Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Conversations over Coffee in Cardiff ... ?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Y seiat 'ma a - 'Repwblic.org' - and this forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2885

PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 3:41 pm    Post subject: Conversations over Coffee in Cardiff ... ? Reply with quote

I am not sure as to whether this really is a firm proposal and given that some threads have hundreds and in a few instances thousands watching them and yet even the web-surfers who sign up to an account to receive automatic messages on their topic rarely ever leave a comment and so I presume that nobody is really interested in a discussion in the real world ...

... however over my younger years there was always some form of socialising around a discussion and personally I have always preferred it not to be in a pub nor to be dependent upon people having money or transport ... Daf and I used to be a feature of a discussion group oriented towards philosophy and I have just been discussing this with Rob who used to spend hours organising it before we would then turn up and reduce it to chaos in minutes ... Rob told me last weekend that he learned his first lessons in being philosophical about trying to run a philosophical discussion from his philosophically dealing with us ... and so in order to protect his present group from people like Daf and Dai he has developed the following rules - and as I understand it Rob has given me permission to publish them here as an example of the sorts of rules that Daf and Dai will immediately be breaking if anybody gives us the chance to do so over a Sunday lunch ...

Pub Philosophy Rules - OK ?

© Rob Campbell of ' PRAXIS ' - as developed through various groups and events over the period 2000-2015 : Rob is about to publish a book about this in ( 2016 ? )

Pub philosophy is not like some of the discussion groups you hear on the radio or see on TV. It is more formalised, dwells for much longer on the issues and involves obeying certain philosophical rules and group discussion rules – which are outlined below.

1.) You should speak through the chair as much as possible (especially when you can see that many people are eager to make contributions) – though in the interests of maintaining a flowing discussion there will be considerable flexibility on this.

2.) Please try not to introduce a new subject for discussion until we have exhausted that currently being debated.

3.) Your arguments must be directed at the arguments not at the person. It is not acceptable to insult someone else – e.g. by saying that that they are naïve to make such a claim. This is not only a logical error – it is also impolite. Please try not to take disagreements personally or this will not work.

4.) You must be prepared for myself and others to ask you what you mean by a statement or a concept. This can be a little frustrating, but philosophising involves a lot of patience.

5.) Try to be accommodating to the views of others even if you don't agree with them.

6.) Keep an open mind on issues and be prepared to alter your own views in the light of discussion. If you can do this it is a sign of strength rather than weakness and you will benefit more from the process than people who stick dogmatically to previously held views.

7.) When someone else is speaking please listen carefully and do not engage in your own debate with someone else on the side. Many people will not be used to speaking in a group and will need support so that they can develop confidence – which can be undermined when people are not being attentive.

8.) Don’t drink to the point where you become incoherent or incapable of rational discussion!

9.) Try to keep discussion of facts to a minimum – since facts can always be disputed and differences remain unresolved.

10.) Try to ensure that your contributions address the issue being discussed – that they are to the point.

11.) Try to avoid lengthy accounts from your own experience to illustrate points.

12.) Email lists will be open and 'off topic' items allowed so long as they are labelled as such.

13.) No one should initiate group debates via email – though you can obviously do so as individuals.

14.) These rules are subject to revision by the group on a democratic basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2885

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Yes ... maybe ... no ... perhaps ... one of the questions thrown up by the internet is as to whether this " post-truth " landscape has been caused by the world wide web or has merely revealed what already existed ... e.g. when we used to sit around Dafydd's / Moritz's bookstore ' Galahads ' our conversation was potentially both a lot more serious thirty odd years ago and also on occasions a lot more savage ... but that was as often as not directly to each other in scorning each other's views so there was either an immediate retort or an immediate apology if we had casually hurt each other ... the majority of our publishing consisted of reporting such things as " ... and what he had to say about Sally was ... " so arguably we occasionally dealt in private slander ... When we wrote things for paper publications we typically faced an editor - as this journalist was supposed to have - but now we do not have an editor e.g. I am loathed to censor anybody and aside from striking off Mel's surname I have not edited you nor do I want to censor anything anybody says except if they are endangering the continued existence of this bulletin board by publishing pornography, violence or sporting fixtures which encourage children to read " Y Repwblic " ... but are laws like slander and libel appropriate in this situation when the internet is merely making visible human behaviour that has been going on for centuries in private conversations and personal correspondence ?

Talking of private conversations I may have found a venue suitable for that project of recreating Saturday afternoons in Galahads over a coffee : close to Central Station so it will be accessible for others to travel to - and you ?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2885

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps The People in Paranoia worry about what conversations they might have over a coffee with the remains of The Cardiff Illuminati - I met some people selling political literature briefly today and sent them some texts afterwards :

For those I this afternoon I think that I need to explain a couple of other features of Repwblic (a) Moritz [ Daf ] dai & Marianne are three members of a group that we usually refer to as The Cardiff Illuminati dating from 1984 - shortly after the trial of " The Reds " i.e. The Welsh Socialist Republican Movement who were accused of Conspiracy : Abigail Leonard proposed the name arguing that if we were going to be made to confess to a conspiracy it ought to be the biggest & best one going (b) I wanted everything about Y Repwblic to be openly conducted to refute the allegation that Republicanism is a criminal conspiracy & as an Internationalist-Pacifist I reached for The Open Conspiracy as the once well known political theory which led to The Open University, The Open Society etc i.e. " THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY ! " (c) The Electoral Registration & Administration Act 2013 outraged me : in many constituencies even if The Democrats pooled all of their votes they could not claim a " Democratic mandate " so they turned to The Electoral Register to claim legitimacy for The UK but found the same situation there - did they accept that The UK as a political system had lost The Consent of The People ? No - they decided that as long as The Electoral Register was full of names that would count as a substitute : in ER&AA 2013 they licenced themselves to stuff it with as many names as they could find i.e. " The Democrats in Wales & Westminster " no longer believe in one of the fundamental ideas of Democracy - Consent !


" Repwblic " began as a one-off paper essay in ( 2002 ? ) & then Penddu used the word & challenged me ( as "dai" ) to create a bulletin board to replace Balchder Cymru's troubled ctd.6.forumer.com = I conceived of repwblic.informe.com as a " republic of letters " to create a meeting place for multiple views = but Balchder was/is a front for " The Black Faction " trying to propogate the legacy of FWA & MAC and is/was not interested in political writing but wanted to control Repwblic.org - they abandoned it expecting it to die but I rolled up my sleeves & set about writing " The White Faction " back into existence = I have over ten years deliberately given " Y Repwblic " ( Penddu's title for this board ) a hard line Internationalist-Pacifist stance & in 2013 I was even shocked myself when I accepted the old Renaissance Republican argument against Democracy = the Republican V Democratic argument in The USA is a Right Wing one against Socialism but I have inverted it into a Left Wing argument to argue for a Constitution with laws draughted & sealed by a Court
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Y seiat 'ma a - 'Repwblic.org' - and this forum All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games