[Imc-communication] "Mediation" RE Germany's Belgium proposal
alster at indymedia.org
Mon May 30 10:35:54 PDT 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
First of all, for some reason I do not understand, my email client seems
to have broken the quoting. Thus
> is what I wrote initially and
>> is what Phil replied to that.
I am also *very* sorry for my lengthy email. To me, it seemed to be
neccessary, though. This email will probably not contain interesting
information for somebody else than Phil (and possibly AndyPie), but for
reasons of openness and as this thread was started on imc-communication
I'm sending it along the list nevertheless.
> Alster a écrit :
> Hi Phil, hi everyone taking part in the discussion of the Belgium
> As it happened a few times before, your (Phil) reply to other peoples'
> emails (andypie in this case) is quite emotionally heated and thus
> limits its use to work towards a solution which is the goal we all
> should be after. Of course, you are not the only person who behaves that
> way, and even more so it is understandable as we're humans and this
> conflict is heatened up.
>> / hi Alster,
>> I don't think andypie is such a kiddy you'd have to answer me in such a
>> way. Ever heard about the karpman's triangle ?
I do not know this expression, "karpman's triangle", but I assume it is
the same thing I know by a different term (which I just can't recall)
which is like the hun and the egg problem, where each party involved is
part of the problem.
I do not think that AndyPie is a kiddie, nor did I express that. I do
not think there is a need to safe him from you or anybody else, because
to think that I would need to know him, and that is not the case. Also,
I tried to be polite in my reply to you.
>> None here is the victim, the savior or persecutor ; and though I easilly
>> admit being rude, I reject your argument about a necessity not to be
>> emotional, coz emotions are as human as your pretentions to behave
>> "aside" from them.
I did not say that it is neccesary not to be emotional, the opposite
would be true. I think that emotions are very important as occasional
strong feelings - both good and bad - are good indicators of a living
heart. However, I recommend that replies are written at a time when
people have calmed down a bit so they are able to reply in a proactive
and productive way. I think that eails being written under the influence
of strong emotions have shown to be less productive or even counter
productive (where the product is a 'good' solution of a conflict) in the
>> And when I speak about the political meaning of certain positions, I do
>> not mean to do anything else than what andypie does : asking questions,
>> and waiting for answers that your curious message seem not to consider
>> of any importance...though...
I was under the impression that the questions you noted down were rather
rhetoric than real attempts to retrieve information (which AndyPie's
questions looked like to me).
>> Besides as you express your feelings, there is also another question I
>> would like to ask about the reason why the imc-germany collective did
>> not support Lieges dissafiliation proposition. It seems the explanation
>> would be that a unique individual among your collective expressed a
>> "veto" to it. It seems also that this person did not even dare to
>> clarify the reasons for such a "veto" empeaching consensus to arise.
Again, I can only reply to that as an individual activist with IMC
Germany and only make assumptions. If I recall correctly, the reply IMC
Germany sent in return to the disaffiliation proposal was that there
were some people within the collective saying that they would support
the proposal, while others would not want to concretely support it at
this time. If I recall correctly, the reason why the some would not like
to state their concrete support was that there was too little
information available in a form which would have allowed them to make a
supportive decision towards the proposal. In other words: a summary was
At this time, it was really difficult - at least for the average
activist who is mostly engaged locally - to find out what the overall
situatio is about and who is cheating with whom and even which parties
are involved in the whole thing. There were masses of emails sent along
the imc-process and imc-communication lists and it was almost
impossible for a single person to read all of them and thus follow just
the tail of the discussion which was actually already going on for about
1 or 2 years (though on other mailing lists and in other languages).
I do not understand what makes you think that 'a unique individual among
[the imc-germany] collective expressed a "veto" to [the liege
proposal]', however, if I recall correctly, this was not the case. As
there was not a single person vetoing the proposal (where did you read
about this?), there was also no single person who 'did not even dare to
clarify the reasons for such a "veto" empeaching consensus to arise'.
That is, unless I'm really mixing things up (I did not check the
archives of our collectives' mailing list to make sure).
>> We had a talk on #communication about this coz personnally I find no
>> difference between such a behavior and authoritarism : with no ground
>> expressed there is no way for the group to work reaching for a consensed
>> decision. Another point so, to remind that we may probably not separate
>> as clearly as you seem to wish the local and the global functioning of
I assume that by 'ground' you mean 'reason', funnily it's the same in
german: 'Grund' is german for 'reason'. I do not understand your last
sentence in this paragraph, could you please say it differently?
I see a difference between authoritiarism and vetoing without giving a
reason, as the latter could also be done by a weaker minority.
Nevertheless, I agree with you in that both have bad effects.
While I should propably think more about the implications this would
have, I also agree that vetos which are not reasoned/explained are not
valid. I even think that vetos should always be constructive, i.e.
provide an alternative proposal.
By the way, just to make sure we do not mix things up: IMC Germany did
not block the proposal by IMC Liege. Instead, the collective made a
statement which explained that people's ideas were ranging between
undecided and supportive. This obviously does not include vetos. If
anything, it shows that there were some people who were undecided. For
my assumptions on why this may have been so, please scroll up.
> Your (Phil) reply to him (AndyPie) mostly deals with the difference
> between the statement IMC Cleveland made and statements he has made (as
> you say). I don't think it is uncommon that there is a difference
> between the individual ideas of single activists and the common
> statements of the IMC they work with. This is a matter of diversity and
> individuality and free thought and expression, and I would not want to
> see any of these being limited.
>> Sometimes I wonder if this claim for "deversity" is not an easy way to
>> avoid cohenrence.
Sometimes I wonder whether 'commonly reached consensus' by means of
pressure on minorities who are not fully convinced is a good way to make
a decision. ;-)
>> Thank you. I will. But I also insist to obtain a clearer statement about
>> the implicits accusations of Mac-Cartism expressed by IMC-CLEVELAND
>> while the problem is elsewhere, leading on the external control of an
>> imc, about which they seem to consider lots of proofs and testimonies
>> not enough.
Yes, this would surely be interesting. I could not really understand it
either, if it was/is true that IMC Cleveland still opposes any proposals
which would bring more euquality to the belgian IMCs. Just let's make
sure we do not mix up AndyPie's statements as an individual with IMC
Cleveland's statements (which may be carried out by him if he's their
liaison - I do not know about that).
> Thank you very much!
>> Thanks 2 u 2 :)
>> I am sure you will agree we should read beyond the emotions expressed in
>> our personnal positions and go on discussing their concrete aspects.
I'd love to. :)
GPG key: http://keys.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/lookup?op=get&search=3D39AC3B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the IMC-communication