[CIMC-work] Fwd: Re: [imc-us-process] Arbitration

Thu Mar 11 15:50:50 PST 2004

Thanks, Garth, this is very helpful. Question: does 
imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org have a stated mission or purpose? If not, maybe the list should lay 
it down, in order to at least get out of the debate about what is and is not 
'appropriate' for discussion on the list?

christine

In a message dated 3/11/04 9:32:06 AM Central Standard Time, 
garthliebhaber at care2.com writes:

> Subj:[CIMC-work] Fwd: Re: [imc-us-process] Arbitration 
> Date:3/11/04 9:32:06 AM Central Standard Time
> From:garthliebhaber at care2.com
> To:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the two forwards I promised. if anyone has time 
> to read them.  g.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Begin Included Message ----
> 
> From: Quill <quill1984 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:49:39 -0800 (PST)
> To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> Subject: Re: [imc-us-process] Arbitration
> 
> 
> I am also from portland imc, am also not a liason, and
> I concur with what Bht has said here, and agree that
> this is a discussion that belongs here on
> imc-us-process. I think that especially since Nessie
> wants to take this discussion off this list, it should
> stay here. I don't think at this point that one-on-one
> interactions will resolve this conflict. 
> 
> Editorial censorship certainly does affect all imc's,
> since the "policies" used by sf-imc reflect all imcs;
> if editorial decisions are being made unilaterally
> with no transparency, with favoritism toward certain
> "allies" and discrimination against people/groups
> nessie dislikes, this is an issue that needs to be
> addressed by all of us.  
> 
> I look at this as an example of what we may encounter
> in the future. The way we handle this will set the
> stage for similar issues that come up in the future. 
> 
> And I believe that if we ever hope to start a new way
> for people to work together, it is HOW we do things,
> and not what we do that is the key to changing things.
> 
> And we DO want to get away from hierarchical
> intolerant domination/oppression, don't we? Which to
> me means that we have to work through our problems
> together. IMC is a concept, a tactic, a tool... and we
> are a network, so no one IMC can say it is so
> independent that it's problems (and successes) don't
> involve the entire network. 
> 
> ~quill
> 
> --- Bht <criticalmasser at riseup.net> wrote:
> > Just some quick notes.  I am not a liasion from
> > portland imc, there are at
> > least two other pdx imcistas on this list.  Both of
> > these things that
> > nessie brings up belong on this list and affect all
> > of indymedia.
> > 
> > Nessie repeatedly opens himself to be talked to
> > about any issue, and to
> > take it to personal emails and keep it off of this
> > list.  I am unhappy
> > about this.  I am sure we have all noticed the
> > demeanor that nessie has
> > which is very aggressive and wordy, trying to mix
> > everything up, I dont
> > understand all of the words.
> > 
> > So nessie says that the sf/sfbay imc conflict is not
> > our problem and does
> > not belong on this list.  Because it does affect all
> > of indymedia it is
> > our problem.  Numerous people have posted to this
> > list questioning the
> > integrity of the sf-imc collective.  And I wonder
> > how long it takes before
> > we start to take notice of that?  We are pandering
> > to a collecive in a
> > position of power  and asking them to play nice and
> > be fair.  It doesnt
> > seem to be working.
> > 
> > A while back people from portland imc made a
> > statement about this and the
> > same problems are still going on.  It has been noted
> > a few times also that
> > this list is appropriate for this
> > discussion/conflict resolution.  So
> > please do not try to unilaterally say that it is not
> > and people are
> > "annoyed" with it.  There are people here genuinely
> > trying to help.
> > 
> > As far as the Gehrig banning goes.  I dont
> > necessarily agree with it, but
> > it is up to the autonomous collective.  Whenever I
> > look at sf-imc the
> > first place i go to is the compost bin :) The people
> > that run that sitte
> > keep saying that the stuff on the newswire is four
> > their "friends and
> > allies" so I guess that isnt me.  Whatever.  The
> > point is they rampantly
> > hide things for not really good reasons.  But it is
> > their collective.
> > 
> > Please dont take this the wrong way, but I
> > definately feel that nessie is
> > counterproductive to at least what i feel indymedia
> > is.  But this is not
> > about pot-shots.  And as a way to move forward, I
> > think that it would be a
> > good idea to get liasion from different indy's,
> > especially sf, to approach
> > this.
> > 
> > There are very clear things to work with through
> > liasions.  From following
> > the discussions for awhile, there are many obvious
> > points that can be run
> > down as arbitratable/not arbitratable/or (hopefulyl
> > enough) resolved.
> > 
> > I want to thank the people outside of sf that are
> > putting so much into
> > this and that recognize this is something that does
> > affect all of
> > indymedia.
> > I will go back to lurking now!
> > bht
> > portland
> > 
> > 
> > > The conflict between SFBay IMC and SF-IMC, and
> > David Gehrig's having
> > > worn out his welcome at SF-IMC, are two separate
> > and unrelated
> > > issues. Certain people, Gehrig himself apparently
> > among them, are
> > > attempting to confuse you by conflating them.
> > Don't fall for it.
> > >
> > > The conflict between SFBay-IMC and SF-IMC
> > shouldn't even be being
> > > discussed here. We have been asked repeatedly not
> > to. SF-IMC
> > > apologizes that y'all have had to listen to
> > problems that are not
> > > your own,  and sincerely hopes that SFBay-IMC will
> > show the common
> > > human courtesy of joining us in refraining from
> > further inflicting
> > > our conflict upon the readers of this list. If you
> > want to talk, talk
> > > to me. If you don't want to talk to me, don't
> > talk. if you want a
> > > third party to relay messages, that's OK, too. 
> > But either way,
> > > please stop annoying these people and disrupting
> > this list.
> > >
> > > Gehrig's having worn out his welcome at SF-IMC, on
> > the other hand, is
> > > most relevant to this list. Unlike the
> > SF-IMC/SFBay conflict, it
> > > actually does effect everyone  here. It effects
> > all of Indymedia. It
> > > particularly affects Americans, because Zionism is
> > primarily
> > > America's fault. We foot the bill. Our money buys
> > the weapons. The
> > > blood is on our hands. The world knows this, and
> > the world hates us
> > > for it.  It behooves every American, especially
> > IMCistas, to at last
> > > take the right side on this issue, and stand
> > against oppression, by
> > > denouncing Israel for the oppressor that it is,
> > and denouncing its
> > > apologists for the enablers they are.
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > Continued at:
> > >
> > > http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/03/1683899.php
> > _______________________________________________
> > imc-us-process mailing list
> > imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> imc-us-process mailing list
> imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-
> process
> 
> 
> ---- End Included Message ----
> 
> 
> Stop baby sea turtles from being crushed!
> http://www.care2.com/go/z/11745/1008
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040311/57256538/attachment.html