Maria, you said you wanted to start a thread about Tibet.
So here is one. And it's not about me.
I don't plan to be ''all over it''.
But talking about this stuff in the Ken Livigstone thread is not good.

Come on JBoyd and Lee Harvey Oswald. Stand up for you beliefs.
Tell the mockers why they are being shallow.
I'm on your side even though I'm secular.

You have chosen to ignore all threads started by: damon.

You have chosen to ignore all posts by: rarmybob.

How childish can you get
Ok so ''my'' thread is not a ruuner.
Then we'll go with Maria's one I soppose.

You've have choosen too ig-nore: dictionaries.

I think that there are two subjects that are getting confused; China and its oppression of the Tibetan people - which I think ought to lead to a boycott of Bejing 2008.
The religious debate is a separate one: I think that the Chinese regime's behaviour shows that atheistic regimes can have all the faults of theocracies, and that it undermines the argument that politics would be more humane without religion. But I think that argument has been exhausted, and it's not the same as the first.
By the way, I bet that 'Spiked!' will come out against a boycott, or any campaign against China!

I see another forum joke developing. But it's not really funny. I think that Jon's post was in reference to my putting two u's in the word runner, instead of two n's.
So far on this thread, (apart from myself) we've had barmyrob geoff and Jon.
Barmyrob is clearly the forum intelectual, and Geoff is one of the lesser gifted in the brain department members. Jon lies somewhere in between.
But, brainy or thick, they all say sweet bugger all.

Actually that's not quite fair, barmyrob's intellectualism does shine through. To deny it would be ridiculous.
I suupose my intelligence is somewhere between Jon's and Geoff's (I got a couple of O levels).
But it would seem that intellectual exceptionalism aint all it's cracked up to be.
As you can be smart in one way. But embarassingly smug in another.
And this is an example why intellectualism can still leave you acting thick.
I know I just quoted this somewhere else, but that above is something beyond the ken of barmyrob geoff and Jon.
Hence all that racist /KKK/You have chosen to ignore all threads started by: damon. stuff.
Thick or brainy, some ideas just can't be contemplated.

JBoyd, I see you posted as I was writing. I too find the idea of the Beijing games a bit repulsive.
And those Greek police who stopped people protesting the other day at the (tedious) olympic torch thing were unnecessarly heavy weren't they? What's wrong with telling China that they are brutes in an EU capital?
The idea that the London police are going to take the torch ceremony seriously is pathetic.
Are they really going to get rough with a harmless disruption of an olympic torch procession?
The olympics to countries like China, is like the Eurovision Song Contest was to Ireland 20 years ago.
I was there when there was real pride and excitement about it. Then they won it a few times, (to great national euphoria) - then after hosting it a couple of times they realised that it was completely naff, and started sending it up.
The Olympics is naff. China is naff just like South Korea was before it held the games in 1988.
I was in South Korea in 1987 (just for ten days), and Olympic fever was everywhere. Probably like with China now.
The more you are ''into'' putting on a great Olympics, the sadder you are.
That's why I say 'stuff the London 2012 games.'
We don't want it.
Yes, I think they did.
Don't think I agree with every last thing they put out btw. (Some of it is even too Intellectual for me).
I haven't read their Tibet/China stuff yet, (but I will), but I bet there is something in it.
I haven't read what Maria said yet either, (on her alternative Tibet thread ) - but I think you can bet your bottom dollar that Maria's point of view wont marry with Spiked's in any way.
I reckon I'll be somewhere in the middle, but will consider them both.

You crack me up, Damon! You might read a bit more closely to see my post is taking the piss out of Rob, not you. And given that it's a Billy Bragg forum, I tend to save most of my energy for posts on that subject.I'm not sure what O levels are, and I can't speak for Jon. I have a high school matriculation grading me in the top 3.5% of graduates in my year in the state. I also have a Bachelors degree, a Diploma and two Masters degrees. Its a running joke in my family that I have more letters after my name than I do in my name.

I'm guessing you don't have an O level in spelling.

you have chosen to ignore all posts from. The 3 Degrees

at Jon

You have chosen to ignore: drunk ramblings from village idiots

I can't understand why everyone is saying boycott the Bejing Olympics whilst we still trade with China. We either stop ALL contact with the country or go. Anything else is just hypocracy as best shown by the Thatcher government who tried to get the UK to boycott Moscow 1980 over the Afghanistan invasion whilst still trading with the USSR

I await the mass insults.

I think a boycott of China is a broader question and worth considering. But China stands to gain a huge amount from the Olympics and therefore a boycott of the Olympics ought, in my opinion, to be a starting point. If that doesn't have any affect then a trade boycott ought to be considered. However, China has one of the worst human rights records in the world so I think this is broader than Tibet (important though that is).

you have chosen to ignore all posts.

Even mine, Barmy!

i'm ignoring the idiot's thread - there's a much nicer one started by maria!

What can one do?
Obviously nothing on here.

Fred E are you another McGillicuddy?

I know you're not, because I read your posts two years ago.
But I expect (and expect being the word) that you are a bit of a 'par for the course' forum member.
And being par is nothing to be ashamed about.
Par is good.
Excelent even.

Fuck off!

I don't really belive that smile is genuine somehow.
I reckon it's more to the true nature of the person.

Eh? I'm not par for any course. And as someone who earns his living from teaching English, I don't think I'd teach my students that calling someone "par for the course" was a compliment. Not sure what you're talking about. I've been a bit quiet of late but I've been posting on and off since about 1999

When will I see you again?

When will we share vicious moments?

Actually Sarah, what do you think Claire Fox thinks of you?
Think about it for a minute.
Or Emily Hill?
(They obviously - if they ever heard of you - would think of you as being an ugly airhead bully)
What the bollocks is an ethical T shirt?


This was Fionia Fox on The Moral Maze last wednesday.
Put them together ....... and I just read Fred E.
I'd really like Fred E to be my friend.
He did the forum awards over a year ago FFS.
Who could you not want to snuggle up to someone like that?

Anyway, this name calling and ignorance is so boring.
Barmyrob. Fiona Fox calls you out.
She's on The Moral Maxe.
You too Sarah.
I'm a wanker, or you two are a pair of busted flushes.

Btw, this was what this weeks Moral Maze was about:

You have chosen to ignore: all drunken illogical, badly written posts. ever.

Are your posts always so rambling, damon?

He's a drunk - he needs help.

That might have bearings on more than one us

Did I say that it didn't?

Dunno, I've had a liquid lunch

I might have had a few yesterday. Why, could you tell? Oh dear.
Fred E I do apologise for insuating that you were anything other than a top class bloke. Alcohol and being told to f off by several people at the same time can make for a bad session at the keyboard. I thought par (as in golf) showed a high standard. The standard of a professional golfer.
My point about McGillicuddy, was that he is a guy that (like yourself Fred E) who I had never even crossed a word with, but then a year after joining the forum, decides to join in with Jon and nevski's crap. (ie, take the piss out of me). After Sarah had said I was violent, (which I'm not), I thought you were having a go too, out of the blue.
I understand I have to be able to take some of that with out responding.
I must have been quite bad, as I even called Claire Fox by the name of her sister, Fiona.
And I am annoyed at myself calling anyone an ''ugly airhead bully.''
But you'd understand I think Fred, that you might get a bit miffed if you were called a racist ''just for a laugh'' (it would seem). I don't think geoff or Jon actually think that I am - but it's ''funny'' to them. Funny to quite a few other forum members it would seem.

Anyway, stick on the Moral Maze before next wednesday and have a listen to Claire Fox. I suppose some of my frustration with being on this forum has been the huge weight of resistance to people having their politics questioned.
Just questioned, that's all.
I thought a left wing forum would be more flexable. But if you question the ''ethical shopping, anti-fox hunting opinion, Chicken Out, aviation protestors at Heatrow'' etc - it seems you will face some concerted opposition.
I don't know if you've ever read Spiked online Fred E, but I think they are often very good (and sometimes it's all a bit too intelectual for me), but if you look at their output, nearly everything they say is against general forum consensus, or ethos, (to be somewhat crude).

These were the subjects in the March review of books.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: people who think this is a left-wing forum and not the Billy Bragg forum

Yeah its a bit QED isn't it?!

Are the members of Spiked-Online (an organisation 'grounded' by the academic ideology of Brendan O'Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi) at odds with their beliefs and opposition to the Bourgeoisie?
Despite their status being borne from a similar background, you'd reckon that as the bourgeoisie seek to control the Proletariat with these class differences, so would Spiked-Online aspire to something similar by seeking to expose differences within the socioeconomic spectrum?

Yes, that was probably my big mistake. It's a broad church of vague and not particularly defined leftist, liberal, green, ethical, feminist, animal rights kind of forum, united by people being fans of billy bragg.
I suppose getting too particular about anything, and not being easy going enough to let people with opinions you might not agree with, alone in peace with their views, is where I fall foul of forum etiquette.

I always have wondered why people sat on their hands so much, and just flatly refoused to give much away. For example, Maria said she had respected Deborah Orr for some time. (But never mentioned it ever, untill two days ago).
Jon seems to know a thing or two about Spiked 0nline, but as far as I can remember has never responded to any article or opinion I have raised on here. Though I suspect his opposition to their position on ''multiculturalism'' and race politics might have been the reason for the KKK stuff. I think Geoff is coming from a similar position. You strike at that which you think is wrong (which is fair enough), so if someone says they don't support the ANL or UAF ......... then.. er.. thay must be a racist.
And Jon, Don't be asking me questions about Spiked like some little test, I take from them what I want and leave the rest. I am nothing to do with them, and often think they go too far, or have some ego's in their ranks that I don't really care for. I have just found them to be a good balance to the more wooley PC part of the left. Take in both sets of ideas, and I always thought you mght end up reasonably well rounded.

They do tear in to the wooley left all the time. And sometimes they are spot on.
Like the two articles I raised about religion. As a secular person myself, it gave me food for thought after reading articles in the newspapers by Hitchens and Dawkins. Some balance.
That's why I thought barmyrob's and Zippy's pisstakes of religion were somewhat crass.

I once got into the Japanese form of Buddhism called Nichiren Shōshū. I never actually belived in it being real, but I liked some of the philosophy behind it, and I met some nice people through it.
I still chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo sometimes as a kind of meditation. It means: "I submit myself to the Mystic Law of Cause and Effect."
Nothing wrong with doing a bit of that is there? Or should I be mocked for it?

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: people who just refuse to get that it isn't what they post that means people don't respond, just the moron who posts them in the first place

Are you deliberately trying to alienate Damon, Jon?

You don't remember the discussion around Black youths acknowledging slavery as a way to perpetuate their feelings of self hate? I asked you your views, which you wouldn't give as you were either..

1. Pissed?
2. Annoyed that any previous discussions had ended in your ridicule for not answering questions, and therefore why should you start a discussion now?
3. Hadn't got the answer from Vanessa Feltz?
4. Can't critically think about what you've read?
5. Wouldn't argue against Spiked's narrow view point in case Frank Furedi set's Jesus on you?


you forgot the 'No Bollocksing' bit at the end of that threat....

I should have said ''but as far as I can remember has never responded to any article or opinion I have raised on here in a sensible manner''
I said I found the article Chaining black youth to the victim culture well worth reading, particularly in light of the discussion that was going on at the time in some circles (like for example, Dotun Adebayo's sunday evening BBC London radio programme - which as normal, I listened to again last night).
That you have crudely carracatured what it said like you just did above, along with your long time silence on ''Multi- ethnic London'' and ''the politics of race'' threads, and more recently your KKK jibes, makes me think that nothing I say, (pissed or sober) would be much use. (You sound like a Respect supporter).

And seeing as I don't suppose this link will be welcome on the other (and newer) Tibet thread, I'll just stick it here.
I looked though those links Maria did about the Monks and Nuns. And I also read through articles like this.
I find taking from both positions, helps keep things in perspective.

They do like to stir it up don't they? Some might find this sentence just darn annoying, or personally offensive: ''If Bjork’s squealing of the T-word is anything to go by, these protests will confirm what lies behind the adoption of the Tibetan cause by many in the West today: not a passion for freedom, but a distaste for modernity.''
That's why I thought it better to hide it over on this thread, - one that has already been vulgarised before it could even get going.

However it might also be said that opposition to the American intervention in Vietnam, or indeed any colonialist or post-colonialist adventure was motivated by a feeling that the aggressor was



China is behaving as an imperialist power in Tibet, and however they try to disguise it, opposing the pro-Tibet movement condones that.
Though I think you're right that the Olympics has become a bloated and self-congratulatory in promoting the host nation wherever it's held, a boycott of Bejing really does seem essential.

I don't disagree JBoyd. I don't necesarly support the links I did in my last post. But the poor Tibetans are just victims of their history and geography. Like many minorities the world over.
But I do find some middle class ''solidarity'' and ''ethical consumer'' campaigns not really being to my liking as well. I seem to just have this natural aversion to them.
I think that is Spiked's ''problem'' too. They can't stand these ''ethical'' boycotters.

If that's true and their complaint is just the means and the style, rather than the objectives, why do "Spiked!" use the internet, which is, after all, another vehicle for similar protests by people with the same aims?

Indeed.

More to the point - why don't Spiked allow comments on their articles...

Are they scared or summink???

I don't really understand your point JBoyd. They might agree with objectives of a lot of people, but it all depends on the issue or or particular subject. They are not going to support some of the campaigns and lobbying issues that are close to the hearts of many BB forum members (anti 4X4 sentiment for example), and while wanting to see improvement in workers conditions and pay around the world, aren't going to get into this ''ethical T shirt'' mentality. Mainly because it's pretty pointless.
But I don't have any particular insight into them more than anyone else who looks at their website.
I used to know quite a lot of them years ago, but not any more.

And they do have a letters section right here.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: people who think an edited letters section makes up for the lack of any real debate.

Brendan O’Neill has chosen to ignore: damon

I don't know where Brenden O'Neill came from. I never met him.
Yes that letters section is a bit truncated, but you could always write in and try barmyrob. Maybe you could give them a piece of your mind about their callous views on chicken production in this section and see if they print it.

They always were a bit manipulative, and weren't averse to pushing up the numbers a bit when they wrote of a march or denonstration they had held. (Anyone ever go on their 'Troops out of Ireland' marches? - they could get a bit lively - what with the National Front and assorted thugs turning up to attack it.)

But I think they do like a bit of debate. Here is (a very long) list of speakers who were at their main conference last october, which they call The Battle of Ideas.
That's a serious lot of people. Maybe they are all either stooges or dupes

Maybe barmyrob should go along this year (or one of the numerous events they hold throughout the year).
With that huge intelect he's bound to steal the show.

If you believe that climate change is a threat, then it makes sense to do whatever you can to stop it.
If you don't, then it doesn't.
If you believe that climate change is a threat, but think that ethical consumerism will have no impact because it is tokenistic, then say so, but what harm does it do? And shouldn't you advocate an alternative?
I think 'Spiked!' shy away from an honest discussion of their motives and objectives and focus on satirising certain kinds of action as an alternative to engaging in debate. It is very easy to ridicule certain kinds of campaign, but I think it's pointless, and means that they don't contribute anything meaninful to debate on the Left.



I think that they discarded all the useful bits of Marxism and just ended up with the reluctance to tolerate dissent...

I suppose JBoyd, it comes down to individuals thinking they are important.
Unless you are in a serious polital movement or army, you're not.

That's why I insist that Claire Fox talks more sense than Sarah lady.