[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?

How else would 'facts' be established?I know that you won't answer this epistemological question, because that is at the heart of our disagreements. I'm a Democratic Communist who seeks to give a democratic political, philosophical and scientific basis to the social production of knowledge by class conscious workers. And you don't.

TK wrote:

As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

Yeah, it's always the 'method' of the 'elite' who can't account to workers why workers can't politically control their production: to question the 'psychology' of dissidents who question the so-called 'scientific' basis of 'elite knowledge production' and 'expert control'.I'll leave you to your all too 'few thoughts'.

I think you miss understand my motives, I'm not part of an "elite" questioning the psychology of a dissident (you) who is questioning the so called scientific basis of elite knowledge production and expert control. In fact to do so would elevate you to a position of importance in my mind that you do not hold.What my too few thoughts (hint of elitism there Birdy) are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking. I'm sorry if I confused you, I just assumed that having the piss taken out of you was something that you were probably quite familiar with.As I now have a vision of you shut up in a basement waiting for the zombies to attack, hopefully our little discussion has been helpful. As Max Brooks says in The Zombie Survival Guide, "In a long and seemingly interminable siege, boredom can lead to paranoia, delusion and hopelessness. It is important to keep your mind in good shape."

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

I hate to point out the falacy of your comments, however you originally made the comment that it was good to see that zombie's not dead, when I point out that a zombie couldn't be dead, you state that its "undead" which as you point is neither (presumably by this you mean it is neither dead or alive). This actually backs up my statement that a zombie couldn't be dead ( Ididn't say it was alive, just not dead). You then claim that this proves that my logic in pointing out that it couldn't be dead, is flawed. You can't even construct a logical sentance about the nature of zombies, and you expect other readers to take you and your "logic" seriously. Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie. (p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37209664The soccer (possibly the fourth best football code in the world) English Premier League has spent  £1.165 Billion on player transfer deals.  This is thanks to a £5.1 billion television deal.  The clubs have to spend this money in a player arms race, there are fine margins between success and failure, and the rewards are massive (so that's why Championship clubs are getting invovled in this inflation).There is also a restricted pool of players, so an increasing amount of money is chasing a fixed pool (more or less, even on a world scale).Obviously, this isn't a net spend, since teams that bought also sold, those that sold may have sold at a profit, and some are selling players they have not bought.Of course, that £5.1 billion means someone thinks they can make more out of broadcastign (alone) of soccer than that amount.  That is through advertising, so football is a means of building an audience and a product to sell to companies: consumers.  We do that for free, we provide oiurselves and our cash.

That still doesn't explain why Spurs were stupid enough to pay £30 million for Sissoko. There aren't many happy moments following Newcastle United, but this really cheered me up!!!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.

I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.

Good to see that satire's not dead

[Bijou Drains]

I am often, with very good reason, accused of being the most pedantic man in North East England. Therefore I would like to point out that a lifetime is a definite period of time in as much that all lives come to an end, whereas an indefinite period may possibily be longer than a lifetime.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Tends to place the discussion about the present video, which mentions both the party and socialism and was produced by a then member of the Audio Visual Committee, in some sort of perspective…

And what "sort of perspective" would that be, may I ask?  Would it be to do with Vin failing to consult with the EC and then using the party logo without their permission.  And finally not being bothered to send a recording of his efforts to the EC but deciding to put it out on Youtube to ask for comments?

You're wrong on just about every count, Brian.  As a then member of the Audio-Visual Committee and as there is currently no rule requiring it, Vin did not need to consult with the EC and neither was he required to obtain their permission to use the logo of the party of which he has been a member for over 30 years. As a matter of courtesy, however, a link to the video was sent to every single member of the EC but only a couple of them could be arsed to watch it.  Finally, I'll remind you of the motion which the EC carried at its August 2016 meeting.

Quote:

MOTION 6. (Cox and McLellan) “The EC notes that a number of Committees of the Party already have the authority of the EC to produce and disseminate audio-visual material and maintain websites in accordance with their Terms of Reference.”Carried 4 – 0 with 3 abstentions.

(emphasis added)

Perhaps if Brian offered sincere his contrition?Brian – Forgive me comrade for I have sinned it is 15 posts since my last sincere contritionFather Kilgallon – Tell me comrade what mispostings have you made since that time.Brian – Well comrade (Brian holds back a tear) I…… I, I  don't know how to say this, but, forgive me I have gone off topic on one occasion and I have questioned a moderator's decision in private message with another comrade, a sin of decent I believe, and lastly…….. (voice becomes low and practically inaudible) I called the almighty infallibility of the EC into question in my private thoughts.Father Kilgallon – Comrade you have committed serious acts of disagreement, however I believe you have made a sincere contition, as a penance go away and read 15 articles by Jim Darcy from 1970s editions of the Standard and when you come out of the coma, whip yourself on the back 30 times with a wet copy of Questions of the Day. Go forth my son and question no more.

[Bijou Drains]

And the last line of Rule 31 states:"no parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as delegates or chair at conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed"My point exactly!

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way? 

You make an interesting analogy SP. If a member was disruptive at a meeting, would you expect the chair to rule them out of order, I would guess the answer would be yes. If they continued to be disruptive would you expect the chair to ask them to leave the meeting, I would probably expect the answer, reasonabl would be yes. However if the member was subsequently disruptive at another meeting, would you think it consistent with the Socialist Party's democractic principles, that the chair of that meeting then goes on to  ban that member from attending SPGB meetings indefinitely? As a Shop Steward for many years there is no way on earth I would accept a member's appeal against a discilplinary decision to be undertaken by the very manager who made the original decision, any more than it would be acceptable that the decision making discussion and reasons for the dismissing the appeal would be kept completely unknown to the member I was representing. Alan (mod 2 or 3), you have written on several occasions about being an active trades unionist, could you say, hand on heart that you would have allowed a union member you were representing to be treated int h at way?I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

[Bijou Drains]

Mod 1Could you please explain two things.1. Is your post #25 intended as a restatement of your personal opinion of the current situation, or a repost of the decision posted on this thread by the Holy Trinity.2. What was the reason for the inclusion in that decision for the recommendation that Vin should show "sincere contrition", surely the clear implication of that statement is that he must accept his "guilt" in order for the appeal to be successful, surely if his appeal is that he was not in the first place guilty of anything, then such a stetement is clearly prejudicial to his appeal. I am not posting this in relation to this particular case, but it is important that things are done fairly, to not do so would create a dangerous precident within the party Furthermore, surely his contrition is of no importance whatsoever, contritiion implies a feeling of remorse, what is the relevence of Vin's feelings one way or the other.As I stated in my post, the principles of natural justice follow the maxin "Nemo iudex in causa sua", no one should be a judge in his own cause, as Vin's main complaint was against the way that you moderated his posts, surely the just thing would be for you to have no involvement in this process, yet by the very fact that you have been part of a team that has come to a "decision" (your words) that Vin's suspension would continue you clearly have not stepped aside

[Bijou Drains]

moderator3 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.

Moderator2 wrote:

We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.

What we have is a situation whereby a forum member, Vin, was suspended prior to two additional moderators joining the IC. Once Vin found out who they were, he asked our opinion on the matter, presumably with the view to have us overide the previous IC decision.To date, as far as I'm aware Vin has not contacted the EC to put his side of the story forward and request a removal of his suspension.It now appears the focus is being directed towards one word.

Mod 3Vin has stated that (with some dispute about the word very) he accepts the following statement:"On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" for the uninitiated:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=worky%20ticketWould you accept that he has therefore met the requirements put forward by the three Mods?YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

Very offensive or very hard?

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

My preferred Hitchen brother has written a piece about his time as a Trotskyist (Chris never recanted his support for Leon, again, advantage Peter). http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/take-it-from-an-ex-trot-labour-neednt-worry-about-trotskyists/ 

Quote:

They were ‘entryists’, who joined Labour because they hated it and wanted to take it over. As soon as anyone knew this was going on, it was more or less bound to fail. But in any case, Trotskyism was always too narrow and too romantic to succeed. Stalin, the cynical bureaucrat and master of manoeuvre, ended up as the head of a superpower. Trotsky, orator of genius, inspired general, superb journalist and true believer, ended up being murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in a suburb of Mexico City. Both men, I should stress, were merciless killers. But one understood politics and the other didn’t.

I always find it really funny that so many Trotskyists are now lauding Cuban "Socialism", heading up "hands off Cuba" campaigns and praising Castro, considering that Ramon Mercador (Trotsky's killer) was welcomed to Havana by Castro with open arms and much celebration, following his release from prison. They clearly don't "do" history.

[Bijou Drains]

This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.In English law there is the concept of "natural Justice".Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). Clearly the question here is as much about the decision to ban Vin as it is about his behaviour on the boards, so quite clearly at least one of the mods has been a judge in his own cause, secondly Vin has not been given the right to any kind of hearing, never mind a fair one.The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalised by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. Quite plainly the process that has been used here meets none of these criteria. Surely the type of process that Democratic Socialists use as part of their dealings, should be demonstrably fairer, more transparent and more accessible than the "Justice" meted out by Capitalist Law.As a way forward can I suggest Father Ted, Father Jack and Father Dougal (aka as Mods 1, 2 & 3) take a step down from their pearly thrones and have a think about how they have gone about this process and then come up with a just, generally acceptable and efficient way to handle bans and appeals against bans, which meets the rules of natural justice at the very least.On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.As I am also a "recovering Catholic" I can see Vin's point about the use of the word contrition, however from my experience of Catholicism, he should just be glad he was only asked to make an act of contrition, One of our priests liked the lady parishioners to show their contrition by having a quick blow on the "pink oboe", p.s. Vin, I miss Kevin a lot as well, but he would be chuffed to know that Socialist activity is restarting in the North East

[Author]

Posts