Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[Empire Of Love]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

[guitarfool2002]

This is the end-game, isn't it?  It's going to get worse before it gets better.

If you mean the band…. Yeah. Looks like tit-for-tat for the next few years.

If you mean the board… nah. Billy will finally get sick of it and close the thread.

Haha...that may be...but no, I mean, this is the end-game for the soap opera, as the world turns, and the characters are making their final moves.  We'll be here in one way or another debating for the end of time.  The players are staking their claims and making their adjustments. 

What is there to debate? Where is there a middle ground between a doctor who changes a patient's will to potentially inherit (along with his own family including the son who spoke to the Daily Mail) a multimillion dollar estate and the patient who had his will changed? Where is there a rationale behind trying to "set the record straight" or even lend the smallest shred of credibility to that doctor, his family, and indirectly his actions by saying we should read what his son has to say in defending the doctor? Or worse- my own pet peeve - trying to suggest that doctor's son has equal credibility to Brian's own wife and family? For f***'s sake...

If someone has some proof or evidence which would go beyond the changing of that will, put it on the table. Otherwise, yeah, the illogical debates will continue because some must be incapable of seeing common sense and right vs. wrong staring them in the face. And some prefer to filibuster and write complete doubletalk and gobbledygook in order to avoid having to deal with the reality of the situation and - horrors - 'fess up that some things are just beyond the pale.

[guitarfool2002]

And no, this thread is not being locked down or closed.

[Komera]

Should I repost it again? Or sum it up? Let's sum it up.

Landy wrote Brian's own family out of a will and instead tried to make him and therefore his family the beneficiaries to that estate. It's morally, ethically, and legally *wrong*.

Landy's son talked to a tabloid where he defended his father but conveniently ignored the issue of changing the will.

Some said the word of Landy's son is or should be "equal" to that of Brian and Melinda who have been married for the past several decades.

If some think Landy's word or that of his son are worth reading in light of them changing a man's will - their patient - the basic morality and a sense of right and wrong should kick in at some point if that's a possibility and the absurdity of such a notion would become obvious.

Because a doctor and his staff who willingly tried to write a patient's family out of that patient's will have already cashed in their credibility chips at the table. They have no more cards to play after that. Those who think that group's "perspective" is worth  considering should ask to be dealt into that twisted card game that the Daily Mail seems to have been hosting, as well as some on this board.

Just take the Old West adage to heart before getting cheated: Never play poker with a man named "Doc".

And again, the bottom line is, if anyone here has something factual to counter or dispute anything I (and others) have said in this and other threads on this topic and others related, whether it be about the Landys, Brian's family and how they responded and acted on the will issue and other related things with Landy, and so forth...put your cards on the table and show us what you got.

Otherwise, you got to know when to fold 'em - as Kenny Rogers so aptly put it into a song.

So what have you got? Put the cards on the table.

I probably would have been better served saying this in the other thread, but there is some merit to recording what Evan had to say.  To not have anything recorded from anyone on Landy's side makes for two dimensional history.  If we only know the thoughts and motivations of one side of any historical story, the other side devolves into cliches and stereotypes.  But when you have the story according to the view of the other side, you can see how they thought, how they got that way, and more importantly... how not to get there again.  Remember George Santayana's famous quote?  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  How best to avoid another Landy but to have a record of what he and those around him thought?  There would be no possible way to pass this lesson down from one generation to another without it's record, for a human lifespan is simply too short.

And how much easier would Giamatti's homework would have been if more stuff on Landy had been written down?

[guitarfool2002]

Should I repost it again? Or sum it up? Let's sum it up.

Landy wrote Brian's own family out of a will and instead tried to make him and therefore his family the beneficiaries to that estate. It's morally, ethically, and legally *wrong*.

Landy's son talked to a tabloid where he defended his father but conveniently ignored the issue of changing the will.

Some said the word of Landy's son is or should be "equal" to that of Brian and Melinda who have been married for the past several decades.

If some think Landy's word or that of his son are worth reading in light of them changing a man's will - their patient - the basic morality and a sense of right and wrong should kick in at some point if that's a possibility and the absurdity of such a notion would become obvious.

Because a doctor and his staff who willingly tried to write a patient's family out of that patient's will have already cashed in their credibility chips at the table. They have no more cards to play after that. Those who think that group's "perspective" is worth  considering should ask to be dealt into that twisted card game that the Daily Mail seems to have been hosting, as well as some on this board.

Just take the Old West adage to heart before getting cheated: Never play poker with a man named "Doc".

And again, the bottom line is, if anyone here has something factual to counter or dispute anything I (and others) have said in this and other threads on this topic and others related, whether it be about the Landys, Brian's family and how they responded and acted on the will issue and other related things with Landy, and so forth...put your cards on the table and show us what you got.

Otherwise, you got to know when to fold 'em - as Kenny Rogers so aptly put it into a song.

So what have you got? Put the cards on the table.

I probably would have been better served saying this in the other thread, but there is some merit to recording what Evan had to say.  To not have anything recorded from anyone on Landy's side makes for two dimensional history.  If we only know the thoughts and motivations of one side of any historical story, the other side devolves into cliches and stereotypes.  But when you have the story according to the view of the other side, you can see how they thought, how they got that way, and more importantly... how not to get there again.  Remember George Santayana's famous quote?  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  How best to avoid another Landy but to have a record of what he and those around him thought?  There would be no possible way to pass this lesson down from one generation to another without it's record, for a human lifespan is simply too short.

And how much easier would Giamatti's homework would have been if more stuff on Landy had been written down?

It was already written down through the courts and legal system, and in the legal filings and decisions by numerous courts, judges, boards of appeal, medical and ethical boards and authorities, etc.

And Landy wound up being stripped of his license to practice by the state of California due to ethics violations and doctor-patient misconduct (a decision which he agreed to), a restraining order was filed and granted to prevent Landy and his associates from being in contact with Brian Wilson (which was also agreed to and followed EDIT: except for one contact which Landy was fined), and ultimately he did not succeed in his plan to make him and his family the beneficiaries of Brian's will.

So if *anyone* needs to read more of the story so we get that all-important "fair and balanced" view of the doctor's actions, there are reams of legal documents on file that led to a license revocation, a restraining order, and an almost total professional and legal rebuke of the doctor and his actions regarding Brian Wilson.

Am I missing something?

[guitarfool2002]

I was missing something: Gary Usher's journal, which was published. But even that was before the changing of the will issue was discovered that finally brought this madness to a end.

[Cam Mott]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

[Empire Of Love]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

Another case of classic Cam Mott avoidance?  Or are you taking me for a ride?  It is hard to tell...

Even Doe isn't here defending this one, you are riding solo this time out.  But Old Faithful just keeps on keeping on, increasingly less coherent, but nevertheless not detered!

[Komera]

It was already written down through the courts and legal system, and in the legal filings and decisions by numerous courts, judges, boards of appeal, medical and ethical boards and authorities, etc.

And Landy wound up being stripped of his license to practice by the state of California due to ethics violations and doctor-patient misconduct (a decision which he agreed to), a restraining order was filed and granted to prevent Landy and his associates from being in contact with Brian Wilson (which was also agreed to and followed EDIT: except for one contact which Landy was fined), and ultimately he did not succeed in his plan to make him and his family the beneficiaries of Brian's will.

So if *anyone* needs to read more of the story so we get that all-important "fair and balanced" view of the doctor's actions, there are reams of legal documents on file that led to a license revocation, a restraining order, and an almost total professional and legal rebuke of the doctor and his actions regarding Brian Wilson.

Am I missing something?

A record of what he did is not the same thing as a record of what was going through his pea-sized brain.

I said exactly what I meant to say, and you are reading more into it than what I wrote.  I didn't say anything about a "fair and balanced" view.  If there was more to read than what I had written, it should have been this:  I have a lot of "Seriously, Landy, WTF???" questions that could easily be answered if he had a hidden diary tucked away under his pillow.  If there's a way to figure out how Landy managed to get so screwed up, I'd read it.  And then later if I ever saw... my elder son for example, if he suddenly starts down the path of Landy* and I know ahead of time what to look for, I could make sure my son doesn't become the next Landy.

But of course, that's just me.  I've always been into history, and I love to learn ancient modes of thought.  I would have much more fun learning and figuring out why Nero proverbially fiddled while Rome burned than I would trying to figure out why Governor Brewer shoved her skeletal finger in President Obama's face.  It doesn't mean I'd sympathize with Nero.  It just means I enjoy trying to figure him out.  Knowing why someone is the way they are doesn't necessarily make it impossible to let someone remain in villain territory.  For me, Mike doesn't make it into villain-dom, although he's personality is not one that I would easily reside in the same room with.  Phil Spector on the other hand almost makes it out of villain-dom and into the same jealous old man-dom that Mike currently exists in.  Except for that minor detail about being a murderer, abusive, and bat sh*t insane.  As for Landy?  No, I don't think getting answers to my "WTF, Landy???" questions would unvillainize him for me.  He's already assoiciated in my mind with slime, grease, and oh gawd I need to take a shower just to feel clean again!!!  But if ever an opportunity to get my "why" questions answered along with the "what" questions, I'd take it, and I really don't see that my "why" questions should suffer just because you think absolutely no one should spare anyone on Landy's side 5kB worth of space.

* Not that my kid is likely to, given that he's got the emotional maturity of a 3 year old.  Seriously, my younger son is made of sterner stuff!

[Mike's Beard]

Should I repost it again? Or sum it up? Let's sum it up.

Landy wrote Brian's own family out of a will and instead tried to make him and therefore his family the beneficiaries to that estate. It's morally, ethically, and legally *wrong*.

Landy's son talked to a tabloid where he defended his father but conveniently ignored the issue of changing the will.

Some said the word of Landy's son is or should be "equal" to that of Brian and Melinda who have been married for the past several decades.

If some think Landy's word or that of his son are worth reading in light of them changing a man's will - their patient - the basic morality and a sense of right and wrong should kick in at some point if that's a possibility and the absurdity of such a notion would become obvious.

Because a doctor and his staff who willingly tried to write a patient's family out of that patient's will have already cashed in their credibility chips at the table. They have no more cards to play after that. Those who think that group's "perspective" is worth  considering should ask to be dealt into that twisted card game that the Daily Mail seems to have been hosting, as well as some on this board.

Just take the Old West adage to heart before getting cheated: Never play poker with a man named "Doc".

And again, the bottom line is, if anyone here has something factual to counter or dispute anything I (and others) have said in this and other threads on this topic and others related, whether it be about the Landys, Brian's family and how they responded and acted on the will issue and other related things with Landy, and so forth...put your cards on the table and show us what you got.

Otherwise, you got to know when to fold 'em - as Kenny Rogers so aptly put it into a song.

So what have you got? Put the cards on the table.

I don't know what thread you are reading but no poster here has defended Landy's actions at any point or disputed what he did.

[Mike's Beard]

I think we can all guess the answer for this but I'd love to know for definite if Landy put Brian in his will?

[Smilin Ed H]

In a recent interview Brian said the following about Mike:

Q: He [Mike] was always on your back, though, to tend to the commercial rather than the artistic."

A: He was probably an anchor. He probably wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s probably a good man.

Now, does this mean Mike was without a doubt an anchor, and that without a doubt wrote the words to songs like Good Vibrations and without a doubt is a good man?

Nope.  But thankfully that's not what he said, is it?  What he actually said was:

A: He was an anchor. He wrote a lot of the words to songs like “Good Vibrations.” And he’s a good man.

Thankfully Brian knows how to conduct himself in an interview even when he is being baited.

Wouldn't it be more like

Landy: "Was Mike an anchor? Probably. Did he write a lot of words to songs like "Good Vibrations"? Probably. And is he a good man? Hell, yeah."

if Landy had publically praised Mike for 30 years as the group's anchor and writer of lots of words to songs like GV and good man.

For once, I think you're defending the indefensible. Why didn't you challenge Daro's comments about Mike when he posted here?

[filledeplage]

Cam, what would you think of Evan Landy saying Gene "probably" went too far?
How about if Alexandra Morgan also said Gene "probably" went too far?
And lastly, what if Murry said that he (Murry) himself "probably" went too far in disciplining his kids?

Does the word "probably" strike you as perhaps a bit soft and inappropriate in any of those cases?

I would think they thought he went too far, especially if they had already gone public saying he went too far.

And you would not think that the term "probably" was objectionable, even for Murry talking about beating his kids?

Look CD, I am talking about this interview, I guess I didn't read your hypotheticals closely enough. Sorry.

When Mike says "probably" I think he means he thinks it happened, he thought it happened so much that he was publically denouncing it and still is denouncing it.

Also, to the no one who agrees with or reads my posts, since when is thinking a point of view is interesting or worth hearing an endorsement or agreement with that point of view? Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view.

Cam: I am just trying to get an understanding of how anybody could find the term "probably" ok to use in context of talking about unarguably despicable actions.

For the record... I honestly, truthfully, do NOT think that Mike only "probably" thinks Landy went too far. I think 2015 Mike absolutely thinks Landy went too far.

But for whatever reason, be it politics, trying to throw a monkey wrench into the significant praise the film has been getting, or possible onset of senility (hey, it sadly happened to Glen Campbell - I would hate to think it could happen to another contemporary within his age bracket, but it's possible)... regardless of the reason why Mike changed his tone on Landy from his 1980s POV (where Mike seemed to have rage and tears, which I didn't/don't doubt for a moment were truthful) to a current 2015 lighter stance of using the term "probably"... he did in fact change that term.  

Just because he previously talked about Landy in a more stern way, he DID change the way he talked about him in 2015. THAT HAPPENED. And I'm not even trying to get into a discussion with you about why that happened. I'm trying to say that the word is not right to use.

The fact is that it's grossly inappropriate for a term to be used that could in any way, shape or form allow for interpretation that can even slightly excuse actions such as changing Brian's will.

-----------

I will ask you again:

if Murry Wilson were to have publicly said that his beating his sons was "probably" going too far (even if you believed that Murry actually had developed true regret, and really honestly inside believed 100% that he went too far, but for some reason only said the term "probably")... could you agree that in a circumstance such as that, that the term "probably" would not be an idea term to use?

Can you let me know what you think of that specific question?

Nope.

You've just officially outed yourself as a troll.

Absolutely amazing.

Boy that really stings.  (yawn)

Not trying to "sting". Why are you saying "nope" to a question? Because you know there's no way you can answer it and still have any semblance of a "point".

What reason can you spin for you not answering it? Oh, I know. Because it's not relevant what we are talking about, so you have decided you need not answer it, and that's that. You have no point, and EVERYONE knows it. At this point you are just messing with us, and that's the definition of a troll.

Century Deprived - one may ask a question. However, no one is entitled to a response.  Cam is entitled to his opinion, as is every other poster, without name calling.

[Autotune]

Cam, we get you have a sick obsession with the least talented member of the BBs who also happens to be the biggest jerk in rock and roll.

There used to be a time when this sort of insults weren't allowed on this board, if addressed at Brian Wilson or at another poster.

[Autotune]

Mike is a bitter old man looking to slander his cousin who he is insanely jealous of. What is hard to understand about that?

Again.

[Autotune]

Exactly, Mike is a sick old bastard.

And again.

[rab2591]

There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take passive aggressive swipes at Brian's singing voice. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't say Brian was "controlled". There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take cheap shots at the people Brian works with. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly take shots at Brian's current prescription drug use. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't didn't cheap shots at the music Brian was releasing (auto-tune comment). There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly show displeasure about some of the best music Brian made (Life Suite). I wish I could say there used to be a time when Mike Love wouldn't constantly bring up Brian's past drug use, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, you Mike apologists are always wondering why people here dislike him, why some here choose to constantly speak their mind without filter about this man. Well all of the above and more is why. Not to mention this very thread is based on a Mike Love statement that even the most ardent Mike supporters won't defend (well, besides one and he's not doing Mike any favors).

Also, you forgot one here, Autotune:

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

Oh, but since this post uses a word AGD aims at a couple posters constantly, and would get him banned by your standards, let's conveniently not mention this one....

[Autotune]

There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take passive aggressive swipes at Brian's singing voice. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't say Brian was "controlled". There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take cheap shots at the people Brian works with. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly take shots at Brian's current prescription drug use. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't didn't cheap shots at the music Brian was releasing (auto-tune comment). There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly show displeasure about some of the best music Brian made (Life Suite). I wish I could say there used to be a time when Mike Love wouldn't constantly bring up Brian's past drug use, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, you Mike apologists are always wondering why people here dislike him, why some here choose to constantly speak their mind without filter about this man. Well all of the above and more is why. Not to mention this very thread is based on a Mike Love statement that even the most ardent Mike supporters won't defend (well, besides one and he's not doing Mike any favors).

Also, you forgot one here, Autotune:

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

Oh, but since this post uses a word AGD aims at a couple posters constantly, and would get him banned by your standards, let's conveniently not mention this one....

So you are implying that insults at Mike Love are well-deserved. I don't know what his jabs at Brian have to do with the etiquette among posters over here, really.

[rab2591]

There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take passive aggressive swipes at Brian's singing voice. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't say Brian was "controlled". There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take cheap shots at the people Brian works with. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly take shots at Brian's current prescription drug use. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't didn't cheap shots at the music Brian was releasing (auto-tune comment). There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly show displeasure about some of the best music Brian made (Life Suite). I wish I could say there used to be a time when Mike Love wouldn't constantly bring up Brian's past drug use, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, you Mike apologists are always wondering why people here dislike him, why some here choose to constantly speak their mind without filter about this man. Well all of the above and more is why. Not to mention this very thread is based on a Mike Love statement that even the most ardent Mike supporters won't defend (well, besides one and he's not doing Mike any favors).

Also, you forgot one here, Autotune:

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

Oh, but since this post uses a word AGD aims at a couple posters constantly, and would get him banned by your standards, let's conveniently not mention this one....

So you are implying that insults at Mike Love are well-deserved. I don't know what his jabs at Brian have to do with the etiquette among posters over here, really.

I'm saying that when Mike makes tactless comments regarding one of the greatest songwriters in American history that posters here shouldn't be surprised when Mike gets called out/insulted because of it.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Cam, we get you have a sick obsession with the least talented member of the BBs who also happens to be the biggest jerk in rock and roll.

There used to be a time when this sort of insults weren't allowed on this board, if addressed at Brian Wilson or at another poster.

+1

[filledeplage]

There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take passive aggressive swipes at Brian's singing voice. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't say Brian was "controlled". There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't take cheap shots at the people Brian works with. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly take shots at Brian's current prescription drug use. There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't didn't cheap shots at the music Brian was releasing (auto-tune comment). There used to be a time when Mike Love didn't publicly show displeasure about some of the best music Brian made (Life Suite). I wish I could say there used to be a time when Mike Love wouldn't constantly bring up Brian's past drug use, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, you Mike apologists are always wondering why people here dislike him, why some here choose to constantly speak their mind without filter about this man. Well all of the above and more is why. Not to mention this very thread is based on a Mike Love statement that even the most ardent Mike supporters won't defend (well, besides one and he's not doing Mike any favors).

Also, you forgot one here, Autotune:

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

Oh, but since this post uses a word AGD aims at a couple posters constantly, and would get him banned by your standards, let's conveniently not mention this one....

So you are implying that insults at Mike Love are well-deserved. I don't know what his jabs at Brian have to do with the etiquette among posters over here, really.

I'm saying that when Mike makes tactless comments regarding one of the greatest songwriters in American history that posters here shouldn't be surprised when Mike gets called out/insulted because of it.

You may find them tactless.  Others found them innocuous.

And endlessly parsing the word "probably?"

[rab2591]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

[filledeplage]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

When people are interviewed, there may be a lot of dialogue as between an interviewer and interviewee.

During the editing process, the interviewer/writer/editor may be space-constrained and the context of any statement of any interview could be skewed by the omission of both the full questions and the full and not the abreviated dialogue. This can have the effect of sensationalizing an interview. It may have been longer originally, and someone doing the editing may have substituted the judgment of the author, as to the final copy.  And the quote might actually relate to something innocuous but appear sensationalized by the omission of full context and discussion.

And, I don't believe everything I read. 

[grillo]

Why do you guys care what Cam thinks, and why are you trying to bully and browbeat him into submitting to your point of view? Get A Life.

[Autotune]

"Have you spoken with Brian since the end of the tour?"
"No. Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs."

Does anyone really find that statement harmless? Actually, I'll ask this: do you think Mike would be comfortable saying Brian is controlled and medicated if he were standing right next to Brian himself? And if not, why?

And what the hell does that have to do with posting insults towards Mike Love here, allowing it on a BB message board, and then chasing a fellow poster because he won't change his mind?