new article with some interesting tidbits

[filledeplage]

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.  

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.

What would be the first order of business?  Restoring Brian's personal freedom as an American.  

The comment was about the film.  The window of time was exactly what lead up to the lawsuit that was not tried in the public eye.  Those comments referred to exactly that window of time.  

And if you go back to the first page, there were some pretty rude comments.  

[SMiLE Brian]

FDP, what is the line you stop defending Mike? Making videos for ISIS?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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. 

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Mike is so boring in interview.  You can almost guess everything he is gonna say.
same old answers, same old sentences.  He must love the sound of his own voice.

His answers are a good match for a bunch of boring same old questions.

Now THAT I agree with. Mike is a lot more interesting than most Brian interviews these days.

[filledeplage]

FDP, what is the line you stop defending Mike? Making videos for ISIS?

Smile Brian - pardon me for looking at other possiblities for the unknowns.  

That is a pretty outrageous statement.    

[HeyJude]

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.

Some of what you're saying sounds totally plausible. But it's not what FDP is arguing. At all.

You're characterizing Mike's interview in a much more plausible fashion; that he has an agenda (perhaps a grudge), and is arguing something (Melinda didn't save Brian) that, by some unspoken definition, can be construed as technically accurate. (Depends on his definition of the word "save").

Again, none of this is anything like what FDP is saying. She is ignoring Mike's interview, and recounting details of the court case in a non-sequitur fashion; details nobody disagrees with largely. There's no acknowledgement that Mike ever, EVER come across looking "terrible" in interviews. No acknowledgment of even the possibility that Mike could harbor a grudge against Melinda.

Again, it's sometimes a rather rhetorical atmosphere of "Mike gave another a**hole interview." I've acknowledged that numerous times. One can agree or disagree with that. But the timeline of the Landy case isn't germane to whether people think Mike comes across like an a**hole in an interview.

[filledeplage]

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. 

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

The support is the LA Times article from December of 1991. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Delete

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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. 

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

The support is the LA Times article from December of 1991. 

I'm referring to your speculation that Mike Love is misquoted in the interview. An article from 1991 does not and could not support that speculation.

[HeyJude]

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. 

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

The support is the LA Times article from December of 1991. 

The 1991 LA Times article predicted whether a 2016 Mike interview would be misquoted?

That IS impressive.

[SMiLE Brian]

It did!

[filledeplage]

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. 

No, unless you want to adopt a standard where every author of every piece of writing ever should be contacted except in the case where the author is dead at which point we would have to discount everything and anything in the text on the basis that the information in it could be wrong.

As it stands right now, there is no evidence to support your speculation.

The support is the LA Times article from December of 1991. 

The 1991 LA Times article predicted whether a 2016 Mike interview would be misquoted?

That IS impressive.

from LA Times November, 20, 1991.  "Rescheduled: A trial to determine who would oversee Beach Boy Brian Wilson's affairs was rescheduled Monday in Santa Monica to Dec. 5 by Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki.  The suit, which asks that an independednt conservator be appointed over the singer-songwriter's affairs, stem from a claim filed by members of his family alleging that Wilson has been brainwashed by his therapist, Eugene Landy."

The movie and the commentary refers to that era. Retrospectively, not prospectively.

[CenturyDeprived]

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.  

Yes, Mike does not state the whole story in his interview. He omits Melinda's role in the process. Just because he seems to think the film was itself guilty of omission, he seems to use the same omission tactic (which he thinks is so horrible) in trying to play up other peoples' roles in the process.

Do two wrongs make a right? If Mike gets to be critical of the film omitting certain other angles, so should we be critical of Mike for not only omitting mentioning Melinda's role, but for taking the ADDITIONAL step of categorically implying she DIDN'T have any role in the process. That's next level sh*t. It's worse than any "sins" committed by the film. Omitting an angle is one thing, but there's no scene in the film where John Cusack as Brian specifically dismisses everyone else except Melinda from having played any role.

Believe me... if the film made a statement where everyone else's roles were specifically and deliberately negated, I'd be just as critical of the filmmakers as I am of Mike right now.
 
If someone wants to thank god for Melinda's role, and say that Mike not mentioning Melinda is hunky dory... there's at the very least a difference of opinion that exists between that god-thanking person and what Mike puts out there for public consumption. Wishing to not criticize is one thing - it's quite another to be an ostrich and deny that this difference of opinion exists.

As I said before... how does one reconcile the fact that the guy who is endlessly outraged by his being omitted from songwriting credits... is the same guy who - in the very same month that he publicly gripes about his lack of credits to Rolling Stone, hoping that readers would share his outrage that anyone in Beach Boys land would not get proper credit for what they contributed to - is the same guy who shortly thereafter then goes to another magazine, and omits Melinda's role completely from the Landy extraction process?

How does that work? A reader of both articles is supposed to have selective amnesia about the idea of credit deprivation outrage that they were just educated about by Mike in Rolling Stone? I'd love to hear someone explain that away.

[Shark]

I have to agree with Juice on this.  It's a fact that Mike has a grudge against Melinda.  It also appears to be a fact that he hasn't seen the movie (by his own admission).  He obviously has been told some things about it though in order to make a comment about how it portrays Melinda in regards to the Landy situation.  Mike obviously feels that family are the ones who saved Brian from Landy and not Melinda.  So if someone said to Mike, "Hey Mike, you won't believe it but the movie makes Melinda out to be the hero in getting Brian out of Landy's clutches," then that is going to anger Mike on two fronts- it downplays the roles of the people he feels are actually the heroes and it builds up someone who he doesn't like.  It's not good that he is commenting on a movie he hasn't seen but I can certainly see why he would say what he said.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have to agree with Juice on this.  It's a fact that Mike has a grudge against Melinda.  It also appears to be a fact that he hasn't seen the movie (by his own admission).  He obviously has been told some things about it though in order to make a comment about how it portrays Melinda in regards to the Landy situation.  Mike obviously feels that family are the ones who saved Brian from Landy and not Melinda.  So if someone said to Mike, "Hey Mike, you won't believe it but the movie makes Melinda out to be the hero in getting Brian out of Landy's clutches," then that is going to anger Mike on two fronts- it downplays the roles of the people he feels are actually the heroes and it builds up someone who he doesn't like.  It's not good that he is commenting on a movie he hasn't seen but I can certainly see why he would say what he said.

Yes, of course I can understand the logic that you've just described. It's not hard to connect the dots of the likely reasons why Mike said what he said.  

It still doesn't make it right for Melinda's role to be outright disregarded by Mike, any more than Melinda (who I'm sure hates Mike as much as he hates her) would be in the right to specifically deny Mike ever wrote a single song with Brian. Virtually everyone with a brain across the BB political spectrum would be just as critical of Melinda if she were to say such a fallacy.

Nothing... not Mike believing that other people need credit for the Landy saga too, not Mike having a grudge against Melinda... legitimizes his specifically negating Melinda's role in the saga. Mike didn't just mention other people - he specifically eradicated any notion of Melinda playing a role. That is the problem.

Melinda's partial role is still a role.

Brian wasn't right to not settle with Mike over the songwriting lawsuit, and Mike's not right in this matter either. It goes both ways. If someone's salivating looking for Brian criticism... there it is. Why is anyone afraid to call it when someone in the band acts in a regrettable manner? What's so damn hard about it? Why is it like pulling teeth?

[Ang Jones]

I have to agree with Juice on this.  It's a fact that Mike has a grudge against Melinda.  It also appears to be a fact that he hasn't seen the movie (by his own admission).  He obviously has been told some things about it though in order to make a comment about how it portrays Melinda in regards to the Landy situation.  Mike obviously feels that family are the ones who saved Brian from Landy and not Melinda.  So if someone said to Mike, "Hey Mike, you won't believe it but the movie makes Melinda out to be the hero in getting Brian out of Landy's clutches," then that is going to anger Mike on two fronts- it downplays the roles of the people he feels are actually the heroes and it builds up someone who he doesn't like.  It's not good that he is commenting on a movie he hasn't seen but I can certainly see why he would say what he said.

Even if Mike was told things about the film which are less than correct, it doesn't excuse Mike not checking it out for himself before making such comments in interviews. Were I in that situation it would make me more determined to see the film, not less so.  As I understand it, Melinda's role is undeniable. She wasn't the sole hero: Gloria helped and without the family, Melinda would have been powerless. And there were others, I believe, who wanted anonymity. The film did not try to pretend that Melinda was the only person who helped Brian. We must also remember that Love and Mercy was partly the story of Brian and Melinda's relationship and so was bound to focus on their characters in the later part of the story.

[CenturyDeprived]

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike after Mike's comments in the interview, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

Or if FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

 

[filledeplage]

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

If FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

CD-the suggestion of a misquote was earlier in the thread. Apparently you reject the concept that "it took a village" to completely extricate Brian from Landy.  It was a village, including inside and outside family members.  And a great deal of time. 

[CenturyDeprived]

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

If FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

CD-the suggestion of a misquote was earlier in the thread. Apparently you reject the concept that "it took a village" to completely extricate Brian from Landy.  It was a village, including inside and outside family members.  And a great deal of time.  

Where the flip do you get the idea that I reject the concept that  "it took a village"?

I don't reject that notion, nor do any of my posts remotely suggest that I reject that notion.

I've CONSISTENTLY said the opposite... that it's fair for people, including Mike, to feel that there are additionally angles (and other people) who are part of the story, as long as Melinda's role isn't completely negated in the process. Those angles can't in good conscience come at the expense of Melinda, where she receives ZERO credit.

THIS IS WHAT YOU KEEP NOT ADDRESSING ------> The simple fact is that Melinda is PART of that village of folks, according to you, according to me, yet NOT according to Mike's comments. <------- THIS IS WHAT YOU KEEP NOT ADDRESSING

[Debbie KL]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

[Cam Mott]

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

[Ang Jones]

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

If FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

CD-the suggestion of a misquote was earlier in the thread. Apparently you reject the concept that "it took a village" to completely extricate Brian from Landy.  It was a village, including inside and outside family members.  And a great deal of time. 

I think that is irrelevant. The point is very simple. Mike should not have responded to the question about the film's inaccuracies with this answer:  “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in."

The reasons his answer is unacceptable are that Mike allegedly hadn't seen the film and that the film didn't deny others were involved but Mike is giving the impression that Melinda wasn't one of those who saved Brian which seems to be completely untrue.

[Cam Mott]

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.

+1

[CenturyDeprived]

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

It's not the filmmakers' obligation to include every single person who was part of the story.

There's not enough space in a narrative film format for that.

The film, however, DOES have an obligation to NOT make a statement where a character says to the camera "Stan Love had no part whatsoever in Brian's extraction from Landy".

And guess what? The film never did that.

Yet Mike did exactly the inverse of that in the interview when it came to Melinda. He didn't just talk about what Stan did... he prefaced that by NEGATING 100% of what Melinda did. THAT very specifically is the heart of why it's an inexcusable thing for Mike to have said or to have implied.

[filledeplage]

The other irony here is that if the reporter said FDP's comments "Thank god for Melinda's actions" to Mike, Mike would have probably either laughed in their face, or things would have gotten awkward and interview ended right there.

If FDP's words were placed in the comments section of the article itself, Mike's team reading those comments would think those words of FDP were just another argumentative example of "Wilson-based negativity".

CD-the suggestion of a misquote was earlier in the thread. Apparently you reject the concept that "it took a village" to completely extricate Brian from Landy.  It was a village, including inside and outside family members.  And a great deal of time.  

Where the flip do you get the idea that I reject the concept that  "it took a village"?

I don't reject that notion, nor do any of my posts remotely suggest that I reject that notion.

I've CONSISTENTLY said the opposite... that it's fair for people, including Mike, to feel that there are additionally angles to the story, as long as Melinda isn't completely negated in the process.

The simple fact is that Melinda is PART of that village of folks, according to you, according to me, yet NOT according to Mike's comments.

Clearly it is a rejection of the concept of "before and after."  And that the litigation which was not public which involved a  whole group of family and others is irrelevant.  

You have clearly rejected the protracted court sessions, disregarding the time involved, and ridiculed that concept.  

Did I say that Melinda was not an integral part? No I didn't.

Do not put words in my mouth or ascribe an inference that calls for pure speculation.