SocialistPunk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,441 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty #123152
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.
    in reply to: Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty #123144
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Expert Analysis #122905
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html

    in reply to: Report of the proceedings of 2016 ADM #122694
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.  

    in reply to: Report of the proceedings of 2016 ADM #122693
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: SPGB EC Mins Oct 2016 #122365
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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. 

    in reply to: SPGB EC Mins Oct 2016 #122363
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    Does this mean that the EC were right to be cautious in endorsing the video?

    in reply to: Jeremy Corbyn the person #114197
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    jondwhite wrote:
    Saint Jezza on 'socialism'http://i.imgur.com/VHIiLjc.jpg

    It's a nice sentiment, something we could all agree with. But he doesn't tell us anything about what socialism actually is.

    in reply to: The Tory Workers Party #122272
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: The Tory Workers Party #122271
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: Nomination for the AV Committee #121827
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    Still getting it wrong.The link you provide is to the thread about the moderators decision on Vin's suspension. What we essentialy said was that Vin needs to go through the appeal process. But he already knew that.

    moderator2 wrote:
    After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.

    So again, I did not suspend Vin.

    lindanesocialist wrote:
    Re post 12:Vin  was told ‘it is the EC you need convince and appeal’ Sound very similar to “the EC has banned you”Read your decision back to yourself.

    Your sentence construction is very confusing here. However quite simply, they don't, "Sound very similar". You really are clutching at straws.Seeing as the EC decided to deal with Vin's communication to the IC, it simply means that the EC then became the route of appeal for Vin. I'm not really sure why you are having such a difficult time grasping this concept.By the way, you've done plenty of accusing recently.

    in reply to: Nomination for the AV Committee #121824
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    Wrong again. I did not suspend Vin. He was suspended in March, and has only just recently decided to go through the appeal process that he would have been told about back then.Earlier on this thread, post #12, you claimed the moderators said the EC was responsible for Vin's suspension. You were shown your mistake, yet didn't retract nor apologise for making the false claim.Last night I couldn't really make out what you were on about, but it seems you are now saying I'm to blame for Vin's suspension.This seems to be a habit of your's Linda. Vin does the same. You make accusations and assertions and when shown to be wrong you simply ignore the evidence, adjust slightly to compensate for the facts, rinse and repeat. Almost as if saying them often enough will make them reality. I've seen this tactic used often on various social media sites and I have to say I never thought I would see a day come when members of the SPGB used it.

    in reply to: Nomination for the AV Committee #121820
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    lindanesocialist wrote:
    YOU are responsible for a comrade's suspension and censorship. You have also accused VIn of paranoia. If you stopped for a moment to think about it……………

    You seem to be suggesting that I suspended Vin?I'm off to bed now. Nighty, night Linda.

    in reply to: Nomination for the AV Committee #121819
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    You've been told this a few times already and I'm probably wasting my time here, yet again. But I'll try once more.The quote from Joe is a section taken from a quote by mod1, from the thread "Moderators decision on Comrade Maratty's idefinite forum ban", page 18, post #174.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban?page=17

    moderator1 wrote:
    The resolution can be found in the July EC minutes.(b) Matters arising or carried forward from previous meeting(s) vii. Internet Committee report to EC 26/03/16 – Item 3 of the ‘Executive summary’(June Item2bd – c/f April EC): “We ask that the EC take such steps as are necessary to relieve the Internet Committee of the burden of further dealing with this member.” The matter had been deferred pending confirmation (now provided) that a reported resignation by the member had been withdrawn. MOTION 1 [Cox/Craggs]: “To recommend that the Internet Committee forwards any further correspondence from this member to the EC.” AGREED.
    in reply to: Nomination for the AV Committee #121816
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    Err…wrong again. Vin was suspended back in March of this year. Like I say, he only just decided to appeal his suspension.As Joe pointed out back on post #13."In june the I.C. notified the E.C. they had no intention of dealing with any appeal on his suspension. The july E.C. requested that correspondence from Vin to the I.C. is forwarded to them. This bypassed the I.C. stage of the appeal process Vin was told about, by Mod1 at the time of his suspension.So any appeal by Vin goes to the E.C. The E.C. did not suspend Vin."If the EC have decided to instruct the moderators to reinstate Vin, it will be done.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,441 total)