[IMC-bristol] Re: reluctant review of a sordid soap opera

[arclightfire at hushmail.com]

Dear All,

Tony G has again launched a broadside at another IMC member, me, this
time.  This attack on me comes after Tony and I had a discussion on Thursday
1st April.  It was a discussion that seems to have a possible positive
outcome and we were in agreement on some of the issues, but a discussion
at which Tony mentioned NONE of the issues he raises in this email. 
It is like Tony says one thing in person and another over email.  I'm
at my wits end in dealing with this.  I cannot see how it can be resolved
to the satisfaction of all parties when Tony says one thing one day and
another thing the next day.  It is like dealing with 2 Tony Gs.

For the record I refute every allegation in the email, but there does
not seem any point explaining why because Tony is not listening...

Tomas


On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:48:28 -0700 Tony Gosling <tony at gaia.org> wrote:
>Come on Tom,
>
>It's amazing how easy it is to come to the verdict you want when
>you shut
>the defendant out of the process.
>
>1. Kyra sent me an innacurate email laying down the law and demanding
>that
>I must not reply - for you to relate my reply to that as being 'the
>final
>straw' is truly laughable. I notice you forgot to include my 'abusive'
>reply to Kyra which was nothing of the sort.
>
>2. My complaints have been constantly painted as 'personal' where
>actually
>I have been pointing out that the system of apportioning passwords
>at BIMC
>is secret and controlled by a clique outside the structure of the
>meetings.
>This means articles are disappearing - and no-one knows why or who
>has done
>it as recently discussed on this list.
>
>3. I didn't take my complaints to the university newsletter - Tom
>came to
>me as I was the only person to bother to reply to his request.
>
>4. The outside arbiters in all this are two indiviuals calling themselves
>'anarcho babe' and 'space bunny' neither of whom have ever met me
>nor ever
>asked me to explain anything I have ever done - they have simply
>waded in
>from Sheffield and Edinburgh. 'Anarchobabe' hid the post on Indymedia
>UK
>site announcing the date and place of last year's Bilderberg meeting.
>SB
>and AB are running next years' 2005 G8 web site here in the UK and
>seem
>particularly keen that next years Bilderberg meeting (which fixes
>the
>agenda the weekend before the G8) is not covered or invaded by UK
>activists. Maybe they had an outside interest in BIMC's little witchunt
>they weren't declaring?
>
>5. I have got several heartfelt messages of sympathy from Brisol,
> London
>and 2 from other parts of the world over this issue so please don't
>try and
>paint me as the 'quiet loner'. These people are genuinely anable
>to wade in
>because they are afraid of those induividuals behind the shabby
>process
>that has led to me being booted out and branded a 'control freak'
>for
>raising what I believe to be serious issues of accountability. Ilyan
>from
>Indymedia wales, for example waded in and - whooops - he is branded
>a loony
>and loses his link from UK Indymedia within a few days. No wonder
>people
>are afraid.
>
>As far as I'm concerned the most important lesson we can all learn
>from
>this is not to launch cowardly or anonymous attacks on email but
>to
>consider matters face to face first. And to adopt a system of accountable
>editors who answer to the group for the editorial decisions they
>make. This
>is actually much more radical than the current anonymous system.
>
>It's important to have a chairman who can carry the respect of the
>group by
>having the courage to represent any disagreement fairly. Tom, you
>have been
>nothing of the sort. If your message hadn't been so utterly partial
>I
>wouldn't have been writing this. You have used an ostensible opportunity
>to
>'sum up' fairly instead to present more 'evidence' of my 'unreasonableness'
>with in a fruitless attempt to stick the knife in deeper.
>
>I have no anger over this situation - just disappointment over a
>project
>which, I feel, through jealously guarded passwords, has lost any
>chance of
>having a wider appeal and challenging the Evening Post's monopoly.
>
>
>Tony
>www.bilderberg.org   etc.
> 

>