Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Emily]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable.  

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.    

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result.  

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

evidence is anything that supports an assertion.
You mischaracterize what I say with "in the affirmative in agreement." I'm objecting not to your opinion but to your lack of support for it. There are lots of opinions that differ from mine that I don't have a problem with; but if someone strenuously asserts that water doesn't contain oxygen, then won't support that, won't acknowledge the evidence that water does contain oxygen and says 'reasonable minds can differ' on the matter, I do have a problem.

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

In my profession, and in life in general including the service, one is best served by taking in all available evidence and continually reevaluating as one absorbs it.
I think the problem is that you are on one topic: the legality of the case, and everyone else was discussing the probity of the case. People thought that your comments were meant to be responsive to the discussion but, as such, they made no sense so people got frustrated. As your comments seem not to have been intended to be responsive, I conclude it's been a very odd misunderstanding.

[CenturyDeprived]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

CD - Interesting that a disagreement is a "blatant distraction."  It is not.  

High-end "booksmart?"  What does that mean?  

The discussion has devolved from the music to the vile dislike of a person.  Is that the point of the board?  

Non-answers?  I responded.  You did not like the response.  I'm not jumping on a "hater bandwagon."  

And it appears you are alleging I am on a payroll of some kind.  Maybe you should explain that position.  

High-end and booksmart means that I think you are an intelligent person, who is not just doing what blatant trolls do, which is perhaps more directly obvious and juvenile.  But the end result is very similar.

Donut is not an answer to what color the sky is! It never will be the answer!

And it's not because I don't like that answer, it's because it's an irrelevant deflecting answer which has absolutely nothing to do with the question, much as is the case the vast majority of your responses, as HeyJude and others have pointed out.

While there are haters on this board, I am not one of them. I have some major issues with Mike, but I also think he's a talented fellow who has some good person stuff in him which is often buried.  What you fail to realize, is that your attempts to distract, deflect, and not answer… which you prodly proclaim are your "right"  and which you seem completely oblivious to how closely those actions resemble trolling… have the opposite effect, because more and more anti-Mike stuff is stirred up, and people get really aggravated … Not because somebody has a different opinion, but because you continue to answer questions which nobody asked, and continue to distract, deflect, and not actually answer questions. Again… Answering a different question is not an answer.  It is not an answer that I simply "don't like". Donut is not a color.

All of these aggravated people in this thread who feel that your donut logic constitutes trolling are probably not wrong.  If it were just me, that would be one thing.  I received multiple PMs from people who were glad somebody finally pointed out how these non-answers/deflections under the guise of "agree to disagree! Wink!" are hardly any different than trolling.

[Empire Of Love]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

And, EoL you are accusing me of being on a payroll?  What basis do you have for that?

I don't recall making an accusation.

EoL

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

CD - Interesting that a disagreement is a "blatant distraction."  It is not.  

High-end "booksmart?"  What does that mean?  

The discussion has devolved from the music to the vile dislike of a person.  Is that the point of the board?  

Non-answers?  I responded.  You did not like the response.  I'm not jumping on a "hater bandwagon."  

And it appears you are alleging I am on a payroll of some kind.  Maybe you should explain that position.  

High-end and booksmart means that I think you are an intelligent person, who is not just doing what blatant trolls do, which is perhaps more directly obvious.   But the end result is very similar.

Donut is not an answer to what color the sky is! It never will be the answer!

And it's not because I don't like that answer, it's because it's an irrelevant deflecting answer which has absolutely nothing to do with the question, much as is the case the vast majority of your responses, as HeyJude and others have pointed out.

While there are haters on this board, I am not one of them. I have some major issues with Mike, but I also think he's a talented fellow who has some good person stuff in him which is often buried.  What you fail to realize, is that your attempts to distract, deflect, and not answer… which you prodly proclaim are your "right"  and which you seem completely oblivious to how closely those actions resembles trolling… have the opposite effect, because more and more anti-Mike stuff is stirred up, and people get really aggravated … Not because somebody has a different opinion, but because you continue to answer questions which nobody asked, and continue to distract, deflect, and not actually answer questions. Again… Answering a different question is not an answer.  It is not simply an answer that I don't like. Donut is not a color.

All of these aggravated people in this thread who feel that your donut logic constitutes trolling are probably not wrong.  If it were just me, that would be one thing.

CD - Donut and sky are irrelevant in terms of this lawsuit.  Mike lost.  That should be enough for people who will say he was dumb to file it and deserved what he got.  It isn't.  

Some are not satisfied until the whole line of cases is parsed and dissected.  They can't look at the outcome and call-it-a-day.  My non-opinion does not mean I am right or wrong.  But, I find the hate shocking.  

And, this is not a pro-Mike board by it's reputation.  That is common knowledge. There are other boards that refer to this one as "toxic."  And, many others who have been driven off by meanness and bullying.  

But, I like to take the whole BB experience as-a-whole and look for the positive in the joy that it has brought the world.  Some, here only pick-and-choose and that is fine, because that it their experience.  This board is blessed with extraordinary contributors from personal experience with this band and all its members.    

That should not result in being accused of being in an Smiley board arranged-marriage Mr. Mott, who is also accused of this payroll- nonsense (we have not ever so much exchanged an email) and you have been around here for over 5 years so you know that I (and others) have been subjected to the same nonsense about the payroll before.  It is not the first time.  There is no need for that crap.  

So, anyone who can look objectively at Mike's contribution must be on-the-payroll?  

But that is the snap assumption.  It is not the first time.  If the band got over the 2005 suit, and the dumb movie, and did C50, shouldn't the fans?
 
I seldom agree with Smile Brian.  Tonight, I do.  It is time to call it a night.  

[filledeplage]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll. 

[filledeplage]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable.  

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.    

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result.  

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

evidence is anything that supports an assertion.
You mischaracterize what I say with "in the affirmative in agreement." I'm objecting not to your opinion but to your lack of support for it. There are lots of opinions that differ from mine that I don't have a problem with; but if someone strenuously asserts that water doesn't contain oxygen, then won't support that, won't acknowledge the evidence that water does contain oxygen and says 'reasonable minds can differ' on the matter, I do have a problem.

Yes, evidence needs to be "probative" but it has to be "admissible" first. And it has to be "relevant."  It has to prove a fact of consequence.  Even a little.

That link is to the case Mike brought and a witness came in and wrote about it.  And got to keep a display of a couple of enlarged contracts after the trial finished.  I think the OJ trial was across the street in another courthouse building.

My non-opinion or non-shock or lack of common outrage is just my response.  It has support.  I read the case line, and the results.  It's probably one of the more boring BB cases.    

In your profession, or in the service, can you afford to lose objectivity, if you get tied up in a point of view?    

In my profession, and in life in general including the service, one is best served by taking in all available evidence and continually reevaluating as one absorbs it.
I think the problem is that you are on one topic: the legality of the case, and everyone else was discussing the probity of the case. People thought that your comments were meant to be responsive to the discussion but, as such, they made no sense so people got frustrated. As your comments seem not to have been intended to be responsive, I conclude it's been a very odd misunderstanding.

Emily - it is only the legality that I am interested.  You are absolutely correct.   

[Theydon Bois]

Please: this needs to stop now.

This board is an amazing resource.  Not just because of the knowledgeable, well-connected people who post on it, but because of the wealth of information and research contained within its archives.  I haven't been on here for very many years, and so whenever I do find time to have a poke around in threads that predate my joining, or whenever (as in this discussion) someone like Guitarfool links to an earlier thread with properly interesting material and first-hand testimony regarding how events panned out, I marvel at the great value this site can offer to fans and scholars alike.

And then I think of a future version of me, stumbling upon this site a few years down the line, and reaching this thread.  This unreadable thread.  This thread, which could have been interesting, starting as it did with a fascinating Mike interview that gives a real window into his worldview, and then expanding to take in related matters such as the 2005 lawsuit, a topic which no doubt informs a lot of the bad blood that remains even today in the Beach Boys universe.  There's a lot to be said about these topics, and valid points to be made on all sides.

But instead of that, what we have on this thread is page upon page of spurious, obfuscatory nonsense from one poster, who will apparently never give in no matter how long the discussion grinds on, while good posters like HeyJude, Emily and AndrewHickey patiently, and with impressively mild tempers given the clear futility of their mission, point out all of the non-sequiturs, evasions and distraction techniques.  Now, a bit of this every now and then might be forgiveable as one of the pains of online message board interaction: not all posters are going to be on the same page or conduct discourse in the same way.  But this is now diluting the signal-to-noise ratio in this and other threads to such an extent that a future version of me, finding this thread (or its contemporaries) and hoping to locate insight in its contents, will probably just give up and go and look at something else instead.  I mean, Christ, the only reason I'm here on page 33 right now is that I've been following the thread since the beginning.  If I'd known when it started that it was going to devolve into a discussion of whether anyone can identify a style guide which justifies usage of asterisks to provide emphasis in formal English, then I don't think I would have bothered.

Please, everyone, if you care about this board being a useful resource to future (hell, even current) members, then arguing with someone who acts like they know everything about everything and yet expects everyone else to fall in line with their own idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes a "primary source", who only accepts testimony from members of the Beach Boys as evidence (unless (a) it goes against their personal theories, or (b) the member in question happens to filter it through their lawyers), and who defaults to discussing the Beach Boys as a business / legal construct rather than a source of magical, life-affirming music, is not going to get us anywhere.  I love you all, but please stop.

And filledeplage: either you are deliberately throwing in endless distractions, digressions and obfuscations in order to divert chat away from topics you don't like, in which case please stop, or else this is just your natural pattern of communication, in which case please be aware that this is the effect that you're having anyway, and so please stop.

Thanks all.  Or, as some might say, "just" "sayin'".

[Debbie KL]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll. 

Oddly, when I read this, since it referenced no one, I recalled the time when I was asked directly if I was on the payroll of either Brian Wilson or BRI by a fellow poster, so that's what came to mind for me.  It was pretty simple to answer "no."

[Debbie KL]

Please: this needs to stop now.

This board is an amazing resource.  Not just because of the knowledgeable, well-connected people who post on it, but because of the wealth of information and research contained within its archives.  I haven't been on here for very many years, and so whenever I do find time to have a poke around in threads that predate my joining, or whenever (as in this discussion) someone like Guitarfool links to an earlier thread with properly interesting material and first-hand testimony regarding how events panned out, I marvel at the great value this site can offer to fans and scholars alike.

And then I think of a future version of me, stumbling upon this site a few years down the line, and reaching this thread.  This unreadable thread.  This thread, which could have been interesting, starting as it did with a fascinating Mike interview that gives a real window into his worldview, and then expanding to take in related matters such as the 2005 lawsuit, a topic which no doubt informs a lot of the bad blood that remains even today in the Beach Boys universe.  There's a lot to be said about these topics, and valid points to be made on all sides.

But instead of that, what we have on this thread is page upon page of spurious, obfuscatory nonsense from one poster, who will apparently never give in no matter how long the discussion grinds on, while good posters like HeyJude, Emily and AndrewHickey patiently, and with impressively mild tempers given the clear futility of their mission, point out all of the non-sequiturs, evasions and distraction techniques.  Now, a bit of this every now and then might be forgiveable as one of the pains of online message board interaction: not all posters are going to be on the same page or conduct discourse in the same way.  But this is now diluting the signal-to-noise ratio in this and other threads to such an extent that a future version of me, finding this thread (or its contemporaries) and hoping to locate insight in its contents, will probably just give up and go and look at something else instead.  I mean, Christ, the only reason I'm here on page 33 right now is that I've been following the thread since the beginning.  If I'd known when it started that it was going to devolve into a discussion of whether anyone can identify a style guide which justifies usage of asterisks to provide emphasis in formal English, then I don't think I would have bothered.

Please, everyone, if you care about this board being a useful resource to future (hell, even current) members, then arguing with someone who acts like they know everything about everything and yet expects everyone else to fall in line with their own idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes a "primary source", who only accepts testimony from members of the Beach Boys as evidence (unless (a) it goes against their personal theories, or (b) the member in question happens to filter it through their lawyers), and who defaults to discussing the Beach Boys as a business / legal construct rather than a source of magical, life-affirming music, is not going to get us anywhere.  I love you all, but please stop.

And filledeplage: either you are deliberately throwing in endless distractions, digressions and obfuscations in order to divert chat away from topics you don't like, in which case please stop, or else this is just your natural pattern of communication, in which case please be aware that this is the effect that you're having anyway, and so please stop.

Thanks all.  Or, as some might say, "just" "sayin'".

Thank you for bringing us back to the topic.  I think some of us were a bit frustrated as to how to get there.  This seems to be pretty clear and effective.

[filledeplage]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll. 

Oddly, when I read this, since it referenced no one, I recalled the time when I was asked directly if I was on the payroll of either Brian Wilson or BRI by a fellow poster, so that's what came to mind for me.  It was pretty simple to answer "no."

Debbie - Thank you very much.  Whether you help Brian or BRI, first is no one's business on this board.  It is an outrageous question.  

This is not the first time that I have heard something similar.  Does it demand a reply?  When the answer given (wise, of course) - "I'll check-for-the-check" then the point is just as well-made.  Thanks again.      

[Debbie KL]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll. 

Oddly, when I read this, since it referenced no one, I recalled the time when I was asked directly if I was on the payroll of either Brian Wilson or BRI by a fellow poster, so that's what came to mind for me.  It was pretty simple to answer "no."

Debbie - Thank you very much.  Whether you help Brian or BRI, first is no one's business on this board.  It is an outrageous question.  

This is not the first time that I have heard something similar.  Does it demand a reply?  When the answer given (wise, of course) - "I'll check-for-the-check" then the point is just as well-made.  Thanks again.      

I'm afraid my comment led you in the direction I didn't intend.  Actually, if I were on the payroll, I think it would be pertinent to the discussion at hand, as it would certainly have an influence on the point of view I express.  I'd genuinely like to get back to the topic of this thread, as I indicated above.   

[CenturyDeprived]

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

CD - Interesting that a disagreement is a "blatant distraction."  It is not.  

High-end "booksmart?"  What does that mean?  

The discussion has devolved from the music to the vile dislike of a person.  Is that the point of the board?  

Non-answers?  I responded.  You did not like the response.  I'm not jumping on a "hater bandwagon."  

And it appears you are alleging I am on a payroll of some kind.  Maybe you should explain that position.  

High-end and booksmart means that I think you are an intelligent person, who is not just doing what blatant trolls do, which is perhaps more directly obvious.   But the end result is very similar.

Donut is not an answer to what color the sky is! It never will be the answer!

And it's not because I don't like that answer, it's because it's an irrelevant deflecting answer which has absolutely nothing to do with the question, much as is the case the vast majority of your responses, as HeyJude and others have pointed out.

While there are haters on this board, I am not one of them. I have some major issues with Mike, but I also think he's a talented fellow who has some good person stuff in him which is often buried.  What you fail to realize, is that your attempts to distract, deflect, and not answer… which you prodly proclaim are your "right"  and which you seem completely oblivious to how closely those actions resembles trolling… have the opposite effect, because more and more anti-Mike stuff is stirred up, and people get really aggravated … Not because somebody has a different opinion, but because you continue to answer questions which nobody asked, and continue to distract, deflect, and not actually answer questions. Again… Answering a different question is not an answer.  It is not simply an answer that I don't like. Donut is not a color.

All of these aggravated people in this thread who feel that your donut logic constitutes trolling are probably not wrong.  If it were just me, that would be one thing.

CD - Donut and sky are irrelevant in terms of this lawsuit.  Mike lost.  That should be enough for people who will say he was dumb to file it and deserved what he got.  It isn't.  

Some are not satisfied until the whole line of cases is parsed and dissected.  They can't look at the outcome and call-it-a-day.  My non-opinion does not mean I am right or wrong.  But, I find the hate shocking.  

And, this is not a pro-Mike board by it's reputation.  That is common knowledge. There are other boards that refer to this one as "toxic."  And, many others who have been driven off by meanness and bullying.  

But, I like to take the whole BB experience as-a-whole and look for the positive in the joy that it has brought the world.  Some, here only pick-and-choose and that is fine, because that it their experience.  This board is blessed with extraordinary contributors from personal experience with this band and all its members.    

That should not result in being accused of being in an Smiley board arranged-marriage Mr. Mott, who is also accused of this payroll- nonsense (we have not ever so much exchanged an email) and you have been around here for over 5 years so you know that I (and others) have been subjected to the same nonsense about the payroll before.  It is not the first time.  There is no need for that crap.  

So, anyone who can look objectively at Mike's contribution must be on-the-payroll?  

But that is the snap assumption.  It is not the first time.  If the band got over the 2005 suit, and the dumb movie, and did C50, shouldn't the fans?
 
I seldom agree with Smile Brian.  Tonight, I do.  It is time to call it a night.  

You and Cam are looking at Mike objectively?  When people's statements, such as Melinda's and Darian's, are just dismissed, and their credibility is effectively thrown under the bus, yet when asked for further explanation, the question is ducked...  That equals objectivity? That equals duck + dodge. Duck Dodgers. Ridiculous.

You would surely accept no similar level of ducking and dodging directed at you about a host of other non BB topics, nor would you surely have any respect for a politician who continued to use those completely laughable methods.  Just because you aren't in a court room, that doesn't mean that you don't come off as looking like a complete joke by running into a thread, crapping in it, then running off and refusing to answer for what you did.

That's the definition of threadcrapping and trolling.  

When I politely asked if you would just fess up to an inability to say anything bad about Mike, in a genuine and honest manner, as a peace offering  for all of us having a better understanding of you in these extremely aggravating (due to your ducking) conversations, you also refused. Baffling.

And yeah... Donut being a color is an obviously extreme example to get you to realize the point, which unsurprisingly I've failed miserably at. It doesn't have to be that extreme in order for it to be a very similar thing, where a question is not answered, and you respond as though the person asked a completely different question. Again, the way you do it, it *seems* surface booksmart and intelligent,  and I am not questioning the fact that you know lots of stuff about this band and are clearly a well – read person... but there's **nothing** that actually answers the question that was posed to you.  These are not just my words, there are many, many people who would back me up on this.

There is seemingly absolutely no sense of self – awareness I get from you with regards to how you come off and severely aggravate others with your non-– answers and deflections. Maybe it makes sense that the people with zero self-awareness vehemently defend the other people with zero self-awareness.   Do you want to count how many people think that you are repeatedly taking a giant dump in this thread? I know you're not on this board to win a popularity contest, but how many people need to point out that your countless ridiculous evasive tactics are the typed equivalent of horsecr*p before you cease doing them?

[rab2591]

Filledeplage, you continuously bring up the most backassward logic EVERY time someone is the least bit critical of Mike Love. Whenever you’re backed into a corner you start complaining about something as trivial as an ASTERISK symbol. Many months ago you went on for two or three posts complaining to me that I had highlighted a sentence in a post of yours that I quoted (claiming it was against board rules, which it most certainly isn’t). You once claimed that Van Dyke Park’s isn’t a reliable source because he got some trivial fact on a TWITTER post wrong a few years ago (and argued this for post after post). Of course, you merely do this in defense of Mike Love…had Van Dyke Parks been blasting Brian Wilson about something, well then of course he’s a reliable source! You call Jules Siegel sexist for describing Carol Kaye as "a plastic mannequin housewife" yet when Mike Love calls one of his exes a "Mexican mistake” the social justice worker is nowhere to be found. After I left you seemingly lied to everyone on this board about why I left (even though I couldn’t have made it more clear about why I left) just to prove some silly point you were trying to make about the moderators. Unreal. You twist words, distract, ignore. EVERY time someone is critical of Mike Love you are there to filibuster the thread. I shouldn’t give you all the credit for that, you and Cam Mott seem to work in tandem when it comes to this. At least Cam usually doesn’t stoop to trivial formatting complaints when he is beat in an argument.

It’s trolling behavior plain and simple and I’m shocked the mods have allowed you to stay on this board. I’ve stopped posting here, but have continued to lurk a bit. My lurking days are about over if you keep posting in this manner. EVERY time I read the beginnings of an intelligent conversation here, there you are completely dismantling it. Of course there are other annoying posters here, but they usually avoid dragging nonsensical arguments out for page after page after flippin page. Deciphering your posts would be a full time job for a multi-billion dollar NSA decrypting machine.

Enough is enough. Either filledeplage ends these ridiculously pointless arguments, or ban her. I’m sure someone will lock the thread hoping that will solve the problem, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a near fatal wound. If nothing is done about this exact problem I would bet that this board WILL get less and less traffic as time goes on. This board has been the foundation of information on the Beach Boys in the internet world. It’s the epicenter of fandom for a lot of people. But bullshit like this makes Smiley Smile a tiresome place to visit (let alone post if you have the mental stamina to indulge these ridiculous arguments).

Constructive debates are perfectly fine (and frankly entertaining no matter who wins the argument). But it sucks that EVERY topic or post that is even slightly critical of Mike Love gets purposely derailed into a clusterf*ck of mind-numbing repetitive twaddle mostly because of ONE POSTER. Of course, this is the least of the problems here, but it is the most obvious and visible problem at the moment.
_____

PS, I miss a lot of you guys, and am enjoying reading a lot of this Rolling Stone thread. Lots of solid information about Mike being talked about. Glad to see that Al Jardine and the writer of the article call out that Mike is being a history revisionist…of course, this was obvious to most of us anyways. Of course, what's that popular line amongst you guys? It should all be about the music! One of you ought to tell that to Mike Love when you’re out to lunch with him…

[CenturyDeprived]

Filledeplage, you continuously bring up the most backassward logic EVERY time someone is the least bit critical of Mike Love. Whenever you’re backed into a corner you start complaining about something as trivial as an ASTERISK symbol. Many months ago you went on for two or three posts complaining to me that I had highlighted a sentence in a post of yours that I quoted (claiming it was against board rules, which it most certainly isn’t). You once claimed that Van Dyke Park’s isn’t a reliable source because he got some trivial fact on a TWITTER post wrong a few years ago (and argued this for post after post). Of course, you merely do this in defense of Mike Love…had Van Dyke Parks been blasting Brian Wilson about something, well then of course he’s a reliable source! You call Jules Siegel sexist for describing Carol Kaye as "a plastic mannequin housewife" yet when Mike Love calls one of his exes a "Mexican mistake” the social justice worker is nowhere to be found. After I left you seemingly lied to everyone on this board about why I left (even though I couldn’t have made it more clear about why I left) just to prove some silly point you were trying to make about the moderators. Unreal. You twist words, distract, ignore. EVERY time someone is critical of Mike Love you are there to filibuster the thread. I shouldn’t give you all the credit for that, you and Cam Mott seem to work in tandem when it comes to this. At least Cam usually doesn’t stoop to trivial formatting complaints when he is beat in an argument.

It’s trolling behavior plain and simple and I’m shocked the mods have allowed you to stay on this board. I’ve stopped posting here, but have continued to lurk a bit. My lurking days are about over if you keep posting in this manner. EVERY time I read the beginnings of an intelligent conversation here, there you are completely dismantling it. Of course there are other annoying posters here, but they usually avoid dragging nonsensical arguments out for page after page after flippin page. Deciphering your posts would be a full time job for a multi-billion dollar NSA decrypting machine.

Enough is enough. Either filledeplage ends these ridiculously pointless arguments, or ban her. I’m sure someone will lock the thread hoping that will solve the problem, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a near fatal wound. If nothing is done about this exact problem I would bet that this board WILL get less and less traffic as time goes on. This board has been the foundation of information on the Beach Boys in the internet world. It’s the epicenter of fandom for a lot of people. But bullshit like this makes Smiley Smile a tiresome place to visit (let alone post if you have the mental stamina to indulge these ridiculous arguments).

Constructive debates are perfectly fine (and frankly entertaining no matter who wins the argument). But it sucks that EVERY topic or post that is even slightly critical of Mike Love gets purposely derailed into a clusterf*ck of mind-numbing repetitive twaddle mostly because of ONE POSTER. Of course, this is the least of the problems here, but it is the most obvious and visible problem at the moment.
_____

PS, I miss a lot of you guys, and am enjoying reading a lot of this Rolling Stone thread. Lots of solid information about Mike being talked about. Glad to see that Al Jardine and the writer of the article call out that Mike is being a history revisionist…of course, this was obvious to most of us anyways. Of course, what's that popular line amongst you guys? It should all be about the music! One of you ought to tell that to Mike Love when you’re out to lunch with him…

Amen.  The closest any other posters come to trolling and threadcrapping don't come within a mile of FDP's relentless  pseudo-intellectual non-answer nonsense replies.

People like to give oldsurferdude a hard time, and while I completely understand why some people have issue with him, the giant shitstorm that erupted a few months back about him needs to erupt in similar fashion right now about FDP.  How many aggravated posters will it take? How much BS deflection? At least OSD says short replies, whereas FDP just keeps going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, like the energizer bunny of dressed-up bullshit, derp, and deflection.  I hate to be insulting, and don't mean to come off like a jerk, but a troll is a troll is a troll, and she IS hurting this board with her ridiculous tactics. Derp derp derp + Sarah Palin wink!

[CenturyDeprived]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

Oddly, when I read this, since it referenced no one, I recalled the time when I was asked directly if I was on the payroll of either Brian Wilson or BRI by a fellow poster, so that's what came to mind for me.  It was pretty simple to answer "no."

Debbie - Thank you very much.  Whether you help Brian or BRI, first is no one's business on this board.  It is an outrageous question.  

This is not the first time that I have heard something similar.  Does it demand a reply?  When the answer given (wise, of course) - "I'll check-for-the-check" then the point is just as well-made.  Thanks again.      

I'm afraid my comment led you in the direction I didn't intend.  Actually, if I were on the payroll, I think it would be pertinent to the discussion at hand, as it would certainly have an influence on the point of view I express.  I'd genuinely like to get back to the topic of this thread, as I indicated above.  

Thanks for being a voice of reason, Debbie. And for giving me a chuckle that FDP thought that you were on her side. FDP and her selective outrage. I needed a good laugh.

[Empire Of Love]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

Speaking of trolling. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

Speaking of trolling.  

Irony was apparently lost on you, I see?  If only FDP's many, many, many troll-style posts had a glimpse of irony, I might see the point. But hers are dead serious derp, with an occasional actual baseless accusation.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

Speaking of trolling. 

Irony was apparently lost on you, I see?  If only FDP's many, many, many troll-style posts had a glimpse of irony, I might see the point. But hers are dead serious derp.

No irony was lost on me.  It's still trolling. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

Speaking of trolling.  

Irony was apparently lost on you, I see?  If only FDP's many, many, many troll-style posts had a glimpse of irony, I might see the point. But hers are dead serious derp.

No irony was lost on me.  It's still trolling.  

That's arguable, but even if you take the position that it is without question, it still amounts to 1/100 of the trolling/threadcrapping that FDP inflicted on us today.

[Cam Mott]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

[Doo Dah]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

No. I don't use the Ignore script. I prefer to hear the full 24 tracks. Bass, guitar, percussion, endless Mike Love subterfuge; I want it all.

God bless the logical people on this board for calling out the endless nonsense I've been reading here. And you could put that in your Lanham and smoke it. 

[Jim V.]

I am SO SO glad that the sh*t has hit the fan with this absolutely ridiculous poster. It's been bugging the sh*t out of me and has been absolutely ruining this board and any real debate. Even if I don't agree with some posters a bit of the time, like for instance Sheriff John Stone, or Pinder and Nicko back in the day, at least they'd seem like an actual person putting up an opposing viewpoint, and not an automated bot who either deflects or cries "abuse" if somebody tries to keep conversation on topic.

But honestly, more than anything I have to say that it is the lack of moderation once again that is killing us here. This threadshitter shouldn't be allowed to continue on with this bullshit. Enough is enough.

By the way, a photo of filled the plague:

[CenturyDeprived]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

No. I don't use the Ignore script. I prefer to hear the full 24 tracks. Bass, guitar, percussion, endless Mike Love subterfuge; I want it all.

God bless the logical people on this board for calling out the endless nonsense I've been reading here. And you could put that in your Lanham and smoke it.  

This. Plus, not to mention that the ignore function won't make the desired Ignored posters' posts disappear when quoted by other non-Ignored members. The drivel won't go away. Speaking of deflecting, Cam remains oddly silent about how offbase Melinda and Darian must be. They are insiders who must be completely full of it for his theory to hold water.

[Cam Mott]

I hate to diverge and deflect from all of the diverging and deflecting and trolling and thread crapping, as fascinating as it is, but there is a PM and Ignore function, why not use it?

No. I don't use the Ignore script. I prefer to hear the full 24 tracks. Bass, guitar, percussion, endless Mike Love subterfuge; I want it all.

God bless the logical people on this board for calling out the endless nonsense I've been reading here. And you could put that in your Lanham and smoke it.  

This. Plus, not to mention that the ignore function won't make the desired Ignored posters' posts disappear when quoted by other non-Ignored members. The drivel won't go away. Speaking of deflecting, Cam remains oddly silent about how offbase Melinda and Darian must be. They are insiders who must be completely full of it for his theory to hold water.

Don't read the quotes.

Darian says Melinda complained at someone, Holdership claims a Mike representative, about a Dennis item in the script so she apparently didn't have control over the script either.