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!

 

[smiler]

Yeah, if you follow that post, you'll see that your examples are not relevant to what was being discussed.

here is what was being discussed (below) - and is what you were responding to, the general point being that you and the mods were subtly shaping the discussion in the forum with your negative viewpoints by moderating to promote that view. - the highlighed bits are relevant to my examples

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

 

[davidt]

no keep up - The tweet should have been added to the already exitsting comments thread about the NME apology (which also contained a link to the Guardian acticle) rather than present as front page news in its own right.

I found it was interesting and noteworthy and deserved to be highlighted on the main page. As Uncleskinny previously mentioned, it seems you want to censor opinions you don't agree with.

 

[Kewpie]

Re:

Davidt asked for an example - here are 2 examples - well done for reading the thread. Yes I asked and David acted and he has my thanks for that. Never the less as i mentioned in the thread itself its an example of where the positive stories get hidden and the negative stories get promoted. Which is exactly what he asked for. Having read that thread Kewpie instead of having a fit perhaps you should apologies for incorrectly merging those threads, as that thread clearly illustrates you were at fault.


I want to make one thing clear I don't think its a case of the mods deliberately shaping the debate I think its more subtle than that. I think you love Morrissey so much and the dispute has cut you all so deeply that you can not help but subconcoiusly reflect that. Its clear that the majority of mods now (after the fall out) generally think:

-Morrissey is prejudiced about certain races
-Morrissey is greedy financially
-Morrissey recent output has been poor
-Morrissey should probably retire

You only need go to a concert to see that these views are not representative of "Morrissey fans" so is it a coincidence that the forum content of this website (seemly a place of free speech) seems to feature these same ideals over and over as well?

Can you give us the examples of forum moderators' posts of the following?

Morrissey is prejudiced about certain races
Morrissey is greedy financially
Morrissey recent output has been poor
Morrissey should probably retire

I think you won't find any in the forums.

 

[smiler]

Re:

Can you give us the examples of forum moderators' posts of the following?

Morrissey is prejudiced about certain races
Morrissey is greedy financially
Morrissey recent output has been poor
Morrissey should probably retire

I think you won't find any in the forums.

Even simpler Kewpie - why not just tell us which if the 4 you agree/disagree with?

 

[Kewpie]

Re:

Even simpler Kewpie - why not just tell us which if the 4 you agree/disagree with?

I don't agree with any of the above statements.

 

[smiler]

Re:

I don't agree with any of the above statements.

fair play Kewpie, glad to hear it - and I'm sorry - see how easy it is to say?

 

[Kewpie]

Re:

fair play Kewpie, glad to hear it - and I'm sorry - see how easy it is to say?

I BEG your pardon?

When and where did you see me slagging off Morrissey?

 

[smiler]

I found it was interesting and noteworthy and deserved to be highlighted on the main page. As Uncleskinny previously mentioned, it seems you want to censor opinions you don't agree with.

certainly not I just want you to be fair and consistent but its a good example of how opinions (mine/yours) and interpretation and presentation of events/stories is shaped subtly by the perception of the individual. Both parties are calling censorship (in your case i am saying subconciously), does that not tell you something? That your perception can influnce the content. Sure people can post what they want but the way they are presented can be positive or negative and is dependent on the mods perception.

 

[Anonymous]

Re:

Morrissey is prejudiced about certain races
Morrissey is greedy financially
Morrissey recent output has been poor
Morrissey should probably retire
You only need go to a concert to see that these views are not representative of "Morrissey fans" so is it a coincidence that the forum content of this website (seemly a place of free speech) seems to feature these same ideals over and over as well?

I'm afraid it is the case that (unlike me) most people at a Morrissey concert either don't like his recent material or have no interest in listening to it (with the very occasional exception e.g. the Jakarta concert). When he plays a Smiths (or early solo) classic live, the whole venue erupts into a mass singalong - when he plays Carol or Black Cloud or Far-off Places etc, hardly anyone sings along, and that's a fact. Just take a look round you next time you see him live.
Similarly, most people at a live concert probably believe he has some pretty dodgy views, but there's no way of proving that. They clearly don't think he should retire (although most are probably happy listening to just the old songs live), and I don't expect they have a view on his financial greed.

 

[smiler]

Re:

I BEG your pardon?

When and where did you see me slagging off Morrissey?

I don't think you understand - I was saying thank you for answering me and sorry for suggesting you agreed with those statements. Whilst also thinking it might be nice for you to apologies to me for merging that thread incorrectly (and then being rude in your reply about it) here:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/thread...and-the-NME)

 

[davidt]

certainly not I just want you to be fair and consistent but its a good example of how opinions (mine/yours) and interpretation and presentation of events/stories is shaped subtly by the perception of the individual. Both parties are calling censorship (in your case subconciously), does that not tell you something?

Yes, I agree that there is a bias in reporting usually. You think it should be done a certain way. My style may be a bit different - I highlight things (good / positive / neutral) that I think are interesting and leave comments open so items can be expanded upon, confirmed or possibly discredited. Now if you find many 'positive' items that aren't posted then perhaps there is a problem.

If you think it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, you are welcome to add commentary directly to that article.

 

[nothappynotsad]

no keep up - The tweet should have been added to the already exitsting comments thread about the NME apology (which also contained a link to the Guardian acticle) rather than presented as front page news story in its own right.

You're asking me to keep up and then you just repeated exactly what I said...

 

[smiler]

Yes, I agree that there is a bias in reporting usually. You think it should be done a certain way. My style may be a bit different - I highlight things (good / positive / neutral) that I think are interesting and leave comments open so items can be expanded upon, confirmed or possibly discredited. Now if you find many 'positive' items that aren't posted then perhaps there is a problem.

If you think it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, you are welcome to add commentary directly to that article.

okay so we agree
"there is a bias in reporting usually. You think it should be done a certain way. My style may be a bit different"
So my point is this. The bias at the moment appears subjectively to be a very negative one. It would be hard to expect anything less given the ongoing dispute you are having with Morrissey. I realise however that you have put your life and love into this website and thats what makes it all so sad. I honestly appreciate all the effort and so I want you to come to terms with what the website has become, for yourself as much as anyone.

 

[davidt]

okay so we agree
"there is a bias in reporting usually. You think it should be done a certain way. My style may be a bit different"
So my point is this. The bias at the moment appears subjectively to be a very negative one. It would be hard to expect anything less given the ongoing dispute you are having with Morrissey. I realise however that you have put your life and love into this website and thats what makes it all so sad. I honestly appreciate all the effort and so I want you to come to terms with what the website has become, for yourself as much as anyone.

I don't agree the bias is negative - I try to be unbiased and include everything - both positive and negative stories.

 

[smiler]

I don't agree the bias is negative - I try to be unbiased and include everything - both positive and negative stories.

Given the circumstances its impossible for it not be to negative. You have dedicated much of your life to producing a tribute to an artist (this website) and he tells everyone he f***ing hates it. That is bound to hurt and bound to shape your opinions of the man. I think you got too close too the flame, too close to your inspiration and got burned. I also think the dispute is a product of that journey. Heres the thing davidt You say this site is simply a platform and is reflective of public opinion. Take the announcement of the NME's apology as the perfect example. That story was reported and commented on, as a "positive Morrissey story" all over the world, but only on this website was Morrissey condemed repeatedly for that apology not being "full" enough. - can't you can't see a negative bias there at all? Why would that be?

 

[davidt]

Given the circumstances its impossible for it not be to negative. You have dedicated much of your life to producing a tribute to an artist (this website) and he tells everyone he f***ing hates it. That is bound to hurt and bound to shape your opinions of the man. I think you got too close too the flame, too close to your inspiration and got burned. I also think the dispute is a product of that journey. Heres the thing davidt You say this site is simply a platform and is reflective of public opinion. Take the announcement of the NME's apology as the perfect example. That story was reported and commented on, as a "positive Morrissey story" all over the world, but only on this website was Morrissey condemed repeatedly for that apology not being "full" enough. - can't you can't see a negative bias there at all? Why would that be?

You seem to be confusing arguments of what people are saying on the site and my editorial decision on how stories are posted on the front page.

People here are a bit more analytical here than other media outlets but I'm sure you'll see similar 'negative' comments on sites that allow comments.

 

[Iona Mink]

Given the circumstances its impossible for it not be to negative. You have dedicated much of your life to producing a tribute to an artist (this website) and he tells everyone he f***ing hates it. That is bound to hurt and bound to shape your opinions of the man. I think you got too close too the flame, too close to your inspiration and got burned. I also think the dispute is a product of that journey. Heres the thing davidt You say this site is simply a platform and is reflective of public opinion. Take the announcement of the NME's apology as the perfect example. That story was reported and commented on, as a "positive Morrissey story" all over the world, but only on this website was Morrissey condemed repeatedly for that apology not being "full" enough. - can't you can't see a negative bias there at all? Why would that be?

So are you suggesting that you know David's mind and feelings better than he does?

The answer to your last question is simple; this is a fansite. Naturally things are going to be picked over with much greater detail than a newspaper or magazine. As fans we are more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the case and can bring to the argument a greater background knowledge of topic. The story reflected the interests of its readership. The same could hardly be of much interest to Mrs Jones reading the Manchester Evening News.

Besides, your argument falls flat when you say that fans insisting that an apology wasn't apologetic enough. I think this is reflective of placing Morrissey in a positive light (ie insisting he deserves much better). I wouldn't perceive that to be fostering a negative Morrissey bashing attitude at all.

 

[smiler]

You seem to be confusing arguments of what people are saying on the site and my editorial decision on how stories are posted on the front page.

People here are a bit more analytical here than other media outlets but I'm sure you'll see similar 'negative' comments on sites that allow comments.

My point being that the bias you mention is also present (and I would suggest is present to an even greater degree) in the moderation of the forums. And yes these type of comment may have appeared on other websites but why were they so disproportionately prominent here?

 

[smiler]

So are you suggesting that you know David's mind and feelings better than he does?

The answer to your last question is simple; this is a fansite. Naturally things are going to be picked over with much greater detail than a newspaper or magazine. As fans we are more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the case and can bring to the argument a greater background knowledge of topic. The story reflected the interests of its readership. The same could hardly be of much interest to Mrs Jones reading the Manchester Evening News.

Besides, your argument falls flat when you say that fans insisting that an apology wasn't apologetic enough. I think this is reflective of placing Morrissey in a positive light (ie insisting he deserves much better). I wouldn't perceive that to be fostering a negative Morrissey bashing attitude at all.

I don't follow this bit at all?

 

[Iona Mink]

I don't follow this bit at all?

Your argument is that Morrissey-solo fosters a negative bias in selecting/allowing negative posts about Morrissey to be published.

You give the argument that people 'bashing' Morrissey over the acceptance of a lesser apology is an example of this negative bias.

I disagree. This 'bashing' wasn't overwhelmingly negative towards Morrissey. A lot of it was people expressing disappointment he didn't take the case to court. Yes, you will have detractors but I think they were the minority. Most people were saying either well done, journos are liars, you should have taken them to the cleaners etc.

For those who say that was not apology enough reflects a belief that Morrissey deserves a better outcome than what they perceive he received. This, to me, is illustration of affection and not disregard.

Hence a positive 'non-bashing' voice amongst the majority of members.

Now, are you suggesting that you know David's mind and feelings better than he does?