Gay or Not? The Last Rock 'N Roll Poll.

Is Morrissey gay?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 55.1%
  • No

    Votes: 15 30.6%
  • I'm unable to read between the lines of his lyrics

    Votes: 7 14.3%

  • Total voters
    49

Barking

Active Member
Wow. You should get a job at a design firm.

Eh? That slapdash crappy mess? (I am too lazy to learn how to use Paint properly.)
You're not hard to please, are you?:p

Just in case you're serious, thanks ;)

Seriously though, I would have loved that kind of job. Somehow I completely missed developing my artistic side... I guess I never met my patron, my mentor, my Johnny Marr...:tears: No one ever encouraged me to become an artist.


(Actually rather than doing that this morning I should have looked for a proper job :D)
 

Sunbags

Sunbags
Nothing starts off the weekend like a load of semantic niggling.



So, while profanity is beneath your dignity, you're going to be a great big wind-up now, and tell me you've gone and wound me up. I appreciate the service.

I did not wind you up - I stated that you felt such a surge of emotion that you felt it necessary to use an expletive. This is true, as you did feel compelled to put an expletive in your post.


And it was your fault, as you admit right there. Good, humble man.

Nope, sorry. I made no admittance of fault, I merely stated how I believed you came to your wrong conclusion. Also, I am not a man, I'm female, however you assumed that I was a man. Why? What lead you to believe that I'm a man? This is another false assumption you have made.



Yes, we've gathered that you're the new Count Korzybski. Oh, yes..

Well someone has to be now. He is dead, after all...........



Or perhaps you're literal-minded to the point of autism? Did I really need to remind you that we've been talking about a picture of Diana Dors? But since I didn't again specify that to you, you specificity maven, in binary code or propositional calculus, there you go, seeing dead people.

Yes, I am literal minded. Two of my family members have aspergers' syndrome so there's a chance I may have a degree of it too. Do you have some sort of problem with people like this?

Are you even aware of the argument you've been implicitly supporting? It was this:

There was no Bisexual in the poll! Which he most definitely is! For f***s sake in his old bedroom in LA he had one of the most beautiful and sexual blonde bombshells Diana Dors framed above his bed. I am sure he had fun looking at that for many hours

Anyone who likes sex would most defintely choose someone they would like to have sex with above their bed rather than someone they just admire if they had the choice.

I am sure he would choose an old pic of james dean or terrance stamp if he were undoubtedly gay.

I have not been supporting any of the above arguments. Please find the post in which I expressed my support for the aforementioned arguments. You have just decided, because it's helpful to your argument, that I support these arguments.

These last two being generalizations you haven't yet taken issue with. Is that because they particularly provide for Morrissey being other than gay? That's what we're discussing, as you may (or may not!) have noticed. You wrote earlier:

"The latter point is important - roman's post stated that "grown-ups don't do pin-ups" which is a generalisation and is inaccurate when my atypical colleague is considered. I wasn't trying to provide a typical example - my point was that while his statement was true of most people, it cannot be true of everyone and that it is just a generalisation. "

To paraphrase Dave, I understand your point, and find it irrelevant to the current discussion, except insofar as your passion for exceptions allows you to categorize Morrissey as an exceptionally camp non-homosexual. This isn't a thread about your colleague.

I didn't take issue with those two statements because I don't know for certain that those statements are true or false, having never bothered to stick posters of people I admire/fancy on walls myself. Therefore, I cannot confirm the veracity of the motivations which people may have for putting posters on walls. However, with my colleague as evidence, I knew that your statement was not always true. Simple.

I know that this is not a thread about my colleague. Please show me were I categorised Morrissey as an exceptionally camp non-homosexual whilst making my point about generalisations.

I see why someone who throws around the dear's and darling's as you do would be concerned about the flight attendant thing

You can see why? Please tell me, because I certainly can't see why.

What you've listed there are stereotypes, generalizations which are importantly misleading. The question of importance, of the weight attributed to different points, seems to be what's eluding you. This is a thread about what Morrissey probably is. Can you not see why, in a discussion about a probability, the rule is of greater interest than the exception? You seem to fixate on the exception because you're not interested in what he probably is, but in what he possibly is--i.e., not gay. And that's a matter of your own personal wishes, not of objective consideration

Again, you have made another assumption - you assume that I am not interested in what you believe he probably is, but in what you believe he possibly is. I'm not interested in "probably's" and possibly's". With regard to his sexuality, I can only say that "I don't know" because, quite simply, I do not know. You may have formed an opinion on his sexuality (I'm not going to assume you have) and that's what you have chosen to do.

If I've wrongly generalized about what you've been arguing, again, it's probably only because you've been inarticulate, again.

The blackened text is inarticulate and worded badly.
 

Roman

New Member
I did not wind you up - I stated that you felt such a surge of emotion that you felt it necessary to use an expletive. This is true, as you did feel compelled to put an expletive in your post.

You're generalizing about the motivatons behind swearing, you naughty, inconsistent robot. We may have to deactivate you.

You've never noticed that some people swear very casually? Your life experiences, available for critical comparison to generalizations, seem to be limited to ones had within 10 meters of your coworker's cubicle.

Get out more? Hateful, but helpful!

Nope, sorry. I made no admittance of fault, I merely stated how I believed you came to your wrong conclusion.

First of all, your wounded vanity over estimates of your vocabulary isn't interesting to me or to anyone else. But since you require lengthy explanations of everything, and are now even claiming a disability--and because it's Sunday and it's raining and it's cold--here we go: You'd previously said that I'd somehow reached my wrong, awful conclusion only because I disagreed with you about whatever in hell it was that this exchange was originally about, something to do with Morrissey and potentially pornographic wall decorations. Then I explained that no, it was because your use of the word "genderf***," barely even a word, seemed more mocking of the word itself than of my remarks. (This all happened very recently! Remember??) You followed this by saying that you could see why I had made my mistake, with regard to your no doubt amazing vocabularly. That doesn't imply that you still believed I'd maliciously imputed ignorance to you because of our disagreement about Charlize and Diana. It implies, I think any generalizing neurotypical would agree, that you accepted my clarified perspective on the matter, which secondarily implies that you agreed with my characterization of your usage of and your attitude about the word as ambiguous, in terms of what you were trying to ridicule; which, finally(!) implies that you agreed that your ambiguous usage of the word was what had understandably led to this slur against your vocabulary, and to the worldwide scandal that attended it.

Also, I am not a man, I'm female, however you assumed that I was a man. Why? What lead you to believe that I'm a man? This is another false assumption you have made.

Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

Yes, I am literal minded. Two of my family members have aspergers' syndrome so there's a chance I may have a degree of it too. Do you have some sort of problem with people like this?

I have a problem with anyone who insists that others speak their private language of twins. Diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome, furthermore, are virtually nonexistent among women, though I have noticed perhaps even more women than men claiming to have it online. So it's likely you're just precious. If your family does suffer from widespread autism, an environmental factor is likely at work, and so if I were you I'd be busy testing for toxins in the family home's crawlspace rather than trying to launch a campaign against generalizations in a forum thread about Morrissey's sexuality.

I have not been supporting any of the above arguments. Please find the post in which I expressed my support for the aforementioned arguments. You have just decided, because it's helpful to your argument, that I support these arguments.

I assumed you were supporting them because there is no other reasonable explanation for your being in this thread and carrying on in this way. I did realize, however, that you might say this now, if you were on the crazier end of the craziness continuum. Not caring what such a bonkers f*** would think, I decided to leave you the opening.

I didn't take issue with those two statements because I don't know for certain that those statements are true or false, having never bothered to stick posters of people I admire/fancy on walls myself. Therefore, I cannot confirm the veracity of the motivations which people may have for putting posters on walls. However, with my colleague as evidence, I knew that your statement was not always true. Simple.

Rational inference isn't available to you, then, and your abhorrence of generalizations turns out to be more flexible than we thought.

Are you sure you're not just a dishonest debater? It's a condition much more common in threads about Morrissey being gay than is Asperger's syndrome among women.

Again, you have made another assumption - you assume that I am not interested in what you believe he probably is, but in what you believe he possibly is. I'm not interested in "probably's" and possibly's". With regard to his sexuality, I can only say that "I don't know" because, quite simply, I do not know. You may have formed an opinion on his sexuality (I'm not going to assume you have) and that's what you have chosen to do.

The tragicomedy of someone who thinks as you do is that you believe you're being rigorously logical when you're doing something close to the opposite. Your objections and nitpicking are typical of young children, who are trying to test the boundaries of language and determine the rules of everyday discourse. I've tired of explaining obvious points to you at length, though, so I'll leave it at that. I don't have time to be your Anne Sullivan.

The blackened text is inarticulate and worded badly.

And "inarticulate and worded badly" is redundant, not to mention inarticulate. The blackened text no doubt made perfect sense to anyone with the attention span to consider the sentence as a whole, and to see how both the wording and the argument bore on both my own past remarks and yours. An inability to see the whole for the parts is characteristic of autism spectrum disorders, however, so your possible disability may indeed be at work. Stupidity or a pathetic attention span could also explain it.

I'll let you have the last word on this, unless I decide to post some YouTube clips from Rain Man. I reserve the right.
 
Last edited:

your dictionary

your dictionary
HELLO! DOH! (He *could* be bisexual -I think he may have had a relationship with Linder in the early years) but I believe he's gay. Nothing wrong with that. I don't care what or who he sleeps with, just as long as he keeps making music for me to warble to!
 
Last edited:

SparkleBoy

worships Johnny Thunders
This thread is awesome...provides minute after minute of entertainment! Keep it rollin'! :cool:
 

Sunbags

Sunbags
You're generalizing about the motivatons behind swearing, you naughty, inconsistent robot. We may have to deactivate you.

You've never noticed that some people swear very casually? Your life experiences, available for critical comparison to generalizations, seem to be limited to ones had within 10 meters of your coworker's cubicle.

Get out more? Hateful, but helpful!

I did not generalise about the motivations behind swearing - I merely stated that you did feel compelled to swear in your post. I did not speculate upon the reasons why people may feel compelled to swear.



First of all, your wounded vanity over estimates of your vocabulary isn't interesting to me or to anyone else. But since you require lengthy explanations of everything, and are now even claiming a disability--and because it's Sunday and it's raining and it's cold--here we go: You'd previously said that I'd somehow reached my wrong, awful conclusion only because I disagreed with you about whatever in hell it was that this exchange was originally about, something to do with Morrissey and potentially pornographic wall decorations. Then I explained that no, it was because your use of the word "genderf***," barely even a word, seemed more mocking of the word itself than of my remarks. (This all happened very recently! Remember??) You followed this by saying that you could see why I had made my mistake, with regard to your no doubt amazing vocabularly. That doesn't imply that you still believed I'd maliciously imputed ignorance to you because of our disagreement about Charlize and Diana. It implies, I think any generalizing neurotypical would agree, that you accepted my clarified perspective on the matter, which secondarily implies that you agreed with my characterization of your usage of and your attitude about the word as ambiguous, in terms of what you were trying to ridicule; which, finally(!) implies that you agreed that your ambiguous usage of the word was what had understandably led to this slur against your vocabulary, and to the worldwide scandal that attended it.

I did not require this lengthy "explanation" - I know what happened. I disagreed with your post (#19) and you believed that I used the word 'genderf***ing' in a mocking way in my reply post (#23). You then assumed that I had never heard of the word 'genderf***' (post #24), which was a false assumption. When I stated in post #56 - "I see what lead you to believe that I had never heard of that word before", I was making no admittance of fault. I was stating that I understood how you came to the conclusion that I had never heard that word before, given that you had assumed that I was being mocking of the word 'genderf***ing'. I saw how your first false assumption (that I was being mocking of the word) led to the second false assumption (that I was unaware of the meaning of the word). The blackened text is wrong - in post #45 of this thread I stated that I believed that you had assumed that I had never heard of the word 'genderf***' because I had disagreed with you. In the above quote you have stated that I believed you had reached your wrong conclusion because you disagreed with me.



Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

Since you're hanging in space with nothing better to do, you could answer the question I previously asked you. Or perhaps you just can't.....



I have a problem with anyone who insists that others speak their private language of twins. Diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome, furthermore, are virtually nonexistent among women, though I have noticed perhaps even more women than men claiming to have it online. So it's likely you're just precious. If your family does suffer from widespread autism, an environmental factor is likely at work, and so if I were you I'd be busy testing for toxins in the family home's crawlspace rather than trying to launch a campaign against generalizations in a forum thread about Morrissey's sexuality.

I did not claim to have asperger's syndrome, my exact words were "Two of my family members have aspergers' syndrome so there's a chance I may have a degree of it too". Unless a medical professional diagnosed me as having asperger's syndrome, I would not declare that I have the syndrome. You have to remember that you cannot twist other people's words on a forum where the original posts made by all the parties involved in a discussion can be easily referenced. Also, do you have any statistics to back up your claim that asperger's syndrome is 'virtually non-existent' in females? How would you define 'virtually non-existent' using a ratio of boys to girls respectively, whereby the amount of girls relative to boys is sufficiently low to satisfy your definition of 'virtually non-existent'?
It has not been proved that teratogenic agents cause asperger's syndrome during gestation or that enviromental factors can cause the syndrome after birth. Please do your research.



I assumed you were supporting them because there is no other reasonable explanation for your being in this thread and carrying on in this way. I did realize, however, that you might say this now, if you were on the crazier end of the craziness continuum. Not caring what such a bonkers f*** would think, I decided to leave you the opening.

Tut, tut, tut.


Rational inference isn't available to you, then, and your abhorrence of generalizations turns out to be more flexible than we thought.

Are you sure you're not just a dishonest debater? It's a condition much more common in threads about Morrissey being gay than is Asperger's syndrome among women.

My abhorrence of generalisations is not flexible - I don't agree with those two generalisations that were made (nor do I agree with any generalisations), however, I would be unable to disprove those two generalisations seeing as I don't have much knowledge of the subject matter about which the generalisations are being made.

The tragicomedy of someone who thinks as you do is that you believe you're being rigorously logical when you're doing something close to the opposite. Your objections and nitpicking are typical of young children, who are trying to test the boundaries of language and determine the rules of everyday discourse. I've tired of explaining obvious points to you at length, though, so I'll leave it at that. I don't have time to be your Anne Sullivan.

Have you bothered to point out exactly where these 'illogical' instances occur? Can you?




And "inarticulate and worded badly" is redundant, not to mention inarticulate. The blackened text no doubt made perfect sense to anyone with the attention span to consider the sentence as a whole, and to see how both the wording and the argument bore on both my own past remarks and yours. An inability to see the whole for the parts is characteristic of autism spectrum disorders, however, so your possible disability may indeed be at work. Stupidity or a pathetic attention span could also explain it.

You shouldn't start a sentence with 'and'. I understood all of the block of text which that sentence belonged to, but that sentence really could have been worded better.


I'll let you have the last word on this, unless I decide to post some YouTube clips from Rain Man. I reserve the right.

Well, it's been fun. Goodbye.
 

SparkleBoy

worships Johnny Thunders
You shouldn't start a sentence with 'and'. I understood all of the block of text which that sentence belonged to, but that sentence really could have been worded better.

Although using "And" at the beginning of a sentence is not considered "standard," there is no rule against it.
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
What does a grammar lesson have to do with being gay?
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Tags
bitchslap celibate dullest conversation ever funny he never married gay marr poll preying semantics sexy the gays time for wapner yawn
Top Bottom