My View on Two IMC Editorial Structures ( FWIW)





1) SF IMC where the vigorous and apparently sufficient staff can step on the pipe anytime the familiar splotchers appear or hide what some posters may even believe at the time, if however incorrect, posts that are not hostile, but in effect are, to the board's staff policies. This policy, as I understand it, is not to pipeline enemy propaganda or disinfo, in effect, operating to discredit the site. There is conciderable merit in this concept.

This is defensive policy, evolved under what I judge to have been hostile attack over a period of years.



2) LA IMC where the understaffed techs deal with constant technical ? problems ? that shut this site down unpredictably for unexplained reasons. Some editing goes on from time to time when they are able.



Both boards have the potential to construct a wave of information flare when the growing number of disenfranchised economic refugees rumbles in its anger while their lives and their children's lives are stolen. We can stop this madness for all time, because we now have the instrumentality right here. Everyone makes mistakes, particularly the enemy, and this one was too big to stuff back into the jar.

Here's why I believe the more open forum could be the sharper sword of this instrumentality...

The enemy is on a defensive disinfo/psyops strategy when physical attack is either too loud or too obvious and we should see the desperation in this labor intensive reactionary counter to use this powerful tool to it's best advantage. Despite what some may believe, I personally feel that an Open Forum serves to provide a well lit platform for a good clean fight. Even if it's a good clean knife fight( figuratively speaking, that is) with words, on the net. Like thugs who try to face us off in real life, we have to be ready to counter with or without assistance in order to survive.

Readers of this forum digest the commentary often discovering significant information or seeing lies flayed down to their bones. These exchanges will carry in their thoughts to work or home and friends and if people are curious they will check it out by reviewing citizen commentary or doing a Eng/search. It's up for them to decide.

There are those among us who need to be encouraged to speak out and find that they are not alone.



These are the ones who will teach others and also be able to observe the exchange of ideologies. The ones who eat everything they see without analysis are lost, and can't be trusted anyway. Until they learn to be able to see through the distractions, they will follow the loudest noise. False ideologies must be presented to be debunked. Innocence is a myth and keeping readership there, is a myth. We need to stay on the offensive when under assault.



The problem as I see it here at LA IMC is that the maintanace tasks are too LAbor intensive to manage, for the current policing of the Guide Lines. It's the physical problems that are hurting the traffic, Duh. Unless that changes, woot, there it is.

[Readers: They have FIXED the donate page...]



The problems I believe exist at SF IMC is that they have the potential to perform the function of gatekeeper to who ever or what ever ideology dominates the editorial collective. At this time it is in the context of the Global Justice Movement.

And their approach is defensive and fixed. I don't believe their traffic is as heavy as it used to be. They do have excellent janitorial service essential in these times, and their reports have been sourced. Damn good for them. They try.



This muse is in the spirit of bridge building and discussion, not hostility.

I've noticed you seem to fall back to a fighters stance

Some people even though they may appear to dwell within that realm actually don't take the situation that seriously

For some, debate, discussion, dialogue and argument even heated, are second nature and taken in stride

whatever way this particular IMC happens to deal with problems all IMC's face that results in a minimal amount of editoral control turns out to be for the best since the less control effort that is expended the better

comparing to SFIMC doesn't achieve much because the editoral policy is so much different along with a much different staff

framing editoral policy in terms of combat rings false when the people involved aren't combat oriented themselves and while such noncombativeness may be the very quality that attracts people to it

a clearer shorter and more concise explaination might help us see what you're driving at as well

You don't think everyone thinks like me? Tell me it isn't so...

Lord, what was I thinking? Oh that's right. it was my opinion on their operational qualities. Sorry if it wasn't easy to follow.

Perhaps the net is large enough for varied approaches and the public that uses the IMC net work has a wide variety of venues, and their power to inform depends on the style of management. My opinion is that a combative posture allowing the lies to be destroyed is as valid an approach to credibility as safe guarding accuracy of posts on the IMC billboard. In fact, it could enhance the information flare. And what's wrong with a martial stance, it's war.

> my opinion on their operational qualities

I could make out something along those lines but since it's crouched in combat terms it's difficult to decypher

If I was tasked to distill any particular complaint, peeve or critique out of that parable I'm afraid I'd fail

I could make some educated guesses though !

well I'm afraid you've lost me here

We didn't start it and we didn't want it and we sure as hell are not going to go quietly down because of it.