[IMC-bristol] bunker feature stuff drags on

[Ecovillage Network UK]

Ian insists I apologise to the list,

What exactly am I supposed to be apologising for? I'm sorry for breaking 
any rules about putting up features - certainly -
But not for being upset about the way it was dealt with by whoever deleted 
it. My comments have, in fact, been aimed at whoever - still no-one's said 
who it is - who originally deleted the feature three times and those who 
decided it should be deleted without involving me in that decision.

It would be helpful for me to know what to do with features in the future 
... Run them past the editorial list first - which no-one else seems to do 
- or phone people up?

What do you do Ian?
(no need to reply to the list)

Tony



At 03:46 PM 11/13/03 +0000, you wrote:

>I suggest you run any further questions to the list - until you apologise 
>I'm not prepeared to engage you anymore.
>
>At 15:36 13/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>Actually - Yes I am perfectly willing to prostrate myself before the 
>>rulebook,
>>
>>
>>I'm still not sure what I am supposed to do with features,
>>
>>Run them past the list first - or phone people up?
>>
>>T
>>
>>At 02:34 PM 11/13/03 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>>yet again there was no censorship (hmm - i'm sure we've been here b4 
>>>)  I suggest you apologise to the list for yesterdays outburst.  Your 
>>>comments have always been directed to Bristol IMC as a whole.
>>>
>>>I'm not prepared to draw a line under this until you acknowledge 
>>>publicly that this misunderstanding is partly your fault - all because 
>>>you didn't have a grasp on imc features protocol.  Four volunteers have 
>>>already said as much - will you bite the bullet and do the same?
>>>
>>>knowing what a stubborn git you are I don't think you will be so 
>>>gracious.  Until you do that don't bother me again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 14:27 13/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>thanks,
>>>>
>>>>'ctually - I was questioning the integrity of whoever deleted it before 
>>>>running the doubts past me.
>>>>
>>>>maybe we can draw a line under this now?  Bite the bullet and ditch the 
>>>>censorship.
>>>>
>>>>T
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 02:06 PM 11/13/03 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>pathetic?  your stubbornness to not accept that this misunderstanding 
>>>>>is partly your fault is whats pathetic.  Time and time again you show 
>>>>>your self up as a complete amateur Tony in every respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>i believe that you are putting your fragile ego in full public display 
>>>>>here - and its laughable tony.  Any respect I had for you has now 
>>>>>vanished after that ridiculose tirade that you launched yesterday.  I 
>>>>>suggest you lay of the ganja because its obviously making you 
>>>>>extrememly paranoid.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe if you hadn't of chosen to insult the integrity of the website - 
>>>>>and the volunteers who run it day in and day out then we wouldn't be 
>>>>>here.  Really Tony - this is all very boring.
>>>>>
>>>>>when i mentioned the ungraceful way that this situation has been 
>>>>>handled it was aimed at you - more than the person who took down your feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At 14:01 13/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>What procrastinations are you talking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your schizophrenic reasonable/insulting attitude - you're putting 
>>>>>>your fragile ego or God knows what - before the public's right to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pathetic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 01:38 PM 11/13/03 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and your continual procrastinations are starting to sound like a 
>>>>>>>spoilt child who doesn't get his own way.  get over it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At 13:36 13/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>I never said it was anything to do with content - but it was censored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And it wasn't an elaborate rebuttal - but a response to being 
>>>>>>>>censored in such a, as you put it, ungraceful way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At 12:56 PM 11/13/03 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>no - i called you in order to clear up any misunderstanding - but 
>>>>>>>>>you still insist that you're being censored due to the content of 
>>>>>>>>>your article...rather than this being about your misunderstanding 
>>>>>>>>>of indymedia feature protocol.   Perhaps if you familiarised your 
>>>>>>>>>self with this then misunderstandings like this wouldn't happen - 
>>>>>>>>>i'd just like to add that no one else aprat from you has had this 
>>>>>>>>>problem - funny that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your remarks are unwelcome and way OTT.  Perhaps if you put as 
>>>>>>>>>much time into writing elaborate rebuttals as you do into 
>>>>>>>>>cultureshop it wouldn't be in the mess that it is now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>grow up tony
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>At 12:54 13/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Blimey, - you're blowing hot and cold.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's not paranoia - but the way it was done really did upset 
>>>>>>>>>>me.  And I still maintain it was censorship - I'm not shifting on that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>anyway - putting that behind us (if possible) -  there's a film 4 
>>>>>>>>>>you on top of the fridge at Bens
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>T
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>At 11:18 PM 11/12/03 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>please note that this is a personal e-mail - so I don't expect 
>>>>>>>>>>>to see the reply posted on a public list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Your continuing insinuations that this is some kind of 'get 
>>>>>>>>>>>tony' campaign is yet again bordering on paranoia.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I find it disrespectful of you to continue posting up 'i'm being 
>>>>>>>>>>>censored' comments after I'd called you.  No one is or has 
>>>>>>>>>>>complained about the content of this article.  It has never been 
>>>>>>>>>>>removed from the news wire.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I'd like to think that any grievances that occasionally arise 
>>>>>>>>>>>would stay on the list for discussion - after all that's what 
>>>>>>>>>>>its there for.  But no - you choose to misuse the comments 
>>>>>>>>>>>section.   As I said earlier this demonstrates a lack of group 
>>>>>>>>>>>solidarity - and again it appears to me that you're behaving in 
>>>>>>>>>>>a partisan ( - A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or 
>>>>>>>>>>>proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea )  manner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Earlier on I felt sorry for you - but after reading your replies 
>>>>>>>>>>>I do think that you're now over reacting.  Its not even a very good article...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>best
>>>>>>>>>>>ian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>ps- out of interest what did you commission this for?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>At 21:23 12/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear friends,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>This is now being peddaled as some kind of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>'self-promotion'.  Come on people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you folks normally put someone's work on trial 'in absentia' 
>>>>>>>>>>>>And are you suprised that you have created this bad feeling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As it turns out the reason cited for removing it - that I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>didn't have copyright to it (well WHAT THE HELL IF I DIDN'T 
>>>>>>>>>>>>that's what Indymedia is all about) is rubbish. No wonder 
>>>>>>>>>>>>no-one brought it up to my face. The other reason that someone 
>>>>>>>>>>>>who adds something to the newswire shouldn't add a feature in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>fact happens regularly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd love to know what the real reason is......  Whatever it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the only ones laughing are NATO.  (and I bet they are) Nice one dudes!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>This kind of investigative feature is exactly the kind of stuff 
>>>>>>>>>>>>which needs an outlet and is not getting one in the Chronicle, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>Evening Post BBC or HTV
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not promoting myself or being partisan - unlike the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>Bristolian Party ;-) - I did commission the article and for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>such a feature to be deleted for no good reason is pure censorship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No-one has been saying it shouldn't be on the newswire Crash 
>>>>>>>>>>>>(God knows where you got that from) but it's a quality piece - 
>>>>>>>>>>>>an exclusive and written as a feature - it is liable to be of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>interest nationally even internationally and particularly to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>people who live round here. We are likely to get interesting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>feedback from local residents and maybe even employees 
>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise gagged from talking about where they work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as I know we don't yet have a formal approval system on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>email for features and as such as one of the editors of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>site I decided the feature was good enough - which it is - and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>with genuine leaked info about the new computers definately 
>>>>>>>>>>>>worthy of the centre column. I have not added a feature for at 
>>>>>>>>>>>>least six months now and the first time I do I'm stabbed in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>back - that really is how it feels to have features you've put 
>>>>>>>>>>>>your guts into censored behind your back. It would be helpful 
>>>>>>>>>>>>if we could think of the role Bristol IMC is playing in filling 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the gap left by the mainstream press - and showing them up with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>good investigative features like this rather than censoring 
>>>>>>>>>>>>ANYTHING. Especially such a well written piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If a good writer like John added a good investigative piece 
>>>>>>>>>>>>into bristol cops (or something) like this I would expect him 
>>>>>>>>>>>>to put it up as a feature - not delete his work - luckily I had 
>>>>>>>>>>>>a copy of the links and what I've written on the UK IMC - 
>>>>>>>>>>>>otherwise that would have been lost for ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm bloody angry about this with those cowards who decided to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>remove it without running their doubts past me - but I'm much 
>>>>>>>>>>>>more disappointed now with the apparent petty-mindedness of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>whoever the still anonymous person it was who seems to delight 
>>>>>>>>>>>>in hitting the delete key. The only people losing out to your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>trigger happy finger - whoever you are - is the public we are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>supposed to be serving.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>This is no way to takle on the corporates guys by wiping good 
>>>>>>>>>>>>investigative anti-imperialist stuff off the BIMC screen - it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>really is feeling like spite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I can only say - how would you like it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyone any ideas of where I can publish this feature if not the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>Bristol Open Publishing website I helped to create??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>0117 944 6219