[IMC-bristol] bunker feature stuff drags on
ian
ian at videonetwork.org
Thu Nov 13 18:44:09 PST 2003
Thanks Tony for yet again putting private e-mail correspondence on to a
public list. That's the second time in the space of a year that you've
done that. I feel well comfortable working with you now and in the future.
What part of - " please note that this is a personal e-mail - so I don't
expect to see the reply posted on a public list" do you not
understand? or was this deliberate?
You seem to be stepping from one smelly cow pat to another. Keep up the
good work :-)
best
ian
At 16:16 13/11/2003 +0000, Ecovillage Network UK wrote:
>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
>
>
>This email list at: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-bristol
>Archive of this list: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-bristol/
>Tech List: http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-bristol-tech
>BrisIMC http://bristol.indymedia.org/
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-bristol mailing list
>Imc-bristol at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-bristol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-bristol/attachments/20031113/a344ced8/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Imc-bristol
mailing list