Still Cruisin' and Summer In Paradise rerelease?

[Cam Mott]

Let's ask them directly in this conversation why they're letting this one slip through the cracks, or ignoring it altogether.

Why is this being ignored, why are you posters here ignoring it? It's in the public record, the wording is spelled out clear as day, it's the published (legal document) source for continuing this false mythology as latter-day as 2005, why is it being skipped over?

Proof was asked for, and delivered - anything else?

I don't think anyone is ignoring it. I don't see it as the source of the myth as Andrew was asking about. It is an example of what posters have been saying, "history" needs revision so people, including Mike's lawyers, don't perpetuate myths.  Mike's lawyers also perpetuated the myth that Mike's Uncle's name was spelled with an "a", "Murray" instead of "Murry".

While we are insinuating people are ignoring things, is the fact that a board member continues to libel me as a "fellator" being ignored?

[Howard Beale]

Good evening friends and Citizens of KokoDopia.
 
I’ve seen this issue crop up a few times quite recently and I’d like to make this clear - Mike Love is not paying anyone to post on SS.
Mike Love doesn’t have any SS members on his payroll – that is a myth, started because the only logical explanation for some of the complete gobshite that is so often posted by the Vibe Room police is that they are being paid to do so.  This is not the case.

What Mike Love does have is the resident “board historian”, who has been blatantly making hamfisted attempts to rewrite history with assistance from the irrational Mr. Cruz and the rest of the card carrying Kokomaoists, all of them now screaming “libelous” from the tops of their soapboxes while pining for litigation and trying desperately to change the subject. And let’s be even more clear: no, the resident historian is not getting paid for his rewrite for the Love autobiography. Yet. And he won’t, until the Tahoe Bunker is satisfied that he has successfully convinced enough fools that the only history that counts is The Gospel according To St. Michael the Meditator, which means more and more attempts at blatant history rewrites.

And now, again, he’s back to the Redwood incident at Wally Heider’s studio. Why? It must be an important chapter in the history rewrite for the Love autobiography. Don’t be fooled - again and again they’ll be trying to sell you any shite that they think they can get away with. They’ll tell you that the only versions of this story that matter are those of actual Beach Boys who were present at Wally Heider’s, knowing that Dennis and Carl Wilson are so unfortunately long gone and cannot verify it, and therefore so conveniently gone for the historian’s attempt to modify history.  They will tell you that only Mike Love’s memory can be trusted, that Brian Wilson’s memory is faulty, conveniently ignoring the reality that Wilson says “I can't remember” only whenever he doesn’t want to talk about something. They will tell you the final word is Mr. Love’s. Anyone who is a fan of Brian and has spent even a short time listening to an interview understands that.

So, fellow residents, let me cut directly to the heart of the matter.  The playbook being used in this organized attack on the legacy of Brian Wilson by the Club Kokomo Propaganda Division is the failed November 2005 lawsuit by Love. 
Look for yourselves. It is a public document. It’s online. Research it. Read it. You will find almost verbatim the talking points that they pound into SmileySmile every day.

[Mike's Beard]

Howard you do know you're dead right? They shot you live on the air.

[Douchepool]

Assuming Mike has AGD in his "corner" is also questionable to say the very least...if not actionable.

[Jim V.]

I don't think anyone is ignoring it. I don't see it as the source of the myth as Andrew was asking about. It is an example of what posters have been saying, "history" needs revision so people, including Mike's lawyers, don't perpetuate myths.  Mike's lawyers also perpetuated the myth that Mike's Uncle's name was spelled with an "a", "Murray" instead of "Murry".

While we are insinuating people are ignoring things, is the fact that a board member continues to libel me as a "fellator" being ignored?

Wait, wait, wait. So it's "Mike's lawyers" and not Mike who is responsible for the nonsense that's been filed in his own legal documents? Interesting. Sounds like Mike isn't responsible for ANYTHING.

Anyways, I guess I'll wait fellator and see what you say.

[SMiLE Brian]

Howard Beale really is superman!

[Douchepool]

I thought he was dead. I saw him get shot on the air!

[SMiLE Brian]

Well the The Real Beach Boy is immortal from all that TM Magic.

[Douchepool]

It's the Love thang.

[Cam Mott]

When it's Brian and Al, it's their lawyers' fault, so fair's fair with Mike too, right Howard?

[Cam Mott]

(yawn) I feel like Al waiting for a Moderator....I mean bus.

[Jim V.]

When it's Brian and Al, it's their lawyers' fault, so fair's fair with Mike too, right Howard?

Well. I'm not Howard, and hopefully his answer will be served fellator. However, if Brian, Al or anybody else lets their lawyers do stupid things under their name you bet that the buck stops with them.

So once again it looks like Cam has deflected criticism to Brian and Al instead of admitting that Mike Love released a legal document slandering his cousin.

[CenturyDeprived]

When it's Brian and Al, it's their lawyers' fault, so fair's fair with Mike too, right Howard?

Would Brian or Al's (or Carl's) lawyers had a phony planted person attempting to pose/masquerade as a fake spurned customer in order to "prove" some ridiculous legal point in court?  I'm not convinced that answer would be yes, nor do I feel confident in assuming that when this scenario apparently in fact happened during the 2005 BWPS-related CD giveaway lawsuit, that it was merely some lawyer's idea, which wasn't cleared with the client first.  Maybe it was done with the client absolutely, completely in the dark - nobody will know either way - but it's just pretty odd.  

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19513.msg491491.html#msg491491

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem farfetched that a lawyer would just pull a desperate move that in a 100% rogue manner, completely on their own volition?  Maybe some lawyers do that type of stuff on their own. I'm sure it's happened at *some* point. But I'd tend to doubt it – regardless of who the lawyer’s clients are. We could be talking about a case of a spouse suing another spouse; this is a general hunch, beyond any of the parties being discussed.  If any BB's lawyer did such an action, I would also question how on earth the client was blissfully unaware.

I might add, that if a rogue lawyer did an in fact solely concoct such an unethical, complete out-and-out fabrication like that during the course of a court case, and if such scheming was in fact completely done with the client being 100% unaware, call me crazy, but I might then tend to expect said client to express outrage at the person they hired... to make a statement that they themselves (client) had nothing to do with such unethical behavior, and that it was entirely some rogue scumbag lawyer's idea and doing, once everything came to light (as it apparently did in this case, according to the link above). I'd be surprised if the client just kept quiet about it and just let the whole thing fade away. What say you, Cam?

[Jim V.]

When it's Brian and Al, it's their lawyers' fault, so fair's fair with Mike too, right Howard?

Would Brian or Al's (or Carl's) lawyers had a phony planted person attempting to pose/masquerade as a fake spurned customer in order to "prove" some ridiculous legal point in court?  I'm not convinced that answer would be yes, nor do I feel confident in assuming that when this scenario apparently in fact happened during the 2005 BWPS-related CD giveaway lawsuit, that it was merely some lawyer's idea, which wasn't cleared with the client first.  Maybe it was done with the client absolutely, completely in the dark - nobody will know either way - but it's just pretty odd.  

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19513.msg491491.html#msg491491

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem farfetched that a lawyer would just pull a desperate move that in a 100% rogue manner, completely on their own volition?  Maybe some lawyers do that type of stuff on their own. I'm sure it's happened at *some* point. But I'd tend to doubt it – regardless of who the lawyer’s clients are. We could be talking about a case of a spouse suing another spouse; this is a general hunch, beyond any of the parties being discussed.  If any BB's lawyer did such an action, I would also question how on earth the client was blissfully unaware.

I might add, that if a rogue lawyer did an in fact solely concoct such an unethical, complete out-and-out fabrication like that during the course of a court case, and if such scheming was in fact completely done with the client being 100% unaware, call me crazy, but I might then tend to expect said client to express outrage at the person they hired... to make a statement that they themselves (client) had nothing to do with such unethical behavior, and that it was entirely some rogue scumbag lawyer's idea and doing, once everything came to light (as it apparently did in this case, according to the link above). I'd be surprised if the client just kept quiet about it and just let the whole thing fade away. What say you, Cam?

Hmmph. Very interesting that when interesting questions like these start to be asked, questions that require a bit of nuance, and not just jumping to a certain side, Cam decides to jump ship and disappear from the thread.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Good evening friends and Citizens of KokoDopia.
 
I’ve seen this issue crop up a few times quite recently and I’d like to make this clear - Mike Love is not paying anyone to post on SS.
Mike Love doesn’t have any SS members on his payroll – that is a myth, started because the only logical explanation for some of the complete gobshite that is so often posted by the Vibe Room police is that they are being paid to do so.  This is not the case.

What Mike Love does have is the resident “board historian”, who has been blatantly making hamfisted attempts to rewrite history with assistance from the irrational Mr. Cruz and the rest of the card carrying Kokomaoists, all of them now screaming “libelous” from the tops of their soapboxes while pining for litigation and trying desperately to change the subject. And let’s be even more clear: no, the resident historian is not getting paid for his rewrite for the Love autobiography. Yet. And he won’t, until the Tahoe Bunker is satisfied that he has successfully convinced enough fools that the only history that counts is The Gospel according To St. Michael the Meditator, which means more and more attempts at blatant history rewrites.

And now, again, he’s back to the Redwood incident at Wally Heider’s studio. Why? It must be an important chapter in the history rewrite for the Love autobiography. Don’t be fooled - again and again they’ll be trying to sell you any shite that they think they can get away with. They’ll tell you that the only versions of this story that matter are those of actual Beach Boys who were present at Wally Heider’s, knowing that Dennis and Carl Wilson are so unfortunately long gone and cannot verify it, and therefore so conveniently gone for the historian’s attempt to modify history.  They will tell you that only Mike Love’s memory can be trusted, that Brian Wilson’s memory is faulty, conveniently ignoring the reality that Wilson says “I can't remember” only whenever he doesn’t want to talk about something. They will tell you the final word is Mr. Love’s. Anyone who is a fan of Brian and has spent even a short time listening to an interview understands that.

So, fellow residents, let me cut directly to the heart of the matter.  The playbook being used in this organized attack on the legacy of Brian Wilson by the Club Kokomo Propaganda Division is the failed November 2005 lawsuit by Love. 
Look for yourselves. It is a public document. It’s online. Research it. Read it. You will find almost verbatim the talking points that they pound into SmileySmile every day.

Meet the new troll
Same as the old troll 

[Cam Mott]

All three lost because they deserved to lose and all three arguably had terrible attorneys, fair is fair.

[Howard Beale]

Meet the new troll
Same as the old troll 

It doesn't take much to deduce from your post history that you're entirely biased, regardless of how much you enjoy saying you aren't. Say it definitively for us all - are you or are you not working with Mike Love on Mike Love's book?

I'd love to hear your answer. Of course, I won't get a reply. The Kokomo method is to never answer questions directly. They skirt around the issue, talk about why they're skirting around the issue, then never answer.

[CenturyDeprived]

All three lost because they deserved to lose and all three arguably had terrible attorneys, fair is fair.

Agreed - they all had terrible attorneys. That much we can agree on, without question. Hacks. Yet that wasn't what my post was addressing at all, nor was it the question I posed you. I suppose I could wait for later in the thread for you to reply, but I feel confident in thinking that if I ask you for additional clarification on your feelings regarding the points I raised, the answer will be the patented "we will continue to disagree", or something similar. I'd love to be proved wrong.

[CenturyDeprived]

Can Kokomaoists at least concede that perhaps a time or two, Brian was most likely on the receiving end of behaviors by his bandmate(s) (behaviors that might not necessarily be quantifiable as “bullying” if directed at more emotionally strong people, but due to Brian’s emotionally fragile condition, MAY had an inadvertent effect on Brian, equivalent to bullying?) Can we at least say that?

I'm not one such but there's a well documented instance of Brian being bullied to the point of tears to include a song on an album against his express wishes. So no argument there. I'm sure there were many others. Capitol's insistence at including "GV" on Smiley Smile springs to mind.

I don't think I know of said GV incident (nor did the Search function seem to turn up results); would be curious to known the details.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.  

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

It does.

Cam, let's go ahead and make a long list of times that Mike has said something self-deprecating in an interview, without deflecting onto others, and I'll go ahead and turn on the TV, because there's a special on CNN where Kirk Cameron will be announcing he's embracing atheism.   

Why do you people still waste time trying to get cam and pinder to see the light? Its hopeless, they're unabashed Mike apologists.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Can Kokomaoists at least concede that perhaps a time or two, Brian was most likely on the receiving end of behaviors by his bandmate(s) (behaviors that might not necessarily be quantifiable as “bullying” if directed at more emotionally strong people, but due to Brian’s emotionally fragile condition, MAY had an inadvertent effect on Brian, equivalent to bullying?) Can we at least say that?

I'm not one such but there's a well documented instance of Brian being bullied to the point of tears to include a song on an album against his express wishes. So no argument there. I'm sure there were many others. Capitol's insistence at including "GV" on Smiley Smile springs to mind.

I don't think I know of said GV incident (nor did the Search function seem to turn up results); would be curious to known the details.

The incident I was referencing was the inclusion of "Surf's Up" on the album of the same name. According to several sources, he sat on the swing in his garden weeping while Dennis flatly stated "f*** you, we need that song on the album".

[CenturyDeprived]

Can Kokomaoists at least concede that perhaps a time or two, Brian was most likely on the receiving end of behaviors by his bandmate(s) (behaviors that might not necessarily be quantifiable as “bullying” if directed at more emotionally strong people, but due to Brian’s emotionally fragile condition, MAY had an inadvertent effect on Brian, equivalent to bullying?) Can we at least say that?

I'm not one such but there's a well documented instance of Brian being bullied to the point of tears to include a song on an album against his express wishes. So no argument there. I'm sure there were many others. Capitol's insistence at including "GV" on Smiley Smile springs to mind.

I don't think I know of said GV incident (nor did the Search function seem to turn up results); would be curious to known the details.

The incident I was referencing was the inclusion of "Surf's Up" on the album of the same name. According to several sources, he sat on the swing in his garden weeping while Dennis flatly stated "f*** you, we need that song on the album".

Well if that's actually the case, that's pretty damn harsh. I hadn't heard of this before. I'm assuming timeline wise that's before they even tried to finish recording/tinkering with the original tapes?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Meet the new troll
Same as the old troll  

It doesn't take much to deduce from your post history that you're entirely biased, regardless of how much you enjoy saying you aren't. Say it definitively for us all - are you or are you not working with Mike Love on Mike Love's book?

Setting aside that there's really no point in my responding as if I say "yes" the gleeful cries of "told ya so" will deafen us all, while a "no" would result in shouts of "don't believe you" from the mental midgets in question...

No, I am not working with Mike Love on his autobiography.

Further...

Have I been contacted by his collaborator Jim Hirsch asking sundry questions, did I answer same and will I do so if asked in the future ? Yes, yes, and yes.

Was I also contacted prior to that by the researcher of Brian's collaborator Jason Fine asking me to help them out with a specific query and did I ? Yes, and yes.

I'd love to hear your answer. Of course, I won't get a reply.

No, of course you won't.

The Kokomo method is to never answer questions directly. They skirt around the issue, talk about why they're skirting around the issue, then never answer.

Maybe, but at least I post using my own name, because I don't have the metaphorical testicular shortcomings that causes such trolls to spout their bile and invective, or level such accusations cowering behind the safety of a pseudonym.

[mikeddonn]

Can Kokomaoists at least concede that perhaps a time or two, Brian was most likely on the receiving end of behaviors by his bandmate(s) (behaviors that might not necessarily be quantifiable as “bullying” if directed at more emotionally strong people, but due to Brian’s emotionally fragile condition, MAY had an inadvertent effect on Brian, equivalent to bullying?) Can we at least say that?

I'm not one such but there's a well documented instance of Brian being bullied to the point of tears to include a song on an album against his express wishes. So no argument there. I'm sure there were many others. Capitol's insistence at including "GV" on Smiley Smile springs to mind.

I don't think I know of said GV incident (nor did the Search function seem to turn up results); would be curious to known the details.

The incident I was referencing was the inclusion of "Surf's Up" on the album of the same name. According to several sources, he sat on the swing in his garden weeping while Dennis flatly stated "f*** you, we need that song on the album".

And then Did Dennis go on to say, "... as long as Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again is still the last song!" 

Maybe Brian back said, "F*** you Bro.  If it's going on the album it will the last song.  Like it or lump it!"

Or maybe not.  Still a little ironic that it was Dennis who would be so vociferous when it eventually cost WIBNTLA to be bumped from said album.  Or maybe it's another Beach Boys 'myth'?

[Andrew G. Doe]

"(WIBNT)LA" wasn't on the album because Dennis pitched a hissyfit after he & Carl butted heads over the track sequencing, and pulled it, along with "4th Of July". Hence, allegedly, the inclusion of "SDT" and, er, one of Alan's songs, I think. Corrections welcome.