The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: rn57 on February 18, 2018, 03:33:11 PM



Title: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rn57 on February 18, 2018, 03:33:11 PM
Today, Guy Gilchrist ended decades of work on Nancy, one of America’s oldest and most familiar comic strips, with a panel featuring a pretty damn recognizable 45 label. Rumors are rife that this marks the end of the strip after 85 years though the syndication people weren’t confirming or denying at last report

http://www.gocomics.com/nancy/


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on February 18, 2018, 06:30:35 PM
And the credits on the label are as they should be, Wilson/Asher.






Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 18, 2018, 06:39:36 PM
And the credits on the label are as they should be, Wilson/Asher.

Mike’s legal team upon seeing this:

(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/7Dr_PMrzoCDIklMp5fK25NnUT8Y=/fit-in/1200x9600/2013%2F07%2F05%2Fcd%2FAnchorman.662da.gif)

Seriously I don’t doubt that someone in that department would sniff for a lawsuit with this haha.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 18, 2018, 06:42:35 PM
Ad-libing pays when you are a litigious piece of sh*t like the lovester...


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on February 18, 2018, 06:50:51 PM
And the credits on the label are as they should be, Wilson/Asher.

Mike’s legal team upon seeing this:

(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/7Dr_PMrzoCDIklMp5fK25NnUT8Y=/fit-in/1200x9600/2013%2F07%2F05%2Fcd%2FAnchorman.662da.gif)

Seriously I don’t doubt that someone in that department would sniff for a lawsuit with this haha.

If I know myKe luHv, the texting has already begun and they're warming up the presses for a revised run of the strip. Watch out, Nancy!!


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 18, 2018, 06:56:29 PM
Dammit lawster strikes again... ::)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 18, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
I can't put into words how cool and actually moving this supposedly last episode of the Nancy comic is with how it used Wouldn't It Be Nice in the storyline. And they got the label correct, too - Chalk up this author and artist as another person who gets it.  :)

And it won't be the first comic to use and reference that amazing song - Remember Doonesbury and the storyline that ended with a main character dying of AIDS as the song played, courtesy the then-new Pet Sounds reissue on CD. That storyline and series of strips won Garry Trudeau a Pulitzer nomination.

There are people who get it on a level beyond licenses and 25% credits.





Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 19, 2018, 01:28:28 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 19, 2018, 03:01:22 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That people point out how utterly ridiculous it is that Mike gets 33% credit for 5 words in an intricate pop song isn’t “toxic”, nor is the relavant point that after that lawsuit he filed another strictly relating to a label on an album. Also, 3 people made some comments on a board of 100+ active members. Want to call me toxic? Please go right ahead. But don’t insult the other members with a vapid generalization of this forum.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on February 19, 2018, 07:11:25 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

And "like clockwork", here is someone who can't handle the truth and if he had his way would not allow opinion which has it's genesis based on fact.  ::)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Rocker on February 19, 2018, 07:16:15 AM
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/156828c0de1501350fb5005056a9545d)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 19, 2018, 09:27:41 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.





Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 19, 2018, 10:06:17 AM
Agreed....this is nothing new. This has been debated for many years, long before this message board existed; the fact that the claim is the legal equivalent of erectile dysfunction certainly doesn’t help.

I think I may use “toxic pollution “ for a song title now, though


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Emdeeh on February 19, 2018, 10:36:06 AM
Here's how I see it -- that 45 is from 1966, long before lawsuits and credit corrections.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 19, 2018, 10:47:08 AM
Here's how I see it -- that 45 is from 1966, long before lawsuits and credit corrections.

Definitely. I think some of us were just pointing out that that specific ‘66 credit label seems more appropriate/honest than the current one. My initial response was more in jest.

All that aside, it really is awesome to see that this music is still used in pop culture like this. It’s interesting how many artists I’ve seen use The Beach Boys/Brian in their art - it’s like no matter the medium, good work is recognized by artists from any field.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Jay on February 19, 2018, 11:12:18 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: pixletwin on February 19, 2018, 11:18:01 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

What about song titles? If that were case Ringo is due a TON of money.  :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 19, 2018, 11:40:36 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

Kind of a gray area. I think in some ways it has resulted in over crediting, which is why you have the modern day practice of 10 or more people being credited on a song in pop music. Nobody wants to get sued.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 19, 2018, 11:49:50 AM
Agreed....this is nothing new. This has been debated for many years, long before this message board existed; the fact that the claim is the legal equivalent of erectile dysfunction certainly doesn’t help.

I think I may use “toxic pollution “ for a song title now, though

Heck, Mike himself used "toxic waste" as a lyric during the song Summer in Paradise; in true unintentional hilarious Mike form, Mike sings "toxic waste" right as a super cheesy, dated-even-by-1992-standards sax solo part kicks in  :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Jay on February 19, 2018, 11:51:41 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

Kind of a gray area. I think in some ways it has resulted in over crediting, which is why you have the modern day practice of 10 or more people being credited on a song in pop music. Nobody wants to get sued.
I Do see what you mean. I just think it's the fair thing to do if somebody helps out with a lyric. Especially if it's part of a song that people remember. I've seen an occasional post or two criticizing the line "Goodnight baby, sleep tight baby" as kind of a typical clumsy Mike Love lyric that inconsequential to the overall song. I would tend to agree. But still, whether you like it or hate it, you have to admit that it sticks in your head.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 19, 2018, 11:55:14 AM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

Of course in theory that is correct.

However, I think two things should ideally be agreed upon here:

- Mike very unfairly was legit screwed out of a number of song credits. No doubt about it. This situation sucked for Mike... and everyone - even people who think he sucks as a person or don't feel he has talent - should agree that it was not fair. Yes, even OSD.

- Mike became very bitter as a result of this, and definitely overreached in trying to overcorrect this crediting problem. This is pretty much exhibit A of said overreaching. If there's any doubt of this being an overreach, then consider how many songs Mike himself has lifted parts from without crediting others. The "Brian's Back" end Carl-sung wordless vocal melody lifted from "You Still Believe in Me" (which is the best part of "Brian's Back"), just for starters.

Mike's a hypocrite and his crediting on WIBN is a joke. Mike realllly wanted to be thought of by music critics as integral to Pet Sounds in some way, even though he's barely part of it, "I'm Waiting for the Day" excepted. I'm sure his jealousy over Brian getting so much attention for this one album fed into this strawgrab-esque claim that he deserves 33% (or really any) of the credit for this little throwaway part.

PS - I'll gladly praise Mike where I feel praising is due, and he has a lot to be proud of in the way of contributions to this band, but I for one am VERY glad the vocal bridge lead part of Mike's was missing (and extraction not really invented yet) at the time of the original stereo mix, because the Brian-sung bridge on that 1st stereo mix is SO SO SO SO SO much prettier and preferable to my ears.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 19, 2018, 11:55:22 AM
Agreed....this is nothing new. This has been debated for many years, long before this message board existed; the fact that the claim is the legal equivalent of erectile dysfunction certainly doesn’t help.

I think I may use “toxic pollution “ for a song title now, though

Heck, Mike himself used "toxic waste" as a lyric during the song Summer in Paradise; in true unintentional hilarious Mike form, Mike sings "toxic waste" right as a super cheesy, dated-even-by-1992-standards sax solo part kicks in  :lol

With that in mind it kinda makes sense why his apologists use the term so religiously :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 19, 2018, 12:40:14 PM
It’s “topic waste” rab.... ;)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 19, 2018, 01:30:25 PM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

What about song titles? If that were case Ringo is due a TON of money.  :lol

Right - I've used the Ringo example in many discussions of this in the past. Ringo coined the phrase "hard day's night", which became a #1 hit single AND the title of a smash hit film in 1964...and Ringo didn't get credit as a songwriter or credit for the film title. Ringo could have claimed in a lawsuit that he got screwed out of millions, but he didn't. He could also claim "Tomorrow Never Knows" and other malaprops which he was fond of throwing into conversations. Things like "eight days a week", etc. But he never took it to court. Credit to Ringo.

Jay - To your question, in this case there is no-zero-nada logic that can be argued for Mike to where he deserves 1/3 equal credit for "good night baby, sleep tight". Listen to the track. Music by Wilson, lyrics by Asher. It's as simple as that. Most of the song's structure which hooks listeners in comes 2 minutes or so prior to Mike's "contribution", and most DJ's at the time started their talk-up during the fade anyway, so if it had to be argued by a musicologist they may suggest Mike's part was inessential to the overall impression given to listeners by that recording.

It was a very bad decision that screwed Wilson and Asher both financially and conceptually...beyond the notion of what is right or fair.

Further, consider Mike filed roughly *double* the claims to various songs in that suit than what actually made it to the case, which means roughly half got thrown out of court. Consider the reasons why that many of Mike's "claims" to cowrites were dismissed, and how many of those dismissed songs Mike tried to claim credit for where he wasn't due such credit.

It's a shame WIBN slipped through as it did, because it is and was a travesty.

PS - CenturyDeprived: Spot-on. Great post.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 19, 2018, 01:41:30 PM
By Mike’s logic, Dennis should be credited for Surfin’


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 19, 2018, 01:41:55 PM
BOOM! ;D


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Hickory Violet Part IV on February 19, 2018, 02:23:28 PM
I've never read Nancy before, but if the humour has consistently been of this calibre  then why are they ending it?

Surely there are at least another 85  years of side splitting gags like the one show cased above.





Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 19, 2018, 04:03:37 PM
And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

Check all the coats and hats at the door for a moment, and I want to ask a few direct questions.

<<<<<<

In your opinion, what did Mike Love contribute to the song Wouldn't It Be Nice?

If as had been reported Mike's only contribution was saying "good night baby, sleep tight" during the fade, in your opinion did that justify suing for and claiming equal writing credit alongside Wilson-Asher?

>>>>>

If mentioning those issues is "toxic pollution" on display, let us know.

But I raise them as well to show how many fans still take issue with Mike's "claims" of authorship on *that specific song* to where his original claims included scenarios presented in court that were as absurd as suggesting Brian would duck into the bathroom during studio sessions and "write" secretly with Mike over the phone. If there is blowback against Mike over this song and it happens to come out when the song is discussed, it's not coming out of thin air.




Do you think that if a person contributes a lyric to a song, they should be credited/acknowledged? Is it deserving of a written credit? I'm asking as a genuine question.

What about song titles? If that were case Ringo is due a TON of money.  :lol

Right - I've used the Ringo example in many discussions of this in the past. Ringo coined the phrase "hard day's night", which became a #1 hit single AND the title of a smash hit film in 1964...and Ringo didn't get credit as a songwriter or credit for the film title. Ringo could have claimed in a lawsuit that he got screwed out of millions, but he didn't. He could also claim "Tomorrow Never Knows" and other malaprops which he was fond of throwing into conversations. Things like "eight days a week", etc. But he never took it to court. Credit to Ringo.

Jay - To your question, in this case there is no-zero-nada logic that can be argued for Mike to where he deserves 1/3 equal credit for "good night baby, sleep tight". Listen to the track. Music by Wilson, lyrics by Asher. It's as simple as that. Most of the song's structure which hooks listeners in comes 2 minutes or so prior to Mike's "contribution", and most DJ's at the time started their talk-up during the fade anyway, so if it had to be argued by a musicologist they may suggest Mike's part was inessential to the overall impression given to listeners by that recording.

It was a very bad decision that screwed Wilson and Asher both financially and conceptually...beyond the notion of what is right or fair.

Further, consider Mike filed roughly *double* the claims to various songs in that suit than what actually made it to the case, which means roughly half got thrown out of court. Consider the reasons why that many of Mike's "claims" to cowrites were dismissed, and how many of those dismissed songs Mike tried to claim credit for where he wasn't due such credit.

It's a shame WIBN slipped through as it did, because it is and was a travesty.

PS - CenturyDeprived: Spot-on. Great post.

I'd also add that Mike's attempt to shoehorn in a credit for WIBN is not unrelated to his recent interview talking about how he wishes he'd written lyrics (how he could've made the album "better" and "more commercial", or something to that effect) for the album Pet Sounds.  It's all part of his same complex. Most people wouldn't do/say either of those things, but the same guy did/said both. 

Dude cannot handle the fact that this album is so critically praised (with Brian naturally receiving the lion's share of that praise), and it became a hunt to find a way to get more credit for Mike on the album. Unfortunately, the opposite effect happened, and Mike came off looking like a petty straw-grabber, and it diminished peoples' empathy for the things Mike ACTUALLY got legit screwed out of. And if Mike were actually a modest guy, people would have empathy for him, the same way I'm sure people have empathy for Denny not getting credited (or appreciated for) "You Are So Beautiful" in his own lifetime.

I feel like Mike watched this clip of the original TV show Dallas as a pep talk, before consulting with his lawyers to try and take as much credit/power as humanly possible. Taking lessons from Jock Ewing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdfPtW56fo


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 02:55:36 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Hickory Violet Part IV on February 20, 2018, 04:12:39 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

People were just cracking a joke. It was you who made it 'toxic' by yet again trying to censor people. You were doing it on the Beatles thread, you're doing it here. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Things were fine until this

And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

This board has a wicked sense of humour, which is needed when dealing with this band. What is the problem with making light of Mike's constant missteps?

And if people attack you, it's because you put yourself firmily in the firing line.







Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: NOLA BB Fan on February 20, 2018, 05:48:58 AM
I've never read Nancy before, but if the humour has consistently been of this calibre  then why are they ending it?

Surely there are at least another 85  years of side splitting gags like the one show cased above.


I used to read the Nancy comic strip when I was a kid (60s). The strip hasn't been in our local daily newspaper for many years. I checked once again this past Sunday with the comics sections of our two local papers - nope.
I remember Nancy giving me a chuckle now and then but not that great. Perhaps it changed in the last decade or so.
Anyway, this particular strip brought me tears of joy.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: HeyJude on February 20, 2018, 06:28:37 AM
A couple of salient points:

If the songwriting lawsuit had happened in the mid-late 90s (or later), it probably would have turned out somewhat differently. It probably would have been settled, and Mike would have gotten his name on the songs he deserved (as Brian has always readily admitted), and maybe in the settlement Brian could have fought for that small number of songs where the credit amendment was more questionable (like WIBN).

Regarding any depiction of the *vintage* 45 single for WIBN, it's not problematic that it has the original Wilson/Asher credit. That's what the old single looked like.

Just like the old Beatles 45 single would have the "Eight Arms to Hold You" notation, etc.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 07:43:16 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 07:54:22 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I think the "toxic" label still exists on this forum because of the constant anti Mike comments, even on threads that have little or nothing to do with with. 

And sure, this case might've been a joke.   If so, what's the difference between joking about Mike's lawsuit and a joke review of No Pier Pressure? 

Back to the Mike thing.   I'm often labeled an "apologist" and have been accused of having some sort of "end game."  But, I've also admitted that Mike does bring it on himself a bit, and had done some things that warrant criticism. 

But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 08:28:21 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis.  
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise.  
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I think the "toxic" label still exists on this forum because of the constant anti Mike comments, even on threads that have little or nothing to do with with.  

And sure, this case might've been a joke.   If so, what's the difference between joking about Mike's lawsuit and a joke review of No Pier Pressure?  

Back to the Mike thing.   I'm often labeled an "apologist" and have been accused of having some sort of "end game."  But, I've also admitted that Mike does bring it on himself a bit, and had done some things that warrant criticism.  

But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

1. Frankly, I think there are certain people who loathe that this place exists and they’ll say anything to discredit this place. Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike. Yet that doesn’t mean the plethora other active members here need to be under the umbrella generalization of this place being “toxic”...does it? I mean, just last month Mike made some jackass comments about Al, Carl, and Brian in MOJO. How the hell are us fans supposed to react?

It’s funny, because you mention an analogy about a co-worker in the workplace complaining constantly to the point where it becomes noise - and this is supposed to justify the bashing this forum receives. But yet isn’t that exactly what Mike does? He constantly complains about Brian, handlers, prescription meds, etc to the point where its just noise. We are merely doing the exact same thing you do about this forum. Difference is, we pinpoint it on one guy (Mike) and don’t make a generalization about the entire band. Why not just call out OSD, myself, or Smile Brian for negative comments? Any other comments I see about Mike seem to be logical backlash to Mike’s constant jamming his foot in his mouth. You can call that constant negativity, but when Mike is giving constant negativity himself, don’t expect the rest of us to be willfully ignorant about it...and nothing about that is “toxic”.

Edit: It’s also funny that you are saying that Mike is negatively brought up in threads with little or nothing to do with him. Yet the other day you brought up “other forums” in a negative way in a thread that had NOTHING to do with any forums. You found an opportunity to bash the Smiley forum when it was completely unnecessary. Might I suggest you be the change you want to see? I mean, if you’re going to complain about people bringing up off-topic negativity, perhaps you should take that same advice yourself.

2. Joking about Mike’s lawsuit and a joke review of No Pier Pressure? Let’s see, in one we get some people calling out Mike straight up lying about Brian in an attempt to make a lot of money and him getting 1/3 credit for 5 words in one of Brian’s more intricate pop songs. The other is Brian working months and months in the studio on an album and some kids calling one of the songs “a stupid fucking pop song” along with a bunch of other immature remarks that tore down Brian’s hard work. You guys call that a joke, yet I’d say thats the same bullshit that drove Brian away from posting demos of his work on his own forum. That rightfully pissed off a lot of people. So yeah, I’d say there’s an ocean of difference between calling out ridiculous lawsuits and making some childish hurtful comments about Brian’s album. If you can’t see the difference between the two, perhaps that’s exactly why we don’t see eye to eye on many things.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: HeyJude on February 20, 2018, 09:05:41 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise. 

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 09:09:24 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis.  
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise.  
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I think the "toxic" label still exists on this forum because of the constant anti Mike comments, even on threads that have little or nothing to do with with.  

And sure, this case might've been a joke.   If so, what's the difference between joking about Mike's lawsuit and a joke review of No Pier Pressure?  

Back to the Mike thing.   I'm often labeled an "apologist" and have been accused of having some sort of "end game."  But, I've also admitted that Mike does bring it on himself a bit, and had done some things that warrant criticism.  

But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

1. Frankly, I think there are certain people who loathe that this place exists and they’ll say anything to discredit this place. Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike. Yet that doesn’t mean the plethora other active members here need to be under the umbrella generalization of this place being “toxic”...does it? I mean, just last month Mike made some jackass comments about Al, Carl, and Brian in MOJO. How the hell are us fans supposed to react?

It’s funny, because you mention an analogy about a co-worker in the workplace complaining constantly to the point where it becomes noise - and this is supposed to justify the bashing this forum receives. But yet isn’t that exactly what Mike does? He constantly complains about Brian, handlers, prescription meds, etc to the point where its just noise. We are merely doing the exact same thing you do about this forum. Difference is, we pinpoint it on one guy (Mike) and don’t make a generalization about the entire band. Why not just call out OSD, myself, or Smile Brian for negative comments? Any other comments I see about Mike seem to be logical backlash to Mike’s constant jamming his foot in his mouth. You can call that constant negativity, but when Mike is giving constant negativity himself, don’t expect the rest of us to be willfully ignorant about it...and nothing about that is “toxic”.

Edit: It’s also funny that you are saying that Mike is negatively brought up in threads with little or nothing to do with him. Yet the other day you brought up “other forums” in a negative way in a thread that had NOTHING to do with any forums. You found an opportunity to bash the Smiley forum when it was completely unnecessary. Might I suggest you be the change you want to see? I mean, if you’re going to complain about people bringing up off-topic negativity, perhaps you should take that same advice yourself.

2. Joking about Mike’s lawsuit and a joke review of No Pier Pressure? Let’s see, in one we get some people calling out Mike straight up lying about Brian in an attempt to make a lot of money and him getting 1/3 credit for 5 words in one of Brian’s more intricate pop songs. The other is Brian working months and months in the studio on an album and some kids calling one of the songs “a stupid fucking pop song” along with a bunch of other immature remarks that tore down Brian’s hard work. You guys call that a joke, yet I’d say thats the same bullshit that drove Brian away from posting demos of his work on his own forum. That rightfully pissed off a lot of people. So yeah, I’d say there’s an ocean of difference between calling out ridiculous lawsuits and making some childish hurtful comments about Brian’s album. If you can’t see the difference between the two, perhaps that’s exactly why we don’t see eye to eye on many things.

You're right, we don't see eye to eye on many things.  

Frankly, when I get accused of having an endgame or hating Brian Wilson on a forum, I think that falls into the realm of the absurd, so I made a joke, referencing that absurdity.  

If the lawsuit comment on here that KP was talking about was a joke than so be it.  But, frankly, I still don't see why it's OK to lampoon Mike's lawsuits, but it's not OK to lampoon NPP.   I'm a fan of the album, and I found that post to be very funny.  

And, it's that one sided nature that gets this board the reputation of being "toxic."


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: B.E. on February 20, 2018, 09:11:46 AM
Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike.

Some posters revel in it. It shouldn't be surprising that some find it toxic.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 09:12:46 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise. 

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  





Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 09:16:14 AM
Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike.

Some posters revel in it. It shouldn't be surprising that some find it toxic.

No doubt. Doesn’t mean the entire board (which includes great posters and insiders) needs to be labeled “toxic”.

@KDS, I’d respond to your post(s) by reiterating what I wrote in my initial reply to you, but I won’t. I think I made myself perfectly clear in that post, and if you can’t see the logic behind it, so be it.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: HeyJude on February 20, 2018, 09:20:27 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  



Nope, nowhere in my post did I tell anyone how to do anything. I mentioned what I'd do in a case where I found something "toxic" and had the option of removing myself from that situation, I mentioned my attitude towards passive aggressive posting about one forum on another, and pointed out the obvious; that one doesn't have to be here.

Let it be known that plenty of folks who don't post on the other BB board do read it. I do from time to time. My personal opinion is it's rather bad form (and more than anything just odd) to post on *both* boards and yet complain about only one (Smiley Smile) on the other (PS Forum).

I've seen threads now and then that look interesting, or random factoids that could use correcting, etc. on the other board. But I don't post there because I don't like the tone of many of the threads, don't like the tone and content of a number of the posters, and so on. I'd feel pretty silly posting thousands of posts on the PS Forum while coming back to the Smiley Smile board and taking passive aggressive swipes against PS Forum posters and the board in general. But that's just me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do or how to be. I'm just trying to point out how such things might appear to others.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 09:24:28 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  



Nope, nowhere in my post did I tell anyone how to do anything. I mentioned what I'd do in a case where I found something "toxic" and had the option of removing myself from that situation, I mentioned my attitude towards passive aggressive posting about one forum on another, and pointed out the obvious; that one doesn't have to be here.

Let it be known that plenty of folks who don't post on the other BB board do read it. I do from time to time. My personal opinion is it's rather bad form (and more than anything just odd) to post on *both* boards and yet complain about only one (Smiley Smile) on the other (PS Forum).

I've seen threads now and then that look interesting, or random factoids that could use correcting, etc. on the other board. But I don't post there because I don't like the tone of many of the threads, don't like the tone and content of a number of the posters, and so on. I'd feel pretty silly posting thousands of posts on the PS Forum while coming back to the Smiley Smile board and taking passive aggressive swipes against PS Forum posters and the board in general. But that's just me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do or how to be. I'm just trying to point out how such things might appear to others.


To be fair, I've never said anything on PSF that I wouldn't also say on this forum. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 09:27:08 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  



Nope, nowhere in my post did I tell anyone how to do anything. I mentioned what I'd do in a case where I found something "toxic" and had the option of removing myself from that situation, I mentioned my attitude towards passive aggressive posting about one forum on another, and pointed out the obvious; that one doesn't have to be here.

Let it be known that plenty of folks who don't post on the other BB board do read it. I do from time to time. My personal opinion is it's rather bad form (and more than anything just odd) to post on *both* boards and yet complain about only one (Smiley Smile) on the other (PS Forum).

I've seen threads now and then that look interesting, or random factoids that could use correcting, etc. on the other board. But I don't post there because I don't like the tone of many of the threads, don't like the tone and content of a number of the posters, and so on. I'd feel pretty silly posting thousands of posts on the PS Forum while coming back to the Smiley Smile board and taking passive aggressive swipes against PS Forum posters and the board in general. But that's just me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do or how to be. I'm just trying to point out how such things might appear to others.


To be fair, I've never said anything on PSF that I wouldn't also say on this forum. 

No, you just say it far more often there.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:28:35 AM
KDS:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25781.msg630530.html#msg630530 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25781.msg630530.html#msg630530)

Any reply to the original discussion/comments there?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 09:31:03 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  



Nope, nowhere in my post did I tell anyone how to do anything. I mentioned what I'd do in a case where I found something "toxic" and had the option of removing myself from that situation, I mentioned my attitude towards passive aggressive posting about one forum on another, and pointed out the obvious; that one doesn't have to be here.

Let it be known that plenty of folks who don't post on the other BB board do read it. I do from time to time. My personal opinion is it's rather bad form (and more than anything just odd) to post on *both* boards and yet complain about only one (Smiley Smile) on the other (PS Forum).

I've seen threads now and then that look interesting, or random factoids that could use correcting, etc. on the other board. But I don't post there because I don't like the tone of many of the threads, don't like the tone and content of a number of the posters, and so on. I'd feel pretty silly posting thousands of posts on the PS Forum while coming back to the Smiley Smile board and taking passive aggressive swipes against PS Forum posters and the board in general. But that's just me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do or how to be. I'm just trying to point out how such things might appear to others.


To be fair, I've never said anything on PSF that I wouldn't also say on this forum. 

No, you just say it far more often there.

I'm flattered that you find my posts on the Pet Sounds Forum so fascinating.  

Besides, anything I've said on Pet Sounds Forum about the nature of SSMB pales in comparison to some posts I've seen here about the posters on PSF.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 09:32:41 AM
KDS:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25781.msg630530.html#msg630530 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25781.msg630530.html#msg630530)

Any reply to the original discussion/comments there?

Not really.  I've pretty much laid it out here.   Like I said, this board tends to skew very anti Mike.   I'm not saying anything that's not true. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:35:37 AM

To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!


That *IS* the point. He deserves little or no credit. That simple logic goes a long way to explaining why fans take issue with it and will not only call it out but also take shots at it too.

I for one don't want the historical record moving forward to show Mike getting equal credit to the two people who actually *did* write the song. But that's exactly what has happened, up to Mike offering limited edition handwritten copies of a WIBN lyric sheet as part of a VIP package *he* was selling in 2016 as if he were truly an equal contributor to that song.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Lady Lynda on February 20, 2018, 09:40:07 AM
"Wouldn't It Be Nice" if we could all just get along.  I was shocked to see the final Nancy comic strip over the weekend, but pleasantly surprised to see that familiar record label and the lyrics to such a wonderful piece of music.  References to music, songs, and artists have always been a part of this comic strip.  If indeed this is the final strip, it couldn't have ended in a better way.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 20, 2018, 09:40:56 AM

To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!


That *IS* the point. He deserves little or no credit. That simple logic goes a long way to explaining why fans take issue with it and will not only call it out but also take shots at it too.

I for one don't want the historical record moving forward to show Mike getting equal credit to the two people who actually *did* write the song. But that's exactly what has happened, up to Mike offering limited edition handwritten copies of a WIBN lyric sheet as part of a VIP package *he* was selling in 2016 as if he were truly an equal contributor to that song.
Jesus GF, its the history rewrite from Mike in the "flesh." Mike will do anything to challenge BW's legacy at this point.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:42:18 AM
I'm flattered that you find my posts on the Pet Sounds Forum so fascinating.  

Besides, anything I've said on Pet Sounds Forum about the nature of SSMB pales in comparison to some posts I've seen here about the posters on PSF.  

Where were you raising an issue when certain posters now on that forum and not here were polluting this forum with everything from personal attacks and bullying, to slander, to going after and taking cheap shots at people's kids?

You're right, KDS - This place was toxic. Most if not all of that got scrubbed off this place, and is now where you can enjoy that kind of company if you like.

Let's talk reality, shall we?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 09:43:22 AM
But, I'm sure everyone has had that one co-worker.  You first meet him/her, and they voice some complaints about their job.   But, then every time you see this person in the office, all they do is complain.  At some point, after a while, and after hearing the same complaints so many times, the warranted criticism just becomes noise.  

If I had a co-worker who I found "toxic" and who did nothing but complained, and I had an option of not having to visit their office or otherwise be in that space, I'd do just that. I wouldn't continue to poke in and out constantly, intent on continuing to engage with them while claiming they're all "white noise" (but continuing to call that white noise "toxic", etc.)

This message board isn't like a job; you don't have to be here.

Why someone would post on two different BB message boards while calling one "toxic" or otherwise painting the *board* in some way negatively (and taking passive aggressive swipes at that board on the *other* board) is beyond me.




Oh look, HeyJude is telling people how to internet for a change.  

I'm still on this board because there are still some interesting discussions on the music.  I found the posts on the Beach Boys v Beatles threads to be very interesting (well.....most of them).   The Beatles Survivor Game is also quite fun.  



Nope, nowhere in my post did I tell anyone how to do anything. I mentioned what I'd do in a case where I found something "toxic" and had the option of removing myself from that situation, I mentioned my attitude towards passive aggressive posting about one forum on another, and pointed out the obvious; that one doesn't have to be here.

Let it be known that plenty of folks who don't post on the other BB board do read it. I do from time to time. My personal opinion is it's rather bad form (and more than anything just odd) to post on *both* boards and yet complain about only one (Smiley Smile) on the other (PS Forum).

I've seen threads now and then that look interesting, or random factoids that could use correcting, etc. on the other board. But I don't post there because I don't like the tone of many of the threads, don't like the tone and content of a number of the posters, and so on. I'd feel pretty silly posting thousands of posts on the PS Forum while coming back to the Smiley Smile board and taking passive aggressive swipes against PS Forum posters and the board in general. But that's just me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do or how to be. I'm just trying to point out how such things might appear to others.


To be fair, I've never said anything on PSF that I wouldn't also say on this forum.  

No, you just say it far more often there.

I'm flattered that you find my posts on the Pet Sounds Forum so fascinating.  

Besides, anything I've said on Pet Sounds Forum about the nature of SSMB pales in comparison to some posts I've seen here about the posters on PSF.  

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 20, 2018, 09:45:28 AM
(Insert Misleading Weaponized Logic from Cam or Filleplage) ;)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:51:09 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 10:06:40 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things. 

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it. 



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 10:08:10 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I only said that because different versions of this happen a lot.  If this was rare, and it was after 3 posts of ripping on ML, I certainly wouldn't have done so.  And I don't know what a Pet Sounds Forum is and I haven't been there so I am not going to comment on that.  I also want to thank you for what I think is a thoughtful reply.

I am starting to zero in more on my discontent and it would be- on most message boards (including this one) there is an off-topic section, and when posts veer off-topic they can be reclassified there.  I think that a lot of the repetitive ML sick burns that I see here are, in my eyes, veering completely off the topic (not counting threads that exist to rip on ML or are easy/obvious targets for it, which is fine, it is, after all, truth in advertising), yet on this forum it is never considered off-topic to pepper in a bunch of ML sh!tposting whenever any opportunity exists.  It gets OLD, and I guess that is my problem.  Do I blame the mods, or expect them to heavily police this place for that?  No, not at all.  Then I guess that either leaves blaming myself for getting annoyed, or blaming some posters that make hundreds or perhaps thousands of the same post, over and over again.  

"If you don't like it you can leave, have a sense of humor, you aren't the board gestapo/you are a fascist, you are stifling free speech, you are being really annoying, you are an ADG minion in disguise wearing an Adrian Baker mask and 1982 Radio Shack hat, etc etc etc."  Just helping peeps here get started with their replies.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 10:19:41 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things. 

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it. 



What don't you understand, KDS? All of that was among the crap that was posted and spoken *here*, and now the majority of those who engaged in that kind of discourse are now *there*.

All of this "bashing", KDS I wonder if you had the same issues when there were articles published - not posted to this or other boards but actually published - which did everything from comparing a Brian Wilson concert to wheeling Grandpa out to Thanksgiving dinner, to suggesting the "truth" is people don't wait for Brian Wilson's new music because of who he is today but because of his work from the Beach Boys' run in the 60's, to suggesting the real reasons why people buy tickets to see Mike and his tight band versus seeing Brian who will join in with his band if he's inspired to do so...to a bunch of other stuff that walked the same line.

It was here, and it was also published. That's the reality. Do we need more examples? There are dozens more available.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 10:20:14 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things. 

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it. 

I mentioned the radio thing because it was mentioned by the same guy who admitted to mocking Brian and Melinda to offset the Mike gripes here. I wasn’t sure if that was another petulant remark by the guy or a serious comment. Frankly, it isn’t a reality until Brian stops making music. Anything is possible.

As for the rest of your comment: so it doesn’t matter that those things were said or done in the first place, it just matters that they haven’t been done on the PS Forum? Shitty behavior is shitty behavior, KDS. So yeah, when you go after this forum because some members have legitimate gripes about Mike, I find it ironic that you simultaneously willingly and happily interact with the same people who have spread rumors, false information, and overall negative opinions about Brian Wilson and his family in the past.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 10:21:14 AM

To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!


That *IS* the point. He deserves little or no credit. That simple logic goes a long way to explaining why fans take issue with it and will not only call it out but also take shots at it too.

I for one don't want the historical record moving forward to show Mike getting equal credit to the two people who actually *did* write the song. But that's exactly what has happened, up to Mike offering limited edition handwritten copies of a WIBN lyric sheet as part of a VIP package *he* was selling in 2016 as if he were truly an equal contributor to that song.

Dude I don't really think I can argue with you if, after reading the original post about the comic strip and seeing the Capitol single in the frame, the main point, the takeaway that you have from it is something like "screw ML and his writing credit garbage and his BS present day touring methods, it fills me with bitterness".  We are looking at things on 2 toooootally different planes and we might as well be speaking klingon and esperanto to each other.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 10:25:04 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things. 

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it. 



What don't you understand, KDS? All of that was among the crap that was posted and spoken *here*, and now the majority of those who engaged in that kind of discourse are now *there*.

All of this "bashing", KDS I wonder if you had the same issues when there were articles published - not posted to this or other boards but actually published - which did everything from comparing a Brian Wilson concert to wheeling Grandpa out to Thanksgiving dinner, to suggesting the "truth" is people don't wait for Brian Wilson's new music because of who he is today but because of his work from the Beach Boys' run in the 60's, to suggesting the real reasons why people buy tickets to see Mike and his tight band versus seeing Brian who will join in with his band if he's inspired to do so...to a bunch of other stuff that walked the same line.

It was here, and it was also published. That's the reality. Do we need more examples? There are dozens more available.

Well, there is a lot of truth to Brian Wilson being revered today because of his 1960s Beach Boys run.   Why is that "bashing"?  The last two times I've bought tickets to see Brian, there was a 1960s album title under his name after all.   

And to somebody who is not familiar with Brian and his story, I can see somebody being taken aback at witnessing a modern BW show.   Are they right?  No, but I can see that point of view.   But, somehow, that's bashing.   


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: the captain on February 20, 2018, 10:32:16 AM
Fucking Christ, the horse is long-since dead. Its flesh has rotted and its bones are dust. You’d think it might be funny to watch adults pummeling empty ground with their nobly branded clubs, but unfortunately it just seesaws between tedious and excruciating. I’d pine for the good ol’ days if there were such a thing, but oh well.

I hear the bell signaling the next round, so I’d better clear out before I risk a wallop to the toes. Good luck, combatants. I’m sure you’ll win the day this time. And then we’ll have world peace.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 10:37:55 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I only said that because different versions of this happen a lot.  If this was rare, and it was after 3 posts of ripping on ML, I certainly wouldn't have done so.  And I don't know what a Pet Sounds Forum is and I haven't been there so I am not going to comment on that.  I also want to thank you for what I think is a thoughtful reply.

I am starting to zero in more on my discontent and it would be- on most message boards (including this one) there is an off-topic section, and when posts veer off-topic they can be reclassified there.  I think that a lot of the repetitive ML sick burns that I see here are, in my eyes, veering completely off the topic (not counting threads that exist to rip on ML or are easy/obvious targets for it, which is fine, it is, after all, truth in advertising), yet on this forum it is never considered off-topic to pepper in a bunch of ML sh!tposting whenever any opportunity exists.  It gets OLD, and I guess that is my problem.  Do I blame the mods, or expect them to heavily police this place for that?  No, not at all.  Then I guess that either leaves blaming myself for getting annoyed, or blaming some posters that make hundreds or perhaps thousands of the same post, over and over again.  

"If you don't like it you can leave, have a sense of humor, you aren't the board gestapo/you are a fascist, you are stifling free speech, you are being really annoying, you are an ADG minion in disguise wearing an Adrian Baker mask and 1982 Radio Shack hat, etc etc etc."  Just helping peeps here get started with their replies.  

I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to KDS: Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike. Yet that doesn’t mean the plethora other active members here need to be under the umbrella generalization of this place being “toxic”...does it?

That was my only point. I get that there are comments made against Mike that are completely irrelevant to certain threads (and I admit I posted a stupid joke in this thread that was totally unnecessary). It happens often but it’s by the same two or three people, not the whole board. Most of my irritation is not with your post, but with the continuous banter I read on the PS Forum from posters like KDS who generalize this forum into one negative place for the sake of bringing up the PS Forum a few notches whilst ignoring the great content that is here.

The following isn’t in response to you KP, just something I want to get out there: I totally admit that I generalized the PS Forum for a long time after it was created. I was pissed that certain people got a free pass considering the heft of their previous actions and I took it out on that forum as a whole. But in time I realize that the PS Forum has some great members and great conversation. Though I still can’t figure out why certain posters were even allowed there in the first place (nor will I post there until they’re inevitably banned), I’ve not bashed that forum as a whole in a while because it would be putting down a lot of good people. The same should go for the generalizations being made about the Smiley forum lately.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 10:38:05 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things.  

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it.  



What don't you understand, KDS? All of that was among the crap that was posted and spoken *here*, and now the majority of those who engaged in that kind of discourse are now *there*.

All of this "bashing", KDS I wonder if you had the same issues when there were articles published - not posted to this or other boards but actually published - which did everything from comparing a Brian Wilson concert to wheeling Grandpa out to Thanksgiving dinner, to suggesting the "truth" is people don't wait for Brian Wilson's new music because of who he is today but because of his work from the Beach Boys' run in the 60's, to suggesting the real reasons why people buy tickets to see Mike and his tight band versus seeing Brian who will join in with his band if he's inspired to do so...to a bunch of other stuff that walked the same line.

It was here, and it was also published. That's the reality. Do we need more examples? There are dozens more available.

Well, there is a lot of truth to Brian Wilson being revered today because of his 1960s Beach Boys run.   Why is that "bashing"?  The last two times I've bought tickets to see Brian, there was a 1960s album title under his name after all.  

And to somebody who is not familiar with Brian and his story, I can see somebody being taken aback at witnessing a modern BW show.   Are they right?  No, but I can see that point of view.   But, somehow, that's bashing.  

Yes, it's bashing to see a run of articles suggesting Brian's shows were like Grandpa in a wheelchair at Thanksgiving, that he only chimed in with his band when he got the inspiration versus Mike and his "tight", "entertaining" band, observations that Brian's hands never touched the keyboard, that Brian was "brain damaged" or he wasn't the same guy as the young cousin which Mike used to sing Doo-Wop with in a '57 Ford in Hawthorne...

Yeah, that's more than a little off-base. Fans rightfully called it out and pushed back.

Then there was the whole issue of those people and their behavior on *this board*, that included comments about children, board members'  private lives and drug use, rumors and slander, etc. That was toxic, KDS - Did you object to any of that? Or is it only people taking the piss out of Mike that irks you?

Onto your point: Suggesting that fans are not interested in Brian's new music for reasons other than he was in the Beach Boys is as ridiculous now as it was when it was published. It's as absurd as saying no one is really into McCartney's new stuff unless it's based on what he did with The Beatles from 62-70. It's absurd. When it gets published in an official or even semi-official article related to the band, it's even more absurd. Again, it rightfully got called out.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 10:42:02 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I only said that because different versions of this happen a lot.  If this was rare, and it was after 3 posts of ripping on ML, I certainly wouldn't have done so.  And I don't know what a Pet Sounds Forum is and I haven't been there so I am not going to comment on that.  I also want to thank you for what I think is a thoughtful reply.

I am starting to zero in more on my discontent and it would be- on most message boards (including this one) there is an off-topic section, and when posts veer off-topic they can be reclassified there.  I think that a lot of the repetitive ML sick burns that I see here are, in my eyes, veering completely off the topic (not counting threads that exist to rip on ML or are easy/obvious targets for it, which is fine, it is, after all, truth in advertising), yet on this forum it is never considered off-topic to pepper in a bunch of ML sh!tposting whenever any opportunity exists.  It gets OLD, and I guess that is my problem.  Do I blame the mods, or expect them to heavily police this place for that?  No, not at all.  Then I guess that either leaves blaming myself for getting annoyed, or blaming some posters that make hundreds or perhaps thousands of the same post, over and over again. 

"If you don't like it you can leave, have a sense of humor, you aren't the board gestapo/you are a fascist, you are stifling free speech, you are being really annoying, you are an ADG minion in disguise wearing an Adrian Baker mask and 1982 Radio Shack hat, etc etc etc."  Just helping peeps here get started with their replies. 

I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to KDS: Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike. Yet that doesn’t mean the plethora other active members here need to be under the umbrella generalization of this place being “toxic”...does it?

That was my only point. I get that there are comments made against Mike that are completely irrelevant to certain threads (and I admit I posted a stupid joke in this thread that was totally unnecessary). It happens often but it’s by the same two or three people, not the whole board. Most of my irritation is not with your post, but with the continuous banter I read on the PS Forum from posters like KDS who generalize this forum into one negative place for the sake of bringing up the PS Forum a few notches whilst ignoring the great content that is here.

The following isn’t in response to you KP, just something I want to get out there: I totally admit that I generalized the PS Forum for a long time after it was created. I was pissed that certain people got a free pass considering the heft of their previous actions and I took it out on that forum as a whole. But in time I realize that the PS Forum has some great members and great conversation. Though I still can’t figure out why certain posters were even allowed there in the first place (nor will I post there until they’re inevitably banned), I’ve not bashed that forum as a whole in a while because it would be putting down a lot of good people. The same should go for the generalizations being made about the Smiley forum lately.

Completely agree, especially on the last paragraph


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Gettin Hungry on February 20, 2018, 10:45:37 AM
So ... anyway ... I'm still shocked by two revelations from this whole discussion:
1.) People actually read that Nancy comic? I've always lumped it in with Family Circus and skipped it.
2.) Now that the comic referenced the Beach Boys, do I have to go back and read 80-some years of strips to get the payoff?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 10:47:58 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things.  

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it.  



What don't you understand, KDS? All of that was among the crap that was posted and spoken *here*, and now the majority of those who engaged in that kind of discourse are now *there*.

All of this "bashing", KDS I wonder if you had the same issues when there were articles published - not posted to this or other boards but actually published - which did everything from comparing a Brian Wilson concert to wheeling Grandpa out to Thanksgiving dinner, to suggesting the "truth" is people don't wait for Brian Wilson's new music because of who he is today but because of his work from the Beach Boys' run in the 60's, to suggesting the real reasons why people buy tickets to see Mike and his tight band versus seeing Brian who will join in with his band if he's inspired to do so...to a bunch of other stuff that walked the same line.

It was here, and it was also published. That's the reality. Do we need more examples? There are dozens more available.

Well, there is a lot of truth to Brian Wilson being revered today because of his 1960s Beach Boys run.   Why is that "bashing"?  The last two times I've bought tickets to see Brian, there was a 1960s album title under his name after all.  

And to somebody who is not familiar with Brian and his story, I can see somebody being taken aback at witnessing a modern BW show.   Are they right?  No, but I can see that point of view.   But, somehow, that's bashing.  

Yes, it's bashing to see a run of articles suggesting Brian's shows were like Grandpa in a wheelchair at Thanksgiving, that he only chimed in with his band when he got the inspiration versus Mike and his "tight", "entertaining" band, observations that Brian's hands never touched the keyboard, that Brian was "brain damaged" or he wasn't the same guy as the young cousin which Mike used to sing Doo-Wop with in a '57 Ford in Hawthorne...

Yeah, that's more than a little off-base. Fans rightfully called it out and pushed back.

Then there was the whole issue of those people and their behavior on *this board*, that included comments about children, board members'  private lives and drug use, rumors and slander, etc. That was toxic, KDS - Did you object to any of that? Or is it only people taking the piss out of Mike that irks you?

Onto your point: Suggesting that fans are not interested in Brian's new music for reasons other than he was in the Beach Boys is as ridiculous now as it was when it was published. It's as absurd as saying no one is really into McCartney's new stuff unless it's based on what he did with The Beatles from 62-70. It's absurd. When it gets published in an official or even semi-official article related to the band, it's even more absurd. Again, it rightfully got called out.

It's not even as much the anti Mike stuff.   It's the hijacking of threads like this one.  A thread that started out as a nice BB reference in a comic strip has been changed to another pissing match.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 10:55:35 AM

Ahhh perhaps thats because our current member lineup doesn’t include people who have:

- spread awful rumors about Melinda Wilson
- claimed Melinda Wilson is a troll here
- claimed Brian won’t ever get another radio hit again
- claimed that they will defend Mike Love no matter what
- been sent on a mission from an “interested party” to get the home address of a poster here.
- claimed that they disparage Brian and Melinda solely to counteract the Mike Love hate
- harassed an enthusiastic female member here in nearly every thread she participated in
- created a thread to disparage one female fans opinion about falsettos
- made awful comments regarding a band members adopted children

That list can go on and on and on, KDS. Supposedly we’re the toxic ones?

That's all part of the reality I mentioned in my last post.

So what say you, KDS?

Saying Brian Wilson will never have another radio hit is just reality.   I don't even know why that would be on the same list as some of these other things.  

As for the other stuff, I haven't seen it on PSF, other than the criticism of RR's preference for Adrian Baker, and that poster was called out for it.  



What don't you understand, KDS? All of that was among the crap that was posted and spoken *here*, and now the majority of those who engaged in that kind of discourse are now *there*.

All of this "bashing", KDS I wonder if you had the same issues when there were articles published - not posted to this or other boards but actually published - which did everything from comparing a Brian Wilson concert to wheeling Grandpa out to Thanksgiving dinner, to suggesting the "truth" is people don't wait for Brian Wilson's new music because of who he is today but because of his work from the Beach Boys' run in the 60's, to suggesting the real reasons why people buy tickets to see Mike and his tight band versus seeing Brian who will join in with his band if he's inspired to do so...to a bunch of other stuff that walked the same line.

It was here, and it was also published. That's the reality. Do we need more examples? There are dozens more available.

Well, there is a lot of truth to Brian Wilson being revered today because of his 1960s Beach Boys run.   Why is that "bashing"?  The last two times I've bought tickets to see Brian, there was a 1960s album title under his name after all.  

And to somebody who is not familiar with Brian and his story, I can see somebody being taken aback at witnessing a modern BW show.   Are they right?  No, but I can see that point of view.   But, somehow, that's bashing.  

Yes, it's bashing to see a run of articles suggesting Brian's shows were like Grandpa in a wheelchair at Thanksgiving, that he only chimed in with his band when he got the inspiration versus Mike and his "tight", "entertaining" band, observations that Brian's hands never touched the keyboard, that Brian was "brain damaged" or he wasn't the same guy as the young cousin which Mike used to sing Doo-Wop with in a '57 Ford in Hawthorne...

Yeah, that's more than a little off-base. Fans rightfully called it out and pushed back.

Then there was the whole issue of those people and their behavior on *this board*, that included comments about children, board members'  private lives and drug use, rumors and slander, etc. That was toxic, KDS - Did you object to any of that? Or is it only people taking the piss out of Mike that irks you?

Onto your point: Suggesting that fans are not interested in Brian's new music for reasons other than he was in the Beach Boys is as ridiculous now as it was when it was published. It's as absurd as saying no one is really into McCartney's new stuff unless it's based on what he did with The Beatles from 62-70. It's absurd. When it gets published in an official or even semi-official article related to the band, it's even more absurd. Again, it rightfully got called out.

It's not even as much the anti Mike stuff.   It's the hijacking of threads like this one.  A thread that started out as a nice BB reference in a comic strip has been changed to another pissing match.  

KDS - 8 posts in, there was this:

And like clockwork, the first 5 replies to this excellent first post were predictable SSMB toxic pollution.

I think there should be at least the opportunity to respond when the term "predictable SSMB toxic pollution" gets thrown on the table. That's what has been happening.

So who or what hijacked it exactly?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 11:14:20 AM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!

Three people made a comment about a songwriting credit/relevant lawsuit and you respond by calling it “SSMB toxic pollution”. I tire of seeing the Smiley Smile message board name lugged in with the word “toxic”, or the Smiley Smile message board name continually mentioned in some disparaging way on this forum and on the PS Forum. After having yet again read another of KDS’ passive aggressive swipes against this forum just the other day, its irritating for me to see the SSMB name tied together with the same talking point some PS Forum members have nauseatingly used to bash this forum.

The second post for this Nancy Comic thread on the PS Forum has someone joking about Mike suing over the label...is that PS Forum toxic pollution? No, it’s one guy making a joke. If anyone had a problem with that person’s comment, they would just logically call out that one guy and not lug in the entire PS Forum name with it. Likewise, three people here (myself included) made some comments about Mike. I totally get why you find our initial posts unnecessary, I’m not disagreeing with that. But three people on a message board of 100+ active members made some comments you don’t feel belong in this thread...so call us out and don’t make it an overall forum issue.

I only said that because different versions of this happen a lot.  If this was rare, and it was after 3 posts of ripping on ML, I certainly wouldn't have done so.  And I don't know what a Pet Sounds Forum is and I haven't been there so I am not going to comment on that.  I also want to thank you for what I think is a thoughtful reply.

I am starting to zero in more on my discontent and it would be- on most message boards (including this one) there is an off-topic section, and when posts veer off-topic they can be reclassified there.  I think that a lot of the repetitive ML sick burns that I see here are, in my eyes, veering completely off the topic (not counting threads that exist to rip on ML or are easy/obvious targets for it, which is fine, it is, after all, truth in advertising), yet on this forum it is never considered off-topic to pepper in a bunch of ML sh!tposting whenever any opportunity exists.  It gets OLD, and I guess that is my problem.  Do I blame the mods, or expect them to heavily police this place for that?  No, not at all.  Then I guess that either leaves blaming myself for getting annoyed, or blaming some posters that make hundreds or perhaps thousands of the same post, over and over again.  

"If you don't like it you can leave, have a sense of humor, you aren't the board gestapo/you are a fascist, you are stifling free speech, you are being really annoying, you are an ADG minion in disguise wearing an Adrian Baker mask and 1982 Radio Shack hat, etc etc etc."  Just helping peeps here get started with their replies.  

I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to KDS: Yes, we have a few people who make constant negative comments about Mike. Yet that doesn’t mean the plethora other active members here need to be under the umbrella generalization of this place being “toxic”...does it?

That was my only point. I get that there are comments made against Mike that are completely irrelevant to certain threads (and I admit I posted a stupid joke in this thread that was totally unnecessary). It happens often but it’s by the same two or three people, not the whole board. Most of my irritation is not with your post, but with the continuous banter I read on the PS Forum from posters like KDS who generalize this forum into one negative place for the sake of bringing up the PS Forum a few notches whilst ignoring the great content that is here.

The following isn’t in response to you KP, just something I want to get out there: I totally admit that I generalized the PS Forum for a long time after it was created. I was pissed that certain people got a free pass considering the heft of their previous actions and I took it out on that forum as a whole. But in time I realize that the PS Forum has some great members and great conversation. Though I still can’t figure out why certain posters were even allowed there in the first place (nor will I post there until they’re inevitably banned), I’ve not bashed that forum as a whole in a while because it would be putting down a lot of good people. The same should go for the generalizations being made about the Smiley forum lately.

Okay- your point is fair, it isn't the vast majority of members.  However it is a strong collection of some of the loudest members/most frequent posters.  If there was a SSMB "gang" in charge of these streets its defining characteristic would definitely be leather jackets with a big Mike face on the back, circled and crossed out.  Which is actually a good idea.
Since perhaps only a small collection of people constantly engage in it, then my question for you is how would you like me individually to respond if it annoys me?  This can include "call people out constantly", or "stfu and ignore it" or "leave the board and find a corner of the youtube universe to focus on".  
Beyond that there are some of my bullet points from above that I still really don't get.  Like how someone can have 2 accounts here and can use both of them to call me out.  Or generally how someone's first reaction from reading that strip is to see the Capitol single and start in with hating on ML.  Any replies would be welcomed.  I just want to understand.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 11:30:39 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 11:31:06 AM
A while back there was an extension made by a member here for internet browsers where you could type in anyone’s screen name and it wouldn’t show their posts. Perhaps talk with the mods about where you can find that extension (if it still exists) and go from there.

If you have a problem with a specific poster, if you see someone blatantly breaking the rules, PM the mods and they will work out a solution...they usually always do.

This forum is what we make of it. Until Mike did that pitiful MOJO interview this forum had been relatively chillax for months with not much negativity. It’ll swing back that way soon enough.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 11:33:48 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

I think he’s saying that posters had a right to defend the negative generalization made about this forum as a whole. Had KDS not been expressing his pent-up angst about this forum the past couple days on the PS forum I doubt this thread would’ve veered off topic for 3 pages anyways.

I think people have a right to get annoyed at an out of place Mike jab (specifically my initial post here), but you opened a whole can of worms when you generalized the entire board.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Hickory Violet Part IV on February 20, 2018, 11:36:30 AM
Fucking Christ, the horse is long-since dead. Its flesh has rotted and its bones are dust. You’d think it might be funny to watch adults pummeling empty ground with their nobly branded clubs, but unfortunately it just seesaws between tedious and excruciating. I’d pine for the good ol’ days if there were such a thing, but oh well.

I hear the bell signaling the next round, so I’d better clear out before I risk a wallop to the toes. Good luck, combatants. I’m sure you’ll win the day this time. And then we’ll shave world peace.

I don't think anyone is listening Captain.

I intend to listen to your good sense though and stop responding to the small minority on here who seem intent on picking a fight over every small thing.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 11:39:41 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

People reacting to the initial topic and making jokes on that topic is different than taking a shot at this entire forum and membership as you did. If making jokes and parodies on topic is hijacking, versus shitting on the entire forum and calling the replies to those specific comments "hijacking", then your logic in suggesting that comparison is what's ridiculous in this case.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 11:50:21 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

I think he’s saying that posters had a right to defend the negative generalization made about this forum as a whole. Had KDS not been expressing his pent-up angst about this forum the past couple days on the PS forum I doubt this thread would’ve veered off topic for 3 pages anyways.

I think people have a right to get annoyed at an out of place Mike jab (specifically my initial post here), but you opened a whole can of worms when you generalized the entire board.

Yes, sorry for projecting my pent up angst on another Beach Boys related board.   I think I had you pegged all wrong.   You are funny. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 11:55:05 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

I think he’s saying that posters had a right to defend the negative generalization made about this forum as a whole. Had KDS not been expressing his pent-up angst about this forum the past couple days on the PS forum I doubt this thread would’ve veered off topic for 3 pages anyways.

I think people have a right to get annoyed at an out of place Mike jab (specifically my initial post here), but you opened a whole can of worms when you generalized the entire board.

Yes, sorry for projecting my pent up angst on another Beach Boys related board.   I think I had you pegged all wrong.   You are funny. 

No, what’s funny is you complaining that people post irrelevant negative comments here when you yourself post irrelevant passive aggressive comments about this forum in threads constantly on the PS Forum. Sorry if that irony escapes you, but its plain and simple for everyone else to see.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 12:01:23 PM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

I think he’s saying that posters had a right to defend the negative generalization made about this forum as a whole. Had KDS not been expressing his pent-up angst about this forum the past couple days on the PS forum I doubt this thread would’ve veered off topic for 3 pages anyways.

I think people have a right to get annoyed at an out of place Mike jab (specifically my initial post here), but you opened a whole can of worms when you generalized the entire board.

Yes, sorry for projecting my pent up angst on another Beach Boys related board.   I think I had you pegged all wrong.   You are funny. 

No, what’s funny is you complaining that people post irrelevant negative comments here when you yourself post irrelevant passive aggressive comments about this forum in threads constantly on the PS Forum. Sorry if that irony escapes you, but its plain and simple for everyone else to see.

Constantly???   Give me a break.   I make a veiled reference to some absurd accusations thrown at me on SSMB a couple times, yet it's "constant."   

Here's a question.  If you have no interest in joining a forum, why bother lurking?  I post on both boards, as well as the BW Forum, and you'll see my opinions across both are pretty consistent. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 20, 2018, 12:02:35 PM
guitarfool you and I both know perfectly well that the vast majority of the members here did not interpret what I said as taking a shot directly at them.  And you saying that is just trying to play dumb to further your point.  

Show me a comment about "typical Red Sox fan BS" and I will show you 8 out of 10 Bostonians that are all "yup, I could see that"


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 12:09:45 PM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

I think he’s saying that posters had a right to defend the negative generalization made about this forum as a whole. Had KDS not been expressing his pent-up angst about this forum the past couple days on the PS forum I doubt this thread would’ve veered off topic for 3 pages anyways.

I think people have a right to get annoyed at an out of place Mike jab (specifically my initial post here), but you opened a whole can of worms when you generalized the entire board.

Yes, sorry for projecting my pent up angst on another Beach Boys related board.   I think I had you pegged all wrong.   You are funny. 

No, what’s funny is you complaining that people post irrelevant negative comments here when you yourself post irrelevant passive aggressive comments about this forum in threads constantly on the PS Forum. Sorry if that irony escapes you, but its plain and simple for everyone else to see.

Constantly???   Give me a break.   I make a veiled reference to some absurd accusations thrown at me on SSMB a couple times, yet it's "constant."   

Here's a question.  If you have no interest in joining a forum, why bother lurking?  I post on both boards, as well as the BW Forum, and you'll see my opinions across both are pretty consistent. 

Its been far more than a couple times man. If you’ve got a problem with me, with OSD, with anyone who told you that you hate Brian Wilson, then do come out and say it...just be blunt about it. But stop generalizing the entire forum - that is and has been and will be my only point to this rather monotonous conversation.

And I lurk because I like to keep an eye on what is being said in the fan community. I will not join or participate on a forum that has members who previously did some really awful sh*t...but to stay informed about the goings on I will lurk there.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 12:12:49 PM
How about the two forums quit taking shots at each other? It's a small percentage of people, true, but my God it's just the internet and we're all fans of the same band, right?  Lumping everybody in the same quality is the main issue causing this  IMHO.

Quote
Here's a question.  If you have no interest in joining a forum, why bother lurking?  I post on both boards, as well as the BW Forum, and you'll see my opinions across both are pretty consistent.

I personally lurk because it would be mighty awkward to post there with the issues I've had with a small segment of posters there, and would likely prove to be disruptive. (I know that wasn't directed towards me; I just wanted to throw that out there)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 12:19:18 PM
How about the two forums quit taking shots at each other? It's a small percentage of people, true, but my God it's just the internet and we're all fans of the same band, right?  Lumping everybody in the same quality is the main issue causing this  IMHO.

Quote
Here's a question.  If you have no interest in joining a forum, why bother lurking?  I post on both boards, as well as the BW Forum, and you'll see my opinions across both are pretty consistent.

I personally lurk because it would be mighty awkward to post there with the issues I've had with a small segment of posters there, and would likely prove to be disruptive. (I know that wasn't directed towards me; I just wanted to throw that out there)

Fair enough.   But, it would be a lot easier to not take shots if I weren't accused of having an "endgame" (guitarfool) or "drinking the cool aid" (poster on BW Forum) when I post an opinion.   


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Jay on February 20, 2018, 12:33:52 PM
To answer guitarfool's original questions to me.  He probably contributed very little to the song and he probably deserves little credit.  That is beside the point though.

Here is my view of this, maybe some people will understand where I am coming from.

-Original post about the ending of an 85 year old comic strip that makes a pretty touching sendoff involving WIBN.  One of BW's most enduring and iconic moments.
-Immediate response of some regulars going non-sequitur to the original post about the ML writing credit issue and the usual chuckling emojis. 
-I call it toxic.  It is extracting this obtuse little sticking point from the comic, that has been discussed often here, and doing some good ol' repetitive ML sh!tpostin'.  To me that is toxic.
-Board leadership responds and is like "wait, are you disputing the idiocy of the ML writing credit litigation?"  That is really frustrating, I am not disputing that at all.  Why is that the immediate takeaway here upon seeing the WIBN 45 in the comic strip?  That is probably the biggest question that I have.
-People call me an ML apologist, I think?  I am not, I don't like the guy and it is weird that people immediately think that.
-I am called out in a thread outside of this one that I didn't post in.  Some people mock me.  Multiple oldsurferdude accounts swipe at me.  All of this is okay I guess.
-This thread becomes more about Mike's writing credit litigation.  And, not very much about any of the numerous other directions that the original topic has afforded.  Now I bet someone will say "wellllll why didn't YOU post something constructive in the thread then?" as if that is the only way in which I can criticise. 
-I wonder why more people don't agree with me, and then go on with my day.  Later!
*applause*


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 12:36:13 PM
True, and I think when we have one or two people there making snide comments, it causes a reaction like you mentioned, which causes another comment, which results in another comment, repeat ad nauseum.  Maybe it would help if one would call the specific person(s) out instead of the entire forum (talking to all sides here)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 12:55:57 PM
I think the real problem we're all secretly having is that the original comic wasn't this:

(https://i.imgur.com/Tff24AU.jpg)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 20, 2018, 12:58:10 PM
For their sake, I hope Nancy and her comic gang don't have to listen to that on loop for all of eternity. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 20, 2018, 12:59:53 PM
That thought makes me feel bad about drawing it actually :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 01:04:27 PM
:lol

I read a post on PSF earlier that mentioned Nancy's "soulless black eyes". Between that and this, I'm just dying over here.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Jay on February 20, 2018, 01:11:07 PM
That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen on this board.  :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 20, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
Haha rab!!! :lol :lol :lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Pretty Funky on February 20, 2018, 01:59:29 PM
Never seen the cartoon before however does the character doing the service looks a bit like Carl to anyone else?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 02:24:49 PM
I was thinking Dennis on the cover of POB


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 20, 2018, 02:51:57 PM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

But isn't the fact that a brand new publication, the comic printed in 2018, went out of its way to list "Wilson/Asher"... which contradicts the "new" revised credits? That is a topic worthy of discussion, which then led to a topic of the whole issue with the credits having been revised in the 1st place, which naturally pisses some people off because Mike's name on the credits is still (and will always be) a source of debate/contention to most fans who are knowledgeable about the history.

But it's not like there's zero relation to the original topic.  Conversations (either in real life, or on message boards) will often lend themselves to other topics that are related.

If the original comic had not been a panel with WIBN, but instead had been a panel with a topic about Al Jardine's preferred brand of t-shirts, I somehow doubt it would have led his line of messages into the discussion topic of Mike Love and his crediting overreaching.

But the comic went out of its way to show a now-outdated WIBN credit. So why is it "hijacking" for that comic to lend itself naturally to a discussion about the credits for that song?  We are nerds. We know the history of that song, and the revised credit, and that is only natural to become a topic of discussion as a result.

It's not rocket science why it went there; Mike himself, via so, so many of his actions over the years, has done stuff that many fans find in poor taste, crass (even Al Jardine publicly stated such - imagine what he must say/think privately!) ... essentially Mike has spread his own tentacles over so much of the story of the band, that when those things he has done - which many think are bad, egocentric, narcissistic decisions - are innumerable, it's only natural that perhaps a larger percentage of topics (when compared to other members) might eventually go down that road of discussing Mike critically, even if the original topic wasn't specifically about that, but tangentially might naturally lead there.

In a nutshell, basically, you can't act the way Mike has for so many years without many things indirectly leading back to a discussion of him/his actions. It's not gonna happen every time of course. Mike has nobody to thank but himself for that unique distinction. I'm also certain that if Mike had long ago completely ceased with stoking the flames of smack-talking other members while comically trying to build himself up - people would be somewhat a little less inclined to naturally have topics veer in this direction.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Pretty Funky on February 20, 2018, 03:06:59 PM
Just for the hell of it I typed ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ into google images. Nothing else, just as the cartoonist probably did. The single disc, as depicted, comes up. Forget credits as the artist probably knows nothing about the songs history.

I think some are reading too much into this.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 20, 2018, 03:33:34 PM
Just for the hell of it I typed ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ into google images. Nothing else, just as the cartoonist probably did. The single disc, as depicted, comes up. Forget credits as the artist probably knows nothing about the songs history.

I think some are reading too much into this.

Probably right. I think 98.5% likelihood of what you said being accurate.

But one never fully knows who is a hardcore BBs fan out there, even cartoonists. Slim chance but who knows. I doubt anyone on here *really* thinks it was an intentional Mike Love dig by the cartoonist, but stranger things have happened.

And also, it is funny to speculate that Mike might get pissed about it, regardless of the cartoonist's intent. Yes, this is a famous cartoon, but it's super long in the tooth, and not all that well-known in 2018... but if, say, on a national famous TV show or commercial in 2018, we saw a similar Wilson/Asher credit on a prominently-featured piece of art, I could honestly see Mike's legal team at least privately having a discussion to see if there's any way Mike can sue or badger the content creator into changing it to Wilson/Asher/Love. The fact that this hypothetical legal discussion isn't *completely* farfetched and could actually happen is hilarious and discussion-worthy, I think at least.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 03:35:51 PM
Just for the hell of it I typed ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ into google images. Nothing else, just as the cartoonist probably did. The single disc, as depicted, comes up. Forget credits as the artist probably knows nothing about the songs history.

I think some are reading too much into this.

I think so too


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: the captain on February 20, 2018, 03:47:54 PM

But one never fully knows who is a hardcore BBs fan out there, even cartoonists. Slim chance but who knows.

That is absolutely spot-on. Seriously, what would be the odds that someone like John Stamos would be such a supporter? (Yes, yes, save your hatred for a second, everyone. I mean this in the best possible sense.) The guy obviously loves the band. Or in the late 90s, I remember watching some MTV or VH1 music trivia show styled after Jeopardy!, and there was fucking Sugar Ray himself (I figure, since I'm already bringing up everyone's favorite people), answering a question about (if I'm not mistaken) Friends. I could be wrong, but my point is, it was something somewhat obscure that ol' "DO IT!" knew and said. And the list obviously goes on and on, as we all know.

Beach Boys fans are a bizarre and diverse bunch. Which could be really fun, if we let it be.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Pretty Funky on February 20, 2018, 04:10:29 PM

Which could be really fun, if we let it be.


To keep everyone happy, a credit for the Beatles should be added.  :p


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 04:41:32 PM
:lol


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: joshferrell on February 20, 2018, 05:16:22 PM
I've never read Nancy before, but if the humour has consistently been of this calibre  then why are they ending it?

Surely there are at least another 85  years of side splitting gags like the one show cased above.





Actually  Nancy ran its course decades ago, in fact there was a time period in the 80's and 90's when all they did was redo vintage Nancy strips word for word just with updated clothing and modern day background scenery..then they got caught and there was some controversy and they then started doing new original strips which apparently didn't last long since it has now ended.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: joshferrell on February 20, 2018, 05:23:31 PM
So ... anyway ... I'm still shocked by two revelations from this whole discussion:
1.) People actually read that Nancy comic? I've always lumped it in with Family Circus and skipped it.
2.) Now that the comic referenced the Beach Boys, do I have to go back and read 80-some years of strips to get the payoff?

Some strips are still in the newspaper because of name recognition, like the strips you mentioned. Most have run their course but have such popular name recognition that they are still there... Garfield is a good example of that..


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:29:36 PM

Fair enough.   But, it would be a lot easier to not take shots if I weren't accused of having an "endgame" (guitarfool) or "drinking the cool aid" (poster on BW Forum) when I post an opinion.   

I'd rather not do it, but this has to be corrected.

This was my "end game" post in question in context: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321)

And here it is for KDS to review, "end game" wording in bold:

Try some logic this time: All of the posts about Brian's health, how he looks frail on tour, how his stage presence is less enthusiastic than some think it should be (I guess...I have no idea), how it's a grueling schedule, how it must be hard on him, how bad it must be for his back, how it's hard being in your 70's and touring...

Seriously man, what's the end game to the point where all of that stuff keeps getting brought up in discussions? Why do you continue to bring it up, along with others, when Brian himself addressed the issue of his touring?

Is it not enough that the man himself as of a month ago says he misses touring?

If fans were to start saying the same things about Mike's touring, constantly harping on his appearance, his voice, mentioning his declining vocals, how he's not as agile as he was before on stage, his whole routine to where certain segments of the show are exactly the same as they were 5 years ago...you - KDS - would probably be among the first to say it was another case of "bashing" Mike.

So what is the end game with constantly posting about Brian's health issues and appearance when the topic of his tours comes up? Seriously.

I was all ready to mea culpa if I had actually accused KDS of having an "endgame", but I did not. It was a general, rhetorical type of question and comment both times. I asked twice, what is THE endgame. As in, why does this type of thing keep coming up over and over again.

KDS - I did not accuse *you* of having an "endgame" despite what you're telling people who read your post here. If I were accusing you I'd have said simply "KDS, what's your end game?". I did not.

I'd suggest reading more carefully before making accusations of what someone said.

I'd also suggest not following the lead of people like filledeplage who tended to pull this kind of thing when there was no factual ground to stand on to back up a claim - Just randomly make up quotes that never got said and things that never happened, run with it, and hope people believe it. I'd like to think you're above all that based on your posts about music.

I hope trying to clear that up didn't distract too much.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 20, 2018, 09:33:42 PM
I personally lurk because it would be mighty awkward to post there with the issues I've had with a small segment of posters there, and would likely prove to be disruptive. (I know that wasn't directed towards me; I just wanted to throw that out there)

Doesn't that in itself suggest there are some issues if someone merely showing up to post would be disruptive because of a small segment of posters on a particular board who would object? A forum is either a welcoming place for fans to talk or it's not. If a small segment of people would start a ruckus when a fan showed up and posted, maybe that small segment is the problem that should be addressed.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 09:48:24 PM
Quote
If a small segment of people would start a ruckus when a fan showed up and posted, maybe that small segment is the problem that should be addressed.

Bingo...that segment. Problem is, it comes off more as "Oh, I don't like Craig or Billy so I'll post that all the people at SS are blah blah blah" with a few people at PSF, and of course the other way around.

Maybe the course would be to name the specific people directly (us here , and there at PSF) instead of lumping every body to gether


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 20, 2018, 11:49:12 PM
FYI...I showed my wife the edited cartoon with Here Comes the Night, and she’s dying laughing right now 😂


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 01:14:00 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

But isn't the fact that a brand new publication, the comic printed in 2018, went out of its way to list "Wilson/Asher"... which contradicts the "new" revised credits? That is a topic worthy of discussion, which then led to a topic of the whole issue with the credits having been revised in the 1st place, which naturally pisses some people off because Mike's name on the credits is still (and will always be) a source of debate/contention to most fans who are knowledgeable about the history.

But it's not like there's zero relation to the original topic.  Conversations (either in real life, or on message boards) will often lend themselves to other topics that are related.

If the original comic had not been a panel with WIBN, but instead had been a panel with a topic about Al Jardine's preferred brand of t-shirts, I somehow doubt it would have led his line of messages into the discussion topic of Mike Love and his crediting overreaching.

But the comic went out of its way to show a now-outdated WIBN credit. So why is it "hijacking" for that comic to lend itself naturally to a discussion about the credits for that song?  We are nerds. We know the history of that song, and the revised credit, and that is only natural to become a topic of discussion as a result.

It's not rocket science why it went there; Mike himself, via so, so many of his actions over the years, has done stuff that many fans find in poor taste, crass (even Al Jardine publicly stated such - imagine what he must say/think privately!) ... essentially Mike has spread his own tentacles over so much of the story of the band, that when those things he has done - which many think are bad, egocentric, narcissistic decisions - are innumerable, it's only natural that perhaps a larger percentage of topics (when compared to other members) might eventually go down that road of discussing Mike critically, even if the original topic wasn't specifically about that, but tangentially might naturally lead there.

In a nutshell, basically, you can't act the way Mike has for so many years without many things indirectly leading back to a discussion of him/his actions. It's not gonna happen every time of course. Mike has nobody to thank but himself for that unique distinction. I'm also certain that if Mike had long ago completely ceased with stoking the flames of smack-talking other members while comically trying to build himself up - people would be somewhat a little less inclined to naturally have topics veer in this direction.

I never said it was zero relation, I always maintained it as "little relation".  A writing credit whose revision most casual fans don't know about on a drawing of a 50 year old record in a frame of a comic strip that is ending.  That is "little relation".

If you step outside of this bubble for a minute, here are the most likely reasons for that cover:
1- Guy googled the WIBN single cover and drew it.
2- This was the record he had as a kid, with Wilson/Asher on it, or it's one that he picked up at a used record store as an adult.
46- He is expressing a subversive hatred of Mike by recognising that the credits were amended and going against the court decision in his drawing

What you're trying to defend isn't some sort of academic discussion about why the record appeared as it did, you're trying to defend your friends' immediate replies of "Mike is a litigous POS" or "He's gonna sue the comic strip".  You're trying to characterise that after the fact as some sort of Superfan Discourse that logically resulted from the OP.  What is telling is that in your own words here you use the reasoning of Mike being crass/in poor taste with his public behavior as grounds for these replies.  You show here, that the direction is merely "the guy sucks so obviously people will freely stick it to him whenever possible". 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 01:19:59 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Forrest Gump on February 21, 2018, 03:05:21 AM
Don’t know if anything will be done about what you ask for but this surley will happen:

Sixstringstool will log in with ten pages of babble when two sentences would do. He’d pretend to be the worlds greatest detective since Columbo. He’d spend two of those ten pages taunting to whoever about examples over and over, taunting like a first grade bully. Then ol sixstring would say bullshit and/or f*** over and over . Then pat himself on the back. Then the ten people who post regularly here would chime in.

This is what you can count on. The other mods blindly let sixstring do this over and over. No wonder long timers also left. But they let ol sixstring do this over and over. Real becoming of a mod.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 03:37:07 AM
I'm not going to criticise board moderators because it is hard and thankless.  I just want a clear and honest answer, whether publicly or privately.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SinisterSmile on February 21, 2018, 03:43:38 AM
I gotta agree with Kid Presentable. This thread was about a innocent/awesome tribute to a band that we love and it immediately gets derailed into the same tired circlejerk.

This shouldn't have been the time or place for that kinda talk.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 21, 2018, 05:10:45 AM
Don’t know if anything will be done about what you ask for but this surley will happen:

Sixstringstool will log in with ten pages of babble when two sentences would do. He’d pretend to be the worlds greatest detective since Columbo. He’d spend two of those ten pages taunting to whoever about examples over and over, taunting like a first grade bully. Then ol sixstring would say bullshit and/or f*** over and over . Then pat himself on the back. Then the ten people who post regularly here would chime in.

This is what you can count on. The other mods blindly let sixstring do this over and over. No wonder long timers also left. But they let ol sixstring do this over and over. Real becoming of a mod.

Hey look guys it’s that guy who isn’t Steve Mayo but is Steve Mayo’s friend who uses Steve Mayo’s computer at Steve Mayo’s house (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg580891.html#msg580891) who conveniently shows up sometimes to moan about the moderation here.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 05:24:55 AM

Fair enough.   But, it would be a lot easier to not take shots if I weren't accused of having an "endgame" (guitarfool) or "drinking the cool aid" (poster on BW Forum) when I post an opinion.   

I'd rather not do it, but this has to be corrected.

This was my "end game" post in question in context: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321)

And here it is for KDS to review, "end game" wording in bold:

Try some logic this time: All of the posts about Brian's health, how he looks frail on tour, how his stage presence is less enthusiastic than some think it should be (I guess...I have no idea), how it's a grueling schedule, how it must be hard on him, how bad it must be for his back, how it's hard being in your 70's and touring...

Seriously man, what's the end game to the point where all of that stuff keeps getting brought up in discussions? Why do you continue to bring it up, along with others, when Brian himself addressed the issue of his touring?

Is it not enough that the man himself as of a month ago says he misses touring?

If fans were to start saying the same things about Mike's touring, constantly harping on his appearance, his voice, mentioning his declining vocals, how he's not as agile as he was before on stage, his whole routine to where certain segments of the show are exactly the same as they were 5 years ago...you - KDS - would probably be among the first to say it was another case of "bashing" Mike.

So what is the end game with constantly posting about Brian's health issues and appearance when the topic of his tours comes up? Seriously.

I was all ready to mea culpa if I had actually accused KDS of having an "endgame", but I did not. It was a general, rhetorical type of question and comment both times. I asked twice, what is THE endgame. As in, why does this type of thing keep coming up over and over again.

KDS - I did not accuse *you* of having an "endgame" despite what you're telling people who read your post here. If I were accusing you I'd have said simply "KDS, what's your end game?". I did not.

I'd suggest reading more carefully before making accusations of what someone said.

I'd also suggest not following the lead of people like filledeplage who tended to pull this kind of thing when there was no factual ground to stand on to back up a claim - Just randomly make up quotes that never got said and things that never happened, run with it, and hope people believe it. I'd like to think you're above all that based on your posts about music.

I hope trying to clear that up didn't distract too much.
You asked me twice what the endgame is?  How the hell else am I supposed to take that? 

It's funny, rab lightened the mood with a good joke, things seemed to be calming down, and here you are again. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 21, 2018, 05:34:31 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 07:35:44 AM
Don’t know if anything will be done about what you ask for but this surley will happen:

Sixstringstool will log in with ten pages of babble when two sentences would do. He’d pretend to be the worlds greatest detective since Columbo. He’d spend two of those ten pages taunting to whoever about examples over and over, taunting like a first grade bully. Then ol sixstring would say bullshit and/or f*** over and over . Then pat himself on the back. Then the ten people who post regularly here would chime in.

This is what you can count on. The other mods blindly let sixstring do this over and over. No wonder long timers also left. But they let ol sixstring do this over and over. Real becoming of a mod.


Happening since 2011 with Steve's aliases:

Maybe it isn't anything specific to the last few pages of this thread, but my point isn't to "argue" anything and instead to say I think Good Vibrations appeared on Smile in spite of what Brian was doing at the time with Smile: It was the current single and not part of a larger grand scheme Brian had in his mind for the song. Naturally the current single goes on the next album as I described a few minutes ago. Good Vibrations had as much to do with Smile as it did with Smiley Smile. There, I said it. :-D

I admit I'm a bit warped sometimes in my thinking, but I'd rather see Good Vibrations considered on its own merits as one of the best singles ever recorded instead of part of Smile, which I think detracts from the uniqueness of both GV the single and Smile the album project.

Jesus dude!!....do you yak and yak just for the sake of yaking?
Give it a little rest...Please!





Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 07:51:57 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.

That's how I remember the situation and why there are two accounts in this case. The login was blocked on the original, so a new one was set up, and when all the board mechanics got sorted out, the old one was accessible too. Nothing underhanded going on, just an old issue which was preventing logins, and this account wasn't the only one which has had similar issues since.

That's how I remember it - If I'm wrong, please correct, but there were login issues if I recall.

It's not the same issue as, say, Steve or his multiple accounts coming on with aliases to bash me.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 07:58:49 AM

Fair enough.   But, it would be a lot easier to not take shots if I weren't accused of having an "endgame" (guitarfool) or "drinking the cool aid" (poster on BW Forum) when I post an opinion.   

I'd rather not do it, but this has to be corrected.

This was my "end game" post in question in context: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321)

And here it is for KDS to review, "end game" wording in bold:

Try some logic this time: All of the posts about Brian's health, how he looks frail on tour, how his stage presence is less enthusiastic than some think it should be (I guess...I have no idea), how it's a grueling schedule, how it must be hard on him, how bad it must be for his back, how it's hard being in your 70's and touring...

Seriously man, what's the end game to the point where all of that stuff keeps getting brought up in discussions? Why do you continue to bring it up, along with others, when Brian himself addressed the issue of his touring?

Is it not enough that the man himself as of a month ago says he misses touring?

If fans were to start saying the same things about Mike's touring, constantly harping on his appearance, his voice, mentioning his declining vocals, how he's not as agile as he was before on stage, his whole routine to where certain segments of the show are exactly the same as they were 5 years ago...you - KDS - would probably be among the first to say it was another case of "bashing" Mike.

So what is the end game with constantly posting about Brian's health issues and appearance when the topic of his tours comes up? Seriously.

I was all ready to mea culpa if I had actually accused KDS of having an "endgame", but I did not. It was a general, rhetorical type of question and comment both times. I asked twice, what is THE endgame. As in, why does this type of thing keep coming up over and over again.

KDS - I did not accuse *you* of having an "endgame" despite what you're telling people who read your post here. If I were accusing you I'd have said simply "KDS, what's your end game?". I did not.

I'd suggest reading more carefully before making accusations of what someone said.

I'd also suggest not following the lead of people like filledeplage who tended to pull this kind of thing when there was no factual ground to stand on to back up a claim - Just randomly make up quotes that never got said and things that never happened, run with it, and hope people believe it. I'd like to think you're above all that based on your posts about music.

I hope trying to clear that up didn't distract too much.
You asked me twice what the endgame is?  How the hell else am I supposed to take that? 

It's funny, rab lightened the mood with a good joke, things seemed to be calming down, and here you are again. 

KDS - I was away for 8 hours+ working without access to the board. When I returned I saw your message posted while I was away which reminded me of what filledeplage used to do, which is misquote or twist what someone said to make an issue to argue and blame. You did that above. I was asking specifically what is *the* endgame not directed at you. If I had directed it at you specifically, as in accusing you of having an endgame, I would have said "KDS, what's your endgame?".

I already explained clearly in my reply. If you can't understand that or accept that, that's your call.

Don't make claims that I said or did something I did not do or say.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 21, 2018, 08:01:27 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.

That's how I remember the situation and why there are two accounts in this case. The login was blocked on the original, so a new one was set up, and when all the board mechanics got sorted out, the old one was accessible too. Nothing underhanded going on, just an old issue which was preventing logins, and this account wasn't the only one which has had similar issues since.

That's how I remember it - If I'm wrong, please correct, but there were login issues if I recall.

It's not the same issue as, say, Steve or his multiple accounts coming on with aliases to bash me.

Hey now, it’s clearly Steve’s friend using Steve’s internet on Steve’s computer at Steve’s house. I mean, that account may link to another IP address but I promise it’s not Steve’s friend’s local public library!

Tbh, if there are actually aliases being used, Steve my man I’d suggest you invest in some VPN app to block your IP address, you could probably talk to Mike’s Beard about setting it up. But it goes a long way to masking your IP from mods on any forum.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 08:05:35 AM

Fair enough.   But, it would be a lot easier to not take shots if I weren't accused of having an "endgame" (guitarfool) or "drinking the cool aid" (poster on BW Forum) when I post an opinion.   

I'd rather not do it, but this has to be corrected.

This was my "end game" post in question in context: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25544.msg629321.html#msg629321)

And here it is for KDS to review, "end game" wording in bold:

Try some logic this time: All of the posts about Brian's health, how he looks frail on tour, how his stage presence is less enthusiastic than some think it should be (I guess...I have no idea), how it's a grueling schedule, how it must be hard on him, how bad it must be for his back, how it's hard being in your 70's and touring...

Seriously man, what's the end game to the point where all of that stuff keeps getting brought up in discussions? Why do you continue to bring it up, along with others, when Brian himself addressed the issue of his touring?

Is it not enough that the man himself as of a month ago says he misses touring?

If fans were to start saying the same things about Mike's touring, constantly harping on his appearance, his voice, mentioning his declining vocals, how he's not as agile as he was before on stage, his whole routine to where certain segments of the show are exactly the same as they were 5 years ago...you - KDS - would probably be among the first to say it was another case of "bashing" Mike.

So what is the end game with constantly posting about Brian's health issues and appearance when the topic of his tours comes up? Seriously.

I was all ready to mea culpa if I had actually accused KDS of having an "endgame", but I did not. It was a general, rhetorical type of question and comment both times. I asked twice, what is THE endgame. As in, why does this type of thing keep coming up over and over again.

KDS - I did not accuse *you* of having an "endgame" despite what you're telling people who read your post here. If I were accusing you I'd have said simply "KDS, what's your end game?". I did not.

I'd suggest reading more carefully before making accusations of what someone said.

I'd also suggest not following the lead of people like filledeplage who tended to pull this kind of thing when there was no factual ground to stand on to back up a claim - Just randomly make up quotes that never got said and things that never happened, run with it, and hope people believe it. I'd like to think you're above all that based on your posts about music.

I hope trying to clear that up didn't distract too much.
You asked me twice what the endgame is?  How the hell else am I supposed to take that? 

It's funny, rab lightened the mood with a good joke, things seemed to be calming down, and here you are again. 

KDS - I was away for 8 hours+ working without access to the board. When I returned I saw your message posted while I was away which reminded me of what filledeplage used to do, which is misquote or twist what someone said to make an issue to argue and blame. You did that above. I was asking specifically what is *the* endgame not directed at you. If I had directed it at you specifically, as in accusing you of having an endgame, I would have said "KDS, what's your endgame?".

I already explained clearly in my reply. If you can't understand that or accept that, that's your call.

Don't make claims that I said or did something I did not do or say.

You addressed the message about the endgame to me.   Multiple times.   If you can't see how I wouldn't think that it was directed to me, than that's your call.  Just because you didn't specifically say "KDS what's the endgame" doesn't mean that the question wasn't obviously directed at me, especially when you ask it multiple times.  



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 08:18:28 AM
KDS - I explained what I wrote to you twice, and here you are again.  ;D


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 08:33:58 AM
KDS - I explained what I wrote to you twice, and here you are again.  ;D

You explained how you saw it. 

That's fine if that helps you sleep at night.   But, I don't see how that "endgame" stuff was not directed at me.  You asked me the same question multiple times on direct responses to my comments, so it really doesn't matter if you specifically put KDS or not. 

And by the way, guitarfool (just so you know for a fact that I'm 100% addressing you), you posted an argument you were in from 2011.   Where we are in 2018, and you're arguing with me just to argue, trying to childishly say that you didn't ask me a question when the evidence shows otherwise. 

And you really can't see how this board has a "toxic" reputation?  Because, I'll tell you, guitarfool2002, the SSMB has a toxic reputation not because of you.  There are a lot good posters here.  NateRuvin, RubberSoul13, GoogaMogla (apologies if I'm butchering the name), KidPresentable, etc etc. 

I've gotten into disagreements with rab, Rangerover, HeyJude, and Billy before, but we can still have civil and friendly discussions. 

But not you, guitarfool2002.  You have to keep on pushing and pushing. 

That is why this board has the reputation is has. 



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 08:43:13 AM
KDS - I explained what I wrote to you twice, and here you are again.  ;D

You explained how you saw it. 

That's fine if that helps you sleep at night.   But, I don't see how that "endgame" stuff was not directed at me.  You asked me the same question multiple times on direct responses to my comments, so it really doesn't matter if you specifically put KDS or not. 

And by the way, guitarfool (just so you know for a fact that I'm 100% addressing you), you posted an argument you were in from 2011.   Where we are in 2018, and you're arguing with me just to argue, trying to childishly say that you didn't ask me a question when the evidence shows otherwise. 

And you really can't see how this board has a "toxic" reputation?  Because, I'll tell you, guitarfool2002, the SSMB has a toxic reputation not because of you.  There are a lot good posters here.  NateRuvin, RubberSoul13, GoogaMogla (apologies if I'm butchering the name), KidPresentable, etc etc. 

I've gotten into disagreements with rab, Rangerover, HeyJude, and Billy before, but we can still have civil and friendly discussions. 

But not you, guitarfool2002.  You have to keep on pushing and pushing. 

That is why this board has the reputation is has. 



You don't seem to get it, KDS. That quote from 2011 was an alias of the same account that "Forrest Gump" came from. I posted it to show that this bullshit with this guy has been happening since 2011. Same account, same M.O. If he has or had an issue with me, he could have addressed it to me publicly or privately under his real name and not hide twice behind fake aliases in order to take shots at me.

If you twist my words into something they were not, as your friend and former member filledeplage has been doing for years to suit whatever argument is raging, I will call it out.



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 08:45:41 AM
KDS - I explained what I wrote to you twice, and here you are again.  ;D

You explained how you saw it. 

That's fine if that helps you sleep at night.   But, I don't see how that "endgame" stuff was not directed at me.  You asked me the same question multiple times on direct responses to my comments, so it really doesn't matter if you specifically put KDS or not. 

And by the way, guitarfool (just so you know for a fact that I'm 100% addressing you), you posted an argument you were in from 2011.   Where we are in 2018, and you're arguing with me just to argue, trying to childishly say that you didn't ask me a question when the evidence shows otherwise. 

And you really can't see how this board has a "toxic" reputation?  Because, I'll tell you, guitarfool2002, the SSMB has a toxic reputation not because of you.  There are a lot good posters here.  NateRuvin, RubberSoul13, GoogaMogla (apologies if I'm butchering the name), KidPresentable, etc etc. 

I've gotten into disagreements with rab, Rangerover, HeyJude, and Billy before, but we can still have civil and friendly discussions. 

But not you, guitarfool2002.  You have to keep on pushing and pushing. 

That is why this board has the reputation is has. 



You don't seem to get it, KDS. That quote from 2011 was an alias of the same account that "Forrest Gump" came from. I posted it to show that this bullshit with this guy has been happening since 2011. Same account, same M.O. If he has or had an issue with me, he could have addressed it to me publicly or privately under his real name and not hide twice behind fake aliases in order to take shots at me.

If you twist my words into something they were not, as your friend and former member filledeplage has been doing for years to suit whatever argument is raging, I will call it out.



If that's the way you see it, more power to you. 

Did you ever question why said person has had a problem with you for seven years? 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
KDS - I explained what I wrote to you twice, and here you are again.  ;D

You explained how you saw it. 

That's fine if that helps you sleep at night.   But, I don't see how that "endgame" stuff was not directed at me.  You asked me the same question multiple times on direct responses to my comments, so it really doesn't matter if you specifically put KDS or not. 

And by the way, guitarfool (just so you know for a fact that I'm 100% addressing you), you posted an argument you were in from 2011.   Where we are in 2018, and you're arguing with me just to argue, trying to childishly say that you didn't ask me a question when the evidence shows otherwise. 

And you really can't see how this board has a "toxic" reputation?  Because, I'll tell you, guitarfool2002, the SSMB has a toxic reputation not because of you.  There are a lot good posters here.  NateRuvin, RubberSoul13, GoogaMogla (apologies if I'm butchering the name), KidPresentable, etc etc. 

I've gotten into disagreements with rab, Rangerover, HeyJude, and Billy before, but we can still have civil and friendly discussions. 

But not you, guitarfool2002.  You have to keep on pushing and pushing. 

That is why this board has the reputation is has. 



You don't seem to get it, KDS. That quote from 2011 was an alias of the same account that "Forrest Gump" came from. I posted it to show that this bullshit with this guy has been happening since 2011. Same account, same M.O. If he has or had an issue with me, he could have addressed it to me publicly or privately under his real name and not hide twice behind fake aliases in order to take shots at me.

If you twist my words into something they were not, as your friend and former member filledeplage has been doing for years to suit whatever argument is raging, I will call it out.



If that's the way you see it, more power to you. 

Did you ever question why said person has had a problem with you for seven years? 

I hope that same person is enjoying the audio I traded with him, and in return I've enjoyed what he sent me. After that post in 2011. We had some good conversations off the board in between all that. Don't know why this alias stuff got involved, but perhaps that's an issue to be discussed privately. I never had a problem with him at all.



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 08:53:59 AM
You see KDS, there is a lot of stuff that happens which you're unaware of, or which happened prior to you joining these forums, so before making assumptions or throwing charges on the table, you could always ask about the bigger picture first before assuming things are what you think they are when they're not. Or read my signature line for an example of simply refusing to accept what actually happened in favor of grinding an axe.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 09:00:36 AM
You see KDS, there is a lot of stuff that happens which you're unaware of, or which happened prior to you joining these forums, so before making assumptions or throwing charges on the table, you could always ask about the bigger picture first before assuming things are what you think they are when they're not. Or read my signature line for an example of simply refusing to accept what actually happened in favor of grinding an axe.

I've read your signature lines.   The one quoting Wirestone about how anyone who criticized NPP for the non Beach Boys guests can go f**k themselves.   That's cute.  Very cute that, since I criticized the songs with Sebu and Kacey Musgraves, that a poster Wirestone can tell me in a blanket post to go f*** myself.   And a mod, agrees with the point so much that he makes it one of his signatures, therefore signing off on the notion that I can go f*** myself. 

I've made some snide comments, maybe even one or two unwarranted, on PSF.  But, I have never said anything like that. 



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 21, 2018, 10:03:49 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

But isn't the fact that a brand new publication, the comic printed in 2018, went out of its way to list "Wilson/Asher"... which contradicts the "new" revised credits? That is a topic worthy of discussion, which then led to a topic of the whole issue with the credits having been revised in the 1st place, which naturally pisses some people off because Mike's name on the credits is still (and will always be) a source of debate/contention to most fans who are knowledgeable about the history.

But it's not like there's zero relation to the original topic.  Conversations (either in real life, or on message boards) will often lend themselves to other topics that are related.

If the original comic had not been a panel with WIBN, but instead had been a panel with a topic about Al Jardine's preferred brand of t-shirts, I somehow doubt it would have led his line of messages into the discussion topic of Mike Love and his crediting overreaching.

But the comic went out of its way to show a now-outdated WIBN credit. So why is it "hijacking" for that comic to lend itself naturally to a discussion about the credits for that song?  We are nerds. We know the history of that song, and the revised credit, and that is only natural to become a topic of discussion as a result.

It's not rocket science why it went there; Mike himself, via so, so many of his actions over the years, has done stuff that many fans find in poor taste, crass (even Al Jardine publicly stated such - imagine what he must say/think privately!) ... essentially Mike has spread his own tentacles over so much of the story of the band, that when those things he has done - which many think are bad, egocentric, narcissistic decisions - are innumerable, it's only natural that perhaps a larger percentage of topics (when compared to other members) might eventually go down that road of discussing Mike critically, even if the original topic wasn't specifically about that, but tangentially might naturally lead there.

In a nutshell, basically, you can't act the way Mike has for so many years without many things indirectly leading back to a discussion of him/his actions. It's not gonna happen every time of course. Mike has nobody to thank but himself for that unique distinction. I'm also certain that if Mike had long ago completely ceased with stoking the flames of smack-talking other members while comically trying to build himself up - people would be somewhat a little less inclined to naturally have topics veer in this direction.

I never said it was zero relation, I always maintained it as "little relation".  A writing credit whose revision most casual fans don't know about on a drawing of a 50 year old record in a frame of a comic strip that is ending.  That is "little relation".

If you step outside of this bubble for a minute, here are the most likely reasons for that cover:
1- Guy googled the WIBN single cover and drew it.
2- This was the record he had as a kid, with Wilson/Asher on it, or it's one that he picked up at a used record store as an adult.
46- He is expressing a subversive hatred of Mike by recognising that the credits were amended and going against the court decision in his drawing

What you're trying to defend isn't some sort of academic discussion about why the record appeared as it did, you're trying to defend your friends' immediate replies of "Mike is a litigous POS" or "He's gonna sue the comic strip".  You're trying to characterise that after the fact as some sort of Superfan Discourse that logically resulted from the OP.  What is telling is that in your own words here you use the reasoning of Mike being crass/in poor taste with his public behavior as grounds for these replies.  You show here, that the direction is merely "the guy sucks so obviously people will freely stick it to him whenever possible".  

Sure, and I really don't think many people on here really think/thought, truly, that there was any remote "good chance" that there was an underhanded "stick it to Mike" intent by the cartoonist. But being as Mike seems to have a history of finding ways to sue or get offended/feel slighted over things that many other people view as unwarranted (he can get upset over anything he wants of course, just as we can roll our eyes if he does), I don't see how people need to get upset over posters jokingly tying in Mike's history of actions into a conceivable (though unlikely) hypothetical Mike/Mike lawyer reaction.

Basically it comes down to fans venting. Many fans are frustrated to know that Mike has been so litigious - especially the 2005 nonsense lawsuit - and it's because of actions like that,  compounded by the omission of mentioning said lawsuit/ not expressing an iota of regret about it in his autobio (thus insulting the intelligence of fans, making it seem like simply omitting it will make negative sentiment over the issue magically "go away") has caused many people to half-jokingly (though understandably) want to make light of the sue-happy band member in order to bust the tough guy notion he's tried to create by puffing himself up all the time. It helps to laugh about it. Yes, it's gonna be at his expense, but again, there's a reason for that. Terrible actions, no public expression of regret, repeat, for decades will do that to a fanbase.

The flipside is that people like myself will also talk about the things I actually like and appreciate about Mike's contributions to the band. I think things only get toxic when people somehow cannot bring themselves to say/acknowledge Mike's good contributions. I cannot understand how disliking his behavior can translate to a frustrated fan saying that good lyrics/vocals are somehow not good. That refusal, I can agree, is toxic and nonsensical IMHO.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 10:28:39 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.

That's how I remember the situation and why there are two accounts in this case. The login was blocked on the original, so a new one was set up, and when all the board mechanics got sorted out, the old one was accessible too. Nothing underhanded going on, just an old issue which was preventing logins, and this account wasn't the only one which has had similar issues since.

That's how I remember it - If I'm wrong, please correct, but there were login issues if I recall.

It's not the same issue as, say, Steve or his multiple accounts coming on with aliases to bash me.

Okay, why does he continue to actively use 2 accounts then?  If there are no login issues anymore then 2 shouldn't be necessary.  They both have 1300-something posts on them.  If 2 accounts aren't allowed, then this shouldn't be allowed.  Unless the guy secretly pays the server fees for this board or something, and gets more freedom to disregard the rules that everybody else follows.

And this actually really isn't that far off from Steve.  Just that one (OSD) is overtly out in the open and the other one is marginally, but not very well, attempting to be cloaked and failing at it.  

And OSD has decided to be silent ever since his original posts, I assume because someone in leadership told him that he screwed up and he should lay low.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 21, 2018, 10:34:39 AM
That is not the case at all, you are so far off with your Mike Love censorship campaign....


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 10:35:14 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

But isn't the fact that a brand new publication, the comic printed in 2018, went out of its way to list "Wilson/Asher"... which contradicts the "new" revised credits? That is a topic worthy of discussion, which then led to a topic of the whole issue with the credits having been revised in the 1st place, which naturally pisses some people off because Mike's name on the credits is still (and will always be) a source of debate/contention to most fans who are knowledgeable about the history.

But it's not like there's zero relation to the original topic.  Conversations (either in real life, or on message boards) will often lend themselves to other topics that are related.

If the original comic had not been a panel with WIBN, but instead had been a panel with a topic about Al Jardine's preferred brand of t-shirts, I somehow doubt it would have led his line of messages into the discussion topic of Mike Love and his crediting overreaching.

But the comic went out of its way to show a now-outdated WIBN credit. So why is it "hijacking" for that comic to lend itself naturally to a discussion about the credits for that song?  We are nerds. We know the history of that song, and the revised credit, and that is only natural to become a topic of discussion as a result.

It's not rocket science why it went there; Mike himself, via so, so many of his actions over the years, has done stuff that many fans find in poor taste, crass (even Al Jardine publicly stated such - imagine what he must say/think privately!) ... essentially Mike has spread his own tentacles over so much of the story of the band, that when those things he has done - which many think are bad, egocentric, narcissistic decisions - are innumerable, it's only natural that perhaps a larger percentage of topics (when compared to other members) might eventually go down that road of discussing Mike critically, even if the original topic wasn't specifically about that, but tangentially might naturally lead there.

In a nutshell, basically, you can't act the way Mike has for so many years without many things indirectly leading back to a discussion of him/his actions. It's not gonna happen every time of course. Mike has nobody to thank but himself for that unique distinction. I'm also certain that if Mike had long ago completely ceased with stoking the flames of smack-talking other members while comically trying to build himself up - people would be somewhat a little less inclined to naturally have topics veer in this direction.

I never said it was zero relation, I always maintained it as "little relation".  A writing credit whose revision most casual fans don't know about on a drawing of a 50 year old record in a frame of a comic strip that is ending.  That is "little relation".

If you step outside of this bubble for a minute, here are the most likely reasons for that cover:
1- Guy googled the WIBN single cover and drew it.
2- This was the record he had as a kid, with Wilson/Asher on it, or it's one that he picked up at a used record store as an adult.
46- He is expressing a subversive hatred of Mike by recognising that the credits were amended and going against the court decision in his drawing

What you're trying to defend isn't some sort of academic discussion about why the record appeared as it did, you're trying to defend your friends' immediate replies of "Mike is a litigous POS" or "He's gonna sue the comic strip".  You're trying to characterise that after the fact as some sort of Superfan Discourse that logically resulted from the OP.  What is telling is that in your own words here you use the reasoning of Mike being crass/in poor taste with his public behavior as grounds for these replies.  You show here, that the direction is merely "the guy sucks so obviously people will freely stick it to him whenever possible".  

Sure, and I really don't think many people on here really think/thought, truly, that there was any remote "good chance" that there was an underhanded "stick it to Mike" intent by the cartoonist. But being as Mike seems to have a history of finding ways to sue or get offended/feel slighted over things that many other people view as unwarranted (he can get upset over anything he wants of course, just as we can roll our eyes if he does), I don't see how people need to get upset over posters jokingly tying in Mike's history of actions into a conceivable (though unlikely) hypothetical Mike/Mike lawyer reaction.

Basically it comes down to fans venting. Many fans are frustrated to know that Mike has been so litigious - especially the 2005 nonsense lawsuit - and it's because of actions like that,  compounded by the omission of mentioning said lawsuit/ not expressing an iota of regret about it in his autobio (thus insulting the intelligence of fans, making it seem like simply omitting it will make negative sentiment over the issue magically "go away") has caused many people to half-jokingly (though understandably) want to make light of the sue-happy band member in order to bust the tough guy notion he's tried to create by puffing himself up all the time. It helps to laugh about it. Yes, it's gonna be at his expense, but again, there's a reason for that. Terrible actions, no public expression of regret, repeat, for decades will do that to a fanbase.

The flipside is that people like myself will also talk about the things I actually like and appreciate about Mike's contributions to the band. I think things only get toxic when people somehow cannot bring themselves to say/acknowledge Mike's good contributions. I cannot understand how disliking his behavior can translate to a frustrated fan saying that good lyrics/vocals are somehow not good. That refusal, I can agree, is toxic and nonsensical IMHO.

I hear you.  Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  We both understand each other I think.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 21, 2018, 10:39:46 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.

That's how I remember the situation and why there are two accounts in this case. The login was blocked on the original, so a new one was set up, and when all the board mechanics got sorted out, the old one was accessible too. Nothing underhanded going on, just an old issue which was preventing logins, and this account wasn't the only one which has had similar issues since.

That's how I remember it - If I'm wrong, please correct, but there were login issues if I recall.

It's not the same issue as, say, Steve or his multiple accounts coming on with aliases to bash me.

Okay, why does he continue to actively use 2 accounts then?  If there are no login issues anymore then 2 shouldn't be necessary.  They both have 1300-something posts on them.  If 2 accounts aren't allowed, then this shouldn't be allowed.  Unless the guy secretly pays the server fees for this board or something, and gets more freedom to disregard the rules that everybody else follows.

And this actually really isn't that far off from Steve.  Just that one (OSD) is overtly out in the open and the other one is marginally, but not very well, attempting to be cloaked and failing at it.  

And OSD has decided to be silent ever since his original posts, I assume because someone in leadership told him that he screwed up and he should lay low.  

Kid, I don’t even think OSD would care if the mods deleted his original account. The difference between OSD and Steve (if he’s really doing some alias thing) is that OSD isn’t trying to hide under multiple monickers for the sake of pretending to be two or more people. OSD is clearly OSD and both account names clearly show that. There isn’t anything sinister going on, its an account snafu that honestly doesn’t benefit OSD in the slightest, and again I say, I’m sure he doesn’t care at all if one of those accounts gets deleted.

I’ll offer the same advice to you for the third time: contact the mods via PM. I’m sure someone here will eventually address your concerns publicly, but in my time here whenever I have an issue to discuss with any mod the fastest way to get a response is by contacting them directly, privately.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 10:40:41 AM
If you're trying to insinuate that I hijacked the thread, and not the string of 5 immediately preceding your original post that is ridiculous.

But isn't the fact that a brand new publication, the comic printed in 2018, went out of its way to list "Wilson/Asher"... which contradicts the "new" revised credits? That is a topic worthy of discussion, which then led to a topic of the whole issue with the credits having been revised in the 1st place, which naturally pisses some people off because Mike's name on the credits is still (and will always be) a source of debate/contention to most fans who are knowledgeable about the history.

But it's not like there's zero relation to the original topic.  Conversations (either in real life, or on message boards) will often lend themselves to other topics that are related.

If the original comic had not been a panel with WIBN, but instead had been a panel with a topic about Al Jardine's preferred brand of t-shirts, I somehow doubt it would have led his line of messages into the discussion topic of Mike Love and his crediting overreaching.

But the comic went out of its way to show a now-outdated WIBN credit. So why is it "hijacking" for that comic to lend itself naturally to a discussion about the credits for that song?  We are nerds. We know the history of that song, and the revised credit, and that is only natural to become a topic of discussion as a result.

It's not rocket science why it went there; Mike himself, via so, so many of his actions over the years, has done stuff that many fans find in poor taste, crass (even Al Jardine publicly stated such - imagine what he must say/think privately!) ... essentially Mike has spread his own tentacles over so much of the story of the band, that when those things he has done - which many think are bad, egocentric, narcissistic decisions - are innumerable, it's only natural that perhaps a larger percentage of topics (when compared to other members) might eventually go down that road of discussing Mike critically, even if the original topic wasn't specifically about that, but tangentially might naturally lead there.

In a nutshell, basically, you can't act the way Mike has for so many years without many things indirectly leading back to a discussion of him/his actions. It's not gonna happen every time of course. Mike has nobody to thank but himself for that unique distinction. I'm also certain that if Mike had long ago completely ceased with stoking the flames of smack-talking other members while comically trying to build himself up - people would be somewhat a little less inclined to naturally have topics veer in this direction.

I never said it was zero relation, I always maintained it as "little relation".  A writing credit whose revision most casual fans don't know about on a drawing of a 50 year old record in a frame of a comic strip that is ending.  That is "little relation".

If you step outside of this bubble for a minute, here are the most likely reasons for that cover:
1- Guy googled the WIBN single cover and drew it.
2- This was the record he had as a kid, with Wilson/Asher on it, or it's one that he picked up at a used record store as an adult.
46- He is expressing a subversive hatred of Mike by recognising that the credits were amended and going against the court decision in his drawing

What you're trying to defend isn't some sort of academic discussion about why the record appeared as it did, you're trying to defend your friends' immediate replies of "Mike is a litigous POS" or "He's gonna sue the comic strip".  You're trying to characterise that after the fact as some sort of Superfan Discourse that logically resulted from the OP.  What is telling is that in your own words here you use the reasoning of Mike being crass/in poor taste with his public behavior as grounds for these replies.  You show here, that the direction is merely "the guy sucks so obviously people will freely stick it to him whenever possible".  



The flipside is that people like myself will also talk about the things I actually like and appreciate about Mike's contributions to the band. I think things only get toxic when people somehow cannot bring themselves to say/acknowledge Mike's good contributions. I cannot understand how disliking his behavior can translate to a frustrated fan saying that good lyrics/vocals are somehow not good. That refusal, I can agree, is toxic and nonsensical IMHO.

Agreed 100% on your last point there.  

I was accused of being a troll by a poster who goes by the name of Letsgoaway on Brian Wilson's board because I pointed out Mike's contributions to the band, in particular during the early days.   For that, I get accused of being a troll and "drinking the cool aid."  

But, like the posted I just mentioned, wants to dismiss everything Mike did because of that bias, to the point where you can't even compliment his lyrics or the way he sang on California Saga.  Bias is one thing, but that's just plain silly.  


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: rab2591 on February 21, 2018, 10:48:07 AM
I think the best thing posters can do is accept all the things that this band has brought us - the good, the great, the bad, the ugly. Accept that Mike contributed a whole hell of a lot to the band, totally. Accept that Brian wasn’t a perfect individual at times. Accept that Mike has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, but also accept he had/has a bit to gripe about.

The second best thing for posters is the willingness to change your mind about your viewpoint if the evidence yields enough to warrant such a change. I’ve been pissed at Mike for the wrong reasons before, I’ve glorified certain parts of Brian’s music that he didn’t even write. Be willing to accept when you’re wrong or when you’re right. This goes for anyone on both sides of the spectrum.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: KDS on February 21, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
I think the best thing posters can do is accept all the things that this band has brought us - the good, the great, the bad, the ugly. Accept that Mike contributed a whole hell of a lot to the band, totally. Accept that Brian wasn’t a perfect individual at times. Accept that Mike has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, but also accept he had/has a bit to gripe about.

The second best thing for posters is the willingness to change your mind about your viewpoint if the evidence yields enough to warrant such a change. I’ve been pissed at Mike for the wrong reasons before, I’ve glorified certain parts of Brian’s music that he didn’t even write. Be willing to accept when you’re wrong or when you’re right. This goes for anyone on both sides of the spectrum.

Logical and fair. 




Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 11:08:59 AM
May I please ask about this one more time- after my original post in this thread, a user who was offended was calling me out in other threads that I wasn't a part of, and they also for whatever reason have multiple SSMB accounts and they used 2 accounts to talk smack to me.  Is one or both against the rules?  Will anything be done about that?

I would honestly call it a gray area: while two accounts aren’t allowed, OldSurferDude had an old account here that he got banned from, iirc he lost his sign-in information after a long-time ban and made the Legendary account. After that the mods let him reset his password for his original account but OSD just started using his Legendary account as well. I’d say since he’s not trying to hide his original monicker with his newer account (everyone knows they’re both OSD as both of their names imply) and everyone knows they’re the same poster it’s not really a problem.

As for him defending himself after you called his comment toxic pollution, as someone else said, you kinda put yourself in that situation. As for him dedicating a song to you, not sure if I’d classify that as bullying but get clarification from GF or Billy about that. I think I mentioned it before, but PMing both mods may give you a quicker response.

That's how I remember the situation and why there are two accounts in this case. The login was blocked on the original, so a new one was set up, and when all the board mechanics got sorted out, the old one was accessible too. Nothing underhanded going on, just an old issue which was preventing logins, and this account wasn't the only one which has had similar issues since.

That's how I remember it - If I'm wrong, please correct, but there were login issues if I recall.

It's not the same issue as, say, Steve or his multiple accounts coming on with aliases to bash me.

Okay, why does he continue to actively use 2 accounts then?  If there are no login issues anymore then 2 shouldn't be necessary.  They both have 1300-something posts on them.  If 2 accounts aren't allowed, then this shouldn't be allowed.  Unless the guy secretly pays the server fees for this board or something, and gets more freedom to disregard the rules that everybody else follows.

And this actually really isn't that far off from Steve.  Just that one (OSD) is overtly out in the open and the other one is marginally, but not very well, attempting to be cloaked and failing at it.  

And OSD has decided to be silent ever since his original posts, I assume because someone in leadership told him that he screwed up and he should lay low.  

Kid, I don’t even think OSD would care if the mods deleted his original account. The difference between OSD and Steve (if he’s really doing some alias thing) is that OSD isn’t trying to hide under multiple monickers for the sake of pretending to be two or more people. OSD is clearly OSD and both account names clearly show that. There isn’t anything sinister going on, its an account snafu that honestly doesn’t benefit OSD in the slightest, and again I say, I’m sure he doesn’t care at all if one of those accounts gets deleted.

I’ll offer the same advice to you for the third time: contact the mods via PM. I’m sure someone here will eventually address your concerns publicly, but in my time here whenever I have an issue to discuss with any mod the fastest way to get a response is by contacting them directly, privately.

I've explained what happened in this thread, and privately too at this point to someone who asked last night in a PM. There have been other issues in the past few years that Billy and I have discussed and tried to fix where members were denied a log-in, for no reason. Some thought they had been banned, and I personally contacted several off the board to try to explain and fix the issues, which we did or tried to do in those cases. But there has been an issue with the board's mechanics that sometimes a trigger or block gets applied to accounts accidentally, or in error, through nothing anyone did.

Again I'm going on memory, but the account everyone is upset about had those same issues in the past to where another account had to be set up to bypass it, and that's exactly what happened here. Eventually I guess whatever blocks were being put on got worked out, and the other account was active again. There is nothing malicious, nothing sneaky, and no attempts to mask identities or log-in credentials. And the tighter blocking standards were put in place to help deflect both spammer accounts and overt attempts to evade bans and troll the board, as happened with Mike's Beard and a few others who created fake aliases and masked their identities after they had been banned, and then used the alias accounts to insult and attack, and criticize, other posters or simply act like fools instead of coming back on to post normally.

I hope that clears it up.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 21, 2018, 11:11:40 AM
Two OSD's are better than one! ;D

But seriously, all OSD does is post his opinions without attacking anyone on the SSMB. Yet people pile him with insults and somehow its his fault.... ::)


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 21, 2018, 11:12:44 AM
I think the best thing posters can do is accept all the things that this band has brought us - the good, the great, the bad, the ugly. Accept that Mike contributed a whole hell of a lot to the band, totally. Accept that Brian wasn’t a perfect individual at times. Accept that Mike has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, but also accept he had/has a bit to gripe about.

The second best thing for posters is the willingness to change your mind about your viewpoint if the evidence yields enough to warrant such a change. I’ve been pissed at Mike for the wrong reasons before, I’ve glorified certain parts of Brian’s music that he didn’t even write. Be willing to accept when you’re wrong or when you’re right. This goes for anyone on both sides of the spectrum.

Very well stated.

As for the rest...where to begin? Ok here goes...

OSD having two accounts was addressed earlier. I am going to talk to him about which account he wants deleted. I remembered him having log in issues but wasn't 100%; thanks for refreshing my memory!  This is a completely different thing than a situation where one poster creates a completely different account in order to pretend to be someone else in order to troll the board, and/or cause issues. I resent the statement that OSD "pays the board's bills" for many reasons. 1) He doesn't.  2) Even if he did (which he doesn't), well, how would that affect me or GF in any way? It's not like we would see any of that money, so what benefit would that be? The insinuation is insulting, and quite frankly full of crap.

I also find it rich that the thread was jacked by the same people who complained about the thread getting hijacked in the first place by the Mike comments. Really?! Pot, meet kettle.

So here's the thing. Speaking for myself, I am sick to death of seeing this crap on the main board, regardless of who started it. There is/was a thread in the Sandbox to discuss moderation and comments/concerns.  I'd rather see this discussion there.  Just my personal feelings.



Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 21, 2018, 11:14:14 AM
Quote
And OSD has decided to be silent ever since his original posts, I assume because someone in leadership told him that he screwed up and he should lay low. 

Nope. Haven't talked to him yet


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 21, 2018, 11:16:35 AM
Quote
And OSD has decided to be silent ever since his original posts, I assume because someone in leadership told him that he screwed up and he should lay low. 

Nope. Haven't talked to him yet

I also have not had any contact at all.

Now both Billy and I have explained this publicly. That's it. No trickery, deception, or maliciousness. No underhanded, clandestine activities.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Kid Presentable on February 21, 2018, 11:21:38 AM
I think the best thing posters can do is accept all the things that this band has brought us - the good, the great, the bad, the ugly. Accept that Mike contributed a whole hell of a lot to the band, totally. Accept that Brian wasn’t a perfect individual at times. Accept that Mike has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth, but also accept he had/has a bit to gripe about.

The second best thing for posters is the willingness to change your mind about your viewpoint if the evidence yields enough to warrant such a change. I’ve been pissed at Mike for the wrong reasons before, I’ve glorified certain parts of Brian’s music that he didn’t even write. Be willing to accept when you’re wrong or when you’re right. This goes for anyone on both sides of the spectrum.

Very well stated.

As for the rest...where to begin? Ok here goes...

OSD having two accounts was addressed earlier. I am going to talk to him about which account he wants deleted. I remembered him having log in issues but wasn't 100%; thanks for refreshing my memory!  This is a completely different thing than a situation where one poster creates a completely different account in order to pretend to be someone else in order to troll the board, and/or cause issues. I resent the statement that OSD "pays the board's bills" for many reasons. 1) He doesn't.  2) Even if he did (which he doesn't), well, how would that affect me or GF in any way? It's not like we would see any of that money, so what benefit would that be? The insinuation is insulting, and quite frankly full of crap.

I also find it rich that the thread was jacked by the same people who complained about the thread getting hijacked in the first place by the Mike comments. Really?! Pot, meet kettle.

So here's the thing. Speaking for myself, I am sick to death of seeing this crap on the main board, regardless of who started it. There is/was a thread in the Sandbox to discuss moderation and comments/concerns.  I'd rather see this discussion there.  Just my personal feelings.



Yeah the sarcasm of the "bill paying" comment didn't come through.  My fault on that. 


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇 on February 21, 2018, 11:24:08 AM
Ok, no worries.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on February 21, 2018, 07:37:34 PM

What GF and Billy have said about my accounts is exactly what happened.


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on May 08, 2018, 04:11:40 PM
I didn't know this comic hero before. Nancy's cute. :) :D


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: Emdeeh on May 09, 2018, 11:51:16 AM
Monday's "One Big Happy" strip has a BB gag, but nothing even remotely original:
https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/onebighappy/s-2075818


Title: Re: WIBN in final (?) Nancy comic strip
Post by: RangeRoverA1 on May 09, 2018, 04:03:35 PM
It's generally very lame to see anything-BBs feature in comics. It's useless, doesn't add new popularity to band. Let's wish nobody in comic world features BBs in the strips. :grouphug