[Imc-dc-editorial] Feature: Washington Interns Gone Bad: Rough but Funny Parody that Hits Close to The

[Chuck0]

Alan Bushnell wrote:
>>If we are highlighting this for solid reasons, I'm OK with it.
> 
> 
> I found the comment you made in response to the feature to be snide and
> hostile, I think Rupert's comment indicate he felt that way, and I
> talked with others who say they did as well.  Since you indicate this
> was not your intention, perhaps you were merely terse.  Please be more
> respectful and write emails that are more clear.  In this case, writing
> a message that included your statment above would have dramatically
> changed people's impression of what you wrote.

I was referring to my intentions surrounding the audit. Perhaps my response 
to Joanie was snide and hostile. I won't apologize for that, since I'm 
feeling very hostile to her of late, especially since she is the one who 
defends slander on the newswire against me.

> I point this out in detail because I think there are several other
> instances where people perceive you being snide and hostile.  I think
> being perceived as being snide and hostile undermines yourself and is
> counterproductive, particularly when you are aware that several members
> of the IMC have trust issues with you.

I am a human being, so I get angry on occassion. This is one way I express my 
anger. Better to have it out in the open than to go around spreading rumors 
about people.

I have trust issues with members of the IMC, specifically Joanie and Eddie, 
the latter whom was fishing for information out of me last year to later use 
in public attacks on me. I try to be honest with people and I get angry when 
people violate my turst and openness.

> I wanted to refresh my memory on your involvement on this list to see
> about "ganging up" and the editorial policy discussions as well as your
> statement to imc-process requesting an audit which included "passive 
> approval of slander posted on the newswire against IMC DC activists".

Folks have to understand that "ganging up" involves  quite a few private 
emails that were sent to me, plus comments later that don't seem like obvious 
connections to earlier incidents.

> So I went back and looked through the mailing list archives since Nov
> when you gave an intro to this list.  I found 3 main threads that had
> debate about slander / attacks related to you.
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-dc-editorial/2002-November/thread.html#2818
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-dc-editorial/2002-December/thread.html#3101
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-dc-editorial/2003-January/thread.html#3368

I believe you missed an early February thread in which I asked that slander 
against me be moved. It was removed, but nobody informed me of this action.

> Of these, only one was a request to hide something by you, the other two
> were originated by others.  All of these threads have different people
> agreeing with you and different people disagreeing with you at different
> times.  All of the threads include discussion that is principled and
> substantive.  In the thread attached to the last of the listed links,
> there is actual progress being made on policy related issues.  Your
> suggestions for specific policy that can be formulated to address your
> concerns is solicited multiple times.

These threads do not encompass private emails and face to face meetings where 
this issue was discussed. It was made very clear to me by Joanie that slander 
against me would be left up because "you are a public figure."

> One thing I notice is that you twice use the threat of leaving the group
> unless the posts are hidden while substantive discussion about policy is
> taking place.  I think that particular tactic is not helpful or in good
> faith.  You were asked to not make such threats.

My behavior is irrelevant. What I've seen is a reluctance to deal with 
problems on the newswire that involve me and others. I see a tacit acceptance 
of the use of the wire to defame specific IMC volunteers, namely, me.

> To briefly comment on the editorial related issues your raised in your
> message to imc-process you mention frustration about comments accusing
> you of pedophilia not being hidden, but looking at
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-dc-editorial/2003-February/thread.html#3789
> 
> I see general agreement that personal attacks were being directed at
> you, and indeed no comments accusing you of such are attached to that
> comment.
> 
> Overall, I would say that neither ganging up nor passive approval of
> slander has taken place on this list.  I hope you take this under
> advisement in writing your "report".

Again, when I mentioned "ganging up," I was talking about a situation in the 
IMC, not on this list. As for passive approval of slander, I stick by my 
guns, because I know from lots of incidents that Joanie will not pro-actively 
remove that crap from the newswire.

Perhaps we could move forward on this by coming up with some clear guidelines 
about slander on the newswire, as well as making sure that newswire 
moderators are rotated on a regular basis.

Chuck0

------------------------------------------------------------
Personal homepage        -> http://chuck.mahost.org/
Infoshop.org             -> http://www.infoshop.org/
MutualAid.org            -> http://www.mutualaid.org/
Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Anarchy: AJODA           -> http://www.anarchymag.org/

"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. 
You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you 
assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which 
you resist is the degree to which you are free..."
---Utah Phillips