Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Cheers for looking. Thought it might be worth a look at (in light of Socialist Punk's question yesterday).
Some fascinating stats from the 2011 census:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677321
Quote:The second-most common category was "No religion", comprising more than a quarter of the population (25.1%; 14.1 million), up from 7.7 million (14.8%) in 2001.(Note, The Christian 33.2 million is split between several denominations, so it'c clear that no-religion is the biggest "religious" group outright).http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515
Quote:The census also shows that, while fewer people own their own home, more people own it outright. Just under 15 million households owned their own home in 2011, either with a mortgage or loan, or outright – a decrease of four percentage points since 2001…However, those who owned their home outright increased two percentage points from 29% (6.4 million) to 31% (7.2 million)…The group that rented from a private landlord or letting agency increased by six percentage points from 9% (1.9 million) in 2001 to 15% (3.6 million) in 2011.I am on topic, the topic is the forum rules, and it is on topic to say a thread has been talked out.
I wasn't being sarcastic at all.What you wrote was:
OGW wrote:I was refering to the period BEFORE I was warned.And yes it IS time we moved on.I can't see any other way of reading that than as a call to move on and let it lie, which i agree with.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:And yes it IS time we moved on.Hear, hear. I think we should all follow OGW's advice and let it go, and get on with discussing socialism.
On Homelessness in the UKhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/16512/Statutory_Homelessness_3rd_Quarter__July_-_Sep__2012_England.pdf
Quote:52,960 households were in temporary accommodation on 30 September 2012, 8 per cent higher than at the same date in 2011.DJP wrote:In mainstream economics 'Marginal Utility' refers to an increase or decrease in utility following the consumption of an additional unit of a good. I fail to see what that article has to do with it?Well, I suppose the utter uselessness of Californium, and several other of the items on that list illustrates the Diamonds half of the Paradox of Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value) note, the apparent solution of the problem, by Marginalism, is, to my mind, unutterable bunkum. Diamonds are precious because they are rare, but they are only rare because they are desired. Since they have no otehr use, it is their value that makes them desirable.
For those not in the know:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordiga
Wikipedia wrote:Amadeo Bordiga (13 June 1889 – 23 July 1970) was an Italian Marxist, a contributor to Communist theory, the founder of the Communist Party of Italy, a leader of the Communist International and, after World War II, a leading figure of the International Communist Party. (…)Bordiga proudly defined himself as "anti-democratic" and believed himself at one with Marx and Engels on this. Bordiga's hostility toward democracy had nothing to do with Stalinist idealism. Indeed, he saw fascism and Stalinism as the culmination of bourgeois democracy. Democracy to Bordiga meant above all the manipulation of society as a formless mass. To this he counterposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat", implemented by the communist party founded in 1847, based on the principles and program enunciated in the manifesto. He often referred to the spirit of Engels' remark that "on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction will be against us under the banner of 'pure democracy". (As, indeed, every factional opponent of the Bolsheviks in 1921 from the monarchists to the anarchists called for "soviets without Bolsheviks"–or soviet workers councils not dominated by Bolsheviks.) Bordiga opposed the idea of revolutionary content being the product of a democratic process of pluralist views; whatever its problems, in light of the history of the past 70 years, this perspective has the merit of underscoring the fact that communism (like all social formations) is above all about programmatic content expressed through forms. It underscores the fact that for Marx, communism is not an ideal to be achieved but a "real movement" born from the old society with a set of programmatic tasks.(…)On communismFor Bordiga, both stages of socialist or communist society (sometimes distinguished as "socialism" and "communism") were characterised by the (gradual) absence of money, the market, and so on, the difference between them being that earlier in the first stage a system of 'rationing' would be used to allocate goods to people, while in communism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from other Leninists, and especially the Trotskyists, who tended (and still tend) to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into "socialism". Bordiga would have none of this. For him no society in which money, buying and selling and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist; these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.So, as Hip as Zeitgeist…
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?I suppose the time I have spent is not as important! I spend and have spent 100s of 'person hours' for the SPGB and socialism.You obviously believe that some 'person hours' are more important than others. Why do you think I am 'wasting' MY person hours' on this subject?Because an undemocratic and prejudicial party cannot be a vehicle for socialism. You are clearly prejudicial.I'm actually being the opposite of prejudicial, I'm leaving the case to judgement, rather than sticking my oar in. I'm not discussing your case with you, as I've said several times, I'm talking in general about the principles of having a moderated forum.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.No ta, I'm sticking with general principles, other people are looking at the case, tens of person hours are already being spent on it, I don't need to add mine.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Let me give you an example, member 'a' is suspended after 1 warning. Member 'b' is not suspended after 3 warnings. The moderator is applying the rules – he can suspend or he need not suspend. Another example. member 'a' uses 'abusive language' on 10 posts and is not warned. member 'b' uses abusive language on 1 post and receives warning. He complains that this is unfair and he is suspended for doubting the intergrity of the moderator. The suspension has happened. member 'b' cannot appeal to Conference retrospectively. The rules need to be specific and fair. Not general as they can and have been abused.Those are not questions of rule, but of implementation. Sometimes a moderator gets it wrong, sometimes they get it right. With practice, they'll improve, and they'll learn. After all, a football referee makes similar judgement calls: sometimes a player can persistently trip or dive, and get away with it, sometimes a player will get caught first time. Different referees apply the same rules in subtly different ways. Despite the best will, and training, in the world, such things happen. There are appeal procedures, not least the court of public opinion, but the result of the match still stands, and that's all as can be done. You can't legislate these problems away, you just work round them.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Admin wrote:"Moderating:The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list."1)using what criteria?Admin wrote:"The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour." 2) Who decides/defines 'unacceptable behaviour'3) Who moderates the moderator?1) The criteria of the forum rules.2) The moderators decide what is unacceptable behaviour, based on the agreed forum rules.3) The Internet Dept, then the EC, then Branches/Membership at large.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.pdfIt looks like this is the key paragraph:
Leveson wrote:It should be open any subscriber to a recognised regulatory body to rely on the fact of such membership and on the opportunity it provides for the claimant to use a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. It could request the court to encourage the use of thatsystem of arbitration and, equally, to have regard to the availability of the arbitration system when considering claims for costs incurred by a claimant who could have used the arbitration service. On the issue of costs, it should equally be open to a claimant to rely on failure by a newspaper to subscribe to the regulator thereby depriving him or her of access to a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. Where that is the case, in the exercise of its discretion, the court could take the view that, even where the defendant is successful, absent unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the claimant, it would be inappropriate for the claimant to be expected to pay the costs incurred in defending the action.What he is suggesting is an independent board, funded by publishers, to regulate and uphold standards. Such a board to be "recognised" by a statutory body, and the advantage to publishers of joining may be that it may costs more to defend libel actions if you haven't joined the regulatory body. That does effect us, slightly, but doesn't change our real position as we already stand at risk from libel actions.
I haven't called you a SPAMBOT or said you were disrupting meetings, in fact, I am not discussing you at all. I said as much right at the top. I am talking about moderators and the need for moderators. I am discussing how, substantially, the way we moderate this forum is how we moderate our public physical meetings.
