Are you?

Established poster - and have stopped posting because of us?
3% (1 vote)
New poster - and are not likely to post much because of us?
3% (1 vote)
Established/new poster - and annoyed by us?
56% (22 votes)
Established/new poster - and don't mind our presence?
23% (9 votes)
Established/new poster - and couldn't care less?
15% (6 votes)
Total votes: 39

Posted By

oisleep
May 25 2005 19:11

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

oisleep
May 25 2005 19:11
Jack wrote:
It annoys the VAST majority of forum users. It has made some people stop posting. It makes new posters far, far less likely to post.

from another thread, Jack proferred that we (dioc & i) annoy the VAST majority of forum users, some people have stopped posting because of us, and new posters are far less likely to post because of our presence here.

I apologise if this is the case

I presume jack's already done a poll to get his information, but i couldn't find it anywhere, so if you wouldn't mind redoing it just to see

thanks

Steven.
May 25 2005 19:32

Oisleep - I wouldn't place you in there with dioclitianus because you have posted constructively on a lot of threads. I can't think of a single discussion which Dioc has contributed to in a constructive way, and a lot where it's just plain nonsense. Which doesn't annoy me in small doses, but it can get a bit much!

cantdocartwheels
May 25 2005 19:49

I wouldn't go too far, i mean its not that i hate you lot, its just that you aren't using the boards for local organising, which is the point of enrager/libcom really, its not about long lefty debates, most of the forum is about regional organising forums.

Plus you have a tendency to treat everyone on here as if theres soem split that makes the IWCA great and everyone else liberals. Which is ridiculous, certain tactics used by the IWCA are admirable, but i'm hardly without criticisim of them. Plenty of the people on here also like the IWCA a lot more than i do, or were affiliated to them at some point.

I mean i think blindly hating the entire 'middle class', which proletarians like teachers and doctors see themselves as part of, and ranting about how the working class supposedly 'don't care' about the war or nuclear issues and similar sentiments that have come out of the IWCA and they're affiliates at times, or that they have veered close to. This is a repulsive and patronising attitude, but i don't base my response to that around hyterically screaming that the IWCA are ''liberals' or ''wrong'', because that would be foolish and pointless, there are good things and bad things about the IWCA, just as from your perspective, there should be good and bad things about the politics of people on this board, to generalise everyone as ''liberals'' or ''middle class'' is not only annoying and incorrect, its also extremely counter-productive.

And we don't need to rant about respect, 99% of the UK's population are well aware that they're shite, people haven't been living in a cave the last year, i don't think that they're relevant enough to rant about. Its like handing out a leaflet in a mostly white area teling people that islamic fundamentalism is a bit shit really, there wouldn't be much point to that would there.

ps i don't mind the odd picture, but please don't post one in every single bloody post, it makes any serious discussion impossible and means my browser takes ages to load up what is realistically useless crap, even if it does make me laugh one out of five times

oisleep
May 25 2005 20:03
cantdocartwheels wrote:
I wouldn't go too far, i mean its not that i hate you lot, its just that you aren't using the boards for local organising, which is the point of enrager/libcom really, its not about long lefty debates, most of the forum is about regional organising forums.

Plus you have a tendency to treat everyone on here as if theres soem split that makes the IWCA great and everyone else liberals. Which is ridiculous, certain tactics used by the IWCA are admirable, but i'm hardly without criticisim of them. Plenty of the people on here also like the IWCA a lot more than i do, or were affiliated to them at some point.

I mean i think blindly hating the entire 'middle class', which proletarians like teachers and doctors see themselves as part of, and ranting about how the working class supposedly 'don't care' about the war or nuclear issues and similar sentiments that have come out of the IWCA and they're affiliates at times, or that they have veered close to. This is a repulsive and patronising attitude, but i don't base my response to that around hyterically screaming that the IWCA are ''liberals' or ''wrong'', because that would be foolish and pointless, there are good things and bad things about the IWCA, just as from your perspective, there should be good and bad things about the politics of people on this board, to generalise everyone as ''liberals'' or ''middle class'' is not only annoying and incorrect, its also extremely counter-productive.

And we don't need to rant about respect, 99% of the UK's population are well aware that they're shite, people haven't been living in a cave the last year, i don't think that they're relevant enough to rant about. Its like handing out a leaflet in a mostly white area teling people that islamic fundamentalism is a bit shit really, there wouldn't be much point to that would there.

ps i don't mind the odd picture, but please don't post one in every single bloody post, it makes any serious discussion impossible and means my browser takes ages to load up what is realistically useless crap, even if it does make me laugh one out of five times

thank you, it's all fair points that you made and i can't really argue with any of it

cheers for that, makes a change from just being called a dick/cock/mental problems from some of the other posters here

oisleep
May 25 2005 20:10
Jack wrote:
oisleep wrote:
from another thread, Jack proferred that we (dioc & i) annoy the VAST majority of forum users, some people have stopped posting because of us, and new posters are far less likely to post because of our presence here.

Jesus, you really are a twat, aren't you?

Comrades from CAG have said to me "I'm not posting on libcom anymore, it's shit now, it's just diocanus posting shit".

That's some, and that's too many.

And while you might not piss off the vast majority of posters, the number of people pissed off and annoyed with Dioc is fucking clear. It requires no poll whatsoever. In fact, it's only you who has defended him at all. No one else has come to his defence, despite us mods picking on him. Doesn't that say something?

so some comrades from CAG = VAST majority?

who taught you the math?

and may just be coincidence but we arrived around the same time as the rebranding, at that point, according to you lots of people stopped posting, hmmm

oisleep
May 25 2005 20:12
Jack wrote:
Oh, and btw, a slight logical lapse - if people have stopped posting, or aren't likely to start because of you, then they're hardly going to vote in a poll you start.

So just to let you know pre-emptivly, this poll isn't going to prove anything.

you said they stopped posting, not stopped browsing the forums, if they had stopped popsting because of dioc/me, then i'm sure they would be moved enough to vote on a poll to register their reasons

don't blame us because some people might have left because you forced a shit name on them all

redyred
May 25 2005 20:22
oisleep wrote:

so some comrades from CAG = VAST majority?

oisleep wrote:
Jack proferred that ... some people have stopped posting because of us,
oisleep wrote:
and may just be coincidence but we arrived around the same time as the rebranding, at that point, according to you lots of people stopped posting, hmmm
Jack wrote:
Comrades from CAG have said to me "I'm not posting on libcom anymore, it's shit now, it's just diocanus posting shit".

So, just to join the dots for you Oisleep - The vast majority of regular posters find Dioclitoris to be a twat, some people have stopped posting because Dioclitoris is a twat.

redyred
May 25 2005 20:34
oisleep wrote:

you said they stopped posting, not stopped browsing the forums, if they had stopped popsting because of dioc/me, then i'm sure they would be moved enough to vote on a poll to register their reasons

Oh shut up you scrotum. If people aren't posting cos they don't want to wade through a load of shit pointless posts they aren't going to browse either are they?

Quote:
don't blame us because some people might have left because you forced a shit name on them all

The difference, nonce-breath, is that the people who left over the name change were a bunch of embarrasing tree huggers who we are better off without. The people leaving now are people who are fed up of putting up with

1. Posts that are totally irrelevent and boring

2. Someone who thinks everyone on libcom.org loves up Galloway and Monbiot, while practically everyone on here has a far more coherent critique of them than him.

3. Someone who thinks by posting inane picture posts and somehow think that makes them funny/wins them arguments.

4. Someone who is basically a total cunt.

oisleep
May 25 2005 20:42
redyred wrote:
oisleep wrote:

so some comrades from CAG = VAST majority?

oisleep wrote:
Jack proferred that ... some people have stopped posting because of us,
oisleep wrote:
and may just be coincidence but we arrived around the same time as the rebranding, at that point, according to you lots of people stopped posting, hmmm
Jack wrote:
Comrades from CAG have said to me "I'm not posting on libcom anymore, it's shit now, it's just diocanus posting shit".

So, just to join the dots for you Oisleep - The vast majority of regular posters find Dioclitoris to be a twat, some people have stopped posting because Dioclitoris is a twat.

aye fair point, i got that lot a bit mixed up

oisleep
May 25 2005 20:46
redyred wrote:
oisleep wrote:

you said they stopped posting, not stopped browsing the forums, if they had stopped popsting because of dioc/me, then i'm sure they would be moved enough to vote on a poll to register their reasons

Oh shut up you scrotum. If people aren't posting cos they don't want to wade through a load of shit pointless posts they aren't going to browse either are they?

Quote:
don't blame us because some people might have left because you forced a shit name on them all

The difference, nonce-breath, is that the people who left over the name change were a bunch of embarrasing tree huggers who we are better off without. The people leaving now are people who are fed up of putting up with

1. Posts that are totally irrelevent and boring

2. Someone who thinks everyone on libcom.org loves up Galloway and Monbiot, while practically everyone on here has a far more coherent critique of them than him.

3. Someone who thinks by posting inane picture posts and somehow think that makes them funny/wins them arguments.

4. Someone who is basically a total cunt.

are you familiar with the smell of a nonce's breath?

is he basically a total cunt is he, is that at the end of the day, or to be perfectly honest?

i've never met such a bunch of blokes who are so infatuated with scrotums, cocks, dicks, cunts and what have you, and then you have a pop at us for the content of our posts being boring

Steven.
May 25 2005 20:47
redyred wrote:
Oh shut up you scrotum.

Hey come on calm down, imagine you were talking face to face

Jacques Roux
May 25 2005 20:49
John. wrote:
redyred wrote:
Oh shut up you scrotum.

Hey come on calm down, imagine you were talking face to face

Would be funny tho wouldnt it? I've never head anyone call anyone else a "scrotum" face to face... Mr. T grin

redyred
May 25 2005 20:56
John. wrote:

Hey come on calm down, imagine you were talking face to face

But, you see, if I'm too polite they post stuff like this

Quote:
aye fair point, i got that lot a bit mixed up

which is frankly boring. I prefer it when they become hysterically offended. Now, since my point is simply and logically proving him wrong rather than attacking the very core of his idealogical being, how else am I supposed to achieve that effect without throwing in some cheap insults?

oisleep
May 25 2005 22:06
rkn wrote:
John. wrote:
redyred wrote:
Oh shut up you scrotum.

Hey come on calm down, imagine you were talking face to face

Would be funny tho wouldnt it? I've never head anyone call anyone else a "scrotum" face to face... Mr. T grin

i have to admit it would be quite difficult to keep a straight face whilst on the receiving end of that insult in real life!

oisleep
May 25 2005 22:16
redyred wrote:

which is frankly boring. I prefer it when they become hysterically offended. Now, since my point is simply and logically proving him wrong rather than attacking the very core of his idealogical being, how else am I supposed to achieve that effect without throwing in some cheap insults?

i would have thought it was possible to logically point out where i went wrong and that would be good enough in itself

i grew out of calling people names shortly after leaving primary school (around the time i started tidying my bedroom), whereafter i attempted to engage with people on the basis of their arguments, the amount of name calling as a substitute for any rational debate around here is pretty high, which, more than anything, i would have thought would put off new posters from posting here, i'm sure they can go to msn teenchat or something like that if they want to sit and call each other cock, dick, scrotum, nonce breath etc.. all night

but thing is you can call me all the names under the sun, and there's next to no chance i'll even get mildly offended by it, let alone this hysterical level that you think you are able to inflict on someone by calling them after various parts of the human anatomy that you seem to have an infutuation with

Oi!
May 26 2005 01:04

LOL

You tidy your bedroom! grin

Diocletianus
May 26 2005 09:31

If my stlye of posting upsets folk so much,how do you deal with nastyness in the real outside world.Its like a swerve off the path and its all misary.I have never mantion mens meat and two vegs,never called anyone a womens bit.I have discussed my thoughts but cos they not wrapped up mammoth verbosity with a smug smile,its like a war crime.

oisleep
May 26 2005 09:36

i've asked the same question a few times, but the point never seems to get addressed

we're not doing too well on the poll though swarth, maybe the circle A are right afterall, we are annoying, i find capitalism annoying and i wish that would go away as well

*tidy's bedroom*

the button
May 26 2005 09:43
Jack wrote:
If some annoying fuck came to your party...

So libcom's your party is it, Jack?

wink

Diocletianus
May 26 2005 09:44

Name these eviltudeist acts i have commited aginst the circle A wallflowers then.In fact i have toned down my posting syrle since i have come on this hear board.

oisleep
May 26 2005 09:45
Jack wrote:
...blah blah blah.....dick......blah blah blah .......dick.....blah blah blah

good points well made

is this infatuation with the male member a manifest of your time spent at public school jack?

the button
May 26 2005 09:45
Jack wrote:
The Libertarian Communist Party. We're intending on standing in election in 2007, on a platform of self emancipation, progressive taxation, and kicking crack dealers to death.

Sensible policies for a better Britain. grin

Diocletianus
May 26 2005 09:57

JACK AND REVO68,S TADGER FETISH EXPLAINED

oisleep
May 26 2005 10:32
Jack wrote:
oisleep wrote:
is this infatuation with the male member a manifest of your time spent at public school jack?

Yes, actually.

It was an unusual form of public school however, in that it was own by the state, had no fees or entrance exams and was full of working class kids.

Some would even argue that these objective factors negated it from being a public school. But they'd be silly.

ah so you don't subscribe to the view that anarchists should attend public school in order to avoid state influence maaan

well i'm at a loss then to explain your infantile obsession with the male member jack

the button
May 26 2005 10:34
oisleep wrote:
ah so you don't subscribe to the view that anarchists should attend public school in order to avoid state influence maaan

.... in fact the former British secretary of the IWW subscribed to that precise viewpoint. roll eyes

(Luckily for the Wobs, he's fucked off now)

oisleep
May 26 2005 10:39

blimey!

the button
May 26 2005 10:41
oisleep wrote:
blimey!

I know. While I realise that the following term is something of a hot potato (particularly on this thread).....

Cock!

oisleep
May 26 2005 10:44

good lord!

the button
May 26 2005 10:48

.... a real tosser of the first water, he is. I remember he "squared up" to me after a meeting once, then realised that I'm about 4 inches taller than him (and, at the time, about a foot wider).

roll eyes

oisleep
May 26 2005 10:49

heavens to betsy!!

what were you scraping over?