|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Cleveland IMC: Dangerous Precedent Made on "Editing" Procedure? |
Current rating: 0 |
by damn fool
(No verified email address) |
12 Oct 2001
Modified: 17 Oct 2001 |
|
ML and the Cleveland IMC have apparently set a dangerous precedent on censorship. One, by the way, in which other IMC communities are thinking about implementing, it seems. I demystify the rationalizations for "editing" out the "crazies" and expose the method as ultimately similar to mainstream filterers. |
Hello, I call myself "damn fool" on the IMC news spaces, and I hope you will take the time necessary to read about this situation, which has also been published on the public, yet internal-oriented Global IMC board. I see the importance of this topic being posted here, since there has been discussion by ML and others concerning the "crazy" "ranting" of the self-publisher in question. Also, there is apparent agreement in the Urbana-Champagne IMC in using methods like ML and the Cleveland IMC have instituted at their site.
ML of the Cleveland Indy Media Center is not really for "freedom of speech" even though he claims he is. Consider how Chomsky frames the issue:
"Goebbels was for speech that he agreed with. And he was [oriented to censoring] the speech he didn't agree with."
I don't remember (and couldn't immediately locate) the entire quote by Chomsky, but what I remember of it was this:
Unless you defend, precisely, those views which you do not agree with, and vehemently are against, you're not for free speech.
Thus, ML, you're not engaging in genuine "independent" media with the Cleveland IMC, but *censorship*, no matter how you choose to obfuscate the matter; rationalize it how you will, but your "editing" comes down to *a quite similar mode of operation utilized by mainstream filterers*.
Btw, the "he has lots of places he can still post" argument is b.s. Cleveland is setting a *precedent*, and I note that Urbana-Champagne, and possibly other "smaller" "independents" are finding it quite easily to follow suit. This issue, then, is very serious in terms of the "independent media" phenomenon.
As for your talk about Robert Meade being either a covert operative or being used by "government handlers", I find this strange that you would push this argument as you are. Have you not read and taken into consideration Brian Glick's praxis-style suggestions in South End Press' _War At Home: Covert Action Against US Activists and What We Can Do About It_? Perhaps it's time you made some time to read this thin book that costs only $5.
"Irrational" behavior. Do I really need to demystify that game you play?
You say:
"Since IMC is an open publishing system, a certain amount of "noise" has to be accepted. Eventually, there are limits."
I'm going to post this one on the global indy site, for their information.
You directly go on to say:
"Whether Bobby is in fact, a raving mentally-ill flake, is a point that could be called into question. He certainly
demonstrated last night that he is capable of is of acting in ways that seemingly belie his public persona when he flooded the Newswire with articles of a type which have not previously appeared here."
It seems to me that articles, and ideas, which have not appeared here would certainly be grounds, for ANYONE, to want to contribute. From Robert's perspective, then, IMCs of the world are *needing* his perspective. He's convinced of this, apparently, and thus has spent hours and hour, even days, perhaps weeks, making sure the *world* knows about his beliefs, as misdirected as they are.
Like I said before, he's got himself some germs of truth, he seems to have just been diverted by the usual John Birch Society-styled right wing manipulation.
You say:
"There are distinct signs that "Bobby" is actually connected to others which typically flood global IMC with questionable
posts. Are they different individuals, the latest wrinkle on COINTELPRO-type disinformation campaign, or simply one nut with a grudge? Only the government may know for sure. The nature of these actions indicate that it may not actually be a few off-topic posters, but rather a campaign orchestrated to undermine IMC credibility during a time of crisis."
I disagree with your last view, because I have experience with people who are like Robert (including deaf people, whom, like others severely marginalized in our society, can sometimes be victims of propaganda from the right, and the mainstream. Hell, not too many years ago, I myself would have been similar in persistence and semi-articulateness...
If we genuinely want to deal with this situation in an independent manner (together with the ideals of our beliefs), we may also imagine that the "lone nuts" of the world can be USED by cointelpro-styled work, without them even knowing such.
What I'm seeking to get at is that we shouldn't attempt to further marginalize people and their ideas just because they appear to be "crazy" to us. R.D. Laing, the late leftist radical psychiatrist brings this home in his book _The Politics of Experience_ with:
"As domains of experience become more and more alien to us, it will take greater and greater open-mindedness to conceive of their existence."
I stand firmly in dissent that the Cleveland Indy Media Center would choose to "edit" out all "crazy" posts and their posters. Where will this belief system lead us to?
ML said:
"Is this a sign of government covert media operations? Could be. It could also be connected to the threatening phone calls that our IMC has been receiving since Sept. 11. There are many in our society who believe that it proves their patriotism to engage in such childish and reprehensible, not to mention un-American, behavior."
Please don't scapegoat young people--re: "childish"-- (or so-called "mentally ill" people) to elucidate your points.
ML says:
"Whoever they are, they should know that IMCs, for all their open and tolerant nature, will defend themselves from such nonsense. Allowing such behavior to go unchecked only undermines the IMC for the use of regular posters and readers. We regret such actions, but we will also not allow the forces of repression or simple madness to make the IMC unusable."
Another point:
If Robert was in fact a covert operator, or being used in such a way, "editing" posts by him would not be very easy, if even possible. Those who are well-funded to attack us will always find ways to out-manuver these kinds of unsophisticated blocking methods as you are seeking to begin here with Robert. Your "editing" ultimately only blocks out those independent individuals whom have views and understandings of the world which you and a few other ideologically challenged persons vehemently disagree with.
Why don't you let the rest of us free to explore and better understand the Robert Meades of the world?? If all IMCs ultimately elect to implement a policy like Cleveland's IMC, then it will be time, once again to begin a new, more genuinely independent undertaking. Don't you see how this whole situation and your apparent lack of understanding of the broader implications of your chosen policy is similar to the fracas going on with Pacifica Radio and its Berkeley/NYC affiliates?
The rest of ML's post speaks volumes for itself:
One additional point.
You seem to have the same problem as many others, confusing censorship with
editing. There are substantial differences between the two concepts that are
important to understand. It is not even within our power to censor "Bobby". He is
free to post his crap anywhere he pleases still, just not any longer here at U-C
IMC. We have NOT silenced him, just decided that he no longer will be tolerated
for his racist, anti-Semitic views, which were not even communicated in a rational
form.
We consider that continued use of the Newswire to spread such views would
reflect far worse on the IMC than the unfortunate need to restrict his use of the
IMC. This decision took us two months and his escalating irrational behavior to
finally come to the decision that we made. He had plenty of opportunity to get his
point across and there has been nothing new in his stuff, except becoming even
more vile, recently.
Editing is a different matter than censorship and is ultimately the prerogative of the
IMC collective. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to come to meetings
and argue your point.
Tolerance has its limits. Bobby found those limits.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
*****************************
Go see ML's post at Cleveland Indy Media Center for yourself (below Robert's there):
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=837 |
See also:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=837
|
Comments
|
I Hate Censorship, And I Agree With ML |
by Paul Kotheimer Urbana-Champaign IMC
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Oct 2001
|
My understanding is this: According to a consensus of people who volunteer their time to make Independent Media Centers work, moving the commentary of Bobby Deaf Messenger (or whatever he calls himself) is a decision which falls inside the boundaries of acceptable IMC Tech clean-up when:
A.) Posts are of an inordinately high number, thereby knocking other users' work out of front-page accessibility--I'll break down the jargon: The left-hand "NewsWire" column diplays eight or nine of the most recent postings, in reverse-chronological order, so that IMC readers can find "late breaking" postings quickly. If a single user posts 5 articles, that user has monopolized the most accessible part of the conversation.
At a consensus meeting, a facilitator has the responsibility to keep any one voice from monopolizing the conversation. IMC-Tech Geeks perform exactly this role when they move spam out of the NewsWire column.
B.) Furthermore, IMC-Tech has a responsibility to move messages which threaten violence. Why? In my view, it's pretty simple: Threats of violence make people unfree. To say that the old "Freedom of Speech" clause should protect threats of violence uttered in public forums is to misunderstand the word "freedom." Racist hate speech, death threats, and other calls for violence, are NOT FREE. They attempt to manipulate human choices and actions by instilling mortal fear. Just as the sentence "I know where you live and I'm gonna hunt you down" (uttered in a plausible context) is not protected as free speech, neither are the words of bigots who call for genocide. Racist hate speech is the "Gonna Hunt You Down" sentence from the example above, AMPLIFIED society-wide to instill omni-present fear.
If omni-present fear is your idea of freedom, then I say FUCK YOUR IDEA OF FREEDOM and GET OFF MY IMC! --I should reiterate that these are my views and my understanding of things only.
C.) Lastly, IMC-Tech has to operate with the safety of its volunteers in mind. When a posting advocates something illegal, like threatening to bomb a building or assasinate a public official (for example), that posting needs to be removed SO THAT IMC volunteers, going about their business in the IMC space, aren't threatened by police violence just for being there when (potentially) the raid goes down against the building where the server is plugged in.
Ideally, participants who post to the site would have the safety of the IMC volunteers at heart. It's the volunteers who lend their personal computers, their web design expertise, their organizing experience, and their committment to alternative media outlets! If we get busted because you post a flame that threatens people's lives, then you ain't got no public forum left to rant in, dumb-ass.
Which brings me to my final points: Your arguments about Freedom of Speech don't hold water, 'cause the IMC is not the government. And your parallel between ML of the IMC and Goebbles of Nazi Germany is offensive and pea-brained and shows no understanding of how fundamental the difference is between fascism and what an IMC has to offer--non-violent, egalitarian, grass-roots, people-based power.
Here's a parting metaphor for you: A group of people build a house together and then decide, "Hey, let's open up a space in our house and invite people to write and paint and put up photos on our walls." If that group later decides to paint over some of what ends up on those walls, while keeping other parts, then that's THEIR prerogative. As long as nobody is forced to change what they WOULD write, and as long as anyone can host the same thing at THEIR house whenever THEY want, then THAT's freedom. |
|
For A Damn Fool |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Since there has still been some lack of understanding about my views, I feel the need to clear the air a little bit regarding my position on situations that IMCs face regarding people who act in the way that Bobby Meade has on Urbana-Champaign IMC.
First of all, it should be made clear that the reason Mr. Meade is no longer welcome at U-C IMC is not strictly because of the content of his posts. It is true that the disgusting hate-filled rhetoric that fills his posts has been of some concern to us. IMCs generally have mission statements that include a phrase similar to this one from the global IMC:
"Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."
I take this seriously and the U-C IMC takes this seriously. Like all ideas that are the product of humankind, statements like this are subject to interpretation. They can mean different things to different people. That said, we have a rather minimal and loose structure in place that generally operates by consensus and on a local level. The U-C IMC meets on a weekly basis, with our meetings open to the public. There is no mystery about how we conduct our business, no secretive group that pulls the strings behind the scene to manipulate the group in any direction, except the one chosen by consensus by the group as a whole.
In the opinion of the U-C IMC, Mr. Meade does NOT meet these admittedly loose standards. This decision is based on our attempted interactions with Mr. Meade about the fact that his articles can NOT be construed, in our opinion, to meet this standard.
Moreover, he also has continually posted irrelevant articles to the U-C IMC site that also appear on numerous other IMCs, the ones who have not come to similar decisions about his spamming behavior. We go to a great deal of trouble to provide content on our site, both from our local reporters and from a number of respected, national columnists and reporters that are not generally available in the dominant media. The site is open to others and we encourage the posting of relevant articles by members of the public on a regular basis. Many of these articles have been reposted from the global IMC site.
While we do not specifically encourage Mr. Meade to post to the global IMC site, for the obvious reason that we do not believe that those who encourage hate should be encouraged in their views, we do feel that if he feels the need to post anywhere on IMC, it should be to his local IMC, and to the global IMC site ONLY, but only if he feels that his posts might have some wider relevance. Why do we do this? I don’t believe anything says it better than the answer that global IMC provides to this question from the IMC faq page:
Question: "Can I post to all the IMC newswires or e-mail lists with the touch of one button?"
Answer: "No. The site is set up to encourage you to post or e-mail your information to the specific newswire/e-mail list that it concerns."
If we felt Mr. Meade’s posts were relevant to the U-C IMC site and our readers, we would take his articles from global IMC, assuming he is on good enough terms to post there, and repost them on U-C IMC. It is our opinion that this is not the case, yet the record shows that he continually posts to EVERY IMC, every one of his articles.
We believe that any reasonable person, on reading his usual hateful missives, would probably decide that they don’t meet the standard of "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth." They also are rarely, if ever, appropriate for repost on EVERY IMC.
That may simply be our opinion, but we are within our rights to not only hold it, but to do something about those that continually violate such a standard by posting what we consider to be very questionable material to U-C IMC, material that appears in many other places. The consensus of our group is that we do not wish such material to appear on our website.
Mr. Meade is welcome to make a case to the U-C IMC Steering Group about why we should change this policy. He has so far not chosen to do so, just as he refused all of our numerous attempts at dialogue. He continues to insist that we, our website, and our readers should be subjected to his repetitive and disreputable posts.
Anyone visiting our website can find his articles easily, by clicking on the link on our mainpage that leads to hidden articles OR by clicking to go to anyone of a number of other IMCs that still tolerate his spamming behavior, in spite of the consensus that such behavior is inappropriate.
His work does NOT appear on our Newswire because of the fact that it is already available elsewhere. In fact, hate is quite widely available in our society and we feel no special obligation to provide resources to disseminate it when it violates IMC spamming policy, in addition to not meeting the standard set by "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth," in our opinion.
Mr. Meade is certainly entitled to his opinions. Others are entitled to defend his right to spread it. Just the same, WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ALLOW IT ON OUR NEWSWIRE.
People can choose to call it censorship, if THEY want to obfuscate the issue here. The fact remains that Mr. Meade’s posts are, in fact, available not only on the U-C IMC website, but on many other IMCs websites. Indeed, if this was censorship, you would find no trace of him or his posts on U-C IMC. Nor have we kept him from ever speaking his mind or otherwise attempted to prevent him from doing so. The claims that we have infringed on his right to speak are purely and simply as exaggerated as the claims he makes in his posts. His posts are simply NOT on the Newswire, nor should they be, considering the fact that they do not meet the standard of "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth." The simple fact of the matter is that we have used our editorial prerogative to place them where we feel most appropriate, based on the consensus at our IMC.
Those who feel the need to "explore and better understand the Robert Meades of the world" are welcome to do so in our hidden files section.
|
|
One Additional Thought |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
|
There is one thing that is particularly reprehensible about Bobby's posts that directly affects the reputations of IMCs everywhere. That is his constant complaints about "censorship" on IMCs. The fact is that only one of his posts was temporarily hidden prior to a final decision that his future posts would be hidden at U-C IMC. Yet, both here on U-C IMC and on other IMCs, this constant complaint is incessantly voiced by him, although it clearly is not true in the majority of cases. The problems that IMC has had with overloading, which he always interprets as "censorship" of his stuff, have been patiently explained to him a number of times by a number of different people. His insistence on this theme, in the absence of evidence to support it, is particularly irritating to me personally. It could also be a reflection of his real agenda, if it isn't simply delusional, that of a constant attack on the credibility of IMCs. |
|
bobby infringes on the rights of others |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
There have been hundreds of posts that arguably clash with the points of view of U-C IMC volunteers, why are they still in the Newswire? Why is your clearly written, if misguided, critique of the U-C IMC's policies still on the newswire?
The answer: because we don't fear dissent or dissonance, and because we don't censor.
Everyone is free to post and communicate, until their posting behavior inhibits the effectiveness of others' posts. Just like my right to flail my arms about ends where your face begins. In any forum my right to free speech and yell whatever I like ends when you'd like to exercise your right to free speech, too. A forum where everyone is yelling and nobody is understood is useful to noone. A right without a purpose is useless.
When Bobby steps up and offers his volunteer services to the IMC, or when he comes to our doorstep to look me in the eye and explain to me his approach, and then listens to my response, then perhaps we'll have the opportunity to work together to see his posts up on the Newswire again.
But in the limited forum of typing to each other on the Newswire, he has only abused his privileges and not made any reasonable effort to contact any volunteers at the U-C IMC and really work things out. When faced with an argument he just posts the same "response" over and over again. Shit, if I cared that much about posting here, I'd at least do that..
Clear and simple, Bobby's posting behavior is detrimental to the U_C IMC website. If you disagree, then please, meet us face to face in the forum where we make these decisions and take my invitiation to convince us otherwise. Become part of our collective and help us keep the site going, and then you'll be doing something constructive to defend the rights of someone about whom you are very concerned. |
|
Militant Homosexuals and Coprophagists Carry the Day |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "ML" tribe; You are all so full of it, it is pitiful! Your one goal is to make this newswire into a Zionist pro-gay newswire. I will back up anything that I say with sound scientific references or the Bible. Your domination of the newswire with emptyheaded writings is one of the expressed goals of the Zionist movement. You support the fabricated conflicts and any conflict that you can fabricate yourself because you want to use it to curtail freedom of speech. You also support the concealment of disasters such as the "...Coal-gas Fiasco.." Id=2597 because you are intent on continuing the murder of innocent people who are not opposing you. Is your militant homosexual agenda off-topic? What the hell is "spam"? I have defined it to you as I found it in Websters a number of times. "Spam" is worthless junkmail. This is all original stuff, and you are supporting repetitions of mainstream drivel. You claim that I was posting articles. I was postin AN ARTICLE! Identify yourselves and you would probably be gone within a week. Come out of the "closet". Every one of you! Bob |
|
damn fool, please tell us how valuable bobby's comment above is? |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Really, how can anyone reason with the vitriolic homophobic and anti-semitic rant against anyone who differs with Bobby's point of view? There are no facts or logical suppositions there -- just baseless accusations and namecalling. You can not reason with the fundmentally irrational.
Why don't you step up to the plate, damn fool? Why don't you spend your time on our site countering Bobby rather than attemting to prove us guilty of censorship. If you take this on as your duty then I might consider advocating that we reverse our decision on hiding Deaf Messenger's posts. |
|
Further Research Indicates |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
That the "damn fool" is, appropriately enough, Mr. Meade himself.
Considering "damn fool" seems to be able to at least construct a somewhat rational argument, this indicates that, whatever the real name is of the person who posts as Mr. Meade, that the objective of his strange posting behavior is to discredit IMCs in general.
There is little point in arguing about someone's rights when the intention of his posts is none other than to discredit us. He can whine all he wants about how unfair this situation is, but there is no need for concern about us standing on the slippery slope of censorship. He is, in fact, nothing more than roadkill on the way to a better IMC. We're sorry it happened, but we have no real choice other than the one we made.
From Cleveland IMC, where Mr. Meade shares the exact same delusion as "damn fool," that is that I have something to do with the Cleveland IMC. No one reading my posts there would be so mistaken as to believe that I made any such claim, at any time. Yet both Bobby and "damn fool" share exactly the same delusion. Strange, very strange.
Coincidence or COINTELPRO?
Tell us which it is Bobby. Are you just psychotic (which seems less and less likely, although you certainly must be a disturbed individual), someone with a personal grudge against IMCs, or working for the feds? |
|
From Cleveland IMC |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
The coincidentally common delusion of Both Mr. Meade and "damn fool" is below. This is from a story that Bobby posted on Clevlend IMC:
"It is a sad sorry sight if U-C IMC's
"ML" and tribe control Cleveland IMC;
thus I expect to be censored. I
suspect that these interlopers are all
militant homosexuals, professing
sweet caring concern and superior
intelligence; i.e. devils disguised as
"angels of light" 2 Corinthians 11:14,
keeping you in the "dark" & killing
with kindness." |
See also:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=862
|
|
Morons! |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "ML" tribe: You are all illiterate as hell. Did you even read my comment? "ML" moved on me. He more or less slandered me around the globe, and he would not answer to me at all there is no discussing anything with you guys because you are intent on your Zionist pro-gay agenda. Am I a homophobe? A homophobe fears homosexuality. A homopath kills homosexuals. Why would you call me a homophobe? The content of that poem came from homosexuals. Go read those newspapers. Am I anti-Semite? You will not define Semite. The Muslims are Semites, and they are accused of being anti-Semite. I ask questions about Semites, and I never get answers. The alleged Jews claim to be holy people, but they won't defend their claim. Are Turko-Mongols Jews? Most of those in Israel are Turko-Mongol. I defined "spam" for you as it is listed in Webster's new dictionary, and nothing that I have written fits that definition. Your talk is the spam, all of it is. You believe that your Zionist pro-gay system just can't be beat; that is why you are so surprised that I expose the stupidity of your reasoning. You believe that IMC is your own personal toy to trifle with as you please. You are professing that IMC is a backbreaking undertaking that requires countless hours of your tampering with it when in reality IMC is a more or less totally automated process. You might as well list it as a militant homosexual branch of IMC, and the same goes for Cleveland. You are stealing public property "ML", and you are using fabricated authority to justify it. If you claim that anything that I say is not true, prove it! And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt! That is what democracy is all about. I have revealed a great deal of information on myself on other sites, but it is not worth doing so here if you are not reading what I am typing to you. You might succeed in keeping me off this site, but you are going to destroy this site in the process. I bet there are plenty of places ready to replace Cleveland and Urbana-Champaign IMCs, so you might as well just come out of the "closet" and show us what you are really all about. Hasta luego, adios. Bob |
|
Comments Don't Post If They Don't Appear Immediately |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Dear "ML" tribe: You are all illiterate as hell. Did you even read my comment? "ML" moved on me. He more or less slandered me around the globe, and he would not answer to me at all there is no discussing anything with you guys because you are intent on your Zionist pro-gay agenda. Am I a homophobe? A homophobe fears homosexuality. A homopath kills homosexuals. Why would you call me a homophobe? The content of that poem came from homosexuals. Go read those newspapers. Am I anti-Semite? You will not define Semite. The Muslims are Semites, and they are accused of being anti-Semite. I ask questions about Semites, and I never get answers. The alleged Jews claim to be holy people, but they won't defend their claim. Are Turko-Mongols Jews? Most of those in Israel are Turko-Mongol. I defined "spam" for you as it is listed in Webster's new dictionary, and nothing that I have written fits that definition. Your talk is the spam, all of it is. You believe that your Zionist pro-gay system just can't be beat; that is why you are so surprised that I expose the stupidity of your reasoning. You believe that IMC is your own personal toy to trifle with as you please. You are professing that IMC is a backbreaking undertaking that requires countless hours of your tampering with it when in reality IMC is a more or less totally automated process. You might as well list it as a militant homosexual branch of IMC, and the same goes for Cleveland. You are stealing public property "ML", and you are using fabricated authority to justify it. If you claim that anything that I say is not true, prove it! And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt! That is what democracy is all about. I have revealed a great deal of information on myself on other sites, but it is not worth doing so here if you are not reading what I am typing to you. You might succeed in keeping me off this site, but you are going to destroy this site in the process. I bet there are plenty of places ready to replace Cleveland and Urbana-Champaign IMCs, so you might as well just come out of the "closet" and show us what you are really all about. Hasta luego, adios. Bob
PS: First attempt to post this comment failed, for there was no notice of submission. I checked via another computer, and "ML" had posted the Summary that I submitted to Cleveland for the "Ithaca's Coal-gas Fiasco Continues?" article in the meantime. What do you think "ML" ? Does that justify your actions? You have the problem! Who stole the article? Did you steal the article? I posted that because I knew you were going to steal the article "like a dog returning to its vomit". |
|
Bob is a joke. |
by D. Hill
dhill (nospam) bellarmine.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Bob is a troll. He writes this stuff in the hopes that he'll provoke a response. He'll say anything if he thinks it'll get you riled up. This is evidenced by his multiple, often contrdictory positions, i.e "I'm not a homophobe", coupled alongside "Gays are an unholy scourge." His arguments are laughable. That's what I suggest for you folks; laugh at him.
That's what I do.
Hey Bob! Pbbbbbbb!! I'm laughing at you!! |
|
You caught us! |
by Dr. Evil, a Gay Zionist
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Well, Bob, you caught us with our pants down. Yes, we're all gay zionists, and we're intent on one thing and one thing only -- keeping you off the site, because you and only you have the immense power to reveal our real agenda to everyone with your carefully reasoned, articulate, substantiated, and all-too-frequent posts!
Only by disguising our pro-gay, zionist politics as fringe grassroots left-wing alternative media will we be able to achieve the world domination we feel is due to us as gun-wielding, homosexual Jews. Because he who controls the website that 0.005% of the people read controls the hapless minds of the gentile breeders whose wills we intend to crush with a locally-produced, consensus-based propoganda campaign that will reach into tens of homes.
We will plan this alternative media onslaught in secret, open-to-the-public meetings in our hidden downtown Urbana storefront, all the while cleverly disguised as a bunch of frumpily-dressed activists with a variety of religious backgrounds and sexual orientations.
Once we have achieved our goal, there will be nowhere left to hide, except the tens of thousands of other websites and discussion forums on the web.
(see Paul's response) |
|
Letter From God About Bobby |
by D. Hill via ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Oct 2001
|
Hi D.,
You're right about Bobby. We've decided to stop wasting time on him and just pull the cord on the trap door.
Besides, with the info we've offered to the local metal health authorities back in Ithaca, the paperwork for his involuntary commital should be just about complete.
I did find the letter you received from God about Bobby to be enlightening, so I will repost it here for the benefit of those who might actually believe that Bobby does have some "special" insight.
Heaven, Inc. Oct. 10, 2001
To Whom It May Concern:
It has come to My attention that a certain Robert Meade has been making posts to several internet websites claiming to be a spokesman for Heaven, Inc. I can authoritatively say that Mr. Meade is not, and never has been, employed by Heaven, Inc. Any claims made by Mr. Meade are in no way representative of the position of this organization. Heaven, Inc. has made great strides in the last 2000 years towards becoming a more diverse, pluralistic organization. While We admit Heaven, Inc. has had it's share of problems, work is ongoing, and We remain committed to providing the best after-life of the market.
Our attorneys have contacted Mr. Meade, with the request that he immediately cease his activities.
Best regards,
God
CEO and Chairman of the Board, Heaven, Inc. |
|
Bobby=damn fool=one who... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Oct 2001
|
All these people are the same author whose sick joke has gone on too long.
From "one who..." comments to the U-C IMC Use Policy:
http://urbana.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2544&group=webcast
"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 "
Please note that "one who..." also is under the same delusion as "Bobby" and "damn fool" that I am somehow involved in the Cleveland IMC.
How could all these people get the same thing WRONG?
Because they are likely all the same person, with an apparent serious problem with a split personality. Or perhaps he just gets his jollies stirring up shit on IMC. Or he has some sick obsession with proving how "authoritarian" the U-C IMC collective is because we would prefer that the website not carry gay-baiting, anti-Semitic preaching.
It should be noted that "Bobby" ignored the connection already made between him and "damn fool" in his latest comments (what’s the matter, don’t want to go there for some reason?) and which can now be extended to include "one who..." in his comments above. Bobby, in the past, has apparently never read or commented on the posts of others on IMC. How did he all of the sudden find these comments attached to a story other than one he wrote himself and join in the fray? Because he wrote the story above and started this thread, all under the pseudonym of "damn fool" himself.
In fact it seems now that ALL those who have offered a complaint about our dealings with Bobby on U-C IMC are, in fact, Bobby himself, or whoever has concocted the character of "Bobby." It should further be noted that NONE of these "people" have bothered to show up at meetings of the collective to voice an opinion in person.
It is difficult to fathom how anyone with a legitimate political argument to make would do so by inventing a piece of trash such as "Bobby" to make his point. It appears that whatever argument that is being made is so weak that it will not pass scrutiny by simply writing and posting it to IMC.
We do have an e-mail address for this individual now.
crucial_ (at) ziplip.com
Just more bait? Who cares, the welcome has been worn out and we are not amused. Needless to say, he is toast here.
But we do intend to continue to make fun of the concept of "Bobby", the IMC's equivalent to having W as unelected, idiot president. |
|
test/push |
by .
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Oct 2001
|
|
. |
|
To the Frustrated Ones |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear Critics: You said that my stuff was "spam". I defined spam for you. You would never say what spam meant to you. You say that I am trying to discredit you. How? Why? Where? I have been unjustly attacked by you when you are obviously not reading my articles at all. You can't justify stealing public property. Identify yourselves and you would probably all be gone within a week. Hasta luego, adios. Bob |
|
Hey Bobby |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Oct 2001
|
Why don't you come to the Midwest IMC conference that will be held at here in Urbana this coming weekend, Oct. 19-20? You can anonymously mingle with the crowd and check us out. You might even have to speak up for yourself, as I'm sure others will want to know more about how our process of tracking you and your other identities down is done. We will definitely be explaining to others why it is important that you and your multiple identities be put down.
I can assure you that we do read your articles. We draw straws to see who gets their turn at reading your disgusting crap and then they summarize it for the rest of us.
And our definition of spam is pretty much the one you quoted. Stupid you are not hip enough to know that the definition of spam also includes the unwelcome multiple postings of articles that are available elsewhere on the IMC network. If you disagree, we really don't care, as we go by OUR definition of what spam is and you ARE definitely it.
We feel that people are disgusted by your hate-filled posts and may not return to our site. That is why we feel that even your presence is discrediting.
Meanwhile, fuck off. |
|
uh.... |
by damn fool
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Oct 2001
|
ML, et al, I will be seeing you in Urbana, probably on the weekend you mentioned. And, yes, I am a "disturbed" person; I am disturbed by a society that cannot/will not see value in seeking to understand, before judging others. It's one thing to note a pattern of cointelpro-style warfare, and another to read between the lines of someone who appears as deeply lonely, creative, and as interesting as Mr.Meade.
Strange, very strange that you would try to apparently character assasinate me by trying to pair me up with Meade. Your "further research" is a sham, because anyone with access to my IP will understand a difference. Do you all not have access to my IP/ISP when I visit here?
In reality, I probably know more than one of you, personally. Isn't that interesting?
As I've said so many times, Meade's view seems to come from the point of view of a "right wing" faction of the sort regularly published by John Birch Society types. Why don't y'all want to explore that? You don't see the value in understanding people at all? (how about some female's viewpoints here? Do they have another take on this, as I would imagine?)
Anyone monitoring the right-wing/conservative alternative media milieu, like the slickly published mags like "The New American" or "Media Bypass" will note a quite parallel situation with that of Meade's mindset. Most, if not all, of these publications are oriented to attacking zionism (the more extreme or hardliner side of Jewish beliefs), while acting as if *all Jews* are zionists which of course, they're not (Many Jews, as I've said before, even openly dissent from and seek to weaken the zionist grip on places like Israel).
Paul K:
I can agree with you on parts of *A)* in your post. Though I will point out that "spam" is relative, as I point out to ML below.
I simply wish to promote that the people involved critically scrutinize the situation more closely. The issue is not simply one of the emotionally potent oversimplification idea of "spam".
As a dissident myself from major "norms" I suspect that I'm not alone in how *we* are treated by the mainstream corporate media. Our sustained challenge is labeled "spam." As well, our personalities are called into psychological question, etc. etc. All seeking to divert serious attention away from dissenting ideas.
Here is why I value Meade's posts:
I agree that Meade goes overboard in some ways. Still, Israeli "Jewish" policymakers do promote terror upon Palestinians, and Chomsky (of Jewish heritage himself) has consistently been called all kinds of vitriol for pointing this "anti-semitic" truth out. Those duped by right-wing games just go a few steps further, saying all Jewish, or Gay people do something bad, when in fact only a much smaller minority faction of each group does stuff that should be dissented from.
Your IMC will do as you make consensus to do. All I've sought to do is bring attention to situations which seemed to me to be problematic, if not seemingly in the short run, then quite possibly in the long run.
For instance, by labeling prolific writers as "spammers", and "crazy", or totally having no "value" and worthy of being put into the "hidden" section or completely silenced makes me figure that you will do the same thing to persons who give you a stronger challenge...i.e. me. At this point, at least two of you are attempting various character assasinations of me just because I have chosen to question things as far as I have.
Will this be a heightening pattern? How do you deal with dissent within your own community?
So what are y'all doing by engaging me in the manner you have? Are you playing some sort of ideological game(**)?
(**"leftists" don't want "rightists" to be viewed as having ANY "credibility" whatsoever, and vice-versa with "rightists" towards "leftists").
"Independent" media persons are judging the "quality" of one person's ideas about what "independent media" means to him (Meade). I would suspect it would be best to just let those we vehemently dissent from to post, EXCEPT for threats, as you say (on BOTH sides).
That ML apparently is a leading voice in these precedents (hiding away posts we strongly disagree with) in the IMC project, and at the same time is seeking to say that I am Meade, ought to make you all a bit suspicious; or maybe he's just over-stressed and could use a weekly shoulder massage and some company on the weekends...?
(What was the value of ML to cross-post his attacks against Meade all over the IMC circuit, not just with the Global group--in hypocritical denial of his own rule of such posting? It seemed to me that he was promoting that other IMCs take on the kind of policy you're formulating, even though they don't seem to be having a problem with any actual spamming; even more, how about the angle that by ML going to such lengths to put the word out about Meade, wasn't he himself provoking Meade? Why would anyone want to do this? Probably he's just angry, in a very similar way to Meade. What do the rest of you think? Note, I don't want to attack ML myself; I want to work on solving these challenges.)
Let's remember that there is a certain euphoria for deeply alienated people in general to be able to post their ideas/photos/art/news around the world so that thousands of people will see them. I enjoy that euphoria myself; don't you?
*We are all* enjoying this freedom! It makes us feel like we're making a difference. Enter Meade. He sounds like a lonely human being similar to a kkk official I once read about in "Readers Digest". This kkk guy spewed lots and lots of hate towards this Jewish couple, until the Jewish couple began responding to him only with love and compassion. Over time, the kkk guy began to be moved outside of his shell, until the Jewish couple won him over to being a thoughtful, emphatic *human being*! I love that story, and wish to emulate it myself, and share it so that others may also!
This will be my approach to Meade and anyone else I see the value of bridging with. Not limited to artificial lines of systems of belief! Limited only by my imagination on how I might bring out the humanity of others.
We educate ourselves about cointelpro-style manipulations, implement suggestions about dealing with such which make sense to us (re: for me, Brian Glick makes a lot of sense), and at the same time, we "keep the door open" for individuals to opt out of the endless (and ultimately impossible) routine of rigid mindset!
So, why not let the diversity which seeks to post, do so (as long as they don't make direct threats, as you say), and promote an atmosphere of MUTUAL HEALING?!
Finally, why can't the Urbana/Cleveland IMC see the value of an ACLU-style approach to civil liberties/free speech? Why is such so dangerous for IMCs? Can't we orient ourselves to "protection by enrichment" strategies of non-authoritarian mutual education??
A question:
When is threatening violence? Are anarchist black blocs going to be included in this type of editing you propose? What if they start to post news about their wanting to smash banks? Look! Catch yourself at exactly what your rules mean!
Paul K, on C):
I agree about the situation of removing threads which are DIRECT provocations and put your staff into harm's way without their consent. At the same time, the Seattle IMC has been fucked with by the pawns of power for doing much less. Dont' fool yourself, Leftist history is full of organizations being fucked with even if they are not doing such things as you point out (i.e. cointelpro).
Strange that you stoop to calling me a "dumb ass" and the rest of that. What about people makes you call questioners such names?
My use of Chomsky's thought on free speech was not meant to be an attack of ML. It was simply pointing out a truth. What does "government" have to do with Chomsky's angle on free speech? It seems beside the point to me. If you recall, Chomsky said that quote in the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" and was responding to a university journalist on a topic quite related to Meade's. The situation was that Chomsky had defended the speech of a man whom had spoken out, with many attacks--from the French government and individuals--about his views on there being no "holocaust". Chomsky got into trouble with ideologues for DARING to defend the speech of one he would join with others in flatly dissenting from. I am similar to Chomsky in this regard when I defend Meade's right to say what he says (minus direct threats of personal violence); I also am like Chomsky when I strongly dissent from Meade's take.
Back to ML:
The idea of what is "irrelevant" to Urbana's IMC sounds awfully fishy to me. How about spelling that out clearly?
"Spamming" to ML seems to mean:
Meade (or any other *unauthorized* person) posting his threads to multiple IMC sites. On the other hand, Paul K seems to define "spamming" as I (and most people) define it: multiple posts in succession, of 5 or more at a time, meriting intervention in some way.
This is exactly the kind of manipulation which I seek to call attention to!
We've spent a lot of time discussing all of this, and my hat is off to all of you who have responded in rational, even thoughtful ways. In the past (and probably the future) I myself have been misunderstood by organizations/individuals calling for "peace and justice" and this is where I come from when I insert my questions and critique here. I thought there might be more people like me here, who could see how things can get very misty very fast.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this in some detail, and I know that this exercise will be valuable to all of us-- especially fledgling IMCs like the Urbana one; because in excercises like this, we all hone in on that which is paining us so much about our disagreements or alternate views, and may better articulate ourselves in the future.
In being practiced at articulating ourselves better, we may be able to avoid emotives and root division (which keep us weaker than we could be), and able to dive right to underlying situations going on, like when some people are anti-gay or against all Jews, they may really be against individuals in these groups who go about situations in fucked-up ways that *need* to be exposed or dissented from. As a so-called "gay" man myself, I strongly oppose what passes for much of the political "leadership" of the gay movement. So there are details that DO need to be scrutinized, and sometimes even "disreputable" posters can bring valuable gifts which we can explore further! (What better place could we have than an IMC filled with both highly experienced and inexperienced persons whom all have crucial value!)
Paul R:
I agree with you on only one point about Bob (Meade)'s post below, that it is, on its face, problematic and troll-like. However, there's a CONTEXT which I think we should look at which has obviously helped to color his words in a heightening way:
Few people have taken Meade's words on as they would the words of an articulate newsperson, in, say, cnn or your local tv station. Instead, they've REACTED emotively, in a consistent way, to Meade's posts; just continuously calling him "Bobby" has a infantile connotation to it and is provoking him, certainly, since he never calls himself "Bobby" (the name is certain to be one his friends call him, for example). Thus I prefer to call him Robert or Meade and show some basic respect for an individual whom I disagree with in the CONTENT of his ideas.
I do see that Robert has made some interesting general points, and that is probably why groups like the John Birch Society "educate" their readers with such topical methods. The topical method does pinch a sane nerve in people who don't personally know gay people or Jewish people, yet is always used to manipulate thought towards emotionally potent oversimplifications in which the propagandee is not aware. If he/they could become aware, they would probably want to discard such ideas; especially if they were able to see the value of such! See what I'm getting at, yet?
I thus see Meade's value as provoking a kind of bridge between people socialized with leftist-oriented ideas and people socialized with rightist-oriented ideas. As inarticulate and misguided as he is, the current of his thought is shared by a great many people who don't realize how they are manipulated by hype/propaganda.
Of course, if followers of leftist-ideas start understanding this concept "too much" they'll inevitably apply it to the ideas they are surrounded by. My challenge to you and the rest of the apparent vanguard here and elsewhere:
What's more important? People potentially understanding each other in root or heart ways and joining together (from the left AND right, etc.) to become a seriously significant challenge to today's war and injustice, or sticking to forms of topical communications (i.e. "news", "ettiquette") because ideology/fear confines us?
Look, this project has a tremendous potential here for promoting bridges between our well-divided factions across the left, AND the right-wing view of the situation! Why not take advantage of that potential???!
And, yes, I will be taking Bobby on, where I think I may be able to. And at the same time, I look forward to engaging with persons with similar views. (The bible thing, tho, I'll try to avoid; let someone else handle that one)
cross-posting this on the global site, Cleveland, and Urbana.
|
|
Damn Fool Still Damn Foolish |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Oct 2001
|
The connection I drew between you and Bobby is based on the fact that you and he (and at least one other multiple personality that you have already confessed to) are the only ones that have confused my relationship with U-C IMC with my totally non-existent relationship with Cleveland IMC. There is no reason from a review of my posts that anyone would get the impression that I had anything to do with Cleveland. Obviously, coincidentally, and bizarrely, you and Bobby share the same misreading of the facts.
As for your pained arguments about how manipulative we are by putting him where he will not insult our readers (but where he can easily be found if they are curious about what is unacceptable at our IMC), you should cease with the confusion of this editing with what you claim is "censorship." There is freedom of speech, but there is also freedom of the press. Bobby and/or you are free to decide what you want to say. However, our collective has the freedom of the press to make editorial decisions about whether it is appropriate material to remain on the Newswire. I will remind thick-headed you once again that Bobby and/or you still remains available at our site, unsilenced, but where you can do no harm by anyone's mistaken assumption that it might somehow represent the U-C IMC.
Unlike many IMCs, ours has a physical presence and a relatively high profile in our community. Our space is used by many different groups. We want it to be a welcoming space. We do not want someone who is gay or Jewish or whatever (Bobby and/or you feels like hating on any particular day) feeling uncomfortable about entering and using our space. Accordingly, posts such as what Bobby and/or you make that would cause concern and discomfort to our visitors should be placed in such a manner as to indicate that they do not IN ANY WAY represent the views of the U-C IMC nor could be mistaken as such. Bobby and/or you may not like that, but that is the way we feel.
If you are actually going to attend and identify yourself, you will probably be asked to explain yourself, since you seem to be ignoring the rather obvious relationship that you share with Bobby which I have noted above. Exactly what is it that prompted you to draw a relationship between me and Cleveland IMC? I don’t believe you have an answer for that, proving my point.
If you really are involved in the IMC movement, you are free to persuade your collective of the wisdom of your ways. What you decide to do is not our business. As for my "spam," it was nowhere Bobby and/or yours wasn't. I did not do anything but bring attention to the fact that Bobby and/or you was in fact violating IMC policy about making multiple posts to all IMC sites. You would do well to review that policy before trying to make an argument otherwise, since the behavior indicated was in fact a violation of that policy, although it certainly goes unenforced much of the time.
Your extreme concern about my following Bobby around, along with your cluelessness about what is considered spam on IMC, indicates at least two more parallels between you and Bobby. Despite your denial, I believe my arguments reinforce the case I've already made that you are simply a crank, out to discredit IMCs everywhere, whether by spamming "Bobby" or by calling into question our right to determine our own editorial policy.
As for what we may be doing in dealing with your ISP, that is privileged information. If you really don't have anything to be worried about, why be concerned?
If you really have such a deep-seated passion for freedom of speech, I suggest you start your own website and call it Anything-goes. That way you can run things exactly the way you want them, without trashing IMC sites.
Or is that exactly what you really want? |
|
You Know It's the End! |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear Critics: You all know that it is the end of your system that can't be beat that is coming up. Whether you know it or not, you have been promoting a Zionist pro-gay coprophagic agenda. I sent you the "Closet" because you were reacting the way all gays reacted when the number became an issue. That is why the content of that poem was published in the gay newspapers. The number had divided them against each other. Some contended that gays were good people who could come out of the closet, accept the number, and prove that they were good gay people. Others probably contended that they had to stay in the closet and secretly move on anyone who opposed those who were openly gay or anything that gays in general supported. You have taken this practice to IMC because of the anonymity that it affords you. Multiple posts are done because a lot of people access only their local IMC site. If you have read it on another site, there is no problem with it being repeated. It's like finding the same book in two different bookstores. You guys are behaving like these articles physically assault you. I further contend that, in spite of its topic, "The Closet" is the best poem since Shakespeare. Go chew on that. Bob |
|
Did You Ever Think... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Oct 2001
|
When you say, "Multiple posts are done because a lot of people access only their local IMC site" that they may want to only visit their local IMC in an attempt to avoid you? We used to be able to do this, until you got pissed at global IMC and started spamming everyone.
And the link to global IMC is right on our page at the left. Did you miss that? I don't think so. What a lame excuse for you rotten behavior. Along with every other IMC, which, unfortunately, is all TOO handy for pathetic people like you to exploit.
And how do you put up with seeing "damn fool" in the mirror every morning? It must be tough hating gays so much and having to live with one as another one of your personalities. Actually, I can think of few more appropriate, yet non-violent, tortures for someone like you, who has a constant and unjustified hatred eating away at their soul to have to live with what they hate. Maybe you'll eventually learn a little tolerance from him, if you pay attention. It'd be a good thing. |
|
You Asked for It! |
by Bob
na (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Oct 2001
|
|
Dear "ML" tribe: I will start an effort to change all IMC sites that cater to people like you who have a perverted sense of what this newswire is for. I will try to get your sites categorized according to the Zionistic pro-gay coprophagic agenda that they support. I will expose every game that you have used to promote the lax security that necessitates multiple posting attempts and much more. I hope that you are all really meeting in the Midwest this weekend, for a lot of people want to know who you are. Bob |
|
ML: explanations and in-depth thought promoting (i claim) |
by d(amn) fool
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2001
|
I seem to have been mistaken about you being involved with the Cleveland IMC. Where that mistake comes from is when you were talking about making sure that Meade's posts would end up in some kind of a "file hell", meaning, I figured, Meade's posts wouldn't be published at all at Cleveland's IMC.
I myself experienced a few times where I was not able to respond to Cleveland IMC posts (on Meade threads), and wondered if that is what you meant by "file hell"... but this may've been more due to the IMC being over-burdened with many posters at once (on the entire wire) than anything else. I am rather ignorant about the technical sides of these gadgets called computers, and have a history dealing with situations where we had hackers were making attacks on us. So it is easy for me to *think* that some technical situation that I don't understand *is* someone/editor seeking to *block* my point of view, etc. than just a glitch. If it is true that I really don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff, I will stop.
And, yes, I do suffer from "going off the deep end" sometimes (At least I can admit it.) It may be mostly due to my *caring* in a society where it appears that *most* do not and will not care, but would rather let off their meta frustrations at each other. (Not that I'm perfect about my meta frustrations, either; I do seek to wake up to and deal with such)
Look, I have a close deaf friend who is somewhat like Meade, right down to the religious fervor; all he ever gets from 98% of people online is no interest in understanding; I seemed to be amongst a nonexistent minority who spent a good while seeking to understand, and found a hellofan excellent guy underneath a lot of misguided belief systems....now the guy posts in a much more relaxed, thoughtful manner, and many more people have learend that *caring* about someone they don't immediately understand can be much more rewarding.
So this is one reason why I've wrapped myself up in this here and chosen to question it at such length; another reason is that people who spout hysteria about entire groups do seem to have been manipulated by propaganda in some way, and do seem to be reachable, when we don't just attack them personally.
Were I in your shoes, set up to take on a rigid position in your IMC (as it seems you are doing), I might well act as you have acted...though I don't understand why YOU would go to such lengths (on multiple IMC boards as far away as Colorado, if I recall accurately) to attack Meade's ignorant views (about ALL human beings in groups like gays or Jews). What is the point of such? I really don't fathom the point to that behavior, except as a way to piss people like him off further.
Am I missing something? Why would you spend so much time away from the U-C IMC seeking to make blasts upon someone who has no real foot to stand on? (Note: I'm not seeking to pigeon-hole YOU, so why are you doing such to ME?) Please help me understand!
Secondly, your reference to "multiple personality" really bites. Why must you bite like this? You bite (but more like punch) first and don't seem to give a fuck about the consequences. Makes we want to react similarly, but I catch myself. What good will flaming do? I use various nicks because my experience with boards shows that many posters on these things are at war with those who don't comply with their often topical views--which keep "right" and "left" perpetually duking things out; look at your own record with Meade: what do you hope to accomplish by constantly flaming him? And me?
More likely, with Meade, you'll just make him angrier, and have him wanting to focus on you as the way he can solve the bigger frustrations in his life. I don't see what good can come of that! Seems to me that everyone would be much more constructive if we took people on as WE would like to be taken on--for me, that means my seeking to be as beautiful as i know how towards you (while definitely angered by your biting methods; show me how i deserved that, please, and i'll work to make an attitude adjustment!)!
editing and/or censorship:
if the edtiors of cnn's (or any other mainstream outlet) discussion board resorted to this method of hiding posts in a similar place, would you not yell bloody murder?
You said:
I will remind thick-headed you once again that Bobby and/or you still remains available at our site, unsilenced, but where you can do no harm by anyone's mistaken assumption that it might somehow represent the U-C IMC.
------
Are you saying that you/U-C IMC will now be putting my thread-beginning posts/news items in the hidden section?? Or am I missing something? What do you mean by "where you can do no harm"?
You:
We do not want someone who is gay or Jewish or whatever (Bobby and/or you feels like hating on any particular day) feeling uncomfortable about entering or using our space.
--------
Look, I told you that I am "gay" myself (though I dissent on confining terms which tool me away from my individuality), and have close Jewish friends (both practicing and non/ex). So please watch how you attach your judgments of me. (You are very good at being provacative; why is that?) I can play this game and tell you that **I** am uncomfortable entering space where YOU and your knee-jerk hype are, but of course that isn't going to hold water with you/the U-C IMC, is it?
This bullshit (yeah, your provocations have struck home, happy now?) about worrying about whether *some* people (namely, those groups now politically "acceptable" in the Left) are "uncomfortable" or not...look, you're sounding like politically-correct femi-fascists now...with a hierarchy of who gets to be "comfortable" and who doesn't.
What is the value of seeing to it that even some people be "comfortable" anyway? Don't they know that getting involved in actually thinking, or even thinking things through carefully, in this society is not allowed? Don't they realize that *youth* is a "phase" for "rebellion" and that when it's "time" to "grow up" YOU ALL will be EXPECTED to SHUT UP and be crazy sheep like everyone else?!
I *know* I sound bizaare, but isn't it about time y'all began wondering if the gist of my words have the kind of value you all may need? (I'm aware that I'm speaking here in a *process*; that when I speak when I really think, I hope to hear when you in the general audience *really* think, and thus I can come to a better understanding, and we can even possibly bridge with each other towards *mutually beneficial outcomes*!)
In my experience, perpetual dichotomists on ALL rigidized sides, from the "well educated" centrists and mainstreamers to the politically organized Right and Left-wing (and probably most anarchist groups), all "educate" or perpetuate the "education" of their followers/leaders-in-training with emotionally potent oversimplifications (re: topical thought). (((Is this not true?))) Thus, cultures of *Conform to the faith or be smited* are born and no one (who's "reputable") notices.
Then, when opposite sides become entrenched, force is called for as the "only" way to "solve" the problem, when, if each faith had been able to see value in the gist of "disreputable", even solo warnings, the situation probably wouldn't have to have come to such a pointed end.
Thus, you seem to seek to pointedly seal my fate/possible contribution in the minds of those you claim to defend with words reducing the content of my questions and challenge to being merely "bizaare" and pathological in some way, while peppering your invective with bites and other warfare. And so you do so against the Robert Meades of the world.
The local (U-C) leading thinker and composer, Herber Brun, said it best, when it came to the idea of "comfort" (If I had one of his quotes with me, I'd put it here); perhaps you'd do well to understand his ideas instead of just apparently parroting femi-fascist-like hype. See his book (Paul K may have a copy) "My Words and Where I Want Them".
Brun saw right through motions to *protect by restriction* (as you seem to lean towards) and preferred to promote *protection by enrichment*: **strengthening our understanding and resolve by being exposed to diversity of belief and tendency and being able to freely explore all which interest us**, instead of seeking to artificially restrict our understanding and resolve by blocking (in some way) other points of view, articulate or not, "comfortable" or not. Thus, people, gays and Jews included, can be better equipped to deal with others whom are still quite confined within the hype they've been taught; and in a way in which hype-promoters can't "rationally" block!
My involvement with the IMC movement
I have not really been directly involved in IMCs (past the periphery), and I'm sorry that you got such an impression. I see myself as being involved in an informal capacity. I do tend to identify more with those whom lean towards the left side of the political spectrum model, than I do with the right side. Yet my identification is with those whom are traditionally the recipients of Leftist information (as I was). I seek not to be an ideological soldier of ANY *mindset*; I'm more of an *explorer* of methodologies and stated ideals, leaning into the stated ideals of an anarchist future of "mutual aid and egalitarian ethos." Call me an *original thinker* who has put his heart and spirit into these kinds of ideas in all seriousness for more than a decade now (beginning when I first began waking up from my uncriticalTrust in professional "authority" figures of all stripes).
So now you have it. And a lot more information about me (not just for you, but for ALL to see). I'm not afraid of telling you my name in person, but oriented to being much more tactful on the Net, for important reasons.
As for my a.k.a. "damn fool" that comes from my cynical awareness that I must be a *damn fool* to even say all of this, to spend time seeking to promote in-depth thought in a society extremely well enamored to emotionally potent oversimplification/propaganda.
Btw, note my ISP...it's different. |
|
Dear D. Fool |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2001
|
Ultimately, your exact relationship to Mr. Meade is of less interest to me than the fact that you are at least someone that a dialogue can be held with. That said, I think is important to clarify some issues that you have brought up.
I have had a number of close personal relationships at various levels with friends and associates that are involved with issues of mental health. Some of my friends have been damaged from their encounters with the mental health system. Others have been active participants in the system. This complex is as complicated as any other structure in our society, perhaps more so.
One can try their damnedest to help people, but help can not be effective until a person is willing to receive it. Sometimes, help can be a disguise for repression. Ultimately, those who have the ability to operate in society without self-destructive tendencies do those that cannot no favors if they encourage and enable behavior that undermines the ability of a person to act in socially acceptable (Note: I do NOT say OPTIMAL) ways. We have a duty to try to engage others in dialogue, but when the other person displays behaviors that undermine their own best interests repeatedly, it is important to call them on that behavior and set expectations for behaviors that are more likely to allow them to interact effectively with others.
One can argue about where that line is crossed, but to constantly enable it is NOT in the best interests of anyone, whether they agree or not. Mr. Meade is not the first to find themselves in this situation at the U-C IMC. We had a similar experience with a fellow that was homeless. We did our best to engage him by using the resources of the IMC. He was under the illusion, in many ways similar to Bobby, that he owned the IMC and that all of the volunteers there were "escaped federal prisoners." We disagreed with that and had to be insistent that he consider seeking help to understand that we actually were the legitimate people in charge of the IMC. He chose to not do so and we were forced to ban him from the IMC. He had been extremely intimidating to both the staff and other users of the IMC.
We had no choice, if the U-C IMC was to continue to fulfill its mission, but to confront his abusive behavior and do something about it. We exhausted our options, but ultimately had to face the fact that the IMC is a media organization, not a mental health institution. We have neither the resources nor the staff to deal with him, while meeting the many needs of other users of the IMC.
As for Bobby, one can make the argument that we should simply tolerate him as others have done. We tried that, without any improvement. He is now in a situation that forces him to consider whether he can conform his behavior to a fashion that will not intimidate and frighten others.
You might say that no one should take what he says seriously, that we should continue to tolerate him, in the hopes of some eventual improvement. This has been tried, without result, in our opinion at this point. He has the option of making a case for having his posting privileges re-instituted. We have not ruled that out, but the responsibility is his at this point. We have done all that can be done online to encourage a more acceptable set of behaviors.
We have done our duty as a media institution. We do NOT have the resources to be a therapeutic community. We wish this had never been necessary, but it reached the point where his behavior was no longer acceptable, where it undermined the use of the Newswire for others. It is not the Therapywire, even assuming that might be effective in his case, which something which we feel is very much open to dispute.
He can write all he wants; we are NOT restricting his freedom of speech. He can post if he wants, but until he resolves these issues, it is no longer acceptable for our Newswire. We do not see it as being particularly helpful for him to have his writings imposed on our readers. That is nothing but indulging his peculiar needs, something that is not our mission.
If any of this pissed him off further, that was something which we have no control over. We cannot go through life, constantly being of service to others, and still serve our own interests. You and Bobby may find that cruel, but we have objectives other than making Bobby happy. If there’s a conflict, Bobby is going to be the loser. He has freedom of speech. We have freedom of the press. He needs to get his own press if he feels the need to go beyond what is acceptable here. He has that option and we have done nothing to take that away.
|
|
