[Imc-communication] "Mediation" RE Germany's Belgium proposal

[ben]

Hi Phil & others,

> [...], I reject your argument about a necessity not to be emotional,
> coz emotions are as human as your pretentions to behave "aside" from them.

It was just an experioence within the german cllective, that some
conflicts *only* aruse because people react imidatly and very emotinally
(because in e-mail-communication you cannot see the person's expressions
and gestures (~80%of human communications), so misunderstandings are easy.
Therefore we made good experiences ba "sleeping a night over an answer"
and then pushing the "send"-button.
Because of this, I can understand very good what Alster said.

> > 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.

The irc-discussion we had were coloured in the opinion, as it is written
down in our first statement. BUT because we already know that the
disafiliation has already been blocked, we didn't focus on what is our
position to this. Instead, we focussed on finding alternatves, which
imho is much more useful.

> 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.

The discussion didn't come to this point, but in my personal opinion,
reasons for a "veto" (in such a situation like this) should be
clarified. So that in further consensus decision-making process, the
differents points of vies/positions/interests, can be differentiated and
consensual solutions finally found.

Love & Solidarity

Ben