Morrissey and his links to paedophiles? - thecolemanexperience

An anonymous person writes:

An enlightening read:

Morrissey search - thecolemanexperience

 

[davidt]

I've already replied and given my reasons more than several times. It's obvious you won't stop, if your actions represent the majority of modern Morrissey fans, you are as frightening as the hysterical cult you are trying to suppress from view.

This says everything that needs to be said and should be on every page of this thread.
I tried to post this once already but was denied, as per.
Another try (on the great anti-censorship Morrissey forum, ha)...

 

[Anonymous]

I've already replied and given my reasons more than several times. It's obvious you won't stop, if your actions represent the majority of modern Morrissey fans, you are as frightening as the hysterical cult you are trying to suppress from view.

"I'm the biggest cult 'round 'ere!"

 

[ExpectingToFly]

But that's the thing. He doesn't post anything that mentions Morrissey, because he doesn't post the crazy ramblings of the blue rose society to the main page or any number of guff blogposts about Morrissey and his links to Zog the God of Fisters; but he has chosen to highlight and legitimise this one. Why?

Because he's holding a grudge against Morrissey for recent events.

 

[Irish blood Irish heart]

I've already replied and given my reasons more than several times. It's obvious you won't stop, if your actions represent the majority of modern Morrissey fans, you are as frightening as the hysterical cult you are trying to suppress from view.

That could have came out the mouth of barleycorn, says it all

 

[Kewpie]

Re:

Because he's holding a grudge against Morrissey for recent events.

*sigh*

He isn't holding a grudge against anyone.
He gets numerous abuse from people like you, yet he treats everyone equally and allows them to express their opinions.

You should be ashamed of posting such a shallow childish speculation.

 

[ExpectingToFly]

Re:

*sigh*

He isn't holding a grudge against anyone.
He gets numerous abuse from people like you, yet he treats everyone equally and allows them to express their opinions.

You should be ashamed of posting such a shallow childish speculation.

Do you get irony?

 

[Agharta]

To be fair, for someone who just discovered their favourite artist tried to have them killed, even keeping a website devoted to the man running denotes a Herculean degree of restraint.

Putting up links to stories saying he hangs out with alleged paedos is just the tip of the iceberg of what I would be doing if it was me.

Look - regardless of any grudges, Moz is mates with Cliff, Cliff could be a nonce, Moz might know that. It's all speculation but it's possible. We will see what happens eh. Who thought Rolf would end up where he is?

 

[ExpectingToFly]

Re:

*sigh*

He isn't holding a grudge against anyone.
He gets numerous abuse from people like you, yet he treats everyone equally and allows them to express their opinions.

You should be ashamed of posting such a shallow childish speculation.

Please tell me when I have abused David? Or is questioning his judgement deemed abuse?

 

[Anonymous]

Beware dangerous Cliff hiding in the Shadows.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

"I'm the biggest c*** 'round 'ere!"

Fixed.

 

[smiler]

Fixed.

PM from Viva

!Viva Hate!
!Viva Hate! is offline
peace is for pussies !Viva Hate!'s Avatar

Join Date
May 2006
Posts
14,117
Thumbs Up
Received: 425
Given: 130

Whoops, sorry.

I haven't been on solo for awhile and I thought you were Marred. I like to antagonize him. I'll delete the comments. Sorry about that.

 

[realitybites]

PM from Viva

!Viva Hate!
!Viva Hate! is offline
peace is for pussies !Viva Hate!'s Avatar

Join Date
May 2006
Posts
14,117
Thumbs Up
Received: 425
Given: 130

Whoops, sorry.

I haven't been on solo for awhile and I thought you were Marred. I like to antagonize him. I'll delete the comments. Sorry about that.

If that isn't a confession to systematic trolling, then I don't know what is.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

If that isn't a confession to systematic trolling, then I don't know what is.

Clearly then, you don't know what a confession to systematic trolling is.

That's a confession that I mixed up one c*** with another...not a big surprise as they all seem the same these days.

 

[realitybites]

Clearly then, you don't know what a confession to systematic trolling is.

That's a confession that I mixed up one c*** with another...not a big surprise as they all seem the same these days.

Sort of like how you, NHNS, Geezer, Skylarker. and Mozza all seem to be the same these days?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Sort of like how you, NHNS, Geezer, Skylarker. and Mozza all seem to be the same these days?

I'm not cruel enough to fault you for senility...

 

[Mozza220559]

Sort of like how you, NHNS, Geezer, Skylarker. and Mozza all seem to be the same these days?

That's because we can all have a laugh and we're not clit deep in pretentious "free-thinker" pseudo intellectual e-books like you.

 

[BrummieBoy]

As Taylor Swift sings on her wonderful new song "Haters gonna hate. Shake it off!" A lot of confused thinking on this thread. There's a clear disconnect between "free speech zone" & the reality of this site being a personal fiefdom of David Tseng. If the proprietor of a site ignores general interweb protocols on acceptable links/content & declares his word is law, then clearly the idea of "free speech" is ridiculous if it results in dissenters being 'banned' for protesting his 'authoritarian' rule or for posting similarly outre links that are deemed unacceptable under "free speech".

How many people have been banned due to personality conflicts with dysfunctional moderators? Moderators who have hissy fits, swear, delete/change posts or othewise wig out when calmly challenged. If I invite a plumber to repair my washing machine I don't need his/her commentary on what clothes I put in. Ditto, I have no need to know about or care an iota about the personal predilections/problems of anyone running a site. The fact that this link was posted reflects entirely on the site proprietor and the moderators who remain. I personally think it was extremely misguided and would certainly raise eyebrows of any judge in any courtroom scenarios 'going forward'. However, you can't 'unlink' or remove content once it's posted without triggering the Streisand Effect. And no person of sound mind would give any credence to this content once they read the delusional prose linked to.

Morrissey also can't respond, as to do so either online or in a court would just pour petrol on these vile, predatory rumours. "why is he insisting he's not involved with paedophiles?" Idiotic 'crass consumers' of internet content do not read/hear the NOT part of the message. They only see/hear/react to the 'paedophile' trigger and start their salivating witch-hunt nonsense, just like with Cliff Richard and the despicable BBC.

This site is important as a 'time capsule' of how folk rushed in imagining their ravings were 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous' when, after 9/11, they rarely were. It also shows how people sometimes get it wrong. But we are all allowed to get it wrong and make mistakes. I personally think this link is a mistake but it's hardly the end of the world as nobody in their right mind would take this site seriously anyway. And, for the record, I think Morrissey would have a hard time with any Judge complaining about behaviour on this site when anyone could point to his comments about David Banda as grossly irresponsible. Yes, "Istanbul" was a cover mea culpa about the plight of orphan children, but he's never publicly retracted that appaling remark, so why should David Tseng rescind this link now? If David Tseng is comfortable with the ethics of linking to unhinged internet gossip, then that's the end of the matter. It reflects on him, not Morrissey.

Of course, under English law, linking to that link on a blog or Social Media would be actionable under law as the McAlpine Twitter debacle showed. But not in America. If Morrissey wishes to test that underl libel/defamation acts, that's his perogative. I could care less about multi-millionaire entertainers using the English Law Of Tort to preserve their reputations alongside various Royals, Aristocrats & Politicians.

Arguing with drummers, label bosses & internet site proprietors appears to be part of Morrissey's co-dependant persecution drama. It's hardly "The Ballad Of Reading Gaol" is it? Though I suppose he'd be bored sitting around anondyne 5* Hotels with nothing to have a Diva hissy fit about. I choose to find it all both *fascinating* and hilarious. C list celeb who spent 3 decades in workaholic mode trying to become 'famous'. And failed. It's all rather splendid! You couldn't make it up, but Oscar Wilde it most definitely isn't.

best wishes
BrummieBoy from Ballyfermot

 

[Anonymous]

Who made you the person that determines what is baseless and what is not? You can certainly come here and comment on your findings and debate but don't demand censorship.

I publicize a lot of things that aren't 'news'. The TOS is interpreted by me (not you) and I determine the link is not a violation.

I didn't demand censorship.

I've never once mentioned that the link should be removed. The damage is done. I questioned your judgement in posting the link on the front page of the internet's foremost Morrissey news website. I stated the opinion that I think you should acknowledge your error, apologise and move on.

And who am I to determine what is baseless and what is not? What a strange question. Am I not permitted to make these judgements? Granted, I can't decide what is published and what is not, but I can enter into a debate about your judgment in choosing to publish a particular post, surely?

Or should I remain silent?

That you think this link was not a violation of your Terms of Service is utterly laughable. You really didn't think there was anything remotely defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous or hateful about the piece? Really?

You didn't interpret your Terms of Service, you ignored them.

Do you always ignore your Terms of Service? Do you allow every anonymous post to grace the front page, so long as it mentions Morrissey? Have you ever rejected an anonymous post that mentioned or linked to an opinion of Morrissey? If so, why? And did you consider this to be an act of censorship or editorial discretion? If it was the latter, why didn't you apply it in this case when the situation was clearly crying out for it.

Acknowledge.

Apologise.

Move on.

With each response you look progressively more desperate and foolish.

You've done great work with this site, David. I don't agree with Morrissey's SoLow missives. But you're wrong in this instance.

 

[Famous when dead]

As Taylor Swift sings on her wonderful new song "Haters gonna hate. Shake it off!" A lot of confused thinking on this thread. There's a clear disconnect between "free speech zone" & the reality of this site being a personal fiefdom of David Tseng. If the proprietor of a site ignores general interweb protocols on acceptable links/content & declares his word is law, then clearly the idea of "free speech" is ridiculous if it results in dissenters being 'banned' for protesting his 'authoritarian' rule or for posting similarly outre links that are deemed unacceptable under "free speech".

How many people have been banned due to personality conflicts with dysfunctional moderators? Moderators who have hissy fits, swear, delete/change posts or othewise wig out when calmly challenged. If I invite a plumber to repair my washing machine I don't need his/her commentary on what clothes I put in. Ditto, I have no need to know about or care an iota about the personal predilections/problems of anyone running a site. The fact that this link was posted reflects entirely on the site proprietor and the moderators who remain. I personally think it was extremely misguided and would certainly raise eyebrows of any judge in any courtroom scenarios 'going forward'. However, you can't 'unlink' or remove content once it's posted without triggering the Streisand Effect. And no person of sound mind would give any credence to this content once they read the delusional prose linked to.

Morrissey also can't respond, as to do so either online or in a court would just pour petrol on these vile, predatory rumours. "why is he insisting he's not involved with paedophiles?" Idiotic 'crass consumers' of internet content do not read/hear the NOT part of the message. They only see/hear/react to the 'paedophile' trigger and start their salivating witch-hunt nonsense, just like with Cliff Richard and the despicable BBC.

This site is important as a 'time capsule' of how folk rushed in imagining their ravings were 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous' when, after 9/11, they rarely were. It also shows how people sometimes get it wrong. But we are all allowed to get it wrong and make mistakes. I personally think this link is a mistake but it's hardly the end of the world as nobody in their right mind would take this site seriously anyway. And, for the record, I think Morrissey would have a hard time with any Judge complaining about behaviour on this site when anyone could point to his comments about David Banda as grossly irresponsible. Yes, "Istanbul" was a cover mea culpa about the plight of orphan children, but he's never publicly retracted that appaling remark, so why should David Tseng rescind this link now? If David Tseng is comfortable with the ethics of linking to unhinged internet gossip, then that's the end of the matter. It reflects on him, not Morrissey.

Of course, under English law, linking to that link on a blog or Social Media would be actionable under law as the McAlpine Twitter debacle showed. But not in America. If Morrissey wishes to test that underl libel/defamation acts, that's his perogative. I could care less about multi-millionaire entertainers using the English Law Of Tort to preserve their reputations alongside various Royals, Aristocrats & Politicians.

Arguing with drummers, label bosses & internet site proprietors appears to be part of Morrissey's co-dependant persecution drama. It's hardly "The Ballad Of Reading Gaol" is it? Though I suppose he'd be bored sitting around anondyne 5* Hotels with nothing to have a Diva hissy fit about. I choose to find it all both *fascinating* and hilarious. C list celeb who spent 3 decades in workaholic mode trying to become 'famous'. And failed. It's all rather splendid! You couldn't make it up, but Oscar Wilde it most definitely isn't.

best wishes
BrummieBoy from Ballyfermot

This and the 'eternal ignore' button concept may very well be my favourite of your contributions.
I just raised a glass to this post in the Sunflower Lounge.
Kind regards,
FWD

 

[Anonymous]

I love Morrissey but I hate Morrissey fans