-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 12:37:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Thread for arguments with or about moderation
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Thread for arguments with or about moderation  (Read 160308 times)
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: May 24, 2016, 08:04:05 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 08:04:33 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: May 24, 2016, 08:12:02 AM »

I obviously don't post much, but I've been around this board since it's creation, and was a member of the Smile Shop before that.  I've enjoyed Craig's posts on the old board, and on this one, before and after he became a mod here.  I don't consider him a moderator as much as I consider him to be a knowledgeable, passionate fan of the Beach Boys.  A moderator's place on an open forum such as this is to enforce the board's rules.  Period.  When not in 'police mode', they should be able to discuss, passionately if desired, any subject with any other poster(s).  I consider them to be moderators only when they're considering a rules violation.  Otherwise, they're just posters who happened to take on the thankless task of monitoring what often seems to be a bunch of whining children.  Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the job, nor would I want to.  Craig and Billy are outstanding moderators.  They're fair, yes sometimes passionate, and they seem like really nice guys.  My two cents worth.

Excellent, LA! You nailed it.  w00t!
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6053


Maybe I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: May 24, 2016, 08:19:00 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

Thanks, CM. I'm not that well-informed about these things. Googling her name, she seems an awful lot keener to help people than put them down.
Logged

"Ik bun moar een eenvoudige boerenlul en doar schoam ik mien niet veur" (Normaal, 1978)
You're Grass and I'm a Power Mower: A Beach Boys Orchestration Web Series
the Carbon Freeze | Eclectic Essays & Art
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: May 24, 2016, 08:27:44 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

It also would have been nice to see Mike's Beard apologize to Debbie for his obnoxious and disrespectful behavior.
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 24, 2016, 08:37:17 AM »

I obviously don't post much, but I've been around this board since it's creation, and was a member of the Smile Shop before that.  I've enjoyed Craig's posts on the old board, and on this one, before and after he became a mod here.  I don't consider him a moderator as much as I consider him to be a knowledgeable, passionate fan of the Beach Boys.  A moderator's place on an open forum such as this is to enforce the board's rules.  Period.  When not in 'police mode', they should be able to discuss, passionately if desired, any subject with any other poster(s).  I consider them to be moderators only when they're considering a rules violation.  Otherwise, they're just posters who happened to take on the thankless task of monitoring what often seems to be a bunch of whining children.  Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the job, nor would I want to.  Craig and Billy are outstanding moderators.  They're fair, yes sometimes passionate, and they seem like really nice guys.  My two cents worth.

Excellent, LA! You nailed it.  w00t!

Agreed, and thank you for a great post. It captured my feelings too. If people now want moderators to act more as cops to police a forum, it goes against what this forum has been since it started, and in my opinion, would negate one of the strengths of this being an open forum.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: May 24, 2016, 08:37:50 AM »

-Also on the woman tip, I will leave Debbie to fight her fights, but I don't appreciate some of the ways people have referred to what she's said. Using references to 'claws' and implying that it must be some personal squabble seems condescending and sexist. Maybe just an unfortunate choice of terms, but some terms are loaded. Eta- Let me be clear here - this is my opinion I'm expressing. If you disagree, I'm not asking for censorship.
-Lastly, without pms, I wouldn't have been able to expand my relationships on the board to off-board. Again, I'm not comfortable plunking too much identifying information onto an open board. For that reason, I'm personally happy for the pm function.

BBB is a sad little joke.  Some of the multiple-identity posters there (and there are so few posters on that board that they're easy to spot) are so obviously people banned from here.  I won't name who Nicko (whatever set of numbers he chooses) really is, but he's all over the place there, I'm thinking with other id's as well - unless there are others as stupid as him, which is possible.  I know who the pathetic little whiner is, but I'll leave it at that. 

And the woman who runs the place, well...She's still running her sad little story that Brian is "frail" and "shouldn't be forced to tour," only now through others (or possibly she has more than one id there - it wouldn't be hard as the sole moderator). She's been chanting that mantra for 12 years now.  I guess Brian's not that frail, nor forced - d'ya think?  If she outlives him, she may get to say, "See! See! - many years later and not so believably.  I'm wondering what her posting history might be as well.  What name(s) might she have used here and on BW? I only managed to spot one on BW, but I haven't been on these boards that long.

Sorry if my "claws" comment was unPC; it was an instinctive reaction to the shameful section of Debbie's post as quoted here, an unwarranted attack on Val, who rarely ever posts here.

I'll withdraw my "claws" comment.
I'm not critiquing your reaction; just part of the wording. Sorry if that's annoying of me - but that's my instinctive reaction. :-)
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: May 24, 2016, 08:42:14 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

It also would have been nice to see Mike's Beard apologize to Debbie for his obnoxious and disrespectful behavior.

Yes, they both should and I'm sure MB will....oh....wait.......I hope they both don't end up banned. Well at least one of them is still on board to apologize.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 24, 2016, 08:42:40 AM »

If apologies are being demanded, how about those who posted (or continue to post) false information or based accusations on false information which has since been proven to be untrue? If what was said previously in accusations or comments has since been shown to be not true, where is the mea culpa? If nothing is done to rectify any number of issues, it looks like the false information or lies are still being believed.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 24, 2016, 08:44:41 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

It also would have been nice to see Mike's Beard apologize to Debbie for his obnoxious and disrespectful behavior.

Yes, they both should and I'm sure MB will....oh....wait.......I hope they both don't end up banned. Well at least one of them is still on board to apologize.

Do you think the ban of Mike's Beard/China Pig was justified?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #159 on: May 24, 2016, 08:45:39 AM »

whos val ? Huh

Reading between the lines, she would appear to be a mod at Beach Boys Britain. But don't quote me on that. Grin

Val Johnson-Howe, who as far as I know has shown nothing but love and respect and hard work for Brian and all the Boys and any opinion she expressed or anything she said I'm sure is said meaning the best of intentions for Brian.  I have never seen her badmouth anybody, let alone go to another board to do it.  

She is also owed an apology I think.

It also would have been nice to see Mike's Beard apologize to Debbie for his obnoxious and disrespectful behavior.

Yes, they both should and I'm sure MB will....oh....wait.......I hope they both don't end up banned. Well at least one of them is still on board to apologize.

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was posting here as China Pig.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #160 on: May 24, 2016, 08:46:31 AM »

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was Mike's Beard.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: May 24, 2016, 08:50:27 AM »

If apologies are being demanded, how about those who posted (or continue to post) false information or based accusations on false information which has since been proven to be untrue? If what was said previously in accusations or comments has since been shown to be not true, where is the mea culpa? If nothing is done to rectify any number of issues, it looks like the false information or lies are still being believed.

They all should apologize.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: May 24, 2016, 08:51:09 AM »

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was Mike's Beard.

He and Debbie should apologize.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: May 24, 2016, 08:57:08 AM »

Mike's Beard had plenty of time to apologize when he was Mike's Beard.
Yeah he wasn't a nice guy to anybody after a while.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: May 24, 2016, 08:58:46 AM »

I obviously don't post much, but I've been around this board since it's creation, and was a member of the Smile Shop before that.  I've enjoyed Craig's posts on the old board, and on this one, before and after he became a mod here.  I don't consider him a moderator as much as I consider him to be a knowledgeable, passionate fan of the Beach Boys.  A moderator's place on an open forum such as this is to enforce the board's rules.  Period.  When not in 'police mode', they should be able to discuss, passionately if desired, any subject with any other poster(s).  I consider them to be moderators only when they're considering a rules violation.  Otherwise, they're just posters who happened to take on the thankless task of monitoring what often seems to be a bunch of whining children.  Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the job, nor would I want to.  Craig and Billy are outstanding moderators.  They're fair, yes sometimes passionate, and they seem like really nice guys.  My two cents worth.
I certainly consider GF to be a knowledgable, passionate and particularly interesting poster who's obviously done a ton of research and analysis. He also hasn't taken any mod enforcement actions that seem inappropriate, which is important to keep in mind. This is all about style which, as you say, perhaps shouldn't be a consideration. The level of vitriol seems not to match the concern.
Seeing the way this thread has gone has made me feel less critical of gf. The entrenched festering problems that posters have with each other seems to be the main problem. And they want gf to take care of that for them and are mad he hasn't. That's certainly not his job.
My only thing is that he can be intimidating on a good day, so when he's actually angry, as he has been dealing with these accusations, it can really be uncomfortable for the uninvolved. Eta, though now it's over here, not a problem.
I have been considering that mods should be held to a different standard of board behavior, that they are responsible a bit for setting the tone - but perhaps I'm wrong to think that.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 09:02:04 AM by Emily » Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #165 on: May 24, 2016, 09:24:08 AM »

Okay, Cam. In case I ever offended anybody here at any time of the day or night, in case I accused them of ass-hattery or of being a sh*t-weasel, or of posting on this board under an assumed name just to - ugh - spy on us or to spread dissension or of going on other boards to run down Brian, Mike or Lamont Cranston, I am really, really sorry.
Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #166 on: May 24, 2016, 09:33:30 AM »

Actually, I was the one who brought up the banning of AGD on Hoffman's board. Probably not the right thread to do it in, but there you go. And I've posted on there, on and off, for ages. No-one dragged me there. I don't know Mike's Beard. I don't agree with his vehemently anti (recent) Brian stance, though I do suspect it's driven by the persistent and unchecked anti-Mike comments. Mostly I stick with the visual arts threads over there and I seldom read BBB because of its stupid interface, so I have no idea what went down until I read the complaints here.

My two cents - I think what pissed off a lot of people here is the mind-numbing way threads are derailed by a handful of people pushing their anti-Mike/Mike agenda, after which, we get correspondents going way over the top to piss them off in turn. The regularity with which this happened - and happened beyond all common sense (i.e. no credit for Mike as a vocalist, band leader or lyricist during those years when the band made their name and when they were a genuine creative force. I mean, I get all the other stuff: the comments about Brian, his negativity towards Dennis, the 80s (ugh!); his endless self-justification and self-promotion which ironically matches some of the stuff I see on this board  Grin But... he could sing and Brian wrote for that voice in the mix and he could write - even  for Dennis) has frequently been raised by posters. And, of course, it's still going on, mostly by the same people. Remember AGD's thread on 1964. One post completely skewed it until it finally got back on track - and it wasn't even by one of the usual suspects.

One of my unpopular opinions - nearly everyone I've suggested it to has rejected it out of hand - would be to eliminate the PM function of this board. I know why it would be an unpopular decision that would garner little if any support, but honestly a lot of the major problems going back to other forums I've seen have come from members who think doing things via private messages is a way to hide behavior and get away with it. It was disgusting to hear about some of the absolute crap that was going on. There would be the public face of things, then underneath something entirely different. Nasty stuff. The problem is - in my opinion - these messages are hidden by design. If I were to do or say something offensive to another poster via private message, who would know unless the recipient either reported it or informed a moderator about what they received? If it were a threat, and that poster was hesitant to say anything, it would simply be hidden in the privacy of the system and that poster would have no recourse.

As bad as some thought the derailing of various public threads was, there were even more serious issues going on that no one knows about, and almost all of them which no one will ever know about because they're private messages that were not reported.

I've heard too (actually, it was reported on several occasions) that insulting messages were sent, then the sender blocked the recipient's account so they couldn't respond. Is that the kind of system people really want? If so, then the majority speaks. But i think even the ability for a poster to fire off an offensive message to another poster, then block them from responding, is ludicrous. And cowardly.

So my take is, if you have something to say, and you're coming to a community to interact with other fans, say it on the board. Groups of people in all walks of life have as many disagreements and arguments (and yes, fights) as they do gatherings where everyone is happy and getting along.

To have a system where there is even an inkling of "I can get away with it because I'm sending a private message and no one will know", then to further suggest if the recipient says anything they are the ones violating the rules...to me it invites a lot of abuse and bending of the rules, as well as people doing things that are against the rules going unnoticed or unchecked for days if not years because no one else might want to report it for fear of being exposed or subject to more abuse, short of being banned for violating the rules if they say anything.

There are many boards where there is simply no private messaging enabled. If members want to contact each other off the forum, they can voluntarily hide or make visible an email address or contact info. If they do not wish to be contacted, hide the email. Admins and moderators can still get in contact with members if necessary, but this hidden getting-away-with-it mentality is not an option.

If you come to the board and have something to say, even an axe to grind or an argument with someone, it's in the open. You come to the forum, what you say is public as part of the deal.

In terms of trying to improve the board, or make it a nicer place, sometimes the main issue holding back the mods/admins or anyone else is they have no idea what has been said between members in private messages, and whatever issues or tensions may have been smoldering under the privacy of these exchanges can explode on the public board at any time.

I just don't like nor agree with the notion that people might think they can get away with things via private messages that no one will see, and therefore continue to operate with immunity from the "rules of the board" that everyone else has to follow.

It's yet again a case of the few who choose to bend and break the rules that ruin it for others. But I've just become sick of how this veil of secrecy has not only allowed people to do things that would warrant a ban if it were public, and think there is immunity within the privacy of the function itself.

I don't expect to get any agreement on that, but as positive as it can be when used for the purposes for which it was designed, the PM system might also be to blame for some of the issues that have affected this board negatively. I don't like to see people who are dishonest if not outright liars gaming the system and flaunting it. I also don't like to hear about possible bullying or attempts to coerce members to say or do something via private message based on something they said on the board that ruffled feathers.

That is not what it's for. If that's what it is or was being used for, maybe some of the recipients can shed more light on what was going on so positive changes and tweaks can be made to improve it moving forward.

Maybe - just maybe - some of the issues that are apparently ruining the board had been festering in private message systems on this board which had more of a negative impact on the community than the decisions or actions done in public. If so, maybe the system itself needs to be addressed.



Never write one word when 200 will do. Seriously, this has nothing to do with my message you quoted. I, too, had to put up with a pm from someone best described as a d*ckhead, but I decided to ignore it and him because his idiocy isn't worth the time. I'm talking about threads being derailed, not about pm tattle-tales. If you want to argue a point, fine, but don't use a thread about something else to trot out your views that figure A is a worthless piece of sh*t or that figure B hasn't written anything decent since The Lonely Sea and shouldn't be allowed out. It's just the sort of thing that makes me stop reading because I've seen it so many times. The board is reduced to schoolyard-level name-calling. Now, of course, we can add paranoia and desperate insinuation to this.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 09:37:41 AM by Smilin Ed H » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #167 on: May 24, 2016, 09:36:25 AM »

I obviously don't post much, but I've been around this board since it's creation, and was a member of the Smile Shop before that.  I've enjoyed Craig's posts on the old board, and on this one, before and after he became a mod here.  I don't consider him a moderator as much as I consider him to be a knowledgeable, passionate fan of the Beach Boys.  A moderator's place on an open forum such as this is to enforce the board's rules.  Period.  When not in 'police mode', they should be able to discuss, passionately if desired, any subject with any other poster(s).  I consider them to be moderators only when they're considering a rules violation.  Otherwise, they're just posters who happened to take on the thankless task of monitoring what often seems to be a bunch of whining children.  Personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the job, nor would I want to.  Craig and Billy are outstanding moderators.  They're fair, yes sometimes passionate, and they seem like really nice guys.  My two cents worth.
I certainly consider GF to be a knowledgable, passionate and particularly interesting poster who's obviously done a ton of research and analysis. He also hasn't taken any mod enforcement actions that seem inappropriate, which is important to keep in mind. This is all about style which, as you say, perhaps shouldn't be a consideration. The level of vitriol seems not to match the concern.
Seeing the way this thread has gone has made me feel less critical of gf. The entrenched festering problems that posters have with each other seems to be the main problem. And they want gf to take care of that for them and are mad he hasn't. That's certainly not his job.
My only thing is that he can be intimidating on a good day, so when he's actually angry, as he has been dealing with these accusations, it can really be uncomfortable for the uninvolved. Eta, though now it's over here, not a problem.
I have been considering that mods should be held to a different standard of board behavior, that they are responsible a bit for setting the tone - but perhaps I'm wrong to think that.

Thank you.

I will add I was a member here since the beginning, whether late 2005 or early 2006, I don't recall. In the 8-9 or so years I was a posting member before agreeing to become a mod, there was no such standard in place, and I personally had run-ins with moderators here on a few threads in the course of various discussions and debates that got heated enough to turn personal. There was also, a decade ago, a different ballgame in terms of what other forums existed, and I've already given a rundown of those. All of them have either folded or imploded, and the only three left of any consequence are this one, the BW board, and BBB. Coming into moderating this board, there was a frame of reference that included a history of moderating those boards that was in no way even close to the standards now being suggested for this one. Again as I've said numerous times, anyone describing the halcyon and peaceful days on these defunct boards is simply delusional. Some of what went on there would make the squabbles and dust-ups that went on here look like kids' play. Nasty stuff. And on quite a few of those boards, the moderators at various times did no different than what I for one am being criticized for doing here, and which to be quite frank about it, the moderator teams which came before on this board also did and to little if none of the level of calling-out the behavior or calls to change the daily operations as is being done today.

Relevant to consider too is that quite a few members not only here in this thread but also members who have since been banned have also been a part of these forums for well over a decade. Some in fact have a history of bans, warnings, and even outright removal from a number of other boards. In many cases, those actions were taken as a result of personal interactions with other board members. Is it surprising that some of the same behavior among these members has carried over to whichever boards they migrated to? And is it any surprise some of the same behavior has led to similar actions being taken?

Look at the example that played out right in this thread. Is there any justification or excuse for that kind of nonsense to be brought into a community? Consider too some of the previous lifetime bans. In one case a former member had a history that included being banned permanently from other boards for harassing other board members. Now these same people are going around on whatever remaining boards and social media will have them as members trashing this board and those who moderate it? It's no surprise someone will carry a grudge just as any worker might hold a grudge against a boss if they felt they were targeted and fired based on getting a raw deal. It's human nature.

But to have these comments and suggestions and even outright lies from these same people now being believed, repeated, and used as justification to call for change here? Consider the sources.

One solution might be for members to simply do a better job of self-policing. There are really not that many rules and regulations to follow, and they are simply not that hard to follow. A lot of it is dealing with normal human interactions and making decisions to engage or not. These issues involving various beefs and the desire to poke other members into reacting, and whatever else goes on - If the intent is to come here to do that to other members, it's just not the reason why the board exists, and if it crosses the line, it will be dealt with.

It's fine to make suggestions, it's welcome to make suggestions, but the level to which some of these comments has been reaching is above and beyond anything that anyone who volunteers to moderate this or any other forum should be expected to shoulder when agreeing to do the job. And these standards being asked for from those moderating are beyond what has existed on this board for a decade since it started, are beyond what was expected of mods and what was done by mods who worked any other BB's related forums, and are above what even the current and previous mod teams here have been expected to follow.

There are some issues which existed and which exist that are being pushed aside in favor of zeroing in on what some think are the "causes" for the board's problems, when they really are not. A lot of it comes down to individuals who simply choose to conduct themselves in a certain way, and who choose to flaunt the rules or consistently try to bend the rules in order to get away with it. And if it were solely an issue within this community, it would be one thing. But some of the same issues have followed members from board to board since BB's message boards have existed.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #168 on: May 24, 2016, 09:56:04 AM »

Never write one word when 200 will do. Seriously, this has nothing to do with my message you quoted. I, too, had to put up with a pm from someone best described as a d*ckhead, but I decided to ignore it and him because his idiocy isn't worth the time. I'm talking about threads being derailed, not about pm tattle-tales. If you want to argue a point, fine, but don't use a thread about something else to trot out your views that figure A is a worthless piece of sh*t or that figure B hasn't written anything decent since The Lonely Sea and shouldn't be allowed out. It's just the sort of thing that makes me stop reading because I've seen it so many times. The board is reduced to schoolyard-level name-calling. Now, of course, we can add paranoia and desperate insinuation to this.

Smilin Ed, if I were as thin-skinned as some like to suggest, I would take your first line as a personal swipe since several posters who have had issues with me personally have used variations of the same comment to try to get a reaction. It's also been the case where other posters have dropped comments to me off the board telling me to ignore it, they're trying to provoke you. So I do ignore it, and I don't come back to escalate it. I write how I write, if someone doesn't like it I'm going to say that's their choice, simply don't read it. But I won't change how I write because of comments made by people who don't agree with what I do or say, and so far the comments have come strictly from those posters who seem to have issues with me beyond the surface.

It would be relevant to point out as well that comments which have been made and repeated about any number of band members for well over a decade continue to be posted. I've stayed away from trying to ask people why they didn't post, but I have to ask for the sake of discussion: There have been any number of similar comments posted and threads derailed on 'all sides' of the BB's spectrum, involving multiple band members. Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members? Do you react as strongly when phrases like "the handlers" get injected into discussions that have nothing to do with handlers or anything related? There are people who when seeing an opinion they disagree with will offer a challenge in return. It's an open forum, unless there is a call to monitor and control what opinions people post rather than allow it to be a back-and-forth offering of opinions, it's everyone's choice to either read and respond or simply ignore.

There shouldn't need to be a board cop on duty to step in and remove comments, unless a majority of posters here now want censorship to become the standard instead of an open exchange. And it also opens up the issue of mob rule, where a group of people can decide what or who they'd like to see policed, and that next public target could be Smilin Ed H if you post something the angry mob disagrees with, or if your posts in general somehow manage to get portrayed as being a reason why the board is falling apart.

I don't think many here want that kind of board.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #169 on: May 24, 2016, 10:37:26 AM »

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
KDS
Guest
« Reply #170 on: May 24, 2016, 10:53:55 AM »

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

GF,

I understand this point completely. 

And I don't think that you, or any mod, should sanitize the SSMB. 

But, if you're not looking to sanitize the board of negative posts, why the long diatribe-like responses when somebody posts a mild criticism of a Brian Wilson track? 

Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: May 24, 2016, 11:04:56 AM »

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

GF,

I understand this point completely. 

And I don't think that you, or any mod, should sanitize the SSMB. 

But, if you're not looking to sanitize the board of negative posts, why the long diatribe-like responses when somebody posts a mild criticism of a Brian Wilson track? 



You characterize with a broad brush what I write as a "diatribe". That's not fair, is it? If I or any fan have an opinion, and if that fan is passionate about the topic they're writing about, whether some think it's too many words or not, those fans can come to an open forum to express the opinions whether in 10 words or 200. And, if a fan feels strongly for or against an opinion posted, it's an open forum which allows that dialogue to happen. It is not an open forum if fans expect to post opinions and not have others disagree with them, up to and including strongly disagreeing with them.

Sanitizing a board would involve deleting posts that someone has to judge as being worthwhile or not, and a lot of it would come down to the opinions of the comments and of the person posting them. It also involves sanitizing board members whose opinions are deemed worthwhile or not. Again I ask, consider what if the posts of a fan named KDS or a fan named KDS in general were to become the target of the angry mob, and demands were made to have you thrown out entirely, beyond having your comments deleted by a moderator. I've seen that happen, I've seen it on previous boards where a mob mentality takes over and someone the mob doesn't want around will be targeted until they quit or get kicked out. It's not what this place is about.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
KDS
Guest
« Reply #172 on: May 24, 2016, 11:17:52 AM »

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

GF,

I understand this point completely. 

And I don't think that you, or any mod, should sanitize the SSMB. 

But, if you're not looking to sanitize the board of negative posts, why the long diatribe-like responses when somebody posts a mild criticism of a Brian Wilson track? 



You characterize with a broad brush what I write as a "diatribe". That's not fair, is it? If I or any fan have an opinion, and if that fan is passionate about the topic they're writing about, whether some think it's too many words or not, those fans can come to an open forum to express the opinions whether in 10 words or 200. And, if a fan feels strongly for or against an opinion posted, it's an open forum which allows that dialogue to happen. It is not an open forum if fans expect to post opinions and not have others disagree with them, up to and including strongly disagreeing with them.

Sanitizing a board would involve deleting posts that someone has to judge as being worthwhile or not, and a lot of it would come down to the opinions of the comments and of the person posting them. It also involves sanitizing board members whose opinions are deemed worthwhile or not. Again I ask, consider what if the posts of a fan named KDS or a fan named KDS in general were to become the target of the angry mob, and demands were made to have you thrown out entirely, beyond having your comments deleted by a moderator. I've seen that happen, I've seen it on previous boards where a mob mentality takes over and someone the mob doesn't want around will be targeted until they quit or get kicked out. It's not what this place is about.

I've no issue with you, or anyone disagreeing with my opinions. 

It's the way that it's done at times.  When I said two weeks ago that I didn't like Runaway Dancer, from NPP, because I don't like EDM.  You responded with a long post about the true definition of EDM, basically say that my opinion is wrong because I don't know what EDM is. 

I'm a fan of heavy metal, but if somebody says "I don't like Led Zeppelin because I don't like heavy metal," I don't think I'd challenge their opinion with a long post about what really defines heavy metal and basically say, "Led Zeppelin's not heavy metal, so the reason you dislike them is wrong." 

I'm fine with disagreements and exchanging ideas, but I just think stuff like that can discourage people from posting true opinions. 
Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #173 on: May 24, 2016, 11:28:26 AM »

Never write one word when 200 will do. Seriously, this has nothing to do with my message you quoted. I, too, had to put up with a pm from someone best described as a d*ckhead, but I decided to ignore it and him because his idiocy isn't worth the time. I'm talking about threads being derailed, not about pm tattle-tales. If you want to argue a point, fine, but don't use a thread about something else to trot out your views that figure A is a worthless piece of sh*t or that figure B hasn't written anything decent since The Lonely Sea and shouldn't be allowed out. It's just the sort of thing that makes me stop reading because I've seen it so many times. The board is reduced to schoolyard-level name-calling. Now, of course, we can add paranoia and desperate insinuation to this.

Smilin Ed, if I were as thin-skinned as some like to suggest, I would take your first line as a personal swipe since several posters who have had issues with me personally have used variations of the same comment to try to get a reaction. It's also been the case where other posters have dropped comments to me off the board telling me to ignore it, they're trying to provoke you. So I do ignore it, and I don't come back to escalate it. I write how I write, if someone doesn't like it I'm going to say that's their choice, simply don't read it. But I won't change how I write because of comments made by people who don't agree with what I do or say, and so far the comments have come strictly from those posters who seem to have issues with me beyond the surface.

It would be relevant to point out as well that comments which have been made and repeated about any number of band members for well over a decade continue to be posted. I've stayed away from trying to ask people why they didn't post, but I have to ask for the sake of discussion: There have been any number of similar comments posted and threads derailed on 'all sides' of the BB's spectrum, involving multiple band members. Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members? Do you react as strongly when phrases like "the handlers" get injected into discussions that have nothing to do with handlers or anything related? There are people who when seeing an opinion they disagree with will offer a challenge in return. It's an open forum, unless there is a call to monitor and control what opinions people post rather than allow it to be a back-and-forth offering of opinions, it's everyone's choice to either read and respond or simply ignore.

There shouldn't need to be a board cop on duty to step in and remove comments, unless a majority of posters here now want censorship to become the standard instead of an open exchange. And it also opens up the issue of mob rule, where a group of people can decide what or who they'd like to see policed, and that next public target could be Smilin Ed H if you post something the angry mob disagrees with, or if your posts in general somehow manage to get portrayed as being a reason why the board is falling apart.

I don't think many here want that kind of board.

Mob rule? Cop on duty? You ought to write fiction, Craig. Your feature length post was totally unnecessary in regards my previous point. As is this: " Were you as upset to see examples of other derailments and schoolyard-level name calling when it happened to other band members?" You read my posts? You know the post I complained about that derailed AGD's thread about 1964?  It was a swipe at Brian not Mike. Remember? You have me pegged as a Kokomaoist? Seriously? Me? Far from it. You know who I'll be seeing this week, for the umpteenth time? Regardless of how allegedly 'frail' he is. You think I see the sh*t only coming from one side? Are you so paranoid you think this is a personal attack because you haven't been critical enough of the anti-Mike sh*t shovelling?

The board I want is one where we can discuss the music without the same bunch of idiots derailing it to say his well-polished piece about Mike being a turd or Brian being incapable of functioning on his own, both of which will be followed by the equally well-rehearsed counter claims.
Logged
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: May 24, 2016, 11:29:09 AM »

Just to expand on that a bit more, and it's only my opinion whether it's comparable or not.

I'm not sure what everyone's frame of reference is regarding American sports, but beyond music there are thousands of fan communities devoted to sports teams. Take one example, the New York Yankees.

When it was a hot topic, there were quite a few fans who had strong opinions of Alex "A Rod" Rodriguez. Fans either praised him or hammered him, sometimes mercilessly, whether it be his actions on or off the field. Not following each and every fan community or comments posted, would it not be expected when having such a fan forum to have fans being very opinionated on a player who was as much talented as he was a lightening-rod for criticism? If there as a game where A Rod didn't run out a play, or pulled up short on a defensive play to allow a hit instead of charging the ball, some fans would call him out for not giving his all, and others would defend his choices made in the heat of the game.

Would there be an expectation of whoever monitors those boards to delete all of the negative opinions being lobbed at A Rod in the name of making the community a more friendly place, or allowing the real fans to not have to wade through the negative comments when they want to read about A Rod's gameplay from the night before? I'm sure there were challenges also made to the negative commentators such as "You must not be a true Yankees fan if you think that way about A Rod", but among communities of fans are any of those challenges really valid when fans are offering opinions on what they see? Maybe some fan who has been following the Yanks for decades has issues with something an individual player like A Rod had done, would the community be expected to erase that fan and any comments in favor of only those who think A Rod should be standing alongside Ruth, Mantle, Jeter, and Gehrig in the Yankees Hall Of Fame lineup?

It suggests there is either an unrealistic expectation that fans when they get together to talk will all agree on the same thing, or it suggests all fans wearing a Yankees cap will bite their tongues and not offer an opinion on A Rod or whoever else because they're part of the team whose cap we're all wearing. Beyond that, whoever is running those fan communities would be expected to censor those fans who have issues with A Rod, and then bring that aura of censorship onto the board.

It's the choice of censorship versus allowing fans to express their opinions whether it be online chat rooms, boards, or even call-in sports radio shows. If Yankees fans want a place where everyone is expected to be 100% in praise of A Rod or any other Yankees player, despite what he may or may not do on or off the field, I don't think such a place exists. But that's part of the deal going in, isn't it? Any fan can debate with any other fan's opinions.

Should there be efforts made to sanitize fan communities from any fans who don't agree up and down the line with whatever someone else thinks they should agree with? It removes the entire nature and design of these communities and forums.

GF,

I understand this point completely. 

And I don't think that you, or any mod, should sanitize the SSMB. 

But, if you're not looking to sanitize the board of negative posts, why the long diatribe-like responses when somebody posts a mild criticism of a Brian Wilson track? 



You characterize with a broad brush what I write as a "diatribe". That's not fair, is it? If I or any fan have an opinion, and if that fan is passionate about the topic they're writing about, whether some think it's too many words or not, those fans can come to an open forum to express the opinions whether in 10 words or 200. And, if a fan feels strongly for or against an opinion posted, it's an open forum which allows that dialogue to happen. It is not an open forum if fans expect to post opinions and not have others disagree with them, up to and including strongly disagreeing with them.

Sanitizing a board would involve deleting posts that someone has to judge as being worthwhile or not, and a lot of it would come down to the opinions of the comments and of the person posting them. It also involves sanitizing board members whose opinions are deemed worthwhile or not. Again I ask, consider what if the posts of a fan named KDS or a fan named KDS in general were to become the target of the angry mob, and demands were made to have you thrown out entirely, beyond having your comments deleted by a moderator. I've seen that happen, I've seen it on previous boards where a mob mentality takes over and someone the mob doesn't want around will be targeted until they quit or get kicked out. It's not what this place is about.

GF the biggest problem I have with all of this is you don't practice what you preach.  You are all for open discussion.  Except you are not.  You and DKL resort to saying anyone who criticises Brian have an agenda.  You are like a dog with a bone.  Look at the recent Bubbs and Judd thread where to most of us here it was a case of why did you jump in and ruin the thread? Fair enough if you don't agree but don't suggest something more sinister at work.  Debbie was demanding to know why Bubbs changed his opinion.  The thread was a little tongue in cheek was how most of us saw it, but not you.  If you know for sure something underhand was going on share it with those of us who are not privy to that info and then we can see why you're annoyed.  

Also, witness Debbie's attack on Val and others.  Uncalled for but hey, Debbie can say what she likes it seems.  Again, if Val has done something and it's widely known in Beach Boys circles let us uninitiated know.  Otherwise it comes across as a crass attack on someone who hasn't even been part of the discussion on here.  It lacks class.  People like Val have worked tirelessly over the years to promote Brian's music.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 24   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 3.391 seconds with 22 queries.