Jonathan Ross name drops Morrissey in Guardian interview

I always read Saturday's Guardian on a Sunday morning, and just come across the interview with Jonathan Ross in the Weekend Magazine. At the end there is a mention of Morrissey - no real news I'm afraid, just a name drop:

How would he feel if the new show bombed? He says it won't because there's an audience out there for him, and he's too good to let that happen. "Would you like me to drop another name for you here? I went for dinner with Morrissey after the BBC show and…" Meanwhile, the photographer is desperately trying to get his attention. "Let me just finish what I was saying about the Morrissey thing because this is interesting. You'll like this. He was talking about me leaving the BBC and was surprised at the way the press had reacted, and I said, in actual fact, I feel really grateful for what happened because I'm coming up to 50, done that show for 10 years, there wasn't really anything new I could do with it. But what it made me realise was there will be a time fairly soon when my services doing this kind of television are not required. It's inevitable. It happens to all of us. There comes a time when you're no longer considered the right kind of person to be doing that type of programme and there will be a time when you need to remove yourself completely from television." He looks at the photographer. "Let me finish this while I'm on a roll. So it's like coming to terms with retirement, but with the joyful feeling that you're not actually retiring, you're doing it elsewhere, but you've dealt with the reality of it. And this is what has given me a spur to do so much else."​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what morris would do if his job bombed???????
Wait a minute it has bombed he bombed it HIMSELF did'nt he.
There was'nt really anything NEW he could do either!!! (and this has been his problem for many years).

All interest by labels looks to have dried up

The old guard fans have grown up/seen the light/only show interest in piss taking his silly attitude.
He says he has written his autobiography!! Can you imagine a book written by him about himself it will be full of shitty shittness,
play on words and phrases and by the end of the book the poor reader will be none the wiser, don't expect a good honest account from him IF it EVER sees the light of day! and God forbid if it does happen you must NOT dis-agree with anything he says in it.

I would have liked to have read it may be several years ago but now I really can't be arsed anymore cause you just know his childish ramblings!!! (I won't be shafted or fisted by him anymore).

How true, I feel like that too.
 
No repy to my comments on your coordinated harassment of many past and current users of this site, specifically Quiffaa?

Just my two cents on this. I met Quiffaa in the frink thread on this site. When she left to make her own site, she took all the frinkers with her which sort of bummed me out. I then, in my crazy way, launched my own personal campaign to be irritating to Quiffaa. It was not part of a "coordinated harrassment." I thought her Benedict Arnold style of advertising her site was irritating as hell and she became a target to me. I have no association with Davidt other than my appreciation that I've expressed to him of his dedication to a forum where we can discuss Morrissey without censorship.
 
Is it only me that see's it? World peace would break out, we'd pull out of afganistan, north and south Korea would shake and make up, israel will share both banks with families called Farouk, Celtic will send funds to rangers to pay their tax bill, we ll be able to call inuits eskimos again, Canada will stop kicking the shit out of seals, the Chinese would stop eating dog, and all the dickheads will leave this site over night, if only you d end anonymous posting.
 
Last edited:
Of course you don't! And good use of scare quotes!

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/112288-New-Smiths-Unreleased-Demos

You cited this as an example of the site's wonderful, unique content. Now the person who supplied you with that content? Gone. You don't know about all of that? Really? I totally believe you.

Bad example - the person chose to make his name public and he chose to leave the site by asking for deleting of his account. Good job trying to twist that one. No one is behind you on this, can you see that? The more you insist on how stupid I am the more I see you are really reflecting about yourself.

The news of the unreleased demos would have gotten out anyway, but yes he was the first to post. I didn't know he was a 'teenaged boy', try to keep in mind not everyone is as interested as stalking users as you are.
 
Is it only me that see's it? World peace would break out, we'd pull out of afganistan, north and south Korea would shake and make up, israel will share both banks with families called Farouk, Celtic will send funds to rangers to pay their tax bill, we ll be able to call inuits eskimos again, Canada will stop kicking the shit out of seals, the Chinese would stop eating dog, and all the dickheads will leave this site over night, if only you d end anonymous posting.

Do you promise that will happen if I make the change? I still think it is a positive thing despite the cowards who abuse it.
 
I said, "I'm the most illegible bachelor in town."
And she said, "Yea, that's why I can never understand
Any of those silly letters you send me."​



I must apologise to anyone who has been offended by my lack of spell checking before pressing "Submit Reply" on a web forum.

Of all the insults anyone has ever thrown at me, being illiterate and unreadable must be the silliest :p


Dave

I've been called illiterate, a virgin, a masturbator of extreme regularity and an aged-tramp shagger of massive proportions in the space of a week. Beat that.
 
Do you promise that will happen if I make the change? I still think it is a positive thing despite the cowards who abuse it.

You can't have a relationship with anyone in a forum if your not able to recognise there input to conversation, the argument that we all have aliases here isn't valid as the words, squigles, pictures, what ever we use as a tag will still identify us to each other. TOS here seems to be sensible and works, only to leave us open to be abused by those who won't tell us who they are. I'm sorry after the last debate we had about this I decided not to be the one who'd bring it up again, but I am convinced the cowards you mention are relatively few in number, maybe even the same two or three fools with a miss guided agenda. I also feel having relationships with each other as posters is the best way to keep order, self discipline as apposed to enforced editorship, maintaining the freedom of speech you find so important.

I think it safe to say I can guarantee at least one of the things mentioned in my previous post.
 
You can't have a relationship with anyone in a forum if your not able to recognise there input to conversation, the argument that we all have aliases here isn't valid as the words, squigles, pictures, what ever we use as a tag will still identify us to each other. TOS here seems to be sensible and works, only to leave us open to be abused by those who won't tell us who they are. I'm sorry after the last debate we had about this I decided not to be the one who'd bring it up again, but I am convinced the cowards you mention are relatively few in number, maybe even the same two or three fools with a miss guided agenda. I also feel having relationships with each other as posters is the best way to keep order, self discipline as apposed to enforced editorship, maintaining the freedom of speech you find so important.

I think it safe to say I can guarantee at least one of the things mentioned in my previous post.

Good point.
 
You can't have a relationship with anyone in a forum if your not able to recognise there input to conversation, the argument that we all have aliases here isn't valid as the words, squigles, pictures, what ever we use as a tag will still identify us to each other. TOS here seems to be sensible and works, only to leave us open to be abused by those who won't tell us who they are. I'm sorry after the last debate we had about this I decided not to be the one who'd bring it up again, but I am convinced the cowards you mention are relatively few in number, maybe even the same two or three fools with a miss guided agenda. I also feel having relationships with each other as posters is the best way to keep order, self discipline as apposed to enforced editorship, maintaining the freedom of speech you find so important.

I think it safe to say I can guarantee at least one of the things mentioned in my previous post.

The problem with this is you assume everyone wants to have a relationship (of some sorts) with everyone else here. There are a few (trolls not included) who are happy to provide snippets without all the baggage that goes along with being 'known' or having to have an identifier. There is security and comfort in the shadows for those whose intentions are to contribute without becoming part of your community.

The real questions you should be asking are; what would be lost by enforced logins? Would you be happy to trade some of the gold nuggets that are often left here for the convenience of not having to trawl through the troll nuggets. David is on the side which says the loss of information obtained through anonymity would be greater than what would be gained by compulsory usernames. I don't come here often enough to have an opinion if that is valid or not.
 
The problem with this is you assume everyone wants to have a relationship (of some sorts) with everyone else here. There are a few (trolls not included) who are happy to provide snippets without all the baggage that goes along with being 'known' or having to have an identifier. There is security and comfort in the shadows for those whose intentions are to contribute without becoming part of your community.

The real questions you should be asking are; what would be lost by enforced logins? Would you be happy to trade some of the gold nuggets that are often left here for the convenience of not having to trawl through the troll nuggets. David is on the side which says the loss of information obtained through anonymity would be greater than what would be gained by compulsory usernames. I don't come here often enough to have an opinion if that is valid or not.

The tradeoffs are a constant battle. I like reading posts that make points such as this one that are anonymous for whatever reason. Just as most others, I don't like to read the attacks and manipulation but I can skip over them easily most of the time. The trolls do get me to respond sometimes, perhaps that is a good thing. They keep things in line, including the mods and myself.

Anonymous posts are allowed on main page articles only, not the forums. Users can opt to stay in the forums and not read the anonymous comments if they wish.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this is you assume everyone wants to have a relationship (of some sorts) with everyone else here. There are a few (trolls not included) who are happy to provide snippets without all the baggage that goes along with being 'known' or having to have an identifier. There is security and comfort in the shadows for those whose intentions are to contribute without becoming part of your community.

The real questions you should be asking are; what would be lost by enforced logins? Would you be happy to trade some of the gold nuggets that are often left here for the convenience of not having to trawl through the troll nuggets. David is on the side which says the loss of information obtained through anonymity would be greater than what would be gained by compulsory usernames. I don't come here often enough to have an opinion if that is valid or not.

Your not kidding anyone you are davidt, lol. we don't know what nuggets of sensible discussion/argument would be lost by enforced login your anonymous post is a well thought out,written argument on the point, most anons aren't, It's being used around here to undermine the site by those who think they can ingratiate with Morrissey by doing so. Trawling through the trolls is not the problem it's more serious than that as Davidt found out earlier this year. He won't like that but i'm sorry i think it's probably correct to assume anonymous posting made the site such a negative place earlier in the year he was banned from Morrissey gigs. Boz Boorer stated as much on his facebook page.

It doesn't matter that you don't come here often your opinion is still valid, and i'm not absolutely certain that it's wrong. I do know that i'm prepaired to loose, the sensible, articulate, Anonymous comments as long as we can rid ourselves of the fools to.
 
Your not kidding anyone you are davidt, lol. we don't know what nuggets of sensible discussion/argument would be lost by enforced login your anonymous post is a well thought out,written argument on the point, most anons aren't, It's being used around here to undermine the site by those who think they can ingratiate with Morrissey by doing so. Trawling through the trolls is not the problem it's more serious than that as Davidt found out earlier this year. He won't like that but i'm sorry i think it's probably correct to assume anonymous posting made the site such a negative place earlier in the year he was banned from Morrissey gigs. Boz Boorer stated as much on his facebook page.

It doesn't matter that you don't come here often your opinion is still valid, and i'm not absolutely certain that it's wrong. I do know that i'm prepaired to loose, the sensible, articulate, Anonymous comments as long as we can rid ourselves of the fools to.

Thank you for your response. I agree with you that the anonymous sensible discussion is completely dispensable, as is the anonymous nonsensical discussion. My fear is that the occasional little gems of information that rise to the top informing the rest of the us who strain to peer in, a permanent gormless expression affixed to our faces would be lost at sea with compulsory details. It should be recognised that trolls also break through the forum barrier despite the necessary log in.

I don't know. I see your point. I see David's. I know the site shouldn't change at the behest of Morrissey or Boz Boorer only. Or in attempt to thwart those who try to use its current climate for less than honourable aims. They'll never get to where they think they will. Ultimately, this is a site of the fans, by the fans, for the fans. It fulfils that function alone by allowing this conversation. Although acknowledging that doesn't get us any closer to a resolution.
 
Thank you for your response. I agree with you that the anonymous sensible discussion is completely dispensable, as is the anonymous nonsensical discussion. My fear is that the occasional little gems of information that rise to the top informing the rest of the us who strain to peer in, a permanent gormless expression affixed to our faces would be lost at sea with compulsory details. It should be recognised that trolls also break through the forum barrier despite the necessary log in.

I don't know. I see your point. I see David's. I know the site shouldn't change at the behest of Morrissey or Boz Boorer only. Or in attempt to thwart those who try to use its current climate for less than honourable aims. They'll never get to where they think they will. Ultimately, this is a site of the fans, by the fans, for the fans. It fulfils that function alone by allowing this conversation. Although acknowledging that doesn't get us any closer to a resolution.

I like you, you should let us know who you are.
 
Bad example - the person chose to make his name public

A ridiculous loophole that you've repeatedly used to provide for the harassment of certain users. His name was "public" in an image. It was not something that would then appear to anyone Googling his name, for example. Regardless, when people then chant his name in unmistakable attempts to harass him, you have both their obvious intention of harassment and the end effect of harassment as grounds for censuring them. You choose not to, inevitably, when the person being abused has criticized you. This has happened again, and again, and again.

How strange, how stupid, how disgusting that you point to a person's past openness as supplying permission for your goons to go to work on them. Yet you'll continue to decry "abuse," which you "track" when it's, say, someone saying your site is crap. Shameless.

People have given up arguing about these things with you in part, I think, because they're uncomfortable interacting with someone so morally disgusting.

and he chose to leave the site by asking for deleting of his account.

He left after a good deal of harassment, during the moderators stood smiling with their arms folded. Everyone knew what was happening.

Good job trying to twist that one.

There was obviously no twisting, and you'll find no one to agree with you that there was. The point, as you may be pretending to misunderstand--in the hope that others will do likewise--was that the people who provide you with the content you're so proud often leave the site, disgusted with it and with you. Yet you, the good and selfless DavidT, soldier on, single-handedly keeping that guy from the Smiths in Kit Kats and Gucci. "Oh, thank you, DavidT!"

No one is behind you on this, can you see that?

There are countless threads about moderator misconduct, including Kewpie's blatant stalking, which her longtime friend Dave so frankly discussed before he jumped ship. (Incidentally, I once saw a PM from Kewpie that was one long list of people she despises here, most so innocuous that I'd never even noticed their names, with a postscript about one particular girl, hoping that "she don't come back." I can't wait for the denial.) People have indeed stopped talking about these things for the moment. You have signaled that you're unwilling to acknowledge reality. My favorite example of your debate technique: Flax challenged you to find one valuable, anonymous commment that likely wouldn't have been posted if registration had been required. You chose a random comment. Had you misundertood the challenge? No. "You can't prove that it would have been posted." You don't seem to even understand concepts like "proof," "censorship," and "abuse." People have given up on you.

And as I've said, the wiser ones, married to the idea of posting here, refuse to blame you specifically because they know they'll then be banned. Recall your threat of banning Not Right in the Head afer he questioned the apparent guilt-by-association banning of TWO ICY COLD HANDS. You cannot even tolerate being questioned when your misconduct is that obviously wrong, self-interested, and vindictive. You nurse grudges. You encourage favorites to do as they like. This site is not merely your means of drawing the attention of a celebrity. It seems to be your own virtual Bates Motel.

The more you insist on how stupid I am

As I have said, I think it surely must be an act. And you have stayed in character beautifully, for years in fact.

On the other hand... People who have met you seem to find you just to be a sociopathic blank. I think maybe you're just not used to dealing with people, and perhaps you don't really understand, on an intuitive level, the difference between lying and telling the truth.

the more I see you are really reflecting about yourself.

This is now the second time you've posted an unnecessary variant of "I know you are, but what am I." The point was before, and is again: your arguments are childish.

The news of the unreleased demos would have gotten out anyway,

Absolutely. Hence it was strange that you were bragging about it. You're now arguing against your own past posts, so perfectly that it's difficult to believe.

but yes he was the first to post.

Yes, he contributed content that you were loudly proud of. You then allowed people to harass him using his full name, repeatedly. You're an asshole, you see?

I didn't know he was a 'teenaged boy', try to keep in mind not everyone is as interested as stalking users as you are.

Ah, yes, as I type this in my "university library."

You want to see stalking, look at half of Kewpie's posts. "She knows when you've been sleeping/she knows when you're awake..."
 
Ah, yes, as I type this in my "university library."

Wow, you really are that stupid then, you didn't see the irony in the original post.

Anyone can see you're are twisting things that happen on this site to fit your agenda. There really is no point in responding to trolls.
 
I met Quiffaa in the frink thread on this site. When she left to make her own site, she took all the frinkers with her which sort of bummed me out. I then, in my crazy way, launched my own personal campaign to be irritating to Quiffaa. It was not part of a "coordinated harrassment." I thought her Benedict Arnold style of advertising her site was irritating as hell and she became a target to me. I have no association with Davidt...

No one has accused you of knowing what you were doing. You have openly shared that you are a woman who refrains from taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medication in an effort to feel a "connection" with Morrissey. I consider it one of the sickest details of the moderators' behavior that they have used an ill person as an attack dog, and encouraged your illness at every opportunity.

Wow, you really are that stupid then, you didn't see the irony in the original post.

I think irony requires a personality.

Anyone can see you're are twisting things that happen on this site to fit your agenda.

Yes, they're all saying so. In invisible posts that only you can see.

There really is no point in responding to trolls.

Especially responding to them over, and over, and over again, immediately, everytime they post.

You know what you are. "You know what you did."
 
I think irony requires a personality.

Predictable, a personal attack.

You are making those invisible supporters for you proud.

CNN should hire you as an investigative reporter for tackling these worldly and important issues, your in-depth analysis and your signature personal attack to close out the show.
 
Last edited:
I may have a cold but I am not ill.
 
Last edited:
No one has accused you of knowing what you were doing. You have openly shared that you are a woman who refrains from taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medication in an effort to feel a "connection" with Morrissey. I consider it one of the sickest details of the moderators' behavior that they have used an ill person as an attack dog, and encouraged your illness at every opportunity.

I think irony requires a personality.

Yes, they're all saying so. In invisible posts that only you can see.

Especially responding to them over, and over, and over again, immediately, everytime they post.

You know what you are. "You know what you did."

Very well stated. Something about having an obviously unmedicated schizophrenic (she has said as much many times) being constantly enabled is one of the creepier aspects of this site. The only good thing about the openness of her weird religious stalking is the fact that it makes her easy to spot and to be kept a safe distance away from Morrissey in real life. It's no surprise that her little group of supporters here is comprised mostly of the ugliest trolls on the site. Her behavior could only be tolerated in such an atmosphere of negativity.
 
No one has accused you of knowing what you were doing. You have openly shared that you are a woman who refrains from taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medication in an effort to feel a "connection" with Morrissey. I consider it one of the sickest details of the moderators' behavior that they have used an ill person as an attack dog, and encouraged your illness at every opportunity.

I was thinking about this on my walk today and something dawned on me. I'm not sure who you're in cahoots with, you're obviously a disgrunteled banned poster whose feelings were hurt to such a degree that you're obsessing about it all still today, but I want to make clear that I am a free agent. I have never been approached by anyone who runs or moderates this site to be an "attack dog." I have been approached, however, on NUMEROUS occassions via facebook by a certain Jukebox Jury to start threads praising his name and that would rile Kewpie and keep his name alive on the board. So before you take the highroad while casting my name in shadow, you better check your facts. And be nice. :mad:
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom