[New-imc] Re: [imc-pilipinas] Reply to edwin.

[Shayne ONeill]

> Yes, there was an agreement to go seperate ways but
> does that mean anything goes for now? Even an IMC with
> an avowed bias AGAINST the left?  Can anybody just put

No. It has a member who dislikes authoritarian marxists. Deal with it.

> up his or her IMC as he or she pleases because of this
> agreement?

No.It means that that indymedia manilla was to be able to continue
organising without molestation from those who seem hell bent on it
failing.

>
> Your argumentation is surprisingly weak. We're
> supposed to take your word for it! Talk about
> autoritarianism!

I dont fucking care. I'm just arguing. Can you suggest a better metric
than your word versus ming?

> BTW the post for "aspiring writers" is definitely not
> mine. As of now (9:30 a.m. Manila time) it is not
> hidden yet so there seems to be at least a tacit
> approval by jong.

Jong hasnt the password and the post is quite acceptable under indy rules.
Deal with it.

>
> BTW why was my post to the new-imc list not accepted?
> I think it was informative enough for the new-imc crew
> who don't monitor the local lists.

Perhaps it wasnt relevant. Your not a stakeholder in the matter.


> Edwin
>
> --- Shayne ONeill <shayne at perthimc.asn.au> wrote:
> >
> > Im gunna be honest here folks. This fighting is
> > fucking boring and we
> > should be working to get BOTH of the collectives up.
> > So sorry if I step on
> > any toes.
> >
> > I'm also going to ask another volenteer to 'look
> > after' the philipines
> > collective, cos frankly I'm sick of it, and I'd like
> > to help a new belgium
> > collective get online and see manila thru the final
> > stages.  The Manilla
> > collective have done all the right things and have
> > been consistently sniped at for a long time.
> >
> > Now Edwin, Why are you opening this can of worms
> > now.
> >
> > WAS THER NOT a CONSENCED agreement between the
> > manilla and philipines
> > collectives to go separate ways and organise
> > separate IMC's until the day
> > the ideological and personal differences can be
> > sorted.
> >
> > Yes. Jong can be a little argumentative. Hes human.
> > Yes he doesnt like the
> > authoratarian left. (marxists) He's entitled to feel
> > that way. There ARE
> > others in that collective my friend.
> >
> > Let me answer some of these critiques one at a time.
> >
> > > > I’ve been a fellow traveler on the tortuous road
> > > > towards an IMC in the Philippines since July. To
> > me,
> > > > Shayne’s endorsement of IMC-Manila is puzzling
> > to
> > > > say
> >
> > It is not puzzling. I have been the new-imc rep to
> > manilla for some time
> > now. And I am content that the criteria are met.
> >
> > > > the least. If the proposal should be taken
> > > > seriously,
> > > > it doesn’t meet the membership criteria
> > > >
> > >
> >
> (http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/MembershipCriteria),
> > > > especially point b and c.
> >
> > Point B:
> >
> > Seven active members that I have spoken to or are
> > aware of. Plus four non
> > pc using members (mostly from earth-first) who are
> > involved with the
> > print/video/radio stuff.
> >
> > 11 active members is about the same size as perth,
> > and we are one of the
> > larger IMC's.
> >
> > Not using email for alot of communications is not a
> > reason to object. You
> > would know better than I that a 'global south'
> > country like philipines
> > creates a socio-economic climate that makes online
> > participation a little
> > harder. Indymedia takes it as a core belief the idea
> > of compensating for
> > the dificulties of the global south.
> >
> > Point C:
> >
> > Open meetings. I trust jongs asertion that these
> > meetings have been
> > happening, indeed see my comment above on the notion
> > that just becuase
> > they havent always been advertised on list (a list
> > you are not on btw)
> > that they are 'closed'. I see no evidence to the
> > contrary.
> >
> > > > IMC-Manila is largely a one-man project as I
> > haven’t
> > > > encountered any other member who joined the
> > > > discussions except for solublefish. If you can
> > point
> > > > to any valuable contribution by somebody from
> > his
> > > > group on
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-ph-manila
> > > > or
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/imc-pilipinas
> >
> > This is not incriminating. imc-pilipinas list was
> > disbanded by the manilla
> > collective as it was clearly 'not working'. Plus the
> > new collective was
> > formed.
> >
> > Further more the new list imc-ph-manila has only
> > *JUST* started. Give it
> > time dude.
> >
> > These guys are doing it face to face. Thats not
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-July/000118.html.
> >
> > This was in July edward. A lot of water has passed
> > under the bridge since
> > then. The biggest is the formation of two separate
> > regional collectives.
> >
> > My understanding from contacts in the autonomous
> > left in quezon is that
> > the meetings are well enough known about.
> >
> > > > When somebody else proposed a meeting this
> > > > self-declared autonomous individual even asked
> > for
> > > > sworn statements first. Check out
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-August/000163.html
> > > > if you cannot believe it. Those who can find any
> > > > invitation, report or reference in the list
> > archives
> > > > to the July 22, 2003 meeting where (according to
> > the
> >
> > Give it up dude. Different collective different
> > times.
> >
> > > > proposed mission statement) IMC Manila was
> > formed
> > > > and
> > > > the proposed principles of unity were approved,
> > > > please
> > > > tell. Open and public meetings there were none.
> > > >
> > > > He even pretended on-list there were weekly
> > meetings
> > > >
> > >
> >
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-April/000059.html)
> > > > with individuals from various political leanings
> > > >
> > >
> >
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-April/000052.html)
> > > > while he had to admit later there were none.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-July/000114.html)
> > > >
> >
> > No. He's saying there where two, and a few that
> > didnt get quorum. Thats
> > entirely normal for a 'baby' IMC. Shit we had one
> > recently that fucked up
> > (coincided with a big refugee rights rally) and got
> > three ppl. Thats in a
> > 'big' collective like perth (Normally we get 7)
> >
> > > > Moreover, this one-man collective has always
> > > > carefully
> > > > excluded the left from participation. Read for
> > > > example
> > > > “yes, we are critical to the left and the whole
> > > > communist movement for that matter because we
> > are
> > > > against the authoritarian practices of the left
> > (
)”
> > > > at
> >
> > Different collective. Different times.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-July/000148.html.
> > > > No wonder he never did any effort to organize
> > > >
> > >
> >
> (http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-pilipinas/2003-August/000173.html).
> > > >
> >
> > Etc. So. The guy doesnt like authoratarian marxists.
> > I'm not too fond of
> > em either. Thats not a crime. Sure jong shoots his
> > mouth of a little too
> > much. Thats cos hes human. Deal with it.
> >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> imc-pilipinas mailing list
> imc-pilipinas at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-pilipinas
>