[Boston-editorial] re: the William Rivers Pitt "article"(OOPS sorry Sharpie...)

[TL]

Hey a I further reviewed of what you posted about
Aimee smith and realized that you were just rehashing
what others already wrote. sorry, umm well i do agree
obviously w/ the disruptive and threatening posts I
dont necessarily agree however that all of those had
no place on IMC because just attacking Aimee
personally for her intitial post directed at Pitt
might be unacceptable but when she starts changing the
forum to be about her and her agenda than that
changes. why should she rant on about completely
unrelated topics and when someone responds mabye not
too engagingly but in a way that wouldnt be hidden if
it were directed at the Pitt article. if the place
isnt the proper venue for opinions about Aimee it
should be equally improper for her to use the
discussion as a place to spit her unrelated venom.
tl
--- TL <saoirse1220 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I share common ground with all that has been said so
> far. Amen to your views on the matter Sharpie I
> definitely share your sentiment (not just on Pitt
> but
> on a certain Aimee Smith whos not, big surprise,
> turned the whole thing to be about her) I do
> disaggree
> though with idea of taking it down for alot of
> reasons. 
> Even if he has this sappy Liberal-elite agenda I
> don't
> think we should be regulating stuff purely on agenda
> because last I checked weve centered a few articles
> recently by a certain head of a certain front group
> for a certain Stalinist group whos views i despise
> way
> more than Pitts. 
> 
> Now they only thing that did concern me about it was
> how close it danced on the line between an opinion
> piece & flat-out propaganda (I mean he actually
> brought a story about a terminally-ill guy into it!)
> 
> The main reason I support keeping it in the center
> is
> that, now correct me if im wrong, but it appears to
> have been submitted by Pitt himself. If such is the
> case I find that incredibly interesting because it
> seems to say alot about what BostonIMC is or appears
> to be. if he sent it here its because he knows that
> if
> he really wants to address the the people like those
> who opposed him that night then the usual
> echo-chamber
> venues of the Liberal-intelligensia that he gets
> paid
> to write for werent going to be all that useful. 
> what transpired was alot of healthy, open
> discussion. 
> (with the exception of a few usual trolls and one
> self-aggrandizing psycho  whos at least posting for
> a-far) Now i do think a well put together response
> piece would be ideal for the center column as well
> (Sharpie?) but Im not worried about IMC being
> percieved as some sorta Liberal mouthpiece cuz the
> fact is was sent here indicates that we arent that
> at
> all.
>  
> and hey mabye his sappy call for leftist unity may
> lead to mass convergence of him & Aimee Smith & the
> 2
> hecklers (if theyre who i think they are) & the
> democratic party & the WWP/ANSWER & all the other
> cancerous elements of "the left" in that they all
> aggree to go the fuck away? 
> never rule out miracles...
> -tl    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hey all,
> > 
> >   just want to weigh in on this one.  I think this
> > was
> > an interesting article not only for william pitts
> > perspective, but from the perspective of the
> > hecklers,
> > who are amply sounded out in the comments.  
> > 
> > The fact that it has 20 plus comments points to
> the
> > fact that our readers were at least interested
> > enough
> > to read it and I really object to trying to narrow
> > the
> > political spectrum that our website is open too. 
> We
> > should be conscious of the fact that one of the
> > potentialities of our site is to increase
> > communication between all of Boston's various
> groups
> > and activists and people.  
> > 
> > While I'd definitely be leery of posting
> right-wing
> > slants I think we should be hosting a healthy
> debate
> > and a forum of ideas instead of creating a site
> like
> > NYC's that limits all of it's articles to a
> certain
> > perspective.  
> > 
> > It goes back to something Sharpie said at the last
> > meeting.  We should be point of access, not a
> > platform
> > for our own ambitions, or, I think, viewpoints.  
> > 
> > Posting this article where comments could be had
> > helped to clarify the issue for folks, and it did
> > happen here.  Just because we post it or feature
> it,
> > doesn't necessarily mean we agree with it, it just
> > means as matt said, it was well written and argued
> > and
> > had some timely relevance for Boston readers.  
> > 
> > -Pete
> > 
> > 
> > --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Uh, well, lots of people use the term
> > "progressive"
> > > in an expansive way 
> > > to include everyone from left-liberals to
> > radicals.
> > > It's how I usually 
> > > use the term.
> > > 
> > > But to get to the substance of your point, if
> you
> > > want to write a 
> > > response to Pitt, I see no problem with that.
> I'd
> > be
> > > uncomfortable 
> > > taking the feature down, just because one member
> > of
> > > the collective 
> > > disagrees with it. I don't think our criteria
> for
> > > featuring a 
> > > commentary is whether we agree with it, but
> > whether
> > > it's intelligent 
> > > and well written, coming from a progressive
> > > perspective, and have some 
> > > local connection. This fits all three of those
> > > criteria. I recall at 
> > > least one instance where I featured a commentary
> I
> > > completely disagreed 
> > > with because I thought it fit those three
> > criteria.
> > > 
> > > I'll admit I don't know the details of the
> debate,
> > > but from what he 
> > > says, he doesn't support the occupation so much
> as
> > > he doesn't think 
> > > pulling out without a plan is viable. I don't
> > agree
> > > with that position, 
> > > but I know serious progressives, who adamantly
> > > oppose the occupation, 
> > > who do have that position. If people want to
> > > respectfully critique that 
> > > position, I think that's all to the good, but
> > > ostracizing progressives 
> > > with that view isn't going to get us very far. I
> > > don't particularly 
> > > want to debate the merits of the position here
> > > anyway, but the fact is 
> > > we have no party line and we should feature a
> > range
> > > of progressive 
> > > views. Not that I would want to feature
> something
> > by
> > > Christopher 
> > > Hitchens defending US imperialism in the name of
> > > socialism, but the 
> > > Pitt article doesn't do that. The commentary
> isn't
> > > even about his 
> > > opinions on the occupation, but the state of the
> > > left.
> > > 
> > > Oh, and you should be getting an e-mail that you
> > can
> > > respond to, to 
> > > join this list.
> > > 
> > > -- Matt
> > > 
> > > On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 AM, sharpie at riseup.net
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > hey folks... I think that what William Rivers
> > Pitt
> > > says in this 
> > > > "article"
> > > > is not exactly "accurate." there were no
> > > "progressives" heckling him.
> > > > there were "radicals" heckling him. and they
> > were
> 
=== message truncated ===


"And I say to my people's masters
Beware,
Beware of the thing that is coming
Beware of the risen people"
- Padraig Pearse, "The Rebel"


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail