babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Gee. Ya think?
It's been said I have a talent for the obvious.
What heinous things? I never said you supported heinous things? Where? When? You went on at length about how criticism of the NDP amounts a personal passive agressive attack against you. You are the one taking it personally, other than that I don't know what you are talking about. Telling you that attacks against the NDP were not personal attacks against yourself, you now construe as being yet another personal attack.
Par for the course. Yay! Wow.
Heh.
It was right in the bit you quoted, but when you gave us your homily you then went on as if it wasn't there and only used a part of the sentence so that you could then make passive aggressive attacks against someone who has the gall to disagree with you.
And what besides passive aggressive would you call this?
How about this for a personal attack, not involving me, but you and some others.
Really you are a pretty big dickhead. Arrogant, self-satisfied, smarmy and noxiously divisive.
Just noticed it over here: Should the left split from the NDP. Even the simple suggestion that people might take there organizational skills elsewhere, and not support the NDP is enough to get you to go off on a vicious diatribe like that.
You start shit up but you can't take it. What an ass. Talk about passive agressive, you can't even bring yourself to make a substantive point directly aimed at an arguement made by someone directly, instead we get this grade school hallway snickering.
Hey Cueball, try the new "ignore" function. It works like a charm.
It was just something I noticed on another thread when I moved on elsewhere, and there it was, like a big fat shit in the middle of that thread. Thought it was worth noting.
One of the things I try to do-- and I find this most difficult when talking about the senate, for example-- is not to dehumanize someone...(even the senate, I type through clenched teeth) by refering to them as an animal. I mean, I used to. And I think I slipped a few weeks ago on something.
But, it's bad. I came to that while reading Dallaire's book, and how the radio kept refering to the Tutsi's as cockroaches.
Oh but Tommy, that would be passive agressive!
What is your problem.
I was only talking about those people who talk about the great working class, but don't actually spend any time in it, or with working class people and in fact often look down on working class folks. I have been seeing them since my university days. They exist.
I also think it is very telling that the simple request made by George being ignored. And a person who has spoke directly about something had effected their lives was treated dismissivly telling. It speaks to a real hole that progressives are not doing a very good job filling around economic issues and credibility with people. Not exactly a shocking theory as I am not even close to the only one to have ever mentioned it. If you want to accuse me of something accuse me of be derivative.
It makes no never mind to to me if people want to organize outside or inside the NDP. For many issues party politics is also completely irrelevant as the push will have to come from civil society. However, the question will still remain that George posed and that was raised around fees. They are important questions germaine to the issues, but sadley to few ever want to look them in the face because they are stuck on theory both about economic issues and average working people.
There is nothing attacking about it beyond the concerns it critiques. But thanks for finally revealing how you actually behave instead of just being all passive aggressive about it.
I think you spelled agressive wrong, Cueball.
Two g's.
Tommy, try out that iggnore function.
Oh, I've been doing that for ages. You notice I dissapear from time to time.
Mostly to ignore myself, but sometimes because something gets under my skin, and I realize.... it's time to refocus on what's important.
That one line makes the entire thread worthwhile.
The only reason Dana was brought into this thread as a point of disucssuion is so BA could be obliquely smashed, and those who are playing holier than thou...have not a leg to stand on,
Playing the phoney role of principled know it all progressives, who know better than others, grows tiring..participating while pretending they are not is just.....
Fucking sickening.
No Dana came up in this thread because you posed the idea that there were no NDP party "functionaries" who visit this site. Clearly there are, and they include among them people as far up as Brian Topp. Otherwise there are several people who have official party functions come here. Several candidates, including at one time Dana Larsen, and also persons like Scott Piatowski. I am not aware of the identities of many of the persons behind the nicknames, but reading any NDP polling thread reveals that there are a number of people who work with the party officially to a greater or lesser extent. It is quite obvious.
I was simply pointing out that it was highly unlikely that Brad Levigne "just happened" upon this post by Dana Larsen that he mentioned in his letter, and I posed the idea that some other party functionary, or even a connected sympathizer, who is a regular visitor here sent the info along. Possibly this started here. I don't know, but regardless it was expressly part of the information that Levigne referenced in his letter to Larsen.
Someone must have given it to him. I really doubt he found it himself.
If you think I am implicating BA in this, you are wrong. I don't think its his style.
And if anyone uses that line, unless they are the late Ross Macdonald, you're stealing my bit!
LMAO, yeah so, you have problems with others appropriating your "bits"? I thought real progressives were critical of this whole copyright fixation thingy of the last couple of decades. Or are you a puppet for big pharma or others with a vested interest in seeing "thou shalt not infringe on copyright" get top ten billing on some stone tablet somewhere?
Ah, the thread's picking up. Good healthy spirit of solidarity. Nice touch.
I actually even stole that manner of acrediting the quip from "Krusty the Clown" on the Simpsons.
If I ignored everyone who I passionately dissagreed with on this post or that over the years, I'd end up just reading myself, and then I'd miss 10% of the fun.
Tommy, you know I love you, but I'm afraid my lawyers are a'gonna hafta do some actioning.
Exhibit "A"
"If you think I am implicating BA in this, you are wrong. I don't think its his style."
fair enough, happy to see, amongst all the other personal attacks that you made upon him, that you do not think he did so.
However, i believe my point still stands, your comments were used to obliquely smear BA.
Your gratuitous lack of capitals is an obvious attempt to bait the sensitive grammarians on babble. You are evil, nay , the AntiChrist®, and should be burned at the stake, or at least tickled with a very fluffy feather.
Any fair-minded person reading the offending thread can see the frustration of a fellow who speaks only from honest conviction, who does not - and probably cannot - play upon the words of others. I cannot recall a single post of Fidel's that would give the lie to this. He is unique among many that have peeked into the bear pit but found the baiting not to their honest-to-god, straight-forward liking. And this sorting process leaves a gladitorial few to entertain the lurkers who search desperately for nubbins of news and insight among the bloody dispatches.
Babble should be a place of learning, a forum where news is gathered and disseminated, not to siimply support some point of argument in courtroom fashion, but to try to pierce the fog of misunderstanding that makes our world one helluva legacy for our descendants. And when people CANNOT supply the answers to the central challenge of party politics in our democracy, like, how could they, with the resources at hand, do what they accuse a party and its leadership of not doing... it's really time to leave aside the semantics.
And it is time for the folks with their fingers on the ban buttons to create that sharing atmosphere. Shakespeare had that in mind when he said something about the weight of responsibility that accompanies the crown.
Free Fidel!
I was going to avoid this one but since I was in a couple of the threads that initiated this I feel partly responsible. I hope the mods go easy on Fidel; I know he crossed a couple lines but I was one of his targets there and he didn't bother me a bit. I didn't know he was considered such a problem here by some, but maybe some here don't know him well enough. If the mods think he needs an extended timeout I won't complain, but I really think it would be unfair to ban him for this given he was mostly making a few generic comments about "Liberals" and "concern trolling", kind of thing that's always been allowed here before and which in some cases here I think may be true. In the thread that led to this I don't think it was. I should say abit more but its getting late, I'm a little bit buzzed and I'm kinda caught in the middle on a couple issues here and wouldn't want to say anything that might just cause more hassles. Maybe tommorrow.
That may be what you believe. But it is not the case. I made a passing comment that has gotten all out of proportion. I made if for two reasons: one, because the recent conversation about anoniminity and babble came to mind in terms of people in sensitive positions, and two, because I want the dirty little snipe who is reporting on the quasi-casual and sometimes jocular commentary on this web site to know that he or she is an insufferable little lowlife informer. Nothing more than that.
As for Dana's comment, it seemed to me to be a typical tongue in cheek kind of comment, that was in keeping with the tenor of this board.
There is an excelent novel by Milan Kundera written about Czechoslovakia in the 60's called "the Joke", which is about the destruction of the life of a communist youth leader who makes the mistake of whistfully sending off a post card to his girlfriend saying that "Optimism is the opium of the people! A healthy atmosphere stinks of stupidity! Long live Trotsky!" as an ribald "in-joke", which becomes the evidence upon which he is evicted from his university, the party and sent to work in a labour camp.
Further discussion about my comment only made is seem more relevant to the discussion at hand than it was intended.
But it is more or less a given to me that someone sneak from this board ratted Dana out.
I think I know who ratted on Dana here, but I wouldn't want to get into hot water myself over something I couldn't prove. And I wouldn't want to be seen as a rat myself. It wasn't anyone on this thread, that I'm sure.