|
|
QMF
Jun 6, 2007 20:02:12 GMT 10
Post by andrewh on Jun 6, 2007 20:02:12 GMT 10
What's the difference, in this context, between a "faux-Marxist" and a Marxist. If you're not sure, why don't you ring your friend who advised you last time. We can wait. I'm not interested in answering your grouchy questions or taking your condescending advice. Have a nice day. Call me an idiot (I suspect I am one merely for joining in) but surely the difference between a Marxist and a faux-Marxist is the same in any context. One is a Marxist, the other is a faux-Marxist. It seems fairly clear. |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 6, 2007 20:22:31 GMT 10
Post by isaacs on Jun 6, 2007 20:22:31 GMT 10
I'm not interested in answering your grouchy questions or taking your condescending advice. Have a nice day. Call me an idiot (I suspect I am one merely for joining in) but surely the difference between a Marxist and a faux-Marxist is the same in any context. One is a Marxist, the other is a faux-Marxist. It seems fairly clear. Thanks Andrew, and at risk of being an even greater idiot I'd just like to make a couple of other things clear. I wasn't calling anyone here a faux-Marxist, neither Tim nor Adrian. And secondly, I put the term in quotes because avid readers of this forum will know that Paul Grabowsky used the term here first and to far more spectacular effect, so I was dipping my lid to the tradition. |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 7, 2007 11:18:26 GMT 10
Post by ironguts on Jun 7, 2007 11:18:26 GMT 10
Shit, I don't understand any of this, your all fucked and so is creative!
|
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 8, 2007 12:48:01 GMT 10
Post by freddy on Jun 8, 2007 12:48:01 GMT 10
I'm not interested in answering your grouchy questions or taking your condescending advice. Have a nice day. Call me an idiot (I suspect I am one merely for joining in) but surely the difference between a Marxist and a faux-Marxist is the same in any context. One is a Marxist, the other is a faux-Marxist. It seems fairly clear. Actually, in that particular context, there is no difference because there is no way of telling. It was just a bit of posing, quotation marks or no quotation marks. |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 8, 2007 18:05:18 GMT 10
Post by andrewh on Jun 8, 2007 18:05:18 GMT 10
Call me an idiot (I suspect I am one merely for joining in) but surely the difference between a Marxist and a faux-Marxist is the same in any context. One is a Marxist, the other is a faux-Marxist. It seems fairly clear. Actually, in that particular context, there is no difference because there is no way of telling. It was just a bit of posing, quotation marks or no quotation marks. Christ you're dumb. |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 8, 2007 18:08:29 GMT 10
Post by timothystevens on Jun 8, 2007 18:08:29 GMT 10
What a shame to see two of the more intelligent and interesting contributors going each other over something so trifling as this.
Sorry, three.
|
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 9, 2007 17:41:48 GMT 10
Post by freddy on Jun 9, 2007 17:41:48 GMT 10
Actually, in that particular context, there is no difference because there is no way of telling. It was just a bit of posing, quotation marks or no quotation marks. Christ you're dumb. Read my second sentence, genius. The reference is clear but perhaps I should have written "The original usage was just . . ." |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 9, 2007 20:48:50 GMT 10
Post by trumpetguy on Jun 9, 2007 20:48:50 GMT 10
who cares?  |
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 10, 2007 10:22:33 GMT 10
Post by andrewh on Jun 10, 2007 10:22:33 GMT 10
Hmm not me. And I apologise for feeding troll-boy. (I said call me an idiot, not a genius. That really hits hard.)
|
|
|
|
QMF
Jun 15, 2007 11:00:06 GMT 10
Post by alimcg on Jun 15, 2007 11:00:06 GMT 10
Why on earth did I just read all that?
|
|
