[Imc-uk-features] Unhidden: Conspiraloons, Ravers and Peace Activists
guidoreports at riseup.net
guidoreports at riseup.net
Sun Aug 26 05:32:20 PDT 2007
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.
> I have unhidden this article:
> - Conspiraloons, Ravers and Peace Activists
> 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 â the so-called World Trade
> Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) â
> 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 â very definitely not in the "raver"
> bracket â are now legally challenging the terms of
> reference of this final report on the grounds that it
> could be "fraudulent or deceptive"
> 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:
> 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.
> Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
More information about the IMC-UK-Features