The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see that love (relatively speaking) has triumphed over hate (as expressed in message # 235 here) in Robin's tortuous love-hate relationship with the SPGB. Good, I suppose.Now that you're back please realise that the religion issue has been flogged to death and stop trying to depress us with your jeremiads.If you want to contribute something useful why not deal with your second favourite subject — the economic calculation argument — in the thread on Practical Socialism that Young Master Smeet has just started?
Actually, looking at the report of the membership department, since this website and forum has come online there has been an influx of membership and information requests. The period January to July this year when compared to the figures for 2009 shows a 2700% increase in membership applications. Couldn't find the figures for 2010 and 2011 online.So much for the doom mongers or those who think this forum is driving people away, it doesn't appear to be the case at all.
DJP wrote:The period January to July this year when compared to the figures for 2009 shows a 2700% increase in membership applications. Couldn't find the figures for 2010 and 2011 online.So much for the doom mongers or those who think this forum is driving people away, it doesn't appear to be the case at all.That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.
I said a few days ago that I was leaving this forum and explained my reasons for doing so (post 235). I would have left it at that but for the fact that I ve been alerted to the existence of some pretty distasteful tittle tattle going on behind my back about me and my contributions to this forum on another list which is open to SPGB members only. Since I'm not a member and therefore have means of redress to counter this underhand and sly attempt to blacken my name, allow me to refute those charges here since they relate to my contributions specifically to this threadI refer to several posts on SPINTCOM and one in particularhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/13687 Apparently I am guilty of "shit stirring" according to ALB and then having "lit the fuse" decided to "run away". Well if ALB wants his nemesis to return in the shape of ex comrade Cox, I will happily oblige him if it is a scrap he wants. I don't "run away" from arguments, ALB, and you of all people should know that since you've often enough felt the pain of my rottweiler teeth clamped around your lily-white ankles. I decided to leave the forum because I despair of the SPGB ever changing , ever realising that there is something fundamentally wrong with its whole approach. Its like banging your head against a brick wall, eventually you tire of it And is there not something a little ironic about the accusation of shit stirring anyway?. When people accuse others of engaging in this sort of activity what they usually mean is that they don't like to deal with robust criticism because they find it upsetting. Who exactly is running away from the argument in that case, huh? I am accused of painting a "relentlessly bleak and black picture of the party" Well thats not quite true either, is it? The "bleak" bit maybe but not the "black" bit. Even the execrable Mr "Copy and Paste" Gnome who saw fit to warn against posting comments regarding the personal integrity, intentions, character, reputation etc of another forum member and has taken every opportunity to do just that in my case, has conceded that I have been one of the fiercest defenders of the SPGB on forums like REVLEFT. Thats hardly a case of relentlessly painting a black picture of of the Party is it now? As for the bleak bit well yes that is true. The outlook of the SPGB is grim. Its numbers are falling steadily and there seems to be no let up in the decline. When I joined the Party back in the 80s the SPGB was twice the size it is now And its not just the numbers on the book. What proportion of the membership is active in any sense. After 108 years what exactly has the Party achieved with only 332 members at last count. Anyone who thinks this does not call for a fundamental rethink has seriously got to have their head read. For telling the plain truth of the matter, ALB gets in a tizzy and declares that I am engaging in positively the most "venomous and vicious attack by one individual or organisation on another individual or organisation " he has ever encountered. Come off it ALB – you have obviously lived an extremely sheltered existence if you think my post was that. You need to get out into the big bad world a bit more and engage in some real rough and tumble like I have THEN you will know what venomous and vicious is all about, you old drama queen, you No, this is clearly a case of wanting to shoot the messenger who brings bad tidings. Far from saying the SPGB "deserves to die", I have said on many occasions it would be an absolute tragedy if it did die. Yet still, after all this time, you and others who have been slating ex comrade Cox for all its worth, have no idea where I am coming from. ar all. So we have puerile comments that I am waging some sort of "vendetta" against the SPGB. For fucks sake – how stupid can you get Get this straight and get this once and for all. I'm not waging any sort of vendetta against the SPGB . It would be a strange sort of vendetta that I would be waging if it involved taking the side of of the SPGB against others on a numerous issues and on many occasions. I actually would like nothing more than for the SPGB to prosper and grow but this is not happening. Of course I have own views as to why this is so and what needs to be done to address this situation . Yes, scrapping the absolutely crazy policy of not allowing religious minded socialists into the SPGB is part of the answer; there are many other things wrong with the party besides this. Of course I believe these ideas Ive been putting forward will help the reverse the plight of the party. Whats wrong with that? Don't you similarly believe your ideas will do the same? So don't be such a hypocrite ALB I wont go on except to say that I detect within the party certain disturbing trends of late which signify to me a closing of minds and a hardening of attitudes. No doubt when things get worse you cling all the more firmly to the old certainties . I come back to the point I've made again and again. The party is in denial about the irrational side of its being. Thus it bars religious socialists from the organisation on the grounds that religion is irrational even though the the party itself is no less irrational . If the most erudite thing you can say on the matter is that the Party should on no account admit "religious nutters" well then that really sums it all up. It explains precisely why the party is in the state it is in and why this is not getting better, but decidedly worse. Rather pathetic when you think about it
gnome wrote:And for all those like northern light on this forum………….http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationThose who have previously been members and now wish to rejoin need not complete a fresh questionnaire. All applications to be made online, to the nearest branch or to Head Office, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UNPhone: 0207 622 3811 Email: <spgb@worldsocialism.org>Former members who left in disagreement will of course need to confirm that they are no longer have that/those disagreement/s.
gnome wrote:That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.I think it would be a shame to lose the forum just because of the old grey whistle test
Ed wrote:I think it would be a shame to lose the forum just because of the old grey whistle testNobody's suggested losing the forum and neither were any names mentioned.
gnome wrote:Nobody's suggested losing the forum and neither were any names mentioned.Too right! Can forum users please stop discussing each other and instead discuss the matter in hand i.e. socialism. Who knows we might even come up with some new and inspiring ideas.Squabbles between members have already taken up too much time.
Perhaps names should be mentioned. I think I can be forgiven for being more than a little paranoid in thinking you may be referring to me, given the campaign of hatred I've endured. According to the North East Mafia I'm a cop. According to Paddy Shannon I'm an ignorant hooligan.and all for saying the word shitSo if anyone wants to throw anymore abuse my way there's no need to be coy. It's the in thing to do at the moment.
I recently self excluded myself from the Forum, in solidarity with Vin Maratty and to show my distaste at the action to exclude him. At the time I thought it to be the correct course of action, although with some niggling misgivings.I also said at the time, that I would continue to peruse the Forum. I did this for 2 reasons;1/ So that I could keep up to date with the discussions on the varying threads and when I returned, would not come at these discussions cold.2/To put to bed my misgivings about my course of action.Now I know I had a right to be worried and at what would pertain during the time lapsed with my self-imposed exile.In point of fact, the comments made recently have gone far beyond my fears. The following is the reason I have broken my self imposed exclusion.Comrade Maratty was, as far as I can gather excluded from this site for casting aspersions on other contributors. From which he, according to the powers that be, would not desist.I personally, on reviewing the different threads, could find no such personalised attacks from OGW. Generalised comments are NOT, I repeat NOT, personal attacks. This is not the case with the following;"I think it would be a shame to lose the forum just because of the old grey whistle test".This is an explicit accusation that the TROUBLE on this site, if trouble there was, was as a direct result of actions by OGW. An accusation, that only a passing glance at his posts would dispel.That however comrades, is not the worst of this! as the following post shows and yet not merely this but that a post such as this, submitted at 1.43 has not even been challenged by the wider users of this forum.Posted by gnome at 1.43 on post 304 of this thread it reads,That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.I draw your attention to the following passage;"However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users."Why would you say this? More importantly, how could you make a comment like this, without incurring the wrath of any democrat on this site!You are advocating TARGETTED censorship. Putting aside the question of who would decide on whom this Orwellian axe would fall, how can a DEMOCRAT make such a suggestion and how could a democratic party not react with horror and rightious indignation.The comment from gnome is generalised just enough, so that no one individual is explicitly NAMED. Nor is it tacitly stated who these EGOS are. Although, if one has been following this site for the last week, the conclusion as to it's targets is quite obvious.The last sentence of gnomes post is quite appropriate and moreover, revealing!"Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price."The price, it would appear, is more costly, it is the evolution of a thought police, within the midst of the only truly democratic political party in th U.K. A party predicated on comradeship and a common purpose for a better world. Being, it would appear to be suggested, at the behest of individuals, their mores and judgements, as to what is acceptable and what is not. That comments such as, even tacitly suggesting individual censorship and exclusion have not been jumped all over by the wider membership is extremely worrying and moreover frightening!
steve colborn wrote:This is an explicit accusation that the TROUBLE on this site, if trouble there was, was as a direct result of actions by OGW. An accusation, that only a passing glance at his posts would dispel.That however comrades, is not the worst of this! as the following post shows and yet not merely this but that a post such as this, submitted at 1.43 has not even been challenged by the wider users of this forum.I have done NOTHING WRONG and I stand by every word I've said. I have been subjected to constant attacks and sniping from your little clique. You've hounded me like a pack of wolves. Not content with that he then brings it to spintcom and starts peddleing his lies there as well. It's a despicably low game you lot are playing the bullies painting the victim as the bully. You disgust me
I'm speaking here without my moderator hat on. Would Ed, Steve Colborn, Socialist Punk, Old Grey Whistle, when he returns, and all other users please desist in posting comments on the supposed intentions of other forum users. It is not 'the done thing now' and any further comments in this direction may force me to take action as moderator, which is always the last resort.I've volunteered many hours of my own time setting up this forum only to see it overtaken by what seems to me to be the result of comrades blowing their misconceived notions about each other out of all proportions. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. If anyone wants to make a complaint about anyone it should be done either through the moderator, the internet department or the executive committee.
gnome wrote:That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.This is not a supposition, it is an actual Statement. Read it, no room for an equivocal interpretation!I hope you take this as a sincere attempt to get to grips with this issue.
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:Nobody's suggested losing the forum and neither were any names mentioned.Too right! Can forum users please stop discussing each other and instead discuss the matter in hand i.e. socialism. Who knows we might even come up with some new and inspiring ideas.Squabbles between members have already taken up too much time.
I agree.Pity it was followed straight away by three post of the kind you mention.
steve colborn wrote:gnome wrote:That news is to be welcomed of course and maybe partly due to a extended period of relative tranquillity since the forum's inception. However, events of the past week will not have done the party many favours and although it goes against the grain it may well be necessary to consider permanent exclusion of some users. The case for socialism is far more important and pressing than the egos of a few individuals. Freedom of expression involves responsibility and sometimes comes at a price.This is not a supposition, it is an actual Statement. Read it, no room for an equivocal interpretation!I hope you take this as a sincere attempt to get to grips with this issue.
If you read the comment you mention without the supposition that the author of it has a wish to exclude people then there is nothing sinister about it. Notice the words 'may' and 'sometimes'.Now please, let this rest comrade!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.