[Imc-uk-features] 374796

[Genny]

My view is that the post should be hidden on grounds of discrimination 
(use of words 'retard' and 'patsies').

Wikipedia: In American slang, a patsy is a person taken advantage of, 
especially one considered relatively naïve. The term is widely regarded 
as an ethnic slur, in light of the likely theory that it arose in the 
mid-19th century when East Coast urban centers in the U.S. included a 
notable abundance of recent migrants from rural Ireland, among whom the 
nickname "Patsy" (for Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland) was 
relatively common.

These grounds are enough in my opinion.

And as it does appear to be all speculation (right or wrong) -  a string 
'obviously' and 'naturally' statements without any back-up evidence or 
even much attempt at justification, then I really don't think it merits 
any approach to the writer to ask him to remove the discriminatory parts 
of his post.

I support it being/remaining hidden.

Genny

Jeff Parks wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
>>>> There is no guidline against speculation and the
>>>> current terror hype is clearly news...
>>> "Non-news : posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion
>>> or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc."
>> It is related "to a recent event"...
> 
> I interpret that guideline to mean comment and analysis of other
> "news, issues, actions and analysis reporting on grassroots,
> non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and
> political issues" is welcomed, that is to say comment and analysis of
> events and actions that are/would be reported elsewhere on the
> newswire, not random blog reposts about anything that happens to have
> happened recently.
> 
>>> "Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading."
>> Can you be a bit more concrete and perhaps say in what way you
>> think it is "inaccurate or misleading"?
> 
> In the lede: "Naturally, the two patsies who "rammed a petrol-filled,
> four-wheel-drive vehicle into Glasgow airport," as Reuters describes
> the pathetic suicide bomb attempt, are linked to the staged events in
> London."
> 
> What evidence does Nimmo offer for his assertion that the London
> incidents were 'staged'? None.
> 
> Paragraph 4: "[...] unable to make and detonate suicide bombs, unlike
> their brethren in Iraq who are, after all, well-trained by British SAS
> operatives donning Arab garb and wigs."
> 
> Again no evidence, and the assertion doesn't even tally with the
> linked (in the blog version) Prison Planet article, which suggests the
> SAS are carrying out the bombings rather than training others.
> 
>>> "Disruptive : Contributions by individuals who
>>> habitually publish above mentioned discouraged content."
>> There has been lots of debate on this list about Kurt Nimmo,
>> I think we really need to distill it onto a wiki page, but there
>> is not consensus that all his posts should be hidden though
>> some wanted this... so I don't see how it's "Disruptive".
> 
> Well, then there we disagree, but I'm surprised anyone has spoken up
> in favour of him, considering his piss-poor analysis, not to mention
> his dodgy politics.
> 
> mit liebe u. wut,
> Jeff