Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Cam Mott]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

[Empire Of Love]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

Nope, it is postjudging.  Judging by Mike's past actions one is justified in drawing probable conclusions about his future actions.  It's called inductive reasoning and yields probability, not certainty.  People use it all day, everyday in all kinds of decision making, and it is a sound form of reasoning.  A wise person will review all known facts and make judgments based on the probabilities indicated by those facts.  CD is justified in his conclusion based on Mike's past, just as I was justified in my conclusion that you would post a defense to my post based on your past, and here we are!

EoL

[Custom Machine]

There's an interview from somewhere in the early 2000s where Stamos seems to acknowledge that "An American Family" was a debacle. I can't find that one. ...

I remember that as well, but couldn't find it either. I don't want to put words in Stamos' mouth, but my recollection is that the gist of what he said was that band politics, which I presumed to mean Mike's intervention more than anything else, had conspired to make "An American Family" a less balanced depiction than he had intended.

[Cam Mott]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

Nope, it is postjudging.  Judging by Mike's past actions one is justified in drawing probable conclusions about his future actions.  It's called inductive reasoning and yields probability, not certainty.  People use it all day, everyday in all kinds of decision making, and it is a sound form of reasoning.  A wise person will review all known facts and make judgments based on the probabilities indicated by those facts.  CD is justified in his conclusion based on Mike's past, just as I was justified in my conclusion that you would post a defense to my post based on your past, and here we are!

EoL

Nope. He hasn't asked so he is prejudging Mike's potential answer. His prejudice is his postjudging of previous supposed actions of Mike. He can't postjudge an action Mike hasn't taken yet.

[Emily]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

[Doo Dah]

There is a silver lining in all this. This circular argument c/o 'just ask Mike'. The BOOK.

I will prejudge that he will not expound on specifics of the 2005 lawsuit's historical depiction of Brian. He will not (as cited in the lawsuit) claim that Brian engaged in a premeditated destruction of the BRI brand name. He will most likely not touch on specifics of Brian's depiction in the 2000 film. He won't, because that would run contrary to a public exoneration of maligned Saint Michael.

I would be stunned in fact if he did tackle these delicate subjects, because the fall out would be of Chernobyl proportions.

[Empire Of Love]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

Nope, it is postjudging.  Judging by Mike's past actions one is justified in drawing probable conclusions about his future actions.  It's called inductive reasoning and yields probability, not certainty.  People use it all day, everyday in all kinds of decision making, and it is a sound form of reasoning.  A wise person will review all known facts and make judgments based on the probabilities indicated by those facts.  CD is justified in his conclusion based on Mike's past, just as I was justified in my conclusion that you would post a defense to my post based on your past, and here we are!

EoL

Nope. He hasn't asked so he is prejudging Mike's potential answer. His prejudice is his postjudging of previous supposed actions of Mike. He can't postjudge an action Mike hasn't taken yet.

Ah more Cam Mott sophistry.  Fortunately your incessant sophistry has not yet outstripped my willingness to point it out, though one day I am likely to tire of it.  In the meantime...

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation:

Equivocation: The using (a word) in more than one sense; ambiguity or uncertainty of meaning in words; also [cf. Sp. equivocacion], misapprehension arising from the ambiguity of terms.*

Your original use of the word prejudge was critical, and so you were using it in its primary sense (as opposed to using it in a simple, chronological sense):

Prejudge:  To pass judgement, or pronounce sentence on, before trial, or without proper inquiry; hence, to judge, to express or come to a judgement or decision upon (a person, cause, opinion, action, etc.), prematurely and without due consideration.*

CD has not passed judgment on Mike's character before trial, and certainly not without proper inquiry.  Mike has publicly testified over and over again, and CD has taken note.  He has not expressed or come to judgement or decision prematurely and without due consideration.  To the contrary, CD has based his decision on multiple evidences provided publicly by Mike himself.  By Mike's own testimony we know that he will not accept blame for his actions.  Mike has been tried, proper inquiry has occurred, and due consideration has been given to Mike's personal testimony.  CD has judged accordingly.

However, once it was pointed out that Mike's personal testimony via interview after interview justifies CD's conclusion, you have shifted your use of the word to a secondary sense, one that is purely chronological.  I agree with your chronological use of the word but I deny your initial value judgment.

As the great GK Chesteron wrote, "Prejudice is not so much the great intellectual sin as a thing which, we may call, to coin a word, ‘postjudice’, not the bias before the fair trial, but the bias that remains after."

*All definitions cited are from the OED, primary definition.

EoL

[Andrew G. Doe]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

[Empire Of Love]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

The king of minutia hath spoken!

EoL

[Angua]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls. 

What a clown show.

Try Facebook. 

We agree, what a clown show.

Who is 'we'?   Do you have multiple personalities (but all with the same devotion to Mike)  ? Are you collaborating with or working on instruction from someone else - in which case I know I'd like to know who that is?  I could guess but don't want to prejudge anything or we'll go around the block on another little detour.

[AndrewHickey]

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls. 

What a clown show.

Try Facebook. 

We agree, what a clown show.

Who is 'we'?   Do you have multiple personalities (but all with the same devotion to Mike)  ? Are you collaborating with or working on instruction from someone else - in which case I know I'd like to know who that is?  I could guess but don't want to prejudge anything or we'll go around the block on another little detour.

In order to stop this turning into another long digression on posters' grammar -- it seems pretty clear to me that when Cam says "we agree" he means "we -- that is you (Doo Dah) and I (Cam) -- agree".

[Cam Mott]

EoL, I believe you've read it wrong; I've explained. Please feel free to continue on without me.

Angua, the "we" in the conversation between Doodah and I is Doodah and I.  (Thanks Andrew)

Emily, thanks for your effort.

[HeyJude]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

Exactly.

This idea that we should personally message people (lawyers or Mike himself) is silly. Certainly, in the right context, doing some journalistic research and trying to get people on record can yield some good results. A book author or journalist asking? Appropriate, though usually with mixed, at best, results (the fellow that wrote the Carl Wilson bio was evidently turned down by numerous interview subjects). But a random fan asking about a lawsuit? I disagree with plenty of what Mike says and does, but why would I ever expect him to respond to a message a fan sends, especially if it's probing into a legal area?

For the two or so people that refuse to renounce or even express a modicum of lament for something like Mike's 2005 suit, NOTHING will ever change that. EVER.

Seriously, if someone dug up an interview with Mike where he says "Yeah, my bad. That 2005 suit was ill-advised and I said some hurtful, inaccurate things", these defenders would surely STILL not budge an inch. It would just be more "We'll have to agree to disagree" and "You never know how courts are going to rule" and "Mike's evil twin totally could have spearheaded that lawsuit" and so on. 

This is all classic overwrought debate tactics. Shifting the onus unfairly to someone else. "Go track down Mike and ask him personally!" How about no? How about YOU go track down Mike and get him to say something to convince the 99% of people with common sense why both the courts and fans have it totally wrong about that 2005 case? Why don't YOU go talk to his lawyers and see how much they're willing to talk to you about admonishments and sanctions leveled against them and their client in that case? Why don't YOU come back to everyone else here with one shred of information, one "cold hard fact" that undercuts the court's ruling or the general consensus that Mike comes off poorly in that lawsuit?

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

The king of minutia hath spoken!

EoL

 

[CenturyDeprived]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

Exactly.

This idea that we should personally message people (lawyers or Mike himself) is silly. Certainly, in the right context, doing some journalistic research and trying to get people on record can yield some good results. A book author or journalist asking? Appropriate, though usually with mixed, at best, results (the fellow that wrote the Carl Wilson bio was evidently turned down by numerous interview subjects). But a random fan asking about a lawsuit? I disagree with plenty of what Mike says and does, but why would I ever expect him to respond to a message a fan sends, especially if it's probing into a legal area?

For the two or so people that refuse to renounce or even express a modicum of lament for something like Mike's 2005 suit, NOTHING will ever change that. EVER.

Seriously, if someone dug up an interview with Mike where he says "Yeah, my bad. That 2005 suit was ill-advised and I said some hurtful, inaccurate things", these defenders would surely STILL not budge an inch. It would just be more "We'll have to agree to disagree" and "You never know how courts are going to rule" and "Mike's evil twin totally could have spearheaded that lawsuit" and so on.  

This is all classic overwrought debate tactics. Shifting the onus unfairly to someone else. "Go track down Mike and ask him personally!" How about no? How about YOU go track down Mike and get him to say something to convince the 99% of people with common sense why both the courts and fans have it totally wrong about that 2005 case? Why don't YOU go talk to his lawyers and see how much they're willing to talk to you about admonishments and sanctions leveled against them and their client in that case? Why don't YOU come back to everyone else here with one shred of information, one "cold hard fact" that undercuts the court's ruling or the general consensus that Mike comes off poorly in that lawsuit?

I'm waiting for Cam to provide me with a well-researched list of Mike selflessly, publicly admitting/fessing up to acting in a bad, lamentable way (*just* Mike, not Mike + others)...about a topic(s) which he already has a lot of bad press about... which would give me and everyone else on this board any kind of reason to believe that it's in Mike's wheelhouse to actually take public responsibility for crappy stuff. Cam seems to think that sooooo many people (including people who *might* just maybe have inside information like Melinda and Darian) are grabbing at straws, yet he provides no examples/case studies of why we should remotely think otherwise.

Oh I know... That recent interview where Mike was asked the "what's your biggest regret?", which he said the WILSONS' drug use. That's a great example that would lead us to think Mike would give *anyone* a straight answer on Facebook no less? If repeatedly saying "ask Mike" is not trolling, it's about the closest to trolling I can think of. A wild goose chase if there ever was one, he knows it.

[Ang Jones]

What was Mike's excuse for the R&R HoF in the 'Awesome Mike Love Article' that gives this thread it's title?


'He scratches at his beard, recollecting this awful, reputation-cementing moment, and says just about the only thing he can say: “Well, I didn’t get to the punchline.”
'Do you regret anything about that night?

'“Yeah, I regret that I didn’t meditate,” he says. “It helps you deal with whatever you’re dealing with. I meditate in order to cope with things.” '

That's the nearest he got to an apology. As for his remark about the punchline, as I've written elsewhere, he didn't need to bother with that. Elton John supplied a great one:

"Thank **** he didn't mention me."

[Cam Mott]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

Exactly.

This idea that we should personally message people (lawyers or Mike himself) is silly. Certainly, in the right context, doing some journalistic research and trying to get people on record can yield some good results. A book author or journalist asking? Appropriate, though usually with mixed, at best, results (the fellow that wrote the Carl Wilson bio was evidently turned down by numerous interview subjects). But a random fan asking about a lawsuit? I disagree with plenty of what Mike says and does, but why would I ever expect him to respond to a message a fan sends, especially if it's probing into a legal area?

For the two or so people that refuse to renounce or even express a modicum of lament for something like Mike's 2005 suit, NOTHING will ever change that. EVER.

Seriously, if someone dug up an interview with Mike where he says "Yeah, my bad. That 2005 suit was ill-advised and I said some hurtful, inaccurate things", these defenders would surely STILL not budge an inch. It would just be more "We'll have to agree to disagree" and "You never know how courts are going to rule" and "Mike's evil twin totally could have spearheaded that lawsuit" and so on.  

This is all classic overwrought debate tactics. Shifting the onus unfairly to someone else. "Go track down Mike and ask him personally!" How about no? How about YOU go track down Mike and get him to say something to convince the 99% of people with common sense why both the courts and fans have it totally wrong about that 2005 case? Why don't YOU go talk to his lawyers and see how much they're willing to talk to you about admonishments and sanctions leveled against them and their client in that case? Why don't YOU come back to everyone else here with one shred of information, one "cold hard fact" that undercuts the court's ruling or the general consensus that Mike comes off poorly in that lawsuit?

Yeah, so silly to ask the people directly involved instead continuing to bloviate out our blovholes.

Trademark: "Blovholes"

"This is all classic overwrought debate tactics" trying to get real on-topic info, not like your off-topic Al lawsuit diversion tactic. Edit: Or the R&R HOF speech.

[CenturyDeprived]

What was Mike's excuse for the R&R HoF in the 'Awesome Mike Love Article' that gives this thread it's title?


'He scratches at his beard, recollecting this awful, reputation-cementing moment, and says just about the only thing he can say: “Well, I didn’t get to the punchline.”
'Do you regret anything about that night?

'“Yeah, I regret that I didn’t meditate,” he says. “It helps you deal with whatever you’re dealing with. I meditate in order to cope with things.” '

That's the nearest he got to an apology. As for his remark about the punchline, as I've written elsewhere, he didn't need to bother with that. Elton John supplied a great one:

"Thank **** he didn't mention me."

A typical non-apology, where his bandmates' obvious humiliation isn't enough of a motivator to actually express regret and  directly say that he wishes he hadn't done that.  He obviously realizes that the speech was a huge embarrassment, yet it's all the fault of the lack of meditation. He just can't bring himself to say it's his fault. It's pathologically very sad.

The amazing hypocracy of what he said regarding band unity in that speech is also apparently completely lost on him. Interestingly, that infamous speech is the closest Mike has gotten to acknowledging he may suffer from some form of mental illness. I paraphrase (since I can't stomach to watch it at the moment)  "people might say that I'm crazy. They been saying that for years"...  If enough people were actually telling him that for years, and that's just up until 1988, never mind what's happened since then...  I just wish he would get help for his narcissism. I say that truthfully, not in an insulting manner. The yes-men/women aren't helping.  The very last thing Mike needs is for two straggling people, who for unknown reasons, defend everything he ever does, on a message board. Enablers help the sick cycle to continue.

[CenturyDeprived]

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

Exactly.

This idea that we should personally message people (lawyers or Mike himself) is silly. Certainly, in the right context, doing some journalistic research and trying to get people on record can yield some good results. A book author or journalist asking? Appropriate, though usually with mixed, at best, results (the fellow that wrote the Carl Wilson bio was evidently turned down by numerous interview subjects). But a random fan asking about a lawsuit? I disagree with plenty of what Mike says and does, but why would I ever expect him to respond to a message a fan sends, especially if it's probing into a legal area?

For the two or so people that refuse to renounce or even express a modicum of lament for something like Mike's 2005 suit, NOTHING will ever change that. EVER.

Seriously, if someone dug up an interview with Mike where he says "Yeah, my bad. That 2005 suit was ill-advised and I said some hurtful, inaccurate things", these defenders would surely STILL not budge an inch. It would just be more "We'll have to agree to disagree" and "You never know how courts are going to rule" and "Mike's evil twin totally could have spearheaded that lawsuit" and so on.  

This is all classic overwrought debate tactics. Shifting the onus unfairly to someone else. "Go track down Mike and ask him personally!" How about no? How about YOU go track down Mike and get him to say something to convince the 99% of people with common sense why both the courts and fans have it totally wrong about that 2005 case? Why don't YOU go talk to his lawyers and see how much they're willing to talk to you about admonishments and sanctions leveled against them and their client in that case? Why don't YOU come back to everyone else here with one shred of information, one "cold hard fact" that undercuts the court's ruling or the general consensus that Mike comes off poorly in that lawsuit?

Yeah, so silly to ask the people directly involved instead continuing to bloviate out our blovholes.

Trademark: "Blovholes"

"This is all classic overwrought debate tactics" trying to get real on-topic info, not like your off-topic Al lawsuit diversion tactic. Edit: Or the R&R HOF speech.

It's silly because Mike has a history of not publicly fessing up to stuff. Untrue? And the writer/director will have no motivation to answer a random fan, especially when Mike could his throw legal weight around if they were to directly finger him. ( I expect you to illogically say these are non-issues, or just avoid what I said entirely). But it's a moot point because Emily has already given it a shot, so no need to harp on about that. You know it's a wild goose chase, but it's already been instigated at your request.

What do you say about Melinda and Darian?  Are you saying they are full of it?

[guitarfool2002]

A question to Cam Mott might be why he himself hasn't contacted any of these people he's asking others to contact, since he's been bringing it up at least since 2010.

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

A wild goose chase indeed. Especially since we've already heard from people involved or with connections to people involved.

And also, any fan with more than a passing knowledge of the band's history can watch "part 2" of that film and see what the problems are with the depictions of the band members. That part 2, I'll say again, was the main reason why the film lost credibility - People watching it saw right through it and also where it was coming from. Then we find out later the original script for part 2 was significantly different from what eventually was broadcast.

[Debbie KL]

A question to Cam Mott might be why he himself hasn't contacted any of these people he's asking others to contact, since he's been bringing it up at least since 2010.

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

A wild goose chase indeed. Especially since we've already heard from people involved or with connections to people involved.

And also, any fan with more than a passing knowledge of the band's history can watch "part 2" of that film and see what the problems are with the depictions of the band members. That part 2, I'll say again, was the main reason why the film lost credibility - People watching it saw right through it and also where it was coming from. Then we find out later the original script for part 2 was significantly different from what eventually was broadcast.

Thanks for posting the link to that old SS thread, GF with posts from some of those who were involved with the film.  Yes, Alan Boyd made it pretty clear that there were some vast changes to the script at the last minute that were a serious problem for him, and clearly a problem for Melinda and Brian, per Darian's additional comments that were posted.  One might draw the conclusion that the credibility of some of those involved with this TV production was as lacking behind the scenes as it was in the visible product.  I guess that gets us back to the 2005-2010 suit with essentially the same overall point of view expressed, and it's lack of credibility in the eyes of the court.  I'm thinking that this whole thread's discussion seems to center around this question.  What are we to believe?

[HeyJude]

The awfulness and political fallout from the 2000 movie makes me truly believe (not being sarcastic at all) that John Stamos must be a REALLY nice guy, because I can't imagine why Brian and Al would even want to be on the stage with him as they were in 2012, and Al even had Stamos add some bongos on his solo album as well.

I would tend to think perhaps Stamos actually privately apologized for his part in the debacle.

I think Stamos is probably quite happy for that movie to be forgotten.

The fact that he seemed to be totally oblivious as to the annoying nature of his C50 cameos actually makes more sense considering he didn't see what a political minefield that 2000 TV movie was, and the timing was awful to boot. Band relations were at one of the all-time lows at that point.

[guitarfool2002]

The awfulness and political fallout from the 2000 movie makes me truly believe (not being sarcastic at all) that John Stamos must be a REALLY nice guy, because I can't imagine why Brian and Al would even want to be on the stage with him as they were in 2012, and Al even had Stamos add some bongos on his solo album as well.

I would tend to think perhaps Stamos actually privately apologized for his part in the debacle.

I think Stamos is probably quite happy for that movie to be forgotten.

The fact that he seemed to be totally oblivious as to the annoying nature of his C50 cameos actually makes more sense considering he didn't see what a political minefield that 2000 TV movie was, and the timing was awful to boot. Band relations were at one of the all-time lows at that point.

Adding to the discussion here is a clipping from November 2001 with John Stamos commenting on the film:

[HeyJude]

Interestingly, while some similar characterizations as to the background of the band and its members may be found in both the 2000 TV movie and the 2005 lawsuit paperwork, I don't think the court spoke much to the vindictive, inflammatory verbiage of the "background" sections in the 2005 lawsuit, at least in the available appeals courts ruling.

It probably didn't help Mike's case, but that's just a guess. I would think (and certainly hope) that the courts realize that the plaintiff's "background" material is going to be severely subjective and not coincidentally molded to fit the narrative of their lawsuit. I would presume if they were tasked to address those "background" sections, Brian's legal team (and the other plaintiffs' teams) would have easily discredited huge hunks of the background sections. For all I know, they did just that. I don't think we have access to all of the answers to the complaints.

The downfall of Mike's case appears to be, in my opinion, not just a "jurisdiction" issue, but an overall "frivolous" vibe to the whole thing, which the courts clearly picked up on. Numerous defendants appeared to not even be justifiably named as defendants, and were at some point dismissed from the case. Some of the assertions come perilously close, in my opinion, to suggesting that Brian Wilson can't even tour under his own name and perform BB music, because even that could theoretically take business away from Mike's band.

That they then engaged in shenanigans in the course of the case (residence change, the falsified eBay CD purchase debacle) certainly only made things worse as well.

[guitarfool2002]

My reaction reading that would start with "yeah...but..." especially regarding some scenes that personally offended not only the fans who knew the history but more importantly some of the real people involved and alive to see how they were falsely portrayed. Or in the case of some interactions between Brian and Dennis in that film, how wrong and offensive some of it really was.

Keep in mind too, this film with ABC was part of a very, very big promotional push surrounding the Beach Boys at that time that included not only ABC airing the movie, but re-releases and re=packaging with Capitol Records, tie-ins with cable networks, and as I remember watching at the time some carefully scheduled TV talk show and interview appearances including Stamos himself to promote the film and cross-promote the other tie-ins.

And factoring all of that in, to present some of the people in such a false way...it's maddening to think what happened to lead to such cartoonish and harmful depictions considering everything else at stake. Unless, of course, at some point the original plan was changed (as reported with the script changes).

This is a TV movie, ultimately. When it gets into a lawsuit transcript, that's another story altogether.