Howie knows record label politics and business in the current world in an inside way that no one else I know does...and on both coasts. He's also a good father, which is harder than the rest.

I trust you, I'm sure that is all true. Never meant to get into an argument with him.

Insult #4. - "Your faultless bank of knowledge".  Why should I respond to someone regarding Capitol labels or anything simular?  That condescending attitude turns me off and the conversation with it. Talk to yourself!

Your behavior here, in the context of me trying to dialogue with you about the label design history (I was excited to talk to someone about a subject I have great interest in), was utterly obnoxious, and your knowledge nearly nonexistent, "simular" to a (boring) boar: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15204.msg351010.html#msg351010

Look at your post count, and then mine.

Yeah, I just did. I think I have quite a bit more posts because you were banned from this board for quite awhile. But I see you're striving to catch up...
 

Was given a time-out for two days in 2006, left by my own choice a few months later. Don't hurt yourself with that thinking jazz.

You make me laugh, and considering I didn't swear or lob any insults your way at all, I'll speak to you however I please according to the rules of the board. Save the bold type, really, it is just amusing. Fathom that. Capitol is now an official arm of UMe, so saying the disc in question has nothing to do with the label is just a bit misleading.

Insult # 1 - "You make me laugh."
Insult # 2 - "I'll speak to you however I please according to the rules of the board".
Insult # 3 - "Save the bold type, really, it is just amusing. Fathom that."

If that isn't insulting and condescending, I don't know what is.

Poindexter F. Geritol Jr., I didn't START with the insults. That is the point. I asked a simple, serious question, got insults back. Responded in kind.

It wasn't an honest question.

Do you really think that I didn't know about UMe now owning Capitol???

For someone who's posted, literally, continuously on this board, you must've at some point read at least a few of my posts and been aware know the work I do.

So, either you just post constantly and never read anyone else's posts -- which is quite possible -- or you were being obnoxious and I (and another board member) called you on it.
(And I used my real name when I did it.)

I didn't post on this board for 6 years (how do you not know that if you have been here for 7 of them?), and it was likely during that time, that you joined and composed most of your posts here. Honestly, I don't keep track of everyone who writes a BB book, I'm sorry. Due to your forceful boasts, I am now totally aware (or should I say, "been aware know") of the work you have done, and I apologize for not giving you the large amount of respect and fealty you feel you so richly deserve. *curtsy* OK?
It was actually an honest question, and I don't owe you any explanation further than that. I wasn't attempting to be obnoxious in any way. What you feel is obnoxious is anyone daring to not immediately recognize your name and ultimate authority. OK, now I know, and I will keep my head bowed when addressing you. OK?
And that whole utter bull about "not using your own name". what is that? What does it mean? THE MODERATORS OF THIS BOARD don't use their real names half the time. Is "Howie" the exact name on your birth certificate? People deserve respect, whatever moniker they choose, and unbelievably, even if they haven't written a book about The Beach Boys.
I'd rather talk about the band with a kind nobody than a defensive and rude insider, any day.

Nah, I don't have time for that. I have better things to do today. Seems like you have an inordinate amount of time to post on this board all day and all night, though. You should probably find more constructive things to do with your time, instead of hassling people here with your know-it-all attitude.

Look at your post count, and then mine. I have never inferred I "know it all", I merely knew more than you did about one subject, the dates of Capitol labels, and you threw insults at me, rather than engage in an adult conversation. You should be embarrassed, and act your considerable age.
I was merely asking a person if they hadn't heard that Capitol merged with Universal, that's all, an honest question. Your faultless bank of knowledge isn't required at this stage.

And you..........well, we'll just leave it at that.  

Oh, the self-proclaimed expert on Capitol labels and disgusting sexual metaphors, again. Let's take it to PMs, I have a lot to say to you, old man.

[Did you miss the fact that Capitol was bought by Universal Music Group last year?]

This is an insult/knock: Did you miss the fact that Capitol was bought by Universal Music Group last year?
(But it's the kind of insult/knock by a dude who uses cute pen monikers rather than their given name.)

Just trying to pass good info along.

It wasn't intended as an insult or a knock in any way.

I.'d Like To Teach The World To Sing:

Watch your tone.

I know more about UMe purchasing Capitol than you can EVER, EVER fathom.
I'm merely explaining to someone that this disc/series isn't originating from the Tower.

You make me laugh, and considering I didn't swear or lob any insults your way at all, I'll speak to you however I please according to the rules of the board. Save the bold type, really, it is just amusing. Fathom that.
Capitol is now an official arm of UMe, so saying the disc in question has nothing to do with the label is just a bit misleading.

So what? I doubt a person with any religious or spiritual beliefs would have an utterly phony signature, and Manson avatar (outrage move circa 1979).

People with little or no religious or spiritual beliefs are not going to fall into the same trap.

People with little or no religious or spiritual beliefs can go to Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

The ICON series has nothing to do with Capitol. It's a UMe budget line series -- Clapton, The Who, Moodies.
It's usually a decent double-disc starter comp.

Did you miss the fact that Capitol was bought by Universal Music Group last year?

Anything previously unheard from the 61-65 era.

There are a lot of CD's in the Icon series, this is just another wave of them.

I was more surprised that no one would have read the many threads where Mike Come Back To LA has been discussed, and the various bootlegs where the audio was released.

Really? I think they sounded awful in 1966. Lei'd In Hawaii is even worse.

I honestly think the BBs live act reached its peak in 1964 at TAMI show.

Agreed.

I can't get over the feeling the M&B band sound like a half decent Beach Boys garage cover band.
 

That's what they sounded like in 1966, though.

He just wants attention, though. I shouldn't be giving it to him, so he can just fade away.

On the other hand, that video is pretty bad stuff.

Yeah, and Eric Clapton has been horrible since 1972. Lots of artists lose it, utterly. I still believe in giving those folks due respect. They gave the world more joy than you and I ever will.
People should think of Mike as a weird combination of Johnny Rotten and Engelbert Humperdinck. He doesn't make sense.

As are mine. I'm so happy to have a new dartboard, sans moderation.

Writing lyrics and working on vocal melodies is a very important job, a big element of a great song. Do people think Bernie Taupin and Robert Hunter aren't songwriters just because they are lyricists?

Mike Love is a good songwriter.

Write me some lyrics as good as Good Vibrations.

Johnny Carson is a real live wire!

I like Ezy Ryder more than Watchtower too.

You're a fucking idiot.