[DJP]

Any moderation has to place within the framework of the rules. There are no rules that ban discussion of any topic, or the use of any particular words for that matter. It's the rules related to personal abuse and flaming that unfortunately have proven that they are the ones that need to be enforced.I think that anyone who puts up a charge of censorship against us is not really making a valid argument. Surely if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion we should print everything that ever gets sent to the Standard since not printing things amounts to censorship.

[DJP]

Now I'm not getting any. It should work if you upload the pictures to photobucket.com or somewhere similar then share from there.

[DJP]

I'm getting broken links for all apart from the last three images. I think 3 and 4 are my favourite but I can't spot the difference between them…Can now! Do I get a prize? 3 is my favourite.

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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]

HollyHead wrote:

DJP wrote:

I'm actually wondering now how useful a tool a public forum is for attracting new members.Instead I wonder if a better approach would be an 'ask an expert' type format. Visitors are free to ask questions then members designated into areas of expertise answer them and so build an ever expanding FAQ. There is already software we could incorporate which would enable this functionality.

 My memory is not what it used to be but…wasn't this the thinking behind the setting up of the WSF Forum (Yahoo)?

No, the yahoogroups forum is just another public forum. What I had in mind was something more like this site:http://freedomroad.org/askasocialist/

[DJP]

I'm actually wondering now how useful a tool a public forum is for attracting new members.Instead I wonder if a better approach would be an 'ask an expert' type format. Visitors are free to ask questions then members designated into areas of expertise answer them and so build an ever expanding FAQ. There is already software we could incorporate which would enable this functionality.A while back Paddy suggested online quizzes as a way of drawing people in. We could run correspondence courses this way with visitors answering multiple choice questions online.Just some brief thoughts, any comments?

[DJP]

I like the idea of an advertised online meeting. Another idea would be to combine the two. You have a live meeting video streamed on the internet and allow questions to be submitted via the internet as well as from those present in the room.

[DJP]

The criticisms based around the 'subjective' theory of value came about after Marx's death, as did the rise of marginalist economics. Marx definitely frames his argument around a critique of other theories, but only those that preceded him.After all the subtitle of Capital is 'a critique of political economy'. But it should be noted that 'Political economy' deals with different subject matter to 'economics'. Political economy proper is no longer taught in the universities.These videos will be of interest:http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/law-of-value-8-subjectobject/

[DJP]

The first link seems the most interesting, but haven't given it a proper reading yet. But in some places they seem to be confusing Marx with Ricardo.The authors of the second link don't seem to have read any Marx.I guess a general rule should be if you want to critique someone, don't rely on secondary sources.What do you think about it then Jon D? Or where you just looking for feedback from other people?

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

we could offer to chair the debate between the MDI and EDL on our premises.

Not sure about the sensibleness of holding such an event at HO though. We would need to have serious security arrangements, to think otherwise would be a touch naive

[DJP]

As I said in another thread

DJP wrote:

I don't think there is anything wrong with any activities we are doing at the minute, only that we need to do more of it. I think an area where the party has not been so strong has been in embracing the Web 2.0 era, social media and online video etc.But myself and comrades have put many hours of sweat and tears into learning to how to do these things, hence the (not so) new website. And as we read there is a group working on making short films.So in short I think our problems lie not in a shortage of ideas but in a shortage of people to put in the hard work necessary to see them put real.

[DJP]

Noticed this book on the website from that link abovehttp://astore.amazon.com/climaandcapit-20/detail/1608461408Anyone read it?

[DJP]

northern light wrote:

Can any member give me the scientific proof of why there can not be a CreatorNo theoretical reasoning, just pure scientific fact..

It depends on what you mean by 'a Creator' and where and how you see it interacting in the universe.But this is such a lame question. Absence of proof of something not existing does not mean that it does exist.Can you give me any scientific proof that disproves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?If not I suggest you should bow down to the truth faith.All hail to the lord pastafari!BTW. You'll be hard pressed to find a 'pure scientific fact' that doesn't rest on theoretical reasoning.

[Author]

Posts