[IMC-UK-Features] [Fwd: RE: Response to Shift's email]

[Shiar]

FYI

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Response to Shift's email, was Re: [IMC-UK-Features] hello
From:    "Shift Editors" <shiftmagazine at hotmail.co.uk>
Date:    Wed, May 28, 2008 12:54 pm
To:      "Shiar" <shiar at riseup.net>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Shiar,
sorry to hear you are still disappointed. Our email was meant to resolve
things not to cause another storm. Anyway, we also feel quite
misunderstood by your response.

We would still really like to resolve this conflict, but it seems best to
let settle things a bit first. And a talk face to face would probably
clarify lots.

Best
Shift

> Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 10:23:20 -0700
> Subject: Response to Shift's email, was Re: [IMC-UK-Features] hello
> From: shiar at riseup.net
> To: shiftmagazine at hotmail.co.uk
> CC: imc-uk-features at lists.indymedia.org>
> > Dear Shift editors,> > As one who of those who contributed to the
IMCists' response>
(https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html) to your>
allegations about Indymedia UK, i am as disappointed with your email
adn> comment as i was with your editorial and article. Once again, you
have> proved your incredible ability to misread and misinterpret
things,> misquote and take things out of context and, above all, be so
arrogant.> > On Thu, May 22, 2008 8:10 am, Shift Editors wrote:> > We
try to pick> > up controversies in 'the anti-capitalist movement' that
we think are worth> > discussing openly.> > Where did you get from the
idea that discussions within and about> Indymedia were ever not open?
All our meetings and lists are open and> publicly archived and anyone
is welcome to participate. Your admission> that you "pick up
controversies" is quite telling, though.> > > Not to rubbish anyone's
project but because> > (self)criticism and reflection can only make us
stronger.> > Well, i'm not sure how you can call slagging off someone
and accusing them> of all sort of shit (from outside and above) as
"(self)criticism". You> didn't even contact us before publishing your
article to get "the other> side of the story", or even to notify us,
like any respectable> journalist/editor or researcher would do.> > >
Of course we> > also have editorial principles, which seem to differ
from yours mainly> > over the concepts of religion, nation and
racism.> > First, you cannot compare an open publishing site with an
edited print> magazine. Second, I'm not sure how different they are
except that you seem> to have quite typical
Western/leftist/academic/patronising and sometimes> politically naive
criterias and values by which you *judge* other people's> struggles.>
> > Many people we know from> > No Borders, the Climate Camp and
others have actively welcomed this> > effort, even when being
criticised. (We also had positive feedback about> > the Go Hamas Go
article.)> > I probably know most of the "many" you seem to rely upon
in your "effort".> I'm sure there are so many more who did not/will
not welcome your effort> (and you've also had such negative feedback
now, if you've been following> this list and the comments thread on
our response, which i'm sure you> have).> > > You can harldly have
missed that there is> > discontent with your editorial choices: the
resignations, the number of> > critical comments that you hide etc.
Many activists we know are frustrated> > or angry (clearly you must
also have noted that?).> > You can hardly miss how disappointed
Indymedia volunteers and readers> alike were with your editorial and
article. Does that tell you anything?> (not about you -forget about
yourselves for a minute!- but about Indymedia> and how people perceive
it?> > > Apparently, our> > approach has failed. We wanted to
intervene in a debate over the nature of> > anti-semitism, conspiracy
theories, religious and hierarchical liberation> > movements etc, and
their relationships to the radical Left.> > It has failed, indeed.
Hopefully you have learned a lesson as to why.> > > Instead, you> >
respond by producing statistics but ignore the difficult questions we>
> raise. That's a shame, but now you know more about our motives.> >
It seems it is one of your favourite "editorial principles" to distort
and> misrepresent things? The stats were to respond to some of your
allegations> that had to do with quantity. The "difficult questions"
you raise were> also addressed, if you read the response properly. And
in any case, the> stats-related arguments were probably less that 1/10
of the overall> article (that's another stat for you!).> > > Let us
know if you decide to respond.> > So that 3,800+ word article was
banging our head against a brick wall?> Would you be open and
courageous enough to publish it in your magazine and> on your
website?> > > in critical solidarity, Shift www.shiftmag.co.uk> >
Funny that is. I wish you really had some "critical solidarity"
before> doing what you did.> > ---> Shiar> > > P.S. There's a lot in
your comment on the newswire>
(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196209)
that> also deserves responding to. But, to be honest, i don't want to
waste more> time on this and i think the comments posted there have
already done that.> I would specifically draw your attention to these
ones:>
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196213>
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196219>
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399412.html?c=on#c196239> >
_________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/attachments/20080528/281e1d03/attachment.htm