Libcom April fools?

[editor]

Ok - take this as a complaint.

1. If you want to complain, use the 'report this post' function because the mods don't read every single post looking for any possible grumbles
2. If you are complaining, please have the courtesy to outline the exact nature of the complaint, and provide some context.

I've no idea what this thread is about, by the way. And what's "prejeudicial abuse" when it's at home?

 

[Luther Blissett]

Seeing as you haven't troubled yourself to actually report any posts from this thread, I'd be fascinated if you tell us mods what our failure to react to a non existant complaint supposedly says about us.

why should someone supposedly sympathetic to the anarchist bloc look to someone else who holds hierarchial board priveleges (respect my 'authoritay') to identify, highlight, explain and otherwise 'show up' the reasons why using derogatory mental health terms as an insult aren't valid political discourse?

a) reading the FAQ was a condition of joining this BB
b) those who find culprit's adjectively challenged behaviour abhorrent, if so stirred to action, could
i) make a thread about adjectively-challenged ad-hominems and involve the wider BB community
ii) use the alert button and get a mod to deal with adjectively-challenged ad-hominems ('authoritay-route')
iii) attempt to challenge the culprit's word-use by themselves either by PM (often easier - less flaming/public shaming) or openly (increased chance for resistence/flaming from culprit)
c) those who find adjectively-challenged ad-hominems abhorrent but haven't made a thread about 'adjectively-challenged ad-hominems or challenged the culprit/behaviour publicly aren't condoning adjectively-challenged ad-hominems, they are probably avoiding feeding a negative attention seeking-cycle by avoiding responding to said-culprit/behaviour
d) those who don't indulge in 4th Grade playground insults (adjectively-challenged ad-hominems) but hold no hierarchical user-privelege usually give threads that descend to the depths of the adjectively challenged a wide-berth, knowing in advance that they're heading nowhere fast, whilst less-experienced users look on and learn to avoid them (nods knowingly)
e) conflict-thrivers are likely to challenge culprit, throw ad-hominems back, enjoy the flaming, then blame someone in authoritay for not stopping them all sooner (yawns)
x) attempting to re-place 'responsiblity' from said-culprit or from lazy-'who's job is it anyway' onto 'user-priveleged auhoritay' without following alert/complaint procedures evokes the response from editor above
y) whose turn is it to make coffee?

 

[The Black Hand]

why should someone supposedly sympathetic to the anarchist bloc look to someone else who holds hierarchial board priveleges (respect my 'authoritay') to identify, highlight, explain and otherwise 'show up' the reasons why using derogatory mental health terms as an insult aren't valid political discourse?

a) reading the FAQ was a condition of joining this BB
b) those who find culprit's adjectively challenged behaviour abhorrent, if so stirred to action, could
i) make a thread about adjectively-challenged ad-hominems and involve the wider BB community
ii) use the alert button and get a mod to deal with adjectively-challenged ad-hominems ('authoritay-route')
iii) attempt to challenge the culprit's word-use by themselves either by PM (often easier - less flaming/public shaming) or openly (increased chance for resistence/flaming from culprit)
c) those who find adjectively-challenged ad-hominems abhorrent but haven't made a thread about 'adjectively-challenged ad-hominems or challenged the culprit/behaviour publicly aren't condoning adjectively-challenged ad-hominems, they are probably avoiding feeding a negative attention seeking-cycle by avoiding responding to said-culprit/behaviour
d) those who don't indulge in 4th Grade playground insults (adjectively-challenged ad-hominems) but hold no hierarchical user-privelege usually give threads that descend to the depths of the adjectively challenged a wide-berth, knowing in advance that they're heading nowhere fast, whilst less-experienced users look on and learn to avoid them (nods knowingly)
e) conflict-thrivers are likely to challenge culprit, throw ad-hominems back, enjoy the flaming, then blame someone in authoritay for not stopping them all sooner (yawns)
x) attempting to re-place 'responsiblity' from said-culprit or from lazy-'who's job is it anyway' onto 'user-priveleged auhoritay' without following alert/complaint procedures evokes the response from editor above
y) whose turn is it to make coffee?

Very good Luther

 

[Zonk]

Reactionary language is reactioanry language - it doesn't get less reactionary the more you say it...

It's purely semantics with you Attica, you're only concerned with scoring points.

 

[118118]

I'm sorry but when you see websites like this the only word that does spring to mind is barmy.

With bells on.

yeah, but tbh its not the people that you accuse of being nutters that anyone is worried about. you want to post up some examples of those who this guy is barmy relative to, i mean who you are comparing anarchoids to. would that prove your point do easily?

tbh i doesn't bother me feel small, or inadequate, but it makes it harder to think much of the people who go around saying that. thats the honest truth, fwiw.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

"On this South East London estate, ten children have to share just a single maxim between them. The family unit has effectively collapsed here, and wild hypotheses roam the streets at night. To illustrate the genuinely desperate situation of these people - I asked a man on my way in what he thought the meaning of life was and he replied "things happen" - I tried to hide my shock but I'm sure he saw it"

thuis is brill - where from?

 

[Crispy]

My head (which is now swelling up)

 

[audiotech]

I'm sorry but when you see websites like this the only word that does spring to mind is barmy.

With bells on.

I thought this rather good actually.

Their sterile purist canonical angst aflutters, their heart rages with apoplexy, and reveals their 'holier than thou' superiority, and the absence of serious praxis that could challenge their self selected and self serving role as the carrier of the apostolic tablets of stone. In short – that challenges them and their 'historic mission', if truth is told though, the working class doesn't need them and has shown it, though they need the working class.

 

[catch]

*Oh, and if any of the Libcom mods are unhappy with this thread, I'd be happy to close it, if that's what you want (although you guys are currently linking to it from your own site).

why would we be unhappy?

 

[editor]

why would we be unhappy?

I've no idea. In fact, I don't understand this thread at all, but I was trying to be helpful.

 

[yokerist]

boing boing. . . . . . . . boing

 

[editor]

boing boing. . . . . . . . boing

You'll have to help me here too. What's your point, caller?

 

[yokerist]

You'll have to help me here too. What's your point, caller?

tis the sound of incomprehension,

sweet incomprehension

 

[editor]

tis the sound of incomprehension,

sweet incomprehension

I'm baffled all right, and make no mistake.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

My head (which is now swelling up)

 

[Karen Eliot]

I thought this rather good actually.

Their sterile purist canonical angst aflutters, their heart rages with apoplexy, and reveals their 'holier than thou' superiority, and the absence of serious praxis that could challenge their self selected and self serving role as the carrier of the apostolic tablets of stone.

Some chutzpah to say that whilst inscribing the tablets with the canon of Thompson, Bone, Hall, Ruggiero, Gramsci, Negri, Jackson, Linebaugh, Franks, and Douglass and demanding that others live their lifes by them.

 

[118118]

he's a professor! who is he?

 

[biff curtains]

he's a professor! who is he?

Alexis Callinicacos, third baron of Mountjoy and guru of the Socialist Workers Party.

 

[Karen Eliot]

he's a professor! who is he?

Why? Do you respect them more if they are?

 

[The Black Hand]

It's purely semantics with you Attica, you're only concerned with scoring points.

Winning arguments is so easy for me

 

[Karen Eliot]

So win one. Point us to a victory for Attica.

It must be 'easy'.

 

[The Black Hand]

So win one. Point us to a victory for Attica.

It must be 'easy'.

Pickmans Model - you are not one who is qualified to judge...

 

[Karen Eliot]

The public is then surely? Parade this victory before them. Like God they will know their own. Give us your massive victory!

 

[The Black Hand]

The public is then surely? Parade this victory before them. Like God they will know their own. Give us your massive victory!

I like keeping fools in suspense

Obviously that's aimed at those who I don't get on with...

 

[editor]

Pickmans Model - you are not one who is qualified to judge...

Eh? What's that banned stool pigeon got to do with this thread?

Oh, hang on....

*waits for PM

 

[Karen Eliot]

*doesn't get one.*

(Fair does. That's how it goes )

 

[118118]

Why? Do you respect them more if they are?

well. yeah. soz. can't argue the toss with you on that, so shrug. its just something i want (but will never have). dunno is 'resepect' is the right word tbh...

 

[In Bloom]

Karen Elliot wasn't Pickman's Model, by the way. Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[editor]

Karen Elliot wasn't Pickman's Model, by the way. Just thought I'd mention it.

I know who it was now.

 

[118118]

nah - the black hand is a nice guy. i just want it so bad karen... just not got the intelligence. shrug.