Alone On christmas Day ... new single

[guitarfool2002]

Great, so are you banned, or is Runners coming back?

Send a PM to "Diet Pepsi - Uh Huh", ask him.

[alf wiedersehen]

Great, so are you banned, or is Runners coming back?

Send a PM to "Diet Pepsi - Uh Huh", ask him.

Okay, third option then: hypocrite.

[guitarfool2002]

Great, so are you banned, or is Runners coming back?

Send a PM to "Diet Pepsi - Uh Huh", ask him.

Okay, third option then: hypocrite.

Ok then.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm not speaking for anybody, but how *I* took it was GF posted what runners said verbatim to prove a point

Oh, okay, so because you understood, you were okay with it. What about the other people that didn't understand it? Should we be able to ban guitarfool because his intention wasn't clear to the rest of us?

If he thought he called you an asshole, wouldn't you be pissed and want him gone? So runners posted what he did in response to GF (the EXACT same way that GF did to John), and it honest to God looked like he was calling GF an asshole, until I read the proceeding posts. SO yeah, I didn't know what it was about. And really, I *still* don't. If he (runners) was making a point, the question is , 'why'? Why at that exact time? Nothing in the previous posts indicated that such a post was warranted. Completely out of the blue. It was either as out of place as the whole 'I farted' Brian-ism mentioned in the Wilson Project book, or a response to GF.  Or was he talking to Cam? If it was indeed a 'commentary' on attitudes here, it was a very odd moment to do so...nothing was out of hand at all! This is (or rather, was...) one of the mildest Mike threads I've seen on this board...why in the hell would he post that if not in direct response?

[alf wiedersehen]

So runners posted what he did in response to GF (the EXACT same way that GF did to John)

BUT IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME. Runners directly quoted no one - he just happened to post after GF did. Is his ban upheld for poor timing? He posted that half an hour after GF posted his preceding post. In GF's later post, he directly quoted John Manning. The difference could not be more clear. And, as a matter of fact, John "took it personally". And guess what? He didn't ask for his removal.

[guitarfool2002]

So runners posted what he did in response to GF (the EXACT same way that GF did to John)

BUT IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME. Runners directly quoted no one - he just happened to post after GF did. Is his ban upheld for poor timing? He posted that half an hour after GF posted his preceding post. In GF's later post, he directly quoted John Manning. The difference could not be more clear. And, as a matter of fact, John "took it personally". And guess what? He didn't ask for his removal.

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Then the way I quoted those same words, whether or not I used a certain reply function or quotation marks or something else...my quote of someone else's words, verbatim, was seen as a personal insult, but the original words were not...and I'm the hypocrite?

Sure.

[alf wiedersehen]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way: if you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it. Sounds reasonable. Glad you're a moderator.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

BUT IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME. Runners directly quoted no one - he just happened to post after GF did. Is his ban upheld for poor timing? He posted that half an hour after GF posted his preceding post. In GF's later post, he directly quoted John Manning.

How often did runners actually quote anybody though?

Okay, here's the thing...I sure would like to know from runners himself what he meant. Not third-hand, not interpretations. If he meant it as a direct attack, then that's that. Now, if that wasn't his intention, then I'd like to hear it from him.

Ban lifted for the time being.

And with that, to bed.

[The Shift]

I took it personally and still do but I'm not offended by it. What's the principle here though? A mod gets personally upset and hands out a ban wihout any right of reply/ investigation/ consideration of ambiguity? A mod makes a personally offensive post but everyone has to consider what the intended meaning behind its mysticism might be? Ban us all and have done wih it!

[guitarfool2002]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way. If you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it.

Your constant pushing and arguing this is really unnecessary. You don't even know what was going to happen, and you keep arguing for the sake of arguing. Enough already, don't you think?

[The Shift]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way: if you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it. Sounds reasonable. Glad you're a moderator.

Cool post.

[The Shift]

BUT IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME. Runners directly quoted no one - he just happened to post after GF did. Is his ban upheld for poor timing? He posted that half an hour after GF posted his preceding post. In GF's later post, he directly quoted John Manning.

How often did runners actually quote anybody though?

Okay, here's the thing...I sure would like to know from runners himself what he meant. Not third-hand, not interpretations. If he meant it as a direct attack, then that's that. Now, if that wasn't his intention, then I'd like to hear it from him.

Ban lifted for the time being.

And with that, to bed.

YEAH! Welcome back Runnerz.

[alf wiedersehen]

Enough already, don't you think?

Yep, I'm happy with the results and now I'm going to bed.

[guitarfool2002]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way: if you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it. Sounds reasonable. Glad you're a moderator.

Cool post.

Yeah, cool, even after you got an explanation, John.

[The Shift]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way. If you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it.

Your constant pushing and arguing this is really unnecessary. You don't even know what was going to happen, and you keep arguing for the sake of arguing. Enough already, don't you think?

Oh sh*t, here we go again…

[The Shift]

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way: if you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it. Sounds reasonable. Glad you're a moderator.

Cool post.

Yeah, cool, even after you got an explanation, John.

Oh sh*t, here we go again again…

[guitarfool2002]

Keep it classy.

[The Shift]

So "asshole" is classy?

As Billy suggested, I'm off to bed.

[Rob Dean]

Just to get back on track - Apparently there is a new 'Christmas Single' slated, any one know anything about it  ?

AND to lighten the mood 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me'

[bonnie bella]

Oh hi.  I'm new here, and boy it looks like there's a lot of love around.

Thanks guitar fool for getting me on board.  Literally.

[Alan Smith]

Just to get back on track - Apparently there is a new 'Christmas Single' slated, any one know anything about it  ?

AND to lighten the mood 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me'

I think Rob just posted his Christmas wish list

[Please delete my account]

Merry Christmas everybody.

[Alan Smith]

Bubbly - 
John -
Billy - 

[Cam Mott]

If Brian Wilson isn't involved with or appearing on a new group recording, it can't be labelled a "Beach Boys" release. I thought that had been established and known since the late 90's, maybe.

He is on the original recording. I just bought the cassette off of Ebay last month. It really depends whether Mike uses any or all of the original recording. If it is all original then it is in fact a Beach Boys track.

There cannot be a Beach Boys release without approval, for one. A new single with Mike, Bruce, and Jeff Foskett singing atop a vintage backing track doesn't meet the standard, if that's what people here think it might be. The guidelines as to what can or cannot be labeled "The Beach Boys" in terms of new releases were specific enough to prevent things like the NASCAR tribute from being called a Beach Boys album. No Brian, no Beach Boys. No approval, no Beach Boys.

Kokomo?

Kokomo was 1988, Cam. After February 1998, the entire game changed, including the rules. In 1988 there was no need for licensing and agreements regarding the name or who can tour as The Beach Boys, who can release new music as The Beach Boys, etc.

Did you seriously not consider that after all the years you've been at this?

Do we know rules changed in this way or are we presuming?  Unless I'm forgetting something it seems entirely possible that, just as in the past, anything can still be released as BB with BRI approval and approval is not necessarily dependent on who did or didn't participate. Is there some documentation or something of a participation requirement?

[KDS]

In the words of the immortal Ron Burgundy:

"Wow.  That escalated quickly.  And got out of control really fast." 

"Brick killed a guy."