is that there was a temple dedicated to the Goddess of Reason some time back and it's become rather tyrannical when it's heritage results in unbalanced corporatist systems in this day and age. Can you parse this or would you rather read into the following without taking into context the unconscious factors that drive the profit system?
DT: Secondly, I am so much more prepared to listen to the philosophy of the IWW when someone like yourself is presenting it.
Qx: OK. Read Flint's stuff. After all it's anybody's prerogative to read what they want. Or even read into what they want.
DT: Qx is a bit of a loose cannon,
Qx: I actually used a hard-ball technique but if you don't like it then too bad. Of course the use of the term "loose cannon" is commonly used in heirarchical organizations to vilify one who does not fit the norm or idealized image of an in-group member.
DT: and does the IWW more harm than good.
Qx: You're absolutely sure of that? Not long ago you knew next to nothing about unons and now you claim to know what is good for a union. Very questionable indeed.
DT: I suppose just like he sees us as representatives of McD's, we see him as a representative of the IWW.
Qx: You're quite good at projection and one of the intents of your posting here is to divert the scope and purpose of this forum to become too personalized and hence useless. If you're such an advocate of managerial practices (and authoritarian ones at that) it's going to be difficult to convince people that you're not pro-McDonald's.
As far as being identified with the IWW what you have to do is read carefully. Note that in the heading of any posting that I send if there is no "IWW" typed into the organization box then I'm pretty much posting as an individual. Anything wrong with that or are hints too subtle for you?
DT: Perhaps that's why I was so anti-IWW a few months back. I'll be interested to see what kind of treatment you get from him.
Qx: My response to his scolding is perfectly readable and if you were so anti-IWW a few months back then what are you know? Neutral or just reasonable as you seem (questionable at least)?
DT: I think the problem with Qx is (and you may correct me here, Qx, if I'm wrong !) he hasn't worked in a big corp and is too theoretical.
Qx: Again you're assuming with a straw to breathe through but what ever do you atribute to me as theoretical? As a matter of fact Flint has an ideology (or at least he say he does) and I know that I don't. Do you understand the difference between methodology and ideology or are you still struggling with the concept of false consciousness that I posed to you and which you haven't answered?
The main assumption that is found amongst pro-McD's and other pro-capitalists is that people who want an alternative haven't ever worked in a big corporation and do not live in a capitalist society. It's the usual bias thats a result of unconsciously accepting the various social control paradigms that are a part of any capitalist society and I see no end to it.
DT: I think you understand more because you've been there.
Qx: How do you know Flint or anybody else has been there? Again you're assuming.
DT: What pisses me off is that he sits in judgement,
Qx: That's your perception and it's not entirely accurate but go ahead and read your biases into any posting. In the end it's up to you to decide.
DT: and treats my experience working for a corp as worthless.
Qx: Now that's silly. Whenever have I read your resume? Could it be that you are treating your experience in a corporation as worthless?