Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[SMiLE Brian]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........

[Empire Of Love]

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

[Niko]

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

Very shocking, when his other posts in so many words (or not) are just "Nope."

[Empire Of Love]

"Yes, he still denounces Landy."

Must be when you guys talk in private, cause he doesn't in that article.  Maybe ask him to publicly clarify the next time you guys chat...

[Cam Mott]

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

No, I addressed it. The semantics are a distinction without a difference imo and we disagree and as I said the only thing like evidence so far is Mike's denouncement of Landy.

[Cam Mott]

I think a lot of you are missing the point.  I mean we kind of have an idea of how bad of a state Brian was before Landy initiated the 24/7 intensive program.  Obviously I don't think its up for debate about the methodology of Landy's "program", clearly it was unethical and dehumanizing to Brian.  Having experience with family members who have had mental issues stemming from questionable upbringings and addictive behaviors (somewhat similar to Brian's past) I would say some people with mental illness do need 24 hour care to get back on their feet.  What happened to Brian because of Landy, was inhuman and criminal, but I would argue that Landy does have a hand in the reason of why we all get to celebrate Brian and his music.  

The point I think mike was trying to make was, Brian needed help, Landy as terrible as he was, played a hand in helping to keep Brian alive to this day.
 

Except that is not the point at all.  In the 80s/90s, as Cam pointed out, Mike spoke definitively about Landy, saying, at least, that what he was doing was disgusting.  He has downgraded this definitive language to probability, which, though Cam refuses to admit, is, by definition, less than certainty.  Further, Mike makes all of his "hell yeah," "yes", and "probably" comments... And then says, "But guess what? He also saved his life".  No one is disagreeing with what comes after the "but", the fact the Landy saved his life, it's what went what before the but that is repulsive - leaving the door open for less than certainty in regards to what Landy did.  Probability, no matter how close it comes to certainty, is not in fact certainty, Cam Mott's stubborn insistence to the contrary not withstanding.  Mike has modified his stance for one reason or another and has also decided to lend credence to Evan Landy's opinion.  That is what is at issue, not whether or not Landy helped save Brian's life.

EoL

I could just turn these last points around and name check you as stubborn and contrary as the only thing like evidence in your post is the first part, which exonerates Mike, and the last part is just your opinion which does not square with your first point. So how about everybody stop getting so snooty and cut out the name checking and the snotty tone? Just make your point and back it up if you have anything.

They have been.

That is not all they have been as per my point.

[Empire Of Love]

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

No, I addressed it. The semantics are a distinction without a difference imo and we disagree and as I said the only thing like evidence so far is Mike's denouncement of Landy.

Lolz.  My bad, I must have missed that part.  Lemme' go back and read what you wrote again...




Nope, still not seeing it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

[Empire Of Love]

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

SB, you have been spending too much time with Doe using that language. 

[Jim V.]

Senator Cruz, let's throw all the probably sh*t away. Let's get down to the fact that he brought up Evan Landy. Why do you think he did that? Just cuz it was in his head, or maybe because he wanted to give more attention and credence to what Evan was saying? Do you think Mike gives some credence to what Evan was saying? Or does Mike think Evan's defense of his father is just as pathetic as what Evan's father did. Cuz it sure dono't seem like it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Cam, what is the benefit of defending a nasal f*ckwit like Mike Love?

SB, you have been spending too much time with Doe using that language. 

Hey, he is rising above fuckwits,shitweasals, and trolls....

[Larry Franz]

The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. OF COURSE. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. OF COURSE. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on MAY HAVE BEEN PORTRAYED IN Love and Mercy, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN YET. BUT THIS ISN'T RASHOMON. THE FACT THAT LANDY'S SON HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT LANDY BEHAVED VERY BADLY, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE.

Mike -- See the difference? This will go over a lot better with the public. Words matter. They have meanings. That's a fact, not an opinion. And this language has the benefit of being true. That's a plus, even in public relations!

[Cam Mott]

Once again you've refused to address the argument.

No, I addressed it. The semantics are a distinction without a difference imo and we disagree and as I said the only thing like evidence so far is Mike's denouncement of Landy.

Lolz.  My bad, I must have missed that part.  Lemme' go back and read what you wrote again...




Nope, still not seeing it.

Here you go.

"Especially if one has denounced the subject of that point of view."

"How do we get from that to he suddenly is supportive of Landy contrary to his public stance. I suggest he is not and it is not in his words."

"OT, Mike has a public record of not being supportive of Landy but some how I'm supposed to twist the word "probably" into something contrary to his record on the subject."

"Mike said Landy was guilty on every count just as he did in the past."

"Did you forget that Mike defended Brian against Landy's villainy back in the day?"

"I presume Mike means it in this way since he wasn't eyewitness to the therapy but we know he believes it because he went up against Landy over it and other crimes back in the day."
  
"I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors."

[SMiLE Brian]

Cam, we get you have a sick obsession with the least talented member of the BBs who also happens to be the biggest jerk in rock and roll.

[Empire Of Love]

Camster, it's like you're a cat and I am the guy holding a ball of yarn in front of your face.  I'm amused for a time but in the end you are going to get more enjoyment out of this than me.

If you do address what I've said I will respond seriously, until then I'm going to keep goofing on you because I can't take you seriously.  If you really are struggling to grasp my argument then my apologies for making fun of you, I'm assuming you are at least being stubborn, but if I'm wrong, my bad.

EoL

[Cam Mott]

Senator Cruz, let's throw all the probably sh*t away. Let's get down to the fact that he brought up Evan Landy. Why do you think he did that? Just cuz it was in his head, or maybe because he wanted to give more attention and credence to what Evan was saying? Do you think Mike gives some credence to what Evan was saying? Or does Mike think Evan's defense of his father is just as pathetic as what Evan's father did. Cuz it sure dono't seem like it.

You and I don't know but as I said earlier my guess is because the interviewer has challenged him twice to comment on some other person's characterization of the movie he had already told the interviewer he hadn't seen. The second question is about Landy and Mike replies with something he has seen which is Evan's interview in an English paper while he is in England (I guess he was in still in England).

[Cyncie]

My problem is this: Mike brought Evan Landy into the discussion. If he hadn't, no one outside of this group and a few tabloid readers would be aware that this guy had presented his "dissertation."  Evan Landy is irrelevant to the general public's opinion about Love and Mercy.  If Mike is as offended by Landy Sr's behavior as he previously said, the best payback is to ignore Junior's play for attention. But, MIKE brought him into the conversation. Why?

[Cam Mott]

Camster, it's like you're a cat and I am the guy holding a ball of yarn in front of your face.  I'm amused for a time but in the end you are going to get more enjoyment out of this than me.

If you do address what I've said I will respond seriously, until then I'm going to keep goofing on you because I can't take you seriously.  If you really are struggling to grasp my argument then my apologies for making fun of you, I'm assuming you are at least being stubborn, but if I'm wrong, my bad.

EoL

Thanks for another smug and dismissive reply. I supplied the info you couldn't find, I get your point, and I answered it. Several times.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is a bitter old man looking to slander his cousin who he is insanely jealous of. What is hard to understand about that?

[Jim V.]

Senator Cruz, let's throw all the probably sh*t away. Let's get down to the fact that he brought up Evan Landy. Why do you think he did that? Just cuz it was in his head, or maybe because he wanted to give more attention and credence to what Evan was saying? Do you think Mike gives some credence to what Evan was saying? Or does Mike think Evan's defense of his father is just as pathetic as what Evan's father did. Cuz it sure dono't seem like it.

You and I don't know but as I said earlier my guess is because the interviewer has challenged him twice to comment on some other person's characterization of the movie he had already told the interviewer he hadn't seen. The second question is about Landy and Mike replies with something he has seen which is Evan's interview in an English paper while he is in England (I guess he was in still in England).

Yeah but why would Mike want to bring Evan Landy into the discussion? Just cuz he thought it would be an interesting thing for the interviewer to know? Or because maybe he thought that Evan's account deserved attention?

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly, Mike is a sick old bastard.

[srealist]

This is the end-game, isn't it?  It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Cyncie]

This is the end-game, isn't it?  It's going to get worse before it gets better.

If you mean the band…. Yeah. Looks like tit-for-tat for the next few years.

If you mean the board… nah. Billy will finally get sick of it and close the thread.

[srealist]

This is the end-game, isn't it?  It's going to get worse before it gets better.

If you mean the band…. Yeah. Looks like tit-for-tat for the next few years.

If you mean the board… nah. Billy will finally get sick of it and close the thread.

Haha...that may be...but no, I mean, this is the end-game for the soap opera, as the world turns, and the characters are making their final moves.  We'll be here in one way or another debating for the end of time.  The players are staking their claims and making their adjustments. 

[guitarfool2002]

Should I repost it again? Or sum it up? Let's sum it up.

Landy wrote Brian's own family out of a will and instead tried to make him and therefore his family the beneficiaries to that estate. It's morally, ethically, and legally *wrong*.

Landy's son talked to a tabloid where he defended his father but conveniently ignored the issue of changing the will.

Some said the word of Landy's son is or should be "equal" to that of Brian and Melinda who have been married for the past several decades.

If some think Landy's word or that of his son are worth reading in light of them changing a man's will - their patient - the basic morality and a sense of right and wrong should kick in at some point if that's a possibility and the absurdity of such a notion would become obvious.

Because a doctor and his staff who willingly tried to write a patient's family out of that patient's will have already cashed in their credibility chips at the table. They have no more cards to play after that. Those who think that group's "perspective" is worth  considering should ask to be dealt into that twisted card game that the Daily Mail seems to have been hosting, as well as some on this board.

Just take the Old West adage to heart before getting cheated: Never play poker with a man named "Doc".

And again, the bottom line is, if anyone here has something factual to counter or dispute anything I (and others) have said in this and other threads on this topic and others related, whether it be about the Landys, Brian's family and how they responded and acted on the will issue and other related things with Landy, and so forth...put your cards on the table and show us what you got.

Otherwise, you got to know when to fold 'em - as Kenny Rogers so aptly put it into a song.

So what have you got? Put the cards on the table.