Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote:Bob Andrews wrote:Anyone who wears open-toed sandals deserves all he gets. Did he flee hot-foot? I saw Coleman have a pint of beer poured over his head. Most amusing.
Indefinite suspension: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Cheerio Bob
Young Master Smeet wrote:If Sunderland City council called an independence referendum, then it's likely that the councillors could be surcharged, and a court order staying the referendum would mean that the vote could not go ahead. This is utterly fantastic, as it assumes that Mackems could learn to read.Hmmm one of the earliest books in the English Language was written by the Venerable Bede, who was a Mackem. Don't like to stick up for my red and white neighbours, but facts is facts!
Bob Andrews wrote:Last month your EC dealt with 13 Forms F ( if you include those from Africa ) . Make way on that there spider's web!Good to see your still getting value for your money from them there special mushrooms Bob!!!
It doesn't, it just means that there is no reason why we should make any distinction between small capitalist ownership/production and large capitalist ownership/production. The D of P was written in 1904. Socialist production was possiible then, just as it is now.In terms of size, the capitalist enterprises at that time were small compared to the mutlinational corps of today.. What I'm saying is, is that it is the capitalist mode of production which acts as the precurser of Socialism, the size of the capitalist enterprises, beyond a certain point, is not especially relevent to the proess. The issue is not the lack of productive capacity, it's the lack of socialists!
Alan Kerr wrote:@Tim KilgallonAre you claiming as if producers in need will vote actually to hinder production?Why is that?For a start I didn't say "producers in need" in a Socialist society decisions will be made by all of society, not just the producers and need implies shortage, again not necessarily the situation in a Socialist society. So it is feasible that if, for instance, sliced bread production was so plentiful and some people were getting sick of that type of bread, a more labour intesive, but higher quality way of making bread could be initiated for those who want it.
This so-called Socialist preamble is your way of interpreting the D of P, it is perfectly possible to interpret it in other ways, for instance through the medium of dance.From a Socialist perspective it is in any case fatally flawed. It relates presumably to quantity of production. In a Socialist society, quality may be as relevant, sometimes more, than quantity. Small scale production may be democratically decided upon as of being preferable to large scale production
Alan Kerr wrote:Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?Yes we can, it is not part of the Object and Declaration of Principles
Alan Kerr wrote:Tim KilgallonThank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is thePreambleCapitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.As a member since 1982, I can never remember it being discussed at a Party Level (Conference or ADM) and being voted for, and as such it holds no weight as part of the Party case.Although an interesting point, why are we discussing it as if it is part of the Party case?
Alan Kerr wrote:Let’s try once more.Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?Steve in post #6 says“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”(Post #6)Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?Is it just me? When you keep referring to "The Socialist Preamble" what are you referring to?
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this shows the value of social media in getting a message across. I think it's to be expected that The Scum will get it wrong, (I don't even think it is a deliberate distortion, just shit thick journalists).It might mean that a few of the readership might be curious enough to find out about what we are really saying. Another good point is the reference all the way through to us as the Socialsit Party, they might get a few complaints from the SPEWERS,I am also happy with this bit in the article as well "The party argues that Mr Corbyn's definition of socialism isn't good enough, and they want a "class-free, state-free, money-free society with free access". Too bloody right, pity they didn't mention that it has been our principled standpoint for 113 years!I do think that photoshopping Jezza into Thatcher was a bit childish though.
Alan Kerr wrote:Form F wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@Form FThank you,Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time.This doesn't answer my question. How does the manager make the choice?
I’m no expert. But I would choose 1) on money cost and 2) on the way to turn capital over in shortest time. For a big firm I would get the best deal I could for kiln.
my experience is that assuming the manager is a man he would either;a) give the contract to his mate from the same Masonic Lodgeb) give the contract to a bloke he knows who will take him down to the golf course and then fill him full of lagerc) give it to the same bloke he always does, cos he can't be arsed to look any further.d) undertake some basic research and award it to the one which meets his half baked ideas of how the job should be done, with no real reference to the people who are going to use the wood or live in the house that was made by the wood.Which is the real nature of capitalism, not the ultra efficient notional vision of the Thatcherites or the Adam Smith Institute
Matt wrote:Quote:The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current moderation guidance is not fit for purpose.I dispute that contention about the guidance. One can always find fault with a moderator's decision, but not him personally. He is only a volunteer and should be helped.
And if you read what I have written, not what you think I have written, that is precicely what I have said. In my view the guidelines are not fit for purpose.I stated that this is not Brian's fault, but I think there should be a facility for the moderator to suspend a poster (not the post) in the event of extreme behaviour like that demonstrated by Bob Andrews.Yes we have a long history of engaging in debate with a variety of different people with a variety of different views. However Knob Andrex is not debating or constructing argument, his purpose is clearly to insult and denigrate, his intention is to be some sort of parody of Jeremy Clarkson.His latest post is an insult to all female members of the party, past and present. In a meeting anyone who was there to just hurl insults would be asked to leave and if they didn't they would be thrown out for disrupting the meeting. I suggest that the moderator be given the power to throw this clown out of the meeting (figuratively).
Matt wrote:There is absolutely no need to personalise this.These are nice sentiments, however the difficulty is that trolls like Bob Andrews and l Bird, continually personalise things. How can someone not take a personal attack (such as Vin has been subjected to by Bob Andrews) as not being pesonal?
Matt wrote:Yes but the WSM_Forum is an email list and functions differently. We can put people on moderation, where their posts are screened for a period in the email lists.You are not allowed to post nor respond to hostile criticism. (You will be moderated)You are not allowed to criticise moderating decision either. (You will be moderated)Most of the members are inactive on the WSM_forum now.We can't do that moderation as in screening posts on the web forum.So the moderator has to abide by the rules of the web forum and issue warnings before suspension.The moderator should be left to deal with troublemakers and party members should resist responding to them in a similar vein.It is a simple matter to help the moderator and flag an offensive post and let the moderator deal with it, rather than attacking him and insisting he removes posters from the website.He can not do that. He can only suspend them, after warnings, as he does.Party members should and must, exercise self discipline.This would assist the moderator greatly.The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current modertation guidance is not fit for purpose. There should be some mechanism whereby if a poster has made a posting which is so far beyond the pale, then the poster would be subject to immediate suspension. To give an extreme example, if a poster made postings insupport if ISIL, would we seeriously have to wait for three occurances to remove them from our discussion board?
