SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Good timing, nicely played Tim, (see #20). As soon as I point out some inconvenient facts that Linda keeps evading, (see #19) you step up to offer a solution to calm our fevered brows. You even get a round of applause.What we don't get, is comment from Linda, addressing the inconvenient facts. So I'm gonna give it another go. Maybe we'll see some answers this time.
SocialistPunk wrote:Linda, why is it you keep omitting certain facts? Could it be that the facts you consistently skirt around, are the ones that don't sit easily in your narrative?Vin was issued with the indefinite suspension by moderator1 from this forum in March of this year. Vin would have been told of the appeal process, of which he knew from previous suspensions. Yet he chose not to pursue the matter.When Vin was suspended in March 2016, there was only moderator1, monitoring the forum. Meaning moderators 2 and 3 were not involved in Vin’s suspension.June 2016. The IC informed the EC that they would not handle any more communication from Vin.July 2016. The EC made a decision to deal with all communication from Vin that was sent to the IC. Meaning Vin's appeal would be handled by the EC.August 2016. Vin publicly asked the three moderators to reinstate him on the forum. The decision made was that he be advised to follow the existing appeal process, that any other member would be required to do. So despite your claim, the three moderators did not suspend Vin. Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?September 2016. Vin finally engages with the appeal process and sends a request to the EC, asking them to reinstate him on the forum. Meaning Vin left it 6 months before setting in motion the appeal process, to challenge his suspension.No explanation as to why Vin left it six months to appeal his suspension has, as far as I can tell, ever been given. Instead, we’ve had eight months and counting, of yourself and at times Vin, using this forum as a means of circumnavigating the appeal process, often resulting in uncomradely comments and accusations. the latest being, that the IC have deliberately ignored an EC instruction.Linda, why is it you keep omitting certain facts? Could it be that the facts you consistently skirt around, are the ones that don't sit easily in your narrative?Vin was issued with the indefinite suspension by moderator1 from this forum in March of this year. Vin would have been told of the appeal process, of which he knew from previous suspensions. Yet he chose not to pursue the matter.When Vin was suspended in March 2016, there was only moderator1, monitoring the forum. Meaning moderators 2 and 3 were not involved in Vin’s suspension.June 2016. The IC informed the EC that they would not handle any more communication from Vin.July 2016. The EC made a decision to deal with all communication from Vin that was sent to the IC. Meaning Vin's appeal would be handled by the EC.August 2016. Vin publicly asked the three moderators to reinstate him on the forum. The decision made was that he be advised to follow the existing appeal process, that any other member would be required to do. So despite your claim, the three moderators did not suspend Vin. Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?September 2016. Vin finally engages with the appeal process and sends a request to the EC, asking them to reinstate him on the forum. Meaning Vin left it 6 months before setting in motion the appeal process, to challenge his suspension.No explanation as to why Vin left it six months to appeal his suspension has, as far as I can tell, ever been given. Instead, we’ve had eight months and counting, of yourself and at times Vin, using this forum as a means of circumnavigating the appeal process, often resulting in uncomradely comments and accusations. the latest being, that the IC have deliberately ignored an EC instruction.
On the subject of the "loaded foreign elite", this quote from Murdoch, which I've posted before but is well worth reposting whenever possible, is a most illuminating one.
Quote:I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'If I'm reading Linda's post above correctly, it looks like the IC are getting it in the neck for forwarding on communication from Vin (see post #9) to the EC, despite the EC request for them to do so. Yet at the same time they are also apparently being selective in not sending the EC a request that Vin himself sent directly to the EC.
I'm a bit confused as to what the IC have done wrong now? The above post appears to say Vin sent his appeal directly to the EC himself.
Gnome,I'm well aware of my assumption. Given the same info under the same circumstances I could only come to the same assumption.However it seems despite the circumstances surrounding the reasoning of the EC, their caution does now appear, luckily, to have been the correct decision, but the wrong approach.
jondwhite wrote:Saint Jezza on 'socialism'http://i.imgur.com/VHIiLjc.jpgIt's a nice sentiment, something we could all agree with. But he doesn't tell us anything about what socialism actually is.
I'm so priveleged to be in a position to be watching the BBC Daily Politics show, today. They were at the Tory conference and they were doing their balls in the box vote on a question stunt. The question was "Will we be richer or poorer because of Brexit?"Guess what the majority of Tories, who took the time to engage, went for? Apparently "we" are gonna be richer post Brexit. Of course there was no defining what the "we" meant, because I seriously doubt workers pay packets will see much of an increase if the Brexit goes ahead.
I caught a minute of the end of May's conference speech, a minute of my life, ruined for life.At first I could have sworn it was a different party from the one that's been imposing austerity on the people of Britain for the last few years. Then I heard the nauseating applause about protecting "our soldiers" from lefty human right's lawyers.Despite claiming to be the centre ground of British politics, her speech was designed to appeal to patriotic voters who want to feel as though they are being listened to.Does anyone think this is the end of the line for UKIP?
Capitalist Pig wrote:I am just so confusedYour're not the only one CP.As mcolome1 has pointed out on a few occasions.
mcolome1 wrote:I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time.Gnome,What do you make of the following from YMS (#277), in reply to my "fair enough assumption"?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Fraid not, not unless the work you're taking it from has an attribution and a licence statement (as we have at the end of the staandard). We all know what happens when you assume…Young Master Smeet wrote:Bourgeois science works by rstricting access to the fruits of collective endevour: education, training, resources to practice science and time. When there are no more classes, and the intellectual fruits of society are available to freely access by all, and the working day is reduced to the bare minimum, members of society will be able to practice a different sort of science. The basis of that society will be that the free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all, so there will be access to heterodx views, and active steops taken to ensure that minorities interests and opinions are supported so that they can test and promote their ideas through equal access to the means of communication. Where large projects are required, society will democratically decide whether it is worthwile to build ITER, or CERN like facilities, and we will co-ordinate worldwide to ensure that we can all benefit from them.Science would be a part of daily life, with the practical possibilities of being able to feed it into our communities and workplaces providing a fucs, so knowledge will be produced out of our daily existence. Where "the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations." What we won't have is a "doctrine [which] must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society." by having binding votes on whateveryone thinks.Indeed, it will be a society in which 'everyone' can access [evidence], and then have to decide what it means to them… "That's what it's all about.
