Locking topics and banning people

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lemert
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Nov 29 2011 08:15
lzbl wrote:
Dude, your comments on the rape thread were totally out of line and exactly what people were complaining about on the macho posting thread. I'm glad you got temp banned for them.

The macho posting thread was about the forums attitude in general, which I actually didn't think was too bad. This was probably something to do with posters rarely talking about feminist issues which seems to be some kind of showcase for peoples idiocy. Between that and the aufheben threads (and my comments on that apply to everyone who carried on talking about it after the conversation became circular and ridiculous not just samotnaf etc) the forums have not been wonderful places to be in the past few months. Again, EXACTLY WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT ON THE MACHO POSTING THREAD.

So actually, yeah, I support the mods on this one. They have responded to requests to make the forum more accessible to people who find dickwaving tiresome and offputting. I'm not saying those are all women but the large majority were, so if your revolution thinks it's more important to keep trolls on board than half the fucking population you can go somewhere and have it by yourself.

Taken in context no my comments weren't offensive ( to a rational person). Taken out of context, as they were , ya, sure. I said people shouldnt go about beating the shit out of guys who are accused of rape at occupy events (false rape accusations being one reason). If it offends the politically correct police that much....I'm not sure what to say to that. I also said male violence as an answer to everything is something that creates more problems than solutions (i had to learn that the hard way after assaulting a NAZI - prison isnt fun).

The "dickwaving" was actually being done by mods and a couple "regular" posters who were (most of the time) pretty harsh to posters on here (me included). it created an environment of fuck you (basically a hostile environment - hence my hostility to a select few posters/mods on here).

If some "feminist" has a problem with me asking what to do with accused rapists at occupy movements then well, *throws hands in air*. Anarchists calling the COPs? I suggested a "peoples trial" but it seems the point of bringing it up is to focus on identity politics which is more alienating than some liberal feminist having her feelings hurt in a discussion about rapes at occupy events.

I've had personal experience concerning false rape accusations and subsequent violence (which was patronizingly chalked up to be "he said she said" nonsense by one of the Eddie Haskel's). Go to the thread and post word per word in context what I said that was "ban worthy" in your eyes.

A man was murdered who was attending the Oakland event- a horrible crime but should we take the focus off of spreading class awareness and focus on ending thug culture in Oakland/ America? In the rape at the occupy event it's "rape culture" which in all honesty it's very existence is is up for debate as is the liberal feminists views on patriarchy.

The point stands, if a woman is raped at an occupy event what to do? Turn the alleged crime into a platform for identity politics? Call the police? Beat the shit out of the guy? I'd rather beat the guy up or call the COPS than use the crime to push a platform that blames everything on patriarchy. Fuck that and if that hurts your feelings then your life is going to be spent with hurt feelings. Newsflash! Not all socialists buy into patriarchy/misogyny as the root of all evil.

If there's racism at occupy events it's horrible, if there's rapes at occupy events its horrible but to change the focus from worker control of industry to fighting racism and misogyny then that's a shame as well. Everyone is in some sort of sub group and I see it causing more division than working class unity (especially black nationalism and liberal feminism).

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 29 2011 08:15

Talking about false rape allegations on a thread about how people were trying to deny or minimise rape in the occupy movement was totally inappropriate. End of.

Oh, and by the way, there is no need to call me a "feminist". I am a feminist. Certainly not a liberal one either, but I'm sure that along with your other insults and gendered comments you're more interested in trying to 'hurt my feelings' than understand where you went wrong. Because that's actually why you were temp banned. Your stupidity, not anyone else's.

Lemert
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Nov 29 2011 08:28
lzbl wrote:
Talking about false rape allegations on a thread about how people were trying to deny or minimise rape in the occupy movement was totally inappropriate. End of.

Oh, and by the way, there is no need to call me a "feminist". I am a feminist. Certainly not a liberal one either, but I'm sure that along with your other insults and gendered comments you're more interested in trying to 'hurt my feelings' than understand where you went wrong. Because that's actually why you were temp banned. Your stupidity, not anyone else's.

No it's not "end of". Was the thread title "people minimizing rape in the occupy movement"? No. It was discussing "rape in the occupy movement" as that was the thread title. I put quotes on "feminist" not for disdain of all feminist theory (if you actually paid attention to my posts in that thread you'd have realized I said all of us should be feminists - I prefer to subscribe to materialist feminism).

Gendered comments? Where? Because I've come to disdain identity politics now I'm flirting with misogyny? Me being a racist will be the next insult lobbed my way.... Why is opposing identity politics stupid? Explain please.

Again I didn't go into the thread screaming "women make false rape accusations...she's lying!" I was giving reasons why it's not wise to beat the accused up. I've done the same in threads concerning beating up fascists - doesn't mean I support fascists. Take what I said in context and besides, yes, some women do lie about being raped. Crucify me for it.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 11:54
dinosavros wrote:
Yeah and the only reason they're not locking this thread so far like they did today to the thread I started about the same topic today is because Devrim is a high-status user with a lot of respect and it would lead to worse publicity for the admins to lock this one too.

I am not sure what a 'high status user' is. I have been here a reasonable amount of time, though actually I don't post that often anymore. I try to behave well on the internet, which to many seems difficult, so perhaps I can 'throw stones' as it were on issues of behaviour.

I am not really interested in the 'AufhabenGate' thing. Perhaps if I lived in the same continent, let alone country, as a small group that publish a very occasional magazine, I might be more so. If İ lived in Brighton, I probably would be. To me it seems clear that some sort of line has been crossed, and I personally would be vary weary of having any political connection with them, but then as I have said, I sort of live in a different continent, and don't run into them very often. In fact to my knowledge I have never met any of them. It won't stop me from reading their magazine because I don't read it anyway. As I remember ıt from when I lived in the UK, it was a bit intellectual and boring (The series on Russia, which I have read was pretty good).

However, I am not posting to write about that. What I was posting about was the way the admining was being handled. The post by 'lines' that was deleted, which criticised SolFed as being 'academics trying to organise workers' wasn't in anyway a security risk as far as I can see. In fact, it refered to 'groups like SolFed'. The personal information that it did reveal was that one member of SolFed was working on a Ph.D, which as he is someone who also lives on another continent wasn't something that he got from his own knowledge, but from reading this board, where the person in question said it openly.

The question that I wanted to raise was about the use of administrative methods to shield the political administration of said admins from criticisim. I am 110% sure that if somebody had written referring to the ICC as"middle class wankers* who try to tell workers what to do", nobody would have deleted it, or talked about it being a slander. Is it right that a similar comment about SolFed is seen as a lie, which must be deleted?

no1 wrote:
...it's about Devrim's perception of a new tendency to ban people and lock threads similar to RevLeft. I think he's wrong about that, all that's happening is that admins are enforcing the posting guidelines, which they have to do to stop the forums from becoming even worse and off putting.

But then RevLeft now, didn't use to be like it is today, and I did only say the beginnings of that tendency.

Spikymike wrote:
Pity about the 'lines' banning over the report button 'misuse' as I think this was an IT 'cock-up' rather than some kind of deliberate cyber attack!

He wrote to me and said that this was the case.

Devrim

*Because we all know they are too old to be doing Ph.Ds wink

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 29 2011 12:17
Quote:
The personal information that it did reveal was that one member of SolFed was working on a Ph.D, which as he is someone who also lives on another continent wasn't something that he got from his own knowledge, but from reading this board, where the person in question said it openly.

lines said that SF was dominated by people doing Phds. This was a lie, and obvious troll post. There was no issue of security at all, because it was just that, a lie.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 29 2011 13:01
Fall Back wrote:
Quote:
The personal information that it did reveal was that one member of SolFed was working on a Ph.D, which as he is someone who also lives on another continent wasn't something that he got from his own knowledge, but from reading this board, where the person in question said it openly.

lines said that SF was dominated by people doing Phds. This was a lie, and obvious troll post. There was no issue of security at all, because it was just that, a lie.

He then embellished the lie, by claiming I was doing a PhD (lie) to do with Clifford Stott (lie). Given as anyone with an association with Clifford Stott gets a multi-page denunciation, this lie was obvious, textbook trolling. And it's impossible to 'accidentally' mass report posts. Lines would have had to 'accidentally' scroll down multiple pages page clicking 'report' on all the posts that disagreed with him and leaving his own. So that's another lie.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 29 2011 13:15
Lemert wrote:
Take what I said in context and besides, yes, some women do lie about being raped. Crucify me for it.

I find it pathetic that this is supposed to be your big revelatory* political insight into feminism.

* 'crucify me for it' cheers Jesus, you harbinger of uncomfortable truths...

wall

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 29 2011 14:10
CRUDE wrote:
Taken in context no my comments weren't offensive ( to a rational person).

Typical misogynistic bs. Men are rational, women are irrational; men who are concerned about rape culture is irrational. Do you even think before you write, CRUDE? On that thread almost everything you wrote was out of the textbook for men wearing blinds.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 14:15
Fall Back wrote:
lines said that SF was dominated by people doing Phds. This was a lie, and obvious troll post. There was no issue of security at all, because it was just that, a lie.
Joseph Kay wrote:
lines said that SF was dominated by people doing Phds. This was a lie, and obvious troll post. There was no issue of security at all, because it was just that, a lie.

He then embellished the lie, by claiming I was doing a PhD (lie) to do with Clifford Stott (lie). Given as anyone with an association with Clifford Stott gets a multi-page denunciation, this lie was obvious, textbook trolling. And it's impossible to 'accidentally' mass report posts. Lines would have had to 'accidentally' scroll down multiple pages page clicking 'report' on all the posts that disagreed with him and leaving his own. So that's another lie.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

As the dictionary points out, a lie is something that the speaker knows to be untrue. As 'Lines' lives on the other side of the world, and has, I imagine, no contact whatsoever with SolFed, I would presume that he didn't know it to be untrue.

Nevertheless, I think even if he did know it to be untrue, the way to deal with lies is not to dealt them, but to confront them openly. They will circulate anyway, and as well as not refuting them, it also is damaging to your forum.

If it were the case that another organisation, say, just for example, the ICC, were to ask you to delete something in a post made about them that they considering to be a lie, and to be honest, in the large amount of rantings of one user in particular, there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue, would you then delete it?

On another point these recent arguments about Aufheben have been full of people calling each other liars. It is a pretty serious allegation. I doubt that most people involved in this spat are actually lying. They are just presenting the information as they perceive it to be true. Some quite possibly may be deliberately lying. Throwing around the terms 'lie' and 'liar' doesn't in anyway help to make a reasonable discussion possible. I am not saying that it was you who did it first, though I suspect it may have been, by putting the original piece next to a picture of Pinnochio (which for some reason I couldn't see in my browser), but you are the admins here. It falls upon you to behave better than others.

Quote:
by claiming I was doing a PhD (lie)

I thought that you were doing a Ph.D. You said you were doing a dissertation. Isn't that something you do for a Ph.D?

Devrim

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 29 2011 14:19

no, you do dissertations in A-levels, undergraduate degrees and masters degrees as well.

But, what sort of larger socio-political ramifications would it have if one member of SolFed were doing a PhD. A doctorate in Britain now is not what it was 100 years ago. HE is a massive massive sector.....

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 14:22
Arbeiten wrote:
no, you do dissertations in A-levels, undergraduate degrees and masters degrees as well.

I had no idea. I did none of them. If I had mistakenly repeated that he was doing a Ph.D, would that then be a lie?

Arbeiten wrote:
But, what sort of larger socio-political ramifications would it have if one member of SolFed were doing a PhD. A doctorate in Britain now is not what it was 100 years ago. HE is a massive massive sector.....

I am not making any comment on SolFed here. I am talking about forum administration.

Devrim

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 29 2011 14:24
Quote:
If it were the case that another organisation, say, just for example, the ICC, were to ask you to delete something in a post made about them that they considering to be a lie, and to be honest, in the large amount of rantings of one user in particular, there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue, would you then delete it?

If mcciver (I assume that's who you mean) was knowingly and delibrately making "an untrue statement with intent to deceive" - say claiming that alf was a senior boss or something - then yes, I'd happily delete it.

Quote:
If I had mistakenly repeated that he was doing a Ph.D, would that then be a lie?

No, but then unlike lines you are not on a several year serial troll of the libcom and class struggle anarchism in general, nor do you have an openly declared intention to destroy the site.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 29 2011 14:26

Well, if somebody originally made something untrue up, it would be a lie. If you mistakingly repeated that lie, it would still be a lie, but you would not be a liar wink (I have no idea whether it is true or not btw).

I believe the initial context in which JK's education was brought up was in relation to SolFed. Haven't you, Devrim, also made a point about when you used to be a DAM member there were no PhDs? There is some strange sort of associationism going on here and I am just trying to work out the larger meaning of it all....

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Nov 29 2011 14:29
Devrim wrote:

I thought that you were doing a Ph.D. You said you were doing a dissertation. Isn't that something you do for a Ph.D?

Devrim

Bachelors degree = dissertation (maybe masters too? don't know).

Ph.D = thesis.

Ah sorry Arbeiten's already pointed this out.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 29 2011 15:38

Untrue smears or allegations against other forum users or related individuals or organisations are not permitted

It's in the posting guidelines, linked on every page. Whether or not the poster knows the statement to be untrue (if you do you're a liar), the posts will be taken down. Why are people having a cry about the admins actually doing admin?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 29 2011 16:33
Devrim wrote:
Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

As the dictionary points out, a lie is something that the speaker knows to be untrue. As 'Lines' lives on the other side of the world, and has, I imagine, no contact whatsoever with SolFed, I would presume that he didn't know it to be untrue.

this opens the door to recklessness, in the sense of disregard for the truth or falsehood of a statement: 'i can say anything because since i don't have the facts i can't be accused of lying.'

otoh,

Devrim wrote:
On another point these recent arguments about Aufheben have been full of people calling each other liars. It is a pretty serious allegation. I doubt that most people involved in this spat are actually lying. Throwing around the terms 'lie' and 'liar' doesn't in anyway help to make a reasonable discussion possible.

absolutely true: but let's apply this all around. samotnaf since he arrived has been on a rampage of imputation about other people's 'lying'. i was an early recipient of this treatment (i LIED because i insisted that a post of mine about primitivism in a discussion of primitivism was not a derail - this is the sort of thing that motivates him), which he has since extended to others, and which when challenged on he has refused, in every case i know of, to acknowledge. (he insists that we have to excuse him because he's so passionate.) i had hoped he'd been tempbanned for this behavior, but it was for other reasons perfectly consistent themselves with both the rules and the practise of the board.

as assertion of opinion can't be a lie, an assertion of fact can, but there are common rhteorical strategies for confusing these categories. i agree that the best way to respond is to expose the false claim (i never asked for samotnaf's accusations to be removed, since i exposed their error myself) but if the accuser persists after correction i for one will have no problem with the tempbans.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 18:23
Fall Back wrote:
If mcciver (I assume that's who you mean) was knowingly and delibrately making "an untrue statement with intent to deceive" - say claiming that alf was a senior boss or something - then yes, I'd happily delete it.

I don't think that it should be deleted. If somebody were to say something like that and I were Alf, I would want it refuted openly.

Fall Back wrote:
No, but then unlike lines you are not on a several year serial troll of the libcom and class struggle anarchism in general, nor do you have an openly declared intention to destroy the site.

But it still could be a genuine mistake.

Devrim

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 29 2011 18:25

On the other claimed reason for lines banning.....

I think lines got the impression purely from libcom that Solfed might well be dominated by individuals with an academic background and his reference to 'dissertations' etc was just shorthand for testing that out.

Frankly I cannot see why this could not have been fairly easily responded to by:

1. Indicating the numerical proportions of academic and non academic members of Solfed.

and admitedly a bit more difficult,

2. Referring to SolFeds organisational structure and internal division of labour and stressing the involvement of non academics in writing and speaking ( I personally know at least some who do).

Of course you might have just argued that it was irrelevant if that was SolFeds view.

I can see that this assertion/questioning from lines might have irritated SolFed members of libcom's admin but the banning hasn't really helped this to go away.

It is however good that the academics thread has been left open to continue (even if without some of it's interested posters) though it is probably nearing it's fade out time.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 18:27
Arbeiten wrote:
Well, if somebody originally made something untrue up, it would be a lie. If you mistakingly repeated that lie, it would still be a lie, but you would not be a liar wink (I have no idea whether it is true or not btw).

That sounds logical, but if somebody mistakenly inferred something from some information I don't think it would be a lie. I remember once seeing a CNN reporter live from "Istanbul, the capital of Turkey". While untrue, and obviously his own creation, I don't think that that would be a lie.

Arbeiten wrote:
I believe the initial context in which JK's education was brought up was in relation to SolFed. Haven't you, Devrim, also made a point about when you used to be a DAM member there were no PhDs? There is some strange sort of associationism going on here and I am just trying to work out the larger meaning of it all....

I hadn't associated the two things.

Devrim

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Nov 29 2011 18:59

I would like to know why this rather poisonous post by Nate is still up on (A) thread where there's been so much effort to attack inappropriate comments by others. The "be civil" at the top is not enough folks.

And yes, I think Blasto went over the line on thread but only by a hair's breadth. Nate's comment, on the other hand, is just despicable, the second coming of Kevin Keating. Is "retard" considered a technical term here? What about "niger" or "kike". May I now salt my comments on positions I oppose with adjectives like "cuntish" and "cock-sucking"? Or perhaps "retard" stands alone in accept adjectives? Please inform.

This is clearly an emotional issue on both sides but ... what Red Marriot said. Libcom admins have a hard job here. Unfortunately they seem to have reached the point of screwing up - appearing consistently partisan.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 29 2011 18:30
lzbl wrote:
Untrue smears or allegations against other forum users or related individuals or organisations are not permitted

It's in the posting guidelines, linked on every page.

Quite possibly. However, I think that even though there has been a recent thing about it, lots of people probably haven't read the posting guidelines (I know I haven't). They are sort of like the conditions on computer software.

lzbl wrote:
Whether or not the poster knows the statement to be untrue (if you do you're a liar), the posts will be taken down. Why are people having a cry about the admins actually doing admin?

I think that it is a bad policy.

Devrim

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 29 2011 18:33
jesuit wrote:
But it's not one topic though is it? On this thread alone there's the lines/Blasto/Samatanof issue and then there's the Xander issue which even if you want to try to connect the two (doesn't really work), you've raised issues about his relationship to libcom before.

Even if you can't see the connection - I see it clearly and described it earlier on p. 5 (pro-rev thread); defending the sovereignty of the professional individual and the separation made between career consequences and politics etc.

And no, I think I've "raised issues about his relationship to libcom" only in the course of this recent discussion. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.) After I mentioned it twice here you complained I hadn't mentioned the criticisms of him, I replied that both times I'd linked to the thread containing them - you then pointlessly pasted them here - to show they weren't that "mild". But how mild the criticism is judged to be depends on how severe one thinks the criticised behaviour is. Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to think there's something very wrong with those who call themselves "class struggle communists" being so accomodating with those who write such anti-working class propaganda in a climate of post-riot mass arrests and harsh sentences; as I already said;

Quote:
steven on other thread wrote:
One bad article doesn't make someone irredeemably bad

This journo may have a hidden saintly character totally at odds with his years of malicious cynicism on libcom - but so what? His social function as a hack writing divisive reactionary crap like that is irredeemably bad. But some libcoms say one must never criticise that social function to the point where it leads to any "irredeemable" conclusions; http://libcom.org/forums/news/news-international-07072011
But, regardless, those mild criticisms don't invalidate or refute my comments about the cosy association.

...Which presumably continues, and he's presumably free to return to the site anytime.

Quote:
Recently, you were all over the "celebrity" pieces even after they changed the title, said it was for fun and it was explained it drew visitors to the site.

Do you ever check facts before mouthing off? The "celeb" tag title remains the same - and I made 5 short posts on that thread. I also explained why I found the 'explanation' unconvincing (but don't let an actual stated argument get in your way).

Quote:
You've also gone off on admins about something you wrote that they used without permission or attribution (probably a legit beef) which you've then brought up on multiple occasions over multiple threads.

?? Wrong - I brought it up once on the relevant thread some years ago. (Again, correct me if poss.)

Quote:
I think you've taken a pretty strong anti-libcommunity stance in the past as well.

I was one of many posters unhappy about it - including, once things got to their lowest level (disabled porn pic etc), the admins - who consequently made libcommunity much less visible on the site, as it was generally acknowledged the libcommunity excesses were becoming an embarrassment and infecting the rest of the forums.

Quote:
I also seem to remember you piling on about several other issues, but I don't care enough about it and don't have the time to dig back through old posts.

But you care enough about it to sloppily list the above inaccuracies. So who's "grasping for straws"?

Quote:
I'm not saying you have to agree with everything that goes on on libcom,

You sure? In the absence of any real arguments against my points, just your resentment of their being expressed?

Quote:
but these are just the things I remember.

Misremember is more accurate.

Quote:
That said, if I just have a bizarre memory and this is the sum of your complaints (or I'm remembering incorrectly), I'll back off the vendetta comment and move it down to the level of a blood feud.

Making up/imagining the above accusations about people - by your logic, some paranoids might call that "a vendetta".

Quote:
"There is only one pleasure greater than that of being appreciated by intelligent people, and that is the pleasure of not being understood by blunder-heads, who are only capable of expressing in a kind of jargon what serves them in the place of thought." (Sorel)

It's been a pleasure.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 29 2011 18:59
Quote:
Bachelors degree = dissertation (maybe masters too? don't know).

Ph.D = thesis.

Ah sorry Arbeiten's already pointed this out.

In the UK, Ph.D = thesis. In your BA and MA you do a dissertation.

In the US and Canada, Ph.D = dissertation, BAs and MAs write theses.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 29 2011 19:07
Devrim wrote:
Arbeiten wrote:
Well, if somebody originally made something untrue up, it would be a lie. If you mistakingly repeated that lie, it would still be a lie, but you would not be a liar wink (I have no idea whether it is true or not btw).

That sounds logical, but if somebody mistakenly inferred something from some information I don't think it would be a lie. I remember once seeing a CNN reporter live from "Istanbul, the capital of Turkey". While untrue, and obviously his own creation, I don't think that that would be a lie

Devrim, you looked up the definition of 'lie', but obviously only read the first line. The second is that to lie is 'to create a false or misleading impression' - so it can be EITHER the intention or the experience that creates a lie. Thus your position (that if someone does not know they're lying they can't do it) is not technically correct.

In addition to which, lines was told the assertion was untrue, and then repeatedly reposted it. So your assertion that lines did not know he was lying is also incorrect.

No-one is making anyone post here - if the admins are responding to requests for firmer modding (and the admins do run the site and we are lucky they even host a fucking forum considering how much time they seem to spend on it so that's their prerogative) and you don't like it, well, you might find indymedia more to your tastes.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 29 2011 19:11
SpikeyMike wrote:
On the other claimed reason for lines banning.....

Where have we said this was a reason for banning? Could you point me to the post?

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 29 2011 19:32
Devrim wrote:
But it still could be a genuine mistake.

Yes. It is possible that someone with a long history of trolling and telling untruths about Solfed and other class struggle groups over a period of several years and has openly declared they groups should not exist, on the basis of nothing more than 1 solfed member having mentioned doing a dissertation, somehow got the accidental impression that solfed is dominated by people doing Phd's. This is certainly within the realms of possibility, of things that statistically could happen.

Just as it is possible that he *accidentally* clicked through several pages and *accidentally* click on report on endless numbers of posts. These things are within the realms of statistical probability.

But back in the real world, we know they didn't.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 29 2011 19:36

...and now I am spending the eve of the biggest strike in my lifetime arguing this shit on the Internet.

Fuck this.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 29 2011 19:47
Fall Back wrote:
...and now I am spending the eve of the biggest strike in my lifetime arguing this shit on the Internet.

Fuck this.

+1

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Nov 29 2011 20:12

As far as I am aware, we don't have any academics (in the British English usage of the term) in SolFed. I could be wrong as we've had lots of new members who I don't know join. We have a few FE teachers, and AFAIK all our university members are support staff. We have had a couple of academics in the past, that I know of, but an allegation that we are led or controlled by academics is laughable and reflects far worse on whoever is doing the alleging.

In fact, the self-starting and democratic nature of the DAM /SF was what attracted me to them. Even at a young age I felt uncomfortable with the idea of professional leadership and the demands made by the Trotskyist left. I still do, if anything the last 25 years have proved my misgivings right.

Whatever next, workers coming up with political ideas themselves without a professional cadre to advise them? I'm regularly in awe of the depth of knowledge displayed in these forums; the fact that a lot of those displaying it are products of se;f-education rather than being shown the way by academics is encouraging and heartening and one in the eye for those who pretend that working class people can't run the world according to our needs and desires.

Regards,
Martin

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 29 2011 22:02

Red- I've certainly been called worse than a bumble-head. At worst, I've misremembered (which I conceded was possible in the beginning) though I don't think I'm too wide of the mark. I was under the impression the original celebrity thread was called "working class heroes" and that it had been changed. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Otherwise, my primary points remain.