[Seattle-editorial] still awaiting response to <<<<<<<<PROPOSE TO HIDE>>>>>>>>

[anarch3m]

 I understand lightness.  I also understand protecting the name and use iof indy.  It belongs to the collective.  Not kiddies at Seattle Prep.  Am I alone here?  I did do a commentary to distance us from the view that we are sponsoring the views of the poster.

Is that too heavy too?

upset? yes I am.

walt
--

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:16:35   
 Lance Larkin wrote:
>Walt and all,
>
>Someone has already responded with a good argument for
>not hiding:
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/seattle-editorial/2003-February/002888.html
>
>According to our policy this means a NO hide unless
>there is more debate. I tend to agree with Jonathan.
>Why hide it? If you want add a comment to it (not
>necessarily as an editorial member), go for it. Light
>touch on the editorializing, remember?
>
>Lance
>
>---  anarch3m <anarch3m at lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=22043&group=webcast
>> 
>> One came in, it said this should be hid, since the
>> poster ids it with the imc
>> 
>> Anybody else care, ,,, enough to say yes or no???
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seattle-editorial mailing list
>Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>


_____________________________________________________________
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus