steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was replying to a post which suggested the possibility of DELETING whole threads. This would indeed be censorship. So I don't get the gist of your argument!
We must be very careful if we go down this avenue. Just because this is "common elseplace…" does not mean it is appropriate for a website set up by a party that prides itself on it's freedom to express and and discuss issues.We must be very careful, lest the charge of censorship be levelled by others outside the party. It is the nature of politics and political parties that not everyone agrees. Is it not more hazardous to ban threads, than to deal with any fractious incidents on them?I would rather take part in frank and open discourse than go down the route of proscription.
Hud, I read what you are saying and have tried offering an olive branch before but how does one respond to comments like, "We certainly can't have petulant kindergarten tantrums every time someone gets suspended." I am a 50 year old male and will not be referred to in this way, by anyone, if indeed comrade Chesham was referring to me, which he has neither confirmed or denied.It is as if individuals need to have the last word. If no more "snide asides" are posted, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed.Cheers Hud : )
gnome wrote:" It really is incredibly boring and off-putting to those folk visiting the forum but nobody seems to be the slightest bit concerned about that. We certainly can't have petulant kindergarten tantrums every time someone gets suspended. It may be mildly injurious to the individual's pride but it doesn't inflict any permanent damage."To whom, exactly, are you referring to when you talk of people having, "kindergarten tantrums" Gnome? Also, do you include yourself in the claim that, "nobody seems to be the slightest bit concerned about that." ?I ask this for clarification only. As it would be educational to know how wide you are spreading your net!By the way, defending a comrade, who one deems to be in "the right", is not throwing a kindergarten tantrum, if indeed your reference was made towards me! it is merely what one does when one sees an injustice, here, or in any facet of life. Could you please clarify?
No bridge building, no consensus making, on and on and on yada, yada, yada. We are brothers and sisters in the fight for Socialism, for a better world, aren't we? Lets get to that business, eh?
gnome wrote:That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.This is not a supposition, it is an actual Statement. Read it, no room for an equivocal interpretation!I hope you take this as a sincere attempt to get to grips with this issue.
I recently self excluded myself from the Forum, in solidarity with Vin Maratty and to show my distaste at the action to exclude him. At the time I thought it to be the correct course of action, although with some niggling misgivings.I also said at the time, that I would continue to peruse the Forum. I did this for 2 reasons;1/ So that I could keep up to date with the discussions on the varying threads and when I returned, would not come at these discussions cold.2/To put to bed my misgivings about my course of action.Now I know I had a right to be worried and at what would pertain during the time lapsed with my self-imposed exile.In point of fact, the comments made recently have gone far beyond my fears. The following is the reason I have broken my self imposed exclusion.Comrade Maratty was, as far as I can gather excluded from this site for casting aspersions on other contributors. From which he, according to the powers that be, would not desist.I personally, on reviewing the different threads, could find no such personalised attacks from OGW. Generalised comments are NOT, I repeat NOT, personal attacks. This is not the case with the following;"I think it would be a shame to lose the forum just because of the old grey whistle test".This is an explicit accusation that the TROUBLE on this site, if trouble there was, was as a direct result of actions by OGW. An accusation, that only a passing glance at his posts would dispel.That however comrades, is not the worst of this! as the following post shows and yet not merely this but that a post such as this, submitted at 1.43 has not even been challenged by the wider users of this forum.Posted by gnome at 1.43 on post 304 of this thread it reads,That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.I draw your attention to the following passage;"However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users."Why would you say this? More importantly, how could you make a comment like this, without incurring the wrath of any democrat on this site!You are advocating TARGETTED censorship. Putting aside the question of who would decide on whom this Orwellian axe would fall, how can a DEMOCRAT make such a suggestion and how could a democratic party not react with horror and rightious indignation.The comment from gnome is generalised just enough, so that no one individual is explicitly NAMED. Nor is it tacitly stated who these EGOS are. Although, if one has been following this site for the last week, the conclusion as to it's targets is quite obvious.The last sentence of gnomes post is quite appropriate and moreover, revealing!"Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price."The price, it would appear, is more costly, it is the evolution of a thought police, within the midst of the only truly democratic political party in th U.K. A party predicated on comradeship and a common purpose for a better world. Being, it would appear to be suggested, at the behest of individuals, their mores and judgements, as to what is acceptable and what is not. That comments such as, even tacitly suggesting individual censorship and exclusion have not been jumped all over by the wider membership is extremely worrying and moreover frightening!
I thought gnome said this kind of CHAT was off the map? This thread is, Is there something wrong with the parties case and/or its methods. Where does your post fit in with this Holly?
The thread is titled,Is there, Is there, "Something wrong with the party's case and/or it's methods."?By "methods", we can by extrapolation point to the way we, as party members, interact one with another. It is in this spirit that we can and must be more conscious of the words and manner with which we treat our fellows. We must be reconciled to the fact that what we are after is the same thing, a saner, better society. It is only by keeping this idea at the forefront of our minds that we can act cooperatively, to bring Socialism about.It is in this spirit, that I apologise if any of my posts have caused others offence and that I will be more diligent and have more forethought before posting any future comments. I would hope others will follow suit in the same spirit.#YFS, Steve.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the partys case, nor even it's methods apart from being a bit behind the times.We need to keep up with the modern means of mass communication. The internet being a perfect case in point. Some of the old methods, especially letters to the press and indeed even the public meeting still have a place.The task I believe, is to marry these propaganda methods together and others, as we come up with them, to make the best use of our resources, both manpower wise and financial.
oops you got in before me! Guess I got my answer.I ASK A STRAIGHT QUESTION AND HE SAYS HE'S A NAUGHTY GIRL WHO MAKES THINGS UPBy the way, I'm sure NL was joking with the above comment! You know, comedic reply?
Well there goes the idea of concentrating on the case for Socialism. Oh well, I tried!So Ed, do you categorically state that you never called, or implied that, Northern Lights was a liar? Or, moreover, that you yourself have never made "cheap jibes". Remember, you are not the only person who can review old posts!By the way, can you read my earlier post, (44) and give me your considered response?
Slandered Ed? I never knew that disagreeing with someone was akin to slander! Nor did I realise that not agreeing with someones argument and putting a counter argument was an Attack!As for being THREATENED, I read Northern Lights comments a while ago, and he was speaking retrospectively, of the way he would have reacted years ago, to someone who called him a LIAR to his face.Please don't continue, anyone, with this type of rhetoric.As a Socialist, my only focus is putting the case for Socialism. I'm looking forward to people, on the different threads on this site, hopefully coming up with inspiring methods for propogating the case for Socialism.That should be the only focus for us all.
