steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Some use personal abuse in a very clear, overt manner. In the main it is an expression of frustration and exasperation. There are those however, who give personal abuse in a more roundabout, clandestine manner. The sly dig's here, the sly asides there. Taken individually they seem innocuous, as an entirety, they take on a more sinister aspect. They are the domain of the intellectual coward.Personally, I would rather be called a prick right out in the open, than be nibbled away at by underhanded abuse, akin to bein nibbled to death by rats. Steve.
Is not the use of capitalisation in saying, "END OF STORY" not provocative and or threatening? Come on comrade, surely it is!I will try one last time to get an answer from DJP to the above. In the context this was used in post 12, do you DJP, not now feel that the capitalisation was both provocative and an implied threat, especially coming from a moderator. And please no equivocation by saying you are not a moderator of any other party site. For as I was left in no doubt, by various people, capitalisation goes against internet etiquette and as you are clearly more internet savvy than I, you should be more aware of this than I.An unequivocal answer would be appreciated. Steve.
"I've never sworn at anyone or used personal abuse to the best of my knowledge. If I am guilty of such then I deeply regret any instances.However, I've had enough of the abuse levelled against me not to mention the questioning of my socialist credentials. With immediate effect I am ceasing all my website activities including the running of the party's events section."See the baby has chucked his toys out of the pram again, then took "his footy" home. Oh well! Steve.
Only problem is JC, the loud-mouthed gobshites on here are 2 of the landlords. And never in my life have I seen a landlord refuse to serve himself. What do you do with a loudmouthed gobshite landlord JC? answers on the back of a beer mat.
In the context that DJP used the sentence, capitalised of course, "END OF STORY" added to the fact that he is a moderator, this is indeed a case of an implied threat. If one knows anything of the English language, the conclusion is inescapable. But allowances must be made for some I suppose, feeble irony there but not for others, how droll.These jokers should write a new sitcom, "how to derail and shite on your fellow Socialists, using spurious and insupportable argument and hyperbole".If nothing else, you would have the longest sitcom title. How ironic would that be! Democracy? had more from the Tories. Steve.
What can I add? nothing. The above say's it all. Certain comrades can swear, use abusive language use capitalisation, and it is justified. Others who do it, we all know who we are, cannot. Are moderated or banned for 7 day's! Is this not a joke? Is this not the ultimate irony, taken in context of course. The 2 Ronnies could do no better.Steve.
Nothing to add. It has all been said. Using capitalisation in the way it was and for the reason, is, and was shouting, shouting down a reasoned argument. Is not the use of capitalisation in saying, "END OF STORY" not provocative and or threatening? Come on comrade, surely it is!If not, none of the aforementioned sanctions were correct, or mean a damn.I rest my case.Steve.
DJP, when you read this, I would appreciate a reply to my post 17. Much appreciated in advance,Steve.
I too OGW would like to know who these, "certain users" are! Are they, like I myself was, going to be judged on so-called previous, until I in fact appealed to the Internet dept and and this farce was overturned?Yours for Socialism, Steve.
A sad day indeed when a good comrade is treated so obviously shabbily and feels there is no recourse but to leave the party. The decision to uphold the moderation and suspension made and makes no sense. It is an illogical conclusion to a confusing event.The case for Socialism is based upon facts and logical thought, the decision against OGW lacked both! Yours for Socialism,Steve.
There you go again gnome, inferring what I mean. When I say that va decision not to use a photograph is "outmoded trash", that is my opinion, surely I am allowed that. As for following a conference resolution not to allow photos on manifestos, of course I would follow and heed that decision! I do, after all, believe in the democratic will of the majority.However, no conference decision, either that one or any other has been passed stating that agreement of this conference decision stops us from discussing its merits or demerits and I am using my democratic right to voice opposition to this stance. Okay comrade? Yours for SocialismSteve.
I think you misunderstand me OGW, or, more specifically, I have not made myself plain enough in my language. I have not now, nor have ever, opposed a picture of a Socialist candidate on our manifesto. Outmoded trash, that idea. If comrades do, as I did, and state explicitly that you vote for the idea not the candidate, then what is the problem. I know that certain tribes thought that having their picture taken would mean their "sole" was stolen. Having no sole I cannot speak to this. But however, I can say that anyone who is afraid of a photo, needs some serious help. Maybe a witchdoctor or voodoo priest would be of assistance : )Yours for Socialism,Steve.
I have stood in countless elections, from town council up to and including the Euros. My face has appeared in the press but not on our election material. I must state however, that in all elections I have contested I have made it plain, "if you do not agree with our case and analysis, the party does not want, nor require your vote"We do not require your vote on personal terms! If you agree with us, vote for Socialism. If not vote for the many pro-Capitalist partys, FULL STOP. A picture, notwithstanding.No personalities, just Socialism.Yours For Socialism,Steve.
DJP, in both posts 12 and 16 above, you used capitalisation, obviously to "stress" a point! As you are no doubt aware, when I used capitals I was accused of "shouting". Are you not guilty of the same thing? if not, why not.Your use of capitals in the sentence "end of story", could and in fact, in my case was, seen as fairly provocative!.To Brian I would ask, where was this decision to, "keep mum" arrived at and moreover, by whom? I was never party to any discussion along these lines, in point of fact, if I had been, I would have said quite unequivocally that there was no chance of me agreeing to this, "self-censorship". If the party, as has always been the case allows and supports the right of the right-wing to the air of free debate and rightly so, it would be anathema to deny this same "right" to party members whether freely agreed to or, by coercive means.I joined a party that prided itself on its adherence to free and unfettered speech and discussion. Sadly, there have been incidences where this has not been applied with as much verve and vigour on this forum and other party sites as was the case in the days of yore!We should return to our belief in free and unfettered debate if this is, in fact the case and stop wearing the cape that goes with it. Or the only cape we will be wearing is the "shroud" of our own, eventual, demise.Yours for Socialism,Steve.
