im not in favour of over effusiveness.
there's this circle of dumb broads at my work (oh how i cant stand them!) whose whole schtick is being overly effusive, giving over indulgent praise where it hasnt been earned. just the other day i overheard one broad, sheepishly trying to get on the over effusive band wagon of meaningless positivity--it having the nature of a virus, it seems--say to the lead over effusive broad--the one who set the whole absurd tone--that she "looks 20" (moz's phrase "desperate womanhood" comes to mind). this woman has grey hair, sinewy hands and arms, porous skin, and i would guess her age to be about 50. yes, ill admit she looks good for her age. but looking good for your age does not mean looking twenty.
at first being around these old birds you may think "oh that's nice" when, for example, one of them tells you you do a great job when all you do is stand there looking surly, but after a while you start to realize the emptiness of everything they utter, to the point you dread coming into contact with them and certainly would never try to engage them in conversation. it's not a skillful behaviour to engage in--over-effusiveness that is. it doesnt lead to any real connection, either with people or reality, and so it's missing it's own point. instead, i propose we call things as they are. keep it real, as they say.
thus, i have to disagree with this joey barton and further state my inability to appreciate his comment based on it's over-effusiveness. i think it would be fair to say that moz is like an oscar wilde-- a huge, huge compliment as it is. he is certainly, like oscar, a lord of language and infinitely quotable. but he is not shakespeare whose scope and breadth of all things pertaining to human nature and to language absolutely no one comes close. it's hard, in short, to take such a comment seriously and makes me wonder if perhaps he caught the over-effusive virus too.
(and i say this without any particular affection for shakespeare, unlike oscar, whom i have loads of affection for)