The Smiley Smile Message Board

Well, my article made the front page of Record Collector magazine.

"Some people just like to watch the world burn."

G'wan, put the article up here ...

Nice one Ian!  I'm looking forward to reading it.

As in "the article is sympathetic to Mike" and you think this board will erupt? Or as in "the article tears Mike a new one" and you think Mike or Mike sympathizers on this board or elsewhere will complain?

An even-handed, thoughtful piece will be welcomed by most everyone here I would say. Jon Stebbins did a piece along those lines in his Beach Boys "FAQ" book.  I don't think anyone interested in accuracy and fairness is looking either for a sunshine-filled love letter to Mike like some Beard/ESQ articles, nor a hatchet job that ignores his important role in the BB legacy.

Iain's described the piece to me on Twitter as being "in defence of Mike Love", and he's also said before that he thinks Summer In Paradise a better album than Love You, so I think very much the former rather than the latter.

 :o  To each their own I guess...

Hrmmmm........

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXZMYvpWAAAzikV.jpg)

Oh wow. I'm not about to spend 60 pounds for a U.S. Subscription to read this. And I don't have an iPad. Any options?

Exactly, Emily - maybe since he came to this site looking for "input" - he could send a "courtesy copy" for the board to review.   :lol

I should mention...the use of the word 'genius' on the cover is added by the magazine and is slightly misleading as to the content of my piece. I don't call anyone a genius in the article.

I figured it was probably the publishers/editors who picked that verbiage. They certainly want people to turn their head and scream "Whaaaaaa?"

No. No. Just... no.

Each to his own… every time I play SiP I like it a little more… Strange Things Happen is a guilty pleasure.

Looking forward to reading the piece when the mag hits he streets though I do hope it's more than a vox pop of opinion on this board! :)

Hey UK people, I don't think I'll be able to buy this at any local news stands. Would one of you send me a copy when you get a chance?

When it hits the stands I'll buy a couple of extras and see who's in need. Will post here when I have them; slight chance I won't see them for a while though as I'm in the sticks, so wait for the post first folks.





(May trade for Durrie Parks acetates…!)

Sadly I have nothing of value to trade, unless you want a Labrador.

Not really looking for a trade






(Unless you have acetates! ;D )

Would AGD trade his famous black hat? >:D

That headline at least will make buttering him up to get a vinyl reissue deal MUCH easier. I mean, this is right up there with the Melody Maker poll!

You can buy individual issues I believe. As an example, the Dec issue is 8 pounds 40p delivered to the US. The Jan issue should be the same.

http://shop.recordcollectormag.com/issue/View/issue/RC448/issue-448-xma-2015

I'll defend everything he did with the group up until '77 and even after that I like Kokomo, Sumahama, lots of stuff, even Still Cruisin' if I'm in the right mood. Getcha Back is great. But none of his contributions are even close to coming up with stuff like the backing tracks to California Girls or You Still Believe in Me.

*koff* NME *koff*  :)

Ah aha! Didn't they buy it in 2000 or so?

I guess a lot of people attributed it incorrectly.  I'd read it that way so many times! Just a quick google turns up:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19831229&id=udkzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5735,8130263&hl=en
http://www.inmusicwetrust.com/articles/57r51.html
http://rokpool.com/category/tags/mike-love

Unleash the fact-checking dogs!

I guess a lot of websites attribute it incorrectly, or can't be bothered to fact-check:

http://www.nme.com/awards/history/1966 (http://www.nme.com/awards/history/1966)

You were saying ?  ;D

And before anyone says, yes, I've checked the MM Pop Poll for 1966: some Liverpool combo won.

Generally, I agree

Have read the article. Lot of folk here going to have a screaming blue fit.  ;D

myKe luHv and genius in the same sentence? ??? A pristine example of an oxymoron. :tm

One potential litmus test might end up being how quickly (if at all) Mike links to the article or issue on his Facebook page.

Got my copy today. Interesting viewpoint and, as to be expected, open to debate. Actually found the inclusion of Private Life of Bill & Sue in the attached list of 'baffling moments of inexplicably poor judgement' more controversial....

Congratulations on getting your article published....I hope  people take the time to read it. I think that Mike is someone who desires his long period of service recognized. No one can make the claim that Mike can...55 continuously served years in the group...he's a lifer who enlisted in The Beach Boys. I would say that Brian's famous quote "I'm not a genius, I'm a hard working guy" also would apply to Mike. His voice is the most  identifiable in a concert.   He is a person who understands the value of  easily understood lyrics. He should be recognized for all of these contributions. That said, the 1992 album is excrement. So much so that I will not have it in my collection.

Hey, I'm a big fan of "Bill and Sue"...nothing wrong with that song!  :)

 :lol That and the matching cape! Remind you of someone?  :tm

Like the Old Man from Pawn Stars says, "Not only no, but hell no".  ;D

Agreed, so am I, and I can think of far far worse choices they could have included. Their list of questionable moments includes Bill & Sue, HELP is on the way, My solution, Johnny Carson, Solar System, Matchpoint Of Our Love, Too Much Sugar... and then goes on to mention Anna Lee, Diamond Head, A Day In The Life... and Rio Grande amongst others! Not 100% certain of the angle the author, one Jamie Atkins, is coming from on this !

Heh. Half of those would go on a list of reasons the Beach Boys are great, for me at least. Though Matchpoint and Too Much Sugar are a little weaker.

And Bill and Sue is the best thing on That's Why God Made The Radio, except maybe for Shelter.

Really! When I first heard that song I thought it's the worst song they ever did, along with "Summer Of Love". TPLOBAS is so bad it should be included on future re-releases of SIP! :-D They should've worked on Al's "Waves Of Love" instead.

Right. Actually those two are the 2 BBs albums I dislike the most. I only can bear listening to the first four tracks of SIP after having listened to the whole of Love You first - in comparison, SIP actually sounds well produced to me. ;D If I listen to anything else before, I must turn SIP off or at least skip to track 5.

To me, "Waves Of Love" is actually pretty weak...and just doesn't fit on TWGMTR. "Bill and Sue" and "Shelter" are cut from the same silk, so to speak - they are both typical BW songs from what I would call the "TLOS and after" era, plus both have great vocal arrangements and BBs background vocals, decent BW lead vocals (not embarrassing at all), and both have interesting lyrics - to me, "Bill and Sue" lyric-wise is almost in the "Busy Doin' Nothin'" vein, except they're writing about a topical cultural subject matter instead of BW's daily routine.

Yep. Waves of Love is one of the weakest things on A Postcard From California -- and of course it had already been released when That's Why God Made The Radio came out. Shelter and Bil and Sue are both a little derivative, but Shelter is just *full* of hooks, while Bill & Sue is ridiculous fun.

But then, my top three Beach Boys albums would be Smiley Smile, Love You and Carl & The Passions...

Go figure. I don't think "Waves of Love" is pure genius or anything, and the weird-sounding Carl vocal doesn't help, but I'd pick it every time over Bill and Sue. Bill and Sue may be quirkier and more closely tied to Brian than Waves is to Al. But Bill and Sue just isn't musically interesting.

I don't think Waves needed to be on TWGMTR though, if for no other reason than because Al had already released it. If he was going to fly in a previously released track, I'd just go with "Don't Fight the Sea." Good song, and Carl sounds great on that one.

Could be they're both great songs; I'll take 'em both.

Anyway, can anyone who has actually read the article elaborate/tease a little more?  I'm not expecting this issue to hit the shores until mid next week.

It's an interesting take, one that will polarize opinion. Personally I think it's possible author's swung the pendulum a little too far.

Credit where credit due, but I think you're right on this one.

Just read the article today.  I don't hate Mike so I can agree with a lot of the things Ian wrote.  I also really like Kokomo a lot!  However, there were some reasons given on here and other places as to why people do dislike Mike and they weren't really addressed (probably not the point of the article).

The interview with Mike then probably does more harm than good as it goes over the usual stuff and kind of backs up why people don't like Mike.  But shouldn't be reasons to hate the guy.  Mike manages to avoid giving an answer to the question about writing on the early 70s albums (could have mentioned Big Sur) but goes on to talk about KTSA and "Going to the Beach"! Why does he seem to think this is such a great song?  That's a reason why this part of the feature was counter-productive IMHO.

Ian, what do you think?

Haven't read the article yet but very much would like to. I'm not targeting any specific post or poster, but one my problems is the idea that people who at times (or often, or even usually) find Mike distasteful, or lamentable, or whatever adjective, therefore actually "hate" Mike.

If I don't think Mike is a tortured genius, or if I don't feel he is widely and egregiously misunderstood (he certainly is sometimes unfairly criticized and misunderstood, as ALL the guys are at one point or another), that doesn't mean I "hate" him.

Similarly, if there is an article written predominantly or solely in defense of Mike and someone thinks the premise of the article (or the execution) is disagreeable, it doesn't mean they only feel that way because they "hate" Mike.

When I made me own custom-built TWGMTR album I first tried to replace TPLOBAS with "Don't Fight the Sea", but I found that it didn't fit sonically with the rest of the album. "Waves Of Love" (saxophone version) fits very well IMHO. Even if it has been released before, the could have just replaced the sax with some Dave guitar and added some BBs vocals, creating a new version and there you are.

Did it "need" to be on the album? I always welcome a bit more Al... :)

This is all true, but there *do* also seem to be a few people who actually *do* hate Mike, with an intensity completely out of all proportion when compared to his actual actions (at least that we know of).
There's also the weird thing where those of us who *ever* defend Mike are accused by some (not you) of having some weird agenda other than fairness or the truth. By any objective reckoning I'd be in the "anti-Mike" camp (yes, despite my icon -- the only photo I have of myself with any of the BBs. If there were photos of the times I've met Brian they'd be there instead) -- there is pretty much a direct negative correlation between the amount of involvement Mike had in a given album and the amount I like it, while my favourite BB-related albums are things like Smiley, Love You, and That Lucky Old Sun.
But because I think that Mike's band are very good -- not as good as Brian's, but very good -- and that their UK theatre shows in 2008 and 2015 were astonishingly good, and I don't see the end of the 2012 tour as being a terrible catastrophe caused solely by Mike's malice, I've had all sorts of weird accusations thrown at me.
This has a weird sort of polarising effect. I end up thinking "well, if I only *quite* like Mike, and that's enough to make me seem such a big supporter that they'll say those things, how much must those people hate him?" -- I suspect others have the same view. Of course no sensible Brianista hates Mike -- you don't, Wirestone doesn't, and so on. Hatred is reserved in sensible people for those who do truly evil things. But a few people are having a very good go at making it appear that we're a lot more polarised than most of us really are, and that "you're either with us or against us". For me, whenever anyone says that, whatever they're for, I'm against it...

It's very odd, because really our opinions of the band members on a personal level shouldn't matter at all, and most of us clearly have so little experience of them that we can't possibly make any kind of judgment, but every discussion about the band is warped by this non-issue. I've not yet had a chance to read Iain's article (I was travelling until Friday, and haven't had a chance to get to a newsagent since), but if it goes too far in the other direction that still may make it worth while as a corrective (and I'm sure it's worth reading -- I've known Iain a few years and he's generally a very witty and knowledgeable person when talking about 60s pop stuff).

I think one of the issues with Mike, and why the criticism seems incessant, is that some of the things people don’t like about him are continual, on-going issues. It isn’t just one time where a bad decision was made, or one interview where someone thinks something said was out of line.

He has continually been pretty unapologetic about, well, most everything. Above all else, the lack of apparent ability to admit a mistake or flaw that concerns him and only him is at the root of a lot of it, I think.

I think harping on one specific thing does get tired. In a few cases, Mike has changed course rendering a specific criticism invalid. The setlists would be the main example. While the underlying context of his live presentation is a separate issue and debatable, one can no longer call him the “traveling jukebox” where he “only plays the hits.”

But if someone thinks he is overly-defensive, unwilling to admit personal flaws or mistakes, and so on, those are ongoing things that haven’t as yet gone away.

I have seen few “band” fan communities where a specific band member is shown so much disdain. I think that fact means fans should engage in some self-reflection and think about whether we’re being too hard, or whether we’re letting negativity overrun the enjoyment of the band and its music. But having such a large contingent of fans be so negative about him isn’t all some horrible misunderstanding. Mike causes A LOT of that.

I'm not arguing that Mike's attitude doesn't rub a lot of people up the wrong way. Just that there are a group of people for whom hating Mike seemingly overrides everything else, and it seems to distort the whole culture of Beach Boys fandom in unpleasant ways. Saying "I think Mike is overly defensive and unwilling to admit mistakes" is a reasonable position which one can agree with, disagree with, or ignore (for my own part, I think that's probably true, but I also don't really care -- as I said, I don't have much invested in the band members' personalities). The screaming rages some people seem to go into are a different matter though.

Mike causes nothing. He is entitled to think and feel just like any of us. It is on you and only you if you take that much offense over something that he has said or done. Shoot, if I treated everyone I know how Mike is treated in here, I wouldn't be friendly with anyone in my orbit. As I have said many times, it truly amazes me that people in here hate him more than the people he is said to have offended (Brian & Al).

Brian Wilson seems to hold nothing against anybody.
I think there's some significant Mike Love hate out there, but reading the backlog on this board it appears to me that there's an ongoing low-level sniping but not many outright hate rants.

Agreed, we should follow his lead. Emily, I am not sure how long you have been here, but many a thread have gone off the rails due to the Mike Love hate that sometimes goes on in here.

Of course Mike causes and contributes to (both directly and indirectly) all sorts of stuff, including peoples' perceptions of him. Same with any person in the public eye who has had as long a career, as well as the many controversies as he has, coupled with the numerous avoided opportunities to own up to stuff, that if were owned up to, would grant him an absolutely perceptible measure of understanding and empathy. Don't pretend that's not the case.

For example, it's a known thing that Brian regrets his mistakes (which were huge) as a parent during his lost years. Mike denied his daughter's paternity, was apparently wrong about it, she had a tragic end, and never has said a peep about it years down the line; he's swept it under the rug. No he doesn't have to talk about mistakes as a parent, but guess what: Brian didn't have to either, but he did very publicly. Let's not pretend that this difference (just for example) goes unnoticed by the public. Feel free to throw all sorts of other examples to prove how bad Dennis was as subterfuge, but if you do that, please address this valid point I just made. It's not negligible.

A person not being able to admit to their mistakes is a trait that specifically rubs many (most) people in THE worst way, and that personality flaw can tend to negate other good things about a given person in many peoples' minds.  That one unfortunate fact gives Mike much fewer get-out-of-jail-free cards in the public's eye compared to the other guys.

Mike has done some great work, I am a fan of lots of his contributions, but he has historically and often (though certainly not always) continues to be his own worst enemy in a unique way that has no parallel in this band. I wish it weren't so, but it is so. I want very much for Mike to have a better reputation - truly I do, but there is a reason for his perception which he greatly contributes to. Denying the reasons why things are the way they are (by saying Mike "causes nothing") does not help reverse what's been done, lest you think it somehow does.

I guess that applies in a world where nobody but the person "reacting" is responsible for anything.

I'm not speaking to how valid or invalid any criticisms are. I'm just saying the incredulity with which a few people seem to characterize Mike's detractors is just baffling.

The "Mike is entitled to think and feel" thing works both ways. Why would anyone be baffled as to why some of his objectively (as objective as we can be) inflammatory interviews and comments have tended to trouble some fans?

Again, I'm not talking about the small group of trolls who spew hateful comments and unfunny Mike Love limericks or haiku and spell his name purposely incorrectly, or whatever it is they do.

But sometimes, not always, sometimes I think a large percentage of fair-minded, non-Mike-hating fans have read interviews and comments from Mike and come away thinking essentially, "Wow, what a d**k."

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not saying Mike has to feel differently than he feels, or say anything differently. But just as everybody has to suck it up when Mike says or does things and deal with how they react to it, that also means everybody including Mike and the "why can't we all be positive about everything and everyone?" gallery has to suck it up when the negative reactions come in. True, fair negative reactions. Not name-calling, troll commentary, and repetitive digs.

But it is indeed the same circular internet argument. Mike can say whatever he wants. Fans can say whatever they want. What then? All we can do is weigh all the commentary accordingly. I don't heavily weigh the comments of anti-Mike trolls or Mike apologists that insist he has never done wrong. Luckly, BOTH groups are VERY FEW in number.

I think the term "hate" regarding feelings towards Mike is being vastly overused here. I don't think much of anyone hates Mike. A few, *very few*, use arguably hateful speech, and I suppose may "hate" him as much as someone can hate someone they've never met.

But I think "lament" is a more appropriate word. I lament a lot of Mike's comments more than anything else.

You are completely right. There are a lot people who act like a d**k at times and can also act very kind and loving. We are human beings, we do that kind of stuff. I just let it roll off my back.

Four months or so, but I've read a lot of the really long fighting about Mike Love threads and they read more like two intransigent sides sniping at each other, each misunderstanding the other. There seem to be one or two full-on Mike Love haters and one full-on Brian Wilson hater. But I haven't seen any "I hate Mike Love" rants in the more recent (last year or so) of the sort you see elsewhere on the Internet. I think most posters here seem to be middling or leaning one way or the other a bit, but I think the lengthy threads are more born out of defensiveness, misreadings and historical interposter rancor than anything else.

And I think this thread is a young version of that. It could become another thread sniping about Mike Love with no one having contributed a hateful rant.

Actually Emily, I think that the thread Iain started for this article was the mother of all threads.

Yeah. I read it. Crazy.

I flicked through the article in the shops, nothing new was said on the subject.

I agree with all this. One can criticize and defend Mike, but some people are really offended if somebody dares to say something positive about him. Then you have an agenda or are paid by him or are part of his online face saving crew and whatnot. Nobody says Mike is a saint or a genius. (Unless someone does in that magazine article I haven't read.)

+ another. The whole thing reads like a well-intentioned Devil's advocate line to me… no one can take everything he write too seriously; the truth lies somewhere slightly back in the other direction.

And throughout I had a "deja vu" feeling… was this really the author's sentiment throughout, or was it entirely a conglomeration of feelings expressed on this board down recent years?

The interview with Mike isn't too bad but is almost entirely based on their sixties output… stuck-in-a-time warp kinda thang, and almost adding more fuel to some of the criticisms Iain tries to counter in the preceding piece…

I'm fairly certain it's Iain's real opinion.

One thing that occurs to me is, who knows if Mike hasn't privately in his family (Brian included) discussed or dealt with some/ many of these issues with those involved, even taken responsibility for his role in things down the years to some degree? The family(s) may have made some sort of peace about a lot of this years ago. Maybe we'll never know and nor should we.

I certainly wouldn't expect Mike to publicly discuss that whole sad, unedifying episode with Dennis and Mike's apparent daughter, outside of some in-depth autobiography anyway. I mean, how many here would want to talk about the darker/ sadder aspects of their family/ personal lives to some random magazine/ newspaper/ TV host? Mike has nearly always been publicly about business, kind of macho and defiant in response to criticism. And quite right, as most of his interviews are him trying to sell concert tickets.

Of course, if he refrained from comparing his cousins/ bandmates' historical substance misuse to his own lifestyle in press interviews once in a while, it would do his reputation for tact and diplomacy no harm either ...  :) .

The article was finally made available online as a download through the RC website.

Since he is a member here and started the thread here months ago that was research for the piece, I'm hoping Iain Lee will entertain some dialogue and questions about his article.

I'd like to start: What were some of your sources for the information on which you based the opinions offered in your piece?

Just read the article. It was good, although in answer to Iain's question in the article - 'Admit it, how often do you actually listen to Smile?' - er, all the time, Iain. I last listened to it two days ago, in fact, and had a hefty Smile Sessions session the weekend before that. Iain's implication (in the article) seems to be that, deep down, most of us don't really wanna listen to Smile, which i found odd and - in my case at least - just completely untrue.

I didn't like the side article calling out select songs for being a bit iffy though, not least coz most of the songs listed are ones I actively love: HELP Is On The Way, My Solution, Diamond Head, etc. I found it a very strange list, for the opposite reasons to those presumably intended by its author.

I want to bump this in hopes Iain Lee will entertain a dialogue on his article here.

Asking Iain again: What were some of your sources for the information on which you based your opinions expressed in your article?

I'd like to know when Mike's management first approached him to write this article?

There's no need for stuff like that. Iain's a genuine fan of Mike -- I've traded music with him in the past, and he was most interested in getting hold of copies of Mike's unreleased solo stuff, and any live performances of Mike solo songs like Sumahama.

So where was this info when he originally posted the "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?" thread in preparation for his article, and people were calling him a troll and asking that he be banned and his thread be locked or deleted?

I'd still like to hear it from Iain himself, and have a dialogue about the article.

I've no idea why Iain didn't say then that he was a fan (if he didn't -- I didn't read much of that thread). I just know that if Iain's working for Mike's management, he's playing a very long game, since I've been talking with him about music for something like four years semi-regularly, and he's repeatedly made clear to me that he does, genuinely, like and admire Mike Love.
There have been too many accusations about people having secret agendas flying around recently. Iain doesn't have one. He's just writing articles about music he likes.

Andrew, you don't know that didn't happen. It's neither a slight, nor uncommon, for management to hire a writer to write a puff piece. Considering Ian's bio, and his fandom of Mike, he was an ideal person to approach!

I want credit for my quote about Mike in the article! ;D

And you have literally *no* evidence that it did happen, but felt it reasonable to make the accusation as if it were a generally-accepted fact. Given that Iain's been doing a whole series of articles for Record Collector about music he loves (he just recently did one on the Monkees and another is coming out soon about Arthur Lee) there's no reason to posit any motive other than a genuine enthusiasm for the subject.

It still leaves me wondering why - as I was one of the few actually defending Iain in his original thread as there were calls for him to be banned, for the thread to be locked/deleted, etc - either nothing or very, very little was said in this regard to defend him. If anything, he was being called out as someone looking to stir the pot to cause a dust-up, or worse accused of trolling, and I don't recall anything being said regarding him being a fan...even by Iain himself, unless I missed it.

It would be good if he would engage in a dialogue considering the article is now available for all to purchase and read, and some people on this board have some questions or comments.

Well, I would have said something had I been posting on the board at that point. I can't speak for his motives for starting the thread -- maybe he *did* want to stir the pot for all I know -- but he's a genuine fan. Google his name and "Beach Boys" and you'll see ample evidence that he's a Beach Boys fan.

Is Iain's PM system broken?

I don't doubt that at all, as I knew him as a Monkees fan and devotee and backed him up. In light of these recent posts, I'm wondering why some of the people here who were calling for bans and deletions acted as they did and Iain didn't clarify anything as it was happening. Or, why people who may know him as a fan of the Beach Boys and of Mike said what they did. Seriously, review some of the comments in that thread - The townsfolk showed up with the torches and pitchforks after Iain posted his thread.

I'm sure Iain will eventually be back. 2016 is the year of The Monkees and he's involved in various Monkees-centric projects, including one happening this week.

My my, Andrew, you seem very upset over something so insignificant. As this is a standard entertainment business practice, and considering it is such a huge puff piece, it wouldn't be surprising that this was in fact the case. I assume Iain has to eat, pay bills, work for a living. Also, he completely ignored (such as below) all the information supplied in the thread.  It clearly was just an angle already cooked up as part of his piece.

Cam, I did PM Iain to see if he was interested in hearing my reasons for disliking Mike Love. He said he did so I PM'd the story of ny seedy, distasteful back stage experience with Mr. Love. Even offering him a few photos taken of Mike unawares. No response.

Yep. Almost as if it's annoying to see the same groundless accusations made, over and over again, against anyone who expresses any kind of positive opinion about Mike. Apparently Iain has now joined myself, AGD, Cam Mott, Uncle Tom Cobley and all on Mike's payroll. No wonder he tours so much if he's having to pay off so many people...

Well I'm glad somebody contacted him, maybe you could ask him if he could discuss his article on the board. He kept us informed about it so I'm sure will when he has time.

Since you mention it, somehow some people believe some how around your story I've condoned adultery. I don't know where that idea comes from but I've been faithfully married to the same woman for 41 years and I do not condone adultery in any form by anyone.

My Cam, I've never gone public with the story, let alone your reaction. All via PM. I'm not aware of anyone  accusiing you of condoning adultery. With your permission, I can post your PM response to clarify matters?

I didn't say you did go public.  If the Mods are cool with it you have my permission if you also post all of your contacts and replies.

So you are all over me for making a logical assumption yet you can't speak of motives? Me thinks you protest too much!

If he was such a big Mike fan, he surely would already have Mike's solo stuff. I has been freely available for download for years. I have it all. Anyway, it's no slight to be hired to write articles by PR reps. You might find this article enlightening:     http://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/08/features.magazine1

You want me to post all the people who PM'd me for my story and their reaction? LMAO  :lol

You were talking about yourself and defending adultery Cam. I was coming to your defense. In your behalf, I offered to post your PM so the board can see "the actual Cam Mott reaction".

No, just our correspondence.  OK.

Jeff and Lester, is that you?

OregonRiverRider was clearly - clearly! - just making a joke. Well done on turning it into a major thread-derailing argument.

Given past threads on this board I think it's understandable that ORR's joke - if it was a joke, as he's subsequently defended that response - would be interpreted in that way. Saw it the same way myself to be frank.

My crystal ball shows only a dark future for this thread until mystic Billy conjures up a line! Show us a line!

Not so much a joke as a Pavlovian response.

As for the original "research" thread... yes, it was a conscious stirring of the pot by the author. Otherwise he would have titled it something decidedly less provocative than "Why Do You Hate Mike Love" - say, "What Do Posters Here Think Of Mike Love".

Personally, i'm of the opinion that if you hate - as in really genuinely hate - Mike Love, then you're not really a beach boys fan at all. His was an integral and important element of their sound.

Yeah, I was. But someone's panties got in such a twist, got me wondering.  ;)