|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
Current rating: 1 |
by unbridled artist network
(No verified email address) |
05 Feb 2004
Modified: 11:29:25 PM |
|
Allegations are arising that the IMC momentum is already slowing down due to too much administrative handiwork. An anarchist discussion points out possible reasons and solutions. Points to consider: the meta of control desires, pros/cons of restrictive protection vs enriching protection |
|
There is an interesting discussion happening on infoship.org (a place where such happen regularly). See the link at bottom or top and go check it out.
Down below an interesting article about activating ourselves, you can see a few people are talking about the pros and cons of the IMC project and how its numbers are allegedly dwindling--at least on some IMC sites. I don't know where they get their info, but I for one can imagine such happening as more IMC admins believe they must introduce more "protective" restrictions due to "off-topic" and troll-like postings.
Following is a reply I made to infoshop which goes over various possibilities to be aware of for individuals who wish to keep the authenticity of the IMC project at least minimally excellent.
People (minus various forms of Vanguards, single and in groups) ARE in a psycholgical place where venting and chaos are NEEDED--as an authentic processing point of departure from a world in which they are COMPLETELY ENCOURAGED to be AT WAR with each other (thus, do not spend time on contexts, empathy, or the like, and just VENT AT). i'll go into this more below.
For now, i want to point out that there are probably various metas at work here which should be discussed by anarchists (and all others who want serious evolution/"revolution", not more facades) if we are to avoid those pitfalls (i assume anarchists wish to avoid such pitfalls, tho figure that those more ideologically inclined wish to mask over this kind of discussion).
For instance, the meta value system of saying on the one hand that one has "an alternative" (or "The alternative") to the giant corporate media, but on the other, plays the same old game of propaganda/hype, i.e.: the needs of ideology first and foremost. (the fortress of those subordinated to Is over those they are purporting to serve and free)
Or, how about the situation of the Vanguard (usually the admin of the project) *over* the not articulate/semi-articulate (usually the general posters). For various reasons, the Vanguard deems it necessary to dam the chaotic flow of those who reflect the insanity/inanity of their experience.
To dam the flow and "protect" by restriction.
They do not see the value of just letting that flow go wherever it goes. And actually playing out their stated values WHEN IT MOST COUNTS!
I've seen the pattern time and again; situations are more and more restricted until the original momentum begins to lose steam. Like a few people here are pointing out.
(Then, of course, the Vanguard throws up its hands and figures "radical" change is "impossible" and a new generation of "sell-outs" takes its Place)
The trick is to promote this venting, and to out-wit the ways in which liberation momentums have, up to now, always been led to the dead ends of superficial reform. To realize the value of this venting as something to CELEBRATE.
Bear with me before you dismiss this out of hand!i would promote such a chaos, such an inarticulate, semi-articulate chaos of free-flowing posters on projects like the IMCs as a type of ceremonial processing, a "dance" that MUST be done, BEFORE serious evolution can take place.
Take a step away for awhile and look at the bigger picture.
This project is like no other so-called "mature" project because it STILL mostly adheres to its preachings of inclusion and independence. Okay. Now, a lot of "right-wingers" have been spending a lot of time there (what is it to be "right-wing" anyway? i say to be "right-wing" is to be MORE conditioned, have more wool pulled over ones eyes, and in dire need of MORE critical thinking!!!!). People are spending a lot of time and a kind of momentum was building (before the Vanguard began curtailing it behind-the-scenes).
same old ideologically-challenged games
BECAUSE the same old ideologically-challenged games were being subordinated to, one couldn't easily expose the meta propaganda/hype and MOVE ON/evolve.
Example: Rightwingism couldn't be exposed BECAUSE to do so in any serious way would be to teach people intellectual self-defense--teach them how rightwingers play their games; this would be TOO MUCH simply BECAUSE the Left/conscious leftwingers play this game as well!!!!!!!!!!!!
And one "simply could not risk" going so radical (much much too radical) as to pull the whole game right from underneath the rightwingers' feet. bEcause to do THAT would be to unplug/scuttle the Left while scuttling the Right!
And to the "pragmatic" strategists of the Left (older activists dominating younger, "less skilled" "less experienced" "greenhorn" activists who "don't really know what they're doing"****see bottom note) that would simply be TOO RISKY.
Why? BECAUSE these older Vanguardists have dibs in the status quo. THEY are not (yet) being affected. THEY do not REALLY want to have a "revolution" or evolution. THEY simply do not BELIEVE in such things. But they do WANT to feel like they're doing something.
Maybe it's the kind of hardline cynicism so many of us see in our own parents. Or maybe there *is* wisdom in not allowing true radical momentums to build without bloodshed and without more involvement by the courts. Or maybe it's something like Chomsky has shed light on: internalized values. People who have internalized the value system of their society in a way that they are being tooled, and do not see it.
Whatever the reason, the question comes down to: do you/we have the NERVE to go ahead with our dreams and desires anyway?
--------------------------------------------
****note:
It's then easy for these "greenhorn" activists to fall for the meta situation where the bottom line interest of the Vanguard/"wise leaders" is to integrate with the more "established" and "reputable" community. Thus the IMC project as "politically immature" in the eyes of older activist types. And thus the older activist types not telling their followers about the IMC project, and thus adding to the allegedly growing "disinterest". A "Catch-22" if i ever heard one.
My final statement:
We may have to break completely from this old way of doing things and create a new place for committed resistance consciousness to grow and flower and reproduce, and pioneer a kind of progress that we can taste and be nourished by, and have reason to remain on this planet seeking the excellence of our original visions--the DESIRE that first brought us to this work! |
See also:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/01/28/8166259
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
a case in point |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Feb 2004
|
source: http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/2213
points:
The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network rejects and opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes.
The Sad Decline of Indymedia
by Chuck0
for Infoshop News
It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production. The IMC network recently observed its 3rd anniversary and the 100th IMC went online, but the IMC project is facing some serious problems which, if they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network, will eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is Indymedia.
There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network needs a stronger organization to address its current and persistent problems. This may be somewhat true, but those of us who have pressed for reforms find ourselves at the mercy of a network of people who are afraid to step forward and make tough decisions. It might help if there were some more organized processes, but I see the chief problem with Indymedia these days to be a political one, not an organizational or technical problem.
The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do most local IMCs. However, the political orientation of the IMC has never been firmly established. Other IMC volunteers and myself have strongly argued for a series of regional IMC meetings and conventions to resolve these questions. The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network rejects and opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes.
If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website (http://www.indymedia.org), you may have noticed some big changes earlier this year. The "open" newswire was moved off the front page for a variety of reasons. The most diplomatic reason was that many felt that the features being created by local IMCs should be featured on the Global website. This was a solid idea and should have been implemented despite the other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was relocated was because the IMC Global volunteers were fighting a losing campaign against right wing disruption of the website. This disruption aimed to establish "free speech" space on the Indymedia websites for right wing views and racist posts--the people doing this knew that the liberal free speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them from implementing consistent moderation. This right wing attack also included the posting of constant anti-semitic content, right wing op-eds and articles (carefully stripped of their source infromation), conspiracy theories, and other crap designed to ruin the reputation of the Independent Media Network.
I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during this period and made proposals concerning a process to deal with this problems. I also painstakenly documented the attack patterns by the right wingers and showed that certain individuals were posting similar content at the same time to various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful because the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive moderation and otherwise dragged their feet until the changes were made earlier this year.
What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost the Indymedia network as a public space for our activists. If you remember what the IMC websites were like in the year after Seattle, you will remember them as places where activists came together to talk about issues. After the right wingers had their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother with Indymedia anymore.
Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles, opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is that most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to the public. I've been a free speech advocate for many years and often considered myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would argue that our websites should provide any space for right wing and racist views. The racists have their websites--we don't need to use our limited resources to promote their hideous and offensive views.
The net result of this inaction is that racist and anti-semitic views became normalized on Indymedia websites. Sure, newswire moderators would remove the occasional racist rant or picture, but lots of stuff was left online. This normalization of racist content showed the racists and right wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. It also alienated lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person?
I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements).
I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. The Indymedia project has become a revolutionary force that has greatly empowered DIY journalists, rank-and-file activists, and average working people. This essay is not meant to criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to supporters of alternative media projects to speak up and demand that the IMC make some tough decisions to address these vexing and persistent problems. The Indymedia project has great potential. Let's not throw out the baby with bathwater in our efforts not to step on toes. |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by angie
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
06 Feb 2004
|
enriching protection ??????
you are trying to spin the censor ship of free speach!
"These miscreants are lucky we let them appear here at all" - nessie s/f imc
(on one of many tyrates)
do you want an "editor" (meaning censor) to decide if you are good enough, smart enough, or politically correct enough
to fit in to imc good'ol boy's club? |
|
Re: hobby horse |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Feb 2004
|
chucko: "Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles, opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is that most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to the public."
I think the mechanism for hiding objectionable posts without deleting them is an excellent compromise here, when that hiding is done in a responsible way.
And -- here's me hobbyhorse again -- it's worth pointing out that not all the antisemitic posts are rightist in origin.
chuck0: "Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person?"
This is, unfortunately, a feedback loop. By driving moderate Jewish voices out of the conversation, it becomes easier and easier to paint all supporters of Israel as being hard-right monsters. With the result that (with the exception of strange leftist-Zionist ducks like me) the only Jewish voices that get heard are either the anti-Zionist far-far left -- that is, about one percent that is farthest left, if the polls are to be believed -- and the hard-liner Zionist "you hippies are wrong" right. Which, in turn, results in such a fantastically distorted channel of communication, bearing so little resemblance to reality, it again drives out moderate Jews.
@%< |
|
Old News vs The Reality of Indymedia's Struggle Against Hate-Spamming in an Open Publishing Format |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Feb 2004
|
The ChuckO quote is old, very old, 2002 to be exact. I believe I remember him later saying that he over-generalized about Indymedia. It's a fact that, with certain small, specific exceptions like SF IMC, IMC Palestine, and the now at least temporarily defunct global Newswire (any wonder IMC is not in any hurry to bring it back) Indymedia as a whole has steadily become increasingly unfrienedly to the exploitation of its resources by hate-mongers.
It is also a fact that much of the material has one source which is now well-known across the network. Indymedia has worked hard to eliminate crappy racist nonsense, but that is a battle that requires constant struggle in an Open Publishing environment. In fact, many of us believe that the perpatrator's intention is to force us to do away with Open Publishing. That is just not going to happen.
As for the initial article above, it's too full of generalizations and sweeping statements at variance with the facts to get much of a handle on what the poster actually desires. If "vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes..." is the problem, does he simply suggest that we allow free rein to the very same "right wingers and racists" that he seems concerned about so that we avoid any remote possibility of "stepping on lots of toes'? When I figure out how to have my cake and eat it too, maybe there is some mysterious solution to an omnipotent, perfectly accurate commissar who can look into the souls of everyone posting to determine whether we should not hide the drivel of which he complains. In the meantime, the feedback we have at our IMC is that we do a preety good job of sorting out legitimate posts from the slime of humanity that occasionally _briefly_ darkens our door. |
|
angie |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
I'm assuming you're responding to my article, not ChuckO's? With that in mind, I'll respond.
>enriching protection ??????
you are trying to spin the censor ship of free speach!
--------
Say what? How does enriching protection spin the censorship of free speech? Ah, maybe you're missing the point, re: We protect better by enrichment, than by restriction.
Consider: "Hiding" posts/news labeled "miscreant" is protection via restriction. Whereas to teach readers Chomsky-style *intellectual self-defense* where we all learn *how to read information so that it dovetails with our own claims of liberation and excellence, is protection via enrichment.
>"These miscreants are lucky we let them appear here at all" - nessie s/f imc
(on one of many tyrates)
>do you want an "editor" (meaning censor) to decide if you are good enough, smart enough, or politically correct enough
to fit in to imc good'ol boy's club?
------
definitely not. Yet, in the IMC projects, there is a grey area, since only a minority has been mandated to take care of/be custodians of the project.
Whereas, wikipaedia (or is it wikipedia?), the online encyclopedia that's beginning to get more popular, is *completely open* to *all being custodians*.
Now, this is an interesting situation; especially since there doesn't yet seem to be a LOT of troll-style warfare. Anyway, that might be a discussion saved for one of my other replies below.
Thanks for speaking up! Keep it up! |
|
gehrig... |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
You said:
>I think the mechanism for hiding objectionable posts without deleting them is an excellent compromise here, when that hiding is done in a responsible way.
---
I see this hiding method as a reproduction of the reigning social order, since it is a form of censorship. More camoflauged and still allowing a facade of "nice" liberalness.
Not that I categorically dismiss liberal attitudes (or any other experience)!
If IMCs wish to create a MEANINGFUL alternative to corporate games/warfare, we're going to have to subscribe to some creativity that escapes warfare.
Hiding is not "technically" censorship, but no one (except possible authors) go to the hidden space; and if a lot of people began going there, and holding conversations beyond the confines of ideology (constructive and not so constructive, or outright shitty), those "hidden" places would disappear via some other manipulation of words.
A better way--in fact, a powerfully MEANINGFUL way would be simply to keep the entire diversity of IMC news/article posts as openly accessible as the ones you want WHILE putting them into categories.
So for example, there'd be a category where Right-wing views could be explored (and challenged); and a category for "inappropriate" or "unpopular" articles are presented ON EQUAL FOOTING with Left and left-leaning articles.
I can't see how this would make too much more work than that found in the work of moving certain posts (by moderators) to the "hidden" area.
In fact, the VALUE of such work towards enrichment would OUTWEIGH the non-value of playing this game of hiding articles.
Now, I admit cynicism, because there are many conservative leftists who seem to fear strutting out on their own and into "unknown" territory. They seem to be much "happier" remaining within mostly obsolete ways of doing things--i.e. what Marx and those others already mapped, or whatever.
How STAGNANT of IMC visionaries! But hardly unexpected.
>And -- here's me hobbyhorse again -- it's worth pointing out that not all the antisemitic posts are rightist in origin.
---
I'll bring up "a can of worms" now. Watch your knee-jerk reaction so that you don't knock yourself out! You see, I question the categorical validity of 'politically correct' confines. Where all dissent of popular/reigning ideas are reduced down into emotionally potent oversimplifications.
I'm sure i'm not articulating myself very well, and anticipate a ganging-up hysteria to follow quickly. Still, i wish to trudge forward, claiming a desire for progress.
We've got to look at how we're reproducing the reigning social order by forcing subordination to hallowed groups of people. Such cannot facilitate solidarity with ALL folks; only solidarity with SOME folks.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not seeking to take away power from oppressed groups. I'm seeking to give power to INDIVIDUALS in all groups. Individuals from ALL domains, which i say are often DEEPLY tooled/fooled to do the bidding of perpetual war (re: cointelpro-style attacks).
I see the object of the alternative community/alternative media to facilitate liberation and social CHANGE. We're not going to get change by reproducing (if in camoflauged form) the existing paradigm of social control!
chuck0: "Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person?"
>This is, unfortunately, a feedback loop. By driving moderate Jewish voices out of the conversation, it becomes easier and easier to paint all supporters of Israel as being hard-right monsters. With the result that (with the exception of strange leftist-Zionist ducks like me) the only Jewish voices that get heard are either the anti-Zionist far-far left -- that is, about one percent that is farthest left, if the polls are to be believed -- and the hard-liner Zionist "you hippies are wrong" right. Which, in turn, results in such a fantastically distorted channel of communication, bearing so little resemblance to reality, it again drives out moderate Jews.
--------
Point taken. Yet I see you missing a major point nonetheless. You're giving "acitivists" a more equal footing than the individuals this project is trying (?) to bring into the fold of increased consciousness.
Who is more important?
Or maybe that's the wrong question to ask. Anyway, a lot of excellent insights are bubbling up, and i'm going to cross-post this over at infoshop (and other anarchist boards) to see if others can say what i'm trying to say better than me.
(if i had more time, if only i had more TIME!) |
|
ML: the folly of censorship hype and,,,, |
by too radical?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2004
|
Those who are inspired and blown away by Noam Chomsky's insights may identify with his point on being for freedom of speech. Basically, he says that if you are really *for* freedom of speech, then you support the freedom of precisely the ideas you despise. To join in with Goering and other fascists (et al) by stopping speech you despise, is not to defend freedom of speech!
Now, look, no matter what we do, we have a hard struggle ahead. By masking over the struggle (via games like hiding text) we do more than merely block speech we despise (or cannot see the value of at all).
Because many people can see right through bullshit in various forms. Even if they are not articulate to it. Intuition, man, intuition! Why do you THINK so many non-wasp folks don't waste their time saying what they really wanna say in the IMC forums? Hell, they're so lost in their sniping modes and venting modes, and all the IMC vanguardists/moderators can think of doing is to suppress them even further!
Look, man, we live in a time of people conditioned to appear "stupid"! So of course they (and the rest of us, like you too) are going to hold alienated, fucked-up beliefs about others!!!!!
We're in this collective pit, and people like yourself are uncritically subordinate to these *Wizard of Is* notions of what constitutes correct speech and actions towards alleged liberation.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not seeking to open the IMC projects of the world up to complete weakness for the hordes of cointelpro-style warfare (and its variations). But I do want to point out that people who hold alienated and seemingly ignorant ideas/views are NOT our enemies as a group of people!
Our enemy is mindset, ideology, rigid beliefs that keep us divided and at perpetual war at/with each other!
>does he simply suggest that we allow free rein to the very same "right wingers and racists" that he seems concerned about so that we avoid any remote possibility of "stepping on lots of toes'? When I figure out how to have my cake and eat it too, maybe there is some mysterious solution to an omnipotent, perfectly accurate commissar who can look into the souls of everyone posting to determine whether we should not hide the drivel of which he complains.
----
Drivel is a value-laden assumption, and ChuckO has himself felt the stab of its tendency to broaden out from "easily notable" attack (i.e. classic troll activity). ChuckO, who says in the infoshop.org page that i linked to, that he was at one time an IMC insider.
But, no doubt because of his anarchist inclinations (especially his sustained effort in that area), someone holding power over him who despises (and perhaps fears) authentic anarchist ideas chose to censor him and his entire access to a certain IMC.
(there could be more to the story, of course, since any cointelpro-style operative would try to do that sort of thing in order to "help" divide up our momentum even more)
> In the meantime, the feedback we have at our IMC is that we do a preety good job of sorting out legitimate posts from the slime of humanity that occasionally _briefly_ darkens our door.
-----
Again, you obviously don't see how you are reproducing the social order that you claim to be against, by making categorical assumptions about various individuals whose ideas you despise or/and fear. CNN and FOX hacks use the same bullshit towards people just like you everyday!
Look, there is an alternative, and its based on using our intelligence--our creativity, for example.
I said this to someone else already, but i'll use a bit of repetition:
IMCs could be designed in a way to let everyone speak; by putting "right-wing" speech and "immoral" speech into clearly differentiated categories.
Then, the left could pioneer new territory by laying down ways to defend people, i.e. Chomsky's *intellectual self-defense*.
So, we practice what we preach and over time, via sustained struggle (as IMCs have been amazingly able to do so far in many other ways!), we PROVE our stand.
We don't manipulate or engineer consent. We don't play the mainstream game of hype and propaganda. We take a principled stand that anyone can see.
Older, entrenched activists may fear this method simply because it refuses to play the games that they believe must be played (re: propaganda). And to be fair, they have a point: history shows that the State's minions come down hard on those who choose certain types of radical challenge.
Yet, this attack is already coming down on IMCs and "activists" in this era of cointelpro-style attack now fully sanctioned and legalized. Things are coming more and more to a head. The same patterns and new scaldings are being implemented. The grand ideals of the IMC dream will be tested no matter how watered down the challenge gets.
Sustained challenge seems to always bring that consequence, at least in societies oriented to thought control.
We are imperfect, yet many of us are putting our lives on the line for our ideals and dreams. i for one have done so and continue to do so. The State could come up with any bullshit and throw me in jail tomorrow (but you and i have studied the system pretty well and know there are openings).
Anyways, i'm running on. i'll let this sit with you and look forward to your and others' further insights and exceptional challenge!
love and art,
too radical? |
|
ML: the folly of censorship hype and,,,, |
by too radical?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
07 Feb 2004
|
Those who are inspired and blown away by Noam Chomsky's insights may identify with his point on being for freedom of speech. Basically, he says that if you are really *for* freedom of speech, then you support the freedom of precisely the ideas you despise. To join in with Goering and other fascists (et al) by stopping speech you despise, is not to defend freedom of speech!
Now, look, no matter what we do, we have a hard struggle ahead. By masking over the struggle (via games like hiding text) we do more than merely block speech we despise (or cannot see the value of at all).
Because many people can see right through bullshit in various forms. Even if they are not articulate to it. Intuition, man, intuition! Why do you THINK so many non-wasp folks don't waste their time saying what they really wanna say in the IMC forums? Hell, they're so lost in their sniping modes and venting modes, and all the IMC vanguardists/moderators can think of doing is to suppress them even further!
Look, man, we live in a time of people conditioned to appear "stupid"! So of course they (and the rest of us, like you too) are going to hold alienated, fucked-up beliefs about others!!!!!
We're in this collective pit, and people like yourself are uncritically subordinate to these *Wizard of Is* notions of what constitutes correct speech and actions towards alleged liberation.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not seeking to open the IMC projects of the world up to complete weakness for the hordes of cointelpro-style warfare (and its variations). But I do want to point out that people who hold alienated and seemingly ignorant ideas/views are NOT our enemies as a group of people!
Our enemy is mindset, ideology, rigid beliefs that keep us divided and at perpetual war at/with each other!
>does he simply suggest that we allow free rein to the very same "right wingers and racists" that he seems concerned about so that we avoid any remote possibility of "stepping on lots of toes'? When I figure out how to have my cake and eat it too, maybe there is some mysterious solution to an omnipotent, perfectly accurate commissar who can look into the souls of everyone posting to determine whether we should not hide the drivel of which he complains.
----
Drivel is a value-laden assumption, and ChuckO has himself felt the stab of its tendency to broaden out from "easily notable" attack (i.e. classic troll activity). ChuckO, who says in the infoshop.org page that i linked to, that he was at one time an IMC insider.
But, no doubt because of his anarchist inclinations (especially his sustained effort in that area), someone holding power over him who despises (and perhaps fears) authentic anarchist ideas chose to censor him and his entire access to a certain IMC.
(there could be more to the story, of course, since any cointelpro-style operative would try to do that sort of thing in order to "help" divide up our momentum even more)
> In the meantime, the feedback we have at our IMC is that we do a preety good job of sorting out legitimate posts from the slime of humanity that occasionally _briefly_ darkens our door.
-----
Again, you obviously don't see how you are reproducing the social order that you claim to be against, by making categorical assumptions about various individuals whose ideas you despise or/and fear. CNN and FOX hacks use the same bullshit towards people just like you everyday!
Look, there is an alternative, and its based on using our intelligence--our creativity, for example.
I said this to someone else already, but i'll use a bit of repetition:
IMCs could be designed in a way to let everyone speak; by putting "right-wing" speech and "immoral" speech into clearly differentiated categories.
Then, the left could pioneer new territory by laying down ways to defend people, i.e. Chomsky's *intellectual self-defense*.
So, we practice what we preach and over time, via sustained struggle (as IMCs have been amazingly able to do so far in many other ways!), we PROVE our stand.
We don't manipulate or engineer consent. We don't play the mainstream game of hype and propaganda. We take a principled stand that anyone can see.
Older, entrenched activists may fear this method simply because it refuses to play the games that they believe must be played (re: propaganda). And to be fair, they have a point: history shows that the State's minions come down hard on those who choose certain types of radical challenge.
Yet, this attack is already coming down on IMCs and "activists" in this era of cointelpro-style attack now fully sanctioned and legalized. Things are coming more and more to a head. The same patterns and new scaldings are being implemented. The grand ideals of the IMC dream will be tested no matter how watered down the challenge gets.
Sustained challenge seems to always bring that consequence, at least in societies oriented to thought control.
We are imperfect, yet many of us are putting our lives on the line for our ideals and dreams. i for one have done so and continue to do so. The State could come up with any bullshit and throw me in jail tomorrow (but you and i have studied the system pretty well and know there are openings).
Anyways, i'm running on. i'll let this sit with you and look forward to your and others' further insights and exceptional challenge!
love and art,
too radical? |
|
Complaints Are Fine; If You Want Somethig Different, It Requires Political Engagement |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2004
|
It's unclear to me if you are criticizing my personal opinion on IMC editorial policy or my work as an IMC editor.
First off, my opinion of what IMC editorial policy should be is unlikely to substantially change based on the arguments you've made. I see little point in arguing about this. I have my opinion; you have yours. I think we disagree.
This leads to my performance as an editor here. I do this work within a policy framework that puts a premium on transparency and compliance with policies established by the consensus of IMC members. While I have my personal prejudices, like we all do, I have to let my actions here be guided by the wishes of our collective.
If you feel that you think I am failing to live up to these expectations, you can note the specifics of this and come to a meeting to bring it up.
If your problem is with the policies that the UC IMC that reflect our experiences during three years of running this website as a collective, then you need to come to a meeting and attempt to create a new consensus.
It's just my opinion, but I feel that the label of being guilty of "the folly of censorship hype" applies far more to you than to me. The Hidden Files exist for a number of reasons, but generally not because of any issue with the ideology of what you find there. Look and you'll see articles that were never submitted past preview stage by various authors, duplicate posts, and violations of IMC editorial policy. Why they're there has nothing to do with censorship, except in your confusing our editorial policies with censorship. Hidden articles can still be read and those who post them have plenty of other places on the internet to post them and there' nothing we can do to prevent that. Censorship would imply the opposite of everything just said in the last sentence. Hype it all you will, but it's just not censorship, as we see it.
If you look at our editorial policies, you can see that violations of them that cause stories to be hidden have far more to do with the behavior of whoever posted them than anything else. I see no reference there to any sort of ideological litmus test. If you want to hype the actions editors here as "censorship" that's your perogative. It is hard for us to take such charges seriously, because you present no specific evidence of censorship for ideological reasons nor anything to demonstrate that our editorial policies are based on ideology, simply your perceptions that this is somehow true.
Finally, your suggestion that we classify things according to some system of ideological labeling is one that would take control out of the poster's hands and put it into ours. If you look at our publishing form, you'll already see that someone could label something as being "rightwing" if they so choose. As an editor, I'd rather leave that to the author, instead of coming up with a new and far more complex set of rules to classify people's opinions.
Somehow, I seem to feel that you'd like to see more rightwing opinion here to somehow "balance" what is the predominant viewpoint here. For such "balance" I suggest watching FOX News, logging onto WorldNetDaily, or reading the Wall Street Journal if you are convinced you are somehow not already immersed in such views by virtue of their overall dominating presence in our society. We tend to think we are providing balance by our very existence in struggle against dominant forms of media that will never return the favor you expect us to extend to them.
Which is not to say that such views are somehow prohibited from being here. We have no such regulations. We just think that our mission is to provide alternatives to such dominant culture tropes, not reproduce it here.
My advice, other than getting involved in IMC if you expect the consensus we have already established to change, is to carefully re-read what Chomsky (and others like Robert McChesney) have to say on the false god of "balanced journalism". I think you're in a problematic pursuit of something you probably don't need more of . |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by too radical?/unbridled
intheheart2 (nospam) ziplip.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 6
07 Feb 2004
|
ML, i don't think i have much more time to say this tonight, but one thing i've learned from the feminist movment is that "politics are personal", and to me that means, and sheds light on, how perhaps *everything* in this "consensus reality" is political.
And that includes "editorial policies" which seem to be the latest Newspeak term for mystifying the warfare of censorship.
When one finds themselves outside of allowed discourse, one catches onto this game very quickly. I've got a quote somewhere by Gore Vidal that sheds light on this.
Most "learn to" conform and submit. And internalize the idea that what they are doing is NOT a bad thing. It's like the psychiatrists in pre-nazi germany who apparently (according to Peter Breggin, MD) gave the idea of a "Final Solution" to the nazis to off their perceived enemies and scapegoats. The psychiatrists reduce situations into ideological mystifications, and thus do not allow themselves to see their "euthanasia" as anything but "objective" professional work.
I don't know if you're into reading about this kind of thing, but if you're (or anyone else) is interested, try Theodore Roszak, Thomas Szasz, Thomas Kuhn, or Paul Feyerabend where they show the value-laden games of science. Szasz, particularly points out the religious-like dogma of the medical profession, re: psychiatry.
Aldous Huxley (in _Brave New World--Revisited_ www.intheheart.net/huxley.html) also goes into this--in an even more direct way; as he demystifies "Organizational Man" (excerpts on the site given).
So, yes, there is an unstated politics to "editing"/"moderating" and these other convenient plays on words. Unless you categorically doubt the institutional analysis of leading dissidents.
>It's unclear to me if you are criticizing my personal opinion on IMC editorial policy or my work as an IMC editor.
---
I am doing both. I am criticizing the terms and concepts in which you seem to so automatically subordinate to, as well as the policies of MANY IMCs--including UCIMC.
>First off, my opinion of what IMC editorial policy should be is unlikely to substantially change based on the arguments you've made.
---
Oh well. Hopefully others will rise up and see the value of this decisive policy.
> I see little point in arguing about this. I have my opinion; you have yours. I think we disagree.
----
Call it your mere (?) "opinion" if you like; i'm falling back on institutional analysis that resonates with me.
>This leads to my performance as an editor here. I do this work within a policy framework that puts a premium on transparency and compliance with policies established by the consensus of IMC members. While I have my personal prejudices, like we all do, I have to let my actions here be guided by the wishes of our collective.
--------
Yet you're making open value-assumptions and moralistic demands in your capacity as a decision maker openly, and I am challenging you on that. Not saying that anyone must be "perfect", though! Just pointing out a blindspot you seem to have, with the idea that someone of your commitment might actually step away from the emotional side of this challenge and reflect on the bigger picture at stake.
But you're far from the only one. I posted this discussion over at the Ithica IMC because of the editorial collective's policy and attack on a pretty well-known "troll", who turned out, if I recall accurately, to be what most people are these days---rather confused, but trying as best they can to articulate their underlying desires for sanity.
>If you feel that you think I am failing to live up to these expectations, you can note the specifics of this and come to a meeting to bring it up.
====
Meetings...i usually avoid that form of "democratic" interaction these days, but I think i will follow through with this invitation for once. Care to post the date/day/time of the next relevant one?
(to the cops in my head: i've just become a member of ucimc and already i'm being so-called "disruptive"...)
i will enjoy (work can be enjoyed y'know) going to the meeting and taking the ponts made to the larger community for scrutiny, as well. And i don't mean that as a threat, either, although quite a few politicos these days perceive, for various reasons, such "insubordination" as threatening.
i'll try not to drag my baggage into the place, if you try not to, also!!! :)
>If your problem
---
"my problem"? If i was black would you frame it within such terms? (if i jumped the gun a little too quickly there, my apologies)
> is with the policies that the UC IMC that reflect our experiences during three years of running this website as a collective, then you need to come to a meeting and attempt to create a new consensus.
---
Ooo, that's a lot of weight hanging over things right from the get-go. Will such weight be utilized to enforce my/others' subordination, is the question.
>It's just my opinion, but I feel that the label of being guilty of "the folly of censorship hype" applies far more to you than to me.
---
Say what? And how is this?
> The Hidden Files exist for a number of reasons, but generally not because of any issue with the ideology of what you find there.
---------
Can you illustrate my "ideology" here, or are you seeking only to discredit my challenge with an emotionally potent term?
> Look and you'll see articles that were never submitted past preview stage by various authors,
---
I take it that "preview stage" is only for those insiders (who hold the necessary pin numbers to particpate) who help directly run the IMC?
> duplicate posts, and violations of IMC editorial policy.
-----
i've seen this conglomeration plenty of times. But pairing violations of policy with these others doesn't help your argument any. I don't get why this makes any difference.
(And why does one have to point this kinda stuff out, and effectivley PUSH you into a place where you MIGHT decide to think a little more broadly about oh-so-convenient policies like these????? Methinks that most people are smart enough to not waste their time...me, i'm seeking the input of anarchists and others elsewhere to *convince* me of the validity of these policies, so i don't see it as a "waste" of time)
> Why they're there has nothing to do with censorship, except in your confusing our editorial policies with censorship.
----
The same thing has been and is always said by those you yourself would try to convince are playing games. Please do take a step back from your emotions for awhile. NO ONE IS PERFECT, and i ain't trying to attack you or isolate you as a beautiful person!
> Hidden articles can still be read and those who post them have plenty of other places on the internet to post them and there' nothing we can do to prevent that.
----
That's so lame! Do i gotta spell it out to ya? The Claim is that IMCs are seriously seeking to create alternative, non-corporate media which exposes and straightens out their lies and manipulations.
Naturally, people of many many stripes will seek to participate, until such a point when they realize that the IMC project is yet another farce and game. Myself, i know that the IMCs already engage in farce and games, BUT at the same time, they STILL allow incredible opportunities to speak much deeper than other outlets of the popular left/anarchist community.
And the freedom to post a certain measure of diversity is what is so incredibly enticing to many who are quite powerless.
For instance, i've been posting with the moniker "unbridled artist network" for years now, putting up artwork and ideas that are simply not allowed/tolerated in popular Leftwing/anarchist media on a regular basis (normally).
As well, the huge diversity of population that may be reached, compared to these other outlets you speak of is unparalleled.
There, you've drawn me out of my erstwhile camoflauge. Will you now use that to continue an unempathetic attack, or arm the original desires that brougt you, ostensibly, into this work? (---which i figure is very similar to my desires).
> Censorship would imply the opposite of everything just said in the last sentence.
-----
Like so much, the Newspeak of censorship has been made to dovetail with manipulative war-mongering. If THEY block YOUR speech in some way, YOU are allowed to call it Censorship, no matter what THEY say it really is.
aND, if YOU do the blocking, you categorically do not hold a blindspot, and categorically do not NEED to have time to scrutinize your own assumptions/beliefs. In fact, I MUST have some sort of "psychological problem", or some "hidden agenda", and so on and so forth.
Looks all too apparent that the existing social order is being yet again reproduced! And of course, "three years" of thoughtfulness cannot easily be proved to have overlooked some things!
The GALL and AFFRONTERY!
> Hype it all you will, but it's just not censorship, as we see it.
----
We? Are your emotionally potent remarks (re: throwing all blocked articles into the concept of "hate-spamming") REALLY the thinking of the collective membership? If so, i DEFINITELY gotta be at the next meeting!
>If you look at our editorial policies, you can see that violations of them that cause stories to be hidden have far more to do with the behavior of whoever posted them than anything else.
------
I'll agree there, on the "far more" (yet of course, my challenge is to all IMCs who utilize this policy as well, and different people have different measurements).
Yet there is still a list of persons whose media/articles are blocked which don't fall into that category, as you yourself hint at.
> I see no reference there to any sort of ideological litmus test. If you want to hype the actions editors here as "censorship" that's your perogative. It is hard for us to take such charges seriously, because you present no specific evidence of censorship for ideological reasons nor anything to demonstrate that our editorial policies are based on ideology, simply your perceptions that this is somehow true.
------
I gave examples in the original article, did you miss them? One of them was the idea of valuing the participation of the extreme diversity of participants because this would be a solidarity of humanity, and would lay a basis for a connection (or at least a door open to a connection) where none have been allowed truly open before!
Please do go back to those parts, will you?!
Well, i've got to get going. i want to thank the IMC of Urbana-Champaign for letting me use the public computer here for as long as they've allowed today. One person in particular went out of their way to be helpful, tho i doubt she knows what i'm up to...i don't mind her knowing, btw.
to peace and the beauty of ideals that bring us into projects like this! |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by spam assassin
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2004
|
> "editorial policies" which seem to be the latest Newspeak term for mystifying the warfare of censorship.
Calling censorship "warfare" mystifies it. |
|
Re: preview stage |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2004
|
too radical?/unbridled said:
> Look and you'll see articles that were never submitted past preview stage by various authors,
---
I take it that "preview stage" is only for those insiders (who hold the necessary pin numbers to particpate) who help directly run the IMC?
----------------------
Actually, as someone who has posted here before should know, when an individual posts anything to the newswire, the author has an opportunity to preview the post prior to publishing. Then the author can either submit the article or not.
I'm not sure what you mean by PIN numbers. This is an open publishing site. You don't even need a log-in id to publish. And by the way, I am not an editor, just a frequent visitor. |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by =
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Feb 2004
|
The only people whining about IMC "censorship" are the very folks that insist on their "right" to dilute, redirect, and poison this fine resource with their carefully crafted, conservative, narrow-minded, and bigoted opinions and spam. The IMC sites don't owe them a soapbox to wank on, by any means.
Take your boring game elsewhere, we've got better things to do that listen to your deluded, blowhard rationalizations, that attempt to convince... (yourselves, really) why the IMC open forums should tolerate your garbage.
The IMC editors and policies are about as fair, open, and tolerant as any to be found on any public forum. Your long-winded and juvenile complaints are a waste of our time and server space.
Take it to rushlimbaugh.com, where you can find a multitude of bleating like-minds to commiserate with.
Wha, wha, wha. Cry all you want. The IMC network is not faltering or fading one bit from where I sit reading.
It only suffers from the same funding woes that all volunteer-supported non-profit org's do, and is also currently going through some growing pains as a result of the conservative and racist parasites that the (very) open posting policies have allowed them to become infected with.
The IMC's are now finally narrowing the gates, and slowly and carefully at that, but will be much better off as a result. The editors are still graciously allowing the pinheads their swansong, but a new day is dawning.
It’s like a thorough flea dip. It stinks and burns, but once it's over, the host is finally rid of all the critters.
-------------
"Got no time for jibb'a jabb'a!" - Mr. T. |
|
At Least Get Your Facts Straight |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
unbridled,
You seem to be having trouble clearly articulating the issues. I will put it to you again in the most direct way possible.
1. This is NOT _my_ editorial policy. It is the consensus policy of the UC IMC collective as a whole.
2. The policy is not "Newspeak".
3. You've made a lot of very generalized charges, but have not specified any particular article where you think that the policy has been misapplied.
4. It seems that you feel that any policy that allows the editors here to hide articles is unjustified. Your opinion, while obviously heartfelt, is simply at odds with how the UC IMC collective feels and is expressed in our editorial policy.
5. The place to discuss application of the policy is in a Web group meeting. The Web group meets infrequently, but if your issue is how the policy is applied, we could try to schedule a meeting just to allow you to address these issues. You can also send an email to the Web group at imc-web (at) ucimc.org to bring up and discuss issues of the specific application of the current policy to specific articles that have been hidden.
6. If your concern is, in fact, that the policy exists at all, then the place to discuss that is at the next Steering group meeting. The Steering group makes policy -- the Web group only applies it through the editors. The next scheduled Steering group meeting is March 4 at 8pm. However, there may be an emergency meeting before then due to another pending matter and it will be announced. In any case, be sure to send an email to imc (at) ucimc.org if you want this issue placed on the agenda.
7. Your complaint about Ithaca IMC really needs to be taken up with them. I assume you're talking about Bobby Meade. Last I know, he was not banned there and was posting. He is still banned here. But Bobby hasn't been posting anywhere on the IMC network for about the last year. My guess is that he is someplace safe where he won't hurt himself or anyone else and I sure we here all hope he is doing OK.
8. Your articles and artwork have been posted here and many other places on the IMC network and, as far as I can tell, stay up here at least. The policies at other IMCs are, once again, their responsibility. We have no particular influence on how other IMCs implement editorial policies within the framework of the IMC Principles of Unity. Obviously, policies vary due to the autonomy that each IMC has.
9. Word games can work both ways. Don't call the pot black when you're obviously a kettle. I would say more, but my point is not to bamboozle you, but to point out that your opinion is simply one more side of the story, not some sort of objective truth, as you seem to imply. |
|
5, re: username and password |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
You got me on that one, 5; I can admit I was on the wrong about the username and password. I assumed that it was not an automatic thing, that one would have to *sign up* first, like on many of the better known discussion boards.
I stand corrected here, thank you. |
|
spam assasin: yeah right (nt) |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
|
.... |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
unbridled, yes, my nick sucks and isn't even appropriate in hindsight. Because no one on this thread is a spammer.
As far as I can tell, anyone who wants to can post whatever ideas they want on this site. I've followed all the controversies about hidden posts and policies, and I have yet to see an instance where the editors said: "this idea is too radical, so we need to hide this post, or ban this discussion." In the case of spam, it has been the behavior of posters, not their ideas, that was at issue.
There is only so much anarchy that this site could withstand. For instance, if the computers running the site were in unlocked rooms, they would be stolen. If the web server had no admin password, it would be compromised by hackers and used to launch denial-of-service attacks against other computers. By the same token, if spammers are allowed to flood the message board with ads or duplicate posts, the site would become essentially useless to its readers.
It is this minimal level of moderation that the editors seem to me to be striving for at UCIMC. The policies give them discretion to be more restrictive than they are, and the policies aren't perfect, but there isn't a big ideological issue here, since the editors are accountable for how they use that discretion and the grievance process is pretty straightforward.
Unbridled freedom is the right ideal; then we have to make something happen on the ground. That means buying and maintaining computers and internet connections, reaching consensus among diverse groups of people with differing opinions, and all that involves compromising the ideals.
I'm reminded of the Philip K. Dick story about the Swibble repairman. In the story, an inventor creates a machine called a Swibble, which is designed to end war forever by causing everyone to have exactly the same ideology. There follows one, last war, which is the war between people who want Swibbles and people who don't.
If we all share the same ideology, we don't need to compromise. But we live in a diverse community and we want to participate in it and serve it in a sustainable way. |
|
hey "=", no dice |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
Obviously, you didn't read much of the discussion, because if you did you would have found out that the example I gave of someone else "complaining" about IMC censorship (one IMC which not only censored his articles, but his entire visiting ability, by blocking his ISP or something like that) is the primary editor of infoshop.org, ChuckO.
The other stuff you're saying appears to me to be basically your inability to see the value of diverse community that isn't automatically stabled under one ideological roof.
My main point for *creatively* allowing the widest possible diversity of ideas is that *by excellent examples* people can be reached and convinced, no matter what community people hail from.
And it seems to me that this would be a paramount value for those who wish to actually "progress" the quality of living and so on.
What good does it do to shut oneself in in ones own relatively tiny ghetto? How does a new ghetto make the dream of "independent", "non-corporate" media fundamentally different from dependent, corporate media?
Myself, I can see why IMCs (and the Leftists and left-followers who art them) wouldn't want Right-wing dissent "too much"; because the conscious Right and the conscious Left are playing a meta game of idea manipulation.
Conscious Right-wingers who attack probably know that their conscious Left counter-parts aren't going to systematically deconstruct their game and expose its highly manipulative narrative. They accurately assume that conscious Leftists will continue to superficially attack.
In this way, conscious Leftists fear Right-wing sustained attack because the propaganda aparatus (i.e. social conditioning) of the Right is the basic dominant mainstream "reality".
Leftists (and all other dissidents of the Rightwing) certainly aren't allowed to be understood!
Like the Left-wing version, Right-wingers have all kinds of blocking devices; mainly classic propaganda (as Jacques Ellul defines it in his book _Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes_; see excerpts: www.intheheart.net/propag.html ).
Like agit prop, integration prop, and so on.
Then there's the games that Chomsky points out: Concision, the need to have "good writing skills" ("able" to write "professionally", etc.--no "poetic" or "academic" writing except for the "appropriate" categories), "acceptable" speaking ability; all Newspeak propaganda devices. Censorship as it popularly exists in the public mind is only one of the weapons.
If conscious Right-wingers were to make such attacks on anarchists (especially the post-left variety), these anarchists would systematically and on a sustained basis, demystify their propaganda games. So systematically that their fortress would be too threatened, and the attackers would have to resort to various methods of under-handed blocking.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with these ideas and are curious?
Then perhaps you (and others) would like to familiarize yourself with some of the concepts of meta-analysis (and post-left ideas):
meta-analysis:
http://www.intheheart.net/solutions.html
(see paragraphs 4-7 in main text)
post-leftism:
http://www.anarchist-studies.org/article/articleview/43/1/1/
To conclude, for now, I have no trust that the IMC projects will continue to be as fair and objective as they still are to an extent. They simply will not be ALLOWED to be as inclusive as they now are.
As the stakes rise, the ideologically-challenged authoritarians (people who act like Right-wing fundamentalists in their alienation) will come more nakedly out into the open and show their actual boiling hysteria (so well masked via the "nice" social gaming of the "polite" class).
After all, they worked soooooo hard to make this thing happen *for you*/the public. It's the same old bullshit over and over again. We who are being "helped" must submit to their Truth because They Have Worked So Hard.
It's really rather like the average Nuclear Family parent these days saying the same kinds of things to their "ungrateful" offspring.
What does commitment to one's principles mean, anyway?
Consider a little "poetic" thought, by the still hardly known Santee-Sioux Indian, John Trudell:
Which is lonelier
Being alone together
Or being lonely alone...
[When we] make loneliness a new type of alone.
smiling but never too loudly...
the closing of your doors can only shut you in.
...the invaders happiness seems to have no depth...
Hiding
...I looked around at my human relations, myself
I see so much hiding.
hiding for so much for so many reasons
...Why are we hiding from each other
Why are we hiding from ourselves
...hiding in hidden thoughts
hiding in surface relationships
hiding in rationalizations hidden from truth
hiding in power systems and structures created by us
hiding in confusion, ignorance and deceit
hiding in humanity, while humanity sufferes
...afraid to be what we are or even understand why.
...secrets becoming prisons
instead of experiences
shame instead of learning
...to have to hide
...think I'll stop hiding
|
|
Joe F., my comments |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2004
|
(..)
I have yet to see an instance where the editors said: "this idea is too radical, so we need to hide this post, or ban this discussion."
---
I doubt they'd ever use those exact terms, i.e. "too radical". Take Judith Levine's extremely controversial book _Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex_ (University of Minnesota Press). "Too radical" wouldn't be used, but instead terms like "immoral" and "sick" would be instead. No one in their right ideological mind would be caught being authentic. It's not "sustainable" if you take "too radical" of a position, after all. (Yes, I do question the demand of "sustainable" when not allowed more context to that value)
So there's one example. If ideas like Levine's became a sustained, regular addition to the IMCs of the world, pressure would come down to suppress them. Just like the pressure that the U of MN Press got for daring to publish the book at all, with rules now to "make sure" such ideas don't crop up again so easily.
I'm trying to point out that people are conditioned to not think things through. Like the way we're systematically taught to hold ideas which serve the interests of coercive power structures. Or the way we're taught to believe that our "Us vs Them" entrenchments Must Remain separate, else we'll all be hoodwinked and "lose everything we've worked for."
I'm saying that teaching each other *intellectual self-defense* makes a whole lot of more sense than not.
I'm not advocating your extreme scenario that you are throwing out so typically. Behavior of posters, yes, I see this on the surface of that (though the bullshit about "juvenile" behavior is just another attempt at underhanded punching and kicking; just more bigotry.)
> For instance, if the computers running the site were in unlocked rooms, they would be stolen. If the web server had no admin password, it would be compromised by hackers and used to launch denial-of-service attacks against other computers. By the same token, if spammers are allowed to flood the message board with ads or duplicate posts, the site would become essentially useless to its readers.
----
That's the example I mentioned of your extremely patronizing example. You sound like a sneering Father looking down his glasses at the Stupid Child stereotype. No wonder some people fly off the handle with such condescending behavior, and run into your little trap of rules,,,,(yes, I'm jaded; years of "activism" can do that to a person)
>Unbridled freedom is the right ideal; then we have to make something happen on the ground. That means buying and maintaining computers and internet connections, reaching consensus among diverse groups of people with differing opinions, and all that involves compromising the ideals.
------
You make the choices you make, I make the choices I make. I see value in your project and that's why I'm seeking to strengthen it as I see it can be strengthened (and thus compromising less ideals).
At the same time, your way of doing things ain't the only way. Anarchist critique of formal organization points out the problem of organization on several points:
The organization becomes more important than its members (whereas informal extended family-style anarchist community does not).
Formal organization can get swamped in overhead and pit-falls (i.e. the fire code b.s. that was thrown on this IMC as soon as it began to gain momentum). (Whereas meeting informally in each others' homes or in public places avoids all of that)
Formal organization usually has to have a lot of emphasis placed on maintaining funding and membership sustainment on a long-term basis.
Formal organization must play more games with the establishment since it is dependent upon the establishment's system of licenses and other rules it must follow.
And so on.
There really are a lot of *cons* to your IMC's methods...If it weren't for the potential of the internet project, I wouldn't be much interested (tho I do enjoy the use of the computer at times, and reading the various mags, the same kind of thing could--and sometimes has--existed elsewhere)
>I'm reminded of the Philip K. Dick story about the Swibble repairman. In the story, an inventor creates a machine called a Swibble, which is designed to end war forever by causing everyone to have exactly the same ideology. There follows one, last war, which is the war between people who want Swibbles and people who don't.
If we all share the same ideology, we don't need to compromise.
-----
You're assuming that all we can have is ideology. Don't tell me that your "good education" via the college is now teaching graduates to look at ideology like they now look at propaganda...Newspeak seeking to block our very words and concepts for describing our oppression!!!
> But we live in a diverse community and we want to participate in it and serve it in a sustainable way.
-------
Again, "sustainable" sounds really good on the surface, but just underneath there is a politics that must be understood if "we" are really going to change things.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, anyway. |
|
excellent points made at UK IMC |
by unbridled
intheheart2 (nospam) ziplip.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2004
|
Someone even posted an url to a similar discussion occuring in that country.
Note that the posters there are not being condescending. That's refreshing!
Wanted to post excerpts (slightly edited here) of the post I made there, here, in case the posts didn't go through (noted some problems with the computer I'm using, or the network, so think it's fair to do this):
i'd like to see something done along the lines of the Wikipedia project. They have a system where people can edit pages at will. They have various people who also volunteer to watch for legal problems (i.e. copyright violations) and trolls, and it seems to work very well.
The problem with IMCs of course is that this project is much more "in the face" of many interests. And so barrages of shit come at IMCs all the time. By shit i mean ads and legally problematic stuff.
As well, there's many many people who have been misled and buy hook, line, and sinker into the dominant paradigm. And are hyped up by their ministers and other social and cultural managers to attack. So they do seem to come in droves, in full attack mode (not to mention the off-duty cop types and formal covert action workers...
So this seems to make the case for the policy that many IMCs have adopted. To simply "hide" spam, troll-posts, and views moderators despise (i.e. articles labeled "Right wing").
I'm saying "we" should set up a system where moderators and IMC members get direct control (via trackable and verifyable means). And participants (who post stuff that isn't going to result in legal attack, i.e. posting child porn) whose views and positions are usually hidden, put into notable sections labeled "Right-wing" or whatever other label each IMC consenses on.
Because, look, the bottom line is that the IMCs of the world have an OPPORTUNITY in the participation in the extreme diversity of people posting articles and commentary. The situation APPEARS to be an *ugly duckling*, but I say there is a potential *beautiful swan* POTENTIAL.
The Right-wing cannot and will not allow anything like this forum (complete with the freedom to post legal media uploads). If the Left could "exploit" this weakness of the Right, it could do a type of jiu-jitsu as it practiced the most open forum in the world. A forum of LIBERATING potential; a place where "average" people would have a chance to *possibly* find connections where ideology does not allow in every other place.
The road appears hard and long and tedious at this juncture. But that is a reflection of the propaganda we have all been conditioned by. Once we can begin to *see* how we are systematically manipulated (via the liberating speak of informal interactions which automatically subordinate to *no* ideology), people will begin to escape the traps and strings that play them like puppets and soldiers in any army at war.
For myself, I have grown cynical that the Left can allow such a pioneering effort. Perhaps only the post-left anarchists will have the audacity to impliment such a wild vision. Count me in!
regular IMC poster, via unbridled artist network (aka unmediated artists network)
ice.prohosting.com/~unmediat |
|
interesting UK IMC comment (cross-posted) |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2004
|
An important debate (by Pete)
But one which (it must be stressed) has been played out both in local imc collectives and the global network ever since it started. There are well way over one hundred imcs so the same discussions and arguements are now amplified.
These are issues critical to society as a whole, and activist societies in particular (look at some of the debates and just substitute another big campaign group or activist movement and you'll see exactly what I mean). That there is discussion of differences is a healthy state of affairs. Yet the point is still a serious one requiring attention. That indymedia has been open enough to allow such discussion is also useful - see it as a laboratoty for experiments in how to deal with such challenges.
There was a big conflict with chucko from infoshop this is true, and sad for many imcs to see it played out over in the states - indeed there has since the very start of indymedia been a tension between many of the american imc activists and those in europe or the rest of the world - the basic disagrement was either US activists being totally pro-free speech while others wanted a stronger better defined political project, or US activists wanting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
This is still an issue. Of course projects ebb and flow. Some of the entire cohesive momentum of the anti-capitalist movement suffered over the last year or so, but much of the effort was going into the anti-war movement - this was one of the most important achievements of the indymedia network - it was the only place you could find in depth coverage of the global resistance to the war - from the massive street demos to small acts of local sabotage againstthe war machine - I'd say this was indymedia's finest hour thus far.
The issues chucko raises are key, but he has an american bias in his experience. How we deal with these challenges is real politics.
How indymedia develops is very important, but not the be all and end all of the story. Indymedia was an idea in the right place with the right technology at the right time, and took off like a virus - because people all over the world saw a need for such open media collaborative projects (to be honest I never thought it would last as long as it has, or that it would stay operational for so long before it collapsed under its ambitious goals of open participation).
Indymedia is an engine. Its not just a website, and that is often forgotten, especially when people compare it to other websites. For there are so many projects that are made in its name - from film screenings and radio shows, from local access spaces to actions around media issues, from training events to prisoner solidarity campaigns.
Indymedia is also an engine because it powered a rethink about media in activist circles. As a result many more initiatives are up off the ground, from new activist news websites to campaign groups supporting open source and free communication - it continues to spin off new projects and collaborations all over the place - and this is key for this shows that it really is _not_ about preserving some status quo which has been reached.
Finaly be very careful about talking about the indymedia network as a whole, because it contains so many diverse views, approches and politics, that it is just as meaningless as tags like the 'anti-war movement' or the 'anti-globalisation movement' when people use them to generalise. |
|
TN IMC admin comments |
by unbridled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2004
|
(I've only edited it enought to break it up for easier reading. See original: http://www.tnimc.org/newswire/display/1361/index.php )
This is an interesting article/commentary. On the one hand, it is important for the participants in the IMC to always be open to questioning its radical elements and see if it is telling the truth and being inclusive and allowing for all perspectives to be told.
On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that the IMC is being watered down or losing momentun. It is only four years old and seems to be growing and has strong participation on many levels.
On the other hand, as the IMC grows it is easy to imagine it becoming more like the status quo. The very process of becoming institutionalized creates its own dilemnas.
On the whole I really liked this commentary because it raises issues of legitimacy and the pitfalls of internalized authority within an institution. I would say based on my own experiences that the IMC is a jumbled mess of confusing and complicated interactions.
I wouldn't say that IMC is evolved in any sense as a network and it hasn't really gotten to the point where it could be institutionalized enough to be a space which has conceded its role as a radical institution. In general I would say that the IMC is a marginal institution whose function is basically to educate people who already seem to have some sense of what is going on within their own field of interest but in more detail than usual. I would say that in general hardly anyone knows what the IMC or where it is or what it is about.
That doesn't mean the IMC is useless, just that as an "Independent Media Center" the IMC is only independent in the sense that it is generally free of corporate bias.
However, I would say that in general my own experience of the IMC reveals it to be what many other websites are about, that is an area on cyberspace devoted to a particular kind of interest group. In this sense the IMC is genral a website in cyberspace devoted to anarchists and radicals and other types who are interested and passionate about what they believe is the truth and how they believe it should be reported and told.
This is an important fuction to have within cyberspace but to suggest that it is effective or reaching large numbers of people would not be accurate.
To say that it is a center where people come to tell their own stories as they see them and as they experience them would also be an unreasonable expectation I think.
The IMC is more of an "interest group" than anything else I can compare it to, a kind of subculture. Not that this is not significant, only that it is a specific kind of thing, and to some degree, to a large degree actually still limited by being a particular kind of interest group. Still within that "interest group" I would agree that way too much control lies in the hands of admin.
Being admin myself I see that this is true. To a large extent the IMC tends to be treated in the same unfortunate way that so many other institutions in our society is treated. In this sense a few people set the agenda for a much larger number or control the process to unreasonably and without sufficient examination of the consideration of whether it is indeed their role to attempt to control such an entity as a website's content or the information that is posted to it.
Rather than focus on such activities I would be more interested in seeing admin focus on a level of "passive encouragement" or "intelligent facilitation" in which the function of admin within the independent media movement is to encourage as many people as possible to tell their own stories and report on issues of importance to them.
I feel like this is the true function of the IMC, to serve as an institution which encourages average people to report of the stories that are of interest to them and report on the world as it affects them, hopefully encourage such people to consider such stories from the multiple parspectives that are fundamental analyis of people within their communiites. This is the truth of the IMC as I hope it is eventaully revealed to be. A place for the passionate telling of the truth from people who want to tell it.
Chris Lugo
Tennessee IMC |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 15
09 Feb 2004
|
unbridled, the UC IMC is not *my* project. I'm just a reader like you. I don't go to meetings, I don't make decisions. It's just as much *your* project as it is mine. *You're* the one who has decided to talk like it's someone else's project that you can criticize from the outside, from some kind of pure, uncompromised moral position. But people here are obviously paying attention to your ideas, and that is as much part of the IMC's process as the more formal processes that irk you so much.
The canard that anyone who speaks in support of the IMC's policies is somehow an editor or a steward of those policies is trotted out frequently in these discussions. It's trolling, because it deliberately ignores the very real participation in these discussions by anyone who wants to join a thread, and anyone who wants to come to a meeting.
Keep knocking down the straw man. We'll keep pointing out that it's made of straw. |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by Chuck0
chuck (nospam) mutualaid.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
10 Feb 2004
|
ML writes:
"The ChuckO quote is old, very old, 2002 to be exact. I believe I remember him later saying that he over-generalized about Indymedia. It's a fact that, with certain small, specific exceptions like SF IMC, IMC Palestine, and the now at least temporarily defunct global Newswire (any wonder IMC is not in any hurry to bring it back) Indymedia as a whole has steadily become increasingly unfrienedly to the exploitation of its resources by hate-mongers."
This article by me stated off as a rant that I posted on my website in December 2002. Evidently it hit a chord with many IMC volunteers and participants and was subsequently posted around the Indymedia network, where it generated a lot of debate and discussion. This was a one off rant that never saw any editing. Last year I had hoped to do some follow-up articles, but never got around to it. I do plan to write a follow-up next month.
Yes, Indymedia websites have made changes that are unfriendly to trolls and hate-mongers, although these people really aren't beeing discouraged as much as they should be. Last year more IMCs finally adopted more comprehensive newswire policies and migrated Indymedia websites to new software. Unfortunately, I think the situation for DIY journalism on many websites has suffered and may be in a worse state than when I wrote my essay. It's ironic that several IMCs (New York City and D.C.) went overboard with their new policies and stepped on so many toes that support for those IMCs is suffering. The IMC in DC deserves special condemnation for its recent censorship of activist writers, its attempt to institute P.C. speech codes, and its banning of me from even accessing the website (I've been banned, without due process, from the DC IMC since October 2004).
"It is also a fact that much of the material has one source which is now well-known across the network. Indymedia has worked hard to eliminate crappy racist nonsense, but that is a battle that requires constant struggle in an Open Publishing environment. In fact, many of us believe that the perpatrator's intention is to force us to do away with Open Publishing. That is just not going to happen."
There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that several campaigns were being conducted against Indymedia by various individuals and groups. The campaign against open publishing is a more nebulous thing to prove, but we discovered that right wingers were spamming the IMC DC and other websites with right wing material in an attempt to normalize right wing views as being part of "independent media." We also know that the police post disinformation on Indymedia websites, including a campaign by DC police in September 2001 to defame and smear prominent local activists. Some of us also suspect that there were attempts to post a variety of materials to Indymedia websites in an effort to discredit Indymedia as a news source.
One of my chief motivations to write "The Sad Decline of Indymedia" was my knowledge of these campaigns, combined with my concern that lackadaisical IMC moderation attitudes where allowing this behavior to dominate IMC newswires, which I saw as becoming a major factor in alienating DIY activists from participation in Indymedia.
"In the meantime, the feedback we have at our IMC is that we do a preety good job of sorting out legitimate posts from the slime of humanity that occasionally _briefly_ darkens our door."
A little moderation goes a long way if it is directed against the right people.
too radical? writes:
"Drivel is a value-laden assumption, and ChuckO has himself felt the stab of its tendency to broaden out from "easily notable" attack (i.e. classic troll activity). ChuckO, who says in the infoshop.org page that i linked to, that he was at one time an IMC insider."
I was a member of the IMC DC for several years and I currently work with the Kansas City IMC. I've also been involved with the international network on an ongoing basis.
"But, no doubt because of his anarchist inclinations (especially his sustained effort in that area), someone holding power over him who despises (and perhaps fears) authentic anarchist ideas chose to censor him and his entire access to a certain IMC."
That might be possible, but I see the problem as more of a few people having control issues. What I did was an annoyance to them, but their penalty was excessive to the max.
An anonymous person writes:
"The only people whining about IMC "censorship" are the very folks that insist on their "right" to dilute, redirect, and poison this fine resource with their carefully crafted, conservative, narrow-minded, and bigoted opinions and spam. The IMC sites don't owe them a soapbox to wank on, by any means."
"Take your boring game elsewhere, we've got better things to do that listen to your deluded, blowhard rationalizations, that attempt to convince... (yourselves, really) why the IMC open forums should tolerate your garbage."
"The IMC editors and policies are about as fair, open, and tolerant as any to be found on any public forum. Your long-winded and juvenile complaints are a waste of our time and server space."
I think most of the time that people who scream "censorship" are indeed the exact trolls who should be moderated. However, everybody knows that IMC editors do engage in censorship, especially at the more popualr websites. There is a controversy right now at the IMC DC over their wrong-headed decision to censor the work of an activist writer who volunteers with that IMC. I've witnessed similar problems at other IMCs and I know how I've pissed people off with heavy-handed moderation at Infoshop News. Moderation should be used sparingly, but it becomes a tool of control when it falls into the hands of people with too much time on their hands or who have a political agenda.
Let me conclude by saying that IMC editors and moderators get way too much grief over their moderation. Most of the moderation is not "censorship", but enforcement of IMC policies that attempt to ensure that IMC websites are useful to the thousands of people that use them. Moderation decisions can often be tough ones to make, so people make mistakes and sometimes step on the wrong toes. At worse, moderation becomes an oppressive tool of control when it is used for political agendas. This is why moderation duties should be democratically rotated between dependable volunteers. This last practice--which is supposed to be policy in the Indymedia network--is flagrantly flouted by the few individuals at the IMC DC that I've been fighting.
Keep up the good work UC IMC folks! |
|
Re: IMC tendency to water down overall poster power will prove foolish |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
11 Feb 2004
|
As someone who has been silenced on your website for nothing more than spouting my opinions and sometimes making fun of the posters, I find your self searching interesting.
My comment will be "hidden" without regard to it's content. You will note, that there is not one offending sentence, phrase or word in this post, yet it will be hidden and justified by the great and powerful ML.
Are the tolerant afraid of Debate, dissention or just the facts. I wonder which one?
Jack |
|
Jack Ryan's Paranoia His Own Fault |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Feb 2004
|
Jack,
You've had some comments hidden for repeated violations of our website use policy. There were several of those tonight. However, if you keep up with the intentional double posting, yeah, that may indeed get you totally banned in itself, because the editors will completely tire of giving you slack when you have long exhausted our patience with your inappropriate behavior in violation of our website use policy. Take this as a word to...well, not the wise, but certainly the flippant.
PS It's _dissension_. We're OK with that, even if you're not edumicated enough, like our pResident, to spell it. Leave the insults alone or suffer the consequences of your behavior. Short and snappy will get you broken everytime at this point.
BTW This is the _last_ post where you will spend any time whining about the rules and the after effects of your violating them.
You've been put on notice previously several times.
You ignored that by repeatedly engaging in such behavior.
You've been told that if you have an issue with how the policy is invoked, you need to contact imc-web (at) ucimc.org
You've failed to do that.
If you had disagreed with their decision, you can take it to the Steering group, but since you are so certain you haven't a leg to stand on, you haven't taken the first step in contacting the IMC Web group, as noted above, so there is nothing to appeal.
Why it even remains is because I felt that your post was the perfect poster child of why we have a very loose and generously interpreted editorial policy here, despite the misgivings of a few. And your post above is the last whiny such post, as there are other, more effective places to complain, if that is your objective.
This post is a reminder that there truly are occasionally people whose presence here is "other than informing, educating or adding to a public discourse." Despite our very loose interpretation of that, you are very close to being only the third person we've ever been forced to consider such action against. If such comes to pass, it's not because we do this at the drop of a hat or because we think you're a putz. No, it's because you've worked hard to earn it.
The ball is in your court. If you hit it out of bounds, you lose. |
|
Jack Ryan's Response |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Feb 2004
|
Mr. Mike Lehman,
I have no idea why my posts always get double posted. I assumed that you put this in as a "Jack Ryan Defense" against Liberty.
I have no problem abiding by your rules if you would simply be consistent in your censorship.
I hereby state that I will no longer refer to you and your followers as "Nutbags". Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would and your comrades would stop referring to me as a Nazi and a Zionist in the same postings.
You have programmed it so that my posts are always double posted and therefore flagged or Hidden.
Please confirm for the the interested parties that this is in fact the case.
As Always,
Jack |
|
Some Advice |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
13 Feb 2004
|
Jack,
Here's some advice.
> I have no idea why my posts always get double posted. I assumed that you put this in as a "Jack Ryan Defense" against Liberty.
We have not made any software changes in the last month of significance. Whatever you're doing to get double posts, you didn't do it on this post, so you should be able to avoid this on your other posts also. It's certainly something YOU are or are not doing and nothing we have done. Most likely, you are hitting reload on an article after posting a comment or some similar action. Always return to the mainpage before hitting reload and this problem will likely disappear.
> I have no problem abiding by your rules if you would simply be consistent in your censorship.
We are consistent in the application of our rules. It is very likely that anyone else who comes here to post leering, lecherous, and insulting comments for a month about a protest by a bunch of local women, then graduates to full-time insults for a year about nearly every idea that gets posted on this site, including several warnings that he is violating the rules, followed by more warnings and hiding of the offending articles, who all the while disregards any advice from the web editorial group will _also_ have the several chances you have already had, and thrown away, before we threaten to permanently ban them. We are being very consistent in the way we apply the rules -- we cut everyone a lot of slack. Then we run out of patience. Unfortunately, you have chosen to intentionally do your very best to attempt to get thrown off this sight. You are very close to achieving that goal, so there should be no surprise about that happening for anyone, including yourself, at this point, unless you choose to backtrack from the precipice.
The problem is, you have now totally run out of slack and you whine that you want us to be more... well, LIBERAL... in the application of our rules.
Sorry, we're fresh out of liberal.
> I hereby state that I will no longer refer to you and your followers as "Nutbags". Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would and your comrades would stop referring to me as a Nazi and a Zionist in the same postings.
That is a promise which you have to keep. BTW, I don't have any followers that I'm aware of. AFAIK, those who call you a Nazi have been few and far between and certainly not as consistently nasty as you have been to everyone here. And I don't think anyone here has called you a Zionist. Besides, if gehrig can hold up under being called a Zionist, I'm sure you can too. Be a mensch.. err, a man, and just suck it up if it ever happens.
> You have programmed it so that my posts are always double posted and therefore flagged or Hidden.
Balderdash. That's just your paranoia talking. All one has to do is look at the last few days. If you keep your posts to arguing ideas, they have stayed up. If you descend toward insults, they get hidden, just as you have been repeatedly warned. Get over it. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, this is not your first offense, so quit trying to throw yourself on the mercy of a court that knows it is dealing with a multiple offender.
Since you have now located the Web group email list, we also now know that you know where you need to send any future questions about enforcement of our editorial policy. That list is public for a reason, because we believe such decisions are best made in public, but not on this website itself.
Those are the rules. Take your complaints there, if you have any. Complaints about the editorial policy once it has already been explained to you several times go there. Even if you are making an attempt to be nice about it, such posts from you are simply off-topic here, as you are by now well-familiar with what the rules are and how they are applied. You've had plenty of experience you already could've learned from if you would just pay attention. |
|
