Tylenol with codeine. 222 with codeine. Somas do they have codeine in them.

Online pharmacy codeine 222. Metabolism of codeine in urine. Buy 222 codeine. Liquid codeine how to make. Codeine extraction. Codeine. Codeine antitussive action.

MW – I agree with all you have written. I think with some people using SL, they have been taken in by its pretence at a “world” and free space. And yes, LL have blown their cover and quite a few of those who have immersed themselves in its pretence at freedom etc are far gone enough to see where exactly they have allowed themselves to have bee brought to. I await z-nets version of SL, LOL! I’m glad my abridged article prompted you to write this comment. Thanks.

Cai Pirinha – please read it. It is not about “political movements in SL” – it is about LL being _part_ of the enclosure of the whole web – and about how the very real class system allows this to happen. It is about how some corporations are deciding who has the right to speech – something I thought was against the American constitution (a political document that is increasingly in this world of “virtual” freedom, becoming a parody of something we used to think was freedom?)?

Anon – I don’t get your point – are you saying it is not a metaverse? Or did you mean that you believe that SLLU think that SL is something other than a forum? SL is a forum, but the thing about it is, it is sold as something more – something it isn’t. And that was my point in writing this (very much abridged – the full article can be found here- http://slleftunity.blogspot.com/2008/04/herald-publish-article-by-plot-tracer.html
.

Uncle Bill – Don’t be confused. We don’t see SL as a “world” dominated by the Lindens as an aristocracy. We see it as a forum in which people have been invited to participate, and more. People are invited by this corporation to add their skills and their creativity in order for them to attract other people to come on and increase LL’s profitability. They are then policed by these people who rely on them for profit – policed to the point that their freedom of speech is impaired – much like Facebook, Myspace, etc. All of these “web 2.0” applications pretend at “freedom” and fun etc. The fact is they are collecting your data and ensuring people are deskilled and do not use the web as a place to properly communicate and organise and fraternise/socialise/associate. The article was actually against the type of corporate take-over you seem to advocate. And there are other “freer” alternatives to SL – though the main one seems to have a huge input by IBM – so “freedoms” on that forum may become limited as well. People only learn through the information open to them – and when corporations control that power (through huge advertising budgets/ though limiting what is available/ controlling information from the alternatives etc) then you are no longer free to choose. If the government control the telecoms system, they may listen. If the telecoms company own the government, you can be sure they are.

Greenlantern Excelsior –the fact that is – it is the rich who are controlling access to riches. Take the corporations who have bought up oil or bought up the rights to (to take a country I have just returned from) Tunisia’s best olives or Dates. They ensure people in Tunisia never taste the best fruits from their own land. I believe in the old Marxian, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs). Having said that, I don’t adhere to the idea that Marx was the first socialist or communist. I feel that idea is as silly as an adherent of the system you feel is fair (exploit and exploit and con and profit), thinking that Adams or even Rand were the first to advocate greed is good.

I believe in a society where most needs can be met by technology, people can be freed from the grind and are able to then concentrate on creativity. I’m not a Christian, but I feel the peoples who lived in Biblical times were trying to tell us something – the first two quotes are from Luke, one of the Apostles of Jesus describing the organisation of the first churches –

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)
See – http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/communism.htm for more.

Prokofy Neva – as usual you made me laugh out loud! You honestly do believe the pursuit of profit – ie. the corporation – is a lefty plot! Oh, and that we are all Stalinists. Oh boy.

And yes – MY article – a view from within SLLU – and not necessarily the view of all of SLLU as a Left Unity group – is that private property, as in land and space etc, is theft. It is how the great slums of the world were created – land formerly used as common land was enclosed and forced people to go to where the factory owner gave them “freedom” by enslaving them for the dollar/pound etc. Unfortunately this “enclosure” is such in the UK as a worker it WAS cheaper to buy a house than to rent one. Even those who dream of a better world must comply with the damned capitalist chunking of the world you desire.

Glad you fee there has to be a “class struggle” though. I feel that the struggle will not win if contained within the corporate boundaries set by LL or ANY corporation though. It must cross all of their false borders and go beyond.

Oh – and what subsidised land? SLLU “own” – collectively- a parcel. And we have been given over social land by organisations that agree with our aims and principles. You once rented a place to me, individually, but you were so rude, I moved out.

Regarding AFL/CIO, there were accusations of communism from AFL towards CIO when they expelled them in 1936 – though the difference was more over the fact the AFL leadership did not like the syndicalist leanings of CIO. Arthur Wharton, the AFL leader at the time said, “Many employers now realise that [the Wagner Act] is the law of our country and they are prepared to deal with labor organisations. These employers have expressed a preference to deal with the AFL organisations rather than [the CIO leaders] and their gang of sluggers, bums, expelled members of labor unions, outright scabs and the Jewish organisations with all their red affiliates.”

I do agree with what you say about “vanguards” though – Maoism and Stalinism definitely did do away with freedoms and did it in the same spin doctor style that the corporation does today – ie, “you don’t need to unionise as you are in power (though we’ll hold the reins while you labour).” And, “look at all of these young active people who use our product (even though it poisons your system and makes you fat).” With both of these scenarios we are told we have choice.

On that, a rl friend of mine was a manager in the Soviet Bank in London. Unions were of course frowned upon by the Soviets, but he – as a socialist – organised a union within the bank.

Faerie – No _I_ am not saying that. I am saying that our freedom of speech and our rights to our work are being used to make profits for other people and because of the compliance with this ownership society, our freedoms can and are being curtailed by the “New Rulers of the World” to use a phrase used by John Pilger in his documentary and book – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Rulers_of_the_World

Nicholaz Beresford – I agree. LL are spin doctoring – as all Corporations do. They want us to think they have our best interests at heart. To the point of having ownership of the Government – local and national – through the power of money (the new “democratic” system) and through having the power to decide on who says what and when – through the new web 2.0.

Jessica Holyoke – the *idea* of the middle class is a fallacy encouraged in workers. If you work for a wage and depend on someone more powerful to give you that wage, you are working class. Give someone a contract and say he or she has some kind of skill, then they are suddenly “middle class” and want to hold on to what they have got. The AFL /CIO punch up in the thirties was about just that. The AFL leadership represented skilled middle class workers – the emergent CIO wanted to unionise the unskilled who had worse or no contracts. The way of individual contracts is back again. It is how people are hired in some of the “economic zones” in the developing world – and it is how even places where unions were strong – like the UK and France, are headed with the support of the neo-liberal adherents in Government.

Your point about “who allowed them” is pertinent – in Web 2.0, the “owners” allow us to organise so long as we are not organising against them and their corporate friends, and we are allowed to speak, so long as we do not infringe their right to sell unhindered, the spin and “unfreedom” they have created. If Shell owns shares in the new web 2.0, will people like Ken Saro-Wiwa be allowed to write? Would Tanong Po-arn be allowed to organize? César Chávez? Will their details be sold to the bidder who wants rid of them? Will we be able to criticize Coca cola, if they buy over Youtube? Myspace? SL? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D9VLSzm-aw
The enclosure of the Web is something totalitarians and corporations have dreamed of for a long time, and our standing back, uncritically allowing them to do it is sleepwalking into oblivion. Really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE
Also – you are right about “Union busting”. GM was making $173 million a year in the thirties, and spending the best part of a million dollars a year on detectives who would root out the AFL/CIO minded workers by posing as activists and trying to recruit them. GM, by the way, was paying its workers an average of $900 a year during that period, when the poverty threshold for wages was set at $1600.
Uncle Bill – Franz can speak for himself, and I have given my take on lots of what you have said (above). Regarding role play and freedom fighters – if anyone joins SLLU for role play, then they are in the wrong forum. Our Aims and Principles are here (Aims and Principles 7 and 8 seem to be pertinent in what you have said):
http://slleftunity.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-it-is-to-be-sllu.html
Oh – and the market place is – well, inherently unfair – but lets save that one for another time…

Franz Carver – yes, the SLLU helped the Italian union publicise its real life problems with IBM (which are on going), but the original “strike” resulted in a… well, read here – http://slleftunity.blogspot.com/2007/10/letter-from-ibm-workers.html

About the big bonuses… it’s not that I’m against them. I’m certainly not against them if they want to pay me those kinda sums of money. Even if I perform badly. Which lets face it, happens far too often. My point was that when things get bad… it’s us, the little people that have to suffer. Even though it’s not our fault that the economy went wrong in the first place. The first thing to happen is that people get laid off to protect profits, and the remainder are told to work harder to cover the ones laid off… or be laid off themselves.

I remember when I was younger, during recessions, hearing people say things like, “aww that’s a shame… the bosses will only be able to afford 2 Rolls Royce this year”. Or “that’s a shame… he’s down do his last £15m in the bank”. I didn’t really get what they meant but now I do. When recession kicks in the big guys don’t go hungry. Whereas a lot of the workers actually sometimes do go hungry, and their kids. It’s always the BIG companies that cause the problems by over expanding and cutting wages and jobs wherever possible to keep profits up. There’s a big storm meant to be coming soon. We’ll all have to tighten our belts because of some mistakes other people made. Or actually… we’re not supposed to be tightening our belts because that would be bad for the economy also. It’s difficult for the public not to be tightening belts though when they’re getting laid off. It’s the same old sh*t over and over again. The SLLU protested against IBM for laying off workers or something a while ago (I think?). It was well before I joined. Will they be allowed to do that in the future on inSL[tm]? I think that’s what they’re worried about with the continuing terms etc being applied now. 13,500 word and counting in the TOS now. Impressive reading too.

Just one quick point… if anyone has a facebook account… just for fun, try changing your name on it.

Let’s go back to the Unions. Was there a real middle class before the emergence of labor unions? And while you may say that only certain unions were communistic and the one’s that formed the AFL-CIO were anti-communistic, most of the unions were considered communistic, at least by the corporations that spent money trying to bust them.

As far as trademark goes, once again, Prokofy is trying to be an expert in a field he knows nothing about. Trademark registration helps with certain rights and protections. There is also common law trademark where use in commerce is enough to establish certain limited rights to a mark. (Disclaimer: For specific legal advice, seek your own attorney and not people fighting on the internet.)

Prok, your irrational hatred of lawers is now annoying. Go back to your rentals and leave the heavy thinking to the grown ups.

No, unions weren’t called “communists” in some blanket sort of way; only some of them actually were, but those that eventually formed the AFL-CIO were decided *anti*-communist. Very much so. There were unions that pursued a communist line, but many others that fought that line. Unions don’t create a middle class; they create a working class, that’s why they call them labour unions. In time, professionals like teachers or office workers unionized and then you can speak of a middle class but that isn’t how it began or progressed.

Collective bargaining is in fact antithetical to the communist regime, which believes it is the advance guard of the workers and uses unions as mere conveyor belts of Party rule.

I fail to see how their “history” is wiped away, when they are asked to respect a trade mark by a company in position to enforce it, and to keep a name that in fact they’re most known by “SL Left Unity”. If they don’t like that, let them call themselves “Cream Cheese Left Unity,” that would be more accurate any way.

There are no “certain rights” to names that nobody trademarked. Nobody did, except the SL Art guy, and now he’s going to have to litigate, I guess, I will be interesting to see.

Also… I have no issue with a corporate executive receiving whatever bonus the shareholders see fit to hire them. These are managers, and are responsible to guide the corporation they head. In most cases (yes, most) they have risen to these positions after working their tails off for 30 or more years and proven themselves to be committed and capable. Poor managers, certainly, are reaping rewards and making decisions that lead to disastrous results. Yes, in many cases these decisions are guided by personal greed and outright dishonesty. It’s the scale that makes these issues visible enough to make the news however.

A million $$ or more bonus to an individual who in most cases is guiding a billion dollar company towards profit and success for its thousands of hardworking employees is not a crime. Its commendable.

If they fail to do their job, or intentionally abuse their position for personal gain. Shame on them. If its a crime, charge them. The same should be said for the minimum wager stealing from the till. We just don’t hear about them on the evening news.

The real crime? Paying 19 year old athletes millions of dollars a year for sports. Paying pretty boy hack actors even more for sh***y teen comedies. The bad managers and criminals heading corporations are in the minority, believe it.

Seeking out personal success is no crime. Setting rules and charging for a service that you are providing to your customers is no terrible thing. This is a marketplace, the best and ONLY reasonable way to protest is not to buy the product.

Arguing for a ‘free internet’ and protesting SL are pretty much two separate things.

I don’t have numbers, but its pretty clear that there is actually very little information available on the internet for ‘free’. Free to the end user, perhaps… but of course we’re all familiar with banner adds and the annoying pop up.

First, though, while I’m unfamiliar with the move for a government regulated internet in the UK (no one but us ‘ugly americans’ here..) I can appreciate the struggle against it.

My point was specifically regarding protesting the policies of a private company, which is not (and should not be expected to be) beholden to anyone but itself. If a company is producing, for example, toxic waste that is harmful to the community around it. Picket it, of course they are in the wrong.

The arguments here seem to be that LL is in some way contributing to some kind of stripping of freedoms simply by distributing a product and requiring their ‘customers’ (which we all are, make no mistake) to pay for the service.

Simply, if you don’t like paying for electricity, install solar panels on your house. Have a gripe with your local grocery store prices? Grow your own food. Live off the grid, instead of living off the grid. The whole ‘free metaverse’ argument seems to involve a lot of people clamoring at big business to abandon their ‘evil’ capitalistic motives instead of working toward an independent solution.

At the root of the protest, of course, is this notion that LL is a ‘government’ of some kind. They are a company, with the freedom to succeed or fail, and are not beholden to ANY rules or laws except that which apply to corporate entities.

The whole community of metaversal ‘freedom fighters’ smacks of high minded roleplay to me. I have nothing but respect for the ideals and intellects the argument displays, but it seems a waste of resources to believe that any of this argument actually matters.