gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 09:37:55 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
26  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration on: January 20, 2017, 12:46:40 PM
Yeah. I don't really get the question. I don't think anyone is "immune" from propaganda, but certainly one can gain skills to filter it better, look for supporting evidence or lack thereof, etc. but I don't think there's a credentialing organization.

I was using the word in its secondary sense (from www.dictionary.com, not the standard of the English language but I believe it will suffice for this particular purpose):

Credential: 2. anything that provides the basis for confidence, belief, credit, etc.

What I would like to know is what gives you the confidence to speak of others as being subject to propaganda (well-trained to dismiss the explainer) and lacking basic critical thinking skills (There have been multiple studies...), yet you don't seem to think of yourself in this way.  From your posts it is clear that you know quite a bit - but knowing information and being able to accurately assess it are two different things.  You present yourself as someone confident in your opinions and confident that others are wrong, so I naturally wonder what gives you this confidence.  How can you be certain you are not the one who is well-trained and in need of critical thinking skills?

EoL
27  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration on: January 20, 2017, 11:09:36 AM
Agree with both - however, I don't think there's any policy explainer who would be heard. I think the target audience is well-trained to dismiss the explainer.
Somehow  getting a handle on teaching actual critical thinking and source evaluation in primary and secondary school needs to be prioritized.
There have been multiple studies showing that teenagers and college students are, for the most part, unable to distinguish among sources and don't have the skills and/or desire to validate the information they receive.
The internet has completely changed how information is disseminated and education needs to be restructured accordingly.

Completely separate from the overall political argument(s) of this thread: could you let us know what credentials you have that enable you to be immune to propaganda and proficient in critical thinking?

EoL
28  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / Smiley Smilers Who Make Music / Re: 'Wild Honey' (cover) by rab2591 on: December 29, 2016, 02:40:13 AM
I want rab to record an entire Beach Boys cover album in CSN influenced folk now.  Grin

Me too.  Get on it Rab!
29  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike's 2 new tracks on PBS Stuff on: November 03, 2016, 03:01:48 PM
Mike can use the trademark solely for touring. It appears this includes selling merchandise at shows and online as well. Whether Mike is essentially a vendor of "BRI merchandise" or if he's having his own merchandise made under license, I don't know. If it's the latter, then that would technically mean that his license extends past literally nothing but live shows, and would extend into some level of merchandise.

There are obvious things he can't do, including recording and releasing music under the BB name (this would presumably include live recordings of his band).

So if he made a solo album, or had a solo "Mike Love" CD single of "Sloop John B", that would all be allowed assuming proper labeling (and again, assuming BRI doesn't put restrictions on what merchandise he sells at shows; assuming they don't, he can sell Bubble Yum and pruning shears at the merch stand if he wants).

This particular little USB thing is certainly muddier. Solo Mike Love recording on top of presumably licensed silent BB footage. Allowed? Probably technically I'm guessing.

Let's use another scenario. Mike sells a DVD of home video he shot of the Beach Boys on the road in the 1990s. He dubs all solo recordings over the footage. Can he do that? Probably. In that case, he might have to obtain releases from anyone in the footage.

But those old Capitol promo films perhaps don't require any new releases being signed or anything. Capitol owns the footage. Mike owns the solo recording. He puts the two together, and labels it (hopefully/presumably) as a "Mike Love" recording, perhaps mentioning it's on top of Beach Boys footage. Is this allowed? I guess BRI has to definitively answer that question.

In my 100% armchair opinion, this sort of thing would seem to be as actionable if not more so than Mike's 2004 suit regarding the freebie CD with a pic of the Beach Boys. Then again, Mike's lawsuit was laughed out of court.

My guess is that the easiest remedy for this, if BRI had a problem, would not be litigation but rather a reworking or clarification of the licensing agreement (assuming it doesn't already cover such scenarios).

I really think that *if* there were anyone at BRI would would conceivably have a problem with it, that would only really come from Brian/Melinda. And truthfully, at this point, I don't think they even care enough to bring a suit. That's very much a Mike Love thing to do, when he feels threatened like Cornholio. "Brian, are you threatening me?" I just don't think that Brian would want to bring a suit to stop Mike from doing this, because so few people even know about the USB stick (outside of this board), and really, is it worth the aggravation to get embroiled in a legal mess with a known litigious person?

I could easily see Mike "getting away" with this type of stuff (despite it being laughably hypocritical compared to his 2005 lawsuit, which he likely wishes the non-mention in his bio could make any associated embarrassment from losing such a suit simply not exist) simply because nobody *cares* on the BRI side anymore. The brand name has been pimped out so, so, so much over the years, I really think it just doesn't really matter, or if it matters, it isn't worth the aggravation at Brian's age to deal with it legally. I assume there's an element of "let the baby have his bottle" to the inaction.

A question for the legal experts: couldn't taking the "we don't care enough to go to court" approach in such a small matter come  back to haunt Brian in the future?  Aren't there states or situations where not pursuing a lawsuit in one instance but pursuing it in a similar instance later on negates the latter lawsuit?  I am sure there is a name for this but I don't recall what it is.  Could this be such a case?

EoL
30  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: interview with Mike book collaborator James S. Hirsch on: October 22, 2016, 07:12:11 PM
Hi All,

Recently I joined Pray for Surf podcaster Phil Miglioratti in interviewing author Jim Hirsch, who collaborated with Mike Love on Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy. He discusses his process working with Mike and we got into the current Beach Boys/Brian Wilson touring situation and the fallout from the 50th anniversary. We only scratched the surface and will do a part two next week. You can listen here: http://prayforsurfblog.blogspot.ca/.

Mike states why/how the 2012 tour ended in his book… from his perspective.  Not sure how Mark asking the question would provide a new revelation.

You've already received your Mike apologist credentials, no need to continue to flaunt them here.  Where does Mark say he is asking for a new revelation about the breakup of C50?  Mike discusses Manson in his book, does that mean asking questions about Manson is off limits for all future interviews?  If so, why didn't you step in and proclaim that as a useless question when it was under discussion a few weeks ago?  Is there a anything else in the book that future interviews shouldn't bother with?  Maybe his discussion of the hit single Kokomo that didn't involve cousin Brian?

Other than further cementing your status as a Mike apologist what value did you intend when making this comment?

EoL
31  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / General Music Discussion / Re: The Scandinavian music thread on: September 30, 2016, 06:07:48 PM
Irene, the band:

Little Things (That Tear Us Apart): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-u6sv6iFa8
     -Song is 1:55 long, someone tacked over six minutes of silence to the end.

Always On My Mind: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zadsRN-EIqo
     -Not a cover
     -Another of my favorites

Stardust: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YSm-QcypilM

Song by the lead singer's newer band, Azure Blue, called Catcher In The Rye:
     -https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzFBjk1g5c

EoL
32  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / Smiley Smilers Who Make Music / Re: Out of Curiosity... on: September 25, 2016, 04:09:02 PM
Thank you to all who have replied so far.  I was hoping that some of those who view these posts but don't comment would comment as to why, but I guess that was a silly hope - if a person isn't going to comment in regards to a song most likely the same person won't comment about commenting.

With that said, I wish I had more time so I could record more and have it not commented on.  Smiley

EoL
33  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / Smiley Smilers Who Make Music / Out of Curiosity... on: September 24, 2016, 11:47:35 AM
Why is it that when people post their music here there will be, as an example, hundreds of views, and therefore presumably a decent number of listens, and yet only a small number of comments?  For example, Rab's recent cover of Wild Honey has over 700 views but only seven or so comments.  I try to listen to everything posted here, even songs by posters who perform a style I care nothing about.  However, I don't always comment.  My reasons are:

1. I don't think the song is very good and don't want to be negative.  However, when I have time I try to find something positive, the vocals, the melody, etc.
2. I don't like the genre so I am not the right person to comment, though I can still try to find something good to say, again, perhaps the vocals or mix or something else.
3. I check the site on my phone and hate commenting from my phone.  I intend to post comments but later forget.
4. I have taken a break from the site, such as I have for the last few months, until recently.  Not only has life become busy but with all of the AGD, Cam, FP and such like non-sense I needed a break.  I really like the board presently, BTW.  I commend Billy for taking a stand, I know it wasn't easy and I know he lost respect from some in the process, but sometimes that happens when you do the right thing.

I don't doubt that some of you share similar reasons, but I find it hard to believe that of 700+ views for a post there are only seven who end up liking it, or something about it, sufficient to warrant a post.  So what gives, why so many views and so few comments?

EoL
34  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / Smiley Smilers Who Make Music / Re: 'Wild Honey' (cover) by rab2591 on: September 17, 2016, 04:51:52 PM
Excellent as always Rab.  So glad you changed it up and avoided the note-for-note cover idea, I love hearing people take creative liberty with songs instead of a straight copy.

EoL
35  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love on \ on: September 17, 2016, 04:51:02 PM
Excellent as always Rab.  So glad you changed it up and avoided the note-for-note cover idea, I love seeing people take creative liberty with songs instead a straight copy.

EoL 
You reply to wrong thread - the Wild Honey cover is this: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24389.0.html

Oops
36  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 17, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Mods - Maybe in the sandbox or rules & guidelines, you can set up a thread to identify any bans or suspensions, leave it open for a bit if you feel commentary is appropriate. Lock it if not.
Then that won't become the topic here.

EOL - your suggestion above has already happened.



Late to the party.  Was years in the making.

EoL
37  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 17, 2016, 11:50:31 AM

Is there a difference as between the "nameless" interview and the book? Yes, there is.

Are you suggesting CBS fabricated the interview? What are you trying to say?
Are you?  Just get the book.

I'm going to come right out and say you're just trolling the board at this stage by asking "Are you?"
I believe you're dragging this board and this discussion down. Again.

Once again, the modus operandi appears to be to create acrimony and chaos in any thread related to Mike or his book in order to deflect legitimate discussion and criticism of Mike and his book.

I'm clearly indicating that it's highly unlikely CBS fabricated a Mike Love quote. So I guess you're suggesting CBS fabricated Mike's quote.


Is there no room to entertain the possibility of journalist sloppiness with an unsigned article?  Or, just speculation?  

Is this a tacit admission that the book and interview contain two different stories?

EoL
38  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 17, 2016, 11:48:05 AM

CD - yes we are all flawed but I am not sure it is our place to point out someone else's flaws..

If you are against people pointing out other people's flaws, I would hope you would say that Mike himself should take that to heart when he regularly points out Brian's flaws with his weight, his voice, his use of Autotune.

Come on CD - the use of autotune - during those C50 CD's - give me a break.  The Youtubes were better.  I am not pointing out personal flaws but technical flaws with technology that was probably unnecessary.  It is the same way people gripe about SIP and the technology used for that.    

So you excuse the Autotune comment. I take it that there is not a single thing that Mike could publicly say about Brian or Melinda that you'd quantify as pointing out their flaws, right? Oh right, you don't like hypotheticals.  Nothing Mike ever says about even Melinda Wilson is remotely of the nature of pointing out what he perceives as her flaws. Ha. Ha. Ha. What about Al supposedly being rude to subordinates? Isn't that Mike pointing out Al's flaw?
 

CD - let' not spin a yarn here. Get the book and see for yourself. 

You are making this personal, as to me. It is not personal.  I think this book has value, as I think Brian's book will have value to enlarge the history of The Beach Boys. Who else is left who can tell the story?


FP:  please stay on topic, your topic, Mike's book.  Brian's book isn't in Mike's book.  You've ruled out discussing anything and everything not in Mike's book in this read.  If you are going to spin us all in circles at least be consistent when so doing.

EoL
39  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 17, 2016, 11:45:29 AM
First off, I don't know why people get upset that Melinda gets involved in the business end of things. I think it's pretty clear that she is a member of Brian's management team.

It's pretty clear Melinda has a business interest, as in the legal entity is named after her, BriMel.  Also, why is this a problem for the pro-Mike crowd when a similar dissatisfaction is not expressed for the involvement of Mike's 28th wife?  And don't say because she never brings attention to herself like Melinda does.  Melinda doesn't bring attention to herself, Mike does.  And just as Brian has enough decency not to bad mouth Mike, so he doesn't bad mouth Mike's wife.

This all seems so easy to understand.  Mike complains about Brian being controlled for one and only one reason, he prefers to be the one controlling Brian.  If he can't have control he will slander others who he imagines are filling the role in Brian's life that he so desperately covets.  It isn't hard to see he is projecting, a common psychological tell.  He knows what he wants, control, and projects that onto Melinda.  Everyone who knows and loves Brian denies it.  Mike, AGD, and Beard are the only three singing another song (and SJS)...but it isn't hard to figure out its all coming from the same source, Mike.  Then someone sees a little dust up backstage between Brian and Melinda and they interpret it through the lense of Mike's narrative.  Next his cronies come to the message boards (and PMs, yes, I received one of the now-famous PMs) to preach his gospel - with the hope that if they say it often enough (Cam) or if sufficient confusion is interjected (FP) people will eventually believe it.  Those not in the know, such as myself (previously) and The Cincinnati Kid more recently, begin to believe it.  Those who know and love Brian set the record straight, there is no reason to doubt them (outside of the single source of Mike-the-most-envious-man-on-planet-earth-Love narrative), yet aforementioned people persist in the vain hope repetition and confusion will eventually trump reason and facts.

It is both obvious and nauseating.

EoL

40  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 17, 2016, 11:26:46 AM
When Mike went on CBS and made the comments directed at Melinda, it went out to however many million viewers were watching, listening, or reading that linked transcript from the CBS program. He cannot assume everyone watching had his book in hand, or even knew he had a book on the market until that segment was aired. Therefore, that's the context - what he said on CBS.

And I'll say again, if Mike is going after Brian's wife on a television appearance adding to all of the comments since 2012 placed in his various interviews promoting his concerts within dozens of newspapers and various outlets, not to mention whatever went on via legal actions, is it surprising that Mike isn't getting invitations from Brian to write songs? If Mike goes after Brian's wife, family, etc in public, and it's been ongoing for years, why or how would Mike be disappointed if they don't have a personal relationship? We're still talking about real people with real emotions and feelings.
GF - there is so much in that book, I found to be very informative.  Maybe a thread should be set up to address that.  And keep comments confined to "If you read this..." please comment.  

It is intense to read, I found, after going throat 400+ pages.  The interviews are beyond the book.  Those relationships are like them walking off-stage after a show.  They go back to their own lives.  That is for the parties to figure out.  It can't be "vicariously" worked out on a message board. I think it is inappropriate. That is my opinion.  Blood is still thicker than water.  

If you read the book, I think your heart will be touched as Carl explains to Brian how they were kept away from him and were not rejecting him. I think you will gain another insight into the history of the band.    

I started a thread on the book, and made specific and sometimes extensive comments based on the actual pages of the book, giving my opinions and impressions of those specific sections in the book, with more to follow. As a result, I've apparently been publicly accused of charging the author with plagiarism, which I never did, and in other cases been accused by you personally among others of claiming posters here like you and Cam had a hand in writing it - a charge which is as laughable as it is false since everything I wrote is still on this board...and available to review in the thread about the book.

My most recent comments on the book are specific to what Mike said to CBS, and the notion of why Brian would be expected to invite Mike to write songs or do much of anything else after seeing his wife be the subject of Mike's comments, on top of Mike saying he was being "controlled" and drugged as recent as the past month in a public interview, and a laundry list of comments made toward his family and assorted issues peppered throughout interviews supposed to be promoting Mike's concerts.

My comments on the book have also been along the lines of what I wish Mike had included in the book, among them the lightning-rod issues like Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the 80's, the 2005 lawsuit which Mike lost and lost big, and the lack of more inter-personal inner workings that were at play within the band during the Smile era.

I've also commented on the lack of context given that June 2012 email that we're told scuppered the extension and further booking of C50 shows, specifically what other emails if any correspondence came prior to the oft-cited email quoted in the book, and what was the context in which that email appeared. My comments on that are based on wondering how a lone email within what was a multi-million dollar corporate structure running C50 and affecting dozens of participants on the tour could be cited as if it came out of the blue with no precedent. I'm one who is curious to learn more about what led to it, and what else may have come prior to it within the chain of operations on that tour as of June 2012.

That's context.


GF - The book is over 400 pages.  It is Mike's account and not a reflection of what others think should be in the book.  The section on the lawsuit which was initiated by Landy with his devious plot to have Brian's kids disinherited, was originated by Landy.  

There are two email exchanges and one is from early June and one from late June.  I thought there was only one.  

IIRC  - three and a half weeks seemed too long to "call back" the first email of "no more shows for us" - which looked pretty final to me.  So, what I learned in the  book, is that there were TWO emails.  

On June 1st (it related to shows in Israel) which was turned down (the "no more shows for Wilson") and a June 25th email to "disregard the previous message." That is found on pp. 401-402.  

The info I am relying on is what is in front of me and not legal advice or counsel.***



The 2005 lawsuit had nothing to do with Landy. Why did you just dodge that entirely and bring Landy into it?

2005.

What if anything came before the email you reference from the book?

As a reader of the book...can I not say "I wish he had talked about that?" as a reaction? Or do we just take everything at face value?

Someone asked you a direct question about something that *is* in the book, and you dodged their question, and further gave the answer "buy the book". How about answering their question, since you said you wanted to discuss what was in the book, and someone asked a specific question about what was actually in the book?

Did Mike on CBS contradict what is in the book about this 'partner' confrontation at C50? Simple question...why duck it?

GF - The overall dispute was over C50 - if someone writes an email that says on June 1st they are done, and the other party "relies on it" - and 25 days elapse, that puts the whole situation in a very different light.  I think the retraction was too late. (not legal advice)***

The suit in 2005 did not prevail. It is not in the book.  The book is enough to deal with.  I am not dodging anything,  I am not interested in discussing it or going on some other tangent.  I'd  like to hear what people think about things such as Carl's last days on the concert tour, it's impact on the band, how they carried on post.  Most do not want to discuss that but get into the soap opera/drama mode over "hot words" that got resolved.  It turned out just fine - but that is not drama.

My head is still exploding over how premeditated Landy was.  More than I ever imagined.  

 

You must be confused.  You are commenting in a thread about Mike opening up about Melinda in TV and you want to fl discuss Carl's last days on tour.  You are in the went thread comment get about the wrong things.  The majority of your posts are circular non-sense.  Please go post in the correct thread so the rest of us can talk about the topic which accords with the title of this thread.

If I were a mod here I would ban you permanently for obfuscation.  If no such rule existed I would create one so I could ban you.  You would only last one post, two max, before you violated the rule.

EoL
41  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love on \ on: September 17, 2016, 10:09:36 AM
Somehow my post regarding the Wild Honey cover wound up here, sorry about that.
EoL  
42  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: LA Times write up on Mike on: September 10, 2016, 06:19:18 PM
Is this true about Dennis:

"He weaves those names into a story that is largely hellbent on dispelling the “Brian was the genius and the rest of the guys just showed up to sing” narrative.  It was a story arc that also bothered other members of the group, including Wilson’s brothers Carl and Dennis, as they slogged it out on the road while chief architect Brian painstakingly fitted many of the pieces together in the studio."

Given Dennis' "we are his messengers" quote this seems somewhat unlikely.  Did Dennis complain about this perception?  It is also strange that he doesn't list the one guy living who could rebut *his* narrative, Al.  It is hard to argue that Mike is not the least musically talented guy in the band - given this is what most people respect, as opposed to being a corny frontman, it has to burn.  I get it.  But the man really should be more thankful.

EoL
43  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love will make up anything to sell books on: September 03, 2016, 09:51:08 AM
Mike on The Howard Stern Show, 10/6/92.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmOpwvh4P-Y

Listening to the end of it now.  Thanks for posting the link. 

Howard can certainly make you laugh.  LOL

Last spring a family from Montreal has been chasing down (Jane Doe #59) whether this is Manson "family" (particular style of gruesome manner of homicide) murder.
There are many unsolved murders from that era.  I am not so quick to dismiss all these unsolved murders.  Roman Polanski/Sharon Tate was high profile and got instant global because of Polanski's film world status, and continuous media play because they were "somebody." 

Many of these similarly-situated (whether in LA or not) victim's murders seem to have similar characteristics.  What I did not know (because I was only paying attention to BB-related stuff) is that those people were drug dealing, moved around, and perhaps using this "cult" mentality in their drug business. I am learning along with many others about this. 

http://latimes.com/local/la-me-jane-doe-manson-killings-identified-20160427-story.html   

And Sharon Tate's sister has been involved. (I had no idea she was still looking for answers.)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Charles-Tex-Watson-Manson-LAPD-Lawyer-Audio-Tape-Recordings-Murders-174881381.html

Only your family gives a damn if your murder is solved, decades after everyone else has forgotten.  Maybe more than the investigators. There is a poor murder solve rate.

The LAPD has been given federal grants to help solve cases going back to 2011. I am keeping an open mind, especially since a family is till coming forward for answers.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/10/11/federal-grants-help-lapd-detectives-solve-cold-cases/ 

Shew.  You really are putting in some overtime with Cam gone.

EoL
44  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: The Observer: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’ on: June 04, 2016, 07:07:20 AM
And neither did the industry which kept demanding participation from Brian on every recording project and which, in turn and as a reaction, caused that terrible LOVE driven 'Brian's Back' campaign to trip stumble and fall through the mid 70s.  The fictional article is entirely and inexcusably urine infested...not unlike most of my golf balls.

Great point.  Both of these facts, that the guys themselves lusted for Brian's participation, even to the point of disregarding his well being, and the insistence of the record label to include Brian, lays bare the lie that Brian's greatness is a later fabrication, a myth that grew over time.  It is no myth, it has always been the case, and has always been recognized by the band themselves and the record company offering the deals.  This is nothing more than the latest desperate attempt to improve Mike's stock by re-writing history in order to lessen Brian's.

EoL
45  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: The Observer: It’s Time to Destroy ‘the Legend of Brian Wilson’ on: June 04, 2016, 06:05:50 AM
Whether they should have kept bugging him to be there is a separate question.
To be precise, they hired people to physically force him to be there.

Which kind of indicates that for all of those years the non-Brian Beach Boys did not agree with this guy's conclusions, both about Brian and themselves.

EoL
46  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: The What Are You Reading? Thread on: May 11, 2016, 09:14:33 AM
I'm starting Victor Hugo's Les Miserables and Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. They are both giant books so we'll see how that goes.

I'm also doing research for an article on top of it.

One of the last books I read before taking quite a long reading sabbatical was Les Miserable.  While I loved the book and am glad I read the unabridged version, there were certainly portions that seemed to drag on.  It was rewarding to get through it.

Regarding Russell's History of Western Philosophy, I'm not a fan of Russell (nor Wittgenstein, Whitehead, etc), as I believe they did more harm than good to philosophy.  With that said, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts when you complete the book.  I am wondering whether he tackles the actual history (so and so thought thus and such) or is it more of an "argument" against what has gone before (so and so thought thus and such which was proven wrong by his successor).  Let me know your thoughts when you are done, or even as you go.

Edit: I read a few reviews of Russell's book, including by people who gave it five stars, and it appears the latter is the case.  One of the common complaints about the book is that Russell exhibits intolerance for views at odds with his own (I know he has a very particular view of logic and metaphysics, so I can imagine who he berates and from what angle).  I would still like to hear your thoughts, in particular on what he says about Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume and Kant.

EoL
47  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: What do you think of this quote (attributed to Picasso)? on: April 22, 2016, 04:40:42 PM
I wish I could find time to put my thoughts together and post in this thread again as there are a couple of points/questions I wanted to make/ask.  In short, I believe Picasso was giving us a look at his philosophical worldview (whether on purpose or not).  I'm not particularly concerned about Picasso.  I am interested in the philosophy behind the comment.  If my suspicion is correct, then I want to look at his art and see if further evidence can be found.  Hopefully I will have time soon.  Hopefully at least the Captain will humor me.  Smiley

In the meantime, thank you to those who posted your thoughts.

Have a good weekend everyone!

EoL
48  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 20, 2016, 10:52:53 PM

To be quite truthful, he has told me in confidence some pretty damning things about certain individuals within the Beach Boys' "camp" (and, to be fair, some pretty redeeming things as well); but there's something that I can say about that: everything he has ever told me has also been told to me by others who have even stronger connections than he does. So either he's not "spreading lies," or somehow he conspired with a couple dozen people to back him up on the "lies."


Well, we've got another person confirming AGD was a big mouth.  How many people did the man blab to?  And how many people thought they were special receiving the dirt?  Whether the information was true or false that is not cool.

Thankfully Billy, when he realized it was a widespread problem, did something about it AND owned up to his mistake publicly.  Not many people would do that.

EoL
49  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 20, 2016, 10:19:24 AM
I still say, since it was private and the person it was sent to was not threatened in any way, then it should have been taken care of privately. Mike Love and his wife have had some very nasty stuff written on this board and less severe action was taken. While I do not condone spreading false and incorrect information, it just seems that the punishment was harsher for a PM than an actual board infraction of the same type. That stuff was put out there for any and all to see.

Apples and oranges.  Mike is bashed for his own words and actions.  No one is making things up about Mike and no one is posting information that was supposed to be private.  The allegation against AGD is that he spread false information and information that sounds like it was quite private.  Both instances have nasty in common, but then the similarities end.  AGD has publicly been nasty on this board for years and has not suffered the consequences to the same degree others have.  I am not presently objecting to this prior inequality, but to compare the nastiness of, say, OSD to what it is alleged that ADG did is completely unfair and reeks of bias on the part of everyone here making this absurd comparison.  Go and re-read the initial post, setting aside your bias, and you will see clearly there is no comparison.

The punishment seems harsh?  So you agree that the punishment should fit the crime.  But we are all largely ignorant of the crime.  How then do you conclude that the punishment was too harsh?  To draw this conclusion is nothing less than to accuse the three mods and board admin of either being inept or of lying.

Regarding handling the matter privately, three mods and the board admin (who almost never makes an appearance here, yet he found this particular situation warranted a statement) felt strongly enough to make the ban public.  This tells me that either all four people are complete fools or the infractions are serious enough to warrant this kind of action.  Consider this action was predicated upon full agreement between four people, at least two claiming friendship with AGD, and yet this is the course of action they chose.  They all surely realize the implications of their actions and chose to do it this way anyway.  On the other hand we who know almost nothing about what occurred suppose to know better how this should have been handled?  I understand we are all permitted to have an opinion but an opinion from complete ignorance fails to persuade me.

In addition, AGD has been given special treatment for at least as long as I have been a member of this board.  Perhaps this warrants special consideration in the manner of his ban.  With great power, as they say, comes great responsibility.  If you take the mods (and admin) decision and words at face value, AGD has abused this power for a long, long time.  That being the case a public ban does not seem out of line.  Until we have more details, and I doubt we ever will, I accept the unified voice of the mods/admin as an accurate representation of what occurred (over the better part of a decade no less) and that it warranted a public ban.  We may have questions and we may choose to ask them publicly, but to suppose from ignorance that it should have been handled differently or that the punishment was too harsh is the height of hubris.

EoL
50  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: With whom should Al record an album? on: April 19, 2016, 05:44:31 AM
Well, if it's acoustic guitars and sparse backing we want, I can't imagine anyone better than Willie Nelson. I don't know if their styles would blend, but it would be worth finding out.

Could be an interesting pairing.  Anyone able to connect the two of them?  Smiley
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 25
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.268 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!