Chomsky in UCD for 3 events over 3 days

by Michael R. Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:43

.

by Tinkerbell Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:54

There might be a few more secret Anarchist meetings.

by Chekov - wsm (personal capacity) Fri Jan 20, 2006 13:20

This is the last of his meetings.

Chomsky's meeting with the WSM and other Irish anarchists was private, by his request, since he wanted a chance to talk to anarchist activists rather than a more general audience. We have occassionaly corresponded with him over the last decade or so and he is a long time subscriber to our magazine. He did not want to be bothered by the media and wanted a relatively intimate meeting as his schedule was already taxing enough. Therefore, we could only invite far fewer people than we would have liked and I'm sure that we overlooked several people who should have been there.

A video of the meeting will be made available on Indymedia in the not too distant future for anybody who couldn't be there.

by Curious Fri Jan 20, 2006 13:27

Was he asked about his support for Slobodan Milošević and his call for a vote for John Kerry?

by Michael R. Fri Jan 20, 2006 13:41

Thanks for that Chekov. Im sure ye had an interesting discussion. Look forward to seeing the video.

by Joe Fri Jan 20, 2006 14:02

"The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in crime throughout) is an important step forward for the region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners, students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated people can achieve"

by John Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:12

So tell us Chekov,on what basis did you decide which 'anarchists' could attend the meeting? I presume Chomsky wanted to meet Irish anarchists and not just the WSMers. Just a quick ask around informs me that none of the heads I know were told about the meeting. The WSM and the favoured few?

A list of who was invited would be of interest to the wider anarchist community. I assume you can tell us here.

by Chekov Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:22

" I presume Chomsky wanted to meet Irish anarchists and not just the WSMers."

The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come, beyond that I can't say who he wanted to meet.

"Just a quick ask around informs me that none of the heads I know were told about the meeting. ...A list of who was invited would be of interest to the wider anarchist community. I assume you can tell us here."

Anybody who DEMANDS that a list of attendees at an anarchist meeting should be posted on the internet is either a) a cop or b) a troll or c) an absolute idiot.

So, I think I can tell you why "none of the heads you know" were told about the meeting - because we don't normally invite the police to our meetings.

by Greyblogger Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:26

Well I was invited and I'm not a member of WSM. Am I to take it that you want them to publish a list of names? I'm sure the Special Branch, or whatever the political police are called these days, will be able to provide you with a list of those who attended.

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:38

I'm not a member of the WSM either and I was invited. Given that the WSM have 20 odd members (some very odd) and the attendance was approx 80, then its obvious that the vast majority present were not WSM members.

Is Tinkerbelle a cat or a fairy? Seems to be a bit put out at not being invited.

by John Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:41

Ha ha ha! Suppose it was idiot question. I'll slink off somewhere now...

by |Con Carroll - Class-War Fri Jan 20, 2006 17:13

see my piece on libcom.org go to forums Irish section

by W Fri Jan 20, 2006 18:55

How typical one group of anarchist does something very positive and some unknown moron moans about it on the net.

There were anarchists there from every libertarian group around dublin, so if you and your mates werent invited maybe you should network with the other libertarians more.

by Joe Fri Jan 20, 2006 20:46

Also from Cork, Limerick, Galway and Kilkenny. People were asked from Belfast but no one was able to make it but there may well have been people from elsewhere in Ireland. There were also comrades from Greece, Columbia, Chile, Canada and Britain. I wasn't directly involved in organising things so I've probably missed a few locations.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Sat Jan 21, 2006 00:57 deeclancy at gmail dot com

I learned 30 minutes ago that one of the other Pitstop Ploughshares was invited to the Chomsky anarchist meeting, and apparently spoke on our behalf. That was the first I heard of this. Actually, as far as I know, none of the women in the group (equal partners in this group, as far as we're concerned) were invited.

by well Sat Jan 21, 2006 03:08

at the end of the day one christian nut is more than enough.

by Hmmmm Sat Jan 21, 2006 03:10

That only leaves one, so maybe he attended the meeting as a catholic worker rather than a ploughshare. Still interesting that a member of the R.C faith who openly gives allegience to the Vatican and its centralised hierarchical system is considered Anarchist and gets an invite to the meeting. Strange indeed. Any Fianna Fail members invited, or was it restricted to religious counter revolutionaries?

by Ciaron O'Reilly - Pit Stop Ploughares (personal capcity) Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:05

For the record. I attended the meeting. I was invited as an individual. I didn't have the right to invite anyone else although I suggested the other ploughshares in Ireland as someone worth inviting to the person inviting me. I didn't put amy energy into making the event happen so I was pretty much a guest like most people.

There was an introduction. 3 pre-planned questions (originally 6 planned but the event ran out of time) and Noam Chomsky's responses.

I did not speak. It was a brief.

I was sitting next to a Muslim anarchist. Who also finds tiresome the ignorance of faith based anarchist traditions amongst the "scene" in Ireland.

It's a young scene (most people at this event were pretty young and male) so people have the right to be ignorant and a little self conscious in their rebelious years. Hopefully they'll grow out of it and discover that anarchism is more than a style and a new set of prejudices or move on straighten out & fulfil their parents ambitions for themselves and look back fondly from suburban bliss at these years when they too were wild and crazy (and those of us who stick with it can get hassled by the next generation passing through!)

Chomsky's reponse to the first question put would speak tho these issues raised by some of the comments prejudicial above. This will be available as the resocding of the event is put up on the net.

by sovietpop - wsm Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:44 sovietpop at hotmail dot com

As was mentioned above we were told that we could only invite around 60 people (and we ended up with 90). We drew up a list of everyone we could think of and it very quickly became obvious that we couldn't invite everyone. We prioritised people who identified themselves as anarchists and who we had worked with on campaigns. Even doing this, we ended up with too many people. The days before the event, as we found out that some people couldn't come, we tried to get others to fill their gap. It became a bit haphazard. I don't know who asked Ciaran, but I imagine the reason he was asked, and the rest of you weren't, was because it is Ciaran that we have been most in contact with. He's come to a lot of the GG, comes to the Anti-authoritarian assembly, and has come to many other anarchist meetings. We didn't make the decision based on his gender (in fact the first group on our list was RAG, an anarcha-femminist group, because we feel they are doing important work in raising the profile of women in the movement).
We were sorry that we couldn't invite more people and that we couldn't have a longer meeting. But we did have it videoed, so those who weren't there could see what happened, and we will put it up on indymedia.

by checked Sat Jan 21, 2006 14:44

First: “Chomsky's meeting with the WSM and other Irish anarchists was private, by his request…”
(important here is 'by his request')

Then it became “The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come…”
Which was it?

Later on:
“we were told that we could only invite around 60 people (and we ended up with 90). We drew up a list of everyone we could think of and it very quickly became obvious that we couldn't invite everyone. We prioritised people who identified themselves as anarchists and who we had worked with on campaigns. Even doing this, we ended up with too many people.”

Yes, but original question was “on what basis did you decide which 'anarchists' could attend the meeting?” This doesn’t answer how you came to who was left out and who was invited when you as you said you “ended up with too many people”.

Im not looking for a list- i'm just confused how the process took place- who decided what?

by Chekov Sat Jan 21, 2006 15:23

First: “Chomsky's meeting with the WSM and other Irish anarchists was private, by his request…”
(important here is 'by his request')

Then it became “The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come…”

Which was it?

No contradiction. The WSM invited him to a meeting. He agreed, but we were informed that it was to be a private meeting with no more than 60 people to be in attendace and no media or publicity.

by Ciaron Sat Jan 21, 2006 16:20

Seems like WSM organised a meeting with Chomsky and were good enough to open it up to other anarchists within the numerical limitations imposed by those organsing Chomsky's tour.

Questions about the nature of how the Chomsky tour was organised have been raised in the last two issues of "The Village" and are worth reading. The issues raised are worth exploring.

The issue of who qualifies as an anarchist in Ireland and what are the various pardigms at play for qualification is a much broader discussion. That one sounds exhaustive.

Many thanx to WSM for organising the event within the limitations they were woking within.
Many thanx to Noam Chomsky, who is elderly & had a pretty exhasting schedule, for making the time to meet with activists.

by Mary Sat Jan 21, 2006 19:13

Yes Ciaron, but it is a BIT odd that a number of people (and its only a handful) who are CURRENTLY before the courts for a serious direct action were not invited. Sovietpop says it wasn't antiwoman but it does seem strange that copped on anarchists can't see beyond Ciaron O'Reilly when looking at the Pitstop Ploughshares. Lets be honest here - Ciaron is probably the most pro-institutional church of all the ploughshares in many ways. I dont think any of the uninvited women have any time for the church and doubt if any of them are even catholics actually.

At the end of the day it was only a meeting but people should try to be more aware. All of the pitstop ploughshares were equal partners in the action and all will face serious sanctions if convicted.

by checked sincerely Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:22

Putting aside the previous post which rasies some other more serious questions.
Chekov calls my remarks 'Tedious and silly' but that is to brush aside a genuine question about the circumstances surrounding the decisions made in organising the chomsky meeting

First chekov says: by his (Chomskys) request…”
Then Chekov says “The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come…”
This is a contradition.

Why are my questions 'Tedious and silly' and when you chekov write tonnes of stuff on threads slagging off other activists be it in labour youth, sinn fein, sp or swp you dont recognise the triviality in some of the stuff been written.
To call my sincerely put question 'Tedious and silly' is to brush it aside, slag it off and not deal with the issue at hand which is who decided what and why in choosing people to go to the meeting. I know only a certain number were alllowed- you ended up with more than you could fit-
so put simply:
how did you decide who went and who didnt?
- it hasnt been answered yet.

by gay geori Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:32 gg at bearla dot ie

Ciaron raises some interesting points, none of which have been debated on Indymedia. However, the criticism of Amnesty International, must, by all Chomskian logic, also be extended to Chekov et al with the Chomsky Love In (and they used to say the audiences at Late Late Shows were back full of luvvies...)


In addition, it seems pretty odd that there were people looking for tickets and would have loved to hear Chomsky. Instead, the WSM acolytes and their cronines selfishly appropriated an opportunity to others to hear him speak, presumably because the rest of us are cops, trolls, idiots, or not friends of Chekov (like th guy who made the video)


Chekov, clearly, appears to be engaged in an act of manufacturing consent....

by R. Isible Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:36

QUOTE: First chekov says: by his (Chomskys) request…”
Then Chekov says “The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come…”
This is a contradition.

No it's not. I invite you to dinner, you agree to come and then request that the only other guests invited have red hair and bulbous noses. No contradiction. Do you have nothing better to do with your time than making an idiot of yourself on the internet?

by Gay Geori Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:49 gg at bearla dot ie

So, was R.Isible at the meeting then?

by James - Workers Solidarity Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:55

Tedious and Silly:
First chekov says: by his (Chomskys) request…”
Then Chekov says “The WSM invited him to a meeting and he agreed to come…”

I'll break it in separate sentences for you. We invited Chomsky. Chomsky agreed. Part of the conditions of the meeting that it remain private and relatively small.

Tedious and Silly:
how did you decide who went and who didnt?
- it hasnt been answered yet.

Sovietpop answered earlier:
We prioritised people who identified themselves as anarchists and who we had worked with on campaigns.
---------------------------------

I think Ciaron was asked in a personal capacity. (I'm unsure of the politics of the other pitstop ploughshares, including Damien, whether they consider themselves anarchist or not, which would be relevant from our point of view). Also as sovietpop says Ciaron would attend a lot more of the events that we would compared to the others.
-----------------------------------------

GG:
“Instead, the WSM acolytes and their cronines selfishly appropriated an opportunity to others to hear him speak, presumably because the rest of us are cops, trolls, idiots, or not friends of Chekov”

Yeah, I mean obviously Chomsky is public property and should be available to all people at all times. If he wants to spend a relatively relaxed hour with people of the same political tradition then that's depriving the rest of you and is strictly verboten.
I wonder is it that you can only came out with something so incoherent because you're a unique combination of being a cop, troll, idiot and not a friend of Chekov's?

>WSM acolytes and their cronines

Yeah, I was asked for my autograph half a dozen times.

by pat c Sat Jan 21, 2006 20:56

in line with the wsms anti woman stance the meeting was chaired by a woman. i didnt do a head count but i'd say the audience was about 50 - 50 male / female.

by R.Isible Sat Jan 21, 2006 21:00

QUOTE: So, was R.Isible at the meeting then?

None of your business. Whether you're motivated by idle maliciouness which manifests itself in pointless carping over a clearly explained situation or trying to correlate a list of names with photographs you'll get no further information on this now clearly explained and closed subject. At this stage you're just trolling.

by Ciaron Sat Jan 21, 2006 21:09

As usual Mary you are wrong about the nature of our community. Even this time our geographical location, there are two of us presently living in Ireland soon there will be one. We'll be back for our July 5th trial.

Your vehement anti-church position has never slowed you down in accepting the hospitality of the church and Catholic Worker movement. Your 3 year campaign to try and cutivate splits in our community as we await trial have been tedious, silly and unsuccessful.

by James R (WSM -Pers Cap) Sat Jan 21, 2006 21:10

This thread is absoulutely tedious.

If there was a gendered dimension to who was invited from the Ploughshares/Catholic Workers, Sovietpop has already dealt with the point - it is quite clear that they are the ones needing to have a discussion among themselves about the manner in which they present themselves, who talks for them and acts as spokespersons. Do ye want the WSM to come in and police ye to ensure your gender relations are adequate?

On who was invited - a working group made a list of those fellow anarchists who are already organised as anarchists, those close to us or those attempting to reach conclusions before joining/not joining. If you and your several "heads" were not invited - it probably says more about the lack of communication you engage in with the rest of the movement than it does about us lot in the WSM. In fact you are probably one of those few who slag the organisation off behind its back and on the net for what ever tediously juvenile failure you project onto it - so do not be surprised when an invite doesn't come your way.

Its absoultely fucking rich for others to come on to Indymedia and question the internal organisational strucures of a small left grouping that is richly engrained in democracy and puts a strenuous effort into remaining so. I presume you will post the minutes of any conversations you and your several "heads" have had about the Chomsky talk as the rest of the movement will be dying to know what was being said? (Hint: this is sarcasm, usually it doesn't travel too well on the net.)

It amazes me that "anarchists" (I use qoutation marks as its obvious this is a remarkable trolling effort/or the work of someone who has yet to get...) on this thread would spend more time moaning about the WSM and who and how it choses to federate/freely associate as an organisation with other individuals or organisations. For god sake, even a glorified Marxist TV critic (just to be tabloid) like Harry Browne had more of an understanding of the recuperation of Chomsky that went on last week and the political capital Amnesyty sought off his back.

Grow up the WSM is not your mammy and daddy - next time maybe ye should go to the bother of emailing a speaker yourself and organising something.

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May - pers. cap. Sat Jan 21, 2006 21:25 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

When the WSM heard that Chomsky was coming to Dublin, one of our comrades Emailed him and asked him to do a meeting for us. That's how easy it was. His Email address is widely known so to all those people who now feel badly done by because they didn't get along to the meeting - are you annoyed with us for inviting him or are you annoyed with Chomsky for agreeing or are you annoyed with yourselves that you didn't have the initiative necessary to invite him. Because after all if you had invited him, then you could have had the lovely task of deciding who could go to the meeting and who couldn't.
As for all the nonsense about people not being invited, I could be facetious and say that if we're having a party we are fully entitled to decide who we will invite to it. But I'm usually not the facetious type so I won't.
Believe you me, we would have loved to have a public meeting and have invited everybody that wanted to come along. But that wasn't possible. He told us that he would be delighted to meet with us but that it would have to be a private meeting with about 60 or so people. We couldn't therefore invite everyone we wanted to. It was a difficult task for the sub-group we set up to prioritise who could and couldn't come (I wasn't on it thankfully). But actually it was aproblem that we were delighted to have - the size of the possible list of invitees showed the strength of the anarchist/libertaian scene in Ireland right now.
We decided that while Chomsky would be with us for about 45 minutes, we would have a second half to the meeting which would focus on The future of anarcism/Organising for the future (I can't remember the actual exact title we put on it. One of the criteria we used in whittling down the list was to include people we felt would be interested in staying for the second half. We obviously got that fairly right - of the 90 or so at the first part of the meeting about 60 stayed for the second part and of those who didn't a good number gave their apologies because they had to rush back to work after an extended lunch break.
Of course there are people we forgot, we're not infallible. Of course there are people we would have loved to invite but couldn't. There were even a few heated discussions when the list was being whittled down.
The purpose of the meeting at the end of the day was to move anarchism and libertarian ideas forward, to try to cement ways in which we can all work better together. The discussion at the second half of the meeting was really positive towards this end.
To those who feel they should have been invited but weren't all I can say is Sorry, we would have loved to have you all there. But of course there's nothing to stop any of you organising your own meetings/events. And you can be sure that members of the WSM will support all events that we can which advance the cause of anarchism.

by gay geori Sat Jan 21, 2006 22:50 gg at bearla dot ie

"Its absoultely fucking rich for others to come on to Indymedia and question the internal organisational strucures of a small left grouping that is richly engrained in democracy and puts a strenuous effort into remaining so."

Pardon me, but it was a WSM member, and IMC Editorial Conclave member, Chekov Feeny, who opened the bag on this one. I guess "democracy" means excluding those who aren't considered "red" enough from the invitation list.

As for R.Isible - we'll take it you were one of the "chosen few"...

And if it's "fucking rich" you want, I'd say Chomsky earned more the adoring people who went to see him at the special audience, put together...

by gay geori Sun Jan 22, 2006 02:07 gg at bearla dot ie

... that if his performance over the recent Guardian interview is anything to go by, that Chomsky will have to see the video before it's posted to Indymedia to approve its contents, so it doesn't clash with the rest of his branding.

So don't expect it today, even though the interview was days ago...

at least RTE can broadcast their shit on the same day...

Yet again, Chomsky Media Manipulation (TM) triumphs...

by a shared past, but definitely no future with... - singular Sun Jan 22, 2006 03:35 im at a dot strange dot place dot in dot my dot life 1.e4 2.Kc6, Kf6?? 3. Bc4 Qh5 Qxf7 mate (progressive chess only) six six six six six six six

... but I can hazard a reasonable guess at the reasons why. It doesnt bother me anymore, but what I'm more interested in is what he talked about at this meeting. I went to one UCD talk, listened to another via the internet, tuned in to the newstalk106 Dunphy interview, watched Mark Little play at being a pushy journalist on Prime Time, and read the Irish Times 2 page spread. Chomsky wasnt repeating himself word for word but there was a considerable overlap between each media outing. I'd be keen to hear if he had something different to say to the 'vanguard' (a dirty word for circle A circles, but I cant think of anything else off the top of my head right now) of activists, rather than the general populace. Looking forward to hearing the audio or video if/when it surfaces - and wondering if people got a chance (or dared) to question his statements, one or two of which were highly questionable (at least during the Tuesday UCD talk and the Dunphy interview...)

by Chekov Sun Jan 22, 2006 14:00

"I guess "democracy" means excluding those who aren't considered "red" enough from the invitation list."

A political organisation using political grounds in order to invite people to a political meeting! Such deep cynicism. It's almost as bad as throwing a party and "excluding" those who aren't considered friends from the invitation list.

But, gay geori, your following comment about Chomsky and the guardian, a comment that completely misrepresents the situation and does so purposely makes me wonder why on earth you care so much. You're not an anarchist, you don't like Chomsky, you are happy to repeat lies about him. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist here? Random shit-stirring? Personality disorder?

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May - pers. cap. Sun Jan 22, 2006 14:22 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

Get away from your computer some day and do something in the real world and we might then meet you in real life and you might make it on to the next 'invite' list. Of course if you disagree so much with what Chomsky says or thinks you wouldn't have wanted to be at the meeting anyway. I said in a previous posting that I wasn't going to be facetious but I am now - It was our party, we decided who we wanted to invite and we don't have to justify it to you.
I really can't believe that someone has so little to do that they sit at a computer moaning about not being invited to a meeting that they don't seem to have wanted to be at anyway.
By the Way it was probably the worst kept secret ever and anyone with a remote connection with the anarchist/libertarian left in Dublin knew about it days before so if you didn't hear about it what does that say about your level of involvement with the real world.

by hs Sun Jan 22, 2006 16:35

Probably one of the silliest threads around in a while. If the WSM want to organise a meeting for themselves with or without anyone else thats there business, and if chomsky didn't want a public meeting thats his business. But I would love to see a recording of the meeting if a video was made (and if it's going to be made public,) so could one of the organisers let if know if thats the case. As for the begrudgers... organise your own meetings.

by Chekov Sun Jan 22, 2006 17:49

and published on indymedia.

The people who are trying to imply something or other about this being uncertain are raving trolls.

by ploughshares supporter Sun Jan 22, 2006 20:20

As someone who knows the women in the pitstop ploughshares fairly well I could confirm that they are not invested in the church hierachy in the same way. They also have a bit of trouble with a lack of internal democracy within the group and statements being made on their behalf that they know nothing about or don't agree with and anyone who hangs out with them knows this. in my opinion the libertarian views of the women are more consistent. I don't know if this type of thing is gender related and it may not be....but i think they feel it is at times both internally and externally. I don't know why they don't speak up about it more

by Ploughshares Supporter Sun Jan 22, 2006 20:40

Mary is an opportunist. Her intervention on this thread reeks of opportunism & begrudgery.

by Response Sun Jan 22, 2006 22:03

It seems to only service the state to open a speculative gossip blizard on the internal machinations of the Ploughshares 5 awaiting their third trial in July. The subject has nothing to do with this weird thread.

In both trials the Prosecutor downloaded extensively on Ciaran O'Reilly. Why Mary or ploughshares supporter would want to do the work of the prosecution for this significant trial of anti-war activists is anyones guess. Sounds like sheer stupidity or malice.

Maybe save your speculation until after they have been covicted & sentenced or freed.

by sheesh Sun Jan 22, 2006 23:54

Personally at this stage I dont give a fuck who was snubbed and who had their gold plated invitation couriered straight to their desk paid for with the WSM business account. Can anyone tell me what Chomsky's talk on the Thursday afternoon was about - or is arguing about the guest list more important? Jesus, its worse than the implications of omissions when planning an Irish wedding seating plan.

by conchubour - slightly more organised Mon Jan 23, 2006 02:14

Two great clips from Chomskys visit, one from an RTE interview, where he's harrassed by the interviewer, and doesn't let it get to him. It doesn't look good for Bertie boy, at The International Criminal Court, 'cos as the man says those USAF and rendition stop-over flights at Shannon ARE a crime. Great viewing. I watched it twice.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2108180.smil (17mins)

The other is his Lecture at Trinity or is it UCD? I'm not sure, they all look the same these days, it's like walking down the bloody High Street .... same effing logo's everywhere ....... anyway it's titled

Stark, Dreadful, Inescapable: The Question of Survival

http://www.heanet.ie/services/multimedia/videostreaming/ucd/chomsky/chomsky_20060119_video.asx (over an hour, but soooo worth it)



Brilliant. Terrifying. Essential viewing.

by BlackPope Mon Jan 23, 2006 23:06 BlackPope at operamail dot com

... friends of PSP5 and Mary Kelly please note the following -

1. I'm just off the phone from talking with both Mary Kelly and Ciaron O'Reilly regarding comments made above.

2. Mary Kelly CATEGORICALLY DID NOT POST the above shit-stirring comment under the title:
"Yes but..
by Mary Saturday, Jan 21 2006, 6:13pm"

3. Mary Kelly CATEGORICALLY DID NOT POST the above shit-stirring comment under the title:
"Mary is right
by ploughshares supporter Sunday, Jan 22 2006, 7:20pm"

4. Both these sniping and divisive comments, and possibly more in the same vein, have all the hallmarks of a subtle and calculated (but failed) effort to promote misunderstanding in activist ranks - and seem to be probably the devious handiwork of one actor.

5. The devious actor behind this is currently being hunted down with eager vigour, and will be served the grapes of wrath when found !!

6. Mary Kelly puts up her full name when posting on IMC.ie and invites people to email her on keltoi"at"graffiti"dot"net in any future cases of dubious/masquerading posts.

7. Supporting what 'Response' says above, the lesson in how to avoid such malicious provocation is to maintain horizontal communications (as Chomsky himself would say) in the real world as opposed to solely in the vapours of the internet.

Schalom,
BP

PS: More power to the PSP5 (severally and jointly) and an acquittal in July !!

by Gee-Nein Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:40

"The devious actor behind this is currently being hunted down with eager vigour, and will be served the grapes of wrath when found"

Very pacifist!

by John Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:43

Actually BP, the lesson to be learned here is that people should think before posting and shouldnt make assumptions about the identities of posters.

As far as i can see the only one to assume that 'Mary' was the one and only Mary Kelly was Ciaron and he just went off on one. If I sign myself John will he assume I'm John O'Shea??? Other than Ciaron's assumption the post by the anonymous 'Mary' is just another post making a point that one may or may not agree with...Ciaron obviously doesnt agree but rather than say that he made idle assumptions about the authress of the comment.

So folks lets not jump to conclusions in future! And stay cool. Don't be provoked by anonymistas!

by not again Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:50

any chance Ciaron and Mary could keep their ego clashes private, as this point they have become rather boring. Oh, and BP put that bloody spoon away you are just feeding the authorities with it!.

by Response Tue Jan 24, 2006 14:12

He was attacked. He defended himself. Nothing as boring as your trite one liners!

Obviously this is a medium perused extensively by the Prosecution. Only a few of us are presently operating under the stress & vulnerability of legal jeopardy. Maybe specualtive personal attacks on the Ploughshares 5 (or anyone presently facing prosecution and serious jail time) should be deleted by editors. Otherwise you are providing a forum where activists have no right of reply in defending themselves without playing into the hands of their prosecutors.

by Chavez Frias - WSM Personal Capacity Sat Apr 22, 2006 21:15

Excellen that the video of the secret meeting was made - it should be distributed globally on Indymedia. Looking forward to it.