Libcom Admin Managerialism

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 26 2016 22:05
Khawaga wrote:
Quote:
That's mere semantics/some other cliché in place of an original thought

At least I don't try to wrap my turds in shiny wrapping. And I merely called Gulai a bore, not a whore or a cunt and I didn't even use any anti-Semitic tropes. So I've at least got that going for me.

And sorry to say FV, you ain't no Lazy Riser.

I'd apologise except that the meaning of my post was the following: If I hadn't an original thought in my head I'd post 'that's mere semantics'. I had intended to use quotes but, mistakenly as it turns out, thought you'd understand where I was coming from.

I don't know who Lazy Riser is so I'm unable to feel inadequate, at least about that anyway.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 26 2016 22:23

I see, well I guess I should apologize for thinking you were having a go. FWIW, I don't think you post turds that often, but when you do they have a certain literary quality to them.

Lazy Riser was a poster way back when who used to post in a similar manner to you, but really cut to the core of some uncomfortable"truths" in ultra left thinking. So weirdly, my comparison of you to him is both praise and a dig because I like having posters like you around to stir shit up. For the same reason, I also miss the Duponts.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 26 2016 22:28
Khawaga wrote:
For the same reason, I also miss the Duponts.

Ha! I was just thinking about f-d-g

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 26 2016 22:39

Totally forgot about that poster, but yeah s/he was also good to have around.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 26 2016 22:41
jesuithitsquad wrote:
Oh ffs-- i read the thread and if by "verbal hiding" you mean, ' i consistently employed the usage of anti-Semitic tropes, and when it was repeatedly pointed out to me by jewish comrades, i, rather than apologizing for giving even the impression of unacceptable behavior, instead kept going until others were so disgusted they stopped engaging,' then yeah, you really showed them, didn't you?

I'd engage with this but I'm going to bed. On a first reading it appears to be fairly blunt-edged propaganda but I'll have another look tomorrow.

jesuithitsquad wrote:
the comradely thing to do in that situation is to apologize for (presumably) unintentionally giving offense, ask why it was offensive, explain why you felt it wasn't inappropriate, and engage in a constructive conversation. Instead, you assumed bad faith, engaged in absurd pedantry and went so far down the 'i'm never wrong' hole as to suggest the tentacles analogy could have other possible meanings.

What would the comradely thing have been for anyone else intentionally or otherwise giving offence by taking up the positions they were taking up? You seem a little biased. Can I ask: can you even hear yourself?

jesuithitsquad wrote:
like, have you really never come across the 'jewish tentacles' trope before? i honestly wonder if a phrase would have to have a swastika and funny mustache emojii attached in order for you to recognize it as anti-Semitic?

No, I've never come across it, I just floated up the river in a bubble five minutes ago, which is why it's your job to educate me in such a 'comradely' manner.

jesuithitsquad wrote:
Then to top off the cake, when--in a thread about anti-Semitism in the anti-zionist movement--a long-term poster shockingly reveals anti-semitic and pro-fash ideology, rather than stepping back and saying, 'wow, well maybe there is more to this than i'm aware of' or some other acknowledgment, you, in an act of incomprehensible tone-deafness, continued to argue the minutiae of finer-point semantics. It's like this: either you are so absurdly thick on such issues that you're incapable of recognizing offensive language or you're just so intent on winning the internet that you just don't care.

No, it's really not like that. It's like this: This is just ranting and cliché (semantics again, really?) and on second thoughts I really won't be looking at it again tomorrow. Maybe the anti-Zionist thread was about those things for you but I had my own position and if you really didn't like it that would have been because you at least understood it and had an argument against it. But you obviously don't, which is why you're ranting instead.

jesuithitsquad wrote:
To be honest, I'm surprised you weren't banned. But here you are, defending even more offensive language by telling others they don't have the right to be offended because they just don't get it.

Again, that might be what you think the thread's about but it's not about that for me. Have you really read it?

jesuithitsquad wrote:
It seems to me you and the other pedant share the polemical tactic of focusing on semantics and other argumentative minutiae in order to obfuscate and overwhelm your 'opponents' (be honest, that's how you view them) with piles of horseshit arguments, inevitably, leading to everyone saying 'uncle' and fucking off out of the thread...and VICTORY!! you've won.

Gee, I think you got me with that rapier 'piles of horseshit' and semantic stuff. I give up! thank you for trying to teach me.

jesuithitsquad wrote:
I think you sometimes have valuable insigjts, and could help move conversations forward in a helpful manner. If you were at all interested in good faith, productive, and comradely discussion, you would perform a self-evaluation to, at a minimum, ask why so many feel this way about your debating techniques and choice of language. But I'm pretty sure you won't; you'll subsequently focus on some minor detail that i've gotten wrong, ignore the larger message, and when i stop responding out of frustration with your inability to be even remotely self-reflective, declare yet another great internet battle won--the undedeated factvalue.

I'd like to agree with you but there's nothing minor about what you got wrong in connection with what SA and me were doing in the anti-Zionist thread. Your evaluation of what happened there is so skewed that I just don't trust your judgement to be balanced. Now I'm away to bed. Night night.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jun 26 2016 23:26
Quote:
the comradely thing to do in that situation is to apologize for (presumably) unintentionally giving offense, ask why it was offensive, explain why you felt it wasn't inappropriate, and engage in a constructive conversation. Instead, you assumed bad faith, engaged in absurd pedantry and went so far down the 'i'm never wrong' hole as to suggest the tentacles analogy could have other possible meanings. like, have you really never come across the 'jewish tentacles' trope before? i honestly wonder if a phrase would have to have a swastika and funny mustache emojii attached in order for you to recognize it as anti-Semitic?

Except that doesn't have anything to do with the admin's actions.......The admins took precisely zero actions in the phase of the discussion. I challenged fv, as did others, on his assessments and links of "disproportional Jewish representation." IIRC an admin participated as an individual, but there were no erasing of posts, or warnings.

Instead, the truly benign and humorous phrase unleashes the admin hammer.

Now that's just about as polite as I can be....and don't expect it to continue.

I find use of the word "cunt" to describe an unpleasant or objectionable person tremendously offensive and counterrevolutionary as the use of the word is derived from the historical, material demeaning of women, reducing them to their sex organs, and then identifying that organ as "foul" or "evil" or "dirty" (including to the senses such as "what a foul smelling cunt she is,") but that doesn't seem to mean much to some others..

It is however truly repressive language, and makes me appreciate what Marcuse was trying to get at.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 27 2016 01:22
S. Artesian wrote:
Quote:
the comradely thing to do in that situation is to apologize for (presumably) unintentionally giving offense, ask why it was offensive, explain why you felt it wasn't inappropriate, and engage in a constructive conversation. Instead, you assumed bad faith, engaged in absurd pedantry and went so far down the 'i'm never wrong' hole as to suggest the tentacles analogy could have other possible meanings. like, have you really never come across the 'jewish tentacles' trope before? i honestly wonder if a phrase would have to have a swastika and funny mustache emojii attached in order for you to recognize it as anti-Semitic?

Except that doesn't have anything to do with the admin's actions.......The admins took precisely zero actions in the phase of the discussion. I challenged fv, as did others, on his assessments and links of "disproportional Jewish representation."

Indeed, and this is why I'm aiming at FV and not you. I feel like there were times where you could've been more sensitive to other poster's concerns, and your debating style is...well, your debating style smile but when push came to shove, you rightly put up a challenge when FV crossed the line, and by the end it was clear to me that you actually know that a line exists. I've yet to see evidence of this from FV.

And you're right, there were no warnings in that phase. I think that was a mistake.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 27 2016 01:26

Also, this

S. Artesian wrote:

Now that's just about as polite as I can be....and don't expect it to continue.

.

is noted and appreciated.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 27 2016 02:08
factvalue wrote:

What would the comradely thing have been for anyone else intentionally or otherwise giving offence by taking up the positions they were taking up? You seem a little biased. Can I ask: can you even hear yourself?

You seem to be suggesting there is an equivalency between argumentative/disagreeable language and racist/sexist language. I really hope I'm wrong but I can't really decipher any other possible intent. And if that's the case, it's a reactionary and anti-communist pov and if so, well, that's about the end of it right there.

Quote:
No, I've never come across it, I just floated up the river in a bubble five minutes ago, which is why it's your job to educate me in such a 'comradely' manner.

And honestly, I'd hoped the opposite was true because then it would just be an ignorance thing. But nope. You know the anti-Semitic tropes; you're just not concerned about them.

Quote:
No, it's really not like that. It's like this: This is just ranting and cliché (semantics again, really?) and on second thoughts I really won't be looking at it again tomorrow. Maybe the anti-Zionist thread was about those things for you but I had my own position and if you really didn't like it that would have been because you at least understood it and had an argument against it. But you obviously don't, which is why you're ranting instead.
.

Ranting would be me--based on your usage, trivialisation and rationalization of anti-Semitic tropes--flat-out calling you a racist fuck. Which I didn't do and, to be honest, I'm amazed at the restraint everyone has shown towards you.

No, the problem isn't that we don't have ability to understand what you're getting at. The problem is we get it, and it's ugly.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jun 27 2016 15:04
J wrote:
your debating style is...well, your debating style

OK, I'll fix that.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 27 2016 22:51

What do really expect me to do with this vague characterisation and low-intensity mud slinging? You're going to have to do at least some work if you've got anything new to add to the exchanges which took place on the anti-Zionist thread, unless you're thinking that I'm going to waste time that won't come back doing your retracing and referencing for you. If that were the case then I'm afraid I'd have to inform you that you can fuck off and piss up the nearest rope. Try a few specific examples, then maybe we'll have something to discuss, unless it's just a load of old rehash, in which case I refer to my previous remark.

Tell you what, I'll start you off: take a look at any of the exchanges between Ed, Reddebrek or Serge and me. There you might find, for example, the actual exchange in which the 'tentacles' was briefly debated. Stop trying to get something for nothing. Come on now, at least make a case for me to answer. Get down to specifics and try and establish more precisely what you're accusing me of, beyond a diffuse cloud or a straw menagerie of stereotyping, suppression of evidence, misrepresentation, confirmation bias and question begging blown around and strewn about your various nebulous claims and ranticles.

I won't bother to point out where all of these occur, since that's the game we're playing for the moment, except perhaps for two particularly loam-footed examples. I was looking at my five-year-old's class photo when I got back from work earlier today. Standing in the middle of the back row there was a big fella who was a good head and shoulders above the other kids and when I asked who the big fella was my two year old piped up and replied 'He's tall, that's why he's the big fella'. This was logically no different from the clumsy question-begging instantiated by the following comment from your previous post:

‘You seem to be suggesting there is an equivalency between argumentative/disagreeable language and racist/sexist language.’

in which you start and end at the same place, namely your assertion of my racist/sexist language and everyone else’s legitimacy, paraded and touted with an implicit assurance, based on the customary breathless earnestness with which fallacies seem to fart out of people, that some form of rational process has carried you from A to your new knowledge, A.

The other is in your misrepresentation of my position in which you claimed that I had been 'assuming bad faith' in that thread. My pov in the anti-Zionist thread, which was there for anyone to see from quite early on, and has its source in the realities contained in the following paragraph lifted from my post 338, was not that others were acting in bad faith, but that Zionist propaganda was slanting and limiting the parameters of the debate. My disagreement was not with the form in which representation was taking place but with the content of what was being represented.

'Unfortunately the brutalised, militarised population of Israel has shown itself time and again to be 90-95% behind every massacre carried out by the IDF, mainly because most of them have by now personally engaged in them and become inured. Mainstream television in Israel shows Israeli children writing their names on bombs to be dropped on Palestinian children, this in a nuclear country with the sixth most powerful army in the world, which dropped 20,000 tons of explosive (versus 40) during the 2014 'operation', protected by the US which has made it abundantly clear that any power – dual-, Iran or otherwise - which threatens Israel will be sent back to the stone age, a country whose embassies since the second intifada have been directly instructed to ratchet up accusations of antisemitism in order to cause as much trouble as possible for everyone from fucking Jeremy Corbyn and his crew to the BDS movement (which is legally banned in France and de facto here) never mind that Muslims and not Jews are being targeted for attack on all sides.'

These were just some of the reasons why I thought the very subject of the thread was something of a red herring, a side show, and that many of the positions represented were to some degree or another influenced by Zionist propaganda. This was one of Ed’s responses to this pov:

Ed’s post 329:
factvalue wrote:

Anyway, there's not a single scrap of evidence to support the ludicrous claim that anti-Semitism poses a major threat in the Western world

'Funny, I don't know who on this thread has made that claim. In fact, it's exactly tangents made of straw like that which made me lose interest a while ago..'
Alf wrote:

And yet even on a libertarian communist forum, on this very thread in fact, a poster expresses extreme antisemitic views....Perhaps the problem is deeper than factvalue thinks.
'My thoughts exactly..'

My 330:

'.. that's straightforward contradiction. Fair play comrade, it takes courage to make a fool of yourself.'

Ed’s 331:

'I think if you think about it (and you might have to try particularly hard), saying something exists and is a problem is not the same as saying it "poses a major threat in the Western world"..'

My 332:
'Alf writes that the problem is deeper than I think. Alright, now let me see, what do I think? Well, as stated in the post immediately before Alf's, I think it's not a major threat. Ok. What would be deeper than not a major threat? How about, a major threat? You then claim that Alf's thoughts are your thoughts exactly.

Stating that anti-Semitism doesn't pose a major threat is not identical with claiming that anyone else has said that it is. I was referring, as I have been for a while now, to the propaganda of entities such as the ADL. I think such propaganda influences discussions like these and opinions such as Alf's. It might have been more productive in this thread for you to have at least allowed for the possibility that others might have a position of their own, rather than continuing with the customary knuckle-headed posturing, as if such people hadn't had the good taste to realise that they were trespassing on your personal narrative territory.

I think there is an issue of discrimination of one form or another to be addressed. But I don't think this one is of the same dimensions as those other issues that I've raised as potentially better uses of people's time and energy, such as the Zionist propaganda behind the ludicrous claim of a worrying rise in anti-Semitism in the Western world.'

Ed was generally dismissive of any subject or line of argument other than the one he wanted to pursue, which is itself of course none other than the same selection fallacy which is one of the charges you have levelled against me:

Ed wrote:
Firstly, I think the factvalue has gone off on a complete tangent and started talking about 'how are Jews succeeding in the supposed sea of prejudice?' or whatever.. the discussion here isn't whether Jews are the most persecuted ethnic group in society, it's not about whether we live in 1930s Europe, it's not about whether America is virulently anti-semitic.. what we're discussing is whether the pro-Palestine movement (as a movement within the trad territory of the left/anti-war movement), which I think to various degrees we have all been involved in, has a significant tendency to slip into using anti-semitic arguments, imagery etc.. and more so than most (if not all) other left-wing movements/campaigns..

I’d been saying the same kind of things since back in post 229 in response to Serge Forward:

'I think that genuine spikes in anti-semitism occur concurrently with public revulsion with massacres carried out by the Jewish state and that Israel could prevent these by giving up both the massacres and the exclusivity (I'm none too fond of states and religions tbh). Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities'. In the words of (the unbalanced) Finkelstein inThe Holocaust Industry 'With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, alluring prospects opened up in the former heartland of European Jewry. Cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of "needy Holocaust victims," the Holocaust industry has sought to extort billions of dollars from these already impoverished countries. Pursuing this end with reckless and ruthless abandon, it has become the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe.

The Holocaust industry has positioned itself as the sole legitimate claimant to all the communal and private assets of those who perished during the Nazi holocaust. "It has been agreed with the Government of Israel," Edgar Bronfman told the House Banking Committee, "that helpless assets should accrue to the World Jewish Restitution Organization." Using this "mandate," the Holocaust industry has called on former Soviet-bloc countries to hand over all pre-war Jewish properties or come up with monetary compensation. Unlike in the case of Switzerland and Germany, however, it makes these demands away from the glare of publicity. Public opinion has so far not been averse to the blackmailing of Swiss bankers and German industrialists, but it might look less kindly on the blackmailing of starving Polish peasants.''

In response to Serge’s 235:

radicalgraffiti wrote:

factvalue, i don't see how anything your posting has any relevance to the subject of the thread

Well if this is anything to go by...

factvalue wrote:

I think that genuine spikes in anti-semitism occur concurrently with public revulsion with massacres carried out by the Jewish state and that Israel could prevent these by giving up both the massacres and the exclusivity (I'm none too fond of states and religions tbh). Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities'

'...as atrocities by 'the Jewish state' are apparently a cause of an increase in anti-semitism and as 'Jewish "charities"' are a cause of anti-semitism in Eastern Europe, then... er... hang on... I'm confused now... beyond victim blaming, what is factvalue trying to say???'

- I wrote post 236:

'SF, in the film Defamation (Were you able to be 'arsed' enough yet to look at any of the links in your careful preparation of this impressive cross-examination?) there's an episode in which some Israeli students, on a visit to Majdanek concentration camp, say that they believe that having had the full horror of the Nazi holocaust described to them ad infinitum they feel that their 'limit' is too high, so that when they see Palestinian homes being demolished they just think 'That's nothing compared with what happened to us'. At one point on their trip, the Israeli filmmaker asks them why they don't go outside, and they tell him that they have been warned by the secret service guy that the country they are in is full of anti-semitic lunatics who want them dead, so they stay inside. But there are so many other Jewish voices represented in the film which deny and demonstrate how ludicrous this is that they make your lazy comments above look completely politically illiterate and beside the point. Who are the 'victims' you refer to?The simple question of who are all the victims of the (ab)uses of anti-semitism seems entirely lost on you. Why is that?

Does Israel not describe itself as the Jewish state and claim to represent all of the world's Jews? Are Jewish organisations whose sole reason for existence is to fight anti-semitism not on public record as having fabricated numerous charges in order to extort money and have they not been prosecuted for it? In the film Defamation one rabbi in Brooklyn says that when anyone's livelihood depends on there being something to be afraid of, he immediately suspects their motivations. Another rabbi in Kiev believes that the reasons the orthodox Jews in his synagogue don't worry about antisemitism at all is because, unlike some secular Western Jews, their identity as Jews doesn't depend on it. Is that somehow controversial or hard to grasp? Do you have evidence which proves that there is no link between e.g. Israel's last eight 'operations'/massacres in Lebanon and Gaza and an upsurge of anti-semitism, particularly among disaffected young Moslims in Europe (never mind in Gaza and Lebanon)? Perhaps you need to stop posting until you've done at least a little leg work?'

I think the same comment above in bold could describe the position you’re taking up. Do you, along with Serge apparently, or indeed Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, propose that condemnation of Israeli atrocities is actual anti-Semitism? Note that this is a question, not a Straw Man.

The desire to conform, based upon the human need for unity with others, can take many ecstatic forms, such as religious sects, or lynch mobs, with their 'up!' 'up!' and their 'down!' 'down!' and can lead to the likes of Kropotkin giving up lifelong convictions of objectivity, critical thinking and impartiality, wherein it is simply unthinkable that such a great number as WE are could possibly be wrong.

Going to bed now.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jun 27 2016 23:24

I think there's a real problem if and when one says something, as fv did, like Jews are disproportionately represented in the media and legal field, and that is regarded as automatically confirming the antisemitic bias of the speaker.

I think it's important to challenge the assertion to find out what he/she means-- and that challenge was made, and fv explicitly stated that he did not think there was any "conspiracy" or "manipulation" of the class interests of capitalists by the subset of "connected" Jews to serve the secret, or open, interests of all Jews.

That to me means that fv was not manipulating an antisemitic trope "under the cover" of opposition to the actions of Israel.

I think we can challenge the "numbers"-- in what is meant by disproportional representation-- but if someone points out that those professing a Jewish religion "appear" or constitute a portion of the legal profession that is larger than in the portion of the total population, that is not an antisemitic trope. That may be a fact. Or it may not. Arguing that that representation is utilized in the service of "Jewishness" which supersedes the property interest corresponding to the profession would be the trope.

Of course there is context to all of this. I reversed my position on the Adbusters article-- agreeing that it did play into antisemitic tropes in that it self-selected the "evidence" for the assertion it wanted to support.

Similarly I think stating that "16 out of the 40" wealthiest people are Jewish can play into the trope in that, again self-selection is at work. FV however explained that his point was not to support the claim that "Jews control all the wealth" but that antisemitism was not a real current, or a real threat in the US. We can argue about that, too, but engaging that issue is not playing to the trope, so to speak.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 28 2016 04:47

Holy shit factvalue-- I thought since I had read your roughly 8,000 or so words on the topic that I understood your pov. Turns out, I really just needed to read another couple thousand!

Here the whole time I spent worried that you were, at a minimum, soft on anti-Semitism, and it turns out all this time, those of us worried about anti-Semitism are TEH REAL MONSTERS!!!111

I realize that recognition of 'real' acts of anti-Semitism is actually evidence my hidden support for Zionism, being dictated to me by the all-powerful world-wide leader of Jewry.

Most importantly, I now know Mossad's mind-control techniques are subtle and recognize that my belief that anti-Semitism exists puts the blood of dead palestinian babies on my hands. To be fair to me, those Jews are just so cunningly sneaky.

I had thought your analysis had all the nuance of an 17 year old university student first encountering anti-zionism via Finklestein et al, but now I see that your black and white Israel=bad and any other conversations are distractions thesis is spot-the-fuck-on.

All this time I thought one could hold a dual analysis, being against both the Isreali state AND anti-Semitism. But obvs that makes me an apologist for the Palestinian condition. Those Jewish comrades who spoke about their encounters with anti-Semitism? Turns out, if it's real, the Jews only have Jews to blame. But let's face it--they are probably lying to cover their closet Zionism.

The long-arms of the Jewish state's tentacles are impossible to escape.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 28 2016 07:36

Another magisterial, masturbational refutation of nothing in particular, you've chosen your name well. That additional number of words you mentioned, they're mostly the ones you claim to have already read.

Since it looks like this lazy, hack bullshit really is all you've got I wish you all the very best in your career at The Sun.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 28 2016 07:50
factvalue wrote:
That additional number of words you mentioned, they're mostly the ones you claim to have already read.

But really old boy, how's that any different from all of your other thousands of words representing your contributions on the matter?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 28 2016 08:00

Sorry bit busy, no time for your wee game of dandy racquetball.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Jun 28 2016 08:45

Crikey, what a palaver.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 28 2016 09:27

I know, and no sign of the elusive phantom post remover of old libcom town!

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jun 28 2016 17:20

Maybe factvalue can toss some Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir in the library? Great to see libcom giving forum space for the very important perspective that when anti-Semitism is apparent, it's either fabricated by those tentacular Je--errr, Zionists; real but it's really Jews behind it all and not those actually expressing anti-Semitism; or SHUT UP THE ISRAELI STATE IS EVIL EVIL EVIL. Compelling stuff.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 28 2016 18:03

Wasn't that time well spent now? Good ole Tyrion and his fearless commando posting, as deep as the sweat on a maggot's arse and consistently in line with the nearest majority, you're my hero! Read the thread did you (rhetorical)?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 28 2016 20:02
Quote:
I know, and no sign of the elusive phantom post remover of old libcom town!

Seriously, what do you want? A fucking show trial?

cactus9
Offline
Joined: 9-12-14
Jun 28 2016 20:07
Fleur wrote:
Quote:
I know, and no sign of the elusive phantom post remover of old libcom town!

Seriously, what do you want? A fucking show trial?

I just had to apologise to someone at the bus stop I was laughing so much.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jun 28 2016 20:20
Fleur wrote:
Quote:
I know, and no sign of the elusive phantom post remover of old libcom town!

Seriously, what do you want? A fucking show trial?

I can't speak for FV, but personally, I demand a purging of the liboms zioNAZIst admin. 40 years hard labor in salt mines would be a mercy, if we're being honest.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 28 2016 21:10
Fleur wrote:
Quote:
I know, and no sign of the elusive phantom post remover of old libcom town!

Seriously, what do you want? A fucking show trial?

Och no-no-no lassy, I just want the guilty party to write 'I've been a bit hasty' on a wee pink ping-pong ball, then hold it between their butt cheeks and sticking their head between their knees blow it a couple of yards across space into the open mouth of a poster of Oswald Mosley addressing the Knesset. Is that really too much to ask?