Forum Replies Created
Dear Bob.There's something I think you should be aware of. It's funny isn't it? Even though these are only lines on a screen I'm actually talking to you. For this moment in time, I have your attention. I have your attention. Did you know that attention is power? Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit. No. Just kidding.I hope your feeling aren't hurt. I wouldn't have pulled your leg like that if I didn't think you could take it. I assume that a compagno with your high level of awareness will catch the ironic tone, the sarcastic humour. You're not some average ignoramous.I was lying. Those things I said about you before – all true. You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead. No. Just kidding. You are a warm, intelligent, decent guy. No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known. No. Not true, not true. I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited.But see how you let me jack you around emotionally? That's what happens when you give your attention to social media. You give it a lot of power. The power of social media…yep.
Nice reply Matt. Well done.mcolome1 wrote:Are we going to allow that this forum be shifted from its real issues to deal with these stupid survey and postcards ? We have better social and economical issues to deal with.The best survey should be to eliminate all these nonsense and all those postings that has nothing to do with socialism.The moderators of this forum must wear iron boot and stand on their feet and make a decision
and we know they have onemoderator1 wrote:There's no priviliged class on the forum,
Lol lol Ha ha .LBird wrote:Tim, stay out of it – I can't take your inability to discuss sensibly. I'll only end up getting banned, because I'll talk to you like one talks to a dimwit, and I shouldn't treat you like that, so I won't reply to your stupidities any further.If you don't like it, complain to the mods.
The TRUTH is LBird you always resort to abuse and insults when it is revealed just how stupid you are by someone with higher intellectual ability Why don't we have a vote on your stupid theory? Then we will have arrived at the TRUTH.
Bringing up arguments from the past can be taken out of context. It is also destructive and Vin cannot give you his side of the story because I would certainly be suspended under the existing moderation so I will join a few other comrades and leave the forum as one said: until such time as suitable personnel changes have been made to the Internet Committee and those 'entrusted' with 'laying down the law'.mcolome1 wrote:I did not know that he had said that the members of the Socialsit Party are fascists. I do not agree with that expression.
Nor does Vin and myself. it is regrettable. But as I say the suspension and the EC instruction to the IC and ADM recommendation is not about open criticism of the Party. The matter is being raised to cloud the issue. I would not and could not accuse a member of being 'deceitful' and 'talking bilge' I would consider such comments come under ;abuse'
Matt, . the number of inaccuracies- for the want of a better word – and ignorance of events in your last post is so large I will need to write a Phd on them but I will waste only some of my time to deal with a coupleFirstly, Vin's criticism of the Party has NOTHING to do with his forum suspension. You are therefore way off topic and using the situation to express your vitriol. You are clearly provocating I know who the comrade is behind the pseudoym mcolome1 and I would not break his confidence by repeating his identity as you have. The point is, he himself clearly states that this forum represents something he has witnessed in Stalinist and Leninist groups and referred to the Internet Committee "a Central Committed controlled by Cadres. We are not supposed to have leaders or chieftain." Not that much different from Vin's description. And we would all agree that he is a respected long standing member.Members may only criticise the party in certain places. Members may not criticise the Party on the world wide web. What nonsense is that? You will find that as a socialist party unlike fascist and Stalinist Parties we are free to criticise the Party whereever and whenever we wish. Indeed there is a conference resolution to this effect (not that one should be needed.This is a socialist party and challenging the democratic actions of members and committees is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the defamatory and infamatory attacks agains members as you are doing. Vin Maratty is responsible for wasting party time. The time wasting has been caused by over moderation of which many members have now commented on and the undemocratic action of the Internet Committee forcing the issue onto the EC Opening an account under a pseudonym is not deceitful but common practice. It was Vin's only accountClearly you are free to be abusive and distort the truth about Vin and as is your usual practice you are seeking to provoke a response.I suggest yo suppress your prejudices of members and deal with the issues. I would accept a warning for referring to a member as a 'little hitler' and even a suspension for accusing a member of deceit as you have done of Vin. But I would expect to be allowed to criticise the party freely as Vin and mcolome1 are. I believe there are rules protecting members from having their integrity challenged I suggest that the party applies that principle fairly, otherwise it is meaninglessMatt wrote:For your information, this is a member who in a comrade's twitter feed in 2013 wrote,
I can’t allow you to give malcolm such an unbalanced defamatory impression of Vin which is now becoming a habit of one or two sour vindictive members who have chosen not to move on.You forgot the bit about him joining the Party in the 70s and – Organised meetings and debates with almost every organisation: printing and delivering thousands of leaflets and posters over a period of more than 10 years. Had 100s of letters posted in local newspaper and spoke 100s of times on local phone ins.All arguing the SPGB case. He has argued and defended the SPGB ever since even when not a member, as well as criticising it when some of its members acted undemocratically as they clearly are now.Dragged a party platform to the major cities of the North East of England to shout the case of the PartyWas a founder member of Seaham Branch which later developed into North East. Acting as secretary, delegate, branch organiser, printer, distributer, tea maker and got the rounds inWas the sole representative of the SPGB in a debate with the Durham Miners Union at Sunderland University during the 1984 Miners strike and gave out leaflets on the picket line. I could go on. He has always been a passionate advocate of the SPGB which is why he becomes even more angry and frustrated when he sees members misuse of it and flaunting its democracy..You also rais a number of issues1. Members are free to criticise the party.You are in a minority if you think otherwise2. This was in 2013.Vin has since rejoined and made an unnecessary apology for criticising the party.3. The whole of the working class is anti- socialist. Again you are in a minority if you believe they should not be accepted in the party because of 'previous' opposition.How would YOU describe the actions of a small committee that refuses to carry out the wishes of ADM and the EC because it claims that it knows better. I struggle for a word but malcom has said that he has only experience it in Stalinist and Leninist groups. "It sounds like a Central Committed controlled by Cadres. We are not supposed to have leaders or chieftain" . Do you intend to remind him of his comments in 2019?I thank you Matt for revealing the elephant in the room: The REAL reason Vin is banned from the forummoderator1 wrote:What I mean is you have posted 'Vin said' comments and ignored Rule 8. on the posting of such messages by not seeking permission to post them.
Ah yes rule 8. I think you refer to the amendment to rule 8 which was added after 'vin said' comments appeared and directed specifically at 'vin said' comments.What will be the next amendment to forum rules:'Anyone with a surname beginning with 'M' shall not join the forum without prior permission of the Moderator'. That should cover all angles
Just to clarify, all warnings have been removed?
I posted them. I have posted comments for him, if that's what you mean. Like Robbo, the SPGB ADM and the SPGB Executive Committee I oppose indefinite suspensions and I believe he should be allowed to speak on the forum and be treated as an equal.Despite the fact that you have been instructed by the EC to allow him to speak on the forum you issued warnings when I allowed him to speak. Your actions are grossly undemocratic.. It also seems like you have been fiddling around with the forum again. I am unable use 'quote'ALB wrote:Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks.
He is not allowed to post through my account and he didn't open a second account. I have explalined this to on a number of occassions but you are obviously not listening. The wording of the EC resolution was so therefore they lift your suspension and you are invited to enjoin this does not require any action from the IC. Vin's account was blocked 10 months ago by the IC so he did not have an account. He opened an account with the sanction of the EC and he was blocked by a moderator as a 'sock puppet' account. By definition a sock puppet account requires two active accounts by one user to 'support' and talk to each other. As usual the IC distorted and used the rules to suit their purpose and to prevent Vin from posting.The account was a pseudonym to avoid continued persecution from the Internet committee. Many members including yourself, gnome and Robbo use pseudonyms. Like you he is entitled to anonimity.We are all off topic now but only I will be blocked by the Mods. Wonder why?robbo203 wrote:I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated.
As does the SPGB 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting and the SPGB November Executive Committee. Dear Vin, – Your Forum suspension – The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”) by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee. YFS, Oliver Bond Acting General Secretary The Internet Committee is acting in flagrant breach of party democracy and displaying disrespect and contempt of the decisions of the membership. Like a leadership it knows what is best for the rest of us. But this will be hidden and swept under the carpet because I will now be permanently banned from this forum as was Vin for expressing the same opinion.ALB wrote:yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.
Adam Alan's posts above are in clear and fragrant breach of the forum rules. Linda