All remaining dates on the current US Tour have been postponed - TTY

Press release - true-to-you.net

26 October 2012

All remaining dates on the current US Tour have been postponed - but not cancelled - as Morrissey has returned to England where his mother has been hospitalized and is unwell. Due to issues with his mother's health, Morrissey will need to remain by her side during this difficult period.

Those who have already purchased tickets for all upcoming dates are highly encouraged to hold on to their tickets and look out for the rescheduled dates. The new dates will be announced shortly.

Morrissey would like to thank everyone for their understanding and patience as the shows are being prepared for a swift reschedule.

 

[realitybites]

Davidt. If the context of my inquiry was that poorly constructed its because I'm typing it all out on a phone. I'm just surprised half of it wasn't autocorrected.

And he is not responsible for your inane post. Agree?

 

[MORRIZSEY]

Davidt. If the context of my inquiry was that poorly constructed its because I'm typing it all out on a phone. I'm just surprised half of it wasn't autocorrected.

I understand. I have re-read it and it's actually a very good statement

 

[CrystalGeezer]

And he is not responsible for your inane post. Agree?

I'm not addressing responsibility. I'm addressing an inconsistency in honoring free speech part of the time while policing it the other part.

 

[MORRIZSEY]

Are you a cheerleader for paternalism? Just wondering.

Not particularly

 

[realitybites]

Not particularly

Well, your posts kind of read along those lines.

 

[MORRIZSEY]

I'm not addressing responsibility. I'm addressing an inconsistency in honoring free speech part of the time while policing it the other part.

To be fair, it was a very well made point. I missed it the first time round on scanning

 

[auntie christ]

What exactly do you mean 'brought to bear'?

Apologies if this is a duplicate post -- my phone was screwing up.

For brevity's sake, to apply responsibility of and for an opinion.

 

[auntie christ]

To be fair, it was a very well made point.

ditto

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I'm a huge proponent of free speech. I wouldn't have been able to get away with half the ideas I put out there if I weren't free to have a venue that over polices posts. I just think that given a situation where it's clear that the verbal exchanges are a nuisance and are driving the quieter people away for the sake of enabling an argument that free speech is the foundation, an equal foundation should be a call for order when it's clear a particular person is not contributing to the greater good of the community. I could be wrong.

And the argument "Well Morrissey is outspoken and offensive..." Certainly you could rise above Morrissey?

 

[davidt]

I'm not addressing responsibility. I'm addressing an inconsistency in honoring free speech part of the time while policing it the other part.

It's not like there wasn't any moderation on this thread. 40 or 50 posts have been moved to the off-topic fight thread in the pigsty. Some posts were not approved but you wouldn't see that action as that is behind-the-scenes.

As far as posts by registered users or anonymous users that you find offensive, you can add them to your ignore list. But it seems most people here are not satisfied with that, they find it so offensive they feel the posts should be hidden for everyone.

 

[auntie christ]

I'm a huge proponent of free speech. I wouldn't have been able to get away with half the ideas I put out there if I weren't free to have a venue that over polices posts. I just think that given a situation where it's clear that the verbal exchanges are a nuisance and are driving the quieter people away for the sake of enabling an argument that free speech is the foundation, an equal foundation should be a call for order when it's clear a particular person is not contributing to the greater good of the community. I could be wrong.

And the argument "Well Morrissey is outspoken and offensive..." Certainly you could rise above Morrissey?

You're not wrong. To apply a bumper sticker mentality to free speech by whipping out the Reader's Digest quotes debases the entire ideal. There are nuances and caveats to free speech as evidenced by every single court case in which the right has been argued. Whatever crap they lay on you in these forums CG, you have critical thinking skills.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

It's not like there wasn't any moderation on this thread. 40 or 50 posts have been moved to the off-topic fight thread in the pigsty. Some posts were not approved but you wouldn't see that action as that is behind-the-scenes.

As far as posts by registered users or anonymous users that you find offensive, you can add them to your ignore list. But it seems most people here are not satisfied with that, they find it so offensive they feel the posts should be hidden for everyone.

I do applaud the moving of posts. I suppose I'm tired of the "See this is why this place is SO LOW" arguments being made for the sake of allowing someone to ogle Morrisseys sick mother as a "valid opinion." I am of the opinion sometimes this place needs a PR department more than a gang of bad ass infantile vigilantes who test free speech in an abusive way.

 

[auntie christ]

It's not like there wasn't any moderation on this thread. 40 or 50 posts have been moved to the off-topic fight thread in the pigsty. Some posts were not approved but you wouldn't see that action as that is behind-the-scenes.

As far as posts by registered users or anonymous users that you find offensive, you can add them to your ignore list. But it seems most people here are not satisfied with that, they find it so offensive they feel the posts should be hidden for everyone.

David, in what world should indecency be ignored?

 

[MORRIZSEY]

It's not like there wasn't any moderation on this thread. 40 or 50 posts have been moved to the off-topic fight thread in the pigsty. Some posts were not approved but you wouldn't see that action as that is behind-the-scenes.

As far as posts by registered users or anonymous users that you find offensive, you can add them to your ignore list. But it seems most people here are not satisfied with that, they find it so offensive they feel the posts should be hidden for everyone.

You are right. I do feel I shouldn't have to add someone to my ignore list, any more than adding someone to my avoid list when walking to the shops.
They are the bully. Why should I spend time dodging them when we know who they are? Why should it be my problem? What are moderators for?

 

[davidt]

Apologies if this is a duplicate post -- my phone was screwing up.

For brevity's sake, to apply responsibility of and for an opinion.

It may be hard to track down a person in real life that posts anonymously or even under a username such as 'auntie christ' but it is possible in most cases if necessary. Otherwise, it is like any other post on a site, the person is generally responsible - not Facebook, YouTube, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sergie Brin etc. As I mentioned before, some posts were actually moderated in the thread and if the offending person has a username, you can add them to your ignore list and you won't see their posts. But it seems you want to censor posts for everyone else, some of who may not necessarily agree with what you want censored.

 

[realitybites]

You're not wrong. To apply a bumper sticker mentality to free speech by whipping out the Reader's Digest quotes debases the entire ideal. There are nuances and caveats to free speech as evidenced by every single court case in which the right has been argued. Whatever crap they lay on you in these forums CG, you have critical thinking skills.

Wow, you're setting the bar high for the rest of us, there.

 

[auntie christ]

It may be hard to track down a person in real life that posts anonymously or even under a username such as 'auntie christ' but it is possible in most cases if necessary. Otherwise, it is like any other post on a site, the person is generally responsible - not Facebook, YouTube, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sergie Brin etc. As I mentioned before, some posts were actually moderated in the thread and if the offending person has a username, you can add them to your ignore list and you won't see their posts. But it seems you want to censor posts for everyone else, some of who may not necessarily agree with what you want censored.

You can't honestly tell me one damn thread about somebody's sick mother can't stay respectful.

 

[MORRIZSEY]

You can't honestly tell me one damn thread about somebody's sick mother can't stay respectful.

I have to agree

 

[CrystalGeezer]

It may be hard to track down a person in real life that posts anonymously or even under a username such as 'auntie christ' but it is possible in most cases if necessary. Otherwise, it is like any other post on a site, the person is generally responsible - not Facebook, YouTube, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sergie Brin etc. As I mentioned before, some posts were actually moderated in the thread and if the offending person has a username, you can add them to your ignore list and you won't see their posts. But it seems you want to censor posts for everyone else, some of who may not necessarily agree with what you want censored.

But looking at traffic, is it true that most visitors reading the comments are not even registered users or even remotely aware of how to ignore someone? Shouldn't the moderators be striving to create a positive experience for the occasional user as opposed to the regular one who can modify their reading list as they like?

 

[CrystalGeezer]

You can't honestly tell me one damn thread about somebody's sick mother can't stay respectful.

I agree with this too. Bitch and moan about the band, the backdrop, the set list. But some things are kinda sacred. You take your shoes off when you enter a home, you tip your hat to a service member, you keep a thread about a sick relative respectful.