From Brianistas to Lovesters

[Emily]

I love Brian as he is but I must admit I'd like it. It would be like that moment in Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, when, having put up with Mrs Danvers snotty behaviour for ages, the unnamed heroine finally says "I'M Mrs de Winter now." Maybe there is a touch of that in Brian's book title. Brian has confidence in who he is - he doesn't need to be constantly trying to make himself more important.

Best book and best movie.

-a bit hyperbolic, but still...

[guitarfool2002]

Hey Jude - yes, you just responded to a post to urbanite. (you prefaced your remark.) 

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong? 

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not. 

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post. 

The comments in bold are a complete load of crap, and I'd usually not use that kind of direct language unless comments were aimed at me, but in this case...those comments are absurd.

When you find out why that board was formed, and when you know the truth as to why and how it was formed, then perhaps make those statements as fact. Until then, how about dialing back on the rhetoric and not trying to paint a scenario that isn't accurate?

The hypocrisy is off the charts with this "other forum" BS. The exact scenario you pegged to this board's "problems" have been going on for quite some time, and based on lies and distortions used to attack other people and silence them, if not drive them away entirely.

Now suddenly it's an issue that is driving people away from here after many of the most vocal critics of this board did the exact same behavior, and you were OK with it when it was applied in another direction?

Hey Jude - others are looking at what has transpired here and have opined elsewhere.  Some who don't even post. The web is pretty much an open book.  Look at those who left recently voluntarily. 

Don't put other's stuff on me. 

Hypocrisy is a a value judgment. 

Most come here to discuss BB music and discover quickly that they need to pick a "team" and it was never that way.  There was more tolerance.  I think the conversation needs to happen.  JMHO. 

The comments were mine, not HeyJude. And the statement or opinion that "it was never that way" isn't true, as any search of the archives especially since Fall 2012 will prove - not to mention the blowups that used to happen on any number of BB boards that have since imploded or stalled entirely.

It's a case of being silent or complacent when the shoe is on the other foot. There are examples too numerous to list, but this whole notion of camps and the like ganging up on people and trying to shut them down played out long before Lee Dempsey decided to bail out here after Andrew Doe was banned. And it was the exact same scenario only applied to the other "camp", which I guess must have been OK judging by the complacency and lack of concern as people here were getting attacked and driven off the board based on their opinions and expressing it, not their behavior.

The facts are there in the archives, maybe a revisit would be in order before pointing fingers at the reasons why this board went to sh*t which have little or no relationship to what had actually been happening.

GF - there are a multitude of reasons.  Some were banned and others were bullied or watched bullying and got fed up as it took the joy out of discussing this music that is joyful.

It is the elephant in the room.  Yes, since C50's end there has been a problem.  Some could not get beyond that event and polarization happened since that time.  

If I could count on nothing else in my life, it is that people who liked and gravitated toward this music were reallly nice people. (who had great taste in music.)

And I get that some crossed-the-line...

But others who just tried to give all band members the benefit-of-the-doubt get insulted, shut down and silenced. I happen to think that everyone makes mistakes, but that everyone deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty.  I am not blaming mods who donate their time and expertise (but more those who "think" they are mods and chill any opinions that they don't hold.) And who gang-up in unison like a high school clique.  

And that is my opinion.  

You're telling me of all people about getting bullied and having the joy taken out of the music, as you've watched those with grudges try to have me removed as a mod on multiple forums and platforms? Then when that failed in light of the truth coming out, they then tried to insult me personally, name-calling, a "campaign" involving several now-banned members, up to and including dragging other moderators into the muck by insulting them too as recent as last week after the attempts to bullshit the facts failed again...and add in all the fake accounts, all the lies, all the personal insults, and it's still continuing?

I'll discuss the facts but don't try to sell me snake oil.

And if you want to mention bullying and chasing people off, consider what happened to Peter Hollens.

Whose "side" did that, FDP?

GF - yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That, some, who are just plain old fans who signed up for discussion because they love the Beach Boys got more than they bargained for.  And, yes, from where I sit, that is what I see, now, after around 10 years or so here, including lurking before I signed up.

And, I am not defending someone else's bad actions or bad behavior but position-based issues where the poster is lambasted needlessly.  Those opinions that are not endorsed by some here.  That is not tolerance.  Not everyone is going to agree on everything. That is life.

Yes, I feel that some left because they observed exactly this treatment. I am giving my observation.  I am not selling snake oil. I have no fake account so please don't lump me into that group.  Those who do that, own it. 

And, I am unfamiliar with the Hollens situation, so I cannot comment. 

The line I put in bold:

You feel some left because they observed exactly this treatment.

How would you feel after knowing that some of those most vocal in leaving were guilty of exactly the same "treatment" you mention directed at other posters, not just recently but for years and across multiple forums?

Because that's exactly what happened.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.  

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong?  

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not.  

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post.  

Nobody is bullying anybody, although it does seem like an argument is being made for the sake of creating an argument for its own sake by you for whatever reason.

So if you prefer that other board, go there and stay there. Be aware that things may not always be as warm and fuzzy as they seem, as a certain ex-friend of mine there used to refer to you as a (and I quote) PITA pseudo-intellectual, just like Cam Mott. Unquote.

[Emily]

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

[CenturyDeprived]

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

+1 to the nth degree

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It's exactly what's wrong, Emily. And it's funny how we're accused of bullying when the forum everybody runs to when banned is modden by someone who was known for bullying others and had been suspended a time or two for that.

[filledeplage]

Getting a handle on why people are leaving this board might be a good place to start.  

It is a series and a pattern of insult,

then disparage, collectively (as a "clique" for lack of a better term)

and predictable who hops in to pile up on the poster.  Rinse, and repeat.  At least a half-dozen have left in a week.  Think there is nothing wrong?  

Is it surprising that the go-to board has caused another forum to arise?  I think not.  

Yes, there is a pattern of attack towards people who are considered "apologists" or who support all the band.  Maybe it is generational that I have a position that  this group of "incorporated musicians" are still The Beach Boys - and just not all working in the same venues.

And, I am not alone in the opinion.  A new board was formed to respond to the inability to be able to post without being jumped on and attacked. Why did that need to take place?  Intolerance - one word.

You are not a mod to tell a fellow poster (according to the rules of this forum to build people up and not tear them down) what they should post.  

Nobody is bullying anybody, although it does seem like an argument is being made for the sake of creating an argument for its own sake by you for whatever reason.

So if you prefer that other board, go there and stay there. Be aware that things may not always be as warm and fuzzy as they seem, as a certain ex-friend of mine there used to refer to you as a (and I quote) PITA pseudo-intellectual, just like Cam Mott. Unquote.

Billy - I am calling it as I see it.  In the last year, I think things have gotten worse.  And I do agree that things are not as warm-and-fuzzy as they were.  I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.  

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?  

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.   

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?   

*I* didn't compare you to Cam Mott (although...) or call you a 'pseudo-intellectual', but the 'Mega-Mod' over there sure used to, and was constantly in trouble here due to bullying. So for us to be negatively compared to a forum  modded by a bully because of us supposedly bullying, well, do you see the disconnect there?

Or, to put it another way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKI1wj-JpI

[guitarfool2002]

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.  

That is a total lack of respect, right there, considering what you know. It is also a lie.

If you are accusing *me* of saying you wrote Mike's book, for about the fourth time only this time publicly:

SHOW ME WHERE this charge was made. Show everyone this "proof".

Otherwise, you're lying. You were not accused of writing Mike's book, on this board, by me - Harsh words, but I won't tolerate having misinformation spread like this, on this board where the actual posts are still up and available.

[filledeplage]

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

Emily - I took the time to find the youtube - and hope you have taken the time to view it before you opine.  It is the viewpoint of 4 principals of the Beach Boys. (Were they lying?)  

The perception of bullying and intolerance is pretty much common knowledge.  Unfortunately, this forum has been considered until fairly recently to be the go-to board.  

You can be insulting and call it derailment or anything else you choose.  That straw-man attack is inappropriate and against board rules, whether by the spirit or the letter.  

That youtube is evidence that is un-spinnable as to the relationship between the band and the record company. Those are the Beach Boys and not and editorial opinion.  First person narratives - both as principals and corporate members.  

Look at those posters whose longevity is longer than mine, (and yours) and ask yourself why they are leaving.  They articulated why.  They feel there is intolerance for a divergence of opinion.  Is that appropriate?  I don't think so.  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Otherwise, you're lying. You were not accused of writing Mike's book, on this board, by me - Harsh words, but I won't tolerate having misinformation spread like this, on this board where the actual posts are still up and available.

I won't tolerate it either.

Look at those posters whose longevity is longer than mine, (and yours) and ask yourself why they are leaving.  They articulated why.  They feel there is intolerance for a divergence of opinion.  Is that appropriate?  I don't think so. 

A majority of them left after Andrew was banned for bullying and libel. Nothing to do with divergence of opinion. Cam Mott was banned because we finally had enough of his trolling. You're coming dangerously close to that as well.

Name one person...ONE PERSON...who was banned for "divergence of opinion".

[Lee Marshall]

And still the topic of THIS thread remains sidetracked by an OBVIOUSLY silly and side-show strewn argument which has a factor of about 999,999 parts per million of bullshit mixed into it as almost all of 'these' attempts to take the conversation away from the podium and instead detour them to some Punch and Judy theatre hidden just over there down Lack of Memory Lane do.

Surely it would save us all time, effort and the certain sense of frustration which accompanies every single one of these stolen threads if we just could agree that fdp disagrees...allow her to cut and paste and then post the same old/same old whine and then carry on with the subject matter at hand.

Perhaps THAT might demonstrate a united front far more sensible and certainly completely more believable than the 'pretend' one she tossed onto this specific pile of fly attractant late this morning.

[filledeplage]

The perception from the outside world is bullying. And intolerance for different points of view.  Let's not forget that I was accused of writing Mike's book - and there was a gang-up.  Guilty until proven innocent?    

And, so what if I did help Mike? Is that bannable? I would expect that some (not me) who are real experts (from working with the band members) would be asked to contribute. Is that a sin? I am just a fan for 50 years.  After that amount of time, you do amass a good deal of information if you are paying attention.  

That is a total lack of respect, right there, considering what you know. It is also a lie.

If you are accusing *me* of saying you wrote Mike's book, for about the fourth time only this time publicly:

SHOW ME WHERE this charge was made. Show everyone this "proof".

Otherwise, you're lying. You were not accused of writing Mike's book, on this board, by me - Harsh words, but I won't tolerate having misinformation spread like this, on this board where the actual posts are still up and available.

 

GF - I don't think it is disrespect and I am not lying.  In reply #105 - 106, etc., in this thread.  It related to plagiarism from "posters on this board" and I was lumped into this group.  And in reply #139 - there was something about "a similar ring" - and frankly there was nothing that I saw that was unique and not common knowledge if you lived through those eras when the band was up-and-down.   Within that post I am quoted from 2014 and cannot imagine why.  I still have not seen the book. But will tell you I am eager to read it.  

  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What in hell are you talking about?

Post 105.

It's exactly what's wrong, Emily. And it's funny how we're accused of bullying when the forum everybody runs to when banned is modden by someone who was known for bullying others and had been suspended a time or two for that.

Post 106 is your post

Post 107

*I* didn't compare you to Cam Mott (although...) or call you a 'pseudo-intellectual', but the 'Mega-Mod' over there sure used to, and was constantly in trouble here due to bullying. So for us to be negatively compared to a forum  modded by a bully because of us supposedly bullying, well, do you see the disconnect there?

Or, to put it another way...

Where are the plagiarism claims? There's not even a reply #139 in here.

[HeyJude]

So FdP comes in, creates a straw man for HeyJude, then criticizes him for not “sticking to the point” of her straw man. Then, when he responds to her straw man, says his completely relevant point is not what “we’re…talking about” because apparently what “we’re talking about” is a single interview in the early 70’s. Then when Hey Jude says “wtf?” at this bizarrity, she starts accusing him of “stalking” (when the interaction began with HER responding to HIM), and bullying and “you’re not a mod” and that (hilariously after she accused him of side-tracking by not responding directly to her side-tracking with her straw man and favorite interview that is the only evidence of anything anyone is allowed to consider) that it’s not for him to “decide what added info is side-tracking”.  And then, again after insisting that he stay on the topic of her straw man, says “that’s censorship.”

It’s a derailment and I think THIS is a big part of what’s been wrong with this board.

Succinct and to the point as always. I will acknowledge, as I've often pondered both on the board and to myself, perhaps my mistake was engaging the straw man argument to begin with.

But yes, the person most loudly complaining about how this board has gone downhill, etc. is the one who has thrown the thread into disarray.

And I once again maintain that there are parties, whether on this thread or elsewhere, who want threads that take Mike to task to devolve into chaos. That chaos helps fuel the school of thought that leads some people to end up on a stage saying they hate an online community so much that they (jokingly, haha!) want to kill everyone on it.

I think the board has unfortunately been both knowingly and unknowingly "punk'd", and those doing the punk'ing have thankfully almost all moved on either voluntarily or involuntarily. Why someone who does largely nothing but cause threads to erupt and professes to think the board is going downhill would still continue to be here, I do not know.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

And if you're talking about the mike book thread, well...

post 105

As others have been saying and the reviews are starting to appear, advance copies of Mike's book have gone out. I happened to be able to check one out. Without doing any spoilers or copying direct passages, or without doing a review, something did stand out and it runs through chapters of the book sometimes pretty obviously.

All I can say is, some of the defenses of various claims in the book might sound very familiar to readers of this board. I'd almost go as far as to say if you've kept up regularly with this forum, and the various topics and arguments around certain issues, you'll feel like you've read or heard it before.

Some posters here either had their fingers on the pulse of these things, enough to make some of the same points and offer the same explanations as you'll read in the book, or they just happened to be hitting on the same narrative.

As someone who has been reading this stuff for several decades, I recognized some of the original sources from which certain passages and background may have been used. Especially in the Smile chapter, certain descriptive words and phrases read like those in sources I've read and am familiar with. Some are too specifically worded not to notice.

But it was the similarity to quite a few posts made here on the Smiley forum (and the posters who made them) that really stood out. There are points, arguments, and even what you might call defenses that I recognized from discussions and debates here on the board. In some cases, some recently, I remember reading a poster's points (and defenses) and thinking that's odd, in all the years prior I don't remember that being raised as a point of defending or arguing for or against some aspect of Smile, or whatever else was the topic. Then those points also appear in Mike's book?

I remember them because I was involved in some of those debates directly as they played out here. And I remember who it was that was debating, and it sounded familiar on the pages of this book.

Apart from that, there was an odd method to offering some of the defenses. Instead of "setting the record straight", there were sometimes quotes from other band members and others involved with various aspects of the band inserted in order to bolster or back up whatever that chapter's narrative was suggesting. And some of them seemed taken perhaps too easily out of a larger context, but that's just my opinion.

If you've been reading this forum, and engaging in the debates, you may recognize some of the new book's narratives as what certain posters have been offering here on the board.

No plagiarism comment,
Post 106

Yup, to the point where some of these posters were pretty much plagarized...


okay, maybe 'plagarized' was a bit harsh, but in some cases is so close as to give pause for thought

edit

key word is , 'pretty much'

I am the one who used the word for the first time, and then edited it and said  that was 'a bit  harsh' . Later on I clarified it on post #163 and admitted I said it sarcastically, because of what Craig said and what I agree with, that in many cases it's the exact same view point that people like you and Cam have been making (and almost nobody else).

[filledeplage]

I am not connected to Cam Mott. Never even an email between us and you can check that because you have access to that information.   

Is there a rule against posting in both places?  Pseudo-intellectual? I don't consider myself an intellectual but do have a doctorate.  And considerable post-grad work.

So, someone called me a name?  Seriously.  Ever hear of sticks-and-stones? Who cares?   

*I* didn't compare you to Cam Mott (although...) or call you a 'pseudo-intellectual', but the 'Mega-Mod' over there sure used to, and was constantly in trouble here due to bullying. So for us to be negatively compared to a forum  modded by a bully because of us supposedly bullying, well, do you see the disconnect there?

Or, to put it another way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdKI1wj-JpI

Billy - there was enough written for people to come away with the impression that a few people were singled out (including me)  as "contributors" and the joke is that there was a  single copy on eBay that I was high bidder for and went out to a show and lost the chance to get a copy.  I can tell you as a collector of anything BB I could get my hands on, since 1965, both good-and-bad, I have a lot to draw upon for my opinions.     

And, as I said earlier sticks-and-stones - I could not care less. That says more about the speaker than the one spoken about.       

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

That says more about the speaker than the one spoken about.      

On that we can agree on...same guy I defended for years and made excuses for even after his banning; same guy who began talking sh*t about me and insinuating that there were other reasons for my financial situation than I have made public; which is bullshit as he well knows...I've been on intermittent medical leave and am having issues with my heart (among other things).  But that's what he does...once you get on his bad side, he talks to people and insinuates he knows 'secrets' and 'insider info'. Whether it's me or anybody affiliated with the Wilsons, or even people he appears to be on good terms with publicly like you, Cam, and David Beard....time and time again, history repeats itself.

So yeah, I 100% agree with what it saying more about the speaker...speaks volumes, in fact.

[Robbie Mac]

That says more about the speaker than the one spoken about.      

On that we can agree on...same guy I defended for years and made excuses for even after his banning; same guy who began talking sh*t about me and insinuating that there were other reasons for my financial situation than I have made public; which is bullshit as he well knows...I've been on intermittent medical leave and am having issues with my heart (among other things).  But that's what he does...once you get on his bad side, he talks to people and insinuates he knows 'secrets' and 'insider info'. Whether it's me or anybody affiliated with the Wilsons, or even people he appears to be on good terms with publicly like you, Cam, and David Beard....time and time again, history repeats itself.

So yeah, I 100% agree with what it saying more about the speaker...speaks volumes, in fact.

I am sorry to hear that, Billy. Just when I thought my respect for him couldn't plummet any deeper...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No worries. ..better to know for sure.

[Juice Brohnston]

How 'bout them Beach Boys...pretty good band eh?

[Pretty Funky]

I hear they are writing some books!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What's a beach boy?

[Jay]

What's a beach boy?

All I know is, typing in "beach boys" without "the" beforehand leads to some very scary places. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]