Does Morrissey have a secret ‘serious illness’? - all-noise.co.uk

Seriously distasteful and intrusive speculation based on very very flimsy 'evidence' indeed. Morrissey has already admitted that he is/was a practising homosexual. Whether he is ill or not is a completely different issue and he is entitled to keep that private.

 

[Chip]

Oh sorry. Jean Genet. When I saw the names Sartre and Foccault, my ears popped up, so to speak. May have to look into Lead belly as well though.

I just finished a collection of Sartre's short fiction. Last summer I read some of his plays and his book on colonialism/neocolonialism. Interesting guy. Not sure of all the specifics, but he embodies to me all of the best attributes of a public intellectual.

Foccault is a different story.

 

[Anonymous]

If there is something wrong with him, it is none of our business...this is a website that is here to inform us not butcher us!!!!
Let him be...

MZ Love

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Can anything you say be believed CG? With your record? I'm not so sure, but I'll play...

I know you seem to think everything is about me personally, CG, but Morrissey has "revealed" - not released - an average of a song a year over the last five years, and pretty rotten they were too. That's pretty much the definition of increasingly irrelevant if, as he claims, he is still a singer/songwriter.

 

[realitybites]

I just finished a collection of Sartre's short fiction. Last summer I read some of his plays and his book on colonialism/neocolonialism. Interesting guy. Not sure of all the specifics, but he embodies to me all of the best attributes of a public intellectual.

Foccault is a different story.

Sartre was interesting. Interesting life. I consider myself an existentialist, so Sartre is right up my alley. Though Camus is my fave philosopher--reluctant philosopher, that is. More of a writer with philosophical ideas. Was just reading something not long ago that Foucault is considered by many to be one of the most overrated philosophers of all time. Not really coming up with anything new. But recycling ideas covertly. Not well enough versed in his works to know. Briefly studied some of his theories on power and sexuality when in college.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I suspect the only secret serious illness Morrissey suffers from is wanting to kill people.

This Dexter marathon is doing things to my brain.

 

[Chip]

Sarte was interesting. Interesting life. I consider myself an existentialist, so Sarte is right up my alley. Though Camus is my fave philosopher--reluctant philosopher, that is. More of a writer with philosophical ideas. Was just reading something not long ago that Foucault is considered by many to be one of the most overrated philosophers of all time. Not really coming up with anything new. But recycling ideas covertly. Not well enough versed in his works to know. Briefly studied some of his theories on power and sexuality when in college.

He's Marx without Marx. It makes sense. He was Althusser's student.

Did you read the History of Sex Volume 1:The Repressive Hypothesis? And if so can you explain that to me? I have read it and asked multiple people to explain what the f*** he was talking about. I am still confused.

I had a funny joke about Foccault's methodology when I was an undergraduate. People found it riotously funny. That says more about me and the company I kept than I ever wanted to admit on Moz-Solo

 

[Famous when dead]

This really is barrel scraping.
If one hundred people from this site all set up their own websites and each person then speculated some random aspect of Moz's life... would there be 100 updates to this site's frontpage?
The whole concept of vile twats at all noise... 'ruminating' and that then equating to speculation via other websites is vomitous.
As for freedom of speech... well yes, I get the whole ethos behind what goes on here, but there is a distinct difference between freedom of speech and being too free with your speech.
Further, I couldn't give a stuff about moderator's impartiality... I would just like to see proper moderation... you know: when there are over 100 posts about a topic and 50 responses are: you are a troll, no you are mentally ill, no you are.... off topic... political rant... ethical rant.... talking in definitives cause your brain is bigger than everyone else's and people need to know that.... my view's correct and you are awful because you don't agree.....et al ad nauseam.... my concept of 'moderation' before I'm obviously lambasted, is that stuff that has nothing to do with the thread is removed/killed/deleted/vanquished to the pigsty before I even need to indulge it. So when I look at a thread about Morrissey's next potential album release, I'm not wading through post after self-indulgent post of you are this... you are wrong... 50 paragraphs of diatribe that have zero to do with the topic or even Morrissey... I look forward to my roasting (pardon the pun).
FWD

 

[CrystalGeezer]

This really is barrel scraping.
If one hundred people from this site all set up their own websites and each person then speculated some random aspect of Moz's life... would there be 100 updates to this site's frontpage?
The whole concept of vile twats at all noise... 'ruminating' and that then equating to speculation via other websites is vomitous.
As for freedom of speech... well yes, I get the whole ethos behind what goes on here, but there is a distinct difference between freedom of speech and being too free with your speech.
Further, I couldn't give a stuff about moderator's impartiality... I would just like to see proper moderation... you know: when there are over 100 posts about a topic and 50 responses are: you are a troll, no you are mentally ill, no you are.... off topic... political rant... ethical rant.... talking in definitives cause your brain is bigger than everyone else's and people need to know that.... my view's correct and you are awful because you don't agree.....et al ad nauseam.... my concept of 'moderation' before I'm obviously lambasted, is that stuff that has nothing to do with the thread is removed/killed/deleted/vanquished to the pigsty before I even need to indulge it. So when I look at a thread about Morrissey's next potential album release, I'm not wading through post after self-indulgent post of you are this... you are wrong... 50 paragraphs of diatribe that have zero to do with the topic or even Morrissey... I look forward to my roasting (pardon the pun).
FWD

This is a way better post than "I'd suck a bloody AIDS dick to get the conversation back on topic" I was thinking of posting.

OMG BEER. I'll get me sweatshirt.

 

[Famous when dead]

This is a way better post than "I'd suck a bloody AIDS dick to get the conversation back on topic" I was thinking of posting.

OMG BEER. I'll get me sweatshirt.

I truly hope Moz never reads any of this stuff, if I were him: it would just make me subject people to even more repetitive set lists!
Thank you CG! I will pass on the whole blood soaked phallus thing if you don't mind
Regards,
FWD

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I truly hope Moz never reads any of this stuff, if I were him: it would just make me subject people to even more repetitive set lists!
Thank you CG! I will pass on the whole blood soaked phallus thing if you don't mind
Regards,
FWD

Glad to be of service.

 

[realitybites]

He's Marx without Marx. It makes sense. He was Althusser's student.

Did you read the History of Sex Volume 1:The Repressive Hypothesis? And if so can you explain that to me? I have read it and asked multiple people to explain what the f*** he was talking about. I am still confused.

I had a funny joke about Foccault's methodology when I was an undergraduate. People found it riotously funny. That says more about me and the company I kept than I ever wanted to admit on Moz-Solo

The Repressive Hypothesis - discourse, power, sex, confessionals, psychiatrists, Victorian era, repression, the bourgeoisie. Stir it all together and what have you got? Some muddled theory about power. Who has it? How is it revealed through discourse, particularly sexual discourse? Work ethic and the repression of pleasure--sexual pleasure. Foucault takes issue with it and concerns himself with discourse about the RH--discourse about discourse.

In other words, I have no idea what the hell he was on about either.

 

[dotmatrix1050]

.... I'm looking for someone to really discredit 'Crazy Day And Nights' but no one has been able to. ...

Well actually, someone did really discredit 'Crazy Day and Nights' (CDaN).

In an article on the New York Post's website entitled "How Crazy Days and Nights fooled Hollywood", Maureen Callahan proceeds to show why Crazy Days and Nights ("CDaN") is a source that cannot be trusted.

Callahan states "[t]he blog’s author — who is, ironically, obsessive about his privacy, — agreed to speak with The Post on the condition that we not reveal his identity or place of business."

“[CDaN] does work at an LA-based law firm but according to them, he’s not an entertainment lawyer — they don’t even have an entertainment division. Enty, it turns out, handles wills and probate.”

Callahan goes on to explain in detail why "nearly everything Enty says, in fact, doesn’t check out" and concludes that "…Hollywood and the media have been punked — duped by a soft-spoken probate lawyer with delusions of grandeur.”

Don't take my word for it, check out the article. Here's a link:
http://nypost.com/2012/04/01/how-crazy-days-and-nights-fooled-hollywood/

Blind Gossip also no longer trusts CDaN based upon The Post's investigation. This is referenced in their article “A Liar Gets Caught.” Here’s a link:
http://blindgossip.com/?p=41688

 

[dotmatrix1050]

As I said, If I were Morrissey and I thought a massive untruth had been published by the guy at Crazydaysandnights, I'd be after him legally like a shot.

Most of the afflictions we know Morrissey to suffer from can be characterized as a "serious illness" including depression, Barrett's esophagus, and ulcers requiring blood transfusions. Also, were Morrissey to file suit for defamation, his medical history would become relevant in determining what illnesses he does and does not have. The guy at Crazy Days and Nights would be able to request copies of Morrissey's medical records through the discovery process which could yield embarrassing information, which is surely something a lawyer would be aware of. Moz wouldn't want that no matter how big of a liar the website is.

 

[davidt]

Thanks for providing the links and information, that's what I've been looking for.

Well actually, someone did really discredit 'Crazy Day and Nights' (CDaN).

In an article on the New York Post's website entitled "How Crazy Days and Nights fooled Hollywood", Maureen Callahan proceeds to show why Crazy Days and Nights ("CDaN") is a source that cannot be trusted.

Callahan states "[t]he blog’s author — who is, ironically, obsessive about his privacy, — agreed to speak with The Post on the condition that we not reveal his identity or place of business."

“[CDaN] does work at an LA-based law firm but according to them, he’s not an entertainment lawyer — they don’t even have an entertainment division. Enty, it turns out, handles wills and probate.”

Callahan goes on to explain in detail why "nearly everything Enty says, in fact, doesn’t check out" and concludes that "…Hollywood and the media have been punked — duped by a soft-spoken probate lawyer with delusions of grandeur.”

Don't take my word for it, check out the article. Here's a link:
http://nypost.com/2012/04/01/how-crazy-days-and-nights-fooled-hollywood/

Blind Gossip also no longer trusts CDaN based upon The Post's investigation. This is referenced in their article “A Liar Gets Caught.” Here’s a link:
http://blindgossip.com/?p=41688

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Well actually, someone did really discredit 'Crazy Day and Nights' (CDaN).

In an article on the New York Post's website entitled "How Crazy Days and Nights fooled Hollywood", Maureen Callahan proceeds to show why Crazy Days and Nights ("CDaN") is a source that cannot be trusted.

Callahan states "[t]he blog’s author — who is, ironically, obsessive about his privacy, — agreed to speak with The Post on the condition that we not reveal his identity or place of business."

“[CDaN] does work at an LA-based law firm but according to them, he’s not an entertainment lawyer — they don’t even have an entertainment division. Enty, it turns out, handles wills and probate.”

Callahan goes on to explain in detail why "nearly everything Enty says, in fact, doesn’t check out" and concludes that "…Hollywood and the media have been punked — duped by a soft-spoken probate lawyer with delusions of grandeur.”

Don't take my word for it, check out the article. Here's a link:
http://nypost.com/2012/04/01/how-crazy-days-and-nights-fooled-hollywood/

Blind Gossip also no longer trusts CDaN based upon The Post's investigation. This is referenced in their article “A Liar Gets Caught.” Here’s a link:
http://blindgossip.com/?p=41688

Badabing, badaboom. THAT'S what this thread was looking for. Thank you, old printer.

 

[Chip]

Thanks for providing the links and information, that's what I've been looking for.

And here I thought you wanted to follow Morrissey to the Planned Parenthood clinic.


What a surprise. That site is unreliable. Who would have guessed? Oh pretty much everyone on this thread, but you.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

And here I thought you wanted to follow Morrissey to the Planned Parenthood clinic.


What a surprise. That site is unreliable. Who would have guessed? Oh pretty much everyone on this thread, but you.

Now people who stumbled on the site and checked in here have some perspective. Look at the big picture, Chip. Sartre would approve.

 

[davidt]

I think everyone else including you was guessing. I know you prefer wild hypothetical situations to prove your point but I prefer actual evidence like this.

And here I thought you wanted to follow Morrissey to the Planned Parenthood clinic.


What a surprise. That site is unreliable. Who would have guessed? Oh pretty much everyone on this thread, but you.

 

[dotmatrix1050]

Here's another nail in the coffin for the credibility of CDaN: the disclaimer at the bottom of the website.

"Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site. The site publishes rumors, conjecture, and fiction. In addition to accurately reported information, certain situations, characters and events portrayed in the Blog are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Blog’s proprietor does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Crazy Days and Nights.

...."

Let the following page load and scroll down to the bottom to view:
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/

 

[BrummieBoy]

Whilst I'd call someone out on their hypocrisies over eating dairy whilst espousing a radical animal rights agenda and query their Britishness in relation to their tax arrangements, this is really very troubling and completely unacceptable.

HIV is now, to some degree, a manageable condition due to anti-retrovirals and wouldn't affect most people's work abilities, there's still an enormous amount of fear and prejudice around the world. If I was part of a business where my health was a key criteria for signing contracts, being insurable for travel and visa applications, then I'd be incandescent at any spurious gossip campaign which not only questioned my ability to take on touring schedules but which also attempted to label me as self-hatingly homophobic by dint of supposedly 'hiding' anything. Even more so if I had recently recuperated from illness which others now sought to lable as indicative of an underlying chronic condition rather than unfortunate one-offs.

One look at the situation in Africa shows It's absurd to claim that HIV infections are an issue of gay or bisexual activity. It's nobodies business what anyone else's HIV status is unless there's a negotiation prior to sexual activity. In some parts of the world there's problems with visa and border entry for anyone 'suspected' of having HIV, and it would enrage me to have to provide tests results to border guards of homophobic regimes due to some malevolent internet campaign. What's behind all this is blatant homophobia. It's deeply immoral.

Anyone who's ever had to deal with corrosive gossip knows how pointless it is to protest, as doing so only adds fuel to the flames. Even taking legal action in this case would mean agreeing to a potential invasion of medical privacy that most people would find completely unacceptable. I don't think there's any answer other than for people to express their disgust. Whilst someone may make generalised inflammatory and troll comments about celebrity chefs, microwaved children and concentration camps in a desperate attempt to resurrect their career and end up looking ridiculous, that's not the same as a targetted attempt to undermine a specific person's ability to organise their employment, insurability, travel and reputation.

The writers do this because they know that any formal legal response opens the door to more intrusive queries so will probably not happen, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Nor does trying to suggest some 'moral equivalence' between delusional troll comments to the media by a fading celebrity and a seemingly vindictive campaign to undermine if not destroy someone public persona and ability to travel freely around the world.

regards
BB