User rudeness complaints

[selinacastle]

To say this site is called Morrissey Solo, is to wrongly name it. It should be called 'slag-off-morrissey.com', 'cause this is what people commenting on the whole seem to do. Think I'll start my own site for all the wonderful genuine intelligent morrissey fans who have more to do than slag him off. Incidentally, background music in 'Pregnant for the Last Time' was used in 'Homes Under the Hammer' this morning.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

To say this site is called Morrissey Solo, is to wrongly name it. It should be called 'slag-off-morrissey.com', 'cause this is what people commenting on the whole seem to do. Think I'll start my own site for all the wonderful genuine intelligent morrissey fans who have more to do than slag him off. Incidentally, background music in 'Pregnant for the Last Time' was used in 'Homes Under the Hammer' this morning.

If you want sites that do nothing but praise Morrissey, and eliminate all criticism, then there's a few of those you can go to to find people who's view matches yours. I prefer to hear all views, not just those that match mine. And in any case, I disagree with your assessment on the balance of posts.

P.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

If you want sites that do nothing but praise Morrissey, and eliminate all criticism, then there's a few of those you can go to to find people who's view matches yours. I prefer to hear all views, not just those that match mine. And in any case, I disagree with your assessment on the balance of posts.

P.

You STILL haven't understood the difference between well-formulated criticism and just rudely slagging-off? Really? I mean how many times have people tried to explain that to you? It's not that complicated.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

You STILL haven't understood the difference between well-formulated criticism and just rudely slagging-off? Really? I mean how many times have people tried to explain that to you? It's not that complicated.

You chose to respond to that post to make the point? What exactly IS your point? I was saying to someone if they don't like it here they can go elsewhere. That's not so difficult is it? You get it all here, the good, the bad and the ugly. Including well-formulated criticism and slagging off. All of it. I don't need you or anyone else to lecture me on what might or might not be allowed here. If you don't like that, you can go elsewhere for your singularly well-formulated criticism. I'll stay here for all of it.

P.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

You chose to respond to that post to make the point? What exactly IS your point? I was saying to someone if they don't like it here they can go elsewhere. That's not so difficult is it? You get it all here, the good, the bad and the ugly. Including well-formulated criticism and slagging off. All of it. I don't need you or anyone else to lecture me on what might or might not be allowed here. If you don't like that, you can go elsewhere for your singularly well-formulated criticism. I'll stay here for all of it.

P.

The thing is that whenever someone complains about this site's attitude, you pull out the old "if you cannot accept negative opinions about Morrissey, go somewhere else" accusation. That's not what the above poster wanted to express, and I think you also know that very well. But thank you for confirming that you absolutely don't mind if people come here only to bash Morrissey. You're weird.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

I think you miss the point - everyone is open to criticism including the mods and the site itself, proof being your post and many others that actually do come and 'bash' us and the site. If you have a problem with someone that comes 'only to bash Morrissey' (I don't know who you are referring to) then you are free to report the post or perhaps ignore it like others.

The thing is that whenever someone complains about this site's attitude, you pull out the old "if you cannot accept negative opinions about Morrissey, go somewhere else" accusation. That's not what the above poster wanted to express, and I think you also know that very well. But thank you for confirming that you absolutely don't mind if people come here only to bash Morrissey. You're weird.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

The thing is that whenever someone complains about this site's attitude, you pull out the old "if you cannot accept negative opinions about Morrissey, go somewhere else" accusation. That's not what the above poster wanted to express, and I think you also know that very well. But thank you for confirming that you absolutely don't mind if people come here only to bash Morrissey. You're weird.

You know what, you're right. I don't mind if people come here to 'bash Morrissey'. I also don't mind if people come here to sing his praises, which they also do in large number, something you appear to want to ignore because it doesn't suit your agenda. If you don't like it here, why not just ignore what goes on?

P.

 

[bored]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

I think you miss the point - everyone is open to criticism including the mods and the site itself, proof being your post and many others that actually do come and 'bash' us and the site. If you have a problem with someone that comes 'only to bash Morrissey' (I don't know who you are referring to) then you are free to report the post or perhaps ignore it like others.

I see quite a few people who only want to come here to say Morrissey sucks. I just ignore them. I think they are still very attached. I used to be a huge fan of interpol but their last few albums have been lousy and their live shows are too short. I still love the first to records but I don't pay attention to them anymore. I don't know anything about them. If I still had a hard-on for them I'd be all over their boards complaining they didn't play the right songs or the new bassist is shit or whatever else I could think to stir it up.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Or she could just provide a link to her site that she doesn't understand why more people aren't using and get it over with, why hold back?

You know what, you're right. I don't mind if people come here to 'bash Morrissey'. I also don't mind if people come here to sing his praises, which they also do in large number, something you appear to want to ignore because it doesn't suit your agenda. If you don't like it here, why not just ignore what goes on?

P.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Or she could just provide a link to her site that she doesn't understand why more people aren't using and get it over with, why hold back?

Very good point. If everyone wants happy-pixie land, provide the link so they can all be smiley over there. Whoever wants to be joyous can go there right away.

P.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

You know what, you're right. I don't mind if people come here to 'bash Morrissey'. I also don't mind if people come here to sing his praises, which they also do in large number, something you appear to want to ignore because it doesn't suit your agenda. If you don't like it here, why not just ignore what goes on?

P.

I'd ask you to not insinuate things I never said. I do see that there's also positive posts here. I'm not an idiot.

Very good point. If everyone wants happy-pixie land, provide the link so they can all be smiley over there. Whoever wants to be joyous can go there right away.

P.

And again, you're trying to sound superiour by dragging my point to the extreme. That's poor discussion culture, and it reveals quite simple black/white thinking. Nobody wants happy-pixie land, just a bit of reasonable politeness and general respect towards each other and Morrissey. It would be your job to create such an atmosphere, as a moderator. But you're part of the problem, obviously.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Or she could just provide a link to her site that she doesn't understand why more people aren't using and get it over with, why hold back?

I admit I have no idea what you're saying. Was that directed to me? I'm male and I don't have a website.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

I'd ask you to not insinuate things I never said. I do see that there's also positive posts here. I'm not an idiot.





And again, you're trying to sound superiour by dragging my point to the extreme. That's poor discussion culture, and it reveals quite simple black/white thinking. Nobody wants happy-pixie land, just a bit of reasonable politeness and general respect towards each other and Morrissey. It would be your job to create such an atmosphere, as a moderator. But you're part of the problem, obviously.

Yeah whatever, you can reply to this and have the last word. Have a nice weekend. All I'm seeing and hearing is this...

P.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Sorry for the incorrect identification.

Please post links to examples of the 'rudely slagging-off' you are saying below so we and everyone else interested can take a look. How would you want these posts censored? If it's a valid complaint and the action is agreed upon as justified then we'll make changes.

You STILL haven't understood the difference between well-formulated criticism and just rudely slagging-off? Really? I mean how many times have people tried to explain that to you? It's not that complicated.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Yeah whatever, you can reply to this and have the last word. Have a nice weekend. All I'm seeing and hearing is this...

P.

... and that's exactly your problem. I think I made myself very clear, and I also don't think that my points were SO hard to understand. EOD accepted, there's no point in talking to a wall of ignorance.

As for David's answer, I have no time now but I'll address it tomorrow.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Sorry for the incorrect identification.

Please post links to examples of the 'rudely slagging-off' you are saying below so we and everyone else interested can take a look. How would you want these posts censored? If it's a valid complaint and the action is agreed upon as justified then we'll make changes.

Ok it's the usual choreography. We're now at the point where you want links to abusive posts (haven't YOU come across any lately? People suggesting that David Letterman wears a bacon coat when Morrissey is there etc.?) I'll tell you instead what I think is wrong with this site, and you'll either agree or not.

I have some strong opinions on this world and I'd like to discuss them. I'd like to discuss them with Morrissey fans. But what would happen if I'd start a thread on this site - the discussion might be running fruitful for 2-10 posts. Then anons enter the thread with pointless one-liners, most probably also containing strong language, and CorneliusBlaze posts a funny gif, then mcrickson makes a smart remark, followed by an oh-so-awesome dig by VivaHate, and NotHappyNotSad applauds in an annoying way, and then the thread is finally killed by a bitch fight between Skylarker and CrystalGeezer. I formulated over the top to make a point.

The worst thing is that people can post anonymous. Don't tell me that it's the same as having an anonymous but recognisable account. It isn't. Accounts have reputation and identity. Also an e-mail address.

Seriously, David, is it because you're Chinese? Do you see yourself as a warrior for free speech? The thing is, you're doing it on the back of a very much appreciated human being. Randomly allowing ANYTHING is not free speech, but anomie. You might want to look that up. ANOMIE.

This is how morrissey-solo looks. I guess you two, David and Peter, are the ones to address in this matter. Care to do anything about it? Do you even see a problem? Just answer this last question first please, because if you deny the existence of the problem, there's no point in discussing it.

Should we all agree that the problem exists, it would probably make sense to discuss what David could do to get rid of it. My first suggestion would be to completely ban anonymous posts. That wouldn't touch free speech, but would raise the threshold to post for trolls.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

I see quite a few people who only want to come here to say Morrissey sucks. I just ignore them. I think they are still very attached. I used to be a huge fan of interpol but their last few albums have been lousy and their live shows are too short. I still love the first to records but I don't pay attention to them anymore. I don't know anything about them. If I still had a hard-on for them I'd be all over their boards complaining they didn't play the right songs or the new bassist is shit or whatever else I could think to stir it up.

... and this is exactly why some people just can't leave Morrissey, but instead of dealing with their obsessive fandom like adults, they troll. With every post where they bash Morrissey, they reassure themselves how high they are now above him. It's so pathetic to watch.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

Ok it's the usual choreography. We're now at the point where you want links to abusive posts (haven't YOU come across any lately? People suggesting that David Letterman wears a bacon coat when Morrissey is there etc.?) I'll tell you instead what I think is wrong with this site, and you'll either agree or not.

I have some strong opinions on this world and I'd like to discuss them. I'd like to discuss them with Morrissey fans. But what would happen if I'd start a thread on this site - the discussion might be running fruitful for 2-10 posts. Then anons enter the thread with pointless one-liners, most probably also containing strong language, and CorneliusBlaze posts a funny gif, then mcrickson makes a smart remark, followed by an oh-so-awesome dig by VivaHate, and NotHappyNotSad applauds in an annoying way, and then the thread is finally killed by a bitch fight between Skylarker and CrystalGeezer. I formulated over the top to make a point.

I see you can't answer my simple request of posting links and what you would do to censor them, but instead go on a rant about people you don't like. You did reference that you don't like the joke kissmyshadestoo made about Letterman wearing a suit of bacon. Here, I'll post a link here, it's not that hard:

I hope Dave wears a suit made out of bacon for the show....

What action would you take on this post? Let's see if anyone agrees with it. I see a harmless joke - Letterman is known for his love of meat / many skits involving meat. I think it's ridiculous I need to explain this but go ahead and explain what action you would take.

So you admit to formulating 'over the top' to make a point, did you forget you just posted this previously?

And again, you're trying to sound superiour by dragging my point to the extreme. That's poor discussion culture, and it reveals quite simple black/white thinking.

The worst thing is that people can post anonymous. Don't tell me that it's the same as having an anonymous but recognisable account. It isn't. Accounts have reputation and identity. Also an e-mail address.

Seriously, David, is it because you're Chinese? Do you see yourself as a warrior for free speech? The thing is, you're doing it on the back of a very much appreciated human being. Randomly allowing ANYTHING is not free speech, but anomie. You might want to look that up. ANOMIE.

First of all, you do recognize the irony that you are posting anonymously? Second of all, changes were made to address the 'anomie' as anonymous posts are now moderated before being posted. So the 'anomie' you are presuming doesn't exist. Also, if you did log in with an account, you could self-censor by ignoring anonymous posts (and other specific users, if you choose). But it seems what you want is what is distasteful to you to be censored for everyone.

This is how morrissey-solo looks. I guess you two, David and Peter, are the ones to address in this matter. Care to do anything about it? Do you even see a problem? Just answer this last question first please, because if you deny the existence of the problem, there's no point in discussing it.

Should we all agree that the problem exists, it would probably make sense to discuss what David could do to get rid of it. My first suggestion would be to completely ban anonymous posts. That wouldn't touch free speech, but would raise the threshold to post for trolls.

I have broken down your post with the above replies to show that indeed, there is no 'problem' except some person does not understand the concept of an open forum and likes to complain without giving valid examples or solutions to their complaints. The picture of the baby whining posted by Uncleskinny is appropriate.

Yeah whatever, you can reply to this and have the last word. Have a nice weekend. All I'm seeing and hearing is this...

P.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

So you're obviously denying that there's something wrong with this site. It's your usual pattern of argumentation (pointing out the irony that I'm posting anonymous, I really didn't see THAT coming). My guess is that you're keeping the negativity because you want traffic. Nothing sells better than flame wars. You're not too dumb or blind to see the truth, in fact it's a character deficit on your side, I'd say.

Let's just watch this thread for a while: http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/126589-New-to-this-(

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: New UNCUT - Morrissey on Mick Ronson (Feb. 2013)

So from what I understand you want to eliminate all posts that are considered 'negative' and ban those that post 'negative' comments? Yes I agree, that would impact traffic, I think it would make for an incredibly boring site. But there is a site trying to do what you want and uses the same language you have used (which is why I confused you earlier), why don't you leave and use that one?

http://allyouneedismorrissey.com/index/

So you're obviously denying that there's something wrong with this site. It's your usual pattern of argumentation (pointing out the irony that I'm posting anonymous, I really didn't see THAT coming). My guess is that you're keeping the negativity because you want traffic. Nothing sells better than flame wars. You're not too dumb or blind to see the truth, in fact it's a character deficit on your side, I'd say.

Let's just watch this thread for a while: http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/126589-New-to-this-%28