[Imc-uk-features] Unhidden: Conspiraloons, Ravers and Peace Activists
movementof2 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Aug 27 03:29:27 PDT 2007
>That is of course assuming that you are not the same person. I dont
>want to seem unduly suspicious but as Danny has claimed that other people
>are posting in his name, you cant be too careful
You can be too sarcastic though, unless you are serious in which case I suggest you stop using the paranoid label on others. I don't know that person except perhaps from recognising retrospectively a few of their posts.
>>I was five minutes away from updating my CV and working for the 'man' again.
>Sorry but I think the line above perhaps deserves further explanation because Im frankly quite baffled. I could however be wrong, maybe it makes perfect sense to everyone else?
It meant getting a job again. I used to be a corporate computer guy until I blew my security clearance.
> Stop making references to your mental health.
I will if you will.
>>As soon as is technically possible, you allow registered log-ons.
>A registered log-on? Registered with who? Who would be in charge of
>technical and practical security? How would registered users be vetted?
>Sorry Danny, but if the security services were to start bothering with
>IMC UK rather than just reading it, this is exactly what I would expect one
>of their infiltrators to suggest.
Why ? IM Scotland allow registered and anonymous logons. It prevents posters posting disreputable posts under other peoples pseudonymns. Like I said the police had me for such a post - someone posted it and then reported it as mine.
If I was trying to infiltrate IM I may just have tried to become an admin over the past 5 years.
>>When posts are hidden, you give a known name and an explicit reason
rather than a blanket reason.
>As I understand it. Moderators, who hide original posts, always give
> a reason, and give other moderators in the collective the opportunity to
>disagree with them and change the decision. Hidden comments are not
>always explained but can always be unhidden if successfully challenged.
The explanations given are rarely very explanatory and usually amount to nothing more than an oblique reference to the guidelines.
>What do you mean by known name? Who decides what is known? Do you
>want all moderators to submit their home addresses? Whose purpose would that
No, I mean for example if you were to hide a post you'd sign it Guido rather than IMCista. Or, a different pseudonymn like say, Charlton.
>>You seriously consider a clear-out of admins who are more right-wing than the Independents >>journalists.
>Who exactly? And for what reason? IMC UK is moderated on a voluntary
basis, by individuals who subscribe to the IMC UK mission statement. If
you think people involved with this process are right wing, or state
infiltrators, or are bringing the kollective into disrepute then you
should say whom, and produce your evidence.
Oscars articles prove the state has tried to infiltrate, we know this because people like him refused and wrote it up. It would be incautious to assume everyone approached did refuse.
There is one poster who I believe to be MI5 but this isn't the time or the place to repeat that.
>The reason I recommended the hiding of your post was because it was your PERSONAL view and therefore not suitable material for a NEWSWIRE...
The fact a journalist of Fisks reputation risks career suicide by expressing doubts about 911 is news, even if you disagree with him. If Pilger started writing about the moonlandings being faked wouldn't you call the newsworthy in own right ?
Wikiscanner is a very useful tool for exposing corporate and state PR as the Smash EDO folk found out, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/379717.html, but it had only been commented on in Nimmos blog which made the mistake of calling wikipedia a security services front.
Citpecs defended CIA propaganda as 'freedom of speech' and wasn't challenged on an article all about security services posting propaganda.
My article conflated all three things admittedly, but that was to give it more substance. If there had been an existing article on Wikiscanner or Fisk I would have added my post to it. My personal opinion was certainly expressed as I don't pretend to have a neutral point of view. I feel it certainly contains news though and think it was hidden in relexively simply because it mentioned 911. I can see how you think commenting on Citpecs defense of CIA propagandists is forum stuff beneath the newswire, but if you allow extraordinary right-wing comments like that to stand then why not a rebuttal ?
> We are concerned with news and current affairs rather than analysing past events like 9/11 or other sources of endless speculation. If some speculative conspiracy stuff on the newswire gets hidden its not a sinister plot. It is just not suitable for this site.
You have to maintain a balance. All unbroken stories start as speculative conspiracy stuff until they are broken in the mainstream. So much stuff has been hidden or attacked here that people are stopping posting stuff that could be broken here, only for it to appear on the mainstream. For instance, I thought Bernard Matthews was the likely source of Bird Flu, and went on to prove that they had been importing turkeys from their Hungarian plant four days before the mainstream ran with it as national headlines. I'm not qualified to say that though, I don't have samples of the two virus contaminated birds so it could have justifiably been hidden as speculative conspiracy. Someone speculated that the Foot and Mouth outbreak was a deliberate release to interfere with the Climate Change camp. Now, that was ridiculed, but the Times broke the news that it was a deliberate release. When I pointed that out and some of the implications I was simply attacked personally as a
conspiraloon, and the Climate Change camp smeared as smelly hippies, without any moderators stepping in.
It seems that in your zeal to minimise 911 stories you are also inhibiting true citizen journalism.
>Finally, Im not going to apologise for the paranoid accusation, but I should finish by saying sorry for the wanker remarks. Like everyone else I am susceptible to my moods and I accept that abusive language is not helpful or constructive on this list.
The wanker charge is far more justified in reality though !
>Im much better looking than Charlton Heston.
For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IMC-UK-Features