Mike was totally sober when causing trouble and ripping off the BBs legacy. His only drug is his ego.

 And his crutch is TM which he hides behind to justify his wacko behavior traits which additional face painting won't have an effect on.

and YOU talk about having a crutch!!!!!!  

WTF??? myKe luHv is a bleeding hypocrite who's "religious doctrine" preaches peace, luHv and understanding. Even a Kohkohdope could see that the pointster can't conveniently hide behind a religion to justify his ego.

Hmmmm, well all we really know about you OSD is that you get off on dissing Mike Love each and every day ..... I wonder if you've lived a completely rosy and blemish free existence

From Wikipedia:

Charity[edit]
Mike Love has been a longtime supporter of environmental causes and was among speakers at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Earth Day 2000 on the Mall in Washington, DC. Love was instrumental in forming StarServe ("Students Taking Action and Responsibility to Serve") which enlisted high profile celebrities to inspire America's youth to help serve their communities. He also created the Love Foundation, which supports national environmental and educational initiatives. Love personally donated $100,000 to the American Red Cross to benefit the victims of Hurricane Katrina and helped the foundation raise an additional $250,000. He has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Lake Tahoe School in Incline Village, Nevada, and was responsible for raising over $1 million to benefit the school. In 2010, Mike Love contributed to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's More Hope For The Holidays album with vocals on "Closing of the Year" as well as contributing his self-penned "Santa's Goin' To Kokomo". On the album he appears alongside Weezer, Brandi Carlile, and Creedence Clearwater Revisited. Proceeds benefit the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.[17] He performed a benefit concert for the foundation for the Children of the Californias which raised one million dollars to support the expansion of three new surgical suites. During the 50th Reunion Tour Love alongside the Beach Boys partnered with Operation Smile to raise funds for those in need of cleft lip and palate repair surgeries. In May 2013, Love was recognised for his decades of investment in education and national service by being awarded City Year's "Seven Generations Award".[18]

My God! What an SOB

Mike was totally sober when causing trouble and ripping off the BBs legacy. His only drug is his ego.

  And his crutch is TM which he hides behind to justify his wacko behavior traits which additional face painting won't have an effect on.

and YOU talk about having a crutch!!!!!! 

Not every criticism is hypocritical about Mike or unfair.  There is a balance to be found but finding that balance on the board seems to be impossible.

well, maybe if the hypocritical part of it was dialed back a bit the relevant and reasonable criticism would be a bit easier to catch. Otherwise it's like how Rick Wakemen described Tales From Topographic Oceans as "wading through a cesspool to get to a water lily"

He's answering a bunch of questions on Twitter, some sort of random question and answer session.

Just a few minutes later he was asked about the genius of Brian wilson, he called it "innocent, brilliant and inspiring".

He's obviously on team Brian, would fit in well on this Board.

Yeah, he would 

At this point Mike could say the sky is green and red and someone one would try to rationalize it that he was correct or it was the sky's fault for being blue. Not much better or different in regards to Brian either but that always existed. The rationalization of everything Mike is still so baffling to me.

It's not even about Mike, but rather the hypocrisy behind MUCH of the criticism he gets.

Mike is not having a good week.

Why on earth is Crosby getting asked about Mike Love and tweeting about Mike Love lately?

My guess is he's butt hurt over Neil's comments and is lashing out at an easy target.

Mike was totally sober when causing trouble and ripping off the BBs legacy. His only drug is his ego.

I think your self righteous non-stop negative judgement of Mike demonstrates a much bigger ego on your part than he could ever have.


At least Mike helped make good music along the way.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Typical born-again sober guy talk on Crosby's part .....

"Oh, I was on crack back when I behaved like a total piece of shite, so it doesn't count"

Funny that Neil Young basically said the same thing about Crosby recently on Howard Stern )

Lastly, Mike's comment about "autotune" really got me going, and I have a feeling I know who fed him that line. But I'm not gonna post it here, cuz I don't wanna start anything.

I'm glad one of the Beach Boys mentioned autotune being a problem publicly.

I don't think anyone's feeding Mike any lines (why would they need to ... he certainly doesn't seem to have a problem speaking his mind as far as I can tell) ...  Historically, Dennis and Mike have generally been the members most willing to speak their minds in public, regardless of potential backlash. If Mike doesn't care to listen to the new recordings, and says, "I haven't heard it" ... what exactly is weird about that? I don't listen to all of my friend's records that come out, but it doesn't mean they're not my friends!

Hell, I have 9 whole albums out that my friends don't listen to and would have to say they've not yet heard in an interview!!! Now I'm PISSED!  

Just thinking....  If you could list your 9 whole albums here, then we could all not listen to them together

Yeah, another wonderful example of the type of people around here who feel oh so qualified to criticize the behavior of someone they don't even know.

Hilarious that we live in a world where Keith Richards when asked if he'd heard Mick's solo album "Goddess In The Doorway" calls it "Dogshit In The Doorway" ... But Mike says he hasn't heard a song and OUTRAGE!

Kokocop Pinder on patrol.

KOKOCOP!!!!!!!

Ontor please get to work )

Jeez.... Maybe Mike just hadn't heard the dang song at that moment and provided an un-self edited and off the cuff answer to the question .... He basically compliments Al's voice and hopes there's no auto tune: a thing that has caused torrents of heated thread debate on this very board ... Sheesh. How about we just learn to live with the guy's answer rather than attack the interviewer, ESQ and anything/everything related?

It doesn't take a Myke Luver to see how silly this has gotten.

It goes without saying that we have to "live" with the interview. It doesn't mean people shouldn't call BS on it if it's warranted. The BB's have all offered *plenty* of odd, head-scratcher, aggravating, WTF-style interviews over the years. This newest interview (or e-mail essay essentially) is one of the more irksome, contradictory interviews in recent times. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's causing plenty of discussion, especially since it was also attached to some rather weird motives/execution on the part of the author.

As for the "haven't heard the song" thing, it's clear going back to the 2004 "Smile" time period that, for whatever reason, Mike chooses to not listen to Brian's stuff (or at least is saying he doesn't). I was going to suggest the sympathetic interpretation, that Mike would maybe forego listening to avoid having to comment on it. Sort of like the "code" among ex-presidents to not criticize later presidents. But, Mike actually ended up essentially commenting on the new BW song and the album even after citing that he hadn't heard the song, and even offered a back-handed compliment to boot. The autotune comment would be like if Al commented on a new Mike song: "No, I haven't heard it. But I'm sure it'll be a wonderful song as long as Mike doesn't mention beaches, or surfing, or cars, or cite the lyrics to past Beach Boys hits, or sing in a nasaly voice, or wear a hat while he's singing it."

How is not hearing a song an example of B.S?

Wouldn't saying "Oh yeah, I heard it and it's fantastic" when you really hadn't be a better example of B.S?

Maybe we ought to take a look at how we treat each other on this board before we sanctimoniously criticize a guy we don't know for being ...... rude or full of B.S....

Lastly, Mike's comment about "autotune" really got me going, and I have a feeling I know who fed him that line. But I'm not gonna post it here, cuz I don't wanna start anything.

I'm glad one of the Beach Boys mentioned autotune being a problem publicly.

I don't think anyone's feeding Mike any lines (why would they need to ... he certainly doesn't seem to have a problem speaking his mind as far as I can tell) ...  Historically, Dennis and Mike have generally been the members most willing to speak their minds in public, regardless of potential backlash. If Mike doesn't care to listen to the new recordings, and says, "I haven't heard it" ... what exactly is weird about that? I don't listen to all of my friend's records that come out, but it doesn't mean they're not my friends!

Hell, I have 9 whole albums out that my friends don't listen to and would have to say they've not yet heard in an interview!!! Now I'm PISSED! 

Jeez.... Maybe Mike just hadn't heard the dang song at that moment and provided an un-self edited and off the cuff answer to the question .... He basically compliments Al's voice and hopes there's no auto tune: a thing that has caused torrents of heated thread debate on this very board ... Sheesh. How about we just learn to live with the guy's answer rather than attack the interviewer, ESQ and anything/everything related?

It doesn't take a Myke Luver to see how silly this has gotten.

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014.  

If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

Or maybe this means that even Mike knows that his little merry band of bald guys, fat guys, and guys wearing girl jeans isn't The Beach Boys, and therefore him touring as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't have any effect on demand.

But at the same time, let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back. I don't believe he had any intention to reunite again unless it meant that Brian joined Mike's band and decided to do an album of covers and Wilson/Love co-writes.

Makes me kinda sad .... An album of Wilson/Love co-writes would probably not be what we'd assume... Sure, there would be some songs about beaches, but an entire 12-14 song album: surely they'd mix it up a bit ..... When you mail Mike a cassette with the title "Beaches In Mind" to draft lyrics for, what else do we expect? But a whole album ..... Possibilities are endless.

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

Ok, If pleading the benefit of doubt for a fellow human being is what passes for derailing a thread: I'm guilty as charged.

Pinder...are you Mike Love? Or a close friend or family member? This is getting ridiculous, and that scenario is the only thing that makes sense of your fanatical defense of him in the face of all facts or reason.

I'm not ganging up on you because you're taking heat on this thread. You went overboard on me before for having the audacity to praise Brian more than Mike, to dare to insinuate that Mike may have been in the wrong about various things throughout the history of the band, and you even made the unfounded accusation that Mike wrote Vega-Tables. You wouldn't back down in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary and challenged me to harass vdp about it to disprove your wild accusation.

I really don't understand yyourneed to police all discussion that isn't 100% unquestionably positive regarding Mike. Can you explain it to me?

Oh come on now, man! I never insinuated that Mike wrote Vegetables, and this is case in point for how maddening it can be to be a Beach Boys fan but not a raging Brianista ..... Was the issue something along the lines of Mike getting a portion of credit for Vegetables on the royalty breakdown? Or something like that? .... Well, I recall saying something like, if I write a song, I can put my mom down in there for a share if I feel like it, or maybe Mike did something during the recording of the song that prompted Brian to cut him in. I dunno .... Does that sound about right?  If not, please illuminate me..... I certainly would have never stated MIKE WROTE VEGETABLES ..... Why do you guys always take such maddeningly earnest offense against anything that contradicts your own version of evens to the point where you either make things up or turn innocent statements into B.S like me saying Mike wrote Vegetables? ......

And I've explained my defense of Mike endlessly on this board only to be met by the same old wind blasting in my face ..... Don't bother asking a question if no possible answer is comprehendible to you.

Don't mean to be an ass, but this is something I've tried my best to articulate many many times over .... and it doesn't seem like you guys really care to understand it.

And it's not, for me at least, an issue of IS Mike wrong or HAS Mike ever been wrong, but rather HOW wrong he's been and HOW upset/enraged any of it is worth getting over. When it comes to Mike's "wrongs" the horizon seems to go away and it's just an endless house of mirrors.

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

First off, I never said YOU were a religious cultist....

I've been pleading/preaching this whole time to just let Mike be Mike and maybe just learn to let things slide like we all do in our daily lives and accept that a man in his mid 70s is unlikely to change his tune regarding highly personal and emotionally charged topics and to perhaps not take his opinions on his family, band, and business quite so seriously .... Maybe pick our battles a bit better and not allow a stupid interview get us so worked up when its supposedly "all about the music"

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love" so, I dunno where we can really go from there on such a topic.

I might not have addressed everything perfectly, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

Appreciated your response. It sounds like we're pretty much on the same page anyway. I'd rather know who all of these guys are, especially at this stage in their lives, than have it filtered through some sort of antiseptic shield. I'm sure the last thing anyone wants Mike's book to be is some party-line towing 'fun in the sun, it was all great' tome. I legitimately am interested on hearing his take on the whole thing.

Bottom line is I thought Mike's comments here were uncalled for (the autotune quip strikes me as particularly cheap and unnecessary as I've mentioned), I don't deny or resent his right to make them. He's Mike Love, I'm not. I'm interested in what he says. This has been an interesting topic to discuss with people. I do not wish he'd never said them, and I wish the article hadn't been taken down because it's all pieces in a puzzle that as fans we can't help but want to figure out.

Yes in theory it should be all about the music, but the Beach Boys story is a compelling one of family, turmoil, anger, love, control etc. It's had too much impact on the music and the lineups and so on for us not to care. But - that said - the music is what will outlive us all.

Sorry if I came off as a dick to you. I don't like being pegged as being in one camp or the other, and as a humanist who came from a severely racist and abusive Christian background, I see the words 'religious cultist' and balk. Anyway, peace and love as Ringo would say (6 times a minute).

And then Bono swoops in singing Peace On Earth!!!

And yeah, I will in no way pretend that the interview being pulled hasn't put any undue weight behind the comments in question!   .... I guess my own religious cult is The Great Wall Of Kokomo! (Good one SB )

There are no handlers, they are just Mike's boogeymen for why BW wants nothing to do with him.

Basically, yes.

That, and I strongly suspect Mike has a big problem specifically with Melinda, but won't directly say so. While Mike has said many, many things in the media that seem to lack self-awareness of how it will come off to others, even Mike knows that specifically badmouthing a bandmember's spouse would get him pure scorn from most every corner if he said so.

What I wonder is this:

a. Hasn't Mike repeatedly over the years mentioned Brian's emotional problems and the directly/indirectly associated issues that have resulted (not to mention Dennis')? Obviously, yes.

b. Since Mike hasn't (as far as I've seen) shied away from discussing the Wilsons' problems at length, has he ever in an interview acknowledged that Brian seems to be a type of guy who has a hard time standing up for himself, and directly confronting actions/words he doesn't like from others (and that this may be due to Murry's abuse)? Regardless, even if Mike hasn't talked about this publicly, SURELY he internally must know this is true on some level.

c. Pinder, other people who would disagree with this statement (and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather I'm trying to legitimately understand the mindset of people who think differently)... How has it not dawned on Mike that, even if there are other people playing interference for Brian, people that "get in Mike's way" of an old-days-style BW/ML in a room together... that perhaps, maybe... just maybe, the people who might be throwing up roadblocks to working with Brian the way that Mike wishes to work with Brian, are there by BRIAN'S OWN WISHES?

In other words, that Brian is fed up with many personal/artistic aspects of working with Mike, but has a very hard time verbalizing/communicating such?  I mean, Brian's the guy who put "Cassius Love vs. Sonny Wilson" on a record to diffuse and not directly deal with probable actual very serious stressors occurring in their relationship, and this was way back in the early days.

I just don't see how this can't be seen/acknowledged by Mike. At least on some level, there *has* to be some, some truth to this. It seems as though it's a strong case of denial.
 

Good points all around.

All I can say is that I'd hazard to guess things run much deeper than Mike just wanting to get Brian alone with him in a room. But we all know Mike finds his line and repeats it endlessly. But this doesn't mean we don't look beyond that line.

The points I clearly made back here:

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

You claimed to have already addressed these points. I'd like, since you're happy to dub me a 'religious cultist' for having made them, for you to either respond to said points, point to where you previously responded to said points (since you effectively said you had already done so) or apologise for calling me something I am not. Your call.

First off, I never said YOU were a religious cultist....

I've been pleading/preaching this whole time to just let Mike be Mike and maybe just learn to let things slide like we all do in our daily lives and accept that a man in his mid 70s is unlikely to change his tune regarding highly personal and emotionally charged topics and to perhaps not take his opinions on his family, band, and business quite so seriously .... Maybe pick our battles a bit better and not allow a stupid interview get us so worked up when its supposedly "all about the music"

As for Brian or Mike calling each other assholes: Brian's said he "can't stand Mike Love" so, I dunno where we can really go from there on such a topic.

I might not have addressed everything perfectly, but I appreciate you giving me the opportunity.

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

Spineless to respond? What sort of a response would you accept? Exactly how needy are you in that department?

The responses in question are in this very thread. Take 5 minutes to research .

Neediness has nothing to do with it. You're really reaching there. You're happy to put people in categories, namecall and so forth but when it comes to offering up responses or evidence you suddenly 'don't need to respond'. I don't need to take '5 minutes to research' anything from a guy who couldn't respond, had to invent a fictitious type of fan to win an argument against, claimed to have responded and then couldn't cite a single response addressing a single point made. Anyone with any balls who actually had a point would have responded to the handy dandy list of points I made in this thread with points of their own. You either can't or won't. I think it's pretty evident to everyone here what's what.

OK, then please ask me up front whet exactly it is you need addressed and I will do it right here and now. No games.

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Then don't call me a religious cultist, don't say I'm not listening and don't lie like you did below when the truth is blatantly that you're too spineless to respond.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

Spineless to respond? What sort of a response would you accept? Exactly how needy are you in that department?

The responses in question are in this very thread. Take 5 minutes to research .

For quick reference:

R.E. letting Mike have his opinion: "He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me. Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed."

Where did you address that?

R.E. dubbing me a 'religious cultist': I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

And "In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears."

Where did you address that?

I've been addressing the interview in question the whole time ... I'm under no obligation to address your comments

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.

Ok, If pleading the benefit of doubt for a fellow human being is what passes for derailing a thread: I'm guilty as charged.

I dunno. Are you or I in the Beach Boys? No .... Let the guy have his damn educated opinion.

He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me.

Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed.

What's also a hilarious thing to ponder is, how much am I willing to bet, if Mike were to actually "attack" Brian in such an interview, you guys would all be crying "But why can't Mike just attack Brian's handlers? It's them!!! Not Brian"

Quit strawmanning, it's lame. Mike has said plenty of nasty stuff about Brian and his work in the past. Fortunately these days he seems more accepting and understanding up to a point. What's your point? I'm talking about things that have actually happened and been said, why are you throwing up hypotheticals. Is that the only argument you can come up with? A fictional one?

You are completely talking out of your rear, to be quite frank. I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

My god you guys are so friendly and accepting of dissenting points of view .... And you wonder why folks with my tone pop up every now and then?

No, what I wonder is why you seem incapable or unwilling to address any of the points made.

Maybe because I'm addressing the big picture ... A concept which seems to have increasingly little place amongst the religious cultists around here.

In what way as a fan of both Brian and Mike am I 'religious cultist' based on my posts? And in what way are you addressing the big picture? I'm all ears.

No, you're not all ears. I've done all you pretend to be asking of me yet will never dare acknowledge when I do ... An ages old tactic on this board.

I dunno. Are you or I in the Beach Boys? No .... Let the guy have his damn educated opinion.

He's had it. No one stopped him having it. Who was trying to censor Mike? Not me. I simply came to a fan forum to give my opinion on his as a fan. Seems fair to me.

Although tellingly, either David Beard or Mike has apparently chosen not to stand by said opinion given that the article has been removed.

What's also a hilarious thing to ponder is, how much am I willing to bet, if Mike were to actually "attack" Brian in such an interview, you guys would all be crying "But why can't Mike just attack Brian's handlers? It's them!!! Not Brian"

Quit strawmanning, it's lame. Mike has said plenty of nasty stuff about Brian and his work in the past. Fortunately these days he seems more accepting and understanding up to a point. What's your point? I'm talking about things that have actually happened and been said, why are you throwing up hypotheticals. Is that the only argument you can come up with? A fictional one?

You are completely talking out of your rear, to be quite frank. I love Brian and Mike for all they've given us. If Mike called Brian an asshole, I'd think Mike was being an asshole. Same goes the other way. I'd argue perhaps Brian has more reason to say that, but I'd still be immensely disappointed by him doing so.

My god you guys are so friendly and accepting of dissenting points of view .... And you wonder why folks with my tone pop up every now and then?

No, what I wonder is why you seem incapable or unwilling to address any of the points made.

Maybe because I'm addressing the big picture ... A concept which seems to have increasingly little place amongst the religious cultists around here.