Most Controversial Posters

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You missed a negative sign somewhere, I think. 2.25/2.03 is Margaret Thatcher's quadrant.

[Guest MrRant]

BWAHAHAHAHA.... we can start calling Tom, Margaret!

[Guest TheRockIsTheEuropeanChampion]

I got -1.38/-3.49 ... What does the mean?

 

Anyone?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Doesn't anyone ever read the analysis page?

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Economic Left/Right: -3.62

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.59

 

Chillin' w/ Gandhi

[Guest DrTom]

Whoops. The second should be negative. 2.25/-2.03.

[Guest MrRant]

Sure sure... MARGARET

[Guest Flyboy]

Sure sure... MARGARET

 

Calling Tom.. MARGARET is just good wholesome fun.

[Guest goodhelmet]

yeah i'm right up there with ghandi as well.

 

Economic Left/Right: -5.12

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.00

 

 

in fact, probably a little more extreme than ghandi.

 

it's funny how a mysogonist and bigot like mr. rant calls me a name and we have a mini-current events discussion in the flaming folder. guess the two threads aren't that far off from each other.

 

 

as for the original topic, i still see Anglesault as the most controversial poster.

Bigot? How am I bigot Comrade? I don't think anyone thinks I'm a bigot.

ok, now to end this topic.

 

i used the same method you used to attck me in the initial thread... name-calling.

also, i called you a misogynist (i had forgotten about the lilith fair post) because of your apparent worship of al bundy to illustrate another fallacy in your communist diatribe.

al bundy is a mysogonist

mr rant is influenced by al bundy

mr rant is a misogynist

 

you used the same fallacy in logic in calling me a communist

the Soviet communists were influenced by Karl Marx

goodhelmet is influenced by Karl Marx

goodhelmet is a Soviet communist

 

no one here still really understands the terms or distinction between communism, socialism, or neo-marxism so i can only suggest you read karl marx's works 'the communist manifesto' and 'das kapital'. it might educate you.

 

as for calling you a bigot, i have never seen you post anything positive about racial minorities. only negative diatribes about how these 'coloreds' and 'jews' are being too sensitive and how you're tired of the white man getting the worst of it. sounds like you are a little hung up on race. sounds like a bigot.

 

and another thing that bothers me, i have never once posted my political beliefs on this board (until this thread) or ever cared to. yet, you found it desirable to call me a commie when not one post i have ever made indicated i was communist, socialist, capitalist, feudalistic, a despot, or any other belief out there. so how does that make me a controversial poster again?

[Guest MrRant]

When the fuck have I called some one "colored" or used the word Jew in a derogotory fashion? I have always called those "colored" people as you refer to them as African American or black.

 

Not to mention I have nothing against other races if I did I don't think I would have Flyboy write for my site. I just however point out facts that you don't agree with and also because I don't really get into the plight of women, minorities etc and play the devil's advocate against most of the posts here.

[Guest goodhelmet]

and when the fuck have i ever made a post indicating i was a commie?

 

and dude, you have offended me so many times in posts outside of current events,it would take me a week to cut and paste every offensive thing you have said toward minorities.

[Guest Flyboy]

Not to mention I have nothing against other races if I did I don't think I would have Flyboy write for my site.

I'm not going to get into this, but... I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

 

You two may resume.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

Anglesault and Marney, with Maurizio C holding up the ass-end of the Smart Marks dump truck.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Not true. My dad had shit when he was a kid, his father was a bus driver and his mom a hair dresser. He busted his fucking ass and became a lawyer to provide a better chance for his kids to succeed. There is a way and there is oppurtunity, just because it may be easier for those "on top" doesn't mean that it's impossible or even unfair for those who aren't. You have to start off somewhere and Capitalism doesn't guarrentee success, it just gives you the oppurtunity for it. It's a two way street, failure is also a part of the system, but so is 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... chances to succeed. You just have to go and get it, no one ever said it was easy and it shouldn't be.

Hey SG, I wanted to let you know that I've been thinking about this one, and I've figured it out. The reason your example works so well is that a lawyer isn't a resource. What I mean by this is that, given the United States' high crime/lawsuit rate, there will ALWAYS be a need for lawyers, which thus means the capitalistic qualities of "to hell with everyone but yourself" need not necessarily apply (maybe to be a top lawyer, but not to make a living as a lawyer).

 

An example of what I'm thinking of is an ancient example, that of farmers. Taking the basic economic principle of a lower supply meaning a higher price, a smaller farmer just starting out (who doesn't have the land to compete with the big corporate farms in America) has a low supply and is forced to sell for a higher price if they wanted to break even. However, another basic economic principle is the assumption that people are only interested in paying the least for a product. The big corporate farms have more land than the small farmer could ever hope, and can thus sell for less and still make a profit. Nobody buys from the smaller farmer, because he never had a chance. Such is capitalism, which in its purest form discourages anything but caring for ones own economic well-being - another product selling for more? Drop everything you're doing and produce that, man! Who cares if your family has been farming for generations and its your life's dream man, start making plastics or else you won't be able to make any money to feed your family!

 

Also, let's not forget that capitalism's "screw everyone else but me" mentality (which many big businesses in America LOVE to exercise) is arguably the reason there's so much greed and materialism in American society.

 

Anyway, back on topic, Maurizio C still posts here? Had me fooled...

[Guest Some Guy]

Flow, Capitalism is based primarily on human greed, that's what makes it work so well. People by nature are more greedy than charitable.

My dad went to music school and became a teacher, then realized that it wouldn't pay the bills, so he taught to pay his way through law school. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices of your "dreams" to afford a family, something my dad wanted.

Marx basically thought that people should be able to do what they wanted and live of of others, which he did by mooching off of Engels and his very Capitalistic father. He sat around and developed unworkablew theories that have brainwashed many and caused massive economic problems and far more harm than good while his buddy went out and worked for a living to support Marx. No sacrifice for his family, who he abandoned, just selfishness. "I only want to do what makes me happy, and to hell with helping anyone else. Let the gov't take care of that."

 

GH the Communist Manifesto, which I've read and wrote a few papers on is basically nothing more than a critisicm of Capitalism in the 1800s (making the veiw points obsolete because of the massive changes in how the system is implemented now from how it was in 1860 or so) and gave a brief outline of his ideals, with no explantaion of how to institute these changes or how to govern the system. This lead to Lennin, Marx, Mao, Castro, etc... to institute the "DO IT! It's for your own good" ideals of Marxism. And the way they brought Communism to their respective countries is the only way it would work, because no sane person would vote for oppression (which is inherant to all forms of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Neo-Marxism or whatever other tag you wan to label it with) and tyrants.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Economic Left/Right: -5.00

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.74

 

Im chilling with Ghandi.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

economic left/right: -4.00

authoritarian/libertarian: -5.93

 

i seem to be a ghandi man too. damn if i'm drinking my own piss though.

 

oh, the only indication i've seen of mr rant being a bigot is against the french but two things negate this: 1)it's the 2nd commandment of the church of no ma'am fer chrissakes, and 2)it's the french so they're fair game and outside the normal rules of racial conduct. hawhehaw.

[Guest goodhelmet]

GH the Communist Manifesto, which I've read and wrote a few papers on is basically nothing more than a critisicm of Capitalism in the 1800s (making the veiw points obsolete because of the massive changes in how the system is implemented now from how it was in 1860 or so) and gave a brief outline of his ideals, with no explantaion of how to institute these changes or how to govern the system.  This lead to Lennin, Marx, Mao, Castro, etc... to institute the "DO IT! It's for your own good" ideals of Marxism.  And the way they brought Communism to their respective countries is the only way it would work, because no sane person would vote for oppression (which is inherant to all forms of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Neo-Marxism or whatever other tag you wan to label it with) and tyrants.

ok you have it half right, which is more than i can say about anyone else who has respuonded to this topic. up until we get to the definitions. and you've certainly stated your arguments with more class and respect than anyone else who has attepted to tackle this subject.

 

soialism and communism- modes of productions (ie. epochs in history in which a dominant economic system exists) that marx predicted would follow capitalism. whereas people feel that marx was advocating revolution, they are wrong. he only predicted it would happen because his study of capitalism in his time indicated that the contradictions of capitalism along with its exploitative and suppressive nature would cause the proletariat to rebel. nothing more than theories. acc. to marx, the socialist mode of production was what MArx believed would be the next NATURAL progression where the state would be ran by the worker, ie the proletariat, not despots who did not actually follow Marxist ideals. As for communism, for Marx this was the ideal mode of production in theory, a utopia if you will. This is why people say communism is a good idea in theory... because it is. A society not seperated or polarized based on class struggles. Once again, even Max saw this as the IDEAL.

 

communism (not the mode of production)- an attempt by despots to institute a govt. by using propoganda, military force and other state techniques to position themselves in power to control their respective nations (Russia, China, Cuba). Revolutions were then usually initiated due to class inequalities and oppressive regimes (Bautista's Cuba for one; Diem's Vietnam). Marxism was really only a veil to cover their true intentions. A smokescreen if you will. As a result, there was a trnasfer from one oppressive regime to another. Only the tactics were different. For communists, people's personal will was subordinate to the will of the state. What was good for the state was good for the people (which of course is abunch of horseshit)

 

Neo-Marxism- definitely influenced by Marx- NOT a belief in an economic system; NOT a belief in a particular form of govt. NOT an oppressive regime that sends opposers to Siberia or buries them behind the Great Wall. Not a club for Nazis. Neo Marxism is simply a scholarly approach at observing the fallacies and problems inherent in the current mode of production. At the current time, this happens to be capitalism. Basically, they observe the contradictions in the mode of production and how it affects the masses. Most of my sociological study is rooted in neo-marxism and understanding the problems of different modes of production (if you don't understand what a mode of production is, look at the definition at the top) incl capitalism in the current age. It applies to problems such as the homeless, Enron, media bias and other problems stemming from the mode of production. It also examines techniques used by those in power to maintain the mode of production including false consciousness, propoganda, reification etc. (techniques used by both the Soviets, Cuba, the U.S. govt. and any other 'power' out there).

 

The critique of capitalism doesn't stop w/ Marx and his 'answers' have been proven to NOT be the 'be all-end all'. Neo-Marxists simply take Marx's initial critique of the mode of production and expand on them. Someone who could arguably be called a Neo-Marxist in practice was Max Weber. Weber developed the observations of the workings of a bureacracy, developed a critique of what is known as the Protestant Ethic and wrote a book called 'The Spirit of Capitalism'. No one calls Weber a neo-Marxist but that is certainly what he was.

 

As for you Some Guy, I think you made an intelligent post and did so without flaming or name-calling. You didn't call me a ninny or anything so for that i appreciate it! Do i disagree with you on many topics? From what i observe, absolutely. But it doesn't mean two people who disagree on a message board can't hold a civil conversation.

[Guest Some Guy]

ok you have it half right, which is more than i can say about anyone else who has respuonded to this topic. up until we get to the definitions. and you've certainly stated your arguments with more class and respect than anyone else who has attepted to tackle this subject.

Thanks, I guess.

 

soialism and communism- modes of productions (ie. epochs in history in which a dominant economic system exists) that marx predicted would follow capitalism. whereas people feel that marx was advocating revolution, they are wrong.

 

Explain, "They have a world to win. WOKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!" (the last 2 lines of CM)

 

BTW he was wrong either way because Captialism is still here and thriving while Socialistic systems are collasping.

 

As for communism, for Marx this was the ideal mode of production in theory, a utopia if you will. This is why people say communism is a good idea in theory... because it is. A society not seperated or polarized based on class struggles. Once again, even Max saw this as the IDEAL.

 

Doesn't a theory have to be attainable to be considered "good"? Communicm further drives the gap betweem the classes, while it narrows the economic gap. It causes lazyness from the poor and distain from the productive. His theory didn't apparently take what is common sence to me into account. But hatred of the rich is the largest spawn of Marxian theories.

 

Neo-Marxism- definitely influenced by Marx- NOT a belief in an economic system; NOT a belief in a particular form of govt. NOT an oppressive regime that sends opposers to Siberia or buries them behind the Great Wall. Not a club for Nazis. Neo Marxism is simply a scholarly approach at observing the fallacies and problems inherent in the current mode of production. At the current time, this happens to be capitalism. Basically, they observe the contradictions in the mode of production and how it affects the masses. Most of my sociological study is rooted in neo-marxism and understanding the problems of different modes of production (if you don't understand what a mode of production is, look at the definition at the top) incl capitalism in the current age. It applies to problems such as the homeless, Enron, media bias and other problems stemming from the mode of production. It also examines techniques used by those in power to maintain the mode of production including false consciousness, propoganda, reification etc. (techniques used by both the Soviets, Cuba, the U.S. govt. and any other 'power' out there).

 

Ok, at least I know where you're coming from now. I had defined "Neo-Marxism" in a similar way to "neo-Nazi." People clinging on to a disprovan and oppressive form of gov't.

 

As for you Some Guy, I think you made an intelligent post and did so without flaming or name-calling. You didn't call me a ninny or anything so for that i appreciate it! Do i disagree with you on many topics? From what i observe, absolutely. But it doesn't mean two people who disagree on a message board can't hold a civil conversation.

 

Disagreement is the foundation of politics. It wouldn't be any fun otherwise. Trying to completely disprove someone's view is a lot more fun than splititng hairs over small issues of disagreement.

 

BTW you are a ninny sometimes.

Seriously you should lighten up a little. Your post in Site Feedback did make you look like a ninny.

 

EDIT: Oh yeah and I hate you for making me get of my copy of the Maifesto, now my coffee table isn't level.

[Guest goodhelmet]

ok, i take that back, there truly can't be an intelligent conversation without name calling or insults. and if you observed, the post wasn't so much an indictment of those specific posts i had indicated as it was a way to voice the grievances of those who are intimidated by the mods and are unhappy with the way the current events folder has been moderated RECENTLY.

 

and only because you are a boston celtics fan do i let you slide. long live bill russell!!!

 

sidenote- i guess mr. rant was right. i have become a controversial poster. just not for the reasons he originally put forth.

[Guest Some Guy]

I didn't mean that as an insult, just as constructive critisism.

The problem has been fixed now in CE.

BTW why do people bitch to you about the board? Do they realize that Mods have a big flashing sign under their names to indicate that they are the ones to bitch to? Just curious.

[Guest goodhelmet]

the people who bitched prior to the 'dr. tom' thread, basically told me they knew i was dames' friend and that i worked with the writers for the site. they knew dr. tom was a writer and thought i could talk to him. i displayed the message publicly as an indicator that i did not blow these 4-5 guys off, thinking the issue would be quickly resolved with a simple 'flaming will not occur', not heated debate mind you but flaming. then it became the big mess since i was obviously pissing in people's personal sandbox and that's just offensive.

 

as for being a ninny, i've been called worse (commie ,for example) so whatever.

 

EDIT- and once again, learn the fucking terms...

 

nin·ny- A fool; a simpleton

 

 

I am neither.

[Guest Some Guy]

Ok how about over-sensitive? Is that a better description? You used the word "ninny" so I just stuck with it.

Once again I don't mean that to be offensive, just as an observation.

[Guest goodhelmet]

yeah, i guess over-sensitive might be a valid term but then again aren't all liberals or whatever insult used for leftist communists jusy over-sensitive? and once again, the simple fact of the matter is i don't come on these boards to flame or personally attack anyone. i typically come to talk and debate wrestling or pass the time away in music or general chat. others get off on flaming people. i don't. and the fact that current events was labeled as flaming folder #2 was a valid concern.

[Guest DrTom]

Christ on a cracker, I wish people could just leave things alone...

 

Will, not only do you carry on an argument with me that I dropped two weeks ago (the "Dr. Tom" thread a few forums down), but you have to take your little jabs here, too. I guess browbeating me in IMs last night wasn't enough.

 

there truly can't be an intelligent conversation without name calling or insults.

You really think this is a playground, don't you? "Waaah, he called me a name!" might work in first grade, but it's really quite useless and out of place here. SG did qualify the MORTAL FUCKING INSULT of "ninny" by saying "sometimes" right after, as well as explaining his reasons for drawing that conclusion. He's quite correct, btw.

 

a way to voice the grievances of those who are intimidated by the mods and are unhappy with the way the current events folder has been moderated RECENTLY.

Like I said elsewhere, anyone who's a big enough milquetoast that a flashing blue title under someone's name intimidates them, has some serious problems that won't be solved by this board. Personally, I've received no complaints over the way CE has been moderated recently (only DH objecting to my cursing at someone... a point which I conceded and a tactic I backed away from in subsequent replied in that thread), but several people have basically said you're a meddlesome do-gooder creating a problem where none exists. I hope you're happy with the results: the CE forum marches ahead, and I've been pushed to the point that seeing your name on my screen makes me want to vomit. Good job, Vladimir.

 

i displayed the message publicly as an indicator that i did not blow these 4-5 guys off

Because we all know that looking bad in front of strangers on the internet must be avoided at all costs. As I've said, you could have taken this up in PMs or email, and assured the concerned parties you were addressing the matter. But you chose to make what should have been an internal matter public, then drag me back into it TWO WEEKS after I stopped replying to you (my last reply to you before tonight in the "Dr. Tom" thread was on 8/25). I really wanted to let it rest and be done with it, so if I'm grouchy and irascible here, it's both by design and your fault.

 

then it became the big mess since i was obviously pissing in people's personal sandbox and that's just offensive.

What's "offensive" is your ridiculous martyr complex. Had you handled the issue in a professional manner from the start, none of the rest of the bullshit would have happened. I would have had no problems discussing things with the Admins via IMs and email. But when you take an internal matter and throw it out there for everyone to see, then I get pissed about it. CE is not my "personal sandbox," since we're all global moderators now, and I'm not the only one who posts there. I've yet to see you take it up with them, though.

 

nin·ny- A fool; a simpleton

I am neither.

Keep deluding yourself.

[Guest goodhelmet]

goddamm tom, for someone who wants to drop the whole topic, you sure are hell bent on NOT dropping it.

i've explained my reasoning. i'm also not alone in my beliefs. there were other posters who reinforced what i said (most notably MIB) but you didn't seem to care about their comments.

 

as for other mods and what they THINK, visit this little forum and understand where i was coming from in the first place....

 

http://pub135.ezboard.com/ftheundergrounds...topicID=2.topic

 

seems i wasn't alone.

 

ps. -does this mean you arent going to review the puro comps?

[Guest Retro Rob]

Seriously, why can't this debate just die. Didn't everyone agree to disagree weeks ago? Plus, a warning has been put in the CE folder. Will, what else do you really want? If you are waiting for everyone to start agreeing with you, it doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon.

[Guest DrTom]

goddamm tom, for someone who wants to drop the whole topic, you sure are hell bent on NOT dropping it.

I DID drop it. Two weeks ago. You're the one who picked it up again by butting in on my reply to *another poster*.

 

as for other mods and what they THINK, visit this little forum and understand where i was coming from in the first place....

Ok, I see a few comments about trolls (which I think we're doing a better job of killing off; having two more mods helps, to be sure), and Marney's confrontational nature. Your point in posting this link was... ?

 

does this mean you arent going to review the puro comps?

I have to get them first. But I won't let my disgust with you influence the work I was planning to do for the site. You'll forgive me if I don't give you props for making the tapes, though.

 

Rob's right: no one's switching sides in this debate, and it had gone on too long two weeks ago, when I thought it was over. I'm dropping out again, and I hope you'll follow suit.

[Guest goodhelmet]

if you want an answer to the question...

 

"Your point in posting this link was... ?"

 

i think the posts of jingus and KoR Fungus concerning the currents event folder are an adequate answer.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

to throw my two cents into this dr tom/goodhelmet feud, i had a brief whine at some point over the last few days concerning tom saying 'fuck you' to scott keith's biggest fan in the current events folder. to be fair, skbf had posted some stupdily inflamatory comments, but i still felt tom, as the mod there, was out of line in swearing at him. goodhelmet confirmed that there had been many similar complaints about the forum and brought up the possibilty of taking the matter further, but before that happened tom apologised to skbf within the thread and as far as i was concerned that was the matter over and done with. i don't have any problem with tom, marney or anyone else as actual posters in the folder, the only discrepancy i saw was tom flaming someone and at the same time being the mod that aggrieved posters should be able to take their complaints to. i still see potential for dischord there, but i enjoy tom's posts and as long as they remain civil (difficult in the face of fuckwits, i know) then i see no reason for an extended issue to be made of it. that is all.