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.
Does Morrissey have a secret ‘serious illness’? - all-noise.co.uk
- Thread starter Amy
- Start date
The part of my reply you quoted says precisely who urged Jamie Oliver to microwave his child, I don't see where the confusion arises. Maybe the cognitive dissonance is hard at work.
P.
Chip
Member
This dumb rumor has posted on here before. I heard it about two years before I ever started posting on this website. I have no interest in discussing it or combatting it. I am also not interested in stopping people on this site from discussing a third rate gossip item. I don't really care that almost none of them have no understanding of US libel law and keep making really stupid assumptions about the veracity of the source, because of it. I don't.
What I came to this thread to do was to express a disagreement with an editorial decision to put a third rate gossip item of dubious veracity about an extremely sensitive issue on the front page of this website. That's all. But no one will respond to me seriously and instead I just get smug remarks to go to True to to You or how is rumors that someone has AIDS different than rumors of a new album (hint:how would you react if I told your co-workers you were recording an album versus how would you react if I told your co-workers you had AIDS).
It's exhausting. And I'm sick of it. Clearly, I am not getting through to anyone and it is not because they aren't smart people. It's because they've adopted this siege mentality and now are incapable of admitting they made any sort of mistake and must attack attack attack. I swear some people on this site must be solely Morrissey fans because they share with him some of his worst personality traits.
I'm not attacking anybody. I'm not leading any crusades. You can't prove a negative. I could write:
*******************
And than claim that we should post this on the front page since no one has proven David doesn't have a tooth ache.
*********Disclaimer:This is parody. I in no way think that David actually has a tooth ache. And if he did I really wouldn't care other than to wish for him to get better.
- - - Updated - - -
You are the one who seems to be confused as you are accusing me of holding double standards based on the behavior of other people.
They can read all sorts of stuff on all sorts of sites. You're right. The site makes no difference.
P.
- - - Updated - - -
Help me out here. Where did I say that?
P.
Iona Mink
Despitemybetterjudgement
No, only the role we play.
CrystalGeezer
My secret's my enzyme.
Some families sweep things under the carpet and pretend they aren't happening. Some families deal with issues as they arise. Which is the less dysfunctional family?
Playcat2000
New Member
Okay so this guy claims to be a lawyer so what? If Morrissey IS sick then I want to know but not from THIS guy! I also want to know where he got his information. Who did he speak to? Where is the proof? What investigative work took place? I won’t settle for his word.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Article here on legal website about libel. Clearly relates largely to twitter but much of this seems relevant here
Home › News & Insights › Exposing libel myths surrounding Twitter and social media
Exposing libel myths surrounding Twitter and social media
20-Nov-2012 | Copyright & Media Law, Technology, Media & Communications, Trade Marks & Designs
The action Lord McAlpine is reportedly taking against Twitter users for falsely suggesting he was involved in child sex abuse reveals a number of "myths" about the legal responsibility in England for false and defamatory tweets and other statements on social media. We expose and correct those myths here. In short, Twitter users and anyone else using social media is just as responsible for unlawful material as the traditional and mainstream press. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. The message is clear: if you should not say something in a national newspaper or on the sofa of a news show, you should not say it on Twitter. The public cannot treat their posts on Twitter and Facebook as they would a casual chat to a couple of friends in the pub
Myth 1: A false and defamatory statement posted on Twitter or in a blog is immune from legal action
If a tweet or blog post is defamatory, untrue and cannot be defended, the maker of the statement can be liable for defamation and for substantial damages. As Lord McAlpine's actions demonstrate, formal legal consequences may well follow. When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws and are as legally responsible as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers or broadcasters.
Myth 2: A retweet of a false and defamatory tweet is immune from legal action
Just as the tweeter is liable if the tweet is defamatory, untrue and cannot be defended, so the retweeter will be liable. A retweet amounts to a further publication, as if the retweeter has made the statement himself. The person who retweets that material will be responsible for the content of that retweet.
The original tweeter can also be responsible for the additional publications caused by the retweets, if retweets were a reasonably foreseeable consequences of the first tweet. The English Court of Appeal has acknowledged the likelihood that content on social media can go viral and quickly go beyond its initial intended audience and the source of the content can be responsible for that additional coverage. Well-known and famous tweeters are particularly at risk, as it is particularly likely that their tweets will be shared among a much larger audience than their followers.
This principle would also cover mainstream media picking up on tweets: the original tweeter could also be responsible for the additional publication by the media if a reasonable person would have appreciated that there was a significant risk that that could happen.
Myth 3: Simply inviting comments means that there is no liability for those comments
If it is reasonably foreseeable that the invitation to make comments will result in defamatory statements, the person making the invitation could be liable for the statements that follow. Someone asking on a blog "Do you think Mr X is a terrorist?" may well be instigating, and therefore responsible for, any defamatory responses which are likely to and predictably do follow.
Myth 4: There can be no liability for simply repeating what someone else has said or something that is in the public domain
It is not a defence for an individual to say that he was simply repeating a statement made by someone else. This law is designed to protect against the spreading of false and defamatory rumours. Also, just because something is out there does not make it OK to repeat. The courts consider each tweet to be a libel, and the more often it is repeated, the more damage it can do and the more libel actions it may provoke.
Furthermore, when it comes to proving the truth of the allegation, it is insufficient to point to the fact that somebody has been accurately quoted - the publisher has to prove the substance of the underlying allegation.
Even if you cannot prove that the tweet is true, there could be a credible public interest defence. However, in previous cases the courts have made it very clear that they expect a defendant to demonstrate that he has engaged in responsible journalism before the defence will succeed, including verifying the facts and giving the subject an opportunity to comment. This will not be possible if someone has simply repeated the words of someone else.
Myth 5: If no one is expressly named in a defamatory statement, no one can sue
The target of a defamatory statement can still be identified and therefore able to sue, even without being expressly named. If the facts in and surrounding the defamatory statement known by the readers of the statement add together to identify the person, the person will have been defamed. Similarly, if it is reasonable to think that people acquainted with the target will identify him, he will be defamed as regards those people.
Myth 6: It is for the subject of the tweet to prove why it is untrue
This myth gets the burden of proof the wrong way round. If the subject of the tweet can demonstrate that the tweet has harmed his reputation (i.e. is defamatory), the onus shifts to the tweeter to prove that the tweet is true or that another defence applies. The burden of proof under English law is on the tweeter to make out a defence and not on the subject to prove that the tweet was untrue. Allegations that someone is a child sex abuser are obviously defamatory; it then falls to the maker of those allegations to prove that the allegations are true or that another defence applies.
Myth 7: If a statement is made only to friends on Facebook, legal action will not be possible
If a defamatory statement is made to a third party, the target can sue. If the statement was made to a couple of people (e.g. on a private Facebook account which can only be seen by friends), a court may say it would be an abuse of process to allow the claim to proceed. However, if posting to friends is to a larger and wider number of people, legal action may well follow.
Myth 8: If a tweet about someone based in England is sent from overseas, it is outside the reach of the English courts
English courts are able to deal with any legal wrong (such as defamation) that happens in England. Someone can be defamed in England (and a wrong can happen here), even if the statement was made or posted from a foreign country, if the statement was read or accessed in England. It is the place of publication or access that matters, not where it was made. Courts will assess whether there was a sufficient readership in England and whether the target had a relevant connection to England before they will hear a complaint. But just because the maker of the statement was overseas will not mean he can avoid liability in England. If, for example, a tweeter has a substantial following in England or the statement formed part of an English trending topic, it is likely that the wrong will have happened in England.
Myth 9: Using a false name or posting anonymously means that the poster is immune from liability
A social media user may still leave a trace which could identify him. English courts can require intermediaries along the way who have contact and identification details to disclose them to the target of the defamatory statement. For example, the operator of a newspaper comments page can be forced to disclose the identity of a user who has made defamatory statements. If, for example, that order revealed only an anonymous IP address, the ISP of the IP address can be ordered to disclose the details behind the account and so on. Legal proceedings can also be served on anonymous users through means such as Facebook and Twitter if the court allows.
Myth 10: If a statement is made but then immediately retracted, there can be no liability
This confuses the possibility that damages will be reduced if the statement is removed quickly with the possibility of avoiding liability in the first place. Simply removing the statement does not avoid liability. The fact that the defamatory statement has been made may be enough to bring a claim: actual damage to the target is not necessary to prove. In any case, if a statement has been made and then retweeted or republished elsewhere, the maker of the original statement can be responsible for the retweets or further publication even after the original statement has been removed. Additional problems can be caused by the fact that electronic communications can be stored on servers and by search engines, even if deleted from the place of original publication.
Myth 11: Any damages would be small because it is "just" a tweet
People could be exposed to claims for damages approaching and exceeding six figures depending on the extent of publication and any other mitigating factors - such as a swift public apology.
In England's first libel case involving Twitter, New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns was awarded £90,000 in damages after he was wrongly accused of match-fixing by Lalit Modi on Twitter, the former chairman of the Indian Premier League.
In explaining his ruling, the Lord Chief Justice said that as a consequence of modern technology and communication systems, stories had the capacity to "go viral" more widely and more quickly than ever before. He said the scale of the problem is "immeasurably enhanced" by social networking sites. This "percolation phenomenon" could be taken into account when awarding damages.
Home › News & Insights › Exposing libel myths surrounding Twitter and social media
Exposing libel myths surrounding Twitter and social media
20-Nov-2012 | Copyright & Media Law, Technology, Media & Communications, Trade Marks & Designs
The action Lord McAlpine is reportedly taking against Twitter users for falsely suggesting he was involved in child sex abuse reveals a number of "myths" about the legal responsibility in England for false and defamatory tweets and other statements on social media. We expose and correct those myths here. In short, Twitter users and anyone else using social media is just as responsible for unlawful material as the traditional and mainstream press. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. The message is clear: if you should not say something in a national newspaper or on the sofa of a news show, you should not say it on Twitter. The public cannot treat their posts on Twitter and Facebook as they would a casual chat to a couple of friends in the pub
Myth 1: A false and defamatory statement posted on Twitter or in a blog is immune from legal action
If a tweet or blog post is defamatory, untrue and cannot be defended, the maker of the statement can be liable for defamation and for substantial damages. As Lord McAlpine's actions demonstrate, formal legal consequences may well follow. When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws and are as legally responsible as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers or broadcasters.
Myth 2: A retweet of a false and defamatory tweet is immune from legal action
Just as the tweeter is liable if the tweet is defamatory, untrue and cannot be defended, so the retweeter will be liable. A retweet amounts to a further publication, as if the retweeter has made the statement himself. The person who retweets that material will be responsible for the content of that retweet.
The original tweeter can also be responsible for the additional publications caused by the retweets, if retweets were a reasonably foreseeable consequences of the first tweet. The English Court of Appeal has acknowledged the likelihood that content on social media can go viral and quickly go beyond its initial intended audience and the source of the content can be responsible for that additional coverage. Well-known and famous tweeters are particularly at risk, as it is particularly likely that their tweets will be shared among a much larger audience than their followers.
This principle would also cover mainstream media picking up on tweets: the original tweeter could also be responsible for the additional publication by the media if a reasonable person would have appreciated that there was a significant risk that that could happen.
Myth 3: Simply inviting comments means that there is no liability for those comments
If it is reasonably foreseeable that the invitation to make comments will result in defamatory statements, the person making the invitation could be liable for the statements that follow. Someone asking on a blog "Do you think Mr X is a terrorist?" may well be instigating, and therefore responsible for, any defamatory responses which are likely to and predictably do follow.
Myth 4: There can be no liability for simply repeating what someone else has said or something that is in the public domain
It is not a defence for an individual to say that he was simply repeating a statement made by someone else. This law is designed to protect against the spreading of false and defamatory rumours. Also, just because something is out there does not make it OK to repeat. The courts consider each tweet to be a libel, and the more often it is repeated, the more damage it can do and the more libel actions it may provoke.
Furthermore, when it comes to proving the truth of the allegation, it is insufficient to point to the fact that somebody has been accurately quoted - the publisher has to prove the substance of the underlying allegation.
Even if you cannot prove that the tweet is true, there could be a credible public interest defence. However, in previous cases the courts have made it very clear that they expect a defendant to demonstrate that he has engaged in responsible journalism before the defence will succeed, including verifying the facts and giving the subject an opportunity to comment. This will not be possible if someone has simply repeated the words of someone else.
Myth 5: If no one is expressly named in a defamatory statement, no one can sue
The target of a defamatory statement can still be identified and therefore able to sue, even without being expressly named. If the facts in and surrounding the defamatory statement known by the readers of the statement add together to identify the person, the person will have been defamed. Similarly, if it is reasonable to think that people acquainted with the target will identify him, he will be defamed as regards those people.
Myth 6: It is for the subject of the tweet to prove why it is untrue
This myth gets the burden of proof the wrong way round. If the subject of the tweet can demonstrate that the tweet has harmed his reputation (i.e. is defamatory), the onus shifts to the tweeter to prove that the tweet is true or that another defence applies. The burden of proof under English law is on the tweeter to make out a defence and not on the subject to prove that the tweet was untrue. Allegations that someone is a child sex abuser are obviously defamatory; it then falls to the maker of those allegations to prove that the allegations are true or that another defence applies.
Myth 7: If a statement is made only to friends on Facebook, legal action will not be possible
If a defamatory statement is made to a third party, the target can sue. If the statement was made to a couple of people (e.g. on a private Facebook account which can only be seen by friends), a court may say it would be an abuse of process to allow the claim to proceed. However, if posting to friends is to a larger and wider number of people, legal action may well follow.
Myth 8: If a tweet about someone based in England is sent from overseas, it is outside the reach of the English courts
English courts are able to deal with any legal wrong (such as defamation) that happens in England. Someone can be defamed in England (and a wrong can happen here), even if the statement was made or posted from a foreign country, if the statement was read or accessed in England. It is the place of publication or access that matters, not where it was made. Courts will assess whether there was a sufficient readership in England and whether the target had a relevant connection to England before they will hear a complaint. But just because the maker of the statement was overseas will not mean he can avoid liability in England. If, for example, a tweeter has a substantial following in England or the statement formed part of an English trending topic, it is likely that the wrong will have happened in England.
Myth 9: Using a false name or posting anonymously means that the poster is immune from liability
A social media user may still leave a trace which could identify him. English courts can require intermediaries along the way who have contact and identification details to disclose them to the target of the defamatory statement. For example, the operator of a newspaper comments page can be forced to disclose the identity of a user who has made defamatory statements. If, for example, that order revealed only an anonymous IP address, the ISP of the IP address can be ordered to disclose the details behind the account and so on. Legal proceedings can also be served on anonymous users through means such as Facebook and Twitter if the court allows.
Myth 10: If a statement is made but then immediately retracted, there can be no liability
This confuses the possibility that damages will be reduced if the statement is removed quickly with the possibility of avoiding liability in the first place. Simply removing the statement does not avoid liability. The fact that the defamatory statement has been made may be enough to bring a claim: actual damage to the target is not necessary to prove. In any case, if a statement has been made and then retweeted or republished elsewhere, the maker of the original statement can be responsible for the retweets or further publication even after the original statement has been removed. Additional problems can be caused by the fact that electronic communications can be stored on servers and by search engines, even if deleted from the place of original publication.
Myth 11: Any damages would be small because it is "just" a tweet
People could be exposed to claims for damages approaching and exceeding six figures depending on the extent of publication and any other mitigating factors - such as a swift public apology.
In England's first libel case involving Twitter, New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns was awarded £90,000 in damages after he was wrongly accused of match-fixing by Lalit Modi on Twitter, the former chairman of the Indian Premier League.
In explaining his ruling, the Lord Chief Justice said that as a consequence of modern technology and communication systems, stories had the capacity to "go viral" more widely and more quickly than ever before. He said the scale of the problem is "immeasurably enhanced" by social networking sites. This "percolation phenomenon" could be taken into account when awarding damages.
A
Anonymous
Guest
In other, perhaps more worthy news on an alleged fansite: "Morrissey working on new novel, album" http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2014/01/06/morrissey-working-on-new-novel-album/4338453/
I wasn't too keen on the autobiography and have mostly lost interest in his music but actually have somewhat high hopes for a Morrissey novel where he can just let his imagination run wild without being held back by reality.
I wasn't too keen on the autobiography and have mostly lost interest in his music but actually have somewhat high hopes for a Morrissey novel where he can just let his imagination run wild without being held back by reality.
Chip
Member
If he was a lawyer he would, unlike the people on this board, realize the incredibly high bar it takes to prove libel/slander regarding a public official.
First, you have to prove the person knew the information was untrue.
Second, you have to prove that the person spread this false information with the intention to cause some sort of harm.
Third, you'd have to prove the harm actually took place.
Even if he is a lawyer I don't believe that makes this anymore credible.
- - - Updated - - -
Than why were you talking about Morrissey pulling babies out of incubators or whatever it is you started blubbering about when I pointed out some of the stuff that gets posted on this site.
Rrrriiiiiiigggghhhht. OK. That must mave meant something at some point. Anyway, off to bed meself. Sleep well..
P.
CrystalGeezer
My secret's my enzyme.
In Morrissey's last TTY statement he said, "If Jamie 'Orrible is so certain that flesh-food is tasty then why doesn't he stick one of his children in a microwave?" Some might be as offended at the imagery of microwaving a child as they would at imagining the man who said it has AIDS. Morrissey hits below the belt to make a point. Why does his reputation deserve protection and coddling if he's obviously ready to play hard ball by making these statements? Even if in humor, the damage is done, we're thinking about chef's babies in microwaves. This lawyer says he thinks Morrissey has AIDS. Game on, let's prove he doesn't and play the same game Morrissey plays. I bet Morrissey would rather we be talking about babies in microwaves and equating it to boiling lobsters instead of his STD history, but like someone said, celebrity is a double-edged sword. If Morrissey can dish it out, he can certainly take it. So focus on MORRISSEY'S issues instead of site discretion values because if you're not talking about what Morrissey is talking about, the devil is winning because his game is DERAILING.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sorry to post as anonymous, I am a registered member but I log in so infrequently that I forgot my username and password.
Anyhoo, just have to say, to all those justifying the posting of this to the main page - are you mad? Or just sociopathic? No,. you don't have to blindly tow the Morrissey party line if you think his music/band/lyrics/hair-cut are notwhat thjey once were or should be, but...Jesus Christ! Are you f**king serious? So what if these rumours exist and can be accessed anywhere on the net? Thta's like saying "well, everyone says your mum sucks major cock, so you might as well write it on the side of her house in permanent marker".
Is it any wonder this site is now regarded as a cess-pool of mentally dubious, horrible people? Dear God, liking someone as an artist does not give you cartye blanche to say they are AIDs-ridden and so what...EVEN if it IS true, it doesn't matter. You have stooped to a new low. Think about that, take a look in the mirror and just think for a moment before you construct a defensive, sematic retort.
Anyhoo, just have to say, to all those justifying the posting of this to the main page - are you mad? Or just sociopathic? No,. you don't have to blindly tow the Morrissey party line if you think his music/band/lyrics/hair-cut are notwhat thjey once were or should be, but...Jesus Christ! Are you f**king serious? So what if these rumours exist and can be accessed anywhere on the net? Thta's like saying "well, everyone says your mum sucks major cock, so you might as well write it on the side of her house in permanent marker".
Is it any wonder this site is now regarded as a cess-pool of mentally dubious, horrible people? Dear God, liking someone as an artist does not give you cartye blanche to say they are AIDs-ridden and so what...EVEN if it IS true, it doesn't matter. You have stooped to a new low. Think about that, take a look in the mirror and just think for a moment before you construct a defensive, sematic retort.
He's a man in his fifties whose chosen to live on a very specific diet and doesn't appear to be into fitness. Throw in a stressful touring schedule and of course he's going to be prone to illness.
And I'm not slamming vegetarianism or veganism. I was a vegetarian for nearly a decade, and my health typically did fine, but it was a lot of work to maintain that and not eat any animal products. I would imagine that such a diet while touring and visiting strange places is not always going to be conducive to good health.
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons for someone to not have the best immune system without immediately assuming HIV.
And I'm not slamming vegetarianism or veganism. I was a vegetarian for nearly a decade, and my health typically did fine, but it was a lot of work to maintain that and not eat any animal products. I would imagine that such a diet while touring and visiting strange places is not always going to be conducive to good health.
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons for someone to not have the best immune system without immediately assuming HIV.
thekremlin
New Member
Would it not be best to just lock this thread?
Bluebirds
Well-Known Member
But this is the last bastion of free speech on the internet. Wait till Wikileaks start reporting on it.
And as anyone knows successful parasites usually go unnoticed by their host.
I have it on good authority that they won't.
I do think Morrissey should get litigious though. This thread is really super wack.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's simply rumor and gossip posted originally on Christmas day and ignored, now the same story is picked up on a blog with what davidt calls "additional insight" lol, there is no insight only further idle speculation and now suddenly its front page news. Its a nasty rumor that does nobody any good. This sites stance was exposed earlier in this thread. When similar rumors arose on these boards about George Michael Uncleskinny said "I'm intrigued as to what difference it would make to you if you knew one way or the other? Surely it's a private matter?" yet when the rumor is about Morrissey we get "Many sources have quoted that link, but I don't see you getting het up about them, other than here. Why?.........blah blah blah" - that friends is called a double standard, why is it private when its George and open season when its Morrissey?.
The notion that this site is impartial 'We don't cook it, we just serve it' (davidt) is clearly bullshit. The site has a negative bias against Morrissey. The owner and moderators want to promote the idea that Morrissey has lost it, that hes become a greedy talentless diva in his old age. They want to promote this notion only because they had a public falling out with Morrissey. Its the story of Icarus for the internet age, they demanded attention and access to the inner circle laughingly believing they they were responsible for maintaining the interest in Morrissey during the "wilderness years (before YATQ). They got too close and got spurred and exposed and now they want revenge. Like the fool clinging to the rising balloon they can't just let go, instead they bitterly wait it out, praying that Morrissey retires soon or better still dies (of AIDS soon.)
Every positive story is posted with a sigh by Uncleskinny. "Oh god he's so obsessed with chart positions yawn..." "Another sycophantic article...." "they think he'll win so and so award...don't think so" and every negative article is posted with glee "another balanced article" (from a bitter ex-NME hack) or "this no star review is spot on". These comments are not needed, yet it accompanies most stories. Every positive article is served with a handful of extra salt and every negative article with extra relish. Its as clear as day and its a twisted love and a love gone wrong, they justify the spite by saying "but he can be spiteful...." and they justify the gossip by saying "but he is outspoken........". They hate him but they want to be like him. Its a shame really a passion twisted in on itself, I'm sure at some point this site will become a mental health case study.
This story to me smacks of wishful thinking..... But lets not forget the truth its been a good week new novel, new album, new songs, bestselling autobiography. Exciting times.
The notion that this site is impartial 'We don't cook it, we just serve it' (davidt) is clearly bullshit. The site has a negative bias against Morrissey. The owner and moderators want to promote the idea that Morrissey has lost it, that hes become a greedy talentless diva in his old age. They want to promote this notion only because they had a public falling out with Morrissey. Its the story of Icarus for the internet age, they demanded attention and access to the inner circle laughingly believing they they were responsible for maintaining the interest in Morrissey during the "wilderness years (before YATQ). They got too close and got spurred and exposed and now they want revenge. Like the fool clinging to the rising balloon they can't just let go, instead they bitterly wait it out, praying that Morrissey retires soon or better still dies (of AIDS soon.)
Every positive story is posted with a sigh by Uncleskinny. "Oh god he's so obsessed with chart positions yawn..." "Another sycophantic article...." "they think he'll win so and so award...don't think so" and every negative article is posted with glee "another balanced article" (from a bitter ex-NME hack) or "this no star review is spot on". These comments are not needed, yet it accompanies most stories. Every positive article is served with a handful of extra salt and every negative article with extra relish. Its as clear as day and its a twisted love and a love gone wrong, they justify the spite by saying "but he can be spiteful...." and they justify the gossip by saying "but he is outspoken........". They hate him but they want to be like him. Its a shame really a passion twisted in on itself, I'm sure at some point this site will become a mental health case study.
This story to me smacks of wishful thinking..... But lets not forget the truth its been a good week new novel, new album, new songs, bestselling autobiography. Exciting times.
Playcat2000
New Member
realitybites
making lemonade
Let's just hope he takes advantage of an editor. Novels without chapters and paragraph breaks would be like watching the move Inception--a convoluted mess.
Similar threads
Trending Threads
-
Morrissey Central "A RUSH AND A PUSH AND THE MUSIC IS OURS" (April 19, 2024)- Started by This Charming Bowie
- Replies: 280
-
Morrissey Central "FRIDAY 26 JULY" (April 13, 2024)- Started by mozhug25
- Replies: 280
-
New Moz photo by Andrew Quinn - "on Cut Throat Lane"
- Started by This Charming Bowie
- Replies: 122
-
Post Whatever You Are Thinking At This Very Moment- Started by virtually dead
- Replies: 130K
-
Official Manager Statement regarding Morrissey’s health (January 26, 2024)
- Started by This Charming Bowie
- Replies: 655
-
Record Store Day 2024: "Interlude" limited edition gold vinyl released today (April 20, 2024)- Started by Famous when dead
- Replies: 61
-
M
-
Fretsore Records / YouTube: Dana Gillespie - Spent The Day In Bed (Official video)
- Started by CJM
- Replies: 134
