Holy Family of Libcom, a work in progress

Craftwork wrote:...for a society without spectacles. 👓

Although most perceptive of you, Crafty, my major concern—having been partially blinded in my right eye (anyone know why one eye should be affected and not the other?) by mobile phone use—are these little blue screens. The two modern conveniences are interconnected, as my blindness resulted from a visit to the optician, who advised against prolonged use of blue light emitting devices, and to keep such devices at a good distance. Both points of his advice I subconsciously contravened on a Saturday morning in bed. My only comfort is the one of my flesh, yourselves, and the words of masiah:

If your right eye should be your downfall, tear it out and throw it away; for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body thrown into sheol.

westartfromhere wrote:

Craftwork wrote:...for a society without spectacles. 👓

Although most perceptive of you, Crafty, my major concern—having been partially blinded in my right eye (anyone know why one eye should be affected and not the other?) by mobile phone use—are these little blue screens. The two modern conveniences are interconnected, as my blindness resulted from a visit to the optician, who advised against prolonged use of blue light emitting devices, and to keep such devices at a good distance. Both points of his advice I subconsciously contravened on a Saturday morning in bed. My only comfort is the one of my flesh, yourselves, and the words of masiah:

If your right eye should be your downfall, tear it out and throw it away; for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body thrown into sheol.

Not meaning to dominate you intellectually, but common sense told me, Yes, most people have one dominant eye, meaning their brain primarily relies on the visual input from one eye over the other, similar to how we have a dominant hand (left or right) for most tasks; this is a normal trait and is often referred to as "ocular dominance".

syndicalist wrote: Syndicalist - I am who I am.

Surely, the syndicalist is, I am because we are.

syndicalist wrote: Coventry used to have a militant workers tradition...

Whatever happened to Joseph Kay?

Still has. Tradition is passed on, 'Man's Immortality Lives in His Progeny Memories!'

Perhaps we can raise him from the dead (bourgie circle of friends)?

Agent of the International wrote: It seems nobody wants to address the fact that hundreds of old threads are no longer accessible. They don’t show up in any search. It looks like they have been deleted forever.

Deleted threads; deleted comments; deleted articles; nullified user accounts... It is theft of the producers' own intellectual property, pure and simple.

Also, by removing the ability for users of the site to trace their activity, as was possible on the previous format, only the administrators—the effective owners of the site—retain that function. The function of Private Messaging other users was also removed. It does beg the question, Who do these changes—this new permutation—benefit? Certainly not the common user of the site.

Perhaps these changes have had a positive effect of traffic on the site, but as no traffic reports are any longer forthcoming, who knows?

The worst danger is never the determined opponent, but one’s own compromise.

nastyned wrote:

Mad as a box of frogs the ICC

I only know the ICC on this site. Alf never struck me as mad. Never claimed to be the daughter of Henry VIII, or such like. Perhaps you should address your accusations to him?

The "logic of the asylum" (Ingram) is that the lunatics take over. Perhaps Ingram prefers the purveyors of Persian rugs over the anarchy that oftentimes holds sway on the wards?

Agent of the International wrote: The ICC were pretty big on the nonsensical idea of a semi-State.

Nonsense, fine, but don't belittle the suffering of the victims of psychiatric oppression with slurs like "barmy", "mad", "crackpot"... Please