Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

It's up to you to decide whether watching a film "translates" to anything else. But you're talking about things nobody brought up. You can't take two different points raised on a thread, conflate them, and then incredulously wonder why people have no clue what you're talking about (at best) or why people are saying you're misrepresenting what others have said (at worst).

Nobody was equating the L&M film to lawsuits. Nobody was translating one to the other. Only you have done that, by implying that a statement pulled from Mike's 2005 lawsuit ("bastardization....") was actually contained within the L&M film.

If you want to start a Beach Boys "Mad Libs" thread for that sort of stuff, maybe someone will join in.

Maybe it's fun to take random lines from Beach Boys-related lawsuits and attribute them to movies. I really loved that scene in “Taxi Driver” where they talk about the revenue BRI gets from the Beach Boys trademark.

 

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

It's up to you to decide whether watching a film "translates" to anything else. But you're talking about things nobody brought up. You can't take two different points raised on a thread, conflate them, and then incredulously wonder why people have no clue what you're talking about (at best) or why people are saying you're misrepresenting what others have said (at worst).

Nobody was equating the L&M film to lawsuits. Nobody was translating one to the other. Only you have done that, by implying that a statement pulled from Mike's 2005 lawsuit ("bastardization....") was actually contained within the L&M film.

If you want to start a Beach Boys "Mad Libs" thread for that sort of stuff, maybe someone will join in.

Maybe it's fun to take random lines from Beach Boys-related lawsuits and attribute them to movies. I really loved that scene in “Taxi Driver” where they talk about the revenue BRI gets from the Beach Boys trademark.

 
We had different interpretations.  Sorry if it copies as a double post.

[Debbie KL]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 

Debbie - those are two different issues. Most people don't like to read allegations in a suit.  Any suit, whether it is a BB suit or a divorce suit.  They are not pretty and often contain forceful language. 

So, people  hire a lawyer to filter that complaint for them, even if they read a copy themselves.  It means the lawyer has to look for facts and law to apply to them, mechanically. 

The board has rules-of-the-road. 

2)  Debate is fine;  when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter. 

And, I think it is safe to say that that line has been crossed in this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

[CenturyDeprived]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 

Debbie - those are two different issues. Most people don't like to read allegations in a suit.  Any suit, whether it is a BB suit or a divorce suit.  They are not pretty and often contain forceful language.  

So, people  hire a lawyer to filter that complaint for them, even if they read a copy themselves.  It means the lawyer has to look for facts and law to apply to them, mechanically.  

The board has rules-of-the-road.  

2)  Debate is fine;  when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter.  

And, I think it is safe to say that that line has been crossed in this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

Debbie simply asked you a question, she did not make a personal attack. You just dodged the question. It's as simple as that. Threadcrap, troll, derp, derp, derp.

Why don't I post some Vanilla Ice song lyrics here, because you know, we all have derp...diff...erent interpretations. Derp.
 
[Beatboxing]

Oh, yeah

What it's like
Havin' a roni
What it's like
Havin' a roni

[Beatboxing]

[More beatboxing]

[Some scat-style beatboxing]

What it's like
Havin' a roni
What it's like
Havin' a roni

Bbbbbbbbb

Oh, yeah
VIP in full effect

[HeyJude]

While generally a good and sound (and useful) rule, it's unfortunate in this 2005 case that privilege typically keeps people from suing for libel or defamation contained within lawsuits/pleadings/complaints, etc.

While it wouldn't be impossible to argue that the accusations and statements (particularly against non-party Jardine) in the background section of that lawsuit are so egregious and irrelevant to the case that the "privilege" rule doesn't protect it, I'm sure it would have been a huge uphill battle for Al or Brian to sue for libel or defamation based on the contents of the 2005 lawsuit background.

There's always a balance that has to be struck between encouraging truthful, unhindered testimony in cases (and thus protecting court proceedings from libel/defamation claims) and people using court documents and the court proceedings to air defamatory information that they feel is protected.

Perhaps Al would have had a slightly better chance since he wasn't even a party to that 2005 suit.

[CenturyDeprived]

While generally a good and sound (and useful) rule, it's unfortunate in this 2005 case that privilege typically keeps people from suing for libel or defamation contained within lawsuits/pleadings/complaints, etc.

While it wouldn't be impossible to argue that the accusations and statements (particularly against non-party Jardine) in the background section of that lawsuit as so egregious that the "privilege" rule doesn't protect it, I'm sure it would have been a huge uphill battle for Al or Brian to sue for libel or defamation based on the contents of the 2005 lawsuit background.

There's always a balance that has to be struck between encouraging truthful, unhindered testimony in cases (and thus protecting court proceedings from libel/defamation claims) and people using court documents and the court proceedings to air defamatory information that they feel is protected.

Perhaps Al would have had a slightly better chance since he wasn't even a party to that 2005 suit.

As I mentioned before, it's mighty fortunate for Mike that this lawsuit - and all the horrendous depictions of Brian and Al - happened just before social media took off in a big way. I could see TMZ seizing on the story if it happened today, and I could also see lawsuits flying as a result of the blatant falsehoods.

[filledeplage]

And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.

It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).

Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).

But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.

Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 

Debbie - those are two different issues. Most people don't like to read allegations in a suit.  Any suit, whether it is a BB suit or a divorce suit.  They are not pretty and often contain forceful language. 

So, people  hire a lawyer to filter that complaint for them, even if they read a copy themselves.  It means the lawyer has to look for facts and law to apply to them, mechanically. 

The board has rules-of-the-road. 

2)  Debate is fine;  when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter. 

And, I think it is safe to say that that line has been crossed in this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

Debbie simply asked you a question, she did not make a personal attack. You just dodged the question. It's as simple as that. Threadcrap, troll, derp, derp, derp.

CD - Yes, and I responded to them. I did not say she made it a personal attack, and your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

Being accused of continuously dodging a question is out-of-line, in my opinion.  And I believe that it is a violation of #2 of the rules.

[HeyJude]

Just as a sidebar, while I don’t let Mike off the hook for the content of the 2005 lawsuit, I’ve always had a hunch/gut feeling that whomever typed the complaint somehow jumbled some facts/names between Brian and Al. While still inflammatory and unfortunate, when you remove Al’s name from one of the sentences and insert Brian’s, it seems markedly less totally bats**t crazy of a comment:

“….because of Jardine’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members.”

versus

“….because of Brian Wilson’s long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform, and abusiveness toward other band members.”

Really, Al is about the last person in the band that has a publically "well documented" case of emotional and mental problems.

[CenturyDeprived]

your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

It's not my perception. There's a tidal wave of people who feel that way, and an ever-growing mountain of people, very well-respected folk, who equate your posts in this thread to little more than trolling and threadcrapping.

It. ain't. just. me.

[SMiLE Brian]

It ain't me babe.

[filledeplage]

your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

It's not my perception. There's a tidal wave of people who feel that way, and an ever-growing mountain of people, very well-respected folk, who equate your posts in this thread to little more than trolling and threadcrapping.

It. ain't. just. me.

CD - that was the position I took, after I backed it up, after reading the line of cases, investing plenty of time.  

It hinged the Lanham Act enforcement outside of the US.  Period.  And, if others don't agree, I did not attack their positions, and expect the same.  
 

[Paul J B]

Filledeplage....I'm not jumping in to slam you but you are wrong on this. Others here are wrong as well when they blow things Mike says or does out of proportion. That 2005 lawsuit was a joke and Mike was  pissed about "things" when it was initiated. It was also 11 years ago and is water under the bridge. There are bands that make it big and are forgotten in 11 years time.

Mike has a chip on his shoulder that will remain permanent. Mike and a Rolling Stone reporter bringing up tired old crap means what exactly? It means Mike is Mike. More than a couple of people that spend an enormous amount of their time here seem to be hoping and thinking that someday Mike will see the light and admit he's a fool and ruined the Beach Boys reputation. He's not going to and he didn't hurt the Beach Boys reputation. From time to time he says or does something stupid that tarnishes his OWN reputation...but...in the end what does that matter, considering all of the great songs the Beach Boys left us with. 

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

[CenturyDeprived]

your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

It's not my perception. There's a tidal wave of people who feel that way, and an ever-growing mountain of people, very well-respected folk, who equate your posts in this thread to little more than trolling and threadcrapping.

It. ain't. just. me.

CD - that was the position I took, after I backed it up, after reading the line of cases, investing plenty of time.  

It hinged the Lanham Act enforcement outside of the US.  Period.  And, if others don't agree, I did not attack their positions, and expect the same.  
 

Again, this is answering something that was not asked.  

The ONLY question directed to you was:

"If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities."


Here are some great Fat Boys lyrics!

Fat magician, emcee technician
highly respected, in my position
Kool Rock-Ski, the chief rocker of rap
beat me in a battle, get off that crack
'cause I'm cold chillin', the bass is killing
the beat is vibrating from the floor to the ceiling
all MCs in the place must kneel
Kool Rocks in the place, and I'm on the kill

v.2

The way I came, is the way I leave
live and on the ball with a goal to achieve
packed party rockin' is what I do
and if you don't believe me I will show you
'cause it runs in my veins blending with my blood
my name is Markie Dee and your name is mud
I'm the prince and when they made me, they broke the mold
I'm just like fourteen karat gold

v.3

Now I'll rock any party in the darkest night
keep the girlies in check, the guys in fright
never ever gettin' high, I ain't that type
just rockin' on the mic cause its only right
Kool Rock the undefeated and champion king
gotta go get ill like it ain't no thing
im down by law, cold giving you more
gonna rock 'til your body gets sore
bust it

v.4

Well im the pilot of the plane, the livest of the troop
I'm the guy the turns the skies from grey to blue
I'm the one who makes you smile when you're feelin' down
I'm the one who lays the laws inside your town
*&^$ the hearts of the best MC's
teach the girlies all about the birds and the bees
rappin' all day long, makin' suckers drop
but I really couldn't do it, without Kool Rock

[filledeplage]

Filledeplage....I'm not jumping in to slam you but you are wrong on this. Others here are wrong as well when they blow things Mike says or does out of proportion. That 2005 lawsuit was a joke and Mike was  pissed about "things" when it was initiated. It was also 11 years ago and is water under the bridge. There are bands that make it big and are forgotten in 11 years time.

Mike has a chip on his shoulder that will remain permanent. Mike and a Rolling Stone reporter bringing up tired old crap means what exactly? It means Mike is Mike. More than a couple of people that spend an enormous amount of their time here seem to be hoping and thinking that someday Mike will see the light and admit he's a fool and ruined the Beach Boys reputation. He's not going to and he didn't hurt the Beach Boys reputation. From time to time he says or does something stupid that tarnishes his OWN reputation...but...in the end what does that matter, considering all of the great songs the Beach Boys left us with. 

Mike didn't kill Smile, he didn't turn the Beach Boys into a traveling jukebox, he didn't just want to write about fun and sun. Those are myths that have slowly but surely been debunked over the years. That said, he has said and done some ignorant things and one should not defend such ignorant things when they are said or done.

Paul JB - Opinions can neither be right or wrong.  They are just opinions.   

And, yes, I agree that some things, here, are blown way out of proportion. 

There are a lot of myths out there, including Smile, which was eventually resolved, with the release of the Box Set, in 2011. 

And, in the end, it is the great songs that we have been left with.   

[Andrew G. Doe]

Let's say, for the sake of this thread, l think Hitler was a wonderful and much maligned man. That's my opinion, but I'm pretty sure it's a very, very wrong one.

Just in case someone misses the point, I don't think that at all, of course. Having Roma ancestry, how could I ?

[HeyJude]

My Shakespeare professor insisted the idiom of "There's no right or wrong interpretation or opinion" was wrong, and that in fact it was absolutely possible to have an incorrect opinion and interpretation of Shakespeare's works. 

[KDS]

Andrew,

You know somebody's going to cut and paste that post and use it for evil, right?

[CenturyDeprived]

Let's say, for the sake of this thread, l think Hitler was a wonderful and much maligned man. That's my opinion, but I'm pretty sure it's a very, very wrong one.

Just in case someone misses the point, I don't think that at all, of course. Having Roma ancestry, how could I ?

You took the words right out of my mouth, though I was gonna relatively lowball it with a simple "opinion" statement of: "Phil Spector is a good, non-violent, sane person"  

[Debbie KL]

Andrew,

You know somebody's going to cut and paste that post and use it for evil, right?

Oh no, and I was just about to make that post.  Maybe next time, Andrew.

Just to add:  Yes, CD, that works as well.  I confess to liking those records, though...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

My Shakespeare professor insisted the idiom of "There's no right or wrong interpretation or opinion" was wrong, and that in fact it was absolutely possible to have an incorrect opinion and interpretation of Shakespeare's works.  

Yeah, there is definitely a nuance to this issue. As I tell my students, in the case of literature there is never one right answer but there can be a wrong answer. For example, you can have many different arguments about what is happening in King Lear, but you simply cannot argue that King Lear is a critique of industrial capitalism since such a thing didn't exist yet.

That being said, we cannot say that a person's personal taste is wrong even if we don't like that taste. It's impossible to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of someone who likes something/someone. However, opinions about something for which there is evidence can be proven right or wrong.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew,

You know somebody's going to cut and paste that post and use it for evil, right?

Oh, of course. There's a lot of good folk post here... and some really dumb ones too.

[CenturyDeprived]

Andrew,

You know somebody's going to cut and paste that post and use it for evil, right?

Oh no, and I was just about to make that post.  Maybe next time, Andrew.

Just to add:  Yes, CD, that works as well.  I confess to liking those records, though...

I love me some Phil Spector records too, Debbie Like seriously, his work is stunningly good. It's good to not be inflicted with the pathological problem that some people seem to have where they cannot say anything bad about an artist whose work they admire. Spector was a genius, but nobody should try and pretend he's also not a truly sick and tragic man.

[SMiLE Brian]

Wall of sound!!!!!