Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?

[Lee Marshall]

This would have been back before Brian had been anywhere near properly diagnosed and medicated P.F.  This would have been when NO drugs and NO alcohol was the prescribed best route to take.  Yet?  Let's beat the living crap out of Dennis but heh!!!  When it's just us it's all A-OK 'cause beers are OK?.   Thanks Dr. Pamplin.  You dumb ASS!!!

Look.  I know I said weeks ago that I 'get' that people wanna hear Rocky the Flying Squirrel vent and expose his view of 'reality'...and I get that Rocky is thoroughly enjoying having his lazy, stupid, repulsive ass kissed here...BUT...

Enough is enough.  His book will only be published on rolls and I WILL then spend the rest of my life cleaning up after myself with it.  Not unlike reading the Sears and Roebuck catalogue in Billy Edd Wheeler's Little Brown Shack out back.

What a creep. What a fool.

Your crappy little story means nothing Rocklette.  Anyone who spends a penny on YOU is doing the world a disservice.  You want encouragement?  I herebye encourage you to take a long walk off a short dock.  Wear metal boots.

[Juice Brohnston]

Was Rocky working on another book as well, or does the following describe an actual published work?

"“Surfgate,” five years in the making, is a fictionalized account of a copyright ownership dispute that occurred between two high profile rock stars that led to a music publishing lawsuit."

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Was Rocky working on another book as well, or does the following describe an actual published work?

"“Surfgate,” five years in the making, is a fictionalized account of a copyright ownership dispute that occurred between two high profile rock stars that led to a music publishing lawsuit."

Sounds like a great read!

[Pretty Funky]

This would have been back before Brian had been anywhere near properly diagnosed and medicated P.F.  This would have been when NO drugs and NO alcohol was the prescribed best route to take.  Yet?  Let's beat the living crap out of Dennis but heh!!!  When it's just us it's all A-OK 'cause beers are OK?.   Thanks Dr. Pamplin.  You dumb ASS!!!

Look.  I know I said weeks ago that I 'get' that people wanna hear Rocky the Flying Squirrel vent and expose his view of 'reality'...and I get that Rocky is thoroughly enjoying having his lazy, stupid, repulsive ass kissed here...BUT...

Enough is enough.  His book will only be published on rolls and I WILL then spend the rest of my life cleaning up after myself with it.  Not unlike reading the Sears and Roebuck catalogue in Billy Edd Wheeler's Little Brown Shack out back.

What a creep. What a fool.

Your crappy little story means nothing Rocklette.  Anyone who spends a penny on YOU is doing the world a disservice.  You want encouragement?  I herebye encourage you to take a long walk off a short dock.  Wear metal boots.

Fair enough.

Also with books due from Mike, Brian and now apparently Marilyn, I very much doubt Rocky's will ever see the light of day.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Was Rocky working on another book as well, or does the following describe an actual published work?

"“Surfgate,” five years in the making, is a fictionalized account of a copyright ownership dispute that occurred between two high profile rock stars that led to a music publishing lawsuit."

Not published, not by Rocky: that's a Steve Love project.

[drbeachboy]

Just read a few of Rocky's posts relating to the Carl incident.

Rocky..(Dec17)
I then said...You know David... you asked if you could come in and talk to us for a few minutes...and all you've done for the last 90 minutes is tell us what we CAN and CAN'T do...I then picked up the phone and said...why don't I call Marilyn and ask her what she thinks about your employee procuring HEROINE....,,,for Dennis... and Dennis giving some of the Heroine to Brian!!! You can't just SWEEP this HEROINE under the carpet...David! When Carl once again blurts out talk to someone else Rocky...F_ _ _ YOU!!!

If the above is correct, David Frost was the employer, not Carl (or The Beach Boys). This was a disagreement between employees. Also worth mentioning, Carl could have charged Rocky with assault while in Australia but chose not to.

He has said that he was hired by Stephen Love and that he answered to Marilyn Wilson and Stephen Love. I'm not clear if he was technically working for BRI (which would be troubling) or privately for Marilyn. I'm sure he was not employed by David Frost. David Frost had a contractual relationship with BRI to arrange and promote the tour. I think the "your employee procuring HEROINE" reference is to an employee of David Frost's (not Carl Wilson) procuring heroin for Dennis Wilson." I think Rocky believes that the money for that heroin came from Carl.

But, if this is a reply to me, my question is not "what is your judgment?" it is "why do you feel one ought not make judgments?"

No not directed at you Emily. Someone, or maybe more than one, mentioned the employee attacking their employer angle so just trying to understand who hired who back then.

Add Some. You bought up the fact  " he decides in his infinite wisdom to head out and go drinking beers with Brian?" Are you meaning in an alcoholic context? Brian still drinks I believe. See the RS story 'Fragile Reunion' 2012. Mike is telling him to have another beer (Lite from memory) as its a day off from the tour.

I brought it up. I am not wrong about that. My understanding is that he was hired by Steve Love, who was hired by the Beach Boys.

[rockrush3]

      To Empire of Love,   You are the most intuitive poster on this blog. You some how manage not to get sidetracked or caught up in all the minutia so many of the other posters seem to enjoy entertaining themselves with such as did the massive amounts of drugs Brian was doing cause some of his mental problems or was it just a pre consisting condition? How about... Yes, there was mental illness in the Wilson family and I think it's safe to say that massive amounts of drugs such as L.S.D, Cocaine and Heroin would only have exacerbated the problem! Can we all agree on that... and forego the ongoing amateur diagnosis being played out here... since... like... page 10? And your right Empire of Love (where did you get this icon... considering you don't sound like a Mike Love "FAN"?)  I too find it fascinating, in the court case of songwriting credits, the claims Mike Love made! I also commend you on your astute observation that Brian was clearly someone who was not able to defend himself and was in a constant state of "I don't give a damn mode"and "Don't feel like fighting"! And further to the point the ruthless attorneys, as you refer to them, and the delusional Mile Love most certainly took advantage of Brian who was content to "just let it happen" to him! To highlight and illustrate this aspect I would like to point out that Brian was not even present in the court room in a case about his song writing royalty credits, 50% of the time! Let me also point out that Mike absolutely knew that Brian would only show up in court when "his" lawyers absolutely insisted he be present! More to the point of Brian not caring and "just letting it happen" as you also stated (Empire of Love) to an attorney this is like a wet dream. The person being sued for 5 million dollars, over an antiquated 50%-50% Publishing Contract arranged when they were teenagers, doesn't even show up to protect his interest half of the time! Mike and these attorneys were salivating like sharks in the blood infested waters of the Titanic! Brian is so mentally impaired that he is UNCONCERNED with such mundane things as MONEY! It was Brian's attorneys who convinced him to file that Law Suit. Let us not forget that Brian was unconcerned that his Dad had sold his publishing catalogue, for a mere $750,000, of which Brian did not receive a penny from when Brian finally fired him for his constant negative interference and dissension. A catalogue that is estimated at having garnered $30 million for the lucky guy who bought Brian's music under Murry's publishing company "Sea of Tunes"!!! To me it's also fascinating that Mike, a guy who doesn't even play an instrument and couldn't write a melody if his life depended on it, thinks that he is entitled to 50% of Brian's creations. In the immortal words of Brian? Gecko (in the movie Wall Street" GREED IS GOOD"?

[Andrew G. Doe]

In the interests of accuracy...

The person being sued for 5 million dollars, over an antiquated 50%-50% Publishing Contract arranged when they were teenagers, doesn't even show up to protect his interest! Mike and these attorneys were salivating like sharks in the blood infested waters of the Titanic!

Mike was originally willing to settle for $750,000 and restored credits. Brian's advisors said no, see you in court. That cost him pretty much all the $10,000,000 he got in the previous settlement.  I understand that Brian rightly later sued these people.

Let us not forget that Brian didn't even remember that his Dad sold his publishing catalogue, for a mere $750,000, when Brian finally fired him for his constant negative interference and dissension.

Murry was fired in early April 1964. He sold Sea Of Tunes behind Brian's back in November 1969.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

     To Empire of Love,   You are the most intuitive poster on this blog. You some how manage not to get sidetracked or caught up in all the minutia so many of the other posters seem to enjoy entertaining themselves with such as did the massive amounts of drugs Brian was doing cause some of his mental problems or was it just a pre consisting condition? How about... Yes, there was mental illness in the Wilson family and I think it's safe to say that massive amounts of drugs such as L.S.D, Cocaine and Heroin would only have exacerbated the problem! Can we all agree on that... and forego the ongoing amateur diagnosis being played out here since... like... page 10? And your right Empire of Love (where did you get this icon... considering you don't sound like a Mike Love "FAN"?)  I too find it fascinating, in the court case of songwriting credits, the claims Mike Love made! I also commend you on your astute observation that Brian was clearly someone who was not able to defend himself and was in a constant state of "I don't give a damn mode" Don't feel like fighting! And further to the point the ruthless attorneys, and the delusional Mile Love, most certainly took advantage of Brian who was content to "just let it happen" to him! To highlight and illustrate this aspect I would like to point out that Brian was not even present in the court room, in a case about his song writing royalty credits, 50% of the time! Let me also point out that Mike absolutely knew that Brian would only show up in court when "his" lawyers absolutely insisted he be there! More to the point of Brian not caring and "just letting it happen" as you also stated(Empire of Love). To an attorney this is like a wet dream. The person being sued for 5 million dollars, over an antiquated 50%-50% Publishing Contract arranged when they were teenagers, doesn't even show up to protect his interest half the time! Mike and these attorneys were salivating like sharks in the blood infested waters of the Titanic! Brian is so mentally impaired that he is UNCONCERNED with such mundane things as MONEY! Let us not forget that Brian didn't even remember that his Dad sold his publishing catalogue, for a mere $750,000, when Brian finally fired him for his constant negative interference and dissension. A catalogue that is estimated at having garnered $30 million for the lucky guy who bought Brian's music under Murry's publishing company "Sea of Tunes"!!! To me it's also fascinating that Mike, a guy who doesn't even play an instrument and couldn't write a melody if his life depended on it, thinks that he is entitled to 50% of Brian's creations. In the immortal words of Brian? Gecko (in the movie Wall Street" GREED IS GOOD"!!!

Very interesting insight Rocky. You had hinted something about the testimony of the participants???

[SMiLE Brian]

I think Rocky has opened a huge can of worms on the lawsuit shenanigans from Mike Love.

[rockrush3]

    Andrew G. Doe,   Murry did not sell "Sea of Tunes" behind Brian's back! Brian and all the Beach Boys signed a waiver authorizing the Sale...  Stephen Love personally collected the waivers from the principals. There was the contention that Murry may have forged Brian's signature at some point in the discourse of the case by Brian's attorney Jim Tierney... but it simply "was not" true! What is shockingly true is that Brian did not receive any of the monies received from that sale. Murry stiffed him... taking all the $700,000 for himself...(not $750,000 as previously stated) Murry thought he had it coming for all he had done for the Beach Boys...which was to berate and browbeat them into thinking he was instrumental in their success! It's a well known fact that it broke Brian's heart to fire his Dad... as it also broke his heart that Murry used to tell him his songs were no good and that he would never amount to anything!

[SteveMC]

That's very interesting. I think Murry's importance and stature will rise a bit in the fullness of time.
We'll see.

  Andrew G. Doe,   Murry did not sell "Sea of Tunes" behind Brian's back! Brian and all the Beach Boys signed a waiver authorizing the Sale...  Stephen Love personally collected the waivers from the principals. There was the contention that Murry may have forged Brian's signature... at some point in the discourse... but it simply "was not" true!

[adamghost]

Interesting where the thread has gone.  

With respect to Emily's and others' concerns about judging and taking sides - and I mean no disrespect nor hostility, but I think people are tending to bring their own baggage into the discussion and that becomes the prisms through which some peoples' posts are seen.  

Emily, your response to what I posted was to take X and say "so does that mean Y (extreme perceived extension of X)?"  It's a common slippery slope kind of a thing that comes up when people have differing perspective, but my answer to that, without getting into it, is of course I didn't mean Y, and Y doesn't by definition follow X, and I know you're smart and intuitive enough to get that without me really getting into a debate about it.  

I don't mean this critically.  I get where you're coming from, and respect it.  I just mean you, and others (I don't mean to single you out, this is directed at a few people here), aren't really following where some of us are coming from - that just because we don't need to jump all over someone or make a moral judgment or take a broader view of things, that we necessarily approve of it or (as other posters have said) are "kissing ass" or "taking sides."  My way is always to reserve judgment, because usually more information changes the picture.  It doesn't mean I don't have a private opinion.  I just don't adopt that opinion as an absolute truth.  

I've had the experience of having people completely question my motives and slag me all over the internet without a full understanding of the realities I was facing or the totality of the situation.  It makes me very wary of doing the same to others, at least without a very full understanding of context.  It's not the same as giving them a pass or supporting it.  It's not fair to characterize in that way.  I may have, as I said, provisional opinions that I don't say out loud.

There is also something to be said for giving people enough rope. 

Now, total pivot:

I think Mr. Pamplin's current vehemently anti-Mike stance is interesting because I in fact have personally run into Mr. Pamplin once.  The occasion was a show in December 1994 when I was onstage and I said some things about the ongoing Mike Love lawsuit that could be perceived as negative (I was a fiery young buck in those days).  My memory of the incident is that when I got offstage I was accosted by Mr. Pamplin who challenged me about this.  

I don't want to make more of the meeting than it was; though Mr. Pamplin at first came across as aggressive, once a conversation ensued it was pleasant enough.  What's interesting is that at that time my perception of what Mr. Pamplin was saying, and the basis of the challenge to me, was that he supported what Mike Love was doing in the lawsuit.  

Peoples' opinions can certainly change in 22 years, as mine certainly have.  It's just an interesting evolution.

[Andrew G. Doe]

  Andrew G. Doe,   Murry did not sell "Sea of Tunes" behind Brian's back! Brian and all the Beach Boys signed a waiver authorizing the Sale...  Stephen Love personally collected the waivers from the principals. There was the contention that Murry may have forged Brian's signature... at some point in the discourse by Brian's attorney Jim Tierney... but it simply "was not" true!

If the sale was thus "authorised", then why did Brian instigate a lawsuit to have it reversed, and how did Brian win an out of court settlement of $10 million with Irving Almo in 1992 ?

According to the Steve Gaines book, Murry cut the deal first and then told Brian. The rest of the band were equally distraught as then manager Nick Grillo was setting up a deal with Filmways that would enable the band to retain 50% of the publishing in perpetuity, and the entire publishing would revert to them once the original outlay was recouped. The reason I make this point at some length is that Gaines' prime source for this sort of detail was, as I'm sure you're aware, Steve Love. And there's no mention of anything you're claiming.

[Custom Machine]

  Andrew G. Doe,   Murry did not sell "Sea of Tunes" behind Brian's back! Brian and all the Beach Boys signed a waiver authorizing the Sale...  Stephen Love personally collected the waivers from the principals. There was the contention that Murry may have forged Brian's signature... at some point in the discourse by Brian's attorney Jim Tierney... but it simply "was not" true!

Well, this is certainly fascinating news, if correct. Steve Love would have been around 22 years of age in November 1969, and Debbie K tells us he was interning under Nick Grillo at the Ivar office during 69-70, so the timeline fits. But other than that, every other account of which I am aware has Murry selling Sea of Tunes without Brian's prior knowledge. Those accounts of the sale give the impression that only Brian's signature was needed, along with Murry's, for the sale.

Edit: Posted this prior to seeing Andrew's post above.  

[The Shift]

So if Steve Love did indeed collect those signatures on Murry's behalf, while he was Grillo's intern, then he was actively involved in undermining the deal his boss was putting in place on the BBs' behalf. Surely there's no way he would't have known about it if he worked that closely with Steve Love?

[Emily]

Emily, your response to what I posted was to take X and say "so does that mean Y (extreme perceived extension of X)?"  It's a common slippery slope kind of a thing that comes up when people have differing perspective, but my answer to that, without getting into it, is of course I didn't mean Y, and Y doesn't by definition follow X, and I know you're smart and intuitive enough to get that without me really getting into a debate about it.  

 I just mean you, and others (I don't mean to single you out, this is directed at a few people here), aren't really following where some of us are coming from - that just because we don't need to jump all over someone or make a moral judgment or take a broader view of things, that we necessarily approve of it or (as other posters have said) are "kissing ass" or "taking sides."  My way is always to reserve judgment, because usually more information changes the picture.  It doesn't mean I don't have a private opinion.  I just don't adopt that opinion as an absolute truth.  

 I may have, as I said, provisional opinions that I don't say out loud.

There is also something to be said for giving people enough rope.  

Hi Adamghost, I have a lot of respect for your perspective and hope you don't take what I say otherwise. I want to clarify a few things:
-First, in respect to my response to your post: while it may have sounded facetious, and I think I worded it blithely which I shouldn't have done, what I meant to question is where's your line? When do you have enough information to make a judgment? I know you don't think Y but where does X stop and Y begin?
-Second, I'm distinguishing those who refrain from stating their judgment, if they have one, and those who are actively stating that they can not or should not judge. I don't question the former at all. I am questioning the assertion of the latter.
-Third, I guess the word 'judgment' is problematic. One of its meanings is, from Merriam-Webster, "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing" or "an opinion or estimate so formed;" to 'judge': "to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises"

To me what you call a "private opinion," if it's carefully thought out, is a judgment. So maybe it's a semantic problem.

[Emily]

  Andrew G. Doe,   Murry did not sell "Sea of Tunes" behind Brian's back! Brian and all the Beach Boys signed a waiver authorizing the Sale...  Stephen Love personally collected the waivers from the principals. There was the contention that Murry may have forged Brian's signature... at some point in the discourse by Brian's attorney Jim Tierney... but it simply "was not" true!

Well, this is certainly fascinating news, if correct. Steve Love would have been around 22 years of age in November 1969, and Debbie K tells us he was interning under Nick Grillo at the Ivar office during 69-70, so the timeline fits. But other than that, every other account of which I am aware has Murry selling Sea of Tunes without Brian's prior knowledge. Those accounts of the sale give the impression that only Brian's signature was needed, along with Murry's, for the sale.

Edit: Posted this prior to seeing Andrew's post above.  

In the thread at this link, GF2002 reports that Steve Love brought papers to Brian Wilson to sign. There's a lot of further discussion about what happened with probably all the detail that's publicly available.

eta: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22890.0.html

[Andrew G. Doe]

Fascinating stuff.

[adamghost]

Emily, your response to what I posted was to take X and say "so does that mean Y (extreme perceived extension of X)?"  It's a common slippery slope kind of a thing that comes up when people have differing perspective, but my answer to that, without getting into it, is of course I didn't mean Y, and Y doesn't by definition follow X, and I know you're smart and intuitive enough to get that without me really getting into a debate about it.  

 I just mean you, and others (I don't mean to single you out, this is directed at a few people here), aren't really following where some of us are coming from - that just because we don't need to jump all over someone or make a moral judgment or take a broader view of things, that we necessarily approve of it or (as other posters have said) are "kissing ass" or "taking sides."  My way is always to reserve judgment, because usually more information changes the picture.  It doesn't mean I don't have a private opinion.  I just don't adopt that opinion as an absolute truth.  

 I may have, as I said, provisional opinions that I don't say out loud.

There is also something to be said for giving people enough rope. 

Hi Adamghost, I have a lot of respect for your perspective and hope you don't take what I say otherwise. I want to clarify a few things:
-First, in respect to my response to your post: while it may have sounded facetious, and I think I worded it blithely which I shouldn't have done, what I meant to question is where's your line? Where do you have enough information to make a judgment? I know you don't think Y but where does X stop and Y begin?
-Second, I'm distinguishing those who refrain from stating their judgment, if they have one, and those who are actively stating that they can not or should not judge. I don't question the former at all. I am questioning the assertion of the latter.
-Third, I guess the word 'judgment' is problematic. One of its meanings is, from Merriam-Webster, "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing" or "an opinion or estimate so formed;" to 'judge': "to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises"

To me what you call a "private opinion," if it's carefully thought out, is a judgment. So maybe it's a semantic problem.

Thanks, Emily, and again I want to stress that I wasn't posting merely to you, I didn't mean to single you out.

In terms of judgment, you ask a good question.  My answer would tend to be, in general:  am I making a judgment based on first-hand observation, or on second or third-hand observation absent an understanding of the circumstances?  If someone is acting out right in front of me, and I'm a witness to it, or they are testifying for themselves, then I'm much more likely to make a firm judgment.  So in terms of Rocky, I give much greater weight to what he offers voluntarily in terms of evaluating the guy.

I also think context is a much bigger deal to me than it may be to you.  I don't think it makes as much difference to you that the world these people functioned in was in every way toxic, because right is right and wrong is wrong, as it does to me.  I don't see it that way simply because I've seen the degree to which societal pressures warp even good people into bad behavior, or it might be less inflammatory to say how an understanding of right and wrong can shift depending on what's going on around you.  

Last year I had the pleasure of visiting, in quick succession, Sweden and the Philippines.  Two more different social structures would be very difficult to imagine, and what would be OK in one place would be unworkable in the other and vice versa.  To be clear, I am not advocating moral relativism because there are certain absolutes you would bring into either environment - which are based around the non-relative credo of not wilfully hurting or abusing other people - but to come into one environment and judge it 100% by our own moral experience and training is to ignore the societal dictates that the people that live in those places are comfortable with and that has evolved in ways that work for them.  Bringing that absolute judgment into any situation is also a way to tell ourselves that we would in fact not be affected by our environment, that we are not products of our set of biases, when that's in fact not true and doesn't help us to understand those pressures better.  Our moral compass requires that we are true to our own values - not that we enforce them on others.

So to dial it back, in terms of Rocky's punching Carl in the face, is that right?  No, it's not.  However:  in a toxic environment where everybody is crazy, someone who is a young man with some anger issues in a mindset (in its own way like yours) of moral outrage, could easily feel morally justified in taking such an action.  So while I agree the action is wrong, to take it on its own without understanding that someone is living with a crazy funhouse world that is going to enable their anger as opposed to diffuse it, is to really wilfully take oneself out of the sticky business of putting oneself in the shoes of someone that one doesn't like.

To me, it's a cop out to just point a finger and say "that's wrong."  That's not a judgment of you.  I'm just explaining why I wouldn't do it.  It's an easy position to take because I'm asserting it from the comfort of a reasonably secure, sane and unpressured environment that is not bringing out the worst in me.

[Emily]

Thanks, Emily, and again I want to stress that I wasn't posting merely to you, I didn't mean to single you out.

In terms of judgment, you ask a good question.  My answer would tend to be, in general:  am I making a judgment based on first-hand observation, or on second or third-hand observation absent an understanding of the circumstances?  If someone is acting out right in front of me, and I'm a witness to it, or they are testifying for themselves, then I'm much more likely to make a firm judgment.  So in terms of Rocky, I give much greater weight to what he offers voluntarily in terms of evaluating the guy.

I also think context is a much bigger deal to me than it may be to you.  I don't think it makes as much difference to you that the world these people functioned in was in every way toxic, because right is right and wrong is wrong, as it does to me.  I don't see it that way simply because I've seen the degree to which societal pressures warp even good people into bad behavior, or it might be less inflammatory to say how an understanding of right and wrong can shift depending on what's going on around you.  

Last year I had the pleasure of visiting, in quick succession, Sweden and the Philippines.  Two more different social structures would be very difficult to imagine, and what would be OK in one place would be unworkable in the other and vice versa.  To be clear, I am not advocating moral relativism because there are certain absolutes you would bring into either environment - which are based around the non-relative credo of not wilfully hurting or abusing other people - but to come into one environment and judge it 100% by our own moral experience and training is to ignore the societal dictates that the people that live in those places are comfortable with and that has evolved in ways that work for them.  Bringing that absolute judgment into any situation is also a way to tell ourselves that we would in fact not be affected by our environment, that we are not products of our set of biases, when that's in fact not true and doesn't help us to understand those pressures better.  Our moral compass requires that we are true to our own values - not that we enforce them on others.

So to dial it back, in terms of Rocky's punching Carl in the face, is that right?  No, it's not.  However:  in a toxic environment where everybody is crazy, someone who is a young man with some anger issues in a mindset (in its own way like yours) of moral outrage, could easily feel morally justified in taking such an action.  So while I agree the action is wrong, to take it on its own without understanding that someone is living with a crazy funhouse world that is going to enable their anger as opposed to diffuse it, is to really wilfully take oneself out of the sticky business of putting oneself in the shoes of someone that one doesn't like.

To me, it's a cop out to just point a finger and say "that's wrong."  That's not a judgment of you.  I'm just explaining why I wouldn't do it.  It's an easy position to take because I'm asserting it from the comfort of a reasonably secure, sane and unpressured environment that is not bringing out the worst in me.

"non-relative credo of not wilfully hurting or abusing other people" This is about the extent of my moral code, with ideas of what one owes to one's dependents.
Again, I'm not saying one should point a finger and say "that's wrong," I'm saying what's wrong with thinking "that's wrong?" When I hear someone saying that they shouldn't make a judgment, I hear them saying they shouldn't form an opinion which, semantically, is not incorrect but is perhaps not what they mean. I'm not sure.
The way I'm using the word 'judgment', this

So to dial it back, in terms of Rocky's punching Carl in the face, is that right?  No, it's not.

is a judgment. I think perhaps from the beginning, I misunderstood other posters' use of the word, and they misunderstood mine, so there's been miscommunication.

Regarding the toxic situation, yes it was, and part of what I'm trying to learn here is what made it so toxic. My 'judgment' from what I've heard, is that the hiring of Mr Pamplin was one of the contributors.
 ETA: But, I want to be clear. When I say 'judgment' I don't mean condemnation. I don't mean I think he was born evil and is a sinner and should burn in hell. And I don't even mean that in the same circumstances I wouldn't've done the same thing. I mean, simply, my opinion is that what he did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it.

Thanks very much for your response.

[adamghost]

<<When I hear someone saying that they shouldn't make a judgment, I hear them saying they shouldn't form an opinion which, semantically, is not incorrect but is perhaps not what they mean. I'm not sure.>>

I hear you.  Well, I keep using the word "provisional."  I certainly have an opinion of this or any situation.  I'm actually a pretty judgy guy, which is why I try to build this questioning in to my mindset as a safeguard to that.  "Judgment" to me by its nature implies finality, which is to say that one has reached a conclusion that is more or less unshakable.  Big difference in my own mind in those terms, because one implies a willingness to alter one's evaluation of a person or circumstance based on a fuller understanding (and with it self-reflection, by which we grow and understand ourselves better), and the other doesn't.  Again, not a criticism, just zeroing in on the semantic question you are asking.

[Emily]

<<When I hear someone saying that they shouldn't make a judgment, I hear them saying they shouldn't form an opinion which, semantically, is not incorrect but is perhaps not what they mean. I'm not sure.>>

I hear you.  Well, I keep using the word "provisional."  I certainly have an opinion of this or any situation.  I'm actually a pretty judgy guy, which is why I try to build this questioning in to my mindset as a safeguard to that.  "Judgment" to me by its nature implies finality, which is to say that one has reached a conclusion that is more or less unshakable.  Big difference in my own mind in those terms, because one implies a willingness to alter one's evaluation of a person or circumstance based on a fuller understanding (and with it self-reflection, by which we grow and understand ourselves better), and the other doesn't.  Again, not a criticism, just zeroing in on the semantic question you are asking.

I wish I could "like" your post without adding a new one. I respect, and appreciate the importance of, keeping your mind open to new information so one's opinion/judgment and self-understanding can shift and improve. I was not considering finality to be an aspect of 'judgments' because I long ago accepted that very little is final, and certainly not opinions. So I did not mean to include that connotation.
If you have a chance, please read my edit to my last post.
Thanks for humoring me!

[Emily]

I wasn't raised in a religion and I'm wondering if that affects how I perceive "judgment" compared to others' perceptions. To me, there's not really any such thing as a final judgment.

[Pretty Funky]

Unfortunately its probably a male type territorial thing Emily. A dude I met got locked up in a holding cell for a night many years ago with several others. A big guy came over and tried to intimidate him. He said he had 2 choices. Hit the guy or be his b!tch. He hit the guy, got a hiding but was left alone after that by everyone.

Rightly or wrongly Carl did something similar to Rocky and Carl probably knew a ex pro football player could give him a slap in return.  

End of the day, violence while on tour has been around for years. Charlie Watts even socked Mick Jagger and they probably have got on great since because of it.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/42043/day-charlie-watts-punched-mick-jagger-face

Sometimes it is just plain evil though. Check out the Bill Graham/ Led Zeppelin story. I have just read 'Bill Graham Presents' and Zeps manager Peter Grant was a piece of work (and I am being kind)

http://www.led-zeppelin.org/led-zeppelin-in-the-media/94-1977-tour-ends-in-tragedy