Fire Extinguisher Throwing Student

[worm]

which somehow, lord knows how, makes 'us' feel comfortable about where 'we' are, and so the merry-go-round keeps on turning....

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[diddly-dee]

I wasn`t thinking particulary about corruption..but of course it does exist (I myself having had personal experience of it within the system)...but corruption here doesn`t seem to be anywhere near as rife as it is in loads of other countries.. and likewise the overall conduct of our policemen.

Of course there are loads in incidents whuch you can draw upon and give examples of... but in other countries... demonstrators are f**kin shot at and knocked seven shades out of.

DEmonstarions are different now to ones which I attended in the 70s..with a lot more "infiltration" and subversiveness..and consequently the police have also changed since then.

Whilst I aint one of these nambi-pambis... I think the criticims levelled against our Justice system and police is sometimes too high.

den

so 'we're' not as bad the worst of 'em..

whoop de doo

I don't know what others thoughts are on the story of cops who infiltrated a climate change group. I think it's about as underhand and dishonest as you can get really. Basically, don't trust anyone, ever, in your life...

nice :angry:

[gratedenini]

nothing at all

but to always reach the conclusion that it's better here than anywhere else is just complacency

what's your take on the cops infiltrating the climate camps, and having sexual relations with others (even fathering kids, allegedly) just so their cover isn't blown?

one of them (an undercover cop) was beaten by other cops ...

it's very f**ked up

[worm]

And what is also useful to remember is that we're such a lickspittle nation (me included alas) - in countries where the plod are cavalier about popping a few protestors it's because the protestors are a real threat to the ruling elites and political establishments - the demonstrations (or even 'riots') we have in this country don't seem to occur (not since the early 80's anyway) outside of the hours of 9 to 5 and then everyone wants to go home to catch up on corrie. Whereas, in Iran or Tunisia or Columbia or Pakistan the demonstrators there are really going for it and would welcome a revolution and total change in the ruling elits and systems - compared this to the 'single issue' demonstrations we get in this country where we want 'our masters' to 'please change x, y or z so we can all get back to normal thank you very much'. If there was a real threat to 'order' in the UK through demonstration(s) then the plod and army would be on our streets quicker than you can say 'Watt Tyler' and popping demostrators like they were playing 'call of duty'.

[worm]

which is why I put 'we' in inverted commas... I feel as European as as I do British

yep..

[gratedenini]

And what is also useful to remember is that we're such a lickspittle nation (me included alas) - in countries where the plod are cavalier about popping a few protestors it's because the protestors are a real threat to the ruling elites and political establishments - the demonstrations (or even 'riots') we have in this country don't seem to occur (not since the early 80's anyway) outside of the hours of 9 to 5 and then everyone wants to go home to catch up on corrie. Whereas, in Iran or Tunisia or Columbia or Pakistan the demonstrators there are really going for it and would welcome a revolution and total change in the ruling elits and systems - compared this to the 'single issue' demonstrations we get in this country where we want 'our masters' to 'please change x, y or z so we can all get back to normal thank you very much'. If there was a real threat to 'order' in the UK through demonstration(s) then the plod and army would be on our streets quicker than you can say 'Watt Tyler' and popping demostrators like they were playing 'call of duty'.

[worm]

I might have been a giraffe, Den.

[gratedenini]

sorry den, but that's a load of old tosh..

I don't rip the system apart unquestioningly. I've always tried to not impose my thoughts on my kids, and leave them to work it out. In the last few months my daughter voted for a bunch of liars, went to protest about it, saw unbeleivable things that she didn't imagine one human could do to another (cops whacking kids on the head until they bleed, and not giving a shit) and was unlawfully held (kettled)

She's an anarchist now....

just saying you are always going to get this kind of thing is as meaningless as anything, and such behaviour as cops pretending to be someone else, moving in with unsuspecting partners, having sex with them, is wrong wrong wrong. What level of respect are they hoping for behaving like that? We have lying politicians preaching what's right and wrong and doing the exact opposite ,and then they get pissed off when we start comnplaining..ffs...the law dosen't exist for them anymore

things are either right or wrong, just because it's British, it's ok..??

gawd 'elp us

[gratedenini]

I don't expect them to be whiter than white, nor do I expect them to act like a subspecies of raging maniacs

I have less qualifications than you (not even an o level), I don't think it makes any difference...

[worm]

.... and mostly they dont!

Right, I`m off out with MDM now... see yer this evening Mr T.

(maybe I am an interlectual..how can I tell?)

den

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Generally speaking, if you can think in an asbtract sense then you're thinking intellectually. To engage your thought and your reasoning in an abstract sense is to be intellectual.

The opposite would be to engage on an experiential level, whereby people usually refer to subject matter as pertaining to 'the real world' or to themselves as 'realists'. This just means that their thinking is not abstract; not intellectual.

For example, talking about the actual behaviour of dogs is not intellectual. Talking about the concept of the behaviour of pet dogs is.

and ignoring the existence of the real world as tho it's of no bearing to anything is never intellectual, it's just stupidity of the highest order.

But your words above explain an awful lot for why you talk endless crap.

[diddly-dee]

I do like Gil-Scott Heron's assertion that 'the revolution will not be televised'.

I'm also down with the belief that political resistance can only occur through constant critical assertions rather than actions, as the result of the former creates a constant threat to the establishment whereas the latter reinforces the idea of establishment, regardless of victor. I don't know whether or not we've had the revolution Heron spoke of or whether the establishment has cultivated us into a type of being. However, all revolutions pertain to a utopian state of being, which defies each individual's sense of being, so I believe that it has been and gone. What I believe is required is for people to become critically engaged and thoughtful in relation to the discourses they consume. This should replace the reactionary/apathetic dichotomy that so marks our current stage in cultural transition.

[worm]

and ignoring the existence of the real world as tho it's of no bearing to anything is never intellectual, it's just stupidity of the highest order.

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

A very interesting set of obeservations. On the subject of which, what do you make of the 'velvet' revolutions in Eastern Europe in the 1990's - did you not think it was interesting how they were typified (with, perhaps the exception of Romania - although that was relatively bloodless really) by pretty much a total absence of bloodshed and violence given they were, actually, revolutions and a complete change of system and government. This being completely at odds with the 'western' media representations of the Eastern European regimes which perpetually emphasised the 'oppression, rule by terror, lack of freedoms etc.' - yet, when the point of revolution came and the populations clearly expressed "we don't want you any more" was it not surprising, in the context of how they'd been portrayed in the 'West', that these Eastern European regimes simply said "okay, have it your way" and there were such peaceful changes of regime? What I'm saying is, if there were a similar popular uprising in this country to 'overthrow' the regime and the population took to the steets, do you think it would pass off as peacefully as their revolutions, or do you consider that the army would be on the streets trying to maintain the existing systems of power and the ruling elites would cling on desperately to power for as long as they could and do whatever they could to keep hold of that power?

Of course, as well as the romanticised view that the Eastern European regimes were, as the outcomes indicate, actually 'governments of the people for the people' and once they did not have this legitimacy they quietly went on their way as I suppose I'm suggesting above, there's the argument that the ruling elites either simply 'changed their clothes' and declared themselves 'democrats' and still kept a grip on power or, alternatively, gave up their political power in exchange for economic power and capital wealth forthcoming from the newly privatised state run industries. And, also, there's the situation that they couldn't, when push came to shove, count on the support of the army and police so they had no choice but to give up power.

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Agreed.

If only you were serious, because...

Much like ignoring the fact that markets exist before an economist can set a price according to that market.

.... this shows that you're not.

But I have to 'admire' someone who thinks he can spout about a subject that his words make abundantly clear he doesn't understand or know anything about, while believing himself to be an intellectual and an academic.

A real intellectual would research an idea before dismissing it with only ignorance as his basis for doing so.

So yet again you reveal yourself as the fraud that many here are aware that you are.

[worm]

A real intellectual would research an idea before dismissing it.

[worm]

If only you were serious, because this shows that you're not.

[eFestivals]

He'd have to be presented with an idea worthy of research first though.

Yeah, all things beyond your intelligence or where you're guided only by your gross stupidity are all worthless ideas.

The idea has been worthy of endless research by economists, which you'd know if you knew the first thing about economics.

But you know not even the basics, while believing yourself so smart on all things that you think you don't have to know such things, and that these things can be dealt with by just your ignorance.

[worm]

The idea has been worthy of endless research by economists, which you'd know if you knew the first thing about economics.

[eFestivals]

Well, I know that the idea of a market price comes from a market.

I also know that the idea that a market price doesn't come from a market hasn't been researched by economists as it's utter nonsense.

both correct (tho why the moronic 2nd line? Are your fantasies taking right over now?).

A market price requires a market. A market is not merely there being a buyer and seller. You'd know this if you knew the basics on the subject.

This'll help you....

[worm]

From Wiki:

Market:

A market is any one of a variety of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby businesses sell their goods, services and labor to people in exchange for money.

Market price:

In economics, market price is the economic price for which a good or service is offered in the marketplace.

[worm]

both correct (tho why the moronic 2nd line? Are your fantasies taking right over now?).

Edited January 25, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

From Wiki:

What you've referenced has NO relevance at all to what I've said and what you've said on this subject. If you knew the subject enough to make meaningful comment on it, you'd know that.

I know you don't know what the f**k you're talking about. What you have posted makes that no less clear to me than it would be clear to you that I don't know the colour of your underwear if I took a guess.

And we're back to you needing to read Economics for Dummies.

[eFestivals]

Therefore markets exist before an economist can set a price according to that market. At no point is a market defined by the ability to set a fixed market price.

All correct, and all completely irrelevant to what is a properly operating market and what isn't.

If you had the first idea of what you were talking about, you'd never be so mindnumbingly stupid to post something like this as tho it addresses anything of what we've been arguing over.

[eFestivals]

after much googling, because of my own inability to use the technically correct terms - which matters not a jot to someone who knows about economics, as the explanations more than cover it - I'm now ablew to correct myself.

By 'properly operating market', I was referring to what is technically called within economics as an efficient market.

As you'll see if you read the link below, that means "that every thing* traded in the market is correctly valued given the available information" - which means that there's no dispute to be had about the price of that thing.

(* word changed. See below for why).

http://moneyterms.co.uk/efficient-markets/

(this is an article referring to the trading of securities, but the term 'efficient market' is one that is recognised across economics, so the use of 'securities' in the part I've used above can be switched to be anything else).

For the full economic view, see:-

http://www.e-m-h.org

And seeing that I'm talking bollocks and no academic would look at such a thing, I wonder how the academics listed in this google got it soooo wrong in worm-world?

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22efficient+market%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=2fb1b9b17983bff3

Edited January 25, 2011 by eFestivals