[Imc-uk-features] Unhidden: Conspiraloons, Ravers and Peace Activists

[guidoreports at riseup.net]

"BTW feel free to remove this email address from the list so you can
insult me without having to justify it."

What did I say about a certain person being paranoid?

Actually Danny you are just not that important. My complaint was about
moderation not you. You are just one of the many irritating individuals
who sees IMC UK as their personal conspiracy forum.





>
> Thats the same Danny, by the way, who tries to publish
> moderators personal email addresses and recently publically described
> Chris and ftp as a pair of 'fucking morons'.
> Apologies to Chris and ftp if I called them 'fucking morons'.  I don't
> recall doing that but it is quite possible I did in anger.  I've never met
> either of them but have a lot of respect for their IM stuff, especially
> ftp's radio interview with Joe Black which I have been distributing on CD.
>  As for publishing moderators personal email addresses, I don't have any
> to publish and wouldn't if I did.  Not every post under the name Danny is
> mine btw even if some of them pretend to be.
>
> I'd get angry a helluva lot less if the collective didn't disappear and
> reappear articles in an inconsistent manner.
>
> As for my article being a vehicle to attack my critics, I have never
> before been criticised by Citpecs, criticised them, or interacted with
> them in anyway before this.  I do think it was worth commenting that the
> first ammendment wasn't intended to protect US state depts propagandising
> lies, and also that Nimmo was wrong to describe wikipedia as a
> front-organistation.  I see that as balanced rather than paranoid but if
> that offends anyone then feel free to edit the article to remove it.  As
> for being paranoid, I can prove my family and I were taken into police
> questioning for an anonymous post on IM I was alleged to have made - can
> any of you say that ?
>
> I am not a 911er but think it is newsworthy that Fisk is prepared to state
> his doubts publicly.  It isn't the first Fisk article to be referenced or
> quoted here but it is the first to draw such flak.  I'd agree that it
> would be better if quoted in full though, I doubt either Fisk or the
> Independent would complain, but the link is there if people are curious.
> Nobody would seriously believe Fisk posted that here himself,
>
> A couple of years ago I used to attack the amount of pointless 911 stuff
> posted here, it used to dominate the wire as they generally never posted
> under existing threads.  That is far from the case now. They are posting
> responsibly about actions  and demos and  whether you agree with them or
> not, they are activists as much as anyone else.
>
> BTW feel free to remove this email address from the list so you can insult
> me without having to justify it.
>
>
> guidoreports at riseup.net wrote: Personally I think it should be rehidden.
> It is non-news.
>
> I also cant help noticing that someone has put Fisk's article up having
> censored all the bits they dont like (like first few paragraphs which take
> the piss out of the conpiracy theorists). This has been promoted as an
> addition. Did Fisk put this up himself?? Of course not. Do our editorial
> guidlines allow individuals to impersonate real people? Surely that breaks
> the 'misleading rule'?
>
> Danny's paranoid rant is nothing more than a vehicle used to have a go at
> his critics. Thats the same Danny, by the way, who tries to publish
> moderators personal email addresses and recently publically described
> Chris and ftp as a pair of 'fucking morons'. So why encourage this wanker?
> Why defend certain peoples right to bombarde a newswire with non news??
>
> Chris it is my opinion that you are willfully abusing your position as an
> IMC moderator to push your own political agenda. That agenda being the
> promotion of your all important conspiracy theories; and moving IMC UK in
> a direction where it becomes a mouthpiece for them. This will NEVER happen
> while I am still breathing.
>
> G.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have unhidden this article:
>>
>> - Conspiraloons, Ravers and Peace Activists
>>   Danny
>>   https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/379676.html
>>
>> Ben hid it with this reason:
>>
>>   ben - hidden, inaccurate, non news rant
>>   "The proof it isn't is that wikipedia has always
>>   published the IP's of contributors in the hope that
>>   somebody would one day expose the changes made by the
>>   CIA and other nefarious organisations and
>>   corporations." - crap
>>
>> I think it's an interesting article, I didn't know that
>> Robert Fisk had come out for 9/11 truth:
>>
>>   What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade
>>   Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) –
>>   which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at
>>   5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to
>>   the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American
>>   National Institute of Standards and Technology was
>>   instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of
>>   all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC
>>   7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical
>>   engineering – very definitely not in the "raver"
>>   bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of
>>   reference of this final report on the grounds that it
>>   could be "fraudulent or deceptive"
>>
>>   http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece
>>
>> The article also talks about the uncovering of various
>> agencies, government and corporate bodies who have been
>> caught red handed editing things on wikipedia via the new
>> wikiscanner tool:
>>
>>   http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
>>
>> And goes on to say that it is "wrong to describe wikipedia
>> as an intelligence front", rather "it is a battlefront in
>> the war between information and disinformation". I think
>> this is essentially correct thought I'd phrase it
>> differently, I'd say that the Wikipedia, like Indmedia are
>> part of the terrain that the information war is being
>> fought across.
>>
>> The quote that Ben cites as being "crap" doesn't actually
>> make sense to me, "The proof it isn't is", but the
>> sentance before this and the one after are the ones I have
>> quoted from above and these do make sense and are not crap.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --
>> Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
>>
>> --
>> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features