I don't think it's out of line to point out some of the seemingly asinine aspects of the BB world, specifically that they remain splintered rather than being able to hold the whole group together.

I also don't mind a compare/contrast between the two tours.

But it's not like Mike Love only booked Christmas-themed dates because Brian's doing a Christmas tour. Mike's band, whether you love them or loathe them or anything in between, have usually done dates in December, and have often if not usually done mini-sets of Christmas songs (usually culled from the '64 album; the difference this year is that he's plugging his own new XMas album).

I sense Mike cranked an Xmas album out quickly because, while neither "Unleash" nor this new album are burning up the sales charts, they are likely cheaply produced and sell well enough to continue stamping them out. Indeed, it appears possible if not likely his Xmas album this year is outselling last year's "Unleash."

It's actually Brian who is newer to doing a large quantity of BB XMas music. And he and his band should be commended for one-upping any previous attempts by touring groups by doing the ENTIRE Christmas album.

But again, I don't mind an article pointing out the arguably slight continued absurdity of seemingly "competing" shows being out there doing now similarly-themed shows. But I don't think either was done in reaction to the other. Brian was rumored to be looking into booking Nov/Dec 2018 Xmas shows back in late 2017, and as already mentioned, Mike usually does Xmas shows when he's touring in December.

Interesting take on the article. I see major anti-Mike bias, for no good reason in this instance.
Pretty irresponsible journalism, really.
If he wants to make a point that it's either odd, or disappointing that Mike and Brian are doing seperate tours, that's fine. But this article shapes a narrative that Mike is touring in 'response' to Brian.  And he pushes the agenda of bad blood between cousins, while failing to, say, mention that as recently as this summer,  the band presented a unified front during the Sirius Q&A

Let's get Rocky back on the board to answer all these, and other pressing questions!!

Mike seemed pretty cool and relaxed sitting in. My late night show watching days are long gone, but I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that in the 30 mins I watched, there was about a 5 min segment with Stamos, and then about a 2-3 min segment. That left about 22 mins of commercials...ridiculous.

So what's going to happen with the Mid Terms? I'm Canadian, but get a large daily dose of US politics, and I really can't figure out where this is heading.

And I suppose the other question is 'does it matter'? It seems so divided that at one point, will it even make a difference who's wrestled control from whom??

Hung Up and Overdue on Petty's 'She's The One' Soundtrack. And Carl's on background vocals.  Actually that whole album seems to contain many homages to artists like The Byrds, Dylan, BB's etc. Always felt that it was underrated.

There weren't any readily available online so I scanned a few of those BW, PS-Smile era tribute shots from Cornelius' "Fantasma" booklet, for those interested.







Seeing those kinds of photos in an album package 20 years ago was like finding a kindred spirit in terms of knowing and paying tribute to the best music ever made...

These are awesome!

Why torture yourself?

Like I said, I'll wait and see what the tour actually entails. A big part of me simply doesn't want to put any more money into Bruce Johnston's pocket after the unsolicited verbal abuse I received in Ocean City last year. However, I'd love to finally hear the Christmas tracks live, and Brian's Christmas tour isn't coming close enough.

But you've had other good interactions with Bruce, yeah? He's probably undiagnosed bipolar, but whatever. He's been more than nice to me several times, and one time he was a bit prickly. He's really the one Beach Boy you can delve into rare album tracks and session work, and he'll talk to you about it! You wanna meet these guys, that's the risk you take. He's in his mid 70s and travels around in a bus 200 days out of the year, and people are always wanting to talk to him. You'd probably be a grump sometimes, too.

Your postings in regard to the BB band on this board were really positive pre-Bruce brushing you off on his way to the tour bus after a show. Ever since that experience, you seem sour on them. I get it, but there's not enough time for that. Pretty soon, you'll be able to see NO original Beach Boys. There will be cover bands touring the country, and that's the only way you'll be able to hear this music live.

Do yourself a favor - go see Brian as many times as is feasible, go see Mike/Bruce as many times as is feasible. Once they're gone, they're gone. You'll be sad and you'll be sorry. Go make a new memory with Bruce if you can.

You're not wrong. I also have a lot of respect and admiration for Scott Totten and John Cowsill. It's always a treat to hear them handle the catalog so carefully. As for new memories though, I'll just stay away. I've had lots and lots of interactions with Mike and Bruce. They've been nothing but excellent with Mike. You're right about Bruce. They've gone both ways. What bothered me about Bruce last summer, was that I did not engage or deserve the comment he made. It was a bit more than "slagging off". For those new to the party, I was waiting in a specific location given to me to meet John Cowsill after a concert to have my photo signed, near the tour bus...like 15-20 feet from the bus. As each band member came out to go on the bus (Mike included) I said Goodnight and thanked them for a great show, they all replied accordingly and kept walking. Out comes Bruce...I think I managed to get out "Hi Bruce, Great show..." before I was interrupted with him screaming "NOPE! NOT GONNA DO IT!" (I can only assume that he assumed the photo in my hand was for him to sign) so I replied "I'm sorry, I'm waiting for Mr. Cowsill to sign my photo." as he walked to the bus, stomped up the steps and shouted "Well all RIGHT then Mr. MAAAAAAN" and slammed the door to the bus.

Bruce is a good guy. If you ever get into a dialogue with him again, and he's at all rude, give it right back to him, you'll probably end up having a good laugh.

Longer piece
https://www.newjerseystage.com/articles/2018/08/31/unleash-the-love-the-beach-boys-live-at-the-great-auditorium/

What did membership in the 'Golden Penetrators' entail? With a group focus and set goals, these numbers could have been very large, and being Hollywood, it's possible some of the women have been well known.

Hearing the instrumental tracks were a revelation for me.

Always liked the song, but ya,  hearing the instrumental was incredible!

I wish they would have made reference to 'The Wrecking Crew' and we could have seen her really go off the the rails, lol.

Mike's Hawaiian property looks like it was pretty spectacular. Was the pond with waterfall actually on his estate or someplace close by?

While I don't understand the point of why it was done, I don't think Mike sounds bad. His older, weathered voice seems to work pretty well on this one.

Now granted, I was listening from a TV at a low-ish volume. There is likely a slathering of autotune. I also thought the "sum-sum-summer" thing at the beginning was definitely similar to the backing vocals that feature later in the original version of the song.

I have to get back to the point and say I don't understand why this was done though? New, non-holiday album? New single? Why is this gonna get attention if his "Do It Again" single didn't?

The 'why' is a valid question..not a big fan of all the remakes.
But here is an interview from earlier in the month. I post it only because, early on, Mike claims he is done with all the crap from the past and is focusing on 'his' version of The Beach Boys. It does perhaps clarify why he seems to have a push on to record these last couple of years. I hope this also means that moving forward, he won't be dragging up all the old bad blood in interviews. I suppose it also dials back any expectations of another reunion.

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/entertainmentlife/20180810/beach-boys-mike-love-happy-with-good-thing

["That was a courtesy to Brian for us to be there. Brian certainly wasn't at any kind of peak in those days, but we respected his history and achievements for us to go and record with him and see what it might sound like. We were just trying to support someone who had been successful and good for us. I think if you use your ears, you'll hear that those tapes don't really lift off. It's fine -- but not fine enough."]

More generally, Bruce has had many a head-scratching interview.

As opposed to some other member (e.g. Al), where something is just being mis-remembered or whatever, Bruce sometimes tends to say things in interviews that seem kind of bold and entitled, and then when you think about it for a few moments, you start realizing how inaccurate and/or hypocritical the comment can be. He seems to like either laying it on THICK praising everybody, or weirdly takes this sort of faux-outsider/objective viewpoint and can be pretty critical (and that type of criticism is sometimes seemingly accurate, sometimes not, and always of questionable motive/justification).

Remember how he described the Paley sessions? His comments to Howie Edelson:

"That was a courtesy to Brian for us to be there. Brian certainly wasn't at any kind of peak in those days, but we respected his history and achievements for us to go and record with him and see what it might sound like. We were just trying to support someone who had been successful and good for us. I think if you use your ears, you'll hear that those tapes don't really lift off. It's fine -- but not fine enough."

This is a good example of something that probably actually holds a bit more water than his "Friends" assessment, but has serious objectivity/motive/sourcing issues. It's a bit like Mike questioning autotune on BB or Brian material. It's not an invalid issue to raise in general, but once it's coming from a guy who cranked autotune up to 11 on his own projects, his credibility is a huge issue.

Yes, this does seem to sum up Bruce in a nutshell. I still think it's interesting to hear what he has to say on any level though. It's sometimes contradictory, but that is a trait not exclusive to him, by any means.

I think sometimes he'll take the conversation in a specific direction, while other time's he'll kinda go with the flow. Also self deprecation is often present.  I think he might have a point about the Friends material in that it may have been a tough fit with the older stuff at the time. Friends is an incredible album...definitely chill.

And I have always felt he does play somewhat of a dual role of Insider/Observer when it comes to the band.

Much like the end of C50, even though we knew from the start that it was intended to be a limited run, it is sad to see this channel gone so quickly.  Hopefully they found that enough people listened for them to at least consider bringing it back in the future, even if only during the summer (although I think there is more than enough material to fill the channel year-round and still keep it fresh).

No more (radio) shows for The Wilsons!

Good Vibes continue

http://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2018/08/the-beach-boys-attract-diverse-crowd-at-series/

[This band has birthed a torrent of hit singles and sold albums by the tens of millions, but its greater significance lies in the fact that The Beach Boys’ songs have forever changed the musical landscape, profoundly influencing countless performing artists to follow. The Beach Boys have continued to create and perform with the same bold imagination and style that marked their explosive debut over 50 years ago. The Beach Boys found through their music the key to unfading youth— and they made copies for everyone. To these guys, the beach isn’t just a place where the surf comes to play: it’s where life is renewed and made whole again. Each ticket includes a CD copy of frontman Mike Love’s new holiday album, Reason for the Season.]

It looks like Mike will be bundling his holiday CD with "Beach Boys" ticket sales coming up. The blurb below has accompanied recent ticket announcements. I think this one is for a show in December:

This band has birthed a torrent of hit singles and sold albums by the tens of millions, but its greater significance lies in the fact that The Beach Boys’ songs have forever changed the musical landscape, profoundly influencing countless performing artists to follow. The Beach Boys have continued to create and perform with the same bold imagination and style that marked their explosive debut over 50 years ago. The Beach Boys found through their music the key to unfading youth— and they made copies for everyone. To these guys, the beach isn’t just a place where the surf comes to play: it’s where life is renewed and made whole again. Each ticket includes a CD copy of frontman Mike Love’s new holiday album, Reason for the Season.

I have asked this before, but can Mike put a valuation on each CD (say 25bucks) and claim it as separate that value from the ticket revenue? In my thinking, if he can do this he can create revenue exempt from the licensing payments to BRI

So if it was 60 bucks a ticket, and he sells 2000 tickets, each with a CD bundled with a value of 25 dollars, he diverts 50k from ticket sales by classifying as cd sales. It would be a great scam, and also over the course of say, 30 shows claim he had sold 60,000 CDs!

Bruce referred to it as a family affair, so thinking there may be some Christian and Ambha input.

This isn't much to add, but I have a vague recollection that when Al started doing the song with Brian at their shows together in 2006/2007, it was at the behest of Brian more than Al (and of course Brian had been doing it himself in the previous few years). It may have even been Al that mentioned in some interview that it was Brian's idea for Al to do the song. Al hadn't been doing that one at his post-1998 solo shows.

Interesting. You would think Al would have had that one on his set list in regular rotation.
Just watched a YouTube clip of one of the C50 shows. Nice job by Al. Mike yells 'Keep if clean with Al Jardine' after, lol.

Has Brian made any comments on 'Then He Kissed Me'? I know when it comes to his obsession with Spector, Be My Baby gets most of the ink, in terms of his love for Phil.

When I hear Side 1 of Today, I hear a lot of 'Then He Kissed Me', especially that opening riff. Good to My Baby, Don't Hurt My Little Sister ( apparently offered to Spector?) Dance, Dance, Dance. I hear the THKM influence. And of course, it shows up on Summer Days as Then I kissed Her.

I was curious if Brian ever discussed the song, specifically.

It could have been worse, they could have gotten an actual annoying personality. Reiner is likeable. At this event, he was essentially a more energetic, dynamic version of a Larry King type. But again, I think it's fair to call the thing what it is. They could have snagged a Howie Edelson, or Alan Boyd, or heck, even Jerry Schilling, to do the event, all additional people who have good relationships with all factions, and who would also understand how to strike a balance between softball, obvious questions (e.g. "did you guys surf?", "why has your music endured all these years?") and something a bit more substantive without going into "Drip Drop/Lazy Lizzie/That Special Feeling" deep cut territory.

I think the Reiner selection was emblematic of the SiriusXM channel in general. That is, it's a nice project that has gone over well enough and certainly hasn't hurt anything, but which hasn't really lived up to its full potential.

I wonder if they considered Stamos?

Cape Cod Times reporting Good Vibes

http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20180812/beach-boys-bring-magic-in-waves

Nice of them to mention how Brian Wilson and CARL JARDINE are touring in Europe right now, after mentioning how "everyone knows the Beach Boys' story"...

It's amazing how many factual errors appear in these type of articles. Wrong names. Wrong names put to pictures. Always just basic 'checkable' flubs.

Cape Cod Times reporting Good Vibes

http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20180812/beach-boys-bring-magic-in-waves

[analogy]

What if Brian had showed up with five “Love & Mercy” shirts? Would Mike have worn that? And if he hadn’t, would it have been out of line to say group politics could have at least tangentially been involved? I don’t think so.

Sorry to single out this one point, but I've seen this analogy numerous times now and I think it's off-base. This was a Beach Boys reunion. What's the main characteristic of Mike's signature shirt? Yep, the blue and white stripes. Compare that to a "Love & Mercy" shirt or any other Brian solo shirt that has nothing to do with the Beach Boys. I agree that Dave's comments and Mary Ann Jardine's comments don't silence all such commentary (e.g. the mismatched appearance), but Mike's shirts aren't all that out of place at a Beach Boys reunion. Certainly not to the same extent a "Love & Mercy" shirt would be. It's not like Mike brought in "Unleash The Love" shirts for everyone to wear at a Beach Boys reunion. My thoughts on the entire shirt fiasco is, yes, it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the group photo. It certainly deserved a mention and a discussion. Still, I consider it a footnote. That seems to be the perspective of those involved (that we've heard from).

It may not be a shirt with "Love and Mercy" written in giant letters, but it's still very much a "Mike Love" shirt being that his face (and only his face) is stitched into the shirt. In particular: being as it has certainly been a undeniably "touchy" aspect throughout recent years with regards to who is in the "BBs" band... these shirts are basically the statement MIKE LOVE IS THE BEACH BOYS in shirt form (what "band" t-shirts only have 1 member on them??)... and especially after Brian and Al felt pushed out of the band not so very long ago, it just feels tacky for the guy who pushed them out of the band (or if people want to get technical, the guy who made them feel like they were pushed out of the band) to bring those recently pushed-out guys shirts as gifts to wear at a reunion activity.

I'm glad David and Mary Ann are seeing things in a nice light, and I applaud them for just trying to make peace and at least publicly try to smooth things out. Truthfully, and I mean this very sincerely, I'm not trying to sh*t on their thoughts, nor the reunion, just by having my own opinion. I'm glad they don't see any deeper meaning. It doesn't mean that in the light of the history of the band, that the appearance (as HeyJude pointed out) isn't nevertheless just a bit off-putting for many fans (and publications) in light of the highly negative and egregiously inflammatory things that Mike has said about any number of Brian projects that "excluded" Mike.

Does a Beach Boys shirt with only Mike's face on it not somehow exclude Brian too? This may sound like a funny conversation, and it sort of is of course... but still, how is that comparison off-base? There's some truth in it.  If Mike didn't repeatedly say such negative stuff about "Brian content" countless times, this conversation would probably not exist. This is a shirt by the guy who made the biggest friggin' deal in the world in interviews, over and over and over and over again, about how it was SUCH a terrible and insulting thing for him (Mike) to not be completely included in aspects of the band in a manner that he (Mike) saw fit during the last reunion. So yeah, Mike wants everyone to cry a river that he did was not properly included as he should have been, and that TWGMTR was too Brian-centric (leaving out Mike), but then it's fine for Mike to expect Brian to wear a Mike shirt that takes the iconic brand fashion imagery and puts only Mike's face on it.

I think some people are simply bugged at Mike's inconsistency of what he has historically, repeatedly gotten publicly outraged at, when they see his actions. There's really nothing much more to it than that.

There's noooo doubt in my mind that if Brian had done the same thing (let's say Brian had a line of Brian Wilson striped shirts with only Brian's face taken from a 1960s Beach Boys photo, and asked Mike to wear it), that Mike would've have found a way (either right then and there, or years down the line) to make a big public hissy fit about being slighted, and to complain about Brian (or Melinda) having the chutzpah to expect Mike wear a Brian Wilson solo shirt to a Beach Boys reunion.

Honestly, anyone defending Mike in this discussion, please refute this. I'll expect crickets, just as JuiceBronston ducked out of my prior line of questioning.

Side note: if Reiner was “pro” matching shirts, that would surely mean Reiner wanted everyone to have matching shirts (or no one); I'm sure that if the "idea" of the band wearing matching shirts was mentioned to Reiner, that it would seem like a potentially nice idea on the surface, but no way in hell Reiner was somehow pushing for the idea of some members wearing matching shirts and some not.  Nobody in their right mind would think that was an ideal situation.

Also - none of this means that more great reunion activities are "tarnished", and I wish the band collective good vibrations from here on out.

With all this talk about trolling, it's hard for me to see posters who duck out of a back-and-forth conversation (the minute they can't refute an inconvenient truth) as anything but trolling, whether it's intended to be trolling or not. Even if trying very hard to not see this as trolling, it's just plain rude at best. I predicted crickets, and I was correct.

Trolling?

The main point of my post (Reply #383) is that the analogy is weak. I suppose I could have clarified that it's not entirely off-base, but it's weak enough (as I illustrated in my post) that it undermines otherwise balanced arguments. That still stands. That doesn't mean that I don't ultimately agree with the point HeyJude was making. Furthermore, I happen to agree with just about everything else HeyJude said in the post I responded to and his response to me. As I said, I have seen that analogy a few times now and I just wanted to comment on it. I don't find it persuasive. I acknowledge all the points you made, they've already been made. I wasn't commenting on them. What inconvenient truth can't I refute? I honestly wasn't even sure you were addressing me when you called out Mike defenders.

Sorry, it wasn't intended towards you. That was actually directed to JuiceBrohnston, with whom I was having a polite convo with in this thread, until my questions I asked of him began to get no response. And it's kind of annoying because it seems this stonewalling happened just as I made a point that IMO would be difficult to refute. My point that I was making was that if the shoe was on the other foot (if Brian was the one who had a line of shirts, and Brian brought in a Brian-branded line of striped Beach Boys-style shirts, with Brian's (and only Brian's) face from a 1960s promo Beach Boys photo stitched into the shirt sleeve... I think it is a bit absurd to think of Mike happily going along with wearing said hypothetical shirt. I think Mike would find a way to get upset about it then and there, or at some future point he'd complain about it, and use it as a way to show how disrespected he has been treated).

And generally, I don't understand how any educated fan with knowledge of the band, and awareness of Mike's repeated actions, such as Mike's history of publicly berating Brian's solo products in various interviews, and Mike's 2005 ugly lawsuit against Brian (complete with fake "witnesses" who were in cahoots with Mike's lawyers) making a giant hissy fit over band/brand name technicalities on a promo CD, can think it is a move that is without chutzpah for Mike to have brought Mike-branded BBs shirts for Brian to wear to a Beach Boys reunion.  I legit am trying to understand it.

I'm not a hater, I don't think Mike is a talentless hack. I am simply bugged by his inconsistent actions.

I went back in this thread to try and figure out what the hell you are talking about and how I was 'trolling' you?
You mentioned some polite conversation, I had no recollection of. I see you asked me a bunch of questions about what if Brian had brought shirts for everybody? Shortly thereafter, David Marks commented publicly on the matter, and I felt it was no longer a pertinent discussion. Trolling....hmmm. Not up on my definition but wouldn't it be more a case of you trolling me?

One interesting point that I believe highlights Mike was much more interested in *exiting* the reunion than under some immediate pressing obligation to book a ton of his own dates quickly is this:

Regarding Mike being required to book his own shows back after C50, it's worth actually looking at his tour schedule for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013.

From September 30, 2012 through the beginning of February 2013, Mike booked...wait for it.... NINE shows across EIGHT venues.

He dumped the reunion tour in order to play these shows:

September 30 - The Legacy Concert for the Children, The Santaluz Club, San Diego, CA
October 5 - Extraco Events Center, Waco, TX  
October 6 - The Backyard, Austin, TX  
October 12 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
October 13 - Beau Rivage, Biloxi, MS
December 21 - New Orleans Bowl Friday Night Concert, Champion's Square, New Orleans, LA (Free Show)
December 28 - Pike's Peak Center, Colorado Springs, CO  
December 31 - Mystic Lake Casino, Prior Lake, MN (2 Shows)

Nothing in November 2012, nothing in January 2013. Only FOUR shows in February 2013. Even assuming maybe he booked a few private/corporate gigs we don't know about, and even taking into account at least three canceled gigs (two in South America, plus the infamous "Nutty Jerry's" gig), I somehow doubt BRI had a requirement that both *forced* Mike to book shows, but then also allowed for such a *light* tour schedule.

This is just my total guess/gut feeling, but it kind of smells like Mike just started booking a hand full of shows to essentially create a plausible reason to say he couldn't do more reunion shows (See? I already have my own shows booked!), and also to start getting his foot back in the door and re-establish his band as the going "Beach Boys" touring concern.

Look at that schedule. THREE shows between mid-October 2012 and February 2013. They could have *easily* booked some year-end reunion gigs to try to cap the whole thing off on better terms (and that's just assuming they still wouldn't continue the reunion on any sort of even semi-permanent basis). As was bandied about some time back, even just one or two year-ending shows at the Staples Center or something could have easily been done.

Part of this, as you are quoted as saying below, is just how Mike rolls out his tours. It's never an announcement of a full slate of shows.

"Also, if one has followed Mike's tour and scheduling habits over the years, they will have found that Mike never really "announces" a tour. He never unveils a tour schedule. It just sort of continually exists and is updated on an ongoing basis. It takes a few months into the year for summer tour dates to fill out. " -Hey Jude

Yes, and you're taking my comment about Mike's *typical* touring procedure out of context. That comment, from another thread and on a different topic (namely Mike's *current* touring), pertained to his typical rollout for a given year.

Additionally, my comment quoted above about his tour rollout pertained to *how* tour dates were announced and *when*. I was *not* speaking to the total number of tour dates. During that September to Febuary timeline discussed in the current thread, a total of nine shows is *very atypical* of any recent Mike tour schedules.

2012 was obviously unique, and normally I wouldn't scrutinize too heavily that Mike just did some scattered dates in the latter half of 2012 into early 2013. However, it was Mike and Mike alone who consistently referred back to a pressing need if not requirement to continue to tour, and he often used "I had already booked my own dates" as a reason (however bogus) for ending the reunion tour.

He had dates booked at the end of September into early-mid October. So if there were so many offers, and he was *required* to endlessly tour by BRI, why was there a 2-month-plus gap between October 13 and December 21?

Again, between mid-October 2012 and the end of January 2013, he did *three* shows over the span of about three and a half months. That's not only atypical for Mike's touring routine, it completely contradicts his stated pressing need to continue to tour (and seems to clash with the implication that offers were just flooding in for his edition of the band) and clearly shows there was plenty of leeway to continue with more reunion shows.

I fully understand all of the variables. By the second half of 2012, he would certainly be getting plenty of offers for 2013. If he truly didn't start booking *any* of his own shows until June of 2012, then the second half of the year would not be as jam packed as a typical latter half of the year of touring for his band. But if he was pounding the pavement and snagging tons of bookings, and if he truly was *immediately* required by BRI to go back out, I don't buy again, as I've said, that BRI would both *have* an immediate legal requirement for him to book shows without any break, but then *also* allow him to book so few shows.

Again, my total guess of a takeaway is that he first and foremost didn't want to continue the reunion, and everything else is a justification for the reunion ending instead of just simply and plainly stating what his words strongly indicate, which is that it wasn't about a legal requirement to book his own shows, it wasn't about needing to "give it a rest" to build up demand, it wasn't about an e-mail (later retracted by Mike's own admission). It was about Mike quitting the Beach Boys in September 2012; of disliking Melinda more than his desire to continue working with Brian and the other guys as a fully reunited unit.

I agree with your last paragraph. Mike wanted out. Probably for a number of reasons. But my take on it, and it's just that, is that it all exists in one big stinkin' pile. I think mistakes were made on both sides. It wasn't entirely Mike's fault on C50. And stuff like the email, again in my opinion only shows that it was poorly handled all around. Ironically that can be brought right back to the actual origins of this thread. A reunion that seems to be the product of a hard working manager that can get sides to cooperate. That would have been something to have on C50.