[CIMC-work] Re: Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 21

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

I don't know if the bay dispute should be on this process list or not. I just 
don't have enough info about what the listserve does or is empowered to do, 
nor do I have a clear idea if both projects want this mashed out on the list. I 
really just don't know, and am trying to play catch-up, so am open to any 
info you can provide. what I don't think is productive is for us to take sides in 
a way that helps to further divisions rather than foster resolution. 

i, too, know folks (or at least know folks who know folks) on both sides of 
this debate, and i think  we have to be very very careful about personalizing 
this conflict. i want to further research the central points of dispute and 
stick to core issues rather than the myriad of straight-up personal animosities 
that seem to further muddy this conflict. in this respect, there is much for us 
to learn from this conflict. the allegations about cop collaboration, for 
example, i find extremely disturbing, even if they are advanced by people who 
folks might find personally unpleasant or out of pocket re other issues. anything 
you can add to help clarify the situation would be very useful. maybe all 
we'll get out of this dispute is a way to sharpen some of our own core 
principles, like, for example, "cop collaboration is grounds for immediate expulsion." 
i'm not asserting 'truth' to the assertions of particular parties in the SF 
dispute, but i am saying that issues of principle and process are relevant  to 
our collective.

whoa. that was truly oblique. sorry.

christine

In a message dated 3/13/04 10:52:32 PM Central Standard Time, 
mayday at riseup.net writes:

> Subj: [CIMC-work] Re: Imc-chicago-working Digest, Vol 11, Issue 21 
>  Date: 3/13/04 10:52:32 PM Central Standard Time
>  From: mayday at riseup.net
>  To: imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>  CC: nessie at sfbg.com
>  Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, I hope you don't agree with the part where he says the SF Indybay
> shouldn't be discussed on U.S. process.  The discussion is pertinent
> because the conflict they are having is something we all have to deal with
> and discuss within our own collectives.
> 
> On another note, I've met up with someone from Indybay.  It is hard for me
> to be objective because I'm good friends with her.  If what she says about
> the URL is true, though, then SF is clearly in the wrong for not giving up
> the URL.
> 
> 
> 
> >I categorically agree with Nessie on the entirety of what he says, and
> >urge everyone to read his full text, at the link below.
> >
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________________
> >Save lives -- bring the troops home now!
> >
> >At what price the U.S. bubble? The overhead
> >for nationalism is not worth it.
> >
> >9-11 was nationalist marketing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Begin forwarded message -----
> >From: nessie at sfbg.com
> >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:48:36 -0800
> >To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> >Subject: Re: [imc-us-process] Arbitration
> >Reply-To: "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs"
> ><imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>
> >
> >>From: David Gehrig <zemblan at earthlink.net>
> >>To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
> >>Subject: Re: [imc-us-process] Arbitration
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040315/427fa11b/attachment.html