Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board)

[HeyJude]

 There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

[HeyJude]

I would also suggest that those who actually want to have a solid discussion about this book fight hard to keep the thread civil and I for one will do everything I can to not "feed the trolls."

I think there are a few folks who are much more sympathetic to Mike who would LOVE for this thread and other discussions of the book to derail into total cacophony and infighting, because it would then simply reinforce the notion (for which we can already see groundwork being laid in the book itself, ironically) that Mike is blindly and unfairly attacked. We've already seen one person sympathetic to Mike post a one-sentence positive review of the book that also served to pre-judge anyone who might be critical of the book. It feels like some people *want* to pre-emptively dismiss any possible criticism of the book.

Let's keep it on-point, which will be much easier once everybody has access to the full book. If you analyze the book or passages and come away with thoughts that are critical of the book itself and/or Mike, and someone tries to mischaracterize what you're trying to say and tries to accuse you of just being "anti Mike", or accuse you of other things you *aren't* saying, don't "feed the trolls", don't let the discussion be derailed. Use the "ignore" script if you have to.

[HeyJude]

Also, in case anyone wasn't aware, you can view *more* pages of the book on Amazon if you sign in to your Amazon account.

[IainLee]

Ah. I messed up the quoting thing in here. Fat thumbs. And you know what, life's too short.

[IainLee]

Double post

[HeyJude]

No trolling here. I've simply already seen the then-as-yet-non-existent critics of the book pre-emptively judged as "haters." I disagree with that style of characterization and find it dismissive.

I've continually seen the general assertion that vast swaths of people will *blindly* criticize any book Mike puts out since the book was *announced*, what was it, a year or two ago?

I'm not necessarily speaking to anyone specifically on this board, but there are parties who tend to be very sympathetic and very forgiving (putting it politely) towards Mike who, in my opinion, want any valid criticism (if and when it exists) to be lumped in with the trolls who do come out and also criticize Mike. This has been happening for years now, and it's unfair to those who actually take the time to make cogent, thoughtful comments about Mike or any other topic.

[Juice Brohnston]

Reading the Daily Mail passages, it seems to read like a retelling of a lot of tales familiar to fans, with a few lines of opinion on Mike for each event.

I did find it interesting, how he uses an early 90's quote from Bruce to take a swipe at Brian's 'methodology' for recording SMiLE.

Stories like the India trip, and what have you, are going to sound old to those of us who have followed the band. But you HAVE to include them in your autobiography. If I was writing mine, and I'd spent time with the Beatles, I wouldn't choose to leave it out, even though I would have dropped it into every conversation I ever had, lol.

[filledeplage]

There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

[Debbie KL]

There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

Okay, I didn't see any "death threats" to Mike in this thread, nor have I ever seen one on SS.  Did I miss something?  People are being asked to comment on a book they haven't seen, by the same person who offered the thread topic "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?"  Remember that?  I remember it well, and the resulting "article".  That topic was a bit like the, "when did you stop beating your wife" question.  It's a set-up. Don't go for it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Heyjude is asking great questions that need to be answered for once.....

[KDS]

There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

Okay, I didn't see any "death threats" to Mike in this thread, nor have I ever seen one on SS.  Did I miss something?  People are being asked to comment on a book they haven't seen, by the same person who offered the thread topic "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?"  Remember that?  I remember it well, and the resulting "article".  That topic was a bit like the, "when did you stop beating your wife" question.  It's a set-up. Don't go for it.

There were no death threats on this thread, and I've been seen any on any of the BB/BW boards I've been involved in.

HJ mentioned that Mike said he received death threats in the wake of the C50 fallout. 

[IainLee]

There is never justification.  

Yeah, I'd say so. There was another posted named "HeyJude" who agreed with you yesterday when he posted:

death threats are never justifiable

Here's the link to the post that you probably NEVER EVEN READ, just in case your scrolling ability isn't working:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24284.msg587239.html#msg587239

Hey Jude - you don't "know me" or "what I read."

You gave an "opening" after your comment, where ""why fans might be upset."  It does not matter if or why a fan is "upset" - it is that "mental state" that precipitates or can precipitate violence against a public figure  - and there is nothing to explain it or qualify it.  And what I shared about only ONE instance, where a fan who was "mentally fragile" in a C50 meet-and-greet line, only feet from Brian (never mind any other members) puts him and all the nameless rest in danger.

And, please don't get confrontational; there is no need. (And it is against board rules.)

When you imply someone is justifying death threats when they're not and specifically stated that there is no justification, you're the one being confrontational and you're the one breaking board rules.

I disagree with elements of your (still) non-sequitur commentary above. There is no justification for death threats.

Does it matter *why* a fan is upset? Yes, I think it does. Sometimes.

Does it matter *why* someone (fan or otherwise) would be upset to the point of issuing death threats? Yes, I think so, and it should matter to the target of those threats MORE than anyone else. If you want to understand why people do bad things, it might be instructive to at least *try* to understand what precipitated it. Doesn't mean it was justified in any way. I'd want to understand *why* someone issued a death threat against me, and I'd at least *try* to have the foresight to not just chalk it up to 100% random and crazy people and not make any attempt to understand it. I'd never stop and all of a sudden believe there was anything justified about it. But again, UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as justifying it or supporting it or advocating for it.

Hey Jude - I suspect you were not born or a young child when John Lennon was killed.  Certainly you were alive when Selena was killed but they are apples and oranges.  You can read about it but cannot fully appreciate the real-time impact of those who grew up with his greatness.  There are laws to keep everyone safe, and that includes those who are unpopular with some.  

The mentally ill person who is under treatment (or worse, not) is/can be a clear danger to a celebrity.  It is SO significant that if a therapist or other health care provider has knowledge that the person is going to cause harm to a celebrity (or another person) they MUST report to the authorities, and break confidentiality (this can vary regionally.) And there are plenty out there.  There are plenty of marginal people who are "highly suggestible" and who would have no problem taking matters into their own hands.  

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

Okay, I didn't see any "death threats" to Mike in this thread, nor have I ever seen one on SS.  Did I miss something?  People are being asked to comment on a book they haven't seen, by the same person who offered the thread topic "Why Do You Hate Mike Love?"  Remember that?  I remember it well, and the resulting "article".  That topic was a bit like the, "when did you stop beating your wife" question.  It's a set-up. Don't go for it.

I haven't asked anyone's opinion on a book they haven't read. I've read it. I really enjoyed it.

I also really enjoyed writing my article about Mike for Record Collector. Not everyone dug it. It's cool. Your use of quotations implies you don't consider it to be a real article. Ok. That's cool. But really, you need to calm down.

I've finished the book and it's flawed. It's obviously got a few stories some people will have heard before. But. Al not being a Beach Boy, Carl telling Mr T to be quiet, why Mike wears hats, loads of stuff I didn't know.

I enjoyed it.

[IainLee]

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.    

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.    

I don't really know what you're talking about, and whether you intend to or not, these non-sequitur commentaries simply obfuscate. I still contend you're not reading this thread at all, and/or are just offering monologues having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Either way, it's detrimental to the discussion at hand.

There is no issue of violence of death threats pertaining to this board at all. Nobody has condoned death threats. You've apparently decided to take on what you feel is a controversial, David-vs-Goliath battle to prove that violence and death threats are bad. I think the rest of us reached this conclusion long, long ago. As in, since birth.

Since I have to assume (whether I'm correct or not) that you're not reading some or all of the posts in this thread, I'll recap: What we have is a UK article excerpting snippets from Mike's book. One short snippet included Mike's mention of having received death threats after C50 as a result of his deciding to not continue the reunion.

Also to recap some key points that I figured were beyond self-evident:

1. Mike, to my knowledge (and I have knowledge beyond the excerpts available to all) has not claimed this board has anything to do with death threats.

2. Nobody on this board has condoned or justified death threats of any sort, at any time. EVER.

3. Getting hung up on an unrelated, confusing, obfuscating straw-man argument that includes invoking the deaths of other famous singers and musicians tends to *CONVENIENTLY* distract from the topic at hand.

4. And in case you didn't read #2, I'll repeat it for #4: NOBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS CONDONED OR JUSTIFIED DEATH THREATS OF ANY SORT. AT ANY TIME. EVER.

5. Calling on the board to enact something to condemn death threats is INSULTING to both the members of the board and the moderators. It implies there's a problem with this (even though there ISN'T), and implies the moderators don't already know that threats of violence against ANYONE, whether board members or band members, are to be condemned. It also implies the moderators wouldn't ban and/or otherwise respond to such actions, which I'm quite sure they WOULD.

[STE]

Official teaser:  https://youtu.be/v1KPMzDCybo

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Hey Jude - I can assure you that there are many "marginal" people who follow this board, and read it or lurk.  It would not be so funny, if harm came to ANY band member for any reason and the "seeds of violence were sown" and were "unchecked" on this (or any board.)

And, I think this board needs to make an official statement strongly condemning any suggested violence.  I am asking the good mods who generously give of their time, knowledge and experience to take this seriously.   

That is "not legal advice" but it would behoove this community to be fully united on this point.  And I would suggest further that it be a fully and permanently, bann-able offense.  It is not, nor should it even be a point of discussion.  I am in full agreement with john k in his post #68. Bravo to john k for that post.

You can try after the fact to figure out why but that won't bring John Lennon back from the dead or Selena for that matter.  Keeping a high-profile person safe is and should be priority #1 for us all.  There is no justification for violence - period, end of story.  Opening the door to any "reasons or justifications" is condoning the threat of violence or ratifying it.  And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled.   

I don't really know what you're talking about, and whether you intend to or not, these non-sequitur commentaries simply obfuscate. I still contend you're not reading this thread at all, and/or are just offering monologues that having nothing to do with the topic at hand. Either way, it's detrimental to the discussion at hand.

There is no issue of violence of death threats pertaining to this board at all. Nobody has condoned death threats. You've apparently decided to take on what you feel is a controversial, David-vs-Goliath battle to prove that violence and death threats are bad. I think the rest of us reached this conclusion long, long ago. As in, since birth.

Since I have to assume (whether I'm correct or not) that you're not reading some or all of the posts in this thread, I'll recap: What we have is a UK article excerpting snippets from Mike's book. One short snippet included Mike's mention of having received death threats after C50 as a result of his deciding to not continue the reunion.

Also to recap some key points that I figured were beyond self-evident:

1. Mike, to my knowledge (and I have knowledge beyond the excerpts available to all) has not claimed this board has anything to do with death threats.

2. Nobody on this board has condoned or justified death threats of any sort, at any time. EVER.

3. Getting hung up on an unrelated, confusing, obfuscating straw-man argument that includes invoking the deaths of other famous singers and musicians tends to *CONVENIENTLY* distract from the topic at hand.

4. And in case you didn't read #2, I'll repeat it for #4: NOBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS CONDONED OR JUSTIFIED DEATH THREATS OF ANY SORT. AT ANY TIME. EVER.

5. Calling on the board to enact something to condemn death threats is INSULTING to both the members of the board and the moderators. It implies there's a problem with this (even though there ISN'T), and implies the moderators don't already know that threats of violence against ANYONE, whether board members of band members, are to be condemned. It also implies the moderators wouldn't ban and/or otherwise respond to such actions, which I'm quite sure they WOULD.

Agreed on all points.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I would also suggest that those who actually want to have a solid discussion about this book fight hard to keep the thread civil and I for one will do everything I can to not "feed the trolls."

I think there are a few folks who are much more sympathetic to Mike who would LOVE for this thread and other discussions of the book to derail into total cacophony and infighting, because it would then simply reinforce the notion (for which we can already see groundwork being laid in the book itself, ironically) that Mike is blindly and unfairly attacked. We've already seen one person sympathetic to Mike post a one-sentence positive review of the book that also served to pre-judge anyone who might be critical of the book. It feels like some people *want* to pre-emptively dismiss any possible criticism of the book.

Let's keep it on-point, which will be much easier once everybody has access to the full book. If you analyze the book or passages and come away with thoughts that are critical of the book itself and/or Mike, and someone tries to mischaracterize what you're trying to say and tries to accuse you of just being "anti Mike", or accuse you of other things you *aren't* saying, don't "feed the trolls", don't let the discussion be derailed. Use the "ignore" script if you have to.

Also agreed. There's enough in the book to discuss and tear apart without all the extra unneeded stuff added to it.

[HeyJude]

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't dislike you. I don't know you, and I figure most don't.

In my opinion, I like to lean towards a very liberal, open form of discussion. Despite disagreeing with things you might say, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to post them here.

Rather, I think anyone that posts anything then has to cope with the response. So, for instance, when David Beard posted a few articles about Brian (and Mike) that many people had a myriad of issues with, my feeling was not that the articles should have been censored or anything of that nature. Rather, he then has to deal with the response (so long as it doesn't turn into trolling or abuse, etc.).

So if someone says your comments (or mine) are offensive, or just disagreeable, or lamentable, or ill-advised, etc., and even if someone questions the motives of such comments (which admittedly can quickly *turn* into a more personal issue, though someone's motives can be questioned without personal digs), I don't think anyone is calling for you (or I) to go away or not post, nor is anyone calling for censorship.

We just all have to be prepared for a response.

I think in your case you appeared out of nowhere (as far as the board was concerned) some time back and posed an apparent open question concerning what is undoubtedly *the most divisive* issue regarding this group and its fandom. So people will start to jump to wondering if it's tinged with a bit of trollishness, or at least a small streak of enjoying being a s**t-disturber.

I don't have an exact analogy, but it's something like going into a Van Halen discussion and asking seemingly innocently about who is better, Roth or Hagar. Or going into a comic book movie discussion and seemingly innocently asking which is better, DC or Marvel. It's not that one can't ask those questions innocently. It just seems unlikely that someone would both A) Have the level of interest to enter the discussion, but B) Be unfamiliar with the topic to the point of not being aware of the biggest, most divisive hot-button issues concerning that topic.

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

But no reiterate, I don't think liking or defending Mike or liking or defending his book are things that should cause anyone to be run off the board. And even if you do something I find disagreeable like making a comment that I perceive to be unfair (e.g. assuming people who don't like the book will be "haters"), even then I'm not advocating for you or anyone to go away. I'm simply criticizing (if applicable) those comments.

[Jim V.]

Hey filledeplage why didn't you ever respond to my posts in the Campaign 2016 thread in the sandbox? And why do you constantly obfuscate when HeyJude is trying to engage you in conversation?

Also, how do you afford to go to Mike & Bruce shows all along the eastern seaboard? Rumor is they pay your way!

[IainLee]

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't dislike you. I don't know you, and I figure most don't.

In my opinion, I like to lean towards a very liberal, open form of discussion. Despite disagreeing with things you might say, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to post them here.

Rather, I think anyone that posts anything then has to cope with the response. So, for instance, when David Beard posted a few articles about Brian (and Mike) that many people had a myriad of issues with, my feeling was not that the articles should have been censored or anything of that nature. Rather, he then has to deal with the response (so long as it doesn't turn into trolling or abuse, etc.).

So if someone says your comments (or mine) are offensive, or just disagreeable, or lamentable, or ill-advised, etc., and even if someone questions the motives of such comments (which admittedly can quickly *turn* into a more personal issue, though someone's motives can be questioned without personal digs), I don't think anyone is calling for you (or I) to go away or not post, nor is anyone calling for censorship.

We just all have to be prepared for a response.

I think in your case you appeared out of nowhere (as far as the board was concerned) some time back and posed an apparent open question concerning what is undoubtedly *the most divisive* issue regarding this group and its fandom. So people will start to jump to wondering if it's tinged with a bit of trollishness, or at least a small streak of enjoying being a s**t-disturber.

I don't have an exact analogy, but it's something like going into a Van Halen discussion and asking seemingly innocently about who is better, Roth or Hagar. Or going into a comic book movie discussion and seemingly innocently asking which is better, DC or Marvel. It's not that one can't ask those questions innocently. It just seems unlikely that someone would both A) Have the level of interest to enter the discussion, but B) Be unfamiliar with the topic to the point of not being aware of the biggest, most divisive hot-button issues concerning that topic.

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

But no reiterate, I don't think liking or defending Mike or liking or defending his book are things that should cause anyone to be run off the board. And even if you do something I find disagreeable like making a comment that I perceive to be unfair (e.g. assuming people who don't like the book will be "haters"), even then I'm not advocating for you or anyone to go away. I'm simply criticizing (if applicable) those comments.

Hey man

I really appreciate your considered response. A lot. Thank you.

[CenturyDeprived]

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't dislike you. I don't know you, and I figure most don't.

In my opinion, I like to lean towards a very liberal, open form of discussion. Despite disagreeing with things you might say, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to post them here.

Rather, I think anyone that posts anything then has to cope with the response. So, for instance, when David Beard posted a few articles about Brian (and Mike) that many people had a myriad of issues with, my feeling was not that the articles should have been censored or anything of that nature. Rather, he then has to deal with the response (so long as it doesn't turn into trolling or abuse, etc.).

So if someone says your comments (or mine) are offensive, or just disagreeable, or lamentable, or ill-advised, etc., and even if someone questions the motives of such comments (which admittedly can quickly *turn* into a more personal issue, though someone's motives can be questioned without personal digs), I don't think anyone is calling for you (or I) to go away or not post, nor is anyone calling for censorship.

We just all have to be prepared for a response.

I think in your case you appeared out of nowhere (as far as the board was concerned) some time back and posed an apparent open question concerning what is undoubtedly *the most divisive* issue regarding this group and its fandom. So people will start to jump to wondering if it's tinged with a bit of trollishness, or at least a small streak of enjoying being a s**t-disturber.

I don't have an exact analogy, but it's something like going into a Van Halen discussion and asking seemingly innocently about who is better, Roth or Hagar. Or going into a comic book movie discussion and seemingly innocently asking which is better, DC or Marvel. It's not that one can't ask those questions innocently. It just seems unlikely that someone would both A) Have the level of interest to enter the discussion, but B) Be unfamiliar with the topic to the point of not being aware of the biggest, most divisive hot-button issues concerning that topic.

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

But no reiterate, I don't think liking or defending Mike or liking or defending his book are things that should cause anyone to be run off the board. And even if you do something I find disagreeable like making a comment that I perceive to be unfair (e.g. assuming people who don't like the book will be "haters"), even then I'm not advocating for you or anyone to go away. I'm simply criticizing (if applicable) those comments.

Hey man

I really appreciate your considered response. A lot. Thank you.

I too concur with HeyJude, Iain. And I appreciate your posts, please stick around.

[rab2591]

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

Agreed 100% with your whole post, HeyJude. I'd also like to add that Iain came to the board to ask a question for an article and then proceeded to write an article that ignored the rational responses to his posed question. Go back and read the entirety of his initial thread then read his article: You're right HeyJude, it was like Iain already knew the article he wanted to write, then ignored the arguments that didn't fit his narrative.

Do you guys think this type of "journalism" actually helps Mike? It's the same exact tactic we're seeing from filledeplage above: twist, dodge, ignore any rational arguments that may cast the slightest negative light on Mike Love. It doesn't do you or Mike any favors when you have to duck and dodge logical arguments in an attempt to get your point across.

[STE]

I get the feeling some people don't like me here. If I've done anything wrong, I apologise. Should I see myself out? I really don't want to be somewhere where people aggressively dislike me. (You'll say no one has been aggressive except me...ok...eye of the beholder and all that)

Serious question. I like the BB. I like talking about the BB. This thread is no a sh*t stirring thread. Swear on my life that's not why I started it. I assumed a few more of you might had proofs and heck, it comes out soon. This was a genuine attempt to get a conversation going. But. There are a few of you who won't believe that and so constantly take shots and have digs at me. If you'd rather I left, I'll go.

Hey Ian, stay mate. I enjoy the tone of your posts and your work outside this forum.

[Cool Cool Water]

'Mike Love Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy Teaser....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1KPMzDCybo&feature=youtu.be

[Lee Marshall]

That you then proceeded to write an article in defense of Mike Love was something that left me feeling NOT that you shouldn't be able to write the article. But rather, I felt (and this could be wrong) like you already felt that an article in defense of Mike was what you wanted to write and that you came on the board to solicit or elicit "anti-Mike" comments to help "prove" why Mike is unfairly villainized.

it was like Iain already knew the article he wanted to write, then ignored the arguments that didn't fit his narrative.

Do you guys think this type of "journalism" actually helps Mike?

Jeez...I may be breaking the friggin' rules here.  I don't care...if I did...BAN my sorry ass.  I've only used the part of the quote I want to respond to...NOT to make it look as though 'rab' said something different than what he actually posted... ... ...

THIS 'concept of jottin' crap down and pressing 'post' or 'send' isn't journalism rab.  Not even close.  It doesn't even lend itself  to being considered 1/2-assed fictional 'writing'.  What it DOES lend itself to becoming is merely more 'bullshit with a completely shallow and transparent agenda'.  It IS an attempt to circumvent fact and reality and replace it with a fictionalized rewrite and semi-analyses of the actual TRUTH.  It is, at the very best, ONLY a feeble and failed defense of the indefensible.

There is SO MUCH OF THAT here at THIS specific website that it turns the facility into a snoozatorium.

I have NO idea if that was or is Iain's notion.  He is just as welcome, I'm sure, to post here as anyone else.  IF it is his goal...that'll just lump him in with another dozen or so 'windbaggies' who contribute nothing but roadblocks and pot holes to a meaningful discussion and to the attempt to make sense out of a mountain of nonsense.