[Imc-uk-features] threads

[andi]

hi radged and all - you are active on the liverpool list
yourself as i see from the archives. don't you think this
debate should first be had on the liverpool list before
the 'uk-wide' features list starts weighing in?

i'd like to think that stuff like that should first be
discussed by people who have a better chance of meeting in
real space...

just my tucents; cheers andi

On Thursday, Jul 8, 2004, at 12:10 Europe/London,
radged01 at fastmail.fm wrote:

 >ekes wrote:
 >>I assume you have checked the threads there isn't anything like
 >>liable on them is there?
 >
 >what?
 >
 >>I've checked the imc-liverpool list archives and there seems to
 >>have been plenty of discussion around the original posts, and
 >>ones like them. So I'd be inclined to let the local decision
 >>rule. As it happens it looks like a non-party political
 >>promotion line was concluded. The posts look like a waste of
 >>time, but if that's what folk in the locality are interested
 >>in? It isn't promotion by a long chalk.
 >
 >you actually reading the same stuff as me? the original posts,
 >all by pingupete, were deliberately constructed so as to get
 >round any accusation of promoting party politics. but they were
 >posted by someone involved in party politics about party
 >politics and the threads that followed ended up with plenty of
 >'promotion'. eg:
 >
 >"Liverpool does not want the far left anymore. The country
 >doesn't (and never did) want it. They do want progress though,
 >and a socialist agenda rooted in the real world. That is what
 >the Labour Party offers."
 >
 >"the SLP in Liverpool isn't as insignificant as you'd like
 >everyone to believe. Just take a look at SLP policies, and
 >you'll see what socialist policies really are..."
 >
 >"It is wrong you do not the results for The Liberal Party, some
 >3 councillors and 6% of city wide vote in local elections, 8% of
 >Euro vote as an alternative to the two main parties Labour and
 >Lib Dem. On many issues we have had to be the effective radical
 >and liberal voice..."
 >
 >--- i could go on. maybe i should.
 >
 >the liverpool imc, as i keep telling people, is like the marie
 >celeste. there is more inclination, when the subject does get
 >discussed, to leave up party political stuff than not because
 >(1) it's considered to be what interests people visiting the
 >site, (2) it interests those active on the list and, (3) as you
 >point out, well, it gets people involved. i almost laughed. the
 >site is a hustings for city hall.
 >
 >radged01
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >>What seems __far__ more worrying to me is there hasn't been a
 >>feature on the Liverpool site since April! Well at least some
 >>people are making use of the site!!!!
 >>
 >>ekes