[New-imc] Banning Chuck0

[Dana Williams]

I'm pretty new to this list, and the collective I work with just recently became
official. All the same, here's MHO:

I think Chuck has a right to express anger on this list, but I fail to see how
name-calling and attacks are productive forms of anger.

I also think that everyone on this list should have the right to express their
opinion in a fair, open, concerned manner, even Chuck (who did verbally attack
someone). Do I agree with his opinions or his tact? Not in this case. But do I
think he has a right to express those opinions? Yes. But, I would call for him
to unilaterally refrain from petty attacks-- they don't get us anywhere. If
Andy-- or anyone else-- is doing __________ (fill-in-the-blank) now, we can all
deal with that in a calm manner, right? Past behaviors, petty or not, don't need
so many put-downs and f-words (ya made me blush, Chuck! ;-)  (And, to answer
your rhetorical question, no, I don't think it's (nearly ever) justified to
physically attack others, especially comrades.)

However, I don't know policies for banning people from this list, so I'm
speaking out of partial ignorance. Also, I'm new to this list, and perhaps do
not have as much invested in it as others. But, if I had to speak now, I would
tentatively say "no" to banning Chuck, barring further evidence, argument, or
precedent.


Peace and solidarity,
Dana



Quoting new-imc-request at lists.indymedia.org:
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:42:50 +0100 (CET)
> From: boud <boud1 at wp.pl>
> Reply-To: new-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> To: new-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> Cc: Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org>
> Subject: [New-imc] PROPOSAL chuck on approval list DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003
> 17:00 GMT
> 
> ######################################################################
> PROPOSAL to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" list
> DEADLINE Wed 8 Jan 2003 17:00 GMT
> 
> ###
> [en]
> SUMMARY
> It is proposed to put chuck on a "postings held for approval" 
> list for new-imc since
> (1) he has made a personal attack and refused to apologise
> (2,3) he has not carried out positive suggestions where he
> could discuss and start the first steps for his project
> (4) he has trivialised a major group of homeless people
> 
> [fr]
> RÉSUMÉ
> On propose de mettre chuck sur une liste « retenir pour filtrage »
> pour la liste new-imc vu que :
> (1) il a fait une attaque personnelle et il refuse de s'excuser
> (2,3) il n'a pas suivi les conseils positifs qui lui donneraient
> un lieu pour discuter et pour commencer les premiers pas de son projet
> (4) il s'est moqué de l'un des principaux groupes de SDF
> ###
> 
> It is proposed to put chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org> on the
> "postings held for approval" list of new-imc:
> 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/admin/new-imc
>  Configuration Categories
>   # Privacy Options  
>    Spam-specific posting filters
>     Addresses whose postings are always held for approval.
> 
> because although he has succeeded in catalysing an interesting
> discussion based on his initial request for a housing IMC,
> 
> (1) he has made a personal attack on someone and refused to apologise:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004416.html
> 
> (2) he has not yet started constructive (or any) discussion on the list
> which is most closely related to his request:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/syndication/
> 
> (3) he has not yet created a mailing list on his requested theme, and
> it is difficult to see how any non-local collective can be organised
> without a mailing list, even if it is a regional + theme-oriented 
> collective:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/
> 
> (4) although interested in homelessness, he has trivialised the
> possibility of networking with a major grassroots network of
> homeless people in the world's largest democracy who use direct
> action in the best Gandhian tradition:
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2003-January/004386.html
> 
> ######################################################################
> 
> 
> i put a 3-day deadline since that's the normal deadline for our
> internal decision-making.
> 


-- 
the nature of sanity is open to debate
the notion of insanity protects the State
- red monkey, "power and dependence"