AGD missing, the future of this forum

[rab2591]

I don't want to retread the Desper situation too much, and I certainly value his knowledge and experience with the BBs and would always love to see more info from him.

But I do think there was a bit too much incredulity regarding his post favorably comparing Trump rallies to the band's touring setup, etc.. It was *obvious* why people saw it as an unneeded politically-tinged post, and that's because it was imbued with some politics. I found the comparison to be supremely odd; a thread about the BB's touring setup could have been started without any reference to Trump or politics at all. But it wasn't a big deal.

I'd point to some examples regarding that episode, but unless my forum search skills are not serving me well, it appears that entire thread is gone. Not locked, but gone completely.

In any event, that episode didn't strike me as a *huge* deal, and I certainly didn't see how it warranted Mr. Desper leaving. He was engaged in discussion about the overtones present in his post, and a discussion ensued. I think part of the hubbub on that old thread was debate over whether it should be moved to the Sandbox, rather than anyone finding anything about the post/thread so heinous. I hope Mr. Desper comes back. But I don't blame anyone here as if he was "run off" the board or anything. I've never been a fan of walking on egg shells here for fear someone will leave. Sometimes honored guests are needlessly trolled on boards (in which case it should be dealt with and usually is), and sometimes they're fairly and on even ground engaged in discussion or taken to task, or whatever the situation is.

The guy who mixed Sunflower to perfection (and who had a seemingly infinite supply of Beach Boys anecdotes and an unmatched knowledge of Beach Boys production) saw similarities between the different styles of campaigning and Beach Boys touring. It wasn't solely about Trump...he also included a paragraph about how Hillary's campaigning mirrored that of some eras of Beach Boy touring where they did more intimate tours. The whole point of his post was that he was reminded that both ways of reaching out to an audience are powerful.

I guess when it comes to a revered member who is actually contributing priceless information there should be a certain level of respect and understanding. I agree that walking on eggshells isn't something we should have to do on a messageboard, but when it comes to people who contribute information (and music) that no one else has, when they bring up a pretty harmless topic about being reminded of different touring styles, it's probably best for people not to go into total tantrum mode.

But I think people rightly got a bit hung up on the fact that Mr. Desper didn't want to admit that what he was saying was, as some would tend to read it, somewhat of a "positive" interpretation of something (in this case Trump's rallies) that many saw as so egregiously about so many negative things (people being beat up at rallies, hate and racism being spewed at the rallies, etc.).

I totally understand your perspective of things. And I admittedly didn't follow along with that thread too much. I didn't read any follow up posts by Desper (or don't remember them) but I do remember that his initial post was remarking on both sides of the campaign and how they compared to Beach Boys touring. Talking about how Trump went from one state to another in one day to rally at stadiums is not at all endorsing what was said that those rallies. In that initial post he never even mentioned what was said at those rallies.

When was the last time a band/candidate/etc made such a splash doing a state-to-state marathon tour multiple times a day with packed stadiums? It is only logical that someone who saw firsthand the Beach Boys touring of that same kind would draw a comparison.

Again, I totally get what you're saying, and I really shouldn't be the one defending his words as I only remember one of his posts in that thread. But I really do stand by the idea that, given what Desper has given us throughout the years, people really blew that whole thing out of proportion.

[JK]

But I really do stand by the idea that, given what Desper has given us throughout the years, people really blew that whole thing out of proportion.

Yep. Damn shame, that.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't want to retread the Desper situation too much, and I certainly value his knowledge and experience with the BBs and would always love to see more info from him.

But I do think there was a bit too much incredulity regarding his post favorably comparing Trump rallies to the band's touring setup, etc.. It was *obvious* why people saw it as an unneeded politically-tinged post, and that's because it was imbued with some politics. I found the comparison to be supremely odd; a thread about the BB's touring setup could have been started without any reference to Trump or politics at all. But it wasn't a big deal.

I'd point to some examples regarding that episode, but unless my forum search skills are not serving me well, it appears that entire thread is gone. Not locked, but gone completely.

In any event, that episode didn't strike me as a *huge* deal, and I certainly didn't see how it warranted Mr. Desper leaving. He was engaged in discussion about the overtones present in his post, and a discussion ensued. I think part of the hubbub on that old thread was debate over whether it should be moved to the Sandbox, rather than anyone finding anything about the post/thread so heinous. I hope Mr. Desper comes back. But I don't blame anyone here as if he was "run off" the board or anything. I've never been a fan of walking on egg shells here for fear someone will leave. Sometimes honored guests are needlessly trolled on boards (in which case it should be dealt with and usually is), and sometimes they're fairly and on even ground engaged in discussion or taken to task, or whatever the situation is.

The guy who mixed Sunflower to perfection (and who had a seemingly infinite supply of Beach Boys anecdotes and an unmatched knowledge of Beach Boys production) saw similarities between the different styles of campaigning and Beach Boys touring. It wasn't solely about Trump...he also included a paragraph about how Hillary's campaigning mirrored that of some eras of Beach Boy touring where they did more intimate tours. The whole point of his post was that he was reminded that both ways of reaching out to an audience are powerful.

I guess when it comes to a revered member who is actually contributing priceless information there should be a certain level of respect and understanding. I agree that walking on eggshells isn't something we should have to do on a messageboard, but when it comes to people who contribute information (and music) that no one else has, when they bring up a pretty harmless topic about being reminded of different touring styles, it's probably best for people not to go into total tantrum mode.

THIS x10000.

I hate Trump, despise the man, his politics, etc. But I can handle someone comparing the touring aspects of a campaign with similar aspects to the band's touring. It was ultimately not a post about politics (even if it was "secretly" some sort of pro-Trump message, who cares?) It was really very unfortunate that people got pissed about it and mouthed off to the point where Stephen left. Very, very unfortunate and totally unnecessary.

Again - who cares if he was even attempting on purpose to imply something good about one of the candidates (in a post that actually had pertinent, never-before-heard information on the band)? I fail to see how that matters in context.  How people would prioritize telling off someone, even if it means they leave and take their expertise with them. Most importantly, Stephen brought no toxicity to this board.

Yes, I am someone who'd want to talk to someone about political views that I view as being uncool, but that thread ultimately was talking about the band, and people should have checked their politics at the door for that one. No doubt about it. I get how many of us are very emotionally charged (including me) about this era which we are in now... but still, the way some posters reacted felt like a really shortsighted way of handling that situation.

[Bicyclerider]

I did not vote for Trump but I just don't understand the intolerance of pro-Hillary or anti-Trump groups for people with political views other than their own.  I find the idea that if a band wanted to play the Trump inauguration, Hollywood people and other artists would threaten them with never getting any kind of work again abhorrent.  This is a democracy and not only should we tolerate alternative points of view, freedom of speech requires that it is protected and should be celebrated - we at least have freedom of speech in this country, unlike many others around the world.  Notice I'm talking alternative points of view - not hate speech, which I realize many feel Trump used during the campaign, which of course should be criticized and "deplored" to borrow a Hillary phrase.

I think this forum is for debating and discussing alternative points of view on the Beach boys music and history, not political issues - other than the Sandbox.  Let's leave it there.

[Scaroline No]

But I don't blame anyone here as if he was "run off" the board or anything.

Agree 100%! I said as much. Nobody's to blame for Mr. Desper's leave.

I think I remember what happened... Mr. Desper made an unfortunate comparison between some band members antics and Trump's "locker room" comments. He retracted it pretty quickly, but not before a smileysmiler (I don't remember who, and it doesn't matter anyway, I agree it's no one's fault Mr. Desper took leave of this forum) screencapped it and posted the retracted statements. I remember this because it rubbed me the wrong way (because it implicated Beach Boys band members in actions that they may not be able to defend themselves for in their deceased state). I said I thought that posting a screencap of the retracted statement was not a cool thing to do, and I think there was some agreement at that point to lock or remove the thread.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Desper had already made the "leaving this town" announcement prior to the screencap getting posted. Still, I didn't think it was fair to let that statement to be left visible.

[DonnyL]

I won't comment on the others, but from what I recall of the posts that lead to Desper leaving, my take is that a bunch of people overreacted and made it political.

It may or may not have been a subtle nod to Trump, but I'd say this supposed "endorsement" was barely implied (if implied at all) and could have been avoided in the responses.

I assume what caused Desper to leave is that he wasn't being treated with respect by several posters, and I assume he doesn't want to share his inside knowledge in that kind of environment.

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

[rab2591]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

[DonnyL]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

Yeh I suppose it's akin to somehow having Mike Love posting on the board ... sharing his insights into the recording of Wild Honey, and mentioning that Brian was doing too many drugs at the time ... then everyone piling up on him about the drug comment ... meanwhile, we lose the Wild Honey stories!

[Rocky Raccoon]

This is kind of random but whatever happened to Jon Stebbins?  Haven't seen him here in a long time.

[rab2591]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

Yeh I suppose it's akin to somehow having Mike Love posting on the board ... sharing his insights into the recording of Wild Honey, and mentioning that Brian was doing too many drugs at the time ... then everyone piling up on him about the drug comment ... meanwhile, we lose the Wild Honey stories!

If he said what he told the Detroit Free Press last year ("Brian’s life is controlled completely. It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated.") I wouldn't hope for a positive outcome from even the most quiet posters here.

[RangeRoverA1]

I think I remember what happened... Mr. Desper made an unfortunate comparison between some band members antics and Trump's "locker room" comments. He retracted it pretty quickly, but not before a smileysmiler (I don't remember who, and it doesn't matter anyway, I agree it's no one's fault Mr. Desper took leave of this forum) screencapped it and posted the retracted statements. I remember this because it rubbed me the wrong way (because it implicated Beach Boys band members in actions that they may not be able to defend themselves for in their deceased state). I said I thought that posting a screencap of the retracted statement was not a cool thing to do, and I think there was some agreement at that point to lock or remove the thread.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Desper had already made the "leaving this town" announcement prior to the screencap getting posted. Still, I didn't think it was fair to that statement to be left visible.

Screenshot wasn't big deal imo. But glad we agree it's nobody's fault. He was good poster with great info. Those who think he was treated unfairly & it made him leave, we'll agree to disagree. It's just that, checking that thread, some people had flying reactions to anything "Trump". It was valid too, I think.

[DonnyL]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

Yeh I suppose it's akin to somehow having Mike Love posting on the board ... sharing his insights into the recording of Wild Honey, and mentioning that Brian was doing too many drugs at the time ... then everyone piling up on him about the drug comment ... meanwhile, we lose the Wild Honey stories!

If he said what he told the Detroit Free Press last year ("Brian’s life is controlled completely. It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated.") I wouldn't hope for a positive outcome from even the most quiet posters here.

I think that's the inherent problem here. We can't simply sit and accept someone saying something we disagree with without making a huge deal about it ... we have to be moral saviors. We should expect Mike to say things like that if he were to come on the board ... end result is that this board is a hostile environment to people like Mike Love (for example) ... I think the board should own that.

[HeyJude]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

But it's also worth noting that Desper was not suspended or banned or anything of the sort, and nobody ever suggested (as far as I can remember) that he should be.

So if the issue at hand was banning him or taking any action against him due to mentioning a divisive political figure in a potentially positive light, I would absolutely agree that he should be given plenty of leeway. More than others? I don't know, but I don't even think that's at play in this case as he didn't do anything that needed action. I wouldn't particularly say an "honored guest" should be given any more leeway to insult others, etc. But again, this doesn't apply to Desper.

The issue at play in that thread was actually eventually less about Mr. Desper and more about the ostracizing or criticism of those who were critical of him. It had somewhat of a vibe (and this has happened online at various forums over the years were "insiders" are present) of advocating to not take an "Honored Guest" to task the way we would someone else on the board. I don't agree with that. It's not like other clear cases of unwarranted haranguing of insiders, such as questioning things where the insider *clearly* has expertise and experience we don't. If Desper described something Brian did in the studio one time, and someone disagreed and said Desper was full of beans, I'd say that's totally unwarranted.

But the disagreeable aspect (to some) of Desper's comments had nothing do with his expertise of the band. Nobody denied what he was saying about the Beach Boys' sound system, etc. They questioned a number of things (appropriateness, effectiveness of analogy, potential for some level of political advocacy for the candidate in question) where Mr. Desper is no more an expert than anyone else here.

I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Desper stopped posting, and I think both sides of that old thread could probably go back in time and handle it better. But I also don't like the threat of an "insider" leaving, or an "insider" actually leaving, being used, even if unknowingly, as sort of a weapon or argument against being able to debate, even with an insider. And the only reason I waded back into this topic is because I don't think it's fair, in the event that someone is coming away with such an impression, to characterize the situation to imply that a slew of posters here were harassing or "ran off" Steve Desper.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

With all due respect to Mr. Desper, I can't say I agree with this. If I were a historian interviewing a subject, yes, I would do my best to do whatever possible to get the information I wanted to get. But this is not an interview setting, it's a community and when we post something, it is generally to start a conversation and in a conversation people might disagree with what you are saying. Short of what Brian did here, which was to have people ask questions in advance, then leave a response, then leave completely, I'm not sure if there is really any way around it. People shouldn't be treated badly but I think disagreeing with a point, or even the phrasing of a point, is not something we need to accept as an instance of wrong-doing.

[HeyJude]

I think that's the inherent problem here. We can't simply sit and accept someone saying something we disagree with without making a huge deal about it ... we have to be moral saviors. We should expect Mike to say things like that if he were to come on the board ... end result is that this board is a hostile environment to people like Mike Love (for example) ... I think the board should own that.

Maybe some people think they're exacting some sort of change or being a "savoir" by saying they disagree with some a-hole comment Mike or someone else makes. But I'm not under that illusion, and I don't sense most others are.

It's a discussion board. We discuss. We're not changing anything. The fact that we have thread after thread of "wish lists" that BRI ignores is proof we're usually not actually *changing* anything by discussing it here.

Usually, when we disagree with something someone has done or said, there tends to be more to say. When we agree, there's sometimes not much more to say than "Right on, I agree."

As long as the discussion pertains to the topic of this board (and things Mike says about Brian certainly is "on topic" material), I see nothing wrong with it.

If this board were a "hostile" environment for Mike Love (and I wouldn't use that term, I would say it is often quite critical of him), maybe it would be because of the things he has done and said.

[HeyJude]

I won't comment on the others, but from what I recall of the posts that lead to Desper leaving, my take is that a bunch of people overreacted and made it political.

And the fact that many disagreed with such an assessment and felt that his initial post made it "political" to begin with is a clear indication of why that old discussion went the way it did.

He made a post, some read it and saw *nothing* political or objectionable about it, while others read it and saw a ham-fisted, at least subtly politically motivated analogy where the same observations about the band's touring setup (insight into which we all agree Mr. Desper surely is second to none) could have been made without evoking or invoking anything to do with a political candidate.

The discussion then quickly became *not* about what Desper was observing about the Beach Boys, but about admitting or not admitting to the political or apolitical nature of the original comments.

I've been on the internet for over 20 years now, and I can't fathom why it's hard to grasp at this stage why *politics* is almost *always* an off-limits area for most online communities. Other forums police this much more than Smiley Smile (and I'm not suggesting it needs to be policed more here).

Parallel to this was and is the very important fact that the SS board *has* a section where that sort of political stuff can go. It's an outlet many other forums don't have. Many forums don't allow politics even in their "Off Topic Discussions" sections.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It's true no one is forcing anyone to stay or leave, but my opinion (which I assume many disagree with) is the "honored guest" type folks should be given some additional leeway -- i.e., special treatment.

I think most here would agree with this...especially in this case. Those who have actual credentials and don't have a consistent record of abusing their status in the community should be given leeway if they ever get out of line (ie break a board rule or mouth off to an unruly poster). As CD stated, "Stephen brought no toxicity to this board." - he did nothing but consistently bring his wonderful knowledge, stories, and sometimes personal mixes to share with this community...it's a fact, that.

Yeh I suppose it's akin to somehow having Mike Love posting on the board ... sharing his insights into the recording of Wild Honey, and mentioning that Brian was doing too many drugs at the time ... then everyone piling up on him about the drug comment ... meanwhile, we lose the Wild Honey stories!

If he said what he told the Detroit Free Press last year ("Brian’s life is controlled completely. It has been since Gene Landy, and it still is. And he’s medicated.") I wouldn't hope for a positive outcome from even the most quiet posters here.

I think that's the inherent problem here. We can't simply sit and accept someone saying something we disagree with without making a huge deal about it ... we have to be moral saviors. We should expect Mike to say things like that if he were to come on the board ... end result is that this board is a hostile environment to people like Mike Love (for example) ... I think the board should own that.

Yes, and I hope the board continues to own that end result.

[Marty Castillo]

Can someone help me out here? I thought the old thread was moved to the Sandbox. Did it get deleted entirely? Did Mr. Desper delete it? I can't find it...

[DonnyL]

With all due respect to Mr. Desper, I can't say I agree with this. If I were a historian interviewing a subject, yes, I would do my best to do whatever possible to get the information I wanted to get. But this is not an interview setting, it's a community and when we post something, it is generally to start a conversation and in a conversation people might disagree with what you are saying. Short of what Brian did here, which was to have people ask questions in advance, then leave a response, then leave completely, I'm not sure if there is really any way around it. People shouldn't be treated badly but I think disagreeing with a point, or even the phrasing of a point, is not something we need to accept as an instance of wrong-doing.

There's no wrong-doing in my opinion. The idea of right/wrong is sort of what I'm addressing as problematic.

And you mention something relevant: this is indeed a community forum, but also serves as single best database of info online about the Beach Boys in my opinion. I think we could stand to be more mindful and respectful of that.

Which means we might consider using more discretion in our comments with regard to certain posters/topics ... instead, what often happens is "insider" posters (particularly controversial ones) are baited into bickering and dragged down into the trenches with us.

[JK]

Can someone help me out here? I thought the old thread was moved to the Sandbox. Did it get deleted entirely? Did Mr. Desper delete it? I can't find it...

Yes, very odd. If you look at Mr. Desper's recent posts, it's nowhere to be found:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=2;sa=showPosts

[Scaroline No]

Can someone help me out here? I thought the old thread was moved to the Sandbox. Did it get deleted entirely? Did Mr. Desper delete it? I can't find it...

Yes, very odd. If you look at Mr. Desper's recent posts, it's nowhere to be found:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=2;sa=showPosts

It did get moved to the sandbox, and then I remember it was getting "locked". I don't know if that means the same thing as deleted, but it looks like that's what might have happened.

[HeyJude]

With all due respect to Mr. Desper, I can't say I agree with this. If I were a historian interviewing a subject, yes, I would do my best to do whatever possible to get the information I wanted to get. But this is not an interview setting, it's a community and when we post something, it is generally to start a conversation and in a conversation people might disagree with what you are saying. Short of what Brian did here, which was to have people ask questions in advance, then leave a response, then leave completely, I'm not sure if there is really any way around it. People shouldn't be treated badly but I think disagreeing with a point, or even the phrasing of a point, is not something we need to accept as an instance of wrong-doing.

There's no wrong-doing in my opinion. The idea of right/wrong is sort of what I'm addressing as problematic.

And you mention something relevant: this is indeed a community forum, but also serves as single best database of info online about the Beach Boys in my opinion. I think we could stand to be more mindful and respectful of that.

Which means we might consider using more discretion in our comments with regard to certain posters/topics ... instead, what often happens is "insider" posters (particularly controversial ones) are baited into bickering and dragged down into the trenches with us.

I think that all makes sense. But then it's easy to disagree on whether proper discretion is being used. "Proper discretion" shouldn't mean "don't disagree with the insider" (and I'm not suggesting anyone is saying this issue is that simple), but it can at some point become a slippery slope of having to compromise oneself in order to not tick off an insider. My recollection is that there were no personal insults aimed at Mr. Desper (I could be wrong), but simply disagreement. Perhaps very strong disagreement. As I've said, the "could haves" work both ways. People could have just ignored the political overtones of the Desper thread to avoid the inevitable blow up. But Mr. Desper could have also easily raised the exact same discussion without any political overtones, again for the sake of avoiding an inevitable blow up.

If he had shown me that post prior to posting and asked my opinion, I would have said  something like "I personally find the analogy inappropriate if not egregiously so, and also separately and objectively I can tell you it's probably going to raise some level of a s**t storm given the divisiveness of the guy and that it's the prime time of the election season."

I think what happened is that Mr. Desper was working from a base assumption that many disagreed with, the assumption being that Trump's rallies and Trump in general were not so disagreeable and repugnant that he couldn't be used as a means for favorable comparison (favorable in terms of finding something impressive) to something to do with the Beach Boys. Some people find people or things so objectionable that there's zero call for inconsequential chit-chat related to that person or thing. Some people don't think it's okay or appropriate to have a breezy, nerdy discussion about the brand of microphone Trump uses at rallies. The base topic is so charged that some find that inappropriate.

[Pretty Funky]

Can someone help me out here? I thought the old thread was moved to the Sandbox. Did it get deleted entirely? Did Mr. Desper delete it? I can't find it...

Yes, very odd. If you look at Mr. Desper's recent posts, it's nowhere to be found:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=profile;u=2;sa=showPosts

Seems to have been locked.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24543.0.html

However if it was the subject of the original thread you were after.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24547.0.html

[Steve Latshaw]

<<I think part of the hangup in that old thread (and again, it doesn't appear to be online anymore for some reason, so I'm doing my best to remember) was that it turned into kind of a semantics thing. I think maybe people were too quick to jump to the political angle. But I think people rightly got a bit hung up on the fact that Mr. Desper didn't want to admit that what he was saying was, as some would tend to read it, somewhat of a "positive" interpretation of something (in this case Trump's rallies) that many saw as so egregiously about so many negative things (people being beat up at rallies, hate and racism being spewed at the rallies, etc.).
It having been well established that many people felt that way about those rallies, I don't think it was out of line to question the potential tastelessness of the analogy. >>

AH... now I see.  So Mr. Desper was trying to compare crowd size and crowd enthusiasm at 1970s Beach Boys concerts to crowd size and crowd enthusiasm at Trump rallies last year.  

And asshats on this board attacked him for making a political post, even though that was clearly the furthest thing from his mind.  

And as a consequence to these misplaced, idiotic attacks on Mr. Desper, this board has now lost the unique historical contributions he made to this forum.

Congratulations to all the children who instigated this.  You must be very proud of yourselves.  

[DonnyL]

With all due respect to Mr. Desper, I can't say I agree with this. If I were a historian interviewing a subject, yes, I would do my best to do whatever possible to get the information I wanted to get. But this is not an interview setting, it's a community and when we post something, it is generally to start a conversation and in a conversation people might disagree with what you are saying. Short of what Brian did here, which was to have people ask questions in advance, then leave a response, then leave completely, I'm not sure if there is really any way around it. People shouldn't be treated badly but I think disagreeing with a point, or even the phrasing of a point, is not something we need to accept as an instance of wrong-doing.

There's no wrong-doing in my opinion. The idea of right/wrong is sort of what I'm addressing as problematic.

And you mention something relevant: this is indeed a community forum, but also serves as single best database of info online about the Beach Boys in my opinion. I think we could stand to be more mindful and respectful of that.

Which means we might consider using more discretion in our comments with regard to certain posters/topics ... instead, what often happens is "insider" posters (particularly controversial ones) are baited into bickering and dragged down into the trenches with us.

I think that all makes sense. But then it's easy to disagree on whether proper discretion is being used. "Proper discretion" shouldn't mean "don't disagree with the insider" (and I'm not suggesting anyone is saying this issue is that simple), but it can at some point become a slippery slope of having to compromise oneself in order to not tick off an insider. My recollection is that there were no personal insults aimed at Mr. Desper (I could be wrong), but simply disagreement. Perhaps very strong disagreement. As I've said, the "could haves" work both ways. People could have just ignored the political overtones of the Desper thread to avoid the inevitable blow up. But Mr. Desper could have also easily raised the exact same discussion without any political overtones, again for the sake of avoiding an inevitable blow up.

If he had shown me that post prior to posting and asked my opinion, I would have said  something like "I personally find the analogy inappropriate if not egregiously so, and also separately and objectively I can tell you it's probably going to raise some level of a s**t storm given the divisiveness of the guy and that it's the prime time of the election season."

I think what happened is that Mr. Desper was working from a base assumption that many disagreed with, the assumption being that Trump's rallies and Trump in general were not so disagreeable and repugnant that he couldn't be used as a means for favorable comparison (favorable in terms of finding something impressive) to something to do with the Beach Boys. Some people find people or things so objectionable that there's zero call for inconsequential chit-chat related to that person or thing. Some people don't think it's okay or appropriate to have a breezy, nerdy discussion about the brand of microphone Trump uses at rallies. The base topic is so charged that some find that inappropriate.

Honestly, that would come down to moderation -- the mods would have to monitor and determine if potentially inflammatory posts are brewing (i.e.., "Hey guys, let's keep the politics out of this and just discuss the rally aspect", etc.) ... and removing problematic posts promptly.

I'm on the Ampex tape recorder list ... it is heavily moderated to be on-topic and there are lots of VERY valuable posters there. Things never get out of hand and any hint of conflict is addressed and nipped in the bud. The place is extremely cordial overall, even with the very high number of disgruntled old grizzly bear posters