[pp.int.general] Translation of the Pirate Manifesto

[Andrew Norton]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl> wrote:
>>> No, afaik there is not. By the end of 2008, the manifesto "A-B-C" project
>>> was abandoned by most contributors after heavy flame wars, and in the end
>>> is
>>> really was the project of a single man, Carlos Ayala.
>>
>> You're mixing some things up, Reinier. The work was NOT that of a
>> single man, there were quite a few of us involved in it (don't let a
>> little thing like facts get in the way of your statements, Reinier!).
>
> OK, perhaps there were more people involved, behind the scenes. I should
> have added: from the people that turned up at the PP conferences.
>
>> Start with the fact that 11 parties participated in it. The flamewars
>> were down to one man though, and that man was you.
>
> Now you are rude. And incorrect. Because I had ben very busy on other
> things, I only got engaged in the "Manifesto" project early this year. Only
> later I understood that several people quit the project last year because of
> flame wars.

Rude is no stranger to you. If you want incorrect, I'd guess saying "I
only got engaged in the "Manifesto" project early this year" is also
incorrect, unless you consider late last year, to be the same as
'early this year'. If truth were Beauty, you'd have snakes biting the
barber. I'm also unaware of anyone 'quitting' the project, except for
Carlos, after your constant flames

>>
>> You certainly do have the traditional political habit down of
>> barefaced lies to boost self-importance. Good for you!
>
> I don't think my own (possible) "importance" is at stake here. I only tried
> to convey information to the Italian who asked questions.

Information has to have a basis in fact, or it is worthless. Your
'information' is based on your opinion, not fact.

>>
>>> During the Helsinki
>>> meeting early this year, it was *not* discussed at all. Carlos was
>>> disappointed, but he was pretty alone.
>>
>> It was not discussed at all when you were present, to the best of your
>> knowledge, is, I believe, a more accurate statement.
>
> I was there during the whole meeting. And from the atmosphere, I think it is
> utterly unlikely that it was discussed "offline".

whose atmosphere? since by the time of the Helsinki meeting, you'd
been pretty vocal in your oposition to it for almost 2 months.

>>
>>>
>>> The Uppsala document (composed during the summer 2008 meeting) wasn't so
>>> much intended as *the* PP "Manifesto", but more the by-product of a (very
>>> useful) workshop, a mental exercise to better understand PP goals and
>>> strategies.
>>>
>>> I wrote a one page "PPI Principles" document for the Helsinki meeting
>>> (see
>>> attachment), more to provide an alternative than because I believe(d)
>>> that a
>>> manifesto was (or is) a priority. We spent little time on it in the
>>> meeting,
>>> fortunately. The purpose of a political party is to gain votes, and a
>>> "philosophical" documents like a manifesto should be judged from that
>>> perspective: does it help to get more votes? As you know, actually
>>> deceptively few voters read party programs.
>>
>> Indeed, the media reads them instead, and issue advocacy groups, and
>> then passes on information digested from them.
>>
>>>
>>> I won't repeat here why I believe that the A-B-C manifesto's are not
>>> suitable as *the* PP manifesto (else I unleash another flame war, I am
>>> afraid).
>>
>> If by unleash, you mean start, it's likely. Then again, that's what
>> comes of faulty, and self-important statements. We know what you
>> believe, you unleashed it on this list in voluminous spewed invective,
>> much of which had no basis beyond 'you believe'. Since you can't keep,
>> or even research facts (such as a basic one like how many were
>> involved in the manifesto -
>> http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto#Who or one of the
>> meetings http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto_IRC_meeting_20080710
>> which had representatives from poland, spain, austria, australia, and
>> denmark in it - one man?) your beliefs are worth less and less to me.
>>
>> Either stick to the truth, or STFU reinier, because I for one am
>> getting tired of your lies and bullshit. I doubt I'm the only one.
>>
> Calm down! If you are disappointed that there is not more support
> (currently) for the "manifesto" project, don't be rude to me.
> We can argue a long time how much people supported the "Manifesto" project
> at any point in time, but:
> * leading PP people quit in the course of 2008 because of conflicts

WHO.
> * the support and interest in the manifesto's at the Helsini meeting early
> this year was ZERO

I was unaware that the rule was 'Helsinki or it never happened'.
Especially as there were not representatives from every party there.
> * still no choice has made for A, B or C, afaik

Yeah, because some self-important lawyer dude, started disrupting the
iscussions every time they got started, going on about some weird
legal arguments and how a small minority might turn arguemnts against
us. If only I could remember that guys name.....
> * the substance all of the manifesto's suffers from major shortcomings (but
> that is my opinion, as a professional in this field, though)

Which field/ As far as I am aware, you might be a professional in the
LEGAL field, but for the past year, i've asked you how many campaigns
you've worked on, or what your experiance in the political field has
been. you've refused to answer. In fact, I seemed to recall that the
LAST time I asked you this, you said you weren't going to answer
someone that was obviously a plant by the music industry.

>
> I see a lot of people working very actively in the PPI movement on important
> social issues. The Manifesto project is more a theoretical endeavour. In vew
> of last years exepriences, it will be cumbersome. And error prone. I believe
> that there are other priorities. And I gave my opinion on that, to the
> Italian who didn't have a clue. But now I understand that I frustrate your
> ambition to revive the Manifesto project. If people are prepared to invest
> the time, let them go ahead. This is an organisation of volunteers.
>



> But please be careful with human rights claims! There are human rights
> advocates who say:
> * People have the right of pervasive camera surveillance, to project their
> "integrity" (a human right)
> * authors are entitled to comprehensive compensation for all their work
> * massive data retention is only appropriate to protect citizens against
> terrorist attacks
> * and to protect the shareholder value of record companies that suffers
> because of massive downloading - human rights protect property rights
> There is no *human rights* argument that they are wrong!

There are also people that say 'blacks are animals, traet them as
such' or 'men have the human right to rape any woman they see, for the
basis of procreation of the species', and so on. just because someone
can MAKE an argument, doesn't mean the argument has any weight. You
can make any argument or counterargument, but it's the quality of both
that matters, and that's something a 'professional in this field'
should understand. In fact these were exactly the arguments you gave a
year ago as to why the manifesto was 'Bad'

These arguments of yours were pointed out (repeatedly) as factually
and practically 'bullshit'  'early this year' and no matter how many
times you repeat them, they won't become true.