Jonathan Ross name drops Morrissey in Guardian interview

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2011 (read-only)' started by Dave2006, Sep 7, 2011.

By Dave2006 on Sep 7, 2011 at 3:50 PM
  1. Dave2006

    Dave2006 Active Member

    Dec 26, 2006
    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: May 15, 2016


Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2011 (read-only)' started by Dave2006, Sep 7, 2011.

    1. Anonymous
    2. Anonymous
      I like and recommend morrissey solo but their behaviour recently has been terrible. They deleted my posts earlier for informing people the tickets would go on sale early as per morrisseys world.

      Yes this article was on the other site early. If they delete these posts I've made, I'm leaving this site forever. It seems to have become about mrorissey solo and its admnin team instead of about morrissey and the news.

      Tfruly Disappoointed
    3. SirTuborgnights
      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).
    4. Anonymous
      This is one of the worst 'news' items ever. Some wanker name checks Morrissey, who gives a shit.

      Plus the comments are from the usual whining mongboy from the shit blogspot he never ceases to push.
    5. Dave2006
    6. Anonymous
      But your posts are unreadably illiterate, usually.
    7. davidt
      "Unreadably illiterate"... please. You may write to appear intellectual but there is never any substance behind your words. Your life must be a massive failure if you have to constantly keep posting these anonymous attacks on myself and people here as you have for years to make yourself feel better.
      Last edited: Sep 8, 2011
    8. Anonymous
      Goinghome addressed this matter recently with Uncleskinny. When you research the identity of the person behind an anonymous comment, you contradict your support for anonymous comments. You are fine with their being anonymous to others, sure--but not to yourself. As usual, you expose yourself as a hypocrite (and a thin-skinned egomaniac) who has abused this purported forum and news site in order to (a.) cultivate a culture of ass-kissers and (b.) to eternally scream "look at meeeee, you neeeeeed meeee" at a celebrity.

      To stoop to your level for a moment: My life would be a massive failure if it revolved around maintaining a Morrissey site, then I were banned from his concerts.

      To reassume an upright position: I support Dave2006's humble method of self-expression. You have yourself maintained in the past, however, that forum posts are not a substitute for main page news articles. As a "news article"--a meaningful distinction according to you--the other site had this first. Deal with it?

      And if you would like your critics to stop posting anonymously, perhaps stop banning our accounts? You'd let us remain registered if we made endless stupid remarks about Quiffaa's vagina, of course. But I'm not stooping to that.

      Have a nice day.
    9. davidt
      People are allowed to post anonymously but we track those who abuse it. I am open to criticism regarding the site but you can't deny you have used anonymity to make personal attacks.

      Dave was simply pointing out that what likely happened was the person on the other site saw his original post and created a news item, similar to what I do here. Except they do not say where they got the news from.

      What is more pathetic, someone who carries on a site that the artist hates or the person that detests the said site but can't stay away?

      Have a wonderful day yourself!
    10. Anonymous
      As has been pointed out many times before, by plenty of persons besides myself, without ever any pertinent response from yourself: you define "abuse" as: that which offends your vanity. You only replied to my silly post to Dave2006 because I made a joke about your Copenhagen fiasco elsewhere earlier, I suspect.

      You replied to me, incidentally, in terms I used to criticize Uncleskinny recently, when I noted that he had spent years tracking people via this site. You are a bit of a parrot in these situations.

      Again: it is a "personal attack" when it regards Your Royal Highness only. Quiffaa, Jamescagney, ScarletIbis, Not Right in the Head... Those and many more were subject to near-constant personal attacks--truly personal attacks, as opposed to my pointing out that you run a shitty website and Dave2006 can't spell--after they had made it clear that they weren't going to play the game of kissing your behind constantly, bemoaning what a failure Morrissey is, and joining every lynch mob that pops up to take care of those on your and Kewpie's famous "list."

      Your obsession with other sites has led to reading comprehension issues. No, Dave2006 did not say or imply that the person on the other site had pinched his post. That's your competition-obsessed spin on the matter. He merely said he'd posted about it here on Sunday, too, and that his post may or may not have appeared first. The other site actually credits someone named "lizzycat" for the submission. The post has a time stamp of "5:22," but the relevant time zone is unknown to me. Many people read The Guardian on Sunday, I assure you.

      Perhaps think a bit before you make these accusations? To Dave2006's credit, he did indeed mention that this isn't "news." It is another post about a celebrity mentioning Morrissey in an interview. I would certainly have said Solow had dibs on this one, for sure.

      I don't detest this site in the least. It's an interesting microcosm, particularly in how it exposes abuse of power. We both know that if you approached any therapist or psychologist with the tale of your struggles with this site and with Morrissey, the interview would stall at such time as you told of your pledge to carry on with the show despite all; and you would be pronounced a very ill and obsessed man, of course.

      As you know, I am on EST, and have already had one.
    11. Stanley the 2nd
      Stanley the 2nd
      I think there could be an opening for Morrissey to become Wossy's comedy sidekick on the new show. And when I say opening it isn't meant in a sexual way, though I'm sure certain people might enjoy that!!
    12. davidt
      Sounds like you're the one obsessed with the other sites, in addition to this one.
    13. Dave2006
      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

    14. Anonymous
      "I know you are, but what am I" would have worked there.
    15. davidt
      That's true, I forgot the level of intellect I was speaking to.

      Have an awesome rest of the day at your eastern time zone university library!
    16. Anonymous
      Your replies seldom have anything to do with the remark you're replying to, as in this case. Do you know this? Is it a strategy, or a disability?

      I look forward to your next instance of calling someone a stalker.

      No repy to my comments on your coordinated harassment of many past and current users of this site, specifically Quiffaa? Or how about discussing how you consciously opened the site up to endless instances of homophobia, as part of your insane vendetta ("he is an exception to the rule") against a Morrissey impersonator? Against Morrissey too, perhaps?

      I remember that the last time you defended the value of this site's content, you specifically chose as your example a news story that was submitted by someone I believe to have been a teenaged boy; a user whose recent exit from the site has since been celebrated by a moderator as his "chickening out," and whose full name you allowed to be posted repeatedly in order to publically humiliate him, making the whole affair available to anyone who should ever Google his name. Again, this was a kid.

      What on earth is there to be said in your favor, at this point? The moderators take all the heat, of course, because everyone here knows that if they mention you specifically, they're banned. The people who actually MAKE the site (your claimed daily hours of work on it evidentally amount to a lot of stalking), you shit upon as you shit up the boy just mentioned, upon Jukebox Jury, upon Not Right in the Head, upon Lynne and Grim and Hugh, and upon every gay person who has ever used the site.

      Just remember: nothing posted here has any "substance," except when it's about how gosh-darn great you are, and how much Morrissey neeeeeeeds you.
    17. davidt
      I have never received any claims from Quiffaa, or do you claim to speak for her on some post that occurred how many times? Once?

      Also I don't know what 'teenaged boy' you are referring to, please provide links.

      You have an obvious bias against how the site is run and have no insight on what goes on even though you think yourself an expert. Those you mentioned who are banned have clearly violated rules on the site and know they have.
    18. Uncleskinny
      That's so right. Best to have submitted content nicked for another site, then it gains credibility and substance.

    19. Anonymous
      (He knows exactly what I'm talking about, but what the heck. Let's all play pretend!)

      Do you ever read this forum? She cannot make one post, about anything, without being hounded. To begin with, she was repeatedly commanded to leave this forum in a thread in which you and several moderators were all participating, in the Site Feedback subforum, even. Amazingly, not one of you posted a word to the effect that users should not attempt to harass other users into leaving the site--which would be the most basic principle of civility on any website, I would think. Strategic silence is the weapon of choice with you guys. Enough trolls have noticed that they can get away with anything as long as they attack the right people. This is obvious. Users have actually insulted her in posts which were made in reply to moderators, I believe. But it's fine, because she's "competition" according to you. You're nuts.

      Of course you don't! And good use of scare quotes!

      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.

      I have an obvious bias against the harassment of persons who've criticized you, by yourself, your moderators, and their pet trolls. Yes. I confess.

      Evidently I am an expert, relative to yourself, but my suspicion is that you are simply playing stupid. Because I cannot believe anyone could actually be so stupid.

      The issue is that you and your moderators have also violated common sense rules on civil behavior countless times. "And you know you have." The issue is that you encourage harassment of your critics, and interpret rules of conduct in mindboggling ways that allow for this harassment as well as for directly silencing persistent critics.

      Actually, the issue is that this site is run by dishonest, malicious morons, isn't it?

      But thanks to the site's legacy and its generally professional appearance, Morrissey fans will continue to unwittingly contribute to your little quest for glory and revenge by giving you pageviews and content. It's a shame. I just like to heckle it occasionally, but your current monitoring of anonymous posts (always wonderful EXCEPT when they're about you, right?) is so intense that this has resulted in my having to TALK TO YOU. Egh. Have had enough for now.

      You scanned a page of a magazine. It showed up on another website.

      Believe me, I have no sympathy with art thieves. But I believe you will live to scan again.

Share This Page