There are some spectators/fans/commentators, etc. who, generally speaking, are much less empathetic or sympathetic to Brian and his ailments over the years, and it's no coincidence that some of these same people (and let me stress I'm truly not singling out any particular person) likely subscribe to the theory that Brian's choice to take LSD caused more of his problems than other external factors.
 

I don't know about much less empathetic or sympathetic or coincidences but I believe Brian is the chief proponent of this view that "Brian's choice to take LSD caused more of his problems than other external factors"; not really a fan invention.

Brian talks about hearing voices soon after taking LSD in "beautiful dreamer" if I remember correctly.

One thing I can't get over, many people who appeared in beautiful dreamer said that drugs had very little to do with the Brian Wilson story (except Brian).  Michael Vosse was adamant about it and referred to it as a "big red herring".  Yet Brian specifically states he didn't hear voices until after taking LSD.  So, something does not add up.      

I think the red herring is the sequence. I think Brian Wilson probably experienced it as causative because of the sequence. But I think if you step back and look, he was already on the trajectory. Take LSD out of the picture -

he's considered quirky then
he has panic attacks then
he has manic episodes  then <--- insert LSD here
he has hallucinations then
he has depressive episodes
and on and on

I guess it's a perfectly linear and familiar development without the LSD or with the LSD. There's no final answer. Based on our different experiences and reading we are inclined to see it one way or the other.

But for Brian Wilson, if he experienced it that way, he's going to have a harder time adjusting his thinking to new information than an observer.

What were the manic episodes? Not coming to mind.

http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/interviews/a10139/brian-wilson-beach-boys-what-ive-learned/

Some typical agdster disparaging comments directed to this site are now available on that waste of time BBB board.

Thank God, no one is disparaging him from over here.   

4. "Why did David Beard promote the new board?"
Well, probably because David Beard has not had the warmest reception here. And that's putting it mildly. I'm sure if he wanted to promote a site for bickering and insane conspiracy theories, this would be on top of his list. Way to go, you guys. As it stands, the Pet Sounds forum is focused on Beach boys news and info, so his words were more than sensible.

I'd just to point out, regarding this particular point, that the lack of a warm reception was, in my view, due entirely to a small group of some pretty inflammatory "articles" penned by Mr. Beard.

My recollection is that Mr. Beard and ESQ over the years have been pretty warmly received on the board. ESQ may be seen by some as sometimes a bit too light and fluffy, lacking the more hard news and straight shooting opinions of something like "Beatlefan", but that light and fluffy nature also meant there was rarely anything in it that had the possibility of being inflammatory. As even detractors have pointed out in the past, we'd certainly rather have ESQ than not.

But there was a short string of articles penned by him and published online last year that hugely disappointed and troubled many longtime fans. That these sorts of articles were written not by some casual fan internet troll but by the editor of the only active Beach Boys fanzine was what was particularly troubling.

Some readers of those articles took Mr. Beard to task for those articles, and rightly so. In a functional sense, I can understand why he no longer felt this place, or at least some posters, received him warmly. But in my view, his own articles (at least one of which was pulled, edited, etc.) were what stoked those flames. They stoked the flames of discord among fans, and I'd argue stoked the flames of discord *within* the band.

You can't e-mail Mike Love, ask him about Brian's new single, and then just let Mike go on a multi-paragraph diatribe and then just publish the transcript, and then not be questioned about lack of follow-up questions and not be questioned about the motives and circumstances of such a piece.

You can't write an article suggesting that only "on occasion" does Brian join in with his band and sing, and bluntly and ham-handedly pose and answer the rhetorical question of "Is he brain damaged? Yes." and not expect criticism.

David has years of experience so I doubt he was bothered by people expressing their opinions, I'm guessing it was more the personal and insulting way it was expressed by many.

What did someone over there call some of us over here "liars", "racists", "sexists" and/or "bullies"?  That would be despicable right?

Is it despicable to use those descriptors in cases that the usage would be accurate?

If it is said as a general statement about a group, yes.

What did someone over there call some of us over here "liars", "racists", "sexists" and/or "bullies"?  That would be despicable right?

There's good and bad people over there, just like over here.

Agreed. I might have said well-intentioned and misguided and neither should be throwing rocks from their glass houses.

What did someone over there call some of us over here "liars", "racists", "sexists" and/or "bullies"?  That would be despicable right?

And Cam...if you're rehashing these issues, let's do it right and do it truthfully.

No one knew why Nicko "quit" the board publicly, but some did privately. So for Cincinnatti Kid or Mike's Beard  or anyone to make statements suggesting reasons why Nicko quit, they would had to have heard it themselves, because he never posted publicly reasons why.

*I* know why he left. Unless Mike's Beard or Cinc Kid had spoken to him, they would not know.

I also know what he tried to pull both here and on the BW board, involving alias accounts, fake names, and a whole load of bizarre subterfuge that no one except a few have any idea about. And well before I was a mod at BW, he tried to sneak on that board under an alias, but like Mike's Beard would do here, f***ed up in the execution enough that a simple question "Is that you Nicko?" after his posting style became transparent enough to spot that he first denied it, then launched into a diatribe about how bad I was, how bad the whole thing was, how i "ruined" SS...and the admin of BW board unfortunately not only banned him, but deleted the posts too. Inside of all that, our favorite fact-checker stood up and vouched for him on BW, in light of what just happened.

Further, again only a few people until now know this, he tried to come back on this board using a different name and different account, and began contacting board members here via PM telling tales and pleading his case with them. When the truth was unraveled, it was like a story told by Baron Von Munchausen or something. Just completely bizarre.

I am not the only one to know this, and what I said there can be backed up. But very few actually know anything about this.

And we also know who was involved, and how there was a similar effort years ago that led to lifetime bans on other boards when these same people started to gang up on certain posters - because they were very vocal fans of Brian Wilson - and began giving them sh*t that crossed many lines and had little to do with "it's all about the music". If they want, they can chime in and add more detail, because it was disgusting and the lifetime bans were more than warranted.

And it also spoke volumes to see the reactions after the curtain was yet again pulled back to reveal someone trying to mask their true identity to evade a ban on one forum, and get back in as an alter ego on a board where they had quit because they thought I "ruined" the board by voicing strong opinions and not agreeing with Andr...oh, never mind.

Consider the sources of so much of this have a history of disrespecting these boards and the people who are members on things as basic as who they are.

And again, if people want to hang with these people and share laughs and whatever else, you know the address.

Nicko didn't have anything to do with this. You made insinuations about him for your own off-topic reasons even though you had pointed everyone  at the time at ForHerCryingSoul by quoting the wrong thread title. By the time the misdirection was coming to light, all the damage had already been done and when the damage the confusion had caused was summarized, instead of sorting through it, there was a suspension. What infraction or rule violation was the suspension for according to the modlog?

Again, Mike's Beard has nothing to do with this, this was the Kid, you, and slightly Billie.

Also earlier you said and I missed it: "But I will not be harangued into apologizing for things that I did not do, or for someone who decided to escalate into personal things and take shots, beyond just me and including dragging Billy into it which was the clincher for that timeout."

The Kid wasn't escalating, he was responding to you (and Billie a few times), in fact he tried to deescalate by suggesting it be taken to PM and let's be clear, Billie was only mentioned because you had misdirected everyone to the wrong thread, the Kid was accurate in what he said about Billie in the thread you had wrongly directed him to and there was no foul which I believe Billie agrees with.  

Are you calling a comment on post length (which I don't remember seeing in that thread) a personal attack? If so, "armchair quarterback" surely must qualify too?

No one is being harangued into apologizing for things that they did not do, I don't think suggesting apologizing for things you did do (confusion, wrongful suspension) is out of line and my hat is doffed to Billie in that regard.  

Yeah, you do that Cam. If you think I'm going to apologize based on your spinning and twisting everything around to fit your argument here, you're Don Quixote chasing those windmills yet again.

I said ***Cincinnatti Kid*** brought up the length of my posts as a little dig which he seems to do quite regularly to posters other than me in the middle of debates where he gets frustrated and resorts to personal jabs instead of the discussion.

I'd also suggest if you want to dig up people's posts from the past, Mike's Beard isn't the best choice since not only was he banned, but he was exposed as a liar who couldn't even be honest about who he was, and decided to leave the board with a parting shot against the people he had issues with.

And, my own two cents as myself here...he was so fucking smart in doing this bullshit that he not only bragged about opening up a phantom account here on the board when he tried to stir the sh*t on Hoffman's board before the mods there pulled the plug on that nonsense, but he also got exposed by not being a good speller, or by not using spell-check so his alias accounts and his primary account didn't misspell the same word between posts.

If you can't keep up with the MIGS, don't fly into MIG Alley. One of the more dumb-assed things I saw happen here.

And consider that because Mike's Beard f***ed up like he did and fumbled the ball, the efforts to have open elections for mods was scuttled after he gave proof that multiple accounts like his would make a fair vote impossible, and it showed yet again how his "campaign" with Andrew Doe to try to f*** me over was not paranoia or tinfoil hat stuff, but was actually real.

So, Cam, if you're pulling old quotes, consider grabbing those quotes from people who were not exposed as liars and frauds through their own actions and dumbass mistakes that exposed them.

That second sentence is rich, coming from you.

"You tried to argue how "calm and polite" the Kid was and how he "stuck to the point"...by making a crack about my "long essays" ". You should more carefully word your posts (pretty rich coming from me, right) because that still reads as you accusing me of the crack.

Mike's Beard has nothing to do with this, so why would I do any of that?

Despite what you believe, I posted the link to the FULL thread for anyone who wanted to go back and read it. I posted the long thread tree that led to Billy and I discussing it off the board, which we did, and that led to the "timeout".

What isn't there because it wasn't in the tree of quotes, and which was not 'selective editing' on my part but rather something that just wasn't included in the quotes, was the post where I put direct links to both "NPP reviews" threads, the original one from Nicko and the follow up that came after. Whatever confusion there was, both threads/topics were referenced by direct links.


Cam: Why are you pushing this issue? You want to make me apologize for what and to whom, exactly?

Let's take your original comments as well.

Who was the first in any of that to take a personal shot at another person in the conversation?

You tried to argue how "calm and polite" the Kid was and how he "stuck to the point"...by making a crack about my "long essays", and this was after he also upset Billy by not being more careful wording his comments...or thinking them out before posting. Which is why Billy responded as he did, and which is why we took it off the board to discuss what the hell The Kid was trying to say.

Whatever Billy and The Kid followed up with and discussed, that's between them. If Billy apologized, that's between him and The Kid and I have no idea what they discussed.

But I will not be harangued into apologizing for things that I did not do, or for someone who decided to escalate into personal things and take shots, beyond just me and including dragging Billy into it which was the clincher for that timeout.

For the record, "Nicko" was part of one of the most bizarre series of twists and turns regarding multiple accounts, aliases, and the like, and he had a record of being banned then trying to evade the ban on other forums...for attacking other posters. And despite knowing all of this, and the whole twisted web, a noted fact-checker came on to "vouch" for him. That wasn't surprising considering what was discovered later. I'll leave it at that.


So Cam, if you want to keep dredging up this stuff, it's foolish. It's over. Whether you think I need to apologize or not, I could care less at this point. Anyone who wants to see exactly what happened and what was said publicly, I provided the link(s) and relevant quotes. I won't have this stuff continually used to challenge me or any mod decisions when this was a done deal.

Now what still remains open is the more recent episode where the Cinc Kid said some things that caused yet another dust-up.

Cam, perhaps if you're defending him as strongly and as unwavering as your defense has been, you should consider the possibility that numerous people are reacting to what he's been saying as they have because he is making comments that sound a certain way then defending them, and following it up with personal name calling and shots taken against those questioning him.

At some point, if this has happened on multiple discussions where one poster's comments have triggered such reactions from moderators to board members who have reacted then have had it turn into personal passive-aggressive or even direct shots taken at them, maybe the person who is common to all of these dust-ups should think before posting, and make sure the words are clear.

And the only person who regularly steps up to try to B.S. everyone by saying it's not his fault, as in you Cam, should consider people are not as dumb as you must think and are quite capable of reading what was written. they don't need someone to continually gild the lily by saying how calm and polite The Kid is in all of this when it's not at all coming off that way, especially after calling members trolls and taking another Bgas/Doe/Nicko bullshit crack at my posting style. That's kid's stuff.

Pun not intended.

As  I said and you admit there was significant editing and omission and I helped out by supplying the omitted.

Nicko doesn't matter to the Kid's assertion about criticizing a person, it was introduced by you as part of your off topic criticizing-an-album theme. When you were taunting with what turned out to be Nicko, it wasn't even known to be Nicko but was thought to be ForHerCryingSoul, the OP of the thread you misdirected us all to by quoting the wrong thread title.

A thread was created for this type of thing and it was not right at the time and bothered me then.  Klaas was never involved we know now, Billie has recanted his support and properly made amends (if I understand it correctly) and that just by happenstance leaves only you.

This issue played out in public, I can't have an opinion on something kept secret and is just a whisper campaign so far as most of us are aware.  Is the BS you are accusing me of when I said I understand the words the Kid is saying in his own defense, because the only other thing I've heard so far is snarky vague unsubstantiated accusations and a campaign of word twisting and confusion?

I'll work through these as best I can, the sheer volume is daunting.

Pun not intended.

There are these:

Addressing this to The Cincinnati Kid and Mike's Beard:

As I just wrote earlier, it's best to know what the facts are before trying to argue them with someone who actually does know. Argue it til you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that you simply don't seem to know what did or didn't actually happen, yet are speaking as if you do. The way both of you were talking, it seemed like you either knew personally or had been speaking to that person who is no longer on the board, yet the facts were not lining up with what happened.

Cincinnati Kid:

Why does it have to be about Brian?  Why couldn't he just be concerned that it was getting bad reviews?  Again, your fellow moderator even agreed with him.  That OP's posting history shows there is no agenda at all. 

The original "reviews" thread is still open and available to view. Read through it and the follow-up that got lumped in with it. That's available too. In that thread, you'll see exactly what played out, who said what etc. And there was what looked to be a pretty wide majority saying the exact opposite of your "no agenda at all line" citing the same posting history. Two versions of the same story? Or more people seeing that issue completely opposite of your own opinions? It's funny that months later you cite a posting history that was the same point the majority of those posting there used to suggest the purpose of that thread was less than positive.

It's all there, read it. And we had a case where a majority of those posting there were questioning the motives of the person starting the thread just as was done here in this one, whether it's about a person or the album or whatever else.

Get the facts straight before getting into the "nice try" territory. Some of us here perfected those tactics years ago and can spot them a mile away in a dense fog.

Mike's Beard:

We can't, he quit not long after the NPP Police gave him endless sh*t for the thread.

That's what he told you, I assume?

I'm guessing he quit.

Or maybe he woke up one morning after being a poster on here for many years and just randomly decided he didn't like The Beach Boys no more?

Facts: The account was closed May 29th or in the days surrounding it. The so-called "NPP Police" thread stalled out in mid-April. Unless "long after" means six weeks or so in message board standards, I'd say 6 weeks is a decent amount of time to keep posting and logging on before closing up shop.

Fact: You spoke as if you were in contact, or were pals, I don't know what's up. That's why I asked if he told you that. The actual "reasons" I saw and read and heard were actually posted quite openly and publicly. And beyond that, there were issues that went beyond and into some wild places, if I may say so. Not good.

I will say this non-issue of the "NPP Police" meant nothing. Neither did the supposed thread where these NPP Police came in swinging imaginary truncheons and drove anyone off the board after posting negative reviews.

It's fine to support a mate whose opinions and ideas you agree with, but at least get the facts in order, especially before trying to tell the rest of the community something that isn't true.

Are you saying there were two threads with the same title?  This is the one I'm referring to. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=20337.0

And again, your fellow moderator agreed with him, so I guess Billy has an agenda against Brian as well?

Let us know when you've had your say. This is foolish.

Here is the thread with dozens of reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20283.0.html

Here is the one that got posted soon afterward where the original poster of this one was wondering why there were so many bad reviews: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20337.0.html

The one with the dozens of reviews: How did that work out? Time well-spent, or a ridiculous waste of time? A genuine attempt to share with board members, or something less positive by design? What were the reactions? If majority ruled, that thread would have gotten shitcanned before there was a page 2. And the original poster who is no longer on the board...no agenda? Then what were those posting reactions to it saying, were they all just totally wrong? It's in the post history, apparently the same set of facts can be read two different ways. My thoughts are all over that thread, both of them actually.

I LOVE the last post in the second one. A great quote. Notice no one commented since June...not a bit surprised.

So there it is. How much more needs to be done, said, or argued?

Bottom line: You were wrong. You wanted to argue about something which you didn't know enough about to argue. Take away whatever you want from that, but at this point is it enough? Had your say? I hope so.

And this you keep posting about my "fellow mod", I guess you mean Billy, agreeing with something, what exactly are you referring to? In either of those threads? What, exactly? Must be important enough to keep mentioning it. have a point there or is it just to argue even more?

This is the kind of fun the board has, right? Great stuff.

I'll need a bigger scraper after wading through this.

I don't see where I said anything about the length of your posts.  Where was that.

I'll get back to you on the rest.

And if there are any posters who don't want to follow the link, with 10 months removed from this original episode, this is exactly what played out and what was said. No recollections, no commentary about what I did or said or didn't do or say, but the actual exchange that was escalating to the point Billy and I were talking in messages off the board to try to figure out what was going on. If these comments are weighed as me trying to insult or intimidate Cinc Kid, all i can say is I disagree and the evolution of this conversation seems to bear that out. It's sometimes not good to play the 'who started it first' game, but I won;t have it said or reported by Cinc Kid or Cam or anyone else telling the board that I was coming down hard on Cinc Kid in this specific exchange:

EDIT/ADDITION:
So I'm not accused of selective editing, these were the follow up posts to the ones above.

And that was what was thought to be the end of it, minus whatever conversations happened off the board.

I believe there is some selective editing and significant omission but we can go here and read it all starting at http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22638.msg535097.html#msg535097 and over the next few pages.

I believe the complaints were about word twisting and confusion and wondering what exactly was the infraction the Kid committed to deserve the suspension.  You brought oranges to the Kid's apple argument and he pointed it out. You pointed him to a thread using title case with quotations ("Negative Reviews Of NPP") which he proceeded to refer to but it turns out you meant a different thread with a title nothing like you quoted ("Several New Reviews") and you were holding him accountable to your misdirection. You lead the argument and kept it going even after the Kid suggested taking it to PM. Then after he summarized all of your confusions and mistakes (and Billie's) and misdirection, he was suspended.  What was the rule he broke?

Since you bring it up, I do disagree very strongly with you in that in a real time read it seems to me you were very much "trying to insult or intimidate Cinc Kid" while you were diverting and confusing him and twice taunting him about what had happened with a poster who you had also disagreed with (regarding your "oranges" argument) who was no longer on the board.  Billie on the other hand, even with all of his challenges, has graciously gone to the Kid to cut through the confusion and has apologized for his part in it which is very much to his credit imo.

Twisting words and twisted words cause confusion.

I have a suggestion, why don’t you adults quit trying to discredit the Kid by twisting his words into something he didn’t say and then accusing him over your word twisting? He has been very clear and consistent and is trying to be the adult in the thread.

Here it is: The info he received had nothing to do with Melinda controlling Brian or forcing him to tour.  He wasn't hoodwinked or duped into believing anything.  Someone else twisted his words into something he didn't say and that's how the whole thing started.  He was first told it was false, then later clarified that it wasn't completely false.

I’m not even involved and I understand it plain as day and my further suggestion is that what is happening or about to happen to him in this thread should cease. 

I recall, for instance, that someone mentioned that even on the songs Mike won the lawsuit on in the 90s, he didn't necessarily have 50% of the royalties assigned to him. The theory being, I think, that even though the songs read "Words and Music by Wilson and Love", that Brian typically wrote most or all of the music, while Brian wrote *some* of the words on some of those songs, and thus Brian might get most or all of the 50% music share, and then they would maybe split the lyric share.

I don't know if there's any firm info, but I recall someone digging up info suggesting Mike collects less than 50% of the royalties on some of the "Wilson/Love" songs. Don't know how accurate that might be, of course.

It was documentation Brad Elliott turned, for instance Mike only got 25% credit for Good Vibrations.

That was what Murry's terms were as the one who administered and oversaw the song catalog in the 60's, and other co-writers like Tony Asher signed and agreed to it as a condition of doing their work for hire. Tony specifically was told essentially "take it or leave it" by Murry when he went in to sign the papers. If the argument is whether that was fair or unfair at the time, you'd need to factor in how much of both the song and concept existed prior to each co-writer's contributions, and how the numbers were weighed against the work created. One of Mike's claims that was rejected in the courts around the 2005 case was that Mike was saying a legal partnership had been established between he and Brian like Lennon/McCartney, and the court found no such partnership had existed and no proof could be shown that it was any more than Tony Asher or Gary Usher were actually equal partners legally versus workers for hire who got paid for their work based on that status who agreed to the terms presented to them by Murry as a condition of working on the songs.

But this was 1961 through 1966 and the point is Mike didn't even get the credit he deserved when he did get credit, just like Tony.

Murry was the mouthpiece in that one case for sure, I suppose we don't know who reported/set the terms, possibly a case of Murry not being able to stand up to Brian.    Then according to VDP "Brian" gave him 50% but I guess it must have been Murry because Brian couldn't stand up to Murry and report/set/reset terms? (<<<---- I'm being ironic)

I recall, for instance, that someone mentioned that even on the songs Mike won the lawsuit on in the 90s, he didn't necessarily have 50% of the royalties assigned to him. The theory being, I think, that even though the songs read "Words and Music by Wilson and Love", that Brian typically wrote most or all of the music, while Brian wrote *some* of the words on some of those songs, and thus Brian might get most or all of the 50% music share, and then they would maybe split the lyric share.

I don't know if there's any firm info, but I recall someone digging up info suggesting Mike collects less than 50% of the royalties on some of the "Wilson/Love" songs. Don't know how accurate that might be, of course.

It was documentation Brad Elliott turned, for instance Mike only got 25% credit for Good Vibrations.

I seem to remember a quote or interview from Bruce were he said he had issues with Jack's truthiness, let's say.  I seem to remember him giving Jack's resume as an example and saying something like the he checked and the Peabody Award people (or whoever) never heard of the guy or something.  Anybody else remember something like that?

Yep, the Politzer Prize incident and other past (alleged) employment experiences  - Also I believe (don't know where I read it, sorry if i'm off the mark) Bruce questioned Jack's sexuality

I have not heard that one Rob, do you (or anyone) remember the source by any chance.  Not that the opinion would be shocking for back in that day.

I seem to remember a quote or interview from Bruce were he said he had issues with Jack's truthiness, let's say.  I seem to remember him giving Jack's resume as an example and saying something like he checked and the Peabody Award people (or whoever) never heard of the guy or something.  Anybody else remember something like that?

Just hearing something doesn't mean you are hoodwinked. I hear a lot of things that I don't believe or I reserve judgement on and later find out they were false, it's even happened in this thread.

So why did he wait almost 30 years, Cam? Why didn't he go to Murry when Murry was alive?

He went to his co-writer who was his Producer who was also a Publisher who assured him it would be fixed.  He waited for 30 years for the same reason Brian did I suppose, Rob.

He could have also gone to Murry, you know. Mike wasn't afraid to punch Murry out.

Actually, until 1964, when the problem had already occurred, Brian didn't have the legal status to do anything.
And, as his cousin, I should think Mike would have known and understood that it was difficult for Brian to challenge Murry and Mike should have tried to avoid putting Brian in that position.

If I remember the LA Times articles about Brian's suit against Irving Music et al right, Brian thought he was a partner in the SOT publishing back then (though it turned out later it wasn't legal) which may be one reason Mike went to Brian. I'm assuming Brian asked Mike to write to be published by SOT and Brian was also their producer.

I suggest that the Brian Mike actually knew back then was much different than the image we project on Brian from now which would explain why Mike had confidence in taking it to Brian and why Brian was able to get so many people to do so much. And I suspect the Mike that Brian actually knew was much different then the image we project back on him from now. Who knows, anyway Mike took it to Brian.

Anyway I thought the timing issue was settled by newspaper accounts. 30 years after the fact, some lawyers brought the plan of suing Irving to Brian, those lawyers recruited Mike to help them in the suit by promising Mike restitution of a third or 30% of Brian's potential settlement which was projected at $200 mil but landed at $10 mil. Brian's team won but didn't pay Mike as promised and Mike sued.  Mike has said in some interview that he didn't know or think there was any way of getting restitution for those 30 years until Brian's lawyers came to him with this plan to sue Irving.  Something like that.

 

Maybe you can get Andrew to tell everyone what he said about David Beard.

Said to who, and said where?

Ask him.

You brought it up so I'm asking you.

Of course you are! But better to hear it from the source, since you're on the same boards at this point.

When you get that answer, come back and let us know. Then we'll compare notes.

I don't even know which Andrew you are referring to.  I'm on this board and you brought it up and I'm asking you: said to who and where?

You have better access at this point than I do. Just reach out and ask him, Cam, then come back and we'll trade notes.

I'm not asking about what this Andrew knows or what was said, I'm asking you about what you know. Who said whatever it is to you and where did they say it?

Maybe you can get Andrew to tell everyone what he said about David Beard.

Said to who, and said where?

Ask him.

You brought it up so I'm asking you.

Of course you are! But better to hear it from the source, since you're on the same boards at this point.

When you get that answer, come back and let us know. Then we'll compare notes.

I don't even know which Andrew you are referring to.  I'm on this board and you brought it up and I'm asking you: said to who and where?

Maybe you can get Andrew to tell everyone what he said about David Beard.

Said to who, and said where?

Ask him.

You brought it up so I'm asking you.

So why did he wait almost 30 years, Cam? Why didn't he go to Murry when Murry was alive?

He went to his co-writer who was his Producer who was also a Publisher who assured him it would be fixed.  He waited for 30 years for the same reason Brian did I suppose, Rob.

He could have also gone to Murry, you know. Mike wasn't afraid to punch Murry out.

So could Brian.  I'm guessing after 1969 they both assumed there was nothing to be done.