[imc-northern] Feature Proposal + hiding

libjf at riseup.net libjf at riseup.net
Fri Jan 28 06:08:38 PST 2011

I agree with protag.
The first 303 article was hidden because it places individuals in danger.
This is not hidden because it does not.

Let's feature that other one though! aces.


> Hi
> I'd like to 2nd the feature proposal 1311. It's not perfect but it does
> have much to recommend it.
> Re. the other item (generally) I feel I have already disengaged. I tried
> quite hard a while ago (when it was being discussed on closed lists) to
> indicate ways in which people who disagreed with each other might move a
> little in one anothers' direction, to at least show a bit of willing and
> keep the process of finding consenus alive, but it just seemed mired in
> intransigence to me.
> As far as the recent item (1313) goes, I don't feel the need to distance
> myself or ourselves from it. I wish its criticisms were worded a bit more
> carefully and generously,  but basically it's tapping balls into a series
> of open goals (which didn't need to be left open).
> Just to give an example, when the Gateway 303 story was first mooted the
> obvious implausibilites were pointed out. That's not to say the story
> isn't
> true: just that people would doubt it and subject it to ridicule if it was
> not supported with some really good evidence. And therefore it would be in
> the interests of those wishing the story to be taken seriously to do some
> work on that. Those making this case were basically dismissed (and, to a
> degree, insulted) as if they were saying that they themselves didn't
> believe that cops were posting stuff on Indymedia, rather than what they
> were actually saying: some readers would sieze on the IP filtering
> (whatever) aspects of the story and make that the news, to the cost of
> Indymedia as a project generally, and not be especially impressed with the
> revelation of the (to them) bleeding obvious. One of the reassurances
> provided was that the story did not depend just on the gateway 303 IP data
> but that lexicographical analysis of the text in the comments could be
> presented which would show they were the work of one (or a small group of)
> individual(s). It's a pity that hasn't been produced.
> If the 1313 article was attacking activists (by name) I'd be for hiding
> it, as that's plainly not OK. I don't think anyone* doubts the good
> intentions of the people who worked on the Gateway 303 story. But by
> rejecting crticisms made in private they have chosen to receive that
> criticism in public. And for me the 1313 story at least saves the effort
> of
> Northern conjuring up some kind of position statement which would merely
> re-iterate our oft stated position on anonymous publishing (and which
> would
> then become a target for more criticism...)
> I might think differently if I felt, as you do, that the author(s)
> "designed [the article] to create more mistrust" - I don't think it reads
> like that, I don't think they had that intention - my assumption is that
> they have good intentions and I think that's a plausible interpretation.
> Hey, I might be wrong, who knows.
> Cheers
> Protag (still wishy-washy after all these years)
> *Except Jimdog who thinks some of them are very naughty boys :)
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:49:42 +0000, nab at aktivix.org wrote:
>> With the pictures I propose we feature
>> articles/1311
>> Also I'd like to go on record saying I'd like something on
>> articles/1313
>> distancing ourselves from this or hiding it.  I think it is designed
>> to create more mistrust between people and like D. said, I want to
>> disengage.
>> Cheers,
>> nab
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-northern mailing list
>> imc-northern at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-northern
> _______________________________________________
> imc-northern mailing list
> imc-northern at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-northern

More information about the imc-northern mailing list