Chomsky: Ideology & the Media

by Seamus Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:26

has someone forgotten to tell you "marxists" that chomsky has in the past describe himself as a libertarian communist. that's an anarchist in case you dont know. mmm... will you be discussing that?

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:28

Chomsky's Understanding Power, 2002, page 141,

"First of all, the Soviet Union was basically a capitalist system. The first thing that Lenin and Trotsky did when they took power in October of 1917, remember, was to destroy all of the forms of socialist initiative"

"Just now I was talking about workers and communities participating in decision-making-the first thing the Bolsheviks did was to destroy that totally. They destroyed the factory councils, they undermined the soviets..."

or his essay here
http://zena.secureforum.com/znet/chomsky/articles/86-soviet-socialism.html
"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917....
...Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation. "

by Janus Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:35

Will Choamsky actually be attending? If not, who will be speaking?

by While we are at it Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:38

Chomsky - "If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed."

RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work - Deterring Democracy, Necessary Illusions, etc. - has dealt consistently with the role and prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. You have argued that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there is a deep antagonism to any real role or input from the mass of people, lest it threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which favours the rich. Your work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, some have been shocked by your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?

CHOMSKY: I haven't actually equated the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the new class. For example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly free, and about how the undermanagement that is the real threat to democracy is an assault against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find shocking, I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 28, 2003 16:06 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Aoife's post refers to a Forum on Chomsky's writings and a Marxist analysis of said writings. Much as Chomsky has analysed Trotskyism and found it wanting, perhaps the same analysis of Chomsky from a Marxist perspective will find him wanting. Maybe the SWP will read a passage of Chomsky attacking Lenin and then attack Chomsky for being an Anarchist. Who can say unless they go?

There doesn't seem to be a suggestion in the post that Chomsky spends his Saturdays selling Socialist Worker on the bottom of Grafton St, or that he would if only he lived in Ireland. Rather it seems to be an invitation to a debate on his writings.

I've attended debates and forums on the writings of people I didn't agree with and who didn't agree with me (And they were, therefore, wrong, but that's beside the point).

Anyway, if the liberatarian communists want to organise a meeting on the subject, more power to their collective will, if the SWP want to organise a meeting on Chomsky, fair play, if I couldn't be arsed turning up to either (Harold's Cross for pity's sake) but support in a general way people holding meetings, exchanging ideas and engaging in debate, well then I clearly come out on top in this one. :)

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 16:21

I don't think the meeting is on Chomsky's writings in general, just his media analysis. I suspect that the SWP will talk about how great his analysis is, and how wonderful it is to have oppositional voices (and the spirit of Seattle, the oncoming crisis in capitalism/downturn/30's in slow-motion/Rapture/deluge/whatever it is this time) without mentioning that this particular oppositional voice is also completely opposed to their tradition. Call me cynical. (Everyone else does)

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Mon Jul 28, 2003 16:35 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Indeed, certainly possible and all but if you have a problem with that, why not turn up nd register it at the meeting?

Many years ago, when I had substanially less grey hair than I do now, I attended a meeting organised back home by Fianna Fail on Dev and his 'republican credentials'. I raised the issue of his internment and murder of republicans; hunger strikes, torture and beatings of republicans in the Curragh; censorship of republican media etc. and how this all tied into his 'republican' credentials.

I think when we can, we should put up a challenge to people who might be representing history or politics in a distorted fashion, for their own political needs. When this is done in a civil manner, as recently a notably larger amount of debates on Indymedia have been conducted, then I think everyone can get a lot out of it.

When you do it at a Fianna Fail public meeting packed with their own supporters the cut and thrust of intellectual debate seems beyond them and eventually I was 'asked' to leave. Presumably, as a revolutionary organisation, the SWP would be a lot more open to debate.

by Ray Mon Jul 28, 2003 16:51

Every now and again, when I was in the WSM, some of us would go along to Marxism to talk about anarchism. Oh the fun we had.
I really couldn't be bothered going along to a SWP meeting to argue about Chomsky, especially since I don't think the meeting will actually be about Chomsky, but about the media. I'm just amused by it because I'm pretty sure that the speaker will only talk about the 'nice' bits of Chomsky, and nothing that may interfere with the 'join the SWP' speech at the end.
Its not like, in your example, FF holding a talk on Dev. Its like if, to an audience that had only a vague awareness of Irish history, some republican group gave a talk about Dev, talking about how he fought in 1916 etc etc but forgetting to mention internment. Or if someone took Michael Collins as an example of politics through negotiation, because didn't he go sign that Treaty with the English. Chomsky is very critical of the SWP tradition, and I don't think that will even be mentioned in their talk.

by iosaf - (chomsky's little helpers) Mon Jul 28, 2003 17:54

CHOMSKY: IDEOLOGY & THE MEDIA
in capital letters.
no verb.
word (noun-proper noun)(punctuation mark colon) noun (abstract noun) (semiotic "et" conjunction)
the (article definite) Media (noun abstract).
if anyone is in Barcelona on Friday they can give me a ring and talk about "Chomsky: ideology and marijuana". I shall use Chomsky as a "crowdpuller" spout loads of the "ideology" and smoke some grass:-) contributions welcome.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Mon Jul 28, 2003 18:11 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

I agree with quite a lot of Justins sentiments. Although the 'misrepresentation and distortion of history', all organisations will, can and are accused of that - Why?, well quite simply because others will hold their own understanding of history. This Organisational or political allegience {OPA - for future reference} is what binds various persons, groups and organisations together.


What is important here though is to start and engage in these debates, put 'positions', throw out questions, raise points etc. Attempt, although harder for some than for others to actually listen to what people are saying. Of course most of us may hold the OPA but it does not mean we need to be blinkered to what others are saying or dismiss what others are suggesting, or see them solely as those 'opponents'. At times reading the postings {although they are becoming better}, one would think that the 'main' problem lay with other Socialists, Anarchists, Republicans or whatever. For me this is Bollocks. Of course we hold disagreements some small some large, of course we all have a past, a history, but we also have a present, and it is how we engage and attempt co -oporation in this present that will begin to attempt to effect real change for the future.

Some of us can attempt to start some basic changes by getting rid of old habits, such as seeing others on the left as the main problem, we can attempt to remove the intense Political sectarianism to other organisations held within the mindset of some, we can attempt to deal with our differences of the past while engaging practically in the present.

Ray , Justin, myself or whomever may hold problems with other organisations and some could be quite deep rooted, but lets at least attempt a respectful engagement on those differences which is begining on Indymedia in some ways, Lets discuss how each of us sees the way forward practically for real change, lets attempt to find some commonality and practical workings hopefully, eventually, on a 32 county basis.

We should not only open up debate further with eachother but also within some of our own organisations, I believe organisations need to begin to attempt closer workings together on various issues in various ways. It can start by putting and debating issues not only on Indymedia etc but at 'eachothers' meetings, forums etc, where we should also see debates and differing views from platforms, where meetings are open and respectful. We need to develop practical engagement through practical discussion, to practical activity. We need not to see each other as the 'main problem and with that we should attempt I believe to develop such eventually on a 32 county basis. Such does not effect our individual OPA, may it be to socialist revolution, republicanism or whatever, while in tandem developing understanding and attempting working relationships for the real challanges ahead.

by Lance again - UCD cfe/Sa Mon Jul 28, 2003 18:58

Will Choamsky actually be attending? If not, who will be speaking?

hohohohoho ho hoho ho
hohohohoho ho hoho ho
hohohohoho ho hoho ho
hohohohoho ho hoho ho
hohohohoho ho hoho ho

Will Choamsky actually be attending? If not, who will be speaking?

tee hee hee hee hee

tee hee hee hee hee

tee hee hee hee hee

who will be speaking?

I will be speaking

{ replace i with some random swapper,
replace speaking with repeating }

"marxist" forum : indeedey

by j.p. Mon Jul 28, 2003 19:18

at least thr swp are trying to do something,you dont see anarchists doing meetings on chomsky do ya?the anarchism here are nothing more then a club and a lifetstyle.

by Belfaster Mon Jul 28, 2003 20:14

Jp just 'engage' with those prepared to have informed discussions. Once ignored or deleted the others will run away and seek attention some where else. By the way there are some dead on Anarchists on this site with some good ideas.

by j.p. Mon Jul 28, 2003 21:09

my bad,im sure there are plenty of nice anarchists

by Fergus - Anti-Bolshevik communist Mon Jul 28, 2003 21:47

Davy:

What if there was a particular ideology that was represented by several small parties active at the moment, which you thought was dangerous and counter-revolutionary - from a communist point of view? What if this ideology preached its desire to achieve communism, yet you were convinced, through theoretical analysis and a simple examination of its long and consistent history of putting its ideas into practice, that this ideology was a fundamental con, that its success could only lead to the repetition of past barbarities? What if the current practice of the parties who preached this ideology, in even their most trivial actions, confirmed your belief that nothing would be different next time?

What if these parties were by far the largest and loudest organisations who claimed to want to create communism? What if the leaders were cynical, manipulative and driven by a thirst for power and glory? What if these leaders had no qualms about recruiting those who had a genuine fondness for the communist idea but who had no knowledge of the nature of this dishonest ideology, beyond its claimed desire for communism, justice and democracy? What if this ideology, despite the fact that it was extremely unlikely to ever get another chance at power, jealously guarded its stranglehold over the communist idea in popular imagination and drowned out all but the faintest echoes of any honest communists? What if the parties who held this ideology sustained themselves by incorporating the corruptible into their command while exploiting the naivety of those recruits who proved too principled or modest to be useful? What if you saw many genuine comrades chewed up and spat out by their subtle and cynical machine, coerced into performing the unpaid and thankless labour of keeping the recruitment wheels turning?

What would you do then? Would you allow them to go unchallenged? Would you allow them, without a murmur of protest, to claim to be the heirs of all the great, brave, and genuine communists, living and dead, who abhorred their ideology? If that was how you saw the world, what would YOU do?

That was a genuine question by the way, and I don't know the answer.

J.P:

Your comment, merely 1 hour 51 minutes earlier is the biggest troll on the thread. That’s awful quick hypocrisy, even with Stalin’s airbrush.

by j.p. Mon Jul 28, 2003 22:01

anti bolshevik communist eh?mmm interesting.

by iosaf Mon Jul 28, 2003 22:20

I'd recommend a sedative probabaly barbiturate based there are about 30 products available from the pharmacy on prescription.
and for non bolshevik communism I'd recommend daily doses of LSD25.

by Fergus Tue Jul 29, 2003 02:47

Sorry, misread your second comment. My bad.

by Seáinín Tue Jul 29, 2003 03:45

He spens his whole time criticising the US government while he teaches at MIT taking their pay.

What a creep.

by NotSeáinín Tue Jul 29, 2003 12:08

He spens his whole time criticising indymedia while he posts to indymedia using their service.

What a creep.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Tue Jul 29, 2003 13:17 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

If you had read my comments then your 'what if' would have been answered.
As for troll there is nothing I can do if people wish to attempt to copy my style of writing not only here but elsewhere.

by Fergus Tue Jul 29, 2003 18:48

If you saw the world as described above, what would your attitude be towards the said ideology?

You most certainly did not answer the question, how could you have, it didn't exist till I asked it.

by Seáinín Tue Jul 29, 2003 22:44

Unlike hypocrite Chumpski.

by Badman Wed Jul 30, 2003 00:11

Chomsky has a job - necessary in capitalism to survive - for which he gets paid.

When you say that you don't get paid for their services, its hardly the same thing. Being an ignorant, loudmouthed simpleton rarely pays too well.

by Seáinín Wed Jul 30, 2003 02:18

diivorced from reality. What other job would allow him to call his employers criminals while he pockets their cash.
This guy doesn't know real life and anything he writes should be treated with derision.

by Yossarian Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:39

Spooneen lives in da Hood and knows all about the glory of the oppressed.

It is not necessary to have direct experience to have a feeling for something. I have no direct experience of seeing violent death yet somehow I have a strong feeling that it's extremely unpleasant. I guess all it takes to figure out what you think of a given situation is a bit of time to put yourself in the other person's shoes, at least it's a good start.

Putting myself in Spooneen's shoes, I get the feeling that his life has fallen way short of his expectations and the dude is BITTER. Perhaps he once shared hopes of a harmonious environment, which hopes were dashed. Now he'd as soon poison us all than acknowledge his original dreams. Spooneen, there're therapists out there.

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Wed Jul 30, 2003 14:28 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Some of your points I have heard occasionally before about and from differing people and differing organisations. So rather than asking a question that did not exist I merely raised points that others in the past have raised similar to yourself.

What if, What if, What if?

What would I do if I thought certain things were wrong within organisations, and of a block to effecting real change for the benefit of the working class? What would 'MY' attitude be to such, and what would 'I' do? If you had actually seeked to understand what I had written then you would know that, Quite Simply - If I could, I would seek to argue for and attempt to effect change for the benefit of the class - as I hope others would.

I would seek to turn the 'What if' into the What needs to be, and what is to be done, I would seek to turn my thoughts and understandings into action to attempt to effect that change - if I really believed it needed to be done.

by Fergus - anti-bolshevik communist Wed Jul 30, 2003 18:42

so why do you just keep spouting platitudes? I guess that you are not yet irretrievably corrupted by your ideology, but you are getting there.

"...I would seek to turn my thoughts and understandings into action..."

Your responses are all just platitudes. The question was specific. If you had an understanding of an ideology that corresponded with the description above, what would you do? Would you work with the counter revolutionaries in the name of unity? Unity of what?

Of course we need to work together, but with who? Just because somebody says they are on the left, or even thinks they are on the left, doesn't mean that they are. What do you do when the left is dominated by a malignant ideology? Again it's a real question to which I don't know the answer (I do know the platitudes however so spare me).

by Seáinín Thu Jul 31, 2003 05:00

he wouldn't work for the state he erroneously accuses of war crimes.

by Mark - SP Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:32

Surely its OK for Marxists to use chomsky's analysis of the media. After all Anarchists use Marx's economic theories to an extent.
Another note on Chomsky, while critisising Marx in an interview possibly the one quoted above (it was in one of the WSM publications a couple of years back) he admits to not having read Marx! Surely he should Noam better. He really should read Victor Serge's writings on Bolshevism.

by Agent of Chaos Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:39

You should broaden your own horizons and read some criticism of your own group, then you might be less inclined to misrepresent Chomsky.

You should try:

On the Edge: Political Cults of the Left and Right
Sharpe/New York 2000
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

Some good stuff on the CWI, Militant and Ted Grants current gang.



Hardcover: 246 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.87 x 9.29 x 6.28
Publisher: M.E.Sharpe; (September 2000)
ISBN: 0765606399
Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars (its available from Amazon)

If you want to read sample pages of it, you can access them at the link listed bnelow.

amazon

by Ray Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:57

Chomsky actually says
"The early Marx draws extensively from the milieu in which he lived, and one finds many similarities to the thinking that animated classical liberalism, aspects of the Enlightenment and French and German Romanticism. Again, I'm not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions."

http://struggle.ws/rbr/noamrbr2.html

Not that he hadn't read Marx, but that he didn't consider himself enough of a Marx scholar to speak authoritatively on the differences between early and late Marx, or his different followers. (I'm pretty sure he's read Victor Serge too)

As for anarchists using Marxist analysis - there's nothing wrong with the SWP reading Chomsky and learning from him. What I was pointing out is that the SWP were holding a meeting on one element of Chomsky's politics without mentioning another, very relevant element of those politics. I can assure you that, if the WSM had ever held a meeting on 'Marx's class analysis', his authoritarian nature (and the nature of his followers) would come up during the discussion.

by Mark - SP Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:14

Yeah but you'd be entitled to have that meeting and I for one wouldn't be complaining. Yeah and thats the interview I was talking about. And hands up my memory of it was a bit fuzzy but even so the line "Again, I'm not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions."
is surely a bit dodgy for a man who would surely criticise a capitalist commentator for going on and saying something like "I'm not an authority on Anarchism but I get the impression its about smashing shop windows".

by Davy Carlin - W/Belfast SWP Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:15 carlindavid at hotmail dot com

Fergus we obviously have differing understandings on various points. However being 'specific' I state once again that 'I would seek to turn my thoughts and understandings into actions', and in its concrete 'specfic' terms why not have a look through the Blanket website as above or indeed back through Indymedia {the two one line sites I participate in} and you will find many 'specfic' examples.

On your point on being 'corrupted by ideology' I would beg to differ. On the question of who to work with, well to the objective reader and others my postings on my thoughts on that in recent times would be I believe glaringly obvious, so for me I will continue with those concrete specifics and will just get on with what I believe is to be done. Singing off.

Finally what would I do if I seen a block on effecting change for the benefit of the working class well once again, quite simply - tactically, strategically, politically and practically, I would seek to effect change.

by Mark Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:23

Chomsky says that Marx didn't provide much in te way of political alternatives, in fact in "The Civil War in France" he does. From the Paris Commune he takes the workers council adding that they should have taken over the banks. Engels re-iterates that the working class will not be able to use the ready made machinery of the state in Anti-Duhring and both these texts become inspiration for Lenin's "The State and Revolution" in which a very clear political alternative is posed. In "Revolution in Danger" a collection of three pamphlets written by Victor Serge between 1919-1921, Serge talks about the relationship between Anarchists and the Idea of the Revolutionary dictatorship, coming to the conclusion that in the heat of the revolutionary situation in Russia Anarchists had no choice but to agree with the need for the Dictatorship of the proletariat, Soviets, the Red Terror and strong revolutionary organisations to defeat the inevitable counter-revolution.

by Magneto Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:29

Mark unfortunately is yet another victim of the Leader centered Cult of the CWI. They are now being instructed to ignore the writings of DEnnis Tourish. Mark may be a lost cause, unless he undergoes deprogramming, but hopefully some SY members will read the Tourish articles and wont throw the best years of their lives away.

by Ray Thu Jul 31, 2003 14:58

Pat - for cthulhu's sake, don't post anything that long again. If its available somewhere else, post a link. (we both know its not going to get a reply anyway, making it even more pointless)

Mark - first off, if you want to debate anarchism vs socialism, there's an existing thread on this subject, that came out of the SY summer camp, that addresses these questions in much more detail. Why widen the terms of _this_ debate, when all the Leninists have dropped out of that one? If you want to discuss Serge on the Bolsheviks, do it in the place where we've been discussing the Bolsheviks.
secondly, thanks for your permission to discuss Marx in future anarchist meetings. If you don't think there's an issue with avoiding important elements of someone's thought then that's your decision. I disagree. If there's an elephant in the living room its pointless trying to ignore it.
Finally, if you think Chomsky was wrong to say of the later Marx, "[he] was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives", you can tell him, because I haven't read the later Marx, and amn't inclined to care. (I will point out that quoting Engels won't help your argument) But anyway, even if you disagree with his interpretation, its good that you recognise that Chomsky has actually read Marx, and does have an informed opinion.

by Pat C Thu Jul 31, 2003 15:40

I abase myself. Its not generally available, I only got it a couple of days ago. Its now on the Irish Left list. But you have to join to access the files.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/irish_left/

I realise its long, but it would be of interest to Anoraks, Trotwatchers and general stick in the mud sectarians. 1800 extra words giving it to Trot Cultists!

by Magneto Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:12

". Also, at national conferences, leaders were elected by a slate system - i.e. the CC proposed a full list of names for CC membership. If you opposed it you theoretically stood up to propose a full list of new names, but needless to say no one ever did"

And it still goes on. At the SP Annual Conference the outgoing National Committee nominates the incoming one!

by a Thu Jul 31, 2003 16:40

Thank god for that first good old rant about the SP in a long time I was beginning to think we had lost our touch.
now will someone please come in on how the SP has no members anyway so we should not be talking them;):)
Here, does anyone remember the rant about SP union reps in Shorts now that was a real good one.
Bloody reds you couldnt watch them:)

by R Isible - IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Thu Jul 31, 2003 18:06

Which makes your explanation to Ray disingenuous. Whatever about the off-puttingly long text only being available from wherever you posted it on the mailing-list, there's no excuse for posting it twice on indymedia. As you obviously don't get it, or don't care in your pursuit of the SP: duplicate material will be deleted on indymedia. I'm now hiding the screed above. Those that really want to access it (ie. you) can look back at the one you posted 4 minutes before that on the "Damien Dempsey/ SP expose": http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60567 Thanks for your co-operation.

by pat c Fri Aug 01, 2003 11:19

I thought it was relevant to both debates, I guess it was a bit ott to post it twice. I am just carrying out a public service.

If the Moonies were regularly posting to indy, then I'm sure you would be happy if people were to expose the truth about them.

by pat c Fri Aug 01, 2003 11:31

i've just revisited the dempsey thread, it looks as if i'm not the only one interested in the "screed".

honestly, i'm not dennis tourish, chekov, hs, anon etc.
;)

by R Isible - IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Fri Aug 01, 2003 22:45

Ya know the most horrible thing?: you _could_ be Dennis Tourish, hs-sp, Magneto, Anonymous, Curious and Chekov for all the difference there is in the thread in terms of how you all appear to the outside world. Regardless of that crossposting and duplication of material is explicitly prohibited.

by pat c Sun Aug 03, 2003 19:25

I think serious points are being raised. I think the outside world are concerned with Cults. The Tourish piece has certainly rattled the SP.

I accept you are right about the cross-posting.

by :) Mon Aug 04, 2003 21:28

pc thats so good you should just keep posting it. forever