Vacation and phones

[stinkbomb]

The "notify moderator" button doesn't allow you to explain why. Now if "Golbez" wants to know why I reported him I would be happy to discuss it openly here. <br> <br> <br>

[oddasudda]

it should be noted that the poster "Anonymous" is a a pain in the ass that is more annoying than the poster "Golbez" could ever be. <br> <br>note how the subject attempts to communicate his feelings, but only serves to piss everybody off, not much different than a troll <br> <br>note how he expects to have his statement have any impact on the poster "Golbez" when in reality he is only spamming the forum <br> <br>note the pride he takes in his (twisted) crusade against proponents of capitalism, despite the fact that debate with some capitalists can be fruitful <br> <br>this is the kind of behavior that can be expected forom advocates of trolling, since only by spamming a forum can they hope to feel any sense of power; a sense which has been disrupted to the point that the subject feels the irrational and unrepressable need to continue to antagonize as many people as possible on this forum.

[Golbez]

[color=green]That's a shitty thing to say Golbez. I think you should withdraw that comment and apologise to the forum again. For the first time ever I am complaining to a board moderator about that. Bad shit man! </font color=green> <br> <br>I hope you gave the same love to Anonymous. Yeah, it was harsh, but it was right on the money. Both Kevehs and Morpheus had an interest in discourse and displayed intelligence - And both (moreso Morpheus, though) posters' posts devolved into unintelligent trolls, at least as pertained to me.

[Golbez]

I'd be happy to know, "stinkbomb." Or, if you wish, you can mention it in a private message.

[Din]

[color=green]And both (moreso Morpheus, though) posters' posts devolved into unintelligent trolls</font color=green> <br> <br>And your posts have not? <br> <br>Hypocrisy is spelt with a H. Spelling Lessons Number 141,729.

[Golbez]

[color=green]And your posts have not? </font color=green> <br> <br>Since I no longer spring uninvited into a thread and insult a participant in it with straw men and one-liners, no. My posts as of late are far higher quality than the ones a few months ago - and of lower volume. Of course, ignoring Anonymous cut down on my volume greatly. [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Guest]

ir should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar who is now obviously and openly flaunting it in your face.

[Guest]

it should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar who has time and again feigned an interest in discourse in order to antagonize. <br> <br>YMMV, but it's doubtful. <br> <br>

[Guest]

it should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar and a self-admitted asshole who is on this forum for the sole purpose of antagonization. <br> <br>note how he once again openly lies about his behavior on these forums. note how he once again is trying to make it appear as if he has or will ever reform his behavior. <br> <br>note how, despite promising to ignore anonymous posts, he is unable to resist referencing them. <br> <br>this is the kind of behavior that can be expected from supporters of capitalism, who are unable to support their position without lies and deception. <br> <br>YMMV, but it's doubtful. <br> <br>

[Guest]

lol! as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. <br> <br>i don't have any beef with odda. <br> <br>it was suggested to me that i should take my comments about the poster "Golbez" into private communication. since you are one of the few people who seems interested in continuing such discussions with the poster in question, maybe you should consider taking them private? it certainly seems that i'm not the only one who is tired of seeing the cycle of lies followed by apologies follwed by more lies. if you want to participate in that sort of thing, maybe you could consider sparing ther rest of us?

[oddasudda]

I'd be more than happy to continue my discussions with Golbez somewhere else if you'd stop flooding the boards. However, you aren't spamming because of me, you're spamming because of him. Thus, the decision rests with you - believe me, I'd rather have there be discussion about capitalism than copy-and-pastes of the same god-damned crap.

[stinkbomb]

Golbez I haven't voiced an opinion about your posts before. The reasons I took exception to your post are: 1. This is the anarchism 101 thread for newbies, no heavy theory etc. and not the place to attack or antagonise people. 2. You attacked an ex poster who explained they would not be posting for a while and who you knew wouldn't reply to you. 3. You dressed it up as being helpful, which I think was dishonest. <br>If you want to discuss it further feel free to PM me. <br> <br>As for your original post I find it too vague. I am assuming you're talking about the various options available in an anarchist society. If so I think talk of things being free or not is likely to be irrelevant. Many anarchists envisage a society where items and services have a social rather than monetary value. The decision as to the people in Cancun wanting to remain as a resort would be theirs. If some enjoyed meeting new people regularly then they would be free to continue doing that, just as those who didn't want to would be free to leave and pursue something more to their tastes. <br> <br>As to how the goods and services would be distributed I envisage it would be based on need. If people wanted to visit Cancun they would receive food and shelter to meet their needs. In the same way if people from Cancun wanted to travel to your hometown they would expect to receive food and shelter to meet their needs. That way the rigid roles of tourist and worker would be broken down. <br> <br> <br>

[Morpheus]

[color=blue] I expected better from you, Morpheus. Then again, I used to from Kevehs, too. </font color=blue> <br> <br>Your dishonest debating "tactics" eventually drive everyone who tries to be civil with you to eventually cease doing so. Eventually, even oddasudda will get fed up with you.

[HHKH]

(On the off chance that some insight into anarchism can result from this thread ....) <br> <br>Responding to the original post, there are ways an "average" location may deal with visitors, or with people who want to live there and not work. But it sounds like the intent of the question is about a places where there is an overwhelming volume of visitors (who may or may not want to work while visiting). I imagine that the people who live full-time in such a place would institute a hostel-type system, where people could stay and get basic services in exchange for a little help with the chores. This exchange does not have to involve money. The converse of this may be that the doors get shut to people who want to visit for a while and not work, if this gets to be a problem. <br> <br>

[andrewflood]

I think in the case of somewhere like Cancun people staying in exchange for doing chores does not make sense and falls into the localist trap. 9The idea that every small area should be self sufficent). <br> <br>In terms of toursit resorts its probably more realistic to think of them as service industries like universities which cannot be simply broken up into small local pieces. So we can expect two things <br>1. A transformation of these industries (ie Cancun stinks if you have to work there BECAUSE its based on econmoic relationship of a couple of dollars a day construction workers and badly paid service workers with 100+ dollar a day earning gringos and Europeans. Probably better to pick a resort in the US or Europe as an example where current earning differentials are not quite so enormous and which may have some resemblence in a post revolutionary set up to the way they are run today. <br> <br>2. As a service industry workers there can expect that they will receive the goods they need for production of that service and for their own needs. It's no different in that way from a bus factory. <br> <br>Finally Golbez 'replied' to me with some bizarre bit about goods coming from mexico city but people from mexico city not wanting to go to Cancun. I have no idea what this point is about, unless the idiot imagines anarchists favour a return to barter! In reality just as we are now only marginally aware of where the goods we produce go so it will be then. The important thing is that they are wanted somewhere, not that we have a direct relationship with every end point consumer!