UMM how mysterious?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

redstar at it again, soon as i make the thread about his cowardly act of changing my Member Title, it suddenly disappears! LIKE MAGIC! BOOOM! hahahhaha

good one, anyways homegenous or whatever your name was, does this prove anything to you? you asked for redstar to come and speak for himself to show his face and give his own accounts, well this is how he does it ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Did you not read the Terms & Conditions when you signed up?

Section 4; sub-clause 11....gives Administrators the right to change the Member Titles of Restricted Members. Honestly, read the fine print.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well, than that's something i will admit i did not know, but since it's such an obscene thing to do, i didn't even consider it to be true...but i do understand that an administrator would have the right to do so if a member has a title that reads "Long Live Hitler" (although of course that would be denying free speech), but that's not my point, my point is that i did not have any Member Title to give it reason for any administrator to change it, and obviously redstar changed it just to mock me, which im sure there is no rule in the guidelines which say :" Administrators the right to change the Member Titles of Restricted Members TO MOCK THEM

[KC]

Administrators can change your member title for whatever reason they want to whatever they want.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

and you think thats fair? what if i changed your Member Title to BUSH IS THE MAN&#33;, im sure you wouldn&#39;t like that.......listen stop looking at this from a difference point of view, that is , stop being bias towards me because im not a leftist like you, i thought you guys wanted equality for everyone? and were the real fighters of the "oppressed" etc.. etc..i guess when it comes to people who don&#39;t share your views that all changes huh <_< , it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if you thought Stalin&#39;s atrocities towards dissidents was not bad either... :rolleyes:

[KC]

and you think thats fair? what if i changed your Member Title to BUSH IS THE MAN&#33;, im sure you wouldn&#39;t like that.......listen stop looking at this from a difference point of view, that is , stop being bias towards me because im not a leftist like you, i thought you guys wanted equality for everyone? and were the real fighters of the "oppressed" etc.. etc..i guess when it comes to people who don&#39;t share your views that all changes huh dry.gif , it wouldn&#39;t surprise me if you thought Stalin&#39;s atrocities towards dissidents was not bad either...

If you don&#39;t like the rules then you can leave. So either quit whining and live with it or stop coming here.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su+--> (Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su)....and obviously redstar changed it just to mock me, which im sure there is no rule in the guidelines which say :" Administrators the right to change the Member Titles of Restricted Members TO MOCK THEM[/b]

Had you, before you signed up, read the Terms & Conditions and the sub-clause in dispute here, then you would know that Admins have the ability to change Member Titles....to what, is left unspecified.

You may feel the Member Title "mocks" you; but others don&#39;t. Mockery is a pretty subjective phenomena and therefore, we really can&#39;t say, objectively, what is or isn&#39;t mockery.

Aside from that, I called a vote of Moderators and Admins on this issue; and by 20 votes to 3 the Congress of RevolutionaryLeft.com Administrators and Moderators decided your Member Title should remain.

Sorry; but I suppose it&#39;s just good old fashioned tough luck.


Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su
....i thought you guys wanted equality for everyone?

Nope; we&#39;re collectively "for" the dictatorship of the proletariat....and as the sign on the door reads: Former Capitalists and their Lackeys need not apply.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

If you don&#39;t like the rules then you can leave. So either quit whining and live with it or stop coming here.


HAHAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33; how ironic, i could just say the same thing to you, HEY LEFTIE&#33;&#33; you don&#39;t like Capitalism&#33; than commit suicide, or go live in North Korea&#33;&#33; if not than stop wearing those Che shirts like if you were making a statement&#33; AND GO HOME&#33;&#33; and keep playing the XBOX&#33; :rolleyes: :lol:

thank you for proving me right about all i said about you

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well, fair enough Armchair, that vote was just as fair as a black man being tried in 1800&#39;s Alabama, but yeah, this is a dictatorship(not surprisingly ahum ahum), not much i can do about that, but anyways i changed my Member Title, i think if you do another vote and decide to change my meber title back that would be just halariously obscene , but yeah there is not much more that can happen here that could surprise me....

well, thanks yet again for proving me at least, how right i am in the political spectrum :lol: if ya know what i mean ;)

[Publius]

If you don&#39;t like the rules then you can leave. So either quit whining and live with it or stop coming here.

Oh, you&#39;re a big man now&#33;

:lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su
....that vote was just as fair as a black man being tried in 1800&#39;s Alabama....

Done a study recently of how the democratic procedure of RevolutionaryLeft.com works? No, didn&#39;t think so....which really means you don&#39;t have the relevant information to make such a comparison.

Our voting procedure is incredibly fair; all we aim to do is uphold the necessary laws, by-laws and so on that members agree to when they accept the Terms & Conditions....the Congress of this board acts like the Supreme Court.

As it happens, by complaining that your hearing was unfair, you&#39;ve activated a different sub-clause which now means that a three person investigative team, from outside the Congress, will be checking whether anyone acted inappropriately with regards the treatment of yourself.

They will report their findings at 18:00 hours (GMT) tomorrow. At Rev-Left, we aim to please our membership....and most of all, we aim to treat them fairly.

Can&#39;t ask for anything more than that....can you?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well, i must admit, that does sound as democratic and as fair as anything i believe and stand for, BUT DAMN&#33;&#33; LMAO, what is this place? some independant country&#33; lmao....damn, do you guys have a president too? or should i say a dictator? na but seriously thanks armchair i can&#39;t really ask for much else, but i didn&#39;t really ask for it, it&#39;s just what i thought, because it would be the obvious sentiment of someone like me who is a restricted member who obviously has enemies here who don&#39;t like me because of my views, so i would defenitaly come to the conclusion that the vote was not fair, but you tell me all these things about another meeting to determine the fairness of the vote at 18:00 hours WOW&#33; :huh: YES IT IS LIKE CONGRESS&#33;&#33; how ironic, and to see people here who trash the USA :rolleyes:

peace out


Oh, you&#39;re a big man now&#33;

hahahhaa Publius

[KC]

HAHAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33; how ironic, i could just say the same thing to you, HEY LEFTIE&#33;&#33; you don&#39;t like Capitalism&#33; than commit suicide, or go live in North Korea&#33;&#33; if not than stop wearing those Che shirts like if you were making a statement&#33; AND GO HOME&#33;&#33; and keep playing the XBOX&#33;

Well, you see, there&#39;s a difference as you&#39;re applying it to the entire world whereas I&#39;m applying it to a privately owned message board.


Oh, you&#39;re a big man now&#33;

I tell it like it is, Publius :cool:

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Well, you see, there&#39;s a difference as you&#39;re applying it to the entire world whereas I&#39;m applying it to a privately owned message board.

so everything here doesn&#39;t apply to the entire world? it only applies to this cibernetic message board? :blink: gee than why do we talk about politics in the first place? lets just talk about the font that im typing on right now and about how cool these smilies are :lol: :D <_< :) :(



I tell it like it is, Publius

hahahaha that&#39;s just too funny

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su+--> (Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su)....some independant country&#33;[/b]

We do try, wherever possible, to run this board in a manner that is in line with our principles. Recently, for instance, there has been much discussion on whether to create a specific group of 4 members to hand out warning points....it has been suggested that this group would be called, amusingly, the Red Army.


Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected]
....damn, do you guys have a president too?

We have, as it stands, 3 positions which could be compared to a President.

Malte is the Commissar of the rule making department; redstar2000 is Commissar of Admittances; and LSD is Commissar of the Congress that voted on you.

Each of these positions has as much power as the other....and they each have, for instance, a team of 3 Assistants working under them; I&#39;m currently waiting to see if my application to become LSD&#39;s Assistant will be accepted.


Oh&#045;Dae&#045;Su
YES IT IS LIKE CONGRESS&#33;&#33;

The Administrative section of this board was actually modelled on the American Congress....we feel that in this specific historical epoch, Congress presents the best method of Administrative organisation.

[Publius]

We do try, wherever possible, to run this board in a manner that is in line with our principles. Recently, for instance, there has been much discussion on whether to create a specific group of 4 members to hand out warning points....it has been suggested that this group would be called, amusingly, the Red Army.

Call it the Gang of Four.

How could you miss the obvious reference?

Gang of Four is alsol probably the best punk/post punk band ever.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Gang of Four is alsol probably the best punk/post punk band ever

ohh yeah that&#39;s right&#33;&#33; i forget, i remember that you are a big punk fan, hehe sorry

[encephalon]

You know, I missed it until now, but section 6, clause 8 of article 12 explicitly states:



12.6.8 All members, restricted or otherwise, are subject to the condition that no man or woman under the age of 46 shall use as his or her avatar any image, symbol or statement that relates to pirates, as they are inherently counter-revolutionary, including the use of popular web icons of which the website thereof endorses a pro-pirate policy. Alternatively, ninja avatars of all types are allowed, especially of the ultimatepower variety, but not actively endorsed by the People&#39;s Congress of RevolutionaryLeft.com.


I&#39;m afraid I must report your avatar infraction to congress. I apologize in advance.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH, actually that is pretty funny seriously im not being sarcastic at all hahahahahhaha

it might as well be Black Beard instead of Che hehehehehe

[overlord]

:o :o :o :o :o :o

Done a study recently of how the democratic procedure of RevolutionaryLeft.com works? No, didn&#39;t think so....which really means you don&#39;t have the relevant information to make such a comparison.

Our voting procedure is incredibly fair; all we aim to do is uphold the necessary laws, by-laws and so on that members agree to when they accept the Terms & Conditions....the Congress of this board acts like the Supreme Court.

As it happens, by complaining that your hearing was unfair, you&#39;ve activated a different sub-clause which now means that a three person investigative team, from outside the Congress, will be checking whether anyone acted inappropriately with regards the treatment of yourself.

They will report their findings at 18:00 hours (GMT) tomorrow. At Rev-Left, we aim to please our membership....and most of all, we aim to treat them fairly.

Can&#39;t ask for anything more than that....can you?

:o :o :o :o Bloody Hell, some of you freaks need to get a life, you&#39;re not running a turd-world economy yet for christsakes.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:34 PM
You know, I missed it until now, but section 6, clause 8 of article 12 explicitly states:



12.6.8 All members, restricted or otherwise, are subject to the condition that no man or woman under the age of 46 shall use as his or her avatar any image, symbol or statement that relates to pirates, as they are inherently counter-revolutionary, including the use of popular web icons of which the website thereof endorses a pro-pirate policy. Alternatively, ninja avatars of all types are allowed, especially of the ultimatepower variety, but not actively endorsed by the People&#39;s Congress of RevolutionaryLeft.com.


I&#39;m afraid I must report your avatar infraction to congress. I apologize in advance.
I seem to recall that that clause was recently abolished on account of the fact that ninjas suck. It could also have been to do with Barbarians being more popular amongst a certain group of Valley Girls. But I could be wrong.


And didn&#39;t you know Oh-Dae-Su that admins can do anything. Why I recall some time ago an admin (who isn&#39;t an admin anymore) changing my title to "three years old all year round". It wasn&#39;t anything that I had done. I wasn&#39;t restricted or anything. But there is no going against the system. Ultimately my appeal succeeded. And now anyone can have there own member title (except as noted in another part of the TC restricted members).

[RevMARKSman]

And this is revolutionaryleft.com, not argueaboutcommunism.com. We discuss LEFTIST things--we don&#39;t want counterrevolutionaries coming in every 5 seconds and creating new threads in OI about the USSR and how communism is "a bunch of trash."
Righties are not banned here. But they are beaten, defeated and ridiculed to no end. You&#39;d do the same to me if I joined a Republican or Nazi board.

[Wanted Man]

I think restriction and title editing is a rather light punishment. If I ran this place, every cappie would have his name changed to "Fucking ****" with a number behind it, i.e. the first cappie to get restricted would be "Fucking **** #1", then "Fucking **** #2", and so on, and so forth. Numbering them would do a lot to confirm their drone-like nature. The Revleft administration is being relatively benign towards cappies. :)

[Intifada]

Oh-Dae-Su&#39;s member title is mere fact.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 02:34 AM
privately owned message board
Long live private ownership ;)

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:22 PM
I think restriction and title editing is a rather light punishment. If I ran this place, every cappie would have his name changed to "Fucking ****" with a number behind it, i.e. the first cappie to get restricted would be "Fucking **** #1", then "Fucking **** #2", and so on, and so forth. Numbering them would do a lot to confirm their drone-like nature. The Revleft administration is being relatively benign towards cappies. :)
Hey so how would you label people who used to be Marxist but then realized that that dope don&#39;t work and never will?

[Lord Testicles]

Hay Tupac-Amaru shouldnt your member title start with "wanna be"?

I wont awnser your question because Matthijs proposed it, if it were up to me it would just read "idiot" for everyone in OI.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:42 PM
Hay Tupac-Amaru shouldnt your member title start with "wanna be"?

:huh: Why do you say that? Why do you think that? :unsure:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+May 9 2006, 08:08 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 9 2006, 08:08 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 06:42 PM
Hay Tupac-Amaru shouldnt your member title start with "wanna be"?

:huh: Why do you say that? Why do you think that? :unsure: [/b]
Do you own a means of production?

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:12 PM

Do you own a means of production?
Well im in college right now, so i personnaly dont. But my parents have shares in various corporations, my grandfather owned a factory. I come from a bourgeois family, i&#39;m inherently bourgeois&#33; :D

I also have a very bourgeois lifestyle: drinkin&#39; cognac, eating at nice french restaurants, going to expenive clubs...etc.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;Amaru+May 9 2006, 08:16 PM--> (Tupac-Amaru @ May 9 2006, 08:16 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 07:12 PM

Do you own a means of production?
Well im in college right now, so i personnaly dont. But my parents have shares in various corporations, my grandfather owned a factory. I come from a bourgeois family, i&#39;m inherently bourgeois&#33; :D [/b]
Well just so you know you might get hanged in later life, depending on how the political tide turns :)

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:22 PM

Well just so you know you might get hanged in later life, depending on how the political tide turns :)
Ok man&#33; I&#39;ll keep that in mind ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you own a means of production? (Just curious...making conversation :) )

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 9 2006, 08:25 PM
Do you own a means of production? (Just curious...making conversation :) )
No im working class. I don’t think there would be a point in me being involved or remotely interested in class war politics if I owned the means of production.

[bezdomni]

I own some sweatshops in China.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I own some sweatshops in China.

hahahaha i bet you probably do lol



Well just so you know you might get hanged in later life, depending on how the political tide turns

UUUUUU&#33;&#33; watch it now&#33;&#33; Skinz , even if he had a time machine that could transport him 1000 years from now, this "kill the bourgeois revolution" will still be a theory as it stands right now....if you love looking at history so much like your idol Marx did, and fortelling the future as if you were Nostradamus, than you can conclude that in our thousands of years of human evolution there has been rich and poor, therefore thats an indication that there will always be rich and poor less fortunate and more fortunate than others as long as humans exist, WHY? because it&#39;s human nature, not eveyrone has the same idiosyncrasy in the first place, that should just give it away to you....

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 10 2006, 01:41 AM
than you can conclude that in our thousands of years of human evolution there has been rich and poor, therefore thats an indication that there will always be rich and poor less fortunate and more fortunate than others as long as humans exist.
Actually the earlyest humans didnt understand the concept of wealth so your argument is flawed. Also capitalism might be with us for a long time yet but eventually it will change.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+May 10 2006, 11:13 AM--> (Skinz @ May 10 2006, 11:13 AM)
Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 10 2006, 01:41 AM
than you can conclude that in our thousands of years of human evolution there has been rich and poor, therefore thats an indication that there will always be rich and poor less fortunate and more fortunate than others as long as humans exist.
Actually the earlyest humans didnt understand the concept of wealth so your argument is flawed. Also capitalism might be with us for a long time yet but eventually it will change. [/b]
thats becauw3 the earlist humans were hunter-gatherers whose wealth consisited of what they killed the other day, the spears they made, what plants the women collected and the clothes on thier back. i suppose if we go back to tohse days we will again be classless..but would it be worth it?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:57 PM
i suppose if we go back to tohse days we will again be classless..but would it be worth it?
I didn’t suggest we did, all im saying is that there hasn&#39;t always been rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Skinz+May 10 2006, 02:14 PM--> (Skinz @ May 10 2006, 02:14 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 02:57 PM
i suppose if we go back to tohse days we will again be classless..but would it be worth it?
I didn’t suggest we did, all im saying is that there hasn&#39;t always been rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. [/b]
actually thats not true...there was generally a pack leader, a chief who was the one sorta in charge. there wasn&#39;t much matieral opression because therre wasn&#39;t much matieral. once things became plentiful, ie when we started farming and mining, then their became more of a gap and thus rich and poor were born.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

actually thats not true...there was generally a pack leader, a chief who was the one sorta in charge. there wasn&#39;t much matieral opression because therre wasn&#39;t much matieral. once things became plentiful, ie when we started farming and mining, then their became more of a gap and thus rich and poor were born.

exactly, thanks raven.....it&#39;s like if you and me are in a deserted island with nothing at all but ourselves, how is there going to be big gap between us in wealth and an instance of oppression?

but even so, with those situations, there were still ones who had more than others, take tribal conflict in Africa over cattle, one tribe is richer than the other because it has more cattle and so the people are wealthier, while the other tribe strives to get more cattle, and are poor...

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 9 2006, 06:39 PM
Hey so how would you label people who used to be Marxist but then realized that that dope don&#39;t work and never will?
Dunno exactly. Probably something worse. But good question. ;)

[encephalon]

you can conclude that in our thousands of years of human evolution there has been rich and poor, therefore thats an indication that there will always be rich and poor less fortunate and more fortunate than others as long as humans exist,

You know what else existed ever since the agricultural evolution? Slavery. But for the most part, what happened to slavery, genius? I&#39;ll be damned, people took it upon themselves to start eradicating it&#33;



actually thats not true...there was generally a pack leader, a chief who was the one sorta in charge. there wasn&#39;t much matieral opression because therre wasn&#39;t much matieral. once things became plentiful, ie when we started farming and mining, then their became more of a gap and thus rich and poor were born.


You&#39;re wrong. Early hunter gatherer societies had no chief or strict hierarchy. Some communities still exist of that nature, although they are quickly disappearing. Hunter gatherer societies with absolutely no knowledge of grazing animals or agriculture had no such hierarchy. Only when surplus came along did you get the haves and the have-nots; and only when a large surplus (with the agricultural revolution) accumulated did you get groups large enough to call classes.



but even so, with those situations, there were still ones who had more than others, take tribal conflict in Africa over cattle, one tribe is richer than the other because it has more cattle and so the people are wealthier, while the other tribe strives to get more cattle, and are poor...


This is not a conflict over wealth, but needs. Cows need land in order to graze, and people also need land in order to farm. As different civilizations pop up and learn agriculture and how to tame animals, their populations grow. This in turn leads to greater need for agriculture and grazing animals, which in turn leads to greater need for land. Whaddya know, this is when wars started. They attacked one another for ariable land to feed their respective populations, not for more "wealth." It wasn&#39;t until much later that the concept of wealth was even born.

Christ, ya&#39; fucking cappies. At least know what you&#39;re talking about before you open your damn mouths. Not everything they taught you in grade school is anywhere near correct. Learn a little about early humanity, at least.

[theraven]

You&#39;re wrong. Early hunter gatherer societies had no chief or strict hierarchy. Some communities still exist of that nature, although they are quickly disappearing. Hunter gatherer societies with absolutely no knowledge of grazing animals or agriculture had no such hierarchy. Only when surplus came along did you get the haves and the have-nots; and only when a large surplus (with the agricultural revolution) accumulated did you get groups large enough to call classes.

the chief wasnt&#39; gnerealy more wealthy or anything (they had nothing afterall) but he was sorta in charge. he led hunting expeidisn and stuff.




This is not a conflict over wealth, but needs. Cows need land in order to graze, and people also need land in order to farm. As different civilizations pop up and learn agriculture and how to tame animals, their populations grow. This in turn leads to greater need for agriculture and grazing animals, which in turn leads to greater need for land. Whaddya know, this is when wars started. They attacked one another for ariable land to feed their respective populations, not for more "wealth." It wasn&#39;t until much later that the concept of wealth was even born.

Christ, ya&#39; fucking cappies. At least know what you&#39;re talking about before you open your damn mouths. Not everything they taught you in grade school is anywhere near correct. Learn a little about early humanity, at least.

im not sure what you are talking about but ok
1) they fougth wars before agricutlrue was invented. they usualy vought over hunting rights.
2) just because wealth isnt&#39; gold doesnt mean its not wealt