# Anarchist Bookfair, Saturday 27th October, London



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

Feel free to point and laugh at me  if there's some obvious 21 page thread that I've been missed that's been long established.

Can't (easily  ) find one on Protest/Direct Action/Activism, or on UK Politics, or on General though.

Here is the Proper ABF 2007 link (now fixed -- Monday).

Will be in a new venue, Queen Mary and Westfield College, this time.







Deb and I will be there for a while 

Mods please bin this thread if it clearly duplicates anything .... ahem ...


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 24, 2007)

cheers for the reminder william - i was wondering when this was


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Feel free to point and laugh at me  if there's some obvious 21 page thread that I've been missed that's been long established.[/SIZE]



er....

PnP has gone through a few changes over the last 2 years william.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

Just looked at the 'Announce ... ' forum too, now 

But no, no ABF thread there either that I can see.

Is there one somewhere though?? 

Have to say that however few activists there might be around on Urban nowadays, it's a _little_ surprising that there's no ABF thread yet. There's always been one every year that I can remember, well in advance.

OK well let this thread stand in then -- who's going?


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 24, 2007)

*raises hand*

yup, i'm all out of pamphlets and am starting to get enthusiastic about politics again, so it's time to be stunned back into misanthropy by ranters and a lack of any practical solutions.


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> a lack of any practical solutions.


Curse those incompetent anarchists for not telling you what to do.


----------



## biff curtains (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Curse those incompetent anarchists for not telling you what to do.



 

I demand leadership


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 24, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Here is the ABF 2007 website



That link doesn't work.


----------



## zenie (Sep 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> yup, i'm all out of pamphlets and am starting to get enthusiastic about politics again, so it's time to be stunned back into misanthropy by ranters and *a lack of any practical solutions*.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.anarchistbookfair.co.uk/


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Curse those incompetent anarchists for not telling you what to do.


 
suggesting a plan of attack might be a good start.

i'm over exagerating of course, but last year i went along and cheerfully sat through a number of lectures hoping to have the fires of revolution reignited within my heart, loins, or spleen (wherever it is these things are lit, i dunno, always felt like the kind of indigestion you get after too much cheap speed but i digress), and what i heard was lots of people saying that we need to stop being a bunch of middle class wankers and start offering practical solutions to the working classes. but no actual solutions.  or people saying that we all need to unite, because our disunity is our biggest weakness, so can we all now behind their particular flavour of anarchism.

*bangs head on desk*

oh answers, i look for you everywhere...


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 24, 2007)

they're down the back of the sofa...


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> start offering practical solutions to the working classes.


I suspect those practical solutions will tend to have little to do with what anarchists do explicitly _as anarchists_ or _anarchism_ (until you perhaps sit down and think about it afterwards). I like the bookfair because it's a place to buy books, pick up shit loads of interesting leaflets and have interesting discussions. Though I went to Marxism for the first time this year and thought that was much better


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 24, 2007)

that's why i like the bookfair too.

i just am aware of the problems facing anarchism as a movement, i keep on hoping that someone somewhere will come up with a solution or two.


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm not being trite (well of course I am) but surely the point is not to wait for someone else to give you the answers?

(eta: chomsky told me this   )


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 24, 2007)

if i had the answer myself i'd not be looking for it.


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

Maybe there isn't *a* answer?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Curse those incompetent anarchists for not telling you what to do.


i think 'not telling people what to do' is actually a massive failing of anarchism in the UK, inherited from CRASS utterly refusing to give people anything more than vague mish mash bollocks then rescinding their leadership as soon as it looked too much like, well, leadership. Not telling people what to do is more related to Anarchism's proponents' lack of confidence/PR skills than there actually being a significant theoretical problem with giving advice.

The old 'if we told you what to do, it wouldn't be your choice' is a just a get-out clause for people who don't really have any answers. All anarchist groups are basically telling you what to do by suiggesting their method is an answer of some sort.

Bluestreak - what do you want to know?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> I'm not being trite (well of course I am) but surely the point is not to wait for someone else to give you the answers?
> 
> (eta: chomsky told me this   )


wrong, in my humble opinion.

Chommers i think is more saying 'don't follow _me_' and that he is not a movement or organisation. He gives absolutely loads of info about campaigns and groups (often liberal humanitarian ones), he is adamant (especially to US audiences) that he is not a Party or leader.

Chomsky is a syndicalist anyway. So there, he just told you what to do, thats his opinion. Is it oppressing you?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Just looked at the 'Announce ... ' forum too, now
> 
> But no, no ABF thread there either that I can see.
> 
> ...



i'll give you a clue - on another board, theres a 7 page thread


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 24, 2007)

i want to know how to engage with anarchism's potential converts in a way that offers them something other than handing out leaflets.  i want to see some sort of unity of spirit in the face of adversity.  and all of it on my terms.

hmmm, maybe it IS a me problem.


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Chomsky is a syndicalist anyway. So there, he just told you what to do, thats his opinion. Is it oppressing you?


Er, no, that's why I used smileys. I disagree about how you're reading him: he says explicitly, don't wait for someone to tell you what to do, to give you the answer, rather pick something you care about and go work on it. There's a massive difference between giving info on campaigns (etc) and saying *this* is what an anarchist society would look like and *this* is how we set about achieving it. There's a huge gap between thinking you have general ideas about how it's good to act, things that are worthwhile doing, local strategies that are useful (etc) and thinking you have _answers_ that hold across all contexts. Not promoting the former is fucking stupid and reeks of vacuous lifestylism, not promoting the latter is a _good_ thing. Rather than telling people what to do, we should be doing stuff and inviting them to join in.

Do you mean he's not a syndicalist in that he doesn't identify as a syndicalist (he does) or rather he's not a _proper_ synadicalist?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i think 'not telling people what to do' is actually a massive failing of anarchism in the UK, inherited from CRASS utterly refusing to give people anything more than vague mish mash bollocks then rescinding their leadership as soon as it looked too much like, well, leadership. Not telling people what to do is more related to Anarchism's proponents' lack of confidence/PR skills than there actually being a significant theoretical problem with giving advice.
> 
> The old 'if we told you what to do, it wouldn't be your choice' is a just a get-out clause for people who don't really have any answers. All anarchist groups are basically telling you what to do by suiggesting their method is an answer of some sort.



Good post that.


----------



## rich! (Sep 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i want to know how to engage with anarchism's potential converts in a way that offers them something other than handing out leaflets.  i want to see some sort of unity of spirit in the face of adversity.  and all of it on my terms.
> 
> hmmm, maybe it IS a me problem.



Go and talk to the Haringey Solidarity Group about what they do, and whether there's a similar organisation in Brixton, that's my advice.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Rather than telling people what to do, we should be doing stuff and inviting them to join in.


My point, without engaging in menaningless adversity, was tyhat i think they are one and the same comrade.

I beleive illegetimat authority only become illegitimate when it has no basis or consent. An accepted organiser who people see as a small scale leader is fine; when that position gives them the ability to compel or forcee people to follow them, its not fine.





> Do you mean he's not a syndicalist in that he doesn't identify as a syndicalist (he does) or rather he's not a _proper_ syndicalist?



um, no i think i was saying he IS a syndicalist. Thats is the branch of anarchism he identifies with, on the whole. I'm not a chomsky reader or in fact much of a reader, but i think he is a syndicalist overall, but spends most of his time using his position as an intellectual to campaign and educate.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

actually i am gonna be a bit rude: Nosos, what you were just saying is basically what bluestreak identifies as 'handing out leaflets'. I know your activity (withe the homeless and that) is more than that, but ireckon we could all do with being a bit more outgoing about politics.

There are some pretty hard and fast beliefs in anarchism, to suggest it's a come-as-you-are theory is unfair not only to anarchists but also to people who would be attracted to that kind of thing.* 

Aleister Crowley said that 'Do what Thou Wilt, Shall be the Whole of The Law' - and he was utterly fucking wrong. Has exactly nothing to do with anarchism in my opinion.

*idiots


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i want to know how to engage with anarchism's potential converts in a way that offers them something other than handing out leaflets.  i want to see some sort of unity of spirit in the face of adversity.  and all of it on my terms.
> 
> hmmm, maybe it IS a me problem.


no not really.

where do you live + where do you work?

Do you see people uniting over what can be demonstrated as morally wrong (an arms fair) or over something they have a shared need for (safer streets, housing etc)?

These aren't polar opposites, i'm just seeing where you are coming from, what you identify as 'adversity' in your post.


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> actually i am gonna be a bit rude: Nosos, what you were just saying is basically what bluestreak identifies as 'handing out leaflets'.


No it's not. 

More to the point, when I do do that, it's about some _specific_ issue. Rather than handing out leaflets saying "this is anarchism".



> to suggest it's a come-as-you-are theory


Where did I say that? 



> Aleister Crowley said that 'Do what Thou Wilt, Shall be the Whole of The Law' - and he was utterly fucking wrong. Has exactly nothing to do with anarchism in my opinion.


I agree


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

i know comrade.

I making some general points, thats why i said it didn't apply to you


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

campaign based anarchism: good, but why not say how it fits into the bigger picture? 
I don't always, but its all part of (for me) a wider move for anarchism.

And organise as an anarchist, or just on a casae basis (like work with oxfam when you agree with em)


BRB


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> My point, without engaging in menaningless adversity, was tyhat i think they are one and the same comrade.


We may be talking past each other to some extent but I think the difference is one of practice as something that sometimes follows from theory (telling people what to do and sometimes doing stuff) and theory supporting and informing practice (primarily doing stuff and sometimes getting together to discuss and situate what you're doing in a wider context).



> um, no i think i was saying he IS a syndicalist. Thats is the branch of anarchism he identifies with, on the whole. I'm not a chomsky reader or in fact much of a reader, but i think he is a syndicalist overall, but spends most of his time using his position as an intellectual to campaign and educate.


Sorry I read "is" as "isn't"


----------



## nosos (Sep 24, 2007)

I think I'm chronically misreading your posts.

Will come back later when I've had food & coffee.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> That link doesn't work.



Dunno what hapened there, sorry   

Fixed it now tho'  -- in post one and ...

here ... Proper ABF 2007 link


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i'll give you a clue - on another board, theres a 7 page thread



I assumed there would be, but some perfectly sound people are (now) on both forums -- lets have threads in more than one place!

RADICAL! 

Seems like I plugged a gap on Urban anyway, with posting this, so tis all good


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 24, 2007)

If it helps (or even if it doesn't), I shall be there with some co-conspirators...


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> My point, without engaging in menaningless adversity, was tyhat i think they are one and the same comrade.


But they're really not.  Unless we're going to assume that there's some homogeneous mass of Ordinary People out there, waiting to be told what's what*, offering "solutions" and "alternatives" is a bit meaningless, not because it's oppressive or whatever, but because it's a bit of a waste of time.


*Not that I'm suggesting that this is what you think, but I don't see how the whole idea is supposed to work otherwise.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 24, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I assumed there would be, but some perfectly sound people are (now) on both forums -- lets have threads in more than one place!
> 
> RADICAL!
> 
> Seems like I plugged a gap on Urban anyway, with posting this, so tis all good


I was pretty surprised to see that you'd started this, tbh.  I wouldn't have thought it'd be your kind of thing.

Honestly, it's not mine, I just go for the piss up


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 24, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> If it helps (or even if it doesn't), I shall be there with some co-conspirators...


Me too


----------



## tufty79 (Sep 24, 2007)

i will be trying to steal all of corporate watch's chocolate.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 24, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Me too



and your long awaited 'Glee magazine' too?


----------



## rich! (Sep 24, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Aleister Crowley said that 'Do what Thou Wilt, Shall be the Whole of The Law' - and he was utterly fucking wrong. Has exactly nothing to do with anarchism in my opinion.



Everyone misunderstands that one.

It's not the chaos punk version, it's an incitement to leading lives of unswerving dedication to your purpose, whatever that might be...


----------



## Geri (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll be there very briefly, and then off to the pub.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 24, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> Everyone misunderstands that one.
> 
> It's not the chaos punk version, it's an incitement to leading lives of unswerving dedication to your purpose, whatever that might be...



...and in Crowley's case that was ripping people off, and fucking them about big time, which adds up to the same thing in the end...The man even drew a knob on his head to make things clear.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But they're really not.  Unless we're going to assume that there's some homogeneous mass of Ordinary People out there, waiting to be told what's what*, offering "solutions" and "alternatives" is a bit meaningless, not because it's oppressive or whatever, but because it's a bit of a waste of time.
> 
> 
> *Not that I'm suggesting that this is what you think, but I don't see how the whole idea is supposed to work otherwise.


actually mate thats exactly what i'm saying. Homogenous mass or not, there are some base facts for all of us and there are some blatant fucking injustices we could be doing a lot more about; i do think its worth putting anarchism forward as a way of solving problems, cos if its not wtf is the point? If we can't say to people that anarchism is a useful theory for sorting out their problems...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 24, 2007)

la la la la la


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 24, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> and your long awaited 'Glee magazine' too?



That's you that is


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 24, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> We may be talking past each other to some extent but I think the difference is one of practice as something that sometimes follows from theory (telling people what to do and sometimes doing stuff) and theory supporting and informing practice (primarily doing stuff and sometimes getting together to discuss and situate what you're doing in a wider context).



TBH this is ALL not enough - the answer is praxis  We start from participating in class struggle and see what happens   Not standing on the sidelines trying to create something apriori pure, rather as the class struggle develops radical theory discovers itself in the midst of these ever wider and connecting struggles.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 24, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I was pretty surprised to see that you'd started this, tbh.  I wouldn't have thought it'd be your kind of thing.
> 
> Honestly, it's not mine, I just go for the piss up



You think I'm NOT going for the pissup?  (at least partly ... )

But I have some specific underground literature I'm looking out for, that I'm unlikely to find elsewhere that easily.

I come from a countercultural/old school free festivals/direct action/eco protest-friendly direction on this sorta thing ("Lifestyleist!!!!" ) plus the history of it all interests me. Being a historian by background, it would be wrong not to take an interest in the lterature of radical ideas. I've been a bit of a collector at times as well.

And I have a passing bit of professional interest  in underground presses, subversive publications, wild art and graphics, and the like.

I was never much of an activist myself, being a lazy stoner twat  but I have a genuine interest. I'm not an anarchist really, but I respect a lot of ideas coming from that general area ...

Also, Deb is keen to visit the ABF  

Noted absence of a thread yet, and plugged a gap ...


----------



## treefrog (Sep 24, 2007)

I'd go along, but I'm busy playing soldiers that weekend.

I somehow doubt they'll miss my presence....


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 24, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> That's you that is



'Thats You'--interesting, now we know your title.   Especially if its anything like this   http://sugarshock.com/press/media_glee.html


----------



## soulman (Sep 25, 2007)

Anarchist bookfair eh


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Sep 25, 2007)

treefrog said:
			
		

> I'd go along, but I'm busy playing soldiers that weekend.
> 
> I somehow doubt they'll miss my presence....


TA?


----------



## nosos (Sep 25, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> TBH this is ALL not enough - the answer is praxis  We start from participating in class struggle and see what happens   Not standing on the sidelines trying to create something apriori pure, rather as the class struggle develops radical theory discovers itself in the midst of these ever wider and connecting struggles.


That's pretty much what I mean - I was just trying to avoid using the term praxis


----------



## rich! (Sep 25, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> You think I'm NOT going for the pissup?



Beer in the Evening has a 9.8 rated pub in that area...


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 25, 2007)

Oooh, which one?


----------



## Stig (Sep 25, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oooh, which one?



this one:

http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/30/30865/Old_Duke_Of_Cambridge/Mile_End

looks like it's a bit small though, and only one beer. And it's a mile away.


----------



## Stig (Sep 25, 2007)

This one sounds a bit better, possibly

http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/11/11665/Coborn_Arms/Bow


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 25, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> That's pretty much what I mean - I was just trying to avoid using the term praxis



I like the language of the new society


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 25, 2007)

Will do a Good Beer Gude check too. There definitely used to be some nice pubs in the area, can't remember where they are though.


----------



## chico enrico (Sep 28, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Will do a Good Beer Gude check too. There definitely used to be some nice pubs in the area, can't remember where they are though.



Somewhere else?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 2, 2007)

Erm, if you want to think I meant that  

Just a bit of a bump .... more pub news later  

Some great ideas for Bookfair buys in the Anarchist Literature thread on this very subforum, also ...


----------



## Thora (Oct 2, 2007)

I'll be there


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 2, 2007)

*Bookfair related information*




			
				Thora said:
			
		

> I'll be there



THora - see you there. Can you make the friday night event below?

Housmans Anarchists Bookfair Weekender 07

The Anarchist Bookfair, now in its 26th year, was born when Housmans Bookshop, Freedom Bookshop and the Anarchist Book Service combined with A Distribution, to lay the foundations for the bookfair as it now is. For a period of time these four groups not only organised the bookfair, but also produced a free magazine called the New Anarchist Review. 

The group also encouraged local areas to set up their own book fairs. Regretfully, apart from an excellent bookfair organised at the 1 in 12 Club, this initiative did not take off. 

The first bookfair attracted a faithful audience of about 10, however with the support of many groups, including Crass, the bookfair has since gone from strength to strength. Housmans will have a stall at the fair, as it has had since day one, and to show our thanks to our many friends and supporters from over the years, we will be opening our doors for special events, both before and after the bookfair. 


Friday 26th October, 6pm onwards: Launch party for new Anarchist magazine Mayday + pre-bookfair social

Mayday is a new Anarchist journal, whose first issue includes contributions from Ian Bone, Dave Douglas, Trevor Bark and many more, who will all be in attendance. Join us for a drink and a chat.

Saturday 27th October: The Fair

The shop will be open as normal, but more importantly, stop by our stall at the fair and say hello.

Sunday 28th October,12 till 6pm: After-party

Housmans will be opening up the shop especially for those who, like us, feel that one day a year just isn’t long enough. The shop will open from 12 till 6pm, for a post-bookfair get together. A nice chance to meet, chat, and check out some of our great anarchist stock, including many rarities.

http://housmans.com 
Housmans Bookshop 
5 Caledonian Road, Kings Cross
London, N1 9DX. 
tel: 020 7837 4473 
e: shop@housmans.com

Streetmap:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...=newsearch.srf


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 19, 2007)

Bump to keep this thread on page one, and because the ABF is now NEXT SATURDAY


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

A little bird tells me I should draw attention to the meeting at 5 o'clock called by the London Coalition Against Poverty and with speakers from LCAP and Edinburgh Claiments Union. The idea will be for people to discuss "direct action casework" and to share other models and experiences for effectively fighting for on the one hand, what we are legally "entitled" to, and on the other real social change.

I think.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 19, 2007)

Room 324: 





> An introduction to Direct Action Casework
> London Coalition Against Poverty
> Are you sick of institutions and corporations denying us access to benefits, housing or decent working conditions?  London Coalition Against Poverty uses Direct Action Casework  traditional advice work combined with direct action  to target those who deny us what we're entitled to.  Come along if you are interested in hearing more and getting involved.


----------



## Paris Garters (Oct 19, 2007)

Ooooh, I would normally be going, but this year I'll be putting my politics into action by lurking in the wilds of Norfolk at my bf's bucolic anarchaprimmo utopia, doing a bit of woodland management, faffing with horses... and, errr... generally hiding from the horrors of reality with fellow cynical semi retired activists.

Yay!


----------



## Nigel (Oct 20, 2007)

*Booking Stalls?*

Anyone know about booking stalls?
If it is not too late?
Tried E-mail address, but had no reply.
Is there as phone number?


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 20, 2007)

It's too late to book a stall.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 20, 2007)

*The Workers/Shirkers Are Hungry For Pot Noodle!!!!!!*

How are we going to convince our Anarchist comrades of the need for a new workers' party!!!!!??????/';;~#  

http://www.cnwp.org.uk


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 21, 2007)

Thankfully, your sort aren't welcome among civilised anarchists


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 21, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> A little bird tells me I should draw attention to the meeting at 5 o'clock called by the London Coalition Against Poverty and with speakers from LCAP and Edinburgh Claiments Union. The idea will be for people to discuss "direct action casework" and to share other models and experiences for effectively fighting for on the one hand, what we are legally "entitled" to, and on the other real social change.
> 
> I think.



I'll hopefully come along to this if I can.


----------



## Thora (Oct 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'll hopefully come along to this if I can.


Me too.  Staying reasonably sober til 5pm might be a bit tricky though


----------



## nosos (Oct 21, 2007)

Has anyone see Dorothy Rowe talk before? I decided against coming but am tempted to head down just to see her.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 21, 2007)

I see the Mayday magazine has a meeting booked for 4pm - should be great   Ian Bone too, and Martin Lux.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 21, 2007)

I realised tonight that i'm away for this  oh well, enjoy yourselves. I'd like to have got along for the LCAP meeting, assume that some form of notetaking or something will occur?


----------



## cutandsplice (Oct 21, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I see the Mayday magazine has a meeting booked for 4pm - should be great   Ian Bone too, and Martin Lux.


So who's behind the magazine then? Is it Afed?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 22, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> So who's behind the magazine then? Is it Afed?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 22, 2007)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> So who's behind the magazine then? Is it Afed?



hahahahahaha They can barely get any ideas for organise and that comes out rarely - but I do read it sometimes (but then I read a lot).

here's a link to the Mayday mag front cover with descriptions of articles - it looks absolutely fantastic    

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382291.html?c=on#c181684


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 22, 2007)

*Pre/Post Bookfair events, inc. launch of 'Mayday'*

Here's some more details - 'come on down' fri nite  we're off to a pub l8r too (shop closing by 9).

Pre/Post Bookfair events, inc. launch of 'Mayday' 

Housmans Anarchists Bookfair Weekender 07

The Anarchist Bookfair, now in its 26th year, was born when Housmans Bookshop, Freedom Bookshop and the Anarchist Book Service combined with A Distribution, to lay the foundations for the bookfair as it now is. For a period of time these four groups not only organised the bookfair, but also produced a free magazine called the New Anarchist Review. 

The group also encouraged local areas to set up their own book fairs. Regretfully, apart from an excellent bookfair organised at the 1 in 12 Club, this initiative did not take off. 

The first bookfair attracted a faithful audience of about 10, however with the support of many groups, including Crass, the bookfair has since gone from strength to strength. Housmans will have a stall at the fair, as it has had since day one, and to show our thanks to our many friends and supporters from over the years, we will be opening our doors for special events, both before and after the bookfair. 


Friday 26th October, 6pm onwards: Launch party for new Anarchist magazine Mayday + pre-bookfair social

Mayday is a new Anarchist journal, whose first issue includes contributions from Ian Bone, Dave Douglas, Trevor Bark and many more, who will all be in attendance. Join us for a drink and a chat.

Saturday 27th October: The Fair

The shop will be open as normal, but more importantly, stop by our stall at the fair and say hello.

Sunday 28th October,12 till 6pm: After-party

Housmans will be opening up the shop especially for those who, like us, feel that one day a year just isn’t long enough. The shop will open from 12 till 6pm, for a post-bookfair get together. A nice chance to meet, chat, and check out some of our great anarchist stock, including many rarities.

http://housmans.com 
Housmans Bookshop 
5 Caledonian Road, Kings Cross
London, N1 9DX. 
tel: 020 7837 4473 
e: shop@housmans.com

Streetmap:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...=newsearch.srf


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 22, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Me too.  Staying reasonably sober til 5pm might be a bit tricky though



Never mind - it lightens up the dullard meetings.


----------



## biff curtains (Oct 22, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> I realised tonight that i'm away for this  oh well, enjoy yourselves. I'd like to have got along for the LCAP meeting, assume that some form of notetaking or something will occur?



If you pm me after the bookfair, I'll send you some notes if you like.


----------



## Raw SslaC (Oct 22, 2007)

*MAYDAY magazine launch weekend (at bookfair)*

just to update the Mayday magazine launch weekend:

FRIDAY 26th OCT - 600pm
*Mayday Magazine launch*
@Housmans Bookshop
5 Caledonian Rd
London N1 9DX
Tube: Kings Cross
http://housmans.com

FRIDAY 26th OCT - 900pm
*Pre-bookfair Social (Drink and Meet Up)*
An invitation for anarchists and radicals (especially those from outside London) to meet up in a friendly social environment for a drink and chat about this years bookfair. (Just up the road from Housmans).
@Cross Kings Pub
126 York Way
London N1 0AX
Tube: Kings Cross
http://thecrosskings.co.uk

SATURDAY 27th OCT - 400pm
*MAYDAY Magazine meeting*
@London Anarchist Bookfair
Room 325
Queen Mary & Westfield College
Mile End Rd
London E1 4NS
Tube: Mile End or Stepney Green
http://www.anarchistbookfair.co.uk/


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 22, 2007)

biff curtains said:
			
		

> If you pm me after the bookfair, I'll send you some notes if you like.


Cheers, nice one


----------



## punkrockfaggot (Oct 22, 2007)

I will be at home in Leeds whining about not being able to go  

But I's off to Bash the Rich march to see if Class War are a one-generation trick or not.

And anyone goin to the bookfair remember... The only good system is a sound system. But you don't have to flaunt it in front of the customers at Wetherspoons FFS...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 24, 2007)

NB Transport information :




			
				Transport for London said:
			
		

> Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th October
> *District line*
> Between Earl's Court and Whitechapel there is no service due to track replacement work. For further details and alternative routes, please click here:
> http://pull.xmr3.com/p/32934-162289-EF70/90410224/d_district.html



Rewritten for clarity :

Easiest to use Central Line to Mile End if you're travelling from a Central London direction. Central Line is normal service on Saturday.

Stepney Green station** only approachable from Whuitechapel on the Dustrict,. or from the East.

**nearest for afterparty!


----------



## Nigel (Oct 26, 2007)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Thankfully, your sort aren't welcome among civilised anarchists


you put yourself in that category then?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2007)

I'll miss not going to the coronet this year


----------



## dwenfish (Oct 26, 2007)

well seeing as its in my university and i've got to go to the library anyway tomorrow i reckon i'll pop me head in..


----------



## Boogie Boy (Oct 26, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> NB Transport information :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nearest for _one_ of the afterparties.....but not _all _of them!

BB


----------



## Thora (Oct 26, 2007)

dwenfish said:
			
		

> well seeing as its in my university and i've got to go to the library anyway tomorrow i reckon i'll pop me head in..


Be good to see you dwen  

There's a lot of good stuff on this year.  I'm planning to go to:

*1pm – 2pm 

The Summit Against Everything* 
Voices of Resistance from Occupied London 

A presentation of London 's newest anarchist journal, Voices of Resistance from Occupied London, now in its second issue. Members of the collective will also talk about the plans for "the Summit Against Everything": A pan-european gathering of anarchists and anti-authoritarians, to take place in summer 2008 in London .

*2pm – 3pm 

Housing Co-ops, worker co-ops, social centres and Radical Routes - a quick guide *
Organised by Radical Routes Housing Co-ops 

Housing without landlords, work without bosses, socialising without, er... money going to big breweries. Radical Routes is a mutual aid network of co-operatives whose members are actively engaged in social change. Depending what people want to know, this workshop can cover: how to set up a housing co-op, worker co-op or social centre, living on the land, what's the purpose of Radical Routes, what Radical Routes can do for you and/or why we could do with another half million pounds (well, who couldn't?). Radical Routes - putting autonomy, mutual aid and non-hierarchy into practice. 

*4pm – 5pm 

MAYDAY *

Launch and Talk by new autonomous class struggle magazine 

MAYDAY magazine was formed out of the need to develop political and practical ideas around the movements we are involved in. From anti-fascism, social centres, migrant and no border struggles to the legacies and histories of class struggle in the UK . The intention is to bring together all our experiences and bring radical anti-capitalist and anarchist ideas to a wider audience.


*5pm – 6pm 

An introduction to Direct Action Casework *
London Coalition Against Poverty 

Are you sick of institutions and corporations denying us access to benefits, housing or decent working conditions?  London Coalition Against Poverty uses Direct Action Casework  traditional advice work combined with direct action  to target those who deny us what we're entitled to.  Come along if you are interested in hearing more and getting involved.


----------



## Oxpecker (Oct 26, 2007)

Bloody hell, Thora; with a schedule like that you'll barely have time to get pissed with the rest of us in the Wetherspoons


----------



## dwenfish (Oct 27, 2007)

well i'll be in the library til 5 so will see what is going on after then, aye twill be good to see ye too thora


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2007)

This is in my neck of the woods. I saw an advert yesterday slapped on a telephone box and it had a number to get tickets.

Buy tickets? 

You know that the world is going backwards when anarchist events have advertising campaigns and a hotline to part with your hard-earned cash to get a foot in the door.

Will you be greeted by zillions of stalls pumping out che guevara T-shirts?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 27, 2007)

Probably.  Right, just got out of bed, will get my shit together and head on down for a couple of hours.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 27, 2007)

I went there briefly and was divorced from £13 in the process 

Great, innit?


----------



## dwenfish (Oct 27, 2007)

how dyou manage that? went into the the main room after i'd finished in the library and it was corrupted with the most godawful smell known to man, seriously can't you lot have a fucking wash??? i spend a lot of time with squatters (in fact the majority of my mates squat in one form or another) but they always keep themselves relatively clean and seem to smell at worst a bit musty (which is par for the course) but seriously, this stench was inhuman and there was absolutely no need for it. and i'm almost certain that the stinkiest cunts had the easiest access to showers,..BEING A SMELLY WANKER IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY STATEMENT!!!


----------



## Stig (Oct 28, 2007)

*rich! posting*




			
				dwenfish said:
			
		

> how dyou manage that? went into the the main room after i'd finished in the library and it was corrupted with the most godawful smell known to man, seriously can't you lot have a fucking wash??? i spend a lot of time with squatters (in fact the majority of my mates squat in one form or another) but they always keep themselves relatively clean and seem to smell at worst a bit musty (which is par for the course) but seriously, this stench was inhuman and there was absolutely no need for it. and i'm almost certain that the stinkiest cunts had the easiest access to showers,..BEING A SMELLY WANKER IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY STATEMENT!!!



sorry.
thought i'd get away with not showering this morning.

whoops.

still, not as bad as a wetherspoons without ale. or music.  

*goes back to reading TCA*


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2007)

Apparently someone stinkbombed it.

The no hat beer strike in Wetherspoons was odd.


----------



## Geri (Oct 28, 2007)

dwenfish said:
			
		

> how dyou manage that? went into the the main room after i'd finished in the library and it was corrupted with the most godawful smell known to man, seriously can't you lot have a fucking wash??? i spend a lot of time with squatters (in fact the majority of my mates squat in one form or another) but they always keep themselves relatively clean and seem to smell at worst a bit musty (which is par for the course) but seriously, this stench was inhuman and there was absolutely no need for it. and i'm almost certain that the stinkiest cunts had the easiest access to showers,..BEING A SMELLY WANKER IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY STATEMENT!!!



I noticed that last year - it was disgusting. And people wonder why the anarchist movement doesn't attract more people.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Apparently someone stinkbombed it.
> 
> The no hat beer strike in Wetherspoons was odd.



They'd run out of beer on tap completely by the time I got there, I had to drink Newcastle Brown instead.


----------



## Geri (Oct 28, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> They'd run out of beer on tap completely by the time I got there, I had to drink Newcastle Brown instead.



What - even lager?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2007)

The manager closed the bars at one point because people refused to take their hats off.  Which was odd.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2007)

Was that the wetherspoons? Standard practice on match day in a lot of them.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2007)

Yeah, the Wetherspoons.  Some people were making improvised hats and she got really stroppy and closed both bars for about 20 minutes.


----------



## nosos (Oct 28, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The manager closed the bars at one point because people refused to take their hats off.  Which was odd.


Probably the closest I've come to getting kicked out of somewhere (probably kicked in the process) was because the bouncers in weatherspoon's took it as a personal insult that I refused to take my hat off. Same weatherspoons also lets people in shirtless but refused to let me in wearing football shirt _during summer_. Cheap soulless shitholes.

(even if my last year in london involved me drinking nowhere else because I was too lazy to leave zone 1 and too poor to drink in most pubs in zone 1)


----------



## nosos (Oct 28, 2007)

dwenfish said:
			
		

> how dyou manage that? went into the the main room after i'd finished in the library and it was corrupted with the most godawful smell known to man, seriously can't you lot have a fucking wash??? i spend a lot of time with squatters (in fact the majority of my mates squat in one form or another) but they always keep themselves relatively clean and seem to smell at worst a bit musty (which is par for the course) but seriously, this stench was inhuman and there was absolutely no need for it. and i'm almost certain that the stinkiest cunts had the easiest access to showers,..BEING A SMELLY WANKER IS NOT A REVOLUTIONARY STATEMENT!!!


you have fun then?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 28, 2007)

A great day and a brill party, we were at it till the tubes started.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Probably the closest I've come to getting kicked out of somewhere (probably kicked in the process) was because the bouncers in weatherspoon's took it as a personal insult that I refused to take my hat off.



So it was you?  I met a couple of punks at the tube who reckoned the pub was closed because of the hat business, but it was business as usual when I got there (except for the strange absence of beer).  

In the US hats are banned in many bars on account of they are gang signs.  But surely that wasn't the case here?


----------



## Geri (Oct 28, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Same weatherspoons also lets people in shirtless but refused to let me in wearing football shirt _during summer_. Cheap soulless shitholes.



I've been refused entry into a Wetherspoons for wearing a football shirt before now, but if you go into the Moon under Water in Watford on a match day you'd be hard pressed to find anyone without one on.

I think it must be up to the manager of each pub rather than a blanket policy.


----------



## Thora (Oct 28, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yeah, the Wetherspoons.  Some people were making improvised hats and she got really stroppy and closed both bars for about 20 minutes.


I think the hat ban was her response to a bit of pushing and shoving over political differences between comrades.


----------



## Thora (Oct 28, 2007)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Bloody hell, Thora; with a schedule like that you'll barely have time to get pissed with the rest of us in the Wetherspoons


The key word was "planning" - I only actually made it to the Direct Action Casework/LCAP meeting   And I didn't touch a drop of booze all night  

Citizen66 - are you sure about the sticker advertising tickets?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2007)

*My first ABF since 2003 ...*

What time did all this hat malarkey happen? Blags what time were you  at the ABF or pub? Didn't see you.

We were in Wetherspoons from about 3 til 6, after just over an hour at the Bookfair, and for myself I didn't really notice any bother about hats, admittedly neither of us had one ...

Shortage of ale was a much more pressing problem ...  

As for stinky wankers in the Fair itself, didn't notice many. OK one or two, but nothing exceptional -- surely it wasn't THAT bang out of order. Spose I hang about with a lot of festiegoing crustie types a lot of the time, so below a certain level, I may not notice.

PS I had had a proper bath and put on fresh clothes that very morning  

Had a pretty good time overall, and I picked up a load of good stuff at the Fair. 'Cotters and Squatters' by Colin Ward, which I've been wanting to read for a good long while, and 'Breaking Free' (Tintin for Anarchists) which I used to have a copy of , and wanted to replace -- did so for £3=  ). And masses of free stuff/flyers/leaflets, and a couple of anti-work pamphlets, £1= and £2.50 each.

Deb picked up the latest edition of the Squatters Handbook, it's changed  a lot since early nineties editions 
Plus a load of Class War stuff, I've borrowed some of it from her to entertain myself over the coming week 

I enjoyed the pub despite the ale shortage problems. Great to meet 4thwrite, see you again 'up North' on 16th or 17th Nov mate. Really good to see aurora again for the first time since Endorse It. Plus plenty of other friendly faces


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2007)

Funniest as Fuck prize surely goes to Schnews's spoof publishers 'catalogue' of made up anarchist/activist literature. Gnome Chomsky!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 28, 2007)

I was at the bookfair from about 4 until 6.  I went to the LCAP meeting from 5 - 6 and was in Wetherspoons from about 6.30 until 9.30ish.  The hat business was probably 7.30ish.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 28, 2007)

you can't wear hats in british legion bars either


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I was at the bookfair from about 4 until 6.  I went to the LCAP meeting from 5 - 6 and was in Wetherspoons from about 6.30 until 9.30ish.  The hat business was probably 7.30ish.



Fair dos -- all a good bit later than when we were there.


----------



## october_lost (Oct 29, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> I noticed that last year - it was disgusting. And people wonder why the anarchist movement doesn't attract more people.


Nothing to do with lifestylist politics...


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 29, 2007)

I didn't make it.  I blame ketamine


----------



## nosos (Oct 29, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> I've been refused entry into a Wetherspoons for wearing a football shirt before now, but if you go into the Moon under Water in Watford on a match day you'd be hard pressed to find anyone without one on.


I can completely see why they want to do this on match days even if I disagree that it's necessary in most places. I just think it's fucking stupid (and in some places in london quite openly snobbish) to do this outside of matchdays. Particularly during the fucking close season. Particuarly when there are lots of half naked people inside the pub.

(nosos - still bitter 4 years later)


----------



## nosos (Oct 29, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I didn't make it.  I blame ketamine


This is a proper anarchist.


----------



## nosos (Oct 29, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So it was you?


Nah I was in Birmingham talking politics with a load of liberal environmentalists.


----------



## nosos (Oct 29, 2007)

Did anyone see Dorothy Rowe? I really regret missing her.


----------



## the button (Oct 29, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Did anyone see Dorothy Rowe? I really regret missing her.


Nope. But I did see phildwyer.


----------



## Thora (Oct 29, 2007)

I saw the button, and that was enough for me


----------



## the button (Oct 29, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I saw the button, and that was enough for me


Just think. If you'd have timed your seeing me a bit better, you could have seen phildwyer at the same time. So near & yet so far.


----------



## Thora (Oct 29, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Just think. If you'd have timed your seeing me a bit better, you could have seen phildwyer at the same time. So near & yet so far.


It's ok, I've seen phildwyer before, aaaaages ago.


----------



## the button (Oct 29, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> It's ok, I've seen phildwyer before, aaaaages ago.


And he told me I was special.  

Men.


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2007)

Was it just a social event or did any work get done, no wonder the anarchist movement is in the state it is, bread and circuses?

So, what happened in the London Coalition Against Poverty Meeting for instance?, if no answers where can i find some info on what happened.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 29, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> And he told me I was special.
> 
> Men.


 not special. Just different.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2007)

*Speaking just for myself ...*




			
				treelover said:
			
		

> Was it just a social event or did any work get done, no wonder the anarchist movement is in the state it is, bread and circuses?



Yes boss. Must work harder boss ... 

I'm not an anarchist, just a generally non aligned radical-sympathiser type ... I've been perfectly honest (including earlier up in this thred) about not being much of an activist nowadays, and about being a bit of a lazy twat as well.

But I still got a lot out of the ABF, not just socially, but also checking out all sorts of literature/ideas/books I'd not seen. I think you're being a bit judgemental there to be honest treelover.

I'd like to see what came out of the London Coalition Against Poverty meeting as well btw ...


----------



## Oxpecker (Oct 29, 2007)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Yes boss. Must work harder boss ...
> 
> I'm not an anarchist, just a generally non aligned radical-sympathiser type ... I've been perfectly honest (including earlier up in this thred) about not being much of an activist nowadays, and about being a bit of a lazy twat as well.
> 
> ...



Not forgetting that tenner


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 29, 2007)

The LCAP meeting was a talk by some of the activists, a talk from someone from Edinburgh Claimants Union and a discussion.  Tbh, I don't think much can come out of one meeting, apart from making people aware of what they're about.

They have an action on Wednesday at Hackney Town Hall at 6pm.  I can't make that, but will hopefully make their meeting on Thurs.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2007)

marty21 said:
			
		

> you can't wear hats in british legion bars either


lots of medals are cool tho  

glad that (some) people had a good time  (in sympathy, i read more than half of stuart christie's book which is very very good)


----------



## the button (Oct 30, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> Was it just a social event or did any work get done, no wonder the anarchist movement is in the state it is, bread and circuses?


I'm proud to say I didn't set foot in the bookfair itself.  

I went in last year, but the smell was overpowering.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 30, 2007)

I thought last year smelt quite nice


----------



## the button (Oct 30, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I thought last year smelt quite nice


It was my first one, so perhaps your nostrils have become desensitised by more frequent exposure to that number of anarchists in a confined space.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 30, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I was at the bookfair from about 4 until 6.  I went to the LCAP meeting from 5 - 6 and was in Wetherspoons from about 6.30 until 9.30ish.  The hat business was probably 7.30ish.



I'd have said hello had I known you were there.  It seems I got there just after the hat business, and left just before the attempted assault on Revol68.  In fact perhaps I can claim credit for this brief interlude of calm.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 30, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'd have said hello had I known you were there.  It seems I got there just after the hat business, and left just before the attempted assault on Revol68.  In fact perhaps I can claim credit for this brief interlude of calm.



It wasn't an assault it was a warning.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 30, 2007)

Here is something which may help the angst ridden youngsters on Limpcok to understand;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandi...611034?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193752097&sr=1-18

They've managed to have a 20 page crisis on their site (hahahahaha).


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 30, 2007)

i managed to miss allll the workshops, turned up at fiveish and still managed to spend a small fortune 

weirdest moment: someone coming up to me and asking 'are you from the internet?'
me going 'noooo...'
them going 'urban?'
and then refusing to tell me who they were...


----------



## nosos (Oct 30, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Here is something which may help the angst ridden youngsters on Limpcok to understand;
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandi...611034?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193752097&sr=1-18
> 
> They've managed to have a 20 page crisis on their site (hahahahaha).


Did you read every page of it? That's rather sad considering you're trying to mock them.


----------



## treelover (Oct 31, 2007)

The fact that there has been a meeting about poverty in the uk by activist groups is significant in itself, such issues have been off the radar for many years.




> The LCAP meeting was a talk by some of the activists, a talk from someone from Edinburgh Claimants Union and a discussion. Tbh, I don't think much can come out of one meeting, apart from making people aware of what they're about.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Good to meet 4thwrite (at the pub not the Bookfair) and also say hello to Wills and Debs  Tufty you should have come to the pub and made yerself known innit


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I'd have said hello had I known you were there.  It seems I got there just after the hat business, and left just before the attempted assault on Revol68.  In fact perhaps I can claim credit for this brief interlude of calm.



Good to meet you


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> It wasn't an assault it was a warning.



OK - I get you. If you post something that people don't agree with, you're liable to get 'warned' (by way of being punched) in real life. 

Now we understand, and can make the appropriate arrangements.

Incidentally, I don't agree with everything you've ever posted either. Consider yourself warned on-line and prepare to be 'warned' in real life when you next show your face.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Good to meet 4thwrite (at the pub not the Bookfair) and also say hello to Wills and Debs  Tufty you should have come to the pub and made yerself known innit




Good to see you too  shame we didn't get to chat more 

Tufty what time were you there? Didn't see you at all ...

Glad I wasn't there when punches were thrown, that, or threats/'warnings' of that are bang out of order ...


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Did you read every page of it? That's rather sad considering you're trying to mock them.



What? The book or the 20 pages on their website? It is rather sad that you are not clear at all after I succesfully mocked them   And boy, do they deserve it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> OK - I get you. If you post something that people don't agree with, you're liable to get 'warned' (by way of being punched) in real life.
> 
> Now we understand, and can make the appropriate arrangements.
> 
> Incidentally, I don't agree with everything you've ever posted either. Consider yourself warned on-line and prepare to be 'warned' in real life when you next show your face.



Ha ha ha ha. Come on down small boy, I will squash you like the annoying fly you are  

Libcom have managed to annoy sooo many people over the years with their tyranny of structurelessness and anti democratic practice, the only wonder is that they were not obliterated that night. They *could *have been, and people should consider this point. Either, they improve their relations with those activists with plenty of serious class struggle experience OR relations will continue to deteriorate. 

There IS a choice here, stop the aggressive nonsense and excessive pisstajking on Libcom (but not serious theoretical criticism of which their is next to None) and try and work better together (the racist slander CW sticker is an eg. of lying politics which is seriously aggravating). Or, I suggest your politics has moved too far towards ultra left irrelevance and it ceases to be anarchist so the alternative is clear - start a bookfair of your own with the ICC and see how many come (ha ha ha). For example, your politics are detached from the political lives of groups like the ABC, it is very hierarchical and arrogant to pretend you youngsters (and that is what you are) have the experience or knowledge to 'educate' the rest of us who have far more experience and practical involvement. 

There is no right to pontificate or hector without involvement in class struggle, and that means,  e.g. with further investigation into John Bowden. Some ABC people have met him inside prison and visiting, and YOU have not, you appear to think that nobody changes? What sort of communist never mind anarchist politics is that? You are better at home in the Tory party with those positions you young conservatives 

At the minute Libcom are sailing too close to the edge of confrontation with the dominant strand of British anarchism, I suggest some humility for you as you really have done nothing politically so far. Also, that punch is also a lesson in politics, if you cannot defend your positions or yourself your politics really are worth jack shit in the real world of street politics as opposed to web based irrelevance.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Also, that punch is also a lesson in politics, if you cannot defend your positions or yourself your politics really are worth jack shit in the real world of street politics as opposed to web based irrelevance.



You've lost the plot if you really think any of that post can be applied to me.

This last bit though - 'that punch is also a lesson in politics' - noted.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> You've lost the plot if you really think any of that post can be applied to me.
> 
> This last bit though - 'that punch is also a lesson in politics' - noted.


Who knows? I am talking about the event in question, if you are imposing yourself onto it then you are adding extra variables. The movement has HUGE problems, and I have made efforts of improve things, joint meetings etc. But we are still way too divided and cannot think politically beyond neat pure positions. 

Look at any succesful movement and it has a variety of politics, and we can get BETTER if we work better ourselves which the movement is FAILING to do. I have said there is CHOICE here, which is the main lesson from today from me. Either we try to improve things or it will deteriorate, by default or by design. Everybody and every group has responsibility here and if there have been no serious attempts to improve things then I will have no time for those who are bleating next year when something similar happens, which it will if Libcom do not improve their attitude to the backbone of the movement.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

So let me get this straight, because you disagree with the approach libcom take you laid one on revol68?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight, because you disagree with the approach libcom take you laid one on revol68?




Attica didn't. It was someone-who-can't-be-named looking for revol but he and his mates settled for a couple of revol's mates instead.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Why can't they be named?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Why can't they be named?



It's only one of them that can't be named.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> It's only one of them that can't be named (out on licence).



if you name them you are grassing to the state. Simple as. And compounding the problems rather than trying to sort out the political issues there are, which should be everybodies priority. 

I have already indicated, there IS a choice here. Either, you want things (relations/activities) to improve between us or you want them to deteriorate. Which is it? just so we know like.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> if you name them you are grassing to the state. Simple as. And compounding the problems rather than trying to sort out the political issues there are, which should be everybodies priority.
> 
> I have already indicated, there IS a choice here. Either, you want things (relations/activities) to improve between us or you want them to deteriorate. Which is it? just so we know like.



No-one is naming them. And if you think I'm a regular poster on Libcom, you're wrong. Other people can hold views on this besides the protagonists, victims, and supporters of this kind of approach, you know.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Why not?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica, you sound like a right bullying cunt here.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Why not?



Because the possible outcome would be disproportionate.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

You mean someone who hit someone else for what their mate said on the internet will commit even more violent acts if they're named?  Or because someone else will commit more violence?  Or because no-one wants to grass a bully? 

A wonderful day for the movement.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 31, 2007)

So, anarchy in action involves punching people who you disagree with. I've yet to find the theory that supports this line of thinking. Think i'm glad that i missed the ABF if that's the approach these days.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

It's not necessarily the hitting people you disagree with bit that yanks my chain.  I can see how that can sometimes be justified.  But slapping someone's mates over a disagreement is pretty stupid.  And I don't think it's an approach that can be said to be modern anarchistic thinking, just that of a few ex-Class War types.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 31, 2007)

As i understand the situation, the general thinking is that whilst violence against property and so on is justifiable in certain circumstances, violence and coercion against people generally isn't. Hitting someone because you disagree with what they're saying isn't, imo/e, the best way of changing their mind or disputing the validity of their opinion. And before anyone bangs on about no platform and all the rest, people proclaiming to be anarchists should surely be able to deal with disagreements in ways that don't involve violence?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

That's kind of how I look at it.  One of the reasons I consider myself an anarchist, even a shit one, is becasue I don't like bullying and coercion.  I don't expect everyone within the movement to agree, and I understand that within groups there is sometimes need for confrontation and seperation over the way the group moves, stuff like this is just pathetic macho bollocks.


----------



## the button (Oct 31, 2007)

Ah well. One of the assailants is a poster on here, so perhaps he'll be along to tell us why it's all fine & dandy.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Why not?


 Because you would be grassing.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Ah well. One of the assailants is a poster on here, so perhaps he'll be along to tell us why it's all fine & dandy.



No.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Attica, you sound like a right bullying cunt here.


That's you that is with you ad hominem attacks. 

I am trying to repair the damaged movement, i am saying we have to improve things.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

This is unbelievably pathetic.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> This is unbelievably pathetic.



That is a great description of limpcok.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> That is a great description of limpcok.




you really are an unforgiveable cunt, aren't you?


"repairing the damaged movement" my arse - playing at hardman with a some playground politics to back you up more like.

sorry fucker.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

You've persuaded me. This dispute is actually incredibly important to the 'movement'. I wish you the best of luck in your quest


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you really are an unforgiveable cunt, aren't you?
> 
> 
> "repairing the damaged movement" my arse - playing at hardman with a some playground politics to back you up more like.
> ...


grow up.

 i have consistently argued that if you read all the thread. It is you who prefers stupid AD hominem debates who wants things to get nasty. It will do so unless people try to repair the damage. Do you want that or do you want better politics? The ball is in your court.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

So, Attica, which of the @ movements do you suggest joining if you prefer the non-violent approach?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Good to meet you



You too (and everyone else).  You're absolutely right about the violence btw.  These things always produce retaliation, and before you know it tiny teeny Leftist subsects are all bumping each other off, doing the state's work for them.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> That's you that is with you ad hominem attacks.
> 
> I am trying to repair the damaged movement, i am saying we have to improve things.


 
I'm sorry, I got the impression that you approved of the attack, and were saying that anarchists should support the attackers.

Is this not the case?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Because you would be grassing.


 
If someone punched me or one of my mates over a difference of agreement I'd happily grass them up because I'm not a hard man.  Us weaklings need to get our revenge in other ways


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I got the impression that you approved of the attack, and were saying that anarchists should support the attackers.
> 
> Is this not the case?




very much the impression i got as well


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> So, Attica, which of the @ movements do you suggest joining if you prefer the non-violent approach?


 
This is something I don't understand and I may be getting it wrong here, but Attica is allied with those who attacked revol's mate.

Attica wants that to be a warning that we all need to stand together.

Presumably that means he wants us all to stand together and do things his way.

Or else.


And that's not bullying?

Attica, am I misunderstanding?


----------



## treelover (Oct 31, 2007)

I have been surprised and saddened on MATB, etc about how many older and supposedly mature posters have endorsed this yes, premeditated attack, they need to grow up, what a shambles,


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you really are an unforgiveable cunt, aren't you?
> 
> 
> "repairing the damaged movement" my arse - playing at hardman with a some playground politics to back you up more like.
> ...




I think Attica is right on this.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Bluestreak -I think the idea is that it's a warning to (a) Libcom generally; and (b) revol and Jack in particular in relation to their political views and how they express them. Could be wrong though - Attica will clear it up shortly, no doubt.

Yes phil, that's the concerning thing re retaliation. I don't suppose so in this case, but if this is the new approved approach for dealing with disputes within the movement, at some point that will inevitably happen.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

without naming names, can anyone spell out the sequence of events then, since i don't frequent the other boards in question


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Yes phil, that's the concerning thing re retaliation. I don't suppose so in this case, but if this is the new approved approach for dealing with disputes within the movement, at some point that will inevitably happen.



I've no idea about this case, but many people subjected to violence do feel compelled to retaliate.  In a political context this process is never-ending.  That is why revolutionary groups have at every point in history had very strict rules prohibiting their members from engaging in such privatized violence.  A Bolshevik who did such a thing in 1916 would not have lived to see the following dawn.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Casare, I don't read libcom, but in what way, do you know, do these bunch think libcom are too liberal?  Too critical of other groups methods?  Not committed (or too committed? to violent revolution?  Or something...


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> without naming names, can anyone spell out the sequence of events then, since i don't frequent the other boards in question




Why the interest?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I've no idea about this case, but many people subjected to violence do feel compelled to retaliate.  In a political context this process is never-ending.  That is why revolutionary groups have at every point in history had very strict rules prohibiting their members from engaging in such privatized violence.  A Bolshevik who did such a thing in 1916 would not have lived to see the following dawn.




*yawn*


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

TopCat, do you know what's going on here?  I'm interested because a) I'm nosey, and b) I'd like to know if I'm going to get a slap for my opinions in future.  What's your POV?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> *yawn*



Undeniably true though innit.  Imagine trying to explain to Che Guevara why you transgressed revolutionary discipline: "ay jefe, he called me a hijo de puta on el internet, what could I do..."  Blam.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> TopCat, do you know what's going on here?  I'm interested because a) I'm nosey, and b) I'd like to know if I'm going to get a slap for my opinions in future.  What's your POV?




pretty much my take too TC - i'm not really involved, missed bookfair this year. But i do have an interest in the politics of this and i'm intrigued to hear what took place, to see if any of the justifications being offered fit.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Casare, I don't read libcom, but in what way, do you know, do these bunch think libcom are too liberal?  Too critical of other groups methods?  Not committed (or too committed? to violent revolution?  Or something...



Bearing in mind that I'm not a regular poster on Libcom ... my impression is that there are certain anarchist groups that consider Libcom to be generally snide/insulting. There's also an issue with who another anarchist group choose to champion in terms of prisoner support etc, which came to a head in a thread a few months ago. Feelings on this tend to be quite strong and also divided - revol and Jack chose to express their views in a way that clearly wasn't appreciated e.g. by use of gallows humour.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

Afaik the guy they chose to champion got drunk and (literarly) slaughtered someone.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

I have to admit that if I was going to write a shortlist of people most likely to infuriate someone into violence then revol is pretty high up the list....


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Casare, I don't read libcom, but in what way, do you know, do these bunch think libcom are too liberal?  Too critical of other groups methods?  Not committed (or too committed? to violent revolution?  Or something...



As somebody not involved at all, it seems the problem is Libcom is composed of a largely younger element who are extremely sectarian, abusive & insulting towards anybody they disagree with.  Exemplifying the internet age, they think they have nothing to learn from past struggles history or militants.  The basic message they give off to anybody outside their clique, expecially anybody older than them, is to f... off and die, painfully.  Ironically, despite this militant posturing, their understanding of the state is in fact liberal: when one State asset I have written about complained, they virtually all took her side, and began abusing me in terms way beyond reasonable political discourse--suggesting I be "stabbed in the eye".  Consequently, while I visit, I do not post there any more: or haven't for a long time anyway--thus in my case, libcom's tactic's have been successful.  Revol68, who received a slap, is in my own experience one of the most insulting and personally abusive posters I have ever come across (here as well as there).  This is not to condone the violence against him in any way--just to place it in context.  For those whose only reality (or prime reality) is the internet, to then find out that in the real (non-internet) world some people not only take exception to being the targets of abuse, but are prepared to discuss it in person, in a confrontational manner, is a major shock to the system.  The internet, by encouraging instant responses, encourages a far higher degree of abuse than was previously the case.  This, I suggest, is the context for recent events.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I have to admit that if I was going to write a shortlist of people most likely to infuriate someone into violence then revol is pretty high up the list....




yeh, he's a phenomenally irritating cunt. Doesn't make it alright though.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> As somebody not involved at all, it seems the problem is Libcom is composed of a largely younger element who are extremely sectarian, abusive & insulting towards anybody they disagree with.  Exemplifying the internet age, they think they have nothing to learn from past struggles history or militants.  The basic message they give off to anybody outside their clique, expecially anybody older than them, is to f... off and die, painfully.  Ironically, despite this militant posturing, their understanding of the state is in fact liberal: when one State asset I have written about complained, they virtually all took her side, and began abusing me in terms way beyond reasonable political discourse--suggesting I be "stabbed in the eye".  Consequently, while I visit, I do not post there any more: or haven't for a long time anyway--thus in my case, libcom's tactic's have been successful.  Revol68, *who received a slap*, is in my own experience one of the most insulting and personally abusive posters I have ever come across (here as well as there).  This is not to condone the violence against him in any way--just to place it in context.  For those whose only reality (or prime reality) is the internet, to then find out that in the real (non-internet) world some people not only take exception to being the targets of abuse, but are prepared to discuss it in person, in a confrontational manner, is a major shock to the system.  The internet, by encouraging instant responses, encourages a far higher degree of abuse than was previously the case.  This, I suggest, is the context for recent events.



No he didn't receive a slap.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> As somebody not involved at all, it seems the problem is Libcom is composed of a largely younger element who are extremely sectarian, abusive & insulting towards anybody they disagree with.  Exemplifying the internet age, they think they have nothing to learn from past struggles history or militants.  The basic message they give off to anybody outside their clique, expecially anybody older than them, is to f... off and die, painfully.  Ironically, despite this militant posturing, their understanding of the state is in fact liberal: when one State asset I have written about complained, they virtually all took her side, and began abusing me in terms way beyond reasonable political discourse--suggesting I be "stabbed in the eye".  Consequently, while I visit, I do not post there any more: or haven't for a long time anyway--thus in my case, libcom's tactic's have been successful.  Revol68, who received a slap, is in my own experience one of the most insulting and personally abusive posters I have ever come across (here as well as there).  This is not to condone the violence against him in any way--just to place it in context.  For those whose only reality (or prime reality) is the internet, to then find out that in the real (non-internet) world some people not only take exception to being the targets of abuse, but are prepared to discuss it in person, in a confrontational manner, is a major shock to the system.  The internet, by encouraging instant responses, encourages a far higher degree of abuse than was previously the case.  This, I suggest, is the context for recent events.




This is fairly accurate bar that revol did not get slapped by anyone.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> yeh, he's a phenomenally irritating cunt. Doesn't make it alright though.




Some people take the view that violence is never justifiable. 

Some take the view that violence over verbal and written insults, however offensive is never justifiable. 

Some take the view that a definate line was crossed and retaliation was reasonable in the context.

I tend towards the later but was not involved, mainly as there was like a Q.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> This is fairly accurate bar that revol did not get slapped by anyone.



sorry, you're right--it was apparently the intent to slap him, but Jack was the target instead: somebody of whom I know little, other than that he is lib.com's owner, and presumably in broad agreement with the site's politics.  Not that I'm condoning the attack on him either, mind, just seeking to explain.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

So basically, some people don't like having the piss taken out of their opinions online?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> So basically, some people don't like having the piss taken out of their opinions online?



In a nutshell.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Well they should grow a fucking thicker skin then.  Jesus wept, if we all went round laying into everyone who offended us online we'd never have time for actually making any posting.

Pathetic.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

The speculation about original targets is just that, speculation. Jack is the owner of libcom, is the main protagonist, encourages the wee revol in his antics, and got a few slaps, (really just that) from someone who the pair of them had insulted in a maner that would make a docker blush over a long period of time. 

The main event, the bookfair, was the best ever in my opinion.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> So basically, some people don't like having the piss taken out of their opinions online?



true as far as it goes but to this should be added

1) the divisions highlighted by this incident are fundamental, and need to be resolved if any political progress is to happen.  So in that sense, important

2) those 'taking the piss' online present themselves as right-on revolutionaries, not members of a knitting circle.  Thus, not only should better be expected of them, they really should be able to operate effectively in what Red Action used to inimitably call "the rougher end of the political market"


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> In a nutshell.




No not in a nut shell at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> true as far as it goes but to this should be added
> 
> 1) the divisions highlighted by this incident are fundamental, and need to be resolved if any political progress is to happen.  So in that sense, important
> 
> 2) those 'taking the piss' online present themselves as right-on revolutionaries, not members of a knitting circle.  Thus, not only should better be expected of them, they really should be able to operate effectively in what Red Action used to inimitably call "the rougher end of the political market"



You are very naive if that's what you're advocating.  You would appear to have no idea or experience of what that would involve.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Well they should grow a fucking thicker skin then.  Jesus wept, if we all went round laying into everyone who offended us online we'd never have time for actually making any posting.
> 
> Pathetic.




No not pathetic, their whining and continued abuse (well revols anyway, jack has gone a bit quiet apart from banning anyone laughing at him) shows they should have learned in childhood that to say what they did, to the people they did, was likely to end up in bother.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You are very naive if that's what you're advocating.  You would appear to have no idea or experience of what that would involve.


yes, right, I'm naive....by some way the nicest (albeit most inaccurate) thing said about me on these boards.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> 2) those 'taking the piss' online present themselves as right-on revolutionaries, not members of a knitting circle. they really should be able to operate effectively in what Red Action used to inimitably call "the rougher end of the political market"


When you write stuff like this it comes across like you're justifying it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> yes, right, I'm naive....by some way the nicest (albeit most inaccurate) thing said about me on these boards.



You take my point though?  I don't know Revol or Jack from Adam, but a lot of people in their position would hire someone to break someone's legs.  And then there would doubtless be further retaliation.  And then where would you be?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Disrespect the wrong people and get attacked




No thats not it either. Not a question of disrespect but a campaign of total offensiveness designed to split and undermine a campaign. There was plenty of disagreement about supporting John Bowden all over the internet and gassoks even in real life. No one got any bother though apart from Jack, it was the straw that broke the camels back and all that I think.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> People who don't expect physical violence are (presumably female) members of a 'kniting circle'?
> 
> 
> Piss off people like you and expect to get attacked?



despite me explicitly stating I was explaining, not condoning, you now seek to imply I was advocating attacks on people.  There really is no possibility of dialogue with you, is there.  So I won't further waste my time.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> When you write stuff like this it comes across like you're justifying it.



no, but then you're intent on misrepresenting me, so believe that if you want.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

Sorry I deleted because it read as quite bitchy and I didn't intend it to be. I'm not sure there's anyone who _doesn't_ find revol an irritating little twat. It's the violence that's the issue and the apperence (even if it's unjustified) that people think it's to be expected.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

edit


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> no, but then you're intent on misrepresenting me, so believe that if you want.


Come on: _those 'taking the piss' online present themselves as right-on revolutionaries, not members of a knitting circle. they really *should be able to operate effectively* in what Red Action used to inimitably call "the rougher end of the political market"_

What is that if not to say they had it coming to them?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

See, I can see Larry's point.  For example, when you go on an Anti-Fash event, you have to be a bit prepared for some argy-bargy.  Sometimes political activism may involve fisticuffs.  And we should all ahve learnt in the playground that sometimes one should be careful to not let one's mouth write cheques one's arse can't cash.  However, that is no excuse for targetted violence against someone who disagrees with you.  That's pathetic, is what it is.

E2A - manners are important, but perhaps saving the violence for the agents of the state rather than a comrade who disagrees with your choice of people to support is more important.  IMO, obv.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> See, I can see Larry's point.  For example, when you go on an Anti-Fash event, you have to be a bit prepared for some argy-bargy.  Sometimes political activism may involve fisticuffs.  And we should all ahve learnt in the playground that sometimes one should be careful to not let one's mouth write cheques one's arse can't cash.  However, that is no excuse for targetted violence against someone who disagrees with you.  That's pathetic, is what it is.


precisely - I'm (mis?)reading that quote because it seems larry is not talking about fascists but anarchists


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> See, I can see Larry's point.  For example, when you go on an Anti-Fash event, you have to be a bit prepared for some argy-bargy.  Sometimes political activism may involve fisticuffs.  And we should all ahve learnt in the playground that sometimes one should be careful to not let one's mouth write cheques one's arse can't cash.  However, that is no excuse for targetted violence against someone who disagrees with you.  That's pathetic, is what it is.




I beat a bloke up once for scabbing on a strike. It was certainly targetted violence.


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

yeah and I don't think being an uppity twat on a message board enters onto the same spectrum as fascism and scabbing


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I beat a bloke up once for scabbing on a strike. It was certainly targetted violence.




bluey wasn't condemning targeted violence in that post though, was he?


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Oct 31, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Come on: _those 'taking the piss' online present themselves as right-on revolutionaries, not members of a knitting circle. they really *should be able to operate effectively* in what Red Action used to inimitably call "the rougher end of the political market"_
> 
> What is that if not to say they had it coming to them?



my last comment to you: lib.com present themselves as 'revolutionaries', do they not?  At some point, any revolution has to confront the forces of the capitalist state--in which enterprise, a degree of organisational cohesion and ability to defend oneself is essential.  While not fetishising such, you would think lib.com's cohorts might have some such defensive capacity now--it seems they don't, probably because most of their politics is keyboard based.  I am not condoning the action, but merely commenting on their lack of operational effectiveness.

Any view as to whether they "had it coming to them" is your invention, not mine.  Feel free though, if its therapeutic for you--invent away.  Perhaps you'll 'discover' I was there, or 'ordered' it myself: don't let reality intrude, that would never do...


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> don't let reality intrude, that would never so...




oh the irony


----------



## nosos (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> but merely commenting on their lack of operational effectiveness.


You're talking about hitting someone in the pub over arguments on the internet


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> bluey wasn't condemning targeted violence in that post though, was he?


 
I certainly was not.  I agree that all those who consider themselves revolutionaries or serious activists should really, for their own sake as well as their ideal, be at least willing and able to handle themselves when necessary.  Such as against the forces of the state, fash, scabs, etc etc.

But we should, unless groups aims become integerally opposed to each other, be able to just settle differences through conversation or agree to disagree.  IMO, obv.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 31, 2007)

It was not over a disagreement of views, trust me on this.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> my last comment to you: lib.com present themselves as 'revolutionaries', do they not?  At some point, any revolution has to confront the forces of the capitalist state--in which enterprise, a degree of organisational cohesion and ability to defend oneself is essential.  While not fetishising such, you would think lib.com's cohorts might have some such defensive capacity now--it seems they don't, probably because most of their politics is keyboard based.  I am not condoning the action, but merely commenting on their lack of operational effectiveness.



Again, it seems that you hope they will now achieve such "operational effectiveness," in other words pursue the ability to use physical force against their opponents.  Yours is a recipe for disaster, and it can only spring from the kind of innocence and naivete of which you accuse others.  Last time I looked the revolutionary Left was not so strong that you could afford to go around bashing each other up all the time.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> It was not over a disagreement of views, trust me on this.


 
Revolutionary justice then?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 31, 2007)

The only surprise about this event is that it didn't happen sooner. Hopefully both concerned have had time to reflect on their actions over the past few days and will reengage in on-line debate with a more thoughtful, positive attitude.


----------



## JHE (Oct 31, 2007)

Bunch of narchs running round trying to bash another narch and then, not finding the chosen target, bashing friends of the target narch... ?  As bad as a bunch of mad trots!

I'm a bit surprised.  I thought modern narchs were all too far gone on cider and cannabis to be violent.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Keep up JHE, it's cider and ketamin these days.


----------



## JHE (Oct 31, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Keep up JHE, it's cider and ketamin these days.





An anesthetic for horses... ?   I'm surprised they can stand up, never mind thump each other.


----------



## dwenfish (Oct 31, 2007)

what the fuck? so someone got a slap for saying that people who support john bowden are twats? or the other way round?

but they ARE misguided fools, supporting a nutcase murderer, and i shall happily laugh in the face of anyone who wishes to punch me over such apparently scurrilous remarks on this here internet discussion device.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> it seems the problem is Libcom is composed of a largely younger element who are extremely sectarian, abusive & insulting towards anybody they disagree with.  Exemplifying the internet age, they think they have nothing to learn from past struggles history or militants.  The basic message they give off to anybody outside their clique, expecially anybody older than them, is to f... off and die, painfully.



That's the problem with the youth of today: no respect.  They need a good clip round the ear, eh what?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> An anesthetic for horses... ?   I'm surprised they can stand up, never mind thump each other.



You get used to it after a while.


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2007)

Deary me!

My take on it is, it was wrong to slap Jack.  However, just because you say stuff is 'on the internet' doesn't mean it has no consequences.  If someone was consistently abusive/rude/mean to people face to face, it would come as no great shock that eventually someone slaps them.  If you're consistently abusive/rude/mean on the internet, I also don't see that it's a great shock that you might get slapped eventually 

This wasn't about a difference of political opinion - plenty of anarchists disagree vehemently with each other over politics all the time, but it almost never ends in fisticuffs.  This was about personal differences.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> This was about personal differences.



The way Larry and others have described it, it sounds more like inter-generational conflict.  The tired old guard getting frustrated at the lack of deference shown by the bright young whippersnappers.  Happens in every generation I suppose, but its rather funny to see it played out among anarchists.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Deary me!
> 
> My take on it is, it was wrong to slap Jack.  However, just because you say stuff is 'on the internet' doesn't mean it has no consequences.  If someone was consistently abusive/rude/mean to people face to face, it would come as no great shock that eventually someone slaps them.  If you're consistently abusive/rude/mean on the internet, I also don't see that it's a great shock that you might get slapped eventually
> 
> This wasn't about a difference of political opinion - plenty of anarchists disagree vehemently with each other over politics all the time, but it almost never ends in fisticuffs.  This was about personal differences.



in that case there surely has to be some responsibility on the people around them to try and engage in mediation.  this sounds like a storm in a teacup, but for once dwyers right, violence usually breeds more (and worse) violence and its damaging not just to the indiiduals involved but everyone around them

there is an anarchist mediation group thingy somewhere and more of it could help solve a lot of problems, cos we is, i hope, mostly on the same side after all

(although ive got a list of folk i fully plan to off in the chaos of revolution)


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> If you're consistently abusive/rude/mean on the internet, I also don't see that it's a great shock that you might get slapped eventually



Take note phil, William may only be pushed so far.


----------



## jimmer (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Either, you want things (relations/activities) to improve between *us* or you want them to deteriorate.



So are you trying to claim that you were part of the group trying to hunt down revol then? Because the last impression I got was that nobody in the anarchist movement wanted to do anything with you because you're a fucking nutjob.




			
				Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> Exemplifying the internet age, they think they have nothing to learn from past struggles history or militants.  The basic message they give off to anybody outside their clique, expecially anybody older than them, is to f... off and die, painfully.



That's absolute bollocks, have you actually looked at our website? Because from the sound of it it doesn't sound like you've seen the history or the library. The people who seem to take exception with us the most are people who most of us have had fairly good working relationships with in the past, who just can't accept that our politics have moved beyond theirs.




			
				Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> mbut merely commenting on their lack of operational effectiveness.



Hardly, all this signifies is that it's easy to pick off small groups of stragglers and then hit the softest looking one.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

jimmer said:
			
		

> So are you trying to claim that you were part of the group trying to hunt down revol then? Because the last impression I got was that nobody in the anarchist movement wanted to do anything with you because you're a fucking nutjob.
> 
> That's absolute bollocks, have you actually looked at our website? Because from the sound of it it doesn't sound like you've seen the history or the library. The people who seem to take exception with us the most are people who most of us have had fairly good working relationships with in the past, who just can't accept that our politics have moved beyond theirs.
> 
> Hardly, all this signifies is that it's easy to pick off small groups of stragglers and then hit the softest looking one.



Oh dear me. Ad hominem rubbish from you and your mob is your common currency. Politically everything I am doing is working well, with many different groups of people, respectable and not quite so respectable ones. 

There are serious problems and deficiencies I have pointed out with your partial 'history' and 'library' sections. Your politics have not moved anywhere either. You had none to begin with. No practice, no praxis, nothing. You have done nothing politically with any section of the working class let alone any politics in the rougher end of the market. Until you do so you will always be looked upon with disdain and distaste.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

probably none of my business, but there's a lot of your posts, attica, which are just "you haven't paid your dues, you young whipper snapper" anarcho-er than thou self serving bullshit


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> If someone was consistently abusive/rude/mean to people face to face, it would come as no great shock that eventually someone slaps them.  If you're consistently abusive/rude/mean on the internet, I also don't see that it's a great shock that you might get slapped eventually
> .



Well said. 'Man slapped in pub' is hardly anything to get excited about is it. It must of happened in 2000 other pubs that saturday night around the country... Perhaps the anarcho movement is actually too cool to let violence intrude ordinarily and this is why the youngsters are letting their angst out?


----------



## blamblam (Oct 31, 2007)

> > Originally Posted by Larry O'Hara
> > mbut merely commenting on their lack of operational effectiveness.
> 
> 
> Hardly, all this signifies is that it's easy to pick off small groups of stragglers and then hit the softest looking one.


Actually I believe the attackers were the only ones with operational effectiveness issues. libcom people were either on holiday, like me, or in a pub having a drink, which we managed to do fine. The gang of "hard" older blokes who went round looking to beat up a 5'5 kid and a skinny poof managed to land a couple of ineffective punches, the only one of which connected was - by the poster here - hitting a random guy unconnected to the dispute in the face, causing him to have to explain his swollen lip at a family gathering the next day. 

All in all quite a good indictment of the pathetic state of much of the anarchist movement from which we have distanced ourselves, because we don't think it helps us advance our power as working people over our jobs and our lives.

As for class struggle, for me and Jack at least at our workplaces the issue is how to move forwards now Unison has sabotaged our proposed strike action in November, despite a majority of us having voted for it. This following their sabotage of health workers' pay claim. Meanwhile disputes go on in the civil service and post office. This is what's important, not these silly, self-referential playground games.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> probably none of my business, but there's a lot of your posts, attica, which are just "you haven't paid your dues, you young whipper snapper" anarcho-er than thou self serving bullshit



well they haven't. They haven't got the knowledge that comes from practical experience. In the case of John Bowden they pronounce without having ever met him in prison or visiting, like several ABC people had. Without doing so they really are not fit to comment because they haven't investigated his state of mind. Surely, politicos think that people can change after the huge period of time John had spent inside otherwise their prison politics is no different to any of the main political parties in the status quo. That means everybody regardless of what they have done, every case must be looked at on its real merits rather than get excited over the original issue which sent them to prison.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 31, 2007)

i'm not taking issue with your views on the Bowden case, simply the offhand arrogance with which you seem keen to dismiss large swathes of younger activists.

sounds - ironically - like elitism


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

icepick said:
			
		

> A) Actually I believe the attackers were the only ones with operational effectiveness issues. libcom people were either on holiday, like me, or in a pub having a drink, which we managed to do fine. The gang of "hard" older blokes who went round looking to beat up a 5'5 kid and a skinny poof managed to land a couple of ineffective punches, the only one of which connected was - by the poster here - hitting a random guy unconnected to the dispute in the face, causing him to have to explain his swollen lip at a family gathering the next day.
> 
> B) All in all quite a good indictment of the pathetic state of much of the anarchist movement from which we have distanced ourselves, because we don't think it helps us advance our power as working people over our jobs and our lives.
> 
> C) As for class struggle, for me and Jack at least at our workplaces the issue is how to move forwards now Unison has sabotaged our proposed strike action in November, despite a majority of us having voted for it. This following their sabotage of health workers' pay claim. Meanwhile disputes go on in the civil service and post office. This is what's important, not these silly, self-referential playground games.



A) You do not understand anything. There was 'no plan' that day, it sort of just happened, it would not have been pretty if it had escalated either. IF everybody had decided 'to do' Libcom you do realise you would have all been kissing the concrete, equal opportunities here  

B) As people have already explained very well on this thread, it is nothing to do with anarchism. You are being stupid again.

C) Yawn, your pretence at worthyness is pathetic. You are not Marxists then either. They at least have an open theoretical mind. Or do you want to join irrelevant ultra left groups with dead theory which is constantly reapplied regardless of changing conditions?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 31, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm not taking issue with your views on the Bowden case, simply the offhand arrogance with which you seem keen to dismiss large swathes of younger activists.
> 
> sounds - ironically - like elitism



Jus the tyranny of structurelessness and lack of democracy that the _dirty dozen_ *Limpcockers* want to impose on the rest of us.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> well they haven't. They haven't got the knowledge that comes from practical experience. In the case of John Bowden they pronounce without having ever met him in prison or visiting, like several ABC people had. Without doing so they really are not fit to comment because they haven't investigated his state of mind. Surely, politicos think that people can change after the huge period of time John had spent inside otherwise their prison politics is no different to any of the main political parties in the status quo. That means everybody regardless of what they have done, every case must be looked at on its real merits rather than get excited over the original issue which sent them to prison.



The fact that Bowden's supporters are evidently so ready to resort to violence does not exactly predispose the neutral to sympathy with his case.  Had that occured to you at all?


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Jus the tyranny of structurelessness and lack of democracy that the _dirty dozen_ *Limpcockers* want to impose on the rest of us.


You got kicked off a bulletin board. Get over it.


edit- I just looked to find out why we kicked him off as I'd forgotten. 


> Many people here will be aware of the poster, gangster (who we shall call "T" here), who was banned a couple of weeks ago after many disruptive and abusive posts over the past couple of years, including physical threats against other forum users. This culminated recently in him launching a large number of unprovoked verbal attacks on the Anarchist Federation, its events and some of its members.
> 
> Having been repeatedly warned, had posts and threads deleted and then given a final warning he continued to disrupt threads and was banned.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thora (Oct 31, 2007)

Luckily, no one irl cares either way about all this.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Luckily, no one irl cares either way about all this.



If it hadn't crossed into real life - no-one would care much now either. But it is in real life now.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> A) You do not understand anything. *There was 'no plan' that day, it sort of just happened, it would not have been pretty if it had escalated either.* IF everybody had decided 'to do' Libcom you do realise you would have all been kissing the concrete, equal opportunities here
> 
> B) As people have already explained very well on this thread, it is nothing to do with anarchism. You are being stupid again.
> 
> C) Yawn, your pretence at worthyness is pathetic. You are not Marxists then either. They at least have an open theoretical mind. Or do you want to join irrelevant ultra left groups with dead theory which is constantly reapplied regardless of changing conditions?



Bollocks did it. I sat in the pub all afternoon hearing separate reports from different unrelated people of he-who-shall-not-be-named trying to find revol. Then he + mate/s got hold of Jack & co once they'd left the pub.

There's fucking loads of witnesses and CCTV - so don't be fucking disingenuous about it 'just sort of happening'. It was premeditated and if you condone it, you're complicit and can expect same if you piss people on the Internet off to the same degree.


----------



## rich! (Oct 31, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Luckily, no one irl cares either way about all this.



Erm, actually, this whole debate is exactly the reason why IRL no-one takes these organisations seriously.

after a decade of going to the bookfair, the only things I always buy are

The Cunningham Amendment
Lobster
Notes from the Borderland
and the Norwich rag

Mind you, I'm a professional no-work anarchist, rather than someone who believes everyone MUST TOIL FOR THE GOOD OF THE CADRE.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 31, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> well they haven't. They haven't got the knowledge that comes from practical experience. In the case of John Bowden they pronounce without having ever met him in prison or visiting, like several ABC people had. Without doing so they really are not fit to comment because they haven't investigated his state of mind. Surely, politicos think that people can change after the huge period of time John had spent inside otherwise their prison politics is no different to any of the main political parties in the status quo. That means everybody regardless of what they have done, every case must be looked at on its real merits rather than get excited over the original issue which sent them to prison.



was he guilty?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 1, 2007)

Think this must be the only thread I've ever started which contain descriptions of real actual real life violence (or threats of it) between known people in real life** ..  

I agree with what bluestreak (especially) and others were saying earlier, all this sounds bang out of order, and hardly very likely to encourage neutral outsiders, or even non aligned broad sympathisers  with anarchism's _ideas_, to want to get involved.

Well done, sectarians! 

<**heads back to *real* real life, somewhat depressed ... >


----------



## catch (Nov 1, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> You mean someone who hit someone else for what their mate said on the internet will commit even more violent acts if they're named?  Or because someone else will commit more violence?  Or because no-one wants to grass a bully?
> 
> A wonderful day for the movement.


Because the person in question is on probation, and was stupid enough to punch someone in the face in front of about 150 people and CCTV cameras. And we'd rather not have a "libcom put ** back inside" campaign run for years and years.


----------



## catch (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> A) You do not understand anything. There was 'no plan' that day, it sort of just happened, it would not have been pretty if it had escalated either. IF everybody had decided 'to do' Libcom you do realise you would have all been kissing the concrete, equal opportunities here


I think the fact they were walking around the bookfair with a picture of revol towards the end, then continued this in the pub (are you revol? are you revol? - to various people) shows that you either have no idea what was going on, or are lying.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You got kicked off a bulletin board. Get over it.
> edit- I just looked to find out why we kicked him off as I'd forgotten.



Yawn - you post rubbish. I do not have to invent things to attack the AF - i do it everywhere  

I have not impersonated Dave Douglass. I emailed you from Sergei Nechayevs website and signed it Dave D with NO links to Dave Douglass at all.

Dave Douglass is actually on MY SIDE, and that does matter because he knows you have NO EVIDENCE of what you are moaning about. I have mentioned to him about making a public statement to this effect. You are uppity because I have succesfully taken the piss out of your stupidity and you have been caught short. Again. So i have been banned for doing NOTHING. That several of you youngsters are soooo stupid should be of no surprise.....


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

catch said:
			
		

> I think the fact they were walking around the bookfair with a picture of revol towards the end, then continued this in the pub (are you revol? are you revol? - to various people) shows that you either have no idea what was going on, or are lying.



I did not know that was going on as I did not see it, if it went on at all.

What I saw was people hanging around having a drink as we do every bookfair.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I did not know that was going on as I did not see it, if it went on at all.
> 
> What I saw was people hanging around having a drink as we do every bookfair.



why bring the picture?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> There's fucking loads of witnesses and CCTV - so don't be fucking disingenuous about it 'just sort of happening'. It was premeditated and if you condone it, you're complicit and can expect same if you piss people on the Internet off to the same degree.



I've already said you are welcome to have a go if you think you are hard enough (which I doubt) - so why do you repeat this nonsense? It is you with the sad problems not us.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

marty21 said:
			
		

> why bring the picture?



I did not see the picture - that is if it was there at all.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I did not see the picture - that is if it was there at all.



so if you didn't see it, it didn't happen? are you arsene wenger in disguise


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn - you post rubbish. I do not have to invent things to attack the AF - i do it everywhere
> 
> I have not impersonated Dave Douglass. *I emailed you from Sergei Nechayevs website and signed it Dave D* with NO links to Dave Douglass at all.
> 
> Dave Douglass is actually on MY SIDE, and that does matter because he knows you have NO EVIDENCE of what you are moaning about. I have mentioned to him about making a public statement to this effect. You are uppity because I have succesfully taken the piss out of your stupidity and you have been caught short. Again. So i have been banned for doing NOTHING. That several of you youngsters are soooo stupid should be of no surprise.....



Why on earth would you do this - everyone knows what your real name is, and it's not Dave


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I've already said you are welcome to have a go if you think you are hard enough (which I doubt) - so why do you repeat this nonsense? It is you with the sad problems not us.




Because I'm making the point (which phil has also made) that if you start that sort of shit in real life you can expect it to escalate. You either want that, or you don't.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Why on earth would you do this - everyone knows what your real name is, and it's not Dave



I had to use a name, that was the first that came to mind. I have used many many names over the years, perhaps that is why they have made identity theft illegal?

THe main point here is;

YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT DAVE DOUGLASS WAS IMPERSONATED WHEN THE ONLY EVIDENCE FROM ONE EMAIL YOU HAVE IS 'DAVE D' WHEN THERE WAS NO LINKING EVIDENCE TO ONE OF MY POLITICAL AND THEORETICAL IDOLS Dave Douglass. There is NO WAY i would do ANYTHING to JEOPARDISE our relationship.  WITH YOU Limpcokkers though, you really are 'see no evil do no politics fools' and are fair game. You know my attitude towards you has always been that you are wankers, you have double standards and no code of practice so what you do is completely arbitrary, there is no way of appealing on any basis using things like 'evidence'. Some like Paul Marsh thought you may actually have something to offer but he changed his mind. You have aggravated more people than you know.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> *I had to use a name, that was the first that came to mind.* I have used many many names over the years, perhaps that is why they have made identity theft illegal?
> 
> THe main point here is;
> 
> YOU CANNOT PRETEND THAT DAVE DOUGLASS WAS IMPERSONATED WHEN THE ONLY EVIDENCE FROM ONE EMAIL YOU HAVE IS 'DAVE D' WHEN THERE WAS NO LINKING EVIDENCE TO ONE OF MY POLITICAL AND THEORETICAL IDOLS Dave Douglass. There is NO WAY i would do ANYTHING to JEOPARDISE our relationship.  WITH YOU Limpcokkers though, you really are 'see no evil do no politics fools' and are fair game. You know my attitude towards you has always been that you are wankers, you have double standards and no code of practice so what you do is completely arbitrary, there is no way of appealing on any basis using things like 'evidence'. Some like Paul Marsh thought you may actually have something to offer but he changed his mind. You have aggravated more people than you know.




Hahahahahah - I can imagine that. 'Oooh, what name shall I use, there's a few that I'm known by but in this instance I'll call myself Dave D'


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Hahahahahah - I can imagine that. 'Oooh, what name shall I use, there's a few that I'm known by but in this instance I'll call myself Dave D'



From Sergei nechayevs email address? You have to be stupid in the first instance to think that could belong to Dave Douglass. As I said, it has NOTHING to do with Dave DOuglass and nor was it linked in any way. You lot of fools are trying to invent something which simply is not there. You are stupid. There is NO evidence and Dave Douglass is on MY SIDE. NOT YOURS.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Because I'm making the point (which phil has also made) that if you start that sort of shit in real life you can expect it to escalate. You either want that, or you don't.




Ah ha. You are now agreeing with me when I have said all along we need to improve relations, not let them deteriorate.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> From Sergei nechayevs email address? You have to be stupid in the first instance to think that could belong to Dave Douglass. As I said, it has NOTHING to do with Dave DOuglass and nor was it linked in any way. You lot of fools are trying to invent something which simply is not there. You are stupid. There is NO evidence and Dave Douglass is on MY SIDE. NOT YOURS.



And still, despite me telling you that I'm not a regular poster on Libcom - you carry on talking to me as if I'm Libcom personified 

I couldn't give a toss who you impersonate or not, but it's a right laugh to see the explanation 

'I signed myself Dave D because it's the first name that came into my head but in no way was I trying to impersonate Dave D'.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Ah ha. You are now agreeing with me when I have said all along we need to improve relations, not let them deteriorate.



That means Limpcokkers do have to behave with more political respect to others within the movement, and I suggest this means at some political meeting... Are you going to the Historical Materialism conference? It looks excellent, but oh, there's little or no ultra left rubbish so I do not think you want to see if your ideas can be tested outside of your self referential pathetic grouping?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> And still, despite me telling you that I'm not a regular poster on Libcom - you carry on talking to me as if I'm Libcom personified
> 
> I couldn't give a toss who you impersonate or not, but it's a right laugh to see the explanation
> 
> 'I signed myself Dave D because it's the first name that came into my head but in no way was I trying to impersonate Dave D'.



Rubbish. I am talking to all wannabe limpcokkers as well as twats like you.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Ah ha. You are now agreeing with me when I have said all along we need to improve relations, not let them deteriorate.



Well, if you're saying that you think that giving someone a slap in real life for something they said on the Internet a few months previously is not a great way to improve relations - and that there are better ways of doing that; yes we agree. Glad that's sorted.


----------



## cesare (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Rubbish. I am talking to all wannabe limpcokkers as well as twats like you.



Don't call me a twat - or I'll send the boys round


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 1, 2007)

Jesus Fucking H Christ.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 1, 2007)

I get the feeling that there are loads of extra people who now aren't invited to Attica's next birthday party


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 1, 2007)

Unless he's inviting them there to show his displeasure at their lack of politics.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

marty21 said:
			
		

> so if you didn't see it, it didn't happen? are you arsene wenger in disguise



I prefer to base what I think on evidence. Clearly you do not.


----------



## dwenfish (Nov 1, 2007)

so who was the puncher then? pm's innit if you like, don't know this jack fellow but sounds like i might know the puncher?

(you can tell i've missed eastenders every day this week..)


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 1, 2007)

*To Dave or Not to Dave*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> I had to use a name, that was the first that came to mind. I have used many many names over the years, perhaps that is why they have made identity theft illegal?



I have a copy of a magazine T. (Gangster/Attica) helped to produce from 1997-2000, in which he did indeed use the pseudonym 'Dave'. Of course using the name 'Dave D.' is more open to confusion, and was perhaps a little unfortunate.....

as you were.....


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2007)

Nice to meet William, Deb and Cesare and others.  

With regard to the other stuff


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

Ungrateful said:
			
		

> I have a copy of a magazine T. (Gangster/Attica) helped to produce from 1997-2000, in which he did indeed use the pseudonym 'Dave'. Of course using the name 'Dave D.' is more open to confusion, and was perhaps a little unfortunate.....
> 
> as you were.....



good point. I have in fact used Dave as a name since I was a teenager at school


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Ah ha. You are now agreeing with me when I have said all along we need to improve relations, not let them deteriorate.




yep, we can all learn from your example


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm Dave, and so is my wife


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> yep, we can all learn from your example



AS I have said all along. There is a choice, either we want to improve things or we let them deteriorate by default or by design. Where do people stand?

The ball is in Libcoms court and they should start something along the lines of "bygones be bygones - open assembly on anarchist activity in the 21st century". But hey, who knows what will happen. Libcom could continue with their ultra left rubbish and not try anything period, aND I must admit my money is on the latter option but I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

Yeah!  Let's improve things by punching people we don't like!  Right on!


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Let's improve things by punching people we don't like!  Right on!



yawn. That's lazy posting. DOne B4 adds nowt. Move on there


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> yawn. That's lazy posting. DOne B4 adds nowt. Move on there



So how is punching someone you don't like going to "improve things"?


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I prefer to base what I think on evidence. Clearly you do not.



you base what you think on your own preconceptions tbh, you clearly refuse to listen to other views which may conflict with your own


----------



## Balbi (Nov 1, 2007)

Someone wanted to lump revol? Should this argument not be in the football forum?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> AS I have said all along. There is a choice, either we want to improve things or we let them deteriorate by default or by design. Where do people stand?
> 
> The ball is in Libcoms court and they should start something along the lines of "bygones be bygones - open assembly on anarchist activity in the 21st century". But hey, who knows what will happen. Libcom could continue with their ultra left rubbish and not try anything period, aND I must admit my money is on the latter option but I hope I am wrong.



firstly what the fuck is this collective entity 'libcom' and secondly how is the ball in their court to improve matters, surely it's up to the thuggish cunts who hit a member of the libcom collective to make some gesture, like an apology.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 1, 2007)

Ah, here's the man himself. Just joshing revol - it's all banter on the terraces.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> firstly what the fuck is this collective entity 'libcom' and secondly how is the ball in their court to improve matters, surely it's up to the thuggish cunts who hit a member of the libcom collective to make some gesture, like an apology.



You are highly irritating and offensive on here revol, but if I met you I'd have a pint with you.  I certainly wouldn't hit you.  Hitting people who annoy you on the internet is pathetic.  You definitely deserve an apology.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You are highly irritating and offensive on here revol, but if I met you I'd have a pint with you.  I certainly wouldn't hit you.  Hitting people who annoy you on the internet is pathetic.  You definitely deserve an apology.



i agree with that, i'd buy the man a pint despite his internet antics


----------



## Balbi (Nov 1, 2007)

FFS, can everyone not buy him a pint. His posting's bad enough without alcohol


----------



## marty21 (Nov 1, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> FFS, can everyone not buy him a pint. His posting's bad enough without alcohol



ok, half of lager shandy


----------



## Balbi (Nov 1, 2007)

marty21 said:
			
		

> ok, half of lager shandy



The drink fits the man, so it does


----------



## the button (Nov 1, 2007)

Just to clarify -- the wee man himself didn't get twatted. He was obviously too formidable an opponent.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 1, 2007)

pure fucking ninja-class i've heard, nowotimean?

it's all 'go go power rangers' these days, from what i've heard.

maybe the ABF is ripe for a reality show?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

marty21 said:
			
		

> you base what you think on your own preconceptions tbh, you clearly refuse to listen to other views which may conflict with your own



No no no no no no no no no no no no. I do listen, and I reject the ultra left who Limpcokkers have got into bed with. But they have got no excuse - it wasn't even on a pissed first date.

I have enough experience and politics to know what I am doing, I am creating 21st century autonomist/neo Thompsonian politics (in the tradition of EP Thompson). The exact mix is yet to be decided through praxis though I am clear on the framework. 

This is alien to limpcokkers cos they have got the awful ultra left virus so they are in fact using a mirror on capitalism (not unlike lenin) and trying to create a functionalist Ultra leftism. However, this is theoretically stupid for too many reasons to go into now...


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You are highly irritating and offensive on here revol, but if I met you I'd have a pint with you.  I certainly wouldn't hit you.  Hitting people who annoy you on the internet is pathetic.  You definitely deserve an apology.



I agree as well.  Attica, your 'now it's up to you to forgive' attitude is really shitty.  It was up to the violent idiots to let things go first wasn't it?

Fucking bullies.  Victim blaming bullies.  They're no anarchists.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I agree as well.  Attica, your 'now it's up to you to forgive' attitude is really shitty.  It was up to the violent idiots to let things go first wasn't it?
> 
> Fucking bullies.  Victim blaming bullies.  They're no anarchists.



No. They are not violent idiots. Neither is the victim or limpcokkers. Both have responsibility to change, this is basic dialectics though. I am not surprised you do not understand. They both created the other, and if it carries on unchanged it will get worse. The problem is that Limpcok operate with a hierarchical authoritarian 'we know best' agenda, which has got up the noses of plenty. 

We are actually reasonable people and many have already tried to affect Limcok, but it has got to the situation where action was felt to be necessary. It is vital that Limpcok change and do some politics - which is best done together, so we can all be present, at a 'bygones be bygones 21st century anarchist assembly'. 

They have shown no respect towards many people, whether real or not, the fact is that people hate limpcok, and I for one do not think it will change if they carry on 'as normal'. As I said, there is a choice, we must try to work together and change things together, otherwise it WILL deteriorate.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So how is punching someone you don't like going to "improve things"?



Nothing to say Attica?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nothing to say Attica?


Careful mate, you'll get a real life clouting if you're not careful what you say here


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 1, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nothing to say Attica?




On the contrary. You are talking about old hat. I have already said things need to improve or they will deteriorate, they will get better in practice or not at all, so suggesting an open joint meeting is clearly the way forward. If it does not happen we will be talking about this again, mark my words.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> On the contrary. You are talking about old hat. I have already said things need to improve or they will deteriorate, they will get better in practice or not at all, so suggesting an open joint meeting is clearly the way forward. If it does not happen we will be talking about this again, mark my words.



Would an open joint meeting not have been better _before_ resorting to violence?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 1, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Careful mate, you'll get a real life clouting if you're not careful what you say here



I'm not scared of Attica.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2007)

yeah it's embarrasing when people carry online shit over into real life, it's even weirder when the person carrying it over, gathering a posse of subnormals and stalking around a bookfair with your photo hasn't actually ever had an online argument with you but has just taken issue with what you've said about the ABC supporting John Bowden. It's almost as if he was trying to silence any criticism by going after the most vocal whilst using the excuse that I'm rather rude online and therefore he'll be backed/supported by various ex Womble retards who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag (and as it turns out would struggling to punch their way out too).


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2007)

looll Attica if people hate Libcom then fair enough, no one in libcom gives a fuck, the problem seems to be that some in the anarchist movement can't deal with the fact that people on libcom don't give a fuck about them, they are like a spurned lover demanding you work things out when most people on libcom don't think there is anything to work out. Why can't youse just accept that some people on libcom think your politics are shite and leave it at that? At present youse are making yourselves look even more batshit insane than normal.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Nov 1, 2007)

"shite..don't give a fuck...batshit insane"--what a nasty piece of work revol68 is, with not a shred of progressive politics in his spineless body, merely an incessant litany of abuse towards others.  Never has the term 'oxygen thief' been more apt.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 1, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> "shite..don't give a fuck...batshit insane"--what a nasty piece of work revol68 is, with not a shred of progressive politics in his spineless body, merely an incessant litany of abuse towards others.  Never has the term 'oxygen thief' been more apt.



Larry you're about as relevant to political discussion as Everton are to the Premiership title.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 1, 2007)

. stupid stuff, enough already. edit


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 1, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No. They are not violent idiots. Neither is the victim or limpcokkers. Both have responsibility to change, this is basic dialectics though. I am not surprised you do not understand. They both created the other, and if it carries on unchanged it will get worse. The problem is that Limpcok operate with a hierarchical authoritarian 'we know best' agenda, which has got up the noses of plenty.
> 
> We are actually reasonable people and many have already tried to affect Limcok, but it has got to the situation where action was felt to be necessary. It is vital that Limpcok change and do some politics - which is best done together, so we can all be present, at a 'bygones be bygones 21st century anarchist assembly'.
> 
> They have shown no respect towards many people, whether real or not, the fact is that people hate limpcok, and I for one do not think it will change if they carry on 'as normal'. As I said, there is a choice, we must try to work together and change things together, otherwise it WILL deteriorate.




OK - Aside from your clear personal issues with Libcom, I actually understand your viewpoint now.

Though I hope you can understand why it appeared that you spported the attack and where I was coming from.  Though I still think that your mates were wrong to use violence before discourse.  Otherwise perhaps the Libcom and teh ABC groups should agree to tread different paths and do things their individual ways and only work together when there isn't disagreements about important stuff.

As anarchists jsut because we're critical of other anarchists at times, for their politics or their different take on things or whatever doesn't mean we're not fighting the same fight.  

"brothers brothers, we should be fighting together"

"we _are_ fighting together"


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Larry you're about as relevant to political discussion as Everton are to the Premiership title.



from an inadequate who has never been to Old Trafford (you) thats as laughable as your pretence at being able to enter into any kind of discussion, about anything.  Now, give that oxygen back.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 2, 2007)

oh come on, that isn't fair, i think he's actually been to a proper live game as well innit?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> oh come on, that isn't fair, i think he's actually been to a proper live game as well innit?



unfortunately I have paid my penance watching irish league games.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Larry O'Hara said:
			
		

> from an inadequate who has never been to Old Trafford (you) thats as laughable as your pretence at being able to enter into any kind of discussion, about anything.  Now, give that oxygen back.









O RLY????


----------



## soulman (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> firstly what the fuck is this collective entity 'libcom' and secondly how is the ball in their court to improve matters, surely it's up to the thuggish cunts who hit a member of the libcom collective to make some gesture, like an apology.



Erm the collective entity 'libcom' would be the 'libcom collective' you mention surely


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> Erm the collective entity 'libcom' would be the 'libcom collective' you mention surely



except they don't have agreed politic stances as such, they are just a collective of people involved in the maintaining of the libcom website, and it gets more absurd because the person the subnormal lumpens were stalking was me and I am not and never have been a member of the Libcom collective.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> except they don't have agreed politic stances as such, they are just a collective of people involved in the maintaining of the libcom website, and it gets more absurd because the person the subnormal lumpens were stalking was me and I am not and never have been a member of the Libcom collective.



No, but they have 'protected' and encouraged you whilst censoring others, and that is at least de facto support for your attitude. 

How does it feel? You and me exchanged insults years ago and they banned me whilst not disciplining your excesses, they do operate a tyranny of structurelessness and operate without democracy, clearly encouraging certain attitudes, that is partly why it has got to this stage. You youngsters forget we are all human, when you lot get older you might wise up somewhat and realise that politics is not as a B c clear as you would like it to be. AS humans we all have feelings, emotions, honour and so on, and you crossed that line and hence my disgust with your anti communist/anarchist attitudes, and others too. Like Ward CHurchill said in the Justice of Roosting CHickens, this time you have reaped what you sown.

The way forward is clear - a bygones be bygones 21st century anarchist assembly to make sure our political exchanges do not deteriorate futher because as sure as eggs is eggs they will if you lot continue to think you are blameless. 

If you were blameless you would not be feeling the pressure from the backbone of the movement - there definately is a dialectical relationship here and that can only be improved together. Or not at all. 

I am NOT talking about political censorship - as Limpcok already censor people they disagree with such as me. I am talking about improving our relationships with each other. There is a vast DIFFERENCE.

*
What do you want? *

Our working relationship to improve so you cease to be the hate object you currently are?

Or things to deteriorate?


----------



## treelover (Nov 2, 2007)

God you are a prick Attica,, you can't even organise a book fair properly, what a advert for social change, I think i will put you on ignore( my first ever)


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

treelover said:
			
		

> God you are a prick Attica,, you can't even organise a book fair properly, what a advert for social change, I think i will put you on ignore( my first ever)



You have always been a prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No, but they have 'protected' and encouraged you whilst censoring others, and that is at least de facto support for your attitude.
> 
> How does it feel? You and me exchanged insults years ago and they banned me whilst not disciplining your excesses, they do operate a tyranny of structurelessness and operate without democracy, clearly encouraging certain attitudes, that is partly why it has got to this stage. You youngsters forget we are all human, when you lot get older you might wise up somewhat and realise that politics is not as a B c clear as you would like it to be. AS humans we all have feelings, emotions, honour and so on, and you crossed that line and hence my disgust with your anti communist/anarchist attitudes, and others too. Like Ward CHurchill said in the Justice of Roosting CHickens, this time you have reaped what you sown.
> 
> ...



Do you not think a dialogue would have been better than violence?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you not think a dialogue would have been better than violence?



it is no good crying or talking about spilt milk, all that matters is how are we to get out of this situation and improve all our politics so it does not happen again.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> I went in last year, but the smell was overpowering.



Yea, last time I went the place stunk like a tramp's pants. There was a load of smelly, soap-dodging bastards (no doubt Winchester's finest) there. Give 'em all a bit of this I say:





So, who got punched? I can think of a few folk who'd have been there who'd deserve a good slapping and watching folk you don't like get a kicking is always fun. Alas, I couldn't make it this year as the Tokyo Adult film awards party was the same night. It was a tough choice to make...


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> If someone punched me or one of my mates over a difference of agreement I'd happily grass them up because I'm not a hard man.  Us weaklings need to get our revenge in other ways



I _very_ sincerely hope you are joking.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> I _very_ sincerely hope you are joking.



as do I. that is a very frightening thing to hear someone say.


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2007)

It's no good crying over spilt blood.  If Attica thumped me, I would realise that we both have to change.



> this is basic dialectics



 

What a shower of narchist nutters!


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> I _very_ sincerely hope you are joking.


 
I dunno actually.  I might.

Why would it be wrong to employ state violence to protect yourself from violence?  If someone lamps me because I refused to back their poltiics on the internet and I can't fight back due to being a wuss, am I to be bullied into submission?  Forced to toe the line through violence?

I advocate a path of agree to disagree, but if someone's path is violent towards me, can I not cunningly employ agents of the state to do work that I am unable to do - is that not utilising the state for my own ends?  After all, when one is out on prison on the condition they don't commit any more assaults, perhaps one should not commit any assaults?  

Thoughts?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I dunno actually.  I might.
> 
> Why would it be wrong to employ state violence to protect yourself from violence?  If someone lamps me because I refused to back their poltiics on the internet and I can't fight back due to being a wuss, am I to be bullied into submission?  Forced to toe the line through violence?
> 
> ...



Dont think thats going to go down well with the anrachists on here, but personally I think if a stranger were to assault you for something you'd said to them on the interweb I'd think you were well within your rights to go to the law, but then Im not acab.


----------



## Thora (Nov 2, 2007)

Wow, and you think being sent to prison is a proportional response?


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2007)

A non-anarch (an archist?) responds:  there's nothing wrong with reporting thuggery to Mr Plod and trying to get him to do something about it.  It's the right thing to do.  However, don't get your hopes up.  It is likely, especially if the thuggery was minor, that all you'll get out of it is a bloody crime number.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I dunno actually.  I might.
> 
> Thoughts?



It's a pretty dodgy position to take, but there are exceptions to every rule and to be honest it's something that would be very unrealistic to be dogmatic about. at least you're being honest. bet there's loads of anarcho types on this thread who'd do the same but just keep quiet about it.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

I tend to believe that grasses are scum.  But violent thugs are worse.  Back when I lived on protest sites if there were problems with violent behaviour we didn't go to the cops, we warned the people that their behaviour would not be tolerated, and if change didn't happen with the support of the community then they were forcibly removed from said community.  Thus we avoided needing to grass.

It seems to me that these individuals deliberately targetted revol and in his absence attacked people only slightly related to their problem with him.  As far as I'm concerned that makes them the sort of people that anarchists will need to deal with at some point - if we can't police ourselves how can we police society after the revolution?

And if anarchists won't guaruntee revol and the others, or indeed anyone who may disagree with these arseholes, safety from retribution, then the movement is a fucking joke.  If they won't regulate their behaviour to act like civilised intelligent motherfuckers then perhaps people have no recourse but to get the state involved to protect themselves.  

Cos at the moment it's the law of the fucking playground.  No grassing, keep your mouth shut, don't criticise the bullies, don't talk to the bizzies.

That's not what being an anarchist is all about to me.  Nor is it running to the cops either, personally I want as little to do with them as possible.  But this is the experience that working class communities all across the country have to deal with.  Lives blighted by thuggery, no-one grassing cos you don't do that, but communities that won't stand up to them either.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

"Thoughts? Grasses are scum. You are treading on very dangerous ground my friend. Do what you want/deem necessary to get your 'revenge' but going to 'agents of the state' is a line you do not cross.*"

Heh, want to take this to task even though you've edited it and I respect your edit, but... are you saying that if you're not hard enough to fight back you should just take it?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

I've long thought that anarchists calling the police is a bit like vegans eating cheeseburgers. You've stated openly that your opposed to the state, so don't go around imposing it on other people unless you've got a seriously good reason.

Being knocked about a bit by some people you've repeatedly offended in a very public manner does not come close to a good reason.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> "Thoughts? Grasses are scum. You are treading on very dangerous ground my friend. Do what you want/deem necessary to get your 'revenge' but going to 'agents of the state' is a line you do not cross.*"
> 
> Heh, want to take this to task even though you've edited it and I respect your edit, but... are you saying that if you're not hard enough to fight back you should just take it?



Thats a good point, is the innocent victim of an assault a 'grass' for going to the police?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I've long thought that anarchists calling the police is a bit like vegans eating cheeseburgers. You've stated openly that your opposed to the state, so don't go around imposing it on other people unless you've got a seriously good reason.



you're proposing some fantastical situation where we can somehow live outside the state that we.. erm.. live in.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

> Cos at the moment it's the law of the fucking playground. No grassing, keep your mouth shut, don't criticise the bullies, don't talk to the bizzies.



Yup, thats what it looks like to me form the outside.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Cos at the moment it's the law of the fucking playground.



I always found the rules of the playground much more liberating than those of the classroom.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I always found the rules of the playground much more liberating than those of the classroom.




what? survival of the fittest? who's yer 'ardest? give us yer lunch money?

much more liberating?

hmmm


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you're proposing some fantastical situation where we can somehow live outside the state that we.. erm.. live in.



I live on the British Isles, I do not live in the British State. I share these islands with it and avoid it at every opportunity. You might live entirely in the state, which I am happy to offer you tips to do something about.

ALSO

living outside the state is not IDEAL. The state is IDEAL (as well as being crap)


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I always found the rules of the playground much more liberating than those of the classroom.



Really?  Its a long time since I was a kid but in those days the bigger/tougher kids ruled the roost and the weaker kids kept their head down.

Luckily for me I was one of the tougher kids and the rules of the playground served me very well.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> Being knocked about a bit by some people you've repeatedly offended in a very public manner does not come close to a good reason.


 
In your opinion, of course.  And IME the only people who think the laws of the playground are acceptable are the bullies.

I thought you believed in peace, pete, not retributive violence against those who offend you.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what? survival of the fittest? who's yer 'ardest? give us yer lunch money?
> 
> much more liberating?
> 
> hmmm



I don't know what you're playground was like, but that doesn't reflect the one I grew up in. I don't think I ever had my dinner money stolen and that wasn't because the adults protected me, but because the kids protected each other.

I am still close to a lot of the people I grew up with and have a huge amount of respect for them.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> In your opinion, of course.  And IME the only people who think the laws of the playground are acceptable are the bullies.
> 
> I thought you believed in peace, pete, not retributive violence against those who offend you.



I never was and never have been capable of being a bully. IME it is only the institutionalised who prefers the classroom to the liberty of the playground.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I don't know what you're playground was like, but that doesn't reflect the one I grew up in. I don't think I ever had my dinner money stolen and that wasn't because the adults protected me, but because the kids protected each other.
> 
> I am still close to a lot of the people I grew up with and have a huge amount of respect for them.



No bullying in your school, never an occasion when a smaller/weaker kid got picked on?

I find that astonishing, apart from my own experiences of school all the evidence shows that bullying is still a huge problme in British Schools.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Really?  Its a long time since I was a kid but in those days the bigger/tougher kids ruled the roost and the weaker kids kept their head down.
> 
> Luckily for me I was one of the tougher kids and the rules of the playground served me very well.



I did not have a completely easy ride at school and when I faced trouble it was other kids who helped me out, as I did them. To them I owe a mutual debt that stretches beyond any bullshit justice the British state can offer.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

A quick google og 'bullying+british schools' brings up a lot of usefull info, this link to a Panorama prog about the estimated 16 children a year who take thir lives due to bullying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4421017.stm


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I did not have a completely easy ride at school and when I faced trouble it was other kids who helped me out, as I did them. To them I owe a mutual debt that stretches beyond any bullshit justice the British state can offer.



I'm not sure where your going with this, should bullied children not go to the authorities? should they not 'grass' their tormentors?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I did not have a completely easy ride at school and when I faced trouble it was other kids who helped me out, as I did them. To them I owe a mutual debt that stretches beyond any bullshit justice the British state can offer.


 
I wouldn't get mean about the institutionalised in their classrooms, Attica's got a PHD and he might come after you  

See, this is where mutualism comes in - like you say, it's up to the kids to stand up to the bullies and say that this isn't on.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> which I am happy to offer you tips to do something about.



patronising, self-important cunt.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where your going with this, should bullied children not go to the authorities? should they not 'grass' their tormentors?


 
*Forms Union of Geeks, Weeds, Unpopular Kids, Spazzes, and Allied Trades*


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> patronising, self-important cunt.


 
Easy dude, a bit harsh i reckon.  Let's not get to the insults _just_ yet!


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Easy dude, a bit harsh i reckon.  Let's not get to the insults _just_ yet!




perhaps I have less tolerance for self-important cunts than you?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't doubt that!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> it is no good crying or talking about spilt milk, all that matters is how are we to get out of this situation and improve all our politics so it does not happen again.



Do you think dialogue would have been better than violence?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I always found the rules of the playground much more liberating than those of the classroom.



Really?  Personally I hated bullying and enforced conformity, but hey, each to their own.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I live on the British Isles, I do not live in the British State. I share these islands with it and avoid it at every opportunity. You might live entirely in the state, which I am happy to offer you tips to do something about.
> 
> ALSO
> 
> living outside the state is not IDEAL. The state is IDEAL (as well as being crap)



How do you avoid the state?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I don't know what you're playground was like, but that doesn't reflect the one I grew up in. I don't think I ever had my dinner money stolen and that wasn't because the adults protected me, but because the kids protected each other.
> 
> I am still close to a lot of the people I grew up with and have a huge amount of respect for them.



Where did you go to school?  Shangri-la?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I never was and never have been capable of being a bully. IME it is only the institutionalised who prefers the classroom to the liberty of the playground.



You sound like a kid, repeating stock phrases tbh.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Easy dude, a bit harsh i reckon.  Let's not get to the insults _just_ yet!



Fair comment I thought.


----------



## rich! (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I tend to believe that grasses are scum.  But violent thugs are worse.  Back when I lived on protest sites if there were problems with violent behaviour we didn't go to the cops, we warned the people that their behaviour would not be tolerated, and if change didn't happen with the support of the community then they were forcibly removed from said community.  Thus we avoided needing to grass.



*waits for Stig and the "what do you do about a murderer on your protest site?" debate*


----------



## rioted (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> patronising, self-important cunt.


Are you one of those who think you can call anyone anything you like on t'internet with no comeback IRL? 'Cos if anyone called me a cunt IRL, on internet or in other print I'd definitely have a few words with them if I ever identified them in the flesh.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

rioted said:
			
		

> Are you one of those who think you can call anyone anything you like on t'internet with no comeback IRL? 'Cos if anyone called me a cunt IRL, on internet or in other print I'd definitely have a few words with them if I ever identified them in the flesh.



Hardman Alert!


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

rioted said:
			
		

> Are you one of those who think you can call anyone anything you like on t'internet with no comeback IRL? 'Cos if anyone called me a cunt IRL, on internet or in other print I'd definitely have a few words with them if I ever identified them in the flesh.




is that a threat?

cunt.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

people like rioted, peacepete, attica..

all good reasons why the anarchist 'movement' deserves to die on its fucking arse


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

I disagree mate, you can't necessarily judge a movement by individuals within it.

I think anarchism is a valid response to capitalism that has the potential the make lives better for the vast proportion of the world, provided we avoid the ego-politics and power games that are part of the bullshit that it seeks to replace.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I disagree mate, you can't necessarily judge a movement by individuals within it.



i used to think that.. these days i find it increasingly difficult to see beyond these sorts of infighting, macho twats.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> people like rioted, peacepete, attica..
> 
> all good reasons why the anarchist 'movement' deserves to die on its fucking arse




Well in which case you expose yourself as wanting to help that along? Why the interest in the thread othewise?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Well in which case you expose yourself as wanting to help that along? Why the interest in the thread othewise?




you keep questioning my 'interest' in this thread as if there were some kind of criteria?
My 'interest', i suppose, is to see how bad things really are these days. I found last year's bookfair fairly depressing, and this year it ended in (admittedly small scale) violence.

i find it depressing that it's got like this, but then when people like those I name are involved, not very surprising.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

I ask as you are not as far as I am aware an anarchist, not involved in anarchist politics and only comment on such to slagg the people who are involved. 

I ask, what's your agenda here?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

i've got a fairly long tradition of broadly anarchist sympathies, with a lot of activist work in my past, so with all due respect - since I consider you a mate - you can go fuck yourself if you think you're going to start turning this into some 'credentials' issue. It'll make you as bad as Attica.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i used to think that.. these days i find it increasingly difficult to see beyond these sorts of infighting, macho twats.


 
They're not the movement though, they're just people.  They'll grow up, or move on, or be ostracised eventually.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i've got a fairly long tradition of broadly anarchist sympathies, with a lot of activist work in my past, so with all due respect - since I consider you a mate - you can go fuck yourself if you think you're going to start turning this into some 'credentials' issue. It'll make you as bad as Attica.



Nonsense.


----------



## Darios (Nov 2, 2007)

Wow, what an interesting thread. I'm also glad I didn't attend this year's bookfair either after reading this.

It's the same phenomenon that's resulted in the ejection and excoriation of individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists from "the movement". Instead of consistently meeting the ideological challenges posed by the former they are instead carved out and pathetic sectarian arguments redefining "anarchism" take place to justify the exclusion (as for example, economist Bryan Caplan found out). 

The new blood in anarchist thought and practice is being excluded or forced out by a coterie who think they have some kind of monopoly on the meaning of anarchism. It's no surprise that anarchism in the UK is more irrelevant now than ever. The last bookfair I attended, 2006, at the talks and discussions it was the same old, old, old, tired, tired, tired bullshit.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Nonsense.




you mean it won't make him as bad as you?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> They're not the movement though, they're just people.  They'll grow up, or move on, or be ostracised eventually.



Hmmm, doesnt that just condemn anarchism to never be anything nmore than a movement though?  how do you ever hope to create an anarchist society if you cant deal with these characters inside the movement?


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

Could someone _please_ tell me who got a kicking and by whom?

Anyway, dunno what all the fuss is about. Some daft fight always kicks off at the bookfairs but it's all just a bit of entertainment, posturing and a chance for most of the protagonists to beef up their anarcho-hard man credentials by hitting some mouthy wee nob who weighs about the same as an labrador and lives on a diet of sweet-corn and tofu-water.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Hmmm, doesnt that just condemn anarchism to never be anything nmore than a movement though?  how do you ever hope to create an anarchist society if you cant deal with these characters inside the movement?




yeh!

we need more playground law


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> yeh!
> 
> we need more playground law



'The Liberty of the Playground or death!'


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

ignoring Dubversion's tourette's

1) I don't dispute that bullying is a problem. I just don't see it's solution in institutions. So posting up statistics saying that it is a problem isn't really an argument.

2) If you want to live outside the state then avoid the means by which your identity in the eyes of the state are constructed. through property, work, taxes, the criminal justice system. i can't believe I'm actually having to write this to be honest it's so fucking obvious.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Hmmm, doesnt that just condemn anarchism to never be anything nmore than a movement though? how do you ever hope to create an anarchist society if you cant deal with these characters inside the movement?


 
Funnily enough that's actually what I was saying earlier!  I think we need to deal with them within the movement, and  that's what I kind of meant by growing up, moving on or getting ostracised.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> 2) If you want to live outside the state then avoid the means by which your identity in the eyes of the state are constructed. through property, work, taxes, the criminal justice system. i can't believe I'm actually having to write this to be honest it's so fucking obvious.



so you earn no money, receive no benefits, pay no taxes and use no public services?


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> how do you ever hope to create an anarchist society if you cant deal with these characters inside the movement?



Oh, to be young and idealistic...


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> Could someone _please_ tell me who got a kicking and by whom?
> 
> Anyway, dunno what all the fuss is about. Some daft fight always kicks off at the bookfairs but it's all just a bit of entertainment, posturing and a chance for most of the protagonists to beef up their anarcho-hard man credentials by hitting some mouthy wee nob who weighs about the same as an labrador and lives on a diet of sweet-corn and tofu-water.


 
Heh, go and read the bin on Libcom.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

> 1) I don't dispute that bullying is a problem. I just don't see it's solution in institutions. So posting up statistics saying that it is a problem isn't really an argument.



So you dont believe that schools or workplaces can do more to stop bullying?

And again, is the bullied child who goes to their teacher or the bullied employee who goes to their HR Department a 'grass'?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> Oh, to be young and idealistic...



I'm old and Im not an anarchist


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so you earn no money, receive no benefits, pay no taxes and use no public services?



at the moment that is a pretty accurate portrayal of my life.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

How do you survive?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

Or get anywhere without using roads or pavements.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i've got a fairly long tradition of broadly anarchist sympathies, with a lot of activist work in my past, so with all due respect - since I consider you a mate - you can go fuck yourself if you think you're going to start turning this into some 'credentials' issue. It'll make you as bad as Attica.




I just asked, you sweary mary, it's not a credentials issue, just a motives one.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> at the moment that is a pretty accurate portrayal of my life.




bollocks 

who empties your bin? who maintains the roads you use? etc etc etc.

i'm  not playing any kind of oneupmanship game here, i just think it's somewhere between dumb and an outright lie to claim you can live outside the state. And surely living outside the state isn't really the priority? surely your priority is to work out how to dismantle it?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> So you dont believe that schools or workplaces can do more to stop bullying?
> 
> And again, is the bullied child who goes to their teacher or the bullied employee who goes to their HR Department a 'grass'?



i'm frustrated at getting dragged into further detail on what is essentially a fairly simple point that can't really be proven on an internet messageboard, but hey...

hypothetically they _could_ do a lot more. however, any achievement will be down to the work of individuals who would be more successful if they worked outside the institution the structure of which does not lend itself to making any progress on this issue. IMO


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> I just asked, you sweary mary, it's not a credentials issue, just a motives one.




i don't know what my motive is, i guess. I know i find it depressing hearing about stuff like what happened, and i was reading about it. I then responded to the comments made by attica et al. There's no specific agenda, i'm just responding to what i see written down.

like most people do, i guess. there's no 'project' here, trust me


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> 2) If you want to live outside the state then avoid the means by which your identity in the eyes of the state are constructed. through property, work, taxes, the criminal justice system. i can't believe I'm actually having to write this to be honest it's so fucking obvious.



duh! of course, what a stupid question to ask when there are so many caves to live in, thriving alternative economies trading twigs for food, wild camels to ride about on thus circumventing the need for reliance on public transport, treebark and shedded snake-skins freely available to fashion clothes from...etc.

_*so fucking obvious*_


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> Could someone _please_ tell me who got a kicking and by whom?
> 
> Anyway, dunno what all the fuss is about. Some daft fight always kicks off at the bookfairs but it's all just a bit of entertainment, posturing and a chance for most of the protagonists to beef up their anarcho-hard man credentials by hitting some mouthy wee nob who weighs about the same as an labrador and lives on a diet of sweet-corn and tofu-water.




Pete Mastin returned after all these years and Stella chibbed him across the arse. Wee Sean got blood on his posh shirt and kicked off but was done by some vegans who drowned him in the lentil slop.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i'm frustrated at getting dragged into further detail on what is essentially a fairly simple point that can't really be proven on an internet messageboard, but hey...
> 
> hypothetically they _could_ do a lot more. however, any achievement will be down to the work of individuals who would be more successful if they worked outside the institution the structure of which does not lend itself to making any progress on this issue. IMO



You've changed your tune a lot from your earllier claims about 'the Liberty of the Playground' havent you


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> bollocks
> 
> who empties your bin? who maintains the roads you use? etc etc etc.
> 
> i'm  not playing any kind of oneupmanship game here, i just think it's somewhere between dumb and an outright lie to claim you can live outside the state. And surely living outside the state isn't really the priority? surely your priority is to work out how to dismantle it?



fuck off you derpressing idiot.

you have no idea about the life I lead.

you might want everything to be bullshit so your phoney attempt at having anarchist leanings is the best that anyone can hope to achieve, but in truth there _is_ a world of possibility out there.

you are a fucking lowlife piece of shit.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i don't know what my motive is, i guess. I know i find it depressing hearing about stuff like what happened, and i was reading about it. I then responded to the comments made by attica et al. There's no specific agenda, i'm just responding to what i see written down.
> 
> like most people do, i guess. there's no 'project' here, trust me



If you went to almost any gathering of similar numbers that had a bar then there would have more bother than at this one. It really was just a small sideshow of one smug condecending wanker getting handbagged.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Heh, go and read the bin on Libcom.



hey! but isn't the foundation of anarchism sharing one's knowledge and experiences with others?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> fuck off you derpressing idiot.
> 
> you have no idea about the life I lead.
> 
> ...



let's try again. please explain how you - as you claim - live almost entirely outside the state.

So we can learn,  like. You did offer some tips - let's see them. You're not going to have to admit to being (say it ain't so!) COMPROMISED are you?

you daft cunt


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> You've changed your tune a lot from your earllier claims about 'the Liberty of the Playground' havent you



i don't see that at all.

let's turn this around and try to make it a bit more scientific.

where would the majority of kids rather be, in the classroom or in the playground? i suggest an empirical study.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> If you went to almost any gathering of similar numbers that had a bar then there would have more bother than at this one. It really was just a small sideshow of one smug condecending wanker getting handbagged.




that's fine, the fact that someone lamped somebody else neither surprises me nor  bothers me overly much. But it's the justifications being bandied about on here that DO bother me, and with which i'm taking issue.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> at the moment that is a pretty accurate portrayal of my life.



ah, i gettit. You're in a looney-bin.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> ah, i gettit. You're in a looney-bin.



but that would be a STATE looney-bin, no?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> hey! but isn't the foundation of anarchism sharing one's knowledge and experiences with others?


 
It is.  If i wasn't an anarchist I wouldn't have told you where to find this information


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> where would the majority of kids rather be, in the classroom or in the playground? i suggest an empirical study.


 
Where would the majority of date-rapists rather be, in the office, or in Hollywoods nightclub, Romford?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i don't see that at all.
> 
> let's turn this around and try to make it a bit more scientific.



Nah, lets stick with the 'Liberty of the Playground' for now, where was this school you went to where bullying didnt occur and kids didnt 'grass' by going to their teachers?



> I don't know what you're playground was like, but that doesn't reflect the one I grew up in. I don't think I ever had my dinner money stolen and that wasn't because the adults protected me, but because the kids protected each other.
> 
> I am still close to a lot of the people I grew up with and have a huge amount of respect for them.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> let's try again. please explain how you - as you claim - live almost entirely outside the state.
> 
> So we can learn,  like. You did offer some tips - let's see them. You're not going to have to admit to being (say it ain't so!) COMPROMISED are you?
> 
> you daft cunt



I am not 100% happy with a lot of things in my life, but one thing I can say for myself is that I am able to live a great deal of it with little or no contact with the state.

I would suggest:

1) Food can be found in bins, or grown.

2) Accommodation can be found with a crow bar. Alternatively take every opportunity to not appear on contracts.

3) Almost everything can be shared so that only one person has to appear on any record and many people can benefit.

4) work can be done for free.

5) police's instructions can be ignored, no matter how forcibly they are made. batons hurt, but wounds heal.

what exactly is your point?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

ignore, you've answered!


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> what exactly is your point?



my point is that you claim you live outside the state. I don't believe you. I still don't believe you - seems like you do quite a lot to achieve this, which i respect, but you don't succeed. So perhaps you could lay off on the self-aggrandising bullshit?


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 2, 2007)

Ace thread 

I have contacted my source for the full details of the 'incident'.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Nah, lets stick with the 'Liberty of the Playground' for now, where was this school you went to where bullying didnt occur and kids didnt 'grass' by going to their teachers?



I went to a comprehensive school in rural Devon with approx. 2,000 pupils. violence did occur, but the playground was a much more liberated place than the classroom. when left to their own devices the kids were perfectly capable of looking after each other.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

Whether words and insults over the internet should ever cause or be used to justify real world retaliation is a genuine on going argument that is worth exploring. 

I have never agreed with the "it's stupid, it's only words" type argument that was famously put to me here in response to me offering to meet a certain person here manay many years ago after being labelled a total _fuckwit._ 

I was just not used to people randomly abusing me in such a manner. I have learned to live with that though and dish it out too. I do think though that you can't always cry it's just words etc, sometimes words do have a massive impact and consequences. 

The consequences at the bookfair were small but _deserved_ I felt. The folk concerned would have had to have their heads buried firmly in the sand to have no inkling that the people who were so insulted, abused, ridiculed and undermined were going to just say it was words and leave it behind when they met their protagonists. That they seemingly sought out the people they had abused and paraded their smugness over this was just rubbing shit on the lip.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> my point is that you claim you live outside the state. I don't believe you. I still don't believe you - seems like you do quite a lot to achieve this, which i respect, but you don't succeed. So perhaps you could lay off on the self-aggrandising bullshit?



I'm not trying to self aggrandise. I don't like having to write like this, but your initial point was bullshit and all the smilies in the world just make it more offensive.

Demanding I talk about my personal circumstances to justify myself just makes it worse.

in my eyes you've just come across as a complete wanker


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> Whether words and insults over the internet should ever cause or be used to justify real world retaliation is a genuine on going argument that is worth exploring.
> 
> I have never agreed with the "it's stupid, it's only words" type argument that was famously put to me here in response to me offering to meet a certain person here manay many years ago after being labelled a total _fuckwit._
> 
> ...




maybe so, but to attempt to justify it in terms of political praxis like Attica et all have? bah


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I am not 100% happy with a lot of things in my life, but one thing I can say for myself is that I am able to live a great deal of it with little or no contact with the state.
> 
> I would suggest:
> 
> ...



please...tell me you're having a laugh?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> please...tell me you're having a laugh?



could you be a bit clearer please. what is your point?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to self aggrandise. I don't like having to write like this, but your initial point was bullshit and all the smilies in the world just make it more offensive.
> 
> Demanding I talk about my personal circumstances to justify myself just makes it worse.
> 
> in my eyes you've just come across as a complete wanker




No, dipshit. i only asked you to justify yourself and your personal circumstances because of comments you made to ME about precisely that. If you're going to make grand claims about living outside the state, you're going to get pulled up on them. 
Me? i wouldn't judge your anarcho / activist credentials on that basis at all. I'm just challenging you using the means you've challenged others.

So it's your own silly fucking fault, dumbass


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Yeah, I agree with some of that TC, that perhaps a few people did need to learn some manners, but I can't agree with pointless violence like that.  

I might have had less problems if they'd actually got revol though


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> I might have had less problems if they'd actually got revol though



harsh but fair


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> No, dipshit. i only asked you to justify yourself and your personal circumstances because of comments you made to ME about precisely that. If you're going to make grand claims about living outside the state, you're going to get pulled up on them.
> Me? i wouldn't judge your anarcho / activist credentials on that basis at all. I'm just challenging you using the means you've challenged others.
> 
> So it's your own silly fucking fault, dumbass



maybe it's just because I don't see it as a grand claim to live outside the state.

the state is a death machine and all life is by definition outside it.

with regards to insults you started throwing them around first but i am happy to go along with it. i think you are a total wanker.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> maybe so, but to attempt to justify it in terms of political praxis like Attica et all have? bah




I don't know what praxis means and don't care. It _was_ political though, the personal always is.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I went to a comprehensive school in rural Devon with approx. 2,000 pupils. violence did occur, but the playground was a much more liberated place than the classroom. when left to their own devices the kids were perfectly capable of looking after each other.



Again, why do you think that so many other childrens experiences of the playgorund are different? why do on average 16 children a year commit suicide as a result of bullying? do you think that in those cases the children are right to go to their teachers or are they 'grasses'?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> maybe it's just because I don't see it as a grand claim to live outside the state.



but you DON'T live outside the state, so it is a grand claim. or at least, a false one.




			
				peacepete said:
			
		

> the state is a death machine and all life is by definition outside it.



well we can play wanky semantic games if you like, but you know what you meant by living outside the state and so do I. if you want to reposition it to paint yourself in a better light, feel free, but it's not an especially convincing move


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

i don't want to reposition anything. if the more poetical last post felt like something different then ignore it. i stand by what I said initially.

anyway, the basics are you have fuck all idea what my life is like so you don't know. i could be a completely feral being only encountering society through this messageboard for all you know.

wanker wanker wanker wanker wanker


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

that's one of the most transparent and feeble bits of deflection and avoidance I've ever seen. You must be very proud.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i could be a completely feral being only encountering society through this messageboard for all you know.


 
Sometimes I think most urbanites are.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i could be a completely feral being only encountering society through this messageboard for all you know.


PMSL. That really is the funniest thing that I've read on here in years. Priceless


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

*



			
				bluestreak said:
			
		


			Sometimes I think most urbanites are.
		
Click to expand...

*
may i nominate this for posting of the year? 

genius.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 2, 2007)

it doesn't do any harm for revolutionaries to engage in a little fisticuffs now and again - I mean they are _revolutionaries _and agrue for the violent over throw of the goverment.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's one of the most transparent and feeble bits of deflection and avoidance I've ever seen. You must be very proud.



what exactly am i supposed to be deflecting?

and yes



> PMSL. That really is the funniest thing that I've read on here in years. Priceless



it's supposed to be funny.

for fuck's sake, don't you see the problem here. if you consider yourself radical and at the same time consider life outside the state as impossible then _you_ are FOOKING NUTS.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> it doesn't do any harm for revolutionaries to engage in a little fisticuffs now and again - I mean they are _revolutionaries _and agrue for the violent over throw of the goverment.



In the mood I'm in now I can't help but agree with this. As with most posts on this thread I have no idea whether DC is serious or not though.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

I guess pete, it depends on your brand of anarchism.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Wow, and you think being sent to prison is a proportional response?



i don't think it is but then again i don't think stalking arounda bookfair over a political disagreement on the internet is either, the point is that he who can't be named broke an unspoken code of non violence towards other anarchists and so those involved really have no reason to treat him in any proportional or decent manner, especially as his goons are openly boasting of it and he himelf has threatened more violence. 

Of course the person attacked isn't a cunt and has too much self respect to tout on the gobshite, something he who can't be named should maybe ponder on.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> and yes it's supposed to be funny.


Good cos like i said it made me laugh.






			
				peacepete said:
			
		

> for fuck's sake, don't you see the problem here. if you consider yourself radical and at the same time consider life outside the state as impossible then _you_ are FOOKING NUTS.


The problem is, as i see it, an argument occuring on tinternet arising from a real life fight/assault that arose from arguments occuring on tinternet, in a nutshell. Around and around we gooooooooo........


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> for fuck's sake, don't you see the problem here. if you consider yourself radical and at the same time consider life outside the state as impossible then _you_ are FOOKING NUTS.



life outside the state IS impossible while the state exists. That's the nature of the state, and has fuck all to do with how radical you consider yourself to be.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> an argument occuring on tinternet arising from a real life fight/assault that arose from arguments occuring on tinternet, in a nutshell. Around and around we gooooooooo........



I can't help but feel it a positive thing that the world of IRL has come busting into the net so dramatically. the violence is a shame for those involved, but the bursting of the dotcom bubble is nothing but a good thing.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> life outside the state IS impossible while the state exists. That's the nature of the state, and has fuck all to do with how radical you consider yourself to be.



anyway, now that our debate has become entirely abstract we don't have to take it personally anymore so hope you're ok and didn't mean to sound as nasty as I did.

I still believe that the we'd all be better off without the heavy handed state with it's rough justice and that the playground is more liberated than the classroom and that anarchists shouldn't call the police to sort out their problems and a whole other bunch of stuff.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> anyway, now that our debate has become entirely abstract we don't have to take it personally anymore so hope you're ok and didn't mean to sound as nasty as I did.
> 
> I still believe that the we'd all be better off without the heavy handed state with it's rough justice and that the playground is more liberated than the classroom and that anarchists shouldn't call the police to sort out their problems and a whole other bunch of stuff.



i believe we'd be better off without a heavy handed state too.

you do still claim to live outside it, by the way?


----------



## Kanda (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> but the bursting of the dotcom bubble is nothing but a good thing.



You what?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you do still claim to live outside it, by the way?



surprisingly i haven't changed my perspective on the world all that dramatically in the last half hour. despite your crushing and overpowering logic.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> You what?



yep, that came out a bit weird.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the internet is better if not considered a world in itself, but rather a place where real people communicate, with real consequences.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> surprisingly i haven't changed my perspective on the world all that dramatically in the last half hour. despite your crushing and overpowering logic.




so you do claim to live outside the state?


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> the point is that he who can't be named _broke an unspoken code of non violence towards other anarchists_



what you on about son?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so you do claim to live outside the state?



Originally Posted by peacepete
surprisingly i haven't changed my perspective on the world all that dramatically in the last half hour. despite your crushing and overpowering logic.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by peacepete
> surprisingly i haven't changed my perspective on the world all that dramatically in the last half hour. despite your crushing and overpowering logic.




that's not what i asked.

do you claim to live outside the state - yes or no?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> what you on about son?



it's assumed you don't punch people over political arguments, no?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's not what i asked.
> 
> do you claim to live outside the state - yes or no?



to be fair it is what you asked. 

Originally Posted by peacepete
surprisingly i haven't changed my perspective on the world all that dramatically in the last half hour. despite your crushing and overpowering logic.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

ok, i'll take your continued evasiveness and infantile game playing as an admission on your part that you were lying when you claimed to live outside the state.

glad we cleared that up, sorry to see you're yet another bullshitter


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> what you on about son?


 
anarchist shall not fight anarchist.

Unspoken code.  It's just not done.  More than not grassing, more than not voting.  There are just some things you _just don't do_.  The only thing worse is a scab.  In fact, they might as well be scabs.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where your going with this, should bullied children not go to the authorities? should they not 'grass' their tormentors?



I missed this one. I wasn't trying to go anywhere with this, other than back to my original point which is that the playground is more liberated than the classroom. 

I could go on to say that bullied children should hesitate before using authority against another child as authority has a pretty terrible record of how it treats the young. that wasn't what I was saying though.

anyway, I'm feeling like an arrogant twat now. This thread is not about my wacky ideas. The debate about Revol and Libcom vs. Attica and anonymous anarchists is a genuinely interesting one. I just want to throw in that if (as someone hinted) Attica was involved in organising the bookfair, then I have a huge amount of respect for all parties and don't really care if they got on as they seem to be leading relatively productive lives whilst completely hating each other.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2007)

Passed me by that one.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> ok, i'll take your continued evasiveness and infantile game playing as an admission on your part that you were lying when you claimed to live outside the state.
> 
> glad we cleared that up, sorry to see you're yet another bullshitter



FUCK OFF

You have just repeated the same question to me and I've repeated the same answer. That is not evasiveness.

FUCK OFF FUCK OFF


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> FUCK OFF
> 
> You have just repeated the same question to me and I've repeated the same answer. That is not evasiveness.
> 
> FUCK OFF FUCK OFF



it is if your initial answer wasn't relevant to my question.

you're a bit.. slow, aren't you?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Passed me by that one.


 
You talking to me?

Is it really just me and revol whose brand of anarchism involves not fighting each other when you can agree to disagree?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it is if your initial answer wasn't relevant to my question.
> 
> you're a bit.. slow, aren't you?



mate, i can be accused of a lot of things, but i'm not an idiot.

state a clear question and i might decide to answer it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> You talking to me?
> 
> Is it really just me and revol whose brand of anarchism involves not fighting each other when you can agree to disagree?



Maybe, i never agreed to your rule though.  It's a hostage to fortune - _let me do anything i like to who i want, i'm an anarchist_


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> state a clear question and i might decide to answer it.



ok. Do you live outside the state?

there you go


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

We do, of course, make exceptions for when people are being cunts and community action is needed to prevent them being so.  We had a few of those cases at the M11 protests.  Fucking brew crew.  

See, this is what happens when you try and reduce things to glib soundbites.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> You talking to me?
> 
> Is it really just me and revol whose brand of anarchism involves not fighting each other when you can agree to disagree?



it's the moral high-groundiness of this that I find offensive.

let's just analyse your scab, grass, fighter hierarchy...

if you scab - your comrades lose control of their workplace and more than likely starve to death

if you grass - your comrades lose their liberty and are potentially tortured or killed (depending on the prevailing political climate)

if you fight - your comrade gets a black eye and one of their friends holds a frozen steak against their face for a few hours.

which of the above would you rather suffer?

principles are great, but they have to be balanced.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> ok. Do you live outside the state?
> 
> there you go



one perspective:

completely - probably not

at all - definitely


another perspective:

I don't live at all within the state as nothing within the state is truly alive. All my _life_ is outside the state.

I fluctuate between the two perspectives above.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> one perspective:
> 
> completely - probably not
> 
> ...



well the first bit doesn't make sense.

Do you live outside the state? At all - definitely.

gibberish.

if you mean, "well i try, like we all do, eh?" then fine, but it makes you a liar previously.

the 2nd bit is bad 5th form poetry


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

If your comrade is likely to lay one on you you can't trust him.  If you can't trust him, he's no comrade.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't honestly have a problem with the idea that things will spill over from boards into real life.  Boards _are _real life - even if they are that weird little corner of it where people feel safe insulting people in distant places.  Its pretty natural to end up having the same rows in pubs, in cyberspace, in meetings..

That's not the issue.  Its when _planned _violence is used (as opposed to something just kicking off 7 pints in) - because that is a straightforward use of hierarchy.

To be honest though, even _that's _not the issue.  More a question of why is British Anarchism so inward looking?  Why do groups define themselves only in opposition to other groups?  why do individuals spend so much _time _on this stuff  FFS?

Can't say I'm overly active, but when you are getting on with stuff, it tends to put this stuff into the background (said he patronisingly..)


----------



## Kanda (Nov 2, 2007)

Fucking Students


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

6.5/10


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well the first bit doesn't make sense.
> 
> Do you live outside the state? At all - definitely.
> 
> ...



anyway, we obviously disagree with each other and I'm obviously willing to carry on responding to you if you you keep on 'asking me questions' so why not say 'fair enough' and let other people talk about something else.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Kanda said:
			
		

> Fucking Students


 
Up yours, liberal


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> anyway, we obviously disagree with each other and I'm obviously willing to carry on responding to you if you you keep on 'asking me questions' so why not say 'fair enough' and let other people talk about something else.





heh.

pathetic.

i think i've made my point. back to the anarcho-macho grandstanding


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> If your comrade is likely to lay one on you you can't trust him.  If you can't trust him, he's no comrade.



still, you'd be more upset if they were likely to grass or scab on you.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> heh.
> 
> pathetic.
> 
> i think i've made my point. back to the anarcho-macho grandstanding



you seem to find me less pathetic when I call you a wanker than when i suggest we give it a rest.

no?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> still, you'd be more upset if they were likely to grass or scab on you.


 
Well, I wouldn't call anyone comrade either who was likely to do either of those things.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> anarchist shall not fight anarchist.
> 
> Unspoken code.  It's just not done.  More than not grassing, more than not voting.  There are just some things you _just don't do_.  The only thing worse is a scab.  In fact, they might as well be scabs.



i think last year was the only year ive never been at a bookfair there wasn't a fight. it always happens, or at least used to back in the good old days.  and anyway, who else would @s fight with? 

certainly not the 'agents of the state' from what i've pretty much seen over the past 25 years or so.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Well, I wouldn't call anyone comrade either who was likely to do either of those things.



fair enough

(see dub it's easy)


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

you're a dick


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

alright alright i'm done... you win.

*throws in towel*

eta: that metaphor doesn't work does it. someone else has to throw it in for me don't they.

anyway, what everyone else is saying has got far more important than my contributions now.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> If your comrade is likely to lay one on you you can't trust him.  If you can't trust him, he's no comrade.



_"comrade" _   

wolfie...


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Leave it grandad, or I'll send the boys round


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

Darios said:
			
		

> Wow, what an interesting thread. I'm also glad I didn't attend this year's bookfair either after reading this.
> 
> It's the same phenomenon that's resulted in the ejection and excoriation of individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists from "the movement". Instead of consistently meeting the ideological challenges posed by the former they are instead carved out and pathetic sectarian arguments redefining "anarchism" take place to justify the exclusion (as for example, economist Bryan Caplan found out).
> 
> The new blood in anarchist thought and practice is being excluded or forced out by a coterie who think they have some kind of monopoly on the meaning of anarchism. It's no surprise that anarchism in the UK is more irrelevant now than ever. The last bookfair I attended, 2006, at the talks and discussions it was the same old, old, old, tired, tired, tired bullshit.



tbf, anarcho-capitalists *aren't* anarchists - they're capitalists.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> ignoring Dubversion's tourette's
> 
> 1) I don't dispute that bullying is a problem. I just don't see it's solution in institutions. So posting up statistics saying that it is a problem isn't really an argument.
> 
> 2) If you want to live outside the state then avoid the means by which your identity in the eyes of the state are constructed. through property, work, taxes, the criminal justice system. i can't believe I'm actually having to write this to be honest it's so fucking obvious.



How does one live outside the state?


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are fairly obviously mutually exclusive - I don't see how you can reconcile it with anarcho-capitalism's axiomatic stance that as long as someone enters into a contract _freely_ (they are not subject to direct physical compulsion or decieved) that's fine and beyond reproach. it further implicates a fairly radical individualism which is antithetical to anarchism as a social movement.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I am not 100% happy with a lot of things in my life, but one thing I can say for myself is that I am able to live a great deal of it with little or no contact with the state.
> 
> I would suggest:
> 
> ...



Ahhhh, you're a tramp.


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

He's not a 'tramp' - he's resisting assimiliation


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I went to a comprehensive school in rural Devon with approx. 2,000 pupils. violence did occur, but the playground was a much more liberated place than the classroom. when left to their own devices the kids were perfectly capable of looking after each other.



I don't believe you.  You sound like some idealistic hippy kid tbf.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, you're a tramp.



fair enough


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

by the way, what happened bout that mag with the funny cover with the guy wearing the dracula cloak and the AFA bobble hat? 

how was old Bone? heard he was doing his thang.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't believe you.  You sound like some idealistic hippy kid tbf.



which bit don't you believe?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> He's not a 'tramp' - he's resisting assimiliation



The Borg are after peacepete


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> fair enough



I bet you _do_ smell a bit...


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

No the system is after peacepete


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> I bet you _do_ smell a bit...


a lot.

I wonder if he thinks people who don't drop out are sheep?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> maybe it's just because I don't see it as a grand claim to live outside the state.
> 
> *the state is a death machine and all life is by definition outside it.*
> 
> with regards to insults you started throwing them around first but i am happy to go along with it. i think you are a total wanker.



Have you read this back to yourself?  You sound like you're spouting slogans from Paris 1968.


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm pretty sure he actually is


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> The Borg are after peacepete



just an aside, but I don't see the state as like the Borg (Star Trek innit?).

The Borg iirc are uniformity personified. There is no particular uniformity in the state, just a pecking order of abuse.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you read this back to yourself?  You sound like you're spouting slogans from Paris 1968.



it wouldn't surprise me if i was. that was actually something a friend of mine a few years ago said a few times. it stuck with me. it wouldn't surprise me if he'd read stuff from Paris 68.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> a lot.
> 
> I wonder if he thinks people who don't drop out are sheep?



what exactly is gonig on here? people spout statist slogans all the time and no one batters an eye lid. if you mutter something technically radical you get ground down into submission.

please don't pretend that there is anything unusual about being anti-state (even optimistically anti-state).


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> which bit don't you believe?



Anything you post tbh.  If you quit spouting ridiculous slogans, I may take you more seriously.


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> what exactly is gonig on here? people spout statist slogans all the time and no one batters an eye lid. if you mutter something technically radical you get ground down into submission.


"technically radical"!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> it wouldn't surprise me if i was. that was actually something a friend of mine a few years ago said a few times. it stuck with me. it wouldn't surprise me if he'd read stuff from Paris 68.



Ended up well that didn't it?


----------



## nosos (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm going home smiling


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> "technically radical"!



yep. again it's _supposed_ to be amusing.

you don't get points for spotting the humourous bits in my posts.

i am right though aren't I. people write reactionary nonsense all the time around here and no one questions it. Only radical perspectives get submitted to any critique and then it's all meaningless bullshit.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Ended up well that didn't it?



doesn't make it wrong


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> doesn't make it wrong



What?  Spouting meaningless slogans from a failed revolution where everyone went back to work?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 2, 2007)

Jesus guys, this is silly.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Jesus guys, this is silly.



Passes the time though.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Passes the time though.



yep


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> he who can't be named broke an unspoken code of non violence towards other anarchists



_There is no_ "unspoken code" other than that which has been created in your own head.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

thing is i feel a sort of responsibility to back up what I've said, even if it's vague and not important. so these kind of debates with me are destined to take hours.

I'd _really_ like to talk about something else now.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> _There is no_ "unspoken code" other than that which has been created in your own head.



Until Revol's anti-Bowden campaign I'd have thought there was an unspoken code not to go that overboard about someone you've never met. Lots of codes flew out of the window with this one.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> you don't get points for spotting the humourous bits in my posts.



oh, so now you're being FUNNY?


dick


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

oi dub, fuck off. let's move on shall we.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha ha. Come on down small boy, I will squash you like the annoying fly you are
> 
> Libcom have managed to annoy sooo many people over the years with their tyranny of structurelessness and anti democratic practice, the only wonder is that they were not obliterated that night. They *could *have been, and people should consider this point. Either, they improve their relations with those activists with plenty of serious class struggle experience OR relations will continue to deteriorate.
> 
> ...



this sums up the dead end that is british anarchism today .. pathetic macho posturing from all sides by people, to a man ( there are no women involved) with little or no direct involvment in real day to day w/c politics .. 
and " .. the dominant strand of British anarchism .. " wtf is that? 

all irrelevent nonsense .. the pub bollox summed up the worst of @ism ..


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> by the way, what happened bout that mag with the funny cover with the guy wearing the dracula cloak and the AFA bobble hat?
> 
> how was old Bone? heard he was doing his thang.



Mayday is now out and proud. And we will be meeting soon in London.

Bone is and was great, as always.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> this sums up the dead end that is british anarchism today .. pathetic macho posturing from all sides by people, to a man ( there are no women involved) with little or no direct involvment in real day to day w/c politics ..
> and " .. the dominant strand of British anarchism .. " wtf is that?
> 
> all irrelevent nonsense .. the pub bollox summed up the worst of @ism ..



This has been dealt with in this thread already. The events in the pub has nothing to do with anarchism, and the dominant strand in British anarchism is the class struggle anarchist one, linked to, but not exclusively by any means, Class War.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

I thought the dominant strand in British anarchism was vegan crusty punk types


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> The events in the pub has nothing to do with anarchism



The events in the pub had to do with John Bowden, who is in prison for a violent offence.  His supporters argue that he should be released because he will not commit any more violent offences.  Their opponents claim that he should remain in prison because he is likely to commit more violent offences if released.

Under these circumstances, for his supporters to commit a violent offence against their opponents is just about the most counter-productive act imaginable.  I wonder whether Bowden feels they have helped his case?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> thing is i feel a sort of responsibility to back up what I've said, even if it's vague and not important. so these kind of debates with me are destined to take hours.
> 
> I'd _really_ like to talk about something else now.




Who went overboard, do you think it's out of order to suggest that anarchists shouldn't support people banged up for brutal sadistic murders? 

next you'll tell me off for going overboard about Hindley, Brady, the Wests and Huntley, y'know with not meeting them in person first.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> The events in the pub had to do with John Bowden, who is in prison for a violent offence.  His supporters argue that he should be released because he will not commit any more violent offences.  Their opponents claim that he should remain in prison because he is likely to commit more violent offences if released.
> 
> Under these circumstances, for his supporters to commit a violent offence against their opponents is just about the most counter-productive act imaginable.  I wonder whether Bowden feels they have helped his case?



It is over jJohn Bowden but the argument isn't whether or not he is likely to commit more violent offences (i'd guess he's got more wit than he who can't be name). The issue is whether or not he should be supported as a political prisoner and what sort of mental criteria is being used to define political prisoners by the ABC. Would they support a convicted rapist or paedophile who discovered anarchism and had since rationalised his crimes as being the product of state brutalisation and capitalisms corruption of sexuality? If not why not? 

As I've said I've no problem with he who can't be named or anyone else giving support to John Bowden (afterall if Bowden was a decent mate in prison that's  fair enough), my problem is that it's being done as the ABC and that should be for political prisoners. 

he who can't be named should recognise that his relationship with Bowden isn't an adequate reason for political support and doesn't meet up with any political criteria and as such he shouldn't be at all suprised that most people are far from sympathetic to Bowdens case. Personally I find it hard to give a fuck about someone who so brutally wiped out someone elses life but as I said that's my personal position, i certainly wouldn't expect Organise! or the ABC to have a campaign against Bowdens release either.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> It is over jJohn Bowden but the argument isn't whether or not he is likely to commit more violent offences (i'd guess he's got more wit than he who can't be name). The issue is whether or not he should be supported as a political prisoner and what sort of mental criteria is being used to define political prisoners by the ABC. Would they support a convicted rapist or paedophile who discovered anarchism and had since rationalised his crimes as being the product of state brutalisation and capitalisms corruption of sexuality? If not why not?
> 
> As I've said I've no problem with he who can't be named or anyone else giving support to John Bowden (afterall if Bowden was a decent mate in prison that's  fair enough), my problem is that it's being done as the ABC and that should be for political prisoners.



That may be your problem, but the concern of the parole board (and the media) will be the likelihood of Bowden's committing further violence on release.  The fact that his supporters are so eager to use violence to further their cause is unlikely to reassure them.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That may be your problem, but the concern of the parole board (and the media) will be the likelihood of Bowden's committing further violence on release.  The fact that his supporters are so eager to use violence to further their cause is unlikely to reassure them.



well yeah, it did strike me as somewhat idiotic.


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I thought the dominant strand in British anarchism was vegan crusty punk types



_Thuggish_, vegan, crusty punk-types, surely.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That may be your problem, but the concern of the parole board (and the media) will be the likelihood of Bowden's committing further violence on release.  The fact that his supporters are so eager to use violence to further their cause is unlikely to reassure them.



yep, but nobody's going to tell the parole board are they?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well yeah, it did strike me as somewhat idiotic.



That's putting it mildly.  If I were Bowden I would now be composing a statement unambiguously disassociating myself from the action of my supporters, and condemning their behaviour in the strongest possible terms.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> yep, but nobody's going to tell the parole board are they?



You think no journos read these boards?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That may be your problem, but the concern of the parole board (and the media) will be the likelihood of Bowden's committing further violence on release.  The fact that his supporters are so eager to use violence to further their cause is unlikely to reassure them.



If you are encouraging the state to use inadmissable evidence, such as the hearsay on this site, you are probably no better than a grass.


----------



## Thora (Nov 2, 2007)

Fucking hell, this has gone insane!

tbh I think we need more violence, not less.  I'll personally be slapping bluestreak next time I see him for starters.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That may be your problem, but the concern of the parole board (and the media) will be the likelihood of Bowden's committing further violence on release.  The fact that his supporters are so eager to use violence to further their cause is unlikely to reassure them.



To be fair phil, my take on it is that the 'system' is using the ABC's 'political' support as a reason for keeping him banged up rather than the issue of whether or not he's rehabilitated. Hence he becomes a political prisoner and the waters get very muddy. So the argument revolves around whether ABC's (controversial to some ) support of him in the first place has now contributed to an excuse for keeping him banged up beyond normal parole times. Iyswim.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> If you are encouraging the state to use inadmissable evidence, such as the hearsay on this site, you are probably no better than a grass.



Fuck off.  But before you do, imagine what the Daily Mail would do with this story.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> It is over jJohn Bowden but the argument isn't whether or not he is likely to commit more violent offences (i'd guess he's got more wit than he who can't be name). The issue is whether or not he should be supported as a political prisoner and what sort of mental criteria is being used to define political prisoners by the ABC. Would they support a convicted rapist or paedophile who discovered anarchism and had since rationalised his crimes as being the product of state brutalisation and capitalisms corruption of sexuality? If not why not?
> 
> As I've said I've no problem with he who can't be named or anyone else giving support to John Bowden (afterall if Bowden was a decent mate in prison that's  fair enough), my problem is that it's being done as the ABC and that should be for political prisoners.



Thanks for posting this as it does help explain a lot. I can understand why people might get upset about the use of ABC for this campaign as he wasn't initially locked up for political activity.

However, I do buy into the argument that since his parole hearing where he was given extra time he now is essentially a political prisoner and as this is when the public campaign really took off (and when you started complaining about it I'd imagine), although I accept it's a contentious issue, I can't agree with you. I understand where you're coming from I just don't agree.

The main point has to be that as you yourself have admitted, he's unlikely to be a danger to anyone once released, what is your motivation in making such a big issue out of it?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> To be fair phil, my take on it is that the 'system' is using the ABC's 'political' support as a reason for keeping him banged up rather than the issue of whether or not he's rehabilitated. Hence he becomes a political prisoner and the waters get very muddy. So the argument revolves around whether ABC's (controversial to some ) support of him in the first place has now contributed to an excuse for keeping him banged up beyond normal parole times. Iyswim.



yeah problem is that his political status is utterly circular, he's a political prisoner because he was involved with the ABC, why was he involved in the ABC, because he's a political prisoner and so on......


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fuck off.  But before you do, imagine what the Daily Mail would do with this story.



Well if you would tell them you are a grass.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fuck off.  But before you do, imagine what the Daily Mail would do with this story.



I don't understand your contribution. What is your point and what's your motivation? Do you care for Bowden? Do you care for ABC? Do you care for the anarchist movement?

I'm only asking cos I can't tell.


----------



## Thora (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm slapping all of you next time I see you


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> This has been dealt with in this thread already. The events in the pub has nothing to do with anarchism, and the dominant strand in British anarchism is the class struggle anarchist one, linked to, but not exclusively by any means, Class War.



1) dealt with ? wrong .. it has not  .. all sides should be ashamed 
2) not to do with @? wrong .. all the charecters call themselves @
3) classs struggle dominant? nonsense!  i wish!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Well if you would tell them you are a grass.



No-one needs to tell them, twit, the details are all over a public message board.  If they start giving it: "Evil murderer John Bowden unleashes campaign of terror and intimidation from behind bars" then your public defence of this assault is going to look pretty silly, no?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah problem is that his political status is utterly circular, he's a political prisoner because he was involved with the ABC, why was he involved in the ABC, because he's a political prisoner and so on......



this isn't quite true though, because he started writing about the prison system before his parole incident. so at some point he became a politicised prisoner, then he got involved in ABC, then he later became a political prisoner after the intervention of some social worker (iirc)

Anyway, to use a libcom phrase, I'm not sure I like your politics. I think I might have moved _beyond_ it to some new praxis (or whatever)


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Fuck off.  But before you do, imagine what the Daily Mail would do with this story.



Make headlines, obviously:

Are Smelly Anarchist Thugs Stealing Our Garden Gnomes?

Is Anarchist Violence Destroying Suburbia?

Does The Lunatic With The Severed Head In The Fridge Represent English Anarchy?​




Answers:  Yes, yes, yes


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> It is over jJohn Bowden but the argument isn't whether or not he is likely to commit more violent offences (i'd guess he's got more wit than he who can't be name). The issue is whether or not he should be supported as a political prisoner and what sort of mental criteria is being used to define political prisoners by the ABC. Would they support a convicted rapist or paedophile who discovered anarchism and had since rationalised his crimes as being the product of state brutalisation and capitalisms corruption of sexuality? If not why not?
> 
> As I've said I've no problem with he who can't be named or anyone else giving support to John Bowden (afterall if Bowden was a decent mate in prison that's  fair enough), my problem is that it's being done as the ABC and that should be for political prisoners.
> 
> he who can't be named should recognise that his relationship with Bowden isn't an adequate reason for political support and doesn't meet up with any political criteria and as such he shouldn't be at all suprised that most people are far from sympathetic to Bowdens case. Personally I find it hard to give a fuck about someone who so brutally wiped out someone elses life but as I said that's my personal position, i certainly wouldn't expect Organise! or the ABC to have a campaign against Bowdens release either.



Oh FFS. This shows your and Libcoms pathetic politics up very clearly. The theoretical work on this has already been done by the British marxist historians. It is youth obsessed with purism. Again. In 1975 the classic book Albions Fatal Tree was published, in that it said that there is no 'nice social crime here and nasty social crime over there'. This is a Hegelian marxist understanding of crime as process. 

There are hardly any 'political prisoners' that Amnesty (middle class gits - like Limpcok?) supports. BUT - over 90% of prisoners are inside for property related offences, a minority for violence, <8% or even fewer (exact figure not to hand but this IS consistent). So the vast majority of prisoners from a Marxist pov ARE political prisoners even if they have no consciousness of it. The point is that politicisation IS possible.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That's putting it mildly.  If I were Bowden I would now be composing a statement unambiguously disassociating myself from the action of my supporters, and condemning their behaviour in the strongest possible terms.



I think it's questionable that various anarchist factions are using the John Bowden issue as a vehicle for settling or attempting to settle scores that have little to do with John Bowden per se.

But yeah, whilst he-who-shall-not-be-named didn't do himself any favours in terms of 'I'll punch any cunt that says I'm not rehabilitated' - the real issue is how revol and co express themselves rather than looking at the content.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I don't understand your contribution. What is your point and what's your motivation? Do you care for Bowden? Do you care for ABC? Do you care for the anarchist movement?
> 
> I'm only asking cos I can't tell.



I was at the pub on Saturday.  I was broadly sympathetic to Bowden, but I despise this action by his supporters.  In fact I despise it so much that my sympathy for Bowden has been significantly diminished.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> No-one needs to tell them, twit, the details are all over a public message board.  If they start giving it: "Evil murderer John Bowden unleashes campaign of terror and intimidation from behind bars" then your public defence of this assault is going to look pretty silly, no?



is your point that we shouldn't be talking about it on an open messageboard, if so I have some respect for you.

If your aim is simply to take the moral highground through some clever point then back off, cos although I don't know anyone involved people here do and it's just offensive.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> yeah problem is that his political status is utterly circular, he's a political prisoner because he was involved with the ABC, why was he involved in the ABC, because he's a political prisoner and so on......



Exactly.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> Thanks for posting this as it does help explain a lot. I can understand why people might get upset about the use of ABC for this campaign as he wasn't initially locked up for political activity.
> 
> However, I do buy into the argument that since his parole hearing where he was given extra time he now is essentially a political prisoner and as this is when the public campaign really took off (and when you started complaining about it I'd imagine), although I accept it's a contentious issue, I can't agree with you. I understand where you're coming from I just don't agree.
> 
> The main point has to be that as you yourself have admitted, he's unlikely to be a danger to anyone once released, what is your motivation in making such a big issue out of it?



Well I never started the fuss it was someone else who started a thread on libcom outlining what Bowden was actually banged up for, before that we only had an ABC statement to go on and it was to say the least rather vague on his crime.



> [Bowden] committed what might be characterised as a 'stupid, drunken, murder'. There was nothing even slightly political about this act, but it was neither premeditated nor committed for personal gain. It was, unfortunately, something which happens all too frequently when men quarrel while drunk.



Understandly most people were pissed off to learn the details of the crime, I myself had assumed it was a fight that got out of hand and ended with someone hitting their head on a curb or something.

The question was then raised as to why the fuck the ABC were politically involved with him in the first place and what sort of criteria they are using. The argument then got brought down to well 'he who can't be named knows him and say's he's sound' and I pointed out I couldn't give a fuck what he thought of him and personal connections are not adequate criteria for political support.

Of course the problem is that the ABC has morphed into some mental quasi maoist prison abolision advocacy group willing to support any prisoner 'fighting back' overlooking the fact that many prisoners aren't in for missing sunday school and to talk about prison abolition in present conditions is fucking mental, not to mention not what the ABC was a originally set up for.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I was at the pub on Saturday.  I was broadly sympathetic to Bowden, but I despise this action by his supporters.  In fact I despise it so much that my sympathy for Bowden has been significantly diminished.



fair enough. i thought you might just be a complete random passer-by. (like me)

however, you really can't judge Bowden by what people do on his behalf.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I was at the pub on Saturday.  I was broadly sympathetic to Bowden, but I despise this action by his supporters.  In fact I despise it so much that my sympathy for Bowden has been significantly diminished.



I feel more antipathy to his alleged supporters than to him as a result. Maybe it does work.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> however, you really can't judge Bowden by what people do on his behalf.



True enough, and I'm sure he's angry as hell at their stupidity.  But as you know the Daily Mail and its ilk are not troubled by such fine distinctions.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Well I never started the fuss it was someone else who started a thread on libcom outlining what Bowden was actually banged up for, before that we only had an ABC statement to go on and it was to say the least rather vague on his crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok.

I disagree with you on prison abolition. that's probably at the root of my frustrations over this. from the small amount of time I've spent in police cells I just couldn't wish that on anyone.

I understand a lot more of where you're coming from though so thanks. I suppose I could have found all this out by trawling through Libcom and feel a bit embarrassed about not doing so.

anyway, not saying I agree with you, but I can understand a bit more of where you're coming from. thanks.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> fair enough. i thought you might just be a complete random passer-by. (like me)
> 
> however, you really can't judge Bowden by what people do on his behalf.



i actually agree with you on this, my feelings about Bowden aren't changed by this, I still think the ABC shouldn't have got involved with him (ironically that would probably have been better for him too), am ambivalent in regards to him being released or not and think the real issue is why the ABC will support any wingnut who asks for it, be that that cunt UNA bomber who injured and maimed workers or John Bowden who got sent down for a completely apolitical and brutal murder.

As for he who can't be named supporting him, well that's his business, i suppouse if i found my arse in prison i'd be glad of a mate and would look to help him out when i got released, I wouldn't however expect anarchists to give him political support if he was in for a violent murder.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> True enough, and I'm sure he's angry as hell at their stupidity.  But as you know the Daily Mail and its ilk are not troubled by such fine distinctions.



i do get your point. i don't know how likely it is that anyone outside this thread and libcom will pick up on the issue, but there we go.


----------



## Darios (Nov 2, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> this sums up the dead end that is british anarchism today .. pathetic macho posturing from all sides by people, to a man ( there are no women involved) with little or no direct involvment in real day to day w/c politics ..
> and " .. the dominant strand of British anarchism .. " wtf is that?
> 
> all irrelevent nonsense .. the pub bollox summed up the worst of @ism ..



Seconded!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

also i think a large part of the anger over this was the ABC's representation of his crime and also the fact Bowden can write shit like this without a slither of self awareness,


> "For having stood up to and resisted unlawful and inhuman treatment in prison, and retained some basic human integrity and humanity in the process, I probably shall now remain imprisoned far beyond what even a reactionary judge deemed an appropriate period of time all those years ago. Hell will freeze over, however, before I surrender that part of myself that had the courage and integrity to fight back and resist when resistance often seemed futile."



I mean ffs, how many fucking years did yo expect for that murder, how is the judge reactionary? Should he have gave Bowden a community service order and suspended sentence? What about the fucking unlawful and inhuman treatment Bowden dished out in his fucking bathroom? What about the human integrity of his victim?

When I read that it makes my fucking blood boil, have abit more humility ffs, you aren't Nelson fucking Mandela, you put someone in a bath or boiling water before chopping them up alive! You should be grateful society allows you to breath, maybe abit more sorrow and a fuck of a lot less 'indignance' wrapped up in anarcho rationalisation and rhetoric about being brutalised by the system.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i actually agree with you on this, my feelings about Bowden aren't changed by this, I still think the ABC shouldn't have got involved with him (ironically that would probably have been better for him too), am ambivalent in regards to him being released or not and think the real issue is why the ABC will support any wingnut who asks for it, be that that cunt UNA bomber who injured and maimed workers or John Bowden who got sent down for a completely apolitical and brutal murder.
> 
> As for he who can't be named supporting him, well that's his business, i suppouse if i found my arse in prison i'd be glad of a mate and would look to help him out when i got released, I wouldn't however expect anarchists to give him political support if he was in for a violent murder.



I wonder if the main frustration of those that tried to track you down was how ethereal all these issues seem when you conflate them so casually. The UNA bomber, Ian Huntley, John Bowden are all people you don't know and don't have much connection to, which whilst that doesn't stop you from having an opinion on them, the passion with which you express them seems a bit disengenuous.

The impression is of someone who has a lot of time to hone their arguments on issues that don't affect them on account of not having many issues of their own.

If I'm wrong I'm very sorry.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i do get your point. i don't know how likely it is that anyone outside this thread and libcom will pick up on the issue, but there we go.



well it's known that many lazy journo's lurk the site looking for posters to do most of their work for them.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

Darios said:
			
		

> Seconded!



for all those pronouncing the failure of the anarchist movement, you really have lost me. How many people did capitalists punch in the face on Saturday? One suspects quite a few more. honestly...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I wonder if the main frustration of those that tried to track you down was how ethereal all these issues seem when you conflate them so casually. The UNA bomber, Ian Huntley, John Bowden are all people you don't know and don't have much connection to, which whilst that doesn't stop you from having an opinion on them, the passion with which you express them seems a bit disengenuous.
> 
> The impression is of someone who has a lot of time to hone their arguments on issues that don't affect them on account of not having many issues of their own.
> 
> If I'm wrong I'm very sorry.



I haven't spent any time honing my arguments, it's just my natural reaction to this kind of absurdity. I think most people would be aghast to know anarchists are politically supporting Bowden or anyone else in for brutally violent crimes. 

As for my own issues, well this is the politics forum it's not nobbin n sobbin, it's for political discussion of issues and that shouldn't be reduced to 'personal issues', and personal connections are certainly no criteria for anarchists giving political support to prisoners.

p.s. if Huntely, Brady, Hindley or West approached an anarchist group for support do you think it would be fair enough to support them, would you think other anarchists who don't personally know them would be wrong to suggest they getted fucked and rot in prison?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well it's known that many lazy journo's lurk the site looking for posters to do most of their work for them.



fair enough. well it's all been said now so there's not much that can be done about it. I know you're not really the person to say this to, but they can hardly of been expected to think "how's this going to look in the Daily Mail" when they decided to track you down.

not condoning anything, but the absurdity of this suggestion does stand out.

eta: not saying that it was you who suggested this, I know it was phildwyer who introduced the idea.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I haven't spent any time honing my arguments, it's just my natural reaction to this kind of absurdity. I think most people would be aghast to know anarchists are politically supporting Bowden or anyone else in for brutally violent crimes.
> 
> As for my own issues, well this is the politics forum it's not nobbin n sobbin, it's for political discussion of issues and that shouldn't be reduced to 'personal issues', and personal connections are certainly no criteria for anarchists giving political support to prisoners.
> 
> p.s. if Huntely, Brady, Hindley or West approached an anarchist group for support do you think it would be fair enough to support them, would you think other anarchists who don't personally know them would be wrong to suggest they getted fucked and rot in prison?



fair enough. thanks again for taking the time though. i don't for one minute think this has anything to do with me. I had a great time at the bookfair and didn't notice any of this. i also haven't been involved in ABC ever and I don't know John Bowden or your friend who got hit.

I'll back away now...


----------



## JHE (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> p.s. if *Huntely, Brady, Hindley or West *approached an anarchist group for support do you think it would be fair enough to support them, would you think other anarchists who don't personally know them would be wrong to suggest they getted fucked and rot in prison?



These people are being persecuted by The State just for being different.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I wonder if the main frustration of those that tried to track you down was how ethereal all these issues seem when you conflate them so casually. The UNA bomber, Ian Huntley, John Bowden are all people you don't know and don't have much connection to, which whilst that doesn't stop you from having an opinion on them, the passion with which you express them seems a bit disengenuous.
> 
> The impression is of someone who has a lot of time to hone their arguments on issues that don't affect them on account of not having many issues of their own.
> 
> If I'm wrong I'm very sorry.



I do not think you are wrong. He does this on every issue - i think there's a lot of truth in the old equation of little man = little willy = prick.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> they can hardly of been expected to think "how's this going to look in the Daily Mail" when they decided to track you down.



Why not?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I do not think you are wrong. He does this on every issue - i think there's a lot of truth in the old equation of little man = little willy = prick.



You mean I examine the assumptions and implications of a position, yeah i do, I like to think most anarchists do to, unfortunately it's becoming obvious most don't think through fuck all, instead rely on empty sloganeering and end up in all sorts of absurd political positions.

As for my penis, I told people before, I obviously brokered some sort of Faustian deal and happily sacrified a few inches in height.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 2, 2007)

at last, we've started talking about the sizes of our cocks!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> at last, we've started talking about the sizes of our cocks!



Attica makes up for his micropenis by having Dr in his email address.


----------



## Darios (Nov 2, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> for all those pronouncing the failure of the anarchist movement, you really have lost me. How many people did capitalists punch in the face on Saturday? One suspects quite a few more. honestly...



Indeed. How many "anarchists" punched "capitalists" in the face on Saturday?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Attica makes up for his micropenis by having Dr in his email address.



I have soooooo many email addresses I was bound to use it at some point. Seriously. All you small cocks with 2 or 3 are just unimaginative


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I have soooooo many email addresses I was bound to use it at some point. Seriously. All you small cocks with 2 or 3 are just unimaginative



Well if I was a loony muppet who got off impersonated small time anarcho celebs i'd probably need a few more email accounts.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> You mean I examine the assumptions and implications of a position, yeah i do



Clearly you spend too much time looking for negativity. perhaps you had better involve your smart arse DOING something political that you could spend your time on. You know, I may even start liking you then. A famous Marxist scholar and practitioner said that spending time making revolution is ALWAYS more productive than talking about it....


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Well if I was a loony muppet who got off impersonated small time anarcho celebs i'd probably need a few more email accounts.


I didn't - that was Sergei nechayevs email account, quite a big time anarcho I think you'll find.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 2, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Clearly you spend too much time looking for negativity. perhaps you had better involve your smart arse DOING something political that you could spend your time on. You know, I may even start liking you then. A famous Marxist scholar and practitioner said that spending time making revolution is ALWAYS more productive than talking about it....



as the full time academic told the unemployed worker.....


----------



## invisibleplanet (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> You mean I examine the assumptions and implications of a position, yeah i do, I like to think most anarchists do to, unfortunately it's becoming obvious most don't think through fuck all, instead rely on empty sloganeering and end up in all sorts of absurd political positions.
> 
> As for my penis, I told people before, I obviously brokered some sort of Faustian deal and happily sacrified a few inches in height.



P&P post of the week 

(Attica - there's really no correlation between height and penis size - heard of Priapus?)


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> as the full time academic told the unemployed worker.....



Nice try - but factually incorrect.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 2, 2007)

Darios said:
			
		

> Indeed. How many "anarchists" punched "capitalists" in the face on Saturday?



Not enough probably.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 2, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not enough probably.



It could NEVER be enough


----------



## Raw SslaC (Nov 3, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> i actually agree with you on this, my feelings about Bowden aren't changed by this, I still think the ABC shouldn't have got involved with him (ironically that would probably have been better for him too), am ambivalent in regards to him being released or not and think *the real issue is why the ABC will support any wingnut who asks for it*, be that that cunt UNA bomber who injured and maimed workers or John Bowden who got sent down for a completely apolitical and brutal murder.



Thats not true is it. There are many more wingnuts who have asked for some help from ABC but were refused. For example Robert Stewart who killed Zahid Mubarek in a racist murder in Feltham young offenders has been in contact. His letter was relating to his admittance of guilt but also explaining his background and upbringing..blah blah. At the time (2004), the policy was that it was too soon to even think about supporting someone like this.

In Bowdens case, he was 23 years old when he killed that guy (who later it was disclosed was a nonce). It wasn't like it was last week it was 25 years. i don't know about you but I've known some nutters who have done some crazy things in their youth, but when I see them now- in their thirties they are just normal, civil human beings. 

Would you offer support to one of those 14 year olds who stabbed someone to death? I think they are as much victims of the brutality of the mess capitalist reality creates. 





			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> As for he who can't be named supporting him, well that's his business, i suppouse if i found my arse in prison i'd be glad of a mate and would look to help him out when i got released, I wouldn't however expect anarchists to give him political support if he was in for a violent murder.




Finally, the political support has never been for the crime but for the person who is now, after 25 years, prevented from being released due to his activity and connection with ABC. Bowden, by all accounts, has fought and campaigned for prisoner rights for sometime now, he has also contributed his writings and experiences on prison struggle. I'm sure Revol you would prefer he be locked up for ever, no? 

The struggle against prisons, will no doubt include prisoners, some of which might have committed the most awful crimes. It is the responsibility of those who can offer support to look at each case, by case, and see where support, if any, can be given. This has happened in relation to Bowden's case, remember its 25 years of time, a fuck of a long time. 

Revol , if you or Jack disagreed with this then you should have articulated it clearly then left it. I initially was taken aback when I heard about it. The problem is not political disagreement, it is how that disagreement is made and how people with opposing views are ridiculed and slandered. When dealing with real-life, you should expect any discussions to be part of those real events, and therefore accountable.

I leave you with a quote from Jack from Libcom on what he thinks of the then 23 year old Jef 'free' leurs who got 22 years in prison for setting fire to three SUV's. Now if your mate was Jef leurs and you read that what would you do...? I think Jack got off lightly.




			
				Jack from libcom said:
			
		

> I know, I can't really justify it, I just fucking hate the piss of shit _(jef leurs - edit ) _so much.
> 
> I reckon it's because there was so much shit about him (hundreds of zines, articles, websites etc.) when I was first into politics, and it just wound me up. Some stupid cunt burnt a bunch of cars, and and went to prison. It's hardly the Birmingham six, but to listen to anarchists and it's like the Nazis are back.... and more evil than ever before.
> 
> Fuck I hate Free. Im glad his stupid nickname is so ironic.


----------



## Geri (Nov 3, 2007)

Very good post.

I can't believe what a storm in a teacup this has become. It was a slap - hardly crime of the century. I'm sick of people thinking that because this is the internet, they can say things to people and not expect there to be any consequences. If someone spoke to me in a pub the way I have been spoken to on the internet, they would get a pint thrown over them or worse.

The only mistake made was doing it on the day of the bookfair, he who cannot be named should have done it on some other occasion when there was nobody around.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Very good post.
> 
> I can't believe what a storm in a teacup this has become. It was a slap - hardly crime of the century. I'm sick of people thinking that because this is the internet, they can say things to people and not expect there to be any consequences. If someone spoke to me in a pub the way I have been spoken to on the internet, they would get a pint thrown over them or worse.
> 
> The only mistake made was doing it on the day of the bookfair, he who cannot be named should have done it on some other occasion when there was nobody around.



well get your pint or worse ready cos that's a cunts post.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Jack from libcom
> I know, I can't really justify it, I just fucking hate the piss of shit (jef leurs - edit ) so much.
> 
> I reckon it's because there was so much shit about him (hundreds of zines, articles, websites etc.) when I was first into politics, and it just wound me up. Some stupid cunt burnt a bunch of cars, and and went to prison. It's hardly the Birmingham six, but to listen to anarchists and it's like the Nazis are back.... and more evil than ever before.
> ...




I'd want to hit him for this. I probably wouldn't, but I certainly wouldn't invite someone like this to any parties.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> I can't believe what a storm in a teacup this has become. It was a slap - hardly crime of the century. I'm sick of people thinking that because this is the internet, they can say things to people and not expect there to be any consequences. If someone spoke to me in a pub the way I have been spoken to on the internet, they would get a pint thrown over them or worse.
> 
> The only mistake made was doing it on the day of the bookfair, he who cannot be named should have done it on some other occasion when there was nobody around.


Don't really disagree with the first paragraph.  People getting annoyed, lamping each other - not all that great, but it happens, heat of the moment etc.  Shit happens.

Second paragraph I don't agree with.  Its very different to have a strategy - _setting out _to attack someone (however rubbish it sounds like the execution of that was) - spending hours tracking them down.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well get your pint or worse ready cos that's a cunts post.


So keeping up the veiled threats and childish language then? The more i read from and your tawdry pals, the more i understand why some people would end up resorting to violence as the primary means of communication with you tbf.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> Thats not true is it. There are many more wingnuts who have asked for some help from ABC but were refused. For example Robert Stewart who killed Zahid Mubarek in a racist murder in Feltham young offenders has been in contact. His letter was relating to his admittance of guilt but also explaining his background and upbringing..blah blah. At the time (2004), the policy was that it was too soon to even think about supporting someone like this.
> 
> In Bowdens case, he was 23 years old when he killed that guy (who later it was disclosed was a nonce). It wasn't like it was last week it was 25 years. i don't know about you but I've known some nutters who have done some crazy things in their youth, but when I see them now- in their thirties they are just normal, civil human beings.
> 
> ...



Good post actually.


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 3, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Good post actually.



 yes it was a good post but there is something in Jacks ( offensive ) post that i think is relevent .. this obsession by so-called @s with @ heros ( er some contradiction surely)  and individuals, when the same so-called @s write off and ignore the mass of prisoners ( there are 80,000!!! up by 100% in c.20years) and the mass of the w/c.. usually as straights

i can understand why a young @ would get frustrated at this narriow minded irrelevence that is much of @ today ..  but to write in such a way as revol does consistently and jack did in that post is as offensive and idiotic .. it does not help to go beyond that that they criticise

p.s. it is interesting how ABC works comfortably with the quasi stalinist RCG/FRFI who believe that the w/c have all beeen bought off and change can only come from prisoners/the homeless/migrants/the unemployed etc etc


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> The only mistake made was doing it on the day of the bookfair, he who cannot be named should have done it on some other occasion when there was nobody around.



So you think he should have stalked Revol, followed him down a dark alley, waited outside his house, something like that?  That would have been better?  Because the bookfair wouldn't have been disrupted or what?


----------



## Raw SslaC (Nov 3, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> yes it was a good post but there is something in Jacks ( offensive ) post that i think is relevent .. this obsession by so-called @s with @ heros ( er some contradiction surely)  and individuals, when the same so-called @s write off and ignore the mass of prisoners ( there are 80,000!!! up by 100% in c.20years) and the mass of the w/c.. usually as straights
> 
> i can understand why a young @ would get frustrated at this narriow minded irrelevence that is much of @ today ..  but to write in such a way as revol does consistently and jack did in that post is as offensive and idiotic .. it does not help to go beyond that that they criticise
> 
> p.s. it is interesting how ABC works comfortably with the quasi stalinist RCG/FRFI who believe that the w/c have all beeen bought off and change can only come from prisoners/the homeless/migrants/the unemployed etc etc



To be honest if i was in prison for a long stretch i would want to atleast be treated like a hero   i mean what else will keep you going, by that i mean i would want people to actually care about me being inside. 

The new London ABC was also looking at anti-prison stuff from a w/c perspective, the supporting individual cases bit is still there but they are not loosing site of the bigger picture AFAIK. 

As for RCG, well they are good on prisons and prisoner struggles..just don't drink a bottle of bacardi infront of them.

raw


----------



## Geri (Nov 3, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> So you think he should have stalked Revol, followed him down a dark alley, waited outside his house, something like that?  That would have been better?  Because the bookfair wouldn't have been disrupted or what?



Yes.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Yes.



So just to be clear: if he'd followed Revol home from the pub on a dark evening, jumped him and beaten him up, that action would have met with your approval?


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 3, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> To be honest if i was in prison for a long stretch i would want to atleast be treated like a hero   i mean what else will keep you going, by that i mean i would want people to actually care about me being inside.
> 
> The new London ABC was also looking at anti-prison stuff from a w/c perspective, the supporting individual cases bit is still there but they are not loosing site of the bigger picture AFAIK.
> 
> ...



 .. hey you out and about on wi-fi??

we all want to get treated like heros!  .. it is why and how some and not others are chosen .. and then why a movement that is SUPPOSED to oppose hero worship, fetes those individuals and spends significant time and energy supportting them while ignoring real everday issues .. this is not revolutionary .. 

good news re London abc .. but this ( nastily) tore abc apart b4 .. maybe abc should be left to the christieites and others should set up a new w/c prison org? 

RCG? .. i don't give a monkeys how much they do .. that is NOT a good political arguement .. . they are quasi stalinist and parasites  afaics .. as i said they only do this due to their fucked up political perspective ..


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Yes.



I have to say, I think this is bonkers.

Are you sure you mean what you're saying here?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 3, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> Fucking hell, this has gone insane!
> 
> tbh I think we need more violence, not less.  I'll personally be slapping bluestreak next time I see him for starters.



So what else is new?


----------



## the button (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Yes.


Just out of interest, was it this -- or having an idea that it was going to happen -- that stopped you & butchers coming to the bookfair?


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Just out of interest, was it this -- or having an idea that it was going to happen -- that stopped you & butchers coming to the bookfair?


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> So keeping up the veiled threats and childish language then? The more i read from and your tawdry pals, the more i understand why some people would end up resorting to violence as the primary means of communication with you tbf.




There's only a rizla between the level of offensiveness between revol/jack and raw/coffeemachine tbh - doesn't take much to search on all fours' posts on Libcom to see that they're all as bad as each other re style. 

Good to see that raw's decided to make a well considered post here on urban though. It is easier to see the points when you're not distracted by the vitriol.


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri, what are you saying, you would condone someone getting beaten up in a dark alley, leaving aside the morality of it, which is atrocious, I have to say in your profession it wouldn't look too good supporting that in your workplace, would it?


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

Geri's profession and workplace have got fuck all to do with it; and i think it's outrageous to try to use them in an internet argument.


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2007)

Tricky innit. You either keep it to the Internet, or you don't.


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

Tricky right enough. But treelover is out of order to mention geri's personal circumstances when they haven't been relevant to this thread.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 3, 2007)

Everyone's ruder on the internet though.  That's just life.  

Look, I think the lesson here is 'don't be a cunt'.  I don't like the debating style where we're reduced to insults immediately, whether it's someone I know and like doing it (dub  ) or not, but there's no need to take it offline.  And to smack someone about when you;re out on licence (or whatever it's called) is fucking moronic, as is getting a posse together and picking on weedy types... it's a cunt's game.

So let's all play nicely, or something.


----------



## JHE (Nov 3, 2007)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> I have to say, I think this is bonkers.



Namby-pamby, wishy-washy pacifist, eh?  What's wrong with bashing people?

<goes off to thump neighbour>


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2007)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Trick right enough. But treefarmer is out of order to mention geri's personal circumstances when they haven't been relevant to this thread.



_Treelover_ - not the same bloke as treefarmer (btw)

Maybe he thought that because Geri said it was OK - and not just OK, going beyond that to dark alleyways - that it was therefore OK to raise the bar to apply that to her rl stuff?

That's the whole point innit, what phil was saying about repercussions and reciprocation and all that.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Everyone's ruder on the internet though.  That's just life.
> 
> Look, I think the lesson here is 'don't be a cunt'.  I don't like the debating style where we're reduced to insults immediately, whether it's someone I know and like doing it (dub  ) or not, but there's no need to take it offline.  And to smack someone about when you;re out on licence (or whatever it's called) is fucking moronic, as is getting a posse together and picking on weedy types... it's a cunt's game.
> 
> So let's all play nicely, or something.



Indeed.  There *is* a problem with people being arseholes on the internet.  However, to premeditate an assault on someone because of words on the internet is absurd.  Some people must have very thin skin and fragile egos to take stuff that personally.


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> _Treelover_ - not the same bloke as treefarmer (btw)
> 
> Maybe he thought that because Geri said it was OK - and not just OK, going beyond that to dark alleyways - that it was therefore OK to raise the bar to apply that to her rl stuff?
> 
> That's the whole point innit, what phil was saying about repercussions and reciprocation and all that.



How'd you do that?

I edited treelover's name 4 whole minutes before you quoted me 

But, anyway, you and him (whatever his name) are wrong on this.


----------



## Raw SslaC (Nov 3, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> There's only a rizla between the level of offensiveness between revol/jack and raw/coffeemachine tbh - doesn't take much to search on all fours' posts on Libcom to see that they're all as bad as each other re style.
> 
> Good to see that raw's decided to make a well considered post here on urban though. It is easier to see the points when you're not distracted by the vitriol.



Hi C,

perhaps I've been out of line, but its mainly due what I was thrown at. I have apologised numerous times over the years. When this vitriolic culture on these bulletin boards is maintained it does bring out the worst in people. However I never made statements like jack regarding jeff Leurs. If I did then I would expect to be smacked and/or shunned by anyone serious in their political outlook. 

R


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2007)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> How'd you do that?
> 
> I edited treelover's name 4 whole minutes before you quoted me
> 
> But, anyway, you and him (whatever his name) are wrong on this.



I think you edited within the 30 second (or whatever) slot, I just happened to quote you before you'd done that.

You should maybe bear in mind that I wasn't actually agreeing with treelover, I was remarking on how this shit can escalate and using Geri's stance  & treelover's response (and your reaction to that) as an example.

As far as I'm concerned, Internet is Internet. I've no interest in pursuing Internet squabbles unless they manifest in real life behaviour.


----------



## the button (Nov 3, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> If I did then I would expect to be smacked and/or shunned by anyone serious in their political outlook.
> 
> R


All very well & good, but why start a "Ha ha you got smacked" thread on libcom about it? 

"Big mouth gets striked again," I think you called it.


----------



## cesare (Nov 3, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> Hi C,
> 
> perhaps I've been out of line, but its mainly due what I was thrown at. I have apologised numerous times over the years. When this vitriolic culture on these bulletin boards is maintained it does bring out the worst in people. However I never made statements like jack regarding jeff Leurs. If I did then I would expect to be smacked and/or shunned by anyone serious in their political outlook.
> 
> R



Hi Raw

As you'll have noticed, this whole thing pissed me off. So I've spent some time reading the Libcom stuff over the past year to try and get a better understanding of why coffeemachine/montevideo smacked Jack/Jef and you decided to start a thread on Libcom in the immediate aftermath gloating about that.

And like I said, in terms of hard-style/piss take and/or insult on the internet men - there's precious little to differentiate any of you lot.

We're the audience, unless you and coffeemachine etc are racking it up now to include anyone that disagrees with you. Or posts in a style you don't like.

And is any of that assisting the causes of he-who-shall-not-be-named- or John Bowden?

Where are you going with this?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Where are you going with this?



Indeed.  Three questions for those who defend this assault:

1.  What was it intended to achieve?  I assume the attackers must have been trying to intimidate Revol, Jack and those who agree with them, in order to stop them expressing their opinions online.  I don't see any prospect of that happening, do you?  

2.  What has it actually achieved?  The most obvious outcome I can see is an end to John Bowden's prospects for parole.  His alleged association with political violence has already been used to impede his release.  This was surely the last thing he needed: it is a gift to his enemies.

3.  So leaving the morality of the assault aside for the moment, wasn't it a pretty daft thing to do on a purely practical level?  Or am I missing something here?


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 3, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> However I never made statements like jack regarding jeff Leurs. If I did then I would expect to be smacked and/or shunned by anyone serious in their political outlook.



A lot of us consider ourselves serious in our political outlooks, even if it may not reach others ideas thereof, and a lot worse things have been said by people about others, including friends of mine, and indeed of others, but that's no excuse.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

phildwyer

there's a sliding scale between condoning and damning and I think anyone with a sane mind is somewhere on this scale. (except maybe those involved!)

have a bit of respect for the other posters here - eh?


----------



## Oxpecker (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> have a bit of respect for the other posters here - eh?



 

I thought phil's post was respectful to the point of obsequiency compared to his usual posts


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> A lot of us consider ourselves serious in our political outlooks, even if it may not reach others ideas thereof, and a lot worse things have been said by people about others, including friends of mine, and indeed of others, but that's no excuse.



i'm asuming you'd accept that it's perfectly fine for someone to be shunned for the kind of abuse these people have been dishing out (I'm thinking of the Jack's  Jef Leurs related comments now).

I also have a sneaking suspicion that although they won't admit it, the victims in this case would rather be assaulted than ignored (just something about their style makes me feel that - I might be wrong)

so....

do you get where I'm coming from?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> there's a sliding scale between condoning and damning and I think anyone with a sane mind is somewhere on this scale. (except maybe those involved!)



Oh really?  Because I think anyone with a sane mind would view a group of guys lying in wait to attack a kid twenty years their junior and half their size because of an argument on the internet as pretty pathetic.  But maybe you can see an upside to this: if so let's hear it.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> I thought phil's post was respectful to the point of obsequiency compared to his usual posts



fair enough. but i'm just getting bored of people posting in a way that gives the impression that everyone else has said stuff they haven't.

Having read the thread quite a lot I wasn't aware of anyone defending the assault.

it's that whole straw man thing.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh really?  Because I think anyone with a sane mind would view a group of guys lying in wait to attack a kid twenty years their junior and half their size because of an argument on the internet as pretty pathetic.  But maybe you can see an upside to this: if so let's hear it.



oi! straw man

seriously. stop it. I'm not condoning / defending anything. I'm just saying I'm not going to start outright damning those involved because of all the mitigating cricumstances.

I tend to find that people who take the moral highground in situations like this are the most disturbing characters involved.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> Having read the thread quite a lot I wasn't aware of anyone defending the assault.



Well you're wrong, people have defended it.




			
				peacepete said:
			
		

> I'm not condoning / defending anything. I'm just saying I'm not going to start outright damning those involved because of all the mitigating cricumstances.



What mitigating circumstances?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I also have a sneaking suspicion that although they won't admit it, the victims in this case would rather be assaulted than ignored (just something about their style makes me feel that - I might be wrong)



Yes, I think you probably are very wrong about that.  But hey, there's no need to speculate, the man in question is here among us.  So tell us Revol, which would you prefer: the cold shoulder or the knuckle sandwich?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well you're wrong, people have defended it.



Maybe, but not condoned, which was the word I first used. Which if you'd stuck to instead of gently changing it to 'defended' (a much weaker word I think you'll have to agree) then this discussion would make a whole lot more sense.



> What mitigating circumstances?



In 'anyone with a sane mind' scenario you made no mention of the politics involved, and the personal grief of knowing someone locked up. These are the mitigating circumstances I'm talking of.

Anyway, back to your mindless point scoring. What are you on?


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Yes, I think you probably are very wrong about that.  But hey, there's no need to speculate, the man in question is here among us.  So tell us Revol, which would you prefer: the cold shoulder or the knuckle sandwich?



I know what he'll say and I won't believe it

Oscar Wilde springs to mine: There's only one thing worse than being talked about.

the anarchist version: there's only one thing worse than being tracked down and beaten up by your political counterparts ... etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> OK, but not condoned, which was the word I first used. Which if you'd stuck to instead of gently changing it to 'defended' (a much weaker word I think you'll have to agree)



People have both condoned and defended it.  One person has said the only thing wrong with it was that it did not take place down a dark alley.




			
				peacepete said:
			
		

> In 'anyone with a sane mind' scenario you made no mention of the politics involved, and the personal grief of knowing someone locked up. These are the mitigating circumstances I'm talking of.



Well if I was a mate of Bowden's I'd certainly have been angry at some of the comments on the libcom thread.  But I don't regard them as remotely mitigating a premeditated physical assault, and even if they did, such an assault can only do great damage to Bowden's cause.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 3, 2007)

fair enough

 - I don't really know why I keep getting so angry about this.


----------



## Thora (Nov 3, 2007)

I think Geri and Raw have posted the most sensible things on this thread.


----------



## the button (Nov 3, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think Geri and Raw have posted the most sensible things on this thread.


Yeah. Should have taken revol down a dark alley & slapped him. At least then it wouldn't have marred anyone's enjoyment of the bookfair. Or, indeed, have prevented them from turning up in the first place. 

Sensible policies for a better Britain.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 3, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> i'm asuming you'd accept that it's perfectly fine for someone to be shunned for the kind of abuse these people have been dishing out (I'm thinking of the Jack's  Jef Leurs related comments now).
> 
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that although they won't admit it, the victims in this case would rather be assaulted than ignored (just something about their style makes me feel that - I might be wrong)
> 
> ...



I get where you're coming from but I disagree.  Perhaps I'm just an argumentative bugger.  I personally haven't ever shunned anyone for their views, though I've carried on debates or arguments offline as and when I feel necessary.  

I don't think these libcom guys deserve shunning and I wouldn't have wanted to shun the ABC types even though I disagree with both positions on this issue.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 3, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think Geri and Raw have posted the most sensible things on this thread.



Thora you really ar ea two faced snidey bitch, perhaps next time I see you i can just twat you round the head with something for an argument on the internet instead of actually bothering to have a pleasant chat? of cours eonce again you miss the point that the overgrown gimp who was apparently looking me has never been in an argument with me online or otherwise and just doesn't like what I have to say about the ABC's involvement with his mate.


----------



## Steve Booth (Nov 3, 2007)

I think this is worrying from a 'public image' point of view. What does this look like to people outside the anarchist movement who might be looking in at the anarchist bookfair as a picture of the movement?

If it is the sort of event where fights break out and perhaps escalate, where groups of people go looking for the other anarchists which they disagree with, in order to attack them, is it the sort of event folks would want to bring their children to?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 3, 2007)

as for raw's comments well him and Montevideo are certainly as guilty of bieng rude and obnoxious as anyone else on libcom or here and they've certainly said insulting things to me, still it didn't stop me having a drink and friendly enough bit of banter with Monty in a Dublin pub when I met him and previously to raw's pathetic trumpeting of his lumpen mates cowardly sucker punching i'd have had no problem having a drink with him either. Funny enough everyone else who insult each other over the internet are perfectly capable of getting over it when they meet in real life, having an awkward laugh about the online spats and generally behaving like civilised people, fuck knows I even put them up in my house.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 3, 2007)

Steve Booth said:
			
		

> I think this is worrying from a 'public image' point of view. What does this look like to people outside the anarchist movement who might be looking in at the anarchist bookfair as a picture of the movement?
> 
> If it is the sort of event where fights break out and perhaps escalate, where groups of people go looking for the other anarchists which they disagree with, in order to attack them, is it the sort of event folks would want to bring their children to?



I'd stay out of this is I was you, you;re exactly the type of wingnut who needs shunning by everyone.

p.s. how's your campaign against social security payments going, is it any more sucessful in attacking working class people than sarin gas on commuter trains?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2007)

Didn't montevideo used to post on here about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 3, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Didn't montevideo used to post on here about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS?



the very man.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 3, 2007)

That's a bit nuts tbf.


----------



## treelover (Nov 3, 2007)

Oxpecker, i did it to show the fallacy that what happens on the net is self-contained and I clearly didn't actually mention G profession, nor did I intend to, though she has many times. Further, for what i know of G she seems a decent sort, so for me to hear her endorse violence on a fellow activist ,no matter how odious or not, saddens me.


----------



## rich! (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I didn't - that was Sergei nechayevs email account, quite a big time anarcho I think you'll find.



Do you know how stupid that sentence makes you sound?


----------



## Geri (Nov 4, 2007)

What a bizarre thread. I'm not sure what relevance my occupation has to do with this - I'm a loss adjuster, not an ambassador for world peace.


----------



## Raw SslaC (Nov 4, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> as for raw's comments well him and Montevideo are certainly as guilty of bieng rude and obnoxious as anyone else on libcom or here and they've certainly said insulting things to me, still it didn't stop me having a drink and friendly enough bit of banter with Monty in a Dublin pub when I met him and previously to raw's pathetic trumpeting of his lumpen mates cowardly sucker punching i'd have had no problem having a drink with him either. Funny enough everyone else who insult each other over the internet are perfectly capable of getting over it when they meet in real life, having an awkward laugh about the online spats and generally behaving like civilised people, fuck knows I even put them up in my house.



Not true Revol. YOuhave probably insulted more people than me and have in your 13,000 + posts on Libcom been more obnoxious than me. I've never insulted your activity - what ever that is. I have also never attacked anyone, apart from you and Jack and Alan (and John he he), but they were in response to things which were said. I have never attacked people in prison or tried to undnermine solidarity. Remember Laing o rourke, or euromayday, or beyond ESF, social centres - not one bit of political critique did you post just baseless ridicule.

Raw


----------



## revol68 (Nov 4, 2007)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> Not true Revol. YOuhave probably insulted more people than me and have in your 13,000 + posts on Libcom been more obnoxious than me. I've never insulted your activity - what ever that is. I have also never attacked anyone, apart from you and Jack and Alan (and John he he), but they were in response to things which were said. I have never attacked people in prison or tried to undnermine solidarity. Remember Laing o rourke, or euromayday, or beyond ESF, social centres - not one bit of political critique did you post just baseless ridicule.
> 
> Raw



your soul must be blacker than a miners face cloth with all those lies you tell.

raw the vastmajority of your posts on libcom are pathetic swipes at libcom, it's pathetic but what's worse is this newly found poor little me mentality you've now discovered, i've no problem admitting to being rude and insulting to you and your poor excuse for politics but the notion that it's a one way street is fucking hilarious to anyone with more critical faculties than Attica sucking on lead.

As for attacking someone in prison well I can't say i'd care much if you insulted someone banged up for a brutal sadistic murder but that's besides the point because the issue isn't so much Bowden as how in the name of fuck does he ever count as a political  prisoner and why should people expect anarchists to support him? As I've said regarding the issue of his release i'm personally ambivalent, on the matter of anarchists supporting him as a political prisoner (and as a poster boy for the ABC's newly found 'Prison Abolition' stance) i'm extremely  partisan.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

You are not making sense now revol. Your negative attitude is partly why Jack got a slap... and Raw is right on many things.... 

Either you want things to get better or you want relations between us to get worse - which is it? Make a decision to stop the inane babble... then you can get onto being positive in your life and doing some politics for a change. As I said, if you had more enthusiasm for politics and action I may even begin to like you, it is very very easy to critisise from the sidelines, far far harder to do....


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 4, 2007)

Speaking about criticising from the sidelines I'm finding this in incredibly interesting thread without really knowing what's going on lol


----------



## revol68 (Nov 4, 2007)

> You are not making sense now revol. Your negative attitude is partly why Jack got a slap... and Raw is right on many things....



ah so he who can't be named and his goons just got the wrong end of the happy slapping thing...


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> ah so he who can't be named and his goons just got the wrong end of the happy slapping thing...



Answer the serious question or do you want to be the perpetual fool - the court jester, taking the mickey out of the court until they decide to chop off your head?


----------



## JHE (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Answer the serious question or do you want to be the perpetual fool - the court jester, taking the mickey out of the court until they decide to chop off your head?



How odd that an 'Anarchist' like you should cast himself and his chums as  (head-chopping) monarchs!

Attica, the King Narch!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You are not making sense now revol. Your negative attitude is partly why Jack got a slap... and Raw is right on many things....
> 
> Either you want things to get better or you want relations between us to get worse - which is it? Make a decision to stop the inane babble... then you can get onto being positive in your life and doing some politics for a change. As I said, if you had more enthusiasm for politics and action I may even begin to like you, it is very very easy to critisise from the sidelines, far far harder to do....



You've still failed to explain why hitting someone is going to make relations get better?


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 4, 2007)

At least he who can't be named didn't try and blow the pub up with plastic explosives!  He sounds like a bit of a plum tbh but he must be cool as he went to prison (though not that cool as no decapitation was involved, just boring old gbh).

I wish I was an anarchist


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> I wish I was an anarchist




Nah, cos then you'd have to square off the non-aggression principle thing and that's hard work innit


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Nah, cos then you'd have to square off the non-aggression principle thing and that's hard work innit



Fair enough - I do hate hard work after all.  Do you get lazy anarchists?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> Fair enough - I do hate hard work after all.  Do you get lazy anarchists?



Reckon so


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> Fair enough - I do hate hard work after all.  Do you get lazy anarchists?


Most definitely


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 4, 2007)

Bonus 

Most anarchists are ugly though


----------



## Thora (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> Bonus
> 
> Most anarchists are ugly though


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> Bonus
> 
> Most anarchists are ugly though




They do seem to be able to be neatly divided up into two distinct camps. Hit with the crusty ugly stick or cute/hot e.g. Revol/Jef. How weird is that ...


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 4, 2007)

Thora said:
			
		

>



Sorry love, not interested.


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> They do seem to be able to be neatly divided up into two distinct camps. Hit with the crusty ugly stick or cute/hot e.g. Revol/Jef. How weird is that ...



Hairy leprechauns or manky haired greasy teenagers?  No ta . . .


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> As for attacking someone in prison well I can't say i'd care much if you insulted someone banged up for a brutal sadistic murder but that's besides the point because the issue isn't so much Bowden as how in the name of fuck does he ever count as a political  prisoner and why should people expect anarchists to support him? As I've said regarding the issue of his release i'm personally ambivalent, on the matter of anarchists supporting him as a political prisoner (and as a poster boy for the ABC's newly found 'Prison Abolition' stance) i'm extremely  partisan.


Can't you understand that someone who has done 25 years chokey may be slightly better positioned to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of our current penal system than you are? The fact of committing a heinous crime are undeniable yet you seem unable to move beyond this fact and understand that life is complex. People change. You grow up (hopefully).


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Can't you understand that someone who has done 25 years chokey may be slightly better positioned to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of our current penal system than you are? The fact of committing a heinous crime are undeniable yet you seem unable to move beyond this fact and understand that life is complex. People change. You grow up (hopefully).



Well yes, of course that's a valid point of view. But are you advocating co-ercing Revol to agree by way of a slap or threat of a slap or condoning others doing same? (One of which was originally banged up because of alleged involvement in a slapping incident).


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

sam/phallocrat said:
			
		

> Hairy leprechauns or manky haired greasy teenagers?  No ta . . .



I reckon you might have fancied hitting Jef


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> But are you advocating co-ercing Revol to agree by way of a slap or threat of a slap or condoning others doing same? (One of which was originally banged up because of alleged involvement in a slapping incident).


Where exactly did i do that? My comment was clearly aimed at the childish and nonsensical post that prompted the response. I've made my views on the subject transparently clear earlier on in this conversation so why don't you go back and read it?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Where exactly did i do that? My comment was clearly aimed at the childish and nonsensical post that prompted the response. I've made my views on the subject transparently clear earlier on in this conversation so why don't you go back and read it?



It was a question Paulie, not a statement. Which you've answered if you say your earlier views haven't changed.

So if I broadly agree with revol on substance if not form, are my views 'childish and nonsensical'?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

And don't think I missed the use of selective quoting, Paulie.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> How odd that an 'Anarchist' like you should cast himself and his chums as  (head-chopping) monarchs!
> 
> Attica, the King Narch!



DO you know what literary fiction is?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You've still failed to explain why hitting someone is going to make relations get better?



I have said we need to improve things from where we are *now*. That is the only thing that matters.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Can't you understand that someone who has done 25 years chokey may be slightly better positioned to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of our current penal system than you are? The fact of committing a heinous crime are undeniable yet you seem unable to move beyond this fact and understand that life is complex. People change. You grow up (hopefully).



This is an essential point I fink.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I have said we need to improve things from where we are *now*. That is the only thing that matters.



So actions in the past have no bearing?  Funny position for someone always banging on about praxis.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> How odd that an 'Anarchist' like you should cast himself and his chums as  (head-chopping) monarchs!
> 
> Attica, the King Narch!



To clarify it is storytelling, making something understandable through the use of an idiom.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So actions in the past have no bearing?  Funny position for someone always banging on about praxis.



No, praxis is forward looking.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No, praxis is forward looking.



Nothing about learning from past action then.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> To clarify it is storytelling, making something understandable through the use of an idiom.




It's the choice of idiom that is telling. But you know that - and so did JHE, and so do many of the rest of us.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Very good post.
> 
> I can't believe what a storm in a teacup this has become. It was a slap - hardly crime of the century. I'm sick of people thinking that because this is the internet, they can say things to people and not expect there to be any consequences. If someone spoke to me in a pub the way I have been spoken to on the internet, they would get a pint thrown over them or worse.
> 
> The only mistake made was doing it on the day of the bookfair, he who cannot be named should have done it on some other occasion when there was nobody around.



This is what many experienced people think...


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No, praxis is forward looking.



Not necessarily.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> It's the choice of idiom that is telling. But you know that - and so did JHE, and so do many of the rest of us.



It doesn't tell anything, there is no causal or essential connection to anything. Just the wild speculation of youth


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.



Essentially it is because it is the joining up of theory AND practice, and practice can never be in the past....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> It was a question Paulie, not a statement. Which you've answered if you say your earlier views haven't changed.
> 
> So if I broadly agree with revol on substance if not form, are my views 'childish and nonsensical'?


Not neccessarily, it depends on how you express your views, imo. I haven't criticised you yet you appear to feel that I'm getting at you. I'm clear that people who proclaim to be free thinking should be able to discuss and debate issues and ideas without the need for violence to arise. That doesn't mean i support idiots using cyberspace for verbal abuse, that would get them thrown out of most local boozers if they were lucky.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nothing about learning from past action then.



In theory of course, but praxis is the joining up of theory *with *practice, it is on the move towards the future.


----------



## the button (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Essentially it is because it is the joining up of theory AND practice, and practice can never be in the past....


And where does the theory come from? Unless you make it up as you go along. Which would never happen.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Essentially it is because it is the joining up of theory AND practice, and practice can never be in the past....



I was talking about praxis being the here-and-now not a prediction of the future which will inevitably form/reform according to however praxis applies if it exists.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> It doesn't tell anything, there is no causal or essential connection to anything. Just the wild speculation of youth



I don't object to youth and all its angsty ways. You?


----------



## soulman (Nov 4, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> except they don't have agreed politic stances as such, they are just a collective of people involved in the maintaining of the libcom website, and it gets more absurd because the person the subnormal lumpens were stalking was me and I am not and never have been a member of the Libcom collective.



The Libcom collective not having agreed political stances, or at least not being honest about them, is the reason that things become personal. If there was an agreed political stance, something new you had to say, then disagreements could be worked out and discussed. As it is those remnants of the AYN who continue to stumble around throwing adolescent insults shouldn't really be surprised when they receive a proportionate response.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> In theory of course, but praxis is the joining up of theory *with *practice, it is on the move towards the future.



Theory comes from...where?  Do you just pluck it out of thin air?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Not neccessarily, it depends on how you express your views, imo. I haven't criticised you yet you appear to feel that I'm getting at you. I'm clear that people who proclaim to be free thinking should be able to discuss and debate issues and ideas without the need for violence to arise. That doesn't mean i support idiots using cyberspace for verbal abuse, that would get them thrown out of most local boozers if they were lucky.



So _how_ I express my views is more important than my views?

Are my views 'childish and nonsensical' by virtue of the fact that they broadly agree with revol's?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Theory comes from...where?  Do you just pluck it out of thin air?



Of course it comes from the past, but it joins with practice which necessitates the development of new theory in new conditions created by practice. This is Praxis, it has a forward dynamic built into it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> The Libcom collective not having agreed political stances, or at least not being honest about them, is the reason that things become personal. If there was an agreed political stance, something new you had to say, then disagreements could be worked out and discussed. As it is those remnants of the AYN who continue to stumble around throwing adolescent insults shouldn't really be surprised when they receive a proportionate response.



Sensible. Many experienced people will agree with this too.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Of course it comes from the past, but it joins with practice which necessitates the development of new theory in new conditions created by practice. This is Praxis, it has a forward dynamic built into it.



So what's been learnt from this incident then?  It seems to be that what's been learnt is that resorting to violence in the first instance, alienates and divides people.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I don't object to youth and all its angsty ways. You?



I prefer chavs and asbo kids to limpcokkers anyday


----------



## the button (Nov 4, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> The Libcom collective not having agreed political stances,


Apart from this, obviously: -

http://libcom.org/thought/introduction-why-an-everyday-manifesto

To be fair, they have been dishonestly hiding it the website since October 2006 (in its current form). Bastards.  



> As it is those remnants of the AYN who continue to stumble around throwing adolescent insults shouldn't really be surprised when they receive a proportionate response.



I would point out that one of the people attacked at the bookfair wasn't even a member of the libcom collective. 

Still having a go at people on the grounds that their girlfriend has disabled kids, btw, soulman?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So what's been learnt from this incident then?  It seems to be that what's been learnt is that resorting to violence in the first instance, alienates and divides people.



No. What matters is improving the relationship in the movement from where we are, which means prioritising some large non sectarian assembly as a means to do so. perhaps there should be a delegate meeting first to thrash out an agenda and then thrash the limpcok delegate.    whoops.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> The Libcom collective not having agreed political stances, or at least not being honest about them, is the reason that things become personal. If there was an agreed political stance, something new you had to say, then disagreements could be worked out and discussed. As it is those remnants of the AYN who continue to stumble around throwing adolescent insults shouldn't really be surprised when they receive a proportionate response.



Libcom's a maelstrom of differing individual and collective views. So much a maelstrom that I find it hard to post there (and I realise that reflects adversely on myself). 

There's so much there you can get lost.

But if you want to find something that you agree with or disagree with, that's not hard. Like any website.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No. What matters is improving the relationship in the movement from where we are, which means prioritising some large non sectarian assembly as a means to do so. perhaps there should be a delegate meeting first to thrash out an agenda and then thrash the limpcok delegate.    whoops.



In other words, you're not willing to think about what happened?  You want to move forward, yet still get your little digs in?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I prefer chavs and asbo kids to limpcokkers anyday



A great day for praxis.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> So _how_ I express my views is more important than my views?
> 
> Are my views 'childish and nonsensical' by virtue of the fact that they broadly agree with revol's?


If you call me a cunt simply because you disgree with me, then i might not engage with your argument, put it that way. I really can't be arsed to piss about in semantic debates tbf. I've made myself very clear, whether you want to accept that and move on is up to you.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> In other words, you're not willing to think about what happened?  You want to move forward, yet still get your little digs in?



No, i do think seriously about what happened, I think that parts of the anarchist movement have little knowledge/experience of class struggle and what is violence and display way too much angst. I also think they have no perspective too.

Yes, I do want to move forward, it is me who is clearly showing the way forward is to have a joint meeting to try to resolve and develop the issues the movement has with each other. Limpcok know I despise them yet I am willing to debate with them, it is a shame their politics are so backward that they can never take responsibility for what they do and present their views publically, where they can actually be tested. IN REAL POLITICAL PRACTICE. 

I think this is cos they know they would be shown up, and this is the rub, limpcok have no practice, no responsibility to the wider movement, and then expect us to tolerate them regardless. Politics does not work like that, it is time they grew up, or relations in the movement WILL deteriorate. Of that I am sure.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> A great day for praxis.



It is a working class thing. The same reason why Jack had one stuck on him.


----------



## soulman (Nov 4, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> Apart from this, obviously: -
> 
> http://libcom.org/thought/introduction-why-an-everyday-manifesto
> 
> To be fair, they have been dishonestly hiding it the website since October 2006 (in its current form). Bastards.



You should be telling revol that, not me.





> I would point out that one of the people attacked at the bookfair wasn't even a member of the libcom collective.
> 
> Still having a go at people on the grounds that their girlfriend has disabled kids, btw, soulman?



When they behave like idiots, and bring their gf and her kids into it, yes. What would you suggest?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No, i do think seriously about what happened, I think that parts of the anarchist movement have little knowledge/experience of class struggle and what is violence and display way too much angst. I also think they have no perspective too.
> 
> Yes, I do want to move forward, it is me who is clearly showing the way forward is to have a joint meeting to try to resolve and develop the issues the movement has with each other. *Limpcok* know I despise them yet I am willing to debate with them, it is a shame their politics are so backward that they can never take responsibility for what they do and present their views publically, where they can actually be tested. IN REAL POLITICAL PRACTICE.
> 
> I think this is cos they know they would be shown up, and this is the rub, limpcok have no practice, no responsibility to the wider movement, and then expect us to tolerate them regardless. Politics does not work like that, it is time they grew up, or relations in the movement WILL deteriorate. Of that I am sure.



Maybe if you want to move forward, you could stop with the childish name calling?  Isn't that one of the problems you have with Libcom in the first place?  So why do it yourself?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Maybe if you want to move forward, you could stop with the childish name calling?  Isn't that one of the problems you have with Libcom in the first place?  So why do it yourself?


Self evident really innit?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> It is a working class thing. The same reason why Jack had one stuck on him.




Working class thing? Inferring that the working class sort out their battles by way of a smack cos they can't reason it out?

You absolute tosser.


----------



## the button (Nov 4, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> You should be telling revol that, not me.


revol, who is not & has never been a member of the libcom collective. He's just a poster on the forums, much like myself. Except shorter & not as good looking. 



> When they behave like idiots, and bring their gf and her kids into it, yes. What would you suggest?



I'm more interested in what you suggest, tbh: that someone be "nailed to the floor and doused in petrol." And then when they jokingly respond "peace & love," you quote it & say, "You'll need that with your girlfriend's damaged kids." 

Makes a bit of effing & blinding from wee revol pale in comparison, doesn't it?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Maybe if you want to move forward, you could stop with the childish name calling?  Isn't that one of the problems you have with Libcom in the first place?  So why do it yourself?



I enjoy calling them it, it is funny. People are laughing about the use of the phrase 'limpcokkers' - people who i do not see regularly were in the pub last night after the Durham bookfair...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I enjoy calling them it, it is funny. People are laughing about the use of the phrase 'limpcokkers' - people who i do not see regularly were in the pub last night after the Durham bookfair...



So if someone punched you because of that, it would be OK?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Working class thing? Inferring that the working class sort out their battles by way of a smack cos they can't reason it out?
> 
> You absolute tosser.



I did not say that. You are projecting with your simplistic liberal moralising. Evidence, evidence!


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So if someone punched you because of that, it would be OK?



I have already said 'bring it on' earlier on in this thread. Limpcokkers can't fight their way out of a paper bag.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I enjoy calling them it, it is funny. People are laughing about the use of the phrase 'limpcokkers' - people who i do not see regularly were in the pub last night after the Durham bookfair...




Yeah that embarassing Durham Bookfair with three-ish tables in a church hall, and the after party where - what 10 of you max? - giggled about how amusing it was to call people 'limpcockers' and proclaim the anarchist movement going forward.

You are a fucking joke.


----------



## soulman (Nov 4, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> revol, who is not & has never been a member of the libcom collective. He's just a poster on the forums, much like myself. Except shorter & not as good looking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was a proportionate response to the shit I got from the start from _some_ of the posters on there. You'll have to decide for yourself if it was a jokey reference to allegations of brutality in Ireland. You can decide for yourself?


----------



## Steve Booth (Nov 4, 2007)

revol68 said:
			
		

> I'd stay out of this is I was you, you;re exactly the type of wingnut who needs shunning by everyone.
> 
> p.s. how's your campaign against social security payments going, is it any more sucessful in attacking working class people than sarin gas on commuter trains?


Revol68 - Same old same old same old tape loop - refer to previous.

I repeat the question: *Does this kind of incident make the anarchist movement seem attractive to people outside it?*

Over the years, there often seems to be 'incidents' at the anarchist bookfair, for instance the man from the libertarian alliance being excluded, the exclusion of the Catholic Worker group, the Cunningham Amendment being described as 'irrelevant' in the bookfair brochure, people slagging off Jonathan Simcock and 'Total Liberty' in intemperate terms.

Tolerant lot these anarchists....


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Yeah that embarassing Durham Bookfair with three-ish tables in a church hall, and the after party where - what 10 of you max? - giggled about how amusing it was to call people 'limpcockers' and proclaim the anarchist movement going forward.
> 
> You are a fucking joke.



You do not know what you are talking about clearly - you too are digging your own grave.

Much like revol here - http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6681252&postcount=8

'Read my lips' - either relations in the movement improve or the likes of you/limpcok will have far far worse things happen to them. And no this is not a threat. I have seen the future. There IS a choice, either you take responsibility for your simplistic nonsense or you want things to get worse. 

Which is it?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You do not know what you are talking about clearly - you too are digging your own grave.
> 
> Much like revol here - http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6681252&postcount=8
> 
> ...


Fucking grow up man






			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Maybe if you want to move forward, you could stop with the childish name calling?  Isn't that one of the problems you have with Libcom in the first place?  So why do it yourself?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I have already said 'bring it on' earlier on in this thread. Limpcokkers can't fight their way out of a paper bag.



If that's your brand of politics, then no thanks.  Doesn't sound much like anarchism to me, sounds like thuggery and domination.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

You have to accept difference before you can move forward, we move from where we are, not from where moralisers want us to be. There should be no preconditions before a large assembly, although as I have indicated there should be an agenda...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You have to accept difference before you can move forward, we move from where we are, not from where moralisers want us to be. There should be no preconditions before a large assembly, although as I have indicated there should be an agenda...



How is resorting to violence accepting differences?  Seems quite the opposite to me.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If that's your brand of politics, then no thanks.  Doesn't sound much like anarchism to me, sounds like thuggery and domination.



I am an individual, you are projecting way way too much, like all good liberals.

If you read what I have said consistently, I want a large assembly with the intention of IMPROVING the relations within the movement. This is NOT thuggery and domination but you appear too blind to see.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You do not know what you are talking about clearly - you too are digging your own grave.
> 
> Much like revol here - http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6681252&postcount=8
> 
> ...



So, I'm digging my own grave.

What grave is that Attica - and are you going to be the one that kills me to achieve it?

Do be clear. I'm taking this shit seriously now because it's clear that you/the people that you support have crossed the line from Internet to real life smackings.

So what are you suggesting about digging my own grave - I want to know. 

Be clear and quickly please.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> How is resorting to violence accepting differences?  Seems quite the opposite to me.


 
WTF?

Who is resorting to violence, I have said we need a large assembly to sort out the problems not more violence.


----------



## the button (Nov 4, 2007)

soulman said:
			
		

> You'll have to decide for yourself if it was a jokey reference to allegations of brutality in Ireland. You can decide for yourself?


Oh yes. I can see how that would fit with the "dousing in petrol" part. Not the reference to the damaged kids, however. Unless autism is in some way linked with sectarian violence. Ah well.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> So, I'm digging my own grave.
> 
> What grave is that Attica - and are you going to be the one that kills me to achieve it?
> 
> ...



No. I do not jump to what young small boys say.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> And don't think I missed the use of selective quoting, Paulie.


I've only just noticed this sentence. Can you explain what it is you're implying here?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I am an individual, you are projecting way way too much, like all good liberals.



In what sense are you using the word "liberal" here?  While you're at it, you can tell in what sense you're using the word "projecting" too.




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> If you read what I have said consistently, I want a large assembly with the intention of IMPROVING the relations within the movement. This is NOT thuggery and domination but you appear too blind to see.



So being OK with punching or being punched because of differences is going to improve relations?

cesare's right, you're a fucking joke


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> WTF?
> 
> Who is resorting to violence, I have said we need a large assembly to sort out the problems not more violence.



You and your mates are resorting to violence - you know, the discussion we've been having over the past week?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No. I do not jump to what young small boys say.



I'm not a small boy.

You said that I'm digging my own grave & you've indicated your support of real life violence.

Clarify your position here.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You and your mates are resorting to violence - you know, the discussion we've been having over the past week?




Not us, that's the PAST. It is history, an isolated rare event, a one off unrelated to anything. 

What matters is improving the relations within the movement as a whole so things do not deteriorate further. Anyway, this is going round in circles - you believe what you want. Liberal. I cannot be bothered with you anymore.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So being OK with punching or being punched because of differences is going to improve relations?
> 
> cesare's right, you're a fucking joke



  Doh! DO you practice being stupid or do you have to work at it?

Clearly I am talking about a large anarchist assembly as the way forward. Stop it, you are just a silly pest taking something from the past as a determinant of the future. That is stupid conservative thought, not anarchist.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I'm not a small boy.
> 
> You said that I'm digging my own grave & you've indicated your support of real life violence.
> 
> Clarify your position here.


No.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Clarify your position here.


I'm still waiting for an answer to this please 






			
				Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> I've only just noticed this sentence. Can you explain what it is you're implying here?


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No.



Thought as much.

Windbag.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

Fucking explain yourself or fuck off.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Thought as much.
> 
> Windbag.


 
Arsehole.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> I've only just noticed this sentence. Can you explain what it is you're implying here?




You ignored what I said about it being a fair position and chose to quote me without that.

For me that means that you ignore what I accepted about a fair position and choose to focus on the point of difference.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Fucking explain yourself or fuck off.



Who are you talking to?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Who are you talking to?


 
It's clearly U!


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Arsehole.



You've now called me an arsehole so at some point I'll slap you, you cunt.


Still waiting to hear what you mean about me digging my own grave.

I'm not going to let go of it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> You ignored what I said about it being a fair position and chose to quote me without that.
> 
> For me that means that you ignore what I accepted about a fair position and choose to focus on the point of difference.


Ok, you want me to agree with what you say before going onto deal with the substantive point at issue, when it is clear that the thrust of what you write is to question rather than confirm? I didn't ignore what you said, i simply took issue with your rather simple minded comparison of expression of dispute with someone's view point as implying an acceptance of violent retribution.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Not us, that's the PAST. It is history, an isolated rare event, a one off unrelated to anything.
> 
> What matters is improving the relations within the movement as a whole so things do not deteriorate further. Anyway, this is going round in circles - you believe what you want. Liberal. I cannot be bothered with you anymore.



Do you know what "Liberal" means btw?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Do you know what "Liberal" means btw?


Yes and I said it with contempt too.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> You've now called me an arsehole so at some point I'll slap you, you cunt.
> 
> 
> Still waiting to hear what you mean about me digging my own grave.
> ...



You'll be dead before you get an answer.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yes and I said it with contempt too.



In what way has anything I've written on this thread got anything to do with being a Liberal?  I rather suspect you're using words you don't know the meaning of.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> In what way has anything I've written on this thread got anything to do with being a Liberal?  I rather suspect you're using words you don't know the meaning of.



   Bollocks.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You'll be dead before you get an answer.



Maybe. You arranging that?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Maybe. You arranging that?



you will never get an answer out of me.


----------



## cesare (Nov 4, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> you will never get an answer out of me.



I don't really need an answer out of you.

In the absence of an answer to my polite question, I can only assume that your reference to me 'digging my own grave' when I disagree with you and your mates that do the real life smackings, is that you are threatening my personal safety.

So be it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 4, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I don't really need an answer out of you.
> 
> In the absence of an answer to my polite question, I can only assume that your reference to me 'digging my own grave' when I disagree with you and your mates that do the real life smackings, is that you are threatening my personal safety.
> 
> So be it.



You assume what you want, you will be even more stupid for doing so.


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You assume what you want, you will be even more stupid for doing so.




It's clear what you want me to assume by refusing to answer my polite question when I ask what you mean about digging my own grave.


Now you've threatened my personal safety and called me stupid. How do you suggest I should react?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Look at this - https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385131.html

And you wonder why we get frustrated by purist liberals who do not know what struggle is at all, never mind class struggle...


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> It's clear what you want me to assume by refusing to answer my polite question when I ask what you mean about digging my own grave.
> 
> Now you've threatened my personal safety and called me stupid. How do you suggest I should react?



No it is not clear at all - I am delighting in the confusion in your small brain, and yes, you are stupid.    I suggest you calm down, have a spliff or two and think sweet thoughts.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 5, 2007)

you really are a fucking rocket aren't you?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

I am surprised your ma lets you stay up so late.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> 'Read my lips' - either relations in the movement improve or the likes of you/limpcok will have far far worse things happen to them. And no this is not a threat.



Yes, actually it *is* a threat.  You stupid moron.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Tit.




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> 'Read my lips' - either relations in the movement improve or the likes of you/limpcok will have far far worse things happen to them. And no this is not a threat. I have seen the future. There IS a choice, either you take responsibility for your simplistic nonsense or you want things to get worse.
> 
> Which is it?



No, I was right first time. It is an objective description which implies nothing, you can project all you want but it is far from the only story. Here I am describing the stage at which we have choices in front of us, it is clear to all that there is animosity, so it falls on us all to solve it together, without prejeudice.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Who is resorting to violence



You are.  Not only are you justifying the violence that took place on Saturday, you have made repeated veiled threats of violence on this thread (several of them against a woman), and at least one explicit threat of violence.  Are you ashamed of yourself now that you're sober?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Tit.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was right first time. It is an objective description which implies nothing, you can project all you want but it is far from the only story. Here I am describing the stage at which we have choices in front of us, it is clear to all that there is animosity, so it falls on us all to solve it together, without prejeudice.



Ah good, you're still here.  I'd like to know why you are threatening people with violence, please.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> 'Read my lips' - either relations in the movement improve or the likes of you/limpcok will have far far worse things happen to them. And no this is not a threat.



OK, let's spell it out.  What "far far worse things" are going to happen to the likes of Cesare?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2007)

*To state the obvious ...*




			
				Steve Booth said:
			
		

> I repeat the question : *Does this kind of incident make the anarchist movement seem attractive to people outside it?*



Not very ..... 

And this thread's hardly any kind of great advertisement either ....


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You are.  Not only are you justifying the violence that took place on Saturday, you have made repeated veiled threats of violence on this thread (several of them against a woman), and at least one explicit threat of violence.  Are you ashamed of yourself now that you're sober?



  Useless liberal. You would slander a dog for barking at you.

Not me pal, and I have made no threats of violence. I have described the likely outcome of a further deterioration of relations within the movement. That is all, you and other liberals like to project an extremely minor incident and make it more important than it is. I am talking about the animosity within the movement and how to solve it. You clearly are not and want to stoke up the bonfire further rather than improve things which can only start at a general anarchist assembly, in practice, rather than your inane angst on the web.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> OK, let's spell it out.  What "far far worse things" are going to happen to the likes of Cesare?



no.


----------



## rich! (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> improve things which can only start at a general anarchist assembly, in practice, rather than your inane angst on the web.



So you want everyone who disagrees with you to turn up somewhere your thugs can beat them for their disagreements?

Can you see why there's not a chance of that working?


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No it is not clear at all - I am delighting in the confusion in your small brain, and yes, you are stupid.    I suggest you calm down, have a spliff or two and think sweet thoughts.




seems to me that if dishing out slappings is now the way forward, you REALLY need someone to kick your teeth down your fucking throat


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> You do not know what you are talking about clearly - you too are digging your own grave.
> 
> Much like revol here - http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6681252&postcount=8
> 
> ...


 
Nice.  Do as we want or we'll beat you.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.


----------



## rich! (Nov 5, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Nice.  Do as we want or we'll beat you.
> 
> Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.



Your understanding of the New Compassionate Anarchism has been measured to be incorrect. Please report to the Re-Education Center to be reprogrammed.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 5, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> Your understanding of the New Compassionate Anarchism has been measured to be incorrect. Please report to the Re-Education Center to be reprogrammed.


 






libcommers feeling foolish after meeting Attica for a robust debate.


----------



## rich! (Nov 5, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

>


Is it just me, or is the kid at the left crying out for "I can be soap now pliez?".

hmm.

*looks out the window for Attica's lot*
*hears knock on door*
Wish me luck.
*hides laptop*


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Useless liberal. You would slander a dog for barking at you.
> 
> Not me pal, and I have made no threats of violence. I have described the likely outcome of a further deterioration of relations within the movement. That is all, you and other liberals like to project an extremely minor incident and make it more important than it is. I am talking about the animosity within the movement and how to solve it. You clearly are not and want to stoke up the bonfire further rather than improve things which can only start at a general anarchist assembly, in practice, rather than your inane angst on the web.



Stop using words you don't know the meaning of


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Stop using words you don't know the meaning of


  
Wanker.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> So you want everyone who disagrees with you to turn up somewhere your thugs can beat them for their disagreements?
> 
> Can you see why there's not a chance of that working?



So you are saying that at a general anarchist assembly, with many different groups and people there, that limpcokkers would get attacked? 

You sir, are a fool and a wanker. It simply would not happen.

I have already said there should be a delegate meeting to discuss the agenda.

I know this is awfully grown up to expect, and anarchists usually ONLY get together once a year at the bookfair so they do not practice politics regularly. But I am talking about serious grown up politics, about how to take the movement forward and improve relations. 

You lot seem to want to fantasise about a really minor and irrelevant incident.

You are wankers - in the true meaning of the word so fk U blaggy


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> seems to me that if dishing out slappings is now the way forward, you REALLY need someone to kick your teeth down your fucking throat



Anytime small boy small penis   You would go home via casualty


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Anytime small boy small penis   You would go home via casualty




christ, but you're pathetic.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> In theory of course, but praxis is the joining up of theory *with *practice, it is on the move towards the future.



eh?  

That sounds like one of those inscrutable nuggets of zen 'wisdom' that Trippitaka the monk would impart at the end of each episode of _'Monkey'._


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> eh?
> 
> That sounds like one of those inscrutable nuggets of zen 'wisdom' that Trippitaka the monk would impart at the end of each episode of _'Monkey'._




but is Attica a  boy playing a girl, a girl playing a boy, a girl playing a girl, or a boy playing a boy?

or an utter cunt of indeterminate gender?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Wanker.



I rest my case


----------



## gurrier (Nov 5, 2007)

Is this thread a secret attempt to prove that UK anarchism is even more embarrassing than UK trotskyism? 

(phildwyer + revol68 + attica = QED).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2007)

The Attica in all its glory.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

It does show there are serious differences that some people do not want to improve.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> christ, but you're pathetic.



You are the leading exponent of that art.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> eh?
> 
> That sounds like one of those inscrutable nuggets of zen 'wisdom' that Trippitaka the monk would impart at the end of each episode of _'Monkey'._



Most people and so called political groups have a Non Marxist/anarchist understanding of Praxis - they keep the 2 separate, or often do theory without practice, or practice without theory, or theory which they do not test in their social democratic practice. 

It is false to see theory* here*, and practice over *there*.

It is the joining up of theory and practice in class struggle, which inevitably influences and changes political surroundings/ambiance/possibilities which necessitates the generation of new theory, which changes the quality of 'theory' and 'practice' on the move to create *Praxis*. This is a dialectical understanding of what is needed and something which the MAYDAY magazine is working towards.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> It does show there are serious differences that some people do not want to improve.



Being as different as possible to what you are has become an obsession since reading this thread.


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

The joining up of theory and practice in class struggle, it is, which inevitably influences and changes political surroundings/ambiance/possibilities which necessitates the generation of new theory, which to create praxis changes the quality of 'theory' and 'practice' on the move.  Needed and something, this is a dialectical understanding of what is which the mayday magazine is working towards hmmm.


----------



## the button (Nov 5, 2007)

:d


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> The joining up of theory and practice in class struggle, it is, which inevitably influences and changes political surroundings/ambiance/possibilities which necessitates the generation of new theory, which to create praxis changes the quality of 'theory' and 'practice' on the move.  Needed and something, this is a dialectical understanding of what is which the mayday magazine is working towards hmmm.



Either you want to improve or you do not. Which is it?


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Either you want to improve or you do not. Which is it?



To, improve as an anarchist one has to be an anarchist, want to.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 5, 2007)

OK, I'll take this seriously for a minute.  Attica, you're asking that question.  I think the answer is that everyone would prefer to have an improved anarchist movement in the UK.  I don't disagree that some sort of proper conference might be a good idea.

But there is plenty of other indications that you want it to be on your terms.  You've offered no conciliatory gestures, other than to alternate between defendung the use of violence to settle online disagreements, and to continually attack verbally those you disagree with.  No attempt to rise above it at all.  Combine that with the actual threat that you made against people who disagree earlier and you'll excuse everyone for believing that really your heart's not in it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> To, improve as an anarchist one has to be an anarchist, want to.



This seems confused to me, but going in the right direction. Please could somebody clarify.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> This seems confused to me, but going in the right direction. Please could somebody clarify.




jesus. you're not that bright, are you?


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> jesus. you're not that bright, are you?



I is teh naughty


----------



## the button (Nov 5, 2007)

On telly yesterday afternoon as well, it was.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I is teh naughty




A spanking he will you give


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 5, 2007)

the button said:
			
		

> On telly yesterday afternoon as well, it was.


This thread was on telly yesterday? Or the ABF was?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> OK, I'll take this seriously for a minute.  Attica, you're asking that question.  I think the answer is that everyone would prefer to have an improved anarchist movement in the UK.  I don't disagree that some sort of proper conference might be a good idea.
> 
> But there is plenty of other indications that you want it to be on your terms.  You've offered no conciliatory gestures, other than to alternate between defendung the use of violence to settle online disagreements, and to continually attack verbally those you disagree with.  No attempt to rise above it at all.  Combine that with the actual threat that you made against people who disagree earlier and you'll excuse everyone for believing that really your heart's not in it.



As I have already said, we start from where we are, not where moralisers want us to be. Of course I will continually attack people I have differences with, why shouldn't I. I am not bigger than the movement - or am I?

One look at MATB would forgive you for thinking that!!!!!!!!!!!!  

It is not about individuals changing - it is about the movement relating to each other better politically in their organisational forms. Whilst I agree individuals are involved, it is organisationally that it is important.
Limpcok cannot hold their hands up and plead innocence when they enable and protect idiots to say what they want regardless. 

It is politically that we need to work better as a movement, these ABC things should not really happen in public and it certainly should not have escalated. BUT - that is the past, where we go forward from here is the important part, so it does not happen again. That can only mean the anarchist movement getting together more regularly to iron out and solve any potential differences so that we can all work better together. There is no other way.


----------



## the button (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> A spanking he will you give


Live in hope, I do.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> jesus. you're not that bright, are you?



I do not like to assume something when it is not there. What was said did not make sense, although you could glean a general meaning it wasn't specific. The devil IS in the detail.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 5, 2007)

But do you think we can move forward from a position when people aren't even pretending to be civil to each other?


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> A spanking he will you give



And me bitter names call.  Beware, he must beware because aggression leads to hate leads to the dark side, hmmm yesssss


----------



## rekil (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> 'limpcock' X 57ish






			
				Attica said:
			
		

> Anytime small boy small penis


A sad case of Freudian projection if ever there was one.


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I do not like to assume something when it is not there. What was said did not make sense, although you could glean a general meaning it wasn't specific. The devil IS in the detail.




oh jesus christ, you're beyond hope


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I am not bigger than the movement - or am I?




you utter utter utter UTTER fucking cunt


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh jesus christ, you're beyond hope




Wicked to mock the afflicted, it is.


----------



## peacepete (Nov 5, 2007)

I think it would be a very bad idea to get more than three people together to discuss this very minor issue. An anarchist gathering/meeting/conference is always a good idea if people can spare the time. Libcom vs Attica should not be an agenda of one.

IMO


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Wicked to mock the afflicted, it is.




sorry, can you clarify - I can only glean a general meaning.


----------



## cesare (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> sorry, can you clarify - I can only glean a general meaning.



In the detail, the devil is.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

peacepete said:
			
		

> I think it would be a very bad idea to get more than three people together to discuss this very minor issue. An anarchist gathering/meeting/conference is always a good idea if people can spare the time. Libcom vs Attica should not be an agenda of one.
> 
> IMO



We need more politics


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you utter utter utter UTTER fucking cunt



Yet I have things to say and you do not


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> I am not bigger than the movement - or am I?



Never mind praxis, its hubris you should worry about.  And pathos.


----------



## JHE (Nov 5, 2007)

This dispute can only be resolved by all sides agreeing to accept the ruling of an impartial and fair-minded arbitrator.  I nominate the eminent criminologist, Dr T Barking.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 5, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Never mind praxis, its hubris you should worry about.  And pathos.



The Musketeers are after Attica


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 5, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Never mind praxis, its hubris you should worry about.  And pathos.



Plenty of hubris but no pathos....


----------



## Dubversion (Nov 5, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> The Musketeers are after Attica




I love you


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Plenty of hubris but no pathos....



Catharsis?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2007)

Not forgetting...






Louis MacNeice


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 6, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> Most people and so called political groups have a Non Marxist/anarchist understanding of Praxis - they keep the 2 separate, or often do theory without practice, or practice without theory, or theory which they do not test in their social democratic practice.
> 
> It is false to see theory* here*, and practice over *there*.
> 
> It is the joining up of theory and practice in class struggle, which inevitably influences and changes political surroundings/ambiance/possibilities which necessitates the generation of new theory, which changes the quality of 'theory' and 'practice' on the move to create *Praxis*. This is a dialectical understanding of what is needed and something which the MAYDAY magazine is working towards.



so let me get this right .. PRAXIS is what happenned outside the pub? theory and practice meets the jaw of some lippy cocky middle class kid .. how fucking depressing  

p.s. i do not see much forward thinking theory ( maybe i should read MAYDAY ..which i will )  OR w/c practice in most of the @ movement .. certainly not practice .. particularly those represented here who shout the loudest


----------



## Darios (Nov 6, 2007)

Steve Booth said:
			
		

> Over the years, there often seems to be 'incidents' at the anarchist bookfair, for instance the man from the libertarian alliance being excluded, the exclusion of the Catholic Worker group, the Cunningham Amendment being described as 'irrelevant' in the bookfair brochure, people slagging off Jonathan Simcock and 'Total Liberty' in intemperate terms.
> 
> Tolerant lot these anarchists....



I'm glad I'm not the only poster on these boards to see a problem in this regard......

No impurities in the orthodoxy.......


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 6, 2007)

I hardly think that excluding capitalists from the anarchist bookfair is really much of a problem for anyone else apart from you.


----------



## Darios (Nov 6, 2007)

Blagsta, I'll continue that debate with you on the other thread as soon as I have a bit more time this week.

In the meantime, what about the other 'incidents' Steve mentions above?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 6, 2007)

I don't know anything about the other incidents.  I do know that you're on a loser if you want to convince me that capitalism = anarchism.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2007)

ha ha ha no way steve booth 

Fully Awesome.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 7, 2007)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> so let me get this right .. PRAXIS is what happenned outside the pub? theory and practice meets the jaw of some lippy cocky middle class kid .. how fucking depressing
> 
> p.s. i do not see much forward thinking theory ( maybe i should read MAYDAY ..which i will )  OR w/c practice in most of the @ movement .. certainly not practice .. particularly those represented here who shout the loudest



No, what happened outside the pub was INSTEAD of praxis. Raally it is a minor issue, the youth were playing at being grown up in a totally innappropriate manner and got disciplined     by big daddy... The father of the current generation... Here is my literary flourish for today. No more. Promise.


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 7, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> the youth were playing at being grown up in a totally innappropriate manner and got disciplined    by big daddy.


 
Alrighty then.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> Alrighty then.



ok chaps - lets not even pretend you know what's going on ok?  

If you really care, its all on libcom.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2007)

sorry that was directed at attica, not you bluestreak.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 7, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> ok chaps - lets not even pretend you know what's going on ok?
> 
> If you really care, its all on libcom.



What's on limpcok?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Nov 7, 2007)

the punching thing, in exquisite detail.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 7, 2007)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> the punching thing, in exquisite detail.



So mucho limpcok angst  and outrage done for effect.... Anyway tacks, have you seen that brilliant magazine MAYDAY yet? Fantastic it is too, comes with a free punch i hear.


----------



## Thora (Nov 7, 2007)

I reckon that's a photo of Tax on the front of Mayday.


----------



## Steve Booth (Nov 7, 2007)

*There's always something.....*




			
				Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> ha ha ha no way steve booth
> 
> Fully Awesome.


Some of my friends enjoy going to the Anarchist Bookfair, and think of it as the highlight of the year. Other people I know are very fed up with the bad atmosphere these events create, and quite a few folk no longer go.

I remember about eight or nine years ago, Peter Neville was complaining about the drunks throwing beer down the staircase and then urinating off the balcony down on the people below. I think it was the same year, the Conway Hall (as it was then) got vandalised and the bookfair organisers had to pay a surcharge to cover the damage.

There always seems to be stuff like this going on, and I wonder if these incidents and problems are the mark of a serious political movement, or rather just the sign of an immature, juvenile, chaotic mess?

I think it is certain that people from outside the movement will not be attracted by these things. I wonder how the anarchist movement can ever hope to bring about a better and more just world, when it functions at that sort of level. In terms of its practicality, how can it have any ethical force?


----------



## scumbalina (Nov 7, 2007)

Steve Booth said:
			
		

> , the Cunningham Amendment being described as 'irrelevant' in the bookfair brochure...



Interested in this...usually AFAIK the brochure doesn't say anything about particlar groups etc that are present. What context was this in and when?


----------



## scumbalina (Nov 7, 2007)

Steve Booth said:
			
		

> the exclusion of the Catholic Worker group



Same again, when and why this happen? Up until recently they had a stall....


----------



## durruti02 (Nov 7, 2007)

Attica said:
			
		

> No, what happened outside the pub was INSTEAD of praxis. Raally it is a minor issue, the youth were playing at being grown up in a totally innappropriate manner and got disciplined     by big daddy... The father of the current generation... Here is my literary flourish for today. No more. Promise.



you really are talking shite my friend absolute shite if you believe any of the above ..


----------



## rich! (Nov 7, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Interested in this...usually AFAIK the brochure doesn't say anything about particlar groups etc that are present. What context was this in and when?


It's in one of the TCAs they had there.

Their listing in the program was supposed to say "... irreverent..." but someone put ".. irrelevant..."

Whether an honest mistake or not is hard to say.


----------



## rich! (Nov 7, 2007)

scumbalina said:
			
		

> Same again, when and why this happen? Up until recently they had a stall....



A few years back (Conway Hall, maybe? or the Camden Center?) the Catholic Worker lot weren't allowed in. They argued the toss inbetween, and have been let in since. They're definitely in the "Jesus was an anarchist" school of religion...


----------



## scumbalina (Nov 8, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> It's in one of the TCAs they had there.
> 
> Their listing in the program was supposed to say "... irreverent..." but someone put ".. irrelevant..."
> 
> Whether an honest mistake or not is hard to say.



Ahhh, I wondered if it was something to do with the word irreverent being mispelt  




			
				rich! said:
			
		

> A few years back (Conway Hall, maybe? or the Camden Center?) the Catholic Worker lot weren't allowed in. They argued the toss inbetween, and have been let in since. They're definitely in the "Jesus was an anarchist" school of religion...



Cheers. You have all the goss


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 8, 2007)

The saddoes can be quite persist. 

Can you remember the fuss over the Anarchist Heretics bookfair a few years ago? 

This was a bookfair for anyone who claimed themselves to be an anarchist but who was 'not allowed' to the main event. The main organisers were the third positionist Troy Southgate, and that dodgy old political tourist Terry Liddle. 

In the event Heretics bookfair never happened, but I noticed Mr Liddle has reinvented himself again, and was behind some Radical History stall at this years bookfair.


----------



## chico enrico (Nov 8, 2007)

Steve Booth said:
			
		

> I remember about eight or nine years ago, Peter Neville was complaining about the drunks throwing beer down the staircase and then urinating off the balcony down on the people below. I think it was the same year, the Conway Hall (as it was then) got vandalised and the bookfair organisers had to pay a surcharge to cover the damage.
> QUOTE]
> 
> i bet that was crusty punks who did that. they should have been given a kicking and frogmarched to the cash machine and all their money taxed off them.
> ...


----------



## cantsin (Nov 9, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> A non-anarch (an archist?) responds:  there's nothing wrong with reporting thuggery to Mr Plod and trying to get him to do something about it.  It's the right thing to do.  However, don't get your hopes up.  It is likely, especially if the thuggery was minor, that all you'll get out of it is a bloody crime number.




jesus wept


----------



## cantsin (Nov 9, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> *Forms Union of Geeks, Weeds, Unpopular Kids, Spazzes, and Allied Trades*



+ Grasses


----------



## In Bloom (Nov 10, 2007)

chico enrico said:
			
		

> i bet that was crusty punks who did that. they should have been given a kicking and frogmarched to the cash machine and all their money taxed off them.
> 
> and then given another kicking.
> 
> if i ran the bookfair i wouldnt let smellies in anyway.


Finally, some sensible, common sense ideas for a better bookfair


----------

