[IMC-UK-Features] no pretence action as feature?

[Shiar]

Well, i don't think you can object to a feature proposal by saying other
people put more work into something else and therefore the latter is more
worth of a feature which hasn't been proposed.

Is there anything in the feature proposal itself that is objectable (does
it beach any guidelines etc.) apart from the fact that it hasn't been put
into a proper feature format?

-- 
Shiar

On Wed, June 10, 2009 3:45 am, michael bakunin wrote:
>
> I would argue that the Anarchist Conference should have the main feature
> with the intervention mentioned within it.
>
> It took us 6 months of hard work to put the conference together, provide
> people with a space to discuss, socialise and move things forward.
>
> If there was gonna be a feature I think we should split it.
>
> Alessio
>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:13:59 -0700
>> From: nopretence at riseup.net
>> To: imc-uk-features at lists.indymedia.org
>> Subject: [IMC-UK-Features] no pretence action as feature?
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Given all the discussion on indymedia that the anarcha-feminist
>> intervention at the anarchist conference has generated, the fact that so
>> many women have written to us saying how important the intervention was
>> and the fact that the blog has generated so much interest - with over
>> 2000
>> hits already - we think it might be worth the action going on the
>> features
>> page. Would this be possible?
>>
>> The relevant newswire posts are:
>>
>> anarcha-feminist intervention
>> No Pretence - the video
>> No Pretence Statement
>>
>> It would also be good to include a link to the blog (although there is
>> also a link in the 'anarcha-feminist intervention' article):
>> www.nopretence.wordpress.com
>>
>> Please let us know if there is any problem with this request,
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> nopretence
>>