[Imc-uk-features] 374918

[Tony]

I have to say Yoss is talking sense here - i agree  that this stuff 
is not relevant to our site (apart from the occasional crossover 
where it is in some context)

I am at a loss reading through the bickering that passes for 
consensing on this list - people sometimes forget to say which post 
they are talking about - so we can only sit back and watch. And it 
all too often seems based on past personal baggage rather than debate.

Ones like
374741 : kerrr-plunk. . . . the end of "conspiracy theory"
are classic rubbish that should be hidden on sight

and this
374796 : Numbskull "al-Qaeda" Patsies Flub in Glasgow
is also just one persons ramblings on the subject that i could over 
hear late down the pub - but doesn't need space on our site.

and probably many more over the coming days

cheers tony

Yossairian wrote:
>Hey,
>
>I'm not sure how to approach this whole discussion but thought I'd try
>to make a contribution.  From my perspective, at the same time as the
>government and media reaction to recent events is totally overblown
>(al-qaeda? come on...) I think that the reflexive "black op" stuff in
>the newswire is almost a parody of what one would expect from the 9/11
>"truth" crowd.  And at the same time as I can see a need for more
>analysis in our newswire, I have pretty serious problems, as is well
>known, with the claims that everything bad that happens in the world is
>directly traceable back to the intelligence agencies of rich western
>governments.
>
>So, we have something of a problem - any significantly newsworthy event
>involving violence brings a flood of newswire postings "proving" that
>the responsible parties include MI6, the CIA, the Mossad, etc.  This
>puts us in an unfortunate bind, because our site is supposed to be about
>"radical, passionate truth-telling", and there is a disagreement about
>what the site is for.   Certainly the 9/11 types have enough passion to
>fill the newswire many times over, and they certainly believe that they
>have found "The Truth".
>
>Personally I don't see, and have never seen, any reason to keep the
>conspiracy stuff in the wire.  In my view, there is plenty of room on
>the web for this sort of speculation, people can easily set up a MySpace
>page, a blog on blogger.com, etc.  The fact that many of the conspiracy
>reports we get are just cut-and-pastes from blogs that are readily
>available elsewhere doesn't make me think that they are deserving of our
>time and effort, or that the 9/11 truth "movement" are contributing to
>the wire in the same way as people in other movements, who consistently
>create original content (including both action reports and analyses) to
>contribute to the collective undertaking that is the Indy UK newswire.
>I also don't feel that the conspiracy "movements" are standing up to
>government or corporate power in the same way as the people at G8
>protests, demonstrations against financial institutions, the Zapatistas,
>noborders groups, wildcat strikers, Justice 4 Cleaners, the anti-CPE
>demonstrators in France, the squatters of Ungdomhuset or Les Tanneries
>or The Square or Ramparts, anti-GMO activists, Brian Haw, the B-52
>wreckers, Smash EDO, the big anti-war demonstrations, etc (just to name
>a few).  Those, and many other movements, are the reasons that I put
>time into Indymedia.  I have respect for them, because to me they are
>more than a bunch of bloggers who occasionally get together to hold up
>placards in Whitehall.
>
>I also think that we have a real chance of intervening in these
>struggles in a way that makes sense to me - we can report their actions,
>publish analyses of their strategies and tactics, participate ourselves
>in these movements, and help them link together.  It doesn't seem likely
>to me that we can act in the same way in the case of 9/11, 7/7, or
>whatever other conspiracy theories hit the wire, because the events
>themselves are not generated by "us" (for lack of a better term). The
>main actors in these events are not "us", they are either various
>terrorist groupings, or the CIA, depending on who we want to believe -
>and I happen to believe that there are in fact real live terrorists in
>the world who actually have the capacity to act without government
>direction, unpopular as this view might be to many newswire contributors
>at the moment.
>
>A few thoughts - newswire posts stating "you guys are a bunch of fucking
>morons" from people who clearly know of the existence of the features
>list, and who even personally know some of our newswire admins, don't
>really make me think want to take their complaints seriously or consider
>their cut-and-pastes in a more favourable light.  Another thing is that
>I have been getting consistent flak about "stupid 9/11 bullshit in the
>wire" in London when I'm out at movement meetings, socials,
>demonstrations, and other events, which is maybe worth relaying here.
>
>I am not saying that I think our newswire should be reserved only for
>action reports - I think that there is a desperate need for more
>analysis in the UK.  I guess I am trying to figure out what I see as the
>distinction between the various conspiracy "movements" and the ones I
>actually think belong in the newswire.  Very obviously, others will
>strongly disagree.  I am not really sure how to proceed, but I thought
>I'd try to make a positive contribution to the discussion.  I don't
>expect that we'll figure all this out today but it'd be nice for a
>change if everybody who does get into the discussion could try to
>refrain from personal attacks and keep the tone positive, the features
>list has been a pretty unpleasant place recently.
>
>
>Greets,
>
>Yossarian
>
>--
>Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features