gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
677287 Posts in 27331 Topics by 4045 Members - Latest Member: iggy October 01, 2022, 04:27:23 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Please sign petition for Beach Boys to withdraw from performing on 2/5/20 on: February 07, 2020, 02:03:50 AM
If Mike was stripped of the licence and it went to Brian and Brian / Al / Blondie / maybe David started to tour as The Beach Boys, would Brian get the sole custody of Bruce ?

As I understand it the original agreement between the voting members of BRI was for all members of the band to be able to use the name and pay an amount to BRI for doing so.  After the meeting was over and without discussion Mike offered a higher fee for sole use of the name.  So why not strip Mike and Bruce of the use of the name for bringing the name of the Beach Boys into disrepute and let others use it for a fee - Brian, Al, Blondie and Dave Marks?  They even could offer use of it for backing musicians (as in 'session musician with the Beach Boys'). They may not make the same huge amount of money but they'd make some and at least they'd drag the name out of the gutter.
2  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Please sign petition for Beach Boys to withdraw from performing on 2/5/20 on: February 06, 2020, 06:57:07 AM
The name of the guy who set up the petition is given on Change.org as Eduardo Goncalves.  I messaged him on FB and said that whilst I had signed the petition I thought that penalising the 2 members of the group who had promoted the petition was wrong and that a better idea was to pressure BRI to stop Mike and Bruce using the name in future as they had brought the Beach Boys name into disrepute.  If you agree perhaps you should message him too.  It's easy to find him on FB as he has the petition as an icon.
3  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New Recording of \ on: August 25, 2018, 01:04:25 AM
One...Michael...Do It Again is a song TITLE...not marching orders. 


Maybe he should find a melodist and write song new lyrics, creating a new song? If Brian won't do it, find someone else.

So that's certainly an interesting idea if you reverse it - Brian could get someone with lyrical skill to write some new lyrics to some of 'fun in the sun' tracks which didn't reach their full potential, rearrange them and release them.  I particularly like the idea of different lyrics to California Girls.  I know it was a big hit as it was but I hate those atlas lyrics Mike does and it's so sexist - woman are only good for one thing right?  I know Brian will never do it but perhaps someone else could.
4  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Fire Music - building which burned down on: August 23, 2018, 06:36:24 AM
So, whilst looking for images of the Plant I found this

"Studio C was destroyed in an electrical fire on January 10, 1978. At the time, rocker Marshall Chapman was working with producer Al Kooper and bassist Tom Comet in Studio B on her album Jaded Virgin, and she helped other musicians and engineers carry priceless master recordings to safety outside the building. She said: "We might as well have been rescuing Rembrandts from the Louvre ... I remember seeing 'Hotel California' [marked] on one, and 'John Lennon' on another. I nearly fainted when I saw I was holding a box containing the master tape from Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life.""

It all seems a little weird that after the legend of the burning Fire master tape, a number of other important master tapes were nearly lost in a fire in a recording studio and that Gold Star burnt down! 
5  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Fire Music - building which burned down on: August 23, 2018, 06:15:50 AM
I’m sorry I thought after I posted the information that i wasn’t writing a book you’d all give up so I only just came back to this thread today.  Thanks to everyone for your input - I know my post was only a catalyst and that the subject it is interesting in it’s own right and that most of you are writing and reading it for that reason but it would be churlish not to thank you properly anyway.  I really enjoyed reading all the posts and it has given me a way forward.  As it’s not a written book and as it will probably rest in my studio until I pop my clogs and then be consigned to a bin, I don’t think I’ll be leading any future research astray by using Gold Star, which did eventually burn down curiously, the ABC studio and the Plant as the ‘fire’ image.  I have already used the front view of Gold Star with an overlay of the Smile Shop due to their similarity - I hadn’t realised that they were so similar at the time I was speaking to Frank Holmes or I would have asked him.  I think he did mention that it was based on a real shop but I can’t remember the details now.  
6  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Fire Music - building which burned down on: June 20, 2018, 02:33:34 PM
Thanks for all your help with this.  The book is only an art book so exhaustive research is probably a bit of a waste of time as what I really need are images rather than words - though I find it interesting anyway. The fact that Gold Star was also destroyed in a fire considering it's history is another mysterious and weird fact.  In consideration of the Record Plant you can't help but wonder if someone was playing Fire that night ;-)! 

It also seemed to me that considering VDP's involvement in SMiLE, his interest in early Hollywood, the images in the film and the sound effects at the beginning especially, that there is a very significant nod to the Harold Lloyd film 'Fireman Save My Child'.  The fire truck emerges from the garage, the firemen fall of it and run behind it.  So I'm using those similar images anyway.
7  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Fire Music - building which burned down on: June 16, 2018, 10:47:01 AM
Does anyone know any details about the building 'down the street' which burned down and caused them to halt the project?  I'm doing an art book based on the fire music and wanted to include some images but can't find any details online.  I did find out something I didn't know, but I expect you guys probably know already, that Gold Star burned down several months after it closed in 1984.  Interesting ;-)!
8  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Was there any evidence \ on: April 01, 2018, 02:18:25 AM
I hadn't been here for a while either and enjoyed reading this so thanks for unearthing it and giving it an airing.  Smiley

I would like to say though that the cover art is rather exceptional and I see nothing strange in it's selection.  When you examine it there is much of the same element of hidden meaning that you get from the music.  Frank Holmes is a very skilled and interesting artist -read http://www.goldminemag.com/articles/even-the-art-of-the-beach-boys-smile-album-tells-a-story - he says of his illustration of 'Surf's Up'

"In this drawing I have used two points of view. There is an aerial view of the floor and a normal head-on view of the wave. This indicated the surreal world of two realities in a dream state. You get more for the asking than a one-on-one investigation of the elements. The wet surf is up, and the wooden floor is down. I arrived at this through the surfer expression of inside-outside wave, a navigation position of where you are in relationship to the wave. I also had access to the song “Surfin’ USA” (… inside, outside, USA …); the lyric line I used was surf’s up inside. I composed this idea with the blue surf wave about to break inside a room with no walls and separated with a white baseboard going east to west. Above the wave is the blue sky with a glowing red sun and a few white clouds. This is a standard cliché and one that ties us to nature. This is where life began and life exists. As the viewer is confronted with the two situations, you realize one belongs to nature and one to man.

On the rustic floor is the depiction of a dance step. There are some arrows, dashes and two footprints denoting the step. This is a pop art idea derived from an advertisement for Arthur Murray Dance Studio lessons found printed in magazines and on matchbook covers to advertise the studio and promote business. The purpose of this element was to direct the eye and create movement to the oil lamp sitting on the floor in a circle of yellow light.

This lamp refers to a simpler time, when there was no electricity and fewer concerns than face us now. The dance-step diagram has a double meaning. It was my chance to employ some wordplay. One is the two-step (a dance) to lamp’s light, and the other is to step (the infinitive) to lamps’ light. The inference is leaving the darkness and stepping to the light or enlightenment. Or, dancing the two-step to the light or enlightenment; it doesn’t matter how you do it, just get it done. We are living in the present and looking at the past, where the light and enlightenment were elusive guideposts.
The red sun represents eternal light through nature. We connect with the force of nature and rely on it to be there when we need it. Just as the wave breaks on the shore in rhythmic patterns, we recognize the similarity to our own patterns in life. All of these elements, both direct and indirect, reflect the mood and atmosphere of this one important aspect of “Surf’s Up.” This work is a result of my freedom to create in a personal way by interpretation without acknowledging any suggestions from the outside. Having had this opportunity, I realize and appreciate this rare occasion of how this can represent the true reflection of a free spirit."
9  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: April 01, 2018, 01:50:18 AM
I think VDP's work for (and with) Brian in those early Smile months is fantastic. Their artistic personalities, so different, merged miraculously, and the Smile project was the result. Would it have been completed and released if Van had stayed? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm no big fan of Van's other works, and that includes OCA, but don't agree with the flack he is getting lately, either. I always feel a deep respect and gratitude for the co-author of "H&V", "Surf's Up", "Wonderful" and "Cabin Essence".
 

  I absolutely and totally agree!  I also like that he tried to encourage Brian to be involved in music again after Landy which I understand was partly what OCA was about.  I think the fact that he left shows the enormous pressure Brian was under to produce something less challenging  to the popular market and I'm saddened that Brian has not had artistic control over his work always or people who were prepared to believe in him and fight his corner.
10  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Unpopular Beach Boys opinions on: March 30, 2018, 06:31:54 AM
I think VDP added more than just the lyrics to Smile - the whole concept is based on his interests.  Also, I'd say Smile was probably one of the first concept albums and focussed on the concept of American history which later was taken up by many other artists.  The concept of H&V being the sound of a train is one which VDP explored himself in Song Cycle and it's interesting to ponder whether Brian was the catalyst for this or if he had the idea for H&V - though obviously they both got the idea from Gershwin.  I think working closely with someone means you invoke responses to each other's ideas and elaborate on them.  I don't think VDP had more talent than Brian but I do think he brought something to the mix which enabled Brian to excel. I actually like the fact that the lyrics were about something more interesting than love and youth culture.  I also think that the album would probably have pipped Sargent Pepper to the post at being the most original album in a decade and would probably have meant enormous critical success.  It was a complete tragedy that it was not released on time.

The rest is personal preference.  I personally prefer something a bit deeper than lyrics extolling the virtues of cars and so Smile and Brian's own 'Til I Die are personal favourites. I think Brian is a very skilled lyricist himself but choses to work with people to add a different flavour to the work and chooses the person to match the flavour he wants.  Mike wasn't prepared to expand his repertoire so Brian moved on.  Mike was offended by this.  The bottom line is that they had different aims - separating was the only option.
11  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike opens up about Melinda. on: September 16, 2016, 04:24:56 AM
So you're married and in business partnership with your husband.  Your husband's cousin, who has previously sued your husband for considerable amounts of money and never fails to inform the public how he took drugs, is in a temporary collaborator-ship with him for financial reasons. You are told that he wants to further is daughter's career through a public appearance in front of your husband's and the group's supporters. This exceeds the terms of the collaborator-ship which is to re-unite original members of the group, is clearly nepotism and is a request for a favour.  In your business capacity you say no as this is not beneficial to your husband and you do not feel like doing a favour for someone who has been so hostile in the past.  

Then your husband's cousin tries to pull rank on you by saying 'MY PARTNER has already agreed to this' (not 'Brian has agreed to it' but possessively 'MY partner').  Divorcing yourselves from your own personal likes and dislikes can you not imagine the first words coming into your head being 'not your partner - my partner'? The 'f**king' is an expression of annoyance - in this day and age are we not passed being shocked at it?  

Any way what is Mike saying he is annoyed about

1 - Melinda having a closer relationship with Brian than him?
2 - His daughter being stopped from singing?
3 - Use of the F word?

My guess is no 1, though he presents it to breakfast TV at being shocked by the 'F' word because he knows that's what they will find offensive and only a little of (queue violins) 'he's my cousin, we wrote all this music together'.

In any case this is not what Mike said - he said Melinda told him she was his [Mike's] partner.  So either he expressed this wrongly or else she expressed wrongly or the contract was between BriMel and the Beach Boys - which puts a slightly different spin on it - Melinda is defining her role of Brian Wilson's business manager and the decision maker.  I'm sure any business woman (and some business men) will understand the importance of not letting your position be undermined and irritation that causes.
12  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 12, 2016, 10:52:27 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

I don't know the answer to that for sure but I think that you are right and it makes no sense to me which is what I've been trying to get across but you have expressed it more clearly and succinctly than me.  But also, you either are or are not in sound mind - or is there some sliding scale I don't know about :-)?  As a woman I resent the idea that a man can be of sound mind when drunk and a woman can't.  Also, I think it it very important for everyone to take responsibility for their own personal safety - after all prevention is better than the cure and would have save a whole lot of upset.

I'd be interested to know if, hypothetically, a drunken woman had fondled a man and he had not reciprocated or taken it further, if he would have been able to pursue a claim of sexual assault or would she deemed to be not of sound mind?  If a woman had been fondled by a drunken man would the same be true? Seems like a whole lot of double standards going on here and just because they are in favour of females doesn't make it right.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A woman ought to be able to go out without getting raped and a man ought to be able to go out without getting assaulted.

Finally, I shan't be going out on a Viking raid this weekend whatever Emily suggests.   Grin
13  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 12, 2016, 12:55:02 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand. 

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision. 

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty. 

We don't know the full details of how involved and complicit she was. 

He wasn't competent either.
14  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 11, 2016, 05:21:25 PM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
15  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 11, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.
No need to be unconscious - "of unsound mind, whether permanent or temporary."
Every single day you treat the people you know differently than the people you don't know. And you treat the different people you know differently from each other, because you have relationships with them, and you know what they enjoy, and you know what's OK with them. Your wife is not a person you picked up that night in a hotel bar. Unless you're in Vegas.

And if he is of unsound mind too?  And married men don't rape their wives?  And we still don't know enough and I'm not continuing a discussion with you.  I've some paint I need to watch and I know when I'm waisting my breath.
16  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread on: May 11, 2016, 11:51:51 AM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.
17  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 11:30:19 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?


  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

Trump has run for president before.

Hands up - you got me there.  I know virtually nothing about Trump and want to know less. :-)
18  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 11:27:55 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid. 

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.

 
19  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett on: May 08, 2016, 06:53:16 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

It's impossible to fully understand what happened from the scant information given.  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.  Considering how much we don't know, speculation is futile and ridiculous.  Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.  What we do know is that this is nothing whatever to do with Scott as a professional musician nor the responsibility of Brian or his management.  It is a very sad tale and one which I think we would be better to stop telling and certainly to stop fabricating.  I certainly intend to.
20  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 20, 2016, 10:44:48 AM
A few things I want to clarify from my previous post.

- I inadvertently made it sound like I got a libelous/nasty PM from Andrew G. Doe...which is not the case. What I got was a message that had false information in it. I don't know whether Doe's sources are the ones giving him bad intel or what. But regardless, I wanted to clarify that. Doe was nothing but cordial to me in PMs. But his intel in that instance (relating to Melinda and her story) was indeed wrong.

- Angua, apologies for misunderstanding you. With all the ridiculous bullshit that takes place here, your sarcasm sounded like something that could've been said seriously by a handful of other members. Sorry again!

No apology necessary - I just don't want everyone to think I'm that stupid! :-)
21  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 20, 2016, 01:20:04 AM
A few things I want to clarify before this thread gets locked.

Firstly, congrats to the people blaming the mods for the state of the board right now. Perhaps this place would be better if we took Andrew’s advice on a board overhaul. You know, the overhaul where he said that all perma-banned members should be let back onto the board? Because I really want to how No Pier Pressure is a “steaming pile of dogshit” again. I really want to see other posters be compared to suicide bombers. I really want to see Debbie KL get harassed in every thread she posts on again. I really want the image of Joe Thomas throwing himself from a high-rise implanted in my mind again. Sarcasm aside, you people are utterly ridiculous. Perhaps it’s the fact that the C50 ended in shambles (to a lot of fans), perhaps it’s the fact that No Pier Pressure was such a divisive album, perhaps it was the slew of Mike Love comments about Brian that got people enraged in the first place over the last few years. Bans had to occur because people were losing their temper. But no, let’s blame it on the mods instead. Unreal…but not surprising in the least.

Secondly. Andrew was banned for writing some very terrible stuff in PMs…whether bullying or potentially libelous information. I know this because (a) I was sent one (b) I’ve heard from two very respected posters about things they were sent regarding Melinda. Heck, RangeRover came out in this very thread and said she got this stuff along these lines. DrBeachBoy you think some posts on this board are libelous? I’d love to see what you think of these PMs then. Anyone who doesn’t believe these allegations (or doesn’t find them damaging enough to warrant a ban) who is also close to Andrew, I suggest you ask Andrew personally if he would be comfortable with these PMs coming out. There’s a reason these were kept “private” in the first place.

Thirdly. This talk about “civility” is repulsive to me in this thread. I suspected that Cincinnati Kid was basing his stance on certain subjects on bad information a couple weeks ago. I gave my two cents about it. Next thing I know Andrew G Doe is taunting me THREE times publicly on the board. He even revived my “goodbye” thread to mock the fact that I came back. And no, I’m not crying or whining about this, just that some of you seem to care so much about this “civility”, yet it’s okay for Andrew to treat people like sh*t even when he’s clearly in the wrong.

Fourth. Some of you are acting like this thread is so incredibly unfair to Andrew because he’s not here to defend himself. Here’s something that’s actually unfair: reading Melinda come under attack in a PM, where she can’t defend herself. This information WAS spread to people, and was Melinda able to defend herself? Was her family when they came under the same attacks? HELL NO! Another thing: some of you in this very thread bitch and whine that OSD and Smile Brian are still apart of this board even though they engage in trollish behavior. You spend a paragraph whining about that, yet nary a word about a NOTED and RESPECTED Beach Boys historian spreading trash about The Wilson family and their friends…no that’s okay, and we need to make a special AGD section, with a referee to make sure he’s telling the truth. You realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Do whatever you want with the thread Billy. But I suggest you and the other mods further detail why this ban took place, because it appears that people here just aren’t getting the severity of this.

Firstly - great post.
Secondly - to back up your argument - Andrew should have considered 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'. 
Thirdly - see the bit in yellow above.  I responded to the suggestions that he  had his own page by saying that we would need someone to make sure he was telling the truth.  I meant it to sound ridiculous because it seems we can't rely on his historical accuracy.  I hope no one took this seriously.  I couldn't imagine anyone would.
Fourthly - I understood from what Charles LePage said that the PM's were private but that there are 2 people privy to them and that the other person had reported them to the administrator - I may be wrong but that seemed logical.
22  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 19, 2016, 07:12:53 AM
Maybe instead of the lifetime ban, he could get his own section >> Ask the Historian<<  where he could answer questions/post information. He'd be locked out from posting in any other threads, and he wouldn't be able to use the PM function. 
  This way, he'd still be available as a source of knowledge, and other members could simply ask him questions when a problem arose in another thread(s), yet he wouldn't be able to bother those other posters drbeachboy mentions that are getting away with murder

This! And it would involve a minimum of loss of face on all sides. The voice of reason.

Interesting idea.

So instead of a ban he gets a promotion?


Not forwards but sideways, as I see it.   

But you missed what I said about needing someone to confirm his answers are true - after all they seem to be accusing him of untruths - and if we can find someone who can do that, why don't they just use them instead.
23  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 19, 2016, 03:22:23 AM
Maybe instead of the lifetime ban, he could get his own section >> Ask the Historian<<  where he could answer questions/post information. He'd be locked out from posting in any other threads, and he wouldn't be able to use the PM function. 
  This way, he'd still be available as a source of knowledge, and other members could simply ask him questions when a problem arose in another thread(s), yet he wouldn't be able to bother those other posters drbeachboy mentions that are getting away with murder

This! And it would involve a minimum of loss of face on all sides. The voice of reason.

Interesting idea.

So instead of a ban he gets a promotion? Now we just need to find someone who is able to confirm if his responses are true or not.
24  Non Smiley Smile Stuff / The Sandbox / Re: Lifetime ban on AGD on: April 19, 2016, 03:16:14 AM
What I want to know is why would he go about saying such things about Brian, his family and friends? What could he possibly have to gain from doing so? Huh

Just an idea - if he's working for Mike (and we've all seen the pictures) and Mike's aim in the 2004 lawsuit was to stop Brian touring, then perhaps...
25  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Mike Love book out in September on: April 17, 2016, 02:47:03 AM
"Just a little something I'm working on... the inside story of this august forum. I'm thinking of calling it F*ckwits & Sh*tweasels, With A Light Frosting Of Trolls."

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Not judging. Just stating facts. We have all three, plus a smattering of World Champeen Fence Sitters.

For someone who corrects others for mistakes you certainly like to make up your own words and spellings!  

I have seen a good many posts in this forum from learned, articulate posters who have made their feelings exceptionally clear and I'm not talking about you here Andrew.  There seems to be no category for them.

Stupid [f*ckwit]- everyone makes mistakes, even you.
Deceitful [sh*tweasle] - there is a motive to every post here and whilst some make it obvious what that motive is, not everyone does and some are working on behalf of others and are constrained to keep that quiet.
Fence sitters - although we all know which side of the fence currently meets your needs, you are curiously silent on some issues where a fight cannot be won.

Also you missed the hoodwinkers - those who lead you up the garden path on a detour from the original argument.
Pages: [1] 2 3
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.527 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!