Soapy is on hunger strike

Soapy is on hunger strike

As of yesterday members of Students for Justice in Palestine began a hunger strike in solidarity with hunger striking Palestinian prisoners. The following is a statement we released explaining our actions.

Whereas Palestinian political prisoner Samer al-Barq is on day 106 of his hunger strike in protest of his detention
Whereas Hassan Safadi is on day 76
Whereas Ayman Sharawna is on day 66
Whereas none of these prisoners have been charged with any crime or have received any trial in Israeli courts, a situation known as “administrative detention”
Whereas the continued use of administrative detention is in direct violation of the agreement signed by Israel with Palestinian prisoners this May
Whereas Palestinian detainees are routinely tortured by Israeli prison officials until they confess to crimes they did not commit
Whereas Palestinians are found guilty in 99.74% of cases brought against them in Israeli military tribunals

Students for Justice in Palestine has begun an open ended hunger strike until there is justice for the hunger striking detainees.

As of right now there are eight of us on day two of this hunger strike.

For more information about the hunger striking detainees visit http://www.addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=515

Please call or email the following members of the Israeli government to demand the release of Samer al-Barq, Hassan Safadi and Ayman Shawarna.

Brigadier General Danny Efroni
Military Judge Advocate General
6 David Elazar Street
Harkiya, Tel Aviv
Israel
Fax: +972 3 608 0366; +972 3 569 4526
Email: arbel@mail.idf.il; avimn@idf.gov.il
Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon
OC Central Command Nehemia Base, Central Command
Neveh Yaacov, Jerusalam
Fax: +972 2 530 5741
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak
Ministry of Defense
37 Kaplan Street, Hakirya
Tel Aviv 61909, Israel
Fax: +972 3 691 6940 / 696 2757
Col. Eli Bar On
Legal Advisor of Judea and Samaria PO Box 5
Beth El 90631
Fax: +972 2 9977326

Posted By

Soapy
Aug 9 2012 19:49

Share

Attached files

Comments

Devrim
Sep 15 2012 13:14

Revol is obviously right. He has not been very polite about it, but, to be honest, he isn't. However, it is better that somebody actually said it clearly rather than the first two comments on the thread that said "Solidarity comrade", and "Good luck". Revol's rudeness might have been more worrying if anybody had thought that these people were serious about what they were doing and might have done themselves some permanent physical harm, in which case it would have been much better to try to talk them out of it. I think that it was clear from the off though that this was little more than student political posing, and that there was no chance in hell of these people taking it to the point where they did themselves some serious personal harm.

Just as an aside, the leaflet says that the guy is on the 106 day of his hunger strike, which is obviously untrue. If he had been, he would be very, very dead. He may have been on hunger strike for 106 days in total, but certainly not 106 days consecutively. The word 'whereas' is used in a very strange way too.

Devrim

Steven.
Sep 15 2012 13:37

Yeah, as usual revol has made some good points but in a way which makes many people focus on how he communicates rather than what he's actually saying.

But some other people here have made great points, like Joseph Kay and Indigo. Essentially, the key thing is that "awareness raising" is pointless. Public opinion counts for nothing unless it is backed up by the possibility of meaningful action. And meaningful action is only possible if we are organised. So organising is the key, and doing something which takes up lots of time and is harmful to your health negatively impacts your ability to organise. So while soapy's intentions are good unfortunately it is a flawed strategy.

Anyway, it's good that it has been called off early enough that no one will suffer any permanent damage. But I mean that does kind of make a mockery of the "hunger strike" in the first place as well, which is problematic, and I can understand why people would take issue with this

Choccy
Sep 15 2012 14:35

What the fuck is this 'good intentions' shit? Every single political current and belief system is motivated by 'good intentions'. Even the biggest cunts with the shittest politics genuinely think they're doing the 'right' thing. 'Good intentions' don't come into it, it was a pile of shite from the start, for all the reasons outlined by, as Revol pointed out coincidentally mostly irish posters. My tummy hurts.

snipfool
Sep 15 2012 15:26
Choccy wrote:
What the fuck is this 'good intentions' shit? Every single political current and belief system is motivated by 'good intentions'. Even the biggest cunts with the shittest politics genuinely think they're doing the 'right' thing. 'Good intentions' don't come into it, it was a pile of shite from the start, for all the reasons outlined by, as Revol pointed out coincidentally mostly irish posters. My tummy hurts.

Don't you think we can expand beyond your reduction, as in the real world, and say that intentions can be detailed and judged by others? Soapy's intention was to bring "justice for the hunger striking detainees." Can't that be judged against some of the intentions of the "biggest cunts"?

Ogion
Sep 15 2012 18:39

I agree with Joseph Kay and revol. For an actual recent example of solidarity in Washington D.C (where American University is located), see the solidarity by D.C. union teachers for the Chicago Teachers Union strike, on which there is an excellent write-up here.

Edit: Incidentally, the D.C. teachers are not on strike -- at least not yet (if they did, it would apparently be the first time in about 30 years). They have been contributing to the solidarity fund, providing picket line refreshments, and sending letters and photos of support.

Caiman del Barrio
Sep 16 2012 13:47
thegunshow wrote:
Yeh be nice, we're trying to cynically recruit these people Revol!

I find the line of logic implied by the weighty sarcasm within this statement troubling, ie that we shouldn't try to 'recruit' (that is, win over to our ideas via debate) people who are engaged in moribund, worthless, potentially counter-productive 'activism'. Oddly enough, people - yes, EVEN 'activists' - do odd/abnormal/seemingly pointless things in the public sphere. People camp outside computer game shops/bookshops/theatres awaiting the latest Harry Potter/Twilight/shoot 'em up. People dress up as Klingons for Star Trek conventions. People 'like' things on Facebook. People sign petitions. Do we disregard everyone or what?

I mean yeah, I made a couple of quips at the beginning of the thread about the lack of perspective of the OP & the hunger strike, but i certainly wouldn't go to such lengths to retrospectively 'justify' my flippancy. What's the point? Isn't this more about Revol's pride now anyway? And for all his bellyaching about useful/meaningly activity (the implied - not explicitly stated in this thread - flipside to the worthless action of a hunger strike over Palestine), we all know he's a lazy, boring, useless cunt who clearly feels more comfortable trolling activists than anything else.

Chilli Sauce
Sep 16 2012 14:53
Quote:
Essentially, the key thing is that "awareness raising" is pointless. Public opinion counts for nothing unless it is backed up by the possibility of meaningful action.

Well put Steven. This is the crux of the matter for activist politics, no doubt.

Choccy
Sep 16 2012 19:35
revol68 wrote:
And for your information I do stuff where it is relevant to my life, I went on strike for N30, argued with other colleagues as to why they should too. Sure it was ineffective as I was a temp and I was surrounded by scab bastards in HR and payroll but that's reality and I feel no need to dress it up with stupid spectacle or justify myself as an "activist" to some middle class brat slumming it.

There's a difference between being in an anarcho syndicalist group and actually doing workplace organising, so get off your high horse.

I've never shied from calling you a lazy bastard, and you are wink
But I do think there's a substance here to what you're saying

I've noticed a tendency for people to lapse back into a political/activist comfort zone long it was being torn apart on here in 2004/5 when this place was still Enrager.

It turns out that all that stuff about workplace organising being what we should be doing but is really fucking hard, especially with work so increasingly casualised/precarious, or simply non-existent.
Whereas pointless activism and running about Oxford Street masked up while being self indulgent largely pointless shite, is a lot easier to do, practically, than even the minutest of workplace organising.

As you've said before, it's hard to workplace organise when you're unemployed wink

I remember years ago, 2005, a thread on here about whether it's sometimes better to 'do nothing' than to do really pointless shit. The overwhelming consensus was that it's sometimes better to do nothing instead of time-sapping shit that results in burnout or may even be a step back, which something like dickhead student 'solidarity' hunger strikes, sorry calorie restrictions, most certainly are.

snipfool
Sep 16 2012 20:49
Choccy wrote:
I remember years ago, 2005, a thread on here about whether it's sometimes better to 'do nothing' than to do really pointless shit. The overwhelming consensus was that it's sometimes better to do nothing instead of time-sapping shit that results in burnout or may even be a step back, which something like dickhead student 'solidarity' hunger strikes, sorry calorie restrictions, most certainly are.

Joseph Kay made exactly this point on page 2. Many people have praised his take on the matter. Maybe things aren't as different as your nostalgia has led you to believe? Interesting if you think there is a lapse though.

thegunshow
Sep 16 2012 20:55

Of course Caiman del Barrio took part in a similar university action in the UK also for Palestinians.

Rob Ray
Sep 16 2012 23:38

1. Soapy, a young and enthusiastic poster, announces a well-meaning but fundamentally misguided action.
2. Soapy gets told he's a joke, retarded, childish, insulting to real hunger strikers, etc etc.
3. Soapy gets upset, reiterates that he's thought it through and leaves the site after one page (did you guys even notice?)
4. Any ability to influence him to stop or think differently is immediately lost, as he's stopped reading. Thus making the following three pages pretty much redundant.

In a nutshell, this is why aggressive attacks are a bit pointless unless you are actively trying to get someone to leave the site - which given Soapy is guilty of nothing more than being a student with some mixed up politics in alongside some pretty reasonable ideas, I hope wasn't the intention.

Problem is you can't slag someone into stopping a bad action if all they need to do so they never have to hear from you again is log out.

Ed
Sep 16 2012 23:37

So I thought I might as well wade in here, as well, I feel strangely compelled to and I can't really explain why.. maybe its coz I feel Caiman is actually being unfairly criticised, but I don't think so coz Caiman often pisses me off as well.. smile

The general points being made by Choccy and revol are basically right, what they describe as meaningful action and the related difficulties is basically spot-on. That said, there's a lot of broad-brush criticisms here that actually don't apply (or if they do apply, probably apply more to revol than to Caiman)..

revol68 wrote:
There's a difference between being in an anarcho syndicalist group and actually doing workplace organising, so get off your high horse.

Choccy wrote:
It turns out that all that stuff about workplace organising being what we should be doing but is really fucking hard, especially with work so increasingly casualised/precarious, or simply non-existent.
Whereas pointless activism and running about Oxford Street masked up while being self indulgent largely pointless shite, is a lot easier to do, practically, than even the minutest of workplace organising.

Now, both these statements are entirely true but at the same time not applicable to this situation as CdB is actually organising at work. Revol can't know this as all the info is currently internal to SF, Choccy should know as he has access to it on the SF internal forums. But basically Caiman can actually stay on his high-horse for now..

Equally, organising in your own workplace is not the only organising you can do. There's SolNet type stuff, there's helping others organise their workplaces.. again, stuff that Caiman has done. And that revol hasn't, because he's a fucking lazy bastard (something which we all agree on wink ).. now as much as its easy to run around Oxford Street masked up, its also easy to sit on your arse calling people middle-class brats, feeling satisfied in the knowledge of your own (in fairness, genuinely proletarian) background.. but honestly, who gives a fuck about that kind of Openly Classist shit? Oh yeah, your Dad was a fucking illegal immigrant miner from Tottenham and your mum was Lucy Parsons.. but in the words of Janet Jackson, 'what have you done for me lately?'..

revol68 wrote:
And for your information I do stuff where it is relevant to my life, I went on strike for N30, argued with other colleagues as to why they should too.

This part as well raised an eyebrow for me and perhaps we need another thread entitled 'revol's activity' but for now I'll continue here..

Two things really: first, what 'stuff' did you actually 'do' for this thing that was 'relevant to your life'? Maybe I'm wrong and you did loads of shit, but to me it seems that while you were temping in the public sector, there was a national strike and you honoured the picket line.. great like.. but its not like when this thing came around that was relevant to your life that you all of a sudden jumped up off your beanbag chair, put down Call of Duty and started building for the strike, did you? Or did you? What the fuck do I know? But I'm skeptical..

Secondly, look at your sentence again. I don't doubt for a second that you "argued" with your workmates, coz you're a contrary bastard who loves a row.. but this isn't workplace organising. At least, its not good organising. Its just having a political row with your workmates, a bit like a row on libcom but with people who have probably never been vegetarian or heard of Esperanto. And that is just as safe as running around Oxford St or calling people middle-class brats. Its your comfort zone coz you know you can hold your own in a political argument and you can even 'win' them against your 'opponents'.. except they're not your opponents, they're your workmates and you're not trying to win, you're trying to get them to believe in their own collective power.

Seriously, someone mentioned the Duponts earlier and I almost had a heart-attack, imagining revol as a bitter old communist, writing obscure shit that no one will ever read or care about, eternally satisfied with being 'right' and reliving past glories.. except there are no past glories, coz he's a lazy bastard.. so he just makes strongly worded - if often astute - criticisms of those he thinks have activist messiah complexes which they act out through their pointless activism.. really they should listen to him.. and maybe some people will, a chosen people, but probably only after he's dead.. wink

thegunshow
Sep 17 2012 12:31

Hold up your activism revol, so you may be judged. Fucking cultists...

Rob Ray
Sep 17 2012 12:53

Hey I ain't judging his activism, just some of his motivation techniques. Fwiw I do agree that it's a bit off to have a go at him for not being active, ball not man etc (though perhaps a lesson to take is that this criticism does go both ways - he's just spent this entire thread judging other people's activism).

Chilli Sauce
Sep 17 2012 14:01
Quote:
Secondly, look at your sentence again. I don't doubt for a second that you "argued" with your workmates, coz you're a contrary bastard who loves a row.. but this isn't workplace organising. At least, its not good organising. Its just having a political row with your workmates, a bit like a row on libcom but with people who have probably never been vegetarian or heard of Esperanto. And that is just as safe as running around Oxford St or calling people middle-class brats. Its your comfort zone coz you know you can hold your own in a political argument and you can even 'win' them against your 'opponents'.. except they're not your opponents, they're your workmates and you're not trying to win, you're trying to get them to believe in their own collective power.

That is a fucking beautiful paragraph.

As usual Revol, you're making so very salient points but doing like a dick. I was thinking about that 'trying to recruit' comment. Now, I don't know your political past, but I do know that no one is born a communist (and I say that as someone whose partner has Communist parents). Personally, I did some pretty cringy shit when I first came into politics. I also know that some of the libcom admins had their activisty days as well. Soapy is obviously still working out his politics--why else would he both have a blog on libcom and be participating in a symbolic fast?--and although he's a student and may or may not be "middle class", one day he'll have to get a job. I don't think alienating him so aggressively from a site where many of us are so concerned with effective workplace organising is an especially intelligent thing to do.

Ed
Sep 17 2012 14:38

Mate, there's no argument in your post. It's just a ramble through ideas we've all already had about five years ago (you even used the word 'sublimate', which I have literally only ever heard during those arguments, its like an injured sports star watching old videos of himself in his prime), not actually relevant to any of the people you're currently talking to (the only person it would have been relevant to, Soapy, has since left this thread because you acted like a nob).

Who here likes sitting in meetings? Who here wants to 'do something' just for the sake of doing it? Is everything that isn't workplace organising substitutionism? You conflate 'organisers' and 'evangelists' like that's the model supported by the people you're talking to (when actually its more relevant to the people you were talking to five years ago).. so well done, you're right.. like everyone else you're talking to..

And just for the record, I didn't wade in here to wave my 'organiser' phallus in your face.. if anything, it was to wave Caiman's phallus in your face (which is a weird image) and to point out that everything that you have said about others - specifically the messiah complex and the retreat from meaningful activity into more comfortable activity - is just as true about you as it is of the people you're aiming it at.. tbh, it's probably even more true for you..

revol68 wrote:
the problem is that such are the balances of class struggle that these opportunities are few and far between and that I'm not the type of person who see's it as their job to organise other people nor would I have an aptitude for it if I did.

Yeah, fair enough, and while I'm at it I don't think you're a 'bad activist' or whatever (as your cheerleader would like to make out).. but I do think your principle of 'rudeness as a weapon in the hands of the working class' is bollocks. Because at the end of the day, its just bizarre to me that you would piss away your one very strong political aptitude - making sensible and well-thought arguments - on behaving like a cunt for the benefit of making thegunshow lol..

To be honest, on this point, Rob Ray makes the point better and more succinctly than me.. just reply to that, it would probably lead to a more substantive discussion..

Ed
Sep 17 2012 14:42

Why is it cultish to want someone to not do the thing that you think is political ineffectual and physically harmful?

mons
Sep 17 2012 15:48

Maybe that disparity comes from the fact this is a public thing, not a private conversation?

This though is so fucking true, and any active member of SolFed, AF or whatever has to admit that they aren't just a worker fighting to improve their lives:

Quote:
This actually gets to another issue I've been thinking about lately, the idea of communists as de facto organisers, as evangelists, I think it's massively problematic not simply on the wider political scale and the implications it has for understanding how class struggle happens and the role of the working class and "revolutionaries" but on the level of the individual. There seems to be the idea that every communist is an organiser, and I think that is just mental, some people aren't suited to such roles, some of us can barely organise our own lives. There is a fetishism of organising within much of the left, meeting called for this, meetings about meetings etc This to me is an outcome of lack of genuine class struggle in peoples day to day lives. The outcome of this is that many people pass through left politics and circles, they burn out, get depressed or feel guilty about their inability to produce meaningful change. The flipside of this is a culture of "doing something" one upmanship, people waving around their organising and activity as some sort of phallus, see Ed's post (though I don't see him mentioning his own activity there) or to get back to the original post, some muppets going on hunger strike.

Caiman del Barrio
Sep 17 2012 16:02

Sorry but I don't really think that para's true. I mean, yeah, there are points to be made against the whole ORGANISE THE WORLD thing (it should be broadened, less prescriptive, more naturalistic, etc, etc) but Revol's argument is - as folks have said - essentially a nihilist one.

When I say he's a lazy cunt, it's not cos i argue for action for its own sake (& his attempts at ad homs towards me are so wide of the mark, it's comical, I mean, where does he get this stuff?) but rather cos, as Ed says, his actions in trolling anarkiez online are as much a reproduction of personal ambitions, attention-seeking & pride as a hunger strike over Palestine in a university quad. In fact, possibly more so, cos at least there's an iota of genuinity behind Soapy's tragicomically misguided actions, as opposed to a smug, sneering cuntishness.

I mean, the fact that he has to resort back to some pathetic story about N30 demonstrates how much he's backpedalling here. If he were less of a self-promoting cunt bathed in macho pride, he'd've backed off by now. Cunt. wink

Serge Forward
Sep 17 2012 16:07
revol68 wrote:
I think Ed has completely missed my point.... snip... not feeling the need to engage in a substitutionism or spectacle as a means of sublimating the powerlessness of our situation.

This actually gets to another issue I've been thinking about lately, the idea of communists as de facto organisers, as evangelists... snip...

The other thing I take issue with is the definition of lazy... snip...

Also the waving around of activism and berating people for not doing more implicitly raises the problem of relating to the wider class... snip...

Anyway...snip...

Nailed it. Best argument for justifying being a lazy cunt. Ever.

Serge Forward
Sep 17 2012 16:21

My position is not so different from your own, Revol. I am every bit as critical of Soapy's 'hunger strike' as you are. However, your treating him like a twat has achieved what exactly? Fair enough, he seems to have left Libcom, so that fuckin learnt him, didn't it. But apart from showing everyone you're both right and a cunt, what good is your billy big bollocks nonsense?

Rob Ray
Sep 17 2012 17:09

Fun fact, libcom.org actually stands for Livid Individual Being Completely OTT Machine wink.

But seriously, this is a political website. It's gonna have bad politics on it occasionally, and its main remit is to improve those politics. So yes, if you as a relatively politically savvy individual are driving less savvy people off the site, that is a problem. Which is slightly different than when you (and indeed I) have gone after old politicos in the past who have been pushing bad ideas for a long time when they should have learned by now and are actively getting in the way of promoting decent politics.

Kicking the primmos and paedos around is a regrettable* necessity, going after a student who's trying to show solidarity to people who are being treated badly, albeit in a rather naive way, as though they're being stupid and insulting and in need of a smackdown is not. There needs to be some horses for courses here.

*Oh all right, not that regrettable, rather fun actually

jef costello
Sep 17 2012 17:35
thegunshow wrote:
jef costello wrote:
It does seem a bit of a low blow to criticise someone who's doing something

Grow up.

You could have at least finished reading the sentence that you quoted smile

Chilli Sauce
Sep 17 2012 18:39

I don't think that's true. If this 'proto-typical worker' came onto libcom--which would presumably imply they found the site through a thread or article on a topic which has some interest to them--and spouted casual (i.e. not ideological) racism, I do think folks would calmly engage them on it. Call them out, no doubt, but tearing strips, no I don't think so.

In fact, when new folks have ventured on to the website recently--folks who are clearly young and new to politics--I think most of the regular posters have been pretty good about gently critiquing their activisty ideas (this most often include that "DO SOMETHING!!!" activism, might I add). I'd like to think that if someone came on libcom who wanted to engage in a discuss of labor activism but thought Poles were taking our jobs or whatever, we'd deal with it in a similar way.

Fleur
Sep 17 2012 19:32

So, would this be an example of "macho posting on libcom" that I've heard so much about? wink

Can I just point out that the hunger strike is over, that it wasn't actually a hungerstrike, a solidarity fast, no-one is dying. A really, really poor choice of vocabulary. It is over, done and opinions have been well and truly expressed on the subject. They're probably all tucking into a nice piece of cake right now.
Can I also do a bit of a straw poll, asking anyone think that Soapy's group's action was fairly futile, not really a good way to go? My hand's up, probably most of yours too. Also, just asking, but who thinks that Revol made some very good points, but it's probably just as well that there's no anarchist version of the diplomatic corp, because tact and diplomacy is not a strength? Anybody here sprung forth from the womb with perfectly consolidated politics, as opposed to working it out as you go along? Anybody think that throwing about I'm a better commie than you because I do x,y, and z is a bit pointless because we are all in different situations, and have different capabilities and opportunities?
I was just wondering about these things because the person whose actions are being criticised has chosen not to come back into the argument. So, am I getting this right, that everyone is pretty much in agreement with each other on the not eating for a cause tactic and activist behaviour in general. I just wondered because somehow the absolute vitriol being thrown around at each other, between people who are pretty much in agreement, well that actually seems really fucking familiar. Another question, I wonder who's ever seen that happen before?
On the other hand, the NHL is in lock-out and I won't be seeing a bunch of blokes batter the shit out of each other on the ice any time soon. Next best thing I suppose.

Chilli Sauce
Sep 17 2012 19:59

Jesus, that's what you took away from that? That's an impressive level of conjecture, strawmanning, and ad hominen.

Choccy
Sep 17 2012 22:04

Wouldn't be the first time.

Arbeiten
Sep 17 2012 23:11

I can't be assed to write a longer post because this is going round in circles (with the added extra of older libcom posters holding on to there 5 year grudges that only about 15 people in the world know about). But the claims to 'cultism' are fucking bullshit low blow clasping-at-straw criticism. I hear jacques cammatte is in this season anyhow....

Chilli Sauce
Sep 17 2012 23:36
revol68 wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Jesus, that's what you took away from that? That's an impressive level of conjecture, strawmanning, and ad hominen.

Or a drawing out of the subtext to most of your post.

Anyway i asked you a straight forward question about your choice to ignore how Soapy explained and described the action in favour of projecting your preferred notion on to it. Soapy described it as a hunger strike and repeatedly expressed the fact it was serious, he never once labelled it a symbolic fast and yet this is what you decided to take from it. Is actively ignoring what people say in favour of putting your own spin on it for political reasons grand because it helps take the edge of political disagreement, is this how you see an inclusive culture coming about?

Subtext, conjecture, same thing, right?

Although it's true that Soapy described it as a hunger strike, it was evident pages ago ago that it was, in fact, a symbolic fast. I think that'd be pretty obvious given that they were apparently eating so many calories and that they've stopped with the whole business now altogether. I'm mean, if you want to give Soapy a deserved critique for what he's labeled this action, fine. However, at this point you're not doing much more than grasping at semantics to justify your continuing antagonism.

As to your other shit, I'm not gonna take the bait. You're basically a little child playing to a peanut gallery who loves to see you berate and condescend to others with your right-on politics. That's not my style of debate. Nor do I intend to create some sort of tough-talking, macho online persona to compete with you.

Soapy's action was misguided, naive, and in need of a critiquing. You're unnecessarily aggressive and rude. And that pretty much sums it up.

Devrim
Sep 18 2012 07:56

From reading some of the comments on here, you would think that some poor political innocent had come on, and Revol had just started throwing abuse at him. The fact is thought that he had been posting here for over two years, described himself as an anarcho-syndicalist, and even had his own blog here.

If it is wrong for people to throw abuse at others on here, it is equally bad for somebody to call Revol "a lazy, boring, useless cunt" as it is for him to show his anger at the ridiculous student politics that were on display here, but that seems to be considered to be OK.

How many more years should Revol have waited before telling him what he thought. Obviously, two years isn't enough. Maybe he could have waited until he had been a member for over eight years, as Revol has, before he said something because it seems to be perfectly OK to throw abuse at people who have been on here for that long.

I also agree completely with Revol's comments about volunterism and the way people on here talk about organising workplaces nowadays.

Devrim