[Imc-communication] RE : [IMC-Process] answer to imc-nl / antwoord aan imc-nl
clampin at free.fr
Mon Apr 25 03:48:52 PDT 2005
christophe callewaert a écrit :
>>I read this this morning.
>>So it goes this way : each time your behaviors are questionned you, belgium collective members denounce lies.
>>And whenever you are attacked on a point you are obviously vulnerable to you attack back and do not answer.
>>After all this is clear most of your lists are not public. this is also clear that they are no reports of your meetings.
>>So when you seem to repend suspiscion about Marseille, this is normal to forget that all their editorial, collective debate and moderation
>>lists are opened and reflect to the public in real time what is happening among this collective.
>>Same way you use with "nl" : series of "we never heard of this" and "they are suspect themselves".
>>Ok we have a clear demonstration by now. For anyone who might have had doubts...:
>>"The same is true for our reports which can all be found here:
>>see the page history whiwh is a eloquent example of regular practices of this collective i stated, and which explain my definite support to the clarification asled by Liege.
>>This is really a shame.
>>Sorry for all this network.
>Could you be a bit more specific? Some people say we don't have public
>reports of meetings. Strange because all reports are send to a public
>list (im-belgium at lists.indymedia.org). We've put all the links to those
>reports together on an old wiki page.
>And now for you that's the proof that we absolutely must be
>desaffiliated? I am not really following anymore.
>And yes we have some closed list (finance, process and edito) and some
>public lists (imc-belgium-news and imc-belgium). But I think that's a
>common practice in the network. Don't you?
i am begining to get puzzled by your constant hide-and-show game ; you
suggest now you always worked with transparency ; you invoke on a mail
to the process-list the availability of your meetings reports : i just
notice you posted that on your local twiki four days ago...
then, on #communication irc channel you add that these reports were
publicly available on imc-belgium list.
and so i ask you : then why, asking to see these posted reports for a
period anterior to august 2004, do i get this message ?
does not this message states that formally this list archive was a
private one ?
and in anyway, with no way to get to these so-called "publicly available
reports archives", what puzzles me a least is that on your twiki,
reports former to august 2004 you point to, were published on a list you
attest right away, in the very message I am curently replying to, not to
be public :
So in anyway I am deeply sorry but the only thing i understand in here
is a recent attempt to show some transparency where they were formally none.
I am also sorry to say that after so much demonstrations of technical
skills, I get to believe you have enough to prove anything you wish to ;
but certainly not to convince me that the resquest to dissafiliate your
local collective was unjustified.
Sorry not to balance anymore.
But after all, shall I repeat again ? it is just a personal point.
More information about the IMC-communication