Conversation Between OneNamedNameLess and Sam_b

  1. That made no sense? It depends in which context the word is used? Zealous attachment? Anyway, I have to go. We can continue this later if you desire or just put it to bed now. The desperate defence of the SWP must end. Additionally, the endless bashing of the SWP on the boards must end and I acknowledge that. I was not bashing the group but taking a swipe at their paper, which is shite, and expressing my feelings about such an exaggerated article.
  2. Sam_b
    Firstly, the start of that makes no sense whatsoever. Secondly I was not asking you that out of any paternalism (I asume that I'm barely a couple of years older than you), I was asking you because I really don't think you have a clue about what you're talking about.
  3. Depends in which context it is used. I was using the word with reference to your zealous attachment to the SWP. Also, I thought you were being slightly paternalistic when you questioned my absence in the worker's struggles across the UK which is ridiculous. Your paternalistic attitude has been reflected once more by asking me if I know what chauvinism means. I could point out that you didn't spell it correctly and be all paternalistic myself.
  4. Sam_b
    I was referring to the wider part of the class struggle - namely militant trade unionism and worker interventionism. Your idea of organisations inherently creating sectarianism is nonsense.

    Do you even know what chauvenism is?
  5. Oh aye, i'm not a part of the British working class either. I'm a student just like you
  6. Mate you are a joyless bastard. Such comments are made on political forums including this one. Not everything has to be a straight faced critique. Your organisation is a tiny, insignificant part of the struggle. Putting all of your energy and faith into one organisation can only hinder the cause and result in sectarianism which, btw, I don't play any part in. I am not opposed to the SWP in any way.

    For the record, I have been active this summer doing other things. I couldn't come to RWB as I can't find a job, therefore I am short of cash. Judging by the account of the demos by users on this site, and by a few people who attended that I know, they were not anywhere near as tense as they were made out to be in that article.

    I'm surprised at your chauvinism Sam.
  7. Sam_b
    So apparently i'm the bad guy to defend an organisation i'm a part of. Well whoop-dee-fucking do then I'm obviously the one in the wrong. Thanking bobkindles for the negative rep eh? The thing is I expected better - I expected a user to put in a decent critique in a POLITICAL forum rather than a baseless swipe for worthless thank you points. I obviously held my expectations too high. The other point would be that were you even at Codnor and if not on what authority do you have to call out and say this is a rubbish article made deliberately to be published?

    Regardless the SWP has enough to fill papers being at the forefront of the wave of occupations and disputes right now that have real implications for the British working class - struggles I assume you've had absolutely no part in.
  8. Oh really? So the faithful guardians of the SWP pull up everyone who insults their organisation? Incase you haven't noticed, there are plenty of users who have something negative to say about the SWP and say a lot worse than I did. I don't take back what I said, it probably was a pathetic attempt to fill up pages in that horrid read of a paper.
  9. Sam_b
    Your intention was that you were purely fishing and me and bob rightfully called you up on it, it was blatantly for rep points from your other sectarian friends.
  10. What was my intention Sam? Enlighten me? I am entitled to take a sracastic swipe at the socialist worker without having the SWP brigade on my back. We all know it's a poor quality read anyway.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 15
12