Does Mike Love realize he is despised by millions of fans?

[rab2591]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You think there is valid criticism yet seem to be perplexed why there is a bias here. Wat.

Yeah, we get things like Nate’s thread, but why does that thread exist? Why isn’t there a “praise for Al Jardine” thread? Or a “praise David Marks” thread? Because they aren’t constant assholes that need a balancing force of “well he’s an asshole but let’s talk about the good they’ve done” - Al and David’s good contributions are implied everywhere on this forum because they consistently gave us fans positive contributions. But then there’s Mike who has made a persistent effort to be an asshole to his previous band mates yet we’re the toxic ones for continually bringing this up because people like you and others either play down the sh*t Mike does or try to make people who point out the sh*t Mike does look like toxic Mike bashers.

Yeah, I don’t know why you waste your time either on this sh*t. Mike has done great things but it’s not some cosmic mystery out of reach of human understanding to realize why people here dislike Mike and mention it constantly. No ones doing this same sh*t to Al, no one is doing it to Dennis. And even though the mediocrely esteemed AGD claims fans here look for villain because we have to...err no, we see a villain because anyone who blatantly lies about their family member in a ridiculous lawsuit is a prick, no matter how many little lunches you have with the guy.

[HeyJude]

And so what if people complain because an artist they like is going to be on an album of an artist they love on an open forum?   

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but as I recall, the Wirestone quote about those who had criticized Brian having guests on NPP had to do with contrasting that against people finding nothing objectionable or sub-par about Mike's DIA single with McGrath.

I would have to agree that it's a bit annoying if someone did plenty of teeth-gnashing when it came to what they felt were gimmicky guest stars on NPP, but then just kind of threw their hands up with a "meh, it's not hurting anyone" reaction to Mike's single.

[guitarfool2002]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

No, KDS, you instead seem to call them like that bullshit quote from Dr. Beach Boy, where the actual truth doesn't get in the way of your opinion and never will. You know where to find those of a like mind at this point if you so choose.

[HeyJude]

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

As I said before, criticism of Mike is almost always prompted by (and/or references) something specific that he has done or said. You'd think Mike or those who tend to defend him would at least occasionally pause to actually *wonder* why so many people criticize him so severely. That doesn't mean every critical comment is valid. But sheesh, maybe there's a reason there is a lot of vitriol lobbed at Mike.

If you choose to not particularly heavily weigh not only the content of that 2005 lawsuit but also what it represents and indicates (in other words, what does the language in it tell us about the person behind it?), then that's of course your prerogative. But when we're talking not about Mike's legit musical contributions to the band, but rather his attitude and his cultivation of image and brand and reputation, etc., and people continually point you to extreme and vile things Mike has said, and you can't really defend those statements (nor particularly does there seem to be any *positive* things Mike says solely about others, beyond his same hand full of boilerplate talking points, that you can cite), then that's perhaps where the disconnect occurs.

[guitarfool2002]

Happy Tuesday!    Remember, it's all about the music.  

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

No, KDS, you instead seem to call them like that bullshit quote from Dr. Beach Boy, where the actual truth doesn't get in the way of your opinion and never will. You know where to find those of a like mind at this point if you so choose.

So, you're telling me that my opinion is wrong again. 

[HeyJude]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

Concerning politics, that's *never* going to be a do-able topic for a message board. But to the degree such discussion is applicable, the same thing that was mentioned above applies: You can say whatever you feel or believe, but that also means you have to face the reaction. Those people get to say what they feel or believe as well. And often, as most of us have faced at one time or another, you're not going to get (nor is anybody entitled to) a 50/50 response to your opinion or stance. You may face resounding and near-unanimous disagreement.

But really, I don't think anybody in this equation is having trouble with this concept. We all understand it. I think the disconnect is happening when looking at the end result/judgment/tone towards, in this case, Mike. You acknowledge the 2005 lawsuit verbiage can't be defended, you acknowledge (to some degree; I can't honestly remember precisely) the sub-par nature of Mike's new single, and so on. This is appreciated, and is farther than some of the staunch Mike defenders have done in the past. The difference is that you're not as heavily weighing those things and the *myriad* of similar instances.

For many fans, Mike is on some level out of benefits of doubt and empathy or sympathy. I think also that one of the reasons this has become inflammatory in recent years online is because the last five or so years has seen a *huge* jump up and then *huge* dip down in this regard. Mike did himself a ton of good by doing C50, but then blew all of that goodwill and then *a lot more* in the aftermath. So yes, for many fans, it has actually been in the last few years that Mike and his words have reached that tipping point.

I'm a little more analytical than that and can't write anybody in the Beach Boys off that much. I've been a fan for eons, and have plenty of cause to have the "I'm done with Mike" attitude, but I honestly don't. I'd actually buy *another* band reunion. I'll actually still read Mike interviews and hope against hope he may have turned a new leaf. I don't expect he will, but even someone as hardened as myself still has that glimmer.

[guitarfool2002]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

No, KDS, you instead seem to call them like that bullshit quote from Dr. Beach Boy, where the actual truth doesn't get in the way of your opinion and never will. You know where to find those of a like mind at this point if you so choose.

So, you're telling me that my opinion is wrong again. 

Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you expect or want from this forum or the admins in terms of those examples you cited. You either accept that this is an open forum or you don't, but if some posters offended you by arguing your opinions about Trump or NPP or anything else on your list, the open forum format allows you to deal with it and reply to their comments. I don't know what you're looking for short of the kind of censorship and banning of those who criticize Mike Love that others have wanted in the past.

You can call em like you see em, but make sure the "em" that you're calling out is actually true.

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

No, KDS, you instead seem to call them like that bullshit quote from Dr. Beach Boy, where the actual truth doesn't get in the way of your opinion and never will. You know where to find those of a like mind at this point if you so choose.

So, you're telling me that my opinion is wrong again. 

Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you expect or want from this forum or the admins in terms of those examples you cited. You either accept that this is an open forum or you don't, but if some posters offended you by arguing your opinions about Trump or NPP or anything else on your list, the open forum format allows you to deal with it and reply to their comments. I don't know what you're looking for short of the kind of censorship and banning of those who criticize Mike Love that others have wanted in the past.

You can call em like you see em, but make sure the "em" that you're calling out is actually true.

I'm not looking for you to do anything. 

I just think when you read somebody talk about how the Smiley Smile Message Board is "toxic" or full of "Mike bashing," there's some validity to it.  I'm not expecting you, or anything else to admit it, but there is.   

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You think there is valid criticism yet seem to be perplexed why there is a bias here. Wat.

Yeah, we get things like Nate’s thread, but why does that thread exist? Why isn’t there a “praise for Al Jardine” thread? Or a “praise David Marks” thread? Because they aren’t constant assholes that need a balancing force of “well he’s an asshole but let’s talk about the good they’ve done” - Al and David’s good contributions are implied everywhere on this forum because they consistently gave us fans positive contributions. But then there’s Mike who has made a persistent effort to be an asshole to his previous band mates yet we’re the toxic ones for continually bringing this up because people like you and others either play down the sh*t Mike does or try to make people who point out the sh*t Mike does look like toxic Mike bashers.

Yeah, I don’t know why you waste your time either on this sh*t. Mike has done great things but it’s not some cosmic mystery out of reach of human understanding to realize why people here dislike Mike and mention it constantly. No ones doing this same sh*t to Al, no one is doing it to Dennis. And even though the mediocrely esteemed AGD claims fans here look for villain because we have to...err no, we see a villain because anyone who blatantly lies about their family member in a ridiculous lawsuit is a prick, no matter how many little lunches you have with the guy.

Ah, thanks Rab for pointing out the BS this board is known for. 

I defended Mike, so I must have an agenda or have "little lunches" with him. 

And, like I've said before, there is valid criticism about Mike (and every member of The Beach Boys for that matter).  But, I think Nate started that thread to counteract some of the nonsensical stuff that gets said about Mike: talentless hack, only wrote car / beach lyrics, and how little things like a 29 year old appearance on a sitcom hurts the BB legacy). 

[HeyJude]

And, like I've said before, there is valid criticism about Mike (and every member of The Beach Boys for that matter).  But, I think Nate started that thread to counteract some of the nonsensical stuff that gets said about Mike: talentless hack, only wrote car / beach lyrics, and how little things like a 29 year old appearance on a sitcom hurts the BB legacy). 

The problem is that by saying there's also valid criticism about every member of the band, you're implying there's a parity between Mike and the others in this regard. I don't think this is the case by any stretch. This is another common tactic used to deflect criticism. "Everybody has their faults." Nobody has said the other BBs are free from criticism. They just don't deserve anywhere near the criticism Mike does, *even* if one believes he's criticized too much. Adding to the irony is that one of the main criticisms of Mike is that *he* highlights the foibles and flaws of others and refused to admit regrets about himself.

"Talentless hack" is silly and untrue of course. "Only wrote car/beach" lyrics is an oversimplification, but if it's amended to "predominantly wrote car/beach lyrics and showed and continues to show a continued aversion to 'downer' lyrics", then that would be a fair encapsulated criticism.

And we've already gone over the "Full House" thing, but again I think it's a deflection to downplay it to just a "29 year old appearance on a sitcom." "Full House" defines the image of the band for many folks more than most anything else from that decade, and we've already debated at length what many feel is the downside to that *heavy* association.

[CenturyDeprived]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize).  

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I think certain people want to excuse certain types of behavior more than others, and that's interestingly reflected in both rabid Mike defense as well as political views. I'll bet this coincidence is probably in sync about 90% of the time.

We don't have to talk politics in this thread anymore; it's just more about me dissecting why some people are prone to defend Mike, and there are some commonalities here that I think can't be ignored.

[KDS]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I hadn't really thought about it to be honest. 

And no worries, I don't take being called a Trump supporter as an insult. 

[Ang Jones]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

Digressing to another subject - the responses to criticism of NPP/BW concerts - shows a weakness in your argument. It's like when people use what is called The Golden Rationalisation: 'Everybody does it' to justify bad behaviour. You may accuse individual posters of hypocrisy if they take offence at any criticism of Brian whilst being unduly critical of Mike but IMO there is a big difference between criticising the quality of something, which is very subjective, and something like the 2005 lawsuit.

[Cabinessenceking]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize).  

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I think certain people want to excuse certain types of behavior more than others, and that's interestingly reflected in both rabid Mike defense as well as political views. I'll bet this coincidence is probably in sync about 90% of the time.

We don't have to talk politics in this thread anymore; it's just more about me dissecting why some people are prone to defend Mike, and there are some commonalities here that I think can't be ignored.

A very fascinating topic indeed. It would suggest that people who act as apologists for "assholes" in politics such as Trump are also more willing to be forgiving towards assholes in the arts like Mike Love.

I'm sure there will be plenty of studies and papers about Trump, his presidency and his supporters who enabled the whole conundrum in the coming years. Should be an enlightening read for certain.

It also puts the Beach Boys in an interesting light of contrasting viewpoints. For me personally when it comes to this band it's all about the music. I have no politics attached to the band at all, after all they were hardly ever political in their music or made politics part of their public image.

The band did however have some connections with the Reagans in the 80s and headlined several 4th of July concerts in that period, and so the band did progressively become attached in the public image as "America's band", which generally means it will be tied to American nationalism which in the modern day is best portrayed by the Republican party and certainly Trump. Mike and Bruce seems to have enjoyed and sought to attach themselves to this connection with American nationalism. American nationalism and white nationalism does root itself in the past - "make america great again", and to some people the Beach Boys music takes them back to what they view as better times for America.

And so the image of the band as been extricably linked to politics, exemplified by the C50 when Bruce was bad-mouthing Obama in public, Trump inauguration concert plans and Mike Love even posing for a picture together with that hideous orange man wearing his self-promoting red MAGA cap the same way Mike wears his own self-promoting Mike Love cap. Even this year during the 4th of July you could see that the "Beach Boys" concert at the capitol building was attended by what looked like a "Trump" crowd.
As a result it comes as less of a surprise that the group has a fan base with split opinions on Mike Love.

[HeyJude]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize).  

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I hadn't really thought about it to be honest.  

And no worries, I don't take being called a Trump supporter as an insult.  

If that issue has never even crossed your mind at any point, then the lack of any interest in putting things in a larger context probably helps to explain why you find a litany of things and issues, especially concerning things Mike has said or done, as not a terribly big deal.

Every fan has their own areas of interest and preferences of course. I personally can't imagine not noticing the strong correlation between a certain strain of politics (and politicians attached to that strain of politics) and those who regularly come out of the woodwork to defend Mike, especially when it comes to specific key issues that tend to pull, at least in some fashion or another, some level of politics into the equation.

For instance, many defenders of Mike tend to point to his playing small markets and venues as a preferable and commendable thing, and some have gone so far as to accuse those who think otherwise (e.g. the band deserves to be playing Madison Square Garden, not a bowling alley grand opening in Alaska) of "elitism" and so on. Same thing came up in the 'Full House" discussion, as if it's snobby to point out that being attached to a s**tty sitcom from the late 80s rather than, say having made a Grammy-nominated album that same year, is a detriment to the band in every conceivable way.

These things probably don't tend to get discussed in intricate detail because political discussion, as I mentioned earlier, is a non-starter in most cases on the "main" section of a fan forum.

But seriously, if your attitude is seriously "Mike Love defenders tend to be politically and otherwise conservative? I would have never even thought about that and never noticed that!", then that helps to explain your train of thought when it comes to the wider topic of the band and Mike and band politics and various debates and discussions.

[KDS]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You know that's bullshit, KDS. The reason why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing" is because there were some vocal and/or prominent interests repeating that kind of bullshit ad nauseum after they tried and failed to take control over  this forum to where people acting as moderators would have to be in a position to make judgements on which posts or posters were "toxic" and make such posts a ban offense, leading up to scrubbing the "toxic" posters off the board entirely. And not ironically most of it if not all of it was focused on people critical of Mike Love.

It was one of the most jaw-droppingly hypocritical examples of the pot calling the kettle black. They failed, and will continue to fail in that pursuit.

Best advice? Stick to the facts. Repeating a lie enough times until it becomes accepted as the truth may work in some circles, but with people who have a little more common sense, that tactic usually serves to expose the bullshitters.

Just sayin'.  

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize). 

Digressing to another subject - the responses to criticism of NPP/BW concerts - shows a weakness in your argument. It's like when people use what is called The Golden Rationalisation: 'Everybody does it' to justify bad behaviour. You may accuse individual posters of hypocrisy if they take offence at any criticism of Brian whilst being unduly critical of Mike but IMO there is a big difference between criticising the quality of something, which is very subjective, and something like the 2005 lawsuit.

I disagree.  One of the criticisms this board often gets is that it can be "toxic."  And there was definitely some toxicity a year or two ago whenever people would criticize NPP or a BW show (and I'm not talking about people who go out of their way to be contrarians, I'm talking about people who legitimately didn't care for the album, or thought that Brian wasn't particularly good the night they happened to see him).  

[KDS]

If you say so, GF.  I just call 'em like I see 'em.   And some of the stuff written in response to people who dared say anything negative about NPP or BW concerts in general makes me feel otherwise.  Or some of the stuff that was said to me back in January when I said I voted for Donald Trump and would be OK with Mike and Bruce playing his inauguration (to be fair the poster who lashed out at me did apologize).  

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I hadn't really thought about it to be honest.  

And no worries, I don't take being called a Trump supporter as an insult.  

If that issue has never even crossed your mind at any point, then the lack of any interest in putting things in a larger context probably helps to explain why you find a litany of things and issues, especially concerning things Mike has said or done, as not a terribly big deal.

Every fan has their own areas of interest and preferences of course. I personally can't imagine not noticing the strong correlation between a certain strain of politics (and politicians attached to that strain of politics) and those who regularly come out of the woodwork to defend Mike, especially when it comes to specific key issues that tend to pull, at least in some fashion or another, some level of politics into the equation.

For instance, many defenders of Mike tend to point to his playing small markets and venues as a preferable and commendable thing, and some have gone so far as to accuse those who think otherwise (e.g. the band deserves to be playing Madison Square Garden, not a bowling alley grand opening in Alaska) of "elitism" and so on. Same thing came up in the 'Full House" discussion, as if it's snobby to point out that being attached to a s**tty sitcom from the late 80s rather than, say having made a Grammy-nominated album that same year, is a detriment to the band in every conceivable way.

These things probably don't tend to get discussed in intricate detail because political discussion, as I mentioned earlier, is a non-starter in most cases on the "main" section of a fan forum.

But seriously, if your attitude is seriously "Mike Love defenders tend to be politically and otherwise conservative? I would have never even thought about that and never noticed that!", then that helps to explain your train of thought when it comes to the wider topic of the band and Mike and band politics and various debates and discussions.

I know you and I have debated about the Full House appearance, but I'm sorry, I don't see how it's a "detriment to the band in every conceivable way."  If you think it took away "cool" or "hip" points, then maybe I'd listen. 

As for the political stuff, I've learned my lesson from January.  I'm pleading the 5th (and maybe drinking a 5th later on). 

[Justin]

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I think certain people want to excuse certain types of behavior more than others, and that's interestingly reflected in both rabid Mike defense as well as political views. I'll bet this coincidence is probably in sync about 90% of the time.

We don't have to talk politics in this thread anymore; it's just more about me dissecting why some people are prone to defend Mike, and there are some commonalities here that I think can't be ignored.

Sure we can suggest that there is a correlation with a group of people defending/excusing Mike's behavior as they do with Trump as you illustrate in your post but I think it also demonstrates a group of people who refuse to go with the rest of the pack.   Trump supporters vs everyone else and Mike-defenders vs Brian-supporters (everyone else).  I see parallels in the two groups.  The two scenarios are obviously worlds different but the mechanism that fuels both groups are one in the same: our innate human tribalism.  Is anyone right or wrong?  I feel both parties are right..and wrong.

The commonalities probably should not be ignored, yes.  But I think we should be looking at it from a larger perspective to reveal the humanity of it not just revel in the division between the groups.  Obviously this is a conversation bigger than this thread...

[rab2591]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Sway what? Again, the 2005 lawsuit says all you need to know about Mike...you read that sh*t then act surprised there is a bias against Mike?? You guys who defend Mike on filledeplage levels do more harm than good because you create situations on these forums where Mike’s shittiness goes on full display because you guys act like this bias against Mike is founded in a fairytale world. I mean seriously, you claim you’ve read all the nonsense Mike has done over the years but you don’t allow it to be a factor in your equation as to why people dislike Mike.

We just need to listen to the music and have fun fun fun, and then this toxic forum wouldn’t be full of people that an “interested party” wants the fuckin home address of.

Like I've said many times before, I think there is some very valid criticism towards Mike, and the 2005 lawsuit is one of them.  

But, what I don't get in the constant mashing of teeth everytime the man's name comes up.  I'll never understand it, and frankly, I don't know why I waste the energy in posting my opinion on that matter.  

Rab, I'll give you credit.  You willfully participated in the thread Nate started and listed some on your favorite Mike moments on record.  But, we didn't get one page into that thread before it started to veer off.   And stuff like that is why this board is often viewed as "toxic" or "Mike bashing."  

You think there is valid criticism yet seem to be perplexed why there is a bias here. Wat.

Yeah, we get things like Nate’s thread, but why does that thread exist? Why isn’t there a “praise for Al Jardine” thread? Or a “praise David Marks” thread? Because they aren’t constant assholes that need a balancing force of “well he’s an asshole but let’s talk about the good they’ve done” - Al and David’s good contributions are implied everywhere on this forum because they consistently gave us fans positive contributions. But then there’s Mike who has made a persistent effort to be an asshole to his previous band mates yet we’re the toxic ones for continually bringing this up because people like you and others either play down the sh*t Mike does or try to make people who point out the sh*t Mike does look like toxic Mike bashers.

Yeah, I don’t know why you waste your time either on this sh*t. Mike has done great things but it’s not some cosmic mystery out of reach of human understanding to realize why people here dislike Mike and mention it constantly. No ones doing this same sh*t to Al, no one is doing it to Dennis. And even though the mediocrely esteemed AGD claims fans here look for villain because we have to...err no, we see a villain because anyone who blatantly lies about their family member in a ridiculous lawsuit is a prick, no matter how many little lunches you have with the guy.

Ah, thanks Rab for pointing out the BS this board is known for.  

I defended Mike, so I must have an agenda or have "little lunches" with him.  

And, like I've said before, there is valid criticism about Mike (and every member of The Beach Boys for that matter).  But, I think Nate started that thread to counteract some of the nonsensical stuff that gets said about Mike: talentless hack, only wrote car / beach lyrics, and how little things like a 29 year old appearance on a sitcom hurts the BB legacy).  

I specifically said “AGD” (who actually had lunches with the guy), actually read what the hell I write then you’re free to go off on some little tangent. And never once in this exchange did I mention an agenda but keep putting words in my mouth. And I think most here who dislike Mike have clearly stated their reasoning and their dislike is valid even if you don’t agree with aspects of it. The place is only “toxic” to you because you don’t grasp the reasoning of why getting laughed at about Full House is embarrassing to your average fan here.

Frankly this place is less toxic now that the shmucks have quit - you know, like the guy who took cheap shots at David Beard’s family. Or the guy who admitted to going out of his way to talk trash about Brian and Melinda. Or the guy who admitted to defending everything Mike did (and he proved this daily). Or the guy who spread false information about Brian and Melinda, their life, and their family via PMs. The list goes on and on and on.

But this place is so toxic because a few people hate Full House and falsely think that he only did car/surf songs? I’m calling bullshit on that. Jesus, what are there 5 of us that hate Full House? 2 of us who do the “woot” emoticon that has you flustered? That’s not toxicity. No one here went after Mike’s family like people did Brian’s. No one here constantly trash talked Mike’s mental state and trashed his wife. The people who did that to Brian reside on another forum...you know that forum you go to and trash talk this forum? Sorry pal, but you want toxicity, look no further than that cesspool.

[CenturyDeprived]

Not to veer too far off topic here, but does anyone else (including you, KDS) notice the continually predictable nature of the fact that virtually anyone who defends Mike Love on a continual basis (I respect that you have some nuance to your opinion, even if we disagree a lot), just *happens* to be a Trump supporter? Go through any FB page where you see people defending Mike in a steadfast way, and like clockwork, they almost all have American flags as their profile pics.

I mean, instance after instance of virtually everyone who goes out of their way to defend Mike in a major, ongoing way, seems to have that political view, more or less. I just find that interesting and I think there's something that this says psychologically about personality types. I'd frankly like to see a research paper or documentary made about this subject, because I find it incredibly fascinating. Not trying to be insulting to you, KDS, I am just saying it's clearly doesn't seem to be a coincidence for whatever it's worth.

I think certain people want to excuse certain types of behavior more than others, and that's interestingly reflected in both rabid Mike defense as well as political views. I'll bet this coincidence is probably in sync about 90% of the time.

We don't have to talk politics in this thread anymore; it's just more about me dissecting why some people are prone to defend Mike, and there are some commonalities here that I think can't be ignored.

Sure we can suggest that there is a correlation with a group of people defending/excusing Mike's behavior as they do with Trump as you illustrate in your post but I think it also demonstrates a group of people who refuse to go with the rest of the pack.   Trump supporters vs everyone else and Mike-defenders vs Brian-supporters (everyone else).  I see parallels in the two groups.  The two scenarios are obviously worlds different but the mechanism that fuels both groups are one in the same: our innate human tribalism.  Is anyone right or wrong?  I feel both parties are right..and wrong.

The commonalities probably should not be ignored, yes.  But I think we should be looking at it from a larger perspective to reveal the humanity of it not just revel in the division between the groups.  Obviously this is a conversation bigger than this thread...

I get what you're saying for sure, and there's certainly nuance to it all as you suggest. Yet I'll bet there are a ton of Bernie supporters (would they be considered going against the pack?) who are very "pro"-Brian and "anti"-Mike.  

While there are shades of grey, I tend to think based on repeated casual observation is that the vast majority of very vocal, ongoing Mike supporters (who will gladly continue debating and defending) are Trump supporters. I think we could probably have a *very* hard time finding any very ardent Mike supporters who voted for Bernie or Hillary. Especially the latter. Maybe they personally identify with Mike and Mike's "struggle" more, I dunno. There's a college thesis paper on this topic just waiting to be written. 

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

An open forum means that you have the right to express your opinion but those who don't agree with it have a right to respond in turn and if they can back up their argument better than you can, then you are not going to convince anyone that you are right.

That's true, and all well and good.  And I know there are certain people I'm not going to be able to sway due to the biases on here.  

Maybe I don't make my points well enough, I don't know.  But, I sure make them better than....

 

Didn't know it was a contest. Anyway, 

[JL]

I think we need two more movies and at least three more books to really get to the bottom of things.

[urbanite]

It will all come out eventually, probably after they pass.

[rab2591]

Most of us won’t be surprised, some will still refuse to believe the obvious even when it’s written in stone in front of them.