revenge, precisely his uncle's specialty.  Mike learned it well.

Murry warped many people, and Mike was not immune - though he obviously thinks he somehow is, based on his "tainted Wilson blood" comment, as though he is not related to Murry.

When you really think about it, Mike's long, rambling lawsuit text reads not too dissimilar from Murry's long, rambling infamous letter to Brian, in that it consists solely of poo, and is motivated by immense ego and gross inaccuracies.

[HeyJude]

 
When Mike started touring after Carl died, I gave him the benefit of the doubt to see if he could make this band work and saw him build it from scratch into a rockin' very authentic band.  

This has also been gone over before, but I don't believe Mike built up the touring band "from scratch" after Carl died. He continued on with the same band lineup minus Carl, and then minus Al. Same backing guys. Even Matt Jardine remained for awhile.

He took a pre-existing, powerful trademark, paid a fee to use it, and then continued the same touring operation sans Carl and Al. He eventually rotated backing members in and out, just as the touring band had been doing since the late 60s.

He has at various points gone so far as to tour to the exclusion of other living, willing actual Beach Boys members.

Mike has always put in plenty of work in touring, no question. But it's all about standing on the shoulders of a trademark and a legacy, one which Mike is a part of, but only *a part* of.

[filledeplage]

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Is a rock star molesting or killing someone the only way that you can bring yourself to admit that someone was wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?

What kind of a question is that?

There is not a question of criminal activity. This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

What kind of a question? Simple: it's the kind of question you won't actually answer, because you answered it with a question, not an answer.

Amazing, defending Mike is so noble a cause that even *other* celebrities' truly reprehensible (far, far worse than Mike) actions cannot be qualified by FDP as wrong... even the question of Glitter and Spector is avoided, because to answer it would then lead to the must-duck-at-all-costs question of where FDP would draw the line.  Simply amazing.

If Mike admitted that he himself approved the phony person who was "harmed" by the CD, would you then finally admit that he acted in a terrible way, and that this was a true low point?  Or would you massage your argument to find another way to spin it?

CD - nothing short of a statement that I agree with the judge will satisfy some, here.  Yes, rock stars and movie stars have done awful things; they are subject to the same standard as the rest of us mere mortals. 

We don't know that Mike arranged that CD delivery.  Do you?  Were you there at the mailbox? Spector was revered by Brian.  And I have read helped with his defense.  Brian is a hundred of what Spector is and unworthy to wipe Brian's boots, in my view.  The majority of this board does not like the Touring Band.  It does not change my position.   

Legal proceedings should not be painted with the same broad brush.  There are criminal and civil proceedings, and a copyright claim is not the same as a divorce nor should be mentioned in the same sentence, even if a civil process. 

Did he get bad advice?  Maybe he did.  I was not there.  But am entitled to my own opinion without getting a lot of hostility (to admit he was wrong)  from other posters.  We don't agree and let us leave it at that. 

 

[CenturyDeprived]

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Is a rock star molesting or killing someone the only way that you can bring yourself to admit that someone was wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?

What kind of a question is that?

There is not a question of criminal activity. This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

What kind of a question? Simple: it's the kind of question you won't actually answer, because you answered it with a question, not an answer.

Amazing, defending Mike is so noble a cause that even *other* celebrities' truly reprehensible (far, far worse than Mike) actions cannot be qualified by FDP as wrong... even the question of Glitter and Spector is avoided, because to answer it would then lead to the must-duck-at-all-costs question of where FDP would draw the line.  Simply amazing.

If Mike admitted that he himself approved the phony person who was "harmed" by the CD, would you then finally admit that he acted in a terrible way, and that this was a true low point?  Or would you massage your argument to find another way to spin it?

CD - nothing short of a statement that I agree with the judge will satisfy some, here.  Yes, rock stars and movie stars have done awful things; they are subject to the same standard as the rest of us mere mortals. 

We don't know that Mike arranged that CD delivery.  Do you?  Were you there at the mailbox? Spector was revered by Brian.  And I have read helped with his defense.  Brian is a hundred of what Spector is and unworthy to wipe Brian's boots, in my view.  The majority of this board does not like the Touring Band.  It does not change my position.   

Legal proceedings should not be painted with the same broad brush.  There are criminal and civil proceedings, and a copyright claim is not the same as a divorce nor should be mentioned in the same sentence, even if a civil process. 

Did he get bad advice?  Maybe he did.  I was not there.  But am entitled to my own opinion without getting a lot of hostility (to admit he was wrong)  from other posters.  We don't agree and let us leave it at that. 
 

I don't know that Mike was at the mailbox. But would you say that (even if it was NOT Mike), that whoever did in fact greenlight that action was acting terribly? Even if it was just a lawyer?

And an honest question: Do you have a hard time admitting you and/or other people are sometimes wrong about other non-Mike Love related topics? 

[filledeplage]

FDP: would you ever be able to quantify any rock star as having acted in a way that YOU would say was wrong? Is it possible?  How about Gary Glitter, Phil Spector?  Just how hard is it to say it? It's like watching the Fonz try to say he's sorrrr....

Is a rock star molesting or killing someone the only way that you can bring yourself to admit that someone was wrong? No less action could possibly qualify as being wrong?

What kind of a question is that?

There is not a question of criminal activity. This is a question of business interest and intellectual property.

What kind of a question? Simple: it's the kind of question you won't actually answer, because you answered it with a question, not an answer.

Amazing, defending Mike is so noble a cause that even *other* celebrities' truly reprehensible (far, far worse than Mike) actions cannot be qualified by FDP as wrong... even the question of Glitter and Spector is avoided, because to answer it would then lead to the must-duck-at-all-costs question of where FDP would draw the line.  Simply amazing.

If Mike admitted that he himself approved the phony person who was "harmed" by the CD, would you then finally admit that he acted in a terrible way, and that this was a true low point?  Or would you massage your argument to find another way to spin it?

CD - nothing short of a statement that I agree with the judge will satisfy some, here.  Yes, rock stars and movie stars have done awful things; they are subject to the same standard as the rest of us mere mortals. 

We don't know that Mike arranged that CD delivery.  Do you?  Were you there at the mailbox? Spector was revered by Brian.  And I have read helped with his defense.  Brian is a hundred of what Spector is and unworthy to wipe Brian's boots, in my view.  The majority of this board does not like the Touring Band.  It does not change my position.   

Legal proceedings should not be painted with the same broad brush.  There are criminal and civil proceedings, and a copyright claim is not the same as a divorce nor should be mentioned in the same sentence, even if a civil process. 

Did he get bad advice?  Maybe he did.  I was not there.  But am entitled to my own opinion without getting a lot of hostility (to admit he was wrong)  from other posters.  We don't agree and let us leave it at that. 
 

I don't know that Mike was at the mailbox. But would you say that (even if it was NOT Mike), that whoever did in fact greenlight that action was acting terribly? Even if it was just a lawyer?

And an honest question: Do you have a hard time admitting you and/or other people are sometimes wrong about other non-Mike Love related topics? 

CD - I look at both sides of the coin.  Recently you pushed me on what I would do as a teacher if I thought a student had a problem and would I diagnose or opine, (outside of my expertise) and told you I would kick it upstairs to the people whose expertise is superior to mine.   

This is a  push for a positioned "admission" as opposed to a neutral "analysis."  There is a difference between the two. 

[HeyJude]

CD - nothing short of a statement that I agree with the judge will satisfy some, here.  Yes, rock stars and movie stars have done awful things; they are subject to the same standard as the rest of us mere mortals.  

We don't know that Mike arranged that CD delivery.  Do you?  Were you there at the mailbox? Spector was revered by Brian.  And I have read helped with his defense.  Brian is a hundred of what Spector is and unworthy to wipe Brian's boots, in my view.  The majority of this board does not like the Touring Band.  It does not change my position.  

Legal proceedings should not be painted with the same broad brush.  There are criminal and civil proceedings, and a copyright claim is not the same as a divorce nor should be mentioned in the same sentence, even if a civil process.  

Did he get bad advice?  Maybe he did.  I was not there.  But am entitled to my own opinion without getting a lot of hostility (to admit he was wrong)  from other posters.  We don't agree and let us leave it at that.  

You've entered a discussion in which *nobody* disagrees that Mike should be legally allowed to pursue legal remedies, and where everybody else is discussing the moral/ethical/personal impact of legal action, and yet you've chosen to enter that type of discussion while ignoring the actual content of the discussion and continuing to belabor the "it's all about the law and we can't pass any moral judgment." That's fine if you feel that way, but why enter this type of discussion then? Every point you've made about what Mike is entitled to by law is a point nobody was arguing against.

Nobody is saying you have to agree with everything the judges say, though for someone who is all about "the law", you seem to have a strangely incredulous attitude towards how the judges ruled in this particular case. The wall I'm sure many in the thread are running into (if not beating their heads against), over and over and over, is that you refuse to characterize one single thing at all in this case in a light that reflects negatively on Mr. Love. You won't stipulate *one iota* to a single thing that is lamentable or disdainful or unfortunate in that 2005 case.

You will read *paragraphs* of some of the most vitriol-filled mudslinging available about Brian Wilson and Al Jardine in a published court document, and simply shrug your shoulders and say Mike was entitled to this or legally allowed to do that, that we should all just look at both sides of the coin, etc., etc.

I've always found Mike to be one of the most stubborn people with a stronger lack of humility than almost anyone around, and even *he* will kind of very slightly hedge and admit to a few negative things about himself.

If Mike were actually asked detailed questions about that 2005 suit, I'd venture to guess even *he* would admit to mistakes more. I doubt he would just say "I was a total prick to launch that suit." But perhaps he would admit the EBay CD shenanigans were unfortunate, or that maybe he was too hasty and overreaching, or something.

You've continued to answer questions about morals and ethics and personal, subjective emotions with legalese, so I don't think equating a civil action to divorce or child custody legal actions is out of line at all. Do you think civil actions have never ruined anyone's lives, or caused stress, or hurt people?

[Doo Dah]

You know, the jist of the article was how persecuted Mike still feels. Perhaps a small cadre of sympathetic folks fail to see the elephant in the room - but actions have consequences (whether or not they follow legal jurisprudence).

Juris prudence...won't you come out to play heh heh...

All kiddin' aside, I'd like someone to ask Mike point blank WHY he decided to appeal all the way to 2010. I'd like to hear an honest explanation. And after his explanation, he would be shocked by the reaction.

Perspective. Meditation's good for that stuff.

[filledeplage]

CD - nothing short of a statement that I agree with the judge will satisfy some, here.  Yes, rock stars and movie stars have done awful things; they are subject to the same standard as the rest of us mere mortals.  

We don't know that Mike arranged that CD delivery.  Do you?  Were you there at the mailbox? Spector was revered by Brian.  And I have read helped with his defense.  Brian is a hundred of what Spector is and unworthy to wipe Brian's boots, in my view.  The majority of this board does not like the Touring Band.  It does not change my position.  

Legal proceedings should not be painted with the same broad brush.  There are criminal and civil proceedings, and a copyright claim is not the same as a divorce nor should be mentioned in the same sentence, even if a civil process.  

Did he get bad advice?  Maybe he did.  I was not there.  But am entitled to my own opinion without getting a lot of hostility (to admit he was wrong)  from other posters.  We don't agree and let us leave it at that.  

You've entered a discussion in which *nobody* disagrees that Mike should be legally allowed to pursue legal remedies, and where everybody else is discussing the moral/ethical/personal impact of legal action, and yet you've chosen to enter that type of discussion while ignoring the actual content of the discussion and continuing to belabor the "it's all about the law and we can't pass any moral judgment." That's fine if you feel that way, but why enter this type of discussion then? Every point you've made about what Mike is entitled to by law is a point nobody was arguing against.

Nobody is saying you have to agree with everything the judges say, though for someone who is all about "the law", you seem to have a strangely incredulous attitude towards how the judges ruled in this particular case. The wall I'm sure many in the thread are running into (if not beating their heads against), over and over and over, is that you refuse to characterize one single thing at all in this case in a light that reflects negatively on Mr. Love. You won't stipulate *one iota* to a single thing that is lamentable or disdainful or unfortunate in that 2005 case.

You will read *paragraphs* of some of the most vitriol-filled mudslinging available about Brian Wilson and Al Jardine in a published court document, and simply shrug your shoulders and say Mike was entitled to this or legally allowed to do that, that we should all just look at both sides of the coin, etc., etc.

I've always found Mike to be one of the most stubborn people with a stronger lack of humility than almost anyone around, and even *he* will kind of very slightly hedge and admit to a few negative things about himself.

If Mike were actually asked detailed questions about that 2005 suit, I'd venture to guess even *he* would admit to mistakes more. I doubt he would just say "I was a total prick to launch that suit." But perhaps he would admit the EBay CD shenanigans were unfortunate, or that maybe he was too hasty and overreaching, or something.

You've continued to answer questions about morals and ethics and personal, subjective emotions with legalese, so I don't think equating a civil action to divorce or child custody legal actions is out of line at all. Do you think civil actions have never ruined anyone's lives, or caused stress, or hurt people?

Hey Jude - this is a red button topic.  Always with Mike.  Yes, I am being asked to admit I am "wrong."  

How could you make a statement that he is "stubborn?"  I am not seeing that, and that is fresh from seeing the Touring Band this past week.  All sell-out shows.  It has been a climb from post Carl to see this excellence that is the Touring Band.

Yes, you equated divorce and custody to a business interest with regard copyright.  It is highly inappropriate.

Have I slung mud about Brian?  Seriously. I am a huge BW fan.  Seems that on this forum, one needs to declare an allegiance. They are The Beach Boys, as always, only working different venues.    

[HeyJude]

You know, the jist of the article was how persecuted Mike still feels. Perhaps a small cadre of sympathetic folks fail to see the elephant in the room - but actions have consequences (whether or not they follow legal jurisprudence).

Dear juris...won't you come out to play heh heh...

All kiddin' aside, I'd like someone to ask Mike point blank WHY he decided to appeal all the way to 2010. I'd like to hear an honest explanation. And after his explanation, he would be shocked by the reaction.

Perspective. Meditation's good for that stuff.

It's probably not coincidental that Mike mentions the 90s songwriting lawsuit in countless interviews, yet never brings up the 2005 lawsuit.

Isn't the 2005 lawsuit the one where Mike went on "The O'Reilly Factor" to plead his case?

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - this is a red button topic.  Always with Mike.  Yes, I am being asked to admit I am "wrong."  

How could you make a statement that he is "stubborn?"  I am not seeing that, and that is fresh from seeing the Touring Band this past week.  All sell-out shows.  It has been a climb from post Carl to see this excellence that is the Touring Band.

Yes, you equated divorce and custody to a business interest with regard copyright.  It is highly inappropriate.

Have I slung mud about Brian?  Seriously. I am a huge BW fan.  Seems that on this forum, one needs to declare an allegiance. They are The Beach Boys, as always, only working different venues.    

First of all, I didn't equate divorce/custody actions with civil actions. I compared them. In the context of the current discussions, it is absolutely appropriate. They do have some similar facets, and if one ignores the moral/ethical/emotional/personal fallout from civil actions, it stands to reason that it's possible one might do the same with other issues of the "legal" variety. I acknowledge the personal issues tied to *all* varieties of legal action.

Some of the things mentioned in Mike's 2005 suit were things I find to be objectively hurtful, and often off-topic, statements towards Brian and Al, and in practice they may have indeed been hurtful to them.

Also, nobody is asking you to admit "you're wrong." Nobody is asking you admit Mike "is wrong." It's the inability to say *anything* negative about such an obviously inflammatory vitriol-filled lawsuit, a lawsuit that failed with numerous rebukes from the court, that people have trouble with.

And nobody is asking anybody to declare allegiances. Much like Mike, everyone can state their opinion and say what they want to say, but the caveat is that that they will then have to deal with the reactions those opinions elicit.

[HeyJude]

How could you make a statement that he is "stubborn?"  I am not seeing that, and that is fresh from seeing the Touring Band this past week.  All sell-out shows.  It has been a climb from post Carl to see this excellence that is the Touring Band.

And *this* is why the discussion will maintain it's comically circular nature.

Two quick things: I'm going to go out on a limb and say even the most neutral of fans and even Mike supporters would admit he appears to be "stubborn" on occasion. Who isn't? I am. Most people on this board probably are at *some* point.

Secondly, what on EARTH does Mike being stubborn have to do with his touring band, or the quality of his touring band? I'm at a loss......

[Doo Dah]

Hey Jude - this is a red button topic.  Always with Mike.  Yes, I am being asked to admit I am "wrong."  

How could you make a statement that he is "stubborn?"  I am not seeing that, and that is fresh from seeing the Touring Band this past week.  All sell-out shows.  It has been a climb from post Carl to see this excellence that is the Touring Band.

Yes, you equated divorce and custody to a business interest with regard copyright.  It is highly inappropriate.

Have I slung mud about Brian?  Seriously. I am a huge BW fan.  Seems that on this forum, one needs to declare an allegiance. They are The Beach Boys, as always, only working different venues.    

First of all, I didn't equate divorce/custody actions with civil actions. I compared them. In the context of the current discussions, it is absolutely appropriate. They do have some similar facets, and if one ignores the moral/ethical/emotional/personal fallout from civil actions, it stands to reason that it's possible one might do the same with other issues of the "legal" variety. I acknowledge the personal issues tied to *all* varieties of legal action.

Some of the things mentioned in Mike's 2005 suit were things I find to be objectively hurtful, and often off-topic, statements towards Brian and Al, and in practice they may have indeed been hurtful to them.

Also, nobody is asking you to admit "you're wrong." Nobody is asking you admit Mike "is wrong." It's the inability to say *anything* negative about such an obviously inflammatory vitriol-filled lawsuit, a lawsuit that failed with numerous rebukes from the court, that people have trouble with.

And nobody is asking anybody to declare allegiances. Much like Mike, everyone can state their opinion and say what they want to say, but the caveat is that that they will then have to deal with the reactions those opinions elicit.


And that is why he's left wondering 'why am I so persecuted?' I mean, half of making sense of this merda is seeing the forest from the trees. Otherwise you're left in your own private orbit, surrounded by your own yes-men.

[filledeplage]

How could you make a statement that he is "stubborn?"  I am not seeing that, and that is fresh from seeing the Touring Band this past week.  All sell-out shows.  It has been a climb from post Carl to see this excellence that is the Touring Band.

And *this* is why the discussion will maintain it's comically circular nature.

Two quick things: I'm going to go out on a limb and say even the most neutral of fans and even Mike supporters would admit he appears to be "stubborn" on occasion. Who isn't? I am. Most people on this board probably are at *some* point.

Secondly, what on EARTH does Mike being stubborn have to do with his touring band, or the quality of his touring band? I'm at a loss......

Hey Jude - What is comical is there is no room for balance.  Mike lost the suit. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.  It took years go go though the process.  That is not unusual.  But he is blamed even for the court time schedule.  Cases can take years and this one was no different.  The court had no power over a UK matter.  

Sometimes people who don't change their position can be perceived as stubborn.  It is a perception, just like any other personality perception.  

The article does have some candor.  It is too bad that the "adult in the room" (Murry) did the wrong thing and he did not act alone.   Old show-biz style taking a kid's profits.  

We can agree to disagree...

[Pretty Funky]

Up now officially on RS site.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/the-ballad-of-mike-love-20160217

[Cam Mott]

Mike's initial claims were largely shot down, and heavily criticized by the court to boot. His appeals also failed. Which part of that is hard to grasp, especially for someone who has been posting for 17 years regarding "defendant" Al Jardine in the band name lawsuits and afforded Jardine none of the leeway or benefit of the doubt that has been tenuously afforded Mike Love in this thread (among numerous others)?

Quite a bit different.  Al willfully and actively and repeatedly abused the brand without a license before his failed lawsuits, which were I think pretty much blamed on his lawyers and the offended co-owners of the brand as I remember.

Mike's lawyers filed a suit which failed and his lawyers filings had no force. It's not like he wrote and signed his own unilateral unsanctioned license and then actively operated under it in breach or anything like that. Mike's lawyers were also terrible and they also lost and Mike paid for their failure to have any effect by paying the defendant's legal fees apparently.

I think the difference is that you have a weird grudge against Al Jardine (complete with comically overwrought descriptions of his evil deeds that read just like Mike Love's 2005 complaint) and will go to the ends of the Earth to defend Mike Love. That is by far the simplest explanation.

You can see it in the post above. When it concerns Al, then "Al willfully and actively" did things. When it comes to Mike, it's conveniently "Mike's lawyers" doing everything.

"Overwrought", "weird grudge", "comical", "evil" and your snotty opinions of me, etc. are just that: your opinion. Was there something untrue in what I said?  

Actually I feel sorry for Al.

[SMiLE Brian]

And I feel sorry for you since you feel the need to smear Al Jardine

[SurfRiderHawaii]

OMG, on Rolling Stone's FB page, on their Mike article post, there are like over 400 anti-Mike comments. He is being pummeled! What a disaster this article is for Mike.

[CenturyDeprived]

OMG, on Rolling Stone's FB page, on their Mike article post, there are like over 400 anti-Mike comments. He is being pummeled! What a disaster this article is for Mike.

It's quite sad, really. I showed the article to a coworker today, who thought that Mike came off really bad in the article (due to both Mike's own ideology + the way the article's writer reported it) - he thinks Mike himself would be very pissed upon reading the article.  I wonder if the article turned out how Mike hoped it would.

Yet... I feel that those 400 negative comments would be lessened enormously if Mike said a few sentences along the lines of "I'm truly deeply sorry if I ever caused my cousin Brian any hurt/pain over the years, especially during the Smile/Pet Sounds era, if I may have acted out of line, or been too abrasive with a sensitive person. I never meant to hurt Brian, and wasn't fully educated on mental illness at the time."

Just imagine. I have longed to hear some public words like that from Mike for a really long time, because not only do I think that Brian would appreciate them... but I truly want Mike to have more public empathy for him, and for people to stop being blindly hateful to him. The lack of those type words - for decades - has made a difference.  Because people think he's in denial. If there was some understanding by Mike that peoples' opinions of him are at least in part due to never having heard him publicly utter those kinds of words in fifty years... well that could lead to Mike actually speaking those words... and then we'd have at least somewhat less Mike Love hate and maybe world peace.  I won't hold my breath, but I won't ever give up hope completely while they're still with us.

Hasn't a spouse or close friend ever encouraged him to say that? I can't believe for a moment that he's never at least privately thought those things to himself, deep down in his heart. He almost sort of hints at it in a very tiny, subtle way, for I think the first time ever in the article, but he needs to just flippin' SAY IT, not dance around it. I think his deeply unhealthy ongoing paralyzing bitterness over the crediting issue is what makes him not be able to publicly say it, out of some warped version of pride. He'd rather not say those words and masochistically take the endless hate, than to just own up stuff.

He can even blame some of his actions on being warped and bitter by the non-crediting (an issue which many people have some empathy for).

[Doo Dah]

OMG, on Rolling Stone's FB page, on their Mike article post, there are like over 400 anti-Mike comments. He is being pummeled! What a disaster this article is for Mike.

Wow. You ain't kidding. 544 comments total, and the consensus ain't pretty. If his aim with the interview was to reframe his legacy, he failed miserably. That's the thing about branding; it's a real bitch to change image brand when it's cemented in the eyes of the public. He knows all about market branding...but now it's all boomeranged on him. Payback's a bitch.

I loved this comment (wish I thought of it... )
"He is the Salieri of the movie Amadeus..."

[Pretty Funky]

A Beach Boy asks, "Why am I the villain?"

544 people so far are telling him.

[the professor]

Mike misses Brian, and he knows many angry people would block him from seeing or even calling Brian on the phone. Only the wives can get in contact and arrange for them to speak.

A Beach Boy asks, "Why am I the villain?"

544 people so far are telling him.

[Please delete my account]

Mike misses Brian, and he knows many angry people would block him from seeing or even calling Brian on the phone. Only the wives can get in contact and arrange for them to speak.

Going on the article, Mike's wife is a lot keener for him to contact Brian than Mike is.