[New-imc] why I agree with imc-paris on the imc-darwin and imc-arafura statement

[Petros Evdokas]

Hello,

I'd like to list some of my reasoning why I agree with imc-paris.

I state my agreement here with imc-paris, and my objections to the 
previous statement sent by our "new-imc" work group, as a working member 
of the "new-imc" group. As you know I've become familiar enough with the 
conflict and have been working toward reconciliation and in all efforts 
to prevent a spread of the Darwin conflict to the rest of the network.

1. The statement, when modified according to the suggestion from 
imc-paris stands well and ti makes perfect sense.

It is the answer to the question that was asked by new-imc.
Essentially, it means "new-imc is able to do its work with arafura and 
darwin, there is no  need to define or re-define the affiliation status 
of the groups".
Another way of reading it is: "all the other paragraphs are enough 
guidelines for new-imc".

2. If "new-imc" had followed the suggestion by Nick to include my 
objections in the first statement that we had sent to "imc-process", it 
would have been a simpler situation by now.

My original objection was explained here:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0921-x3.html
The reasoning for it is here - essentially it is a plea to end the 
manipulation of the "new-imc" group and allow us to do our work:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2006-September/0920-3w.html

3. I believe that the "new-imc" group is being distracted from doing its 
work with the arafura and darwin groups by outside interference. On 
purpose. Our group is being manipulated to promote a hidden agenda which 
continues to extend the Darwin conflict into the network. This serves 
the efforts at domination of the imc network by an alliance of certain 
individual members with regional and local imc groups.

4. Nothing has changed in "group status" since the Spring when we - the 
"new-imc" group - agreed to take on the case of both arafura and darwin 
in order to help bring peace to that local, and to restore functionality 
to the network. We were misled and manipulated into making the recent 
statement to "imc-process" as one more way to delay and to stall the 
re-establishment of imc function in Darwin.

5. The "new-imc" workgroup does not need a reading or a statement from 
"imc-process" to do its work with imc-arafura and imc-darwin. This is an 
open invitation for more interference.

6. We have colleagues in Darwin who are willing and able to do indymedia 
work. Let's build our organizational relationships with them, let's 
extend our community of political journalism to them without interference.

Thanks,
Petros
_____________