?: I think it hilarious that this Frenchy character...
Stoller: I'll give Frenchy credit for one thing. He posts under his own name.
Farinata: Really? As far as I knew, his real name was Normand (hence the 'Frenchy' bit - I've never met anyone with the actual name 'Frenchy').
Was I unclear? Let me have my say again.
Frenchy posts as Frenchy.
He does not post as Stewball one day, Mrs. Winkler another, Jessie yet another. I object to the camouflage ? uses; Frenchy may get the impression from ?'s multiple pseudonyms that there are a million lurkers coming forth to ridicule him. Frenchy deserves to know who his accuser is.
Perhaps now you'll understand this sentiment:
Stoller: Everyday he opines what he thinks---without subterfuge.
Kransy: [W]hat does a persons' 'own name' say about his/her character or conspicuous lack thereof? To me, that's a bit like pointing out that at least Hitler was a vegetarian (...risking the wrath of both Spock and MDG here...) or that Attila the Hun loved horses and therefore, wasn't *all* bad.
This, of course, is a lot of crap. Godwin's Law, pal; you just lost the debate.
: While it can and perhaps *should* be argued that taunting the Village Idiot is morally repugnant and ultimately makes of him a sympathetic character, it does not, alas, make him any less an idiot IMO.
Your opinions are less in eyes now, Kransy.
Moving on some more...
?: Now, I did jokingly psychoanalyze Frenchy just to bug him...
Exactly my point. You did so after Mcspotlight hinted to you that enough might be enough here.
?: But Barry, calling you dour and strident is not amateur psychology, those are simple insults.
And I've heard worse. MDG and David have called me a fascist, SDF called me an asshole, and Lark called me a capitalist. The worse Frenchy can do is call me a communist!
?: I know why you want people to use their real names, or at least a consistent pseudonym. One of your purposes on this board is, as I said in my first response, to identify who is 'by your definition) a "true revolutionary" and who isn't. So, you need consistency in your labels for people, that way you can say, "That was a good post by Lark, but we all know he's a reactionary homophobe, as he demonstrated HERE and HERE and HERE." Or, "Pretty good thinking, Krasny, I see you've come around to the proper way of looking at things. You've come a long way from the days when you said THIS and THIS and THIS."
You got a problem with being held accountable for your statements and opinions?
?: This could be why you have a secret fondness for Frenchy.
Like I've said before, I debate issues, not personalities. If I think Frenchy is in the right on something, I'll speak up; likewise, if I think a fellow Marxist is wrong on something, I'll speak up as well.
?: Guys like Frenchy are so uncritically subservient to whatever power structures are already in place, that if you your kind were to ever seize power, you couldn't find a more loyal foot soldier than he.
That is my idea of low debate. Care to refute?
: You say none of this is relevant to "Capitalism and Alternatives"? I think it is--very much so. Capitalism is a system of social relations, right? I'm talking here of social relations.
Personal observations, I'll agree, can be pertinent in context.
For example, I have noticed that job rotation offends most people who have either received or a presently receiving secondary education. The reason, I venture to say, is that secondary education is seen by most as a means to escape unskilled work (and leave it to people like me). So when Lark objects to job rotation with nothing more than personal reasons, a personal interpretation is, in fact, relevant to the topic of job rotation.
But I doubt that this meets such criteria...
As far as Frenchy goes, that he is retired with a pension says a lot.
I'd be invested in the current system too if I had a pension after a lifetime of doing hard work. One objection to capitalism is that MORE AND MORE people of the retirement age CANNOT afford to retire; according to Forbes (16 June 1997, p. 159), only 25% of the American people have the 'luxury' of being able to stop working when they get old. Indeed, if Frenchy was among the MANY people over 65 who have to bag groceries just to make ends meet, he might be listening to what I've got to say. But he won't---and, knowing the material reasons for his beliefs, I have to respect that.
I also respect him for putting up with the amount of abuse he does---without ever sniveling (like Piper).
A final note.
RD said repeatedly that---according to Marx---since labor was a humanís 'life activity,' job rotation must be voluntary.
However, according to The Communist Manifesto (International 1948, p. 30), when the proletariat comes to power, there will be an '[e]qual obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.'
Does THAT sound voluntary?
Nevertheless, RD will never admit he is wrong and I proved it. The ego is too valuable for such an admission of error. He will retreat pusillanimously, saying something like 'knock yourself out, squire.'
Now if a fellow 'Marxist' won't concede a point (even in the face of overwhelming evidence), why do ANY of you clowns think Frenchy ever will?
?: But that's my last contribution to this string, sicko.
As Alice Cooper once said, if ya think I'm sick, at least I'm not listening to it in my spare time.