"Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

Posted by @mikejoyce / Twitter:

@mikejoyce: It was sent to me today.

festive_card.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
Not sure exactly what you are referring to. But I said he didn't completely come out from under Morrissey's spell, not that he never even slightly came out from under it.

Well, your comments are amusing but they just don't compute with the facts. The idea of trying to partly blame Morrissey for Johnny Marr's behaviour is a novel one though...

When Johnny and Andy Rourke played the MEN Arena together, Johnny was very open in the press about the fact that he would not even consider sharing the stage with Mike. The Mozipedia book also makes clear how angry Johnny was about Mike playing an unreleased song on the radio without permission.

Not that I'm saying this makes Mike all bad but he is no angel either.
 

No1uno

Member of the Month™
Subscriber
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Morrissey would not only agree that he is spiteful but claim spite as a virtue, not a vice. Sometimes I wonder if we even listened to the same records or read the same interviews. You can be spiteful when you're right just as easily as when you're wrong, can't you?

verb
verb: spite; 3rd person present: spites; past tense: spited; past participle: spited; gerund or present participle: spiting

1.
deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone).
noun
noun: spite

1.
a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone.

You don't think he is deliberately annoying Mike Joyce when he writes songs like the one you quoted or makes posts stating that Mike Joyce tried to take away the home Morrissey gave to his mother? You don't think Margaret On The Guillotine was meant to annoy and offend? Now, I like that song and I'm not saying he shouldn't have written it. I can be spiteful myself as most humans can. But when you let it consume your thoughts to the point that he has with the legal problems of The Smiths, it can't be healthy and it can't lead to peace of mind. Of the part of his autobiography that deals with The Smiths a large part of it is about the lawsuits.
That is what spite does. It's when you hate someone you don't even know anymore, but the thought of them makes your blood pressure rise. I know this because I experience it myself, but I also try to see the bigger picture, to laugh at myself, to change and to let go. I don't actively keep it going intentionally and think it's a good choice to do so.
It has hurt his art, hurt his health, hurt his reputation, hurt his sanity to keep this thing going. Right or wrong, it was his decision to take more that started this, and his decision to do so in a way that did not hold up in court, and his decision not to accept the fact that he f***ed up, and his decision not to pay the price for it.
It doesn't even matter if he deserved 100% of the money, he didn't do it right. It didn't hold up in court. At that point any sane, reasonable person accepts the judgment, pays, and moves on with their life. Only a spiteful and unreasonable person lives in the shadow of this mistake for decades, only to have the person he has cast in the role of a stupid and greedy thief for all these years come forward in one two hour interview and explain this in a way that people like myself, who previously agreed with Morrissey. agree with. Mike Joyce put his heart into The Smiths and comes across as a reasonable person. He's not lying in that interview. He doesn't fudge and pause and choose his words carefully. He talks fast, he's consistent, he praises Morrissey repeatedly, and he comes across as very honest.

So yes, spite. The thing is, if you can't see this, I don't know how you can understand Morrissey at all. Some of his "negative" traits are what makes some of his art so entertaining.


Just who the 4ck do you think you are. Coming in here with that common sense, real person view of this topic. You just reel in that sweet sass mouth of yours because we will have none of that reasonableness here. Got it.

Lol. Actually a great post and I enjoy the rational breakdown as you saw it. Thank you for taking the time to state obviousness I saw in this to.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, your comments are amusing but they just don't compute with the facts. The idea of trying to partly blame Morrissey for Johnny Marr's behaviour is a novel one though...

When Johnny and Andy Rourke played the MEN Arena together, Johnny was very open in the press about the fact that he would not even consider sharing the stage with Mike. The Mozipedia book also makes clear how angry Johnny was about Mike playing an unreleased song on the radio without permission.

Not that I'm saying this makes Mike all bad but he is no angel either.

The radio thing was, what, 20-odd years after the Smiths split. I can totally believe Johnny was angry about it, but it can't be the cause if things that had already happened.

Allowing Mike's case to come to court was a monumentally illogical kamikaze move. It's clear that Morrissey didn't care what was logical, but there's no plausible explanation for Johnny following suit, except out of solidarity. It doesn't even matter how he felt about Mike or whether Mike was an angel or a bastard, because Mike was always going to win in court. Even though I'll admit to liking Johnny, I don't see this as an excuse. It was morally weak and not a little stupid. There's no way he did it because he genuinely thought it was a good idea, though.

The only thing that would change this picture would be Mike having refused point-blank to negotiate. But, as I indicated above, I don't think this is likely.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Please help me! I can't find the embarrassing photograph of Mike Joyce where he looks like the Topo Gigio character

TOPO+GIGIO+5.jpg


I want to show it to a friend who said he was cool, but I can't find it, and also it seems to have disappeared from the web :squiffy: Is this a media conspiration to clean his image?
 
Last edited:
M

Musician

Guest
1. ketamine Sun likes to cite from Autobio (let's put aside now the fact how reliable that is. If i recall, Morrissey went to court without a lawyer. How stupid is that?

2. As I already wrote it: even in the height of his carreer, everyone faceplamed upon hearing "Sorrow"....and skipped it on Maladjusted. It's the definition of self-embarrasment.
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
The radio thing was, what, 20-odd years after the Smiths split. I can totally believe Johnny was angry about it, but it can't be the cause if things that had already happened.

Allowing Mike's case to come to court was a monumentally illogical kamikaze move. It's clear that Morrissey didn't care what was logical, but there's no plausible explanation for Johnny following suit, except out of solidarity. It doesn't even matter how he felt about Mike or whether Mike was an angel or a bastard, because Mike was always going to win in court. Even though I'll admit to liking Johnny, I don't see this as an excuse. It was morally weak and not a little stupid. There's no way he did it because he genuinely thought it was a good idea, though.

The only thing that would change this picture would be Mike having refused point-blank to negotiate. But, as I indicated above, I don't think this is likely.

Nice try but there is no way that anyone could genuinely believe that. :lbf:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

Just who the 4ck do you think you are. Coming in here with that common sense, real person view of this topic. You just reel in that sweet sass mouth of yours because we will have none of that reasonableness here. Got it.

Lol. Actually a great post and I enjoy the rational breakdown as you saw it. Thank you for taking the time to state obviousness I saw in this to.

lol :D Ruining the hanging party.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nice try but there is no way that anyone could genuinely believe that. :lbf:

On what basis do you say that? Mike's case was obviously very strong, because he and Morrissey had no real evidence beyond their recollections, and neither of them actually recalled Mike or Andy agreeing to 10%. So the chances if them winning were slim, and their lawyers will have told them that. Additionally, it's clear from Johnny's testimony that he didn't really support Morrissey's position. He said that he hadn't felt 10% was fair, and his point was not that 10% had been agreed, but that there had been an agreement about unspecified unequal shares.

So, there can't really be any doubt that Johnny ought to have been interested in a compromise, yet he chose instead to defend the case in court. What would be your alternative explanation for that?
 

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

It takes a very sick man to be able to say this kind of thing over and over again. Emotionally damaged, complete lack of empathy, oblivious to any social, moral or ethical codes that tells us that it is not ok to say these kinds of things.

You would benefit from a complete and thorough mental examination. I also wouldn't mind a police investigation - you do seem quite unstable, extremely hostile and possibly potentially dangerous. A mentally unstable, hateful, hostile
butcher with no moral fibre. Scary stuff.

OnT:
Joyce should've been happy with his 10%. Seems reasonable for a drummer with no other duties whatsoever. And with no contract it should've been a no-case.

Smiths singer was quizzed by Scotland Yard over controversial Thatcher song Margaret on the Guillotine


"In January 2006, Morrissey attracted criticism when he stated that he accepts the motives behind the militant tactics of the Animal Rights Militia, saying "I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence—it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand".[SUP][150][/SUP]

Morrissey has criticised people in the UK who are involved in the promotion of eating meat, specifically Jamie Oliver[SUP][151][/SUP] and Clarissa Dickson Wright[SUP][152][/SUP] – the latter already targeted by some animal rights activists for her stance on fox hunting. In response, Dickson Wright stated, "Morrissey is encouraging people to commit acts of violence and I am constantly aware that something might very well happen to me."[SUP][153][/SUP] The Conservative MP David Davis criticised Morrissey's comments, saying that "any incitement to violence is obviously wrong in a civilised society and should be investigated by the police".[SUP][154]"

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrissey

[/URL][/SUP]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
On what basis do you say that? Mike's case was obviously very strong, because he and Morrissey had no real evidence beyond their recollections, and neither of them actually recalled Mike or Andy agreeing to 10%. So the chances if them winning were slim, and their lawyers will have told them that. Additionally, it's clear from Johnny's testimony that he didn't really support Morrissey's position. He said that he hadn't felt 10% was fair, and his point was not that 10% had been agreed, but that there had been an agreement about unspecified unequal shares.

So, there can't really be any doubt that Johnny ought to have been interested in a compromise, yet he chose instead to defend the case in court. What would be your alternative explanation for that?

Obviously the he is supposed to be Johnny rather than Mike.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

Smiths singer was quizzed by Scotland Yard over controversial Thatcher song Margaret on the Guillotine


"In January 2006, Morrissey attracted criticism when he stated that he accepts the motives behind the militant tactics of the Animal Rights Militia, saying "I understand why fur-farmers and so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence—it is because they deal in violence themselves and it's the only language they understand".[SUP][150][/SUP]

Morrissey has criticised people in the UK who are involved in the promotion of eating meat, specifically Jamie Oliver[SUP][151][/SUP] and Clarissa Dickson Wright[SUP][152][/SUP] – the latter already targeted by some animal rights activists for her stance on fox hunting. In response, Dickson Wright stated, "Morrissey is encouraging people to commit acts of violence and I am constantly aware that something might very well happen to me."[SUP][153][/SUP] The Conservative MP David Davis criticised Morrissey's comments, saying that "any incitement to violence is obviously wrong in a civilised society and should be investigated by the police".[SUP][154]"

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrissey

[/URL][/SUP]



It has to be a very opressive feeling when someone answers a question during an interview, gives an opinion beginning the sentence using “I understand why” and not at all saying “Go people do this or that”; and then powerful people publicly accuse him of a crime such as incitement to violence. When you say someone is a criminal that’s, at least, an insult. He was insulted, because he was accused publicly of a crime he didn't commit. Period.

There’s a defense against those false accusations: the courts. But Moz was personally mistreated and injured by the justice system represented by judge Weeks (leaving aside the unfavorable outcome on two instances). Reading his Autobiography, his own lawyers were pretty useless and acted in fear of reprisals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
his hair? I don't think drumming affected his hair at all.

Ah, so you really are knob with your head well and truly stuck up Morrisseys arse hole. To be clear, Mike had 25% of the responsibility when playing live.
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
On what basis do you say that? Mike's case was obviously very strong, because he and Morrissey had no real evidence beyond their recollections, and neither of them actually recalled Mike or Andy agreeing to 10%. So the chances if them winning were slim, and their lawyers will have told them that. Additionally, it's clear from Johnny's testimony that he didn't really support Morrissey's position. He said that he hadn't felt 10% was fair, and his point was not that 10% had been agreed, but that there had been an agreement about unspecified unequal shares.

So, there can't really be any doubt that Johnny ought to have been interested in a compromise, yet he chose instead to defend the case in court. What would be your alternative explanation for that?

Sorry but there really doesn't seem any point in debating this. The idea that Johnny both went through the stress and strain of a court case (not to mention the financial loss) and then refused to speak to Mike for the following 18 years due to 'Morrissey's hold on him' is one of the daftest theories that I have yet seen on the internet. And that's saying something! :lbf:
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
yes, but too bad he only gave 10%.




to be clear... one must wipe the shit off from the surface.


;)

Which Smiths gigs did you attend where he only gave 10% Ketamine or is your suggestion that he only received 10% for his efforts. If its the former, I doubt whether you ever saw The Smiths or have ever been to Manchester, where you would find that Mike Joyce is a well liked chap. If its the latter, you seem to forget he received a 1 million pound settlement as well as the royalty increase.
 
Last edited:

BrummieBoy

BrummieBoy
oops! I f***ed up this one by Alfie-The Archivist, but the proper version's below.

laterz haterz
Shazza - The Secretary
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Top Bottom