Who wrote this!? (wikipedia)

[Alamo]

to jeane:

well, this is getting really off-topic now

"women are lesbian. except they are trannies, of course."
-> "they" is referring to the subject of the former sentence

i'm not mentally blocking out, but talking about the major meaning of the word
there are a lot of debates going on, because "gay" does exclude women, because the major meaning describes male homos. this is one of the reasons "queer" emerged

this is also why the politically correct and official term is "same-sex-marriage"

 

[Raphael Lambach]

i "gay" describes a men to men relation. women are lesbian. except they are trannies, of course.

It means that women cannot be named "gay"..
That'so..

I don't know why discussing about that.
It's so easy to understand - isn't it?

 

[Silke]

1. so, you don't know any straight references in morrisseys work?

2. please read, understand and answer. i've doubted that sharron is gay. (if she's female she can't be anyway). moreover, i don't know anything about sharron, so i can't describe any style, haircut etc. remember your own words: "If you are in English class and are to interpret a poem for your exam, you will not get a good mark if you interpret another poem instead, or if you start to talk about Shakespeare the person and his supposed or not supposed sex life when you are asked to interpret one of his plays or sonnets." we should stick to morrissey's OUEVRE

It all comes back to the posts I made earlier this week, especially the one that you did not read and understand. Sorry, I cannot discuss the matter any further with you for as long as you do not understand this. "Please read, understand and answer." to quote your words.

How come that you cannot describe anything about Sharron even though you don't know Sharron but know that Sharron is gay but you can make conclusions about people the other way around?

 

[Alamo]

besides ot conversations have greater longevity.

sorry, what does this mean?

 

[mcrickson]

1. asexual (very rare though, maybe when you're autist?), celibate or impotent

2. how do you call a man who is into men?

You're calling most asexuals autistic? I'd like to see you back that one up with fact..

A man who is sexually interested in men is homosexual. A man who is aesthetically interested in men and women and aesthetically interested in sex does not a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual make. It simply makes them an aesthetic.

 

[Spyderfyngers]

only if you are dead. remember: to say "no" IS a choice

Hmm. My asexual friend disagrees strongly.

 

[mcrickson]

what? ot? off topic. longevity? they have a chance of being longer and to me, more interesting.

sometimes talking about the intricacies concerning morrissey gets boring.

crap, did i just say that out loud?

 

[Alamo]

It all comes back to the posts I made earlier this week, especially the one that you did not read and understand. Sorry, I cannot discuss the matter any further with you for as long as you do not understand this. "Please read, understand and answer." to quote your words.

i don't know what you are refering to. i'm sorry for you if it overstrains you to answer questions which do not support your argumentation

How come that you cannot describe anything about Sharron even though you don't know Sharron but know that Sharron is gay but you can make conclusions about people the other way around?

it's because inductive and deductive reasonings are two completely different methods.

 

[Alamo]

You're calling most asexuals autistic? I'd like to see you back that one up with fact..

A man who is sexually interested in men is homosexual. A man who is aesthetically interested in men and women and aesthetically interested in sex does not a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual make. It simply makes them an aesthetic.

what does "aesthetically interested" mean?

 

[Silke]

i don't know what you are refering to. i'm sorry for you if it overstrains you to answer questions which do not support your argumentation




it's because inductive and deductive reasonings are two completely different methods.

Ok, I understand your style. "I don't know" and "I don't understand" if it does not support your argumentation.

The difference is not inductive vs deductive reasoning.

 

[mcrickson]

what does "aesthetically interested" mean?

The beauty of diversity, my friend. Look around you.
There's nothing sexual about it.

 

[Alamo]

Ok, I understand your style. "I don't know" and "I don't understand" if it does not support your argumentation.

The difference is not inductive vs deductive reasoning.

the problem with you is that you never give an answer. you only say "no, it's not". like "the difference is not inductive vs deductive reasoning." without revealing what the difference in your view might be. that's just childish

 

[Silke]

the problem with you is that you never give an answer.

No, this is not true.

you only say "no, it's not". like "the difference is not inductive vs deductive reasoning." without revealing what the difference in your view might be. that's just childish

No, intentional.

 

[Dave]

No.

No to what? The style of my original post could be blamed on lack of sleep, but still, you acted like you wanted to have a debate. Because we actually were discussing a person's interpretation of End of the Family Line, as much as we were discussing the song itself, I felt that lyrics of Morrissey's oeuvre were relevant. If you don't think so, why? Did you think we were discussing the meaning of End of the Family Line, itself, in isolation, as it exists apart from any influence of Morrissey's personal life? If so, what do you think it means?

I could help you by pointing to the lyrics of Christian Dior, where Morrissey does appear to be singing as a character who is regretting the chances he let slip away, and backs up the interpretation that the song is about celibacy.

Moz has also said that he hates artists who fling their personal lives into the public eye. Honestly if he wanted to be as direct as some people are determining by his lyrics, he would. But he keeps his hidden. For his sake and ours. Anyone can write songs about wanting males or females. It's the eternal quest for love, and it's a healthy exercise to write about it. He's said he's always been truthful with us through his writing: we know nothing for certain. What does that tell you?

He also said something in that Saint Morrissey interview, (scanned in these pages somewhere, I believe) that, to paraphrase, "it all exists in the songs", which would mean that he does reveal himself in his lyrics, and of course he does. Anyone that writes anything can't help but reveal something about themselves, and when you've been writing about love and longing for more than 20 years, the work is going to reveal quite a lot. Of course, it's all open to interpretation.

 

[Silke]

I have no desire to analyse Morrissey's lyrics any further than I did with some people in the forums in winter. Those lyrics that we analysed, quite a few, all had no homosexual reference, just like said song, about which this thread is, is not as clearly about what homosexuals seem to think of as homosexuality as the person who wrote the wikipedia entry made it.