[Imc-uk-features] antizionism - antisemitism discussion

[ionnek]

Hi,
I like andi's idea to use the comments before we hide rams spam. The 
editorial guidelines allow us to hide postings by individuals who act 
repeatedly in a disruptive way.

I object to another posting, but haven't hidden it:
http://www.uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64705&group=webcast

I'm one of the imc-ers who see most of the postings that classify 
themselves antizionist as in fact antisemite.
If it was just up to me, I'd just propose to hide all of them. On the other 
hand, I am still hoping that the "imc community", i.e. the newswire 
users,  will defend their newswire themselves in the comments. (???)

In the comment of 64705, searchlight provides a link to an essay on 
Antizionism and in which ways it can be antisemite. From a British 
perspective, lots of UK examples:

http://www.klick-nach-rechts.de/gegen-rechts/2003/03/searchlight.htm

Maybe we could use this link as a default comment on all those postings 
where we can't find consensus to hiding?

Ionnek

At 14:00 24/04/03, andi wrote:
>hi phil,
>i agree ram is awfully monopolising the wire, and it's the more
>boring as he only ever brings up two arguments: "white pigs",
>meaning the west being racist, and "zionism", saying israel being
>the tool for the racist west to exert control. in this he has a
>point but it's a very simplistic way of arguing. still, before
>blocking him i would ask him in several comments to refrain from
>commenting on every article, sth like
>"dear ram, we appreciate your opinionatedness and understand
>that you want to bring your point across that the west is being
>racist ("white pigs"). still, we as the features working group
>think that you are monopolising the wire in a disruptive way and
>ask you not to comment to every single article. please refrain
>from posting so much. if we don't see a change in your attitude
>during the next week we will have to hide all the posts coming
>from you. regards, the feats working group"
>or similar...
>but a caution: if we decide to block him posting we'll have to hide
>him manually as the current system doesn't allow for IP blocking
>(the new MIR system does). we would have to be very quick to hide
>him in order to make him go away....
>just for the record, in the past we have only twice blocked
>individual posters from posting, that was jean (heinzreport), see
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-features/2002-August/002273 
>.html
>and Bobby "Boobytrap" Deaf Israel Messenger, see
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-uk-features/2002-February/0015 
>41.html
>cheers, andi
>
>philb at redbricks.org.uk wrote on 24/4/03 12:49 pm
>>hi,
>>i recently suggested that imc consider blocking postings by ram
>>(assuming it is possible to do that).  so far i haven't seen any
>>response to my suggestion.  today, looking at the newswire,
>>there are postings by ram inresponse to every article, sometimes
>>multiple postings, a lot of them immature and inflammatory.
>>looking down the admin page ram currently accounts for 40-50 %
>>of the postings.  to an occasional or new visitor the site i
>>would say rams 'contributions' are very off-putting, and
>>generally i would say that they undermine the credibility of the
>>site.  so i suggest again that ram postings are blocked (if
>>possible) and asap.