"Meat is boss!!"

Re: ???

:confused:
What are you talking about?
1zwkej9.jpg

Gregory's Girl is a 1981 coming-of-age romantic comedy film written and directed by Bill Forsyth.[1] Like many of Forsyth's movies, it is set in his native Scotland.

Gregory Underwood (Gordon John Sinclair) is an awkward teenager who plays football. His team isn't doing very well, so the coach (Jake D'Arcy) holds a trial to find new players. Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), turns up and, despite the coach's sexist misgivings, proves to be a very good player. She subsequently takes Gregory's place as center forward and Gregory in turn replaces his friend Andy (Robert Buchanan) as goalkeeper.

Gregory is all for her making the team, as he finds her very attractive. However, he has to compete for her attention with all the other boys who share the same opinion. Gregory initially confides in his best friend Steve (Billy Greenlees), the most mature of Gregory's circle of friends, and asks him for help in attracting Dorothy. Steve, however, does not share the opinion of Gregory and the other boys, and is unable to assist him.

Acting on the advice of his 10-year-old sister, Madeleine (Allison Forster), he awkwardly asks Dorothy out on a date. She accepts. However, Carol (Caroline Guthrie) shows up at the rendezvous instead and informs Gregory that something had come up; Dorothy won't be able to keep their date. He is disappointed, but Carol talks him into taking her to the chip shop. There, she hands him off to Margo (Carol Mccartney). By this point, he is rather confused, but goes for a walk with the new girl. On their stroll, they encounter a waiting Susan (Clare Grogan), the one who really wanted to date Gregory, and Margo leaves. Susan confesses that it was all prearranged: "It's just the way girls work. They help each other."

They go to the park to talk and get acquainted. At date's end, Gregory is more than pleased with the girl he ended up with.

Gregory's friends Andy and Charlie (Graham Thompson), who are even more inept with girls, see him at various times with no less than three beauties, and are envious of his seeming success. They try to hitchhike to Caracas, where Andy has heard the women greatly outnumber the men, but fail at that as well.
 
You either missed the point or disregarded it. That's okay, I am on my way out the door and will happily repeat it. Sure... they can go without eating a ham sandwich for a day. However Morrissey is not there and was not going to be there until it was time for him to preform. So why institute sanctions for something that you are not even going to be a part of.

You do not find it annoying because it caters to your belief system. However, if it did not conform with your belief system would you feel the same way? If it was not Morrissey would you feel the same way? Take Morrissey and eating vegetables out of the equation.

If you were hired to do something and found out that someone forced a policy that was in conflict with your belief system and then to top it off you found out that the person that caused that policy was not even going to show up to that area- you would be okay with that?

Please... Are they acting like babies? Absolutely
Are their complaints warranted to a degree... yeah they are.

To this degree, yes, they are.

rky71l.jpg
 
I actually think the meat ban was a good idea. Morrissey knows these other performers are in a position of influence to some degree and if he can change just one of their minds about eatng meat then maybe he/she can change some of their fans minds too.Even if that is unlikely the very fact he is doing it will attract publicity to the cause. I really dont think it is all about him just not wanting to smell meat or be around it for a few hours like some are suggesting.
 
I actually think the meat ban was a good idea. Morrissey knows these other performers are in a position of influence to some degree and if he can change just one of their minds about eatng meat then maybe he/she can change some of their fans minds too.

not really, when you tell someone theyre wrong about their stance on something and then force your views, you wont make them change their minds, you'll make them pissed off and want to do it even more

I really dont think it is all about him just not wanting to smell meat or be around it for a few hours like some are suggesting.

oh sure it is.
 
If you are dealing with children then yes. But I think most people who eat meat dont have a stance. It is just something they have not really thought about. To go somewhere where someone who is in the same industry as you and feels so strongly about it might make some people reconsider. That is my opinion and that is my belief on the motivation behind it.
 
If you are dealing with children then yes. But I think most people who eat meat dont have a stance. It is just something they have not really thought about. To go somewhere where someone who is in the same industry as you and feels so strongly about it might make some people reconsider. That is my opinion and that is my belief on the motivation behind it.

they do have a stance. they believe its not wrong to eat meat. haha.
 
If you are dealing with children then yes. But I think most people who eat meat dont have a stance. It is just something they have not really thought about. To go somewhere where someone who is in the same industry as you and feels so strongly about it might make some people reconsider. That is my opinion and that is my belief on the motivation behind it.

Well said.

It all comes down to motivation with Morrissey, doesn't it?

If this were someone else (as someone suggested, Paul McCartney), then refusing to provide free meat would be seen as a principled statement and standing firmly by your deepest beliefs.

Because it's Morrissey, it's all down to being a bitchy prima donna.

Maybe it's Morrissey's fault that he comes of as such an unpleasant person (at times I'm sure he is), but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

It would be terribly shallow to say "meat is murder, but feel free to chew on some cow lips backstage at my headlining show because I don't want to offend anyone." Morrissey is in a position of power here, and he's taking rather mild action on an issue that he obviously takes very, very, very seriously.
 
they do have a stance. they believe its not wrong to eat meat. haha.

A stance is defined as a rationalized menatal attitude. How many people that eat meat really rationalize this decision? If you look at the statistics of how people are converting or have been converted in the past then I would say those who eat meat now have not really rationalized it in their minds.I think Morrissey just wants to put them into a position where they are at least thinking about the alternative.
 
It's strange, but I've never heard or read anything about Morrissey that makes me think he's a bitchy prima donna or a particularly unpleasant person. Yet other people seem to have that impression from exactly the same information. It goes to show that we all have different views on what constitutes a "good" and "bad" person. Overall Morrissey comes over to me as someone who is reasonably decent, if a little secluded in his own little world.
 
This is a bit of a non event in my eyes. Some kid from a band complaining about lack of meat in the free refreshments. Whilst others in this world starve. Being a working class kid, which he sounds, he should know better. Would you complain if you went to a free buffet and there was no particular food that you wanted? Probably not.

It's all about choices, and that we are lucky to have that choice, whether it be to eat meat, not eat meat, be vegan, eat only gluten free products etc. The guy has the power to get his manager to buy him a meat burger from outside, and morrissey has the power, and choice, for a veggie backstage rider. Some people in this world don't have that luxury.

Same goes for punters, if you're at a festival, and the majority of it is stalls that serve meat (although there is always chips), and you choose to be vegetarian, then you have to acknowledge that choice, is still not a majority view yet, with most people being omnivores. That is of course changing with more and more people opting for a veg lifestyle, but nothing changes anything quicker than economics and market forces.

I acknowledge I sound like Jerry's last word. Be good to yourself and to each other.
 
This is a bit of a non event in my eyes. Some kid from a band complaining about lack of meat in the free refreshments. Whilst others in this world starve. Being a working class kid, which he sounds, he should know better. Would you complain if you went to a free buffet and there was no particular food that you wanted? Probably not.

It's all about choices, and that we are lucky to have that choice, whether it be to eat meat, not eat meat, be vegan, eat only gluten free products etc. The guy has the power to get his manager to buy him a meat burger from outside, and morrissey has the power, and choice, for a veggie backstage rider. Some people in this world don't have that luxury.

Same goes for punters, if you're at a festival, and the majority of it is stalls that serve meat (although there is always chips), and you choose to be vegetarian, then you have to acknowledge that choice, is still not a majority view yet, with most people being omnivores. That is of course changing with more and more people opting for a veg lifestyle, but nothing changes anything quicker than economics and market forces.

I acknowledge I sound like Jerry's last word. Be good to yourself and to each other.

I'm nugz and I approve this post. :clap:
 
It's strange, but I've never heard or read anything about Morrissey that makes me think he's a bitchy prima donna or a particularly unpleasant person. Yet other people seem to have that impression from exactly the same information. It goes to show that we all have different views on what constitutes a "good" and "bad" person. Overall Morrissey comes over to me as someone who is reasonably decent, if a little secluded in his own little world.

That's one of the things that tickles me about Morrissey, and one of the things that I was so impressed with when I caught up with him after years of refusal (on my part).

He hasn't lost his knack for irritating people to the point of hysteria; it's one of his miraculous gifts. :D
 
Re: *sigh*

Morrissey was supposed to be a headliner 27 June 1992 Glastonbury Festival, but sadly he pulled out in last minute.

As you know after that his career took very long winding way to back on track.
It took him 12 years to actually headlining Glastonbury in June 2004.


Incidentally Smiths headlined 10 June 1984 GLC Jobs for change festival in London:

http://www.passionsjustlikemine.com/live/smiths-g840610.htm

You just proved my point--it took him 20 years to headline Glastonbury. And I hardly think that the Jobs for Change festival counts as a "major" festival, but what do I know?
 
Re: ???

He is forever telling very interesting facts.

Did you know when you sneeze it comes out your nose at 100 miles per hour?


Yes, I've watched Gregory's Girl at least five times. ;)


You just proved my point--it took him 20 years to headline Glastonbury. And I hardly think that the Jobs for Change festival counts as a "major" festival, but what do I know?


No.
Within five years Morrissey's solo career he was offered to headline Glastonbury, however, he pulled out.
You twisted my comment.
 
Last edited:
Morrissey just wasn't a festival artist for most of his career. It's only around 2004 that he started playing them regularly. But to say that he couldn't have headlined is wrong imo. I'm sure he had offers.
 
Back
Top Bottom