FOS discussion

[Malarkey]

If you're interested in where IPC got its racism angle from - it's this scene:

Square Peg, 1986

 

[Anonymous]

You work for an agency that knows who social media "influencer" PJW is but their knowledge doesn't come social media?

Okaaaay.

Yes. I don't read his social media. I don't even have any accounts on social media.

But you still don't answer the point made.

I am intelligent enough to not be influenced by any of this.

Using the basis of your argument and logic on influence I should now be influenced by what you have been saying now for 22 pages and days of illogical posts.

It's not a logical statement to make that because someone might read something that they are automatically influenced by it.

I have to read many texts from governments around the world and books and papers from many many quarters of society including in my youth the bible daily but none of it per se manipulates by brain. I am intelligent. I have the ability to dismiss thinks I think are manipulative and not true like most of your posts for example.

You can't force people to be of a certain type just to squeeze them into your obsessed model of conspiracy. It isn't scientific or logical. If something doesnt fit your model then you can't just force it to fit.

The way you do that is not healthy for you

 

[Anonymous]

If you're interested in where IPC got its racism angle from - it's this scene:

View attachment 90108
View attachment 90109

Square Peg, 1986

No I'm not going to read that.

You make statements and I respond to them and then you change the point of the discussion.

You stated Morrissey has never posted any videos from anyone at Infowars and your stated the far right has hijacked Morrissey.

Do you have any comment on the fact you stated Morrissey has never posted anything from anyone at Infowars and that the far right hijacked Morrissey recently in your concern for white supremacists going to his gigs.

Any comment on the post I linked on the video Morrissey posted by PJW?

Any comment on whether it is Morrissey who may be linking himself to the far right by posting videos from the far right?

Let's deal with those points before you move to your next otherwise there really is no point in taking to you.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

It depends on how you look at this and there is more than one way to view it.

Maybe it shows he fears not about being silenced because that hasn't been the case for more than 30 years, but that he is actually concerned about money and his income.

It goes back to people having the freedom to chose what and who they spend their money on regardless of what the reason is.

He knows that speaking controversially has had a direct impact on his income so by toning it down he is thinking about his income.

In a way it does back up the idea that the effect on his career is from what he has said and fans' reaction to those things rather than any campaign by a few journalists.

Of course there’s always more than one way to look at it. And it’s important for us to remember that.

Yes, concern is fear, loss of livelihood. So his self-silencing can be fear based.

Of course it is a possibility. We all want to protect our financial security, amongst other things.

In a way. Though I believe it’s a combination of things. For it’s close to impossible to not be influenced by opinions not your own, even indirectly.

He will be trying to convince record companies right now that any money that he wants them to invest in his product won't be a financial disaster if he again repeats the like of the controversial Der Spiegel interview etc. It will be all about money.

You can't spend a life buying Hollywood properties previously owned by Hollywood actors or spending a year living in a five star hotel or buying property in Switzerland, and buying all your clothes from top end designers etc without needing to make sure the money keeps coming in, in barrels full of it and without a record deal the costs of touring are also coming out of his pocket.

He may be. Or find a label that welcomes controversy, and sees it as free publicity. Of course in these times, most would not see that as such a smart business move.

Or as has been repeatedly said, self-release.

 

[Malarkey]

No I'm not going to read that.

You make statements and I respond to them and then you change the point of the discussion.

You stated Morrissey has never posted any videos from anyone at Infowars and your stated the far right has hijacked Morrissey.

Do you have any comment on the fact you stated Morrissey has never posted anything from anyone at Infowars and that the far right hijacked Morrissey recently in your concern for white supremacists going to his gigs.

Any comment on the post I linked on the video Morrissey posted by PJW?

Any comment on whether it is Morrissey who may be linking himself to the far right by posting videos from the far right?

Let's deal with those points before you move to your next otherwise there really is no point in taking to you.

Central hasn't posted an InfoWars video. But if you know all about PJWs connections via the documents you have to read in the course of your job none of which have influenced you at all, then that's fabulous.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course there’s always more than one way to look at it. And it’s important for us to remember that.

Yes, concern is fear, loss of livelihood. So his self-silencing can be fear based.

Of course it is a possibility. We all want to protect our financial security, amongst other things.

In a way. Though I believe it’s a combination of things. For it’s close to impossible to not be influenced by opinions not your own, even indirectly.


He may be. Or find a label that welcomes controversy, and sees it as free publicity. Of course in these times, most would not see that as such a smart business move.

Or as has been repeatedly said, self-release.

If the opinion is based on facts and is founded on intelligent grounding and analysis then it is possible to agree with an opinion but most of us wouldn't be influenced out of the blue by random statements that come from journalists who have an obvious historic dislike of the person they have the opinion of.

In the early 90s all Morrissey fans were bombarded with stuff in the press about Morrissey after Finsbury park but it didn't influence me. I didn't for one minute start thinking Morrissey was racist because the NME thought so. I analysed what was being said in those opinions at the time and assessed the facts and what Morrissey had actually done and decided on my own what I thought and dismissed all that opinion as being unsubstantiated.

That is what most intelligent people did and still do.

The last 5 years is different because we have Morrissey providing more food for that analysis through the recorded interview, how he acted over that denial of that interview and the arrival of his own website where he adds his own commentary and posts of the likes of PJW videos. etc etc.

There will be many people who analyzed all of that detail that came directly from the Morrissey camp and made a decision. Whether anyone thinks they shouldn't make those decisions, or whether people think it is self righteous or misunderstood is not important. It is about people making their own democratic decision. For me that decision was not influenced by anything Billy Bragg or Dave Haslam or any IPC journalist was putting on their twitter pages or in the NME. I don't have a twitter account or any social media account or a Youtube account mainly because I consider the vast majority of it out there to be fake, false, unverified, nasty or just plain not interesting and I don't need a platform to post pictures of my cats or what food I am eating or what event I am going to or where I am flying to. I have a whatsapp group for friends and family and that is where my digital comms goes for that kind of social planning etc. I waste too much time on here trying to discuss to brick walls already without adding facebook and twitter to it. I have other things to do.

Yes I have suggested in this thread many times that if he wants his fans to hear his album so much then stop complaining to the world that he is being silenced, whereas Sam Smith's Satanism isn't, and just put his money where his mouth is and self release. It isn't that complex for someone with this amount of knowledge of the industry to do and many artists do it.

 

[Anonymous]

Central hasn't posted an InfoWars video. But if you know all about PJWs connections via the documents you have to read in the course of your job none of which have influenced you at all, then that's fabulous.

You still are not dealing with the point you raised about the far right. I repeat:

You stated Morrissey has never posted any videos from anyone at Infowars and your stated the far right has hijacked Morrissey.

Do you have any comment on the fact you stated Morrissey has never posted anything from anyone at Infowars and that the far right hijacked Morrissey recently in your concern for white supremacists going to his gigs.

Any comment on the post I linked on the video Morrissey posted by PJW?

Any comment on whether it is Morrissey who may be linking himself to the far right by posting videos from the far right?

Let's deal with those points before you move to your next otherwise there really is no point in taking to you.

I am perfectly able to read something without being influenced by it. I read all your posts and they don't influence me. Or are you suggesting now I am influenced by PJW?

Central has posted a PJW video and he is absolutely part of Infowars but whether you think that or not is not relevant to this point. It is about your statement that Morrissey has been hijacked by the far right.

There is no point in continuing with you if you just go from one point to another, allow me to respond to what I think of your point and ask you for a response and then you change the whole point on to something else.

It is crazy. If you really want to ever try to get anyone to believe your points of view or take anything you say seriously then you should really be able to finish one point of discussion without ignoring the response that comes back re your point.

Otherwise it is just dull and veering on obsessive compulsive insanity.

 

[No 27]

Aye, because it's going to be really difficult to prove that IPC lied because they're massive homophobes.

View attachment 90107

Rarely a truer word was spoken: as your, probably, thousands of posts on this issue attest, it  is "really difficult to prove that IPC lied because they're massive homophobes".

You've been droning on about this for, literally, years and yet you've always been, and continue to be, completely unable to unequivocally demonstrate a clear line of causation.

Perhaps these few journalists really do hate the gays. (You might be right, but I'm not convinced.) Even supposing you're right, so what?

Where your tedious conspiracy allegation invariably falls down is your inability to show - on the balance of probabilities at the very least - that these journalists and publications were/are motivated to question Morrissey's attitudes toward "race", and discredit him as a "racist", solely because they're prejudiced against gay people.

Assuming tentatively for just a moment that they're all homophobes, as you claim, it does not simply follow that it was/is homophobia which caused/causes them to express suspicions about whether or not Morrissey harbours ill-feeling toward non-white / non-British people. It's entirely possible that homophobic journalists could still reasonably, sincerely and correctly believe that Morrissey is a "racist".

It seems much more likely that they chose to air their suspicions because of Morrissey's - to be charitable - deliberately ambiguous attitudes toward non-white people and immigration, more generally.

Occam's razor etc.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

If the opinion is based on facts and is founded on intelligent grounding and analysis then it is possible to agree with an opinion but most of us wouldn't be influenced out of the blue by random statements that come from journalists who have an obvious historic dislike of the person they have the opinion of.

My opinion is, that there is the possibility of influence, the positive and the negative. But if you don’t believe in the subconscious and how that can be influenced, then I can see how one may not agree with my opinion. Which is fine.

In the early 90s all Morrissey fans were bombarded with stuff in the press about Morrissey after Finsbury park but it didn't influence me. I didn't for one minute start thinking Morrissey was racist because the NME thought so. I analysed what was being said in those opinions at the time and assessed the facts and what Morrissey had actually done and decided on my own what I thought and dismissed all that opinion as being unsubstantiated.

That is what most intelligent people did and still do.

The last 5 years is different because we have Morrissey providing more food for that analysis through the recorded interview, how he acted over that denial of that interview and the arrival of his own website where he adds his own commentary and posts of the likes of PJW videos. etc etc.

There will be many people who analyzed all of that detail that came directly from the Morrissey camp and made a decision. Whether anyone thinks they shouldn't make those decisions, or whether people think it is self righteous or misunderstood is not important. It is about people making their own democratic decision. For me that decision was not influenced by anything Billy Bragg or Dave Haslam or any IPC journalist was putting on their twitter pages or in the NME. I don't have a twitter account or any social media account or a Youtube account mainly because I consider the vast majority of it out there to be fake, false, unverified, nasty or just plain not interesting and I don't need a platform to post pictures of my cats or what food I am eating or what event I am going to or where I am flying to. I have a whatsapp group for friends and family and that is where my digital comms goes for that kind of social planning etc. I waste too much time on here trying to discuss to brick walls already without adding facebook and twitter to it. I have other things to do.

Yes I have suggested in this thread many times that if he wants his fans to hear his album so much then stop complaining to the world that he is being silenced, whereas Sam Smith's Satanism isn't, and just put his money where his mouth is and self release. It isn't that complex for someone with this amount of knowledge of the industry to do and many artists do it.

thank you for sharing your particular experience and how you came to the conclusions that you came to.

The last 5 years is different because we have Morrissey providing more food for that analysis through the recorded interview, how he acted over that denial of that interview and the arrival of his own website where he adds his own commentary and posts of the likes of PJW videos. etc etc.

I assume you’re commenting on the Der Spiegel interview(?) I don’t think he denied what was said in that interview. I believe now, going back, that many, including myself, have made that mistake in interpreting his remark as a denial.

"I did an interview a couple of weeks ago for a
German newspaper and……of course....Let me
just say this; That was the last print interview
I will ever do. And unless you see the words
form in my mouth, and then you see the
words or hear the words come out of my
mouth, please, if you don't see that, I didn't
say them!"

Morrissey, on stage in Chicago, Sat 25th Nov
2017.


Which I believe correctly could/should be read as …

From here on out, ( post Der Spiegel)
because I’m not doing interviews anymore … ‘unless you see the words form in my mouth, and then you see the words or hear the words come out of my mouth, please, if you don't see that, I didn't say them!"

 

[Anonymous]

My opinion is, that there is the possibility of influence, the positive and the negative. But if you don’t believe in the subconscious and how that can be influenced, then I can see how one may not agree with my opinion. Which is fine.


thank you for sharing your particular experience and how you came to the conclusions that you came to.




I assume you’re commenting on the Der Spiegel interview(?) I don’t think he denied what was said in that interview. I believe now, going back, that many, including myself, have made that mistake in interpreting his remark as a denial.

"I did an interview a couple of weeks ago for a
German newspaper and……of course....Let me
just say this; That was the last print interview
I will ever do. And unless you see the words
form in my mouth, and then you see the
words or hear the words come out of my
mouth, please, if you don't see that, I didn't
say them!"

Morrissey, on stage in Chicago, Sat 25th Nov
2017.


Which I believe correctly could/should be read as …

From here on out, ( post Der Spiegel)
because I’m not doing interviews anymore … ‘unless you see the words form in my mouth, and then you see the words or hear the words come out of my mouth, please, if you don't see that, I didn't say them!"

I don't really see your different interpretation of that Chicago statement but that is ok I understand how you may interpret as that.

In reality what is important is what was in the interview rather any different interpretations of his statement on stage about that interview or interviews in general.

I still think he is suggesting to people that they shouldn't believe what was in that interview unless they hear him say it and of course, much to his surprise we did all get to hear it. In context it was at that time I believe a reaction to the huge backlash in the press because of the content in that printed interview and he was trying to tell his fanbase that it wasn't what he said.

Of course fans did and do present a different case which is their choice and their analysis of it.

 

[Malarkey]

If the opinion is based on facts and is founded on intelligent grounding and analysis then it is possible to agree with an opinion but most of us wouldn't be influenced out of the blue by random statements that come from journalists who have an obvious historic dislike of the person they have the opinion of.

In the early 90s all Morrissey fans were bombarded with stuff in the press about Morrissey after Finsbury park but it didn't influence me. I didn't for one minute start thinking Morrissey was racist because the NME thought so. I analysed what was being said in those opinions at the time and assessed the facts and what Morrissey had actually done and decided on my own what I thought and dismissed all that opinion as being unsubstantiated.

That is what most intelligent people did and still do.

The last 5 years is different because we have Morrissey providing more food for that analysis through the recorded interview, how he acted over that denial of that interview and the arrival of his own website where he adds his own commentary and posts of the likes of PJW videos. etc etc.

There will be many people who analyzed all of that detail that came directly from the Morrissey camp and made a decision. Whether anyone thinks they shouldn't make those decisions, or whether people think it is self righteous or misunderstood is not important. It is about people making their own democratic decision. For me that decision was not influenced by anything Billy Bragg or Dave Haslam or any IPC journalist was putting on their twitter pages or in the NME. I don't have a twitter account or any social media account or a Youtube account mainly because I consider the vast majority of it out there to be fake, false, unverified, nasty or just plain not interesting and I don't need a platform to post pictures of my cats or what food I am eating or what event I am going to or where I am flying to. I have a whatsapp group for friends and family and that is where my digital comms goes for that kind of social planning etc. I waste too much time on here trying to discuss to brick walls already without adding facebook and twitter to it. I have other things to do.

Yes I have suggested in this thread many times that if he wants his fans to hear his album so much then stop complaining to the world that he is being silenced, whereas Sam Smith's Satanism isn't, and just put his money where his mouth is and self release. It isn't that complex for someone with this amount of knowledge of the industry to do and many artists do it.

You know about the 90s accusations so that will influence how you think about the things he said.

The press used it as proof that the allegations were true.

The 90s allegations aren't true - so if you put them aside it's more obvious that he's been spun a line. That's why he's so incoherent.

 

[Malarkey]

Rarely a truer word was spoken: as your, probably, thousands of posts on this issue attest, it  is "really difficult to prove that IPC lied because they're massive homophobes".

You've been droning on about this for, literally, years and yet you've always been, and continue to be, completely unable to unequivocally demonstrate a clear line of causation.

Perhaps these few journalists really do hate the gays. (You might be right, but I'm not convinced.) Even supposing you're right, so what?

Where your tedious conspiracy allegation invariably falls down is your inability to show - on the balance of probabilities at the very least - that these journalists and publications were/are motivated to question Morrissey's attitudes toward "race", and discredit him as a "racist", solely because they're prejudiced against gay people.

Assuming tentatively for just a moment that they're all homophobes, as you claim, it does not simply follow that it was/is homophobia which caused/causes them to express suspicions about whether or not Morrissey harbours ill-feeling toward non-white / non-British people. It's entirely possible that homophobic journalists could still reasonably, sincerely and correctly believe that Morrissey is a "racist".

It seems much more likely that they chose to air their suspicions because of Morrissey's - to be charitable - deliberately ambiguous attitudes toward non-white people and immigration, more generally.

Occam's razor etc.

So why do they call it homoerotic?

Why the continual references to his sexuality?

Why did the crowd shout homophobic abuse as they bottled the f***er off? Which the hacks found funny - although the far right "queer bashed" as much as they targeted ethnic minorities?

Bit of coincidence that he actually was hanging round the Bell with gay skinheads & queercore filmmaker Derek Jarman who put the Union Jack in the video of the Queen is Dead.

Your razor is very blunt.

 

[Anonymous]

You know about the 90s accusations so that will influence how you think about the things he said.

The press used it as proof that the allegations were true.

The 90s allegations aren't true - so if you put them aside it's more obvious that he's been spun a line. That's why he's so incoherent.

You are wrong and have no coherent logic in the way you jump around in a discussion.

 

[Malarkey]

You are wrong and have no coherent logic in the way you jump around in a discussion.

You didn't find out that PJW works for InfoWars from Central.

You found it out from somewhere else.

So you are influenced by other things.

 

[Anonymous]

So why do they call it homoerotic?

Why the continual references to his sexuality?

Why did the crowd shout homophobic abuse as they bottled the f***er off? Which the hacks found funny - although the far right "queer bashed" as much as they targeted ethnic minorities?

Bit of coincidence that he actually was hanging round the Bell with gay skinheads & queercore filmmaker Derek Jarman who put the Union Jack in the video of the Queen is Dead.

Your razor is very blunt.

You just pull nonsense out of thin air without any substance except what is in your head.

Morrissey wasn't hanging around at the Bell either with gay skinheads or Derek Jarman. He walked in on one occasion and left after a few minutes.

Morrissey would mostly go out of his way to never be seen in gay venues or even walk past one hence why there aren't huge numbers of reports of him being at such venues. He lived in London and yet there is nothing anywhere about him frequenting any gay venue.

Your idea that he was hanging out with Jarman at The Bell is again just a piece of fiction that you manufacture to try to give credence to what you say but nothing you are saying stands up.

I have asked a colleague to take a look at your Twitter and this is someone who assesses security impacts from profiles and behaviour and the pretty quick feedback is that you are obsessed to the point of being neurotic.

He also did some searches and came across a paper online you had written entitled "Idiot Fans and Conned Collaborators" on your folk devil page and suggests Morrissey's security team would be best advised to make sure you and he don't get close. This is how Loibl and Bardo started.

You may need to google those names.

 

[Anonymous]

You didn't find out that PJW works for InfoWars from Central.

You found it out from somewhere else.

So you are influenced by other things.

You are very strange.

You think I am influenced by the far right because I know who PJW is? I know who Putin is and read a lot about him but I'm not influenced by him either. I have read a lot from you over the past week, pages of it, but I'm not influenced by you either.

You still haven't answered my points on PJW and your statements re the far right so I can only assume you have nothing to explain your illogical statements.

I won't engage with you any further because you will just continue jumping from one of your unsubstantiated erratic points to another without finishing the previous one. You just keep making random statements that don't connect together but when challenged with a reasoned response you just move to the next.

Your mind is so confused and full of noise. It is a wonder how you chill out and sleep at night.

Nothing you write is clever or verified and you see someone post something on twitter or a journalist comment on something 30 years ago and you state that gives evidence of this great conspiracy. Or the fact someone is selling t shirts with journalists names on means it is evidence for something.

I think you are so obsessed that you may well be a danger to yourself and possibly others.

I would advise you to take time out from your obsession because it is on here, on social media, on your own page, everywhere.

I am not sure who you are trying to prove your obsession to. I would hope it isn't Morrissey because I can guarantee he would run and be advised to run a mile from you for his safety and sanity.

 

[Malarkey]

You just pull nonsense out of thin air without any substance except what is in your head.

Morrissey wasn't hanging around at the Bell either with gay skinheads or Derek Jarman. He walked in on one occasion and left after a few minutes.

Morrissey would mostly go out of his way to never be seen in gay venues or even walk past one hence why there aren't huge numbers of reports of him being at such venues. He lived in London and yet there is nothing anywhere about him frequenting any gay venue.

Your idea that he was hanging out with Jarman at The Bell is again just a piece of fiction that you manufacture to try to give credence to what you say but nothing you are saying stands up.

I have asked a colleague to take a look at your Twitter and this is someone who assesses security impacts from profiles and behaviour and the pretty quick feedback is that you are obsessed to the point of being neurotic.

He also did some searches and came across a paper online you had written entitled "Idiot Fans and Conned Collaborators" on your folk devil page and suggests Morrissey's security team would be best advised to make sure you and he don't get close. This is how Loibl and Bardo started.

You may need to google those names.

He gave an interview to Attitude magazine in 1984 while sitting in a gay London pub -

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I don't really see your different interpretation of that Chicago statement but that is ok I understand how you may interpret as that.

In reality what is important is what was in the interview rather any different interpretations of his statement on stage about that interview or interviews in general.

If you think, sure. But in relation to his response to no longer do press interviews? I think that came more from the way some have interpreted and used ( some may say misused) the interview.

I still think he is suggesting to people that they shouldn't believe what was in that interview unless they hear him say it and of course, much to his surprise we did all get to hear it. In context it was at that time I believe a reaction to the huge backlash in the press because of the content in that printed interview and he was trying to tell his fanbase that it wasn't what he said.

Of course fans did and do present a different case which is their choice and their analysis of it.

Yeah, that’s the general take. But I presently don’t believe that, as I once did.

 

[Anonymous]

He gave an interview to Attitude magazine in 1984 while sitting in a gay London pub -

View attachment 90115

and that proves was was hanging out with Jarman and skinheads at The Bell and that is just a made up lie or that he was hanging out at any gay venues?

An interview with an American gay magazine in an empty room in a pub doesn't equate to "hanging out" in gay venues.

 

[Malarkey]

and that proves was was hanging out with Jarman and skinheads at The Bell and that is just a made up lie or that he was hanging out at any gay venues?

An interview with an American gay magazine in an empty room in a pub doesn't equate to "hanging out" in gay venues.

Also in 1984 he gave an interview to Square Peg - a gay magazine produced by a gay collective who met at the Bell.

Square Peg No. 6 – August 1984

“Morrissey interview. Square Peg was an arts and culture fanzine for the gay community. Topics: the media circus, their target audience, having influence, having male cover stars, sexual ambi…

illnessasart.com