[No comments on this? Why?]

How wonderfully some of you spin and control the threads.

You've completely ignored my first 2 points about what was being promoted on BBB.

1)  I got a follow-up newsletter 2013/14 where there was an article from an associate of hers, Andrew Hickey, claiming that he’d heard from an "unimpeachable source" that he/she had seen a 5-word email proving that Brian’s “people” had ended the C-50 tour.  Third-hand hearsay, no less.  There are two serious problems with this.  First, a 5-word, out of context email proves absolutely nothing.  Secondly, if such an email was shared, it would have been a violation of BRI confidentiality.
 
No comments on this?  Why?

2) Then, I discovered that Ms. Johnson-Howe had been prattling on about her medical background and how Brian was “frail” and shouldn’t be “forced to tour.”  She’s provided 12 years of this nonsense.  Clearly, he’s not been too frail to tour, nor was he forced to do so.  He’s made it clear that he’s there because he wants to tour.  Yet the story lives on in the ridiculous world of BBB

What about this doesn't disgust you?  Brian's wife was being accused of exploiting him and taking actions that weren't in the best interests of his health.  Yet, there's no outrage there?

So neither of these 2 issues deserve any conversation?  

As far as the cancellation of the tour - You don't scoop the White House when you're working with them on a project - D'ya think?  Suggesting a lawsuit by using the word "recompense" somehow doesn't count as encouraging a lawsuit?  The usual spin.  I knew it would be coming.  

Some of us even spin a falsehood about another Smiley Smile board member and control the threads.

I'm not avoiding comment. After your false claims in #3, we are going to have too see some higher form of proof than just your claims before there is much to comment on.

#1 you are holding Val responsible for something even you don't claim she said, so it is irrelevant.

#2 please cite some evidence of your claims about Val's opinion (if you feel you haven't done enough already).

Everything about that picture makes me physically ill.

A picture of two Americans supporting our POW/MIA makes you physically ill?

I could've sworn I saw something on facebook, but, itmight have been someone commenting on the post, if it was.

You must be thinking of Val also being falsely accused of advocating "suing" on Facebook by a Jim Schepis and Liz Jones on June 28 in her Facebook post of June 26. False claims that Val pointed out were false at the time. I'd link to it if I knew how to on FB.

Yes, I don't think the later stuff will make them much! 

I would be very happy with just what the later stuff will make. 

Whatever the reasons, Val did not say anything "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement" and the charges against Val are false.

So it is, basically, TicketMaster fees?

Possibly, but definitely not "travel expenses".

The implication is there.

No. Not at all.

To use your favorite phrase, we will have to agree to disagree, Cam. I am not sure how much more you want.

From the guy who claims the Beach Boys supported Brian during SMILE.
Just correcting what is false.

Yes. You're welcome.

The implication is there.

No. Not at all.

To use your favorite phrase, we will have to agree to disagree, Cam. I am not sure how much more you want.

Just correcting what is false.

Thing is, some if the same folk who're shitting on BBB over here about what they're saying on there are the same ones who moaned about discussions taking place over there about over here. And now we're referring on here to what went down over there regarding discussing stuff that was happening on here? Talk about double standards!

Actually Val is a member of this board, so this "sue" false claim is Smiley against Smiley.

The implication is there.

No. Not at all.

Booking fees for what, Mr. Mott?

Not for "traveling expenses".  Fees for booking "from the respective venues" for the concert they couldn't attend through no fault of their own. Didn't you read it, Mr. Botwin?  And what does it have to do with the false claim "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement"?

A musical 401K for his family.

You probably want to  change your subject title now Shady.

My point was, if the albums are only going to sell to us diehard fans, then why not just let Brian run loose in the studio? I'd like to hear what he would come up with without being pushed in a particular direction. Instead of thinking "if we bring in guest stars, we'll get a hit" or  "if we put out a really polished, AC type album we'll get a hit". Just let Brian create - as he was doing with Andy circa 1995.

There are different ways for an artist and their inner circles to manage the twilight years of the artist's career.

Bruce Springsteen, for instance, is probably never going to have Born In The USA or Born To Run sales again.  But he's catering to his large and devoted audience by giving them spectacular concerts which are recorded and sold directly to those fans, as well as new albums and well done repackages of older albums.

Brian Wilson's approach appears to me to be more directed to building a legacy and body of work that will largely benefit his survivors when the sad day comes that we lose him.  Yes, there's plenty for his fan base too, especially the concerts.  But sometimes the new albums and the overall handling of his career feels more like a musical 401K for his immediate family than a love letter to his fans.

God bless him, I hope it is.

You guys are acting like the fans were left high and dry. The tickets were already refunded. The letter was demanding extra stuff with a tone that, as SMILEBrian points out, a litigious person would be envious of.

The booking fees were not refunded, is what I believe Val pointed out in her letter. In spite of your (and SMILE-Brian's) irrelevant opinions, Val was not "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

That IS the letter, Mr. Mott.

If so, Mr. Botwin than it IS false that in the letter Val is "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement".  I'm sure you join me in encouraging an apology to Val.

Many of us are about two weeks away from the nursing home.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23872.msg578551.html#msg578551

Andy. You are welcome to your opinions about what is threatening, I don't share them. At all. 

Still, with all of the selective concern over potential libel, no where in that "public letter" is Val "encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement". Is there any such public letter from Val? Does anyone know of such a letter?

   Cam, I feel like we're going in circles.

Emily, I agree. Probably because we don't have enough information, just claims.

Speaking of claims:

- Has anyone found the alleged post of a "public letter encouraging fans to sue Brian for their travel expenses due to the postponement" by Val Johnson-Howe?

- The modlog entry of the rule violation that caused The Cincinnati Kid's suspension, what was the violation?

Thanks.

I not supposed to discuss it or I'd say wouldn't everyone who reshared the PMs be guilty regardless then.

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

Well, one difference the distinction makes is whether it's legally actionable.

Against anyone but the original un-named source.

Hi Cam, we've covered this in another thread. If the person disseminating the information is not claiming that it's true, it's not libel. But if they did claim it's true, it can be.

Hi Emily.  I guess I just disagree from what is public so far, it is a distinction without a difference imo.

I asked him if he received any of the PMs from Andrew Doe in regards to Melinda, because of another PM I received from a different person. And no, I'm not going into any more detail because I don't want to violate anybody else's confidentiality, so you're really going to have to let this one go, especially considering we've already been through this multiple times.

I see.

I saw some of the PMs that got Andrew G Doe banned (some of the more outlandish Melinda rumors included). I'm not sure that people like Lee Dempsey would have left had the evidence come to light. I'm not sure that Bgas would've left. I'm not sure there would have been uproar and an increase in calls for questioning the moderation here had the evidence come out. Maybe I'm 100% wrong - maybe they would've left anyways. But I truly think that the evidence would've cleared up a lot of speculation amongst many members here.

Who showed you the emails? Just curious.

Fellow board members who had received some of the PMs...members who shared them with me after I had made it known to them that I had recieved a PM from Doe regarding Melinda's story in Love and Mercy. Other board members showed me PMs during and after Billy's investigation of the matter. Specifically who I wont share for privacy sake. But if they want to come forward they can.

Wouldn't all of you be guilty of the same thing AGD is accused of: sharing the so-called "potential libel" of an un-named source by PM?

No, because it was me who asked for it, as part of the investigation.

Rab was receiving PMs from board members for you?

I saw some of the PMs that got Andrew G Doe banned (some of the more outlandish Melinda rumors included). I'm not sure that people like Lee Dempsey would have left had the evidence come to light. I'm not sure that Bgas would've left. I'm not sure there would have been uproar and an increase in calls for questioning the moderation here had the evidence come out. Maybe I'm 100% wrong - maybe they would've left anyways. But I truly think that the evidence would've cleared up a lot of speculation amongst many members here.

Who showed you the emails? Just curious.

Fellow board members who had received some of the PMs...members who shared them with me after I had made it known to them that I had recieved a PM from Doe regarding Melinda's story in Love and Mercy. Other board members showed me PMs during and after Billy's investigation of the matter. Specifically who I wont share for privacy sake. But if they want to come forward they can.

Wouldn't all of you be guilty of the same thing AGD is accused of: sharing the so-called "potential libel" of an un-named source by PM?

All of us? Firstly I never got any directly libelous PMs and stated as much - or at least I clarified as much. Secondly, the people who shared them with me didn't pawn off the information enclosed in the PMs as being factual. They were shared because they knew it was bullshit information...and those people said as much. By your logic no one in a court of law could being forth evidence of libel without being prosecuted themselves.

"Fellow board members who had received some of the PMs...members who shared them with me after I had made it known to them that I had recieved a PM from Doe regarding Melinda's story in Love and Mercy. Other board members showed me PMs during and after Billy's investigation of the matter. Specifically who I wont share for privacy sake. But if they want to come forward they can."

I'm not following you I guess, what PMs did you receive if not those under discussion? If you didn't share an of the secondhand (AGD attributed them as from a source, not him) allegedly potentially libelous posts which I thought you were referring to or only shared them with a mod then no it wouldn't apply to you. But those members who shared them with you it would, they shared info from an un-known source by PM just as AGD allegedly did. However, between your two posts, I am confused about what you are saying you received and shared from/with fellow board members; together they read to me as if you shared and received the PMs you didn't share or receive.