Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[HeyJude]

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.

Don't agree with that at all. Discussion of a topic will almost invariably at some point include criticism as well. How boring it would be if all we did was give everything thumbs up.

I like this album, don't like that album so much. This song is amazing. That is a stinker. Excellent interview I just read. Whoa, so-and-so comes across very poorly in that interview. This is all part of the discussion.

[filledeplage]

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

Posting a Rolling Stone article is not a "bomb-tossing" thread, nor is it anything remotely like a leading question in court, which, if objected to successfully, is not allowed during questioning in a court setting.

Tying it to a ruled-on lawsuit that is more than a decade old as well as a made for TV movie that is 16 years old, is exactly that.  

It devolved into a bomb-tossing thread suggesting people contact the judges, lawyers, etc.  It is beyond ridiculous.

A leading question is designed to elicit only one answer.  And the lawyer, generally, knows the answer before the question is asked.  Oh, yes it is allowed for certain classes of witnesses and at certain times of a trial.  

There was a similar thread about "Why people hate Mike" recently with the same players slinging the same garbage.  

[filledeplage]

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.

Don't agree with that at all. Discussion of a topic will almost invariably at some point include criticism as well. How boring it would be if all we did was give everything thumbs up.

I like this album, don't like that album so much. This song is amazing. That is a stinker. Excellent interview I just read. Whoa, so-and-so comes across very poorly in that interview. This is all part of the discussion.

And that is not a problem.  That is expected.  This is a personal attack based on a point-of-view.   

[SMiLE Brian]

Asking simple questions are not a "personal attack". The problem is admitting Mike Love is wrong at anything.

[Emily]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

[HeyJude]

Tying it to a ruled-on lawsuit that is more than a decade old as well as a made for TV movie that is 16 years old, is exactly that.  

Totally disagree. That 2005 lawsuit is an EXCELLENT insight into the contents of the recent RS article. It actually helps understand the RS article even more.

It devolved into a bomb-tossing thread suggesting people contact the judges, lawyers, etc.  It is beyond ridiculous.

Only one person as far as I know suggested doing that, and it's not any of the people you've been having a back-and-forth disagreement with on this thread.

A leading question is designed to elicit only one answer.  And the lawyer, generally, knows the answer before the question is asked.  Oh, yes it is allowed for certain classes of witnesses and at certain times of a trial.  

Not that it matters, but is isn't always intended to elicit one specific answer. It can be crafted to steer the mind of a witness, and to steer the direction of their testimony. And, it can be objected to by the opposing council. You're kind of just describing a lawyer asking a question they want to ask because they want to get a certain answer and information on record, which of course is allowed.

There was a similar thread about "Why people hate Mike" recently with the same players slinging the same garbage.  

A thread about "Why people hate Mike Love" could, I stress could, be a very interesting and germane conversation. It often doesn't end up that way. But it's not inherently a bad topic. Ironically, that particular thread seemed to be started for the opposite reason you're implying. Wasn't that the article started by the guy who ended up writing a sympathetic article on Mike for Record Collector? My take was that the thread was started to elicit attacks on Mike to fuel the argument that Mike is unfairly attacked and villainized by fans.

[Emily]

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result.  

Posting a Rolling Stone article is not a "bomb-tossing" thread, nor is it anything remotely like a leading question in court, which, if objected to successfully, is not allowed during questioning in a court setting.

Tying it to a ruled-on lawsuit that is more than a decade old as well as a made for TV movie that is 16 years old, is exactly that.  


It devolved into a bomb-tossing thread suggesting people contact the judges, lawyers, etc.  It is beyond ridiculous.

A leading question is designed to elicit only one answer.  And the lawyer, generally, knows the answer before the question is asked.  Oh, yes it is allowed for certain classes of witnesses and at certain times of a trial.  

There was a similar thread about "Why people hate Mike" recently with the same players slinging the same garbage.  

Frankly, I'm completely startled that there is any controversy over the nature of the text of the complaint. It's not the same people slinging the same garbage. It's everyone, including people who are big fans of ML, agreeing that this was a lamentable action.

[HeyJude]

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.

Don't agree with that at all. Discussion of a topic will almost invariably at some point include criticism as well. How boring it would be if all we did was give everything thumbs up.

I like this album, don't like that album so much. This song is amazing. That is a stinker. Excellent interview I just read. Whoa, so-and-so comes across very poorly in that interview. This is all part of the discussion.

And that is not a problem.  That is expected.  This is a personal attack based on a point-of-view.  

Saying the 2005 lawsuit makes Mike look bad, or look vindictive, or grudge-bearing, or angry, is not a "personal attack."

And everything anyone writes is based on a point of view. That's like saying what we all write is based on the words we're typing.

[CenturyDeprived]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place.  

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

I edited my post while you were replying to it, so I'd like to know what you think of this. I'm trying to resolve the aggravation that many of us feel and this might help.

Admitting your inability (or preference to never) publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.  If you could just say that you don't want to say anything bad about Mike, I can disagree, but I can respect that. If you simply don't answer this question, it's going to just continue the aggravation that many people have.  I won't ask you why you don't want to ever under any circumstances publicly say anything bad about him, I just want to know if that's truly the case.

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.  I have not criticized Brian, (or other members) either.  You accuse me of an "inability to say" whatever.  Who are you to decide my (or anyone else's) abilities or inabilities?  We are not here for that.  It is a harangue.

Who do you think you are to suggest anyone should be compelled to answer another poster?  Is this high school?  Or junior high?  

This line of posts is not constructed to resolve anything but get 100% consensus to direct hate towards a band member.  Many sit out and won't opine for fear of being bullied.  

That band has all made their mistakes (like the rest of humanity) paid for them, money-wise or otherwise, and should be allowed to live and let live.  Some people won't "let it go."  

Who am I to decide your inability to say something bad about Mike? I am not anyone to decide.

That's why I asked *you* an honest question yourself, to see if you would agree with that assertion, or if you would disagree with it.  It's either true, or it isn't true. I would venture to guess that 95% of more of this board would venture to guess that you won't ever say anything bad about Mike.  Are we wrong?

This isn't a board designed specifically to say bad stuff about Mike (Man vs Clown, which features many posts by Mike's own brother, serves that specific purpose), but if it comes out in the discussion of a topic, it's going to come out. If you don't want to say anything bad about the guy, that's fine.  I truly am at a loss to understand why it's hard for you to just say that. There's no judgment if you say it.   It's your right to not say anything bad about him, but why is there some deep need to not answer? I just truly, truly don't get it.

What's the harm in being honest?  And if I'm incorrect to assume you won't say anything publicly bad about Mike under any circumstances, I'd like to know too.  This isn't any sort of a witchhunt, this is an attempt to clear up the manner in which people on this board have back – and – forth conversations with you.

[filledeplage]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

[SMiLE Brian]

Deflection USA.

[filledeplage]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place.  

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

I edited my post while you were replying to it, so I'd like to know what you think of this. I'm trying to resolve the aggravation that many of us feel and this might help.

Admitting your inability (or preference to never) publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.  If you could just say that you don't want to say anything bad about Mike, I can disagree, but I can respect that. If you simply don't answer this question, it's going to just continue the aggravation that many people have.  I won't ask you why you don't want to ever under any circumstances publicly say anything bad about him, I just want to know if that's truly the case.

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.  I have not criticized Brian, (or other members) either.  You accuse me of an "inability to say" whatever.  Who are you to decide my (or anyone else's) abilities or inabilities?  We are not here for that.  It is a harangue.

Who do you think you are to suggest anyone should be compelled to answer another poster?  Is this high school?  Or junior high?  

This line of posts is not constructed to resolve anything but get 100% consensus to direct hate towards a band member.  Many sit out and won't opine for fear of being bullied.  

That band has all made their mistakes (like the rest of humanity) paid for them, money-wise or otherwise, and should be allowed to live and let live.  Some people won't "let it go."  

Who am I to decide your inability to say something bad about Mike? I am not anyone to decide.

That's why I asked *you* an honest question yourself, to see if you would agree with that assertion, or if you would disagree with it.  It's either true, or it isn't true. I would venture to guess that 95% of more of this board would venture to guess that you won't ever say anything bad about Mike.  

This isn't a board designed specifically to say bad stuff about Mike (Man vs Clown, which features many posts by Mike's own brother, serves that specific purpose), but if it comes out in the discussion of a topic, it's going to come out. If you don't want to say anything bad about the guy, that's fine.  I truly am at a loss to understand why it's hard for you to just say that. There's no judgment if you say it.   It's your right to not say anything bad about him, but why is there some deep need to not answer? I just truly, truly don't get it.

What's the harm in being honest?  And if I'm incorrect to assume you won't say anything publicly bad about Mike under any circumstances, I'd like to know too.  This isn't any sort of a witchhunt, this is an attempt to clear up the manner in which people on this board have back – and – forth conversations with you.

Because I don't see anything wrong with people going to court to assert their rights, whether they have no chance of prevailing or a great chance.  

They all did.  "I'd like to know."  What!  I am not on the witness stand.    

[CenturyDeprived]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

Hey Jude -  the comment was directed at CD.  I don't appreciate your commentary and harangue either or your innuendo.  Without a difference of opinion and everyone agrees and pats other on the back, it would be a pretty boring place.  

FDP - truly, how can someone even know that a difference of opinion exists when a question is not answered?  I am  legitimately not trying to harass you, I'm trying to understand how a non-answer can be an opinion?  And if you would not qualify your responses as non-answers, I would love to know what you would in fact consider to be non-answers?  I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Now... If you are of the opinion that saying any bad/negative opinions of any band member's actions is simply not something you personally want to touch with a 10 foot pole in a public forum, well then just say that, and I can at least understand if that's your opinion. That at least makes sense, if that is what you think.

CD - I was asked and I gave my opinion. I read those docs.  That was not enough for some.  The issue was one of enforceability of the Lanham Act in the UK.

It makes this an unpleasant forum for fans to discuss the music they love.  It is why many who sign up don't post and those who do, feel intimidated.  

You don't agree.  Andrew (Doe) did mention something above that I did not think of and sort of agree about returning to a forum with a response that satisfies no one.  

People want to call lawyers, judges, publicists, etc., 16 years after a TV movie and call them out. It is an utter absurdity.  There may have been many alternative scenes or out-takes, that ended up on a cutting room floor that may have been qualifiers.  Only those in charge had control of that.  

I edited my post while you were replying to it, so I'd like to know what you think of this. I'm trying to resolve the aggravation that many of us feel and this might help.

Admitting your inability (or preference to never) publicly say anything bad about Mike would be the first step for us being able to agree to disagree, and I probably speak for more than just myself.  If you could just say that you don't want to say anything bad about Mike, I can disagree, but I can respect that. If you simply don't answer this question, it's going to just continue the aggravation that many people have.  I won't ask you why you don't want to ever under any circumstances publicly say anything bad about him, I just want to know if that's truly the case.

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.  I have not criticized Brian, (or other members) either.  You accuse me of an "inability to say" whatever.  Who are you to decide my (or anyone else's) abilities or inabilities?  We are not here for that.  It is a harangue.

Who do you think you are to suggest anyone should be compelled to answer another poster?  Is this high school?  Or junior high?  

This line of posts is not constructed to resolve anything but get 100% consensus to direct hate towards a band member.  Many sit out and won't opine for fear of being bullied.  

That band has all made their mistakes (like the rest of humanity) paid for them, money-wise or otherwise, and should be allowed to live and let live.  Some people won't "let it go."  

Who am I to decide your inability to say something bad about Mike? I am not anyone to decide.

That's why I asked *you* an honest question yourself, to see if you would agree with that assertion, or if you would disagree with it.  It's either true, or it isn't true. I would venture to guess that 95% of more of this board would venture to guess that you won't ever say anything bad about Mike.  

This isn't a board designed specifically to say bad stuff about Mike (Man vs Clown, which features many posts by Mike's own brother, serves that specific purpose), but if it comes out in the discussion of a topic, it's going to come out. If you don't want to say anything bad about the guy, that's fine.  I truly am at a loss to understand why it's hard for you to just say that. There's no judgment if you say it.   It's your right to not say anything bad about him, but why is there some deep need to not answer? I just truly, truly don't get it.

What's the harm in being honest?  And if I'm incorrect to assume you won't say anything publicly bad about Mike under any circumstances, I'd like to know too.  This isn't any sort of a witchhunt, this is an attempt to clear up the manner in which people on this board have back – and – forth conversations with you.

Because I don't see anything wrong with people going to court to assert their rights, whether they have no chance of prevailing or a great chance.  

They all did.  "I'd like to know."  What!  I am not on the witness stand.    

I'm at a loss to understand what you're talking about here. That's not meant as an insult, I have no idea how that's a response to my question. My question is a general question, not just about this 2000/2005 topic.

[SMiLE Brian]

CD, it's I deflect around...

[HeyJude]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

You keep conflating actual legal/court terms with terms being used to describe the discussion on this board. The ENTIRETY of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is evidence fans use to characterize how they FEEL about Mike's lawsuit. That's all.

So all of this "the only thing that matters is the outcome" stuff is bogus. NONE of it, including the outcome/ruling, matters in a legal sense to anybody outside the parties to the lawsuit.

Conversely, ALL of it matters, and it's ALL evidence, when fans are weighing the topic in a discussion/debate.

FURTHER, I've never seen anyone take a ruling against a plaintiff, say that the ruling is the ONLY thing that matters, and then still continue to defend the losing plaintiff.

I continue to get whiplash with this browbeating about the letter of the law, and non-sequitur legalese that has nothing to do with anything, followed by completely IGNORING a court ruling because it repudiates someone you don't want to say anything negative about.

[HeyJude]

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

Wait, so we shouldn't bring up a 2005 lawsuit or a 2000 TV movie, but it's okay to bring up a 1994 (or whatever year it was) lawsuit, and one that has nothing to do with anything anybody asked or mentioned or discussed?

[SMiLE Brian]

Good deflections

[filledeplage]

CD - Last time I checked, we are not here to criticize others, band members included.

Don't agree with that at all. Discussion of a topic will almost invariably at some point include criticism as well. How boring it would be if all we did was give everything thumbs up.

I like this album, don't like that album so much. This song is amazing. That is a stinker. Excellent interview I just read. Whoa, so-and-so comes across very poorly in that interview. This is all part of the discussion.

And that is not a problem.  That is expected.  This is a personal attack based on a point-of-view.  

Saying the 2005 lawsuit makes Mike look bad, or look vindictive, or grudge-bearing, or angry, is not a "personal attack."

And everything anyone writes is based on a point of view. That's like saying what we all write is based on the words we're typing.

No, I don't think it does.  You are asking leading questions. You are putting those "angry, grudge-bearing, vindictive," in your comment and is exactly the same as a leading question.    

It makes him look like he is trying to be prudent and protect the brand, which is his duty as a member, even if erring on the side of caution is construed by others in a disparaging light.  That end is up to his lawyers to advise him or them that they would not have the power to enforce Lanham in a California state court.  

But, that opinion would disparage the lawyers who already were "spoken to" by the court, in the same way that Brian's lawyers were "spoken to" because they were supposed to remit Mike some of the proceeds of the original suit.  

The court has spoken in both cases for the same or different reasons.  And, for me, unethical, to go further.  Please respect that.  Thank you.  

[CenturyDeprived]

CD, it's I deflect around...

Totally.

I am just at a complete loss why anybody who would not want to say anything bad about Mike has some big problem in saying so.  I can completely understand somebody who just makes the decision to never say anything bad about any band member under any circumstances. I can understand that mindset, even if I would disagree with it. That's agreeing to disagree.  

I am at a loss to understand why somebody would be that way and then have some problem admitting that's the case. That's completely baffling and makes no sense. Is there shame in admitting that's the case?  Is it some pride issue where they don't want to give me the satisfaction of just knowing the answer? I am honestly baffled.

[filledeplage]

CD, it's I deflect around...

Totally.

I am just at a complete loss why anybody who would not want to say anything bad about Mike has some big problem in saying so.  I can completely understand somebody who just makes the decision to never say anything bad about any band member under any circumstances. I can understand that mindset, even if I would disagree with it. That's agreeing to disagree.  

I am at a loss to understand why somebody would be that way and then have some problem admitting that's the case. That's completely baffling and makes no sense. Is there shame in admitting that's the case? I am baffled.

Why should I be compelled to be in agreement when I don't agree? And somehow that is not accepted.  Not my problem.   

What makes sense to you may not make sense to me. 

We can agree to disagree. 

[HeyJude]

No, I don't think it does.  You are asking leading questions. You are putting those "angry, grudge-bearing, vindictive," in your comment and is exactly the same as a leading question.    

No. It's not even a question at all. "I think Mike comes across as angry, vindictive, etc. in that lawsuit." That's not a leading question, and it's not a question at all. It's a simple opinion.

It makes him look like he is trying to be prudent and protect the brand, which is his duty as a member, even if erring on the side of caution is construed by others in a disparaging light.  That end is up to his lawyers to advise him or them that they would not have the power to enforce Lanham in a California state court.  

Fair enough. I disagree with all of that. I think it's clearly indicative of vindictiveness, anger, sour grapes, vengefulness, and so on. I also disagree with the continual shunting of responsibility to the lawyers and away from the client, who is the one who is filing the suit and who surely isn't being coerced by his lawyers into filing said suit.

But, that opinion would disparage the lawyers who already were "spoken to" by the court, in the same way that Brian's lawyers were "spoken to" because they were supposed to remit Mike some of the proceeds of the original suit.  

Pointing out that an appeals court ruling mentions that a lawyer was sanctioned is not a disparaging comment. It's a simple reading back of the court record.

Were Brian's lawyers also sanctioned by the court during that 2005 lawsuit? I'm not sure what "spoken to" is supposed to be a euphemism for, especially considering the amount of legalese normally thrown around.

The court has spoken in both cases for the same or different reasons.  And, for me, unethical, to go further.  Please respect that.  Thank you.  

It's not unethical for observers (fans, media, press, etc.) to discuss a lawsuit or a court ruling, or to express agreement or disagreement with same. You can choose not to, but again I would go back to the idea that wading into a discussion very clearly about a lawsuit is probably not a good idea if one's inclination is to never discuss a lawsuit.

[filledeplage]

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

Emily - that is a value judgment.  Any poster can opine as they see fit.  If it is contrary to the popular narrative, that should be acceptable. 

With 50+ years as a fan, under my belt, and a pretty good knowledge of the catalog, having seen them live at least a hundred times, I feel qualified to opine one way or another.  I read this so-called "incriminating" evidence, which is little more than "artful" legal drafting.  The case was settled.  C50 happened, post.  So there is some communication going on since the resolution of the suit.  Some people think that other people's business is theirs, simply because it hits the airwaves.   

Some of these bomb-tossing threads (and one poster has opened close to 180 threads) are calculated to bait members and call for only one opinion and not multiple ones.  It is like a leading question in court which are tailored to only get one result. 

I have no policy against value judgments. Further I disagree that that was a value judgment.
I have never objected to anyone voicing an opinion though I strenuously object to people refusing to support a stated opinion or to people being completely inflexible when facing overwhelming evidence and logic against their original opinion.

Emily - The only evidence that merits notice is the outcome.  The state court had no jurisdiction over the UK to enforce the Lanham Act.  It is a value judgement to say that "one who asserts a controversial (maybe only on this board) and refuse to support (which is false) or reply (in the affirmative in agreement) and "ignore evidence." (it is not evidence - it is a filing)

Evidence is "documentary" submitted to the court, in terms of contracts, or a copyright document, or "physical" evidence, like a tape or CD. Or, the "demonstrative" evidence where Brian or the other side brought in a keyboard to play for the court to show how a song was constructed with Mike.  That is evidence.

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovewilson1.html  

This is a very good read.  Hope it copies; enjoy!    

You keep conflating actual legal/court terms with terms being used to describe the discussion on this board. The ENTIRETY of Mike's 2005 lawsuit is evidence fans use to characterize how they FEEL about Mike's lawsuit. That's all.

So all of this "the only thing that matters is the outcome" stuff is bogus. NONE of it, including the outcome/ruling, matters in a legal sense to anybody outside the parties to the lawsuit.

Conversely, ALL of it matters, and it's ALL evidence, when fans are weighing the topic in a discussion/debate.

FURTHER, I've never seen anyone take a ruling against a plaintiff, say that the ruling is the ONLY thing that matters, and then still continue to defend the losing plaintiff.

I continue to get whiplash with this browbeating about the letter of the law, and non-sequitur legalese that has nothing to do with anything, followed by completely IGNORING a court ruling because it repudiates someone you don't want to say anything negative about.

You are being "browbeaten?" About the letter-of-the-law?

This is about the letter-of-the-law.    

[CenturyDeprived]

CD, it's I deflect around...

Totally.

I am just at a complete loss why anybody who would not want to say anything bad about Mike has some big problem in saying so.  I can completely understand somebody who just makes the decision to never say anything bad about any band member under any circumstances. I can understand that mindset, even if I would disagree with it. That's agreeing to disagree.  

I am at a loss to understand why somebody would be that way and then have some problem admitting that's the case. That's completely baffling and makes no sense. Is there shame in admitting that's the case? I am baffled.

Why should I be compelled to be in agreement when I don't agree? And somehow that is not accepted.  Not my problem.  

What makes sense to you may not make sense to me.  

We can agree to disagree.  

So am I reading this right? Are you saying that you disagree with my assumption that you will under no circumstances say anything bad about Mike? Maybe I'm wrong in saying that, but you're the only person who can tell me that I'm wrong. That's why I asked you.

I am just trying to make sense of your reply because I truthfully can't quite fully understand it from the way you worded it. I am *not* trying to compell you to agree with what I assumed. I was just looking for an honest answer from your side. If I'm wrong, I want you to tell me so.

[SMiLE Brian]

She disagrees that Mike didn't drive his lawsuits hard enough to force his warped vision of the BBs "brand".

[HeyJude]

You are being "browbeaten?" About the letter-of-the-law?

This is about the letter-of-the-law.    

No, it isn't. This discussion is not about the letter of the law and never was. It is an opinion-based, qualitative, subjective discussion about how people FEEL about Mike Love, and the RS article, and his 2005 lawsuit, and so on. If you feel you don't want to discuss any of that, that's cool.

Further, if this conversation WAS about the letter of the law, we have a crystal clear court ruling that is a complete repudiation of the plaintiff and his case, and yet we have one or two people who won't acknowledge that.