gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 03:37:58 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike opens up about Melinda.  (Read 65841 times)
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #150 on: September 16, 2016, 11:57:50 AM »


This is not about me.  The topic is an unsigned article connected to the book.  

Thanks for ignoring everything I've said, as usual.

I hope you're as forgiving about Mike using a negative review to pretend to insinuate the New York Times liked his book as you would be the next time you spend hard earned bucks to see a turkey like The Wicker Man, Lady in the Water, Southland Tales, or The Garbage Pail Kids Movie in the theater (that you buy tix for based on a "positive" review you saw in the paper).

I hope the usage of twisting a bad review into a positive won't bug you one bit. Everything's ok as long as it's Mike who does it, right?

Garbage Pail Kid Vibrations
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:10:03 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #151 on: September 16, 2016, 11:58:00 AM »

Is there no room to entertain the possibility of journalist sloppiness with an unsigned article?  Or, just speculation?  

You need to specify what your allegation is then.

I don't trust the media a great deal, but I trust CBS more than I trust you, so I'm waiting for some indicator that CBS fabricated or incorrectly transcribed an interview with Mike Love.
Logged

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

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: September 16, 2016, 11:59:22 AM »


Is there a difference as between the "nameless" interview and the book? Yes, there is.

Are you suggesting CBS fabricated the interview? What are you trying to say?
Are you?

 Shocked

Compare the two, it ain't rocket science.

This is extraordinarily rude. And a disjunction between two sources does not automatically follow that one of the sources is fabricated. That's just speculative reasoning.
What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

Excuse me, but I have tried since page one of this thread to get someone who has read the book to explain whether or not there was a disjunction between the two sources. I haven't commented on the substance of the book whatsoever. If you are suggesting that I have, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, am I to understand that I can't even ask a question about a book I haven't read?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:00:16 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #153 on: September 16, 2016, 11:59:51 AM »


What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

What I think is rude is purposely trolling a thread and refusing to discuss the *actual topic* of the thread in question. It's also potentially rude to imply with no evidence that CBS is fabricating stories or quotes.

I'd say this thread should just be locked, but I think that's what the purpose of trolling this thread is. Is there another solution?
Logged

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

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #154 on: September 16, 2016, 12:01:19 PM »

Excuse me, but I have tried since page one of this thread to get someone who has read the book to explain whether or not there was a disjunction between the two sources. Am I to understand that I can't even ask a question about a book I haven't read?

Your questions are completely fair, and you shouldn't have to have read the book to participate in these discussions.

I find it odd that someone who cites specific page numbers and claims to have read the entire book refuses to actually cite or even paraphrase a very simple point that is in question.
Logged

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

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #155 on: September 16, 2016, 12:02:49 PM »


What you are doing is THE worst fangirl viral marketing campaign in the history of the internet.


 LOL
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #156 on: September 16, 2016, 12:04:14 PM »

CD! LOL
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
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: September 16, 2016, 12:09:01 PM »


Is there a difference as between the "nameless" interview and the book? Yes, there is.

Are you suggesting CBS fabricated the interview? What are you trying to say?
Are you?

 Shocked

Compare the two, it ain't rocket science.

This is extraordinarily rude. And a disjunction between two sources does not automatically follow that one of the sources is fabricated. That's just speculative reasoning.
What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

Excuse me, but I have tried since page one of this thread to get someone who has read the book to explain whether or not there was a disjunction between the two sources. I haven't commented on the substance of the book whatsoever. If you are suggesting that I have, please demonstrate it. Otherwise, am I to understand that I can't even ask a question about a book I haven't read?
CSM - here is the disconnect.  The nameless-byline article has a different version of the account from the book.  Read it or don't read it - your choice.   You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that. 
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #158 on: September 16, 2016, 12:10:52 PM »

Keep it up, you are getting west coast M&B comps at this point...
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
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: September 16, 2016, 12:12:08 PM »


What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

What I think is rude is purposely trolling a thread and refusing to discuss the *actual topic* of the thread in question. It's also potentially rude to imply with no evidence that CBS is fabricating stories or quotes.

I'd say this thread should just be locked, but I think that's what the purpose of trolling this thread is. Is there another solution?

I don't know how many here saw the video yesterday that has since - thankfully - been removed.  What I read in the article appears to be a transcript of the interview, verbatim, so I don't think attributing authorship is necessary.  It's a transcript. CBS has published it.   I heard the quote indicated in this written link and it was in Mike's voice with his usual semi-tearful comments as he launches an attack.  

I'd love to think we can move on from the trolling, but I seriously doubt it.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #160 on: September 16, 2016, 12:12:33 PM »

You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that. 

There's one way to be more specific: Offer the actual quote from the book. Or paraphrase.

Anything else at this point is disrespectful to the person who asked the question, and amounts to trolling. My opinion is that this trolling should be dealt with, as it, and it alone, has derailed numerous threads relating specifically or tangentially to Mike's book.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:14:52 PM by HeyJude » Logged

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

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #161 on: September 16, 2016, 12:13:48 PM »

I don't know how many here saw the video yesterday that has since - thankfully - been removed.  What I read in the article appears to be a transcript of the interview, verbatim, so I don't think attributing authorship is necessary.  It's a transcript. CBS has published it.   I heard the quote indicated in this written link and it was in Mike's voice with his usual semi-tearful comments as he launches an attack.  

I'd love to think we can move on from the trolling, but I seriously doubt it.

Exactly. I was going to bring up that there was video of this interview as well, which apparently may not be able to be viewed anymore. Calling CBS's report into question is specious at best.
Logged

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

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: September 16, 2016, 12:14:06 PM »

Excuse me, but I have tried since page one of this thread to get someone who has read the book to explain whether or not there was a disjunction between the two sources. Am I to understand that I can't even ask a question about a book I haven't read?

Your questions are completely fair, and you shouldn't have to have read the book to participate in these discussions.

I find it odd that someone who cites specific page numbers and claims to have read the entire book refuses to actually cite or even paraphrase a very simple point that is in question.
Hey Jude - you have the pages, too, if and when you decide to be read the book.  You have the cites.  I am not paraphrasing anything.  It comes straight from the material.  
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #163 on: September 16, 2016, 12:16:21 PM »

It comes straight from the material.  

Nothing is coming straight from the material, because you're not actually saying anything.

I'd say more, but sorry everyone, you'll have to go buy my memoirs.....  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: September 16, 2016, 12:18:22 PM »


What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

What I think is rude is purposely trolling a thread and refusing to discuss the *actual topic* of the thread in question. It's also potentially rude to imply with no evidence that CBS is fabricating stories or quotes.

I'd say this thread should just be locked, but I think that's what the purpose of trolling this thread is. Is there another solution?

I don't know how many here saw the video yesterday that has since - thankfully - been removed.  What I read in the article appears to be a transcript of the interview, verbatim, so I don't think attributing authorship is necessary.  It's a transcript. CBS has published it.   I heard the quote indicated in this written link and it was in Mike's voice with his usual semi-tearful comments as he launches an attack.  

I'd love to think we can move on from the trolling, but I seriously doubt it.
Debbie - I saw no video.  There is a disparity as between the article and the book.  A lot in the media is edited for whatever reason whether for space or time or whatever.  All I can say is that the words are not an overlay as between the book and the article.  Whether things got lost in translation or whatever.  I can't speak to that.  Nor should I be expected to account for the discrepancy as between the two.  
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #165 on: September 16, 2016, 12:18:47 PM »

This is insanity to say only Mike's words matter even when it's a video interview of him contradicting himself.
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
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #166 on: September 16, 2016, 12:18:54 PM »


This is not about me.  The topic is an unsigned article connected to the book.  

Thanks for ignoring everything I've said, as usual.

I hope you're as forgiving about Mike using a negative review to pretend to insinuate the New York Times liked his book as you would be the next time you spend hard earned bucks to see a turkey like The Wicker Man, Lady in the Water, Southland Tales, or The Garbage Pail Kids Movie in the theater (that you buy tix for based on a "positive" review you saw in the paper).

I hope the usage of twisting a bad review into a positive won't bug you one bit. Everything's ok as long as it's Mike who does it, right?

Garbage Pail Kid Vibrations

Any response, FDP? Are you cool with spinning negative reviews into positive, isolated, out-of-context snippets to spin a positive? Would it not bug you to find yourself in the theater having spent bucks on The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Ishtar, Troll 2, or Mars Needs Moms based on "positive" reviews in the newspaper?

Even if Mike's book is light years ahead of those (as I'm genuinely sure it is), does the concept of spinning a bad review into a positive not bug you at all?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:22:32 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: September 16, 2016, 12:19:06 PM »

CSM - here is the disconnect.  The nameless-byline article has a different version of the account from the book.  Read it or don't read it - your choice.   You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that.  

More specifically, Mike is quoted as having a different version of the account from the book. And like I said above, there are numerous possibilities as to why there is a disjunction.

If it is the case that the article is fabricated, I would be curious as to your thoughts as to why Mike Love's Twitter account linked to what appears to have been an earlier version of the same story from CBS on his twitter account:

https://twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/776431117133946880

Quite interesting though that that article, which led one Twitter follower to observe that it's a shame how "things were/are so contentious" leading me to believe that the substance of the two articles was probably similar.

EDIT: After reading Debbie's post above, this earlier article was obviously the one with the video.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:21:24 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
bossaroo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1631


...let's be friends...


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: September 16, 2016, 12:20:44 PM »

man you guys are a patient lot. I stopped addressing fdp directly a long time ago for obvious reasons.

I guess in her roundabout way she is confirming that indeed Mike has offered two very different accounts of Melinda using the f-word, to whom she was addressing, and about whom she was describing.

so yes, Mike took an isolated incident from early in the C50 tour in which Melinda was standing up for her husband, spun it around and completely changed the specifics in an attempt to explain why the reunion fell apart. once again, he is deflecting the blame onto someone else and inventing yet another false reason as to why the reunion didn't continue.

and it only took 7 pages to get to the bottom of this!  Wink
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #169 on: September 16, 2016, 12:22:14 PM »

man you guys are a patient lot. I stopped addressing fdp directly a long time ago for obvious reasons.

I guess in her roundabout way she is confirming that indeed Mike has offered two very different accounts of Melinda using the f-word, to whom she was addressing, and about whom she was describing.

so yes, Mike took an isolated incident from early in the C50 tour in which Melinda was standing up for her husband, spun it around and completely changed the specifics in an attempt to explain why the reunion fell apart. once again, he is deflecting the blame onto someone else and inventing yet another false reason as to why the reunion didn't continue.

and it only took 7 pages to get to the bottom of this!  Wink

I can't deny, this does sum it up quite well. Well put!
Logged

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

Posts: 817


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: September 16, 2016, 12:22:51 PM »


What I think is rude is the continuing harangue about a book that you have not read and compared to an unsigned article.

What I think is rude is purposely trolling a thread and refusing to discuss the *actual topic* of the thread in question. It's also potentially rude to imply with no evidence that CBS is fabricating stories or quotes.

I'd say this thread should just be locked, but I think that's what the purpose of trolling this thread is. Is there another solution?

I don't know how many here saw the video yesterday that has since - thankfully - been removed.  What I read in the article appears to be a transcript of the interview, verbatim, so I don't think attributing authorship is necessary.  It's a transcript. CBS has published it.   I heard the quote indicated in this written link and it was in Mike's voice with his usual semi-tearful comments as he launches an attack.  

I'd love to think we can move on from the trolling, but I seriously doubt it.
Debbie - I saw no video.  There is a disparity as between the article and the book.  A lot in the media is edited for whatever reason whether for space or time or whatever.  All I can say is that the words are not an overlay as between the book and the article.  Whether things got lost in translation or whatever.  I can't speak to that.  Nor should I be expected to account for the discrepancy as between the two.  

Then show some respect for those of us who saw it and recognize the script - offered by CBS - as a transcript.  It's a blatant discrepancy between your book quotes and what he said to CBS.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:24:38 PM by Debbie KL » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: September 16, 2016, 12:23:01 PM »

CSM - here is the disconnect.  The nameless-byline article has a different version of the account from the book.  Read it or don't read it - your choice.   You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that.  

More specifically, Mike is quoted as having a different version of the account from the book. And like I said above, there are numerous possibilities as to why there is a disjunction.

If it is the case that the article is fabricated, I would be curious as to your thoughts as to why Mike Love's Twitter account linked to what appears to have been an earlier version of the same story from CBS on his twitter account:

https://twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/776431117133946880

Quite interesting though that that article, which led one Twitter follower to observe that it's a shame how "things were/are so contentious" leading me to believe that the substance of the two articles was probably similar.
Did I say it was fabricated?  I don't think so and do not put words in my mouth.  I said there were discrepancies as between the two which Smiley-morphed into "fabrication." This is Mike's book.  I like what I read in Brian's book preview and will read that, too.  Wink

Have a great weekend!  Wink
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:23:40 PM by filledeplage » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #172 on: September 16, 2016, 12:24:15 PM »

CSM - here is the disconnect.  The nameless-byline article has a different version of the account from the book.  Read it or don't read it - your choice.   You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that.  

More specifically, Mike is quoted as having a different version of the account from the book. And like I said above, there are numerous possibilities as to why there is a disjunction.

If it is the case that the article is fabricated, I would be curious as to your thoughts as to why Mike Love's Twitter account linked to what appears to have been an earlier version of the same story from CBS on his twitter account:

https://twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/776431117133946880

Quite interesting though that that article, which led one Twitter follower to observe that it's a shame how "things were/are so contentious" leading me to believe that the substance of the two articles was probably similar.
Did I say it was fabricated?  I don't think so and do not put words in my mouth.  I said there were discrepancies as between the two which Smiley-morphed into "fabrication." This is Mike's book.  I like what I read in Brian's book preview and will read that, too.  Wink

Have a great weekend!  Wink

Speaking of Troll 2...
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: September 16, 2016, 12:27:06 PM »

CSM - here is the disconnect.  The nameless-byline article has a different version of the account from the book.  Read it or don't read it - your choice.   You have a page to look at.  Can't be more specific than that.  

More specifically, Mike is quoted as having a different version of the account from the book. And like I said above, there are numerous possibilities as to why there is a disjunction.

If it is the case that the article is fabricated, I would be curious as to your thoughts as to why Mike Love's Twitter account linked to what appears to have been an earlier version of the same story from CBS on his twitter account:

https://twitter.com/MikeLoveOFCL/status/776431117133946880

Quite interesting though that that article, which led one Twitter follower to observe that it's a shame how "things were/are so contentious" leading me to believe that the substance of the two articles was probably similar.
Did I say it was fabricated?  I don't think so and do not put words in my mouth.  I said there were discrepancies as between the two which Smiley-morphed into "fabrication." This is Mike's book.  I like what I read in Brian's book preview and will read that, too.  Wink

Have a great weekend!  Wink

Well if you want to play that game:

Did I say you said it was fabricated? Please show me where I said so. Otherwise, I would like an apology for you accusing me of putting words in your mouth.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #174 on: September 16, 2016, 12:28:22 PM »

May I also suggest, as I have concerning the idea that certain parties likely would love to derail such threads, that certain parties would also love to craft a narrative that detractors of Mike "haven't even read the book."

Other than CD's aforementioned "worst viral marketing campaign ever!" theory, I think this may be the reason for the constant "go read the book" proclamations and refusal to actually confirm or deny what is in the book.

I theorized long ago that the issue of when, how, and whether fans would actually purchase and read Mike's book would probably become one of those weird subtexts to these debates. And I think this is dangerous and potentially offensive to people on this board.

Obviously, if someone hasn't read the book, they shouldn't claim things about what is or isn't in the book. They can certainly ask. But there are a TON of reasons why someone either might not yet have the book, or can't carry it around with them 24/7, or haven't yet read the whole thing, etc. Maybe they're saving money up for it. Maybe they have it but have an actual job and life to attend to and can't give the book their full attention just yet. And so on.

The "if you haven't even read the book" thing is also funny because Mike has admitted in interviews that he never read the very Brian fake autobiography than he sued over. He certainly felt he could speak to its contents sufficiently.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.466 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!