Libcom - a strange 'library'

[The Black Hand]

There is an article in the Libcom library published by In these times in 2005;

"The subject supposed to loot and rape" by S. Zizek

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2361/

But Libcom have put it online without a reference to its' origins, it's a 'library' with none existent standards which would do that.

What's the fucking point too? It's already online!

 

[nosos]

Who cares?

 

[The Black Hand]

Who cares?

Librarians.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Indeed.

 

[nosos]

Fuck me the libcom team will feel bad when you inform them of this.

 

[nosos]

Do you want someone friendly to break the news to them?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In These Times might be unamused.

 

[The Black Hand]

Fuck me the libcom team will feel bad when you inform them of this.

Good - bunch of Toytown librarians they are.

 

[nosos]

That's lost on me [old username deleted on request] old boy

 

[The Black Hand]

In These Times might be unamused.

Nosos - Ordinarily such action is a breach of copyright.

 

[nosos]

Are they at any real legal risk?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, they might be, but more to the point if you get a reputation for doing that stuff then people won't let you use their copyright material for nothing. It's also unnecesary and impolite.

 

[nosos]

It's just not the proper thing to do!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, on several grounds. Of course there may be people who think it's clever or daring rather than stupid, but we don't know anybody like that do we?

 

[nosos]

Because clearly the only alternative to moral indignation at copyright infringement is childish romanticisation! Wow me with your grasp of logical entailment some more, J!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Stupidity in the guise of daring appears to be the plat du jour, doesn't it?

 

[nosos]

No x

 

[In Bloom]

In case anybody's interested, Attica's only coming out with this feeble, spurious shit because he just got banned from libcom for the third time.

That said, the article should be credited, if only for the sake of accuracy, but it's not as if the libcom group are claiming that they wrote it.

 

[In Bloom]

In These Times might be unamused.

Are we assuming that libcom haven't contacted In These Times about this already, by the way?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

We're bearing it in mind as a possibility.

 

[The Black Hand]

In case anybody's interested, Attica's only coming out with this feeble, spurious shit because he just got banned from libcom for the third time.

That said, the article should be credited, if only for the sake of accuracy, but it's not as if the libcom group are claiming that they wrote it.

You are wrong In Bloom. It must be double figures by now, and banned for doing nothing wrong too. This last time I was on line for months and they only banned me when a political disagreement surfaced. They are worse than Stalin and less democratic if that was at all possible.

I was banned for impersonating Dave Douglass when I did not, me and Dave get on very well. They just get arsey when somebody contradicts their Limp liberalism.

 

[butchersapron]

You did impersonate him whether you get on well with him or not.

 

[The Black Hand]

You did impersonate him whether you get on well with him or not.

I did not you wally. They have no evidence.

 

[butchersapron]

They do and they've made it public over and over (or it's been made public). Why keep fighting a battle that you already lost years ago. You know what'll be brought up next, and what'll be after that. And where'll it'll end. Why on earth do you want to do that again? Do yourself a favour - have some sense, go for a pint or a curry and abandon this thread and this line.

 

[In Bloom]

They are worse than Stalin and less democratic if that was at all possible.

He's right you know, it's like living in Nazi Germany or something

 

[The Black Hand]

He's right you know, it's like living in Nazi Germany or something

Get fucked. There was and is no democracy, no justice, I can't even fight my corner. I just get banned for disagreeing. Yup, that's Stalinism.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, that and several million deaths perhaps.

 

[The Black Hand]

They do and they've made it public over and over (or it's been made public). Why keep fighting a battle that you already lost years ago. You know what'll be brought up next, and what'll be after that. And where'll it'll end. Why on earth do you want to do that again? Do yourself a favour - have some sense, go for a pint or a curry and abandon this thread and this line.

NO THEY DO NOT. They didn't make it public either, what they thought was evidence was in fact made public by me and did not contain anything that could be called 'me impersonating Dave Douglass'.

I am thinking of getting Dave to write something about Libcoms pathetic nature and the chronic lack of standards. In short to tell Libcom and anybody else like you who backs them up off for being so stupid.

 

[butchersapron]

NO THEY DO NOT. They didn't make it public either, what they thought was evidence was in fact made public by me and did not contain anything that could be called 'me impersonating Dave Douglass'.

I am thinking of getting Dave to write something about Libcoms pathetic nature and the chronic lack of standards. In short to tell Libcom and anybody else like you who backs them up off for being so stupid.

Yes , they did, and you've been exposed on board after board for doing it. You've been threatening to get DD to do this for some time, yet all that's actually appeared is DD condemning you for impersonating him.

Do you really want to do this?

 

[butchersapron]

******