Information regarding reports of 'retirement' - true-to-you.net

Re: "I am still right here, where I always was"

Well thank the lord for that!

 

[Worm]

Seconded!

You know, for the record, the gist of Owen Hatherley's article was that more rock and rollers should retire, not that he was happy Morrissey was. I don't know how anyone here can protest Hatherley's main argument, considering it's similar to the one Morrissey himself made in "Get Off The Stage". Morrissey understands better than anyone that rock/pop artists have expiration dates, beyond which they sour and stink. He was talking about his future date of retirement back in the mid-80s. Hatherley's point was that artists conveniently extend, or just forget, their own sell-by dates as soon as large sums of money become involved. He was applauding Morrissey for doing otherwise. That hardly makes him a douchebag.

 

[Anonymous]

Agreeing that you don't forsee yourself performing past 55 is a HUGE difference from actually planning a cast-iron retirement date. Morrissey has expressed suprise in the past that he's still around. He never plans anything.

 

[Anonymous]

When we've done something deserving blame besides furthering his career.

"Furthering his career"????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You poor deluded fool. All this site ever does is interpret every utterance and creative move as a sign of artistic failure or personal greed. Far from furthering his career, it seems this site is frequently willing his career to end.

 

[davidt]

"Furthering his career"????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You poor deluded fool. All this site ever does is interpret every utterance and creative move as a sign of artistic failure or personal greed. Far from furthering his career, it seems this site is frequently willing his career to end.

I apologize if this anonymous user or anyone else misunderstands that the site is an open platform and in itself does not 'interpret' utterances or does any 'willing' on its own, frequently or otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

I apologize if this anonymous user or anyone else misunderstands that the site is an open platform and in itself does not 'interpret' utterances or does any 'willing' on its own, frequently or otherwise.

So, moderation (banning users or more pointedly NOT, moving threads to the pigsty vs leaving them in General Discussion, posting or not posting anonymous posts which must first be approved by a moderator, etc etc etc) is not in any way interpretation of what is posted on this site? Seems to utterly defy logic and ignore the obvious.

 

[davidt]

So, moderation (banning users or more pointedly NOT, moving threads to the pigsty vs leaving them in General Discussion, posting or not posting anonymous posts which must first be approved by a moderator, etc etc etc) is not in any way interpretation of what is posted on this site? Seems to utterly defy logic and ignore the obvious.

If you really believe that those actions are meant to 'will his career to end' again I have to apologize for your misunderstanding of how forums and the internet work in general.

 

[Anonymous]

If you really believe that those actions are meant to 'will his career to end' again I have to apologize for your misunderstanding of how forums and the internet work in general.

You can't have moderation, governed by rules of YOUR devising, and have a truly open discussion - open in this sense meaning free of your influence. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Uncleskinny]

You can't have moderation, governed by rules of YOUR devising, and have a truly open discussion - open in this sense meaning free of your influence. You can't have it both ways.

Most forum sites are moderated. Can you name one that isn't? As a result it follows that the site cannot be free of influence, since terms of service are laid out by the proprietor. If you feel this contradicts your point of view, feel free to use this platform to say so.

P.

 

[davidt]

You can't have moderation, governed by rules of YOUR devising, and have a truly open discussion - open in this sense meaning free of your influence. You can't have it both ways.

Posts are generally allowed if no violations of the fairly standard terms of service. Moderators don't moderate based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the point of the post. You seem to want people to think that we look and posts and say "well, that one insults Morrissey's band, that one is good, that one could be seen as positive to Morrissey's career ... delete". It just simply isn't true.

 

[Anonymous]

Posts are generally allowed if no violations of the fairly standard terms of service. Moderators don't moderate based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the point of the post. You seem to want people to think that we look and posts and say "well, that one insults Morrissey's band, that one is good, that one could be seen as positive to Morrissey's career ... delete". It just simply isn't true.

I'm not saying that you should, one way or the other. I'm saying that you could but you don't. Thus, the tone or atmosphere or whatever you want to call it is of your own devising, and as such, you are responsible for the posts which appear on it. Thus, you can't dismiss claims that this site has a negative attitude towards Morrissey by saying that it's an "open discussion." It's a discussion directed by you, by omission of moderation if you will. This website is a place where negative discussion of Morrissey is not only tolerated but welcomed and essentially encouraged, and at some point you could stop it, but you don't.

 

[goinghome]

Kool Guy --->

That is kool

 

[Uncleskinny]

I'm not saying that you should, one way or the other. I'm saying that you could but you don't. Thus, the tone or atmosphere or whatever you want to call it is of your own devising, and as such, you are responsible for the posts which appear on it. Thus, you can't dismiss claims that this site has a negative attitude towards Morrissey by saying that it's an "open discussion." It's a discussion directed by you, by omission of moderation if you will. This website is a place where negative discussion of Morrissey is not only tolerated but welcomed and essentially encouraged, and at some point you could stop it, but you don't.

Total nonsense. It's tin hat time. We only act on posts if (a) they are reported, and then assess them via the TOS and (b) if one of us sees a clear violation. Everything else is opinion, some good, some bad some neutral. You can agree or disagree as much as you like but that's EXACTLY how it is. As David pointed out above, none of us sit around approving or disapproving posts because of what effect it might or might not have on Morrissey's career. That's simply not true. It's called real life. You're going to agree with some stuff, you're going to disagree with some stuff.

P.

 

[goinghome]

I'm not saying that you should, one way or the other. I'm saying that you could but you don't. Thus, the tone or atmosphere or whatever you want to call it is of your own devising, and as such, you are responsible for the posts which appear on it. Thus, you can't dismiss claims that this site has a negative attitude towards Morrissey by saying that it's an "open discussion." It's a discussion directed by you, by omission of moderation if you will. This website is a place where negative discussion of Morrissey is not only tolerated but welcomed and essentially encouraged, and at some point you could stop it, but you don't.

...Some people actually say they don't post on the site because anonymous comments are allowed, so traffic may even have decreased because of that.

So presumably the admin. policy here results in discouraging certain types of people who may not be comfortable with exposure to abusive posts either of themselves or of others, and attracting more of different types of people?

As a matter of interest, regulation of this whole area to limit internet trolling and make website operators take responsibility for what is being posted is once again up for consideration in the UK -

...For years American journalists and whistleblowers alike have relied on anonymous messages in the service of vital information making its way to the public. However, if Internet anonymity is eventually quashed by legal means, it could have broad repercussions on the future of free speech online. Nevertheless, Justice Clarke claims the measures in the U.K. will continue to protect such anonymous speech.

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimize this risk," Clarke told the BBC.

- http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405669,00.asp

A lot going on today -

I did post the above on the site suggestion thread a day or two ago, presumably the situation is worthy of ongoing re-consideration and such :nopity:

 

[Anonymous]

Posts are generally allowed if no violations of the fairly standard terms of service. Moderators don't moderate based on whether or not they agree or disagree with the point of the post. You seem to want people to think that we look and posts and say "well, that one insults Morrissey's band, that one is good, that one could be seen as positive to Morrissey's career ... delete". It just simply isn't true.

The truth of the matter, is that Morrissey-solo USED to be an appreciation website of Morrissey, but in recent years, because you allow all sorts of comments, it is NO LONGER an appreciation site, Morrissey is endlessly attacked by so called fans, and anybody seems to be able to offer an opinion, which in some cases is just plain nasty towards Moz. WHY would a Morrissey appreciation site allow cheap attacks on Morrissey? David, you have lost sight of what Morrissey-solo represents, and you have paid for it with a ban from concerts, can that be worth it? As we approach the year anniversary of your ban, why don't you re-evaluate this site's position. Morrissey has shown publicly how much hurt he feels from the content of this site, so PLEASE get it back to being an appreciation site, rather than a free for all dumping site. Stop cutting your nose off to spite our face, be big enough to apologize to Moz, and see if you can get your ban lifted.

Ray O'Lite

 

[Anonymous]

The truth of the matter, is that Morrissey-solo USED to be an appreciation website of Morrissey, but in recent years, because you allow all sorts of comments, it is NO LONGER an appreciation site, Morrissey is endlessly attacked by so called fans, and anybody seems to be able to offer an opinion, which in some cases is just plain nasty towards Moz. WHY would a Morrissey appreciation site allow cheap attacks on Morrissey? David, you have lost sight of what Morrissey-solo represents, and you have paid for it with a ban from concerts, can that be worth it? As we approach the year anniversary of your ban, why don't you re-evaluate this site's position. Morrissey has shown publicly how much hurt he feels from the content of this site, so PLEASE get it back to being an appreciation site, rather than a free for all dumping site. Stop cutting your nose off to spite our face, be big enough to apologize to Moz, and see if you can get your ban lifted.

Stand your ground, David. Allow ordinary people to say what they want about Morrissey - flattering or otherwise. Allow them this space to express themselves publicly and, where necessary, question him. We are grateful. "f*** Morrissey".

 

[Fan]

In all honesty, Morrissey should consider retiring; the drivel that he has released over the past three CDs is somewhat sad. Moz, you know you visit this site, so think about. Look at what you have become--with the dressing up of your band and Boz in drag. When did it stop being about the music?

The sad thing is that the younger Morrissey of old often criticized the likes of bands who did such ridiculous things and many of his fans agreed with him. Now that he is doing it, people back him.

I'm just saying, you know.

 

[Fan]

The beauty of this site is that one can criticize Moz and his band--and his music--or one can praise the same people/things. If I disagree with a post, I may response--I may not.

The point is that all can come here and do as he or she wishes to an extent that it is respectful and acceptable. Many (not all) of Morrissey's fans are quite disappointed with what he has become--or the quality of his recent releases; that does not make us any less (or more) of a fan. Many of his fans remember when/how his earlier music played an important role in their lives, and with the passing of time, things change. Perhaps we have changed--who knows.

The point is that if one does not agree with a post, deal with it in a mature way and move on. Don't ask David to censor.

 

[Uncleskinny]

The truth of the matter, is that Morrissey-solo USED to be an appreciation website of Morrissey, but in recent years, because you allow all sorts of comments, it is NO LONGER an appreciation site, Morrissey is endlessly attacked by so called fans, and anybody seems to be able to offer an opinion, which in some cases is just plain nasty towards Moz. WHY would a Morrissey appreciation site allow cheap attacks on Morrissey? David, you have lost sight of what Morrissey-solo represents, and you have paid for it with a ban from concerts, can that be worth it? As we approach the year anniversary of your ban, why don't you re-evaluate this site's position. Morrissey has shown publicly how much hurt he feels from the content of this site, so PLEASE get it back to being an appreciation site, rather than a free for all dumping site. Stop cutting your nose off to spite our face, be big enough to apologize to Moz, and see if you can get your ban lifted.

Ray O'Lite

Some people say nice things, some people say bad things. Some people say nice things about Morrissey, some people say bad things about Morrissey. This site allows both. Other sites do not. That's the way it is.

P.

 

[davidt]

The truth of the matter, is that Morrissey-solo USED to be an appreciation website of Morrissey, but in recent years, because you allow all sorts of comments, it is NO LONGER an appreciation site, Morrissey is endlessly attacked by so called fans, and anybody seems to be able to offer an opinion, which in some cases is just plain nasty towards Moz. WHY would a Morrissey appreciation site allow cheap attacks on Morrissey? David, you have lost sight of what Morrissey-solo represents, and you have paid for it with a ban from concerts, can that be worth it? As we approach the year anniversary of your ban, why don't you re-evaluate this site's position. Morrissey has shown publicly how much hurt he feels from the content of this site, so PLEASE get it back to being an appreciation site, rather than a free for all dumping site. Stop cutting your nose off to spite our face, be big enough to apologize to Moz, and see if you can get your ban lifted.

Ray O'Lite

Let's use real world examples - pick a few posts from the last week or so. Describe in detail what action you would take regarding the posts if you had the choice. Would you edit them or delete them altogether?

 

[davidt]

The beauty of this site is that one can criticize Moz and his band--and his music--or one can praise the same people/things. If I disagree with a post, I may response--I may not.

The point is that all can come here and do as he or she wishes to an extent that it is respectful and acceptable. Many (not all) of Morrissey's fans are quite disappointed with what he has become--or the quality of his recent releases; that does not make us any less (or more) of a fan. Many of his fans remember when/how his earlier music played an important role in their lives, and with the passing of time, things change. Perhaps we have changed--who knows.

The point is that if one does not agree with a post, deal with it in a mature way and move on. Don't ask David to censor.

Right on. Censoring actually would take extra work and time which I would rather put to something else.

Who do you consider a real friend, the person that is honest and open with their opinions or the person that says only supportive things to make you feel good about yourself?