[Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7, Issue 10

Fri Dec 5 22:18:36 PST 2003

My mistake--I didn't see that your initial reply to me was also sent to the
listserve. I only replied privately to you because I thought that was how
you'd replied to me.
Since I originally intended my thoughts for the list, and since you've given
your permission, I'll go ahead and send our conversation thread to the list.
Heather

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gentry Lange" <g at art13.com>
To: "Heather Gorgura" <gorgura02 at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7, Issue
10

> I simply respond with a private email with a private email. Feel free to
> publish both and my responses.
>
> Gentry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Gorgura [mailto:gorgura02 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:03 PM
> To: g at art13.com
> Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7,
> Issue 10
>
>
> > You might want to post your response to the list as you may be accused
of
> > making back room email decisions.
>
> Shall I? I'd be happy to, with your permission, since my email quotes your
> private email to me.
>
> Heather
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gentry Lange" <g at art13.com>
> To: "Heather Gorgura" <gorgura02 at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7,
Issue
> 10
>
>
> > You might want to post your response to the list as you may be accused
of
> > making back room email decisions.
> >
> > As for your understanding of what is going on, it is severely limited.
My
> > indignation has many sources.
> >
> > I totally agree that I subverted IMC policy at Jonathan's request... I
> offer
> > no excuse for my action. My attemps to interact with the organization
has
> > been one of frustration with policies for some time, it's a problem for
> me,
> > and it's a problem for the IMC. I openly disagree with many of the
> policies
> > of the IMC, and one or twice I have subverted these processes for
reasons
> > that I own up to either, later with an open email to the lists, or later
> in
> > a general meeting. The point is that I openly own up to it when I do.
> > Jonathan, on the other hand, says he doesn't subvert IMC policy, when he
> in
> > fact does subvert it... and has ignored it routinely since I've been
> > involved.
> >
> > If you would like to come to the next General Meeting, I'll be there to
> > discuss further why Jonathan is a threat to the current IMC.
> >
> > Trying to act like Jonathan is an active editorial member is silly.
> Jonathan
> > openly resigned months ago, and has stated openly he was a "former
> member",
> > right in the attack article on the IMC that he posted on Reclaim the
> Media.
> > He accused the active membership of being paranoid, isolated, and hiding
> > from public accountability. And you, Heather, act like I'm the trouble
> maker
> > attacking Jonathan, while at the same time saying you are a friend of
the
> > IMC. This makes little sense to me.
> >
> > To allow a former disgruntled member who is currently attacking the IMC
to
> > begin again as an active member of editorial is a totally absurd
> > proposition.
> >
> > Gentry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Heather Gorgura [mailto:gorgura02 at earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9:13 PM
> > To: g at art13.com
> > Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7,
> > Issue 10
> >
> >
> > Gentry,
> >
> > You ask three times,
> >
> > > Who are you?
> > > As for you Heather, again, I ask who are you?
> > > So please. Tell us, who are you.
> >
> > so I'll give you three answers.
> >
> > I am a member of the community the Seattle IMC was created to serve--a
> voice
> > unrepresetned by corporate media, interested in changing the world for
the
> > better.
> >
> > I am someone who has been involved in the work of the Seattle IMC--I
have
> > attended meetings, donated equipment, physically helped at the space,
and
> > written stories and features among other things.
> >
> > I am someone you have met at the IMC space--memorably for me when I was
> > spending a lot of time there about six months ago working on the TV news
> > monitoring project.
> >
> > > Many people have subverted IMC official policy
> >
> > You say "many," including yourself according to your own admission:
> >
> > > To be fair, I gave my approval of this in a private email back to
> > Jonathan.
> >
> > and you call the policies jokes:
> >
> > > This is a problem at the IMC. The policies are jokes.
> >
> > And yet you cite subversion of the "joke" policies that are, according
to
> > you, often subverted including by yourself, as a reason for excluding a
> > long-time and dedicated IMC volunteer from participation.
> >
> > > Heather, I must say that disclosing my opinions, and versions of a
> > > discussion about the IMC to a public list with members interested in
the
> > IMC
> > > is a whole lot different than going on the front page of a media site,
> and
> > > then posting it to newswires.
> >
> > Fair enough. And I must say that "subverting policy" by accelerating the
> > posting of a feature is a whole lot different than the retreat from
> > transparency and the apparent trends away from inclusivity and toward
> > exclusivity evidenced by the attempt to deny Jonathan's status as a
member
> > of the editorial collective, and by your "how dare you get involved"
tone
> in
> > your email to me, but more importantly by the actions refered to in
> > Jonathan's article. I hear a lot of indignation about the public airing
of
> > those concerns, but I haven't seen folks coming forward to explain or
deny
> > those allegations.
> >
> > > Jonathan resigned, wrote an attack against the active volunteers at
the
> > IMC
> > > space... And now wants to have decision making power on the IMC list
> > again?
> > > That's ridiculous.
> >
> > If the IMC is serious about its model of transparency and radical
> democracy,
> > criticism of the activities of those running the IMC should not make
> > Jonathan's desire to be involved "ridiculous." That's the kind of
> rationale
> > behind calling those who criticize the president traitors to their
> country.
> > In Jonathan's case, in fact, it's more like calling a war veteran a
> traitor,
> > considering the long tour of IMC duty he has done.
> >
> > As a friend of the IMC, I am simply asking those in whose care the
Seattle
> > IMC rests to use their valuable time and energy toward resolving the
real
> > problems, rather than spinning on problems that have more to do with
> > territoriality and egos. The sooner Seattle Indymedia resolves the
> immediate
> > problems threatening its functionality, the sooner the IMC-istas can get
> > back to their important work on the systemic societal crises that
fomented
> > the creation of the IMC in the first place.
> >
> > I appreciate that you have put a lot of yourself into the IMC, and that
> you
> > want to do what is best for it. In this humble, random stranger's
opinion,
> > you'll achieve that much more quickly and effectively by directing your
> > energy against real problems rather than Jonathan Lawson. Beyond
whatever
> > personal conflicts there are between you, and beyond the internal
politics
> > of the Seattle IMC, you are working toward many of the same goals. If
that
> > were not the case you would not have both put so much into this
> > organization.
> >
> > I think I'll take my own advice now, and go work on something
productive.
> >
> > Heather
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gentry Lange" <g at art13.com>
> > To: "Heather Gorgura" <gorgura02 at earthlink.net>;
> > <seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org>
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:52 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7,
> Issue
> > 10
> >
> >
> > > Who are you?
> > >
> > >
> > > Many people have subverted IMC official policy, why here's an email I
> got
> > > from Jonathan just recently:
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: jonathan lawson [mailto:jonathan at indymedia.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:59 PM
> > > To: g at art13.com
> > > Subject: RE: FEATURE PROPOSAL: Race to the Bottom
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Gentry.
> > > Since it's kinda late and this event is day after tomorrow (and since
we
> > > don't have any FTAA stuff at all in the features column), I'm going to
> > > skirt process a bit and go ahead and post this one, assuming that
> another
> > > approval or two will be forthcoming when people read their mail. ok?
> > >
> > > thx
> > > JL
> > >
> > > ---------------------------
> > > To be fair, I gave my approval of this in a private email back to
> > Jonathan.
> > > This is a problem at the IMC. The policies are jokes. But as soon as
you
> > try
> > > to change policies you get angry emails from strangers you've never
met.
> > So
> > > rather than fix the problem, and create structure, people routinely
> > > circumvent policy.
> > >
> > > For the record, accusing someone of subverting IMC policies was
brought
> up
> > > here first in the RTM story:
> > >
> > > "Now, the hour of reckoning may have arrived. The small group of
> > volunteers
> > > currently making decisions for the IMC is responding to the crisis in
a
> > > manner which has created more questions than answers among the local
> > > community which uses the space and website on a regular basis. In the
> > > process of sorting out details of the organization's finances, members
> of
> > > the group appear to have largely isolated themselves from public
> > > accountability, crafting their own plans over the phone and in private
> > email
> > > exchanges rather than on public email lists, as has been the usual IMC
> > > practice. A somewhat paranoid atmosphere prevails; the current
> leadership
> > > clique has rolled back free public computer access, changed the locks
on
> > the
> > > IMC's doors not once but twice, and discussed redrafting the group's
> > bylaws
> > > to restrict the definition of membership."
> > >
> > > Heather, I must say that disclosing my opinions, and versions of a
> > > discussion about the IMC to a public list with members interested in
the
> > IMC
> > > is a whole lot different than going on the front page of a media site,
> and
> > > then posting it to newswires. One is the equivalent of talking among
> > > individuals, for purposes of accountability, while the other
constitutes
> > > shouting it out loud to everyone in cyberspace. According to Jonathan
> the
> > > current active volunteers at at the IMC are paranoid, isolated, and
> hiding
> > > from public accountability. If you need to, please reread that
statement
> > in
> > > Jonathan Lawson's article and tell me... who attacked whom here?
> > >
> > > As for you Heather, again, I ask who are you? I've been on this list
for
> > at
> > > least a year+ and you've never said a word. Only now you come in here,
> and
> > > jump into the discussion. So please. Tell us, who are you.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, with all the problems facing the IMC right now, the
last
> > > thing we need, is Mr. Jonathan Lawson, a person who I have no trust
for,
> > > coming back to the IMC Editorial Lists.
> > >
> > > Jonathan resigned, wrote an attack against the active volunteers at
the
> > IMC
> > > space... And now wants to have decision making power on the IMC list
> > again?
> > > That's ridiculous. I have gone on record as actively opposing that
> > decision
> > > and others have seconded that opposition to bestowing "Active Editor"
> > > priveledges upon Jonathan Lawson.
> > >
> > > Gentry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
> > > [mailto:seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of
> > > Heather Gorgura
> > > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:07 PM
> > > To: seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> > > Subject: [Seattle-editorial] Re: Seattle-editorial Digest, Vol 7,
Issue
> > > 10
> > >
> > >
> > > Gentry, your implication that you are taking a higher moral ground by
> > > "taking the time to get [your] story straight" is a bit ironic since
> > you've
> > > already put allegations out in public (via this listserve) that
Jonathan
> > is
> > > subverting IMC policies and falsely representing the current situation
> at
> > > the IMC, but are simply refusing to substantiate them. If you really
> > wanted
> > > to act in the spirit that you portray yourself, you would withold
> > accusation
> > > as well as substantiation until you have your story straight.
> > >
> > > With all the difficulties facing the Seattle IMC right now, is
> everyone's
> > > time really best spent trying to exclude Jonathan--who has put
countless
> > > hours into the building and sustaining of the IMC? It seems to me that
> > there
> > > are more productive avenues for the energy and talent of those who
wish
> to
> > > do good work for the IMC and the local and global activist
communities.
> > >
> > > Heather Gorgura
> > >
> > > Gentry Lange wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don't worry Jonathan, I will support my claims directly. However, I
> > unlike
> > > > others, prefer to take the time to get my story straight before
> publicly
> > > > publishing stories about what is going on, and what has gone on at
the
> > > > Seattle IMC.
> > > >
> > > > Gentry
> > >
> > > regarding his earlier post:
> > >
> > > While I clearly dislike you personally, my objection to your jumping
> back
> > in
> > > at this time, has to do with your previous subversion of IMC policies,
> and
> > > your apparent intention to do so again, and my personal lack of trust
in
> > > your motives.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Seattle-editorial mailing list
> > > Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> > > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
> > >
> >
> >
>
>