Morrissey Central "The End" (August 14, 2020)

Eerie new Central post.

The video was posted on YouTube 5 days ago.

The End - MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY - MORRISSEY CENTRAL - The End

MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY on MORRISSEY CENTRAL

www.morrisseycentral.com

 

[Anonymous]

Aye, because nothing ever happens in the real world, stated views in the media are the be all & end all.

As I said Johnny I am sure made up his mind about what he feels about Morrissey’s views based on what Morrissey has said himself and based on what he already knows about Morrissey in real life rather than anything in the media. Not everyone is controlled by media and not everyone lacks the intelligence to make decisions on their own or are you trying to dictate what Johnny should do. Up to him and no one else’s business.

 

[Deleted member 29417]

As I said Johnny I am sure made up his mind about what he feels about Morrissey’s views based on what Morrissey has said himself and based on what he already knows about Morrissey in real life rather than anything in the media. Not everyone is controlled by media and not everyone lacks the intelligence to make decisions on their own or are you trying to dictate what Johnny should do. Up to him and no one else’s business.

You're literally predicting what you think he'll do based on a couple of exchanges in the media.

Most people who work with Morrissey seem to like him & a death can make people reevaluate their priorities. It's not unreasonable to think they might get in touch for old time's sake.

This will likely go round in circles, so here's Moz in happier times:

 

[Anonymous]

You're literally predicting what you think he'll do based on a couple of exchanges in the media.

Most people who work with Morrissey seem to like him & a death can make people reevaluate their priorities. It's not unreasonable to think they might get in touch for old time's sake.

This will likely go round in circles, so here's Moz in happier times:

View attachment 58444

And you do like going round in circles.

As I said he is big enough to make his own mind up. Not really interested in shoulds woulds etc. You have no idea. I just think it is highly unlikely.

 

[Anonymous]

And you do like going round in circles.

As I said he is big enough to make his own mind up. Not really interested in shoulds woulds etc. You have no idea. I just think it is highly unlikely.

You're literally predicting what you think he'll do based on a couple of exchanges in the media.

Most people who work with Morrissey seem to like him & a death can make people reevaluate their priorities. It's not unreasonable to think they might get in touch for old time's sake.

This will likely go round in circles, so here's Moz in happier times:

View attachment 58444

There is more chance of Elvis coming back from the dead to play a song at the funeral

 

[Anonymous]

But you're doing shoulds & woulds - you have no idea either.

No I never once said what Johnny should do as you have done.

I have said I think it highly unlikely.

That does not involve any shoulds or woulds.

You want to open a debate regarding your views on media and your views on the whole situation that has occurred over the past few years but that you have done to death and I would rather bang my head very hard against a brick wall then engage in that discussion all over again.

So I will go only as far as, again, it is highly unlikely.

 

[Anonymous]

Should & would IS about what you think is likely.

And you're basing it on your belief that no one can be friends with someone who has posted unacceptable views on their website.

I think it's possible they could because very few people would junk someone completely because of unacceptable views.

Whatever happens happens.

I am not basing what I think on anything of the kind and I have not said anything that is a would or a should. What I think should happen isn’t what I have stated and I keep that to myself. What I have said is what I think will not happen nor what I think should happen.

I repeat. I think it highly unlikely that those two people will ever be friends.

 

[Anonymous]

Why do so many arguments come down to word definitions on Solo?

What would happen - what is likely to happen

What should happen - what is likely to happen in these circumstances.

He might, he might not.

View attachment 58446

Not really.

You said Johnny should take the opportunity to become friends again. That is very definitely a should and what you think people should do. That isn’t what I am doing.

I am purely expressing my view that it is highly unlikely. I am not suggesting anyone should do anything.

I am talking purely about statistical probability and I would never have the audacity to tell him what he should do.

 

[Anonymous]

Dear God. You really don't give up do you.

When I was talking about your reference to should I was referring to the definition stated in your 1 above. Suggesting it would be the correct thing to do and that is what I am not doing. I was never talking about a probability should like "it should be dry today".

You say you have never used the 1 definition regarding correctness etc. Well my reference to that definition is from your original post about this when you butted in when I was talking with Amy and you posted this:

"Amy isn't saying they should work together - just reach out in a crisis to be supportive. Which would be kind & wouldn't bring any kind of condemnation."

That very definitely fits into the first definition of the word. You are saying that Amy isn't saying they should work together but that he should reach out in a crisis to be supportive.

It is that I dispute and from which all my subsequent comments regarding should and would came from.

I don't believe Johnny should feel obliged to do anything of the kind if he doesn't want to. And you are almost implying it would not be kind to not do so.

It is up to him and again I am saying I think it would be highly unlikely.

In fact I am so confident that it is that unlikely that I would be more than happy to donate a million pounds to Boris Johnson if the death of Morrissey's mother leads to any friendship between Morrissey and Johnny.

 

[Deleted member 29417]

Dear God. You really don't give up do you.

When I was talking about your reference to should I was referring to the definition stated in your 1 above. Suggesting it would be the correct thing to do and that is what I am not doing. I was never talking about a probability should like "it should be dry today".

You say you have never used the 1 definition regarding correctness etc. Well my reference to that definition is from your original post about this when you butted in when I was talking with Amy and you posted this:

"Amy isn't saying they should work together - just reach out in a crisis to be supportive. Which would be kind & wouldn't bring any kind of condemnation."

That very definitely fits into the first definition of the word. You are saying that Amy isn't saying they should work together but that he should reach out in a crisis to be supportive.

It is that I dispute and from which all my subsequent comments regarding should and would came from.

I don't believe Johnny should feel obliged to do anything of the kind if he doesn't want to. And you are almost implying it would not be kind to not do so.

It is up to him and again I am saying I think it would be highly unlikely.

In fact I am so confident that it is that unlikely that I would be more than happy to donate a million pounds to Boris Johnson if the death of Morrissey's mother leads to any friendship between Morrissey and Johnny.

You can't remove or impose part of a word's definition without making it clear why.

In the above quote I was telling you what Amy meant & that it wouldn't cause any problems if they did.

& no one's said he's obliged.

Just that it's likely because of old times.

Or it's unlikely because of politics.

Deleted some repetitions

 

[Anonymous]

You can't remove part of a word's definition - you were still using should & would.

& in the above quote I was telling you what Amy meant & that it wouldn't cause any problems if they did.

& no one's said he's obliged.

Just that it's likely because of old times.

Or it's unlikely because of politics.

you said it would be the kind thing to do which fits into the correctness part of should.

Anyway semantics aside. It is highly unlikely, again, and not just because of what you think. You are now stating why you think it would happen and why it would not and as I have said I am not interested in engaging with you on your speculative views on what either reason would be. You have done it to death and is quite frankly mind bogglingly dull and strange to say the least.

Your alleged intuition which you seem to lord over everyone with some air of self measured intelligence on this site it is pure speculation. They know each other very well and have both chosen to not be friends for a long long time even though they reside a width of a cats whisker apart.

Highly unlikely but no doubt will have some far superior judgment on the situation.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't remove or impose part of a word's definition without making it clear why.

In the above quote I was telling you what Amy meant & that it wouldn't cause any problems if they did.

& no one's said he's obliged.

Just that it's likely because of old times.

Or it's unlikely because of politics.

Deleted some repetitions

View attachment 58453

It will never happen because of old times and everything since and due to complete lack of wanting to on both sides.

 

[Deleted member 28251]

It will never happen because of old times and everything since and due to complete lack of wanting to on both sides.

I did hear similar stuff about Ian Brown and John Squire; months before they got the Stone Roses back together.

 

[Deleted member 29417]

you said it would be the kind thing to do which fits into the correctness part of should.

Anyway semantics aside. It is highly unlikely, again, and not just because of what you think. You are now stating why you think it would happen and why it would not and as I have said I am not interested in engaging with you on your speculative views on what either reason would be. You have done it to death and is quite frankly mind bogglingly dull and strange to say the least.

Your alleged intuition which you seem to lord over everyone with some air of self measured intelligence on this site it is pure speculation. They know each other very well and have both chosen to not be friends for a long long time even though they reside a width of a cats whisker apart.

Highly unlikely but no doubt will have some far superior judgment on the situation.

No, it doesn't - I mentioned kindness purely because you mentioned his image. I can't see it damaging his image in the wake of a major bereavement.

I absolutely don't care either way - I just didn't see why you were badgering Amy when either scenario could be the case.

 

[Anonymous]

I did hear similar stuff about Ian Brown and John Squire; months before they got the Stone Roses back together.

Oh please don't start the ridiculous smiths reunion nonsense again. Neither would ever be interested

The Stone Roses was a completely different situation and they were back together then they split then they were back together then they split again.

 

[Anonymous]

No, it doesn't - I mentioned kindness purely because you mentioned his image. I can't see it damaging his image in the wake of a major bereavement.

I absolutely don't care either way - I just didn't see why you were badgering Amy when either scenario could be the case.

badgering. Isnt that what you are doing?

It is a discussion forum so discussions that don't fit into your agenda or analysis are now badgering.

Highly unlikely

 

[Deleted member 29417]

badgering. Isnt that what you are doing?

It is a discussion forum so discussions that don't fit into your agenda or analysis are now badgering.

Highly unlikely

All of the badgering is you - because you won't accept that both scenarios are possible based on the available information.

 

[Deleted member 28251]

Oh please don't start the ridiculous smiths reunion nonsense again. Neither would ever be interested

The Stone Roses was a completely different situation and they were back together then they split then they were back together then they split again.

Who mentioned a Smiths reunion?

 

[Anonymous]

All of the badgering is you - because you won't accept that both scenarios are possible based on the available information.

Stating my view as it being highly unlikely is not badgering. It is stating my opinion and I don't believe that on a discussion forum is classed as badgering.

It is highly unlikely based on available information.

 

[Anonymous]

Who mentioned a Smiths reunion?

well what were you mentioning then in relation to The Stone Roses reunion and also related to Johnny and Morrissey?

They will never work together and why should they? They are quite happy with their own work.

 

[Deleted member 28251]

Stating my view as it being highly unlikely is not badgering. It is stating my opinion and I don't believe that on a discussion forum is classed as badgering.

It is highly unlikely based on available information.

Are you still here? Be gracious in defeat.