You have not addressed the issues I've raised regarding Morrissey amplifying David Vance - another example of Morrissey's selective 'outrage' about terrorism in Manchester - because you are incapable of defending his absurd 'terror trolling' over decades.
Given your transparent attempt to divert the discussion I'm hardly likely to take a lecture on ethics from you or accept your feeble ad hominen floridities.
The anger you project on to me is the anger you feel about the fact I have, yet again, effortlessly demolished the mediocrity that is Morrissey.
I bear no ill will towards anyone but I do not suffer fools and it's immaterial to me whether fools present themselves as 'messianic' pop culture figures or their self-appointed online hagiographers.
The Cult Of The Crank-Fraud Morrissey is now reduced to making ever more bizarre defences of their Pop Idol in a doomed attempt to ignore, deflect or demonise his critics. The straw man outburst within your reply is one such psychological coping strategy. Others include positing outlandish retrospective analyses which purport to evidence a media conspiracy theory alleging that Morrissey's current status as a 'progressive pariah' is, at root, caused by supposed homophobic press coverage of 'Madstock' in 1992!
You conclude your vapid emotional ventilation with a warning that I desist from debunking your cultic belief system and its more zealous adherents 'or else'...what, exactly?
Why do you reference Muhammad Ali pictorialy?
Are you challenging me to a boxing match? Metaphorically or actually?
Perhaps as support act for the planned cage fight between Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk?
If so, before I accept and enter boot camp please provide details of your sex, age, weight and tournament-bout history.
As you have referenced The Greatest I assume you would be classed in 'heavyweight' category but...that might be because you are a morbidly obese woman who struggles to push a shopping trolley around Blanchardstown Mall...
I am a trained boxer and that imposes a moral code on me. Therefore I don't get in the ring to fight the disabled, whether online or IRL, and it's irrelevant if their disabilities arise from physical, emotional or mental health issues. It would be unmanly and undignified to do so.
Nobody is obligated to interact with me here or anywhere else. Yet you and those you claim to protect via threatening me choose to do so. Why do you do that when you could all simply choose to mute or block me?
Claiming to be victimised by my corruscating prose is a bit silly when you have both successfully ignored me for years in hopes I'd 'go away'. Which I do. For long periods of time. I'm about to instigate another lengthy sabbatical from this hateful online crèche and clearly stated that in the opening comment to which you have replied. So you thought you'd sneak in an insulting tirade and, risibly imagine you have power to 'assert your authority' by rebuking me? How's that working out?
https://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/david-vance-june-17-2023.151121/page-17#post-1987526852
Finally, I note your 'poetic' formatting of your last sentence.
...unfortunately it is grammatically incoherent. Your use of the word 'one' is confused, used either to reference disembodied ethical principles or a singular disembodied hand? You subsequently refer to this 'one' as 'it'. Did you mean to use 'one' to refer to a generic, non-gendered person? In which case the subsequent wording should surely refer to 'them' or 'they', not 'it'? Please feel free to edit your comment to provide clarity. Then get lost...Don't bore me with anymore of your inane ripostes. Too funny indeed...
Kind regards
BrummieBoy