gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:08:16 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489810 times)
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1725 on: March 15, 2016, 09:20:20 AM »

I suggest that if you want him to post and answer some questions that you not immediately insult him.
[/quote Smiley Smiley Page 3...  ONE GUY WITH A BRAIN!!! Smiley Smiley
                    
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:18:04 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1726 on: March 15, 2016, 09:24:52 AM »

Who's Mike Love?
Smiley Smiley HE WOULD BE BRIAN'S NEMESIS... among OTHER THINGS... WAIT TILL YOU READ Chapter 27 "MASSAGING THE WITNESS!" Evil Evil
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1727 on: March 15, 2016, 09:26:49 AM »

I apologize for daring even to question or joke about the sanctity of marriage on this precious board in a thread about the great Rocky Pamplin.
Smiley Smiley Page 4... Smiley Smiley
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:19:01 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1728 on: March 15, 2016, 09:28:09 AM »

Ok, let's get back to venom. Tut-tutting chaki is boring. We get that kinda venom all the time! Let's go for vintage venom. Rollicking Rocky reverie!



So! What did you think of Mike Love when you first met him? What about towards the end? How did he treat Brian Wilson in private?


Smiley :)Page 4...  Mike is condesending towards Brian... thinks he's better than Brian! LOL LOL
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:21:47 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1729 on: March 15, 2016, 09:31:54 AM »

What I've gleaned is that Brian caved and ML got undue credit.
Smiley Smiley WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW ONE INTELLIGENT POST BY EXCESSIVE emily... EXCESSIVE POSTING... EXCESSIVE POSTURING...EXCESSIVE emily Evil LOL
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1730 on: March 15, 2016, 09:34:16 AM »


Dennis was the one in question.  That is about whom I was speaking.  This article traces the history of involuntary commitment and the standards involved along with the conflict of depriving a person of their personal freedom without a trial.  There were huge ethical issues for doctors. There were no drug courts on HBO back then.  

The process of the court is called "parens patrie." This is the "parent of the country" coming from English common law where the government has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, which is coupled with the "police power"of the state to protect the interest of its citizens. The state has a duty to consider the welfare of all the people, sometimes at the cost of certain individuals.

Substance abuse, anorexia, alcohol, all are factored into this and are found after footnote 41.  In California in 1961, narcotics issues and treatment were connected to crimes.  Yes, that is back-in-the-day.   Then in 1966, the NARA Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was passed to offer treatment instead of jail.  But there was an underlying crime.  

That was the beginning of the "diversion program" - and and now we have civil commitment "without a crime committed" is a newer concept.  And it requires a person who has "standing" (legal standing, like a parent, child, spouse, or close friend who has actual knowledge of the continuing drug or alcohol use and the failure of the person to eat, wash or take care of their personal affairs. Also, mandated people like police can file a Petition for Commitment.)

No criminal record comes from more modern civil commitment which in my state is only about ten years old. In 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that called for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with drug dependency problems. At that time (2001) only 20% of psychiatrists felt that substance abuse was criterial for civil commitment.   It was the medical people who had to catch up with the laws, not the other way around.   Wink

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176
"Dennis was the one in question" - your first reply was to this: "So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage."
So, I figured both "severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions" were the ones in question. But now it's clear.

Regarding your article, I read the same one earlier today, and http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=llr

Both support my point -  that it was easier then to get a commitment than it is now. As Andrew Hickey implies, in the post to which you initially responded, it would've been better to deal with the law and mental health professionals than to hire thugs to imprison and abuse them.

this article is more pertinent and concise than the other two:
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/360
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1731 on: March 15, 2016, 09:34:58 AM »


Emily - Landy had a client list including Alice Cooper, Richard Harris, Rod Steiger and Gig Young.  He was the therapist to the stars.  It looked good.  Better than it was.  "If we knew then what we know now" - well who knew?  Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control.
What does treating Alice Cooper have to do with one's credentials? I know Melinda Ledbetter got flack for wondering why no one sought reputable care, why no one consulted people who work within the profession, but it's a good question. Why didn't they? Everyone knows you go to two different reputable institutions for opinions before you get surgery. How about before signing your spouse/brother/son's entire life over to someone? It's not a 20/20 hindsight thing. It's just: have the sense and the willingness to do a modicum of research before you dump someone you supposedly care about into the power of a renegade. And in any case, don't dump them into the power of hired hoods.
Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control because the family requested it. The judge could not have acted without the family's request. Indeed, thanks for the reminder that the family actually did go through the red tape and did get a civil commitment, so our previous volley is moot. Even though it was the dark ages, the family had BW civilly committed to Landy.  Unfortunately, they couldn't be bothered to find decent care for his commitment. They had him committed to a wolf.

What he said may be offensive to you.  I can't help that.  I am uncomfortable not knowing the totality of the circumstances and opining.  And I am not familiar with Silver Spring.  McLean's does have a certain reputation that has fallen off lately as regards detox and follow up treatment for "the commoner." 

Silver Spring is a lovely song. Silver Hill is a psychiatric care institution.


All patients are not created equally.  If you private pay, there might be a different level of care and aggressive treatment and length of care.  Not so much for those who can't. They get the three-day "spin dry" detox, and get tossed out into many questionable follow up "sober houses" that are unregulated. 
I suspect Brian and Dennis Wilson's family could have afforded the former.

Were the people involved interested in out of state care?  And, in order to commit a person to care you do need court approval or the  cooperation of the patient.  You are depriving a person of a liberty interest. And the patient is not on-board. It used to be that the philosophy was that the addict had some control of self-determination and choice.  Now, if it is deemed that you are unfit (by a court or other doctor) to take care of yourself and won't come off drugs, then you lose your freedom to protect yourself.   Now a judge decides.
Regarding out-of-state care: I expect there were decent facilities in CA. I just mentioned ones in the Northeast because that's where I'm from so it's what I know. But, if CA strangely had no decent care available, the choice between good out-of-state care and a jail run by Rocky Pamplin or Eugene Landy should be easy to make, if you are actually interested in the well-being of your family member.
They got court approval for Landy. They went through the red tape. Again, thank you for reminding me. They'd decided to deprive BW of his liberty. The judge made a decision. Unfortunately, the family didn't bother to find decent care.


If you come in with a private pay plan, you get to pick the provider.  If you don't have those resources the court helps you get a bed.  Most addicts cannot get a bed and are on waitlists. There are more who need treatment than available and some OD before they get a bed.  The court can expedite that process, by using court resources.  Another night on the streets could result in death.

But, if you have a problem with what that poster said, you might address him or send him a personal message.     
We're talking about Brian and Dennis Wilson. I don't think private care was beyond their means. They paid for Landy. From what I've read he charged, probably both B & D could've been in private care for the same cost.

I did address the poster.
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1732 on: March 15, 2016, 09:36:16 AM »


Nowadays, when there is an addicted person, who needs help and is always jonesing for another fix, there is the option of having a family member or friend or police officer, doctor, etc., who can petition the court to get a civil committment in a hospital or other detox facility and there is no criminal penalty.  It is a civil matter and does not affect the criminal record of an individual.  I do not think that there was that option at that time.  The person is arrested, (for their own protection) and the family  and a court doctor has to go to court and testify that the person has lost control of themselves and personal health, etc., and the judge has to believe and have a detox bed to put that person into.  

It seems that in many ways the "bouncers" (private police) (and I have little knowledge of this whole era) who took the law into their own hands to keep a lid (dysfunctional as it was over 30 years ago) and perhaps keep the bad BB news out of the papers.  That kind of civil commitment that a family or other member could push for (and doesn't ever happen automatically because you are depriving a person of their civil liberties, and judges don't always order treatment.  It was harder back then.  It was a value judgment system.  Addicts were treated as criminals, rather than patients who needed medical intervention.  Even now there is no guarantee that you can get treatment as a friend or family member.  There was no narcan to bring someone out of an overdose.  

So addicts (as they do now) did everything they could to exploit a money source they had a "source of dough" (Brian) even if they were "sharing" the goods.  I can only imagine the bad headlines which would be bad all the way around. They were barely out of the woods with regard the bad media post-Manson.  
.    
This is incorrect regarding the law. Civil commitments are, in most states, harder to obtain now than they were in the 1970's. At the time we are discussing, had someone sought a decent psychologist, BW could easily have been civilly committed for psychiatric reasons.
It's also possible that, had he received decent treatment from a decent psychologist, a civil commitment would not have been needed, because he would have been receiving treatment and would have been able to make better choices for himself.

Further, the idea that, in order to avoid bad press, one incarcerates one's brother, spouse, cousin, friend, colleague in a private jail run by Rocky Pamplin is completely barbaric: that it's more important to avoid bad press than to give your loved one in great need proper medical care.
Also, it wouldn't be bad press. The world already knew that BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. I was a child and I knew BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. The news that he was getting proper professional treatment would not have been bad press.

Frankly, I wonder what the statute of limitations is for involuntary confinement and torture.

The whole "ah, it was the seventies, there was no medicine! there was no law! there was no intelligent life on earth! we were running with the wolves!" stuff is garbage.

Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1733 on: March 15, 2016, 09:36:53 AM »


Dennis was the one in question.  That is about whom I was speaking.  This article traces the history of involuntary commitment and the standards involved along with the conflict of depriving a person of their personal freedom without a trial.  There were huge ethical issues for doctors. There were no drug courts on HBO back then.  

The process of the court is called "parens patrie." This is the "parent of the country" coming from English common law where the government has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, which is coupled with the "police power"of the state to protect the interest of its citizens. The state has a duty to consider the welfare of all the people, sometimes at the cost of certain individuals.

Substance abuse, anorexia, alcohol, all are factored into this and are found after footnote 41.  In California in 1961, narcotics issues and treatment were connected to crimes.  Yes, that is back-in-the-day.   Then in 1966, the NARA Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was passed to offer treatment instead of jail.  But there was an underlying crime.  

That was the beginning of the "diversion program" - and and now we have civil commitment "without a crime committed" is a newer concept.  And it requires a person who has "standing" (legal standing, like a parent, child, spouse, or close friend who has actual knowledge of the continuing drug or alcohol use and the failure of the person to eat, wash or take care of their personal affairs. Also, mandated people like police can file a Petition for Commitment.)

No criminal record comes from more modern civil commitment which in my state is only about ten years old. In 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that called for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with drug dependency problems. At that time (2001) only 20% of psychiatrists felt that substance abuse was criterial for civil commitment.   It was the medical people who had to catch up with the laws, not the other way around.   Wink

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176
"Dennis was the one in question" - your first reply was to this: "So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage."
So, I figured both "severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions" were the ones in question. But now it's clear.

Regarding your article, I read the same one earlier today, and http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=llr

Both support my point -  that it was easier then to get a commitment than it is now. As Andrew Hickey implies, in the post to which you initially responded, it would've been better to deal with the law and mental health professionals than to hire thugs to imprison and abuse them.

this article is more pertinent and concise than the other two:
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/360
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1734 on: March 15, 2016, 09:37:26 AM »


Emily - you know the meaning of "red tape." Cutting "red tape" to get a civil commitment has been very difficult.   Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy.   

Who do you call?  We can't blame families.  it puts the burden on them for an issue that defied doctors in those days.  They did their best.  I cannot comment on this guy writing a book because first, I don't know him, and second, I was not there. 

People are opining all over the place about stuff that they were not privy to, and about guys they don't know personally (for the majority of us) about standards that didn't exist at the time.  It is ridiculous.   I don't disagree with Andrew Hickey, but the UK and the US have very different treatment standards and treatment was "diversion based" in the US and connected to a crime.  People don't go to the police and the courts, unless they are desperate.

So, for anyone, even Dennis to get this type of "civil commitment," he would have had to commit a crime.   Were there places he could private pay?  Of course.  I think the band did everything they could, whenever they could for anyone in trouble. 

Likely there was no "talking any sense into anyone" while under the influence to commit themselves voluntarily and hiring a bodyguard looked like the best alternative.  I can't be the judge.   They made decisions for reasons that are unknown to me.  It is water over the bridge. 

What this guy Rocky said that whatever happened (Dennis getting decked) was that he never went back to Brian with drugs.  That seemed to the point of the post.   We weren't there.  And, if there was something that could have been done, I think it would have been done.  That is my position.   Not condoning anything and not judging.   
We weren't there, but I feel no discomfort saying that beating people up is not the solution to drug addiction and mental illness. I also feel no discomfort reacting to a direct personal statement. People are opining about what they've read and what people have said. I'm not opining about what I don't know. I'm not saying Mr. Pamplin's dinner sucked. I'm saying that what he said above sucks.
McLean's and Silver Hill and many other residential psychiatric treatment centers were active and had (of course not 100%) success treating people with mental health and addiction issues. One did not need a criminal case to have a family member committed to care.
You say: "Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy."
The best was not Landy. Part of the problem is that the people who you say "did their best" hired thugs and some "therapist to the stars" dude with his own made up methodology that had not been put through trials, had not been reviewed by peers, had no professional support or reputation what-so-ever. He was a renegade gold-digger. He was not a reputable psychologist and there is no reason to think he was the "best." 

Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1735 on: March 15, 2016, 09:38:44 AM »

 Smiley Smiley THOSE ARE HALF OF emily's POST ON PAGE 6... THAT DAY1 LOL LOL
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1736 on: March 15, 2016, 09:40:38 AM »

Well, if that was him, we've probably f***ed up again.
Smiley Smiley Page 7... YUP (emily) LOL LOL
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1737 on: March 15, 2016, 09:42:33 AM »

I think he needs to understand that he is one of the more infamous characters in the Beach Boys' history. I would go so far as to say that some of us hate him. Having said that I would like to hear his side of the story, such as it is.
Smiley Smiley Page 8... WHAT IS THAT WORD... OH... "HATE"!!! Evil Evil
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1738 on: March 15, 2016, 09:44:35 AM »

Can't we just listen without all of the drama and snark?  Being polite and listening isn't condoning anything.
Smiley Smiley Page 8...  Shocked Shocked
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1739 on: March 15, 2016, 09:45:25 AM »

Can't we just listen without all of the drama and snark?  Being polite and listening isn't condoning anything.

Nah. Rocky is a massive piece of sh*t. Unlike nearly every other person in The Beach Boys story (besides Landy) he doesn't deserve any of our respect. Plus he apparently can't spell or form sentences despite the fact that he's been on the planet for sixty-plus years.
[/quote Smiley Smiley Page 8... Evil Evil
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1740 on: March 15, 2016, 09:47:14 AM »

Can't we just listen without all of the drama and snark?  Being polite and listening isn't condoning anything.

I agree.  Let the guy tell his story without taking shots at him.  Would you rather not hear any of this?  I doubt it, or you wouldn't be coming back to the thread.
Smiley
Voices of reason.

I hope Rocky keeps posting here.  This is the most interesting thing to happen on this board in ages.  Looking forward to hearing more, Rocky.
Smiley Smiley Page 8... Love
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1741 on: March 15, 2016, 09:48:05 AM »

Does Pamplin now wear Pampers?  What does he think of No Pier Pressure, the album of the century?
[/quote Smiley :)Page 9... Evil Evil
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1742 on: March 15, 2016, 09:50:46 AM »

Regarding SJS's post: Nobody ever said fandom was logical.
Smiley Smiley Page 10...  Grin Grin
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1743 on: March 15, 2016, 09:52:12 AM »

Oh, I don't know, SJS, Dario was driven off and his main thesis was what a sh*t Mike was. And Marilyn. And Murry.
Smiley Smiley Page 10... WELL DONE... "angry 13"  Evil Evil
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1744 on: March 15, 2016, 09:53:28 AM »

Oh, I don't know, SJS, Dario was driven off and his main thesis was what a sh*t Mike was. And Marilyn. And Murry.

In this thread was encouragement for Rocky to dish dirt on Mike.  Hopefully we will allow Rocky to tell his whole story.
Smiley Smiley THE VOICE OF REASON! Love
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1745 on: March 15, 2016, 09:56:19 AM »

 Smiley Smiley WELL... THOSE WERE SOME OF "THE ATTACK'S ON THE FIRST "10" OF "70" PAGES... Evil Evil   79,OOO + READS AND IT ISN'T EVEN NOON!  GUESS I WILL HIT 80,000 BY THE END OF THE DAY...  79,369 AND SOARING!!! LOL LOL
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 12:21:45 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1746 on: March 15, 2016, 09:59:42 AM »

28 successive pointless posts by guess who. Does this mean he'll be buying 28 copies of his own book ?
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1747 on: March 15, 2016, 10:02:45 AM »

Is this gonna be an infinite loop?
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #1748 on: March 15, 2016, 10:05:09 AM »

Is this gonna be an infinite loop?
Smiley Smiley IS THAT EXCESSIVE, Emily? ... Wondering about infinity?  MY... MY... didn't mean to get into your AREA! LOL LOL
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 11:21:06 AM by rockrush3 » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #1749 on: March 15, 2016, 10:06:06 AM »

EDIT: lost my temper to the Trump of SS.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 01:21:27 PM by SMiLE Brian » Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.446 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!