Suggestion: Pivate Forum [Archive]

CommieBastard

28th October 2001, 21:10

i think anyone who proves themselves capable of constructive discussion should be allowed into such a thing i.e. everyone on this board except Reagan, Agusto, Fantomas and Drifter, who have made nothing but destructive comments.
Actually, heres a better idea, ban the bastards.

Guest

28th October 2001, 21:16

Yes> Ban the Bastards!!!!!!

Hypothetical question - if a neo-nazi wanted to use a radio station to spew his racist and homophobic and sexist filth - the station has the right to deny such vile propaganda. Why not here?

And this forum has the potential to reach much more people than a radio station. Ban the Bastards. Ban Fantomos!!

Moskitto

28th October 2001, 21:23

On the website i'm designing i'm thinking of having 2 private forums, one for leftists and one for capitalists. But that isn't really suitable here because it's a forum for Che Admirers.

It's a difficult situation because if you do make a private forum the right wingers would say we're being too exclusive but then again you could argue why are they on here anyway.

revolutionary spirit

28th October 2001, 21:26

i was going to say them same as Markxs that it would create elitism,I think that we should all be in the same grouping leftists and rightists.

CommieBastard

28th October 2001, 21:36

well, im happy with rightists being on here, just so long as they are che admirers, because, oh whats this, it says this is a forum for che admirers...

reagan lives

28th October 2001, 21:45

Are you guys serious? Wow.

Okay. You say you want to create an exclusive forum for "established leftist community members." First of all, let me congratulate the Left on getting an Establishment (since this is implied in the fact that there can be "established" members of the community). Second of all, I'd like to know how you define "established." Do you have to belong to a certain party? Maybe put in some volunteer hours bothering people with flyers or something? Perhaps you can give them a test they have to pass. The point is that once you draw this arbitrary line (and I'm assuming, Malte, that you will be the drawer of the line), it will cause naught but dispute over who is and isn't an "established leftist community member."

Moskitto

28th October 2001, 22:00

a bit ago I agreed absolutely but now i'm not quite so sure. I was probably really mad about fantomas.

Blood preasure rapidly rising...

Edelweiss

28th October 2001, 22:02

the word "established" wasn't very wisely chosen, ok. my english isn't so perfect, and i didn't found another word for that. I'm just meaning members who are posting here for a while, and who are clearly leftist.

Markxs

28th October 2001, 22:03

radio is neo-nazi ignorant bullshit (most of it ). do you hear you any station banning bush ?

i am here to discuss with you guys, and i like the new ones to have the same change i had of coming here. when you ban them we are revolting for ousrselves not for the ignorant ones.......... the whole world is ignorant to problems we blame the system for it correct of coursse. but if we are not going to help them receive education who will ??

CommieBastard

28th October 2001, 22:18

fine by me if you want to educate them, but im not happy having them get in the way of serious constructive discussions.
This is a community, communities do not allow disruptive influences.

And as for Reagan's interpretation of the word Established, for something to be established it does not a require an establishment, Malte was perfectly correct to use that word, because, you see, many words in the english language have a number of meanings, which is mostly defined by context.
established meanings can be:
secured/Permanent (establish a house)
proven correct or free from doubt (establish a fact)
widely accepted (an established precedent)
recognized/accepted (malte's use of the word)
credible (e.g in a work of fiction when a character becomes established)
of an establishment (you use)

So please do not twist peoples words out of context again in future, because it is annoying to have to correct.

reagan lives

28th October 2001, 22:26

All of which are characteristics of an ESTABLISHMENT. Look, in order to have "established" members of something you have to have a constant that defines their status as "established." It's sort of an Aquinas type argument, but for something to be "established" as anything there has to be an implied set standard which recognizes them as "established." In this context, an "Establishment."

(Edited by reagan lives at 11:29 pm on Oct. 28, 2001)

CommieBastard

28th October 2001, 22:37

Establishment - a group or class of people having institutional authority within a society.

Now let me see.... is there one of those? oh, but why no, there isnt.

Things can be established without an establishment, e.g it can be widely accepted that the sky is blue, thus that is an established fact, yet it does not require an institutional authority to recognise it.

gooddoctor

28th October 2001, 22:48

i agree, we should have a private forum for known leftists to discuss progressive issues without hindrance from disruptive capitalists. they are just polluting the forum now, and it's all well and good arguing, because that just makes us stronger and tests our ideas, but sometimes you're just not interested. this used to be a haven away from their kind of ignorance.

RedCeltic

29th October 2001, 01:01

You see... here Reagan comes in here and argues about the use of a bloody word drawing focus away from the issue at hand... and clearly why some think we need such a forum....

However.. I can't say how I feal on this at the moment... I told Malte that I agreed with such a forum... but after talking to Nickadermus on it I'm now torn on the issue...

It the creation of a password protected forum discourages newcommers than I think it would be a bad thing.

AgustoSandino

29th October 2001, 01:18

I think it was cb that initiated the argument about the use of a word. Reagan simply noted the curiosity he had as to how people would be regarded as "established."

MetalGus

29th October 2001, 01:38

I came to the Che-lives message board over a year and a half ago. I was more active back then but I still come to this site to read the discussions. I'm not writing much because I don't really have the time. You see, if you do a private board I won't be able to read your stuff because I'm not a so-called established leftist.

Besides, it seems a little like Elitism to me. Anyway, you decide.

Oh, and be sure to know that I AM a leftist.

RedCeltic

29th October 2001, 02:33

Quote: from MetalGus on 8:38 pm on Oct. 28, 2001
I came to the Che-lives message board over a year and a half ago. I was more active back then but I still come to this site to read the discussions. I'm not writing much because I don't really have the time. You see, if you do a private board I won't be able to read your stuff because I'm not a so-called established leftist.

Besides, it seems a little like Elitism to me. Anyway, you decide.

Oh, and be sure to know that I AM a leftist.

Hmmm this is a good point... and makes me think it may not be such a good idea after all. Many of us have been communicating through Ims and the message thing on this bb anyway.... I'm not really clear one way or the other.... but I seem to be leaning against it now...

Also... maybe that was a bad example there Agusto... and also those that we don't agree with all the time politicly, but are able to add to the discussion, are also valuble in a way as well.

However there comes a time when those on the far left wish to discuss issues among themselves without input from other factions this is what I was driving at. However implementing something like this would cause those not provided with access to feal insulted.

pce

29th October 2001, 02:42

can we all stop wasting time on name calling and the "issue" of banning anyone. it's wasting so much time and space. no one is banned and we continue like before. don't you see that we are feeding into fantomas's words? if he wants to say something, let him say it. if you don't want to respond, then don't.

by the way, banning fant. has nothing to do with him being a capitalist/rightist/whatever. no one is talking about banning agusto or reagan lives or madmax (except for commiebastard, which surprised me). agusto, madmax, and reagan lives actually DISCUSS and cooperate. fantomas doesn't. that's why so many are pissed off.

in any case - JUST DROP THE ISSUE. it isn't even an issue, it's a waste of time. this has turned into some sort of a weird political soap opera

RedCeltic

29th October 2001, 03:30

Banning Fantomas is probobly a dead issue PCE... this is a diffrent issue, related perhaps...

Chief Rebel Angel

29th October 2001, 05:31

if u want to start a private forum then here's the way, which i dont think arbitrary.. rather democratic:
we all chose the first member, and then that member choses another member, this member choses a new one, and so on... i dunno it just sprung in my head now.. what do u think?

Edelweiss

29th October 2001, 12:39

I think the easiest way to set the rules who can participate in the private forum would be that all members with the "Guerillero" title (50 posts or more) will get access to it. (excluding the right-wingers of course)

Chief Rebel Angel

29th October 2001, 13:05

whatever the people want...

Anonymous

29th October 2001, 14:59

i think we should just ban fantomas and anyone else that disrupts the forums. But i think we should keep the forums public. Take augustos for example, he makes constructive critics and spices the debates up a little, now that is a wellcome participation in my book.

i dont know about the private forum.. it will divide the community...
Maybe it would be a good idea as long as we keep the main forum as the general political one and just use the private forum for things only dicreted at recgonised leftists. So i guess what im saying is that the debates should stay public but if you still want a private forum for other reason thats cool.

And people who disrupt the forums must go.

Kez

29th October 2001, 17:10

I believe that i thnk it was PCE who said that this is becoming a soap opera over banning who etc etc
People are being truned off because people here are wasting time on issues such as banning 1 or 2 people when in fact we should be debating racism fascism capitalism etc

Comrade Kamo

CommieBastard

29th October 2001, 17:34

Agusto - it is reagan that began the pedanticism on the meaning of a word, by twisting the use of the word established by malte, and claiming it meant something entirely different to what it does mean, claiming it insinuated something it doesnt and disrupting the general issue being discussed here.
Which is exactly why we need to get rid of him, he does nothing but disrupt.

PCE - I was patient with them at first, they werent as disruptive as they are recently. I can only put up with so much of this crap. If i wanted to argue with right wingers i would go onto a political board, not a che-admirers board. Alternatively i could just go to any of my local pubs. But no, i chose to come here, because i wanted to progress and develop leftist ideas and my understanding of them. None of which has happened, because of these left wingers everywhere.
If you had been on the old che-lives board you would know how much better it was without right-wingers.

As for the idea of basing membership to a private board, i think it definately shouldnt be based on the number of posts.
I think we should just let anyone one into all of these boards, but ban them if they prove disruptive/not to be a che admirer.

Edelweiss

30th October 2001, 13:07

Another advantage of the private forum which has not been mentioned so far is that it can't be monitored by any govermental authorities...

El Commandante

30th October 2001, 14:14

It's my belief that part of the reason for having the forum is to educate people and have free debate other issues related to Che or in the publics interest. But know can we do this if we exclude people from it. What about new members who want to speak, they may feel like no one is listening to them. From other topics I know that all of you whole heartedly agree with freedom of speech, so we have to listen to both sides of the arguement or we'll live in ignorance.

A private forum would only lead to sanctioned freedom of speech.

El Commandante

30th October 2001, 14:40

Seems like it is too late to have any say other this new board because if you look at the board lists its already up under the heading, "Commie Club". With this new board how is membership being decided, on number of posts, influence in the community, political leanings?

Edelweiss

30th October 2001, 14:52

Membership is being decided on number of posts. All leftist members with 50 posts or more have access to it.

Drifter

30th October 2001, 15:00

i'm not really fond of the elitist paranoid attitude really,,
i am a leftist, and belive in socialist ideals.
Just because people say things that you don't agree with, makes you think they should be banned commie bastard?
heres a destructive comment for you:
Fuck You.

Edelweiss

30th October 2001, 15:27

i'm not really fond of the elitist paranoid attitude really

According to the log files there were over 100 visitors from US govermental organisations this month on che-lives, 90% of them didn't accessed the community and probably most of them just have surfed the Net during their worktime, but anyway I'm pretty shure that this forum is being monitored.

CommieBastard

30th October 2001, 16:56

Drifter, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, what I have a problem with is right wingers coming on the site and getting in the way of a development of left wing ideas, which is what this site should be for.
And as for your proclaimed leftist ideals, i have yet to see proof of them, as far as i can recall every one of your comments has been right wing in it's perspective.

Anonymous

31st October 2001, 03:39

Malte its your call. Obviously this community is at a turning point and you have to decide which road to take. Either you want a pural community with left and right wingers or you want a leftist community only. I think you should listen to everyones opinion but in the end you should chose because its your work and shit that made this. And many thanks for that by the way.

so anyway my vote is a for purality because there will always be more leftists (hey its "Che-lives") here and so we can kind discuss both things: among our selves and with the right wingers.

and Drifter CB has a point, you just missunderstand what his point is.

Anonymous

31st October 2001, 03:56

Malte dont i have acess to the private forum?

gogo gomez

13th November 2001, 19:50

Quote: from Malte on 9:32 pm on Oct. 28, 2001
I already have asked that some members by ICQ or messenger: What do you think about a private forum beside the existing forums for esablished leftist community members only?

thats wrong! oh well it would probably be boring anyway. RIGHT ARM!! RIGHT ON!! VIVE LA ESPERANZA!!

gogo gomez

13th November 2001, 19:54

Quote: from Malte on 4:27 pm on Oct. 30, 2001

i'm not really fond of the elitist paranoid attitude really

According to the log files there were over 100 visitors from US govermental organisations this month on che-lives, 90% of them didn't accessed the community and probably most of them just have surfed the Net during their worktime, but anyway I'm pretty shure that this forum is being monitored.

yeah, half of them are probably bosses wondering why people are surfing and not working...ah ha! theres alot of good information in this forum, thats something to focus on for those who care.

Moskitto

13th November 2001, 20:24

Quote: from Malte on 4:27 pm on Oct. 30, 2001

i'm not really fond of the elitist paranoid attitude really

According to the log files there were over 100 visitors from US govermental organisations this month on che-lives, 90% of them didn't accessed the community and probably most of them just have surfed the Net during their worktime, but anyway I'm pretty shure that this forum is being monitored.

ARGH Help Help Help. Nooo they onto me, argh argh, nooo help they after me.

Wait panic over, they can't do anything cos this forum is based in Germany.

ShadowOfGuest

13th November 2001, 20:50

Well, I don't know about Germany, but here in the UK the Secret Services keep a record of every person with affiliations to left-wing organisations, and track those they consider to be a possible danger.

Moskitto

13th November 2001, 22:53

ShadowOfGuest

13th November 2001, 22:57

oh yeah, and i forgot to mention, the US and UK secret services have an exchange of information, so if the US identify you, they'll tell the UK.

It's interesting to note that this became common knowledge when the Labour party got into power in '97 and some bloke (i think it was Jack Straw) gained access to MI'somethingorother' files because they came under his direct control, and he expressed surprise to find his name on record because he'd been a member of an extreme left org in his youth.