# Is the AF experiencing a huge increase in members or what?



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 1, 2005)

i would ask in their forum but i can't think of a good name to register on LC with yet.

Is it me or is just about every young anarchist apart from icepick joining the AF? 

Why is this?


----------



## pilchardman (Nov 1, 2005)

N....oh, you said young.


<struts off in huff>


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 1, 2005)

'Cos we are fucking amazing.

Like you really need to ask

Tax. the membership details you asked for are in the post


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 1, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> N....oh, you said young.
> 
> 
> <struts off in huff>


young/old whatever - compared to other @ orgs membership has been steadily increasing for the last couple of years. Have i got this wrong? Everyone seems to be a member. I'm genuinely wondering what it is that has lead to this rather than other orgs.

No one could give me an account of what they actually do as a *national* federation the other day, so whats the attraction?

gawkrodger, you've sussed me the a blatant attaempt to ingratiate myself with the membership before joining


----------



## Top Dog (Nov 1, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> compared to other @ organs their members have been steadily increasing for the last couple of years. Have i got this wrong?


could this be the reason?


----------



## blamblam (Nov 1, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i would ask in their forum but i can't think of a good name to register on LC with yet.


Foxylegs_69?

You'd be popular at least. 

PS LC is not an acceptable abbreviation of libcom. Our branding team'll be on you for that  

Has someone unexpected joined the AF or summat? I reckon it's charlie mowbray's after-dinner yarns that are the attraction


----------



## oisleep (Nov 1, 2005)

or rebel_jill, post a few times from japan and let the young liberarian communists form a fantisised image of you of some foxy japanese anarcho chick in their heads before allowing someone to out you as a bloke!


----------



## soulman (Nov 1, 2005)

Are they in to double figures yet?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 1, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Are they in to double figures yet?



Indeed we are.

Our national Federation, affiliated internationally, now has a grand total of, wait for it...

*Performs hurried drum roll*

Around 75 paid-up members!

TAH-DAAAAAA!

BA-BA DOOM! TISH!

Now there's progress for you.


----------



## soulman (Nov 1, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Indeed we are.
> 
> Our national Federation, affiliated internationally, now has a grand total of, wait for it...
> 
> ...



You really shouldn't bite mate 

[tries to look suitably impressed]


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 1, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really shouldn't bite mate
> 
> [tries to look suitably impressed]



One of the things I like most about us Anarcho's, is our seemingly cheerful admission that we are. on occasions, not as impressive as we'd like to be.

Hence my (gently) sarcastic response on the subject.


----------



## General Ludd (Nov 1, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> You really shouldn't bite mate
> 
> [tries to look suitably impressed]


Nah, one of the things I like about the anarchist nat feds is that they're honest and open about their membership numbers.


----------



## soulman (Nov 1, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Nah, one of the things I like about the anarchist nat feds is that they're honest and open about their membership numbers.



yeah but I was talking about the new membership ages.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 1, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Is it me or is just about every young anarchist apart from icepick joining the AF?



he's just teasing us!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 1, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Indeed we are.
> 
> Our national Federation, affiliated internationally, now has a grand total of, wait for it...
> 
> ...



fucking hell that's bigger than even Workers Power!!


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 2, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> fucking hell that's bigger than even Workers Power!!





Yeah but nowhere near as hard.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 2, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> fucking hell that's bigger than even Workers Power!!



Yes, my children...

A spectre is haunting Europe (or the back room of the Coronet anyway), the spectre of Anarchism...

A few more members and we'll be starting the Revolution, on Monday lunchtime, maybe at about half past one.

Don't forget to bring a warm coat, some nibbles and something to drink.

MWAHAHAHA!.....


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

75 eh?

not bad.

Yes that is bigger than WP i think, but if you count revo...

Its still bigger.


----------



## treelover (Nov 2, 2005)

Tax ,have you realised what you just said?  




> compared to other @ organs their members have been steadily increasing for the last couple of years.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Is it because we don't act all mouth and trousers and keep steadily churning out the propaganda,keep on with the dogged and determined work, and because our politics are beginning to strike a chord?
Or is it because of my after-dinner yarns? (must start charging for 'em)
There are a fair few more on the edge of making the decision to formally join us too.
What about you, Icepick?


----------



## Herbert Read (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i would ask in their forum but i can't think of a good name to register on LC with yet.
> 
> Is it me or is just about every young anarchist apart from icepick joining the AF?
> 
> Why is this?



because they heard a nihilist was involved


----------



## Herbert Read (Nov 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Yeah but nowhere near as hard.



i beg to differ


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 2, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Around 75 paid-up members!



Out of interest how many branches are these grouped into and how many are individual members?


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

it's just one group floating around britain in a zepplin ready to rappel down into action wherever there is a flare up of the class struggle!


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> i beg to differ



yeh, we'd wipe the floor with 'em!


----------



## rednblack (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray pre-expelled me


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

well if you hadn't gone and dissed mahkno...


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> yeh, we'd wipe the floor with 'em!





Don't be too sure of yourselves- the WP Workers' Defence Squads have already been equipped with pea shooters....


----------



## blamblam (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Is it because we don't act all mouth and trousers and keep steadily churning out the propaganda,keep on with the dogged and determined work, and because our politics are beginning to strike a chord?
> Or is it because of my after-dinner yarns? (must start charging for 'em)
> There are a fair few more on the edge of making the decision to formally join us too.
> What about you, Icepick?


Nyeh, well I agree with the AF's politics, as you know chaz, but I wouldn't be able to go to meetings or be active in the federation at all I think (except to go along to your internation bashes of course, though I'm happy to provide my almost-acceptable italian translation services to the IFA for free as a non-member ). I think I'll probably save joining a group until there's a rank + file union... Sorry to disappoint fellas


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Indeed we are.
> 
> Our national Federation, affiliated internationally, now has a grand total of, wait for it...
> 
> ...


i heard 80 at the bf. but what's five between friends?


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 2, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> I think I'll probably save joining a group until there's a rank + file union... Sorry to disappoint fellas



If that is what you think is needed shouldn't you be part of a group building one rather than waiting until someone else has done that work?  

Or does 'rank and file' mean 'constructed for us by someone else'?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> yeh, we'd wipe the floor with 'em!


i don't know about that guys...
From what i've seen of both groups.... WP are harder. Haven't met Herbert 'i feel no pain' Read yet, he might swing it.

But it would be a game of 2 on one for most, so yes, i think the AF would eventually win. 

what a sily discussion


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Around 75 paid-up members!
> .


just think what a respect publicist could do with that figure:

"Britain's fastest growing .... Brilliant!.... steady progress .... innevitable .... packed meetings ... forefront .... polenta and rocket..


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> If that is what you think is needed shouldn't you be part of a group building one rather than waiting until someone else has done that work?


Thats a good question - but i think icepick is active enough anyway.

BTW this was a genuine question: I'd like to know from some recent joinees why they joined rather than another group. I haven't seen the af do anything apart from publish prop. Ever.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i don't know about that guys...
> From what i've seen of both groups.... WP are harder. Haven't met Herbert 'i feel no pain' Read yet, he might swing it.
> 
> But it would be a game of 2 on one for most, so yes, i think the AF would eventually win.
> ...



ahh, just compare the number of trained martial artists in the two groups. I think we have little to fear


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i heard 80 at the bf. but what's five between friends?



what, CW have merged with us?


----------



## october_lost (Nov 2, 2005)

Glad to hear the AF are doing well, things are looking up all round I know SF have increased quite dramatically....and remember boys and girls, anarchos are worth umpteen robotrots, so dont annoy me with comparisons with trotsick organisations, it just doesnt work.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

what do solfed think of the IWW revival attempt BTW?


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

yeh, i was going to mention SF also increasing. Midlands numbers have gone from 0 about 4-5 years ago to 2


----------



## rednblack (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> yeh, i was going to mention SF also increasing. Midlands numbers have gone from 0 about 4-5 years ago to 2


----------



## october_lost (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> what do solfed think of the IWW revival attempt BTW?


IMO, and im not an expert, the stratergy of the IWW needs looking at, but I looked at their website (US) and was impressed by their output and outreach, they put most of us to shame.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> ahh, just compare the number of trained martial artists in the two groups. I think we have little to fear


Yes, I'd think twice before messing with Nasty Ned, not to mention gawkrodger himself!!


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> what, CW have merged with us?


ARF! ARF!


----------



## blamblam (Nov 2, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> If that is what you think is needed shouldn't you be part of a group building one rather than waiting until someone else has done that work?


Nah, I just think for a viable rank and file union to come into existence it probably won't be initiated by a political grouplet, but a break-off from conventional unions, maybe following a big dispute or something. (Ditto, but perhaps more likely, effective rank + file networks.)

The decent anarchists/groups I think would then all largely dissolve into it anyway.

My comment was half tongue-in-cheek anyway. I think if there were a fed big enough that its internal organisational stuff didn't take up a very large proportion of its time I'd probably join it. You could equally apply your same argument thought, why don't I join one and try to make this happen, but I don't think it'd be worth the effort so much on a personal level. I mean I agree with most of the politics of AF, SF and IWW, and there's no fuckin way I'm going to do what Dan Jakapovic or whatever is doing. Heads, brick walls and bangings abound.


----------



## JoeBlack (Nov 2, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Nah, I just think for a viable rank and file union to come into existence it probably won't be initiated by a political grouplet, but a break-off from conventional unions, maybe following a big dispute or something. (Ditto, but perhaps more likely, effective rank + file networks.)



Ah right - that makes more sense (although 'political grouplet's are often involved formally or informally with break-offs).


----------



## Random (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the af do anything apart from publish prop. Ever.



Well they organised a demo against the murder of that Colombian lad on Mayday, and the London embassy.  That's why I offered to join, but it looks like I'm still stuck in candidate membership status  
 

And let's not under-estimate the importance of publishing prop, keeping ideas alive, offering anarcho analyses of current events, etc.  For example, I'm gagging for a good libertarian analysis of the paris riots, and I'd hope that one of the AF's frog sister groups could provide it.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> BTW this was a genuine question: I'd like to know from some recent joinees why they joined rather than another group. I haven't seen the af do anything apart from publish prop. Ever.



you've not been looking too hard then   

On a more serious note we really need to start bigging ourselves up a bit more


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> you've not been looking too hard then
> 
> On a more serious note we really need to start bigging ourselves up a bit more



We do indeed.

Self-promotion is one thing the Swappies (Grrrr!) do very well. They have shown themselves very adept at attracting members by presenting themselves as the only game in town. Granted, most of those members then leave within a matter of weeks, but they are good at promoting themselves.

Maybe AF needs to discuss at conference, at a national level, what sort of  promotion we are comfortable with. I don't mean suckering people in who may not know any better, but taking a serious look at the negative image that Anarchism and Anarchists have in the wider world. 

I was in the meeting at the Bookfair, when we were discussing how to get out of the activist ghetto and how many calls to do so have been made and seemingly largely ignored. I'd advocate looking hard at the kind of tactics, propaganda and actions we are employing, then keeping what is useful and discarding what is not. 

As far as actions go, maybe we should be planning our actions with regard to the way we are percieved by ordinary people, rather than doing some obscure actions that only make sense to activists in the pub afterwards. It was Abbie Hoffman who said that every action must make an immediate and obvious statement, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We should be doing stuff that immediately strikes a chord, not stuff that means something to us while leaving ordinary people confused.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Well they organised a demo against the murder of that Colombian lad on Mayday, and the London embassy.  That's why I offered to join, but it looks like I'm still stuck in candidate membership status
> 
> 
> And let's not under-estimate the importance of publishing prop, keeping ideas alive, offering anarcho analyses of current events, etc.  For example, I'm gagging for a good libertarian analysis of the paris riots, and I'd hope that one of the AF's frog sister groups could provide it.


If you wanna join, PM gawkrodger. I don't know why this has happened. Whereabouts are you, by the way (you can pm me that if you don't want it public)
And yes, we get all the French anarchist press, and often translate from it.So more than likely we'll put srtuff out in Organise! and/or Resistance


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

yes absolutely


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

i'd agree with most of that. Thing is i can think of a number of actions that AFers have bveen involved with recently which weren't activist orientated, but we haven'tr said much about them at all


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> We do indeed.
> 
> Self-promotion is one thing the Swappies (Grrrr!) do very well. They have shown themselves very adept at attracting members by presenting themselves as the only game in town. Granted, most of those members then leave within a matter of weeks, but they are good at promoting themselves.
> 
> ...


Trouble is, Abbie Hoffmann was the King of the stunt and stuntism himself!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Trouble is, Abbie Hoffmann was the King of the stunt and stuntism himself!!


True, Hoffman certainly had a fair sense of spectacle.

But his point does stand. Why do an action that only means something to activists, when we can do things that actually click with the man/woman in the street? 

It makes no sense at all, IMHO, to be doing public actions that WE think are really clever, while leaving ordinary members of the public looking at us and thinking "WTF?"

If we are going to expand in terms of membership and actual influence our propaganda and actions should be outward looking, and should immediately strike a chord with people outside the the activist community (if we are even cohesive enough to be called  a 'community').

That's the way I see it, anyway.


----------



## treelover (Nov 2, 2005)

Maybe the following may give some insight into why such groups have not totally benefited from the demise of trotskyism, 


There is a major radical film festival on Leeds: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised', (original eh?) organised by various radicals In the city and while not knocking the scope and hard work obviously put into it, out of twenty films only one is really about the uk and none really about uk w/class issues. It's as if internationalism and the 'glamour issues are all that counts, despite there being millions in this country who are suffering, but thats not 'sexy' is it? I also have to say it appears that it helps if you are originally from a different country or even have a different skin colour to gain the interest, sympathy and ultimately activity from the uk radicals. Thus, part of the programme has a talk about 'precarity' but apparently its really only migrants who suffer from such things, never mind the uk having the most flexible labour market in Europe and and the most punitive welfare system with worse to come. 

just what is going wrong here?




7pm Talks & films Worker precarity & resistance in action

'What on earth is precarity? Well, whether we are ‘chainworkers’ in shopping centres and supermarkets, or ‘brainworkers’ floating around as freelance computer programmers and journalists, we are all suffering from rising job insecurity, intermittent work, employer attacks on basic rights, living costs and a general assault on what is left of the welfare state.
'his ‘precarious’ existence is particularly felt by migrant workers - and now they are fighting back. Come and hear Polish migrant workers living in the North West talk about their ongoing struggle against Resource Recruitment and Woolworths in Rochdale for breaking promises of decent pay and accommodation once they had been successfully lured from their home country. Followed by a series of short films on the theme of ‘precarity ‘

https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2005/11/326999.html


----------



## treelover (Nov 2, 2005)

This is despite there being some good uk films about life here on the periphery

http://www.mediaactivist.com/documentaries.htm


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> True, Hoffman certainly had a fair sense of spectacle.
> 
> But his point does stand. Why do an action that only means something to activists, when we can do things that actually click with the man/woman in the street?
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing. Far from it.


----------



## Herbert Read (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i don't know about that guys...
> From what i've seen of both groups.... WP are harder. Haven't met Herbert 'i feel no pain' Read yet, he might swing it.
> 
> But it would be a game of 2 on one for most, so yes, i think the AF would eventually win.
> ...



but i also can get mi mates who hate trots to beat them up


----------



## Herbert Read (Nov 2, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Thats a good question - but i think icepick is active enough anyway.
> 
> BTW this was a genuine question: I'd like to know from some recent joinees why they joined rather than another group. I haven't seen the af do anything apart from publish prop. Ever.



because some of us are adults and dont need to brag in the playground


----------



## Stevil (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> yeh, i was going to mention SF also increasing. Midlands numbers have gone from 0 about 4-5 years ago to 2



Percentage wise that's an amazing increase. Always had problems with the midlands, there was a West Midlands SF a while back. Is Northampton counted as the Midlands? They are doing well. 

Here in the North West the membership has increased, doubled in Preston over the past year and Manchester has had new members. Scotland doing well as well.

I was told there was an AF member in Lancashire but have yet to find him/her. Hello, hello are you there? come and speak to us.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

there's a new AFer in Preston. PM me and i'll pass on contact details


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Trouble is, Abbie Hoffmann was the King of the stunt and stuntism himself!!



Have you read that book on 1968 written by that fellow who also write books on  ( don't laugh but I have read them) Cod and Salt? I thought he showed Hoffman to be a complete pillock.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

The biggest anarchist organisation I've been in was the Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists in the 70s (whose high point was 73) So now looks like this is being superceded. Not that that means fuckall in the scheme of things.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Have you read that book on 1968 written by that fellow who also write books on  ( don't laugh but I have read them) Cod and Salt? I thought he showed Hoffman to be a complete pillock.


No, I haven't but I know the guy you mean ( the cod and salt books are good- maybe 2 more coming up on chips and vinegar?)


----------



## Stevil (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> The biggest anarchist organisation I've been in was the Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists in the 70s (whose high point was 73) So now looks like this is being superceded. Not that that means fuckall in the scheme of things.



The DAM had many more members than that.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> No, I haven't but I know the guy you mean ( the cod and salt books are good- maybe 2 more coming up on chips and vinegar?)




Mark Kurlansky (sp?)

He also wrote a pretty decent book on the history of Basque


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 2, 2005)

Stevil said:
			
		

> The DAM had many more members than that.


So? I was never in the DAM, and it wasn't many more it was about 150 top wack. Still minute in the scheme of things anyway. Your point?


----------



## Stevil (Nov 2, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> So? I was never in the DAM, and it wasn't many more it was about 150 top wack. Still minute in the scheme of things anyway. Your point?



Sorry misread you post, I didn't realise it was ones you've been in.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Have you read that book on 1968 written by that fellow who also write books on  ( don't laugh but I have read them) Cod and Salt? I thought he showed Hoffman to be a complete pillock.



Mark Kurlansky?


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

beat you to it!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 2, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Mark Kurlansky?



Yes but has anyone read it? I read it on holiday after The Likes of Us , quite a sombre contrast.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 2, 2005)

cod is a top book, and i've got the basque history of the world waiting to be read


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

I've got the Basque History of the World sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read too.












I've occasionally seen a couple of people handing out copies of Resistance outside Brixton tube.  Haven't seen 'em for a while though.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 2, 2005)

i hope you weren't the person who came up and asked if i was charlie mowbray's son!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

No, I never spoke to any of you, just took a copy of Resistance.  I've been vaguely thinking of joining some organisation or other IWCA are interesting as are AFed and SolFed but my laziness will probably get the better of me.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 2, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> i hope you weren't the person who came up and asked if i was charlie mowbray's son!


----------



## Sorry. (Nov 2, 2005)

Stevil said:
			
		

> Percentage wise that's an amazing increase. Always had problems with the midlands, there was a West Midlands SF a while back. Is Northampton counted as the Midlands? They are doing well.
> 
> Here in the North West the membership has increased, doubled in Preston over the past year and Manchester has had new members. Scotland doing well as well.
> 
> I was told there was an AF member in Lancashire but have yet to find him/her. Hello, hello are you there? come and speak to us.



http://www.af-north.org/ is probably you're best bet


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 2, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No, I never spoke to any of you, just took a copy of Resistance.  I've been vaguely thinking of joining some organisation or other IWCA are interesting as are AFed and SolFed but my laziness will probably get the better of me.


join 2


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm probably far too slothful to even join one.  But you never know...


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

What about Monty's brand of working class anarchism ? Do they have other branches outside his London one?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 3, 2005)

leave it for fucks sake.

get a fucking life mate.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> leave it for fucks sake.
> 
> get a fucking life mate.



So you don't know the answer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> What about Monty's brand of working class anarchism ? Do they have other branches outside his London one?


have you considered asking him?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> have you considered asking him?



If no one else answers and he doesn't respond yes.But normally he replies on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> If no one else answers and he doesn't respond yes.But normally he replies on here.


what about using the private messaging facility here?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> So you don't know the answer?


not really no.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 3, 2005)

relating threads, what's your political affilliation chuck?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what about using the private messaging facility here?



Good idea, could you not have done the same with the message above?


----------



## mk12 (Nov 3, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> relating threads, what's your political affilliation chuck?



SWP. (Or is nobody supposed to know yet?)


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> relating threads, what's your political affilliation chuck?



Pro-working class. I am a member of the IWCA. Not a trot (although I was one once)  not a lennist , not an anarchist and have always had no problem in working collaboratively with those who share the same aim.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

> Yes that is bigger than WP i think, but if you count revo...
> 
> Its still bigger.



Nope if that's the AFs membership then the AF and Workers Power are the same size. Revos non-WP membership is probably about the same size again I'd guess, but obviously a lot of Revo members aren't as active.

I think the AWL have about 100 members, the SP probably around 600 or so, and the SWP have about 1500. The CPGB about 15, the ISG about 40 and the CPB about 200 pensioners.

How many members has the IWCA got? Why will no-one ever say?

As for who is hardest. Come and 'av a go I say.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Pro-working class. I am a member of the IWCA. Not a trot (although I was one once)  not a lennist , not an anarchist and have always had no problem in working collaboratively with those who share the same aim.



i reckoned it would be something like this. cool


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Nope if that's the AFs membership then the AF and Workers Power are the same size. Revos non-WP membership is probably about the same size again I'd guess, but obviously a lot of Revo members aren't as active.
> 
> I think the AWL have about 100 members, the SP probably around 600 or so, and the SWP have about 1500. The CPGB about 15, the ISG about 40 and the CPB about 200 pensioners.
> 
> ...


revo on its own has how many (excluding WP cross membership)?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

> revo on its own has how many (excluding WP cross membership)?



I'd guess Revo has around 100 members over all. About 35 of them are in Workers Power.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 3, 2005)

well 100 - 35 = 65  

called maths mate, give it a shot some time 

well done on 100 BTW thats not bad... lot from leeds yeah?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

You cheeky so and so.




> lot from leeds yeah?



Yeah Leeds is one of the bigger Revo branches I think. One of the bigger WP branches as well.

You got any idea of how many members the IWCA have got? Is it some kind of secret?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> You cheeky so and so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well as an electoral party, its more measured by votes i think. Its got to be at least 50 in london and 50 in oxford. That is my smallest possible estimate, i'm sure its in the hundreds. RnB used to be in it, ask him what he thinks


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

I have asked before, but no-one will ever give an answer.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I have asked before, but no-one will ever give an answer.


Mebbe because they're not arsed about membership figures?


----------



## rednblack (Nov 3, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I have asked before, but no-one will ever give an answer.



it's bigger than workers power


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Mebbe because they're not arsed about membership figures?


 More like becuase they're not arsed about CR.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

> Mebbe because they're not arsed about membership figures?



Maybe but as I've seen every other group on here grilled/mocked about their membership figures at one time or another I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how many members the IWCA has. It's not a secret surely.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Nov 3, 2005)

> More like becuase they're not arsed about CR.



Maybe, but I'm not the only one to have asked.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Nov 3, 2005)

The great increase in numbers maybe because there not arsed about who joins...


----------



## blamblam (Nov 3, 2005)

Re: the IWCA numbers, I guess cos it runs in elections it's got to look serious, and won't be taken seriously if people see its membership figures. No inside knowledge, but I'd reckon it's between 40 and 100.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 3, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> The great increase in numbers maybe because there not arsed about who joins...


Yeah we have this weird thing of letting in anybody who agrees with our politics.  We're mad that way.


----------



## montevideo (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Pro-working class. I am a member of the IWCA. Not a trot (although I was one once)  not a lennist , not an anarchist and have always had no problem in working collaboratively with those who share the same aim.



cheadle iwca. Now you're talking!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> cheadle iwca. Now you're talking!



Warm but not hot, I set the Revolution Betrayed stuff in Cheadle but I am not a resident. Btw Is there still a Wombles branch in Alderley Edge?


----------



## montevideo (Nov 3, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Warm but not hot, I set the Revolution Betrayed stuff in Cheadle but I am not a resident. Btw Is there still a Wombles branch in Alderley Edge?



hazel grove iwca!!?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 3, 2005)

getting colder....How about the old Anarchist Federation branch in Poynton?


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2005)

ah, but probably plenty of supporters!



> Re: the IWCA numbers, I guess cos it runs in elections it's got to look serious, and won't be taken seriously if people see its membership figures. No inside knowledge, but I'd reckon it's between 40 and 100.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 6, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> let's not under-estimate the importance of publishing prop, keeping ideas alive, offering anarcho analyses of current events, etc.  For example, I'm gagging for a good libertarian analysis of the paris riots, and I'd hope that one of the AF's frog sister groups could provide it.



There is no difference between leftist cults, who some anarchos claim to despise, and 'keeping @ ideas alive' though is there? Same practice (dull,repetitive, self sacrificial) but worst of all lacking class struggle... Who gives a shit about 'analysis' about the Paris riots?   

I would rather have interviews with people who did the fighting (class subjectivity) rather than read/listen to some self important bore with ideology


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> There is no difference between leftist cults, who some anarchos claim to despise, and 'keeping @ ideas alive' though is there? Same practice (dull,repetitive, self sacrificial) but worst of all lacking class struggle... Who gives a shit about 'analysis' about the Paris riots?
> 
> I would rather have interviews with people who did the fighting (class subjectivity) rather than read/listen to some self important bore with ideology


So what makes you  not think that there might be interviews with those actually involved in those events in those French publications.
And why anyway would analysis be from a "self important bore" (your perception) - it doesn't have to be. 
So you'd reject anything that wasn't from the point of view from someone directly involved, even if it was valid?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> So what makes you  not think that there might be interviews with those actually involved in those events in those French publications.
> And why anyway would analysis be from a "self important bore" (your perception) - it doesn't have to be.
> So you'd reject anything that wasn't from the point of view from someone directly involved, even if it was valid?



My experience of much of the anarchist movement, and many Marxists, is that they do not participate in these events, though they have a 'position'... The French tradition is better than the British, so they maybe able to come up with some interviews, however I would like to see the class subjectivity stuff as I already said.  

There are just so many self important bores around - if I took them all out at the bookfair they'd be non standing   But seriously, there are way to many analysts/ideas and way too little struggle. As for whether analysis is valid or not, you know I agree with E.P. Thompson, the starting point IS class struggle, it is not objective conditions (however much they influence the historical possibilities)... So dry 'objective conditions' analysis can NEVER be enough, and those who are satisfied with it are wrong IMHO.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 7, 2005)

Frankly, it's impossible at this point for anyone in Britain who isn't at least basing their analysis on direct sources (ie not simply on the basis of news reports) to write any useful analysis, certainly anything which should be taken as seriously as first-hand reporting, because their overview is not only incomplete, it is likely to be innacurate.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 7, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> My experience of much of the anarchist movement, and many Marxists, is that they do not participate in these events, though they have a 'position'... The French tradition is better than the British, so they maybe able to come up with some interviews, however I would like to see the class subjectivity stuff as I already said.
> 
> There are just so many self important bores around - if I took them all out at the bookfair they'd be non standing   But seriously, there are way to many analysts/ideas and way too little struggle. As for whether analysis is valid or not, you know I agree with E.P. Thompson, the starting point IS class struggle, it is not objective conditions (however much they influence the historical possibilities)... So dry 'objective conditions' analysis can NEVER be enough, and those who are satisfied with it are wrong IMHO.


You can never have too much analysis.  Of course, it is important to act on that analysis as well.


----------



## General Ludd (Nov 7, 2005)

> There are just so many self important bores around


You're neither self-depreciating or ground-breakingly exciting yourself...


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2005)

!!!!!


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 7, 2005)

> You can never have too much analysis.



Bollocks. Unpretentious, well informed analysis sans agenda is a good thing to be sure but most of the half-arsed, dogmatic shite churned out by most of the left milieu could disappear tommorow at a net gain to the world (not just in trees saved from needless pulping, but in time saved for people who could otherwise be doing something useful rather than misinforming themselves).


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 7, 2005)

Rob Ray said:
			
		

> Bollocks. Unpretentious, well informed analysis sans agenda is a good thing to be sure but most of the half-arsed, dogmatic shite churned out by most of the left milieu could disappear tommorow at a net gain to the world (not just in trees saved from needless pulping, but in time saved for people who could otherwise be doing something useful rather than misinforming themselves).


I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how you got the idea that I'd disagree with any of the above from what I said 

Though I might point out that there's no such thing as "analysis sans agenda".


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 7, 2005)

Mainly because you said there's no such thing as too much analysis, implying that any old rubbish is a good thing because it contributes to the whole. Which, as I said, I consider to be bollocks.

When I say analysis sans agenda, I mean analysis which does not set out with a predetermined endgame, trying to fit (or in some case, make up) evidence to a theory, rather than come up with a theory via proven evidence. I was not commenting on the liklihood of bias in subjective writing, which I thought would be a given.


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 7, 2005)

Rob Ray said:
			
		

> Mainly because you said there's no such thing as too much analysis, implying that any old rubbish is a good thing because it contributes to the whole. Which, as I said, I consider to be bollocks.


Sorry if it came across that way, I didn't mean that at all, obviously not all analysis is good analysis, but I still maintain that when it comes to analysis, there's no such thing as too much of a good thing (as long as you act upon that analysis).



> When I say analysis sans agenda, I mean analysis which does not set out with a predetermined endgame, trying to fit (or in some case, make up) evidence to a theory, rather than come up with a theory via proven evidence. I was not commenting on the liklihood of bias in subjective writing, which I thought would be a given.


Fair dos


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 7, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> You're neither self-depreciating or ground-breakingly exciting yourself...



 So you've got nothing to say again...  FFS, at least I try to be entertaining... As well as you Charlie, but then being in the AF means you are easily pleased    No mouth no trousers  

To get serious again, Charlie said this very recently on the bookfair thread "On a more serious level, Rosalie Parks died yesterday at the age of 92. She was the black woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in the Deep South of America and catalysed the civl rights movement. That's real heroism, that's real resistance, not like some anti-social numpty in the Coronet." 

Got to say this is typical of the philanthropic well meaning nature of much Libertarian com. and some anarchist politics. According to this point of view, these stout working class people were 'forced' to rebel, doing 'real resistance/heroism' which can be distinguished from the 'stunt'. I disagree. 

For the historical record, she wasn't the first to refuse to give up her seat, it is an historical accident that has propelled her to fame (and I like black working class women... Lucy Parsons springs to mind). Like E.P. Thompson, Abbie Hoffman, Ian Bone, etc. the truth is that class struggle is an historical choice, there are always different ways to do things... That is partly why Charlies derogatory description of the 'stuntism' argument is just bollox...

The problem with the 'stunt' is that it can be used innapropriately, such as when a group has no links with the mass of the working class, or it is simply not relevant to the particular struggle that it supposedly is being done to forward. Or misinterpreted, such as 'the days of rage', which was the action that predated a group becoming the Weathermen.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2005)

no they were the weatherman first, soz.

but otherwise i like what you say


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Nov 7, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> The problem with the 'stunt' is that it can be used innapropriately, such as when a group has no links with the mass of the working class, or it is simply not relevant to the particular struggle that it supposedly is being done to forward. Or misinterpreted, such as 'the days of rage', which was the action that predated a group becoming the Weathermen.



Is this any different from the discussion we had on here about the symbolic relevance of a panel of fennce being pulled down at Gleneagles?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 8, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> no they were the weatherman first, soz.
> 
> but otherwise i like what you say



Excuse me for not being clear, what I meant was the days of rage was the public action immediately prior to the Weathermen engaging in clandestine military actions.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 8, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Is this any different from the discussion we had on here about the symbolic relevance of a panel of fennce being pulled down at Gleneagles?



Dunno, I didn't read it. But I do know there are particular points I am making which are fresh.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

Self important bores, anyone?
All mouth, no trousers!


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 8, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Dunno, I didn't read it. But I do know there are particular points I am making which are fresh.





Really?  You wanna get 'em posted up some time.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 8, 2005)

You both bore me so...


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2005)

Attica reaches for his fine lace handkerchief which he waves ostentatiously in front of his finely arched nostrils, whilst glaring with disdain through his lorgnette
"How frightfully, frightfully boring, doncha know" he drawls.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 8, 2005)

Charlie if you seriously believe the AF is an exciting innovative entertaining org you must be a bull goose.... oh.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 8, 2005)

Charlie, look here from the French riots thread, a post by raw ssalC;
"On a related point: Some interviews with participants of the riots are talking about armed struggle against the french state (acquiring grenades, AK..etc).
Wonder what peoples reaction to this will be? "

This is the class subjectivity stuff that is more interesting that self important bores with ideology, a 'position' - I wouldn't wipe my arse with their 'position'.


----------



## 888 (Nov 8, 2005)

I wonder if Attica is really making the faces he posts as he types... I can just picture it. Eyes twitching, almost popping out, followed by manic grins.


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 9, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Charlie, look here from the French riots thread, a post by raw ssalC;
> "On a related point: Some interviews with participants of the riots are talking about armed struggle against the french state (acquiring grenades, AK..etc).
> Wonder what peoples reaction to this will be? "





Here's one reaction- it won't happen. End of.


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Here's one reaction- it won't happen. End of.



Yes, but why let 'facts' get in the way of a good wank?


----------



## General Ludd (Nov 9, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> I do know there are particular points I am making which are fresh.


Which points are those?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 9, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Yes, but why let 'facts' get in the way of a good wank?



Both you and Letawank have missed the point though, these opinions/desires are from people who are not involved in your everyday boring leftist politics like you 2. For them to express these desires is significant in its OWN RIGHT, just as many did historically when the working class formed itself (oh, but then I am encouraging you to re-read EP THompson again).    E.g. 'the Year of the Sheep', 1792, when many clansmen gathered the enclosers sheep and drove them back towards England. It was 'foolhardy' and 'doomed to defeat', and you would have have sat on the sidelines and scoffed (again)... Christopher Hill and more appreciated actions like this though.


----------



## Ryazan (Nov 9, 2005)

Did the working class form itself, or were people formed into a working class by a series of interlinked events   ?


----------



## LLETSA (Nov 9, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Both you and Letawank have missed the point though, these opinions/desires are from people who are not involved in your everyday boring leftist politics like you 2. For them to express these desires is significant in its OWN RIGHT, just as many did historically when the working class formed itself (oh, but then I am encouraging you to re-read EP THompson again).    E.g. 'the Year of the Sheep', 1792, when many clansmen gathered the enclosers sheep and drove them back towards England. It was 'foolhardy' and 'doomed to defeat', and you would have have sat on the sidelines and scoffed (again)... Christopher Hill and more appreciated actions like this though.





I should imagine that some among the rioters express desires of living in a mansion, scoring the winning goal for Paris St Germaine in the Champions League final or shagging Catherine Zeta Jones. Are these significant in their own right as well, Mr Genius?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 9, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Which points are those?



Obviously you have trouble reading and understanding things which are 'fresh', so I have highlighted in bold a couple of points below which are particularly fresh, not only are they fresh but they can be seen as refreshing too (in the light of the consistently orthodox stuff which gets posted).

"To get serious again, Charlie said this very recently on the bookfair thread "On a more serious level, Rosalie Parks died yesterday at the age of 92. She was the black woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in the Deep South of America and catalysed the civl rights movement. That's real heroism, that's real resistance, not like some anti-social numpty in the Coronet." 

*Got to say this is typical of the philanthropic well meaning nature of much Libertarian com. and some anarchist politics. According to this point of view, these stout working class people were 'forced' to rebel, doing 'real resistance/heroism' which can be distinguished from the 'stunt'. I disagree. 

For the historical record, she wasn't the first to refuse to give up her seat, it is an historical accident that propelled her to fame * (and I like black working class women... Lucy Parsons springs to mind). Like E.P. Thompson, Abbie Hoffman, Ian Bone, etc. the truth is that class struggle is an historical choice, there are always different ways to do things... That is partly why Charlies derogatory description of the 'stuntism' argument is just bollox...

The problem with the 'stunt' is that it can be used innapropriately, such as when a group has no links with the mass of the working class, or it is simply not relevant to the particular struggle that it supposedly is being done to forward. Or misinterpreted, such as 'the days of rage', which was the action that predated a group becoming the Weathermen."


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I should imagine that some among the rioters express desires of living in a mansion, scoring the winning goal for Paris St Germaine in the Champions League final or shagging Catherine Zeta Jones. Are these significant in their own right as well, Mr Genius?



So, not only do they express political desires they express housing, football and sexual desires too. They sound very normal to me.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 9, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Yes, but why let 'facts' get in the way of a good wank?



well obviously you never do, you rightwing little fuckwit


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

No, no, no.  Wrong way around.  It's Enoch who's right wing.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 9, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> No, no, no.  Wrong way around.  It's Enoch who's right wing.



he was as well, but i wonder if he had the same contempt for the working class as you?


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> he was as well, but i wonder if he had the same contempt for the working class as you?



I'm not the one viewing them as a homogenous mass, who need to be patted on the head and complimented for everything they do.

Just for the record, where does my 'contempt' for them come from?


----------



## rednblack (Nov 9, 2005)

"them" lol! glad you realise you're not part of it!


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> "them" lol! glad you realise you're not part of it!



I was referencing your view of the w/c as a homogenous entity.  As something out there that does things as one that have to be supported.

And no, according to your definition, I'm not.  Nor have I ever claimed to be.

In terms of a Marxist/Anarchist definition (ie, one that has any use or meaning for communist politics), then I clearly am.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 9, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> In terms of a Marxist/Anarchist definition (ie, one that has any use or meaning for communist politics), then I clearly am.



 

who gives a fuck, you're a middle class tory cunt - the best thing you could do is sit back and let someone give you a kicking


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

Sweet, I'm a Tory now?

If I keep going, will you graduate me to BNP, or do I have to go through UKIP first?


----------



## oisleep (Nov 9, 2005)

i was kinda hoping you'd just peter out instead of keeping going/continuing


----------



## rednblack (Nov 9, 2005)

oisleep said:
			
		

> i was kinda hoping you'd just peter out instead of keeping going/continuing



he'll abandon his "interest" in libertarian politics within a year, and have a cushy middle class life within three years, that's why i can't be arsed to argue with him...


----------



## cats hammers (Nov 9, 2005)

Aw oisleep, now I can't, or it'd be letting you win.


----------



## soulman (Nov 10, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Aw oisleep, now I can't, or it'd be letting you win.



I smell middle class.


----------



## Khaleed (Nov 10, 2005)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Indeed we are.
> 
> Our national Federation, affiliated internationally, now has a grand total of, wait for it...
> 
> ...




Is this some sort of joke?

75 members. The way people are talking about the AF i thought they were like in the 1,000s but 75. Thats absolutely nothing. What can they achieve with 75 people. 

With all due respect god luck but if you want to change the world even having 500 or 600 is nothing and 75 seems like a total joke.


----------



## Ryazan (Nov 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> who gives a fuck, you're a middle class tory cunt - the best thing you could do is sit back and let someone give you a kicking



I thought it was me with a chip on my shoulder.


----------



## oisleep (Nov 10, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Aw oisleep, now I can't, or it'd be letting you win.



that's the main thing eh


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

Khaleed said:
			
		

> Is this some sort of joke?


Yes it is. In fact the AF have 40 000 fully fledged members who hold regular rallies with speeches and flags and stuff, and paper sales outside train stations.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 10, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Yes it is. In fact the AF have 40 000 fully fledged members who hold regular rallies with speeches and flags and stuff, and paper sales outside train stations.



so? HSG has 130,000 members in a borough with a population of just 240,000 or so...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

yes but your revisionists!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

wonder what that means? reactionary is great one too. Sounds like a kiddies toy with spring loaded arms.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 10, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> wonder what that means? reactionary is great one too. Sounds like a kiddies toy with spring loaded arms.



they react to contact with sweaty kids' hands, and change colour while shooting their fists at the closest target (nrmally your kid sister's eye)


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

i always wanted one of those. I had older sisters tho, so i inherited their sylvanian families.

which i loved   

Even today buying a toy AK47 made of green plastic is just about the naughtiest thing i can think of.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 10, 2005)

sylvanian families were(are! still going!!11) well smart, the houses and furniture we so well made


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

did you have them too?


----------



## rednblack (Nov 10, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> did you have them too?



my sister did, and me and my brother had the odd sneaky play now and then...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 10, 2005)

RnB said:
			
		

> me and my brother had the odd sneaky play now and then...


with the sylvanian families...?


----------



## rednblack (Nov 10, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> with the sylvanian families...?



er yes!


----------



## General Ludd (Nov 10, 2005)

> sylvanian families were(are! still going!!11) well smart, the houses and furniture we so well made


Haha. My little sisters had them. Not that I ever played with them as well. Oh no.


----------



## blamblam (Nov 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> who gives a fuck, you're a middle class tory cunt - the best thing you could do is sit back and let someone give you a kicking


Rednblack - I thought you were complaining about some people on libcom being rude and said that the admins should clamp down?

Jack might be a rude bastard but that's the only thing wrong with him. As you probably know really.


----------



## oisleep (Nov 10, 2005)

you sure?


----------



## rednblack (Nov 11, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Rednblack - I thought you were complaining about some people on libcom being rude and said that the admins should clamp down?
> 
> Jack might be a rude bastard but that's the only thing wrong with him. As you probably know really.



he started it  - and anyway fuck him, after the way he behaved on libcom the other night he's a cunt of the highest water, and he would never say to my face what he's said here...he really needs a bit of revolutionary justice to sort him out imo


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> he started it  - and anyway fuck him, after the way he behaved on libcom the other night he's a cunt of the highest water, and he would never say to my face what he's said here...he really needs a bit of revolutionary justice to sort him out imo



oh do calm down ducky.

just cos you got the piss taken for making an unthought out post.

No one seriously thinks your fash ffs.

And to be honest I reckon Jack could have you anyway.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 11, 2005)

i still stand by what i said, and think your old man was a scab


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i still stand by what i said, and think your old man was a scab



aye, a right fucking scab, i mean imagining not standing on a picket demanding the the maintainence of Stormont and Unionist hegemony, imagine not being a quietist fuck and allowing people to be given the impression all working class prods are bigotted fucks.

My da was far from a scab, infact he was sacked for organising industrial action and the union fucked him over, you can imagine his displeasure at seeing the same twats who lacked the balls to go on strike over a wage dispute yet all of a sudden when Big Ian and the boys come riding into town they are all fucking Arthur Scarghills.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> And to be honest I reckon Jack could have you anyway.



I really can't see this, sorry.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2005)




----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2005)

Do you mean like this kind of animal?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Do you mean like this kind of animal?



like that but gayer.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 11, 2005)




----------



## oisleep (Nov 11, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> I really can't see this, sorry.



revol should know, he's seen jack in "action" against the fash before


----------



## blamblam (Nov 12, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> he started it  - and anyway fuck him, after the way he behaved on libcom the other night he's a cunt of the highest water, and he would never say to my face what he's said here...


Come on you wouldn't say half the stuff you say on here to people's faces (Teejay, etc.). It's just the internet. I think Jack generally assumes people will know that he's not being totally serious.

Anyway... wow that is a disgusting dog tax posted. Gross.


----------



## rednblack (Nov 12, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Come on you wouldn't say half the stuff you say on here to people's faces (Teejay, etc.).



i definately would say it to teejays face...if i ever had the misfortune to meet him


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 12, 2005)

whooooooooooooooops!

just posted a PM as a message - anybody see it?   

Icepick: thank you, i'm glad you like my dog


----------



## Khaleed (Nov 12, 2005)

I think you guys in the Af should just give up because you I realistically you are totally irrevelant and I doubt you will ever be relevant.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 12, 2005)

true true...


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 12, 2005)

Khaleed said:
			
		

> I think you guys in the Af should just give up because you I realistically you are totally irrevelant and I doubt you will ever be relevant.


*yawn*

New to this trolling business are you?  Don't worry, you'll improve with time


----------

