[Imc-communication] RE : [IMC-Process] answer to imc-nl / antwoord aan imc-nl

[Phil]

christophe callewaert a écrit :

>>---comment :----
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>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:
>>http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcBelgiumGeneralAssemblyNotes
>>"
>>http://docs.indymedia.org/rdiff/Local/ImcBelgiumGeneralAssemblyNotes
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Phil 
>>    
>>
>
>Hello Phil,
>
>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?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>christophe
>
>
>
>  
>
ok christophe,

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...

http://docs.indymedia.org/rdiff/Local/ImcBelgiumGeneralAssemblyNotes

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 ?

http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-belgium/

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 :

imc-belgium-process :
 

https://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/private/imc-belgium-process/

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.
Thank you.

Phil