Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[HeyJude]

Look at the bright side - at least Mike hasn't taken any shots at Carl!

Not trying to be inflammatory, and it's difficult to find a much overt criticism of Carl by Mike in public interviews (sometimes I think the Wilson brothers are lumped together in terms of drug/alcohol use), but here's a post describing something that, while not what I would characterize as "taking a shot" at Carl, debatably isn't the most empathetic/sympathetic scenario:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18436.msg481404.html#msg481404

[filledeplage]

Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.

Angua - I agree with a section of what you wrote, concerning the "where your personal opinion has nothing whatever to do with whatever case you are pleading."  When a case is prepared, and docketed, it may be 100 pages.  What is ultimately decided may not resemble that filing on day one, and only one  or two issues decided with the rest dismissed or resolved by the parties agreement.

It becomes whittled down to the essential elements through the mechanisms, procedurally with pre-trial conferences between the parties and the court, which will decide exactly what issues will be "narrowed" for trial.  Or trial avoided if at all possible and resolved with mediators or arbitrators, if such a clause exists.  Everything, and all the verbosity of the initial filling, often do not resemble the end result.  

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

[Debbie KL]

I have no problem with reasoned argument and debate. Sadly, seems others here do. This forum isn't simply the best place for BB intercourse and learned research... it's pretty well the only place for the last few years, and as such it should be preserved from the internal forces that periodically threaten to scupper it. Not as bad as FIFA (yet), but I think a radical overhaul might not be such a bad idea while one can still have a positive outcome.

While this is a bit off topic and should probably be another thread, I guess I'm not understanding what this radical overhaul of the board might be.  I'd have to assume rules changes, or probably a clarification of the rules, would take care of the problems.  Ironically, a minor problem in this thread is the usual tendency we all have to go off-topic (example here), but our fellow posters normally handle that.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone, obviously.  I think the glaring problem in this thread was the tendency for a few posters to argue a single point that no one else was discussing, without ever acknowledging or responding to other posters' comments or challenges.  I suppose a rule might be defined regarding this.  What else did you have in mind?

[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.

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.

Do Darian's own quoted words "Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense" mean anything to you?

It means he thought it was Mike propaganda.  Was he involved in the movie?

Wouldn’t you say a member of Brian’s band would most likely have a heck of a lot more insider knowledge about that situation compared to say, yourself? It doesn’t matter whether he was personally involved in making the movie or not.

Do you want to try and say that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you think someone who is an employee, not someone of great wealth with a giant legal team surrounding them, would just go “rogue” behind their employer’s back and make something like that up, saying it publicly to an interviewer, without some insider knowledge of it being TRUE? It’s obvious that someone in his shoes would only say something like that publicly if other people “who would know” had his back on the issue.

If a respected member of Brian’s band just went and made that up, crafting what I imagine you might term as a “wild” claim to an interviewer that was completely untrue in every way, shape, and form… you think Mike would just quietly sit back and not do something retaliatory about it? The reason Mike did nothing about it is because Mike knows that it’s the truth. Mike also shared the stage with Darian for a whole tour years later. I really doubt if Brian’s band members were telling LIES to the media about Mike, that Mike would just be cool and tour with the guy who “intentionally” defamed him. Mike has shown that he isn't cool to tour with people who don't do TM... people (especially not wealthy or powerful people) who intentionally say utter falsehoods about him I don't think would make the cut.

It’s preposterous that he’d just arbitrarily make it up,  saying something inflammatory without some insider knowledge that he was saying the truth.

According to your logic, Darian went "rogue", Mike's attorney's went "rogue", everyone just goes rogue behind the back of poor wittle blameless Mike. It's simply not believable.

[CenturyDeprived]

So we've actually been having group meetings between Carl, myself and Al with the psychiatrist Howard Bloomfield, who's a good friend of mine and a board member of the Love Foundation, and we've done a lot of healing kind of things, airing grievances and working things out. It's been very therapeutic for all of us individually and collectively. I think we've gotten to understand each other and see the other's point of view and experience and it's made the group better and stronger.

Does anyone know if Howard Bloomfield, mentioned in this quote, is the same as Harold H. Bloomfield, the psychiatrist author of books such as TM: Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress?  It seems pretty likely, given the TM / Love Foundation link.  If so, well, our guys really can't catch a break when it comes to choosing their friends and associates...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_H._Bloomfield

Apart from that, I've always questioned why anyone would feel a group therapy session where the assumed-to-be impartial therapist is friends with one of the three would be advisable.

There's an episode of Dallas just like that, where JR Ewing secretly pays off a marriage counselor to convince JR's wife that she should divorce JR.

Impartial my butt. I wonder whose idea in the band it was to use the "impartial" guy (who was just coincidentally in Mike's back pocket, much like Uncle Jesse as producer).

[HeyJude]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

[Cam Mott]

I agree, Emily. I imagine it is something like that.

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

[HeyJude]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

[Cam Mott]

Wouldn’t you say a member of Brian’s band would most likely have a heck of a lot more insider knowledge about that situation compared to say, yourself? It doesn’t matter whether he was personally involved in making the movie or not.

Do you want to try and say that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you think someone who is an employee, not someone of great wealth with a giant legal team surrounding them, would just go “rogue” behind their employer’s back and make something like that up, saying it publicly to an interviewer, without some insider knowledge of it being TRUE? It’s obvious that someone in his shoes would only say something like that publicly if other people “who would know” had his back on the issue.

If a respected member of Brian’s band just went and made that up, crafting what I imagine you might term as a “wild” claim to an interviewer that was completely untrue in every way, shape, and form… you think Mike would just quietly sit back and not do something retaliatory about it? The reason Mike did nothing about it is because Mike knows that it’s the truth. Mike also shared the stage with Darian for a whole tour years later. I really doubt if Brian’s band members were telling LIES to the media about Mike, that Mike would just be cool and tour with the guy who “intentionally” defamed him. Mike has shown that he isn't cool to tour with people who don't do TM... people (especially not wealthy or powerful people) who intentionally say utter falsehoods about him I don't think would make the cut.

It’s preposterous that he’d just arbitrarily make it up,  saying something inflammatory without some insider knowledge that he was saying the truth.

According to your logic, Darian went "rogue", Mike's attorney's went "rogue", everyone just goes rogue behind the back of poor wittle blameless Mike. It's simply not believable.

He said it was his "theory".

[CenturyDeprived]

Wouldn’t you say a member of Brian’s band would most likely have a heck of a lot more insider knowledge about that situation compared to say, yourself? It doesn’t matter whether he was personally involved in making the movie or not.

Do you want to try and say that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you think someone who is an employee, not someone of great wealth with a giant legal team surrounding them, would just go “rogue” behind their employer’s back and make something like that up, saying it publicly to an interviewer, without some insider knowledge of it being TRUE? It’s obvious that someone in his shoes would only say something like that publicly if other people “who would know” had his back on the issue.

If a respected member of Brian’s band just went and made that up, crafting what I imagine you might term as a “wild” claim to an interviewer that was completely untrue in every way, shape, and form… you think Mike would just quietly sit back and not do something retaliatory about it? The reason Mike did nothing about it is because Mike knows that it’s the truth. Mike also shared the stage with Darian for a whole tour years later. I really doubt if Brian’s band members were telling LIES to the media about Mike, that Mike would just be cool and tour with the guy who “intentionally” defamed him. Mike has shown that he isn't cool to tour with people who don't do TM... people (especially not wealthy or powerful people) who intentionally say utter falsehoods about him I don't think would make the cut.

It’s preposterous that he’d just arbitrarily make it up,  saying something inflammatory without some insider knowledge that he was saying the truth.

According to your logic, Darian went "rogue", Mike's attorney's went "rogue", everyone just goes rogue behind the back of poor wittle blameless Mike. It's simply not believable.

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

What gives you the reason to think that you know more than a member of the band? And it's not as though anybody is even countering Mike. Mike never said he didn't propagandize portions of the film, as far as I know. He never publicly denied it, even though people were deeply hurt, obviously thinking that he was behind it with Uncle Jesse in his back pocket. Mike has shown how he wants people to know when they have the wrong idea about him... so why didn't he speak up??  

The only speaking up he did was to praise the film, and just to say some fashions and the portrayal of Murry were inaccurate. Yet we're supposed to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the obvious '66/'67 propaganda, but stayed silent when people publicly fingered HIM for propagandizing the film, only to break his silence to praise the film?  

[HeyJude]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it. 

[Angua]

Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.

Sorry to disagree, but while there are many lawyers, particularly in the kind of 'family court' stuff that gets reported a lot, who might be successful through obfuscation, the majority of really successful lawyers are successful because they argue a case well with logic and evidence.

Sorry Emily - my clumsy English must be failing me.  I did not intend to say or imply that lawyers are responsible for all the obfuscation.

[Debbie KL]

Wouldn’t you say a member of Brian’s band would most likely have a heck of a lot more insider knowledge about that situation compared to say, yourself? It doesn’t matter whether he was personally involved in making the movie or not.

Do you want to try and say that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Do you think someone who is an employee, not someone of great wealth with a giant legal team surrounding them, would just go “rogue” behind their employer’s back and make something like that up, saying it publicly to an interviewer, without some insider knowledge of it being TRUE? It’s obvious that someone in his shoes would only say something like that publicly if other people “who would know” had his back on the issue.

If a respected member of Brian’s band just went and made that up, crafting what I imagine you might term as a “wild” claim to an interviewer that was completely untrue in every way, shape, and form… you think Mike would just quietly sit back and not do something retaliatory about it? The reason Mike did nothing about it is because Mike knows that it’s the truth. Mike also shared the stage with Darian for a whole tour years later. I really doubt if Brian’s band members were telling LIES to the media about Mike, that Mike would just be cool and tour with the guy who “intentionally” defamed him. Mike has shown that he isn't cool to tour with people who don't do TM... people (especially not wealthy or powerful people) who intentionally say utter falsehoods about him I don't think would make the cut.

It’s preposterous that he’d just arbitrarily make it up,  saying something inflammatory without some insider knowledge that he was saying the truth.

According to your logic, Darian went "rogue", Mike's attorney's went "rogue", everyone just goes rogue behind the back of poor wittle blameless Mike. It's simply not believable.

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

What gives you the reason to think that you know more than a member of the band? And it's not as though anybody is even countering Mike. Mike never said he didn't propagandize portions of the film, as far as I know. He never publicly denied it, even though people were deeply hurt, obviously thinking that he was behind it with Uncle Jesse in his back pocket. Mike has shown how he wants people to know when they have the wrong idea about him... so why didn't he speak up??  

The only speaking up he did was to praise the film, and just to say some fashions and the portrayal of Murry were inaccurate. Yet we're supposed to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the obvious '66/'67 propaganda, but stayed silent when people publicly fingered HIM for propagandizing the film, only to break his silence to praise the film? 

Well, and there's that pesky problem that the characterization of Brian in the film - including roughly following the same (false) timeline - was so similar to the assertions in the 2005-2010 suit.  Then there are those Mike interviews.  Most of us seem to see a pattern here.  Apparently, two people don't.  

[Emily]

After slogging thru pages and pages of this thread, not to mention the Rocky Pamplin thread and others, it occurs to me that it would be fascinating to do a few SS Skype Group Calls just for the opportunity to encounter some SS posters in action and gain an even greater understanding of their various personalities, proclivities, and backstories. Hopefully such an encounter would remain civil, but there is the obvious possibility of it descending into pandemonium.

I actually find that to be a really attractive proposal.

[HeyJude]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it. 

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

[Emily]

Sorry Emily - my clumsy English must be failing me.  I did not intend to say or imply that lawyers are responsible for all the obfuscation.

If English is not your first language then I am very impressed. You write it better than most people write their primary.
I will chalk up my misunderstanding you to my own lazy thinking.

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it. 

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

[Debbie KL]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it. 

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

[Angua]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

This seems to be to be another detour.   I think it's fairly clear that I did not say that the wording was in the L+M movie.  

I just find it difficult to understand that you are able to turn off your objectivity when watching a film but not at other times.  I know that the wording I gave was in a legal document but nevertheless I find it horrendous.  You say that the lawsuit was just about money.  Actually it's not, it's also about control and could have had really a detrimental affect on the music which even the 'it's all about the music' apologists might have regretted.

[HeyJude]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

It's up to you to decide whether watching a film "translates" to anything else. But you're talking about things nobody brought up. You can't take two different points raised on a thread, conflate them, and then incredulously wonder why people have no clue what you're talking about (at best) or why people are saying you're misrepresenting what others have said (at worst).

Nobody was equating the L&M film to lawsuits. Nobody was translating one to the other. Only you have done that, by implying that a statement pulled from Mike's 2005 lawsuit ("bastardization....") was actually contained within the L&M film.

If you want to start a Beach Boys "Mad Libs" thread for that sort of stuff, maybe someone will join in.

Maybe it's fun to take random lines from Beach Boys-related lawsuits and attribute them to movies. I really loved that scene in “Taxi Driver” where they talk about the revenue BRI gets from the Beach Boys trademark.

[Angua]

Sorry Emily - my clumsy English must be failing me.  I did not intend to say or imply that lawyers are responsible for all the obfuscation.

If English is not your first language then I am very impressed. You write it better than most people write their primary.
I will chalk up my misunderstanding you to my own lazy thinking.

Thank you Emily - though English is my first language    - I was being self effacing.

[Angua]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

It's up to you to decide whether watching a film "translates" to anything else. But you're talking about things nobody brought up. You can't take two different points raised on a thread, conflate them, and then incredulously wonder why people have no clue what you're talking about (at best) or why people are saying you're misrepresenting what others have said (at worst).

Nobody was equating the L&M film to lawsuits. Nobody was translating one to the other. Only you have done that, by implying that a statement pulled from Mike's 2005 lawsuit ("bastardization....") was actually contained within the L&M film.

If you want to start a Beach Boys "Mad Libs" thread for that sort of stuff, maybe someone will join in.

Maybe it's fun to take random lines from Beach Boys-related lawsuits and attribute them to movies. I really loved that scene in “Taxi Driver” where they talk about the revenue BRI gets from the Beach Boys trademark.

Hey Jude - you understood what I meant perfectly.  As usual your post is really good.  Thanks