|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
U-C IMC Website Appropriate Use Policy & Hidden Story Link -- On-line |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Riismandel
Email: paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified!)
Address: U-C IMC, Urbana, IL |
08 Oct 2001
Modified: 13 Oct 2001 |
|
The U-C IMC's Appropriate Use Policy for our website is now on-line. The front page now also has a link to all "hidden stories." Please read this policy before crying "censorship!" and understand that cooperation is necessary for this site to be useful to everyone, not just a few egotistical posters. |
|
The U-C IMC's Website Appropriate Use Policy was approved by the U-C IMC Steering Group on Sept. 30. It outlines the conditions under which posts may be hidden from the Newswire in addition to explaining the princples and rationale behind hiding posts and otherwise moderating the newswire. Please read and consider this policy before crying "censorship" over hidden posts, and consider that one individuals right to speak and be heard does not overwhelm the right of all U-C IMC website users to have a useful and useable forum.
There is now also a direct link to all "hidden posts" on the front page of the website, located in the center column navigation bar just beneath the list of featured stories. There is also a link to the appropriate use policy.
I cannot stress enough that such "hidden posts" are not deleted and still exist in the IMC's website database. While they no longer occupy space on the front page nor on the newswire, they are still accessible for those who wish to see them.
There are thousands upon thousands of forums open to posting on the Internet aside from the U-C IMC, and over which the U-C IMC has no control. All things considered, the U-C IMC is one of the most open forums, nonetheless. Openness, however, does not mean "anything goes," nor should it.
For anyone who believes that this site should be entirely laissez faire, you must put your money where your mouth is. Become a part of the U-C IMC volunteer collective and make your voice known. Put your hard work into keeping this resource working and you will be listened to and considered. Hell, just show up to our steering meeting and you will be acknowledged nonetheless. Being responsible for your own beliefs and desires is not too much to ask. |
See also:
http://urbana.indymedia.org/website_policy.php3
|
Comments
|
no more loonies! |
by Thank You!
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Oct 2001
|
Hooray!
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
I wish all IMC's would throw out the trash once in a while!
I'm tired of lunatic posts clogging up the IMC newswire.
I may just have to come to this site for IMC news from now on.
Good Call!
Thanks IMC-UC |
|
Liars, Thieves, and More |
by Robert Meade "Bobby" "Israel" Deaf Messenger
notavailable (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "Paul Riismandel": You are trying to justify lying, stealing, and more by professing that your goal of establishing a Zionist pro-gay newswire overrides any other use of this site. Lets review my experience on this site. "Love and Foolishness", which contains some of the funniest and most serious writing that I have done was stolen from this site twice at Ids=1566 & 1609. "Modus Operandi of Lawlessness" Id=1608 was stolen probably so your tribe could continue to murder innocent people who are not opposing them. I was able to make post with "Chemical Modus II" Id=1630; but only by posting the text of the article in the comment section. I was then able to make post with "Love and Foolishness" under the title, "How Foolish Are You?" Id=1855, which was 200 spaces higher than the current numbers at the time; and that may be a trap for those who tried to access it. Then "Songs for Mental Health" Id=1650 was stolen. Then I was able to make post with "Bush Daddy Delusions" Id=1664; but only by posting the text in the comment section. I then posted "Israel, A Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken" Id=1730 and "Asbestoes, Asthma, and Your Rattling Last Breaths" Id=1770. In September I started with the "Messiah.." Id=1887 article and the "Columbine Lives" Id=1927 article. When the WTC disaster happened, I immediately moved with "Do Something! Quick!" Id=2026 and "Delusions of War" Id=2098, which were followed by "Trapped in the Devil's Bargain" Id=2169, the "Head of a Terrorist" Id=2240, and "Letter from Heaven" Id=2339. When I posted "Wipe That #$%&-eating Look Off Your Face" Id=2380, your compatriot "ML", who had continually been badgering me on U-C IMC, started a direct attempt to discredit me on all sites. This resulted in my posting "ML": Messiah of Losers" Id=2420, a "Poem for "ML"" Id=2446, and "Destiny of IMC's "Closeted" Collectives" Id=2471. I don't care how sweet and caring you profess to be, you and "ML" are engaged in criminal activity, stealing public property, so that people can be trifled with by you or others. Your hiding articles is actually a trap whereby people can be targetted for trying to access these articles. Although they can access them by Id#s by accessing any article, changing the Id=# in the address bar, and pressing "Enter"; you want them to contact you so that you can identify them. My writings are probably the best to ever be posted on IMC, and that is why you are targetting me. If you believe that you are in the right, print your name and address along with "ML"s and any others who support your lawlessness. "This can't go on! Lord knows you gotta change, baby!" Bob |
|
'deaf messenger' doesn't deserve censorship, but principled challenge, and here's why |
by one who wants to solve the meta problem
crucial_ (nospam) ziplip.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Oct 2001
|
My main problem with what's being done against Robert 'deaf messenger' is that we're effectively burning a possible bridge to people like him who have been led astray by bigoted ideology, by choosing to censor his words, no matter how misinformed they may seem to us (however, many articulate Jews, such as those represented in "The Washington Report" www.washington-report.org) out of D.C. are against Zionism, for insightful reasons).
Seems to me that Robert's topical analysis (certainly spoon-fed by the right-leaning media he appears to uncritically trust) does have germs of truth (like all successful propaganda), even though clouded by the usual bigotry of right-wing games.
My other questions get trickier: Like, what are pros and cons of censorship, especially for an independent media? Or, the angle of calling someone we vehemently disagree with "egotistical." Such methodology resonates as similar "egotistical" game playing at best, and a move to ideologically manipulate at worst. Is this really the way the "Independent Media" community wishes to move?
The reason I'm getting in on this, even though I myself am "gay" and close friends of many "Jews" (not Zionists), is because I see a dangerous precident happening here, one where words like "egotistical" can be used upon *anyone* that authoritarian-leaning IMC staff decide; this is an *unaccountable* orientation, and the very situation Independent Media is ostensibly seeking to avoid!
Someone like Robert whom has apparently taught himself** to be articulate (to his information), consistent, yet holding strongly unpopular views (in the anti-authoritarian milieu anyway), is being CENSORED, no matter what words you choose to obfuscate the matter.
-------
**Note, I see Robert Meade as holding strong views which I consider more *strategically challenged*--i.e. fooled by the emotionally-potent oversimplifications of *ideologically challenged* propagandists, this time via the right-wing variety; and to me, this means he could be *reachable* via an indepth discourse/friendship--and with his persistence he could turn out to be an important addition to our work! (i say this openly, instead of privately, because i do not wish to manipulate Robert)
-------
You all use the word "edit", but that's a manipulation.
My question: where is this "editing" going to lead? Will it turn out to be a systematic method of the "independent media" community to be used upon all viewpoints which seek to make a serious mark which are unpopular or even taboo? How different is this *really* to corporate media?
And why must "independent" mediasts turn to censorship, when there is the alternative of simply educating our readers as thoughtfully and as rootedly as possible? Or is this the *only* way one ideologically challenged camp can really take on another? (Wouldn't want to demystify the meta game of propaganda TOO much, else trusting followers of the "left" might start to question the use of emotionally potent over-simplifications in ways that "leftist" vanguardists can't control?)
Yeah, our "deaf messenger" fellow seems to be spouting a lot of bunk (I do agree that the Protocols are a fraud; sources I value have proved that enough for me). The thing I'm seeing here is that "Bobby" may not be seeing how he has been used by his apparent "right" wing programming.
If we can leave our ideological hype by the wayside, we just may be able to bridge with this guy (and many many others socialized along similar lines). Remember, it doesn't seem to be "worth it" to seek to bridge with this "kind" of person, in the microcosmic angle. Yet, when you see that there is a HELLUV'AN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTING ITSELF IN THE MACROCOSMIC angle of reaching out to him, you might agree with me that it's better to approach the situation by ENHANCING communications rather than restricting them.
Anyway, censorship in ANY form can only do a disservice to a genuinely independent media.
Let's use the quite possibly *underlying gift* within this apparent "ugly duckling"! When we speak to "Bobby", remember that we are speaking also to many others who uncritically buy into anti-semetic hype. And, remember that the "right" wing feeds this emotionally potent over-simplification to their trusting readers...
By playing into a kind of "tit for tat" censorship of those stuck in perpetuated dichotomist ("us and them") positions, the "left" and its vanguard only does a dis-service to itself:
camps on both sides remain steadfast in their resolve, communications cut off (because each side is "crazy" or whatever), and human stupidity continues!
Please stop acting like soldiers of ideology--ALL OF YOU!!!!!
Let's get BEYOND these artificial divisions which keep us so WEAK that we can never seriously force our governments and our "leaders" to make the fundamental changes that must be made. (It's almost as if the "left/right" wing dichotomy is a weapon of elite strategists working their game at home...as well as abroad)
for more information on going beyond the *permanent* trenches/camps of "left/right" games, try the following for a kind of introduction, read stuff by Lawrence Jarach, an post-left anarchist who is amongst a growing group of people who want to get away from ideological games.
Or try:
Is the Extremist Right Entirely Wrong?
by Barbara Dority
"According to the patriot movement's most vociferous critics, the militias are suffering from "paranoid fantasies" of a big, bad federal government out to get them. But as events at Waco and Ruby Ridge reveal, these "patriots"--indeed, all Americans--have plenty to worry about."
in THE HUMANIST magazine, a left-leaning monthly (www.humanist.net) |
|
What Censorship |
by Paul Riismandel
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Oct 2001
|
To Mr/Ms. "Wants to solve the (meta) problem":
You throw around the term "Censorship" too easily. Please explain to me how Mr. Deaf Messenger has been edited or censored? Have you read the policy above, do you understand what we are doing?
Second, Bobby's messages are not hidden for their content exclusively. If Mr. Deaf Messenger could keep his posts down to one a week we'd leave him alone--nobody who calls "censorship" seems to want to acknowledge that Bobby posted consistently for over with us doing nothing about it because he kept his posts down to a reasonable frequency.
But when challenged about his views on the newswire by other posters, he takes to deluging it with posts upon posts at a time, pushing all other stories off the front page. That's poor "netiquette" -- it's disrespectful to other posters and to the people who run this site.
While Bobby's posts no longer appear on the Newswire (though his comments to other posts are left intact, I'll note), they have not been removed, just simply moved to a different section.
None of Bobby's posts have ever been edited -- so you're discussion of "edit" is moot. The only posts that are ever edited are those that open the IMC to legal harassment that we do not have the resources to fight. Read the policy again.
So, again, I lay down the challenge. Read the policy that explains what we actually do (not what you or others conjecture) and explain to us how Bobby, or anyone else for that matter, has been censored.
My second challenge is to leave your real name, and maybe an e-mail address. I have made my own identity apparent to defend what I think is right. Will you? If not, why not? |
|
DM Replies |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
10 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "one who wants to solve the problem"; Your friends seem intent on trashing this newswire no matter what. Do you think that there is a person on earth alive who has discussed my writings with me? These people are trying to condemn me without reading a word that I write. Everything that I write can be backed up by the Bible. I have refrained from referencing it in many of my articles because a lot of it is common sense, especially to those who have read a lot of the 8 million words that I have published. As for the scientific portions of my writings, all of that is available in the best scientific books of this day and age. I refrain from identifying them because most encyclopedias have deleted the common knowledge of yesteryear, and it is best that all books are not dumbed down to such an extent. Let it suffice to say that I will back up any questions about the any research that I have done if I am asked for it; but please keep in mind that these people are probably not reading a word that I write. They are probably commenting on these articles in the manner that they have been told to. They just make vague general statements about them; statements that have probably been given to them by somebody else. They believe that their anonymity is a source of great power to them. Comprende? Hasta luego, adios. Bob |
|
spamming goes beyond this issue |
by triple anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
> Everything that I write can be backed up by the Bible.
See ! Bible thumping...
The bible is nothing more than a collection of highly twisted stolen passages from other older writings - the two volume set called "Isis Unveiled" proves this conclusively
Also a person can "read" anything they want into the bible, this is a hollow claim
> the 8 million words that I have published
As far as I can tell your main agenda is to fool as many people as possible into reading your words, which is why you never point to anyone elses writings, never give credit to other ideas, respect to other values.
It's always me me me, I I I
Look at those 8 million words and see how many times the word "I" appears in them...
> As for the scientific portions of my writings, all of that is available in the best scientific books of this day and age.
hahahhahaa ! You wouldn't know science if it came up and bit you on the ass. As a scientist (even as a kid I was called the "mad scientist") I can comfortably assure people of this.
The only "skill" you have in the area of science (or technology) is in how to be as paranoid as possible with anything scientific/technical.
Your ignorance is plain as day in the threads where you accuse IMC of various evils such as being "inaccessable to 80 % of the world" and so on, and the PGP public key blocks (as in blocks of data) become persons unknown "blocking" access, even when this was explained to you
"lawless ones", hackers, IMC "staff" - yeah we're all out to get you aren't we ?
> Let it suffice to say that I will back up any questions about the any research that I have done if I am asked for it
OK explain the "research" you did to arrive at the "scientific" conclusion that PGP public key blocks *of data* are blocks as in blocking access !
Also explain how your never revealed reasons or research that withstood having this *simple fact* explained to you by more than one person more than once.
Dumbed down indeed !
to " one who wants to solve the meta problem"
I held your position for awhile before I saw even a portion of the damage bobby was doing, he only attacked me as well even when I attempted to back up his claim to have the god-given right to post whatever he pleased - that was a warning, then he attacked me again when I kindly explained technical details about the operation of IMC, and a third time when I gently critisized his posting style (I commented on his bible references and formatting)
I've found that one can get lost in the details when trying to grapple with a complicated issue and lose sight of what's important. Please consider this
When a spammer causes actual damage to the newswire that's beyond the issue of censorship (other news pushed off & replaced by spam - the defination of spam being any posts which do so, posts that are the same thing over & over again, posts which are simply pasted without actually typing anything new) |
|
looks good |
by triple anon
noone (nospam) nowhere.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
I just read the policy and it looks good
We had a problem with people threatening a federal judge after the first napster ruling, the operators of the forum decided to bury the issue and had the FBI not only monitoring the forum but actually *posting* as well (reminding people that it's illegal to threaten a federal employee)
I recieved flak for pointing this out - in the context of warning people about their IP's being publicly posted along side thier posts and recommending they post anonymously (the operators being against the idea due to commercial interests and other factors)
A quick note also to say thanks for IMC - the time energy & money you'all put into it
(I used to listen to the college radio station 20 years ago from over 170.miles away to record dr. demento using a big beam antenna) |
|
To "Triple Anon" |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "triple anon"; Big words from an emptyheaded person; that's all I can see. Do you question the veracity of any scientific issue that I have addressed? I have an Ivy degree in Horticulture; I have a Therapeutic Recreation degree (Magna cum laude)on par with the best universities in this country. I formed this department more than anyone else, and I was probably the only recipient of a TR degree, for it is now probably Activity Therapy, which is little more than babysitting. You are spamming this site with blank spaces to waste space, and your anonymity is probably the only reason that you are here. I doubt if you can write a coherent paragraph. Do you doubt Dr. Ivan Panin's Mathematical Proof of the Divine Origin of the 66 Books of the Bible? Those words cannot be duplicated. Not a person could meet his challenge to duplicate that writing. It is proof that the Bible was conceived before there was language. Argue for you limitations and they are yours. Bob |
|
To "Triple Anon" |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Oct 2001
|
Dear "triple anon"; Big words from an emptyheaded person; that's all I can see. Do you question the veracity of any scientific issue that I have addressed? I have an Ivy degree in Horticulture; I have a Therapeutic Recreation degree (Magna cum laude)on par with the best universities in this country. I formed this department more than anyone else, and I was probably the only recipient of a TR degree, for it is now probably Activity Therapy, which is little more than babysitting. You are spamming this site with blank spaces to waste space, and your anonymity is probably the only reason that you are here. I doubt if you can write a coherent paragraph. Do you doubt Dr. Ivan Panin's Mathematical Proof of the Divine Origin of the 66 Books of the Bible? Those words cannot be duplicated. Not a person could meet his challenge to duplicate that writing. It is proof that the Bible was conceived before there was language. Argue for you limitations and they are yours. Bob
FIRST ATTEMPT TO POST THIS COMMENT DID NOT GO THROUGH! |
|
I rest my case |
by Triple anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
After you claimed you could/would back up your "scientific" research -
I asked you *specificly* to explain your research about PGP public key blocks
Someone as "smart" as you can't figure out (just read the damn DOC's) something as simple as public key blocks, can't accept, look into or varify the facts about them and can't *admit he's wrong*
smooth ! |
|
To "triple anon" |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "triple anon"; When did you ask me? Can you recall? I have explained PGP many times. Since I started writing about it, it went from a few hundred entries on Google to close to a million. Now it has changed, the text of the key block has that is. I still believe that there was a restricted access code written into the first version of it. I have also figured that anyone who used it on a public computer was revealing his or her actions to the people who monitor those computers. So now these people who monitor, block, or intercept communications using this key block are themselves being monitored by people who are using their names to access all records of the use of the key block or restricted access codes in the recent past. You are asking me to explain something that can be changed as fast as they want to. You explain the physical manifestations of the key block yourself. How does it work? What purpose could it possibly serve? What appears on the screen when you use that key block? Why is it free? Nothing is free in the computer business. There is no such thing as a gift without problems. Bob |
|
Paul, others: problematic situations and grey areas |
by one who wants to solve the problem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
Paul, you said:
You throw around the term "Censorship" too easily. Please explain to me how Mr. Deaf Messenger has been edited or censored?
---
One example is ML of the Cleveland IMC and how he states that he and his collective made a decision to "edit"/block "deaf messenger's" information. Here's a link, sorry it's not direct to these actual words, I'll try to do so in the future:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=837
(below Robert's there)
This treatment of an independent self-publisher is a precedent which U-C IMC persons like yourself seem to be applauding, and seem to think topically about when implementing yourselves.
You:
Have you read the policy above, do you understand what we are doing?
-----
I understand that "independent" media means one thing to traditionally non-politicized people and often something very different to politicized "activists". I understand that there is a desire by the "activists" to confine the meaning of "news stories" into a certain frame, namely one that serves their ideological/authoritarian interests. I also understand that many people, especially less domesticated/"educated" persons are not often very good at seeing the value of learning "how to write" "news stories" in the Associated Press-imposed method.
Having been myself dealt with by "editors" over the years, I have learned to understand some things, yes. Thank you for asking.
You:
Second, Bobby's messages are not hidden for their content exclusively. If Mr. Deaf Messenger could keep his posts
down to one a week we'd leave him alone--nobody who calls "censorship" seems to want to acknowledge that Bobby
posted consistently for over [a week? a month? a year?] with us doing nothing about it because he kept his posts down to a reasonable frequency.
----
Interesting how you/your community justifies your obfuscation. "Reasonable frequency" sounds like a filter to this veteran of editorial sleight of hand. So, dissenting opinion must be kept reduced to the margins so that it remains within "reason"? I'm skeptical, to say the least.
You:
But when challenged about his views on the newswire by other posters, he takes to deluging it with posts upon posts at a time, pushing all other stories off the front page. That's poor "netiquette" -- it's disrespectful to other posters and to the people who run this site.
-----
You've verified the IP addresses with all of those postings? They are all his? I can see where you're coming with this, in this situation, and it sounds reasonable on its face.
I'd like to propose the idea of making a weekly or bi-weekly (or monthly?) public post on this site each time you must edit these types of situations and directly block individuals or groups (would be a good way of keeping a public record of the types of attacks IMCs are getting, as anti-cointelpro lawyer/author Brian Glick suggests). What do you think about this? Seems like it would be the *accountable* thing to do, in the very least.
You:
While Bobby's posts no longer appear on the Newswire (though his comments to other posts are left intact, I'll note), they have not been removed, just simply moved to a different section.
---
Ah, the "hidden" file method which ML speaks of? Please explain this more directly. Is it or is it not a way of stopping the public who visits this site from reading posts they would normally find? Please don't attempt to play word games with me, because I'm going to just figure that you're up to more obfuscation. If your case is in fact reasonable, don't be afraid to speak clearly and directly.
You:
None of Bobby's posts have ever been edited -- so you're discussion of "edit" is moot.
----
Ah, depending on how one *defines* editing. You aren't *directly* changing mis-spellings or grammatical usage, yet you are, in fact, taking a self-published article/informational thread and putting it into "another place", which apparently is not normally accessible to the public.
Am I wrong?
You:
The only posts that are ever edited are those that open the IMC to legal harassment that we do not have the resources to fight.
----
That makes perfect sense. I have no disagreement with you all there. Where words are directly threatening to you and your legal safety, you should be able to protect yourself from them.
You:
So, again, I lay down the challenge. Read the policy that explains what we actually do (not what you or others conjecture) and explain to us how Bobby, or anyone else for that matter, has been censored.
---
I think I've done this adequately above. I feel that your policy takes advantage of a use of words which mean at least two different things to different people. Like with the "Indpendent" in "Independent Media", there is a certain manipulation going on which obviously is a method of propaganda.
The formula is used over and over again by propagandists on the left, right, and center: Making situations appear as though they are genuinely free-loving in the first months or years of operation, then systematically ushering in limits until the original project looks much like the situation which "the rebels" ostensibly originally dissented from!
You:
My second challenge is to leave your real name, and maybe an e-mail address. I have made my own identity apparent to defend what I think is right. Will you? If not, why not?
----
This is a topic I have thought about long and hard, and compared with those who do use their "names" (though who knows if it is real) and those who prefer pen names or such. Having used my real name on the Net for the last 4 or 5 years now, I've chosen not to, for various reasons.
Imagine me as being similar to the scarf-wearers of the Black Bloc or such groups. You have my IP address, what more do you need to know? As for email address, I've posted one a few times on this topic. Try: crucial_ (at) ziplip.com
(it may be weeks before I access that email, however) |
|
AFAIK, There Is NO ML At Cleveland IMC |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Just to clarify for "one who..."
There is no ML, AFAIK, at Cleveland IMC. If you reread my comments to Mr. Meade's article there, I made no such claim. I do not know what specific policies they may have concerning Mr. Meade or editing decisions. I am with the U-C IMC, as I stated in my comments there.
Also, words almost always can be interpreted differently by different people. That is something that I am unable to alter, nor are you. It is, however, pretty clear to us that Mr. Meade's words are meant to convey hatred and disinformation on a consistent basis, although he often constructs his "articles" in such a way that they have confused and contradictory meanings. Our experience with him has shown us that his views are ones that do not contribute to a relevant and responsible discussion of issues on our Newswire. I understand that you will probably disagree with me here, but this is nonetheless the situation as seen from the U-C IMC collective. I encourage you to get involved with your local IMC so that your views can be heard where they count, at the local level. |
|
