SCREENING: WEF Blockade in Melbourne

by R Isible, 1 of IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Wed Jul 02, 2003 20:07

I ask because you have a previous announcement on the newswire of a Globalise Resistance meeting on Wed July 2nd 7:30pm. If you were aware that you were going to be screening this movie it would have been politer to include this information in the original notice here: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60221&results_offset=10 Thanks for your cooperation in making the newswire usable by all.

by Jack Thu Jul 03, 2003 00:12

R Isible, 1 of IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland you are one self righteous bastard......

You're distaste for left groups that you 'oppose' is so transparent and you like nothing better than hunting down their posts and adding some trivial bullshit on the end.

SFB

by Acidburn Thu Jul 03, 2003 01:23

Have to agree. Very...unprofessionally stated comment.

by R Isible - 1 of IMC Editorial Thu Jul 03, 2003 01:30

In the vague hope that there's a human being behind the last two comments:
1. You have no justification for stating that I "oppose" left groups.
2. How is asking someone to not spread a single post into two "unprofessional".

I'll repeat the point again: if you and/or your organisation have an announcement to make please do not split it into several posts to the newswire where one will do.

If you do that then the left groups and everyone else will see their posts disappear quickly.

Thank you for your co-operation. Would you like fries with that?

by Jock Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:22

Picture the scene in the Snug

'Is this where the film is'

From a dark corner various vampires rise up as they scent new and unsuspecting blood.

by GEoff Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:40

I would have been interested in going to see this if I had known about it, so there is a point that posting things up on the day they happen is a bit late.

by Jack Thu Jul 03, 2003 17:03

" if you and/or your organisation have an announcement to make please do not split it into several posts to the newswire where one will do"

The point, as if you didn't know, is that you post such pearls as these after a posting from a leftwing group you don't like.

You could have made the same point about O'Broin's double posting on this recent newswire, the coverage of Marys trial or GG stuff in the past, but you don't.

Hence you reveal your cyclops view on socialist organisation.

Is that clear enough?

Good.

by R Isible - 1 of IMC Editorial Group Thu Jul 03, 2003 18:14

>The point, as if you didn't know, is that you
>post such pearls as these after a posting from
> a leftwing group you don't like.

Again you have no evidence of this and you know nothing about my preferences in terms of leftwing groups. I'm very careful to keep them out of it. I follow simple rules: 1. original material please, 2. keep topics compact on the newswire

Point 2 is the operational one here. It's for the benefit of everyone including (in this case) Globalise Resistance (who have not had the courtesy to officially answer the request that I made of them above).

>You could have made the same point about
>O'Broin's double posting on this recent
> newswire,

I didn't see it, and in any case if you get down off your cross and look around you would have seen that I deleted one ISF article and compacted another two into a single post right above this thread. Hardly displays the partiality you claim, does it?

>the coverage of Marys trial or GG stuff in the
>past, but you don't.

I have deleted numerous postings from both that organisation and from Mary's well-wishers where they seemed to be in violation of the two principles that I roughly apply. You'll note that those are _deletions_. Above I gave a courtesy request to Globalise Resistance so that they can try to refrain from unwittingly damaging the newswire, _not_ a deletion. Again this disproves your paranoid accusations.

>Hence you reveal your cyclops view on
> socialist organisation.
>
>Is that clear enough?

No.

Any further discussions on editorial policy should be made to the editorial list: [email protected]

by Acidburn Thu Jul 03, 2003 22:38

"It's for the benefit of everyone including (in this case) Globalise Resistance (who have not had the courtesy to officially answer the request that I made of them above)."

Did you actually send the request to 'them', and not just post it on the newswire. The point I was trying to make was that your post was directed at GR and no one else. Would it have not been more appropriate to send the comment to GR directly, and not have it look like your picking groups out? Wether you intended doing this, or not, it looks like you have from a readers point of view.

by Chekov Fri Jul 04, 2003 14:50

They sent the press release to indymedia, where volunteer labour was used to disseminate it to a wide audience. If they can't be bothered to read indymedia to check the responses they get to their postings, why can they be bothered to sent postings to it?

One of the great things about indymedia and open publishing is that it moves beyond the lecture style of mainstream media. The comments section allows a dialogue between author and reader. Sure, some people may not have the enough net access to respond to comments on their articles. But for those that do, to ignore the comments shows that they just don't "get" indymedia. In this forum, unanswered comments, criticisms and questions looks like arrogance on the part of the author. Happy enough to use indymedia labour to circulate their news, unwilling to give anything back by engaging in dialogue.

by R Isible Fri Jul 04, 2003 20:30

>Did you actually send the request to 'them',
>and not just post it on the newswire.

1. What's with putting "them" in quotes? I referred to GR as GR and don't see it as an us/them if that's what your trying to insinuate.

2. Are you suggesting that I have to go and find a GR email address, write a private email to GR and engage in a secret dialogue with them? Are you saying that GR is _not_ going to be able to read the response that I made to the post that they placed on indymedia? Apart from anything else that means that other people and groups will be unaware of the problem and that I'll have to spend thousands of hours having virtual wee chats over virtual cups of tea. I don't have that time.

>The point I was trying to make was that your
> post was directed at GR and no one else.

Well Acidburn, given that GR actually posted the article that I was responding too that would seem to be a logical thing for me to do! However you'll note that I asked a question in order to make sure that I was not getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. I made a public response to a public post so that the perceived problem could be discussed and learnt from by everyone. I chose explicitly _not_ to send a secret dictatorial editorial missive to GR because A) I don't have that right or power, I'm just a hamster trying to keep the wheel spinning, B) I want editorial policy to be questioned and discussed so that it is determined by some sort of feedback and consensus. That latter point can't happen if all the debate takes place in secret.

>Would it have not been more appropriate to
> send the comment to GR directly,

The newswire is direct enough. It's a public forum and a public response is appropriate for all the reasons above (and on the other threads currently going about editorial policy).

>and not have it look like your picking groups
> out? Wether you intended doing this, or not,
> it looks like you have from a readers point
> of view.

I think I demonstrated my even-handed evil which is applied to all. I think it also demonstrates an extreme paranoia and myopia for anyone to keep on claiming that I am displaying any sort of partiality.

by Joe - GR Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:35

New person doing email and internet postings forgot about it. Which was a pity as the WEF Melbourne video gives a good taste of the blockades and how they work. Ach well- sure we can organise a screening again

by Acidburn Sun Jul 06, 2003 01:14

a way to end a discussion. Disect my comments into itsy bitsy pieces. Now THATS dedication.:)