Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[guitarfool2002]

If anyone, I mean anyone, can prove that this statement is true as of June 2014, taken verbatim from her reply: Plus Brian doesn't make any of his own decisions he's controlled by people when really my dad and him are friends and people continue to try to split them apart.

Playing the role of devil's advocate, can you prove it's not true?

Should I post a picture of me holding up the 100 bill?  

I'll repeat the offer, if anyone can prove that statement, the $100 is yours.

[Mike's Beard]

This is going over old ground. Didn't Mike book those solo shows way in advance with the understanding that the C50 had a definite end date? And that Brian Wilson had zero interest in extending the tour until the 11th hour?

[HeyJude]

Gee, Ambha seemed like a sweet kid when she sang Sail On Sailor in concert a couple of years ago. I have a hard time believing that's really her saying those things on Facebook. Wouldn't be at all surprised it's somebody else writing that crap.

Hard to say. The style and tone of it looks just like what some folks of that age seem to write online, though.

When I got online in the mid 90's, even the weird, insane internet trolls had better spelling and grammar.  

[guitarfool2002]

And I'm going to say this again, I don't like seeing a younger girl get dragged into this kind of social media back-and-forth because it is NOT high school, it's not dishing dirt with your friends about other friends, it's literally a jungle where celebrities who have more experience and pay teams of publicity and media specialists to "craft" their image have gotten into very deep sh*t...also known as the "PR Nightmare" in showbiz...by posting things on Twitter or Facebook that perhaps should have been more thought out.

And as someone so perfectly said, it's not the kind of pool to wade into if you can't swim, again just ask any number of celebrities and sports figures who have gotten into trouble with social media postings.

It's none of my business, but as I said several pages ago when this first broke, someone should put the brakes on this before it gets worse than it is.

[filledeplage]

If anyone is seriously re-evaluating anything they've thought because of online posts from a teenager, they're nuts.

As stated several times here, the supposed importance of "no more shows" is nonsensical given 99 percent of Mike's post tour comments. And Melinda Wilson herself has told interviewers about the difficulty of booking tours with Brian when he changes his mind day to day about what he wants to do. My guess is Brian indeed said something like that in passing during the 2012 tour, but it had zero effect on how the end of the thing went down (Brian made other, on the record comments, about never wanting to work with anyone else and being a BB full time ...)

Ambha might be a teen in the opinion of many.  But what she has is first-hand knowledge.  I like that she has the courage of her convictions.  I like that she gets involved in an issue about which she has passion.  And right or wrong she'll take her lumps along the way. But that is part of the game.  

She is not a passive young "valley girl." She appears to have strong opinions and she voices them. That, in my opinion is the sign of leader.  She isn't the first to be out there, in a opinionated fashion. Carnie gets out there and speaks her mind, as well and right or wrong, she still gets "out there" in the arena so issues are discussed, whether they are uncomfortable or not and opens up the discussion.

Bravo to you, Ambha! She is getting out the information to weigh two sides of the coin, and that is never a bad thing.

Maybe Ambha will go to law school or go into politics! We need courageous young women leaders!  

If I were any of these band members, or their family members, or their PR people, or agents, or managers, I would not want any of that crap online. It’s not well-written or eloquent, its lack of eloquence undermines its credibility and believability, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it has a tone that strongly suggests to me that it lacks any historical context or knowledge of the band and its fans. Hmm, how could something like that happen? If the person in question is very young perhaps?

Two over exaggerated, overly defensive, extreme opinions on opposite sides of the spectrum are not the “two sides of the coin” that I want to read. Some thoughtful, even-handed commentary from these folks would be great. They are never going to be impartial, but “all he cares about is music and meditation” is not the sort of commentary that anybody will lend credibility to. If I were the person in question being discussed, I would find it comically overly simplified to refer to me as someone who only cares about those two things. I’m a totally boring person, and I’m not that simple and easy to generalize about.  

It is not too far afield from Dennis' interview with Peter Fornatale.  

Parents have a choice in bringing up their kids.  They either teach them to "go along to get along" ( and for some that works well) and some are "permissive and tolerant" about kids speaking up and without without censorship.  Sometimes there is no harmony as between the PR people, and the players, as Jay Carney told it so well, after leaving the top PR post at the White House last month, "We tell the truth, slowly."  Only a bit at a time.  It is too manipulative for my way of thinking.  

If I were a public figure (or actually, even if I wasn’t), and someone posted the following online trying to defend me, I might appreciate very much that they love me and they’re trying to defend me, and I might appreciate and agree with all of the sentiments contained therein, but I would tell them to stop posting crap like this, because it doesn’t help anyone:

Half of you don't know what the hell you're talking about my dad doesn't do sh*t wrong he's the only beach boy that has NEVER STOPPED TOURING ONCE. Show some love respect and appreciation for all of them instead of adding fuel to the fire. My dad has nothing but love for everyone he's not a "dick" or "asshole" or whatever else you think he is. It's fucking pathetic all he cares about is the music fans and meditation. He's not this money hungry prick you all seem to think he is. Take it from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Have fun continuing to talk sh*t on a good person. Peace and love, mikes daughter ambha love.

Interesting, I was not even thinking about the "public figure" aspect. Just generally "refuting" what she believes to be a falsehood about a family member, public figure or not.  There seems to have been a very one-sided perception of her father, and generally if one does not "set the record straight" with refuting, it could be perceived as the truth.

Social media has "muddied the waters."  This is America (Here) and, just about everything she is defending against, has been in print.  And she has a right to her opinion, and her opinion is no less protected (under the US Constitution) because she is the child of a public figure.  

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

[HeyJude]

This is going over old ground. Didn't Mike book those solo shows way in advance with the understanding that the C50 had a definite end date? And that Brian Wilson had zero interest in extending the tour until the 11th hour?

No, not much of any of that is confirmed as true. It's still shockingly a lot of deduction and guesswork. We don't know when the solo shows were booked, we don't know how firm any "end date" was (they pushed that "set end date" back at least once, this we know for sure), and we don't know who had what attitude toward ending or continuing the tour.

The few spectators with some inside experience on the tour have suggested the whole thing was not set in stone and ended up as a huge clusterfudge, with the prevailing idea allegedly being some variation on "let's just get through this tour first and then figure it out."

My best guess: When the tour started, Brian was cautiously enthusiastic, Mike was guardedly enthusiastic and had already decided he was, at some point, going to go back to his own tour whether the tour bombed or was a hit, and Al was obliviously primed to have the reunion lineup be the permanent (or at least continuing in some fashion) lineup. Dave and Bruce are along for the ride.

As the tour goes along and becomes more successful, Al and Mike's positions are solidified as they somehow agree to a small extension. Mike still plans to back to his own thing, and starts to find little things he doesn't like about the reunion. Al sees how great the tour is and becomes more unrealistically hopeful that it can continue into the future. Brian probably waffled as usual, and at some point maybe thought the 73 dates were enough due to his back or his attention span. As the tour neared its end, Brian felt better about more shows, perhaps this was when the additional offers came in. Al didn't need much convincing of course to continue. Mike meanwhile has already booked shows for his own band. At this point, there's no way for the stars to align to keep it going. Unfortunately, while going back to the "status quo" might have been easy for the band, the media was primed to make it a story, that the band was "breaking up" again or that the others were being fired. Unlike some bands who "split" and do solo projects, the lazy media was more apt to conclude the other band members were fired because two of the band members continued on using the band's name.

[Cyncie]

This is going over old ground. Didn't Mike book those solo shows way in advance with the understanding that the C50 had a definite end date? And that Brian Wilson had zero interest in extending the tour until the 11th hour?

 I guess it comes down to whether you consider a second album offer, a gig at Madison Square Garden and a few other big events to be game changers. Brian and Al seemed to think they were. Mike not so much.

[startBBtoday]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm waiting for Melinda's comment on Ambah's statement about the "no more shows for Wilson's" email that was sent. I can't imagine Ambah made it up, and it does support Mike's comment about that last year. So, looks like it was the Wilson's who said no to more than 73 gigs.

Nah, that’s rather specious reasoning. I will totally buy that Brian’s “camp” could have easily made some hasty, weird comments as the tour wrapped up. I doubt this comment about an e-mail from Brian’s camp is totally made up; I also don’t find the source of this information as reliable as far as the context or details. When did Brian send an e-mail? What did it say? Did that e-mail happen before or after Mike had begun to book non-reunion shows? We get one paraphrased line of an approximately alleged two-year-old e-mail, mixed in with a bunch of weird internet vitriol (in response to plenty of vitriol, no question) and defensive language about a range of private and public crap.

The problem is, NOTHING else Mike had said (apart from that one passing comment about Brian saying “no more shows”) in the last two years in interviews washes with the idea that Brian and Brian alone is responsible for no more reunion shows. On the contrary, Mike’s language and attitude has indicated that he much prefers the way things are now. Mike has been the one to continually refer to there being a “term” to the reunion, dismissing the tour as “oh, that was just for the fans” as if we were getting tossed a bone, continually referencing how everybody is “going back to what they used to do.” Mike’s language and attitude has been crystal clear that he is back to doing what he prefers. Not once has Mike said “I want to keep all five of us together and keep touring and recording, but Brian refuses to do it” or “I’d do another reunion tour tomorrow if Brian wanted to.” Mike has not once referenced all those alleged offers for them to do more shows and do another album, etc. He has said some rather lukewarm if not negative things about other aspects of the reunion tour (the band was too big, etc.). Again, that’s all fine. But it’s very clear Mike doesn’t want to go back to that. He has made vague references to a series of conditions under which he would *consider* doing something again.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, maybe Mike started booking non-reunion shows, then Brian’s camp got all bothered about it and hastily threatened to take their ball and go home (although were they threatening something that was already happening anyway?), but then there were more offers for more shows and they wanted to do it. Whatever the sequence of events, it’s clear they made no attempt to regroup and reschedule more activities together. If Brian said no more shows, but Mike wanted to, but then at some later stage Brian said he in fact did want to do more shows, why was Mike’s reaction then to still tour on his own for the next two years? Even if we buy into the argument that Mike at that point had booked more shows on his own and needed to do them, etc. Why not get together in the aftermath of those statements to the press in 2012 and make arrangements for another 2013 tour?

It may well not be as simple as Mike being the sole reason for the demise of the reunion. But he has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers touring on his own to touring with the full group.

I'm sure, like most things in life, there is fault in both parties.

Real quick, though, how would it benefit Mike Love to play the victim in this scenario and say that it was Brian who ended the reunion, not him? Mike knows everyone's always going to love Brian more than him. And why would Mike say that what he's doing now, touring as The Beach Boys without Al, Brian or David, is somehow inferior or not what he wants to be doing? Mike does what's best for business, and with how the chips fell, what's best for business is him acting like he's totally happy touring on his own without all the extra drama.

And that probably is what he prefers, but I also believe it's what Brian's wifeandmanagers prefer, as well.

I think Brian's new situation has, overall, been beneficial, but let's also not ignore that we can count on one hand how many times Brian has been a "Beach Boy" for the last 20 years. C50, Stars & Stripes, Beach Boys monument, Capitol building reunion. Am I missing any?

Will Mike ever be able to un-do the perception that he or Brian has among fans and spectators? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean he should be resigned to what anyone else thinks. More importantly, it’s clear he’s not resigned, and continues to try to counter critics and naysayers to varying degrees in interviews.

How would putting the blame on Brian for ending the tour benefit Mike? In a very simple and specific way. “Mike Love fires Brian Wilson” was a huge headline, a “trending” online topic, in 2012. Mike could have easily cleared up everything by stating in his letter to the LA Times that “I don’t know what anyone is talking about. I wanted to continue the reunion, but Brian refused to do any more shows.” Mike never said anything along those lines in his statement. He went on about a “set end date”, how they went above and beyond by extended the tour, discussed how the reunion tour didn’t allow him to play small markets, and so on, the same stuff we got in subsequent interviews. Every indication was that he indeed did not want to do more reunion shows. He could have easily said instead that he would have been happy to do more shows, but Brian didn’t want to. Why didn’t that happen? My guess is because Mike was happy to go back to his own touring, and everything he has said and done has supported that assertion. He says in interviews that he enjoys touring with his band. Meanwhile, he has minimized the reunion tour and said some moderately critical things about some aspects of it.

And if Mike had generated headlines by saying that he didn't fire Brian Wilson and that he desperately wanted him to keep touring, it would further undermine The Beach Boys shows. Pointing out that it sucks that Brian Wilson isn't touring with the Beach Boys, or that Brian Wilson isn't touring with the Beach Boys at all, doesn't benefit Mike in the least.

Mike makes money off "The Beach Boys" name being bigger than the "Brian Wilson" brand. Mike likely prefers to tour on his own, and there's no benefit to him in saying otherwise, even if Brian played a role in the reunion ending.

Crying about Brian Wilson ending a tour won't help sell Beach Boys tickets. Trying to turn a negative into a positive might.

[JohnMill]

Gee, Ambha seemed like a sweet kid when she sang Sail On Sailor in concert a couple of years ago. I have a hard time believing that's really her saying those things on Facebook. Wouldn't be at all surprised it's somebody else writing that crap.

Regarding Ambah Love's Response: If the response is 100% truth verbatim then it will defend itself.  If it is anything else as I believe guitarfool2002 is suggesting I doubt it will go any further.  The reason being Brian Wilson's people are not going to get in a social media war with a teenage girl.  Regardless of whose daughter she is, attacking a young girl (relatively speaking) like Ambah Love would make them look like flat out bullies and cast their side of the argument in an extremely negative light.

As far as what Mikie is suggesting above, I don't personally believe this to be the case.  To use a teenage girl as a device to get your message across strikes me as a bit crass.  I don't think anyone we are speaking of within The Beach Boys family would stoop that low to put words in Ambah Love's mouth.

[HeyJude]

Interesting, I was not even thinking about the "public figure" aspect. Just generally "refuting" what she believes to be a falsehood about a family member, public figure or not.  There seems to have been a very one-sided perception of her father, and generally if one does not "set the record straight" with refuting, it could be perceived as the truth.

Social media has "muddied the waters."  This is America (Here) and, just about everything she is defending against, has been in print.  And she has a right to her opinion, and her opinion is no less protected (under the US Constitution) because she is the child of a public figure.  

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

It's not a question of who has the right to say something. I'm just thinking that logically, practically speaking, many would say they would not want someone posting that stuff on their behalf. It just adds to the icky, messy situation, regardless of the veracity of what is being said (and much if not most of it is subjective opinion anyway).

I would also say that even if I wanted someone to go online and defend me, I'd question doing it this way. The lack of eloquence undercuts it, as I mentioned before. There's also the effect of sometimes defending a comment or accusation that wasn't specifically said. I didn't read all of that facebook crap, so let's take this as more of a theoretical (and a clunky one at that):

Someone defends me online by saying "He's not a moneygrubbing, greedy, egotistical SOB." But what if nobody made that specific allegation? Maybe some people made some general critical remarks, but nobody expressed that exact sentiment. One could argue that in someone's defense you can read the things that they are aware the person they are defending is in some way guilty of. This is regardless of whether it's true. I don't want someone to blurt out "He's not guilty of XYZ!" when nobody made that accusation in the first place. It actually makes one look more guilty, potentially of something they're not guilty of.

Having said all of that, isn't someone at least tangentially interested in something like what the Brian/Al show will sound like? Or something related to music?  

[guitarfool2002]

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

A basic rule of debate and discourse, though, is not to challenge a perceived falsehood by offering up another falsehood in response. The point could have been made, the claims could have been challenged more diplomatically and effectively without "going there" as she did.  This is why there is a cottage industry around consultants and experts in social media communications for public figures, corporations, and similar interests. The damage done by a poorly crafted statement can destroy any of the positives within one sentence posted on Twitter or Facebook.

[HeyJude]

And if Mike had generated headlines by saying that he didn't fire Brian Wilson and that he desperately wanted him to keep touring, it would further undermine The Beach Boys shows. Pointing out that it sucks that Brian Wilson isn't touring with the Beach Boys, or that Brian Wilson isn't touring with the Beach Boys at all, doesn't benefit Mike in the least.

Mike makes money off "The Beach Boys" name being bigger than the "Brian Wilson" brand. Mike likely prefers to tour on his own, and there's no benefit to him in saying otherwise, even if Brian played a role in the reunion ending.

Crying about Brian Wilson ending a tour won't help sell Beach Boys tickets. Trying to turn a negative into a positive might.

Mike's problem at that moment in time was a PR problem, not a problem with selling tickets. While there is an interesting conundrum with having to downplay how much Brian or Al mean to the BB brand, Mike was being criticized for something in the media, and he could have quickly dispelled that notion by saying he wanted to continue and Brian didn't. That wouldn't have hurt his ticket sales in the long run, because the lack of Brian or Al never has.

If Mike was worried about even implying that Brian (or Al, or Dave) added more to the BB brand and that his band without them was a lesser article, then he would have never done the reunion tour in the first place. Gathering all five together and playing some larger venues and making a bigger hoopla, that implies it's a better value having them all there.

[Foster's Freeze]

I miss these guys.

[HeyJude]

I miss these guys.

Agreed. It was a kick-ass tour. One of the best live shows I've EVER seen, period.

[Cyncie]

I miss these guys.

Me too.

[Mike's Beard]

This is going over old ground. Didn't Mike book those solo shows way in advance with the understanding that the C50 had a definite end date? And that Brian Wilson had zero interest in extending the tour until the 11th hour?

 I guess it comes down to whether you consider a second album offer, a gig at Madison Square Garden and a few other big events to be game changers. Brian and Al seemed to think they were. Mike not so much.

To which I can only conclude that Mike must have had serious issues with at least one party to not want to take the offer up.

[filledeplage]

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

A basic rule of debate and discourse, though, is not to challenge a perceived falsehood by offering up another falsehood in response. The point could have been made, the claims could have been challenged more diplomatically and effectively without "going there" as she did.  This is why there is a cottage industry around consultants and experts in social media communications for public figures, corporations, and similar interests. The damage done by a poorly crafted statement can destroy any of the positives within one sentence posted on Twitter or Facebook.

The "spin-control" has ruined this country, in my opinion.  The big wheels whether political or industrial all need to have a buffer-zone for their "perception of the truth."

Maybe Ambha is the kind of young lady who doesn't want to be in spin-control mode.  When you give up your own opinion and let someone else "sanitize" your opinions, it is a slippery slope.  

Most of our great artists/musicians operated without built-in damage control.  Certainly those 70's protesters...

[Mikie]

As far as what Mikie is suggesting above, I don't personally believe this to be the case.  To use a teenage girl as a device to get your message across strikes me as a bit crass.  I don't think anyone we are speaking of within The Beach Boys family would stoop that low to put words in Ambah Love's mouth.

No, let's be clear. I wasn't suggesting at all that someone was putting her up to saying those things. But I also have a hard time believing it's her saying that. As Jude suggested, it's typical of a teenage girl to write that kind of stuff on Facebook, and maybe she let those people get the best of her or had finally had enough, but I thought maybe she'd watch her step a little closer, being who she is. If a friend (or even a relative) was sitting with her typing that, I wouldn't be surprised. Hard to say, maybe it IS her own words. And hopefully she'll lay low now.

[guitarfool2002]

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

A basic rule of debate and discourse, though, is not to challenge a perceived falsehood by offering up another falsehood in response. The point could have been made, the claims could have been challenged more diplomatically and effectively without "going there" as she did.  This is why there is a cottage industry around consultants and experts in social media communications for public figures, corporations, and similar interests. The damage done by a poorly crafted statement can destroy any of the positives within one sentence posted on Twitter or Facebook.

The "spin-control" has ruined this country, in my opinion.  The big wheels whether political or industrial all need to have a buffer-zone for their "perception of the truth."

Maybe Ambha is the kind of young lady who doesn't want to be in spin-control mode.  When you give up your own opinion and let someone else "sanitize" your opinions, it is a slippery slope.  

Most of our great artists/musicians operated without built-in damage control.  Certainly those 70's protesters...

Whether it's spin control mode or not, and no matter who it is, the guiding principle should be that notion of the truth, and again it's not effective at all to refute a falsehood by posting another falsehood. That is the core issue, no matter what spin is applied before or after the fact. If another falsehood is presented, one which can be shown to be false if not ridiculous if necessary, it destroys not only the message but the credibility of the messenger.

Beyond this specific case, as good as speaking unfiltered and uncensored might be as an ideal, if it's not true and can be proven untrue, and above that if it can be proven to have caused some kind of damage to a professional reputation or a business or anything of the sort, it gets into the definition of libel when it involves someone's writings if they are shown to be based on a false statement or premise. I'm *NOT* saying that in this case, again let me stress NOT....but damage control or at least a self-check before posting something isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it become spin-control or censorship to think twice before offering a public comment.

[filledeplage]

Edmund Burke's quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (women) do nothing." She has perceived falsehood, about a family member, and is stepping up.  

A basic rule of debate and discourse, though, is not to challenge a perceived falsehood by offering up another falsehood in response. The point could have been made, the claims could have been challenged more diplomatically and effectively without "going there" as she did.  This is why there is a cottage industry around consultants and experts in social media communications for public figures, corporations, and similar interests. The damage done by a poorly crafted statement can destroy any of the positives within one sentence posted on Twitter or Facebook.

The "spin-control" has ruined this country, in my opinion.  The big wheels whether political or industrial all need to have a buffer-zone for their "perception of the truth."

Maybe Ambha is the kind of young lady who doesn't want to be in spin-control mode.  When you give up your own opinion and let someone else "sanitize" your opinions, it is a slippery slope.  

Most of our great artists/musicians operated without built-in damage control.  Certainly those 70's protesters...

Whether it's spin control mode or not, and no matter who it is, the guiding principle should be that notion of the truth, and again it's not effective at all to refute a falsehood by posting another falsehood. That is the core issue, no matter what spin is applied before or after the fact. If another falsehood is presented, one which can be shown to be false if not ridiculous if necessary, it destroys not only the message but the credibility of the messenger.

Beyond this specific case, as good as speaking unfiltered and uncensored might be as an ideal, if it's not true and can be proven untrue, and above that if it can be proven to have caused some kind of damage to a professional reputation or a business or anything of the sort, it gets into the definition of libel when it involves someone's writings if they are shown to be based on a false statement or premise. I'm *NOT* saying that in this case, again let me stress NOT....but damage control or at least a self-check before posting something isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor does it become spin-control or censorship to think twice before offering a public comment.

Maybe I explained it poorly. The "truth" is a defense in a libel action. This is Facebook, not court.  She is in "defense of another" whether "salty" or "sweet" in delivery.  I do agree that a lot of stuff can be done in haste. But I think it is more a case where she is sick and tired of seeing her parent being publicly maligned.  And rather that  let it eat away at her, she is speaking out.  I doubt anyone is putting her up to it. Or ghost writing for her.  And it is likely a tempest in a teapot. 

[Autotune]

Back to Al. He was sad that Live Nation asked him, and not Mike. But did he ever say "yes". And when he stepped out, did he do so based on the sadness he initially felt? Or was it based on other elements we are not privy to?

Again, Al showed up at the Ella Awards, he publically congratulated Mike on his birthday. He is a gentleman. And so has Mike acknowledged. This goes beyond a "Mike and Al don't like each other" scene, I think. Their relationship is probably better than we could imagine, and there may be other issues at play here.

Regarding Ambha... As inapopriate as her posts may be in a PR way, or the words she used... as long as blood runs through her veins, no well-meant daughter would allow the crap that some imbecile posters wrote about her father. And if Al's fanpage manager won't delete them or moderare them, I can imagine her outrage.

[urbanite]

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
   

[SMiLE Brian]

I am really not sure we should take Mike's daughter's word as gospel, we need confirmation from the BBs themselves to find out what happened.

[Emdeeh]

I miss these guys.

Me three

[SMiLE Brian]

I miss it as well.