Page 11 of 14

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 18:35
by PENK
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:[ I guess if I'm honest Morrissey's hypocritical refusal to admit his sexuality is probably a bit annoying .


So his refusal to give you full access to his personal life is hypocritical and annoying.

OK


No, his hypocrisy is annoying.

It seems to me that most of the Smiths' most ardent fans actually loathe the band. A need to slag them off vicariously is surely the only explanation for the way so many of them put words of vehement hatred into the mouths of people who are being far less critical.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 18:54
by Copehead
Penk wrote:
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:[ I guess if I'm honest Morrissey's hypocritical refusal to admit his sexuality is probably a bit annoying .


So his refusal to give you full access to his personal life is hypocritical and annoying.

OK


No, his hypocrisy is annoying.

.


For the life of me I can't see what is hypocritical about not informing you as to the facts of his sexuality.

I didn't realise it was on the application form for pop star

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:04
by Owen
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:[ I guess if I'm honest Morrissey's hypocritical refusal to admit his sexuality is probably a bit annoying .


So his refusal to give you full access to his personal life is hypocritical and annoying.

OK


No, his hypocrisy is annoying.

.


For the life of me I can't see what is hypocritical about not informing you as to the facts of his sexuality.


Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:07
by PENK
Owen wrote:
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:
Jarg Armani wrote:
Penk wrote:[ I guess if I'm honest Morrissey's hypocritical refusal to admit his sexuality is probably a bit annoying .


So his refusal to give you full access to his personal life is hypocritical and annoying.

OK


No, his hypocrisy is annoying.

.


For the life of me I can't see what is hypocritical about not informing you as to the facts of his sexuality.


Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called


Yes that, with additional "convincing thousands of fans that you're giving a voice to their own feelings by doing so."

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:08
by Tonto Papadopoulos
Owen wrote:Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called


which sexuality did he make up?

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:09
by Owen
DiamondDog wrote:
Owen wrote:Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called


which sexuality did he make up?


"Oh i'm celibate me" is a step beyond 'not wanting to talk about his private life'

Maybe it was actually true at the time i suppose.

it's not something i care all that much about, although i'd guess a lot of people at the time did, but it does seem hypocritical.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:29
by Oscar
Gone beyond talking about music then? This happens every time I single-handedly (a little help from yomp, maybe) win a debate. The losers always move on to a different topic to avoid confronting their defeat.

Smug smug smug 8-) .

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:30
by Copehead
Owen wrote:
DiamondDog wrote:
Owen wrote:Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called


which sexuality did he make up?


"Oh i'm celibate me" is a step beyond 'not wanting to talk about his private life'

Maybe it was actually true at the time i suppose.

it's not something i care all that much about, although i'd guess a lot of people at the time did, but it does seem hypocritical.


What a rubbish post.

So now you admit that his celebate life style at the time was probably true

But it still seems hypocritical.

Well that seems like a stupid argument.

Just another stick to beat him with for some people, leading that army of celebate students up the garden path, yeh right.

I hold no brief for the guy, I like his music a lot, I like his interviews, but his views on animal testing are vile and abhorant to me and, yes, his appearance on Ross was arrogance of a high order.

But beating him up because he has kept his private life private is silly

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:34
by PENK
Oscar wrote:Gone beyond talking about music then? This happens every time I single-handedly (a little help from yomp, maybe) win a debate. The losers always move on to a different topic to avoid confronting their defeat.

Smug smug smug 8-) .


Actually it's happened here because some people are so determined to press the 'Morrissey for Pope' claim that they pick out the one throwaway line from a discussion that developed on the sidelines of the one about the music three pages ago that casts some doubt on his claim to be the Most Amazing Godlike Genius In The World Ever and fume over it despite the fact that the people who actually said it in the first place also said THEY WEREN'T REALLY BOTHERED ABOUT IT AND IT WASN'T THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:39
by Owen
Jarg Armani wrote:
Owen wrote:
DiamondDog wrote:
Owen wrote:Hypocrisy would be the "making up another sexuality and banging on and on about it" bit, or lying as it's generally called


which sexuality did he make up?


"Oh i'm celibate me" is a step beyond 'not wanting to talk about his private life'

Maybe it was actually true at the time i suppose.

it's not something i care all that much about, although i'd guess a lot of people at the time did, but it does seem hypocritical.


What a rubbish post.

So now you admit that his celebate life style at the time was probably true


Do i fuck, I said it might be true, I haven't read any books on them or anything or ever cared enough to read anything about it, I remember being surprised a few smiths threads back when Prof mentioned that a particular cover star was Morrissey's boyfriend, so i'd imagine there are people who keep more up to date with such stuff, and that the celibacy stuff is pretty much discredited.

Personally based on experience of human nature, I'd imagine someone who is fairly clearly gay now was probably gay back then too but wary of mentioning it for whate ver reason. But the celibacy 'may' have been true, hence my use of the word 'maybe' rather than the probably that you seem to have read

But it still seems hypocritical.


making a big deal about proclamations about your sexuality is a long way from the 'privacy' argument you tried to raise a few posts back. He didn't talk about privacy he based part of his shtick around soundbytey comments on celibacy that a lot of people believed, i remember Griff talking about how seriously he believed them.

He could have been celibate, some people are i suppose but i'd guess the truth is probably different.

Well that seems like a stupid argument.

Just another stick to beat him with for some people, leading that army of celebate students up the garden path, yeh right.


It's not a stick at all, i couldn't care less, any silly 80s student who made any lifestyle choices based on Morrissey deserves far worse than a few years of celibacy, i didn't raise the issue. But someone, you i think but i can't be arsed to look at the topic review window, asked where he had ever been a hypocrite about his sexuality when the answer is fairly clear.

I hold no brief for the guy, I like his music a lot, I like his interviews, but his views on animal testing are vile and abhorant to me and, yes, his appearance on Ross was arrogance of a high order.


he didn't actually seem that arrogant to me, he seemed like a slightly unintelligent man out of his depth away from fawning indykid music journos, and ross was far more sycophantic fanboy than he generally is. He just didn't seem up to actual discourse, only variations on the same soundbytes he's been using for 20 years.


But beating him up because he has kept his private life private is silly


he didn't keep it private, he made it a manifesto point. Even if the celibacy was genuine he very clearly used his sexuality (or lack of it) as a gimmick.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:44
by Matt Wilson
Owen said:Personally based on experience of human nature, I'd imagine someone who is fairly clearly gay now was probably gay back then too but wary of mentioning it for whate ver reason. But the celibacy 'may' have been true, hence my use of the word 'maybe' rather than the probably that you seem to have read

He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.

I don't know why some fans continue to deny this or play coy when it's brought up.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:47
by Oscar
Penk wrote:
Oscar wrote:Gone beyond talking about music then? This happens every time I single-handedly (a little help from yomp, maybe) win a debate. The losers always move on to a different topic to avoid confronting their defeat.

Smug smug smug 8-) .


Actually it's happened here because some people are so determined to press the 'Morrissey for Pope' claim that they pick out the one throwaway line from a discussion that developed on the sidelines of the one about the music three pages ago that casts some doubt on his claim to be the Most Amazing Godlike Genius In The World Ever and fume over it despite the fact that the people who actually said it in the first place also said THEY WEREN'T REALLY BOTHERED ABOUT IT AND IT WASN'T THAT FUCKING IMPORTANT.


It's happened here because I kicked everybody's arse and pressed you all so tightly into a corner so that the only direction you could all move in was the cheap n nasty "Morrissey is a gay!" stance.

Yawn...

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:50
by Oscar
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:52
by Matt Wilson
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


Well Oscar, do you want me to post some Smiths lyrics for you?
Since you seem to be unaware of what he was on about.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:55
by The Prof
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


53% or to put it another way 3.496


Anyway, Owen I think it will have been ALB mentioning the person on the cover of one of his records being a lover. I don't think I did.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:56
by Oscar
Matt Wilson wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


Well Oscar, do you want me to post some Smiths lyrics for you?
Since you seem to be unaware of what he was on about.


Ooooh, I'm quaking in my adidas sambas! Do yer worse, Matty.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:57
by Matt Wilson
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


Well Oscar, do you want me to post some Smiths lyrics for you?
Since you seem to be unaware of what he was on about.


Ooooh, I'm quaking in my adidas sambas! Do yer worse, Matty.


Why? Are you denying that there's a gay subtext?

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:57
by Owen
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.


I know that, you know that, anyone who can read who doesn't cling to 1983 NME interviews in a way that makes the average fundamentalist seem openminded knows that.

It's what the majority of the first album is about. I'd guess that actually played a huge part in why they had such an impact on people

I can understand why he didn't actually want to say so at the time. I can actually understand why he would want privacy now too, people dont have to turn their sexuality into an issue, it really is something i couldn't care less about.

But i can understand the idea that the whole celibacy thing was hypocritcal, even if it isn't it clearly is him making sexuality part of the package rather than 'not informing you about facts of his sex life'

He did at length, and probably falsely.

It's not really a big deal, and i am a huge smiths fan, although one who increasingly gets a little put off by the rubbish written about them, but if people are going to ask 'what hypocrisy' then the issue has been raised

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 19:58
by Oscar
Classic Prof wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


53% or to put it another way 3.496


Taking into account the seasonally adjusted figures, I'd put it at 64% or 9 bob.

Posted: 19 Jun 2006, 20:00
by Oscar
Matt Wilson wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:He was always gay. That's the subtext of most Smiths songs, just read the lyrics.
Just how gay exactly?


Well Oscar, do you want me to post some Smiths lyrics for you?
Since you seem to be unaware of what he was on about.


Ooooh, I'm quaking in my adidas sambas! Do yer worse, Matty.


Why? Are you denying that there's a gay subtext?


I think I would challenge you to prove that his lyrics weren't written from an asexual context or even from a female perspective. Get on with it.