[Imc-lasvegas] Re: [Imc-lasvegas-edit] the post that won't go away!

[Gail Sacco]

I thought it would be a waste of time posting but since Jeffrey finally saw the problem
with the "process" of consensus being bypassed, I will reply here.  
 
Thank you, Jeffrey, for seeing this CONSENSUS problem.
 
Because of the "note that won't go away," multiple issues have been brought up.  And
although all of these issues are very important, the consensus "process" has been ignored. 
Instead of going through the "process," it has turned into a DEBATE.  It seems to have
come to whoever is better at "debating," wins (the majority) and wins the decision.
 
I have posted multiple posts regarding the issue of the "process" of consensus that you,
Genelle, and Jason have so gratiously explained to me the best way you know how.  And I
have also read the Conflict and Resolution and the pages on Consensus to further my
understanding of the process.  
 
After the initial note was removed from the forum, the first note in opposition asked for
"concrete proof or evidence of a precedent that there is anything illegal or a threat to the
site."
 
It is my understanding that "proof" is not needed to be uncomfortable with something. 
Members have expressed that they feel uncomfortable restoring the note, and we wanted
to discuss and investigate further before any further action was taken.
 
I finally got so frustrated with everyone doing their own thing without going through the
"process" of consensus, that I posted my observation of the lazyness of the group. 
 
I will now take the opportunity to apologize for my negative comments. 
 
And this is no excuse for my behaviour, but the note posted on Feb. 23 stating:  "Didn't
anyone even take basic government classes?  I learned this stuff in tenth grade." and the
note posted on the same day giving a directive to:  "Call a civil liberties lawyer and ask
them.  I'm sure the ACLU's phone number is not hard to reach.  PS- If people want to deal
in the real world with real issues and the strong feelings and actions associated, we need to
grow up and stop being so thin skinned."   And on the same day, a note was posted
implying that removing the note in the first place was "nitpicking."
 
Sorry if I'm "thin-skinned" but these comments are fighting words.
 
Fighting words = words which by their very utterance are likely to inflict harm on or
provoke a breach of the peace by the average person to whom they are directed.
 
And in my humble opinion, these fighting words may be acceptable for a DEBATE against
an opponent but they should not be used against a fellow comrade.  And "I" took offense
to all the fighting words.
 
 So from here on, maybe Jeffrey, you could put us back on the right track toward
"working together."

jeffrey <j_pow00 at myway.com> wrote:
this is not a proposal, but it is my two cent's worth. i feel that reposting something that the ed collectiv removed while it is being consensed on is just WRONG! call me reactionary call me a sensitive fuck call me late for dinner but it seems to me that bypassing consensus while it is in progress is not conducive to building trust in our little organization. what is the point of consensus if one of us (appearantly) is just gonna take it upon themsleves to do whatever they want, consensus be damned. are we going to act like the powers that be or are we going to attempt an example of a better way?

peace, jp






---------------------------------
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com _______________________________________________
Imc-lasvegas-edit mailing list
Imc-lasvegas-edit at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-lasvegas-edit

		
---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
 Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-lasvegas/attachments/20050302/650d5d65/attachment.htm