BrianH
At the Start
But you'll have to eat foxburgers!
Worlds Most Evil Company
- Thread starter Kotkijet
- Start date
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
Would that include any "small favours" Dom?Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jun 18 2005, 12:13 PM
I tell you what, Tom - as I'm such a kindly soul, I'll rent you my sofa for £300 a month...(& that will even include use of the pool!)
HT - I've met Dom, and she certainly wouldn't want a bloke who could only offer 'small' favours. I expect Merlin can point you to some 'enhancement solutions', though, as he seems to have the monopoly on such e-mail solicitations.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Cheers for setting the record straight, Aunty Jon!!! :lol:
(for that, you can have the sofa or inflatable bed for nowt if you like!! )
(for that, you can have the sofa or inflatable bed for nowt if you like!!
)
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
I wasn't offering any Kri. I was expecting. (Cotton wool in mouth again) "Dom, didn't I say to you that someday I'd ask you to do me a favour".
Cheers, Dom, for the offers, though I'm not sure that an inflatable bed and me on it would be an entirely wise idea. There'd probably be a gigantic pfffftttttttt! and the bed would fly around the room like a balloon with the air let out of it. 
I knew perfectly well what your innuendo intended towards Dom, Honest Tomcat! <_<
I knew perfectly well what your innuendo intended towards Dom, Honest Tomcat! <_<
Hi everybody except for SL
Bottom line on the whole notion of said companies being evil.
As far as I have learned, the current system, where corporations have the right and power to make profits by any means necessary, is a shit state of affairs. I understand that for all I (and millions of others) discuss and protest against the current system, it probably won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things (without trying to sound too pessimistic). However, I know that not making any effort because it seems like a lost cause CERTAINLY won't make any difference. That is one of the primary reasons why I choose to bring up such issues.
Now now Shadow Leader. Every post you have made in this thread has been an probe on ME and has had nothing to do with putting forward a case FOR capitalism. If you feel so strongly against anti-capitalist notions then what better opportunity for you to vent your frustrations and stop us once and for all than confronting all of the hippies at a local G8 protest? You can tell us all to get a job, have a wash, grow up and stop worrying about those poor people who live outside the magic bubble of the West.
Since you made the effort to look deep into the background of the Kotkijet parasite that feeds off forums than I ask of you to make the following condiseration.
I have been a member of one forum for closing on three years now - and when I joined, I wasn't an anti-capitalist, I was a racing fan. When I used to be able to devote large chunks of time into hyperanalysing feature races, I would run through each and every horse and come out with a selection which more often than not, won at a fair price (No odds on shots). Then a flat season came along, then came the anti-capitalism. Eventually, my interest and time (the outside is a pretty big place) for finding winners in races kinda waned. Nonetheless, my posts in said forum on anti capitalist subjects are generally recieved without the 'arm punches' I've had from you. As a matter of fact, some have made others chuckle a little - Space Monkey was a hoot and a holler.
In another forum, I had posted a SINGLE argument on boycotting products which was met by very well thought, concise and constructive arguments without a single reference made to me the person. In my time on this forum, I even manage to give readers Double Honour for a place in the Warwick National in a presentation loosely described as 'flawless' by a fellow forumite.
In the only other forum I can remember visiting, I mentioned that I think that Keith Mercer is a superb example of a jockey. Nothing anti-capitalist about that is there?
Every so often, I even post about general horse racing subjects (including ethics which are very very relevant to horse racing). In the future I'll probably end up joining in a few NH discussions what with me still having a vague interest in the sport. I'll probably have these discussions in internet forums because you get a little further than talking about the sport in a betting shop. The only people who stop me from posting in racing forums are me and the mods. Not you.
So next time you want to have a dig at ME using ME as evidence then try your best not to be so fucking judgemental because it can often cause offence.
A thank you to everybody else who has contributed to this thread.
Bottom line on the whole notion of said companies being evil.
As far as I have learned, the current system, where corporations have the right and power to make profits by any means necessary, is a shit state of affairs. I understand that for all I (and millions of others) discuss and protest against the current system, it probably won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things (without trying to sound too pessimistic). However, I know that not making any effort because it seems like a lost cause CERTAINLY won't make any difference. That is one of the primary reasons why I choose to bring up such issues.
Now now Shadow Leader. Every post you have made in this thread has been an probe on ME and has had nothing to do with putting forward a case FOR capitalism. If you feel so strongly against anti-capitalist notions then what better opportunity for you to vent your frustrations and stop us once and for all than confronting all of the hippies at a local G8 protest? You can tell us all to get a job, have a wash, grow up and stop worrying about those poor people who live outside the magic bubble of the West.
Since you made the effort to look deep into the background of the Kotkijet parasite that feeds off forums than I ask of you to make the following condiseration.
I have been a member of one forum for closing on three years now - and when I joined, I wasn't an anti-capitalist, I was a racing fan. When I used to be able to devote large chunks of time into hyperanalysing feature races, I would run through each and every horse and come out with a selection which more often than not, won at a fair price (No odds on shots). Then a flat season came along, then came the anti-capitalism. Eventually, my interest and time (the outside is a pretty big place) for finding winners in races kinda waned. Nonetheless, my posts in said forum on anti capitalist subjects are generally recieved without the 'arm punches' I've had from you. As a matter of fact, some have made others chuckle a little - Space Monkey was a hoot and a holler.
In another forum, I had posted a SINGLE argument on boycotting products which was met by very well thought, concise and constructive arguments without a single reference made to me the person. In my time on this forum, I even manage to give readers Double Honour for a place in the Warwick National in a presentation loosely described as 'flawless' by a fellow forumite.
In the only other forum I can remember visiting, I mentioned that I think that Keith Mercer is a superb example of a jockey. Nothing anti-capitalist about that is there?
Every so often, I even post about general horse racing subjects (including ethics which are very very relevant to horse racing). In the future I'll probably end up joining in a few NH discussions what with me still having a vague interest in the sport. I'll probably have these discussions in internet forums because you get a little further than talking about the sport in a betting shop. The only people who stop me from posting in racing forums are me and the mods. Not you.
So next time you want to have a dig at ME using ME as evidence then try your best not to be so fucking judgemental because it can often cause offence.
A thank you to everybody else who has contributed to this thread.
Kots, can't say I agree with 'abolish copyrighting'! Having worked for a publisher and once entertained the rather lazy hope that I might one day write some sharp-witted novel (somewhat stymied by not having the sharpest of wits), writers (whether novelists, poets, reference or general nonfiction) would indeed be living on crusts and water if they didn't hold the copyright to their works. Copyright denies others the chance to call someone else's work their own, to copy it out and not acknowledge the source, and for the creator to receive due royalties on sales.
I'm not sure that methods, information and opinion can always be free. There's a bottom line somewhere - whether it's paying for the equipment, studio, or lab in which to experiment with methods; for the thousands of hours put in to formulate information provided through (say) dictionaries, statistical compilations, agricultural books, or by teaching subjects - academic, vocational, professional, or sporting; and while opinions might sound like they should be free, I'm not sure that they are, unless they're being espoused from a soapbox in Hyde Park. If you ask a creative person, say Tracy Emin, to appear on tv in order to debate the merits of someone's work (i.e., give her opinion), she'll want an appearance fee for her time and, presumably, some sort of transport for getting to the studio. So, although ostensibly it seems that her opinion should be free, it won't be.
It would be fine if the world lived in a purely cooperative way, as some communities such as Findhorn do, but that doesn't seem to translate to a global ethos. It seems that once the smallness of an intradependent community is lost to larger and larger ones, it becomes impossible to sustain the individuality of relationships, and gradual fragmentation occurs due to increasing physical distance, and so on. Additionally, there's the problem of, say, a small community having five brilliant cooks, but only one rather inept gardener. What's one to do? Tell two or three of the cooks that their knowledge (information) is needed elsewhere, and forcibly relocate them to another community? Or force another community's good gardener to live and work in an area he doesn't particularly like and where his family isn't living, or won't go?
These are some of the snags inherent in 'communism' in its' purest form. It makes the assumption that because everyone is beavering away for the common good, that everyone will live lives of total equality and contentment. But, eventually, some sort of difficulties are inevitable, since we are only humans, and someone will say they don't want to do a certain job any more, or they want to move into/away from a certain commune, and are denied - individualism is quashed for the 'common good'.
Capitalism is very far from an ideal tool for living, and there are extreme examples of it over much of the globe. There are fine examples of communal living, or commune-ism, throughout some wonderful countries, but sadly the people are so often in rags, uneducated, working from the age of 4-5 with no hope on the horizon. These people sometimes don't live in officially 'Communist' or 'Capitalist' countries - but are the victims of cruel tribalism, religious factions, or caste/class hatred - not issues connected to a political stance.
Communism wouldn't be able to help them without entirely forcing a change in the mindset of the countries' ruling elite. For example, in India, the Harijan (also called 'Untouchables' by Hindus) have been, purely on ethnic grounds, allotted the most disgusting jobs in the country. There were and still often are, strict rules about how much distance they must keep between different castes of Hindu, up to the highest caste, the Brahmin, where they must keep their distance of something like 50m, or if they can't avoid the distance, turn their faces away as the elite Brahmins pass. For all of the do-goodery of the West, it's failed entirely to address India's grim caste system (although when the British were colonists, they did stamp out much of the practice of suttee), while it rails about racism, as if it didn't exist WITHIN races in the guise of tribal or caste differences.
What would socialism be able to effect, per se, in such countries with unswerving adherence to ancient traditions? Execution of the leading classes? Capitalism shone a tiny, tiny light into the lives of some of the struggling classes in India by relocating call centres to that country. While most of the employees held Uni degrees, they were still far from considered 'top' class by fellow Indians, but at least now they have jobs which pay far more than they'd get working for another (higher ranking) Indian, who'd keep them firmly 'in their place'.
I've wittered on far too much, I'm afraid. Capitalism vs Socialism can't - for me - be a case of either of them being all good, or all bad. I would hate to live in a communistic society, where notions of self were suppressed not so much for the common good, as for the pacification of the people by the ruling class (which there always seems to have to be).
Naturally, I'd like to see a world government, the eradication of all poverty, the end to repression of peoples on the grounds of their tribe, race, religion, gender, etc. Who wouldn't? But once people's immediate needs are met (viz. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, etc.), they strive for something individualized, from the wellspring of their own creativity, for personal recognition in some sphere, if they have the talent. Would a PURELY com/soc society allow them to fully embrace that? Some sort of blending of capitalistic (but not exploitative) system, based in socialism, would be about right!
I'm not sure that methods, information and opinion can always be free. There's a bottom line somewhere - whether it's paying for the equipment, studio, or lab in which to experiment with methods; for the thousands of hours put in to formulate information provided through (say) dictionaries, statistical compilations, agricultural books, or by teaching subjects - academic, vocational, professional, or sporting; and while opinions might sound like they should be free, I'm not sure that they are, unless they're being espoused from a soapbox in Hyde Park. If you ask a creative person, say Tracy Emin, to appear on tv in order to debate the merits of someone's work (i.e., give her opinion), she'll want an appearance fee for her time and, presumably, some sort of transport for getting to the studio. So, although ostensibly it seems that her opinion should be free, it won't be.
It would be fine if the world lived in a purely cooperative way, as some communities such as Findhorn do, but that doesn't seem to translate to a global ethos. It seems that once the smallness of an intradependent community is lost to larger and larger ones, it becomes impossible to sustain the individuality of relationships, and gradual fragmentation occurs due to increasing physical distance, and so on. Additionally, there's the problem of, say, a small community having five brilliant cooks, but only one rather inept gardener. What's one to do? Tell two or three of the cooks that their knowledge (information) is needed elsewhere, and forcibly relocate them to another community? Or force another community's good gardener to live and work in an area he doesn't particularly like and where his family isn't living, or won't go?
These are some of the snags inherent in 'communism' in its' purest form. It makes the assumption that because everyone is beavering away for the common good, that everyone will live lives of total equality and contentment. But, eventually, some sort of difficulties are inevitable, since we are only humans, and someone will say they don't want to do a certain job any more, or they want to move into/away from a certain commune, and are denied - individualism is quashed for the 'common good'.
Capitalism is very far from an ideal tool for living, and there are extreme examples of it over much of the globe. There are fine examples of communal living, or commune-ism, throughout some wonderful countries, but sadly the people are so often in rags, uneducated, working from the age of 4-5 with no hope on the horizon. These people sometimes don't live in officially 'Communist' or 'Capitalist' countries - but are the victims of cruel tribalism, religious factions, or caste/class hatred - not issues connected to a political stance.
Communism wouldn't be able to help them without entirely forcing a change in the mindset of the countries' ruling elite. For example, in India, the Harijan (also called 'Untouchables' by Hindus) have been, purely on ethnic grounds, allotted the most disgusting jobs in the country. There were and still often are, strict rules about how much distance they must keep between different castes of Hindu, up to the highest caste, the Brahmin, where they must keep their distance of something like 50m, or if they can't avoid the distance, turn their faces away as the elite Brahmins pass. For all of the do-goodery of the West, it's failed entirely to address India's grim caste system (although when the British were colonists, they did stamp out much of the practice of suttee), while it rails about racism, as if it didn't exist WITHIN races in the guise of tribal or caste differences.
What would socialism be able to effect, per se, in such countries with unswerving adherence to ancient traditions? Execution of the leading classes? Capitalism shone a tiny, tiny light into the lives of some of the struggling classes in India by relocating call centres to that country. While most of the employees held Uni degrees, they were still far from considered 'top' class by fellow Indians, but at least now they have jobs which pay far more than they'd get working for another (higher ranking) Indian, who'd keep them firmly 'in their place'.
I've wittered on far too much, I'm afraid. Capitalism vs Socialism can't - for me - be a case of either of them being all good, or all bad. I would hate to live in a communistic society, where notions of self were suppressed not so much for the common good, as for the pacification of the people by the ruling class (which there always seems to have to be).
Naturally, I'd like to see a world government, the eradication of all poverty, the end to repression of peoples on the grounds of their tribe, race, religion, gender, etc. Who wouldn't? But once people's immediate needs are met (viz. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, etc.), they strive for something individualized, from the wellspring of their own creativity, for personal recognition in some sphere, if they have the talent. Would a PURELY com/soc society allow them to fully embrace that? Some sort of blending of capitalistic (but not exploitative) system, based in socialism, would be about right!
BrianH
At the Start
I don't think that what is being advocated. krizon, is socialism. It looks more like a form of anarchy to me. When I look around, I can see what makes it appear attractive, but I'm afraid that the proposed solutions of the anti-globalists are not viable practically.
I'll resist the time honoured exhortation "what you anarchists need to do is to get yourselves organised".
I'll resist the time honoured exhortation "what you anarchists need to do is to get yourselves organised".
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
What do you exoect, Kotkijet, when you join a forum and post nothing but rants at society than for the focus to be shifted onto you? As I said in my initial post, for all your anti-capitalist, pro-communism, tree-hugging rants, for you to continue to live surrounded byt the creature comforts you seemingly despise is th height of hypocrisy.
As for looking "deep into the background of the Kotkijet parasite that feeds off forums" - don't flatter yourself. It's a bit bloody hard NOT to notice you when looking on other fora as everything you post revolves around these ridiculous rants of yours.
One thing I will say; you are certainly right as to my thoughts on the type of hippes at the G8 protests - get a ------- job, a life, and have a wash you bunch of parasites.
As for looking "deep into the background of the Kotkijet parasite that feeds off forums" - don't flatter yourself. It's a bit bloody hard NOT to notice you when looking on other fora as everything you post revolves around these ridiculous rants of yours.
One thing I will say; you are certainly right as to my thoughts on the type of hippes at the G8 protests - get a ------- job, a life, and have a wash you bunch of parasites.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
Does that mean I'm dumped Dom.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Lol - sorry Tom, of course you're not!!!! 
Oh, good old anarchy, Brian? A bit dated now, I'd have thought - but if it means I can do what I like to whoever I like, whenever, then bring it on! That'll drastically reduce the badge-blaggers at Brighton! :teeth:
I lived for some while in St Ives (Cornwall version) in the 1960s and the place was full of wannabe hippies and overfed 'anarchists' who overthrew nothing, despising the State as they sulkily accepted its' hand-outs from the local dole office, to the immense chagrin of the Cornish. All they did was nick people's milk, lie about the pavements and beg - oh, and stink. When I did get to meet 'real' Beat poets, artists, singers, and writers, they were clean, gracious, amusing, and hospitable. What the hell were they thinking of?
I lived for some while in St Ives (Cornwall version) in the 1960s and the place was full of wannabe hippies and overfed 'anarchists' who overthrew nothing, despising the State as they sulkily accepted its' hand-outs from the local dole office, to the immense chagrin of the Cornish. All they did was nick people's milk, lie about the pavements and beg - oh, and stink. When I did get to meet 'real' Beat poets, artists, singers, and writers, they were clean, gracious, amusing, and hospitable. What the hell were they thinking of?
Just a quick one because I'm a little squeezed for time.
Even if I was for the current notion of democracy, it still has to be acknowledged that what Nestle do is criminal on a remarkably grand scale. No sole human being would be able to get away with most of the stuff Nestle & co do so why are Nestle allowed to get away without punishment? I would even settle for a stiff (genuine) punishment from the UN or another right wing group. Long prison terms though - I don't believe in the death penalty.
Hi Krizon
The post you made earlier was a credit to the forum. Especially since you make many valid points. I will elaborate on that post later. Out of curiosity, regarding the St Ives 'anarchists' of the 60s, did they co-operate with / support the many Kernow indepandance movements that exist to today?
Hi Shadow Leader
If anybody is flattering me then it is you and only you. I'm not seeking attention, as a matter of fact - I have a tendancy to shy away from attention what with me being a humble and hypersensitive little soul. Unfortunately, your (nobody else seems to be deeply offended by me) obsession with me is also misguided and very poorly informed - especially since only a mere proportion of what I post is a rant. Furthermore, I also hope you have noticed that I'm not the only person in the horse racing cyber world who has left wing opinions.
From now on, just don't bother because you're boring me.
Even if I was for the current notion of democracy, it still has to be acknowledged that what Nestle do is criminal on a remarkably grand scale. No sole human being would be able to get away with most of the stuff Nestle & co do so why are Nestle allowed to get away without punishment? I would even settle for a stiff (genuine) punishment from the UN or another right wing group. Long prison terms though - I don't believe in the death penalty.
Hi Krizon
The post you made earlier was a credit to the forum. Especially since you make many valid points. I will elaborate on that post later. Out of curiosity, regarding the St Ives 'anarchists' of the 60s, did they co-operate with / support the many Kernow indepandance movements that exist to today?
Hi Shadow Leader
If anybody is flattering me then it is you and only you. I'm not seeking attention, as a matter of fact - I have a tendancy to shy away from attention what with me being a humble and hypersensitive little soul. Unfortunately, your (nobody else seems to be deeply offended by me) obsession with me is also misguided and very poorly informed - especially since only a mere proportion of what I post is a rant. Furthermore, I also hope you have noticed that I'm not the only person in the horse racing cyber world who has left wing opinions.
From now on, just don't bother because you're boring me.
Kots - re the Kernow indie movement - not that I was aware of! Perhaps by the time anyone made their way down to Cornwall, saw the scenery and seagulls, slept on the beautiful beaches for a couple of months, enjoyed carefree sex 'n' spliffs, and could drift safely about at will, they'd lost their head of steam!
On the other hand, as the Brotherhood took very seriously its' dream of a Cornish nation, I doubt that they'd have accepted the support of any damned foreigners, let alone 'strangers' (3rd generation Cornish). Only those tracing their lineage back through the Tre-Pol-Pen name prefixes were considered by them to be true Cornishfolk. While my mother and I made - as we always do in any new place - every effort to fit in, it was pretty clear that we would never be accepted as anything but outsiders. It was - certainly back in the 1960s - very much a Little Britain-style 'local county for local people'. :brows:
On the other hand, as the Brotherhood took very seriously its' dream of a Cornish nation, I doubt that they'd have accepted the support of any damned foreigners, let alone 'strangers' (3rd generation Cornish). Only those tracing their lineage back through the Tre-Pol-Pen name prefixes were considered by them to be true Cornishfolk. While my mother and I made - as we always do in any new place - every effort to fit in, it was pretty clear that we would never be accepted as anything but outsiders. It was - certainly back in the 1960s - very much a Little Britain-style 'local county for local people'. :brows:
This criticism of Shell's activities in Nigeria seems rather harsh to me.
I have some knowledge of this, as a family member used work for the Shell manager who had responsibility for running the show in Nigeria. The only way to get anything done was to bribe the appropriate Nigerian princes and bigwigs, taking great care to understand the unwritten pecking orders that existsed, so that no one lost face.
When this guy retired or moved to another post (I forget which), the next man in place didn't want to do bribes, just normal straight dealing - well, all hell broke loose. It was quickly sorted out, with all the "right" Nigerians getting the "right" bribes, and everyone was happy again.
You've got to remember that nearly everyone in any position of authority in that country is corrupt. As I see it, it's the Nigerians themselves who deserve a slating, not Shell.
I have some knowledge of this, as a family member used work for the Shell manager who had responsibility for running the show in Nigeria. The only way to get anything done was to bribe the appropriate Nigerian princes and bigwigs, taking great care to understand the unwritten pecking orders that existsed, so that no one lost face.
When this guy retired or moved to another post (I forget which), the next man in place didn't want to do bribes, just normal straight dealing - well, all hell broke loose. It was quickly sorted out, with all the "right" Nigerians getting the "right" bribes, and everyone was happy again.
You've got to remember that nearly everyone in any position of authority in that country is corrupt. As I see it, it's the Nigerians themselves who deserve a slating, not Shell.
Hi Venusian. Thanks for your comments.
As I mentioned earlier, I have no respect for any of the governing parties involved in the Ken Saro Wiwa debacle because they are just as guilty as Shell are for his death. My major concern with Shell, in this instance, is that they chose to operate in such a political climate in the first place.
It isn't like Shell didn't have a choice since there are other oilfields which aren't owned by nations who offer 'death of troublemakers' on their list of fringe benefits.
Personally, I'd much prefer it if the same companies used their vast financial capacity to make renewable energy competitive rather than draining whats left of Earth in the most polutonous (is that a word?) of ways.
The problem we have is that Shell, Esso and the likes would rather make profits than practise any consideration for earth or it's inhabitants.
The problem is that if Shell didn't exploit Nigerian crude, then it would be Agip from Italy, or the French, or Russia, or someone else offering to do it instead. Sadly, a company taking an ethical stand and refusing to do business with a lousy government, simply shoots itself in its' commercial foot, thus depriving itself not just of income and potential profit, but also jeopardizing its' employees' jobs.
If there was a general agreement among governments that NONE of them would allow their companies to do any business in any corrupt or brutal country, then the squeeze on that country's economy might bring about the downfall of the rotten rulers. However, even that scenario could be argued as a form of latter-day colonialism, as the invasion of Iraq has been - and still is - viewed.
If there was a general agreement among governments that NONE of them would allow their companies to do any business in any corrupt or brutal country, then the squeeze on that country's economy might bring about the downfall of the rotten rulers. However, even that scenario could be argued as a form of latter-day colonialism, as the invasion of Iraq has been - and still is - viewed.