The history of the relationship between Morrissey and 'Morrissey-Solo'

but david owns the site and has the power to set the tone - you can set the tone in many subtle ways that will not change the natural flow of debate - davidt must take some responsibility for the content of the site he owns. He had TandC's and moderstors so he must undestand that. If i posted your phone number I assumed I'd be banned? but if i posted a link to a mega-upload that contained your phone number that is apparently "content"

It a fine line and i think davidt has drawn the line in the wrong place - The site has become aggressively anti-Morrissey - the April Fools joke tells the tale

The fact is if Morrissey came on here and started trolling he'd be banned it seems Morrissey has his own TandC's and his own Moz-erators and they have decided (after many warnings and many violations direct and indirect) that davidt should be banned - seems fair to me and difficult to argue with

I disagree with you. Your original point about the similarity of Morrissey saying what David said (before you edited the post) is not addressed by you yet. If Morrissey came on here and began trolling, or trangressing, then, just like any other user, he'd be banned. And your point about Morrissey rules and his bidders doesn't, in my mind, stack up. And again, I think you're conflating two separate issues. There are rules here, that all can see. What are Morrissey's rules that we all can see?

P.
 
I disagree with you. Your original point about the similarity of Morrissey saying what David said (before you edited the post) is not addressed by you yet. If Morrissey came on here and began trolling, or trangressing, then, just like any other user, he'd be banned. And your point about Morrissey rules and his bidders doesn't, in my mind, stack up. And again, I think you're conflating two separate issues. There are rules here, that all can see. What are Morrissey's rules that we all can see?

P.

There are rules here? That's a joke.
 
They're there on the TOS. I'm glad they raised a jokey smile with you.

P.

Well after the pathetic Pigsty was born, it was a bit like saying (hypothetically, before someone starts) 'well you can rape people and beat people and encourage them to commit suicide in this lawless section of town, even though you never knew that when you moved in. So don't quote TOS at me. They mean NOTHING.
 
I disagree with you. Your original point about the similarity of Morrissey saying what David said (before you edited the post) is not addressed by you yet. If Morrissey came on here and began trolling, or trangressing, then, just like any other user, he'd be banned. And your point about Morrissey rules and his bidders doesn't, in my mind, stack up. And again, I think you're conflating two separate issues. There are rules here, that all can see. What are Morrissey's rules that we all can see?

P.

here is the quote I think you mean without the edit:(by the way the edit didn't change the meaning)

"I do not have a problem banning people who are intent on causing problems or harassing others" - ironic - that could be Morrissey speaking about you"

You say it isn't the same because davidt isn't responsible for content - I say as the owner of a moderated site with T's and C's he is responsible for the content

Morrissey rules are quite clear - don't spread/publish/promote lies or stolen content or links to the same and don't be abusive - he gave many public warnings
 
but david owns the site and has the power to set the tone - you can set the tone in many subtle ways that will not change the natural flow of debate - davidt must take some responsibility for the content of the site he owns. He had TandC's and moderstors so he must undestand that. If i posted your phone number I assumed I'd be banned? but if i posted a link to a mega-upload that contained your phone number that is apparently "content"

It a fine line and i think davidt has drawn the line in the wrong place - The site has become aggressively anti-Morrissey - the April Fools joke tells the tale

The fact is if Morrissey came on here and started trolling he'd be banned it seems Morrissey has his own TandC's and his own Moz-erators and they have decided (after many warnings and many violations direct and indirect) that davidt should be banned - seems fair to me and difficult to argue with

Well after the pathetic Pigsty was born, it was a bit like saying (hypothetically, before someone starts) 'well you can rape people and beat people and encourage them to commit suicide in this lawless section of town, even though you never knew that when you moved in. So don't quote TOS at me. They mean NOTHING.

Two very sharp knives in the box. :thumb:

Unfortunately it's something more noxious than Perrier that has gone to the heads of the ganglords round here if they can't see that as far as can be observed from their application, the rules only exist for arbitrary subjective use. The shrinking of familiar characters who're showing their true colours now is ugly and disappointing.:sick:
 
here is the quote I think you mean without the edit:(by the way the edit didn't change the meaning)

"I do not have a problem banning people who are intent on causing problems or harassing others" - ironic - that could be Morrissey speaking about you"

You say it isn't the same because davidt isn't responsible for content - I say as the owner of a moderated site with T's and C's he is responsible for the content

Morrissey rules are quite clear - don't spread/publish/promote lies or stolen content or links to the same and don't be abusive - he gave many public warnings



Hypothetically when Elizabeth II passed away, the Palace decided to provide a book of condolence.

People are able to write what they like, but the Palace does not have a responsibility for the content of the book although it has the right whether remove the abusive comments or not.

Hopefully if you change a book of condolence to an internet message board, you understand the situation.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetically when Elizabeth II passed away, the Palace decided to provide a book of condolence.

People are able to write what they like, but the Palace does not have a responsibility for the content of the book although it has the right whether remove the abusive comments or not.

its a strange argument but okay

So the palace leaves the book on display for all to see - with negative comments and abuse about the newly dead queen - seems inappropiate doesn't it? - in a book of condolence? - surely they should moderate that book a bit - be a bit respectful? wouldn't that be the best thing to do? - it wouldn't be hard - they created the book so its up to them to take on that responsibilty for the books content - if they don't take responsibilty then who will? - if no one does then we end up with a book of condolence full of abuse- no point in that is there? I think you just lost your own argument. ask yourself in real life would your palace book be altered or not and should it be?

Why not think about it as a book for a relative of yours - would you edit out abuse in your own family members condolence book? - if so why?
 
Last edited:
its a strange argument but okay

So the palace leaves the book on display for all to see - with negative comments and abuse about the newly dead queen - seems inappropiate does it? - in a book of condolence? - surely they should moderate that book a bit - be a bit respectful? wouldn't that be the best thing to do? - it wouldn't be hard - they created the book so its up to them to take on that responsibilty for the content - I think you just lost your own argument. ask yourself would your palace book be altered or not and should it be.

Why not think about it as a book for a relative of yours - would you edit out abuse in your own family members condolence book? - if so why?

I agree; her statement is contradictory and the rules are both impossible to decipher, and applied haphazardly.
 
its a strange argument but okay

So the palace leaves the book on display for all to see - with negative comments and abuse about the newly dead queen - seems inappropiate doesn't it? - in a book of condolence? - surely they should moderate that book a bit - be a bit respectful? wouldn't that be the best thing to do? - it wouldn't be hard - they created the book so its up to them to take on that responsibilty for the books content - if they don't take responsibilty then who will? - if no one does then we end up with a book of condolence full of abuse- no point in that is there? I think you just lost your own argument. ask yourself in real life would your palace book be altered or not and should it be?

Why not think about it as a book for a relative of yours - would you edit out abuse in your own family members condolence book? - if so why?

My point is, unfortunately someone's best intention won't be able to prevent other's malicious act.
 
My point is, unfortunately someone's best intention won't be able to prevent other's malicious act.

and my point is you can't prevent malicious acts but you can moderate them - especially if you really do have good intentions - it would be strange not to
 
Last edited:
But what if you believe in free speech?

If you believe in free speech then don't have moderaters or T's and C's - you can't cry free speech and then ban people.

I believe in free speech but you still have to be appropiate - it is a fan website - would you think free speech at a funeral is okay - how do you feel about the Christians against fags group? what if they protested your friends funeral with laughter and abuse? Shouldn't they be prevented from disrupting a strangers funeral by loudly expressing their nutty opinions?

Just to say "free speech" is to dodge the responsibility
 
I don't think that's a very good analogy. Morrissey, or anyone else for that matter, is free to simply never visit this website (unlike people who are forced to listen to the 'speech' of the Christians against fags group).
 
here is the quote I think you mean without the edit:(by the way the edit didn't change the meaning)

"I do not have a problem banning people who are intent on causing problems or harassing others" - ironic - that could be Morrissey speaking about you"

You say it isn't the same because davidt isn't responsible for content - I say as the owner of a moderated site with T's and C's he is responsible for the content

Morrissey rules are quite clear - don't spread/publish/promote lies or stolen content or links to the same and don't be abusive - he gave many public warnings

Yes, I am responsible in that I own the site and posts that remain are within the rules I have set forth. Not everyone agrees with the enforcement of the rules. If you don't like these basic rules, you can go somewhere else or even create your own site, like some have.

I am not sure what you want, a rule that says 'anything negative spoken against Morrissey' should be deleted? Or perhaps 'anyone wishing disease, death or anything mean-spirited towards Morrissey will be banned for life'? As I have mentioned before, these are things he has done to others in the past, so it would be a double standard.

Morrissey is free to ban me from the privilege of seeing him in concert, which he has. I am not out to cause any disturbances so as a fan and paid for the service just like any other, so separate from the person that does the site, I do not feel this is deserved. Why stop there? If he really feels that strongly, why not ban anyone that continues to visit the site or how about anyone that eats meat?

And about Morrissey's rules being 'quite clear' -- how did you come up with that? It looks to me you just made them up according to what you feel they should be.
 
Yes, I am responsible in that I own the site and posts that remain are within the rules I have set forth. Not everyone agrees with the enforcement of the rules. If you don't like these basic rules, you can go somewhere else or even create your own site, like some have.

I am not sure what you want, a rule that says 'anything negative spoken against Morrissey' should be deleted? Or perhaps 'anyone wishing disease, death or anything mean-spirited towards Morrissey will be banned for life'? As I have mentioned before, these are things he has done to others in the past, so it would be a double standard.

Morrissey is free to ban me from the privilege of seeing him in concert, which he has. I am not out to cause any disturbances so as a fan and paid for the service just like any other, so separate from the person that does the site, I do not feel this is deserved. Why stop there? If he really feels that strongly, why not ban anyone that continues to visit the site or how about anyone that eats meat?

And about Morrissey's rules being 'quite clear' -- how did you come up with that? It looks to me you just made them up according to what you feel they should be.

david you seem like a nice person - how did it get to here?
Your site is amazing the depth of the content, the history, the archive, the speed of update, the community, it must be a real passion - but it has lost its way

I am glad you have excepted responsibility for content - it is the first step
now you must be responsible

Of course i am not asking for lots of silly rules about being "nice" all the time - its much simpler than that

I want you to be supportive of Morrissey - like a fansite should be, sites can be very important to artist these days - especially one like Morrissey - you could have a positive impact - you could inspire

I don't need to tell you exactly what i mean by be supportive you know what it means
Its about setting the tone
You set the tone now you just don't realise it and at the moment the tone is bad
The site no longer represents Morrissey fans - it seems to represents only those that hate him - you can't be happy with that?
I don't think you hate Morrissey david but your site has ended up hateful? - why has it attracted that element? - it isn't how Morrissey fans generally feel?
why not set the tone as a place with guts that is gentle and kind?

I made up the "rules" they are a guess based on the legal paper served and various comments and just common sense - you could add don't publish private information

As for getting yourself banned you said:
"I do not have a problem banning people who are intent on causing problems or harassing others"
If you take responsibility for the content of this site then your must realise you have caused problems and upset Morrissey' and Morrissey's family and friends - its clear you have. So you should accept your ban just as you would except those that you have banned

It isn't too late to say sorry - just be supportive
 
"accepted" not "excepted"
 
Must be a mason in the house. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom