Antagonists are necessary to compel us to take a critical look at our own thought process. That's no different than the anarchist who has completely dispensed with the republican form of government without really knowing how it operates as left to us by our forefathers. To deny self humiliation represents ignorance in its purest form, to be academic can be very boring without provoking thought.

Yes, the IMC is very important and expresses the sentiments of the public to take action. That is how the first amendment breaths and lives.

Otherwise it would be no different than the Sunday talking heads analyzing this, that and whatever without offering resolution or solution. Information or knowledge is completely useless without action, or provocation.

Translation: Indymedia is here to provide a soapbox for the enemies of Global Justice.

Bullsh*t!

See also:

Shall we have instead, certain unreachable gate keepers?
The forum of public dissent and the common majority of morality is a very effective grinding stone for the 'truth'. Give the keys of public dissussion to a select few and you have situations like IMC NY where certain subjects like 9-11 are "edited". No thanks, nessie.

If Indymedia were to stay true to that, I think the moderators should delete any posts that reveal or attempt to reveal anyone's personal information, including addresses and phone numbers(Vince of SOS, Megan of Stormfront, etc). That is, if the posts were meant to provide information without permission or consent of whoever such info belongs to. Especially for purposes of harrassment and mischeif. No matter who they are, even if they happen to really be people we hate or are public menaces.

no way to prohibit information being posted.
You wouldneed real time ( unavailable due to work load ) analysis.
Public information is a heavy, blunt tool. Be careful. Duh.

SF-IMC does just fine at it.


>You wouldneed real time ( unavailable due to work load ) analysis.

So recruit more people. At SF-IMC, we have people from all over the place who help us out with this. You can, too. If you notice an politically inappropriate or factually incorrect post, just email us and we'll deal with it ASAP:

sf@indymedia.org

The alternative is to have whatever good that Indymedia can do for the Global Justice Movement be negated by the machinations of its enemies. If that's what you want, then *you* are an enemy.

> The forum of public dissent and the common majority of morality is a very effective grinding stone for the 'truth'.

That is the role of the internet as a whole, not the role of Indymedia. Indymedia's role is to provide a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex.

The enemy is control, by a few, of what the many get to participate in.

I can understand wanting to get rid of factual errors. But someone may post what some see as factual errors when it's really debatable. If some persons wanted to, I guess they should be able to investigate and debate all they want. It's the personal information posted for mischief purposes that I'm really concerned about.

It's that or trolls, disinfo and enemy propaganda. Would you rather have trolls, disinfo and enemy propaganda? Why? Be specific.

I couldn't help notice

it was either "unreachable gatekeepers" or trolls, spam, etc

one extreme or another

no middle ground

there's moderation on here - some posts get hidden, but many good ones that other IMC's hide don't. and some subjects like the 911 evidence are important - people are starting to leak more details

the put options paper trail being the best example

what Cheney was doing that morning is another

what one person thinks are facts isn't always ground in stone - sometimes further data comes up that invalidates it. it's important to allow new data to come in. otherwise the newswire ends up being one point of view's billboard frozen in dogma

some people you think are devisive trolls are peers as in peer review

and i'd be cool as hell if you could just post as one handle insted of the constant shell game of guess which 'forced to read and think about carefully' words are really yours

sometimes I don't feel like doing so

your words aren't especially wise - you're just especially tricky

you can keep the SF board just as neat and controled as you want but this is LA.
I like a good range war.
It brings out the skunks and snakes for road cakes.

The s0-called "data" you're talking about is widely available across the net. Providing an alternative doesn't suppress any of it. If you want to read chaotic, incoherent, inconsistent, seldom credible crap, read usenet. If you want to hang out with puerile and disruptive liars, go hang out on a middle school BBS.

That's not the purpose of Indymedia. Indymedia is here to provide a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, not to aid and abet it.

Providing a soapbox for the enemies of global justice is just plain bad politics. Publishing disinformation is worse politics and even worse journalism. For Indymedia to be able to be taken seriously as a source of valid, believable information, it must exercise the most basic principle of journalism, fact checking. Disinformation on any IMC discredits all IMCs as sources of credible journalism, and every IMCista as a credible journalists. Publishing enemy propaganda discredits us as activists.

Why would anyone want to discredit Indymedia activists as both journalists and as activists? Think hard. It'll come to you.

> The s0-called "data"

you miss the point right up front - what if your wrong ?

as to being available elsewhere the same can be said for anything including some "truth" you've peddled, if your rules were in force when D.I.R.T. went down for example neither Green or me would have gotten the TRUTH about D.I.R.T. out - thanks to your attitudes- the "bad politics" being more important..

not exactly one to be gushing about the virtue and value of truth at all costs are you ? yet it's used to bludgeon others..

and this extremism is still happening -

either your version of all truth or total chaos

some things really are more important - like live reports and pictures from protests. streaming audio from live protests broadcast over the air

tell me - how much signal on the radio is available on usenet ?

I just am concerned that the sensibilities of the enforcing group can and will be subjected to compromise or assumptions of 'higher' understandings about the issues.
I do believe that more strict enforcement of the existing ( LA IMC ) guidelines needs to occur. I just am wary of any autocratic gate keeper. People change as do their loyalties, not that I question yours, but pressure is always exerted from the enemy particularly at information choke points .
It's up to the readership to be able to intervene and cross examine any post. You assume a very low standard of intelligence on behalf of the citizen when I think it's a matter of under staffing at the LA collective to deal with the nasty troll droppings. Your eager ones up there would be welcome to help within these guide lines in my opinion. Exactly how much integration takes place between the IMCs is only my guess. I'm way in the depths of this **%#^@##! mine and I can't be there.
Let's talk about it. How does that sound?

One guy says one thing, one guy says another. Why should we believe Hex? Never once has he demonstrated that he can be trusted. Au contrair.


>what if your wrong ?

Demonstrate something on SF-IMC is factually incorrect, it will be removed.

Keyword: "demonstrate"

Saying something is untrue doesn't count. Saying that somebody else said it was untrue doesn't count either.

> Never once has he demonstrated that he can be trusted. Au contrair.

the truth is the trust - when someone posts the truth over & over that's pretty convincing

the "we" thing presupposes you speak for more than yourself which I know better - the people on #radio know better too

trust is based on truth, and URLS to generally academic sources are provided

I have more dirt on D.I.R.T. for example - bet your truth/trust torch doesn't burn so bright on that subject

"why should WE trust" - standing in your glass house throwing rocks

Not talking about your pet moss garden here Hex
Your* ( chuckle ) interrupting an adult conversation.
Don't be a pest. It's rude.

what adult conversation ?

bar none ?

D.I.R.T went from being the most dangerous trojan ever to a politically embarrassing skeleton to be kept hidden in the closet, nevermind the danger

and anyone who brings it up owns a moss garden...


such is "truth"..

the guidelines being up for review or refinement as well as enforcement. Things they do at SF which I like are:
Reasons ( like they SOMETIMES) give at SF for editing.
-my minor peeve- is here they have ( tell me it's not so! ) even -choke- hidden some of mine for still undetermined reasons.
Security, here at LA, as was mentioned, is poor. Disclaimers are in order, at least.
How about that snitch link page, to fill out, on helping report abuse?
You ought to listen to me.

things are fine

looking back a few years there were death threats making front page space along with major trolling/spamming plus crashing

just the spamming didn't seem like such a bad thing back then..

it's to your dismay that chemtrail/ENMOD is hidden, and to nessie's dismay that dirt on D.I.R.T. isn't

truth and real science stands for something on here I'm grateful to see

we sure don't need any self proclaimed icons of ultimate truth like Hex to decide what is cogent.
I let him do the gopherwork in the other threads so he can claim credit for the public information. He's usefull.

"icons of ultimate truth"

barb

well no, science isn't about one person always being right about everything

matter of fact I was wrong about those Iraq rape pics being Russian porn

truth, trust, trust, truth, truth, trust, trust, truth, truth, trust

nessie name something you was wrong about
sheepdog name something you was wrong about

truth, trust, trust, truth, truth, trust, trust, truth, truth, trust

We've been over this before, years ago. I'm not convinced.

Yo review:

Hex, a guy I never heard of, tells me one thing over the internet. People I know personally, friends of mine, tell me face to face that he's wrong. They explained why in jargon that I do not understand. I'm not a programmer, so all I have to go on is what I know about people, which after all these years is not inconsiderable. My friends have never lied to me. Strangers on the internet lie to me, and about me, every single day of the week.

All I know about Hex's moral stature is that he has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have Indymedia's best interests at heart, or those of the Global Justice Movement in general either.

D.I.R.T is not the issue here. It's a fallacy of distraction. The issue is that Hex, among others, is publicly advocating policies that discredit Indymedia as a source of credible information, and discredit every IMCista as a credible activist.

Indymedia was created to stand for something, not to be chaotic and incoherent swill trough like Usenet. It's important to stand for something. If you wont stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

At this critical juncture of history it is crucial that there exists a credible alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. Indymedia could be that alternative. Certain individuals, and not a few organizations, are trying to insure that it wont be.

What's that make them? More important, what should the rest of us do about it?

Indeed this problem of who holds the keys to the public trust is critical.

I favor the full public light of my and other's ability to bring to view what I believe to be information.


Apparently you have a low opinion of general consensus and you haven't responded to the matter of democratic analysis versus autocratic control. Your trust level in the readership ( aside from the weasels ) is unjustifiably low.


The zionazi and spatter posts are usually dealt with in the 'flay them alive' mode which I favor. It's a learning process for newbees.


Why don't you show us a nasty one that was allowed to park unmolested here at IMC?

> D.I.R.T is not the issue here. It's a fallacy of distraction. The issue is that Hex


no it's a simple question, changing it to my character IS the distraction

a.) you can't admit you was wrong about D.I.R.T.
b.) you can't admit your wrong about anything - ever


a person can't always be right - refusing to ever admit your wrong means you're misleading - LYING - at least some of the time

then you bring up trust...

now this pigeonhole you've constructed about "Indymedia's best interests" narrowly defined within YOUR framework constitutes a strawman attack since innocent readers might assume your defination is the same as theirs, with the likewise narrowly defined benefit to the "global justice movement" - bet it doesn't include BROADCASTING for example..

you know no matter how you wave & shout that I'm the problem and *your perfect*, lack of simply posting some example where you've made a mistake TO SHOW YOU CAN BE TRUSTED TO PUT THE TRUTH AHEAD OF YOUR EGO

that's a simple concept - under nessie's rules the truth about D.I.R.T. would never have got out, only nessie's version of the truth would be available, nessie wants technical data that proves what D.I.R.T. really is suppressed, the subject dropped, me demonized and his control spread like a cancer on other IMC's so he can stamp out dissenting scientific process, discovery and peer review. He's got his own idea of what IMC is all about, cookie cutter stamped approved news only, with no comments of discovery or dissent outside the realm of "his friends" expert knowledge in which error is not possible and new development does not occur - so they would never lie to you

and it's this mysterious scientific panel that appears out of nowhere that I'm up against - and they get to say I'm wrong but *present no evidence*...

so I ask you to cough up something you were wrong about, and the best you can do is say a secret panel says *I'm* wrong, while me asking after saying so myself is changing the subject, but you attacking my character isn't..

But 'in everyone's life, there must fall a little flutter' just to keep the horse spooked.

Still waiting. :>)

you both are afraid of scientific peer review

both refuse to admit your ever wrong

sheepdog you can discuss chemtrails all you like - but when the "evidence was destroyed in the OKC bombing" but you keep spamming it anyway, that's not peer review

nessie - when "your friends" have one opinion about D.I.R.T. and I present new data directly from the trojan it'self but you want to suppress it, that's not peer review

having scientific debate, discussion and discovery is the cure for both - is what occurs now, and is what I advocate

funny you two have a problem with it

nah.
not worth the ammo.

(1.) When I'm wrong, I admit it. I'm not the least bit convinced I was wrong about D.I.R.T. Hex simply hates it that I wont take the word of a stranger on the internet word over that of my friends, but so what? All that proves is his understanding of human nature is deficit. Maybe he should try shutting off the computer sometime and relate to some flesh and blood.

What I am absolutely certain of is that Hex, and people like him, are acting to discredit Indymedia as a source of credible information and to discredit IMCista as activists. Some are doing it consciously, some out of well meaning ignorance. Either way, the result is the same. Indymedia can't be trusted.

(2.) It's not about me. It's not even about Hex. It's not about any one individual. It's about the future of Indymedia. Do you (pl) want Indymedia to be a place where people can expect that what they read to be true, and where the values of the Global Justice Movement are displayed to the world, or do you want it to be a cesspit of lies and enemy propaganda like usenet? That's not a rhetorical question. Be specific.

then quit making it about you and him.
Stop
Listen
Answer

Specifics?
"do you want it to be a cesspit of lies and enemy propaganda like usenet?"
That's a question? Let me think about this for awhile....
uh, no.
Now, You want Indymedia to become the highly filtered sometimes capricious ( like IMC NY ) platform or a board where certain chosen adversaries ( like scottie and Sky King on SF ) are allowed to post their drek and certain friendly adversaries ( like Angie ) are allowed full riegn? Get back with me on that, okay?

I'm not the only one in the world that says D.I.R.T. is a scam ^


"I am absolutely certain"

pretty stong words for

1.) someone you don't know
2.) something you *have no data to back up*


in the past you used that exact reason - you not knowing who I am therefore how can I be trusted - yet somehow you are now "absolutely certain" about my motivations - a ghost you don't even know..


and about D.I.R.T. - I HAVE THE ACTUAL TROJAN plus it's user guide plus technical data FROM SECURITY EXPERTS

"your friends" are saying not just me, but a whole group of people are wrong

it's not me v you/your friends

I'm not *the only person who found out differently*


1.) credible is YOUR VERSION of credible, SOMETIMES YOU ARE WRONG, peer review is normal & healthy

2.) " It's not about any one individual. It's about the future of Indymedia. Do you (pl) want Indymedia to be a place where people can expect that what they read to be true, and where the values of the Global Justice Movement are displayed to the world, "

you make it about you when you censor data you don't agree with - that's the whole point. You can't always be right, but if you *always act as if you are and censor to suit* YOU become the problem at that point

this pigeonhole - either nessie's rosy narrow version of what IMC is about, for, doing - or -"

"cesspit of lies and enemy propaganda"


one extreme or another - no middle ground, RHETORICAL



> That's not a rhetorical question


actually is IS - just you claiming it isn't doesn't make it so, like ;


"Saying something is untrue doesn't count."


and these "friends" of yours that claim we're wrong about D.I.R.T. but PRESENT NO EVIDENCE -

"Saying that somebody else said it was untrue doesn't count either."



odd isn't it - you make character attacks that your "absolutely certain" about "a guy I never heard of"

and these nameless friends get to dictate what truth is yet they never have to cough up any evidence to back it up, while anyone saying something (posting proof) isn't good enough, but YOU saying something IS

Maybe if you say up front your rhetorical pigeonholed statements aren't rhetorical that makes it so too ?


either IMC is exactly what I want or it's chaotic, incoherent, inconsistent, seldom credible crap, chaotic and incoherent swill trough, cesspit of lies and enemy propaganda



one extreme or the other


"If you wont stand for something, you'll fall for anything."


all or nothing

my way or the highway


NESSIE YOUR D.I.R.T. DATA IS NOT CREDIBLE - YOU POSTED IT ON IMC AS "TRUTH" - therefore according to your OWN RHETORIC YOU are damaging IMC's image

and it's not just ME saying so -

"I am absolutely certain" about "a guy I never heard of" because I read what he writes. He openly advocates policies that discredit Indymedia. He doesn't even deny it.

Disinformation, spam, gibberish and enemy propaganda discredits Indymedia. So do people who say Indymedia should publish it.

As for D.I.R.T., people disagree. Some people say one thing, other people say something else. In cases like that, I always err on the side of caution. Also, when I have to choose between people I know, and the internet, I go with with the people I know. Occasionally this proves later to have been the wrong choice, but not bloody often.

And if I were to rely on the internet, why should I believe one site and not the other. What makes stuff on the Register inherently true and stuff on Security Focus inherently not true?

Nothing, nothing at all.

Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions.

While you're at it, try to find out why this guy Hex is trying to discredit Indymedia. His whole obsession with D.I.R.T sounds pathological. It puts me in mind of SmashTheLeft's obsession with that account I published of Harry Hay's memorial service, or of his long standing attempt to convince people that I might have once made a typo once and then (oh, the horror) fixed it. It's sick. Sick people obsess like this. Do we want Indymedia to be a place where sick people act out their psychopathology and alien they very people we're trying hardest to reach, or a place where our readers can expect to find credible information that they can't find through the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate government complex?

That's the issue here, not me, not Hex and not D.I.R.T. Do we want to talk about the issue, or are we going to let these people distract us with lies, irrelevancies and logical fallacies?

here, let me help.
1st
both of you are wrong.
It's all about ME.
That having been settled. can we address ANY of my specifics, questions ot comments or do you two want to keep dancing?

> err on the side of caution


the truth doesn't bend - when it does it's no longer the truth





> advocates policies that discredit Indymedia / Disinformation, spam, gibberish and enemy propaganda


that pigeonhole - either exactly what you want or COMPLETELY something else

the words "peer review" never cross your keyboard...




> wrong choice, but not bloody often


finally - light at the end of the tunnel !

the deal is new data becomes available - this is part of scientific process - you don't hold on to old data because "people I know" haven't found out yet

your "disinformation, spam, gibberish and enemy propaganda" is simply an UPDATE as new information becomes available

when you split hairs, you create an artificial contrast so that everything becomes blak & white

you become stuck in the past and stifle the *news gathering process*

people anywhere can post whatever they see, then COMMENTS VARIFY the news

peer review

lately things have been going fine on here - without heavyhanded moderation

we're still getting some troll bait which (thankfully) people are starting to ignore..

the danger of commentators pointing out, exposing, debunking and otherwise correcting keeps things pretty clean

typically on here anytime something untrue is posted it is quickly challenged - usually with refuting data

myself I concentrate on FOIA's and the most solid and credible URL's I can get

that's better than some "nameless secret panel of people you know"

at least for the readers



> Hex is trying to discredit Indymedia.


preserving peer review = discrediting IMC



> His whole obsession with D.I.R.T sounds pathological. It puts me in mind of SmashTheLeft's obsession


D.I.R.T. is a easy point - as I can easyly prove your wrong about it. Your avoidance of it is evasive - readers may want to ask themselves why

if a person needs to be pathologicaly obsessed to get a straight answer out of you, how is peer review going to work ?

SmashTheLeft - directly comparing me with a known right-wing-nut troll


now it's;

"sick people act out their psychopathology and alien(ate) they [sic] very people we're trying hardest to reach, or a place where our readers can expect to find credible information"


I'm sick

and not credible



"very people we're trying hardest to reach"


how many people do I reach with my signal ? ~ 30,000
what information ? - Unwelcome Guests (is that credible?) live IMC streams aired

if I was trying to DISCREDIT the global justice movement/IMC why would I do that ?


I air live IMC streams to a base of 30,000 people -

"Hex is trying to discredit Indymedia"



I say the peer review process we have here now is fine, nessie wants strict sf-imc like censorship - People on here specifically challenge lies and post truth/data to refute them. This peer review allows new data to come in yet keeps uncredible noise under control - through shared readership effort. The news gathering process depends on the free flow of information - not a chokepoint with a stranglehold on the truth - a choker can't always be right, as my "obsessive, sick, lying" self is distractingly pointing out;


"distract us with lies, irrelevancies and logical fallacies?"

> ANY of my specifics, questions ot comments


post data to back up your chemtrails/ENMOD. if you can't withstand peer review, the info has no business on here - as nessie said

(me & nessie only disagree on what is credible relating to specific security issues and iron out how news gathering co-exists with the desire to elevate IMC's image)

your question of how do you get by with posting flake shit without any hard data to back it up IS the distraction

as you can see nessie is a real slugger - he pulls no stops in his efforts to demonize me

all I said was he's "not especially wise"

but when such a small pea shot bounces off his giant meth-addict-on-steroids ego you see the result - a barrage of insults, putdowns..

and the words "peer review" and "broadcast" never cross his lips

don't want to dance. Go on with yer solo.

> Indy Media is everyone’s media.

No, it is not. It belongs to the people who make it happen.

and exactly whom would that be?
The techs
The authors
The readership
Apparently some people want to offer a 'non co-ordinated' but total control over subject material.
Some for tactical reasons and some for more sinister ends.
The fit and function of this forum MUST have an instrumentality of control shared by the awakening readership.
This totality of control is dangerous in the hands of a select few, It compromises the concept from the other side.
If you idiots want to continue on this ancillary side step and slap fight, I will begin to believe that this is just another stage production from the enemy.
Which does reticule this forum.

We tried that. It didn't work. It was like going into battle without any armor. A significant portion of the readership is not "awakened." They are enemies, against whom we must defend with utmost vigor, or they will overwhelm us.

We're in a war here, and not just on Indymedia and not just on the internet, either. If we pretend and behave otherwise, we will lose. There is too much at stake to allow that to happen. This is not an intellectual exercise. Real people are really dying in the real world. Thirty to forty thousand a day die from starvation alone, almost all of them children. Some of us want to use Indymedia to help put a stop to that. Others want to use it for mental masturbation. I say, throw the wankers out. We have a powerful weapon here. To put it in the hands of our enemies is foolhardy. Let's use it to win the war, not to arm our enemies or jerk each other's brains off.

> and exactly whom would that be?


I knew the answer to that right as it was stated - why even BOTHER to ?





> defend with utmost vigor, or they will overwhelm us.


the all or nothing rhetoric again, one extreme or another




> We're in a war here / We have a powerful weapon here / Let's use it to win the war


when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail


the second all or nothing rhetorical attitude is that *by just doing this one thing* suddenly everything will change, things will be different and better, we will "win"


readership, people, the general public


only the last group will "win", but the last group *doesn't even read IMC* as many aren't even ON the internet at all

but they DO have radios and do listen to them..


so nessie decides to "take over" other IMC's by alienating, dividing and weakening (atomizing) so he can gain more control and run things HIS WAY, which just happens to include throwing the baby out with the bathwater but WHO CARES - it's not HIM we're talking about and he can *claim* it's both for the good of the global justice movement AND will make some big difference that will "win the war"


a rosy future awaits those who submit and *allow other's to do your thinking for you* - that way he can do all the mental masterbation himself - thinking is bad & dirty otherwise, and it's his mission to *protect us* from doing so

peer review, broadcasting and the fact that the vast majority of IMC's are doing fine without his war-like heavyhanded moderation seems to escape him


everything is crouched in terms of war and enemies and it's all or nothing


Nessie you made your bed - now lie in it. Wash your own linin, don't try to steal our sheets, swap them or shortsheet us because of a problem YOU CREATED YOURSELF and now want to spread your misery

and be perfectly clear that a pirate broadcaster is one of the "wankers" you want to "dump" - a wanker that reaches people you can never reach no matter how many IMC's you take over..


you stole my concept -

I already said if we reach out to enough people we can really make a change (via broadcasting).

You've mutilated that into "if we make enough IMC's into cookie-cutter clones of your (in my mind) failure example" (just look at the traffic statistics!) then by doing this AND "dumping" people already onboard, that will magically draw huge crowds of people which will then cause real changes, leading us to "winning the war"

- dumping one of the very few "wankers" who really does reach out - to people that don't even have computers.

WHEN IMC PUBLISHES A NATIONAL PAPER - a real physical paper that the average Joe with no computer can buy & read (or better yet just read)

then we'll talk

You tried one approach and it didn't work. Yes the enemy can call for nealy unlimited intervention and this is a problem. I have proposed a few solutions. We should try them 'cause all the other methods are either autocratic or anarchist.

I think a good measure of creditability is the traffic and popularity of a site.
Nothing much goes on in a nunnery unless you're a priest.
Take Poetland, for instance
(pun)
Portland has high traffic and vigorous debates and involvement in a much wider venue than SF or even LA because, I believe, the readership is empowered and engaged. That's credibility and power.
Their compost bin works well as an editorial tool as does their willingness to communicate with the readership. They get cranky too but overall they cook.
Having been on the receiving end of, in my humble and usual proscrostnating miserable self evaluated opinion; of editorial misconduct, I, uh, have issues with this.

regularly published, reprinted then copied by local IMC's made available to THE GENERAL PUBLIC EVERYWHERE

this newsletter will have whatever the collective deems best (just like the front pages do now) - this effort is mostly done already anyway - take that last step and get it out on the street

this represents the single most effective action we can take


2.) a special IMC flyer to hand out at protests outlining a network of phone support where a person can find out how to come to meetings - beyond simply internet - the image should be of "come join the fun"


3.) a place where long term discussions can happen without constant threat of being pulled for some "higher purpose" and little moderation to encourage the free exchange of data, the gathering of news and the peer review test

If IMC patrons had such a place officially set aside it would eliminate people like nessie trying to take over, plus would clean up the newswire (a few could use some polishing but most are doing fine - nowhere near the doom & gloom, all-or-nothing "war" he tries to paint)

This IMC is actually doing better than most, and the system of peer review (that's mental masturbation to you war mongers out there) is working - now


4.) encourage more over-the-air broadcasting by supporting pirate broadcasters and acknowledging thier value (as opposed to demonizing, ignoring, dumping and claiming they're agents out to harm IMC or the movement)



that's 4 solutions there - and none of them involve nessie's ideas

as to the mess he's found himself in, and his even more incompetent "solutions" - trying to spread his mess to other IMC's to pull them down to his level - all in the name of the good of the movement (naturally)

I've been monitoring him since Seattle '2000

I could write a book about what he's done which I'm not going to go into here, but it's safe to say I have more dirt on him than anyone else..


Is it any surprise he want's to demonize & dump me ? That the main points I represent, peer review as part of the scientific and news gathering process, and pirate broadcasting to people he'll never see - it's as if these concepts don't even exist - for to exist would require acknowledgement that there's something positive about me

and in that all-or-nothing "information war" such weakness would surely lead to doom

just ask him

ask about peer review and see if you get an answer beyond "it didn't work" (nevermind it's working here & now, the only time it doesn't work is when the censor with his finger on the button is technically incompetent and lies to suit his whims making him as bad as the trolls he's arguing with - *I've seen him doing it*)

When a person spends his time second-guessing his way through life sooner or later he'll meet someone who really does know what he's talking about

then watch the sparks fly

that person will be public enemy # 1, the truth be damned (D.I.R.T. is a perfect example)

then he'll never see or admit anything positive about the person - will be blind and actively ignore even when you bring up the points yourself (he used to call it "bragging")

he's never admitted he's ever been wrong about anything - the closest was "not bloody likely" - non-specific and weak

and this axe grinding truth bashing control freak is whom we're supposed to trust to clean IMC's of "wankers" in some all-or-nothing ultimate struggle of total good v total evil where we will either obtain a clear victory and "win" or we will "loose" to the "enemy" in this "war".


if you repeat over & over it's all-or-nothing, that it's doom & gloom and what's not working in your neck of the woods must apply everywhere else, MAYBE SOMEONE WILL BITE


Nessie has it all worked out

He knows who all the trolls are, knows who to "dump", how often to and where.

Once a troll always a troll - no matter how many hours you spend defending truth, IMC newswires or how many progressive radio shows you broadcast

none of that matters

once you cross the great & powerful, everlasting know-it-all PERFECT "nessie" from then on everything's bad, and nothing good about the victim can even be mentioned much less discussed, plus he gains the ability to read the victim's mind at a distance and is thus "absolutely certain" he knows completely and exactly what the victim is about


I could make a long list of all the things nessie has been wrong about...

But wrong/right (truth) isn't the issue here - except when he wishs to use it as a bargining point to beat people over the head with

{if we could just get rid of a few trolls that discredit (non-truth) everything would be fine and we will "win"}


funny the truth is out the window when *he's* on the other side of it..

Like with sheepdog the truth isn't the most important thing (DIRT/TESLA)

"Information warfare" is - they both talk about it in war-like terms, they both trash the truth anytime it suits them then loudly scream and drown out (or censor out) the offending truth

I have first hand experiences with both of them on this..


Nessie just happens to have coup'ed an IMC and censors where sheepdog merely name-calls and ignores

I posted new updated scientific data on AIDS and nessie censored it - upfront claiming the data wasn't perfectly accurate therefore completely worthless (that all-or-nothing extremism again) and behind my back claiming I'm a "disinformation artist out to harm IMC/global justice/HIV positive people" in the most demonizing way possible (naturally)


Whereas the exact same data posted on here resulted in ;

1.) no censorship
2.) a little discussion comparing notes and *encouraging further research*
3.) better informed readership knowing all the bases are covered

that scientific peer review did it's job -

1.) the technical details are too boring for trolls
2.) any troll with the courage to post bait is easyly refuted with additional data
3.) no effort on the part of IMC staff/editors is required
4.) the persons conducting peer review dig harder and find more information for the challenge

(Fresca actually brings a higher standard of information due to the effort required to soundly refute her - perfect example of a brain-dead right-wing-nut mentality we all deal with in real life - data good enough to debunk fresca is good enough for the worst of them)

Kept in line not by censorship but by TRUTH, arrived at via peer review..

Yes it DOES work on here - the volume of troll spam has went way down because of it

The same thing was happening on the main (original) IMC before nessie ruined it too

A handful of regular readers *when they avoid troll games and simply post the truth* can do wonders compared to the downward spiral of more control, more censorship, more vindictive spam as punishment, followed by even more censorship

then you end up seeing people as "the enemy" and treating them as such, end up having a black & white all-or-nothing way of seeing things


you create your own situation by the way you react in the first place, yet are too incompetent and narrow minded to think of ways to *change poison into medicine*


insted you want bloodletting - "dump the wankers"

wow
manic
for sure
wow

I know the soon to be released IMC Fieldguide to Trolls is going to be a real hit.

I like chapter 4
The Rabid Weasel

looking at "dang"/"@$100"/"wow"'s example -

> has high traffic and vigorous debates and involvement in a much wider venue than SF or even LA because, I believe, the readership is empowered and engaged. That's credibility and power.


although it's a tainted example, free republic is like this..

you KNOW what he'll say - this is strictly a news organ and peer review has no place here (my how convenient for his agenda)

nevermind it's actually working here & now, nevermind it's the *one thing he never has due to his meddling know-it-all second guessing truth-out-the-political-window personality*

nevermind it's what made IMC what it is today - the critical element of the news gathering has always been the ablility to anonymously post news as it's happening without worry of censorship

Nessie want's to change all that - because *what he's doing isn't working* - his heavyhanded war-like censorship of a never-ending WAR between himself and trolls


not between THE TRUTH and trolls like on here..





> the receiving end of / editorial misconduct.


Well again truth reigns - if your proof didn't conveniently get destroyed in huge explosions and you didn't loose the power of speech when challenged, yet the spam re-appears still with no evidence to back it up..


this peer review behooves the trickster - just as it does the extremist bloodletting control freak

Personally I think IMC should embark on a nationwide network of micropower stations along WITH a newsletter


or we could just infight and splinter into atoms spending our time jabbing the delete button

some people find that "stimulating" it seems and can't get enough if it..

uh no, t's not.
It's a scripted platform of talking points.
Just like you.

And I like they was you give fresca credit for anything.

on there, but from what I've read about it while datamining, it's a huge discussion board with tens of thousands of posters..

started by one man - there's some censorship I read, but because of the sheer volume of posts many areas are practically un-moderated

as to fresca I only brought her up as an example to show how peer review is strengthened by debunking the worst of them

Fresca represents a *bad* example and how to deal with it..

On a right-wing-nut board I'm sure she feels quite at home and welcomed. accepted...

No so here

You know a thought occured to me -

Nessie is "absolutely certain" I'm bad...

Funny - I talk about truth, peer review, exposing trolls and broadcasting progressive shows

what troll does those things ?

you lie about what I say and you lie about what you say.
You probaly lie about what other's say.
And we both know why,

Gauging credibility by gullibility is a totally bogus analysis.

There is one way and one way only to determine how credible a site. Determine how much of what it says is consistent with the empirical data.

The number of readers is irrelevant. If a million people believe a lie, it's still not true. If a hundred million people believe a lie, it's still not true. Corporate news sites, and even Howard Stern, get decimal places worth of more traffic than any site on the Indymedia network. Does that make them more credible? I don't think so.

prove it

prove anything

you can't even present evidence on the flake shit you spam the newswire with, much less anything I said/didn't say

But it would be refreshing to see some proof for a change

Tesla ? Chemtrails ? ENMOD ? your background - your legal judgement, the stuff you sell - you can't even be honest *to begin with* and fess up..

there's nothing to prove because there's nothing to stand on - and you keep it that way on purpose

truth is a selling ploy to you - it has no value in it'self

lies suppose truth..

but you're not prepared to present any to begin with

hey - why not just adopt another handle and call me some more names !

One is dieing due to it's disassiciation with the public.
The other one is evolving. And growing.

New data resulting from further experiments and tests, update to established info

under nessie - rejected, censored then trumpeted as "beating off the trolls" success..

here - posted, talked about, compared, forwarded to update that empirical database

todays radical new breakthrough of information is yesterday's empirics

scientific proccess demands new data see the light of day otherwise it's not scientific - it's dogma

Scientists do this everyday - see something new that doesn't mesh with older outdated findings

Nessie want's the newswire to be a wiki insted of a dynamic news gathering peer reviewed process ;


em·pir·ic (ĕm-pîr'ĭk)

n.

1.) One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
2.) An unqualified or dishonest practitioner; a charlatan.

adj.

Empirical.

[Latin empīricus, from Greek empeirikos, experienced, from empeiros, skilled : en-, in; see en–2 + peirān, to try (from peira, try, attempt).]


TO TRY

That's a straw man. I'm not comparing media. I'm comparing credibility.

Credibility cannot be determined by popularity.

See:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

You were comparing them to begin with.
Look, I just believe that limiting the menu to what certain groups approve of, is unwise.
:>)

Learn to parse. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that less credible media gets a larger audience. In fact, the correlation is so strong that it almost implies a causal relationship.

>Look, I just believe that limiting the menu to what certain groups approve of, is unwise.

Does that mean you think it is wise to provide a soapbox to our enemies?

> Credibility cannot be determined by popularity

it can be by peer review however

say it with me;

P-E-E-R _ R-E-V-I-E-W



> certain groups approve of

it's not a question of approval - it's a matter of PROOF

lacking proof it's a waste of time, bandwidth and credibility


Nessie want's no peer review because it would expose when he's wrong
Sheepdog wants no peer review because it would expose when he's wrong


see a pattern ?

the SF template is not that used by the readership.You wouldn't want me there.
It's constained to acceptable authors and posts that seem to me as a defensive and stationary posture.
Not ever good tactics. No doubt you're well dug into operating procedures on troll abaitment. Good for you and let's see if it takes off.
I believe in aggressive counter attacks to the current dogma and echo babble. You can't think for me and I can't provide the comfort of depending upon your attitudes about creditability.

If you tell the truth, or pass along the truth somebody else has told, don't promote values contrary to those of the Global Justice Movement, write coherently, and don't use the capslock, you're welcome to post. Everyone is welcome to read.

For SF-IMC content is everything. We aren't here to cater to the egos of our writers, but to inform and educate our readers. It's not BBS, a debate club or usenet. It's a news site. It exists to provide news and analysis by, for and about activists of the Global Justice Movement, their friends, their allies and their potential friends and allies. It is not for anyone else. It's particularly not for racists, homophobes, misogynists, warmongers, profiteers and apologists for exploitation and ecocide.

We're aiming for quality, not quantity. If you're not willing to practice the basic principles of journalism, and adhere to the ideals of the Global Justice Movement, then no, we don't want you to post, nor will we let you, so don't waste your time or ours. But if you want to contribute hard, verifiable news and cogent analysis from the Global Justice perspective, then yes, we do want you to post. So it's up to you.

you think so?
I tend to disagree.
Shouting down a well does not awaken the public.
Also, this forum will ALLWAYS be under attack and the enemy as well as ourselves know the very concept of open information channels, so soon to arrive and bringing the specter of historic upheaval, with this infant technology is going to be under direct physical assault.
Our window is small and the ammo has got to be poured on.
You were never in, were you?
Once the target is acquired ( and in this case it's outrages of criminal system as well as the goon squads and weasels and moles that attempts to silence ideas or the obvious or not so obvious attempts at psyops or disinfo and even issues that may be uncomfortable to members of our brotherhood/sisterhood ) I do believe quantity outweighs the merits of controlled and constrained, slow moving posts.
Firepower kills. It does have to be accurate and strike the selected targets. That's a metaphor.
:>)
That's why I think we could attempt a fusng of the various IMCs that wish to participate in an overwatch of editing that are respectful of the selected guidelines. What do you think?

under attack
the enemy
physical assault
ammo
target
Firepower
strike
targets


war-like conflict based reasoning skills

information warfare



things are fine the way they are now - the "heat" can stay where it is, peer review is working great here, the most "heat" we get here is FROM nessie's neck of the woods


problem-reaction-solution

nessie causes most of the problems himself via his personality DEFECTS


problem;

1.) heavy-handed never wrong/always right hamfisted secret expert panel supported censorship
2.) taboo subjects leaving the field wide open for trolls


reaction;

1.) the heat spreads here -pretends A.) it's everywhere, B.) peer review doesn't control it
2.) all-or-nothing, military war-like confrontational fear mongering framing/rhetoric


solution;

1.) pretends the mess that sf-imc is in, is good for other IMC's/movement
2.) rosy future painting with fallback to blaming the trolls - as usual


when you can never be wrong SOMEONE ELSE ALWAYS HAS TO BE BLAMED so it's not nessie's fault - it's our fault. A person (obsessed naturally) who has the goods on him - has the DIRT is an even greater danger then actual trolls are. Hence the "absolutely certain" demon shows his face..


SO we have 2 people - neither of which can ever admit they're wrong about anything

person A is "absolutely certain" I'm bad
person B says "I lie alot"

neither have provided even *a shred of evidence* to back this up - we're expected to take them on their word -

person A's word consists of an secret expert panel of "friends"
person B's word consists of papers destroyed in a huge explosion


both use war-like confrontational all-or-nothing rhetorical framing, both demonize those they disagree with - attack the messenger rather than the message, both are AD HOC practitioners

"whizzard", "sick", "lying", "pathologically obsessed"


> What do you think?

I think nessie & sheepdog should get together as a team - they were made for eachother

(1.) Neither does shouting lies from a rooftop.

(2.) If we wanted to reach a large audience, we'd be publishing porn and celebrity gossip. That's not what we are trying to do. SF-IMC is not broadcasting. It's narrowcasting. We are aimed at a *very* specific audience, activists of the Global Justice Movement, their friends, their allies and their potential friends and allies. It is not for anyone else. We're not "spraying and praying." We're aiming.