[Imc-communication] belgium: two questions to answer

[Quinten Steenhuis]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, gek wrote:

>> 1) Was there a repeated violation of a Principle of Unity?
>> 2) Is a national-named-imc having extreme problems working with its
>
> imc-process does not have an answer for either of these. Look at the
> original disaffiliation proposal and then read indy.be's response to
> it -- is that enough 'evidence' for you, sitting in Houston (or wherever
> you might be these days)? Given that even the US Justice System gives
> the accused the benefit of the doubt, is there enough there to
> convince you that indy.be is evil and must be punished?

Let's stick to the facts. No IMC was "punished" here. This alarmist tone 
is counter productive. Sure, lots of inflammtory rhetoric was tossed about 
by some of the involved parties, but I think that the more neutral members 
of the network were in the end the ones who were most in favor of this 
proposal. Nowhere do I see any extreme measures being taken by the IMC 
network as a whole.

The German proposal was completely reasonable. No matter what the facts 
behind this conflict, there is nothing unfair in asking the former holders 
of the belgium.indymedia.org URL to give up the URL at least until it is 
sorted out. It in no way has prevented them from continuing their work as 
an IMC and is far from kicking them out of the network.

If you thought it was unfairly punishing them, I don't understand why 
the SF collective didn't block the German proposal, as you did with the 
Liege proposal.

Quinten

---
 	Become the media.
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org