censor this again ray, it saved to floppy disk so its no problem

by f0reverneverm0re - pdx-imc Mon Oct 21, 2002 01:42

is ray *with* imc (editorially speaking)? why would they/he be censoring posts? i ask cuz there is a "censorship" issue with regards to post here at portland-imc

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 09:26

And the poster is sadly misinformed. Though I'm involved with the IMC I'm not an editor.
If someone's postings are being deleted its because they break the guidelines.

by Bemused Mon Oct 21, 2002 10:44

Two forged postings in the names of well known activists appeared on Indymedia. One was deleted immediately (it purported to be an anarchist) but the forged posting of Richard Boyd Barret of the Irish Anti War Movement remains untouched despite comments. It presents falsely Boyd Barrett as seeking to throw his weight around. No doubt a useful slander for anarchists to promote.

On the other hand genuine announcements of publications from the SWP and others are routinely censored.

Perhaps Ray and the Indymedia censors ought to set up Libertarians Against Logic or Anarchists for One Sided Gagging.
Ho hum...

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 10:55

how do you know it broke the guidelines if you havenn't read it?

the only way to deal with these middle class wanker censors who delete things on a totally arbitary basis is to repost the article.

if they take it down again then put it back up ten times. the message will soon get across to these thickos.

the shelley book launch item was deleted because it was a swp event. the same censor has deleted pro-republican articles whilst leaving up anti-ira ones.

fuck the petulant pseudo-pacifist petit-bourgeois auto-eroticist dilettantes of the imc cabal.

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:31

- Two forged postings in the names of well known activists appeared on Indymedia. One was deleted immediately (it purported to be an anarchist) but the forged posting of Richard Boyd Barret of the Irish Anti War Movement remains untouched despite comments. It presents falsely Boyd Barrett as seeking to throw his weight around. No doubt a useful slander for anarchists to promote.

As far as I know, the posting that was supposed to be from LAN was posted as an article. I believe its easier for the editors to remove an article than to remove a comment from an article.
There have also been comments posted from people pretending to be me, and they're still on the newswire.
The editor removing these articles isn't (as far as I know) an anarchist, by the way.

- On the other hand genuine announcements of publications from the SWP and others are routinely censored.

When the SWP post an article saying their paper is available for sale, that's cut because its advertising. When the SWP post a digest of their paper, with links to where those articles are available on the web, it isn't cut.
Its funny how only SWP members are unable to see the important distinction there...

- Perhaps Ray and the Indymedia censors ought to set up Libertarians Against Logic or Anarchists for One Sided Gagging.

Perhaps you might like to take a course in Elementary Logic. Or consult a psychiatrist, who might be able to treat your paranoia. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a libertarian, and you don't have to have a grudge against the SWP to think they should follow the same rules as everyone else...

by Daithi - -1 of IMC Ireland- Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:42

"petulant pseudo-pacifist petit-bourgeois auto-eroticist dilettantes of the imc cabal."

Now Pat that's a bit much for that time of the morning don't you think? ;=)

Just to fill you in on the way articles are hidden - one of three things can happen.

(1) If it's against guidelines in a clear way (for example, crossposted across the IMC network, or random letters as junk, or such) the article is hidden and the text is sent to an open mailing list, [email protected] . The archives are publicly accessible. If there are a lot of articles being hidden at one time I usually send a note to the main IMC list pointing out where they have gone. Anyone can object to an article being hidden and it can be retrieved from the archive and reposted by editorial. I did this last week with the Israeli "wall" article that was hidden in error.

(2) If it's unclear, such as the "ad" articles that we have had, there is a note sent to the Editorial mailing list with the link to the article, and comments come back on the list on whether it fits within the guidelines. This is discussed and a decision is made if possible.

(3) If there are a set of articles posted in quick succession (for example, someone goes onto the EUObserver website and posts ten articles in a row on the website here at 8.01, 8.02, 8.03 etc - something similar happened with this article that's being complained about) the articles are deleted and a note is sent to one of the mailing lists explaining what happened. This was done in this case too. If a writer leaves an email address they are often contacted by someone from editorial to ask them not to post so much at one time.

Finally, of course, there are always a few people on active editorial duty so there can be a couple of people deleting articles on the same day.

by I see through Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 14:35

Any guidelines that have any purpose would include a clause saying obviously false, forged or malicious postings will be removed.
Yet the false posting in the name of Richard Boyd Barrett remains.

"I believe its easier for the editors to remove an article than to remove a comment from an article."

Don't hide behind that nonsense. If you wanted it removed it would be gone. It suits your purposes to portray Boyd Barrett as a bully.

Slander and smearing are what the anarcho-censors are best at it would seem

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 15:05

I criticised that post that purported to be from RBB as soon as it went up, saying that its stupid and childish to impersonate other people. Andrew (from the WSM, another anarchist) said basically the same thing. I don't think anyone has claimed it was real, and certainly no-one has cited it as proof of anything.
If you want the comment removed, post to the newswire list, and one of the editors will either remove it or explain why it won't be removed. Claiming its an anarchist conspiracy just makes you look stupid.

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 15:22

i am not part of the cabal which rules over imc.

i have no intention of joining the priesthood & attending the board of Time-Warner-AOL.

(yes, you're not in kansas anymore toto at the imc meetings. they really act as if they were multi-national media moguls)

so: carry on censoring! starring ray, aidan & blisset & the cult of the imc!

arbitary rules apply!

republican articles deleted!

anti-ira articles stay up!

by blisset Mon Oct 21, 2002 15:53

As for your imaginary views of our deletions policy go to hell with your persecution complex. I am from el paso and have been innoculated at birth against sec 31 type manouvering . . . we let you shout and roar and abuse us and others who disagree with you in this house that (wether you like to admit it or not) belongs to all of us . .

I reckon the reason you have set your mind on staying outside and slandering us in comments is that you know how wrong you were to threaten to come to an IMC meeting and settle an argument (which i do not recall the details of before you start) with fisticuffs. I reckon you also know how thin on the ground support for your demonisation of IMCers would be because this is one place where swimmers shinners, dissident republicans, commies greens pinks sp-ers, Lanners, wassims can have a dialogue.

by blisset again Mon Oct 21, 2002 15:55

I think a large part of the activist community realise how full of horse-shit your juvenile imaginings of how we act at meetings are

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 16:37

or maybe imc cult hierarchy would be more appropriate

you guys make me laugh. i was threatened with violence by one of your cabal, who typically hides his identity, i repond to his threat & suggest a meet at imc & you go ballistic.

the only reason i would have for attending the meetings of imc would be to uncover king mob and mete out proletarian justice to him.

now you wouldn't want that would you?

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 17:03

if i am not mistaken you argued with aidan re:

republican articles by mcmean deleted!

anti-ira articles by 666 staying up!

i shudder at the idea of revisiting the shelley incident & the "excuse" given for deleting it.

there have been many announcements since then which have carried a price tag & have not been deleted.

even the capitalist media accept criticism. you lot react with hysteria.

i return abuse to those who abuse me. i also point out their inconsistencies & cant.

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 17:20

- republican articles by mcmean deleted!
anti-ira articles by 666 staying up!

When republican articles are deleted, this is evidence of the anti-republican bias of the Almighty Cabal.
When people who are involved in the imc discuss this, ask why the articles were deleted, and formulate rules about multiple postings to make sure they're applied in an even-handed way, this is also, you guessed it, evidence of the anti-republican bias of the Almighty Cabal.

McMeans posts were deleted for the same reason as the posts from the euobserver were deleted - they were multiple articles posted in a short space of time that had been simply lifted from another source. There have been plenty of other republican posts before and after McMean, and they don't get deleted. I don't think any of Justin Moran's posts have been deleted, for example, even though he's a prominent member of SF. You know why? He understands the rules, and he doesn't spam the newswire. Simple as that.

Your problem, Pat, and you've pretty much admitted it in the past, is not that the IMC is biased _against_ some campaigns. You are complaining because the IMC is not biased _towards_ your pet issues, and insists on treating 'your side' just the same as it treats everyone else.

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 18:40

he just can't accept criticism & he alwaya has to be right.

he'll just ignore whatever you write & continue on with his own bilge.

what did the imc cult do to your brain ray?

hes trying to deny reality re the censorship that has taken place under the auspices of the high priests of imc.

he himself questions whether postings for the bloody sunday film should be allowed on indymedia.
the cultist would have taken it down if his remarks hadn;t stiired up support. it says something about rays political degeneration.

he would delete republican & swp postings but he'd leave up icp posters.

by pat c Mon Oct 21, 2002 18:43

if you or anyother imc cultist deletes any of my postings i'll just put them back up again. & keep doing so till they stay up

thats the only way to deal with the imc cult folks.

by King Mob Mon Oct 21, 2002 20:12

This is a time of joy for those of us who have fought you nationalists and your fake leftie hangers on. You and your littel Ireland movement has been beaten. Your program against Nice was a reactionary one,especially the Anarchists. Hah! National Libertarians. NA NA NA NA!!!! NA NA NA NA!!!!

by arbitrary Mon Oct 21, 2002 22:23

I have often seen good articles on Indymedia and a couple of hours later they are taken down. If the 'cabal' dont want un - origional articles can they not leave the first paragraph still up, or put the stuff on another section of the site. This should not pose too many technical problems, should it?