Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[Fire Wind]

So about that Beach Boys 2015 tour, a UK date on 31st May 2015 at The Royal Albert Hall has been announced according to Andrew. I might just go to that didn't get to go to TRAH last time around.

Where was this announced?  I see no info.  (OMG!)

[Cam Mott]

Did anyone, who has these questions about where the ES concept claims came from or got published, done anything to get an explanation from the record company, venues, or dealers who published it?

Maybe some actual info from those who actually put it out might be more helpful than repetitive name calling and so-far unfounded suspicions have been. Just a thought.

You enjoy that kinda sh*t. Go for it.

We'll wait with bated breath for your findings.


Now go get 'em Cammy!

Oh yeah. I want to marry it.

If it were a mystery to me I would, but it's not. Those to whom it is still a mystery or makes them curious or wonder how it happened should do the legwork like Nicko and others did for the ticket prices. Maybe we could have avoided being deep in the weeds on this ES issue.

So you don't think Mike had a thing to do with a self-aggrandizing bio posted on The Beach Boys' Capitol Records page in '02? And the fact that it was up for like three days? You think a random Capitol staffer just threw it up there?

And you think that the bullshit about Endless Summer being "his" concept album being repeated word for word even 12 years later is just a crazy coincidence to which Mike and his people have no knowledge? Right.

Since Mike has publicly debunked the ES claim, yeah, I think probably some unknown Capitol copywriter made a mistake or misunderstanding on a Capitol bio and so far there is no evidence otherwise. If it were Brian or Al or any of the Boys or anybody really and the same thing happened I would assume the same thing until proven otherwise.

Well, you must admit that Mike, much much moreso than any other BB, has a long history of being more of a braggart than his bandmates (if that's not accurate, I'll eat my shorts - please go ahead and claim how that is untrue, I'll prep the salt and pepper), so while that isn't conclusive proof that Mike had a hand in writing or approving it, logic would tend to point in that direction.

Enjoy your shorts. Like mine with gravy. I would not agree he is a braggart, I would agree he is more out-going.

We disagree again because to me your direction is illogical in the face of Mike the opposite of bragging by disclaiming involvement with the creation of the extremely successful ES.

[Andrew G. Doe]

SMiLE Brian and OSD REPEAT the same boring, idiotic, character defaming points day after day, thread after thread, and the moderators take the position "Oh, that's OK. We don't have a problem with being critical of a Beach Boy. We won't stop that."

This. It's not merely buttock-clenchingly, mind-numbingly BORING reading the same thing ad nauseum, it's also a classic example of trolling, thus:

"In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Here's something: neither SB nor OSD have made a single post in the thread about the latest digital copyright extension release, a topic which would surely excite any real fan of the band to comment. But... I guess there was no latitude to diss Mike, so... no point in posting.

[guitarfool2002]

SMiLE Brian and OSD REPEAT the same boring, idiotic, character defaming points day after day, thread after thread, and the moderators take the position "Oh, that's OK. We don't have a problem with being critical of a Beach Boy. We won't stop that."

This. It's not merely buttock-clenchingly, mind-numbingly BORING reading the same thing ad nauseum, it's also a classic example of trolling, thus:

"In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Here's something: neither SB nor OSD have made a single post in the thread about the latest digital copyright extension release, a topic which would surely excite any real fan of the band to comment. But... I guess there was no latitude to diss Mike, so... no point in posting.

Andrew, don't you think that's an unfair standard or expectation to apply to anyone here, to call out anyone for what they didn't post? That could be applied to you or I on any number of discussions, and just as an example earlier in this thread there were people questioning and challenging the date of one of those "Smoking Gun" website contract riders, and you could have jumped in and confirmed the date based on what you know but I don't recall that you did. For me, any number of topics I could be called out as well for not chiming in, but do we want to apply such a standard of expectation for anyone to post or ignore?

That definition of trolling as well could be applied to what happened in this thread and what escalated to an unfortunate dust-up and admin action, as well as similar recent cases where the same patterns played out and people got upset and the topic(s) were disrupted. In some cases the posts and/or posters were reported to the mods, and in some cases actions were taken off the board through PM or otherwise to address them, but those actions are not public.

I think the best action in a lot of these cases, and one which I myself need to apply more often too, is to let some of it slide or ignore it. The board is in large part self-policing, and it is democratic, which means the flow of the discussions is in the hands of those participating. The posters set the tone, and if some opinion or even an incorrect fact gets posted, it's kind of expected that someone who disagrees will offer a rebuttal. A lot of the issues come down to the tone of respect and even tact and taste, and that will be addressed shortly in this thread. If something is posted that seems incorrect or doesn't line up with what someone knows as the truth, offer a rebuttal.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think it's unfair that we have to put up with such repeated puerile and disruptive posting. I think it's unfair that SB appears to have a free pass to post whatever the **** he wants to with complete impunity. I think it's unfair that this situation is seemingly set to continue. I think it's unfair that two or three trolls are allowed to derail any thread they care to. That's what I think is unfair.

Know what this forum is crying out for ? An ignore function.

[guitarfool2002]

The situation in this thread opened up some issues and has hit some raw nerves, and explanations and clarifications are being requested. So from an admin standpoint, this will be handled a little different than perhaps it has been done before. There is an explanation and clarification on what happened and what is happening, then in a new twist each of the moderators if they choose can add their own opinions, comments, explanations, and anything else to the discussion.

I'll say again, the decisions are discussed and made in a committee fashion. The issues are discussed, debated, and sometimes we do not all agree on every point, but it's all put on the table among us to be discussed. The action itself, again, is something that is agreed to by all of us. Sometimes the immediate decisions are made as a judgement call in the moment, for example to diffuse a discussion that escalated to an unreasonable point. Whichever moderators are on board at the time make the call, and it goes back to discussion to iron out any debates or disagreements as well as to get agreement among us.

It is not taken lightly, all sides are considered, and I believe we all approach these issues by weighing all sides free of anything except what concerns the decision on the table. It is not taken lightly, no one wants to see actions escalate to these levels, and when they do they are given fair consideration.

The issues at hand: The ban stands as it was issued. There were previous bans, warnings, and contacts made with the poster on similar issues, which the board publicly would not know about, and attempts were made to address complaints and various issues, try to correct them, and move on. What played out in this thread escalated to the point of a moderator who had addressed the issues both current and on previous occasions being challenged on the board after requests were made to stop. What played into this as well was the previous actions that led to suspension and warnings for much the same things, and it happened again.

The action taken was discussed and agreed on, so it stands.

Regarding SmileBrian and the specific post in this thread, it stands that an official warning is in place, and in general the wording of the post is not welcome and should not be part of the discussions here. Consider that an official warning as well as notice for the board as a whole moving forward.

As it stands there is no ban offense for criticizing band members. It could set up an impossible standard where any negative word could be subject to admin action, do we want that level of control on an open forum? There is definitely a better way to express the criticism than to use profanity or slurs, and that is what is encouraged going forward. And expect those who disagree to challenge or rebut that criticism as well if they choose. However, there is no standard which can be applied to determine what kind of criticism is or isn't allowed. These are public figures, this is an open forum. If someone sees a bad live show and posts how bad it was, is that considered off limits? There are many ways to stretch that standard which would lead to a place many members might not want to go. Just think before posting, disengage when things get too hot, and if something genuinely crosses any number of lines it will be called out and addressed by the admins.

The line was crossed in this thread, language was used which was not appropriate nor welcome in the discussion, it was addressed at the time and it is being addressed now and moving forward as a warning.

Hopefully that explains what has been going on, and once again in a break from previous actions each of the moderators will comment as they see fit.

Craig

[drbeachboy]

The situation in this thread opened up some issues and has hit some raw nerves, and explanations and clarifications are being requested. So from an admin standpoint, this will be handled a little different than perhaps it has been done before. There is an explanation and clarification on what happened and what is happening, then in a new twist each of the moderators if they choose can add their own opinions, comments, explanations, and anything else to the discussion.

I'll say again, the decisions are discussed and made in a committee fashion. The issues are discussed, debated, and sometimes we do not all agree on every point, but it's all put on the table among us to be discussed. The action itself, again, is something that is agreed to by all of us. Sometimes the immediate decisions are made as a judgement call in the moment, for example to diffuse a discussion that escalated to an unreasonable point. Whichever moderators are on board at the time make the call, and it goes back to discussion to iron out any debates or disagreements as well as to get agreement among us.

It is not taken lightly, all sides are considered, and I believe we all approach these issues by weighing all sides free of anything except what concerns the decision on the table. It is not taken lightly, no one wants to see actions escalate to these levels, and when they do they are given fair consideration.

The issues at hand: The ban stands as it was issued. There were previous bans, warnings, and contacts made with the poster on similar issues, which the board publicly would not know about, and attempts were made to address complaints and various issues, try to correct them, and move on. What played out in this thread escalated to the point of a moderator who had addressed the issues both current and on previous occasions being challenged on the board after requests were made to stop. What played into this as well was the previous actions that led to suspension and warnings for much the same things, and it happened again.

The action taken was discussed and agreed on, so it stands.

Regarding SmileBrian and the specific post in this thread, it stands that an official warning is in place, and in general the wording of the post is not welcome and should not be part of the discussions here. Consider that an official warning as well as notice for the board as a whole moving forward.

As it stands there is no ban offense for criticizing band members. It could set up an impossible standard where any negative word could be subject to admin action, do we want that level of control on an open forum? There is definitely a better way to express the criticism than to use profanity or slurs, and that is what is encouraged going forward. And expect those who disagree to challenge or rebut that criticism as well if they choose. However, there is no standard which can be applied to determine what kind of criticism is or isn't allowed. These are public figures, this is an open forum. If someone sees a bad live show and posts how bad it was, is that considered off limits? There are many ways to stretch that standard which would lead to a place many members might not want to go. Just think before posting, disengage when things get too hot, and if something genuinely crosses any number of lines it will be called out and addressed by the admins.

The line was crossed in this thread, language was used which was not appropriate nor welcome in the discussion, it was addressed at the time and it is being addressed now and moving forward as a warning.

Hopefully that explains what has been going on, and once again in a break from previous actions each of the moderators will comment as they see fit.

Craig

While criticism of a performance should be allowed, personal attacks on band members should not. Let us use some common sense in here. Honestly, I feel like I am dealing with eight year olds in some of these threads. Either back up your personal attack on bandmembers or be banned. No if, ands or buts. I'll bet you things calm down real fast. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

[Wirestone]

There is no fair or even remotely logical way to ban "personal attacks" on band members. Is criticizing Brian for having his "wife and managers" run everything a personal attack? Some would say no. Others, who know Brian, would insist that yes, it is an attack on his character. Amplify that a million fold to Mike and the other guys, and you have a rule that would be impossible to enforce.

[CenturyDeprived]

There is no fair or even remotely logical way to ban "personal attacks" on band members. Is criticizing Brian for having his "wife and managers" run everything a personal attack? Some would say no. Others, who know Brian, would insist that yes, it is an attack on his character. Amplify that a million fold to Mike and the other guys, and you have a rule that would be impossible to enforce.

Agreed.

What the bandmates have and haven't done to themselves and each other, both in terms of good and negative, are essential parts of the story. There's massive amounts of revenge, and actions which most people would quantify as crappy behavior, that they have inflicted on each other over the years, and to deny that's the case is to attempt to rewrite history. Some bandmates' actions at times really aren't particularly defensible, but that's just an opinion of course.

One can't really talk deeply about the band, the story, and the evolution without hypothesizing about the bandmates' motivations and feelings over the years, and sometimes it ain't gonna be pretty. It's all interconnected, and we learn more by communicating, even if we sometimes disagree, and even if some bandmates' actions are discussed harshly. I've learned to have more of a measured, nuanced opinion of various people/events in the band's saga as a result of reading this board. It's good to read conflicting opinions and have debate, sometimes more heated than other times.

As long as we are polite to one another in our discussions (not necessarily the people who are the topic of some of our discussions), I'm not sure why there's a desire for certain posters to be muzzled. If it's a matter of the board being afraid of actual repercussions of some sort from people who are treasured inside sources of information, then I can understand that, but then the mods should just be honest and come out to publicly state such.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If it's a matter of the board being afraid of actual repercussions of some sort from people who are treasured inside sources of information, then I can understand that, but then the mods should just be honest and come out to publicly state such.

It's...not quite that for me. I do talk to people in both camps, and I consider some of them friends (and not just online, either). There was once a post that did in fact severely offend somebody close to the band, and it was nuked VERY quickly and for good reason (considering some of the posts that HAVE been left up, you know it was offensive). That said, no matter how honored the guest, I don't let that dictate how the board operates. I'd say so otherwise, or I'd resign if it ever got to be a conflict of interest.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Okay, and now my 'official' statement. This is from me, not from Guitarfool or Smile Holland. Not to say that we are disagreement (far from it); rather, I'm making it clear that this is my own personal stance on the board issues. If any of you only read one post I make for the rest of my time here, let it be this one.

I've gotten complaints from an honored guest or two about the board being too 'anti-Mike'. Likewise, I've gotten similar complaints saying the board is too 'pro-Mike'. Truth is, I'm neither. I don't know Mike Love personally. I'm not friends with him, I've never had a discussion with him, and the closest vicinity to him I have ever been was seeing a C50 show. Brian Wilson is my musical hero, for many reasons. Personal note here...some of you know this story, some of you don't. About 20 years ago, I was going through a very rough time emotionally, and not all related to the normal 'teenage angst'. I came very close to saying 'to hell with it all'... if not for someone being nosy, I wouldn't be here posting this today. Sometime during all of this, I discovered Brian's music. Or more accurately, I discovered Brian's story *first*. My therapist had a copy of Wouldn't it be Nice in his office and I started to read it when he went out for a smoke break. He came back, saw me reading it, and said I could borrow it. No, his name was not Eugene, either  Anyway, reading it made me interested in the music (until then, I just knew the Beach Boys from the oldies station that usually just played Barbara Ann or Shut Down, and thought they were 'lame'), so I bought his 1988 solo album for 99 cents on cassette tape from Blockbuster Music. I ended up hooked immediately, a and ended up buying Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, 20/20, Friends, IJWMFTT, and Pet Sounds (in that exact order) over the next few months, and saved up my allowance to buy the GV boxed set. I was still going through issues, but the only thing that kept me going was the excitement of hearing BB/BW music that I hadn't heard yet. Frankly put...the music gave me a reason to live at a time when I had none (in my eyes). So, needless to say, I'm quite partial towards Brian, and that's why I get so pissed off when I'm accused of being 'anti-Brian', which bluntly put is the biggest crock of sh*t I've ever been told since the board started, and hell yeah that offends me. With that in mind...

I'm not anti-Mike either. I can understand those who are to a point, especially those who grew into the band from things like the David Leaf book, for instance. However, there's a difference between those who bring up valid criticisms and those who just repeat the same things over and over, and not always in a relevant thread. More to the point, I take major issue when certain posters make accusatory posts about anybody who does take issue with the Mike-bashing, about how they only 'support' Mike because they're getting something in return. Like, nobody here is allowed to be unbiased. Hell, I WISH I was getting something out of it...I was just raised in a way that I would never say something that I wouldn't say to someone's face, especially if I don't even know the person on a first-hand basis. That's me, though. However, I don't understand the logic in going to threads and posting the same stuff over and over again. Alright, we get it, you don't like Mike....so why in the hell do you keep posting about it? We freaking know already. Broken records get tossed in the trash. Again, this is not directed towards those making valid criticisms, but rather the posts along the lines of the ones Pinder kept quoting. And about that...

Pinder was NOT suspended for supporting Mike. That's ridiculous and stupid. Rather, he was suspended because he was asked to  quit quoting the offending (and offensive) post ad nauseum, and kept doing it, completely disrespecting Guitarfool, then turning on me even though I had been supporting him earlier in the thread . That right there let me know that at that point, he wasn't debating anything but rather trolling just to get a rise out of people. So, a 7 day suspension was immediately enforced...and then was extended to 60 days when I went back and looked at the board log and realized I had already suspended him before for the exact same thing.  Now as for why SmileBrian wasn't suspended for baiting (which to be perfectly frank, he was), well he came very close to it. I normally wouldn't bring this up on the board, but Andrew's post above requires me to be very clear about this. Neither he nor anybody else on the board is allowed to troll and derail threads while others get punished for it. Wasn't the case here, as Pinder basically said 'f*** you' to me and the other mods and figured he was going to do whatever the hell he wants. Not going to happen. Although I generally let things go on for a bit before getting involved (by design...I've been on too many other boards where the mods act like it's a dick measuring contest to see who can ban the most people), I am not going to sit back and let someone make a mockery out of the board having moderators in the first place.

While criticism of a performance should be allowed, personal attacks on band members should not. Let us use some common sense in here. Honestly, I feel like I am dealing with eight year olds in some of these threads. Either back up your personal attack on bandmembers or be banned. No if, ands or buts. I'll bet you things calm down real fast. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

I'm with you...CenturyDeprived however does have a good point in his response to Wirestone. As much as I'd like to, I can't. Too much of a grey area of what constitutes a personal attack. That said...  if someone says something derogatory towards Mike and Scott or John tell that person off...or if somebody posts something derogatory towards Brian and Ray or Debbie tears that person a new asshole...well...I'm just going to microwave me some popcorn and sit back and watch. Hey, if you want to talk mess about someone, you better be able to take it.

*Note: the scenario mentioned above was hypothetical

After all of that longwinded stuff, let me sum it up like this...not everybody here is going to agree. Just be more decent to each other. I don't want to have to be one of 'those' mods on other forums who run their sites like a police state.

[bgas]

Man, Who are the brain police?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

? Not sure I follow.

[Dancing Bear]

You know, Smile Brian's and OSD's posts are completely worthless and make me embarassed to be a fan and a member of this board. Ignoring the issue is just postponing the problem. Yeah, I get their point, Mike is an asshole who should have been fired in 1966. I got it the first 15 times they wrote it, I don't think their other 20.000 posts have really added much. Is it gonna be ok as long as profanity isn't used anymore? Really?

"Oh, then you want every member that criticizes Mike to be banned?"

Hell no. Just those which when read make me want to delete my account.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

You know, Smile Brian's and OSD's posts are completely worthless and make me embarassed to be a fan and a member of this board. Ignoring the issue is just postponing the problem. Yeah, I get their point, Mike is an asshole who should have been fired in 1966. I got it the first 15 times they wrote it, I don't think their other 20.000 posts have really added much. Is it gonna be ok as long as profanity isn't used anymore? Really?

"Oh, then you want every member that criticizes Mike to be banned?"

Hell no. Just those which when read make me want to delete my account.

I agree with this.  What you (Billy) and other mods have said in this thread are acceptable and make sense, but only when looking through a microscope.  SB and OSD do the same damn thing in every thread.  It's fine that they don't like Mike, but using that opinion in every thread as some sort of fact that proves their argument is a load of crap.  It's called trolling and nothing else.  Breaking out the ban hammer on them is not going to turn this forum into a police state. 

The exact same thing goes on in a car forum that I post on.  Some people like to use GM's bailout for reason to not like a certain car they make.  Yeah ok, fine that's your opinion.  But bringing it up every time a new GM product comes out is ridiculous.  The mods stepped in and started issuing warnings and if you still kept it up guess what?  You're gone. 

[bgas]

You know, Smile Brian's and OSD's posts are completely worthless and make me embarassed to be a fan and a member of this board. Ignoring the issue is just postponing the problem. Yeah, I get their point, Mike is an asshole who should have been fired in 1966. I got it the first 15 times they wrote it, I don't think their other 20.000 posts have really added much. Is it gonna be ok as long as profanity isn't used anymore? Really?

"Oh, then you want every member that criticizes Mike to be banned?"

Hell no. Just those which when read make me want to delete my account.

I agree with this.  What you (Billy) and other mods have said in this thread are acceptable and make sense, but only when looking through a microscope.  SB and OSD do the same damn thing in every thread.  It's fine that they don't like Mike, but using that opinion in every thread as some sort of fact that proves their argument is a load of crap.  It's called trolling and nothing else.  Breaking out the ban hammer on them is not going to turn this forum into a police state. 

The exact same thing goes on in a car forum that I post on.  Some people like to use GM's bailout for reason to not like a certain car they make.  Yeah ok, fine that's your opinion.  But bringing it up every time a new GM product comes out is ridiculous.  The mods stepped in and started issuing warnings and if you still kept it up guess what?  You're gone. 

Neither of them do the same thing in every thread, tho they do,  perhaps, post their dislike more frequently than some others.
Maybe we should ban everyone that talks about GM cars, on this board, without any BBs reference(s) or ANY post that's not absolutely directly thread related?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Well, let's see what happens now that the warning is issued.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

You know, Smile Brian's and OSD's posts are completely worthless and make me embarassed to be a fan and a member of this board. Ignoring the issue is just postponing the problem. Yeah, I get their point, Mike is an asshole who should have been fired in 1966. I got it the first 15 times they wrote it, I don't think their other 20.000 posts have really added much. Is it gonna be ok as long as profanity isn't used anymore? Really?

"Oh, then you want every member that criticizes Mike to be banned?"

Hell no. Just those which when read make me want to delete my account.

I agree with this.  What you (Billy) and other mods have said in this thread are acceptable and make sense, but only when looking through a microscope.  SB and OSD do the same damn thing in every thread.  It's fine that they don't like Mike, but using that opinion in every thread as some sort of fact that proves their argument is a load of crap.  It's called trolling and nothing else.  Breaking out the ban hammer on them is not going to turn this forum into a police state. 

The exact same thing goes on in a car forum that I post on.  Some people like to use GM's bailout for reason to not like a certain car they make.  Yeah ok, fine that's your opinion.  But bringing it up every time a new GM product comes out is ridiculous.  The mods stepped in and started issuing warnings and if you still kept it up guess what?  You're gone. 

Neither of them do the same thing in every thread, tho they do,  perhaps, post their dislike more frequently than some others.
Maybe we should ban everyone that talks about GM cars, on this board, without any BBs reference(s) or ANY post that's not absolutely directly thread related?

I should have clarified I meant Mike related threads.   No, we shouldn't...  I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying if that's the conclusion you're coming to. 

But yes, let's see what happens now that warnings have been issued.

[Micha]

Andrew, don't you think that's an unfair standard or expectation to apply to anyone here, to call out anyone for what they didn't post?

In this case of trolling, In think it is ok to call them out for what they don't post. That's because they don't post anything else but "Mike (paraphrased) has an abominable character" and "You don't agree, you're anti-Brian".

At the moment there is a thread that celebrates one certain song that I find extremely dull. I know I have the right to state my opinion and I could go there and post about me not liking that song, but what good would that do? If I had a SB mindset, I'd post that on and on and go bashing people for liking that song, endlessly. I think it's a good thing I didn't post these things. (Which is the point of this paragraph, not implying one shouldn't ever criticize anything.)

"In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

What dictionary is that definition from?

[bgas]

Andrew, don't you think that's an unfair standard or expectation to apply to anyone here, to call out anyone for what they didn't post?

In this case of trolling, In think it is ok to call them out for what they don't post. That's because they don't post anything else but "Mike (paraphrased) has an abominable character" and "You don't agree, you're anti-Brian".

At the moment there is a thread that celebrates one certain song that I find extremely dull. I know I have the right to state my opinion and I could go there and post about me not liking that song, but what good would that do? If I had a SB mindset, I'd post that on and on and go bashing people for liking that song, endlessly. I think it's a good thing I didn't post these things. (Which is the point of this paragraph, not implying one shouldn't ever criticize anything.) 

  Not that SmileBrian can't defend himself, if need be,and OSD likewise, but I checked by pulling up " the last posts" of SB ( 25 of them) and what I found was (maybe) 7 of those 25( admittedly by my count) could be construed as bashing Mike; that's a FAR cry from "they don't post anything else

"In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

What dictionary is that definition from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Andrew, don't you think that's an unfair standard or expectation to apply to anyone here, to call out anyone for what they didn't post?

In this case of trolling, In think it is ok to call them out for what they don't post. That's because they don't post anything else but "Mike (paraphrased) has an abominable character" and "You don't agree, you're anti-Brian".

At the moment there is a thread that celebrates one certain song that I find extremely dull. I know I have the right to state my opinion and I could go there and post about me not liking that song, but what good would that do? If I had a SB mindset, I'd post that on and on and go bashing people for liking that song, endlessly. I think it's a good thing I didn't post these things. (Which is the point of this paragraph, not implying one shouldn't ever criticize anything.)

"In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

What dictionary is that definition from?

Good points...

Are you referring to All this is that? If so, i do entirely disagree, but that's okay. Just like others like Don't Hurt Mt Little Sister,  and it happens to be my least favorite song Brian ever wrote.

[Micha]

Are you referring to All this is that? If so, i do entirely disagree, but that's okay. Just like others like Don't Hurt Mt Little Sister,  and it happens to be my least favorite song Brian ever wrote.

How high is Mt Little Sister?

(A little "spelling police" joke, if you don't mind. )

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I hate this phone...typing is a bitch!

[phirnis]

...
At the moment there is a thread that celebrates one certain song that I find extremely dull. I know I have the right to state my opinion and I could go there and post about me not liking that song, but what good would that do?
...

Wait 'til my Bill and Sue appreciation thread comes around!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Now as for why SmileBrian wasn't suspended for baiting (which to be perfectly frank, he was), well he came very close to it. I normally wouldn't bring this up on the board, but Andrew's post above requires me to be very clear about this. Neither he nor anybody else on the board is allowed to troll and derail threads while others get punished for it.

I'm hoping you're referring to Smile Brian there and not me. I've been a lot of things here and elsewhere - arrogant, condescending, dismissive, unfeeling and flat out rude and abusive (and proud of none of it) - but I've never trolled.

As for what constitutes fair, acceptable criticism...

"Mike seems to sometimes take too much credit" - acceptable.

"Mike is a f****** s********" - unacceptable and if anyone needs to have that difference explained, then, well...

I post here because I love this band and this music like no other: both have materially affected the direction of my life. I've been places I wouldn't have otherwise, made lasting friends and had relationships I wouldn't have otherwise. I've got to meet the people responsible for this and personally thank them. Now, they know me, and sometimes ask me for such little help as I can offer as regards their own history (as Brian would have it, that's a real trip !). Even before I loved the band, I had a hugely overdeveloped accuracy gene, and The Beach Boys only made it worse. That I care to have their history and music accurately documented is why I (and others such as Stebbins) kept nagging tedesco about his website, and why I'll give Carol Kaye a hard time for her lies any chance I get (she does the same to me). I enjoy, for the most part, the exchanges here but when two or three posters routinely cause any given thread to degenerate into a Mike Love bitchfest, then I have to wonder. yes, in the last couple of years I've moved my position on him more than somewhat and yes, during this time he and his wife have extended their hand to me and improved my access, which I admit is a two-edged sword, and in some eyes the mark of a turncoat. Initially, like most here, I swallowed the Leaf Line on Mike from 1978, hook, line & sinker, and know something ? He has said and done some things that make you go "hmmm" (and next time we meet, I'm going to ask about the HOF speech, promise)... but so have the rest of the band. I don't pretend Mike is my friend, any more that I think David or Bruce are, but I've got to know him a little since 2012, and know something (again) ? He's just a man. He has feelings. The person I see, albeit briefly, in "private" isn't the brash front-man. And yes, I know that around the fans he's on. Might be many things, but I'm not dumb. I edged towards the center after the frankly nonsensical reporting over the end of C50, when anyone with two functioning brain cells to rub together should have seen that no-one fired anyone else. The true story of what happened in June-September 2012 needs to be told, if only to show there was wrong on both sides. But I digress. I'm not a Brian-hater. I don't think a whole bunch of his organization, and haven't since, oh, about 1998, but as Dennis pointed out in 1976, he IS The Beach Boys. No-one else comes close, even Dennis at his very best, and certainly not Mike (know something, pt.3 ? he knows that too), Alan, Bruce, Carl or David. Brian's a once-in-a-lifetime event, a true genius, but there's only one Brian in the BB: without the others, I don't doubt he'd have found an expression and outlet for his amazing music, but we'd have had to manage without the likes of "California Girls", "WIBN" and "GV". Without The Beach Boys, there would have been no TLOS, to my mind his crowning solo achievement. But I digress, again. Currently, this place is like a great party at which the kids have been allowed to to stay up for, and they're bored, and running around, making noise, screaming "look at meeeeeeeeee" and frankly being a royal pain, and recent posts in this thread have shown I'm not the only one of this opinion. Time to get the house in order, the kids in bed and the guests out the door.

Also time to remember that the neighbors are watching...