deleted from the union thread?

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Aug 8 2010 16:35
deleted from the union thread?

I posted the comment of the same title in the ongoing union thread 3 times and it was deleted/lost 3 times. Any explanations?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Aug 8 2010 17:23

You've reposted this post several times. The orginal post is still there, but the duplicates have been deleted.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 8 2010 17:32

It's currently unpublished, which is why Django can see it.

It's been unpublished as deliberate attempts to derail threads won't be tolerated. If you want to engage in nihlist meta-discussions, start a new thread in thought and anyone who's interested can reply.

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Aug 8 2010 18:33

Interesting.

The term nihilist is yours not mine – as far as I am concerned the post conforms to a rigorous communist (if also formalist) critique as far as that is possible within this context.

But why not inform me of this decision?

Are all of the Libcom group in agreement that the content of the post is 'derailing' and should be 'unpublished'?

As to the content of the post, I clearly present my take on the dynamics between short term and long term goals within capitalist organisations which I see as decisive... it is up to others to either engage or ignore the relevance of this. The post itself took an hour or so of effort and therefore can be considered to have been made in good faith.

How do you distinguish, 'deliberate attempts to derail threads' which 'won't be tolerated' from your own simple political hostility and prejudice? I am not convinced that this is not a hostile decision as a simple communication would have sufficed to inform me of my (alleged) encroachment of your rules.

In general terms I would be interested in the number of posts you do not publish and how you identify them as it seems to me that substanceless one-liners seem to pass the test quite easily.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 8 2010 19:32

Joseph Kay - you're being a silly control freak pratt and you know it. Deleting my re-write of fdg's thing after having deleted his is worthy of some bureaucrat goderator on The Guardian's Comment is Free (sic) site. What's your aim here? Is it some provocation because you don't like certain posters or what they say and so want to force their emotional hand so as to justify a temporary banning? Or what? Here is what i said on the "union thread" (more or less, because i didn't copy it; you censored it and so I have to write out the bloody thing again, arsehole):

If you substituted "union" for "organisation" in fdg's post, would the following become acceptable?:

Ed wrote:

Quote:
I'm mostly interested with the day-to-day question of why the unions fuck our struggles up.
Quote:
or rather, misquote:
fdg (not quite) -
It is impossible to conclusively and once and for all locate a fault in the workings of a union as you are attempting to do and thereby end the matter. No amount of demonstrations of the failures of unions will ever demonstrate their failure as a form.

It is highly likely, and you do not entertain the possibility, that the unions do not 'fuck our struggles up' but rather present objectively occurring contradictions in accordance with their organisational form. I think your question has to be set at a higher level of recursion and would focus on how smaller units of union fit together and then fit into an environment which they (ostensibly) oppose.

The question relates to the dissonance created between ‘immediate’ demands and ‘long term’ demands particularly where it cannot be proved that the former are negatively corrected by the latter (that is if the preservation of long term demands are fundamentally understood as expressing a directional or strategic function).

The positive feedback operating within reformist unions works something along these lines: (1) it is easier to achieve immediate gains than long term gains; (2) it is easier for the host environment to permit short term losses/costs than fundamentally alter its operational relations; (3) between 1 and 2 there is a structural/functional agreement therefore; (4) the union and the environment both seek out the easiest means of preserving their interest without gambling on uncertain and perhaps catastrophic structural alterations; (5) at some point the ‘long term’ or strategic function of the union should kick in and correct the tendency to short-termism but something prevents this happening; (6) from the very beginning the union presents itself with a choice between tangible short term gains and intangible and unquantifiable long term goals, at every point the ‘bird in the hand’ always seems the reasonable option, this is because; (7) the options presented by the union to itself are not the union’s at all but belong to more general social relations, there is no real choice between a revolutionary and a reformist strategy. There are only short term gains to be had within well established unionised forms – revolution, socialism, communism, clause iv, even the defence of the working class are questions outside of any given union’s remit and will always retain a merely ideological function; (8) the reason for this is that any union must organise itself by utilising the given basic building blocks of ‘union’ as they appear at any moment in a society. In other words, unions are never innovated from the base as if for the first time but always proceed from what is already given abstractly as form downwards. Unions are not unions of people, but unions of resources and relations and these are not the product of the union – the appearance or form of resources and relations always conform to established external pressures; (9) for this reason, any union at any historical juncture tends to resemble (at the level of structure) all other unions at that moment (no matter their pupose) rather than achieving a prefiguration/model of their stated goal... for example, there is always a directorate and a membership, within the directorate there are roles/functions e.g. chairman, secretary, treasurer etc and departmental heads; (10) the more a union is organised the more it functions efficiently according to the historically given principles of a union within its environment; (11) the more efficiently a union functions the more it exists within the given environment, the more it tends to predict its continued existence the less it tends to refer itself to its long term goals which exist in contradiction to the form of its relations and resources; (12) the longer a union exists the more integrated it becomes within its environment and the more it realises the values of that environment as a neutral set of given operational principles; (13) therefore all previously won short term gains currently being lost by the working class can be regained by trade union activity but this still has no bearing on long term possibilities which require the breakdown in the hold of given forms of relations and resources; (14) (moving from actual processes of recuperation to detournable/communisable potentials) it is likely that within a revolutionary situation, i.e. where the given form of relations and resources is being actively pursued and long term goals become central, that the resources and relations bound by unions (as well as those bound in other capitalist organisations, charities, companies, governmental institutions etc) will become actively, if ambivalently, involved; (15) in other words, the question of a ‘pure’ ‘union’ is irrelevant with regard to achieving long term goals.

This sequence (including potentialities) does not occur once and for all but is a constant internal movement in which all points are always active. Unions are necessary because it is only by means of unionising that a project can make itself distinct from its environment. The problem is that a successful union always results in its own active negation of its own long term goals... i.e. its success means the loss of its distinguishing features and its reduction to a mere brand. Of course, there is always an optimal level of union which unfortunately cannot be accurately maintained within the union by the membership... the reasons for this condition of runaway (union inflation) is perhaps your real question. You may disagree with the sequence that I present but I think you need some sort of abstract model to approach the question if you are to get anything out of it.

Not that i'd put it like this by any means (though I think you're basically correct): you're trying too much to play the (almost timeless) theoreticianist role; but you don't influence people (or yourself) through abstractions but by uniting concrete examples with the generalities.

Why this has to go into "feedback and content" rather than back into the union thread I don't know. Joseph Kay moves in mysterious ways. He claims that

Quote:
deliberate attempts to derail threads won't be tolerated

, yet, to give one example amongst many, discussions on the history of toothbrushes on the "education" thread are permitted. This is a political decision, as the rest of your mindless post suggests:

Quote:
If you want to engage in nihlist meta-discussions......

I don't know if Sunday-night alcohol intake has something to do with this arbitrary decision, but certainly you're drunk on power.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Aug 8 2010 23:13

I agree with samotnaf and fdg, the censorship is unacceptable.

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Aug 9 2010 15:48

Many thanks to those who have expressed concern at this.

As has been commented on before, Libcom does not owe anyone a platform to air their opinions – this is not a friendly location for me to express my opinions, I accept that, the tension goes both ways. I accept the structural non-agreement with what I have to say. For this reason I have not resorted to polemics and namecalling (whereas Libcom's more bulimic supporters, unable to digest the conventions of basic politeness, have scuttled to Libcommunity to vomit up their hatred for all that I stand for rather than engage directly with me). I have also accepted in the past, as part of the culture here, how my posts were often buried with successive one-liners (although this is not a tactic that has been used so much lately; the toothbrush episode on the teachers' thread though is a good example). If this is a provocation then it is not a good idea for me to provoke back as I can be banned by the Libcom admins but I can't reciprocate... they can at least be assured of my continued good manners.

However, deletion has not happened to me before. I can only surmise that as my post was not particularly unusual in its content that a change has occurred editorially. I am supposing that the post's deletion (unpublishing being such a politico euphemism) was intended politically and that it is a prelude to similar other measures and possible banning. As there has been no communication with me concerning this, except the comment about nihilistic meta-discussions, and this taken in the context of the deletions of content concerning Dauve recently, I am guessing that there is a rising sense of frustration within the Libcom group about some of the content that has been posted here recently: eg from the communist left and internationalist anarchism thread:

Joseph Kay wrote:
this fucking thread cry

and the deletion of my post along with that in the Dauve thread expresses this frustration and perhaps heralds a different approach by the Libcom group impelled by this frustration. I am also guessing that the recent rise in contributions by those who propose a critique of organisationalism might be in a factor in this. Certainly, in the 4 years I have been posting here, the critique of organisationalism has never before been as well, or as widely, articulated. In the last few months I have found more friends here than over the entirety of the previous 4 years.

My speculation on the reason for this frustration is that it is essentially structural and is based on the length of time the Libcom project has been running... an initial period of the project was marked with claims for popularity of the site, but this popularity has only translated into a marginal increase in membership of anarchist organisations (if at all), an inexplicable phenomenon within the organisationalist paradigm. The initial positive period in a projects history is followed by a 2nd stage in which flaws and failures begin to rankle, at this juncture nihilists and other good-for-nothings are identified with the flaws, a period of censure follows.

Given the context, I think it may be a good idea for those who putting forward difficult ideas here to make sure they are copied and saved.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 9 2010 17:35

Yes, I find the deletions of your posts,fdg, a deeply disturbing development - quite a clumsy attempt to determine the 'character' of threads and perhaps libcom as a whole. Your recent comparison of libcom with the BBC - derided by some - now seems almost prescient, in the light of decisions over the content of threads taken by admins.

On the 'left communism and internationalist anarchism' thread I noticed some not-so-subtle appeals by one or two 'organisationalists' (to borrow your term) of the ICC for moderators to 'take action' against a particular poster they accused of 'insulting' their members. As far as I'm aware, this pressure to ban individuals has been resisted.

Quote:
fort da-game wrote: Libcom's more bulimic supporters, unable to digest the conventions of basic politeness, have scuttled to Libcommunity to vomit up their hatred for all that I stand for rather than engage directly with me

Yes, I've noticed that, and with other threads. Pretty pathetic.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Aug 9 2010 18:07

This deletion seems pretty daft - yes it would be better if fdg's "self-indulgent" (his/her own words) posts were used to start new, seperate threads, but surely the thread can be split if it becomes derailed?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Aug 9 2010 18:12
Quote:
My speculation on the reason for this frustration is that it is essentially structural and is based on the length of time the Libcom project has been running... an initial period of the project was marked with claims for popularity of the site, but this popularity has only translated into a marginal increase in membership of anarchist organisations (if at all), an inexplicable phenomenon within the organisationalist paradigm. The initial positive period in a projects history is followed by a 2nd stage in which flaws and failures begin to rankle, at this juncture nihilists and other good-for-nothings are identified with the flaws, a period of censure follows.

I think this is wide of the mark - firstly because I doubt increasing 'membership of anarchist organisations' was ever the specific aim for this site, and shouldn't be used as a barometer of success. If we look at reach/traffic, my understanding is that the site has been seeing steadily increasing popularity, and that it's one of the most widely-viewed 'left' sites. It seems like you're trying to force a seperate gripe ("the organisationalist paradigm") into this one with the libcom admins.

Secondly, the forum culture is significantly more polite than it was when I started reading the site, and is probably better than internet discussion boards generally.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Aug 9 2010 18:46

so, the decision of, it appears, a single individual is now being used to make assertions about a culture. hmmmm ... where have i seen this line of argument before?

Django wrote:
the forum culture is significantly more polite than it was when I started reading the site, and is probably better than internet discussion boards generally.

i'd agree with both

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 9 2010 18:54

it is not censorship - he is free to start a new discussion with that post, but lots of users have complained to us about FDG derailing discussions with his posts, so responding to that feedback we are trying to keep discussions on topic. This was a collective decision by the admin team. And like I said, he is free to start a new meta-discussion thread.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Aug 9 2010 19:14
Steven. wrote:
This was a collective decision by the admin team.

embarrassed angry

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 9 2010 19:34

I hope you're going to start a discussion on this here, cos it's not an attempt to derail at all

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Aug 9 2010 20:24
Steven. wrote:
it is not censorship - he is free to start a new discussion with that post, but lots of users have complained to us about FDG derailing discussions with his posts, so responding to that feedback we are trying to keep discussions on topic. This was a collective decision by the admin team. And like I said, he is free to start a new meta-discussion thread.

Yes, it is important to know that it was a collective decision. Was it unanimous or a majority decision (as Django seems to suggest the decision was daft?) Are any of the Libcom group away on holiday for example? (Is there a list of members of the Libcom group somewhere on the site?) How does this process work exactly? It seems an individual makes a decision and the others back him up, or remain silent. It all seems a bit awkward and clunky.

I am interested to know how many complaints it takes to force a decision on the libcom group of this nature and whether it is a usual practice (in other words, are there lobby groups within the Libcom structure)?

I am also interested in knowing the definition of 'derailing' as its application as a category seems highly selective (i.e. it is conducted on political grounds). For example, if a mob of individuals called for the deletion of certain posts, and the expedient grounds that they were derailments, how many of them would it take to achieve their goal?

It seems strange to me that this situation could arise without any preliminary warnings. At no point was it indicated that I had derailed threads, I would like to know of some examples and see the evidence for this, as I have always attempted to engage scrupulously and with great effort.

It is also fascinating to find out that not only has there been a campaign of calumny against me in Libcommunity but that there is some secret correspondence demanding restraint of my contributions – I was wholly unaware of this notoriety. I assumed I had been granted an ignored part of the furniture type status.

I guess the lesson of all this is that at no point should we forget that this is a privately owned public space and that those who use it do so at the discretion of the site's proprietors and that as with all private enterprises the users cannot expect either constancy or transparency in the decisions that are made within it but that the law of ownership settles all disagreement of opinion in its favour and there is no recourse to appeal.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 9 2010 20:33
fdg wrote:
Is there a list of members of the Libcom group somewhere on the site?

http://libcom.org/notes/about/who-are-libcom-group

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Aug 9 2010 20:37
fort-fa-game wrote:
Yes, it is important to know that it was a collective decision. Was it unanimous or a majority decision (as Django seems to suggest the decision was daft?) Are any of the Libcom group away on holiday for example? (Is there a list of members of the Libcom group somewhere on the site?) How does this process work exactly? It seems an individual makes a decision and the others back him up, or remain silent. It all seems a bit awkward and clunky.

Fyi, I'm not in the libcom group.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Aug 9 2010 21:18

FDG, I want to be quick with this because we are spending way too much time on you (considering we have other things to discuss on libcom as well as having a life off-site) but if we must..

fort-da-game wrote:
Yes, it is important to know that it was a collective decision. Was it unanimous or a majority decision (as Django seems to suggest the decision was daft?) Are any of the Libcom group away on holiday for example? (Is there a list of members of the Libcom group somewhere on the site?) How does this process work exactly? It seems an individual makes a decision and the others back him up, or remain silent. It all seems a bit awkward and clunky.

Libcom decisions are made with consensus minus two; with trolling, an individual does make a decision to remove the comment and then later we either support or reverse the decision. To say we either support or stay silent is untrue; we have internally disagreed in the past and gone back on decisions made. And in case you were wondering, I'm probably one of the more 'hardline' of the admins against your posts.

fort-da-game wrote:
I am interested to know how many complaints it takes to force a decision on the libcom group of this nature and whether it is a usual practice (in other words, are there lobby groups within the Libcom structure)?

This is ridiculous. If we get complaints about people's behaviour, we discuss it. No one forces anything on us, there are no lobby groups (and if there were, do you think we'd have an 'anti-FDG' lobby group?). If people complain or have suggestions, we take those into consideration.

fort-da-game wrote:
I am also interested in knowing the definition of 'derailing' as its application as a category seems highly selective (i.e. it is conducted on political grounds).

Right now this is the interesting bit for me. Your posts, in my opinion, generally follow a very simple pattern (even if the content is obscure as fuck): claim the discussion is about the wrong issue; take issue onto more abstract level; begin an extremely long philosophical ramble with no discernible beginning, middle or end. This then ends in people discussing your abstract musings, leaving behind the original topic. In my opinion you gave yourself away in that thread when you said:

Quote:
I hestitate to comment on the grounds of self-indulgence

Indeed. All your posts smack of self-indulgence and, to my mind, lack a desire to discuss beyond just making all discussions about yourself. Trolling does not just mean writing "that is gay" after everyone's posts; just because you write long, faux-intellectual posts about vaguely related issues does not stop it from being trolling.

And as Steven. says, you are not being censored. This is not the Stalinist Russia. This is not Nazi Germany. You posted your shit here and we're discussing it. Get over yourself..

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 9 2010 22:09
Quote:
fdg wrote:

Is there a list of members of the Libcom group somewhere on the site?

http://libcom.org/notes/about/who-are-libcom-group

Just had a look at this list. Out of eight in the group, at least four are Solidarity Federation members. How can we be sure that the stated hostility of admins to FDG and his posts (articulated by Joseph Kay and Ed, for example) is not politically motivated? At least, if there were political motivations (action against 'nihilists', 'anti-organisationalists'?) they might carry more weight than the ad hominem abuse (trolling?) thrown about, like 'you posted your shit here' (Ed).

As for the assertion that 'there are no lobby groups'... I saw overt lobbying to have one poster (mciver) acted against (banned?) by ICC 'lobbyists' on another thread, based on political hostility, masquerading as objections to 'insults'. If that form of strong-arming through acclamation (who shouts the loudest and in the greatest numbers) goes on on an open thread, how much covert lobbying goes on? As Steven has said of FDG's posts, 'lots of users have complained'. Is it more expedient to complain on the grounds of 'faux-intellectualism', 'extremely long philosophical rambles', 'shit' than to acknowledge real political disagreement?

This whole affair stinks.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Aug 9 2010 22:52
Wellclose Square wrote:
How can we be sure that the stated hostility of admins to FDG and his posts (articulated by Joseph Kay and Ed, for example) is not politically motivated?

Well, I don't know how else to do it really, apart from that other people we have political differences don't have their posts moved.

Quote:
At least, if there were political motivations (action against 'nihilists', 'anti-organisationalists'?) they might carry more weight than the ad hominem abuse (trolling?) thrown about, like 'you posted your shit here' (Ed).

In this context, I meant 'shit' as in 'stuff' i.e. "that was some good shit", "I saw some mad shit on my way here" etc. I was referring to him starting this thread and us not deleting it again. So clearly, it wasn't the content per se but the tenuous connection to the topic which was objected to (this goes someway to dealing with your fears of 'political motivation' imo). This is how I talk, I understand how you could have read it though..

Quote:
As for the assertion that 'there are no lobby groups'... I saw overt lobbying to have one poster (mciver) acted against (banned?) by ICC 'lobbyists' on another thread, based on political hostility, masquerading as objections to 'insults'.

I think you're stretching the definition of lobbying here but anyway, has it been successful? No, it hasn't, he still posts here. People have called in the past for posters to be banned and we've refused. I honestly don't understand how this idea of libcom lobbyists got anywhere: it amounts to nothing more than people posting in the forums or sending us PMs saying "x is annoying, you should ban them". Were the people calling for Marsella to be banned a lobby? Was there a 'ban revol' lobby? Or was it just a lot of people who were pissed off about the same sort of anti-social behaviour complaining about said behaviour?

Quote:
Is it more expedient to complain on the grounds of 'faux-intellectualism', 'extremely long philosophical rambles', 'shit' than to acknowledge real political disagreement?

For fuck's sake, I started a thread asking question about unions because I have an article I'd like to write; it's a practical project I have and I wanted to talk about practical issues/examples. FDG wrote something which he himself acknowledged was barely relevant and written for self-indulgence and it was removed. And it isn't the first time he's done so; in fact, it's his modus operandi.. I honestly don't understand why you think we have some Machiavellian scheme to suppress nihilist communism or whatever it is.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 10 2010 00:17

To be fair McIver does derail any thread that even tangentially involves the ICC with incredibly long and tedious rants about typewriters from thirty years ago, FDG's derailments are nowhere near as bad and certainly not as boring. And you have to expect that after a certain number of posts a thread will stray from its original topic - although the union thread was still pretty new.

Sheldon's picture
Sheldon
Offline
Joined: 19-01-09
Aug 10 2010 02:40
Wellclose Square wrote:
As for the assertion that 'there are no lobby groups'... I saw overt lobbying to have one poster (mciver) acted against (banned?) by ICC 'lobbyists' on another thread, based on political hostility, masquerading as objections to 'insults'. If that form of strong-arming through acclamation (who shouts the loudest and in the greatest numbers) goes on on an open thread, how much covert lobbying goes on? As Steven has said of FDG's posts, 'lots of users have complained'. Is it more expedient to complain on the grounds of 'faux-intellectualism', 'extremely long philosophical rambles', 'shit' than to acknowledge real political disagreement?
Merriam Webster wrote:
Main Entry: 2lobby
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lob·bied; lob·by·ing
Date: 1837

intransitive verb : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation

transitive verb

1 : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
2 : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action

So, while the second definition certainly may apply to this ICC "lobby" it's such a broad definition that it may as well be called "request" because that's all it is. FDG's crying over his "censorship" (and those rallying to his defense) could be described as a "lobby" by your use of the term as well, can it not?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 10 2010 04:28

Wellclose Square:

Quote:
This whole affair stinks.

If you want this stink to go away, it needs some airing - so just publish the emails/messages that were thrown around between the SolFed dominated libcom admin about fdg's post. If you don't make this discussion public, then I, for one, can only draw the conclusion that fdg is right when he says:

Quote:
at no point should we forget ...that as with all private enterprises the users cannot expect either constancy or transparency in the decisions that are made within it but that the law of ownership settles all disagreement of opinion in its favour and there is no recourse to appeal.

After '68 the S.I. had a semi-private Orientation Debate, distributing it to their close contacts. The CRQS then published it and showed up how (essentially) disoriented the Situationists were after '68. I suspect though that the discussion of fdg was a little more 'down to earth': "fdg's a fucking nihilist metawhatsit" - "yeah - let's delete his shit".

Anyway, you can hardly accuse him of derailing the discussion before anyone had the chance to respond to what he said - usually when people apparently go off on a tangent they're ignored (though this wasn't the case with the toothbrush history thing - but you never stopped what was clearly a derailment). If then people follow that train of thought and it continues off the mainline rail, then you could simply say "If the thread continues any further off topic then all further off topic discussion will be deleted." Instead you used blunt censorship: not Stalinist Russia, but a tiny bureaucratic collective.

Bet you're beginning to regret your stupid decision.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 06:52

You lot do realise you're screaming censorship on a free thread to which the admins are responding politely "just set up a different thread, that one was on a specific topic" no?

Just saying, this is making you look a bit nuts. Why do you need to impose yourself on conversations where you're just irritating people when you can just start your own, are you afraid you won't get enough attention?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 10 2010 06:59

I don't quite see what the problem is. The post is still up on this site, and people can still comment on it. What exactly is wrong with that?

In my opinion, the Libcom admins do a pretty good job, which is noticeable mainly through their lack of visible intervention. For an example of a very badly admined site take a look at RevLeft.

888 wrote:
To be fair McIver does derail any thread that even tangentially involves the ICC with incredibly long and tedious rants about typewriters from thirty years ago, FDG's derailments are nowhere near as bad and certainly not as boring. And you have to expect that after a certain number of posts a thread will stray from its original topic - although the union thread was still pretty new.

This is true.

Devrim

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 07:09

Incidentally, a lot of what's been said here sounds really familiar. Were any of the above posters regulars at thetollinggang.org?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 10 2010 07:34

RobRay:

Quote:
Why do you need to impose yourself on conversations where you're just irritating people when you can just start your own

If it's a question of imposing on conversations where peope get irritated with what you say then maybe almost all posts should be separated into separate threads: RobRay more than merely irritates me, so does the ICC, so does Wheeler and loads of other people and I suspect that a lot of people feel the same way about a lot of other people. If "irritation" is grounds for deletion then there'd be no discussion other than mutual appreciation societies. All posts other than "really liked what you said" would be turned into separate threads if this logic was pursued.

Quote:
Incidentally, a lot of what's been said here sounds really familiar. Were any of the above posters regulars at thetollinggang.org?

Never even heard of this site.

Devrim:

Quote:
I don't quite see what the problem is. The post is still up on this site, and people can still comment on it.

The censorship of my long post involved having to re-write the thing (see post 4 above). Am I now expected to make copies of everything just in case I get deleted and have to start a separate thread? Clearly I am.

SolFed and the ICC - anarchists and Bolsheviks - united. Obviously not as historically significant as Montseny and the Stalinists in '36-'37, but the common perspective of opposing a critique of political organisations, of concentrated centres of "class consciousness", makes it clear that this decision is political. As Wellclose Square said

Quote:
a deeply disturbing development

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 10 2010 07:42
samotnaf wrote:
The censorship of my long post involved having to re-write the thing (see post 4 above). Am I now expected to make copies of everything just in case I get deleted and have to start a separate thread? Clearly I am.

I misunderstood. I thought the thread had just been split, which I personally think would have been a better decision, not the post just deleted.

samotnaf wrote:
SolFed and the ICC - anarchists and Bolsheviks - united. Obviously not as historically significant as Montseny and the Stalinists in '36-'37, but the common perspective of opposing a critique of political organisations, of concentrated centres of "class consciousness",

I think that you are running away with yourself a bit here. One ICC member agreeing with some members of Solfed doesn't make the respective organisations 'united' in anything.

Devrim

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 10 2010 09:08

we have split threads that have been derailed in the past, for example the one about teachers/prison guards. However, with the forum software we use unfortunately there is no easy way of doing this, so it is extremely time consuming. So we don't have enough time to do this with everything.

Sam - sorry if you lost your post, if this happened this was a mistake, however usually we only unpublish comments, rather than delete them, so that the author can still access the text if they ask us, as we can copy and paste it and send it back to them.

Regarding "lobbies", while this sounds pretty formal, we do try to respond to feedback from users to make the site more usable and enjoyable, and have made a lot of improvements based on this.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 10 2010 09:37
Samotnaf wrote:
SolFed and the ICC - anarchists and Bolsheviks - united. Obviously not as historically significant as Montseny and the Stalinists in '36-'37

No, but pretty damn close. Rackets eternally share the same characteristics.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 10 2010 09:24
Quote:
Samotnaf is, as ever, completely removed from reality.

Wheeler is, as ever, completly submissive to dominant reality. In the year or so since i started posting, he's hardly ever said anything that wasn't a one-line sneer. But, being a mate of a SolFed admin guy means he never gets deleted

devrim:

Quote:
One ICC member agreeing with some members of Solfed doesn't make the respective organisations 'united' in anything.

But they are united in their acceptance of organising an organisation, even if the content of their respective organisations are quite different.