Locking topics and banning people

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 2 2011 19:30

Devrim Post 122

Quote:
I used the ICC as an example as I know that they are pretty unpopular here. My point was that you should defend political organisations from allegations against them by deleting things.
I don't think that the ICC are in any way suggesting that things about then should be deleted.

It didn't matter what organisation you used as example to make your point, you probably agree. Also, you probably meant shouldn't defend...? True, the ICC on Libcom haven't suggested any deletions (although I don't have the time to check all their posts to verify it). Alf came close to this in June 2010, but wisely didn't press the point, or organise a hilarious 'Jury of Honour':

Quote:
... mciver has made some very serious accusations against our organisation and denigrated individual comrades in a way which should not be accepted here....

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/acronyms-31052010?page=1

Quote:
It isn't my favourite organisation by the way. As you know I left. Personally I think that the ICC has probably been responsible for damaging the revolutionary movement more than any other political organisation.

Yes, I knew but, in desperation, one can always return to the womb (wrong, I meant cell block). Take your time to breathe again and think things through, as there will be lots of fragility. I hope you never re-join (or form!) a racket. But as you pine for 'the revolutionary movement', that outcome is uncertain. Best of luck.

Wellclose Square Post 111

Quote:
I didn't get the impression that Devrim was defending on this thread, the ICC as such - certainly not explicitly, and even an implicit defence is open to question. Instead, I think he was pointing out the apparent contradiction between the eagerness of predominantly SolFed-oriented admins on Libcom to defend their organisation(s) against what they characterise as 'lies' or 'trolling', while letting other groups (Devrim used the, perhaps unfortunate, example of the ICC - but we could substitute 'primmos' or Dupontists) be 'lied' about, or facilitating the trashing of certain (anti-)political currents.

I think Devrim has a point, but I'd like to qualify it. I don't think that Devrim believes for a moment that Libcom could function as a free, public forum for those that use it: such a belief would a) not be borne out by the facts of those posters who have fallen foul of selectively-applied rules and b) be belied by the proprietorial attitude of the admins, a proprietorial attitude founded on the fact that Libcom is a private domain - non-SFers and others out-of-synch with the 'organisational' (racket-oriented?) bias of the site are only here on sufferance. Some - lines, Blasto, for example - have tested the limits of tolerance of this attitude. Personally, I could bash the ICC (as an organisation) till the cows come home, but it is disingenuous to hail, or at least suggest, Libcom as the inheritors of the torch of anti-Bolshevism (as mciver appears to do), when 'quasi-Bolshevist' tendencies (fed by platformism or their professional career profile? Who knows? But let's ask anyway - in other spaces if necessary) are evident in the practice of Libcom admins and the political philosophy they seem to espouse, a political philosophy described elsewhere as 'third estatism', a kind of 'Blairite Anarchism', an attenuated version of the Leninist 'long march through the institutions'...

Thanks, but translating Devrim for me was unnecessary.

In my view, Devrim assumes that a left communist organisation (Bolsheviks) like the ICC has some sort of 'right' to a presence on Libcom. In my opinion, this presence is a contradiction, but that's up to Libcom to deal with because Libcom, as you admit, is a private domain and not a public charity. Like Devrim, you also don't see a contradiction in the ICC's presence on Libcom, although you say you could bash the ICC (as an organisation, not its political vision) till the cows come home. Remarkably energetic, but, with due respect, irrelevant to the points made.

The main issue wasn't that Devrim 'was defending the ICC' explicitly or implictly on this thread. This is hardly my concern, and would have been rather inane -- of course Devrim has consistently defended his then organisation on Libcom, in spite of his criticisms of it. That's what members of organisations do. All this is public knowledge here, as is his unexplained exit from the ICC. My point was that a critic and opponent of the ICC was singled out by Devrim in his hypothetical example of people who 'could' rant untruths or lies about organisations which would then feel justified to request post deletion or banning. Admittedly an elaborate menagerie of 'ifs', which you apologise for, pointing out that using the ICC just as an example was 'perhaps unfortunate'. Not certainly, only 'perhaps'. This may be so, but Devrim did use it, and more to the point, he did insinuate that McIver stated untruths or lies, without at first mentioning him. This part of Devrim's example isn't 'unfortunate' for you.

I don't say, imply or hail, that Libcom are 'inheritors of the torch of anti-Bolshevism'. You misread and insinuate positions I don't hold. But is there such a 'torch'? All that is dead and sunk like Atlantis. I meant that the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalists of 1918-38 were the 'libertarian communists' of that time. Who else? This affirmation doesn't mean that I identity with their contradictory politics and workerist visions, as I'm not an 'anarchist', or an 'anarcho syndicalist' or a 'libertarian communist'. I couldn't care less for the various retro-labels bandied around here, nor claim to inherit or carry any 'torch'. To each his own.

In regards to facilitating the trashing of certain (anti-political) currents ('Dupontism'?), do you mean the ideas, of say, fort-da game and others, who were heavily trashed in February 2011 because of their unpopular opinions on Egypt? http://libcom.org/forums/news/what-exactly-are-you-supporting-02022011?page=4

A glance at the posts on that thread don't support your idea that this was facilitated by 'the mods', but maybe they were already acting as a secret racket, manipulating even those who now feel most febrile against 'mods'.

Those who seem disappointed about web portals betraying the class struggle, or are in a tizzy about academics and other unsavoury middle-class mods, should create/manage their own websites. This simple solution will avoid clustering brains and sites run by rackets under the bed. Not difficult and possibly quite liberating. Imagine, your own virtual base to bash vermin who cross (class) lines, expose them as enemies of the proletariat and run them out of town, all to your heart's content. Who's going to ban or delete your posts then? Suggested names:

www.friendsofmachajski.com

www.letitallhangout.com

smashmods.org

outingsgalore.org

gotcha!.org

noplacetohide.org

fuckakademia.org

have-a-go.org

Best of luck too.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 2 2011 19:45

please seek help.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Dec 2 2011 20:16

laugh out loud How come all your posts have references to other threads from months sometimes years ago McIver? Have you some sort of photographic memory?

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Dec 2 2011 21:19

He feels so badly betrayed by the love of his life that he can never love again or talk about anything else 30 years later.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Dec 2 2011 21:58

Maybe there's no happy medium. Seems any and all kinds of 'political engagement' (racket or 'anti-racket') is fundamentally corrosive to the individual and the friendships and close relationships (including enmities) the individual has. Too many missions, too many axes to grind. 'Uninvolved' loved ones suffer. Does your head in. Breaks your heart. Enough of all this shit. Pretty opaque, I know, but that's it. Nothing more to say. "It's sad", as someone said. Farewell.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 2 2011 22:13

Posts 154 & 156

Petey

You slothfully and perhaps maliciously distorted my views on the thread Re-Joining the IWW http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/re-joining-iww-27072011?page=1. You claimed then that I 'strained so far as to connect the IWW with Stalin' (Post 41). This was a complete fabrication. Your own Custom Title on Libcom is the giveaway: I LIED, so one could call you a shameless liar, or an illiterate schmuck. You are joined by another liar and cunt (his own self-description, not mine) a one 'Peter from Oceania'.

But this isn't the only shared nature -- the Petey & Peter duet pretend to be streetwise lay-therapists, like many apparatchiks with their litanies of 'mental', 'traumatised', 'seek help', etc., when they face an opponent but can't argue cogently or confront political arguments. It's difficult to encounter a principled and alert opponent, but P&P, try harder next time.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Dec 2 2011 22:37

that petey is liar, mciver, is a well-documented fact.* just ask samatanof.

when a parody thread in libcommunity cannot over-do the actual arguments being made in earnest. . .
.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 3 2011 00:16
mciver wrote:
Also, you probably meant shouldn't defend...?

Yes, I did.

mciver wrote:
In my view, Devrim assumes that a left communist organisation (Bolsheviks) like the ICC has some sort of 'right' to a presence on Libcom.

You can just ask me if you want to know what my views actually are, you know?

I don't think that the ICC has a 'right' to a presence on Libcom. I think it is quite absurd to talk about rights in this way. I don't think that banning them would be a good idea, but then I tend to argue that about other people to. Ultimately it is up to the admins who can post here or not, as ultimately it is their political tool.

mciver wrote:
All this is public knowledge here, as is his unexplained exit from the ICC.

It was explained:

Devrim wrote:
Just as a point of information, I am no longer a member of the ICC. I don’t intend to comment on this at the moment. A couple of years ago when some people left the ICC in Turkey, we decided not to coment on it for six months in order to allow people to calm down a little about something that they were, at the time, very angry about. To us it seemed a much more sensible approach to adopt than that of mutual slagings of and recriminations that have charecterised the communist left in the past years. When the six months had passed it all seemed a lot less important than it did at the time. I don’t think that I will have nothing to say about it come the new year, but to me in principle the approach that we took at the time seemed to be a good one, and I don’t see amy reason to depart from it. After all, it is not as if the working class is clinging to every word that the communist left says, and need to understand why I left immediately.
mciver wrote:
My point was that a critic and opponent of the ICC was singled out by Devrim in his hypothetical example of people who 'could' rant untruths or lies about organisations which would then feel justified to request post deletion or banning.

Are you taking issue with the fact that you rant about the ICC? You do.

mciver wrote:
Thanks, but translating Devrim for me was unnecessary.

I think that you do because I in no way suggested that it would justify deleting posts whichever organisation they criticised. In fact I was arguing precisely the opposite.

mcive wrote:
he did insinuate that McIver stated untruths or lies, without at first mentioning him.

Yes, I did.

Devrim

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Dec 3 2011 01:53
mciver wrote:
Posts 154 & 156

Petey

You slothfully and perhaps maliciously distorted my views on the thread Re-Joining the IWW http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/re-joining-iww-27072011?page=1. You claimed then that I 'strained so far as to connect the IWW with Stalin' (Post 41). This was a complete fabrication. Your own Custom Title on Libcom is the giveaway: I LIED, so one could call you a shameless liar, or an illiterate schmuck. You are joined by another liar and cunt (his own self-description, not mine) a one 'Peter from Oceania'.

But this isn't the only shared nature -- the Petey & Peter duet pretend to be streetwise lay-therapists, like many apparatchiks with their litanies of 'mental', 'traumatised', 'seek help', etc., when they face an opponent but can't argue cogently or confront political arguments. It's difficult to encounter a principled and alert opponent, but P&P, try harder next time.

Your long tedious arguments seem to boil down to, "any attempt to overthrow capitalism will lead to something far worse" which is the same shit we hear all the time from everyone. Repeating conventional wisdom ad nauseam doesn't make you principled and alert.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 3 2011 04:22
mciver wrote:
Posts 154 & 156

Petey

You slothfully and perhaps maliciously distorted my views on the thread Re-Joining the IWW http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/re-joining-iww-27072011?page=1. You claimed then that I 'strained so far as to connect the IWW with Stalin' (Post 41). This was a complete fabrication.

well here's what you said on that thread

Quote:
Like in the 20s, Bolshevism in the 30s also had its cliques of brazen fellow-travellers, like Walter Duranty, Eugene Lyons and Anna Louise Strong. devoration1 adds his homilies to theirs, and he can re-join whatever sect he likes, but it shouldn't be ignored that praising workers' self-management under a Lenin-IWW trust is not fundamentally different from fellow-travellers supporting 'primitive socialist accumulation' under Stalin.

so i'll leave it to others to decide if my comment was a distortion, even a malicious one.

the rest of your turgid comments about me (and Peter) i'll let go. still, my post 154 above was glib and is the sort of thing i should avoid typing.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 3 2011 11:52

Devrim Post 160

Quote:
mciver wrote:
In my view, Devrim assumes that a left communist organisation (Bolsheviks) like the ICC has some sort of 'right' to a presence on Libcom.
You can just ask me if you want to know what my views actually are, you know? I don't think that the ICC has a 'right' to a presence on Libcom. I think it is quite absurd to talk about rights in this way. I don't think that banning them would be a good idea, but then I tend to argue that about other people to. Ultimately it is up to the admins who can post here or not, as ultimately it is their political tool.

The facts speak for themselves -- of course you agree that the ICC has (or has had) a type of 'natural right' to be on Libcom. Otherwise why have you participated, as a member of the ICC, on these forums for around 5 years? And you may be perfectly right, a synergy may be there, a general commonality between some libertarian communists on Libcom, and left communists like the ICC. After all, McIver's initial post against the ICC's racketeering history provoked an instant hostile gut reaction and effluvia from Lexxi, Fletcher, Oliver Twister and a solidarity with the ICC's burglaries from Joseph Kay (Post 12, http://libcom.org/forums/theory/question-parasitism-letter-edited-ingram-march-1996-recalling-icc-1981-burglaries-

But I'm not advocating that the ICC is banned from Libcom, we can agree on that. But if they are banned, as 'individual posters' I won't complain. As you say, '... it is up to the admins who can post here or not, as ultimately it is their political tool.'

Quote:
mciver wrote:
All this is public knowledge here, as is his unexplained exit from the ICC.
Quote:
It was explained:
Quote:
Devrim wrote:
Just as a point of information, I am no longer a member of the ICC. I don’t intend to comment on this at the moment. A couple of years ago when some people left the ICC in Turkey, we decided not to coment on it for six months in order to allow people to calm down a little about something that they were, at the time, very angry about. To us it seemed a much more sensible approach to adopt than that of mutual slagings of and recriminations that have charecterised the communist left in the past years. When the six months had passed it all seemed a lot less important than it did at the time. I don’t think that I will have nothing to say about it come the new year, but to me in principle the approach that we took at the time seemed to be a good one, and I don’t see amy reason to depart from it. After all, it is not as if the working class is clinging to every word that the communist left says, and need to understand why I left immediately.

I don't think that 'no comment' on the reason for the exit or split is an explanation at all. What you are saying is that there's an explanation for the no-explanation. Although the reasons for splits are relevant for an ongoing research on Marxist rackets, I would agree that the world and "the working class is not clinging to every word [more like any?] that the communist left says, and need to understand why I left immediately." Granted, you are not a world celebrity yet. But this lack of understanding would be linked to an absence of explanation, no? Anyway, this isn't important, in due course you will explain and maybe a denunciation of 'parasitism' from Zentrale will follow, maybe not, as a paralysing arthritis dims the brain further and slows the draw...

Quote:
mciver wrote:
My point was that a critic and opponent of the ICC was singled out by Devrim in his hypothetical example of people who 'could' rant untruths or lies about organisations which would then feel justified to request post deletion or banning.
Quote:
Are you taking issue with the fact that you rant about the ICC? You do.

No, I was taking issue with your insinuation that McIver must have stated untruths against poor little ICC, and, by innuendo, lies. This is a skillful method of 'argument' fostered in political rackets like the ICC -- you don't openly say what you mean, you slyly insinuate it and then a 'possibility' turns into a delusional 'truth'. That's how opponents of egocrats Chirik and Fabienne were isolated, ridiculed and finally slandered and expelled as 'police agents', 'petty bourgeois', 'Freemasons' and eventually 'parasites'. On ranting, it's natural that political opponents like you would dismiss or downgrade criticism with ad hominem pejoratives like ranting (which can mean talking nonsense). It's part of the repertoire/arsenal, and it includes allegations of insanity, petty-bourgeois individualism and indifference, deep trauma, Cold War influence, etc. I expect nothing less from apparatchiks (my own dismissal and downgrading of selfless militant Bolsheviks).

Quote:
mciver wrote:

Thanks, but translating Devrim for me was unnecessary.
I think that you do because I in no way suggested that it would justify deleting posts whichever organisation they criticised. In fact I was arguing precisely the opposite.

I do what? I understood perfectly that you are against deleting posts, thank you very much. But that was a reply to Wellclose Square, not to you, please keep the boundaries. I reminds me of Alf's and other ICC mentors protecting petitjesuisrien and devoration1 on other posts.

Quote:
mcive wrote:
he did insinuate that McIver stated untruths or lies, without at first mentioning him.
Yes, I did.

It was clear that you meant McIver, not Ingram or anybody else, no merit in admitting that. But the insidious thing wasn't the not-naming, it was the aspersion that I lie about the ICC. Do you admit to that?

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 3 2011 11:24
Quote:
How come all your posts have references to other threads from months sometimes years ago McIver? Have you some sort of photographic memory?

Hi Arbeiten

In my opinion this is a well constructed and functional complex site, and quite user friendly for navigation. A good resource for historical research, so basic cross-referencing isn't difficult. I also feel that if you state something that happened, you must back it up as much as you can, because your readers deserve the best information they can get. Without accurate data, it's impossible to analyse and interpret.

Best

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 3 2011 13:01
mciver wrote:
It was clear that you meant McIver, not Ingram or anybody else, no merit in admitting that. But the insidious thing wasn't the not-naming, it was the aspersion that I lie about the ICC. Do you admit to that?

I didn't state that you lie about the ICC. I said that in amongst it all " there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue". I am sure that there is. Take for example this statement:

mciver wrote:
Otherwise why have you participated, as a member of the ICC, on these forums for around 5 years?

I was only in the ICC for four years. I am sure that amongst it all there are other factual inaccuracies.

mciver wrote:
I don't think that 'no comment' on the reason for the exit or split is an explanation at all. What you are saying is that there's an explanation for the no-explanation.

If you look back and read what I wrote it says that I wasn't going to comment about it for six months, which incidentally are nearly up, and I will comment on it in the new year.

Quote:
Anyway, this isn't important, in due course you will explain and maybe a denunciation of 'parasitism' from Zentrale will follow, maybe not, as a paralysing arthritis dims the brain further and slows the draw...

I somewhat doubt it. They seem to have lost the enthusiasm for public denunciations in their press these days. That doesn't mean that they won't do it internally. A good example could be the 'contraversies'. In public we haven't been treated to a denunciation, but within the ICC, they still refer to them as a "parasitic group", In fact they are considered to be 'more dangerous than the old parasites as they don't act like parasites'.

Devrim

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Dec 3 2011 13:21

Why is McIver talking about McIver in the third person? (#163)

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Dec 3 2011 15:02

This thread is giving me a headache, unsub'd. wink

EDIT: Can you stop threads from coming up in 'recent posts'? I want to resist the urge to click on it by not seeing it.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 3 2011 16:18
Quote:
Why is McIver talking about McIver in the third person? (#163)

My question/confusion as well. This is starting to read more and more like a libcommunity thread.

piter
Offline
Joined: 30-06-08
Dec 3 2011 16:29

[quote : Khawanga]This is starting to read more and more like a libcommunity thread.

...plus it would be quite convenient for some people.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 4 2011 00:57

jesuithitsquad Post 159

Grateful for your confirmation about Petey's habits.

Peter Post 161

Quote:
Your long tedious arguments seem to boil down to, "any attempt to overthrow capitalism will lead to something far worse" which is the same shit we hear all the time from everyone. Repeating conventional wisdom ad nauseam doesn't make you principled and alert.

Why post banalities and distortions of views in reply to long tedious posts you disagree with? Just don't read them. As to your royal shit-hearing 'we', are you a universal representative or delegate of some unnamed soviet? I don't recall voting for or appointing you, so who do you speak for? Who is your 'we'?

Petey Post 162

Quote:
Quote:
Like in the 20s, Bolshevism in the 30s also had its cliques of brazen fellow-travellers, like Walter Duranty, Eugene Lyons and Anna Louise Strong. devoration1 adds his homilies to theirs, and he can re-join whatever sect he likes, but it shouldn't be ignored that praising workers' self-management under a Lenin-IWW trust is not fundamentally different from fellow-travellers supporting 'primitive socialist accumulation' under Stalin.
so i'll leave it to others to decide if my comment was a distortion, even a malicious one.

the rest of your turgid comments about me (and Peter) i'll let go. still, my post 154 above was glib and is the sort of thing i should avoid typing.

Any reply to this belongs to the old thread Re-joining the IWW http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/re-joining-iww-27072011?page=1

Pikel Post 166

Quote:
Why is McIver talking about McIver in the third person? (#163)

Are you talking to me? Or to your royal void? Unlike you, my 'favourite thinker' isn't myself, so sometimes I feel free to refer to myself in the 3rd person. Does that satisfy? Do you have any more substantial points 'on thread' -- on locking topics and banning people?

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Dec 4 2011 02:56
mciver wrote:
Quote:
Why is McIver talking about McIver in the third person? (#163)

Are you talking to me? Or to your royal void? Unlike you, my 'favourite thinker' isn't myself, so sometimes I feel free to refer to myself in the 3rd person. Does that satisfy? Do you have any more substantial points 'on thread' -- on locking topics and banning people?

mciver, there's no need to take the hump. I found your post difficult to understand. A reference to oneself in the third person is unusual and I inferred that perhaps you had made a cock-up of the quoting mechanism, or that something had gone wrong in the internals of the site in such a way that a post from someone who is not mciver appeared to be from mciver.

It also crossed my mind that there might be some sock-puppetry taking place.

If you use odd modes of communication you might well expect odd responses.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Dec 4 2011 05:24

jesuithitsquad's post on petey was not intended to be taken seriously. jesuithitsquad would advise miver not to use jesuithitsquad's posts in any further mciver rants We would sincerely appreciate this.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Dec 4 2011 05:23

"We" meaning we communists/anarchists/radicals... you know, what you used to be.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 4 2011 09:43

Post 172

Quote:
jesuithitsquad's post on petey was not intended to be taken seriously. jesuithitsquad would advise miver not to use jesuithitsquad's posts in any further mciver rants We would sincerely appreciate this.

Your 'sincerely appreciate' is noted. You should have stayed in 'libcommunity', where your meanderings belong. In any case, you posted to me, not the other way around. Generally it's good manners to reply. But I have nothing in common with your vision of politics nor indeed care to address you again, worry not.

Post 173

Quote:
"We" meaning we communists/anarchists/radicals... you know, what you used to be.

Oh, that 'we', that self-appointed band of chekists (fortunately only virtual here). Why leave out lay-therapists, another of your inclinations? As I say to the hit squad, I have nothing in common with your ideas nor care to waste posts with you again.

Post 171
You're right Pikel, your points make sense. I apologise for taking the hump. But why not address me directly? Using illeism, or the third person referring to oneself is a convention sometimes used in fiction and non-fiction, and believe me this thread, as many others, is as odd, fictional and 'land of oz' as anything.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 5 2011 01:09

Devrim Post 165

Quote:
mciver wrote:
It was clear that you meant McIver, not Ingram or anybody else, no merit in admitting that. But the insidious thing wasn't the not-naming, it was the aspersion that I lie about the ICC. Do you admit to that?
I didn't state that you lie about the ICC. I said that in amongst it all " there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue". I am sure that there is. Take for example this statement:

mciver wrote:
Otherwise why have you participated, as a member of the ICC, on these forums for around 5 years?
I was only in the ICC for four years. I am sure that amongst it all there are other factual inaccuracies.

Correct, you didn't say that I lied about the ICC. But it was not necessary -- it was silently implied with the 'possibility' of 'factual inaccuracies'. Indeed, you are 'sure' that these must exist. And you discover a little 'random example' -- that you were in the ICC for only four years, not 'around five' as I falsely claimed. Oh my, what a telling faux pas by McIver! And, naturally, it follows that you are "sure that amongst it all there are other factual inaccuracies." And 'amongst it all', any reader who reads between the lines can imagine that some crafty little LIES about the ICC have smuggled themselves in too, in McIver's countless 'rants'. Nice Devrimist projection, in a performance that would make a shyster proud. After all, your view is that People will always tell lies about others. What a fresh and optimistic take on life, and from a left communist.

But let's dissect this opportune example.Your Libcom personal details state '5 years 20 months', giving your political group membership as International Communist Current (obviously false now). I see that those 5 years and 20 months are only your years on Libcom, not the years in the ICC. Not having contacted you to clarify this crucial detail, this allows for some startling sophistry.

I say this because nobody will believe that one fine morning four years ago you suddenly applied for ICC membership and got it that afternoon. For at least a few months before, you must have been something like a 'candidate member', and prior to that something like a 'sympathiser' or 'contact'. So that takes us well into around 5 years of membership negotiations with the ICC (it may be 20 in the case of petitjesuisrien). In that period, you had to strain to act like a full member, a true junior Bolshevik. No? What does it matter that you hadn't been given a member badge with Chirik's mug? So my point stands, but in any case, are you implying that this example of 'factual inaccuracy' could lead you to request DELETING my post from Libcom? But that you, being generous, would let that earth-shattering faux pas go unpunished? After all, this is what this thread was about: locking topics, deletions and bannings, but this didn't need your loaded examples about the ICC and McIver's 'factual inaccuracies'. Was this your last service to the apparat? Maybe it was, probably unconsciously.

As a final aside (from me) the revelation about the internal survival and reanimation of the ICC's Theses on Parasitism confirms all said before about the ICC as a racket. Your next try will probably not be a way out.

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Dec 5 2011 11:34
mciver wrote:
I say this because nobody will believe that one fine morning four years ago you suddenly applied for ICC membership and got it that afternoon. For at least a few months before, you must have been something like a 'candidate member', and prior to that something like a 'sympathiser' or 'contact'. So that takes us well into around 5 years of membership negotiations with the ICC

Wrong. The group Devrim was a member of before the ICC, EKS (Internationalist Communist Left) joined the ICC. So there was not a period of being a 'contact' or 'candidate member'.

Isn't it a pity how facts can inconvenience a rant?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 5 2011 13:06

If people want to discuss Devrim's pre/during/post ICC membership and its implications (or anything else about the ICC unless it's directly relevant to this thread), please do so in http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/i-have-left-icc-devrim-08072011 or elsewhere.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 6 2011 01:15

Mcİver, it isn't all about you.. One of the things that you seem to share with your old friends in the ICC is a way of taking any discussion, and turning into one about whatever you want to talk about. Whether it is the ICC turning a discussion about somebody's shop steward into why unions are integrated into the state, or you turning every discussion into one about the ICC, it is pretty similar.

This discussion was about whether it is right to delete 'misinformation, not about your criticisms of the ICC. I will try to address the points you raise on the other thread.

Devrim.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Dec 6 2011 11:54

Agree with Mike Harman (Post 177).

Android's factoid (Post 176) is exposed as time-wasting sham on http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/i-have-left-icc-devrim-08072011

Devrim (Post 178)

Quote:
Mcİver, it isn't all about you.. One of the things that you seem to share with your old friends in the ICC is a way of taking any discussion, and turning into one about whatever you want to talk about. Whether it is the ICC turning a discussion about somebody's shop steward into why unions are integrated into the state, or you turning every discussion into one about the ICC, it is pretty similar.

This discussion was about whether it is right to delete 'misinformation, not about your criticisms of the ICC. I will try to address the points you raise on the other thread.

Your reply is fatuous, sophistries to deflect reality. If Mciver and the ICC are on this thread, it's because YOU brought them in, in your 'hypothetical' example of misinformation and lies.

Your quip about 'old friends' has some cheek. This from someone who just left the ICC this past July and is probably in bed now with another ex-ICC racket. You also dare put a racket with 14 micro-franchises around the world on a par with an individual critic.

My concern has not been 'me' but to put forward a different narrative on the history of left communism. In particular, episodes of the early criminal history of the ICC were relevant, as its version of reality contradicted the accounts of its victims and opponents. Naturally I expected apologists of rackets like you to pooh-pooh this effort as 'rants', or as 'factual inaccuracies', 'misinformation' and (why not?) lies. But I'm not interested in discussing issues with you or with apparatchiks. We share nothing and remain irreconcilably at odds. The chasm is in the interpretation, it's not about isolated facts, or alleged lies.

This thread against 'particularly disturbing tendencies' like locking topics and banning people was a fantastic opportunity to re-make your brand image, the ex-ICCer with a liberal bent for moderation and fairness. Yet as a member of the ICC you certainly never expressed any public outrage against the ICC's past slandering and persecution of internal/external opponents. If you did, correct me, but I never detected this. On the contrary, the previous posts on rackets confirm your persistent apologia. This early history of the ICC was far more real, serious, disturbing and destructive than locking topics and banning virtual people. To recapitulate -- it was you who brought in McIver and the ICC onto your own thread. Live with it, as you can't delete posts.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 6 2011 11:56
mciver wrote:
Yet as a member of the ICC you certainly never expressed any public outrage against the ICC's past slandering and persecution of internal/external opponents. If you did, correct me, but I never detected this.

I'm not sure about outrage, but disagreement and criticism, well yes I did, often.

Devrim

radicalgraffiti
Online
Joined: 4-11-07
Dec 6 2011 13:27

mciver, please stop, no one cares about the icc, its not important.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Dec 6 2011 17:14

I remember Devrim being critical at least of the ICC's conduct, both past and contemporary, in quite a few of his posts when he was a member.

As for the topic of this thread, I think in mciver's case no-one is going to say that banning him took place without it being made very clear why that is (obsessive disruption of multiple threads to pursue his own vendetta against an organization which rarely has members post here), assuming that finally happens at some point.