steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lets be clear, workers, wholly, or in part, benefitted from the Chavez regime. Would they have been worse off with the usual suspects being in power? undoubtedly. While not being a reformist myself, everyone must accept the reality. If you do not YMS, you are, and sorry for the language, pissing against the wind!. Steve.
Best of luck OGW on getting a straight answer. Does not appear to be the situation at the moment! Convoluted nonsense appears to be the only game in town. Steve.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Moderation? I recommend it. Especially, we ought to moderate those who – mischievously – snipe from the sidelines. You all know who I mean, don't you?Actually Jonathan I, do not! Could you enlighten me?By the way you state, "Nobody at work moderates me, or tries to. They just ask me questions about what the fuck I'm talking about." So in the same tone and after reading your post but not understanding its quintessential symbolism, what the fuck does it mean?Steve.
Firstly Matt, you say moderators are subject to oversight, then you explain what in actuality, is the case. Moderators are subject to oversight if a moderated person puts in an appeal. So no appeal= no oversight. In point of fact, if oversight existed, it would have to be a totally independent oversight committee.By the way Matt, what you term and claim to be, "jestful analogy", would get some of us in the doghouse, indeed it has done so in the past. See what we mean by biased and unfair moderation?A case of give a dog a bad name and pre-existent, preconceptions continue ad-infinitum, whether they are warranted, ( or as in this case) not. SocialistPunk wrote:That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?You say many if not more people will be bored shitless by this! I think the reason you give such an obtuse reply is because, in fact, you have realised the contradiction inherent in your claim and that it is illogical! Steve.
I have left this thread idle in order to see if SP recieved his explanations and answers. It looks now, as if they will not be forthcoming, so the issue drags on, with no sign of closure! Steve.
Capitalism=no profit, no production=dying from starvation in a world that, even now, can feed us all= pensioners dying of the cold, when energy exists to warm us all= homeless in a world that can house us all.= children dying of easily treatable illness, dying of these illnessess= people dying of waterborne deseases, when it costs a tiny amount to provide everyone with access to clean water, even in Capitalism. It is Capitalism itself, that says to the majority, cannot pay, then cannot have. It is Capitalism that kills! It does not kill by intent, but by the very nature of Capitalism. Once again a restatement, cannot pay, then cannot have, even unto death.There is no dichotomy of different kinds of Capitalism, just Capitalism. Steve.
Afraid I cannot agree with you aunty, when you say "Capitalism itself isn't really the problem, it is the mode of capitalism that is deployed at the moment, the capitalism of greed."Capitalism has only one way to operate, in the interests of it's great god profit, with greed as one of it's ablest and staunchest priests. That the rich get richer whilst, at the same time, the poor get poorer, is merely par for the course for Capitalism, one of it's axioms I would suggest.The only way to take action, as you put it, is to get rid of Capitalism and replace it with a system of society, that is run in "all" our interests and moreover, belongs to us equally.If you have suggestions as to how this can be achieved, I am sure, everyone on this forum will be only to delighted to hear them. Steve.
Adam, before you comment on any more of my posts, please read them first. In my post, no mention was made as to "who started it". No recriminatory accusation were made, I alluded to the fact that "all" sides were in some way complicit in the events.This is a valuable first step in gaining "closure" on this issue. I am only concerned, as a non-member, with this "open" forum and hope to see it used to spread the ideas of Socialism, moreover how and in what ways we envisage this new society growing and developing, not as a "blueprint" but using our knowledge of where we are, capitalism and by extrapolation, where we see ourselves as a class, going.So Adam, no more talk of people not acting reasonably, or with self-restraint, no more negativity! I may be a non-member now but I still advocate a rational, inclusive society, as an alternative to the insanity of Capitalism. Steve.
I've seen very little of the oversight of moderators that you allude to! What is it with those who choose to deny any culpability of moderators in "any" of the events that have occured. Do you really believe they are "lilly white". The only way to get a resolution to these events is for all, including moderators, to be brave enough to fess up. However, I see little likelyhood of this turn of events! Steve.
As someone with Multiple Schlerosis, which affects my mobility, sight, hearing, toileting wtf would I make ableist comments?Answers please
I will say this, any and all items for discussion can, and usually do, bring floor resolutions. If the item for discussion is not complete, how can any branch, even the one bringing it, instruct said delegates on how to vote, in the eventuality a floor resolution is PUT?In this instance, if any branch, other than Lancaster does this, then surely they can only instruct on the basis that they are voting on internal party forums! The SPGB forum is not, as far as I am aware, an internal party forum.There may be discussion of this issue at conference but as is implicit, any branch delegate can only vote on individual "assumption" of the issue, as the item is not fully explained, nor comprehensible as such.Do you get my GIST ED?
I've just accidentally, deleted my wole post. so I will just saythis, it is a voting issue, as a floor resolution can be brought by any delegate!BTW, wtf is an ableist joke? Steve.
Ed wrote:It's not a voting issue, it's an item for discussion not a motion. To me it seems quite obvious that it's talking about any forum as it uses the plural "forums". In the supporting statement they start by mentioning that their motivation for putting forward this item is due to "acrimonious posts on our internal e-mail lists". While that may be the motivation for the item it does not limit us to merely discussing that particular part of it. And in fact it would have been strange for a member of Lancaster branch to specify this forum as their motivation as I'm unaware of any of their members using it.P.S. Steve you wouldn't be making an ableist joke would you?
