steve it would be easier to take this serious if it wasn't coming from a wing nut like yourself.
I would imagine the atmosphere on libcom has a neglible effect on the development of libertarian communist tendencies amongst the class, I would imagine support for the brutal slaying of commuters might be more of a hinderance than me telling some primmo to go stick his bongos up his arse.
Oh forgot to ask Steve how is your "anarchist" campaign for the repeal of the welfare state going?
I really wish someone would ban this muppet. He's either lacking something or a state asset.
tool.
Hey!
No flaming, bitch! 
To be honest, sometimes i really want to stop posting on this board, because on the whole this community is far better read than myself. And posters here often ostracise & parody what they see as dumb posts. Though they try not to do this to newbies, mstly, its very intimidating. It makes it very hard to ask questions / enter into discussions on the thought forums. I get the feeling that if people are not at the same stages of learning/ thought they get written off as - dont bother. So i guess sometimes it feels quite clsed here.
Dont get me wrong though - i dont believe in dumbing down, I just rekon that engaing people in debate is more effective and less patronising than some forms of propaganda, and does not follow that this means acceptance - pluralism.
i do however think this community is great and a v. important resource.
Fuck fuck fuck this is a troll isnt it...
are you a swp? i'm gonna lay off this site for a while its doing my head in.
Good on yer, Steve. Yes, the viciousness of some put-downs is an awkward feature of this site. So abysmal are my IT skills that I often need the assistence of my young neice to work the pedals and I am naturallyreluctant to expose to the vitriol of some anonymous droog in a bed-sit.
Peter Good (TCA)
This is an issue which cuts right to the heart of the effectiveness of the Libcom website as an organizing, debating, campaign and outreach tool.
It'd be more effective as an organising tool if people didn't post meta-discussion threads in the organise section.
I really wish someone would ban this muppet.
I know, maybe a two-week ban would do the trick? One week of which to be spent on holiday. That's the best way 
Hi
It'd be more effective as an organising tool if people didn't post meta-discussion threads in the organise section
Is my meta-discussion thread OK? I think insults are OK, but should be kept in “General”.
Love
LR
I love your meta-discussion thread - it's a great idea and was posted in exactly the right place, as you point out!
It can go too far, and alot of people who would post on here, dont because of a handful of posters who spend all day looking for someone to rip the piss out off.
Although most of the time its just boredom that gets filled up with piss takes.
steve it would be easier to take this serious if it wasn't coming from a wing nut like yourself....
I really wish someone would ban this muppet. He's either lacking something or a state asset.
How does this sort of comment advance anything? This is exactly the type of post of which I was commenting on. You obviously have some sort of personal vendetta against me here. Calling to ban me indeed. But so what?
I am very sorry but I doubt very much if the politics you are trying to advance by these methods will ever amount to anything or make any real positive difference to the world in which you live.
Whatever it is you have to offer Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms. pseudonymous "revol68", I don't want it.
....
'wing nut' 'muppet' 'state asset'...
If you repeat a smear often enough does it becomes the truth?
Stephen Booth
lets look at your political history, embrace pritivism, support the UNA bomber and applaud the Sarin gas attacks on Tokyo commuters.
Now you seem to running around like a headless chicken writing articles arguing that anarchists should be involved in campaigns to repeal the Welfare state.
I think you are either a sad confused fuckwit convinced of their own profoundness or a state asset out to sew idiotic and incoherent ideas amongst the anarchist milleiu (though fuck knows I doubt that needs the states help).
No matter what i view you with disdain and refuse to take anything you post seriously.
FFS it wasn't as even if you were just young and angry when you justified those fucking atrocities.
a sad confused fuckwit convinced of their own profoundness or a state asset out to sew idiotic and incoherent ideas amongst the anarchist milleiu
he who smelt it dealt it. revol, go look in the mirror.
lets look at your political history, embrace pritivism, support the UNA bomber and applaud the Sarin gas attacks on Tokyo commuters....
I think you are either a sad confused fuckwit convinced of their own profoundness or a state asset out to sew idiotic and incoherent ideas amongst the anarchist milleiu (though fuck knows I doubt that needs the states help).
FACT: I was never a Primitivist. So you are spreading falsehood.
Seeing as you are oh so knowledgeable about the Irrationalists articles, I invite you to identify the dates and source details of which of the "Irrationalists" articles the following seven quotations came from:
Let's try a quotation then, in a paragraph about the Oklahoma bombing, titled 'Wacklahoma':
[1] 'On the anniversary of the Waco siege a US government office block was blown to fuck by a truckload of fertilizer explosive. The building was deliberately chosen because it also had children inside. This is what the world is coming to. A terrible, terrible atrocity. So what is the response of the American government to this? More repression, greater secret police powers, Diplock style terrorist courts, fences and concrete blocks round the White House. Tyranny drove the truck to Oklahoma and tyranny has been increased, so more Oklahoma bombings are certain. They have learned nothing...'
Here is another quote from it you will never use, on the uselessness of indiscriminate violence:
[2] 'What use is frightening (terrorising) people who have no input whatsoever into the process?'
Or how about this in the same article:
[3] 'What gives the Irrationalists the right to say 'This is no good so we are going to take peoples' lives'? Doesn't this make you as bad as the state?'
Or in another place:
[4] 'We must watch ourselves, lest we become as empty and without value as the system'.
Something else you would never quote:
[5] 'I personally don't like my theories about the Irrationalists. The issue is not whether you or I like it, but is it true?'
Never quoted, in the same article:
[6] 'I am not inciting you all to become Irrationalists. Work at your campaigns against road developments, genetics. Do everything you can to prove me wrong by your actions. Build a strong protest movement.'
Or how about this after a long list of these sort of violent events. This part would never be quoted by the likes of revol68 neither. It's even in capitals for emphasis:
[7] 'I am not saying that these events ought to be done, but simply providing examples of things that might happen.'
Seeing as you take me seriously enough to write pseudonymous and false abusive remarks about me, but not seriously enough to really consider the things I have actually written, in their context, I shan't be holding my breath waiting to find out that you are unable to answer this simple question.
Stephen Booth
revol wrote:
a sad confused fuckwit convinced of their own profoundness or a state asset out to sew idiotic and incoherent ideas amongst the anarchist milleiuhe who smelt it dealt it. revol, go look in the mirror.
random i think i've been very polite to you of late despite the fact your a very confused radical liberal.
"The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer capable of oppression.
The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive and their methods of fumigation will be competely effective."GA51 p.11
Don't try to get out of this one Steve. Anyway I thought you had recanted such stupid views, only problem is you now seem to think a campaign against social security payments is the future for anarchism.
You can twist and turn all you want but everyone knows what was meant in the Irrationalists and everyone knows that your politics are confused bag of shit.
Steve's original question applies. When you have to unpick the critique from the obscenities and the personal attacks you realise that no dialogue is possible.
Peter Good (TCA).
as i said i would have taken the question seriously if it hadn't come from someone with a terrible track record of making anarchism look like an incoherent mess or social scene for the socially dysfunctional.
and what positive contribution do you think you make to anarchism revol68?
you clearly reserve the right to not engage in dialgoue with people you think give it a bad name and instead turn into tourette's boy with them. As your such a shining example of how one makes a positive contribution to anarchism, perhaps you could share a few morsels of how you do so?
serious question like, i can only judge you based on what i read here
well firstly i don't think this message board is an organ for the extension of libertarian communism, rather i see it as a place where libertarian communists can knock ideas around, have a laugh and basically enjoy each others company.
I think the website is a great resource for theory and history.
I also think these forums are a place where ridiculous ideas get dismissed as such, instead of being respected cos of some liberal wank about diversity.
Steve Booth gets no respect from me cos he is an ole ejjit whose been knocking about crack pot theories for well over a decade.
well firstly i don't think this message board is an organ for the extension of libertarian communism, rather i see it as a place where libertarian communists can knock ideas around, have a laugh and basically enjoy each others company.I think the website is a great resource for theory and history.
I also think these forums are a place where ridiculous ideas get dismissed as such, instead of being respected cos of some liberal wank about diversity.
Steve Booth gets no respect from me cos he is an ole ejjit whose been knocking about crack pot theories for well over a decade.
hmmm, not really answering the question though, never mind
oh in that case i do my bit by having a life and not continuously preaching at people i meet.
Can't say i've been doing much at the moment as im broke and stuck in a shitty small time for most of the week. In the past i've been involved in lots of activity, some of it rather pointless now when i look back.
At present im just trying to iron out my own thoughts, especially cos i feel completely alienated from the whole activist scene.
Of course i don't see how my criticisms of Steve Booth could be weakened by anything I did short of supporting brutal attacks on innocent people followed by seeking to set up a campaign designed to withdraw the welfare state in order to triggger people into insurection.
oh in that case i do my bit by having a life and not continuously preaching at people i meet.Can't say i've been doing much at the moment as im broke and stuck in a shitty small time for most of the week. In the past i've been involved in lots of activity, some of it rather pointless now when i look back.
At present im just trying to iron out my own thoughts, especially cos i feel completely alienated from the whole activist scene.
Of course i don't see how my criticisms of Steve Booth could be weakened by anything I did short of supporting brutal attacks on innocent people followed by seeking to set up a campaign designed to withdraw the welfare state in order to triggger people into insurection.
you do your bit by having a life? nice one. also good you don't preach at people, telling them how wrong their perspective and analysis is, i hate people like that
i would say that most of the working class feel alienated from the whole activist scene so i wouldn't be too concerned about that, if anything it's a postive development
good luck in ironing out your thoughts, your clearly an intelligent guy, shame that most of the time though it manifests itself in such a negative manner
ah but you see my disdain is held for those activists fuckwits who see anarchism as their wee hobby horse, or those who are just politicos in libertarian clothing. The anti imperialist warriors, the primmo gobshites, the previleged crimethinc kids.
My problem is that i've had all these issues built up inside me since I've ever been involved in "anarchism", for 8 years now! I sat and bit my tongue listening to idiots talk absolute shit. I've watched people stagnate and realised they are just slogan machines with no desire to actually further their own ideas. I've watched shitty action after action lead to boredom and burn out. I've basically realised that most of the left are complete fucking cretins who whilst claiming to see through "the systems propaganda, man" are actually far more indoctrinated than the "masses" they seeek to deliver to salvation.
it took you 8 years to figure that out!!
>>>>>>>>>> IWCA
no i always suspected it, it just took me 8 years to get to this level of disdain.
I always knew it was shit but i kept involved through the belief that it was better than nothing, now I just realise it is worse than nothing.
And the IWCA are fucking woeful, they are fucking reconstituted leninst fuckwits, whose analysis of class is not even on a par with the conversation in a local working mans social club!
"The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer capable of oppression.The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive and their methods of fumigation will be competely effective."GA51 p.11
Don't try to get out of this one Steve. Anyway I thought you had recanted such stupid views, only problem is you now seem to think a campaign against social security payments is the future for anarchism.
You can twist and turn all you want but everyone knows what was meant in the Irrationalists and everyone knows that your politics are confused bag of shit.
So it is down to "Everybody knows" now is it? ....
I am not trying to get out of anything or twist anything. You are playing the superficial game of proof by selective quotation. I refer you back to the seven quotations in my previous posting. I think you are trying to worm your way out of answering the question. If you are such an expert on my Irrationalists articles prove it and tell us all where the quotations come from.
In most of the straw man discussion people like you offer, the same, the second paragraph from the ALB 14 article is endlessly and robotically trotted out. As you have done here, though you are so knowledgeable about this that you fail to cite the original source details correctly. You quote it out of context. It is a loop, you are stuck in a loop, the subway sarin attack bit, and that's all most people know of it. It's easy to cut and paste that bit into it from off the web, but my guess is you will search in vein for those other quotes on the internet.
Alongside that quotation, you ought to be citing the suicide bomber monologue from my novel 'City-Death', a piece in much the same vein, written 9 or 10 years before September 11th. Your constantly repeated Irrationalists paragraph, so often quoted by the Neoists and Black Flag, about the sarin attack, tried to get inside the head of the attacker, and put across the way an 'Irrationalist' would think - with intense and abiding hatred for the system and all those who prop it up. It was only the second paragraph of that particular article and there was a lot more to it.
I don't see how we can discuss such a subject without talking about acts of hyper-violence, and the perpetrators' intense and abiding hatred for the system. Their motives for doing it.
In just the same way it would be useless to discuss the motive of the 11th September attacks or the 7th July 2005 London Underground bombings without trying to think inside the heads of the attackers. Under the same type of argument you advance against what I wrote; suppose somebody wrote about September 11th and created a fictional interior monologue of Mohammed Atta, thinking his motives over to himself moments before the airliner hit the World Trade Centre. By virtue of that fact, would that make the author of that speculative reconstruction be an Al Quaeda sympathiser? - It wouldn't would it.
It is the same sort of logic which calls for there to be a ban on the Al Jazeera news channel because it tries to report information given to it by Al Quaeda, equating the messenger with the message. (I think this was the front page of the Daily Express today)
It is like saying somebody wrote a book discussing the Luddites so that makes them a Luddite - its the same sort of logical shift.
I'm sorry you've been having a hard time of it. Disagree with what I wrote by all means, and criticise it. But I am not a state asset.
Please can we keep our discussions on a reasonable level and not be abusive towards each other?
Stephen Booth
not all of them, and anyway what's so bad about being reconstituted, is it better not to even try and move on?
they don't go in for gesture politics, illusions about changing the global order etc... they've got more chance of making a connection with normal people than any of the current offering of trot and anarcho varieties
so what you going to do revol68, how will you resolve your condundrum?
This is an issue which cuts right to the heart of the effectiveness of the Libcom website as an organizing, debating, campaign and outreach tool.
The tone of debate on these boards sometimes becomes antagonistic or abusive towards people.
Some here, especially the ones being antagonistic, obviously believe this is the correct way to go about organising the expression of their political thought and their lives.
Other people believe that such antagonism is not justified, and in fact is counterproductive. People from outside looking in will see the high dudgeon the discussions sometimes take place in, and will say 'I don't care what this anarchism is, I don't want it'. And over a long period of time some people have seen the degree of energy wasted in internecine conflicts within the left, and regard it as a big part of the reason why the left often fails.
Is being abusive or hypercritical towards our political opponents effective?