Does Morrissey have a secret ‘serious illness’? - all-noise.co.uk

Seriously distasteful and intrusive speculation based on very very flimsy 'evidence' indeed. Morrissey has already admitted that he is/was a practising homosexual. Whether he is ill or not is a completely different issue and he is entitled to keep that private.

 

[Amy]

Like more than few female Soloists, she's interested in Moz primarily as a pin-up.

Hence you can say ANYTHING about him--except that he's gay.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have always said that Morrissey is gay. As for the pin-up comment, well, funniest thing I've read all week.

 

[Amy]

Doesn't Amy the Beatles fan often post ignorant judgments about Moz on a Moz fan board because she hates that he tells the truth about murder?

GoneForeverNotQuite

Nope.

 

[Irish blood Irish heart]

So low, so aptly named, a fan site? A fanny's site more like

 

[Anonymous]

Howz about a poll?
We've already had one on here for "Do you think Morrissey is an alcoholic?" Maybe a friendly moderator could add a poll for "Do you think Morrissey has AIDS?" as well?

 

[Anonymous]

if anyone reads the blind item on the actual site, I believe a clue is given. "he has his story and is sticking to it."

most of these blind item websites give clues for the reader to guess who the actual blind is about.

the first celebrity who popped into mind was r. kelly. his latest single is titled "my story" where an actual lyric is
"this is my story and I am sticking to it." although, i do not consider r kelly or moz to be B list. i still wish them both well.

 

[Anonymous]

How can you post something like this??!!!!!!!!

And now i know how joan of arc felt

 

[gonzax]

Seriously distasteful and intrusive speculation based on very very flimsy 'evidence' indeed. Morrissey has already admitted that he is/was a practising homosexual. Whether he is ill or not is a completely different issue and he is entitled to keep that private.

Agreed 100%

 

[Kalmsa]

If he was indeed seriously ill, he wouldn't be jet setting back and forth between Europe and America, and risk exacerbating his situation.

 

[davidt]

I wasn't talking about that part but you can spin it that way to suit your argument. I was talking about the paragraph in which he talks about the source: "One of the many blogs I follow and read on a daily basis is Crazy Days And Nights, which is a Hollywood gossip site run by an anonymous entertainment lawyer. It’s slightly trashy, but it satisfies my quick need for salacious gossip nicely! The most interesting feature of CDAN is the ‘blind items’, which involve the lawyer revealing who his previous gossip stories were about. The accuracy of the blind items are of course up for debate, but as a lawyer it’s probably safe to assume he wouldn’t be publishing anything that could be seen as libellous."

You can call BS on him or whatever, maybe find some evidence the source is known for making up rumors. But blaming the site for highlighting the link, getting offended that anyone would suggest that Morrissey isn't honest about cancellations, and burying your head in the sand isn't really supporting your argument.

Y'think? "So, yeah, I've suspected Moz has AIDS for a while now" is some crazy-ass definition of 'insight'.

 

[How I Got My Name]

Items of interest are highlighted. Pretty much anything in the media is fair game. I'm not out to offend anyone but at the same time, I'm not going to bury stories if I think a few politically correct people might get offended.

This is an ill conceived and pitiful response. Someone’s life is ‘fair game’? Really? Is that the tone of Morrissey-Solo? If it is I would suggest that it cannot be a fan site for Morrissey? How could it possibly be a fan site when Morrissey-Solo thinks Morrissey little more than a ‘target’ for spurious, unfounded comments about his personal life? I absolutely agree in the practice of free speech and if this site was full of ingratiating, reverential comments I would find that crass, boring and ridiculous.

But if Morrissey-Solo is a bastion of free speech how would it react if I were to write a blog that stated that Davidt did this and did that (in his personal life) with no foundation to those claims with a tentative link to Morrissey, would that too be posted on Morrissey-Solo (as it contained the word Morrissey) or would that be ‘buried’? I have no interest in carrying out such a hateful task and I had thought Morrissey-Solo better equipped to edit such hateful gossip – instead it refers to it as a story. Sad. Very, very sad.

I would not describe myself as politically correct. I would describe myself as a Morrissey fan. It’s a pity Morrissey-Solo cannot do the same. I think as fans we have every right to discuss/argue about his music/his statements; we have absolutely no right as fans to intrude into such a sensitive area as his personal life. In my opinion, anyone who does feel the need to pry, make up stories is less of a fan and more of a voyeur or provocateur.

 

[davidt]

By highlighting a link I am not suggesting that I agree with it or endorse it. It is just a link and you can decide what you want to do with it. You can comment on that site directly or attack the author there. Don't shoot the messenger, etc.

This is an ill conceived and pitiful response. Someone’s life is ‘fair game’? Really? Is that the tone of Morrissey-Solo? If it is I would suggest that it cannot be a fan site for Morrissey? How could it possibly be a fan site when Morrissey-Solo thinks Morrissey little more than a ‘target’ for spurious, unfounded comments about his personal life? I absolutely agree in the practice of free speech and if this site was full of ingratiating, reverential comments I would find that crass, boring and ridiculous.

But if Morrissey-Solo is a bastion of free speech how would it react if I were to write a blog that stated that Davidt did this and did that (in his personal life) with no foundation to those claims with a tentative link to Morrissey, would that too be posted on Morrissey-Solo (as it contained the word Morrissey) or would that be ‘buried’? I have no interest in carrying out such a hateful task and I had thought Morrissey-Solo better equipped to edit such hateful gossip – instead it refers to it as a story. Sad. Very, very sad.

I would not describe myself as politically correct. I would describe myself as a Morrissey fan. It’s a pity Morrissey-Solo cannot do the same. I think as fans we have every right to discuss/argue about his music/his statements; we have absolutely no right as fans to intrude into such a sensitive area as his personal life. In my opinion, anyone who does feel the need to pry, make up stories is less of a fan and more of a voyeur or provocateur.

 

[How I Got My Name]

By highlighting a link I am not suggesting that I agree with it or endorse it. It is just a link and you can decide what you want to do with it. You can comment on that site directly or attack the author there. Don't shoot the messenger, etc.

You seem to be missing the point, I suspect quite intentionally? The original site does not purport to be a Morrisey fan site. I have no interest in the myre in which the original website swims. I do however hope that Morrisey-Solo will (although I know historically it has taken an entrenched stand in its opinion) show good grace to the object of its supposed affection and remove this defamatory link. I won't re-post on this matter it is not deserving of my, or anyone else's, attention

 

[Celibate Pie]

Morrissey's lawyers will be busy.

 

[Wozzles]

This is pretty unacceptable. Morrissey SHOULD get really litigious. If I can sue The NYPD and WIN, then Morrissey should certainly sue all of you.

Solidarity with M!

 

[Uncleskinny]

You seem to be missing the point, I suspect quite intentionally? The original site does not purport to be a Morrisey fan site. I have no interest in the myre in which the original website swims. I do however hope that Morrisey-Solo will (although I know historically it has taken an entrenched stand in its opinion) show good grace to the object of its supposed affection and remove this defamatory link. I won't re-post on this matter it is not deserving of my, or anyone else's, attention

What good will removing the link do? People can still find the original article. All that's happened here, like thousands of times before, is a link has been posted. As David said, if you have a problem with the article, go and talk to the author of it. Do you think Facebook is responsible for the content of the billions of links posted there?

P.

 

[Thewlis]

What good will removing the link do? People can still find the original article. All that's happened here, like thousands of times before, is a link has been posted. As David said, if you have a problem with the article, go and talk to the author of it. Do you think Facebook is responsible for the content of the billions of links posted there?

P.

No, but Facebook doesn't carry as its name a certain singer we all value. And yes, it has the option to report offensive content, which can, and will be removed.
How low can you sink?

 

[Peterb]

This is really turning out to be an entertaining thread.
All these Moz adherents with their faux outrage at the posting of a link is a right old laff!
Dear old Moz is minor star in the firmament and not a very productive one at that so when any news appears
it is worthy of note.
It's not as if we have any records to talk about.
I think this site should let us know whenever there is any sort of news, be it a load of toilet or otherwise.
God knows, if they didn't, we have posters complaining that Solo was not doing it's job!

 

[troubleluvsme]

Take into consideration some of the things he's said.... (most recently what he said about meat eaters/pedophiles, and his "humasexual" remark- does that mean he's not yet having sex with animals?)
clearly, he has a serious illness. Mental illness, if nothing else.

 

[Uncleskinny]

No, but Facebook doesn't carry as its name a certain singer we all value. And yes, it has the option to report offensive content, which can, and will be removed.
How low can you sink?

How many times? Take it up with the author of the article. You could equally take issue with the site for posting this link...
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/content/1542-Autobiography-No-1-in-Uncut-Magazine-s-books-of-the-year
...for instance, but you probably wouldn't because you probably agree with the content.

And if you're all ired up about Morrissey fan pages reporting this, here's another one you can get angry with, one of the foremost Morrissey fan pages on Facebook reporting the exact same link...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/134849196593554/permalink/573118606099942/

And, by the way, if I were Morrissey, and I thought an utter untruth had been published, I'd be after the Crazydaysandnights guy like a shot for this blind reveal.

P.

 

[Thewlis]

How many times? Take it up with the author of the article. You could equally take issue with the site for posting this link...
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/content/1542-Autobiography-No-1-in-Uncut-Magazine-s-books-of-the-year
...for instance, but you probably wouldn't because you probably agree with the content.

And if you're all ired up about Morrissey fan pages reporting this, here's another one you can get angry with, one of the foremost Morrissey fan pages on Facebook reporting the exact same link...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/134849196593554/permalink/573118606099942/

P.

So you cannot tell the difference between a book review in a leading music mag and an ill-founded rumour on a gossip site?
I rest my case.

And just beacause somebody else is doing the same thing, doesn't make it right.
Stick in the knife, P, stick in the knife...