twitter account @worldsocialism.com
- This topic has 163 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robert.cox wrote:Vin, I don't think the IC mislead the EC on this matter at all. It was actually brought to my attention by another member before I saw the report to the EC, and I looked at the Twitter site using a link I was sent by email and it wasn't obvious to me who was running it.Anyway its resolved now.YFS
Just to clarify, the Motion 14 was motivated by an email from the Internet Commttee? The IC claimed it did not know the owner of the account @world_socialism. This was a misrepresentation.
Lol plenty of it. Remember whe we were abused and verbally attacked anf they did fuck all about it. Nice to be able to talk freely isnt it. without fascist controling mods
So Robert did the IC mislead the EC?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Then taking into account all you have said, why is their no account (hence accountability) from the IC as to why Cde Marratty (who has passed his speaker and candidate test) was turned down from taking over the official twitter account. I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with the decision, just saying I have no information about the reasoning for that decision and as such cannot hold the IC accountable for the correctness or otherwise of that decision. Do you see my point?Sorry, I meant to reply to this one over the weekend. Per:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=7#comment-30391It seems the IC had different plans for the account, and wanted a companion party to operate it. That has no reflection on Cde. Marratty, AFAICS, buit simply a different idea for how to use it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Per:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=7#comment-30391It seems the IC had different plans for the account, and wanted a companion party to operate it. That has no reflection on Cde. Marratty, AFAICS, buit simply a different idea for how to use it.I cannot see how you can make such a claim based on one members assertion. It is nowhwre near accurate It is all a matter of recordI will be preparing my acount of the IC's inaccurate and misleadng statements to present to my branch. In the meantime I would appreciate if members would desist reposting and repeating statements as if they are established fact.While online records show differently. .
For those of you who dabble in English:
My Evil Self wrote:It seems…Anyway,http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-and-reformism?page=2#comment-28190Would seem to substantiate that seeming.
ooppps forgot
And who has the account now cde?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I dont knowThought you didn't
However, I don't see what that has to do with anything.The bottom line seems to be:1) You asked IC to carry out a project2) They declinedMuch fuss about little.
That is inaccurate and even if it were true then why was the branch refused ? Shouldn't the IC be accountable to the membership. Shouldnt it give an account why it refuses to talk to a branch? Or allow it to run a party outlet?
Well, the branch wasn't 'refused' if the IC wanted to do something different with the account. Still not seeing a problem really. Get a different twitter handle.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, the branch wasn't 'refused' if the IC wanted to do something different with the account. Still not seeing a problem really. Get a different twitter handle.We did and the IC interfered which resulted in an EC resolution to disown the accountCde, you are commenting on a situation you know very little about, so pleae avail yourself of the facts first
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.