the last week @ morrissey-solo in review?

Catchy title, don't you find?

Well, I finished reading Greasetea's review of 2000 spent in morrissey-solo.com. Thought he was a little early, since the last week has/d some (nasty) surprises. Venenum in cauda? (Besides, I felt sad I had been left out of GreaSanta's list ).

So, 2000 comes to an end, and what do we see? There is a certain someone, admittedly very new on this site, who is trying to get rid of one of its most constant features. A webmaster with a cause, it seems. It caused already quite an activity. I can see the immediate reason, but there's a number of bubbles in the champagne that intrigue me.

Oh, let me introduce myself briefly. I've been around for quite a long time. Not always posting (I hardly have any contribution to make), but as far as reading is concerned, if I can choose between a local newspaper and this site, I prefer to come here (yes, we do have some witty acquisitions, of late. Very well). I haven't been around so much anymore. It has nothing to do with GT, though. Just busy, and ... well there's not so much news from Camp Moz, alas. But ok. First things first. The bubbles.

*filthy language*
Accusations of foul-mouthedness ... are fair. I would also like a more neutral point of view concerning the abdomen's physical traits. If that could diminish, the better. It, indeed, looks awful. Reduction by 2/3 would be welcome.

*insults*
This is more of a problem. Considered the fact that almost everyone is under potential attack, his insult mechanisms are not that personal. Everyone gets the @#!!! (though I can't remember having been a victim, though - or I forgot). I won't say it's a social corrective, but ... maybe it could be kept in mind?
It certainly is a provocation; much depends on how you publicly react. And we all have the right to feel insulted. Given the nature of the "problem" (oops!), it may be wise to ignore it. A suggestion.

*kids*
Third point. Damaging to the kids ... Yes. This kind of language must be rather disturbing to kids, provided that they understand (and if they do, the problem's already there!). But, honestly, how many children are visiting this site? And why would they do that? I counted very few kids in the Smiths and Morrissey audiences at live shows (GA) - except the one that took the mike.
If those kids are after extreme language, I'm sure they find it on other sites. More, and much more explicit. Let's not exaggerate.

*David T*
David T should intervene? Responsibility? We saw his interventions when there were problems with names and such. That works well now.
Passwords won't work either. Too easy to get. The only thing that would work, is censorship. But then David has to read it all (my dear David!), and censor not only explicit language, but also racist ranting, publicity, ... Oh, and I don't want to think someone glammy sports a hidden ambition to become moderator of this board. I hope that is clear.
I would strongly advise against censorship. You know where it starts, ... but that's all. And isn't responsibility about being able to control the consequences of actions?

*fear & fright*
Lots of fans are afraid to post. Hmm. Really? Why? You can simply ignore anything signed "greasetea". It's not that difficult. Moreover, he hardly blocks a decent or longwinding conversation. Yes, though, it's no fun to show to your friends you posted here, and find that there's a not-so-nice intervention attached to it ...
But afraid? Come one, let's not exaggerate. There are things in life that are way more frightening.

*greasetea & greasetea*
This is one I haven't found yet. Let's indeed not give in to hypocrisy. I can be very fondly amused by the funny, witty and observant greasetea, who invents stories for our entertainment, has a knack of spotting stupidity ... That's a GOOD feature of his. And I certainly DON'T want it to disappear.

The classical case of good and bad then?

Maybe this will help us get a perspective. (it helps me, at least).
There's a shop next to my office where I buy my cigarettes and some international newspapers. Since I'm heavily addicted to the first, and really need the second, I'm more than a frequent customer. (I probably pay half of their holiday to the Spanish Costa Hidalgo, or sth like that).
In the shop, there's a shelf with pornography. It's quite close to the one where they have my international mags and stuff - I don't know why (price-related?). Now, I loathe pornography. Really. Disgusting. I find the amount of fleshy exposure a shame for a civilised country. The way women are portrayed .. don't get me started.
But I don't buy that stuff. I don't want to. But when I have time, I'd like to start a conversation with the "gentlemen" foraging in that area. Oh, they disappear rather quickly. The shopkeeper, he doesn't mind me doing that. He'd be glad to get the filth out of his store, but he's forced to sell it. Cannot refuse. So, what can I do but ridicule those who want to buy it? If they stop buying, I'll be glad. And once the dog is gone, there'll be no dogfood on the shelves.
Does selling pornography turns this shop into a brothel? It doesn't. And though I'm offended by it, I still go there to get my fags and the papers.

OK, if you followed me until here, prepare for another disappointment. I have no solution to offer. A wish, yes. That the board becomes even more funny, witty, exciting and informative. Above all, that it stays alive!

Happy 2001. For all.
Cheers,
AK