But are you taking some sort of action? Or just demanding others take action in groups you aren't a member of while you harp from the sidelines?
Jun 8 2007 18:32
Jun 8 2007 18:52
Jun 8 2007 19:20
Quote:
And if you think I'm being dishonest you can go back to the last time he ventured online* and I told him bluntly that he should not be considered welcome after accusing duke of being a feeb.
Less talk, more rock.
Let the purges commence!
Jun 8 2007 19:25
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Quote:
And if you think I'm being dishonest you can go back to the last time he ventured online* and I told him bluntly that he should not be considered welcome after accusing duke of being a feeb.Less talk, more rock.
Let the purges commence!
Jun 8 2007 19:46
Does a few Myspace comments really constitute an "18 month international smear campaign"? Rise isn't a member of NEFAC, he's a supporter of NEFAC. I don't know, I think I can tell the difference between someone talikng out of his ass on a Myspace forum, which no one probably reads but us, and someone really accusing them of getting paid by the feds. And I believe he took back what he said, did he not?
Jun 8 2007 19:48
Uncontrollable wrote:
Does a few Myspace comments really constitute an "18 month international smear campaign"? Rise isn't a member of NEFAC, he's a supporter of NEFAC. I don't know, I think I can tell the difference between someone talikng out of his ass on a Myspace forum, which no one probably reads but us, and someone really accusing them of getting paid by the feds. And I believe he took back what he said, did he not?
Its people like you that let the terrorists win.
Jun 8 2007 20:58
Uncontrollable wrote:
Does a few Myspace comments really constitute an "18 month international smear campaign"? Rise isn't a member of NEFAC, he's a supporter of NEFAC. I don't know, I think I can tell the difference between someone talikng out of his ass on a Myspace forum, which no one probably reads but us, and someone really accusing them of getting paid by the feds. And I believe he took back what he said, did he not?
Exactly.
It only came back up again because Oliver wanted to make an issue of it. It's not like Rise is sending out letters to anarchists world wide, not even email. He's not posting articles to indymedia, ainfos, anarkismo, infoshop, etc... maybe ainfos, anarkismo or infoshop might have declined to publish such an article, but indymedia definitely would publish it. He's not translating his critique into Spanish and sending it in letters to organizations in Venezuela or anywhere else. He's not calling up comrades around the world. He's not going on a speaking tour about it.
Infact, a google search on this only turns up the libcom discussions and a single reference to the libcom discussion in a comment on another blog. Rise's contribution were on 1/13/2007 and 1/14/2007.
The original libcom discussion links (that Oliver linked to) to a private membership platformist discussion group on myspace. Paul's contribution to that discussion being a couple days in August 2006.
There is a similar discussion on the inactive NEFAC friends list over a few days in early April 2006. That list has a private membership, and the archives are only accessible by list subscribers.
That's it. That's the entire "campaign".
Everyone who has wanted to has definitely put out their position. Everyone has had a chance to explain what they were saying, to retract things, or not retract things.
Oliver's hostility to Rise is doing more to spread anything Rise said, than anything Rise said.
My advice is if Oliver really wanted to bury Rise's words on this, he stop bringing it the fuck up all the time any time anyone mentions Rise's name.
If Oliver wanted to censor, he could ask the libcom admins, the NEFAC friends admin (I could do it), and Kana@myspace platformists group to delete the discussions.
Jun 8 2007 21:39
Flint wrote:
Uncontrollable wrote:
Does a few Myspace comments really constitute an "18 month international smear campaign"? Rise isn't a member of NEFAC, he's a supporter of NEFAC. I don't know, I think I can tell the difference between someone talikng out of his ass on a Myspace forum, which no one probably reads but us, and someone really accusing them of getting paid by the feds. And I believe he took back what he said, did he not?Exactly.
It only came back up again because Oliver wanted to make an issue of it. It's not like Rise is sending out letters to anarchists world wide, not even email (outside of . He's not posting articles to indymedia, ainfos, anarkismo, infoshop, etc... maybe ainfos, anarkismo or infoshop might have declined to publish such an article, but indymedia definitely would publish it. He's not translating his critique into Spanish and sending it in letters to organizations in Venezuela or anywhere else. He's not calling up comrades around the world. He's not going on a speaking tour about it.
Infact, a google search on this only turns up the libcom discussions and a single reference to the libcom discussion in a comment on another blog. Rise's contribution were on 1/13/2007 and 1/14/2007.
The original libcom discussion links (that Oliver linked to) to a private membership platformist discussion group on myspace. Paul's contribution to that discussion being a couple days in August 2006.
There is a similar discussion on the inactive NEFAC friends list over a few days in early April 2006. That list has a private membership, and the archives are only accessible by list subscribers.
That's it. That's the entire "campaign".
Everyone who has wanted to has definitely put out their position. Everyone has had a chance to explain what they were saying, to retract things, or not retract things.
Oliver's hostility to Rise is doing more to spread anything Rise said, than anything Rise said.
My advice is if Oliver really wanted to bury Rise's words on this, he stop bring it the fuck up all the time any time anyone mentions Rise's name.
If Oliver wanted to censor, he could ask the libcom admins, the NEFAC friends admin (I could do it), and Kana@myspace platformists group to delete the discussions.
Oliver, I believe what Flint is trying to say (in his own obtusely diplomatic way) is shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business.
Jun 9 2007 01:00
Whatever. I was about done with this discussion anyways - apparently calling someone "black propaganda for the US State Department" is not that big of a deal.
I still think that rise's (un-revoked) accusation are a big deal but this is no longer a fruitful way to discuss it.
Since its been insinuated that I jump at the chance to attack NEFAC, I'll let my last contribution be to point out once again that this only came up because i was actually defending NEFAC from an accusation that they have members who support the state in Venezuela.
Jun 9 2007 01:02
What about the ChuckO and the IWW?
Jun 9 2007 01:06
thugarchist wrote:
What about the ChuckO and the IWW?
ChuckO is a dues paying, voting member of the IWW, Rise is just a NEFAC supporter. Its not the same thing Duke. 
Jun 9 2007 01:17
Uncontrollable wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
What about the ChuckO and the IWW?ChuckO is a dues paying, voting member of the IWW, Rise is just a NEFAC supporter. Its not the same thing Duke.
Whatever. I was about done with this discussion anyways - apparently calling someone a fed is not that big of a deal.
I still think that ChuckO's (revoked upon threat of violence) accusation is a big deal but this is no longer a fruitful way to discuss it.
Since its been insinuated that I jump at the chance to attack the nearly everyone, I'll let my last contribution be to point out once again that this only came up because i was actually defending sanity from total rabid craziness.
Jun 9 2007 02:02
OliverTwister wrote:
If I'm not mistaken he retracted it right?Anyways the IWW has a pretty difficult expulsion process... it's a lot different than someone asking to join your "theoretically united" group of 50, and no one opposing.
But I do still think that what he said is a big problem and we'll see what happens.
more people have been kicked out of the IWW then NEFAC. I'm pretty sure it's simpler.
Any member can bring charges to the GA. You present the case, and he has to defend himself. Then there is a vote.
Jun 9 2007 02:08
OliverTwister wrote:
If anyone had asked me whether Chuck0 should join the IWW i'd have said "no". That said there's a difference between one stupid offhand comment which was retracted, and an ongoing slander campaign.
any member of the iww can bring charges.
there is a charges committee. That committee on the charges you have presented.
if chucko should be expelled there is a simple straight forward process. it is used at every single General Assembly and sometimes in between. That dude Bill from portland was expelled based on charges brought about two years ago.
Jun 9 2007 02:11
Uncontrollable wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
What about the ChuckO and the IWW?ChuckO is a dues paying, voting member of the IWW, Rise is just a NEFAC supporter. Its not the same thing Duke.
yeah it's fucking worse.
a dues paying member and voting member of the IWW can be brought up on charges and expelled for not adhering to the policies of the IWW.
Jun 9 2007 02:15
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!
Jun 9 2007 02:30
revol68 wrote:
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!
well. that's helpful dialogue.
you should be banned. serioulsy
why does anyone tolerate the hate that spews from your wretched mouth. You are a disgrace.
Jun 9 2007 02:34
thugarchist wrote:
...Are you purging ChuckO or not? I'm betting I can find some similar statements made against people by Bekken too. Should I start googling?
I doubt it's online, but I still have hardcopies of the magazines in which Bekken and Hargis slandered me. Photocopies available upon request.
Jun 9 2007 02:48
there is a letter from bekken slandering on in the letters to the editors section of the IW.
oliver should file charges.
Jun 9 2007 02:57
Fuck off piecard.
And who is "on"?
Jun 9 2007 03:09
on = typo = me
so will you bring up charges on bekken and chucko or does you ideological purity only work on groups that you aren't apart of and don't have a say in?
Jun 9 2007 16:24
revol68 wrote:
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!
Exactly why I like them.
Jun 9 2007 16:48
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!Exactly why I like them.
That's right. If you don't like our shoes you can fuck off mate!
Jun 9 2007 19:53
All these problems could be easily resolved if only NEFAC/IWW/libcom adopted the BROWN CARD system.
Quote:
**) Ochlarchists, i.e. people and organizations/groups infiltrating the anarchistmovement and posing as anarchists and doing ochlarchy (mob rule broadly defined), getting the BROWN CARD, are expelled from the anarchist movement. Thus, receiving the BROWN CARD in this case means expulsion from the anarchist movement. Other ochlarchists may also get the BROWN CARD, but they are of course not expelled from the anarchist movement because they did not pose as anarchists anyway.
BROWN CARDs all around, I say.
Jun 9 2007 21:25
Is Oliver giving ChuckO a Brown Card or not?
Jun 9 2007 22:30
i'm still waiting for you to use the purge power that you do have in the charges system of the iww.
Jun 10 2007 03:59
revol68 wrote:
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!
they would love to have more cunts. it would be more correct to say:
Yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cocks, simple!
what's your platform?
Jun 10 2007 04:39
revol68 wrote:
Mathias wrote:
revol68 wrote:
yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cunts, simple!they would love to have more cunts. it would be more correct to say:
Yeah but NEFAC are a bunch of hateful platformist cocks, simple!
what's your platform?
Anti-union... er... uh... syndicalist ye right cunt ye!
Aaah...
Jun 10 2007 06:47
OliverTwister wrote:
If anyone had asked me whether Chuck0 should join the IWW i'd have said "no". That said there's a difference between one stupid offhand comment which was retracted, and an ongoing slander campaign.
It's tough to call my postiong on libcom a "campaign", but I wish there was a campaign to expose the CRA and their bullshit, although it seems that's not necessary - most of the latin american anarchist community and apparently the IWA have totally discredited them already. Anyway, I stand 100% behind everything I've said on this site.
Can comment on articles and discussions
This would only have made sense if the CRA were putting out fake pro-Chavez propaganda!