[IMC-UK-Features] BLOCK: feature proposal Greenstein/Atzmon

[Shiar]

On Thu, February 21, 2008 12:57 am, Anarcho Babe wrote:
> Well, probably unnecessary as there is so much controversy about it
> anyways, but I'm not happy with the following:

I must say i was quite shocked by this email. I'd expected a lot of
objections and controversy, but this.. i can't find the proper words
really.

> a) too many links to lists
> Lists are for working not for publicising controversies. They become
> unworkable if they are used as a publication tool. Imc volunteers who post
> there should be able to rely on the collective to regard these as such.
> Putting emails of individuals opinions who try to come to a working
> practise solution into a feature is, in my opinion, absolutely disgraceful
> and mean behaviour!

Why are they open then? And how else can you back up or document what
you're saying about this conflict? Do you wanna propose a new rule for
Indy lists that regards quoting what people say on lists as "abuse"?

"publicising controversies", "absolutely disgraceful and mean
behaviour"!!! I really don't know what to say.

> b) non-news
> not of public interest really, and bad for the collective to extend its
> controversies about editorial policies onto a feature- It seems like an
> open invitation for "trolls of the world unite"

Maybe you can enlighten us on what's Indymedia-related news then. The
seizure of a server? The taking down of a website? It's really easy when
it's us against the state, isn't it? News, dear Ulla, is usually defined
as information on current events, which could be internal or external,
local or of wider relevance. Nowhere in journalism courses or practice has
it been defined as "convenient information".
Besides, i don't think it's "bad for the collective" to publicise its
controversies. And we're meant to be open and transparent, remember?

> c) to show the undemocratic nature of blocks
> as a educational tool for Shiar and ftp...

I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this.

> d) bad publicity for Palestininian solidarity
> actually, I am quite stunned that people don't sem to realise that
> alliances with crazy nutters and consipracy theorists of all persuations,
> (amongst them Atzmon AND Greenstein)  does harm not only imc uk but also
> the Palestinian cause and solidarity too!
> Not every critic of Israel is worth allying with. And having a common
> enemy does not mean the person is a  political friend.
> If Atzmon is hailed as a Palestinian friend, then O my god, the poor
> Palestinian people must be frightened that their support is actually
> running away from and giving up on them.

Next thing i'll hear probably is that i'm a traitor of the Palestinian
People. It really feels stupid to defend yourself or your position/beliefs
when someone is making such statements/accusations. But before you lecture
us about Palestine and what's good or bad for Palestinian, Ulla, maybe you
can go on a holiday to the holy land or, at least, talk to some
Palestinian refugees here about what they think?

-- 
Shiar