A word of thanks

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]
There is nothing wrong with being a Communist. Its a perfectly legitimate ideology - even if its been a total failure everywhere its been tried.

[/b]


I know this is off-topic but I weary of this. Here's William Blum:

quote:

no one seems to notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century was either bombed, invaded, or overthrown; corrupted, perverted, or destabilized; or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement – from the Russian revolution to the Vietnamese communists to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to Salvador Allende in Chile to the FMLN in Salvador – not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home. It continues today with Washington's attempts to subvert the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, and, of course, still, forever, Cuba.

Imagine that the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines had all failed because the automobile interests had sabotaged each test flight. And then, thanks to the auto companies' propaganda, the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man [sic] shall never fly.


More [url=http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer63.html]here.[/url]

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

I see, despite the fact the Topp seems more than capable of dishing it out in the case of Laxer and This Magazine, he has, as I predicted, not responded to the direct question about the recent failure of the NDP in the last federal election.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Just this once:

I give flames and trolls by anonymous internet posters a pass.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Please point out Mr. Topp, how my question to you was a flame or a troll?

What exactly was "flamey" about it?

Bookish Agrarian

I have tried quiet behind the scenes complaints to be nice.

But moderators I have to ask publicly- at what point will Cueballs behaviour be dealt with? His gosh, golly gee, I don't really mean the people on babble when I viciously and inaccurately attack has grown very thin and tiresome. He/she is a toxic presence. He/she must be dealt with and his/her constant stealth attacks. There is a clear double standard at play here.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

Stockholm

The term "Stalinist" is routinely used to describe people with a totally inflexible, head-in-the-sand orthodox ideology that features a command economy and crushing of dissent and a derisive attitude towards democratic institutions. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what people think of Stalin personally.

quote:

Like many other "-isms" it can be used as a pejorative term when referring to nation-states, political parties, or the ideological stance(s) of individuals, particularly "Anti-Revisionists". It is also used as a pejorative to describe politicians and political groups, Communist or non-Communist, who are perceived as particularly authoritarian or hard-line.

Cueball Cueball's picture

But you don't know anything about "Stalanism", at all.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]I have tried quiet behind the scenes complaints to be nice.

But moderators I have to ask publicly- at what point will Cueballs behaviour be dealt with? His gosh, golly gee, I don't really mean the people on babble when I viciously and inaccurately attack has grown very thin and tiresome. He/she is a toxic presence. He/she must be dealt with and his/her constant stealth attacks. There is a clear double standard at play here.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ][/b]


Ridiculous. I entered into this discussion with a perfectly civil post about the recent election failure of the NDP, in the context of Mr. Topp's previous statements about NDP strategy here on this web site.

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Good to see you post in your official capacity.

Some of the capital "D" defenders of the NDP have been spinning this election as a success based on the seat count, but it seems to some of us that this is more spinning of wheels, given the fact that the party did not rise more than a smidgen above its last result, and in fact lost overall votes.

Recently you posted a letter you wrote after you admitted to wanting to "barf" (euphemistically) on one of Canada's only established non-partisan left wing journals because of some commentary critical of present NDP policy positions. You spoke at length about "voting to win" as the key to succesful implimentation of policy, noting past NDP achievements as a result.

So. How is that working out for yah?[/b]


Mr. Topp seems to think asking him questions is trolling, and has yet to point out where I was 'flaming' him.

I was immediatly attacked by several NDP partisans. Since then I have been roundly attacked in the ad hominem, some more cleverly than others, and some as simple as calling me a "yapping poodle", telling me to "go to Cuba" and calling me a "Stalanist". Your contribution to the ad hominem is somewhat above red-baiting, but gets marks for trying to assert NDP control of the board editorial policy.

And I am the "Stalanist"? Doesn't the NDP have its own board already?

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

contrarianna

Hey, what's up Cue, you haven't been called a "Liberal" on this thread yet?

You may think you get off by being called a commie, but I'm sure The People of the Corn can bring it all together into something like:

"Lickspittle troll, yapping running dog Commie poodle of the Liberal Party."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Brian for coming on and posting. I am glad you pay attention to some of the posts here.

Don't mind Cueball he is constant and unrelenting in his diatribes. The old term for behaviour like his was passive aggressive. He attacks and then sulks when people attack back it is quite funny actually. I would also ask for his banning for trolling but he is sort of an amusing light weight around here.

Go Cueball Go lets see what you can hurl yourself off of this time. He does get full points for many caroms with other posters. Unfortunately this is not a billiards site but a chat forum.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian Topp:
[b]I give flames and trolls by anonymous internet posters a pass.[/b]

This from the guy whose OP appeared to be so grateful for all the discussions about the NDP on babble during the election. Evidently the 94% of babblers who post anonymously aren't included in that sentiment (except of course the dogged defenders of the party line against all forms of criticism).

Cueball Cueball's picture

"Never mind the anonymous passive agressive running troll Commie poodles of the Liberal Party."

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Thanks Brian for coming on and posting. I am glad you pay attention to some of the posts here.

Don't mind Cueball he is constant and unrelenting in his diatribes. The old term for behaviour like his was passive aggressive. He attacks and then sulks when people attack back it is quite funny actually. I would also ask for his banning for trolling but he is sort of an amusing light weight around here.

Go Cueball Go lets see what you can hurl yourself off of this time. He does get full points for many caroms with other posters. Unfortunately this is not a billiards site but a chat forum.[/b]


Light weight? Your the guy who professes to be an Anarchist card carrying member of the NDP. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

George Victor

No to a vacation in Cuba, huh?

How did Henry (II) put it back when..."Will no one rid me (us) of this turbulent (trolling) priest?"

Or something? [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Ridiculous. I entered into this discussion with a perfectly civil post about the recent election failure of the NDP, in the context of Mr. Topp's previous statements about NDP strategy here on this web site.

[/b]


Bullshit is was taunting and derogatory. Sorry if I am grown up enough to see through your childishness and your 'what me' routine.

You make a mockery of this board and its stated posting policy. Every single post you make is an attack upon someone or certain babblers as a group. I'll grant you are subtler than most, but it is a clear and consistent pattern.

I don't give a flying anything whether you like, love or have a fetish for the NDP. It is irrelevant. What I do think is relevant is the manner in which you continue to attack others than get all sensitive when people see through what you are doing. You are toxic and you take away from the real discussion this board is meant for.

I for one have never attacked anyone for not liking or criticizing the NDP. I have posted counter argument and I am unabashed about it, but never attacked. You on the other hand like to use terms like NDP wankers and other derogetory terms that are clearly if subtly directed at other babblers. Yet you seem to be able to do it with impunity or mild slaps. I have to and do question that.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]

Bullshit is was taunting and derogatory. Sorry if I am grown up enough to see through your childishness and your 'what me' routine. [/b]


Pointing out that the NDP lost yet another election, and again in fact gained no statistically quantifiable increase in public support, and then contextualizing that in previous statements of the campaign manager and his theories about election strategy, and his own vituperative attacks against other left-wing institutions is taunting?

Topp seems perfectly happy to dish it out, as they say, when professing that he wanted to "barf" on This Magazine. I certainly said nothing of the kind to him, except to quote him and reference the clearly verifiable facts and his own words.

Not much far above, "is obama a marxist?" really.

You are so precious.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


So. How is that working out for yah?

Yes you are right there is nothing taunting in this kind of line at all.

Thanks Mr Toxic Degenerator.

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]

Thanks Mr Toxic Degenerator.[/b]


Bookish Agrarian (not so long ago and not so far away):

quote:

It is fairly clear if nothing else you would have made a pretty good rump roast.

George Victor

quote:


You are so precious.


CAn't imagine what analysis would come up with for you, cue. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

---------------------------------

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]

Yes you are right there is nothing taunting in this kind of line at all.

Thanks Mr Toxic Degenerator.[/b]


Toxic Avenger was a funny movie, did you know that?

My question to Topp actually referenced his own words, and the actual results of the election.

As for the rest of Topp's letter to This Magazine, along with the insipid "if they dare print it" schtick, common among the outcast iconoclast set, at least half of it amounts to anything but a carefully worded and serious critique, but is an ad hominem smear attacking the credentials of the author, even though, as Topp freely admits, the article in no way advertized Laxers credentials as Topp suggests he [i]might[/i] have.

Topp amuses himself with attacking Laxer for saying and doing things that there is no evidence he did. But the ad hominem "poisoning the well" question seems so much part and parcel of the NDP poltical culture, at least in how it makes itself felt by many on this board, that I should not be suprised to see this kind of vituperative ad hominem smearing even from party officials.

But, ok, expressing an opinion, and entering into a discussion without invective based on the facts, is trolling and flaming.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So disappointing to see so many threads derailed by one person. I wonder why I come here lately. Thought it would be different after the election.

Cueball Cueball's picture

How did I derail the thread. I asked a question. Top was free not to answer it, which he did not, as I predicted.

I asked a question about Topp's previous statement, and his views on election strategy, and the NDP.

That is what I did.

But the partisans arrive. Freaking out. Lashing out. Saying nothing. Calling people "poodles" "communists" "Stalanists", and all directing the conversation at me, and away from the direct topic of the thread, and its I who is "derailing the thread?"

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
[b]I wonder why I come here lately.[/b]

Me too.

martin dufresne

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

janfromthebruce

Same here. I am tired of engaging in conversation, and than Cue comes in, and makes it essentially, all about him. I also know that Remind has quit posting due to continual attacks and feeling like once he/she puts a post up, like on cue, cue is there.
This was suppose to be a feel good thread, but now it's become ugly. I'm disgusted.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian Topp:
[b]Compared to the complexities of Saskatchewan politics and governance, these ten-province three-territory polylingual five-party federal contests seem simple(r) and much easier to find common ground on! [/b]

New Democrat voters elect an MP in Alberta where they make up 12.7% of the voters, Liberal voters elect an MP in Saskatchewan where they make up 14.9% of the voters, New Democrat voters in Ontario make up 18.2% of the voters and elect 17 MPs, New Democrat voters in Manitoba make up 24.0% of the voters and elect four MPs, yet New Democrat voters in Saskatchewan make up 25.6% of the voters and elect no one. Complex, yes. Skewed, yes. Undemocratic, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]He/she is a toxic presence. He/she must be dealt with and his/her constant stealth attacks. There is a clear double standard at play here.[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Brian Topp:
[b]Just this once:[/b]

Once is too many.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]Same here. I am tired of engaging in conversation, and than Cue comes in, and makes it essentially, all about him. I also know that Remind has quit posting due to continual attacks and feeling like once he/she puts a post up, like on cue, cue is there.
This was suppose to be a feel good thread, but now it's become ugly. I'm disgusted.[/b]

How did I make it all about me?

Maybe you all should banned together and start a Rabble Reactions thread, and talk about specifically what kind of behaviour that I engage in that makes it "all about me", and then seek to have that behaviour bannable, and then you can ask to have me banned under the terms you would like to set forth.

But so far, its just a personal attack, and you are doing it even now. And in fact, red-baiting, as Stockholm and George Victor, have engaged in in this thread, are in fact clearly against the policy of the board. Calling someone a "yapping poodle" is too ridiculous an accusation to even consider having moderated.

I asked a question of Topp, and I added some of my own opinions as a basis for the question I was asking. All was referenced to known facts, and Topp's own statments.

Then TCD decided to attack. Then, one after the other like so many dominos the idiotic smearing began.

What the real problem here? The real problem is that some NDP people don't seem to be able to distinguish the differences between "admiting to failure", and "not giving up".

Brian Topps "playing to win" strategy did not in fact "win." The NDP lost. The NDP got less votes than in the last election. That is the truth, and you can not spin it otherwise.

Nor has 30 years of progressively watering down the NDP platform succeded in positioning the NDP to win, as can be shown by the consistent results, of which these last ones are no exceptions.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mojoroad1

Cueball,

Brian came on here to thank people for their ideas. This was a nice gesture, a simple thank you. As per usual your odious manner flared up and you just couldn't resist. BA and many others are quite right.... I've had enough dealings with you myself to see through your little charade of "who me"? bullshit. Sorry buddy but in Billiards parlance you've "scratched" once too often IMV. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

People can have and do disagree with one another all the time on here (in another thread Fidel and I were having it out just for example) but in the end I respect Fidel and I (hope at least) he respects me, even if we disagree. I like many others notice the distinct lack of basic respect that you seem to have with, well, EVERYBODY. I don't care what your politics are, as I know you get off at the fact frustrated people call you on whatever angle of attack seems to fit whatever subject is in question.

martin dufresne

And me thinking purges were supposed to be internal...

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]And me thinking purges were supposed to be internal...[/b]

Yes, you would think it would be Topp who would be heading out the door after throwing away 13 million dollars on a campaign that did nothing to improve the NDP's standing with the Canadian public.

Not completely flubbing the election might be enought to keep Jack in his job, but someone should go I think, and Topp would sound like the most likely candidate. But no they are coming after some anonymous guy on the internet for questioning Topp's political accument.

quote:

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
[b]Cueball,

Brian came on here to thank people for their ideas. This was a nice gesture, a simple thank you. As per usual your odious manner flared up and you just couldn't resist. BA and many others are quite right.... I've had enough dealings with you myself to see through your little charade of "who me"? bullshit. Sorry buddy but in Billiards parlance you've "scratched" once too often IMV. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


He certainly never thanked Laxer or This Magazine for their "ideas". He was certainly more than happy to "barf" on them and then make and attack on Laxer based on the idea that Laxer [i]might[/i] have claimed credentials that Laxer didn't qualify for, even though in the This Magazine article Laxer made no claims to any such credentials, a fact that Topp freely admits:

quote:

As a footnote, it was refreshing to see this article reprinted in your magazine [b]without a little italicized note[/b] in which Mr. Laxer claims he is an "NDP strategist". Other than a very brief and disastrous stint as caucus research director a quarter century ago, quickly and mercifully ended, Mr. Laxer has never played such a role. But he's been dining on that very modest credential to dance for the old-line party of his choice ever since.

Again, this round of defence is absurd in the forthright and nasty attacks that Topp made against one of the few independent left wing journals in this country.

Oh, but now you want everyone else to be sweet? Did I answer Topp's "thank you" with a "barf" smiley? Not at all, it was a prefectly polite post that stated the facts, and my opinion of them. Nor any slander or insults.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Brian White

Hey Brian, any chance that you could armtwist some of the provincial NDP partys into supporting and implementing Pro Rep in the provinces?
No need for a referendum or any of the 60 40 nonsense.
Win power, impliment pro rep. Done!
That would help the federal NDP greatly.
Under fptp, the ndp will remain in 3rd place with minimal seat return on votes forever. (unless they change policys and become the new liberals).
I see the NDP as almost always in government in coalition in a pro rep situation.
Not absolute power but a hell of a lot better than the current situation with no power whatsoever.
(Note that my name is real so an answer would be nice)

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Toxic Avenger was a funny movie, did you know that?

[/b]


No I`m just a dumb hick, how could I possibly know anything cool and like cultural.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Are you? Why would you say that about yourself?

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Bookish Agrarian (not so long ago and not so far away): [/b]

Yes after you suggested farmers like me were doing the equivalent of raising human toddlers for food. Don`t forget context there RosaL

Tommy_Paine

quote:


This was suppose to be a feel good thread, but now it's become ugly. I'm disgusted.

I find it funny on so many levels.

I can't have too many arguements with the campaign. I have to say I was incensed over keeping May out of the debate, but that was quickly defused, as were a few other bumps in the road. Kudos.

Of course, I would have liked to hear stronger rhetoric from Layton-- as I would have from any other NDP leader as long as I've been alive.

But that's me. And, I'm probably wrong about that. Most of the time. But not all the time.

Of course, the next campaign has already begun.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Yeah, them NDPers, all principle and policy ... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am sorry, Topp game here to officially express his thanks to Babblers, both NDP and otherwise (?) for their support in the election. He did this specifically certifying the post whith his title, and his name as an NDP official.

It was, in fact, an official NDP statement to all Babblers therefore. I thanked him for doing so, in black and white. But there is no reason that anyone should be particularly defferential simply because the NDP is issuing its statements on the board.

It is entirely fair game.

Sorry to bust up the feel-good party, but the reactions of some people here, attacking me, and my credentials, and calling me various names, including a "poodle" and a communist" for raising the issue that I raised without slander or invective is what ended the party. I reserve the right to defend myself when attacked.

You guys derailed the thread not I.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

RosaL

quote:


Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
[b]

Yes after you suggested farmers like me were doing the equivalent of raising human toddlers for food. Don`t forget context there RosaL[/b]


1) My point was that there are moral issues in food production. That was in response to your repeated denials of same.
2) I said several times that it was [i]not[/i] about farmers like you.
3) Cueball undoubtedly feels as justified as you do.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]

1) My point was that there are moral issues in food production. That was in response to your repeated denials of same.
2) I said several times that it was [i]not[/i] about farmers like you.
3) Cueball undoubtedly feels as justified as you do.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ][/b]


Sorry I don`t want to go over the same territory again, but you very clearly implied farmers, farmers like me, and farmers like my friends and neighbours, are doing the same thing as raising toddlers for food. And I responded in context, and in kind. That is significantly different than what happens with this poster time and time again.

Michelle

Yes, well, so long and thanks for all the fish!

Pages

Topic locked