Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?

[HeyJude]

Ahh, here we go again, KDS. The bias against Mike especially on this board? So as this exists as an open forum where fans can sound off on whatever they want to discuss, would you rather have posts that are negative against Mike or his actions censored in some way? Some people were campaigning for exactly that, behind the scenes. This sh*t was already old a year ago, now it's just ridiculous.

KDS - Why did Mike's people lock down the comments section on Mike's YouTube videos? Is it all the toxicity from this board infecting the rest of the internet?

If I haven't said it enough already, consider there were efforts to try scrubbing this perceived negativity and bias off this board by individuals who will remain nameless, and when that failed time and time again, some even started sending and posting veiled threats of legal action, and then there was the still ongoing efforts to paint this forum as full of "Mike Bashing" and label it toxic.

News flash: If fans are allowed to talk and comment openly, and certain parties don't like what they're saying, maybe they should work on fixing and correcting what led to those fans feeling that way rather than trying to scuttle the outlets which fans have to voice their opinions without being censored...or in the case of Mike's YouTube channel and other social media, blocked entirely.

If people want to bash Mike, that's one thing. 

But, what tiring is that, even when somebody tries to post something positive about Mike's contributions to The Beach Boys (ie. the thread Nate Ruvin started as a change of pace from the reaction, some of which was valid, to DIA '17), took less than a page to devolve into negativity. 

And, you know it goes both ways GF, you talk about an open forum all the time where people can discuss all things Beach Boys related, yet you make a point to shoot down or downplay any opinions where people, including myself, might actually try to defend Mike. 

While any and all on-topic threads are just fine, I'd argue that starting a "let's say something positive about Mike" thread is, sometimes, and perhaps unintentionally, a weird sort of deflection away from criticism, and also arguably and again unintentionally implies that the thread is in response to some sort of "let's say something randomly negative about Mike" thread.

I think it is important to look at how a group of fans can start to just get too negative about anything or everything (something like Star Wars fans going on and on about George Lucas, as a random example from several years back).

But let's be clear, recent threads about Mike haven't been random "Hey, so I think Mike is a prick" threads. Recent discussion has been a direct response to the only high-profile thing Mike has done in awhile (certainly since last year's book, and arguably the most high profile music thing he has done since the end of C50). No, I haven't agreed *precisely* with every negative comment about Mike's DIA single, or the zeal some of the criticism has had. I'm more of a "uggh, this is bad for the brand and legacy" sort, as opposed to the "Mike has zero talent these days and this proves it! Stamos sucks!" sort of mentality.

But whatever the precise criticisms, they've come in *response* to something Mike has *chosen* to put out there on the market.

As far as this board, nobody is removing pro-Mike posts. You can defend Mike however substantively or poorly as you choose. A couple of posters did this for YEARS before being removed for other issues.

It is ironically Mike and his social media platforms that have a clear censorship issue going on. YouTube comments are locked. Often innocuous posts are removed from Facebook. That isn't happening on this board.

[guitarfool2002]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

[KDS]

Ahh, here we go again, KDS. The bias against Mike especially on this board? So as this exists as an open forum where fans can sound off on whatever they want to discuss, would you rather have posts that are negative against Mike or his actions censored in some way? Some people were campaigning for exactly that, behind the scenes. This sh*t was already old a year ago, now it's just ridiculous.

KDS - Why did Mike's people lock down the comments section on Mike's YouTube videos? Is it all the toxicity from this board infecting the rest of the internet?

If I haven't said it enough already, consider there were efforts to try scrubbing this perceived negativity and bias off this board by individuals who will remain nameless, and when that failed time and time again, some even started sending and posting veiled threats of legal action, and then there was the still ongoing efforts to paint this forum as full of "Mike Bashing" and label it toxic.

News flash: If fans are allowed to talk and comment openly, and certain parties don't like what they're saying, maybe they should work on fixing and correcting what led to those fans feeling that way rather than trying to scuttle the outlets which fans have to voice their opinions without being censored...or in the case of Mike's YouTube channel and other social media, blocked entirely.

If people want to bash Mike, that's one thing. 

But, what tiring is that, even when somebody tries to post something positive about Mike's contributions to The Beach Boys (ie. the thread Nate Ruvin started as a change of pace from the reaction, some of which was valid, to DIA '17), took less than a page to devolve into negativity. 

And, you know it goes both ways GF, you talk about an open forum all the time where people can discuss all things Beach Boys related, yet you make a point to shoot down or downplay any opinions where people, including myself, might actually try to defend Mike. 

While any and all on-topic threads are just fine, I'd argue that starting a "let's say something positive about Mike" thread is, sometimes, and perhaps unintentionally, a weird sort of deflection away from criticism, and also arguably and again unintentionally implies that the thread is in response to some sort of "let's say something randomly negative about Mike" thread.

I think it is important to look at how a group of fans can start to just get too negative about anything or everything (something like Star Wars fans going on and on about George Lucas, as a random example from several years back).

But let's be clear, recent threads about Mike haven't been random "Hey, so I think Mike is a prick" threads. Recent discussion has been a direct response to the only high-profile thing Mike has done in awhile (certainly since last year's book, and arguably the most high profile music thing he has done since the end of C50). No, I haven't agreed *precisely* with every negative comment about Mike's DIA single, or the zeal some of the criticism has had. I'm more of a "uggh, this is bad for the brand and legacy" sort, as opposed to the "Mike has zero talent these days and this proves it! Stamos sucks!" sort of mentality.

You have to admit that it's a little humorous that you say this in a thread titled "Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?" 

[KDS]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

[HeyJude]

You have to admit that it's a little humorous that you say this in a thread titled "Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?" 

Apart from the surely fruitless task of trying to parse whether the group actually constitutes "millions", I think the question of how Mike perceives his reputation is a *hugely interesting* and on-topic issue. It's not a particularly easy topic to discuss, because it can quickly become somewhat "meta" and fans start talking about fandom itself, etc.

If the title of this thread was "I despise Mike Love", and the first post was simply tearing Mike a new one personally, then perhaps there would be some irony here. But in actuality, the topic poses a very germane question (whether you "despise" or otherwise think poorly of him or not) and the first post makes it clear that it's not about bashing Mike, but more about discussing his level of self-awareness.

There are MANY reasons why Mike's level of self-awareness and humility is an important and interesting topic. It's fascinating for numerous reasons.

[HeyJude]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

Well, let's be fair. It's not just a random quote. It's a very good example and could serve as "Exhibit 1" for why Mike is so heavily criticized.

Further, if one finds such a quote "indefensible", then the issue of a back and forth with someone looking to, at times, defend Mike, is also closely related to such quotes.

I think we all appreciate even someone sympathetic to Mike acknowledging when a comment from Mike can't be defended (there were the two previous folks on this board who certainly *couldn't ever* do that).

I think this is just a case where you choose to not weigh as heavily those sorts of negative comments and actions. I again submit that, in some cases, even heavily knowledgeable fans who have attained all of that knowledge and fandom in a much shorter period of time (let's say 5 or 10 years versus 30 or 40 or 50) will also weight differently the abundance and recurrence (fans of 30-50 years may be more of the sort of "fool me once, shame on you...." mentality).

[KDS]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

Well, let's be fair. It's not just a random quote. It's a very good example and could serve as "Exhibit 1" for why Mike is so heavily criticized.

Further, if one finds such a quote "indefensible", then the issue of a back and forth with someone looking to, at times, defend Mike, is also closely related to such quotes.

I think we all appreciate even someone sympathetic to Mike acknowledging when a comment from Mike can't be defended (there were the two previous folks on this board who certainly *couldn't ever* do that).

I think this is just a case where you choose to not weigh as heavily those sorts of negative comments and actions. I again submit that, in some cases, even heavily knowledgeable fans who have attained all of that knowledge and fandom in a much shorter period of time (let's say 5 or 10 years versus 30 or 40 or 50) will also weight differently the abundance and recurrence (fans of 30-50 years may be more of the sort of "fool me once, shame on you...." mentality).

I don't weight on on those topics, you're right.  But, I've said time and time and time again, there are many things that Mike has done that I can't defend. 

Maybe GF is just making sure I'm not a "Kokomoist," which I'm not, nor am I a "Brianista."  It's just funny to me how he continually pokes at fans for saying "it's about the music" while allowing posters to derail threads with Mike bashing. 

[guitarfool2002]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

When that article first appeared, you focused on the fact-checking and mistakes in the article, and found that aspect more offensive than what Mike actually said about Brian.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24270.msg586399.html#msg586399

To be 100% honest, I find the lack of fact checking more offensive than anything Mike says in this article (we've heard it before).  

For one, it sounds like Al, Brian, and Bruce joined Mike for the reunion.  No mention of David Marks or the fact that Bruce was already in Mike's group.  And Brian left the tour in June?  Jeez.  Take five minutes to do some basic research.  

So it's deflecting what Mike actually said toward yet another example of "sloppy" work from various local news outlets who publish these promo pieces for Mike's shows.

"we've heard it before" - Yeah, and? Does that mean it's somehow less upsetting for people to read Mike speaking on the record this way and telling fans who are ostensibly being sold on buying tickets to see Mike and the Four Tops that weekend last August that Mike's cousin Brian is medicated and is in the same place as he was 25 years ago with Gene Landy?

It's a bullshit of a dodge as saying "oh that's just Mike being Mike, he does this all the time...". It doesn't make it right, and when you and others who posted in that original thread start deflecting the actual quote and griping about fact-checking and "move along, nothing to see here" kinds of duck-and-dodge BS, you expect fans who are upset to read what Mike just told thousands of people will not post something to counter it?

As to what's already been said, the defense of Mike should perhaps include finding out what causes so many fans to be upset or angry and post as such instead of challenging and questioning why they post all that "negativity". (the quotation marks are a deliberate form of sarcasm BTW...)

When Mike told fans Brian Wilson was drugged and is still in a Landy type of situation in 2016, the issue isn't the sloppy work of the person who wrote the article. It's an issue of why Mike is saying this on a platform set up to help him sell tickets to his concert with the 4 Tops.

[guitarfool2002]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

Well, let's be fair. It's not just a random quote. It's a very good example and could serve as "Exhibit 1" for why Mike is so heavily criticized.

Further, if one finds such a quote "indefensible", then the issue of a back and forth with someone looking to, at times, defend Mike, is also closely related to such quotes.

I think we all appreciate even someone sympathetic to Mike acknowledging when a comment from Mike can't be defended (there were the two previous folks on this board who certainly *couldn't ever* do that).

I think this is just a case where you choose to not weigh as heavily those sorts of negative comments and actions. I again submit that, in some cases, even heavily knowledgeable fans who have attained all of that knowledge and fandom in a much shorter period of time (let's say 5 or 10 years versus 30 or 40 or 50) will also weight differently the abundance and recurrence (fans of 30-50 years may be more of the sort of "fool me once, shame on you...." mentality).

I don't weight on on those topics, you're right.  But, I've said time and time and time again, there are many things that Mike has done that I can't defend. 

Maybe GF is just making sure I'm not a "Kokomoist," which I'm not, nor am I a "Brianista."  It's just funny to me how he continually pokes at fans for saying "it's about the music" while allowing posters to derail threads with Mike bashing. 

It's an open forum KDS. We don't censor or delete posts, nor are discussions dictated over as to where they should go.

How many times does it have to be repeated, it's an open forum. If you want censorship, if you want self-appointed moderators controlling and policing the board members and ridding the places of trolls and other negative vibes they don't agree with, you know where to go. It is also a damn shame that for genuine Mike Love fans, his people saw fit to block comments when he does offer something new on YouTube or social media, so the fans who may have comments that could be constructive criticism are either blocked in advance or deleted as soon as they hit cyberspace.

Again, if you want that kind of whitewashing and rose-colored glasses kind of approach, like censorship without the stigma, you know where to find it. This is an open forum for fans to sound off and other fans to come back at things they don't agree with. If it's not as positive toward Mike Love as some including you KDS seem to wish it would be, don't blame the fans.

[KDS]

http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/08/17/mike-love-beach-boys-preview/88770362/

Mike:

“Brian’s life is controlled completely," he said. "It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated. If he says something about Mike Love unsolicited, he’ll say things like, ‘He’s my favorite lyricist.’ If and when we do see each other, we revert back to childhood, which is great. So if it were just he and I, I don’t think there would be any problems. We would work through them. I know that for a fact. But that is not the way it is. So let’s just leave it at that.”


Can anyone defend this? And in terms of Mike's motivations or ulterior motives, can anyone offer some points to help shed light on how saying this during a press junket phone interview and having it published in the Detroit Free Press the week Mike was playing a show in the Detroit area with the Four Tops has anything to do with promoting Mike's live concerts?

Specifically to KDS: Would you step up and defend what Mike said in that quote?

GF, I can't defend that quote.   But, I never have.  So, as far as I'm concerned, your taking a random Mike quote that has nothing to do with my point. 

Well, let's be fair. It's not just a random quote. It's a very good example and could serve as "Exhibit 1" for why Mike is so heavily criticized.

Further, if one finds such a quote "indefensible", then the issue of a back and forth with someone looking to, at times, defend Mike, is also closely related to such quotes.

I think we all appreciate even someone sympathetic to Mike acknowledging when a comment from Mike can't be defended (there were the two previous folks on this board who certainly *couldn't ever* do that).

I think this is just a case where you choose to not weigh as heavily those sorts of negative comments and actions. I again submit that, in some cases, even heavily knowledgeable fans who have attained all of that knowledge and fandom in a much shorter period of time (let's say 5 or 10 years versus 30 or 40 or 50) will also weight differently the abundance and recurrence (fans of 30-50 years may be more of the sort of "fool me once, shame on you...." mentality).

I don't weight on on those topics, you're right.  But, I've said time and time and time again, there are many things that Mike has done that I can't defend. 

Maybe GF is just making sure I'm not a "Kokomoist," which I'm not, nor am I a "Brianista."  It's just funny to me how he continually pokes at fans for saying "it's about the music" while allowing posters to derail threads with Mike bashing. 

It's an open forum KDS. We don't censor or delete posts, nor are discussions dictated over as to where they should go.

How many times does it have to be repeated, it's an open forum. If you want censorship, if you want self-appointed moderators controlling and policing the board members and ridding the places of trolls and other negative vibes they don't agree with, you know where to go. It is also a damn shame that for genuine Mike Love fans, his people saw fit to block comments when he does offer something new on YouTube or social media, so the fans who may have comments that could be constructive criticism are either blocked in advance or deleted as soon as they hit cyberspace.

Again, if you want that kind of whitewashing and rose-colored glasses kind of approach, like censorship without the stigma, you know where to find it. This is an open forum for fans to sound off and other fans to come back at things they don't agree with. If it's not as positive toward Mike Love as some including you KDS seem to wish it would be, don't blame the fans.

Yes, it's an open forum. 

And I feel I'm entitled to my opinions on the matter just as much as anyone else on here, and don't need to be told, for example, that I'm wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer. 

[guitarfool2002]

   Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

[Ang Jones]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

[KDS]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

[guitarfool2002]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's 100% common sense and logic, Ang. You'd be surprised how many people have wanted or tried to change or amend that definition in the name of "positivity" and in some unusual kind of disparity, seeming to come only when Mike Love was being criticized by Beach Boys fans.

[guitarfool2002]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

[KDS]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

[guitarfool2002]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

Keep deflecting KDS. I have that quote because I agree with it and wish I could sum up my opinions on that matter as concise and to the point as Wirestone was able to say it.

[rab2591]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

[KDS]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

Keep deflecting KDS. I have that quote because I agree with it and wish I could sum up my opinions on that matter as concise and to the point as Wirestone was able to say it.

Fair enough.  As somebody who was vocally not a fan of the Kacey Musgraves or Sebu tracks, as least I know where I stand. 

[guitarfool2002]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

Keep deflecting KDS. I have that quote because I agree with it and wish I could sum up my opinions on that matter as concise and to the point as Wirestone was able to say it.

Fair enough.  As somebody who was vocally not a fan of the Kacey Musgraves or Sebu tracks, as least I know where I stand. 

You're deflecting again, KDS. Consider not flouncing around with the facts so much and actually address the issues on the table. I don't know if anyone cares what you think of the tracks, I know I don't, but the points in that quote go back to when the tracklist and guest artists were first announced, and no one had even heard the music. So much for the old go-to dodge "it's all about the music" if people were tearing down the tracklist and the guest artists on name alone, right?

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

[KDS]

  Ahh, KDS, here we go again. You got offended by this "sloppy" journalism and fact-checking, so you should go back and check your own facts and state correctly what the hell I actually said instead of posting that bullshit about Runaway Dancer.

My posts to you about that were about you using the term "EDM" without seeming to know what that term actually meant or what the genre of EDM actually is. I happen to know.

At no time did I ever tell you that you were wrong for not liking Runaway Dancer, in fact I could care less what you think of it. I told you that you were wrong in how you were using the term and the genre EDM in your posts without knowing what the style actually was.

Get your facts straight before trying to rewrite history and paint an inaccurate version of what I said.

If you say so.  But, as I recall you decided to still argue even when I said I didn't like it because it was a dance song, regardless of whatever style of dance music it is.  

Again, get your facts straight before telling people what I said or did especially if it never was the case.

Or maybe you subscribe to this kind of bullshit?
"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.

I don't. 

I also don't subscribe to the bullshit of a moderator on a BB board having this as a signature

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

Granted, it's a quote from another poster, but how in the world is having that on your signature as a mod encouraging an open forum?

Keep deflecting KDS. I have that quote because I agree with it and wish I could sum up my opinions on that matter as concise and to the point as Wirestone was able to say it.

Fair enough.  As somebody who was vocally not a fan of the Kacey Musgraves or Sebu tracks, as least I know where I stand. 

You're deflecting again, KDS. Consider not flouncing around with the facts so much and actually address the issues on the table. I don't know if anyone cares what you think of the tracks, I know I don't, but the points in that quote go back to when the tracklist and guest artists were first announced, and no one had even heard the music. So much for the old go-to dodge "it's all about the music" if people were tearing down the tracklist and the guest artists on name alone, right?

Even though I'm not a fan of many of the guest artists, I went into it with an open mind.  To my surprise, I actually liked, and still like, the Peter Hollins track. 

And so what if people complain because an artist they like is going to be on an album of an artist they love on an open forum?   I know I sure wasn't happy when I found out Kesha was going to be on the (at the time new) Alice Cooper Welcome 2 My Nightmare. 

[guitarfool2002]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize).