Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
The Mail's Unplesant (And Undeserved!) Moral Superiority Strikes Again.
114 Answers
This time Steven Glover tuts and admonishes over celebrity deaths -
http://
His nasty snippy moralistic tutting puff piece almost falls off its see-saw, so keen is he to condemn stars for their lifestyle on one hand, and then confirm that he doesn't know that it contributed to their deaths.
For the record Mr Glover as a fan to various degrees of everyone famous who has passed recently, I am not blinded by their wonderful art and influence on my life, to their frailties and failures as human beings, and the absuses of their bodies during their lifetimes.
But guess what, I manage to feel sorry without the need to tut like some pompous old buffer in a saloon bar holding forth about 'young people' like being young and stupid is a crime that personally offends me.
Yes, part of my idols' lives involved abuses that may have taken them early, but I prefer to think of the good they have done and the pleasure they have brought, and shelve their weaknesses for another day.
What a shame Mr Glover could not find it in himself to do the same.
http://
His nasty snippy moralistic tutting puff piece almost falls off its see-saw, so keen is he to condemn stars for their lifestyle on one hand, and then confirm that he doesn't know that it contributed to their deaths.
For the record Mr Glover as a fan to various degrees of everyone famous who has passed recently, I am not blinded by their wonderful art and influence on my life, to their frailties and failures as human beings, and the absuses of their bodies during their lifetimes.
But guess what, I manage to feel sorry without the need to tut like some pompous old buffer in a saloon bar holding forth about 'young people' like being young and stupid is a crime that personally offends me.
Yes, part of my idols' lives involved abuses that may have taken them early, but I prefer to think of the good they have done and the pleasure they have brought, and shelve their weaknesses for another day.
What a shame Mr Glover could not find it in himself to do the same.
Answers
To make the connection that these 3 dead stars, may have died early because of their excesses during their lifetime is not insightful or clever, because it is bleeding obvious. My main problem with Glover is not his self rightuous disdained, it is his moral bias and selective finger pointing. So unhealthy persuits tha Daily Mail readers may share, like...
15:40 Thu 29th Dec 2016
Togo - I must admit that when Mr Glover wrote "Now I don't want to sound preachy ..." as though we are all in this together, and he is not trying to take the moral high ground - I almost laughed out loud. preachy is exactly what he was up to that point, and then continued to be so for the remainder of his invective.
As you yourself pointed out, his headline was "But why is no one saying George Michael and others died young after years of drug abuse?"
Er, irony alert!!!
As has been pointed out to you, with links to help, every single obituary in every single paper referred to George Michael's drug abuse, and either directly referred to a potential link to his death, or inferred it.
I suggest you re-read the link, there is no mention whatever about the mawkish reaction to celebrity deaths - this is focused entirely on the fact that George Michael, Rick Parfitt and Carrie Fisher took drugs at some time in their lives, and that is about as secret as the fact that they are now deceased.
The piece tries to infer that the deaths are linked to drug intake where there have been no post mortems, or causes of death revealed in any of the cases, so Mr Glover is careful to hedge his bets, in case something more 'normal' like a heart attack is the cause - and he is on the wrong end of a defamation suit.
Mr Glover is not a bogeyman for relating mentions of drug abuse, he is just a lazy journalist for not reading his contemporaries' writings before penning his own mealy-mouthed tat.
As you yourself pointed out, his headline was "But why is no one saying George Michael and others died young after years of drug abuse?"
Er, irony alert!!!
As has been pointed out to you, with links to help, every single obituary in every single paper referred to George Michael's drug abuse, and either directly referred to a potential link to his death, or inferred it.
I suggest you re-read the link, there is no mention whatever about the mawkish reaction to celebrity deaths - this is focused entirely on the fact that George Michael, Rick Parfitt and Carrie Fisher took drugs at some time in their lives, and that is about as secret as the fact that they are now deceased.
The piece tries to infer that the deaths are linked to drug intake where there have been no post mortems, or causes of death revealed in any of the cases, so Mr Glover is careful to hedge his bets, in case something more 'normal' like a heart attack is the cause - and he is on the wrong end of a defamation suit.
Mr Glover is not a bogeyman for relating mentions of drug abuse, he is just a lazy journalist for not reading his contemporaries' writings before penning his own mealy-mouthed tat.
Togo
You asked:
"so why is Glover all of a sudden some sort of bogeyman for repeating it, and making a very fair comment?"
I'm criticising this point that he is alleging:
'But why is no one saying George Michael and others died young after years of drug abuse?'
Literally every single article I've seen in the past three days have references his drug problems.
So what Stephen Glover is doing is making up something and then criticising 8s for it, when the thing he's made up is a load of cobblers.
You asked:
"so why is Glover all of a sudden some sort of bogeyman for repeating it, and making a very fair comment?"
I'm criticising this point that he is alleging:
'But why is no one saying George Michael and others died young after years of drug abuse?'
Literally every single article I've seen in the past three days have references his drug problems.
So what Stephen Glover is doing is making up something and then criticising 8s for it, when the thing he's made up is a load of cobblers.
//So what Stephen Glover is doing is making up something and then criticising 8s for it//
Me neither? What was Glover "making up"?
//The piece tries to infer that the deaths are linked to drug intake where there have been no post mortems, or causes of death revealed in any of the cases, so Mr Glover is careful to hedge his bets, in case something more 'normal' like a heart attack is the cause - and he is on the wrong end of a defamation suit. //
The article did not infer that his death was due to drug "intake" at all he was pointing out that many people have their lives cut short due to their "lifestyle". You don't need to be famous for it to be a factor in early death, or surprised when it happens, or faux devastated and prepared to take offence on the deceased's behalf to prove how caring and "correct" you are prepared to be. My reference to the mawkish element was not necessarily about Glover's missive.
Me neither? What was Glover "making up"?
//The piece tries to infer that the deaths are linked to drug intake where there have been no post mortems, or causes of death revealed in any of the cases, so Mr Glover is careful to hedge his bets, in case something more 'normal' like a heart attack is the cause - and he is on the wrong end of a defamation suit. //
The article did not infer that his death was due to drug "intake" at all he was pointing out that many people have their lives cut short due to their "lifestyle". You don't need to be famous for it to be a factor in early death, or surprised when it happens, or faux devastated and prepared to take offence on the deceased's behalf to prove how caring and "correct" you are prepared to be. My reference to the mawkish element was not necessarily about Glover's missive.
-- answer removed --
Selective deification Buddy. Like the Lady Di sobfest. Don't get me wrong, I do think that Michael was a great song writer and a very talented solo live performer. His Paris concert was almost Sinatra like in his timing and delivery despite having a weaker voice. I have probably purchased more CDs than some ("She who must be obeyed" likes him playing in her car) but I stopped mourning for pop stars, very young, when Buddy Holly died. This whole thread is really about someone who is not George Michael. I think I once said on the "bank" that any bloke who could fall out of a Range Rover at 70mph on the M1 and not have a scratch gets my eternal admiration.
divebuddy - // didn't think Glover's piece was unreasonable, just common sense really. If you stuff loads of chemicals up your nose or pour industrial quantities of alcohol down your throat for long enough, it 'aint going to do you much good. //
True.
I could waste a page of the Mail by saying that if you eat too much you get fat, but that would be a similar waste of time and effort as this nonsense.
//What makes me laugh though is how we are apparently supposed to forgive/overlook our "idols'" feet of clay if they are musicians. But woe betide the footballer who falls short in the role model stakes. //
Actually that's not correct. No-one 'forgives' or 'overlooks' the physical abuse that famous people give themselves, the public simply enjoy the art they produce, and opt not to bang on about aspect of stars' lives that are not the public's business.
I enjoy the artistic output of thousands of people whose personal lives are a train wreck of indulgence, but I accept that they live the way they choose, as do I, and there is no 'forgiveness' requested or offered in that arrangement.
Your comparison to a footballer - let's say for the sake of argument Ched Evans - is worthless. If a pop star wants to abuse his body for his own personal enjoyment, I have no issue with that. If footballer wants to abuse someone else's body without their consent for his own enjoyment, that is a seriously different issue, and I am sure you know that as well as I do.
True.
I could waste a page of the Mail by saying that if you eat too much you get fat, but that would be a similar waste of time and effort as this nonsense.
//What makes me laugh though is how we are apparently supposed to forgive/overlook our "idols'" feet of clay if they are musicians. But woe betide the footballer who falls short in the role model stakes. //
Actually that's not correct. No-one 'forgives' or 'overlooks' the physical abuse that famous people give themselves, the public simply enjoy the art they produce, and opt not to bang on about aspect of stars' lives that are not the public's business.
I enjoy the artistic output of thousands of people whose personal lives are a train wreck of indulgence, but I accept that they live the way they choose, as do I, and there is no 'forgiveness' requested or offered in that arrangement.
Your comparison to a footballer - let's say for the sake of argument Ched Evans - is worthless. If a pop star wants to abuse his body for his own personal enjoyment, I have no issue with that. If footballer wants to abuse someone else's body without their consent for his own enjoyment, that is a seriously different issue, and I am sure you know that as well as I do.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - You really need to read posts properly before you reply to them - the final paragraph of my last post reads as follows -
//Your comparison to a footballer - let's say for the sake of argument Ched Evans - is worthless. //
If you read the rest of that paragraph, you will be aware of my views on footballers v. pop stars in terms of behaviour.
//Your comparison to a footballer - let's say for the sake of argument Ched Evans - is worthless. //
If you read the rest of that paragraph, you will be aware of my views on footballers v. pop stars in terms of behaviour.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - If I didn't want my posts to mean what I want them to mean, there wouldn't be a lot of point in posting them would there?
My reference to Ched Evans was in response to your reference to 'a footballer' - and since his was the last case to be debated in here, and if I recall, you were a fervent defender of his disgusting behaviour, then it's appropriate to comment on it in this context.
You can read my posts as they are written - and if you wish to conclude that I am saying you can't compare self-abuse to being a rapist - you would be right.
Except that Mr Evans was acquitted on appeal - had you forgotten?
As for 'stating the obvious' - that is the entire thrust of my OP, I am glad we are back on the same page.
My reference to Ched Evans was in response to your reference to 'a footballer' - and since his was the last case to be debated in here, and if I recall, you were a fervent defender of his disgusting behaviour, then it's appropriate to comment on it in this context.
You can read my posts as they are written - and if you wish to conclude that I am saying you can't compare self-abuse to being a rapist - you would be right.
Except that Mr Evans was acquitted on appeal - had you forgotten?
As for 'stating the obvious' - that is the entire thrust of my OP, I am glad we are back on the same page.
Seriously though, my mild and irregular drug taking habits have nothing whatsoever to do with influence from friends or 'idols'. There is so much ignorance among those who think they have their fingers on the pulse with this particular issue.
I wouldn't mind betting that most who pontificate about drug use, its causes and pitfalls have little experience of being around drugs or users (both casual and chronic) to actually know the real ins and outs.
I wouldn't mind betting that most who pontificate about drug use, its causes and pitfalls have little experience of being around drugs or users (both casual and chronic) to actually know the real ins and outs.
To return to the OP - spending a thousand words sniffily pointing out that George Michael took drugs, and this may have contributed to his death, and no-one appears to have noticed adds up to a huge waste of time, newsprint, and effort.
Anyone who wishes to avoid Mr Michael's art on the basis of his lifestyle is welcome to do son, and doesn't need Mr Glove's sanctimonious posturing to guide them in that decision.
I am willing to be that I have read more (and written more) about musicians than Mr Glover, and I have yet to encounter anyone suggesting that any musician is a better artist or a more valuable human being because he or she has or does take drugs. Certainly people may say that a musician is valid in spite of personal lifestyle choices, but never because of them.
Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.
Anyone who wishes to avoid Mr Michael's art on the basis of his lifestyle is welcome to do son, and doesn't need Mr Glove's sanctimonious posturing to guide them in that decision.
I am willing to be that I have read more (and written more) about musicians than Mr Glover, and I have yet to encounter anyone suggesting that any musician is a better artist or a more valuable human being because he or she has or does take drugs. Certainly people may say that a musician is valid in spite of personal lifestyle choices, but never because of them.
Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.
//I wouldn't mind betting that most who pontificate about drug use, its causes and pitfalls have little experience of being around drugs or users (both casual and chronic) to actually know the real ins and outs.//
You can definitely count me out of your observation on all levels.
//Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.//
That is a matter of opinion. To be exercised only by the "readers".
You can definitely count me out of your observation on all levels.
//Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.//
That is a matter of opinion. To be exercised only by the "readers".
Togo - ////Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.//
That is a matter of opinion. To be exercised only by the "readers". //
OK, let's settle for - Don't write about what you don't know - which in Mr Glover's case appears to be popular music and the drug use by some of its purveyers, over the last seventy years.
That is a matter of opinion. To be exercised only by the "readers". //
OK, let's settle for - Don't write about what you don't know - which in Mr Glover's case appears to be popular music and the drug use by some of its purveyers, over the last seventy years.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
Driving Without Insurance And License
Insurance10 mins ago
Tls 1522 1A One Involved With Poor...
Crosswords19 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.