The Smiley Smile Message Board

... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

AGD

To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

What about Roger Waters or Phil Collins? Not the same but both of those guys have detractors who still like the band as a whole

To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

To be fair, I'm a fan of many, many bands and there's no-one who divides their own fanbase quite like Mike...

If Mike wasn't in the band, would he be the most hated gas station attendant in greater Los Angeles area?

... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

It's kind of sad that so many people's views of one man is based upon the agenda of just another fan.

You're framing it as if the people who dislike Mike need to hate anybody. As if they enjoy hating SOMEONE, ANYONE and Mike is an easy target so they latch unto him. Really tho, there's many a valid reason to dislike Mike. Thats all there is to it. No matter how much it gets underplayed by most here, no matter how much the "club kokomo" crowd try to muddle the issue, hes done some things that were bad for the band and bad in general which is why he gets hate. Sure, the others have their faults to, but in my perception (and Im hardly alone on this) not to the same degree, and they have redeeming qualities. Mike does too, but it's his general attitude...his constant self-congratulations and always bringing up other people's shortcomings (whether prompted to or not) that really rubs people the wrong way and makes him come off like a complete ass.

I understand why people like him, but is it really so hard to see why people hate him? For my money, Im in the middle...possibly leaning more towards the disapproval side.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

Both of these posts sum up my thoughts perfectly. I'm a huge fan of many different bands and I don't activity seek out an antagonist to vilify. Why would I? I'd rather just enjoy the music. That being said, Mike has done PLENTY to justify the certain level of irritation that some fans feel about the man.

Books, legends, stories from this site aside: I implore any Mike apologist to read Mike's latest string of interviews...If Ringo Starr started saying publicly that Paul McCartney was controlled and on prescription meds, made a negative implication about a Paul solo song before he even heard it, made a passive aggressive comment about Paul's current singing voice, ALL FOR NO REASON AT ALL would it really surprise anyone if people started disliking Ringo?

I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

This. It sucks to have a band which one deeply loves contain a band member who is both so vilified, as well as who does so many actions which, if not always on the level of the wrath they incur, are still worthy of major headshaking and eyerolls. It is not what I wish was reality, nor would this person's absence create a magical need to shift frustrations onto another bandmember.

If the implication of this thread is that people somehow "need" or "want" to have issues or dislike a given band member in a band... well, I do not think that is true in the slightest. There are numerous bands which I also adore and I have no major issues with how the various bandmembers seem to conduct themselves. (And there are also some others which I do; case by case). Fans don't go actively looking for someone in their favorite band to dump on. That's a ridiculous implication, if that's what the implication is. It *just so happens* that this band has a bandmember who is a magnet for controversy. If Mike didn't exist, but the band still happened to have gotten to a similar level of fame and subsequent discussion (which I think is unlikely, because Mike was vital to the band's early success, just as Murry was), people would probably be talking about Murry and Landy more, perhaps. But since they've been dead for a good length of time, they would no longer continually be stirring up stuff in current times.

I also think that the Kokomaoist extremists unintentionally cause a lot of hate to come out of the other side. Especially with the Kokomaoist extremists' frequent brief, one sentence sarcastic responses to well-thought out and nuanced discussion. When some people will defend anything that one given person does, and/or just sit back quietly and NEVER proactively say something to the effect of "you have a good point there" when a good critical point is made, well let's just say that this creates more fury; never backing down from a defensive stance just makes people feel they have more convincing to do.

(Fully expecting a Kokomaoist extremist to chime in with a sarcastic, childlike, one-sentence response here, ignoring and avoiding all the other points made in this post and this thread).

It is this kind of c**p, along with the earlier d-bag comment, that keeps me away from this board for weeks or months at a time.

I agree. That is WAY over the line.

I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

I added a "smiley". That doesn't count for anything?

I added a "smiley". That doesn't count for anything?

I got the 'feel' that Carl was in charge up on stage when Jack was around.  They didn't NEED a front man.  They were the Beach Boys for goodness sake.  By then everyone sang leads...including Blondie.  They had seemingly become a band of equals musically speaking.  The front man thing was old school and one didn't need a guy tip-toeing/swishing around and mock-lisping on stage.  It detracted from the music gigantically.  So Jack made it STOP.  And then...he left...and...

Example?  Listen to Live in London.  Or check out Mike prancing around in his dumb as sh*t sailor captain hat in front of the good ship 15 Bigguns.  Suddenly it was 1963 all over again...with longer hair.  Awful freakin' stuff.

Thank gawd he doesn't do that sh*t now.

[by the way it bugged me just as much when Jagger used to pull that stupid twaddle.  The thing is we all know Mick didn't 'lift' the concept from Michael Edward.  Mind you I kind of found Mike annoying as the 'front man' back BEFORE he started trying to do his version of the Mick thing.  I am convinced Mike only 'got' the responsibility 'cause NO ONE else in the band could have done it way back when.  Too young.  Too shy.  Too incapable.  And Denny was way at the back sitting behind the drums.  T'was the absolute WEAKEST part of the group from the beginning...that and the 'wardrobe']

Plus his stage banter got unbearable to listen to. Just droning in for ages about stupid sh*t.

In 1976, what Mike was wearing and doing was mild for the times. There was some wild, over the top sh*t going on in the 70's. Queen, Bowie and all the Glam Rock stuff. Not to mention all the Disco and Funk-A-Delic stuff too.

Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

I GET that Doc.  100%.  But that was a new segment/genre in the biz.  The Beach Boys didn't DO that kind of music nor could they justify that type of approach.  They weren't trying to image themselves in THAT camp.  AND...they were established with a list of hit songs and albums that would have been the envy of all those glam acts.

It just didn't work for the Beach Boys...at all...even once.  It was dorky...with a capital D.  I guess all we can be thankful for is that he didn't come out wearing a speedo stuffed with socks.

Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

I honestly believe that Mike Love is a vicious asshole. I wish he hadn't ever been in the band. His singing (especially in the bass register) is the most out of tune of the members (bar Brian post 1975). Rieley should have booted his ass out of the band along with Bruce back in '71. Brainless jock idiots. Soul sucking jerks.

However, I will try to say a couple of nice things about Mike fucking asshat Love:

01) His put down on Mick Jagger was great. Anus to anus.

02) Um, that's actually all I can think of for now. The dude is a giant tumor. When he dies, there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave.

 ;D

P.S. Try googling the words "mike love asshole" and you will come across pages and pages about why he is such a disgrace:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mike+love+asshole)

And then there is the chapter in the Stebbins FAQ book.

Firstly, there was someone (me) who said that sounds like those actions were very harsh and likely going too far. Secondly, this sounds like it was a real exception with Dennis, and not any kind of recurring pattern. If it seemed like it was a recurring pattern, coupled with copious amounts of defensive speak from the perpetrator, I think more people would be having big-picture conversations about it.

So no, it's not a double standard. Sorry. The real double standard was pointed out 13 posts above your last post.

Whether it was commonplace behaviour or a one off kind of deal is somewhat besides the point. If it had been Mike standing over the swing that day his detractors would be very quick to hold it up as another example of why he is such an ass. As it goes against the perceived romantic notion of how many people view Dennis, it was quietly overlooked.

Yes. And in another thread I referenced that anecdote and said I couldnt think of anything more frustrating and devastating, and that while I completely understand why they did it at the time, in hindsight using the SMiLE material for scrap was a bad move that cheapened the material and ruined the reveal. That coming from family, it must have made that insult even more personal and troubling. What's your point?

Ive also gone out of my way to say that Brian was a bad brother to Dennis in that he never listened to his solo album, when Im sure from Dennis' perspective, a little encouragement and constructive criticism from Brian probably wouldve meant the world. I've also said on many occasions that Brian letting Mike get cheated out of his song credits for decades was absolutely inexcusable on his part.

I criticize every Beach Boy for the things theyve done which deserve criticism. Just so happens Mike's done way more over the years to warrant criticism. That's on him, not me.

Why do you think it is that there are so, so many stories from many, many different sources of people talking first-hand about what a generous, good (yet messed up), big-hearted person one of those guys was, vs. not nearly as many types of stories from all sorts of sources for the other person? There are reasons for this, and they are not just because of the differences two peoples' last names or their looks. It's not a competition, but there are LEGIT reasons why two people are judged and reacted to differently on a case-by-case basis; it's not just some purely hypocritical injustice as some would like to believe.

I think it is in no small part because one of these guys is dead and the other isn't.

Consider this, there is much less defense of Mike than there is offense against Mike. (drops mic)

Time to point out the double standard. Yesterday AGD mentioned that several sources witnessed Brian weeping uncontrollably on a swing while Dennis looked at him blank faced and said 'F uck you, we need that song (Surf's Up)'. Now imagine if he'd said Mike instead of Dennis - we'd have had at least two pages by now on how Mike is an evil, bullying c unt, instead we get nothing other than a very reaching excuse for Dennis' actions.
These are The Beach Boys for fecks sake, they are all just as good at doing/saying dumb stuff as each other. Mike's antics are certainly worthy of criticism from time to time, but to spend so much time and energy on hating the guy to me is just pointless.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  

Maybe people don't type that kind of drivel about any of the other Beach Boys because none of the other guys have encouraged that kind of response or reaction. 

Ya...except that Brian and Dennis were sick...drug addicts with alcohol issues.  One died.  The other kicked it and somehow mirculously was properly diagnosed in terms of the REAL problem and then subsequently was given the proper prescription.  How does that correlate to a guy who continues to proudly walk the brave land with both his feet in his self propelled yap?

To toss Dennis and Brian under the exhaust of the Mike Love bus is just wrong.  The issues are entirely different.  Opposites actulally.  MIKE should be able to help himself.  He chooses not to.

NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! I'm serious, Add Some. Your post should be framed or put in the Smiley Smile Message Board bylaws or posted as everybody's signature. Brian and Dennis Wilson are treated/handled/dealt with/posted about on this board under DIFFERENT STANDARDS than others because of their...problems. You just said it. And, you're right, that's how it is. So, there it is. Mike and Bruce and Al DON'T have all those problems so it's fair game and acceptable to criticize the sh*t out of them because they should be able to help themselves. But, Brian and Dennis can't help themselves so, different standards, or...double standards apply.

... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

People with medically quantifiable mental issues are also treated differently in many court cases, with good reason. I have a family member who suffers from autism, and he sadly lashes out with violence sometimes. Should I think of his actions as equivalent to someone without his condition?

And while you're at it, if you want to, perhaps you could kindly address my question about double standards which I posed to you a couple posts back.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

I work with individuals with disabilities every day so I am more than aware of the treatment that is necessary. But that's only half the point or half the issue. The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names? Just because they don't have a disability? I don't think so, but that appears to be the standard on this board. I mean, these posts are being accepted.

And, with all due respect, I'll respond to questions or posts that I choose to. If I don't have anything to offer or say in relation to your question(s), well, I'm not gonna come up with some...response, just to appease you.

yeah...mikes disparaged because he doesnt have a disability. thats literally the only reason. yep. youve got us all figured out

That kind of remark should never be aimed at anybody. Not you, me, Brian or Mike. It's is totally uncalled for and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

Yes, it is a double standard. Unfortunately, that is now the norm for this board, the double standard. Posters are allowed and do say anything they can think of to criticize Mike Love, but, Brian or Dennis Wilson, no, you must have an agenda if you say anything negative about them.

And this is even sadder. "Mike Love is a vicious asshole." "Brainless jock idiots." "Soul sucking jerks." "Anus to anus." The dude is a giant tumor."When he dies there will be a long line of people waiting to piss on his grave." And, we'll finish with this one - "Mike fucking asshat Love." Those quotes are one above poster's description of (mostly) Mike and Bruce. This is the new standard on this board. The moderators are now accepting this kind of...stuff. It is sad. Very sad.  

Billy, I feel terrible about this. I mean, for you to have to risk your job to come on the board to keep me from clogging the board with my crap and garbage, well, frankly I'm embarrassed. You know, Billy, I have this problem. It seems that I'm always posting something that upsets people on this board. But, I'll change; I know that I have the ability to change. And, just to show you that I'm on the right track, I'd like to apologize to anybody I offended with anything I posted, including guitarfool2012. But, Billy, there's still a few "loose ends" that I have to clear up before I can truly reach my goal on this message board. And, Billy, you're the perfect person to help me. I just have a few questions that I need answers for, if you don't mind.

Question 1: If a poster expresses their opinion about Brian Wilson, say a Brian Wilson solo album or a Brian Wilson TV performance for example, and an Honored Guest or a Moderator responds to that post by calling it "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit", does the original poster have the right to then, in turn, refer to the Honored Guest or Moderator's post by calling IT "utter bullshit" or "total bullshit" or just plain old "bullshit"?

Question 2: Scott Totten recently posted, "Mike gets slandered and trashed on a regular basis and many of you think that is equal to wondering whether Brian played piano. I don't find these two examples to be of equal value. I really feel that some of you are bullies." Billy, when I read that I thought, "Uh oh, there's going to be some outrage now. Somebody is accusing board members of not only unwarranted Mike Love bashing, but also bullying. The moderators aren't going to like that." However, there was no outrage, barely a ripple. I then thought, "Gee, the moderators must agree with Scott.

Well, earlier in this thread I read this post, "Mike is a sad and insecure man", and "Mike is a wretched human being to his so called songwriting partner, Brian Wilson", and finally I read, "I don't think anyone can argue that Mike is the most tactless BB member, relatively speaking, nobody even comes close." Well, Billy, again I thought, "Now there will be outrage because the moderators must've agreed with Scott and will respond to this Mike bashing." So, I kept checking the board and checking the board, but I never saw a single moderator respond to those posts. No calling them "total bullshit", no asking them to apologize to Mike, not even a "Gloves are about to come off." Now I'm confused.

Thread after thread, post after post, things like Mike Love's vocals and Mike Love's lyrics and Mike Love's solo songs are criticized. Over and over. And I get that; this is a music message board. But, sadly, every other possible area of Mike's career, character - and life - is also criticized. I've read posts criticizing Mike's spiritual pursuits, Mike's personal conduct on the road, and I've even seen comments directed about the legitimacy of his children. And, those comments were allowed. I ask you, Billy, would those same comments be permitted if they were directed at Brian Wilson? I ask an even more specific question. If somebody merely substituted the name Brian Wilson in place of Mike Love, would the same comment be allowed? For example, Brian Wilson is a wretched human being. Brain Wilson is the most tactless BB member and nobody comes close. I don't think they would permitted. Wow, I almost slipped and used the "h" word. But, see, I'm already getting better and caught myself.

Just one more thing, Billy, and I'm sorry to bother you, but, well, it's about my wife. Oh, don't misunderstand, she's a wonderful woman. She volunteers at church, works at charities; she's a beautiful person. But, see, Billy, when I'm reading or posting on the message board, she thinks I'm discussing good vibrations, going to the beach, and fun, fun, fun. Sometimes she's lurking, you know, when she's cleaning, and she'll occasionally take a peek at the computer monitor, and, well, Billy, if she saw where you described my posts as "childish fuckery", she'd get very upset. She's very sensitive. So, Billy, the next time you insult me or use derogatory terms to describe my posts, could you not use the term "child fuckery"? 

Billy, thank you for everything you do for this message board. I realize it's a long, hard, thankless job. Love and mercy... 

I think Ive added quite a bit to the conversation up to this point, thank you very much. But y'know, when presented with such a ridiculous assertion as what sherif was implying, I cant help but respond in the same manner. If anyone is really gonna sit there and say that Mike gets the flak he does simply because he doesnt have a disability, thats a completely ridiculous argument and ignores everything me, centurydeprived, add some and others have been saying for a dozen posts now. Just how is that uncalled for? I've had worse comments directed at me, and Ive seen worse comments directed at others on this board with nary a complaint from anyone, but no a sarcastic response to a silly assertion, thats where the line is drawn?

Exactly, it's what the kokomaoists do best. Throwing insults under the banner of "positivity" like Mike Love does.

Double standard? Like this?

I don't understand, why are you addressing this post and not the one that started this series of posts in the first place?  

The other half is the double standard. Just because the "other" person doesn't have a disability, does that make it OK to disparage them, attack their character, call them vile names?

I was referring to Roger the shredder's post. Not to you, at all. To me, there is no defense for what he said. It isn't funny and it isn't quaint, emoticon or not.

Something about those who live in glass houses, I can't recall the rest.

ah. you quoted my post, so i assumed otherwise.

I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

My apologies to you. I can understand why you assumed that.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

I call bullshit. Do your job. Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

no worries.

For my money, RTS' post was insanely hyperbolic but i dont think it should be taken down for "offending" anyone. I just dont believe in that kind of PC bullshit. I say the only posts that ought to be taken down are deliberate spam and personal attacks on other board members.

Mike Love nor anyone else should have to read what was posted. I agree with what you said above, but it has nothing to do with RTS's post. We who are offended by the post should not have to defend our position. What he said cannot be argued reasonably. It would just be more sh*t throwing.

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie

How about this: The board is whatever the membership chooses, whatever direction it takes is up to what the members post. It's an open forum.

Plenty gets said that cannot be argued reasonably. Plenty gets said that is an outright lie. Plenty gets said that comes from sources other than what is presented. Plenty gets done which doesn't make sense at all, by people who should know better. You know what? A lot goes on away from the public part of the board. Some really stupid sh*t. Some outright lies and stuff like that. That can of worms could be opened as well but the results might not be what some might think. Those complaining about double standards, consider that. Just saying.

Someone explain what happened here, please. I mean, certain posters love to complain when Mike's own ill considered comments result in backlash and so-called "Mike negativity." Yet, here we are, all politely discussing Brian's movie, interviews, albums, tour and Mike's upcoming shows, and out of the blue we have a thread guaranteed to illicit "Mike negativity." And the "Brianistas" didn't start it.

What, did it get to civil around here?

This is what happened:

This thread has done exactly what it was posted to do. Stir up the sh*t.

He's not the only mod here, and none of us do anything without discussing it with each other first.

Exactly and make BW fans look bad.

No need, I understand your humor my friend!

I edited my original post:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,21625.msg518677.html#msg518677)

No need, I understand your humor my friend!

No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  

I'm still hanging onto this one. I shouldn't, but I am.  Anything further on the subject, I'd be more than happy to take it to PM.

Yeah, Mike is a controversial figure and to suggest otherwise is crazy.

Again, we who are offended by the post are members here too. I want you or some other Mod to do something about the post. This is why there are Moderators on forums. Please moderate the situation. Please moderate.

I honestly believe that Mike Love would not be very attractive in drag. Of course it would give him the opportunity to wear a wig while performing which might be worth the ticket price.



EDITED: Sorry, Dirk. Did not mean to offend you.

Billy, you are a great guy. I may not be on my best behavior, but thanks for always keeping the peace here! Being a mod with Guitarfool and Smileholland has kept this board great.

I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.

One thing for sure...NO ONE ever wins these debates.  And they're all alarmingly similar.  [and addictive]  It's like...OH!!!  Another car crash better slow down and take another look.  See if there's a leg up in the tree or a head rolling down the hill.  Maybe a spare finger which can be claimed as a souvenir.  We all assume our regular positions by the crash site and then away we all go again.  The Mods can probably set their watches to it.

There'll never be a camp-fire night here where will all sit around singing Kumbaya together.   Not even if Brian worked out the best arrangement for it EVER.  And as long as any member of the Beach Boys, current or recurrent, decides to once again fall down, roll around and cover himself in mud...we'll all gather round to run the bath.  Some will operate the hot water and some the cold.  Others will argue that the soap hurts the eyes.  Other will suggest that it serves the dirty boy right.  No one will get...let alone throw in...the towel.

But...the bottom line?...NONE of US got him dirty.  He just is.  Some of us simply refuse to get used to it.  It makes the halo look like it came from the dollar store.

Like what, Guitarfool? Tell me just ONE lie that I've told on the board. NO PM, put it right here for everybody to see it. And I'll respond accordingly. Is it about you banning me after you and two others didn't agree with my opinion? And let me know how I supposedly "piled on" by agreeing with someone else's opinion.

Tell me where I lied ANYWHERE on the board and I'll address it with the absolute truth, Guitarfool. Promise!

Careful, Dirk. He'll ban you with the flick of a switch. When he starts wielding his power, time to take the hint and save it for a rainy day.

Your friend,

Mikie


No PM's, no warnings, no nuthin'. You never see it coming. Just wake up the next morning and surprise! The ban hammer has been lowered for a week!

Preferential treatment is the order of the day. If he doesn't agree with what you're saying even after he's been driving his point home forever and a day, you're gone!  

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

Billy, you are a great guy. I may not be on my best behavior, but thanks for always keeping the peace here! Being a mod with Guitarfool and Smileholland has kept this board great.

Perhaps you missed my post where I said I messaged RTS about his post. I'll assume you did, and if that's the case, then this doesn't apply to you.


I'm done being nice about this. I'm expected to be on here 24/7 , because if I'm not, sh*t storms like this develop. And not matter what I do, all I hear is this pissing and moaning 'the mods, the mods, wah wah wah'.  Well, you know what? If that's how it's gonna be, and have an issue with how I do things, or if you're only on the board to start sh*t,  then get the f*** off the board. Just leave. You won't be missed. For the record, two of my closest friends (on OR offline) are on supposed 'opposite' ends of the BW/ML spectrum. You know what? That's ok. We're all different, and not all of us are going to like the same sh*t or feel the same way about the band. What I do have a problem with is all the little sh*t stirrers here. I'm not going to call out any names; you know who you are. I've had it up to here with it. I've been on boards where the slightest transgression has led to a life time ban, even if it is something as minor as having a difference of opinion with a mod. You think THIS is bad? Well, I suggest untwisting your panties, because I got news for you...this ain't nothing. My God, if I was half as bad as I've been accused of (directly or indirectly), half this board would have been banned a long time ago. But, if that's what you want, well, fine...just be careful what you wish for.

It's why these debates always prove to be fruitless Cent Dep.  And why they continue.  Nothing is ever resolved.  It's just the same old steaming pile of fly attractant...and people wearing hip-waders...evt freakin' time.

By the way...40 plus years ago when those making fun of gays voices were being used...I loathed and hated the sound of it.  I wasn't into gay rights or figuring that all people were created equal or any of that new age tolerance stuff.  I just thought it was disrespectful to EVERYBODY.  It thought it reflected entirely negatively on NO ONE but the guy doing it.

Like I said. . . he figured out that he had to tone that sh*t down.  Thankfully.  More figuring still required.

As an effeminate man questioning his gender identity [seriously] that kinda thing offends me. But this is what I meant by PC culture. Who's to decide what's "offensive" and what isnt? I know we have plenty of older gentlemen here who couldnt care less about femininity being equated to weakness or gay being used as a derogatory term because thats the culture they grew up with. Not that that makes it ok exactly, but if we have to all have a collective time out every time someone's feelings get hurt where would we be? This is all rhetorical as well. IDK the right answer, and obviously we all shouldnt be assholes or crude either...

Billy, I have never had an issue with you. You do a great job as far as I am concerned. I read your post, but I was replying to gf2k.

Billy, I have never had an issue with you. You do a great job as far as I am concerned. I read your post, but I was replying to gf2k. Not sure whether he read your post. I just found it odd that gf2k addressed sheriff's post first instead of the one that started the storm. Again, I thank RTS for moderating his own post. I admit it, I'm 57 years old and don't always agree with what goes as humor these days. I was brought up old school, is all I can say.

True. And while I can (and regularly do, when enjoying pop culture media from yesteryear) readjust my goggles to make sure I am viewing the world through the eyes of the relatively prehistoric times, I would hate to think that there was any homophobia lurking beneath the surface, because that kind of stuff pisses me off to the nth degree.

True. And while I can (and regularly do, when enjoying pop culture media from yesteryear) readjust my goggles to make sure I am viewing the world through the eyes of the relatively culturally prehistoric times, I would hate to think that there was any actual homophobia lurking beneath the surface regardless of decade adjustment, because that kind of stuff deeply pisses me off to the nth degree.

And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem

All of this is a lie:




All of it, completely false and what is even worse is that you know it's false but want to take a shot at me so everyone can read it. That's low.

Since the offending quote got changed, this brings up a serious, actual question about offensiveness (which I've privately wondered before, but never posted about): am I, or are others allowed to feel offended by instances when Mike talks in a way mimicking a woman's (or possibly a caricature of a homosexual man's) voice? I've heard brief bits and pieces of that kind of talk on session tapes (boots as well as officially released material) and I have found that it could be considered somewhat offensive, even through the lens of history and such voices being thought of as less offensive back then. Maybe other BB members did so as well, I just haven't come across any such instances (and if I did, I'd think it was just as icky for any other member to have done so, I might add). I guess it's a rhetorical question: I know I'm "allowed" to get offended. I'm *relatively* less offended because the tapes are from 50 years ago, but it still bugs me somewhat.

I suggest we listen to friends and relax!

Nope. Not my intention at all. The absolute truth, like I said. It's black & white. No PM's, no warnings, no nothing. Complete surprise. Like I said, I don't lie, especially about something like that. I've never been known to slander people.

And ultimately 2 people I respect a TON...GF and Mikie come to blows...BECAUSE of the never-ending Mike Love's a dink show.  Mikie...remember what you told me.  It's happening for what?  No valid reason.  Cool.  Just cool.  GuitarFool.  Easy.  This won't work out well for the board.  It's amazing the things which grow out of SOMEBODY ELSE'S bullshit.  Doc and Mikie aren't the problem

Being offended is a choice; one is ALLOWED to make the choice to be offended but one is not due special consideration just because. To most people, being told "I'm offended" is going to lead to little more than a "so what?" If you're* offended, congratulations. The world doesn't give a damn. I certainly don't.

*speaking in general, not to a specific person.

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Agreed. All the same, we all ought to practice a little common decency.

yeah, TM isn't working for me.

You're not levitating hard enough, dawg.

Being offended is a choice; one is ALLOWED to make the choice to be offended but one is not due special consideration just because. To most people, being told "I'm offended" is going to lead to little more than a "so what?" If you're* offended, congratulations. The world doesn't give a damn. I certainly don't.

*speaking in general, not to a specific person.

You have any hash joints left? I know you do.

Can we pretty please get a round of brownie-stoned Cassius Love vs a peace-pipe-toked-out Sonny Wilson?
 ;D :hat

Thanks for that, Lee, and thanks for the PM. I'll drop it for now and will deal with it behind the scenes later. I never responded to my unfair "timeout" before now, and I probably should have. My fault. I still stand by the simple advice I gave you earlier, and you obviously already know how to take the high road.  :)

That would make a better thread. Do you toke or ingest? ;)

Is anything being done about the member who is repeatedly and recently calling another member a "fellator"? Is that sort of thing OK on the board too?

Lemme tell you somethin', Guitarfool. What you're doing now is egging me on to say things openly in a public forum that will ultimately get me banned (again). Unfortunately, YOU hold the ban switch, and I'm not stupid!! I won't get enticed into a heated exchange with you because one of us will end up with the short end of the stick and by default it will be me. I'd be more than happy to put the link to the thread in question right here and let EVERYONE be a mod here and decide whether it warranted me getting a 7 day "timeout" or not. Do you want to do that? I have no problem with that! You want to make this a public discussion, then let's do it! My cred won't be hurt a bit from it!! It's up to you, my friend, but don't say I'm a liar - it just ain't true!

When Real Beach Boy resigned from being a Mod here, my opinion was solicited on whether you should get the nod. I gave the 2 thumbs up for you. I pulled for you because you seemed half-way intelligent and you seemed fair. But you turned on me. Unfortunately, the latter turned out to be untrue.

A little bit of both... And sometimes at BB/BW shows even!

Speaking of weed, I would love to get Mike toked up and tell him that many people, even people who think he acts like a butthole often, still have some genuine love for Dr. Love (contrary to what he might think), and would love to talk a bit of sense into him (fat chance, I know - maybe would take LSD for what I had in mind). I, for one, still truly believe that there's more "good person" stuff buried deep down in there, that's just buried by extreme defensiveness and enabling surroundings.

You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

You want to make it public, eh?

OK.

I was NEVER warned or told beforehand that I might be banned.  After I was banned, I had to ASK another Mod via e-mail why I was banned because I had no clue why.

Reason?

For supposedly "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against Debbie Leavitt.  HUH?  WHAT!? NO sh*t??

Yep. And Guitarfool actually pressured others into seeing it his way after Debbie and Wirestone complained. This was coincidentally right after I'd seen how the proceedings of the thread had progressively gone downhill, I thought that free speech was compromised with some posters, and I decided to stick up for the underdogs who had their own views and who were trying to get their point across but were being squelched in the process.

Now. Tell me about this lie I told, Guitarfool!

Here is the thread in question. This was the last post I made on the thread before being banned. I encourage you to read my posts before this to see if there's any indication that I was aggressive or pushing an agenda or a hint that I would be banned for violating any rules. Does it really look like like I'm "tag-teaming" with Mike's Beard against anyone? There was no warning at any time from any of the Mods, either on the board or by PM, that I might or would be be banned.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.275.html

Who suggested that Mike is not controversial? No one. We can discuss Mike without being nasty to him or to each other.

You're lying, plain and simple. What you posted above is/was the tip of the iceberg. What you posted about me was a lie, as mentioned. I didn't ban you, the moderators did in agreement after discussing it. No one was pressured as you said. You weren't banned because I lost an argument, or because I "pressured" anyone, and you know damn well that's the case because it was explained to you after you asked why.

By the way, who was it that banned you Mikie?

And prove this bullshit about me "pressuring" someone or else get off the pot. I "actually" didn't pressure anyone into doing or saying anything no matter how much you want to lie about it or delude yourself into thinking that it's true.

Just prove your claims, show they weren't lies.

Did I ban you?
Did I ban you due to losing an argument or an "agenda"?
Do I wield the power of a moderator to ban people on a whim, if so, who have I banned that way?
Were you given an explanation for the ban when asked for one?
Did I pressure someone into banning you?
Did Wirestone have anything to do with the decision to ban you?
Was it a 7 day time out or a full ban?

Answer them, Mikie, in other words sh*t or get off the pot.

I have a question for the Moderators, if people got a 7 day time out for accusing someone of being a cheerleader, what is the consequence for falsely calling another poster "fellator" multiple times and as recently as yesterday (see post #156 in this thread)?

How do you know it's falsely?

Wouldn't this apply anyway?

"If we want to talk about bullying, people being made to feel like they've been attacked personally especially in repeat situations, if it was asked that it stop and those requests not respected, then it's time to step in. Maybe this isn't in line with what everyone might agree with, or what has happened in the past, but it's what is happening now. This personal sniping taken beyond a certain point, to where board members feel like they've been singled out and attacked, has to end. It's not welcome, it won't be welcome, and it will be dealt with."

I'm sure the infamous Fellator-gate scandal of 2015 will be dealt with soon enough. Hopefully there's a deep-throat character on SS who can expose this great atrocity once and for all.

I don't think fellatio should necessarily be thought of in a bad way. People shouldn't take offense to the word, as it implies a wonderful experience where one person selflessly helps another person out, regardless of sexual preference. And selflessly helping out another isn't always a bad thing. It sucks to go down the route where people get offended by it; What Ever Happened (track 3 on No Pier Pressure) to swallowing one's pride?

So, if fellatio is to be thought of in a good way, then why did you use "sucks" in a negative way? ;)

What about the lying and making another member "feel like they've been singled out and attacked" and the stated practice of the Mods being violated and the offender apparently being in defiance of the Mods? Don't you imagine they at the very least owe an apology or a time out for that?

Has anyone asked Mike or Bruce what they think about the fellator epithet. Do we know they would frown upon it?

What happens on the M&B tour, stays on the tour. ;)

This board has sunk to a new low.

I mean, it was created as a pure bait thread.

This was meant to happen. I was about to comment on it when the thread was created, but I did not care enough about it.

Not everyone is laughing. And I take that aspect of it personally. But due to respect for privacy concerns, I'm not going to make it a public issue exactly why that is. And for those similar concerns, the reasons why some things were done and the reasons why it was so offensive to me to have to read an untrue version of things that happened which turned into having to defend something based on those misrepresentations cannot and will not be aired out beyond that point on a public forum.

I didnt mean to downplay the accusations against you. But...personally, I know youre a good guy. A couple other people gave a shoutout to what a great job you mods do. Dont let one dude get to you so much. I've had my serious beefs with Mikie in the past. I dont know what makes him say the things he does in such an aggressive way sometimes, but thats just who he is evidently. For better or worse.

That WAS the past and you had to bring it up again. Nobody cares about our disagreement in the past. You indicated that you don't know what I'm talking about on this thread, you don't care, yet you decide to chime in and add fuel to the fire. Not a good way to strengthen your relationship with other posters.

Because it's indicative of your personality. I was just trying to let guitarfool know that nobody else really knows or cares what your little fight is all about. You cant please everyone, so he shouldnt get so hung up on the fact that one person is displeased. How is that adding fuel to the fire? And y'know...Ive basically given up on having a good relationship with most posters here. If I talk about SMiLE it's "cocksure gaslighting" or some such according to buddhahat, if I weigh in on a petty feud that you had no issue airing in public Im adding "fuel to the fire" according to you, if I weigh in on some bad things a band member did Im a "hater" according to the Kokomo crowd...I cant win. So I dont care and just say what I want to regardless.

EDIT: Seriously though, I really cant see the logic behind airing a personal feud thats unrelated to the topic at hand in public, making a big spectacle of calling out one of the mods in front of everyone over something Im sure very few know or care about and then acting all righteous and indignant when someone else adds their two cents to it. Isnt this what you must have wanted airing your dirty laundry in public? Or are you upset that we're not rallying to your cause and hanging guitarfool out to dry? I really dont understand, what's the point of fighting in public if you didnt expect other people to comment?

Seriously, reread the first post in this thread - what could it have turned into, other than what it did?

... I'm wondering who the usual suspects would hate instead. Nominations ?

My initial comment on this thread was to warn another poster not to push the mod (or others) too far. Guitarfool chose to go public with my experience with him and my ban, essentially saying that I "lied" and to prove it. He called me out on it. So my subsequent posts were intended to counter his claim that I lied. And I'm still not done yet! I still have "proof" through a private e-mail AND the thread in question to support my side of things. If Guitarfool wants to take it further on the board, I will. I don't like to be called a liar and neither does anyone else, I'm sure. And if others want to bring up past experiences with me like Mujan has, you're more than welcome! There are quite a few people on this board who I regard as friends, some of which have addressed me on the board, and have PM'ed and e-mailed me privately. Thanks for that!

This is a crock of sh*t but at this point I'm not surprised at all considering the source and the way lies have been used to make a case against me for some reason.

It's kid stuff to try arguing with the irrational and the lies. Now I have to revert back to "who started it" kind of sh*t? No.

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see the first post you made that was designed entirely to blast off on me over an axe you've been grinding from this 7 day timeout last month.

You chose to do it the chickenshit way rather than address the moderators in private, you chose to LIE after the explanation was given to you immediately after it happened, you chose to distort and twist what actually happened to make me look like i did something wrong, and now you're lying about how all this came into the thread.

You point-blank made charges and claims against me that I banned people on a whim and banned someone because of a discussion not going my way. You lied about me trying to persuade and influence others into doing something against you. You lied about the reasons for the time out as explained specifically to you.

And you knew all along there were privacy concerns at play here which I would not post private messages or emails, so you thought it would be good to try fucking me over in public.

Why should I or any of the moderators at this point give you any benefit of the doubt since your entire diatribe about this since YOU BROUGHT IT UP by accusing me falsely has been based on lies and distortions?

We have the entire string of messages, emails, board posts, everything else which played into the decision. It was a mutual, agreed decision, not something I nor anyone else did on their own initiative or with spite.

Can you fucking accept that without trying to lie your way out of it, or wrongly place the blame on my shoulders to prove a point? Do you get a gold star or something for trying to take shots at me in public?

This is the most pathetic and childish crap I've encountered on this board. Having to defend lies and knowing there are privacy issues that would keep me and most rational people from pasting the full story on a public board, Mikie to be blunt this is chickenshit and it is the stuff that has ruined the board.

Now the lie is I started this whole thing. I don't have to say prove it because the proof can be found by anyone tracing back this thread and seeing the bullshit you posted. And continuing to lie and distort publicly rather than presenting something to back it up, or doing what should have been the right thing to do all along, which would have been taking it up with Billy and I privately. Even though Billy already explained all of this to you.

It's too bad you're not man enough to accept what he said and move on after a month of this.

Mikie, it was 7 days not being able to post here for f***'s sake. And it was kept off the board, so no one knew until you decided to air it out here and do so by lying about it.

All i can say is, we lost a very, very good person in all of this, and it was a maldito shame to see it happen over someone who cannot accept or deal in the truth and something as silly as a 7 day no-post timeout that could have been over and done and forgotten by this point.

Keep it classy, man.

And you knew all along there were privacy concerns at play here which I would not post private messages or emails, so you thought it would be good to try fucking me over in public.

Why should I or any of the moderators at this point give you any benefit of the doubt since your entire diatribe about this since YOU BROUGHT IT UP by accusing me falsely has been based on lies and distortions?

We have the entire string of messages, emails, board posts, everything else which played into the decision. It was a mutual, agreed decision, not something I nor anyone else did on their own initiative or with spite.

My last resort here will be a communique that I had with Billy. The day I was banned, I sent him an e-mail questioning him why I was banned and he sent me a reply a couple of days later after he "had a chance to sort things out". I choose not to embarrass him, but maybe it will serve to put your accusations (and your list of 4-5 questions) to rest. If you guys don't mind, I'll post it right here.

Not really, Andrew used the words 'usual suspects' - we all know what people he had in mind, not the entire Beach Boys fan community.

'We all know' well, that's another assumption, isn't it?  But even if we do all know to whom Andrew is referring, what proof does he have that if Mike had not been in the band they would have wanted to hate someone else?  And of course if they were just nasty people, where is it written that they may only hate one person?

Of course, I could ask 'had there not been a band called The Beatles or a person called Mick Jagger, or several other persons named in Mike's R&R Hall of Fame speech, who else would he have had a go at?'

There is, in my estimation, not a single person on this board (including any "usual suspects") who, in the absence of Mike Love's existence in the band, would somehow start finding some sort of smoke and mirrors issue to hammer another bandmate about. It ain't so. I can see how the original post was said completely in jest, off the cuff... but it's everyone's fault (including my own) for actually responding seriously to such an obviously facetious remark.

I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader" but what is being done about the member who libeled another member as a "fellator"? Are the vague do-nothing and/or being-handled posts in regards to the "fellator" libel?  A public announcement was made in the "cheerleader" incident, could a Moderator please respond/clarify in some way?

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

Im sorry but...get over it. I dont mean to be rude, but someone called you a not so nice name. Youre an adult, I presume. We all know you didnt actually go down on Mike or Bruce or whoever. You crying about it just brings more attention and actually makes you look worse. If you just talked to the person in question and/or PM'd the mods about it I think that would accomplish more than this hissyfit. Not saying this to be rude, just being a "straight shooter" like good ol' Mr Love.

And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

And this thread has long since become worthless. Best to lock it down, methinks.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

You are forgiven since you don't know what all has and has not been done up to this  point.  I could PM the offender but he offended publicly and multiple times,  others were disciplined publicly  for less, others are airing their grievances publicly, I think I have done more than enough privately, I'm comfortable with public.  If the offender wants to apologize publicly and stop I'm good with it.

I find it a little ironic that no one on the board has objected at the offender but instead at me.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that said.poster making those comments was suspended yesterday for those remarks . Or you're just trying to start mess, which is part for the course. For your sake, I hope it's the former.

Fair warning, though...I am going back and looking at every single post between you two since it first started getting out of hand. If it turns out that you were actually the one that started this, well...

You're right...how would you know he wasn't suspended?  My answer to that? THAT'S why you should never assume things.

I know that the libel didn't rise to the heinous level of being called a "cheerleader"

Wait a minute there, who are you to tell Cam how he is supposed to feel? I am sure some of the things that hurt your feelings would roll off a duck's back with me or other people. You don't get to decide those things, none of us here do. This is why we have Mods to go to if we feel someone has gone too far. Personal attacks are just that, personal.

What? I didn't assume he wasn't and I didn't assume he was, I didn't assume anything, I was asking what was being done about it in my not knowingness. Now I know, I'm good.

No need for this kind of thing unless it was to drag things even deeper into the muck. It's none of your business.

You assumed nothing was done about it, or was going to be done. In any case. I kept my word like I always do.

It isn't but the other half of it was.

I'm good with it now but it did gall a little that it took so long for something so clearly against board standards practices while others were handled so quickly. Anyway, it was handled and thanks.

Youre right, its just in how you react to it. I recall asking if there was some kind of ignore button when things got tense for me. It really seems more and more like that might be the best option for everyone. I know thats not exactly a quick fix, but it would probably save us all a lot of trouble down the road. I just think crying about it to the mods in a thread where they're already being given enough grief might not be the best way to get what you want. Its like throwing a temper tantrum as mommy and daddy are discussing how theyre gonna pay the mounting bills...theres a better time and place and way to do it.

I agree it might be better if this thread were locked now. It was probably meant to start sh*t, it failed to start the sh*t it set out to but now theres a whole different kind of smellier sh*t thats stinking up the board.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

And from someone who is first to dump on any so called 'troll' behavior.

Lock it down.

I say let this one stand as a testament to what happens when this kind of thing replaces the reasons why most people come to this or any message board. Let it stand as a crumbling ruin to show what this board could turn into if that's how members want it to turn. Learn from what happened and get a sense of what could happen if this stuff continues, and by that I mean on all fronts and all aspects and with all implications being considered. All.

I agree. Considering AGD only posted one more time within this whole thread shows that it was only created to start sh!t. It's quite sad that a thread like this was started from a so called "historian".

Wrong - it was a thought that suddenly popped into my head, so I created the topic. Kinda amusing "what if", not unlike a lot of other "what if's" of recent vintage.

And care to show me the rule that says I have to post a minimum of x times in a thread I've started ?  ;D

'Rising above At the same level as the fuckwits, shitweasels & trolls.' then AGD? :lol

And you don't get tell people how to react to different stuff, either. Some people will cry to mommy and some people will punch a person in the face, while others it won't bother them at all. Everyone is different. This is the problem, we don't take any of this into account when we post in here. A little forethought can go a long way.

Give me a break, man. What I said to Cam is FAR from the worst thing anyone has said on this board, much less this very thread. No need to grandstand me. I agree with your general point, but I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems. Im willing to bet if the roles were reversed you wouldnt be standing up for me either.

Hey man, I never said that you did. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about. You get very touchy when you think someone is getting on you, which I was not. I thought we were a having a civil discussion, guess not.

I think we could all agree that to spam a thread with some derivative of "Mods! Suspend poster x cuz they were mean to me!" isnt the best way to settle problems.

Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."

You must not have been here long. :lol

Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."

Murry would be the lead singer if Mike wasn't in the group. and their name would be "The Wilson 4"..(well until his death than they would have broke up)
"Let's go surfin now do be do be do be now, come on safari with me..do be do be do be do do."
"One step to step on the surf board..wa wa ohhhhhhhhhhh"
"She's real nice my 409, do be do be do be 409, my 409"
"When my children grow up to be men."
" Do be do be do, if we were older"
" There's one place that I like to go that's to the Nickelodeon, do be do be do be and we'll watch the show at the nickelodeon."
" And we'll have a swell time until the daddy gets the whip out."

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67? 

  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

So quickly? Again, you don't know what you're talking about enough to comment on it, especially publicly on the board so everyone can read it, and beyond that consider using some tact when referencing other situations that have been going on. Because rubbing salt in an open wound is usually not a good way to get people's attention. Neither is getting into other business that is none of your concern.

If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.

By quickly I mean that the offending "cheerleader" post was up for 8 hours before action against the poster, the "fellator" posts were numerous, up for months, and (to my understanding) flaunted Moderator advisements. Whatever you are referring to I'm not supposed to know so no I didn't and it still leaves the above. I was commenting publically on a public post and only as a comparison to my public situation, so not rubbing salt or getting into other people's business.  It is also galling to have to defend myself over something that someone else did and could have been resolved with their apology and shouldn't have been tolerated in the first place imo.

That said, you are unhappy with me over a situation someone else created and I am unhappy with you over a situation someone else created but I'm not holding any grudges and I am grateful to the Moderators for handling it.

(http://i62.tinypic.com/wsus1k.jpg)

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

If this thread were taken for just its title, it might have been interesting - not that this thread isn't interesting - but interesting in a different way.  But given the conceit of the original post, it has devolved in a way one might expect.  Perhaps that was the intention - a troll thread to piss off some "brianistas."  

Though recently I saw the OP, with all due respect to Andrew, call himself a Brianista, so who knows?

A more interesting discussion might be something along the lines of...what might have happened if Brian and VDP had the collective courage/support to scuttle Mike from the band in 66-67?  Or what might have happened if they had decided to take Smile as a BW solo album and released it under a different label?

What might have happened if songs like Til I Die weren't considered "bummers" and were supported?

There are all kinds of speculative paths that are worth thinking about.  The *absolute worst* thing anyone might try to do at this point in time is shut down dialog and claim history as closed on any of these topics.

srealist - "ousting Mike" (or any other BB member) would have been the "tail wagging the dog." And a joke.  A writer/lyricist "for hire" has no power or control of a vested member of a corporation. Courage is not a factor.  The band was not a "group for hire" but "owners and operators."  VDP was neither an owner, nor an operator.  These band members were on the road in support of the music.  

Now that SMiLE tracks have been released, I wonder how it could have ever been released in that era short of a triple LP.  

How many kids listening to rock music were going to fork over $10 or $15 or what ever out of their allowance or babysitting money, when they might be buying a couple of LP's a week or month?   How could 12 tracks been picked out for one regular LP? It is easy to say 40 years at least, post, when CD's hold 75 minutes that it should have been released with 30 minutes as single LP.  Even at a double LP, how do you boil SMiLE down to 60 minutes? LP's were the distribution medium. Not CD's or downloads.  Maybe in the alternative a "theme at a time" on one LP in a series fashion, might have worked. I don't know.

In no scenario would all that music have come out together. The vast majority of it was playing around with different feels, remixing tracks in a new way, trying out a feel and either making it part of H&V or its own song. I strongly suspect that the original Capitol tracklist is pretty close to what we would have got, in terms of what tracks made the cut. The possible exception being Great Shape, since all we know of that is one verse.

People seem to forget or disregard the fact that Dada wasnt fleshed out into a full song until just a week or two before the project was canned. I dont think it was ever intended for the album, and I think in Brian's mind the album was dead by this point. Id wager that thats why hes suddenly so happy on those tapes, because it was a huge load off his mind.

Agreed - though, Great Shape coupled with Barnyard (not on the tracklist) is a longer track.


I agree with your point about Dada. But All Day was in the mix in late 66. And importantly, I'm pretty sure that the happiness you are talking about is in reference to the man who is not Brian saying the title and calling the takes. The man behind the voice has been confirmed here on this site (perhaps check in the Love to Say Dada thread in the Smile Box Set section) but I can't remember his name at the moment.

Every SMiLE fanatic, and possibly even every Beach Boy fan period, has asked this question at some point. Realistically it never would have happened. Not the way things had already played out. Ignoring his illness and insecurities, the relative "failure" of Pet Sounds and the Caroline No single probably showed Brian that to leave the band would be a commercial mistake. VDP never would have ousted a Beach Boy. He saw them as a family unit and felt guilty for driving a wedge between them with his work. He never would have turned them against each other willingly, and probably would have bowed out on principle if Brian told him he was choosing SMiLE over his cousin. So, it's a nice thought, but realistically it never would have happened, not either scenario you list. And again, it was primarily Brian who called the shots and decided not to go through with it. Mike and the Boys criticisms almost certainly influenced his decision, but ultimately he was the one who lost track of the big picture, lost faith in his creation, and decided to go in a different direction with it. End of story.

Thank you for your post.  What you say makes a ton of sense.  Where I would dare to disagree is "End of story."

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

If there was one man to pin the eventual return of a mostly-oldies setlist to the concerts, it's Jim Guercio. He put the seed in Carl and Dennis' heads.

And the mere thought that anyone would have kicked Michael out of the band at any point in the group's history is laughable to say the very least.

MB..
are we a little angry, perhaps? :lol

Just busting your chops...I may be a Brianista  but I believe in 10p% historical accuracy at all times

Disagree there. If you read contemporary interviews, he was very critical of the fans chanting for the oldies, pre-Endless Summer of course. The thing about him trying to get the band back to the old sound (before Endless Summer came out) is revisionist history (and he's perpetrated that myth too)

Would have? Yes, laughable.
Wanted to? No, not quite laughable. More like quite probable.

Man, the guy just can't win with you can he?

You're overlooking one very important thing, there were more oldies added within the year of Endless Summer's success but the plan was (with Brian back in charge and the band more popular then it had been in years) that there would be many new hits added to the established setlist as they were recorded. The only problem was with the exception of the Rock and Roll Music cover there were no more new hits. The band kept playing a small core of progressive era material for years but by the end of the 70s it became crystal clear that nobody was coming to hear the likes of Feel Flows or All This is That anymore. It was only then that the band really became the travelling jukebox but it took the best part of 6 years for them to reach this state.
To claim that Mike was plotting this back in 1973 has no basis in fact or logic at all.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

haha, fair enough. Not trying to silence dissent or anything, just emphasize how next-to-impossible it would have been for Mike to be kicked out over this, and even if he was it wouldnt make a difference in terms of SMiLE's release. For what its worth, I still think it would have been better off if he DID get kicked out around 68 or 69. By then he had written all he songs worth a damn, and all he was good for from then on was stirring up drama and pushing the band in the wrong direction. But I think the only chance for that to happen is the scenario someone else laid out where Jack Riely fires him.

 Maybe so, but I'll wager a bet Mike was the primary force behind what the setlist unquestionably became 1981-onward: the 25 biggest hits 1962-68, plus "Rock and Roll Music" and whatever the latest record was. Oh well, the whole band must take responsibility one way or another. And you know Mike brought in the cheerleaders.  ;)

It would not suprise me if it was but it could just as well have been Al, Bruce or all of them. By 1981 they'd had 4 albums bomb in succession and no new material in sight. The progressive era was a faded memory but the Greatest Hits comps were still selling well, what choice did they have but to pack the shows full of early stuff?

Agreed, but only to a point. If 15 Big Ones (which I happen to love, by the way) had been up to the quality of the previous few albums, with the level of hype it got, they would've been set . As it was, the hype backfired. They got so many people buying the album, and were disappointed in what they heard to the point where their album sales weren't going to recover.

When Mike deviated from the old days, he was not so well received.  Remember the Maharishi tour?

Ya got that right!  ;)

But the Maharishi tour wasn't just about the music.  Beach Boys' fans attend concerts for the music,  not to learn about TM.

Whatever it was, I had an open mind and a ticket.   ;)

I'd have gone if I'd had the chance but it was shortly before I became a fan. This doesn't enthuse me much however: "Each concert began with a lengthy, unintelligible lecture by the Hindu preacher. The tour was a financial disaster for the Beach Boys. Twenty-four tour dates were subsequently cancelled at a cost estimated at $250,000 for the band." - See more at: http://www.mtvindia.com/thebuzz/this-day-in-music/tdim-the-beach-boys-opened-their-us-tour-with-maharishi-mahesh-yogi-in-1968-3rd-may-52190925.html#sthash.iQBkIwbl.dpuf

I would be surprised if Mike was other than relieved when American Graffiti and the subsequent release of Endless Summer gave him the opportunity to continue playing those songs from the early/mid 60s. 

You could definitely say Dennis was just as guilty for the drama as Mike, but my point was that their personalities clashed and like it or not, Dennis was writing better material in the Seventies so with hindsight he's the horse they should have backed. I think you could make a solid argument that he would have been more under control without someone who grated on him around all the time. But maybe Im wrong.

You're saying Michael made Dennis take drugs?

I was there. Sad, unfortunate event in which they made fools of themselves. Being that they were the BBs and Carl sang Friends so damn well, I kinda brushed off the Mahagoofball thing. :-D

Kokomaoists (most probably especially including Mike) would love, love, love to think this is an absolute, utter impossibility. But face facts: while one cannot exactly go "blaming" someone else for an emotionally sensitive/messed-up addicted person falling further off the wagon and taking drugs, it seems quite plausible that someone who was probably the thorn in Dennis' side in many ways would have indirectly been a contributing factor to said addicted person's increased substance usage.

For example, if you knew someone in your own life who had a substance problem, but perhaps that person had it under control somewhat, but there were very sensitive raw spots that if unnerved could cause them severe stress, you might observe from experience just what emotional buttons that you could press with them that could indirectly cause them to fall further into their addiction and increase them turning to their coping mechanisms, even if completely unintentional. Sort of like how Dennis acting out and likely making Mike incredibly stressed/embarrassed onstage probably caused Mike to markedly increase the amount of TM he practiced, falling further into his own "addiction" - even though it's not a quantifiably destructive addition, it's an addition nonetheless. 

Does that mean "Dennis made Michael do TM"? Well, not exactly. But in both cases, most likely...sorta kinda, in a way, yes. Just to admit this has some truth to it does not mean that anybody has to be vilified.

Ehh..not quite the same thing. Although I'm not a TM guy myself, I have a close friend (unrelated to the BB world,  I must stress) who would disagree with you.

Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

Do some of you think the Maha Tour and the TM influences and perceived problems from it are Dennis' fault because he forced everyone into following the Maha?

I think it's Jesus' fault for inventing rock and roll

Dennis didn't start drinking because he fell out with Mike, Mike fell out with Dennis because he couldn't control his drinking problem. F ucking the guy's wife probably didn't help matters....

Not sure where anybody made any claims about Dennis "starting" drinking due to Mike. I do agree in part regarding what you say is the reason why Mike fell out with Dennis, though I think that's a simplistic and not particularly nuanced viewpoint to think that's the whole story. Do you think that it's fair to surmise that Mike probably went deeper into TM in part help deal with the stress of the band and bandmates who gave him grief (which could certainly include the above-mentioned incident)?

And if it wasn't for Dennis, none of the BB would've done TM in the first place.  :p