"Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guardian Music Blog

Found this in The Guardian website...

Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it? by Stephen Kelly - The Guardian Music Blog
After a 5,000-mile trip from LA to Copenhagen, a Morrissey fansite owner was looking forward to seeing his favourite artist in concert. Instead he was refused entry and given a lifetime ban

 

[Anonymous]

<img src = "i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/01/article-1283088-0003189E00000258-14_634x449.jpg">

 

[Anonymous]

David once said that he liked doing the site 'for its own sake' [words to this effect]. Meaning, he liked doing the site because the satisfaction came from doing the site itself; having something successful and in its own way, important. He's no longer doing it 'for Morrissey' if he ever was, which I don't know either way. He's doing it for the sake of itself. It's an accomplishment. I rather like this answer. It makes the most sense and hopefully clears up why he's doing it, in my opinion, of course. It's not to fawn over Morrissey, and it's not to not fawn over Morrissey, either. It's to have something, make something, do something, that's important in this little corner of the world in a way that other things of this nature are important. It's not for venom or non-venom, it just... is.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

David once said that he liked doing the site 'for its own sake' [words to this effect]. Meaning, he liked doing the site because the satisfaction came from doing the site itself; having something successful and in its own way, important. He's no longer doing it 'for Morrissey' if he ever was, which I don't know either way. He's doing it for the sake of itself. It's an accomplishment. I rather like this answer. It makes the most sense and hopefully clears up why he's doing it, in my opinion, of course. It's not to fawn over Morrissey, and it's not to not fawn over Morrissey, either. It's to have something, make something, do something, that's important in this little corner of the world in a way that other things of this nature are important. It's not for venom or non-venom, it just... is.

And also: he follows the ethics which he believes in in administering the site. End.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

He wants to win by the "old" rules. As such, this is why Morrissey actively ignores the progresses made in media and stubbornly holds on to how it was in the old days.

And he's done pretty well playing by the 'old rules' too. Perhaps not as well as Lady Gaga. But will she still be releasing records in 28 years time? I doubt she will be remembered as fondly.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

David once said that he liked doing the site 'for its own sake' [words to this effect]. Meaning, he liked doing the site because the satisfaction came from doing the site itself; having something successful and in its own way, important. He's no longer doing it 'for Morrissey' if he ever was, which I don't know either way. He's doing it for the sake of itself. It's an accomplishment. I rather like this answer. It makes the most sense and hopefully clears up why he's doing it, in my opinion, of course. It's not to fawn over Morrissey, and it's not to not fawn over Morrissey, either. It's to have something, make something, do something, that's important in this little corner of the world in a way that other things of this nature are important. It's not for venom or non-venom, it just... is.

And also: he follows the ethics which he believes in in administering the site. End.

Very well said. I said to the Guardian I felt the site is a medium and it is neither negatively or positively slanted, but they didn't include that. So what I mean is saying 'f*** Morrissey-solo.com' is similar to saying 'f*** the internet' or 'f*** oxygen' in more broad terms.

I recall saying something like the reward in doing the site is the site itself in the past. It still is. The trolls and even some past regulars now keep saying what a dump this place is. 'Oh but I do' see the worth, and I will keep it going.

 

[2-J]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

So you are requesting censorship similar to allyouneedismorrissey.com with rules such as 'no rude behavior towards Morrissey'?

lmfao! This is why I will never, ever post on that stupid site and remain on Morrissey-Solo.

'no rude behaviour towards Morrissey' Saint Morrissey indeed. Some people out there need to get a grip...

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Very well said. I said to the Guardian I felt the site is a medium and it is neither negatively or positively slanted, but they didn't include that. So what I mean is saying 'f*** Morrissey-solo.com' is similar to saying 'f*** the internet' or 'f*** oxygen' in more broad terms.

I recall saying something like the reward in doing the site is the site itself in the past. It still is. The trolls and even some past regulars now keep saying what a dump this place is. 'Oh but I do' see the worth, and I will keep it going.

It’s a shame that Morrissey has allowed himself to be manipulated by whoever is reporting to him about what’s on this site. It is unfortunate that he believes David is the bad guy here and allowed himself to sink to this level where the comments on this site are so distressing to him.

Hope I do not cause too much stress to anyone that reads my post or who reads the comments below the honey bee story I provided below.

David, I am happy to hear that you plan to keep the site going.I don’t understand how people fail to see that the great thing about this site is you provide a place where all information regarding Morrissey can be found. Yes sometimes some of it is just rumors or sometimes it is a story that doesn’t cast Moz in the best light. But the way I see it is this…

If a story has been printed or reported somewhere else then others may hear/read/ see it too. So why not post it here?
Occasionally when Ive been away from solo for a while, someone I know may tell me they read the story or heard something somewhere about Morrissey, but they don’t remember what specific publication but I know I can come here and find the direct link to the original story and see exactly what was printed, instead of relying on whatever I was told. And I know that if I care to read a few opinions on the matter there will be comments supporting both sides of the story. If I don’t want to know what anyone else thinks about it….I just don’t read the comments. If the comments are too obnoxious or upsetting, skip over them..it is just another person’s opinions.
Has anyone ever read the comments under the original story after following a link from solo? A lot of times those comments are similar to any post on this site. Has anyone ever read comments at the end of ANY news story that is not about Morrissey? Go find a story about Obama, Lady Gaga, anything even… honey bees
http://www.statesman.com/news/local...st-austin-house-1613297.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
do these comments at the end of this story look a bit familiar??????
…theres always quite a few annoying, ridiculous or just plain unnecessary comments underneath. But sometimes there’s actually a comment worth reading.

I have been visiting this site since it all began I have never created an account. Never felt the need because in all that time I have probably posted only about maybe ten times(???).
Although I admit that sometimes I do read many of the comments, but to me the user names are the same as Anonymous.(with a few exceptions because of the repeated posts) I know many of you disagree because you seem to have a lot of time to really chat on here and some of you know each other and some of you create lists of those you agree with or disagree with, and some of you create multiple accounts for your multiple personalities…..whatever…. I don’t come here for that and I think a lot of other solo visitors don’t come here for that either. I come here to get the latest news about Morrissey.

I know a lot of people have begged David to take the site down or stop anonymous posting, but I don’t see what the point in either would be. Have you seen the odd posts by some of the registered users? Newspapers/magazines will continue to post both good and bad stories/reviews/rumors, etc about Morrissey. Taking the site down won’t stop that. It just might make it a little harder for some to find out about these news items, but eventually we will just by doing a Morrissey google search. Even if Morrissey stopped touring, releasing material, or decided to escape to a secluded island and never be seen again, I’m sure he would still be written about or discussed. Without a site like this I think it just makes it more difficult to get the full scope of any future news items because the stories will be so censored or one sided, depending on the source of the story.

If you users of the site want it improved they should take action: Report abusive posts, Post worthwhile comments, Don’t reply to the obnoxious posts,or just Skip over the comments you can’t handle emotionally. If all this fails and If this site is causing some of you so much distress, that includes you Morrissey (or whoever is reporting back to him), then just stop visiting this site. If you can’t stop, then obviously this site is indeed worth something to you.


k

 

[Diogo Neto]

I've been a Morrissey fan since aroun 1997, Moz-solo as always helped me to keep in touch with all that surrouds Moz really, and truly speaking this website has earned its credits for making him a lot of publicity over the yeras, I dare ask, would Moz be so much on on top without the help of Moz-Solo?
The "f*** Moz Solo" Shirts, and the idiotic "ban for life" incident, as made me lost any interest in any of the concerts of the current tour (was making plans to attend one at least.....), and truly can´t tell how the futur will be for me....

I really hope that you David will continue to run the website the same way you've deen doing all over the years, you have mine and many fans honest simpathy regarding this sad sad moment....

 

[Comtesse]

Why on earth would anyone think that you would ever start a Morrissey website "for Morrissey"??? With the lone exception of "True To You," Morrissey websites are started because fans want to share their Moz obsession with other fans. I started mine because I was a collector and had a large backlog of articles/pictures/etc. that I wanted to share with less fortunate fans. I never once thought about Morrissey in creating the site.

If I ran an ambitious news/discussion site like Moz-Solo (which I never would because I lack the energy, talent, and ambition to do so), I would be running it as a tool to keep other Morrissey fans informed and to facilitate discussions with other fans over the object of our mutual obsession. Again, Morrissey would never figure into my thoughts about it and I wouldn't care what he thought about it.

Church Of Moz members might disagree but, in a sense, Morrissey-Solo is none of Morrissey's business because it's not really about HIM. It's about US as Morrissey fans and our right to share our opinions about our favorite singer.

 

[Anonymous]

I didn't know Kirsty's song was about Morrissey:

Treachery by Kirsty MacColl

I'm stalking a fan
He lives in a high rise block
And here I am
He shouldn't have turned my rock
He's brushing his teeth
He doesn't look bad from this far
I'm hailing a cab
And I'm gonna follow his car
Wherever he goes
I won't be too far behind
Just hanging around
Driving him out of his mind
Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me

I'm stalking a fan
He used to write all the time
How lovely I am
He really made me feel fine
But how they forget
He needed a wake-up call
And he will regret
Having been so shallow
He made me believe
That I was some kind of myth
So here I am
How could he treat me like this?

Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me

Wherever he goes
I won't be too far behind
Just hanging around
Driving him out of his mind
I'm stalking a fan
He's gone to the record store
To buy a CD
By some other girl not me
He's taking her home
Getting her out of her box
And putting her on
And dancing around in his socks

Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me
Treachery made a monster out of me

Getting her out of her box
Treachery
And dancing around in his socks
Treachery
Treachery
And dancing around in his socks
Treachery
Driving him out of his mind

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Very well said.

Have you noticed that you reply to every post that kisses your ass in this way? "Very well said." "That's an excellent point, Random Asslicker."

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

So you are requesting censorship...

Meanwhile, one of the people who was criticizing you above is now banned.

You are a hypocrite and apparently an idiot.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

The homophobia on this site disgusts me.

The homophobia is an official policy. It is a part of a particular Morrissey tribute singer, an openly gay man, being "an exception" to the TOS protecting posters. Uncleskinny stokes it more than anyone else.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

DavidT, For avoidance of doubt, YOU are the person responsible for getting you kicked out.

And if anyone wonders why...

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/115854-Would-You-Eat-A-Morrissey-Dropping

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624392&viewfull=1#post1986624392

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624397&viewfull=1#post1986624397

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/114710-how-will-morrissey-die

Just at a glance. I noticed that a huge number of posts/threads from say 2009-2010 are gone.

In any case, even if you ignore the threads critical of the music (in spite of David's loud proclamations that Morrissey is a precious snowflake who cannot take criticism) I think there's more than enough personal, ugly, insulting trash talked about him on this site to give anyone with a brain a good reason to kick the owner of the site out of his "house."

And David, please get over yourself equating moderating a forum with censorship. This isn't 1997 anymore. The internet isn't some new thing where everyone is still trying to figure out what the rules of discourse should be. Forums are moderated, most MUCH better than this one, where people are free to speak but expected to treat one another in a civil manner. Are you really going to hide behind your users and proclaim that you have no responsibility whatsoever in the thread asking if other's would eat his poo? What part of "you make the rules here" is so hard to understand? You say the internet is the medium - it is in the same way that a piece of undeveloped film is the medium. But the photographer is responsible for what he puts on it. He can go to a street and shoot what he sees, and it's his choice whether to point the camera at the homeless guy taking a dump in an ally or not. You are the photographer in this case. You have the final say, the power to choose your subjects: in this case, what posts on this site remain in public view and which are taken down.

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

David once said that he liked doing the site 'for its own sake' [words to this effect]. Meaning, he liked doing the site because the satisfaction came from doing the site itself; having something successful and in its own way, important. He's no longer doing it 'for Morrissey' if he ever was, which I don't know either way. He's doing it for the sake of itself. It's an accomplishment. I rather like this answer. It makes the most sense and hopefully clears up why he's doing it, in my opinion, of course. It's not to fawn over Morrissey, and it's not to not fawn over Morrissey, either. It's to have something, make something, do something, that's important in this little corner of the world in a way that other things of this nature are important. It's not for venom or non-venom, it just... is.

And also: he follows the ethics which he believes in in administering the site. End.

And if anyone wonders why...

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/115854-Would-You-Eat-A-Morrissey-Dropping

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624392&viewfull=1#post1986624392

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624397&viewfull=1#post1986624397

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/114710-how-will-morrissey-die

Just at a glance. I noticed that a huge number of posts/threads from say 2009-2010 are gone.

In any case, even if you ignore the threads critical of the music (in spite of David's loud proclamations that Morrissey is a precious snowflake who cannot take criticism) I think there's more than enough personal, ugly, insulting trash talked about him on this site to give anyone with a brain a good reason to kick the owner of the site out of his "house."

And David, please get over yourself equating moderating a forum with censorship. This isn't 1997 anymore. The internet isn't some new thing where everyone is still trying to figure out what the rules of discourse should be. Forums are moderated, most MUCH better than this one, where people are free to speak but expected to treat one another in a civil manner. Are you really going to hide behind your users and proclaim that you have no responsibility whatsoever in the thread asking if other's would eat his poo? What part of "you make the rules here" is so hard to understand? You say the internet is the medium - it is in the same way that a piece of undeveloped film is the medium. But the photographer is responsible for what he puts on it. He can go to a street and shoot what he sees, and it's his choice whether to point the camera at the homeless guy taking a dump in an ally or not. You are the photographer in this case. You have the final say, the power to choose your subjects: in this case, what posts on this site remain in public view and which are taken down.

So are you saying you want to censor the posts? When I bring up the word 'censorship' usually suddenly those who are asking for it go quiet. Just admit it, that's what you want.

I'm not saying I like or approve of those posts but there are no actual violations. It seems you think there is an obvious violation - state the rule that you would have. Otherwise I suggest going to www.allyouneedismorrissey.com as they have rules that are more 'respectful'.

Posts from 2009 - 2010 are in the 'archive' section.

I am actually not the 'photographer' in your example - the person who posted it is.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

And if anyone wonders why...

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/115854-Would-You-Eat-A-Morrissey-Dropping

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624392&viewfull=1#post1986624392

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...u-peek?p=1986624397&viewfull=1#post1986624397

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/114710-how-will-morrissey-die

Just at a glance. I noticed that a huge number of posts/threads from say 2009-2010 are gone.

Morrissey did not have a problem to write on a woman's arm "I am human and I need to be loved" who posted in a similar thread that she asked her husband if he'd allow Morrissey to give him an anal and who described in detail how she had licked Morrissey's sweaty shirt. So it seems, you are on the wrong track. You have to find another reason.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

The frink thread also became an integral part of Morrissey's concerts, where he picked up a sign saying "you are frinky", which was a clear reference to a thread on this forum where people describe in detail how they get errections, want to suck his penis and feel something in the lower part of their bodies.

I cannot blame that he thought it was all right for him to go the concerts given the extra treatment these people got at the concerts.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

So are you saying you want to censor the posts? When I bring up the word 'censorship' usually suddenly those who are asking for it go quiet. Just admit it, that's what you want.

I'm not saying I like or approve of those posts but there are no actual violations. It seems you think there is an obvious violation - state the rule that you would have. Otherwise I suggest going to www.allyouneedismorrissey.com as they have rules that are more 'respectful'.

Posts from 2009 - 2010 are in the 'archive' section.

I am actually not the 'photographer' in your example - the person who posted it is.

Actually, the poster is the 'subject' of the photograph, and the admin is the 'photographer.' Or perhaps you could say editor? Or producer? In any case, the one who runs the site has responsibility and the final say, not the poster writing the posts. It is the photographer's responsibility to choose whether to press the shutter, whether to develop the film, and finally whether to publish the picture.

You can call it censorship, or you can call it the rules of conduct. Every single poster here has the freedom to start their own blog somewhere else and write what they write here. Telling them to quit acting like an ass in your establishment does not in any way equate to censorship. If you think supressing freedom to speak your mind equates censorship 100% of the time, why has anyone ever been banned from posting here? Talk about a double standard...

 

[davidt]

Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Actually, the poster is the 'subject' of the photograph, and the admin is the 'photographer.' Or perhaps you could say editor? Or producer? In any case, the one who runs the site has responsibility and the final say, not the poster writing the posts. It is the photographer's responsibility to choose whether to press the shutter, whether to develop the film, and finally whether to publish the picture.

You can call it censorship, or you can call it the rules of conduct. Every single poster here has the freedom to start their own blog somewhere else and write what they write here. Telling them to quit acting like an ass in your establishment does not in any way equate to censorship. If you think supressing freedom to speak your mind equates censorship 100% of the time, why has anyone ever been banned from posting here? Talk about a double standard...

No I am not the editor or producer or publisher of people's comments. That is where we disagree on the definition. I do not see the comment before it is posted or 'produced'.

I may see it afterwards and take action if any rules are violated. Users are banned if they violate the rules of conduct that actually do exist. Sure, it's not an exact science, some may disagree on bans but in general they are about disclosing personal info or other types of harassment. I don't suppress ideas, criticisms, jokes (that may be sick in your opinion, but maybe not another's) or whatever the case may be.

 

[starless]

I wouldn't mind if there were no comments allowed here at all. There is always a discussion in the forum on most of the news items anyway.