I often answer your questions but then the bait is switched in an attempt to get your desired answer.  

By all means keep trolling your hypothetical KKK bait which is of no consequence as it is off-topic and the on-topic premise is already discredited and dead in the water but don't pretend it or answering it or not says anything about those who don't bite.

Is it really that hard to admit that there's a valid point in this? Do you feel belittled to admit that or something? I just am so baffled.

The reason I am driving home the point is because frankly, the concept that candidates exist on this planet that can cross the line for many people simply isn't a ridiculous notion, even if we might disagree on who would constitute such a candidate.  There is and will be no bait-switching in what I am saying.

Really, because as each of your Mike hypotheticals failed you switched your bait. At first it was Mike is hypothetically endorsing Trump. Then Mike is hypothetically ruining the brand by endorsing Trump. Then hypothetically Mike is still guilty of endorsing Trump because hypothetically it was BRI who stepped in over Mike. Then what if it was hypothetically David Duke, that would be like Mike hypothetically endorsing Trump.  What if it were hypothetically a generic-hated-person-of-your-choice, that would be a hypothetical analogue to a hypothetical Mike/Trump endorsement. 

I often answer your questions but then the bait is switched in an attempt to get your desired answer.  

By all means keep trolling your hypothetical KKK bait which is of no consequence as it is off-topic and the on-topic premise is already discredited and dead in the water but don't pretend it or answering it or not says anything about those who don't bite.

[Musical acts booked by third-party groups]

The article has very little information. "Musical acts booked by third-party groups include the Beach Boys, Journey, Bret Michaels, Rick Springfield, Rascal Flatts, Martina McBride and The Band Perry." There are often many corporate-type parties surrounding these National Conventions. I guess we will have to wait and see if they are a part of it in an official capacity.

The Beach Boys will be in Toledo on July 21 and have an open date on July 20...

Just pointing out this was the second reply to this thread. Completely ignored. Now we are talking about Mike Love playing gigs for David Duke???

It's a discussion of the concept of playing with someone unquestionably controversial, and about how there needs to be *some* line drawn. I understand people have different concepts of where that line is drawn (and regarding which candidate would be deemed unacceptable to have association with the brand), but my ONLY point is that there cannot be *no* line. I'm not trying to convince anyone about who crosses that line... Only that the concept of *a* line cannot simply be ignored.

It's preposterous to think that absolutely anyone, including the creep Duke, would be ok for the band to be associated with. That's the only point I'm making. Why this is a difficult concept for one poster to admit is valid is baffling to me.

And to reiterate - I am not comparing Trump to Duke, nor would I think Duke in a million years would ask The BBs to play a rally - nor would the band accept.

Please direct criticism towards trolls who duck questions. There is truly no debate about the validity of my point.

Some of us see the trolling as the relentless fishing for predetermined answers by trailing a baited line of rigged hypothetical questions along behind a boat of failed premise.  Maybe it's just me.

I re-read the entire thread (as much as it nauseated me to do so) ...I see nobody bullying filledplage.

Interesting...............................well no one got pushed down in the school yard anyway.

Now, back to how wrong posters are about the topic.

Bullying? All I'm seeing is arguing back and forth (which is typical of these hideous political threads)

Yes, bullying.

[Musical acts booked by third-party groups]

The article has very little information. "Musical acts booked by third-party groups include the Beach Boys, Journey, Bret Michaels, Rick Springfield, Rascal Flatts, Martina McBride and The Band Perry." There are often many corporate-type parties surrounding these National Conventions. I guess we will have to wait and see if they are a part of it in an official capacity.

The Beach Boys will be in Toledo on July 21 and have an open date on July 20...

Just pointing out this was the second reply to this thread. Completely ignored. Now we are talking about Mike Love playing gigs for David Duke???

If only as much energy could be put into reading your posts as is put into bullying, insulting, hypothetical trolling, and talking down to FdP.

Let's get back to how wrong the knee-jerk reactions to this topic are instead of the cover-up of hypothetical distractions since.

Thanks Marty for once again bringing sense to all of the embarassing, knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, and hypothetical agenda-izing.

Regarding David Beard: I can't think of many of us, including anyone commenting on him in this thread and me, who have done even a tenth of what he and Lee Dempsey together and separately have done for the Beach Boys and the Beach Boys community.  And I know from decades of observation, that they are both bona fide admirers and respecters of Brian and all the Boys.

I also think it's safe to say that no one thinks that Cam is funding the new site.  Cam sells signs in KS.  That's pretty clear.  I suppose the new site might just be a group of disgruntled banned posters from BW and SS suddenly starting their own thing, but given past patterns, I doubt it.  I remain curious who's paying for everything at the new site, still.  I don't expect an honest answer - ever.

Expecting an honest answer is usually a fool's errand in these situations, with some of these people. If I got 5 pennies in exchange for a nickel from a few notables, I'd count the pennies twice to make sure there were five. If the lies of the past are any indication.

What made me curious was this: Why hide the registrant and ownership/admin info on this domain? If all of this boils down to "it's just a freakin' message board", then what's the big secret? I can understand corporate and political interests doing it, I can understand those who broker and speculate domain names for profit doing it, but why a Beach Boys message board that peaks out at around 150-200 unique users and members? Every one of the boards I've known or have been involved with over the past decade and more have had admins and owners known by everyone. Susan's board, Junkstar's board, Charles' board, Jon and John's board, etc...

So why hide the registration?

First, you've been told who paid for the registrations. Second, my own registration shows that registrations can be private in this same way without one actively trying to hide it regardless of your personal experience.  Thirdly, the moderators and admins and owners are known and are identified on the board and in this thread. The only secret is why this campaign of accusations and insinuations continues in spite of all of this information.

[I]

Or am I funding the PSF !?!?!  (draws cape across face and disappears in a puff of smoke as pipe organ wails)

Craig, you are making some pretty strong accusations.  What is your proof that this is being hidden and that one of these services were used, for whatever reason, to hide it?

The equivalent of picking up the phone book. If you work or have worked with setting up and registering/buying domain names in the recent past, you know the process.

So could you show the actual "phone book" "listing" that is your proof, for those of us who don't know the process?

Put this into your search engine:  ICANN WHOIS

That's the phone book.

I'm not too saave on this but you may have a red herring here.  I looked up my own work website for my work

mottsigns.com

which I set up and pay for (my only experience with it) and it returns the same info for my look up, that company and mail address and phone numbers etc.. I did not choose to hide or pay to hide any of my info.  I want my info out there, I put it on my website in fact.

Chip Rachlin is on Facebook. Maybe he could solve the mystery.

Even better probably and easier.

Rachlin Entertainment's website says:

"Feb. 24, 1971 changed my life. A near sellout crowd at Carnegie Hall was gobsmacked at how good the Beach Boys were that night. We had no money for an opening act so Klenfner and I convinced the band to play two hours. My god they sounded fucking great. I signed them to the Millard Agency four days later and represented them for the next eight years."

So the shows were to be 2 hours apparently.  Maybe more info is available to you through their website.

Craig, you are making some pretty strong accusations.  What is your proof that this is being hidden and that one of these services were used, for whatever reason, to hide it?

The equivalent of picking up the phone book. If you work or have worked with setting up and registering/buying domain names in the recent past, you know the process.

So could you show the actual "phone book" "listing" that is your proof, for those of us who don't know the process?

Ask Peter if he happens to have that sort of evidence for why the second show was canceled.  

The evidence and claims are not inconsistent so far: by Feburary 11 they wished to produce a second show and advertised tickets for it as for sale, the first show eventually sold out or sold to within 18 tickets of being sold out but sometime after February 11 the pace of ticket sales for a second show made them cancel it and settle for the one show.

It will be interesting to see Peter's evidence.


Also for what it is worth, Gaines claims on page 240 that the deal from the beginning was for two shows on February 24 but "the second show hardly sold at all and had to be canceled".

Craig, you are making some pretty strong accusations.  What is your proof that this is being hidden and that one of these services were used, for whatever reason, to hide it?

And I can see where someone researching who came across that ad from 2/11/71 in the Voice decades later would take that to mean there was a second show. But to go beyond that one added line to make definitive statements about cancellations due to poor sales, there would need to be more concrete info. Namely, was anyone able to buy tickets for a second show and did they get a refund if it was canceled.

The second show additions to the February 11 ad show tickets were for sale for the added show:

BY POPULAR DEMAND, SPECIAL
SECOND SHOW ADDED.

Mail Orders:
Send Stamped Self Addressed
Envelope To Carnegie Hall

So there is evidence in print of an added second show with tickets available by mail order sent to Carnegie Hall (at least).  Hopefully Peter can add more detail about the cancelling of the cancelled added show.

It's easier than that. I posted an ad for the concert. Find an ad, a flyer, a magazine column, anything...advertising that tickets were being sold for two shows at Carnegie Hall. Repeating again, you cannot cancel a show for slow ticket sales if no tickets to that show were offered for sale.

The ad I posted says one show. People who were there said one show. The band said one show. The promoter said that one show was sold out by showtime, which means Carnegie Hall was, in fact, "packed".

If someone has evidence to the contrary, please produce it. Simple as that. Ads, flyers, etc...anything listing tickets for sale for two Carnegie shows in Feb 71. The evidence produced here so far says one show.

Yes, the claim is one show happened but another show didn't because of the pace of ticket sales, so Peter could straighten out how that happened. Just PM him, I'm sure he would be glad to explain/clarify if he can.

Peter isn't the only one who published that claim, and he's not commenting in this thread, or calling what was written about the band packing Carnegie Hall "quite misleading". They sold it out.

For the record, that 'ad' I posted was taken from the Carnegie Hall archives, direct from the source.

If anyone can find another ad or flyer or poster showing two shows at Carnegie in Feb 71 where tickets were being sold, produce it. Open call.

Otherwise, the suggestion that a second show was canceled due to poor ticket sales is a myth that should (and will) be busted.

He says they hoped to produce two shows but they settled for one because of pace of ticket sales, the poster shows the one happened but it doesn't disprove the other didn't happen due to poor ticket sales.  I don't understand, you are asking for evidence, Carlin published the info, so contact Carlin for his evidence.

It's easier than that. I posted an ad for the concert. Find an ad, a flyer, a magazine column, anything...advertising that tickets were being sold for two shows at Carnegie Hall. Repeating again, you cannot cancel a show for slow ticket sales if no tickets to that show were offered for sale.

The ad I posted says one show. People who were there said one show. The band said one show. The promoter said that one show was sold out by showtime, which means Carnegie Hall was, in fact, "packed".

If someone has evidence to the contrary, please produce it. Simple as that. Ads, flyers, etc...anything listing tickets for sale for two Carnegie shows in Feb 71. The evidence produced here so far says one show.

Yes, the claim is one show happened but another show didn't because of the pace of ticket sales, so Peter could straighten out how that happened. Just PM him, I'm sure he would be glad to explain/clarify if he can.

"First they hoped to produce two shows with the group, but the pace of ticket sales made them settle for one show on February 24."

Was that Carlin's book? If so, that is the misleading info. Like I already said, if Chip Rachlin had tried to secure two shows for the band but could only get an agreement for one, explain how slow ticket sales would account for "settling" for one show when the second show was possibly never agreed to in the first place?

You cannot cancel a show based on slow ticket sales (or suggest that is what happened) if the booking for that show was never agreed to and therefore tickets were never offered for it.

Yes, Carlin's book and I gave the page number for context.

Mr. Carlin will have to explain his allegedly misleading claims; his email address is in his member page:  petercarlin@news.oregonian.com  You can contact him or I can try to contact him and direct him to your "misleading info" post if you'd like.  Oh, I guess you or I could PM him instead, duh.

Perhaps they had hoped to add a second show, maybe even on a second day, but slow sales for the first didn't justify it and they settled for the one.  It could be a lot of things, which he will have to explain.

"First they hoped to produce two shows with the group, but the pace of ticket sales made them settle for one show on February 24."

Carlin mentions two shows planned in his book on page 155, not necessarily an early and late or on the same day, though I suppose the 8:00 could have been the original early show. Not much detail in the book.

It's clear that the BB's song lyrics, for the most part, score low in terms of feminism. Even Jack Reiley rewriting "Marcella" still keeps the titular character on a pedestal. We see a clustering of "creepy" lyrics in the 1976-78 timeframe, much of it having to do with what critics at the time characterized as Brian's attempt to recapture a teen-age perspective. Let's face it, teenagers do have a strong tendency to be lustful. This is not an apology for poor cultural training--a problem that has been around for a long time in a patriarchal society and is still a long way from being transcended--but merely a recognition that matters of sex in that age range are quite often messy, manipulative, and suffer from a painful lack of articulation.

The tension between lechery, lovesickness, and a more exalted viewpoint of the ideals of romantic commitment are all over the BB's lyrics from the get-go. It's still in play on the tracks included in TWGMTR, where Mike makes several efforts to write lyrics that suggest that the BB's are still somehow "boys," and Brian sings lyrics that fully embrace the emotions and perspectives of growing old and coming to the end of one's life.

I get everybody's point but it seems to me those old songs were written from the point of view of underage boys about underage girls where as these are from the point of view of over age men about under age girls and are Gary Puckett creepy.