My participation in the Lorren Daro thread and communication with him

[buddhahat]

This is not meant to be a personal attack on AGD but centres on his accusations that I have a 'vested interest' in supporting Lorren daro:

I note that in the original 2012 thread on this article, you were also supportive of Darro from the beginning. Whilst I applaud your consistency, I also have to consider there might be some kind of a vested interest.

I resent this accusation and wanted an opportunity to refute it without clogging up the main Lorren Daro thread.

After the release of Beatiful Dreamer I noticed a lot of negativity directed towards Daro, based on his segment of the film. This was prior to his essay in 2012 that contained the contentious comments about Marilyn and others. Therefore I perceived the negativity to be based on nothing more than prejudice about his appearance (which I cannot fathom - he looks entirely normal to me), his perceived callousness in chucking about Brian's trip, and the fact he supplied brian with LSD and cannabis. I felt these were all unfair grounds to criticise the man and defended him, just as I have defended other points on the board that I felt strongly about.  

When Lorren Daro decided to visit the board recently I was genuinely excited and, taking this at face value and assuming it was him, saw an opportunity to find out more about this period of Brian's life (particualy Smile which I am, and will aways be, obsessed with). I felt immediate frustration to see how much thread time was taken up with moralising and the scolding of Daro for his comments about Marilyn et al and voiced my concerns primarily at Mujan and AGD. In retrospect perhaps I could have taken a more measured approach but I have a tendency to express myself heatedly here, every now and then. I stand by my comments that this represented a 'double standard' to me as I see many BB idols excused of far worse behaviour than Lorren Daro's.

AGD: I didn’t mean you, AGD. I meant those other mindless pricks that inhabit this site. Ask Buddahat about them…

In Mr Daro's latest post he makes the above comment which I can only anticipate will generate more conspiracy theorising from AGD. I can also appreciate it may have board members scratching their heads thinking "does Buddhahat consider me to be a 'mindless idiot'? Or maybe not. Nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, I wanted to disclose the only non-public message I sent to Mr Daro, which was in response to him emailing me a heads up that he'd posted again and was waiting for 'the deluge'. All other messages of support I sent him are in the comments section of his essay.

"Hi Lorren,

I'm really glad you had the confidence to post again, despite the negativity you'd received. I read a couple of your posts this morning and thought they were perfect and I noticed you had a slightly more sympathetic reaction (even from the human fact-checking machine that is AGD). I haven't had a chance to visit the board since I am teaching today but I sincerely hope you're having an easier run of it. I think the bottom line is that the board has a lot of narrow minded idiots there and once they've made their mind up, there's not much to be done. Hopefully some attitudes might change now you've returned.

I am so glad VDP showed his support for you and your essay. When all's said and done, his opinion means more than the whole of the smiley board, I'm sure.

I look forward to following the thread later on and it's been an honour communicating with you.

All the best and thanks again for taking the time to share your side of the story."

I apologise to AGD for calling him a 'human fact checking machine'. I think I got the phrase from Ghost. It made me chuckle when he used it and I considered it quite a light rebuke but I sense it has upset AGD.

As for my 'mindless idiots' comment. I exaggerated when I said there are 'a lot' of them on the board and 'idiots' is unnecessary but it was a PM remember and I felt exasperated. I did witness what I perceived to be a certain mindlessness in various responses in the Daro thread - namely from AGD, Mujan and LeFilleDe Plage. I don't agree with any of your approaches.

AGD I have been quite vocal in my attitude to your attacks on Daro's personal appearance and I also feel your obsessions with 'the facts' has been detrimental in gleaning more interesting and useful anecdotes from Mr Daro.

Mujan, I expressed my frustrations with you via PM as did you with me.

LeFilleDePlage - I simply cannot relate to your moralising about Daro giving brian LSD and allowing him to drive. If there is any wrongdoing there (and I have driven on LSD myself as a teenager fwiw) then BW is as responsible as Loren Daro. Daro was not a childminder. These were contemporaries having fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally people may consider my support of Daro somewhat fawning. So be it. I am a self confessed Smile fanboy and have indeed felt 'honoured' to have a chance to communicate with somebody who played a significant role in brian's life and, arguably, in altering his perception and making Smile possible (but that's another debate).

If anybody feels strongly or hurt by any of the above please could I urge to you to comment here and not in the main Daro thread and not via PMs.

[Mr. Verlander]

Just remember, Lorren Daro looked a little bit sleazy in the Beautiful Dreamer doc. That right there should tell you that he's not to be trusted. That's sarcasm. 

[RangeRoverA1]

I don't know if you're aware of the board rules, but it's not allowed to share a PM publicly. It can earn you a ban.

[Lee Marshall]

I guess it depends on what 'wing' one 'flies' with in terms of at least the initial, response toward an individual who 'turned Brian on'.  You know...the old U.S. 'war on drugs'.  Left wing/right wing?  Open minded/closed minded?  Mujan and I too spoke about the concept of dialogue with Lorren.  He understands and appreciates where I'm coming from and I would suggest that even Lorren 'get's' where Mujan's coming from because he toned his attack down to a much more reasonable approach.

As for Andrew...he sits in a funny position.  As a historian...with access 'allowed'...he needs to protect his interests and his friends.  What kind of a guy would he be if he didn't stick up for the folks who've helped him out as much as they have along the way?   I mean Budd didn't you think Lorren came on a little/a LOT too strong to begin with?  I wanted to read everything he had to say...but not if it came in THAT style.  The credibility factor would have been damn near 0.  Having 'reasoned' with Andrew over the years...the two of us often coming from opposite directions...I will say that I respect him for the most part, appreciate the contributions he's made to the big picture, and I'd say that I have his back.  One day...he'll discover that we're not all stupid...but that might take a little longer.  ['cause people keep proving to him that we are...me included]

As for Fiiled...I didn't really see the problem that upset Lorren.  I'll tell you...I never would have even considered getting behind the wheel under those circumstances.  Things can change from A to Z in a new-york second...occasionally...when under THAT influence.  Not an ideal situation for safe driving.  I did go swimming though...a few times.  Not necessarily the brightest thing I've ever done.  But who knew?  At the time?  Not me.  That's for sure.

Anyway...thanks to you and the folks who kept up the encouragement to get Lorren back and posting.  What we got from him overnight was really pretty darned cool and I'd guess that there's lots more to come.  If he can deal with facts when it comes to his recollections he won't have to editorialize.  The stories will say it all.  People will be able to draw their own conclusions easily once they're armed with FACT.

This should allow him to get done that which he came here to do.  At the same time it should give us all a better understanding of what went down back in the day.  While we all may be fans for different reasons...while we may have different favourites from the band, favourite members, favourite songs and favourite eras...we all start sitting in the same tree.  We're all cuckoo [clock] for the Beach Boys.  Ultimately...THAT'S the bottom line.

[buddhahat]

I don't know if you're aware of the board rules, but it's not allowed to share a PM publicly. It can earn you a ban.

My message to Daro was actually an email I sent and nothing to do with the PM system here. I just meant my message to him was not public.

The only aspects of AGD's PM I'm sharing are two words that I felt were relevant to the issue at hand but I've removed them. I wasn't aware of those rules. Apologies to mods and AGD and thanks for the heads up, RangeRover.

[buddhahat]

I guess it depends on what 'wing' one 'flies' with in terms of at least the initial, response toward an individual who 'turned Brian on'.  You know...the old U.S. 'war on drugs'.  Left wing/right wing?  Open minded/closed minded?  Mujan and I too spoke about the concept of dialogue with Lorren.  He understands and appreciates where I'm coming from and I would suggest that even Lorren 'get's' where Mujan's coming from because he toned his attack down to a much more reasonable approach.

As for Andrew...he sits in a funny position.  As a historian...with access 'allowed'...he needs to protect his interests and his friends.  What kind of a guy would he be if he didn't stick up for the folks who've helped him out as much as they have along the way?   I mean Budd didn't you think Lorren came on a little/a LOT too strong to begin with?  I wanted to read everything he had to say...but not if it came in THAT style.  The credibility factor would have been damn near 0.  Having 'reasoned' with Andrew over the years...the two of us often coming from opposite directions...I will say that I respect him for the most part, appreciate the contributions he's made to the big picture, and I'd say that I have his back.  One day...he'll discover that we're not all stupid...but that might take a little longer.  ['cause people keep proving to him that we are...me included]

As for Fiiled...I didn't really see the problem that upset Lorren.  I'll tell you...I never would have even considered getting behind the wheel under those circumstances.  Things can change from A to Z in a new-york second...occasionally...when under THAT influence.  Not an ideal situation for safe driving.  I did go swimming though...a few times.  Not necessarily the brightest thing I've ever done.  But who knew?  At the time?  Not me.  That's for sure.

Anyway...thanks to you and the folks who kept up the encouragement to get Lorren back and posting.  What we got from him overnight was really pretty darned cool and I'd guess that there's lots more to come.  If he can deal with facts when it comes to his recollections he won't have to editorialize.  The stories will say it all.  People will be able to draw their own conclusions easily once they're armed with FACT.

This should allow him to get done that which he came here to do.  At the same time it should give us all a better understanding of what went down back in the day.  While we all may be fans for different reasons...while we may have different favourites from the band, favourite members, favourite songs and favourite eras...we all start sitting in the same tree.  We're all cuckoo [clock] for the Beach Boys.  Ultimately...THAT'S the bottom line.

Thanks for the reasoned response.

[RangeRoverA1]

I don't know if you're aware of the board rules, but it's not allowed to share a PM publicly. It can earn you a ban.

My message to Daro was actually an email I sent and nothing to do with the PM system here. I just meant my message to him was not public.

The only aspects of AGD's PM I'm sharing are two words that I felt were relevant to the issue at hand but I've removed them. I wasn't aware of those rules. Apologies to mods and AGD.

Your writing "disclose the only PM I sent to Mr. Daro" is what confused me. You didn't say firmly it's an "e-mail". But if it's so, move along.

[buddhahat]

I don't know if you're aware of the board rules, but it's not allowed to share a PM publicly. It can earn you a ban.

My message to Daro was actually an email I sent and nothing to do with the PM system here. I just meant my message to him was not public.

The only aspects of AGD's PM I'm sharing are two words that I felt were relevant to the issue at hand but I've removed them. I wasn't aware of those rules. Apologies to mods and AGD.

Your writing "disclose the only PM I sent to Mr. Daro" is what confused me. You didn't say firmly it's an "e-mail". But if it's so, move along.

yeah, fair enough - that was misleading. I've edited the post now.

[Cyncie]

My objections to the original topic were due to its tone. The man came into the board looking for a fight. He shouldn't be so shocked and hurt that he got one. Now that things are progressing in a more civilized manner, I'm glad that those who care are able to interact with him.

Personally, I won't be participating. Not because I blame him for giving Brian LSD. Brian was an adult, and he made his own decisions. I just don't have any interest in his opinion, even if he was "there". I've never understood the adulation fans give the LA "salon" group. That whole scene strikes me as a group of pretentious, overly serious pseudo-intellectuals who, even now, consider everyone except themselves to be unenlightened fools. I've always wondered why they devoted so much time to Brian, since they considered him to be nothing more than a "buffoon" (Mr. Park's words) and an "idiot" (Mr. Daro's words). I see them as one more group who were using Brian for their own reasons. Oh, they justified it by saying they were helping him expand creatively, and thus were his "true" friends.  But in the end, when Brian was falling apart, they bailed, just like the rest.  Of course, it's the idiot buffoon that people know and love, not the intelligentsia of the LA arts scene. And, the idiot buffoon has a biography coming out soon. Very telling.

[Fire Wind]

It was 'idiot savant', not idiot.  And, unless there's some other quote I haven't seen, Parks said he was victimized by BW's buffoonery, not that he was actually a buffoon.

[filledeplage]

This is not meant to be a personal attack on AGD but centres on his accusations that I have a 'vested interest' in supporting Lorren daro:

I note that in the original 2012 thread on this article, you were also supportive of Darro from the beginning. Whilst I applaud your consistency, I also have to consider there might be some kind of a vested interest.

I resent this accusation and wanted an opportunity to refute it without clogging up the main Lorren Daro thread.

After the release of Beatiful Dreamer I noticed a lot of negativity directed towards Daro, based on his segment of the film. This was prior to his essay in 2012 that contained the contentious comments about Marilyn and others. Therefore I perceived the negativity to be based on nothing more than prejudice about his appearance (which I cannot fathom - he looks entirely normal to me), his perceived callousness in chucking about Brian's trip, and the fact he supplied brian with LSD and cannabis. I felt these were all unfair grounds to criticise the man and defended him, just as I have defended other points on the board that I felt strongly about.  

When Lorren Daro decided to visit the board recently I was genuinely excited and, taking this at face value and assuming it was him, saw an opportunity to find out more about this period of Brian's life (particualy Smile which I am, and will aways be, obsessed with). I felt immediate frustration to see how much thread time was taken up with moralising and the scolding of Daro for his comments about Marilyn et al and voiced my concerns primarily at Mujan and AGD. In retrospect perhaps I could have taken a more measured approach but I have a tendency to express myself heatedly here, every now and then. I stand by my comments that this represented a 'double standard' to me as I see many BB idols excused of far worse behaviour than Lorren Daro's.

AGD: I didn’t mean you, AGD. I meant those other mindless pricks that inhabit this site. Ask Buddahat about them…

In Mr Daro's latest post he makes the above comment which I can only anticipate will generate more conspiracy theorising from AGD. I can also appreciate it may have board members scratching their heads thinking "does Buddhahat consider me to be a 'mindless idiot'? Or maybe not. Nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, I wanted to disclose the only non-public message I sent to Mr Daro, which was in response to him emailing me a heads up that he'd posted again and was waiting for 'the deluge'. All other messages of support I sent him are in the comments section of his essay.

"Hi Lorren,

I'm really glad you had the confidence to post again, despite the negativity you'd received. I read a couple of your posts this morning and thought they were perfect and I noticed you had a slightly more sympathetic reaction (even from the human fact-checking machine that is AGD). I haven't had a chance to visit the board since I am teaching today but I sincerely hope you're having an easier run of it. I think the bottom line is that the board has a lot of narrow minded idiots there and once they've made their mind up, there's not much to be done. Hopefully some attitudes might change now you've returned.

I am so glad VDP showed his support for you and your essay. When all's said and done, his opinion means more than the whole of the smiley board, I'm sure.

I look forward to following the thread later on and it's been an honour communicating with you.

All the best and thanks again for taking the time to share your side of the story."

I apologise to AGD for calling him a 'human fact checking machine'. I think I got the phrase from Ghost. It made me chuckle when he used it and I considered it quite a light rebuke but I sense it has upset AGD.

As for my 'mindless idiots' comment. I exaggerated when I said there are 'a lot' of them on the board and 'idiots' is unnecessary but it was a PM remember and I felt exasperated. I did witness what I perceived to be a certain mindlessness in various responses in the Daro thread - namely from AGD, Mujan and LeFilleDe Plage. I don't agree with any of your approaches.

AGD I have been quite vocal in my attitude to your attacks on Daro's personal appearance and I also feel your obsessions with 'the facts' has been detrimental in gleaning more interesting and useful anecdotes from Mr Daro.

Mujan, I expressed my frustrations with you via PM as did you with me.

LeFilleDePlage - I simply cannot relate to your moralising about Daro giving brian LSD and allowing him to drive. If there is any wrongdoing there (and I have driven on LSD myself as a teenager fwiw) then BW is as responsible as Loren Daro. Daro was not a childminder. These were contemporaries having fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally people may consider my support of Daro somewhat fawning. So be it. I am a self confessed Smile fanboy and have indeed felt 'honoured' to have a chance to communicate with somebody who played a significant role in brian's life and, arguably, in altering his perception and making Smile possible (but that's another debate).

If anybody feels strongly or hurt by any of the above please could I urge to you to comment here and not in the main Daro thread and not via PMs.

Buddahat - when I post, it is generally with a some "resource" that I've researched open, alongside the ipad.  I am not in Andrew's class as far as knowing background on a "scholarly" level, but do check things out. 

First, we generally have strong positions with regard the music, but the use and abuse in terms of reputation of family members, even the President's family is usually "off the table" and I felt strongly that Marilyn should be included in that category. 

Second, driving impaired is unacceptable. Perhaps Mr. Daro should have been the "designated driver." Even in the 1960's, people would take the keys from someone who was potentially impaired.  And, the whole visual of a person post-LSD ingestion circling two blocks for hours would raise the attention of someone surely in a neighborhood.  I don't know if this is credible, even for 1965. 

And, third, neuroscience has a big role to play when someone claims that the consciousness is "raised" when actually the brain function has been "diminished." Neuroscience can now measure and quantify with brain scanners the effect on the brain of drugs, impact injuries, which result in later Lou Gerhig's disease and Parkinson's.  And I don't give people a "pass" for causing harm with a drug that had been studied by the CIA, used to abuse prison inmates, people with terminal cancer, and other vulnerable groups. If you research ergot poisoning, and just an example, www.mortaljourney.com/2011/01/1960-trends/lsd-acid (hope it copies) you will learn that, "Ergot infested rye is...very toxic. Many years ago, poisoning epidemics often occurred when ergot infected rye grains were distributed and consumed by the public."

There is an excellent site which is also related to ergotism. www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/Wong/BOT135/lLECT12.HTM

The more people know about what this agent is, what effects it has, will empower people to be informed and form an opinion based on facts, and not the "account" of another person.   

[buddhahat]

Filledeplage,

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

I guess I'm coming from a different perspective. I remember doing drugs with friends as a teenager and it was more of an 'all in it together' atmosphere where you'd end up doing crazy things (like drugs), dangerous things (like drive) but no particular party would take responsibility. I don't understand the notion  that daro was somehow responsible for Brian's safety. If Brian wanted to drive on acid and Daro is also out of his mind, who's to stop these guys and how can we judge their actions 50 years down the line? It seems insane to me.

I also object to this 'with the benefit of hindsight' notion that, knowing brian's mental health issues now, we should blame all those people that gave him drugs because they should have somehow had the foresight to realise that the drugs might damage him in years to come. Again I think this is insane reasoning that would only make sense if we factor in a working time machine or some sort of Dickensian scenario where the ghost of Brian's future shows Lorren Daro what will happen to his friend 10 years down the line.

Finally I don't understand this mothering impulse that many on the board have towards Brian Wilson - That he is somehow a child that should have been handled with kid gloves all along. He was an adult responsible for his own actions, which included taking LSD and driving under the influence. If you want to blame anybody, blame Brian Wilson.

[filledeplage]

Filledeplage,

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

I guess I'm coming from a different perspective. I remember doing drugs with friends as a teenager and it was more of an 'all in it together' atmosphere where you'd end up doing crazy things (like drugs), dangerous things (like drive) but no particular party would take responsibility. I don't understand the notion  that daro was somehow responsible for Brian's safety. If Brian wanted to drive on acid and Daro is also out of his mind, who's to stop these guys and how can we judge their actions 50 years down the line? It seems insane to me.

I also object to this 'with the benefit of hindsight' notion that, knowing brian's mental health issues now, we should blame all those people that gave him drugs because they should have somehow had the foresight to realise that the drugs might damage him in years to come. Again I think this is insane reasoning that would only make sense if we factor in a working time machine or some sort of Dickensian scenario where the ghost of Brian's future shows Lorren Daro what will happen to his friend 10 years down the line.

Finally I don't understand this mothering impulse that many on the board have towards Brian Wilson - That he is somehow a child that should have been handled with kid gloves all along. He was an adult responsible for his own actions, which included taking LSD and driving under the influence. If you want to blame anybody, blame Brian Wilson.

And thanks to you for being so nice as well.  I have my own kids and that is just the greatest privilege on earth.  I have no desire to be a "mama" to assume that role.  I am looking through a different lens.  And that is "who" was in "what role?"

Right now, it appears that dates are being sorted out by those, here, who do intense BB history.  That will open up a clearer window. 

People can be "technically" at certain ages, but because of other circumstances be vulnerable and susceptible to those who have "undue" influence.  And have a "diminished capacity" to drive or make other decisions.  And, since all these timelines seem vague, we don't know a clear story. 

Knowing what ergot is, and it's role in history is a first step to knowing what LSD is, and it's "effects" and more importantly "after-effects" are.  Entire populations were wiped out.

If there are two people and one has been drinking, and one not, who drives? That doesn't require laws.  It is just common sense. 

[bgas]

Filledeplage,

Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

I guess I'm coming from a different perspective. I remember doing drugs with friends as a teenager and it was more of an 'all in it together' atmosphere where you'd end up doing crazy things (like drugs), dangerous things (like drive) but no particular party would take responsibility. I don't understand the notion  that daro was somehow responsible for Brian's safety. If Brian wanted to drive on acid and Daro is also out of his mind, who's to stop these guys and how can we judge their actions 50 years down the line? It seems insane to me.

I also object to this 'with the benefit of hindsight' notion that, knowing brian's mental health issues now, we should blame all those people that gave him drugs because they should have somehow had the foresight to realise that the drugs might damage him in years to come. Again I think this is insane reasoning that would only make sense if we factor in a working time machine or some sort of Dickensian scenario where the ghost of Brian's future shows Lorren Daro what will happen to his friend 10 years down the line.

Finally I don't understand this mothering impulse that many on the board have towards Brian Wilson - That he is somehow a child that should have been handled with kid gloves all along. He was an adult responsible for his own actions, which included taking LSD and driving under the influence. If you want to blame anybody, blame Brian Wilson.

And thanks to you for being so nice as well.  I have my own kids and that is just the greatest privilege on earth.  I have no desire to be a "mama" to assume that role.  I am looking through a different lens.  And that is "who" was in "what role?"

Right now, it appears that dates are being sorted out by those, here, who do intense BB history.  That will open up a clearer window. 

People can be "technically" at certain ages, but because of other circumstances be vulnerable and susceptible to those who have "undue" influence.  And have a "diminished capacity" to drive or make other decisions.  And, since all these timelines seem vague, we don't know a clear story. 

Knowing what ergot is, and it's role in history is a first step to knowing what LSD is, and it's "effects" and more importantly "after-effects" are.  Entire populations were wiped out.

If there are two people and one has been drinking, and one not, who drives? That doesn't require laws.  It is just common sense. 

Tho drinking and driving and drugging and driving are two completely separate ideas.  I've not seen any scirentific proof of diminished driving capabilities while under the influence of LSD, nor experienced any personal proof. 
 LSD was used once upon a time for therapy, tho I can't speak to it's ability at that. Too bad Cary Grant isn't around... 

[filledeplage]

Filledeplage,
Thanks for taking the trouble to post.

I guess I'm coming from a different perspective. I remember doing drugs with friends as a teenager and it was more of an 'all in it together' atmosphere where you'd end up doing crazy things (like drugs), dangerous things (like drive) but no particular party would take responsibility. I don't understand the notion  that daro was somehow responsible for Brian's safety. If Brian wanted to drive on acid and Daro is also out of his mind, who's to stop these guys and how can we judge their actions 50 years down the line? It seems insane to me.

I also object to this 'with the benefit of hindsight' notion that, knowing brian's mental health issues now, we should blame all those people that gave him drugs because they should have somehow had the foresight to realise that the drugs might damage him in years to come. Again I think this is insane reasoning that would only make sense if we factor in a working time machine or some sort of Dickensian scenario where the ghost of Brian's future shows Lorren Daro what will happen to his friend 10 years down the line.

Finally I don't understand this mothering impulse that many on the board have towards Brian Wilson - That he is somehow a child that should have been handled with kid gloves all along. He was an adult responsible for his own actions, which included taking LSD and driving under the influence. If you want to blame anybody, blame Brian Wilson.

And thanks to you for being so nice as well.  I have my own kids and that is just the greatest privilege on earth.  I have no desire to be a "mama" to assume that role.  I am looking through a different lens.  And that is "who" was in "what role?"

Right now, it appears that dates are being sorted out by those, here, who do intense BB history.  That will open up a clearer window. 

People can be "technically" at certain ages, but because of other circumstances be vulnerable and susceptible to those who have "undue" influence.  And have a "diminished capacity" to drive or make other decisions.  And, since all these timelines seem vague, we don't know a clear story. 

Knowing what ergot is, and it's role in history is a first step to knowing what LSD is, and it's "effects" and more importantly "after-effects" are.  Entire populations were wiped out.

If there are two people and one has been drinking, and one not, who drives? That doesn't require laws.  It is just common sense. 

Tho drinking and driving and drugging and driving are two completely separate ideas.  I've not seen any scirentific proof of diminished driving capabilities while under the influence of LSD, nor experienced any personal proof. 
 LSD was used once upon a time for therapy, tho I can't speak to it's ability at that. Too bad Cary Grant isn't around... 

bgas - funny you mention Cary Grant...I read a Vanity Fair article this morning that started with him.

Yes, it was in "studies" but they were called to a halt once post - LSD using patients were in the ER's at a higher rate. 

Tim Leary was fired by Harvard for similar controversial "treatment" and/or "experimentation."

Drugs also come under "impaired operation" of a motor vehicle along with alcohol.   

[Lee Marshall]

Tho drinking and driving and drugging and driving are two completely separate ideas.  I've not seen any scirentific proof of diminished driving capabilities while under the influence of LSD, nor experienced any personal

I recall going on a field trip...trip...while in high school.  We were sitting out on the lawn waiting for the bus which was coming to take us either to see 'Easy Rider' back during its first run at the theatres...or we were going to the Royal Ontario Museum...one or the other.  Too long ago to recall exactly which destination it was on this particular day.  The thing is while we were sitting there...the exterior brick wall which ran the length of the school auditorium turned into a gigantic 1 dollar bill.  

Glad I wasn't driving a car.  Can't imagine driving and seeing the car in front of me sprout wings, take off and fly away either.   That wouldn't help any.  No I HAVE to agree with Filled.  A DD would have been a much better route to take.

[bgas]

Different strokes...   I can't remember all the trips taken while tripping, but none ever resulted in calamity

[Lee Marshall]

Well...there was a bus driver.   [and some wierd-ass passengers ]  I can't even begin to tell you about my various experiences...and how MANY times I went there.  I don't believe it myself.  How did the Turtles [Flo and Eddy] put it?  "Up in the sky...that's where I was last night..."  Too many trips w/o a suitcase.

Weed?  Child's play.

[Cyncie]

It was 'idiot savant', not idiot.  And, unless there's some other quote I haven't seen, Parks said he was victimized by BW's buffoonery, not that he was actually a buffoon.

Nope. You've got the quotes right. I just happen to think that these two erudite and loquacious gentlemen are capable of choosing their words carefully and for maximum impact. They conveyed what they wanted to say.

[alf wiedersehen]

I've never understood the adulation fans give the LA "salon" group. That whole scene strikes me as a group of pretentious, overly serious pseudo-intellectuals who, even now, consider everyone except themselves to be unenlightened fools. I've always wondered why they devoted so much time to Brian, since they considered him to be nothing more than a "buffoon" (Mr. Park's words) and an "idiot" (Mr. Daro's words). I see them as one more group who were using Brian for their own reasons. Oh, they justified it by saying they were helping him expand creatively, and thus were his "true" friends.  But in the end, when Brian was falling apart, they bailed, just like the rest.  Of course, it's the idiot buffoon that people know and love, not the intelligentsia of the LA arts scene. And, the idiot buffoon has a biography coming out soon. Very telling.

Yes.

[?]

Second, driving impaired is unacceptable. Perhaps Mr. Daro should have been the "designated driver." Even in the 1960's, people would take the keys from someone who was potentially impaired.  And, the whole visual of a person post-LSD ingestion circling two blocks for hours would raise the attention of someone surely in a neighborhood.  I don't know if this is credible, even for 1965.

It's perfectly credible.  I did the same thing as a teenager and nobody batted an eye.  I'm certain if there's any acid currently circulating in town, there are some tripping kids happily driving around as I type.  I won't notice them either.

[Peter Reum]

With Lorren partcipating, there is an opportunity to hear a differing point of view than some of the others already heard. The reality that Mr. Daro shares is a different reality than some of the other first hand witnesses. There are factors that influence each participant's outlook. Having done lots of qualitative research in my grad school studies, I can say that sifting the anecdotal material from a given group of people like the ones surrounding Brian through the years is harder than it might seem. There is no one perspective that contains "the truth." Even Brian's remembrances from the time are colored by his emotional memory. Meeting needs in these types of situations is generally the safest interpretation of the motivation for events from this long ago. There are factors known to Brian and Marilyn that are unknown to anyone else. The same for Brian and Mike is true, or Brian and Van Dyke as well. Whether these factors will ever be revealed is a good question. The two books that are upcoming from Brian and Mike will make clearer their current views of events long ago. It would be nice to have some measurement of veracity that could be quantified, such as ______'s story is 45% bull sh*t. But we still would know which 45% was true or not true.  That is what makes the Smile events so maddening for people who want to know what "really" happened. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

The appearance thing: I know I'm not alone (because fans told me, at the time and since) when my first reaction to Lorren Daro's participation in the Beautiful Dreamer DVD was "geez, what a slimeball". He's called Marilyn far, far worse, btw, and continues to do so. That he also giggled & cackled his way through relating how he facilitated Brian's first trip was also always going to colour my initial impression. Was I wrong to say this ? Probably, but I was also being honest.

The current, sudden appearance here: I'm a facts guy, you may have noticed and a lot of what he's stated, or claimed, can be fairly easily refuted and disproven. Was he there ? Yes. Is his recall beyond criticism ? No. Is he recall in fact even halfway accurate ? Equally, no. The book claims, the differing dates of when he last met Brian, the dates of being tour manager, the claimed attendance at the Pet Sounds sessions... As for his continued antagonism towards the "Three Ms", especially Marilyn... it's been pointed out to me that it exactly mirrors the publicly expressed feelings of David Leaf towards those individuals. I'm not for a moment suggest LD IS DL, but it's an interesting coincidence. I'm sure Marilyn feels equal revulsion, and understandably so, towards the man who helped her first husband blow his mind: in passing, aside from recently, and second hand, has anyone ever seen Brian state those trips were beneficial ? His best known comment is "It blew my mind and I came back in a million pieces". The two post-trip years may well have been Brian's most artistically prolific, but they also saw him implode psychologically. I'm not sure that's anything to be proud of. He claims he did it first because someone else would have anyway, and I don't doubt that's true, but the fract is, he was the man who did it, and must accept the odium directed his way.

However, the one claim that really grates, on all levels, is that Brian has consistently lied to everyone down the years... with the sole exception of Lorren Schwartz/Daro. Brian's renowned for the put-on, a master of it. Maybe Brian's been being truthful to all of us, but lying to Lorren all these years. That's an equally feasible theory.

Bottom line, for me at least: I'm not denying he was there, but the credibility of some of his more contentious claims has eroded with every disproven fact or changed story. Also, never forget that his avowed statement was to clear his name, not to supply us with new information. There's an agenda here. Caveat emptor.

[Mike's Beard]

We all love Brian but let's face it; he lies. Be it 'cos he's genuinely mis-remembered stuff over the decades, that he's good at playing the victim or because it's the quickest, easiest way to get out of a question he's not comfortable with, the man often contradicts himself. It could all be true but I think much of what Brian may have said to Lorren should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Lee Marshall]

Well...if they were smokin' spliffs together...ask him the pizza question.   Then you'll know.  Surely they must have 'got the munchies' back in the day.