DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Enrager Anarchist FAQ V1.2

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 3 2004 00:06
Enrager Anarchist FAQ V1.2

This is in response to a thread in general about the need for an accesible Anarchist FAQ. I haven't included any history, and I've steered well clear of quoting anyone.

NB// No flames please about stuff I've left out, but suggestions on what can be deleted/improved/needs including are welcome.

NB// Edited to simplify language

--------------------------------

Anarchist FAQ

What is Anarchism?

Anarchism is one of a very few words which has two almost precisely opposed meanings (look it up in the dictionary if you're sceptical).

In the case talked about here, Anarchists are:

- Pro mutual aid

- Anti bosses and the state.

Mutual Aid?

You know when people voluntarily organise things that benefit their community? That's mutual aid. When an earthquake goes off in Turkey, and thousands of people help out saving the victims without getting paid, it's mutual aid in action. On a smaller level, it's local groups voluntarily organising everything from music recitals to self-help seminars.

Mutual aid is also the basis for Anarchist 'economics' (not really the right word to use, but it'll have to do). Instead of having a money based system of exchange, everyone creates for everyone else voluntarily.

E.g. A farmer will give his vegetables freely to a watchmaker even though he doesn't need a watch, because he does need things like fertilizer, and the fertilizer maker might well need one.

Things are therefore produced according to need, not profit capacity, resulting in higher quality goods, less work for all and no overproduction/consumption to cause boom and bust. I'll go into this more later.

How does that tie in with bombing things and revolutionary slogans?

Most Anarchists don't bomb things - in fact I'd guess most Anarchists have never even seen a bomb let alone blown one up. Anarchists are not killers, nor are they mindless thugs. You've probably seen the Mayday riots, and it's true that the police have a nasty habit of starting fights with us, but in the main we are no more or less violent than anyone else - and we do not fight without a very good reason. As with any 'extremist' group we do sometimes attract nutters, but these aren't taken seriously by real Anarchists.

Revolutionary is also misleading. Anarchists come in all shapes, from all-out 'I want it now' revolutionary to gradual reformist, and it is entirely up to you to decide which one makes most sense. What is agreed on by all is the end result, which is the introduction of a kinder, freer and more equal society. In those terms only is Anarchism revolutionary.

When you say you're anti-state though...

That's often taken to mean we're also anti the people in the state. We aren't. People tell you all the time you should be more proud of 'our' nation, but since when has a national policy been helpful except by accident? People work around national decrees, not because of them. We're far more interested in letting local people decide what's best. You have way more knowledge and experience of what works for your community than any smartarse in Whitehall could ever do.

But it sounds like you're just saying lets get rid of law and order and leave everyone to it. It'd be... Well... Anarchy.

This is the bit most people have trouble with. Yes we are anti law, but we aren't anti order. Anarchists believe that laws are a) Used in 90 per cent of cases to prop up the government and big business and b) In all other cases pretty much useless.

Taking the example of murder, tinkering with the law has not made the slightest difference to the actual murder rate - reducing sentences from death, to life, to five years out in three has not led to an explosion of killings. Changes in the economy however have had a massive impact.

Given that an Anarchist society wouldn't be subject to the kind of boom and bust you see today, this suggests that the crime rate would almost certainly be substantially lower under our system.

But getting rid of law altogether there'd be nothing to tell people what's acceptable...

Well this is where mutual aid, and habit, come in to take up the slack.

Habit? What the hell has that got to do with anything?

You've heard of the Nature versus Nurture debate? Despite all the science we have no-one is entirely sure how much of a part genetics, as opposed to upbringing, plays in shaping the adults we become.

Anarchists, and most unaffiliated scientists, come down on the side of the latter. A habit is what everybody recognises as unwritten law, like flushing the loo before you leave. If you don't do it the police wont cart you away but it's unsociable and people will disapprove. The result is that the vast majority of people - particularly if they're know about bacteria and disease - flush and get angry if other people don't.

We believe that if habits are changed to encourage mutual aid and discourage antisocial behaviour, this combined with proper education and a stateless and equal community will be more than adequate to replace the school of criminality that is prison.

Well it might be fine for making people flush the loo, but we're talking madmen and murderers here. You can't stop them just by saying 'this is bad'.

No you can't stop the insane from comitting crimes, but as has already been pointed out, neither does the law. At best it keeps them away from the people they might hurt for a while by putting them all in jail. Anarchists would argue however that if you put all of these people in one place where the norm is violent/irrational behaviour this will not reduce the number of psychotics in the long run but actually increase it, by putting people who might otherwise be saved in a situation where violence is an accepted part of life.

Anarchism doesn't claim to have all the answers to questions like this, no-one can but we do notice when an existing system is failing to make any difference. For the sake of completeness there is a theory that care in the community is the most effective idea, because it normalises them. There are various cases of violent, mentally maladjusted people who became docile when placed into a community of people who knew how to deal with them.

And what about people who are just bad to the bone? How can you possibly deal with them?

Again, without knowing the specific circumstances it's difficult to say how that sort of situation should be dealt with. What is true is that the vast majority of 'evil' people have a past based in poverty, abuse, similarly 'evil' parents or all three, and this is something that would be drastically reduced in a society based on mutual aid running without a profit motive.

What is also true is that there is no reason why a society should not defend itself against that sort of person shoud they try to take advantage. Anarchists are pro freedom but we aren't stupid. There will always be times when you have to defend against your liberties being taken away by someone else, and this includes the freedom to live without fear.

What about the greedy, and lazy? Why would people work in a world where no-one has to?

Again this comes down to habit and mutual aid. As was mentioned earlier, if people feel there is a need for something they'll generally go out and do it, whether they're offered money or not. This is an instinct we all share. The selfish desire to do no work is something our society encourages, but even today, it is a social stigma if you don't work - if you've ever been dole scum or a student layabout, you'll know all about this.

Under Anarchism the emphasis on working for a living would actually be far greater than it is now, because if you are taking things for free off other people but give nothing back you will very quickly find yourself out of favour with everybody. In places where 'unorganised' groups have taken control, such as in Argentina, it is noticable that factory output has actually gone up, despite decreased hours.

What's wrong with hierarchy? Surely if people are in charge it's because they're best for the job?

We think it's wrong to assume that a small group of people are so much wiser that they deserve to lead everyone else. Politicians may be smart, and in some cases the Trotskyists and Leninists* are too, but that doesn't make them clever enough to run a land full of millions of people, nor does it make them immune to corruption.

A quick question back to you though. You've never met politicians, you probably never will, they don't know the first thing about you, your family or your community, yet you're prepared to let them run most of your life. Given that you sometimes help out your mates over people you don't know, are you not in the least bit worried that they'll give preferential treatment to the people and places they're part of?

That's different. I'm not running a country.

So? You think the amount of corruption you have now is likely to get smaller when you're wielding far greater power? I know I wouldn't trust myself to have that sort of self control. Anarchists are at heart extremely cynical people. We recognise that humans are a flawed race, and we don't handle power well. The only way to get around this is to take that possibility out of the equation.

This also explains why we're against Left and Right fairly equally. They're as bad as each other when it comes to the crunch. With the Left just look at China, or the USSR, or Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea. The majority got Left behind (narf). If you haven't noticed the tendency of this society with its one in five poor in the UK alone to screw the poor and empower the rich, I'm not sure why you'd be reading this in the first place.

Okay fine you've said how it could be run, and why it should be done, but how? Most people aren't interested or ready to live without a government.

True enough, and not only is this the point at which we part ways with the Left, it's something we are constantly arguing about. Some Anarchists believe in revolution, some in reform and there are even some who advocate a return to barbarism. There's no one easy answer and it's not something that can be solved in a FAQ; I'm afraid you'll have to come to a conlusion on that through your own experience and learning.

It just seems so useless when everyone around me is so uninterested, what's the point?

The point should not be that everyone else is uninterested, it's that you personally should be Anarchist. This can be done in any number of ways, and again it wouldn't be very Anarchist to dictate these to you.

As examples though, commonly used tactics include practicing Mutual Aid in your own community, promoting the virtues of Anarchism to others and undermining big business by always trying to buy small and local. There is also Direct Action, or going out and fighting directly for things that are good for your community.

If you have no other choice (for example with buying water/electricity from massive utility companies) there's no shame in not doing something Anarchist in that particular case - only you know what you can and can't do to help out. But crying defeat before you've even begun is simply not the answer.

--------------------

*Trots and Leninists are the ones who keep telling you the only way to a better future is to let them lead you to it, because they know all about Marx and stuff. Good for them, I'm sure they'd be welcome in the Soviet Union but I suspect most Russians today would like to give them a good kicking for ruining the country.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 3 2004 00:28

Good start Saii smile Nice one...

Interesting answer to the 1st Q - never seen anyone do it without all the stuff about the greek meaning of the word wink

Bit tired to comment on individual bits now but there are somethings i would recomend to change....

What do others think?

Coconut man
Offline
Joined: 13-02-04
Mar 3 2004 02:51

Very good, this is the first anarchist FAQ I have seen that isnt several pages long, which means I actually read the entire thing, unlike the big long ones where I just read parts of it. smile

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 3 2004 09:00
revol68 wrote:
i think u should qualifty ur statement on marxists ... i would consider myself one yet im a council communist/ anarcho syndicalist.

Sorry revol but if you consider yourself a Marxist you are definitely not an anarcho-syndicalist. You could be a revolutionary syndicalist though or a council communist but I can't see how you can be both.

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 3 2004 11:16

I'd say it's entirely possible to be a marxist (or accept the fundamentals of marxs' approach - as most anarchists do i believe) and an anarchist - though i don't think it often happens succesfully, as experience has shown.What it is impossible to do, is to be an anarchist and a trot or some form of leninist.

Though i suppose what you consider being a marxist entails is quite important.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Mar 3 2004 11:42

Council communists are generally very hostile to anarcho-syndicalism though.

But I suppose Otto Rühle kind of bridged the gap.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 3 2004 12:33

NB// I'll put all changes as an edit to the piece at the top of the board, so new suggestions don't just end up repeating old ones.

------------------

Don't dismiss Marx: Fair point actually, from what little I've read of Marx (The German Ideology basically) his historical analysis seems absolutely spot on, and generally doesn't conflict with Anarchism. Everyone fine with renaming the point of disagreement as statist marxism?

Capitalist bit: The point of the idealism is to enthuse people on a subject they'd naturally dismiss as pie in the sky. Yes it's a bit hippyish, but I'm trying to make the whole thing unthreatening and optimistic so as not to scare people off.

I've changed what I think you were complaining about regarding Capitalist w/cers (apols if I've misinterpreted).

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 3 2004 13:13

I'm not writing Marx off its just there are fundamental differences between Marxism and anarchism. The basis of anarcho-syndicalism is combining the political & the economic, it is not just economic. Also it's not a very anarchist approach to force people to do anything let alone read Marx who, lets face it, is not the easiest of reads. Anarcho-syndicalism is about direct action though and not reading lots of things by dead beardy blokes.

Final point to Saii. I think Marx’s historical analysis is deeply flawed and does actually conflict with anarchism but in the end I haven’t got the time or the inclination to argue historical determinism with you. Sorry.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 3 2004 15:08

hence the 'from what little I know' bit wink. I reckon it'd probably be as wise to emphasise what we have in common with marx rather than what we disagree with for the purpose of the faq though, as it makes it less frightening for newbs.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 3 2004 17:55
revol68 wrote:
actually to many anarchists substitute activism for actual proper critiques, kickin it till it breaks is bollox, action without coherency uis pointless.

Agreed. I think we need a balance. It's no use quoting theorists at people though. We've got to have pratical solutions. I'd no more quote Bakunin or Kropotkin than Marx. smile

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 3 2004 20:58
Steve wrote:

Agreed. I think we need a balance. It's no use quoting theorists at people though. We've got to have pratical solutions. I'd no more quote Bakunin or Kropotkin than Marx. :)

Steve, you've hit the nail on the head so to speak.

I'm your typical working class guy who has very recently come across 'Anarchism'. I've never read any Marx, Bakunin or Kropotkin, in fact I've never even heard of 90% of the names that crop up in the threads I read on this site! I am the kind of person you'd need to convince if there is ever going to be a revolution of some kind.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 3 2004 23:08

Have made this thread sticky cos it would be cool to see the FAQ develop a bit more then we can put it on the site smile

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 3 2004 23:45

Where do anarchists stand on the issue of money?

Will there be a trading currency in an anarchist society?

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 3 2004 23:50
Quote:
Mutual Aid?

You know when people voluntarily organise things that benefit their community? That's mutual aid. When an earthquake goes off in Turkey, and thousands of people help out saving the victims with no profit motive, it's mutual aid in action. On a smaller level, it's local groups voluntarily organising everything from music recitals to self-help seminars.

Mutual aid is also the basis for Anarchist 'economics' (not really the right word to use, but it'll have to do). Instead of having a barter system or a money based system of exchange, everyone creates for everyone else voluntarily.

E.g. A farmer will give his vegetables freely to a watchmaker even though he doesn't need a watch, because he does need things like fertilizer, and the fertilizer maker might well need one either then or later.

Things are thus produced according to need, not profit capacity, resulting in higher quality goods, less work for all and no overproduction/consumption to cause boom and bust. I'll go into this more later.

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 3 2004 23:56

If you are interested in economics SolFed have recently published a pamphlet "The economics of freedom" and it doesn't quote Bakunin or Marx anywhere. smile

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 3 2004 23:57
rkn wrote:
Quote:
Mutual Aid?

You know when people voluntarily organise things that benefit their community? That's mutual aid. When an earthquake goes off in Turkey, and thousands of people help out saving the victims with nm profit motive, it's mutual aid in action. On a smaller level, it's local groups voluntarily organising everything from music recitals to self-help seminars.

Mutual aid is also the basis for Anarchist 'economics' (not r%ally the right word to use, but it'll have to do). Instead of having a barter system or a money based system of exchange, everyone creates for everyone else vo,untarily.

E.g. A farmer will give his vegetables freely to a watchmaker even though he doesl't need a watch, because he does need things like fertilizer, and the fertilizer maker might well need one either then or later.

Things are thus produced according to need, not profit capacity, resulting in higher quality goods, less work for all and no overproduction/consumption to cause boom and bust. I'll go into this more later.

I see. So how do we get rid of money without a total breakdown of society as we know it?

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 3 2004 23:58
Steve wrote:
If you are interested in economics SolFed have recently published a pamphlet "The economics of freedom" and it doesn't quote Bakunin or Marx anywhere. :)

Who are SolFed?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 4 2004 00:01
LeighGionaire wrote:

I see. So how do we get rid of money without a total breakdown of society as we know it?

Aren't we in fact after a breakdown of society as we know it?

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 4 2004 00:05
butchersapron wrote:
LeighGionaire wrote:

I see. So how do we get rid of money without a to4al breakdown of society as we know it?

Aren't we in fact after a breakdown of society as we know it?

But won't a breakdown in society just lead to a police state? How do you combat this scenario?

Steve
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 4 2004 00:10
LeighGionaire wrote:
Who are SolFed?

The Solidarity Federation. http://www.solfed.org.uk/

Anarcho-syndicalists. (sort of anarchist trade unions)

Also the Lancashire Local http://mysite.freeserve.com/LancashireSF/index.jhtml

red n black star smile

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 4 2004 00:12

Thanks for the links Steve.

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Mar 4 2004 02:01

Previously you could have join%d an anarcho syndicate simply because you worked with people who were in the syndicate. Whether or not all members of an anarcho syndicate are in fact died in the wool anarchists is a moot point.

As far as I'm concerned if you agree with the aims and principles of your organisation you can read and spout off about as much as you like about Marx and still be in (but be ready to receive serious criticism). At one Solidarity Federation meeting we had a member quoted Chairman Mao. Solidarity is what matters and he is a commited militant and highly trusted.

It is however political as well as economic otherwise we would just be a political party or a trade union.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 4 2004 11:13
Quote:
But won't a breakdown in society just lead to a police state? How do you combat this scenario?

Well in the long term, societal norms and education would be put place to avoid this (see Faq), but I'm guessing you meant short term during/just after the ac4ual transition of power?

There are too many strands of thought on this to put in a single faq (hence the suggestion that you'll just have to come to your own conclusion through experience/learning), but the two main ones, fairly obviously, are revolution and reform.

Malatesta wrote a short but excellent book during which he quickly argues the pro-revolution side ('Anarchy', available from Freedom Press), and there are some cases such as the Paris Commune/Spanish Civil War/South American factory occupations that show that revolution doesn't necessarily have to end in a reactionary backlash/rise of a new dominant class within the community actually doing it. The fact that outside forces were more than capable of bringing them down however may also be relevant.

Colin Ward, though hd is often scoffed at for being a bit wishy washy, is probably the most relevant exponent of the other end, which is the idea of treating Anarchism very much as a moral code you then spread around. This equates pretty much to a revolution from within the state, where there is never a full on war, just more and more people agreeing with, living by and promoting anarchism until big business and government become so short of support they simply waste away. Again the point that government/business elites is not going to take this sort of thing lying down is highly relevant. Ward's written a book called Anarchy in Action (Freedom Press) which might be useful to you for this.

Anonymous
Mar 4 2004 12:02
Saii wrote:
That's different. I'm not running a country.

So? You think the amount of corruption you have now is likely to get smaller when you're wielding far greater power? I know I wouldn't trust myself to have that sort of self control. Anarchists are at heart extremely cynical people. We recognise that humans are a flawed race, and we don't handle power well. The only way to get around this is to take that possibility out of the equation.

I really like the FAQ - it makes the whole thing seem accessible and commonsense - which is exactly what is needed.

But I have a few points. On the above quote - it sounds a bit negative. Rather than "humans are flawed so we don't want hierarchy to place power in the hands of the few", shouldn't the argument be along the lines of "humans are flawed in the present because much of what they can do is limited by the hierarchies that exist all around them and constrain most of their day-to-day actions - this stunts their growth and breeds frustration; what we propose is an overcoming of those hierarchies so that humans can work together and achieve more through mutual aid - this will allow humans to flourish and feel less hostility and antagonism towards each other". I just thought that kind of argument was more positive.

Quote:

The point should not be that everyone else is Capitalist or apathetic, it's that you personally should be Anarchist, in thought and as far as possible in deed. This doesn't mean bricking McDonalds, but it does mean practicing Mutual Aid in your own community, promoting the virtues of Anarchism to others and undermining big business by always trying to buy small and local. There is also Direct Action, or going out and fighting directly for things that are good for your community.

If you have no other choice (for example with buying water from massive utility companies) there's no shame in not doing something Anarchist in that particular case, it's all about changing your normal behaviour and showing others by your example - having a positive effect on the development of societal norms in your community.

I prefered the answer you gave to a similar question earlier in the FAQ - where you said it's up to people to make their own minds up. This seems to be prescribing a certain kind of behaviour if people want to be Anarchists. I think this risks being majorly contradictory. Wouldn't it be better to say something like - "we don't believe in prescribing a particular type of action, but we do believe that cooperation (both to empower ourselves and to overcome external attempts to impose hierachy upon us) should be a guiding principle in our actions". Then you could say "some people choose certain actions - e.g. practicing mutual aid in their community, or buying local products - but the way in which anarchist principles are realised in practice must necessarily be left up to the individual. We don't espouse a fixed doctrine that everyone must adhere to - BECAUSE we are anarchists!".

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 4 2004 15:03
Saii wrote:
Quote:
But won't a breakdown in society just lead to a police state? How do you combat this scenario?

Well in the long term, societal norms and education would be put place to avoid this (see Faq), but I'm guessing you meant short term during/just after the actual transition of power?

What I actually meant is that the people in power would impose a Police State as soon as they percieve any real threat to their authority.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 4 2004 18:51

John:

Quote:
On the above quote - it sounds a bit negative

It's a difficult balancing act to make something like this optimistic without sounding so idealist it gets accused of being impractical. The purpose of that line was generally to emphasise that we're as hardheaded as anyone else about the practicalities of it.

The last couple of pars... Yeah that's a fair point well made.

LeighGionaire:

Quote:
people in power would impose a Police State as soon as they percieve any real threat to their authority.

Ah right. Difficult one that, and worthy of its own thread, particularly given current events. Revolutionaries might say that's a sign we're heading in the right direction, so we'd need to work even harder to make sure we're in the majority, and build up weapons/ferment trouble for when the revolution begins. Reformists would probably suggest going underground, keeping very quiet, and continuing to gather ever greater support until either we had the numbers to mount a bloodless coup, the state was weakened too far to continue its fascist policies, or the crisis abated naturally. The problem in both cases is if we aren't sufficiently prepared to do it properly we'll get fucked over.

That's by no means a definitive answer though, and I can't pretend to speak for anyone else's personal view. Generally those are the two extremes of the argument.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 4 2004 23:02

Back to money. These 'anarchists' created their own.

Quote:
The Italian anarchists followed the example of events in Russia, and went along with the partisans of soviet power in the period immediately after the Great War. The Russian Revolution had been received with deep sympathy by the Italian workers, especially by their vanguard, the metal workers of the northern part of the country. On February 20, 1919, the Italian Federation of Metal Workers (FIOM) won a contract providing for the election of "internal commissions" in the factories. They subsequently tried to transform these organs of workers' representation into factory councils with a managerial function, by conducting a series of strikes and occupations of the factories.

The last of these, at the end of August 1920, originated in a lockout by employers. 1 ll~ metal workers as a whole decided to continue production on their own. They tried persuasion and constraint alternately, but failed to win the cooperation of the engineers and supervisory personnel. The management of the factories had, therefore, to be conducted by technical and administrative workers' committees. Self-management went quite a long way: in the early period assistance was obtained from the banks, but when it was withdrawn the self-management system issued its own money to pay the workers' wages. Very strict self-discipline was required, the use of alcoholic beverages forbidden, and armed patrols were organized for self-defence. Very close solidarity was established between the factories under self-management. Ores and coal were put into a common pool, and shared out equitably.

http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/anarchism_guerin/italy.html

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 5 2004 11:34

just a thunk here, but maybe it wouldlnt be a bad thing to make a list of "Anarchy in action"

i.e. examples of periods in the past where communities came together and proved that our ideas aren't stupid day dreams of a bunch of idealistic fools....

I don't know enough about this stuff to kick it off, but there are a fair few on here who could.

And I think it would be worthwhile to back up a FAQ for newcomers to see we're not insane, though we might be.

Also I just wanna say I think LeighGionare's name is cool a hell! grin I love good play on words names...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 5 2004 12:20

Good idea, it could conceivably be done as a series of links under each answer, so if people are sceptical they can easily find practical backup for what's being said (putting them on the faq page itself would make it too unwieldy). That might allow me to cut the length of the faq itself down a bit as well.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 5 2004 20:24
Kalashnikov_Blues wrote:

Also I just wanna say I think LeighGionare's name is cool a hell! grin I love good play on words names...

wink Actually it was the name of a fanzine I was going to produce for Leigh Centurions Rugby League club. Alas, I never quite got round to it . . . . . actually that pretty much sums up my life! eek

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 9 2004 18:09

Is that it for criticism of the faq then (frankly I'm amazed there hasn't been more argument, must've done a good job grin)? Cos if no-one's got any more objections maybe it can be put up on enrager?