Sunday Sport run "Looking like Morrissey is MURDER!" story

D

DAVIE

Guest
Did anyone see in The Sun about 10 autobiographies you'd rather bin and Morrissey's was third? Probably because the people who voted were too interested or finding it too difficult to read The Hungry Caterpillar.

collage,cutpaper,ericcarle,pb,illustration,vintagepicturebook-08b784ea402646adecb763a534e38e4d_h.jpg
 

Rosie Cheeks

New Member
Did anyone see in The Sun about 10 autobiographies you'd rather bin and Morrissey's was third? Probably because the people who voted were too interested or finding it too difficult to read The Hungry Caterpillar.

collage,cutpaper,ericcarle,pb,illustration,vintagepicturebook-08b784ea402646adecb763a534e38e4d_h.jpg

I'm sure they were all enchanted by Katie Price's latest masterpiece though....
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
It would seem that the desire to discredit Morrissey outweighs any sense of compassion toward your fellow human beings,

lynnda

Surely Lynnda, you see that Morrissey shows no compassion for his fellow human beings, almost certainly including you, and definitely including me. Compassion is a two way street, and I'm not sure Morrissey today deserves much, if any. That wasn't always the case.

Vegetarianism has long suffered from an image problem and it would be churlish to fail to recognise Morrissey's exceptional influence in helping to change that perception particularly back in the eighties when he was at his peak. He seems no longer interested in persuading people to become vegetarians, and now, perhaps with that barmy PETA arch-hypocrite "Insulin" Ingrid Newkirk whispering in his suddenly tone deaf ear, or perhaps because he senses he may have little time left, has decided to dabble in what the politically correct might term extremist language, but I would say was acting like a prick.

I suspect the clock may be ticking on Morrissey the man, and that knowledge may have driven these increasingly bizarre outbursts. That's fine, if he believes it, but the real impact of such statements is to alienate people from his cause, not attract them. Morrissey seeks revolution now, quite possibly because he hopes to be around to see it. In seeking immediate change, by talk of paedophilia and concentration camps, he in reality delays it.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
he really needs to get back to his quiet considered appreciation for the animal liberation front.

I didn't suggest he'd never been a fool, just that he has become more foolish recently.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
also that he rapes children.

No, I asked for clarification as to what he meant by "humasexual", bearing in mind Gore Vidal's description of himself as "pansexual" and his alleged proclivities, so get your facts straight and stop lying.
 

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy - "Facebook Non-Entity"
Everyone gets the irony; it isn't subtle or clever in any way, and the reason that this is so offensive has little to do with Morrissey. I check this site for information about an artist who is very dear to my heart, then I click on a story link and see a photo of slaughtered animals thrust in my face. Set aside the obvioius hatred that some posters (and moderators) have for Morrissey and consider what this imagery does to anyone who is a vegetarian or an animal advocate. You may not share the same philosophies, but it would be common decency to just consider how this photo might impact others. It would seem that the desire to discredit Morrissey outweighs any sense of compassion toward your fellow human beings, and if you find a man standing next to dozens of brutally murdered creatures makes you laugh, then I would question your very disturbing sense of humor.

lynnda

hello lynnda: are those murdered creatures dairy cows? i'm too scared to look. *rollseyes*
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vegetarianism has long suffered from an image problem and it would be churlish to fail to recognise Morrissey's exceptional influence in helping to change that perception particularly back in the eighties when he was at his peak. He seems no longer interested in persuading people to become vegetarians, and now, perhaps with that barmy PETA arch-hypocrite "Insulin" Ingrid Newkirk whispering in his suddenly tone deaf ear, or perhaps because he senses he may have little time left, has decided to dabble in what the politically correct might term extremist language, but I would say was acting like a prick.

I suspect the clock may be ticking on Morrissey the man, and that knowledge may have driven these increasingly bizarre outbursts. That's fine, if he believes it, but the real impact of such statements is to alienate people from his cause, not attract them. Morrissey seeks revolution now, quite possibly because he hopes to be around to see it. In seeking immediate change, by talk of paedophilia and concentration camps, he in reality delays it.

As an animal rights activist myself, I must say that I hate PETA.

They're obviously trying to do the right thing, but they seem to lack all understanding of how the human psyche works. They are a burden; they make the whole cause look bad by trivializing important questions with naked celebrities and ridiculous attacks. It's f***ing infuriating, and it's sad to see that Morrissey has apparently adopted their way of doing things.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
he really needs to get back to his quiet considered appreciation for the animal liberation front.

He needs to write some NEW material of a decent standard with a proper band more like!
Crikey you only need to look at this story to see where we are at presently with lazy Morrissey, having a good old piss and moan about Crewe's finest slaughter man Brian Ford and the food chain !!!!!!!!!! F F S !!!!!!!
"Oh I/we find that photo so offensive" Get a grip people. You don't have to look at it, what next ? "I don't like going to the A and E department at the hospital because its full of flesh and blood can we have one full of fruit and veg for the veggie people "

Can't wait to show Brian these comments he'll piss his sides.

Benny-the-Butcher
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, I asked for clarification as to what he meant by "humasexual", bearing in mind Gore Vidal's description of himself as "pansexual" and his alleged proclivities, so get your facts straight and stop lying.

No. Your action of citing the Gore Vidal nonsense was a real reach. You'll probably not see it, but it is. I see where you got your information http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/15/gore-vidal-paedophile-work-reputation-wagner
"A sexual dirt file allegedly kept by one of Vidal's many enemies, the late conservative thinker William Buckley, is said to have been thrown away after Buckley's death, and so definitive proof will be tricky."

That sounds reasonable. I mean, if you can't believe the contents of a destroyed "sexual dirt file" kept by a man he publicly feuded with, what can you trust? Some random relatives that were left out of the will? Why didn't they say this while he was alive? And lets look at the word "adolescence" as in "adolescent boys." It doesn't mean children. Anyone who is 16 is both adolescent and of the age of consent in many places. Of course homosexuality was illegal and in many places still is. Gore Vidal was not the kind of person to take any shot from anyone and was smart enough, in my opinion, to have humiliated Buckley, and why the hell else would you keep a "sexual dirt file." Now that is perverse.

I'll grant that Gore Vidal's "pansexual" and Morrissey's "humasexual" are both terms invented to avoid the dreary old gay/straight/bi terminology that really is rather boring and could only have been invented by heterosexuals, but the difference, in my opinion is that Morrissey's term is absolute bullshit. When Gore Vidal called himself pansexual, what year was it? He was pretty well known when homosexuality was still illegal. It wasn't like today where you get a magazine cover.

That doesn't matter anyway. Gore Vidal had many feuds and all I need to know that he was not a pedophile is that Truman Capote never said he was. They hated each other. http://www.gorevidalpages.com/2011/01/gore-vidal-quotations-about-others.html

But all of that gives your post way more credit than it deserves. I don't know what Vidal meant by "pansexual" but trust that it did not mean anything too far out of the ordinary. If it was I am wrong, but it still has nothing to do with Morrissey and dragging it in makes you sound like a crank. I read your posts and I think you post in different moods. I usually respectfully disagree with a lot of it, but find it interesting and worth considering. Occasionally you post something that is a little eccentric and this is one of those times.

You did try to make the equation that basically, "Gore Vidal uses the word 'pansexual' to mean 'paedophile,' and Morrissey uses the word 'humasexual' to mean _______" The funny thing is, you don't need the Gore Vidal argument to make the implication about Morrissey, just his own lyrics, so all you really need to do is go back to 1984 or so and the journalists did all the work for you.

I'll give you that the Gore Vidal thing was topical but you're spreading (most likely false) rumors about a dead person in order to make a weird innuendo about Morrissey. I think it's not unreasonable to say that you are really reaching.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As an animal rights activist myself, I must say that I hate PETA.

They're obviously trying to do the right thing, but they seem to lack all understanding of how the human psyche works. They are a burden; they make the whole cause look bad by trivializing important questions with naked celebrities and ridiculous attacks. It's f***ing infuriating, and it's sad to see that Morrissey has apparently adopted their way of doing things.

My pet hate is walking in the countryside and seeing dog shit in plastic bags hanging on trees like Christmas tree baubles because the so called "animal lovers" can't be arsed to put it in bins provided, downright disgusting.


Benny-the-Butcher
 

joe frady

Vile Refusenik
Compassion is a two way street, and I'm not sure Morrissey today deserves much, if any.

Is it? Really? Not too sure that's how 'compassion' is supposed to work.

So the deal now around here is Morrissey says something offensive, ignorant, sociopathic, etc, (or something other people disagree with) and then people on here respond with links to unproveable stories that Morrissey has AIDS (obviously taken as cast iron fact by you ~ 'clock is ticking', 'little time left' and so on), hope someone does a Chapman on him, wish cancer on his mother, etc, etc. The 'fair game' defence.

Moz is vile, so we'll be vile about Moz? It's no different than the legions of quiff clones really.

And so the moral high ground is taken by......who? Or is the moral high ground a passé concept these days?
 

Mada

Reader Meet Member
It's a real wonder why nobody has ever referred to these forums as a hateful online crèche.
Look at you guys, seriously.

If you don't like Morrissey, why are you on a Morrissey fansite in the first place?
If you want to discuss his views, let's do it in an adult manner... not just move forward with a "let's just bite chunks out of the bastard, f*** him" approach.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
As an animal rights activist myself, I must say that I hate PETA.

They're obviously trying to do the right thing, but they seem to lack all understanding of how the human psyche works. They are a burden; they make the whole cause look bad by trivializing important questions with naked celebrities and ridiculous attacks. It's f***ing infuriating, and it's sad to see that Morrissey has apparently adopted their way of doing things.

The way I'd look at it is how effective are they as in how many people have they influenced to stop eating animals?

The same with Morrissey's statements over time. Without doubt he's influenced a lot of people to give up meat, I assume the same must be true of PETA. It's all purely a means to an end.

Keep nicely telling people about the joys of factory farming and most don't give a shit, might as well get the issue to the forefront of conversations with a few outlandish statements.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Surely Lynnda, you see that Morrissey shows no compassion for his fellow human beings, almost certainly including you, and definitely including me. Compassion is a two way street, and I'm not sure Morrissey today deserves much, if any. That wasn't always the case.

Vegetarianism has long suffered from an image problem and it would be churlish to fail to recognise Morrissey's exceptional influence in helping to change that perception particularly back in the eighties when he was at his peak. He seems no longer interested in persuading people to become vegetarians, and now, perhaps with that barmy PETA arch-hypocrite "Insulin" Ingrid Newkirk whispering in his suddenly tone deaf ear, or perhaps because he senses he may have little time left, has decided to dabble in what the politically correct might term extremist language, but I would say was acting like a prick.

I suspect the clock may be ticking on Morrissey the man, and that knowledge may have driven these increasingly bizarre outbursts. That's fine, if he believes it, but the real impact of such statements is to alienate people from his cause, not attract them. Morrissey seeks revolution now, quite possibly because he hopes to be around to see it. In seeking immediate change, by talk of paedophilia and concentration camps, he in reality delays it.

Poor judgment and bad behavior are never remedied by equally bad behavior. My point was that posting the link to this story is offensive to anyone who is an advocate for the ethical treatment of animals. I find the imagery extremely upsetting, and not what I expect to see when I visit a site that was founded to promote discussion about a musical artist. I will agree that Morrissey's extreme analogies do not help the cause in any way; he may feel that this over the top approach will draw attention to the cause, and it surely does; but as you stated, that attention is all negative. Obviously, I have no idea of his intentions, so I can't speak on the movitivation, but I wish that he would try to inform and inspire instead of putting people on the defensive. Berating people is an ineffective way of trying to modify their behavior.

As for his current odd and angry outbursts, I'm not sure why it is so surprising to everyone. The man admittedly has problems with social interaction, and unfortunately, people tend to get increasingly set in their ways as they get older, for better or worse. I understand that he can be cruel in his own right, and I don't agree with all of his statements, but the man has always had issues. If you honestly believe that he has changed that drastically in recent years, wouldn't it be reasonable to cite the correlation between the increasingly brutal attacks he has to endure in the media, and on a site that is dedicated to his career, and his escalated state of agitation? Who wouldn't be affected by reading these vicious and cruel comments daily; ultimately, it would make you frustrated, bitter, and completely distrustful of the world around you. How disturbing it must be to have a former fan suggest that you deserve to be murdered like Lennon. Maybe the world would be a better place if we each checked our own attitudes and actions before condemning others.

lynnda
 
Top Bottom