gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 05:45:48 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: new article with some interesting tidbits  (Read 51975 times)
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: March 10, 2016, 09:42:55 AM »


But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 


Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.
But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care? Can't she like/admire/respect Mike, and still acknowledge Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy? If Mike plays a certain 'word game' in interviews to get digs in at Melinda, well that makes him look like a douche in most people's eyes. BUT, FDP I think is sticking to the factual truth that Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across. So in the legal sense, Melinda wasn't the person to extricate Landy from Brian. Mike uses that 'legal' angle to take a swipe at the Movie.
Your question, I misread as being direct instead of rhetorical, as you quoted her, then simply replied with the question. Others (Smile Brian) may have misread this as well as they reponded (crickets) expecting FDP to respond.

It's very simple. One (FDP, or anyone for that matter) can't "thank god" for Melinda's actions, obviously be very much of the opinion that they played an important role in a matter... and then think it's fine for someone else (Mike) who has a known major grudge against Melinda (I challenge *anyone* to dispute this is the case) to eradicate that person from being deserving of any praise (certainly no thanking "god" for Melinda by Mike... or even Mike mentioning that Melinda performed one single praiseworthy action in the Landy saga).

It's bloody preposterous. This whole "19 months! 19 months!" crapola is a diversion. REGARDLESS of what happened during that 19 months... it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion that Melinda did play a role. Period. Mike won't acknowledge it. That sucks. Nobody should say it doesn't suck for him to insinuate that, lest of all a person who thanks "god" for Melinda's actions.

No more of this 19 months BS. It's not what we are talking about here.

The simple fact is that some posters cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about a band member, and also bizarrely can't even admit that's the case; it's the diversionary tactics (19 months! Let's chant it from the top of a hill! 19 months! If I keep saying it, people will forget about Melinda not getting any credit whatsoever from Mike!) that are so incredibly frustrating as well as patronizing, in insinuating that it's relevant to the discussion of the ONLY thing we are talking about: what Mike didn't say about Melinda.

FDP was so grateful that I defended Carl. Yeah, I defended Carl when he deserved defending, and I've also defended Mike when he deserved defending.  But when Mike essentially despises Melinda (I've heard multiple insiders say as much), there's no way in the world that this grudge is not going to influence his complete and utter diminishing of her role in the Landy saga. And that is simply not cool or defensible, no matter which way one slices it. It is unfortunate.

It very simply would have been preferable for Mike to have acknowledged Melinda had a role, even if he thinks the film is lopsided and that there's more to the story than what the film shows. I have NO problem with Mike or anyone saying that, and does anyone really think that would have been a *bad* thing for Mike to have said? The thread would be a helluva lot shorter! Isn't that what is desired? Less bickering and some compromise, even from the stubborn and bitter Mr. Love?
CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: March 10, 2016, 09:48:33 AM »

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?
The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

OK and while I agree that that information is relevant to that particular area of inquiry, but I don't think that that is what was being discussed but maybe I'm confused.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #177 on: March 10, 2016, 09:51:38 AM »

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story.  

I would tend to disagree with the idea that what you've discussed was/is an "unknown factor", as if you have information about the case that nobody else does.

In any event, the issue isn't whether the information was/is "unknown", but rather whether it was/is germane to the discussion into which you entered. It was not. It may be germane to any number of other discussions, but not this one.

If someone wants to turn on blinders to Mike's inflammatory interview comment and instead discuss the known or unknown ins-and-outs of the Landy case, then there's always the option of starting another thread. But to cut into a conversation about the potential veracity of a Mike interview comment with a DIFFERENT topic ends up, well, off-topic! It also gives at least the appearance of an attempt to divert a thread's attention away from the topic at hand (Mike's lamentable comments).
A "sealed file" is done generally under a court order.  And, maintained apart from public records which may be inspected during business hours.

Why would a fan have information from a sealed record? It is sealed to the public, which means the public has no access to the files.

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Maybe not for you.  Wink

A large pizza and a Caesar salad is also germane, in my opinion. Not to this discussion, but to what I'd like to have for dinner.

Same with the court sessions. It's germane to whatever you're apparently thinking about. But it's not germane to a discussion about the veracity of a specific comment from Mike Love in an interview.

Seriously, if I read a Mike Love interview, and that randomly makes me think about something ELSE, then everything that then follows is not germane to the original discussion. A Coke sounds good to go along with the pizza. Is that germane now too?  
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 09:53:51 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #178 on: March 10, 2016, 09:54:26 AM »


CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.

Wait a minute... you think Mike actually ISN'T bitter against Melinda? That's a laugh. I know you won't answer, so not sure why I even bother.

BOTTOM LINE: Melinda was NOT a non-issue in the Landy matter. She DID play A role, as you yourself have acknowledged. We are not talking about how much of a role. Just that she played A ROLE.

Mike did not give her ANY credit in the interview.

Period. The end.

Please for crying out loud, stop talking about the OTHER things in the Landy saga, which are not what this convo is about. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 09:55:30 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: March 10, 2016, 09:57:30 AM »

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?
The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

OK and while I agree that that information is relevant to that particular area of inquiry, but I don't think that that is what was being discussed but maybe I'm confused.
After the connection was made, in th film, my next question (to myself) was what the follow-up was for Brian.  

So, I asked myself how it was handled, how did they get rid of Landy, strip his credentials, disgorge him of money he was not entitled to, etc.

The article describing the 19 month process that was sealed filled in the blanks.  
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: March 10, 2016, 10:02:28 AM »

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?
The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

OK and while I agree that that information is relevant to that particular area of inquiry, but I don't think that that is what was being discussed but maybe I'm confused.
After the connection was made, in th film, my next question (to myself) was what the follow-up was for Brian.  

So, I asked myself how it was handled, how did they get rid of Landy, strip his credentials, disgorge him of money he was not entitled to, etc.

The article describing the 19 month process that was sealed filled in the blanks.  

OK but it's a bit confusing when you give the initial information without the above context and as a reply to someone else's comments about another subject.

So, just so I'm clear, all of what you have written has to do with your personal reactions to the film and none what you have written has to do with the article and quotation under discussion? If I'm wrong, can you tell me how it relates?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: March 10, 2016, 10:15:58 AM »

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?
The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

OK and while I agree that that information is relevant to that particular area of inquiry, but I don't think that that is what was being discussed but maybe I'm confused.
After the connection was made, in th film, my next question (to myself) was what the follow-up was for Brian.  

So, I asked myself how it was handled, how did they get rid of Landy, strip his credentials, disgorge him of money he was not entitled to, etc.

The article describing the 19 month process that was sealed filled in the blanks.  

OK but it's a bit confusing when you give the initial information without the above context and as a reply to someone else's comments about another subject.

So, just so I'm clear, all of what you have written has to do with your personal reactions to the film and none what you have written has to do with the article and quotation under discussion? If I'm wrong, can you tell me how it relates?
CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

 





« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 10:25:14 AM by filledeplage » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: March 10, 2016, 10:24:30 AM »


CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.

Wait a minute... you think Mike actually ISN'T bitter against Melinda? That's a laugh. I know you won't answer, so not sure why I even bother.

BOTTOM LINE: Melinda was NOT a non-issue in the Landy matter. She DID play A role, as you yourself have acknowledged. We are not talking about how much of a role. Just that she played A ROLE.

Mike did not give her ANY credit in the interview.

Period. The end.

Please for crying out loud, stop talking about the OTHER things in the Landy saga, which are not what this convo is about. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
How would anyone make that assessment about who might be bitter unless you had personal knowledge?  I won't answer because I can't answer.  It is rhetorical. 

And, I do not know what Melinda's role was after the call was made.  Maybe she was a witness? Absent a transcript of the proceedings, we don't know.  I would imagine if she was bringing the information to the family, that she witnessed that she would be a necessary witness and very helpful for the court to reverse it's orders.   

The other things in the Landy saga do matter. I have a CD that still has Landy's name in larger print font, than Brian Wilson.  It will always be a problem. 


Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #183 on: March 10, 2016, 10:27:06 AM »

So now it's actually really going to shift to arguing the possibility that Mike was misquoted or that his statement was taken out of context?

Mike actually did "explain" his comment about Melinda in the interview. He said that Melinda saved Brian was inaccurate, and went on to expand who he felt actually was responsible for saving Brian (Stan and Carl).

Again, Mike isn't the one who is being unclear. His comments, while unfortunate and lamentable, are crystal clear. Time and time again, when we discuss what Mike does or says, Mike at least if nothing else is often pretty clear and unequivocal about what he's saying or doing, however objectionable it might be. The problem is trying to defend his comments sometimes. When defending Mike requires literally ignoring what he actually said (usually the defense involves huge stretches to parse what he says, but because his comment about Melinda is so blunt and clear, it's kind of just being ignored here), I think that's when the discussion gets extra bogged down.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: March 10, 2016, 10:28:47 AM »

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: March 10, 2016, 10:32:41 AM »

So now it's actually really going to shift to arguing the possibility that Mike was misquoted or that his statement was taken out of context?

Mike actually did "explain" his comment about Melinda in the interview. He said that Melinda saved Brian was inaccurate, and went on to expand who he felt actually was responsible for saving Brian (Stan and Carl).

Again, Mike isn't the one who is being unclear. His comments, while unfortunate and lamentable, are crystal clear. Time and time again, when we discuss what Mike does or says, Mike at least if nothing else is often pretty clear and unequivocal about what he's saying or doing, however objectionable it might be. The problem is trying to defend his comments sometimes. When defending Mike requires literally ignoring what he actually said (usually the defense involves huge stretches to parse what he says, but because his comment about Melinda is so blunt and clear, it's kind of just being ignored here), I think that's when the discussion gets extra bogged down.
The discussion is circular without what we cannot know in a sealed court case.  Someone earlier mentioned the possiblilty of some kind of a misquote. It did not start with me.  

  
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #186 on: March 10, 2016, 10:33:13 AM »


CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.

Wait a minute... you think Mike actually ISN'T bitter against Melinda? That's a laugh. I know you won't answer, so not sure why I even bother.

BOTTOM LINE: Melinda was NOT a non-issue in the Landy matter. She DID play A role, as you yourself have acknowledged. We are not talking about how much of a role. Just that she played A ROLE.

Mike did not give her ANY credit in the interview.

Period. The end.

Please for crying out loud, stop talking about the OTHER things in the Landy saga, which are not what this convo is about. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
How would anyone make that assessment about who might be bitter unless you had personal knowledge?  I won't answer because I can't answer.  It is rhetorical. 

And, I do not know what Melinda's role was after the call was made.  Maybe she was a witness? Absent a transcript of the proceedings, we don't know.  I would imagine if she was bringing the information to the family, that she witnessed that she would be a necessary witness and very helpful for the court to reverse it's orders.   

The other things in the Landy saga do matter. I have a CD that still has Landy's name in larger print font, than Brian Wilson.  It will always be a problem. 


What does the font of Landy's name on a CD have to do with Mike's comments about Melinda? This keeps getting pulled farther and farther away from the topic at hand. Nobody here condones Landy's actions.

Seriously, I can start taking fortune cookie quotes and try to tie them into this discussion, too.

Also, I think people here are actually pretty good about using the correct verbiage and tone, which involves the OBVIOUS idea that when someone says Mike seems bitter in an interview, OF COURSE it's an opinion.

If interviewers and journalists and observers refrained from commenting on an interview subject's demeanor or attitude or apparent feelings unless they were able to literally probe into the subject's mind and extract their actual thoughts, then nobody would ever describe anything about anyone beyond their personal appearance and transcribing what they say.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: March 10, 2016, 10:33:39 AM »

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
CSM - earlier in the thread that suggestion came up but not from me.  
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #188 on: March 10, 2016, 10:34:27 AM »

The discussion is circular without what we cannot know in a sealed court case.  
  

Mike's 2016 interview comments are not sealed in a 1990s court case. I'm pretty sure anyway.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: March 10, 2016, 10:35:58 AM »

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
CSM - earlier in the thread that suggestion came up but not from me.  

Like I said, and here I'll quote myself, "this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you." My question is, what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: March 10, 2016, 10:36:06 AM »


CD - do you think a judge had a magic wand to hear all the issues surrounding the custody of Brian, Brains and Genius, the medication issues,  etc. to be done in one day?

You have no idea how anyone else feels except yourself unless you can project yourself into another human being.  And you are putting words in Mike's mouth.  The appears to be no room for the reality that the family had to jump in after the Landy will. That had to be defended by Landy's lawyers and argued against by Brian's.  

How many charges against Landy were there? I don't know.  The records are sealed. So, the work was hard on both sides. The pre-trial to get Brian out of Landy's clutches and the follow-up to disband the Landy Brains and Genius, restore Brian's wishes for his will, etc.

Reading "bitterness" into someone else's words is only opinion.  

And Smile Brian - there are both ways here. The before and after.  There are still two sides to one coin.

Wait a minute... you think Mike actually ISN'T bitter against Melinda? That's a laugh. I know you won't answer, so not sure why I even bother.

BOTTOM LINE: Melinda was NOT a non-issue in the Landy matter. She DID play A role, as you yourself have acknowledged. We are not talking about how much of a role. Just that she played A ROLE.

Mike did not give her ANY credit in the interview.

Period. The end.

Please for crying out loud, stop talking about the OTHER things in the Landy saga, which are not what this convo is about. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
How would anyone make that assessment about who might be bitter unless you had personal knowledge?  I won't answer because I can't answer.  It is rhetorical. 

And, I do not know what Melinda's role was after the call was made.  Maybe she was a witness? Absent a transcript of the proceedings, we don't know.  I would imagine if she was bringing the information to the family, that she witnessed that she would be a necessary witness and very helpful for the court to reverse it's orders.   

The other things in the Landy saga do matter. I have a CD that still has Landy's name in larger print font, than Brian Wilson.  It will always be a problem. 


What does the font of Landy's name on a CD have to do with Mike's comments about Melinda? This keeps getting pulled farther and farther away from the topic at hand. Nobody here condones Landy's actions.

Seriously, I can start taking fortune cookie quotes and try to tie them into this discussion, too.

Also, I think people here are actually pretty good about using the correct verbiage and tone, which involves the OBVIOUS idea that when someone says Mike seems bitter in an interview, OF COURSE it's an opinion.

If interviewers and journalists and observers refrained from commenting on an interview subject's demeanor or attitude or apparent feelings unless they were able to literally probe into the subject's mind and extract their actual thoughts, then nobody would ever describe anything about anyone beyond their personal appearance and transcribing what they say.
Hey Jude - bottom line for me is that a journalist's job is to tell a course of events as a reporter would, without editorializing. That is for the editorial page.  
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #191 on: March 10, 2016, 10:36:25 AM »

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

If you go back, you'll see that I threw the "misquote" idea out there ironically as essentially a hyperbolic example of what the next tact in defending Mike's comments would be.

I had no idea someone would actually invoke the "misquote/taken out of context" argument, which of course comically strains credulity.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: March 10, 2016, 10:37:18 AM »

CSM - I think the film is great.  But, I know there was a limit to what could be told in a timespan of a movie.  Their story has a many vantage points, from whoever has a relationship to the band members.

But, I guess I tend to take comments from whomever with a grain of salt, and know from experience with interviewers, that often, a quote is cropped to not include the full statement or put in a semantic of the writer's choosing.  

That burden of explaining a comment is on the speaker.  

OK maybe I haven't fully seen everything in this thread but I feel as if this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you in relation to discussion which is that you feel that Mike is being misquoted or that his quote is being manipulated in some way. If that's the case, I would have to ask what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
CSM - earlier in the thread that suggestion came up but not from me.  

Like I said, and here I'll quote myself, "this is the first time I'm seeing this argument from you." My question is, what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Should I contact the author of the article?  That is where  the evidence might come. 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #193 on: March 10, 2016, 10:39:19 AM »

The discussion is circular without what we cannot know in a sealed court case.  
  

Mike's 2016 interview comments are not sealed in a 1990s court case. I'm pretty sure anyway.
But the events that transpired at that time are; getting rid of Landy. 

Carl, Audree, Wendy and Carnie would likely have been in the position of advocating for Brian. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #194 on: March 10, 2016, 10:39:35 AM »

Hey Jude - bottom line for me is that a journalist's job is to tell a course of events as a reporter would, without editorializing. That is for the editorial page.  

So the only place a writer or journalist can speak IN ANY WAY to the frame of mind or outward apparent emotion or demeanor or attitude of a subject is in an actual editorial piece?

I guess every profile piece writer of all time was just told they've been doing it wrong.

So when a concert reviewer says the audience is enjoying the show, they should leave that part out and publish their clearly SUBJECTIVE characterization of the audience in a separate editorial piece?
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: March 10, 2016, 10:42:54 AM »

Hey Jude - bottom line for me is that a journalist's job is to tell a course of events as a reporter would, without editorializing. That is for the editorial page.  

So the only place a writer or journalist can speak IN ANY WAY to the frame of mind or outward apparent emotion or demeanor or attitude of a subject is in an actual editorial piece?

I guess every profile piece writer of all time was just told they've been doing it wrong.

So when a concert reviewer says the audience is enjoying the show, they should leave that part out and publish their clearly SUBJECTIVE characterization of the audience in a separate editorial piece?
How is the issue of bias handled?

A reporter's job is to get the story. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #196 on: March 10, 2016, 10:42:59 AM »

The discussion is circular without what we cannot know in a sealed court case.  
  

Mike's 2016 interview comments are not sealed in a 1990s court case. I'm pretty sure anyway.
But the events that transpired at that time are; getting rid of Landy. 

Carl, Audree, Wendy and Carnie would likely have been in the position of advocating for Brian. 

So the events that transpired in the court case at the time the court case occurred are part of the court case? I had no idea; thanks for clearing that up.  3D

The topic at hand is Mike's 2016 interview comments. Please for everybody's sake just say you don't want to discuss Mike's interview and then you can move on and start a separate thread to ruminate on aspects of the Landy case that nobody disagrees with.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #197 on: March 10, 2016, 10:44:59 AM »


How would anyone make that assessment about who might be bitter unless you had personal knowledge?  I won't answer because I can't answer.  It is rhetorical.  

And, I do not know what Melinda's role was after the call was made.  Maybe she was a witness? Absent a transcript of the proceedings, we don't know.  I would imagine if she was bringing the information to the family, that she witnessed that she would be a necessary witness and very helpful for the court to reverse it's orders.    

The other things in the Landy saga do matter. I have a CD that still has Landy's name in larger print font, than Brian Wilson.  It will always be a problem.  


Again... was Melinda a non-issue in the entirety of the Landy extraction saga? Did she not make the call that you thanked "god" for doing? She either played a role (either small, big, or somewhere in between), or she played NO role. You don't go thanking "god" for someone who you feel needs zero thanks for, right?

You thanked "god" for Melinda for a reason.

Obviously, you feel that REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER STUFF YOU KEEP DISTRACTEDLY TALKING ABOUT, that Melinda was in fact a PART of the process?

Yes?

Where does Mike state Melinda was even a teeeny tiny part of the process in his interview???

I'm waiting.

Does he say she played a role? A small role? Any role whatsoever?

Stop talking about the other non-Melinda stuff - it's NOT what I'm asking you. Please. Please.
 
« Last Edit: March 10, 2016, 10:51:39 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #198 on: March 10, 2016, 10:45:57 AM »

Hey Jude - bottom line for me is that a journalist's job is to tell a course of events as a reporter would, without editorializing. That is for the editorial page.  

So the only place a writer or journalist can speak IN ANY WAY to the frame of mind or outward apparent emotion or demeanor or attitude of a subject is in an actual editorial piece?

I guess every profile piece writer of all time was just told they've been doing it wrong.

So when a concert reviewer says the audience is enjoying the show, they should leave that part out and publish their clearly SUBJECTIVE characterization of the audience in a separate editorial piece?
How is the issue of bias handled?

A reporter's job is to get the story.  

So you do believe that every concert review that characterizes any emotion or feeling of any other audience member or person on stage is inappropriate and should be sent over to the "Editorial" department? And for that matter, any piece of writing that doesn't factually simply state events that have occurred and transcribe words should also be sent to the "Editorial" department?

What are you even talking about?
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



View Profile
« Reply #199 on: March 10, 2016, 10:50:45 AM »


But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 


Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.
But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care? Can't she like/admire/respect Mike, and still acknowledge Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy? If Mike plays a certain 'word game' in interviews to get digs in at Melinda, well that makes him look like a douche in most people's eyes. BUT, FDP I think is sticking to the factual truth that Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across. So in the legal sense, Melinda wasn't the person to extricate Landy from Brian. Mike uses that 'legal' angle to take a swipe at the Movie.
Your question, I misread as being direct instead of rhetorical, as you quoted her, then simply replied with the question. Others (Smile Brian) may have misread this as well as they reponded (crickets) expecting FDP to respond.

It's very simple. One (FDP, or anyone for that matter) can't "thank god" for Melinda's actions, obviously be very much of the opinion that they played an important role in a matter... and then think it's fine for someone else (Mike) who has a known major grudge against Melinda (I challenge *anyone* to dispute this is the case) to eradicate that person from being deserving of any praise (certainly no thanking "god" for Melinda by Mike... or even Mike mentioning that Melinda performed one single praiseworthy action in the Landy saga).

It's bloody preposterous. This whole "19 months! 19 months!" crapola is a diversion. REGARDLESS of what happened during that 19 months... it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion that Melinda did play a role. Period. Mike won't acknowledge it. That sucks. Nobody should say it doesn't suck for him to insinuate that, least of all a person who thanks "god" for Melinda's actions.

No more of this 19 months BS. It's not what we are talking about here.

The simple fact is that some posters cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about a band member, and also bizarrely can't even admit that's the case; it's the diversionary tactics (19 months! Let's chant it from the top of a hill! 19 months! If I keep saying it, people will forget about Melinda not getting any credit whatsoever from Mike!) that are so incredibly frustrating as well as patronizing, in insinuating that it's relevant to the discussion of the ONLY thing we are talking about: what Mike didn't say about Melinda.

FDP was so grateful that I defended Carl. Yeah, I defended Carl when he deserved defending, and I've also defended Mike when he deserved defending.  But when Mike essentially despises Melinda (I've heard multiple insiders say as much), there's no way in the world that this grudge is not going to influence his complete and utter diminishing of her role in the Landy saga. And that is simply not cool or defensible, no matter which way one slices it. It is unfortunate.

It very simply would have been preferable for Mike to have acknowledged Melinda had a role, even if he thinks the film is lopsided and that there's more to the story than what the film shows. I have NO problem with Mike or anyone saying that, and does anyone really think that would have been a *bad* thing for Mike to have said? This thread would be a helluva lot shorter! Isn't that what is desired? Less bickering and some compromise, even from the stubborn and bitter Mr. Love.

But yeah, that's a dream world. In Mike's world, Mike gets to complain about his credits until the end of time, but gets to also completely discredit Melinda's role ENTIRELY, and thinks that is an okay way to behave. It is hypocritical and ridiculous.
I dunno man, you say, it's very simple, FDP can't thank God for Melinda's part and then not criticize Mike for his statements in an interview. She can't? Accoring to who? You?

Don't get me wrong, I see clearly what Mike is trying to do in this interview. Maybe he does have a grudge against Ol' Mel. But you are hammering away on FDP for 'defending' Mike. What she keeps coming back to, and what you keep not wanting to hear, re:19 Months, is that Mike has chosen his words carefully in the interview,. He can fan the flames by stating what is, from what I understand, factual: Family had to be responsible for the legal removal of Landy from Brians life. So all of Melinda et al efforts, neded a family member to officially get Landy removed. So Mike can use that as 'ammo' for lack of a better word to say something on the record, that while factual, doesnt tell the whole story.  Maybe Mike feels that is what L&M was doing on the other side of the argument.
FDP doesnt have to make a statement bashing The Lovester. She's correct in that she doesnt know what he's thinking or why he says what he says. Her angle seems to be a) Melinda was a saviour to Brian and b) The actual legal removal came after Melinda took some action, and some of those facts may not have come to light(?)
The thread doesnt have to be all anti-Mike, although, most people are gonna have that take. Personally, I wonder why the hell Mike would go down that path, even if baited by a reporter. But on several occasions I have had an opportunity to spend time with Mike, and he has always extended extreme courtesy to me, and I have seen first hand Mike go out of his way for fans. So when I contrast this to what I like to call, 'Media Mike', who more often than not comes off looking terrible, hell I get confused about the guy.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.067 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!