The Smiley Smile Message Board

Just thought I'd illustrate how many Mike threads there have been, most of them rehashing the same old sh*t. Are we bored or what?

sigh

Yeah but you see I actually just posted some new (7-25-13) quotes from Mike Love in the "Celebrate The News" thread where he actually sheds some light on a couple of things, so what you actually are doing right now is spamming the board and moving threads with more relevant information down the chain.  Opinions from fans are obviously fine but should not obscure actual quotes or comments from members of the band.

and people wonder why folk like me get impatient and snarky when this junk gets dredged up and ran into the ground over and over and over.....

Stephen makes a great point though.

Yeah, I think it's getting a bit crazy.  :lol

(http://imageshack.us/a/img268/2430/vlyh.png)

I'm not against a Mike Love topic--this is a BB board after all and he is one of its members who still performs today...why shouldn't we discuss him?

But I am fed up with any Mike Love/Smile threads or the Mike Love ending the C50 tour threads.  Those particular subjects have been discussed endlessly here with no real new ground being covered.  So those particular threads, I wish would stop.  A way to combat any new thread being created, maybe one of them could be permanently stickied up top to prevent others from creating NEW threads....?

Maybe we need a whole section dedicated just to ML topics, so that if you don't want to see threads about him just don't go to that section.  :lol

Problem with anyone arguing this point is that the band (in particular Mike Love and Al Jardine) keep bringing up the events which followed the conclusion of the C50 tour in the press.  I mean just his week we got some of the most insightful quotes from Love himself as to why he is no longer touring alongside BAD.  Now granted Jon Stebbins let us in on a lot of the information he covered several months back but this was the first time that any quotes ascribed to Love made reference that he was having issues with the people working "behind the scenes" on the C50.  Likewise another series of quotes I posted today (dated from 7-25-13) make mention that Love's opinion that working with his cousin has always come with it's fair share of obstacles.  This is important information because it takes the conversation about the end of the C50 from "Mike Love Is A Jerk" territory to ascribing some rhyme and reason to the man's decision.

Bottom line for me: When the band stops talking about the end of the C50.  So will I.  Until then...

I'm a bit fed up of members who apparently have so much time on their hands that they resurrect long-dead threads, post a fucking period in the thread, and clutter up the forum as a result.

You're all on notice. I deleted all of the unnecessary period posts - if this happens again, that member will be banned permanently. It's one thing to post funny stuff in a thread but quite another to clutter up the board for no logical reason.

good for you jason, I totally agree.

Agree with you 100%, Justin.  We've lost some board members because of it.

they think we're bad and we treat Mike so mean, but all we know is from what we've seen

I like Mike threads when they relate to the Beach Boys. His contributions in the studio and on the stage type stuff. But the constant bashing means nothing. No new information is given or gained...it's just boring.

Speaking of treating someone mean. From what I've seen, some of us around here might be surpassing Mike on the subject....

When someone gets endless amounts of joy out of trashing someone because they think, feel, or have been told it's OK: it tends to say more about them than the person in question....

Just something to think about.

Can we have one ML bashing thread for the board?

Plus have OSD moderate it? ;D

now THAT'S an idea I could get behind!!!!

Every thread on here is a Michael bashing thread...where have you been?  ;)

busy at my job.

We need a positive Mike Love thread, which we can slowly derail into an anti Mike Love thread and subsequently make threads supporting the people who got unfairly banned from that Mike Love thread

I don't think we need that again...

In on the first page.

This is one will surely go to 100, ya think?  :p

guys, can we get back to talking about mike love.

ugh why he sucks

anyone else notice MIC looks and sounds a lot like "mike"? wonder who came up with THAT subliminal bit of genius? typical ego-centic mike love, tho :'(

youre a joke

Mike?

Let's all speculate about the issues Mike encountered with Brian's wifeandmanagers during the C50 Tour that made him have to fire Brian, Al and David from The Beach Boys. ;)

but i luv u

Mike hit on Melinda after a bit too much wine. Jeff told Brian, Brian didn't care.

as far as i know, mike doesn't post on here. so no, i was addressing runnerz.

gertie, r u mad ;(

nope.

I know you were addressing runners, you'd never talk to me like that.

Mike is the most polarizing and controversial member of the beach boys, so it makes perfect sense there would be a proportionately higher number of threads about him.  Any BB board worth anything will have its Mike bashers and mike apologists.  Battle on!

true dat.  :wave

gertie. wat's wrong :'(

No, just a certain percentage of the population today that cannot get on with life without having to know all the dirt on high profile personalities. It's a terrible human trait, but I suppose cannot be helped. I don't mind reading about the good and the bad of it all, as long as it is factual. Not always the case on this board, though.

I apologize for Bicyclerider being a polarizing member of the board.

Whether you like him or hate him, we all have Mike to thank for the lovely MiC, according to AGD.

Yup. Nature abhors a vacuum, so as long as the issue gets brought up in the press, it's fair game. Having said that, endeavor to bring something fresh and thought provoking to the conversation. Such as Mike's recent interview on the 'Celebrate the News' thread. It's all food for thought.

Now all we need is for Bruce to down too many Pacifico's and carp about Obama. That'll crank up the publicity machine!

I would like to see the Mike threads take a breather.

We got a baby sitter for the first time in months. We went out, I had a few drinks, and...........it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Though it wasn't illogical, it was to prove there are too many Mike threads all saying the same thing. Cold light of day though, probably annoying so I'm sorry.

But Jason, really? A permanent ban for resurrecting a few threads to prove a point, when the murdered children pictures wanker still posts freely on here.

Funniest thing I've read for ages  :lol

It seems to me that the debate has become so polarised that some posters can't or won't acknowledge any middle ground where Mike Love is concerned. After years of open and significant Mike-bashing from lots of people here and elsewhere, I think some people have set themselves up (which good intention) to give the opposing argument as an antidote to the perceived one-sidedness of the argument/discussion. But that seems to have further polarised things and pushed the discussion to extremes. There are people who find fault with anything and everything Mike does, but also people who will barely acknowledge that he's ever done anything wrong. There are times when I can barely see how someone has reach their particular conclusion because it seems so unrelated to any of the information we have as fans. Whilst things are so polarised I think the debate could just go round and round indefinitely, because so many posts seem one-sided or unreasonable, which just agitates people into responding.

If people aren't willing to see both sides and accept that Mike is both good and bad to some extent or other, then it might be better to completely abandon the subject (which seems a pretty impossible task given the subject of this board). No-one in the Beach Boys story is simply a hero or a villain, they are all both to some extent - Mike included.

Absolutely

There have been little lost voices (mine included), trying to say this for months. They get ignored. This leads me to believe people actually want and enjoy rehashing the same arguments over and over.

To quote Judd,  "sigh"

Controversial yes, but polarizing I don't know. I doubt there's people here that are as pro-Mike as the anti-Mike people are anti-Mike. I only defend Mike if the basher's view is IMO too one-dimensional. I'm neither pro-Mike nor anti-Mike nor anti-Brian. There's things about both of them that I appreciate and others that I'm not so fond of.



OK, hands up, who thinks Mike's never done anything wrong? I don't think so.

Mike's done wrong on many occasions, as has Brian. The difference being that Mike's gets bashed every single time, while Brian gets a pass because well, he's Brian. This is what I don't like that goes on in here. Taking a more objective view of both would cut down on a lot of arguing and create better a dialogue when these issues are discussed.

I think I've already said this in another thread but actually the consensus opinions and feelings about the Boys and in particular Mike have moved a long way in the past couple of decades. The Mike threads today are down right civil compared to threads in the past. Balance takes more work when the start is so much imbalance but balance has happened and is still happening and it all is not for nothing. Jmho.

I totally agree with your final sentence and the whole post to a large extent. The only thing I'd add is that saying Brian gets a pass because "he's Brian" might be a bit simplistic. I give him a bit more leeway with some things because he suffers with mental illness and has done for most or all of his life. I don't think it's unreasonable to give him a pass on some issues because analysing (or sometimes judging) a persons behaviour and intentions is a lot more difficult and complicated where they're suffering with mental illness. That doesn't mean that Brian should always be excused for every 'wrong' or that Mike doesn't have his own issues that could mitigate or contextualise his own 'wrongs', but I think it explains part of the reason why Brian gets more sympathy and leeway in discussions. I suspect it goes too far at times and maybe some people give Brian a pass because they prefer his music/abilities/image to Mike's and he's got that quirky innocence and awkwardness that leaves people expecting and accepting unusual, odd or 'off' behaviour. Mike seems a bit too normal to be excused behaviour we might not agree with.

I'm not suggesting anyone actually thinks that, but that's how I read some posts on the subject. I tried but probably failed to explain that I think it's because they feel the need to solely fight Mike's corner in what they see as a very unbalance debate (emphasising others negative actions and failures whilst not mentioning or admitting that Mike might have played some negative role too). I think that just leads to less balanced posts.

As mostly an observer, I definitely agree things have improved significantly over the years and that there's far more balance than there was. I think the C50 ending stuff has set this back a bit, but it's still better than it used to be. There's much more acknowledgement for Mike's contributions than there used to be and I think he gets a much fairer ride than he used to and the majority of people are (I think) reasonable and objective about Mike now.

The funny thing with Brian lately, is that you really don't hear much debatable type stuff actually coming out his mouth. Most of it is written, and of course the next question is, by whom? Mike on the other hand, while he has written responses, often verbally states his stance and opinions on topics. He is much more visible, and this I suppose sets him up to be looked at more harshly, at times.

Trust me, I'd LOVE to override that decision but I cannot override another moderator.

Let's all just agree that Mike Love was part of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, song writing partnerships in history, and we'll leave it at that!!

So is this "post a period, get banned" thing a joke or not?

What about just post a "?" is that ban worthy also?

If it's done for no other reason than to clutter a thread or bump a thread that does not need to be bumped, it will be at the moderator's discretion. Most likely it would be the three-strikes rule. Seven days, then a month, then permanently.

OK. its all clear to me now!

So once you've been suspended twice your are in dangerous territory - or I guess that the "death sentence" might
be waived in certain circumstances?  ;D

A period is the same as a full-stop right?

Jeez!

"Post periods, you're permabanned. Be extremely mean-spirited and insult other users literally on an almost daily basis, banned for a month. Post pictures of dead children, hey, you're gonna get yelled at and banned for like a week or two. Watch out!"

LOLOLOLOLOL

Look. Mike since about 1977 has no understanding of how good the Boys' legacy could've been, BUT...
He wrote Warmth of the Sun. Jesus, it's a work of art. Everything came together. Who else wrote lyrics that apt?
And don't get me started on his singing. I know it kinda goes belly up around 1976 and it's downright terrible until the last few years, BUT how many great songs did he sing so well/ All I Wanna do, anybody?

However sh*t Mike may have been since the mid 70s (and I'm inclined to agree), you can't just wipe out the greatness of is contributions earlier than that - although I also believe the revisionists can't lay all the blame at David Leaf's door - there were clearly issues before Leaf came on the scene and Jon Stebbins' book about Dennis should be a starting point.

I'd like to see a ban on resurrecting any threads over a year old, for any reason. I hate the "no top posting!" mania some anal folks have that dates back to when DOS operating systems still roamed the earth.  If a person finds an interesting topic in search, then they can cut and paste and quote an item from it and start a new discussion, but start a new thread. It's annoying to see a new post and think there's fresh content, when the first post on the thread is from years ago, and the thread is full of links that no longer work and red x's where photos used to be.

I have no problem opening an older thread if the post has more news on the subject. Why have 25 threads on the same exact same thing? Who cares about old links, I come here to read, not play show and tell. ;)

It befuddles me why people get so angry and take so seriously the bumping of older threads on internet messageboards. People get real worked up about it, don't they?

Sort of regretting that last Babycham now.

I don't understand either, I read Smiley Smile for pleasure, and don't get worked up about the content.

The best thing about "Periodgate" is that it's managed to make this particular page almost content-free....only two posts out of the previous fourteen even mention the ostensible thread subject!!

You guys are AWESOME!!  :3d

:lol You know, Paulos, when I first read the mod's post about "period posts" and didn't understand at first what he was talking about I wanted to post exactly what you did now, but felt kind of embarrassed...

The phrase though goes much better with your avatar than mine. ;D Now we know what you're thinking about in that photo! :angel:

Say, I wonder what people mean when they post just a full-stop?

I understand why people don't want five threads about the same topic when it's a fresh topic. But reviving threads started in 2004 and last posted on in 2009? That's just being annoying.  Posting a "." on more than one thread is being a complete troll, even on more recent threads, and if a poster does that enough, then it's kosher to ban them.

The only thing I would consider is whether those people are posting a "." because they're trying to delete what they wrote. The board makes it impossible to delete one's posts completely. If you want to reconsider what you posted, you have no choice but to erase it and put a placeholder such as "." in.

I must admit that "periodgate" made me laugh.

For the record, the moderators won't just ban first and ask questions later with regards to the period issue. We're aware that some folks post them to replace a post they wish to edit. But if it's a situation where a period (or any other single character) that adds nothing to a thread, then yes, we'll delete the periods. If it becomes a problem, it will be at the moderator's discretion on how to proceed.

For any WWE fans, I find Mike Love similar to John Cena. John Cena sells the most merchandise, and is the face of the WWE. Yet when ever he enters an arena, about half the audience is booing him. On Beach Boys message boards, I bet a good number of the topics are about Mike Love. If he were a WWE charactor, he would get pushed as a main eventer because he brings a big response. Also, Mike makes himself to be the good guy because he never did drugs and his positivity is the reason the Beach Boys were so big. In the same way, John Cena is pushed as the good guy. Many fans think he should turn heal. Although, Mike tried that at the HoF speach and it didn't help.

In a British newspaper recently, maybe the Guardian, there was an article titled There Are a Lot of Fallacies About Me, about Mike Love.  What was never asked of Mr. Love was "what are the fallacies?"

Uh, ain't goin' there-wanna stay on this board? It's easy-just don't say anything negative about the lovester. He is a wonderful man who has a great voice and and is a true artist. He will go down in history as one of the greatest entertainers of all time far surpassing Frank Sinatra in phrasing, voice and charisma. Really.

:lol

You can only think in extremes, can ou? For instance, I think Mike is not a ver good entertainer. But he's no evil dumbass either.

(Damn, one of the kes on m keboard just broke while I'm tping! Wonder wh?)