portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

alternative media

Portland IMC Responds to SF Indymedia Conflict

After examining the conflict in the SF Bay Indymedia community, with
the information that we have Portland Indymedia activists have
collectively decided that the actions of the current SF-IMC group are
directly contrary to the spirit of Indymedia, to it's Principles of Unity, and to basic ethical behavior.

Therefore, Portland IMC activists have consensed to no longer recognize the current SF-IMC as a legitimate IMC until SF-IMC justifies it's actions of unilaterally taking over the SF server. Until that time, SF-IMC will be removed from the cities list on the Portland IMC site.

Portland IMC activists also agree that the subsequent New-IMC decision to recognize the new SF-IMC group was not valid with Gekked as the sponsor because the hard questions regarding his own actions have not been asked, nor answered. We feel it was a conflict of interest for Gekked to be the sponsor of his own groups petition to be recognized by New-Imc. Therefore, we recommend that SF-IMC's official recognition within New-IMC be RETRACTED, with a NEW application required for any future recognition.

Furthermore, Portland IMC activists encourage the Indybay group not to
compromise and accept any deals but rather to demand that the SF
Indymedia community remain a single IMC and that the people currently
controlling SF-IMC justify their actions or step aside.

Indymedia activists across the broader Indymedia network are also
encouraged to speak up and take action to address the wrong that
appears to have been done.
Después de examinar el conflicto en la Comunidad de Indymedia de la Bahía de San Francisco, con la información que tenemos, los activistas de Indymedia de Portland decidieron colectivamente que las actividades del grupo actual de la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco son directamente contrarios al esfuerzo de Indymedia, a sus principios de unidad, y al comportamiento ético fundamental.

Por lo tanto, los activistas de la Comunidad Indymedia de Portland han
decidido, por medio de un consenso, no reconocer más la presente Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco como una Comunidad Indymedia legítima hasta que la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco justifique sus actividades para asumir el control del servidor de San Francisco de manera unilateral. Hasta entonces, la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco será retirada de las listas de las ciudades del sitio de la Internet de la Comunidad Indymedia de Portland.

Los activistas de la Comunidad Indymedia de Portland también están de
acuerdo sobre el hecho que la decisión subsiguiente de la Nueva Comunidad Indymedia de reconocer al nuevo grupo de la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco fue inválida, con el señor Gekked como patrocinador, porque las duras preguntas con respecto a sus propias actividades no se han hecho, ni contestado. Nosotros sentimos que ha habido un conflicto de interés en cuanto a que Gekked sea el patrocinador de la petición que sus propios grupos han hecho para ser reconocidos por la Nueva Comunidad Indymedia. Por lo tanto, recomendamos que sea RETIRADO el reconocimiento oficial de la
Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco dentro de la Nueva Comunidad Indymedia, teniendo en cuenta que una NUEVA petición será necesaria para cualquier reconocimiento futuro.

Además, los activistas de la Comunidad Indymedia de Portland exhortan al grupo Indybay a no comprometerse y a no aceptar ningún trato, sino a exigir más bien que la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco siga siendo una sola Comunidad Indymedia y que la gente que controla actualmente a la Comunidad Indymedia de San Francisco justifique sus acciones o se haga de lado.

De igual manera se anima a los activistas de Indymedia a través de la red más amplia de Indymedia a que hablen y tomen medidas para tratar el mal que parece haber sido hecho.

Translated by: Adriana Adarve ( aadraleda@msn.com)

More information please? 15.Jan.2004 18:31

Bear

Can you tell us, the local readers of PDX Indymedia, more about this?

??????? 15.Jan.2004 18:52

freebee

i dont understand whats going on.
is there anything else to this story?
ive read it 3 time and i dont think there is enough information

This is the Open Letter to Global sent out on internal lists by sfbay IMC 15.Jan.2004 18:58

repost


John Ashcroft is smiling 15.Jan.2004 20:29

J. E. Hoover

The problem with dissent, is the fact that there is no unity of spirit. Ashcroft and the rulers of darkness love it when we scratch each other's eyes out.

"with the information that we have" 15.Jan.2004 20:51

eyewitness (unlike whoever wrote this)

It is, at best, politically inastute for any activist to draw conclusions from, and/or base actions upon, hearsay.

For journalists, it is inexcusable.

People who can't distinguish between fact and hearsay has no business trying to pass themself off as journalists. They aren't qualified.

lack of omniscience not a reason to be silent 15.Jan.2004 21:40

Amedeo Modigliani

We may not have every possible fact that is relevant to the dispute in question, afterall, we don't live in SF. But what we do know is disturbing, and it's highly appropriate that we make our views known on what has every appearance of being a very unfortunate abuse of power. Unfortunately, the person who is most implicated in this abuse has been fairly cagey, so we don't really know all the facts and extenuating circumstances that they might adduce to justify their actions. But here's what we know, and why we felt it justified and necessary to speak up:

One person in San Francisco had a dispute with another person, who apparently was once their significant other with whom they'd broken up. Both were involved in imc there. The breakup was ugly, and one of the parties decided they were unwilling to work in imc as long as the other was also participating. This person then took control of the servers, simply because they had it in their power to do so, locking out both most of the others in the collective, as well as other uninvolved bystanders who were also using the same resources. This person also shepherded their own application to form a new imc through the new-imc process, acting as their own sponsor, a clear conflict of interest.

Why are we speaking up now? Because we are afraid that an abuse of power is about to be made a fait accompli without any adverses consequences for the one committing the abuse, in the face of the silence and acquiescence of other people in indymedia. This raises profound questions about our ability to advocate fairness and justice in the world, if we can't even insist on fairness and justice in our own ranks.

All we are asking for is that the status quo ante should be respected, and that the splitup of SF-IMC into two collectives be put on hold, until these important concerns are satisfactorily addressed. After this has occurred, and a fair and impartial consideration has been given to these concerns by the new-imc working group, we will respect whatever conclusions they come to.

Portland IMC - what is wrong with you? 16.Jan.2004 00:48

San Francisco Indymedia Activist

We may not have every possible fact that is relevant to the dispute in question, afterall, we don't live in SF. But what we do know is disturbing, and it's highly appropriate that we make our views known on what has every appearance of being a very unfortunate abuse of power. Unfortunately, the person who is most implicated in this abuse has been fairly cagey

This is total absurdity! Not only do you not live in San Francisco, but you also apparently do not know any of the people involved, you don't even know what the story is, you don't even know what the SFBAY side of the story is! You honestly expect to base your decision on splitting Global Indymedia by not recognizing a legitimate IMC that went through new-imc process, imc-process without any dissent by anyone globally (not even the SFBAY people, who enthusiastically supported it because they consensed on the expansion) ... you base this on some ridiculous story about a dispute between two people who were breaking up? What about me? What about all the other people involved who aren't part of this supposed "relationship spat"? My decision to go with SF-IMC rather than SFBAY is based on their complete failure to respect consensus process which led to months of a fractured Indymedia. The expansion was the best and only solution to keep Indymedia going in the Bay Area. Where is your consideration of this? Where do you even MENTION this? Or do you just "not know" and thus you make broad announcements across Global IMC?

I'm sorry, Portland IMC is a shame on everyone. Stole a server? Come on. Get the facts first, then open your mouth later. You'll get more respect that way. Until then, Portland IMC is a disgrace to the Indymedia network and everyone should be made aware of it.

LOUD APPLAUSE!!!! 16.Jan.2004 02:19

Migratory Bird

I applaud in the strongest way the actions of Portland IMC. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING SOLIDARITY WITH THE WOMEN OF IMC AND INDYBAY! As a regular contributor to PDX imc I was nervous that we would do nothing to support indybay. As I have stated earlier I have worked with the folks of Indybay but I have not worked with SF. Therefore I can not vouch for SF. I don't think that anyone in PDX can but being an active collective we can vouch for Indybay. I believe this is why you all made the descion that you did.

I, for one, hope that other collectives will follow suit and also implement this policy. A collective that is so destructive as to disable two radio stations, upset indy book distributors and generally censor important news (election night radio) should be heavily watched. Especailly one in which women are being pushed around. It is amazing to me that PDX indymedia responded so well but decided to make a collective descion on this before posting it. I think your actions are well done, very thoughful, and i hope that we will continue to work with indybay to the highest extent working to rebuild them into a stronger news source than ever!!!

Indybay, you rock! And you have shown great patience in the face of slander, doubts, misdeeds, and assault! You continue to do great work and your page looks better than ever! Thanks for the perserverence and continuing your great volunteer work!

Maybe I can find a The Daily Poetry Movement that would suit you and your struggle. : )

why I'm supporting indybay right now 16.Jan.2004 02:33

Amedeo Modigliani

It takes a lot of guts to use your real name and come out and sign a letter detailing your concerns publicly. I know some of the people who have signed their names to the letter. They don't seem like airheads or trouble makers to me. They seem like worthy people, and it's hard for me to believe that their concerns are all hot air. I haven't yet seen the people associated with sf-imc yet be willing to reply to this with their real names in a respectful manner. This is troubling. I get a sense that the campaign on their behalf is all anonymous and unaccountable. I hope I'm proven wrong.

San Francisco Indymedia Activist 16.Jan.2004 02:50

anonymous

Why don't you tell your side of the story, then?

Re: Portland IMC - what is wrong with you? 16.Jan.2004 05:22

anon

"You honestly expect to base your decision on splitting Global Indymedia by not recognizing a legitimate IMC that went through new-imc process, imc-process without any dissent by anyone globally (not even the SFBAY people, who enthusiastically supported it because they consensed on the expansion)"

Looking at the mediation agreement ( http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-January/004742.html) in Section 1, a), regarding sf.indymedia.org's new imc application, it appears that Gekked's group was preparing themselves to fasttrack the application: "The SF Bay Area IMC will not block or impede their new IMC application, and the new IMC will be recognized by the SF Bay Area IMC."

"Stole a server? Come on. Get the facts first, then open your mouth later. You'll get more respect that way."

As you can read on indybay.org's open letter ( http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000266.html):
"Also, immediately after the mediation, they locked out the group that was now sfbay.indymedia.org (indybay.org) from access to sf.indymedia.org. In combination, these actions left the rest of the group without a website for over a month."

stir the shita 16.Jan.2004 08:10

andy from cleveland

Stir the shit!

more scandal!

more disunity!

take it to a higher level!

lets have the whole network taking sides. I know both groups have partisans. maybe we can have a global split.

seriously, folks, let it sit a while and lets see if something can get mediated.

in the long run, the situation with two similarly branded groups in one area is inherently unstable.

just back off.

Which Frisco server reported users to the Feds? 16.Jan.2004 09:27

Not a 49er

In the past year there have been reports of people at a Frisco "indymedia" site siccing the Feds on posters with whom they disagreed. Does anyone know which of the two Frisco sites engaged in this behavior? Also there were statements from Frisco drones along the lines of "I'll delete any post I don't agree with", somewhat like the censorship discussions about the drones here but a lot worse.

SF/SFBAY split confusion effects everyone 16.Jan.2004 09:51

get over it

Personally am completely ignorant about who did or said what to whom on SF/SFBAY and honestly don't give a fuck. There is too much else going on in the world to waste time with petty disputes between activists. For people outside of SF (Humboldt, Mendo, Sac Valley, etc.) dependent on SF IMC, this split is confusing and frustrating..

Am not going to take sides with one or the other, would like to see the conflict resolved soon. Other people depend on SF/SFBAY IMC for info and news..

Glad that Portland IMC is taking a stance and calling for an end to the rift in SF/SFBAY. We need an alternative media that is reliable and not consuming itself with petty bickering about who knows what..

Re: SF Indymedia Activist 16.Jan.2004 10:06

PDX Indy Contributor

Indymedia activists here in Portland, myself included, have made a statement expressing what they feel regarding the situation. Quite a bit of deliberation went into it. You all are free to carry on as you will. Portland has no power, nor wishes to have any power to enforce any future path upon the SF indymedia community. That said, any individual is free to express themselves regarding the actions of others and so pdx indy activists have done so.

Personally, I think it a wrong choice to have two imc websites in one urban area. Especially since there is no positive reason to do it. Doing so out of reaction and inability to work together is a failure, and a loss. Doing so because of ego plays and misuse of power should raise the question of whether such misuse should readily be recognized.

New-IMC process was fast tracked through. There are stories from people involved saying that they were locked out of admin, that resources are being used as a means of exerting control, that important posts were hidden simply because of the personal conflicts between the controllers of admin and the person posting who was then locked out. This is betraying the work, which should take precedent over such conflicts.

New-IMC process for the new SF-IMC was pushed through with the person who many allegations have been made against being the one sponsoring it! Here is the person sponsoring who is in part, supposed to raise such questions. No such questions were asked. After the fact, New-IMC process people have themselves recognized this conflict of interest. This is not just people in Portland saying so.

I believe there should be some consideration of what is good for furthering this work and some justification made for two sites. Some justification that addresses a positive vision of how it will enhance the work of making a stronger activist resource and a better world. In developing such a resource as an IMC of the stature of SF, there then comes a responsibility that is bigger than the egos of a few people. In the tension of 'he did this, she did that' conflict, is this greater vision being forgotten?

Is justice being served? Is truth being heard? Is the course, set by the power games of a few individuals, really the right choice for the broader SF Bay indymedia community and all the activists in other organizations who use these resources?

I believe it is my responsibility to voice my concerns in these regards, just like it is my responsibility to voice my concerns regarding US Imperialism. I stand by the statement collectively issued by Portland IMC activists.

Womyn of IMC 16.Jan.2004 10:45

L.Ross

"I applaud in the strongest way the actions of Portland IMC. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING SOLIDARITY WITH THE WOMEN OF IMC AND INDYBAY!"

As a womyn of IMC I am greatly offended by the generalization that the womyn of IMC stands in solidarity with pdx.

"Indybay, you rock! And you have shown great patience in the face of slander, doubts, misdeeds, and assault!"

Indybay - you rock the integrity of IMCistas, You have shown great pettiness in the face of truth, conflict, and responsibility.

The fact the pdx and indybay have posted globally on IMC's thir issue and stance Is sickening. Newswire is not the place for this discussion.

It has infected the the global network.
Read up on COINTELPRO - thir is a patern within the IMC network -

cointelpro is irrelevant 16.Jan.2004 11:00

another imcista

The only thing that matters is whether we do what makes us stronger. A process that fails to hold people accountable for their actions, especially when it comes to taking control of a server, and refusing to even question such actions is a failed process in my opinion. We need to make something that is stronger and that is what this statement encourages. There is no need to take this personally. The individuals involved are not what concerns me (and I won't speak for others). I'm not interested in portraying one group as "good guys" and the other as "bad guys". The questions and issues raised by this statement are specific to the actions taken, not the people. We need to know that people in positions of power (like those with the power to lock people out of servers) are going to be accountable for their actions, and at the very least will offer a justification for why they chose a particular course of action. There's nothing wrong if others do not agree, and there is nothing wrong with admitting mistakes were made, and there is also nothing wrong with deciding that a split is the best course of action. But we should consider that there is something wrong with allowing a couple of individuals to decide the course of action through wielding the power that they hold.

This doesn't have to be ugliness, it doesn't have to be arguing, it doesn't have to be worrying about a split. It can be a rational discussion with the understanding that all that are contributing to indymedia as a tactic have something positive to offer and finding those ways of interacting that make us impervious to infiltration and provocateurism. Consider that the actions taken by the individuals composing sf-imc (who I'm sure are just doing what they think is best) taken without protest or even questioning have shown how easy it would be to split an IMC. Shouldn't we be stronger than that, if not to change the situation in sf, then to at least to prevent something like this from happening in the future?

The Facts from Both Sides. 16.Jan.2004 11:05

curious

It would be nice to hear the facts from both sides. Not insenuation or pointers to the facts, but the blow by blow from both sides, in detail.

I think there are much more important things to be focusing social justice effort on, but if there was a violation of unity here. It should be nipped in the bud. It could be worse than just backing off. Hard to say.

People from both sides should speak up clearly, in detail, and 100% truthfully so this will be finished. Admitting their failures and successes.

why pdx imc reposted its letter widely 16.Jan.2004 11:24

pdx imcista

Although we generally oppose the willy-nilly reposting of content onto multiple sites, in this case, we felt the situation in San Francisco to be exceptional, and to warrant a timely, widely distributed statement, because we felt that, otherwise, a wrong within the broad IMC community's ranks could not be righted, and would silently become a fait accompli without the pressure of widely publicizing our stance on the matter. The rules against reposting content carelessly to multiple IMCs and the principle of not meddling in the affairs of other autonomous IMCs still stand, but there are occasions, when even more fundamental principles are at stake, where we maintain that these rules have exceptions.

[Disclaimer: Please note that none of my statements, notwithstanding my use of the pronoun "we" here, are official. These comments are NOT officially consensed statements by pdx imc people, only my interpretation of the sentiments of we share. Others may see things differently.]

If SF has nothing to hide... 16.Jan.2004 11:56

Logical Observer

...they should be happy about this statement. It gives them a legitimate chance to explain their actions and their side of the story to those who may doubt them - something they have been reluctant to do up until this point. If SF IMC is truly justified in their actions, as they have claimed, then there is no reason for them to find this statement so threatening. It creates an opportunity for their voice to be heard, for them to be seen as accountable, and for their IMC to be re-recognized in a way that is transparent and that no other IMC could question in the future. Isn't this what they would want?
The more I see SF attack this statement and PDX rather than using it as an opportunity to accomplish these things, the more I have to wonder about their motives. Do they really want to have their voice heard and be seen as legitimate, or do they want to keep everything quiet and swept under the rug until it all blows over so that their actions never have to be justified? I think how they proceed from this point on will answer those questions for me. And I truly hope that SF can use this as a chance to build something legitimate and positive.

To: Portland IMC Techs 16.Jan.2004 13:08

Goober Pee

Please remove the link to the Hawaii IMC site. I think that site is dead (RIP), but at any rate, the link takes me to a casino site. Thanks.

The Facts 16.Jan.2004 13:13

sf-imc person

1) Everyone in SFBAY and SFIMC consensed to split the group.
2) Everyone in SFBAY and SFIMC consensed that Gek would be the new-imc liaison.
3) At the 2nd mediation meeting, everyone consensed that the server situation would not affect the split. At no time did anyone make any decision regarding the server that was not directly from consensus process.
4) All of this is backed up extensively by mailing list archives.
5) Portland IMC did not bother to find these things out before making their statement.

The split (from a SF perspective) 16.Jan.2004 13:18

tkat

Unfortunately as a SF bayarea based person with ties to indymedia, this split is very hard to be around. It is tearing people apart both literally and figuratively. Each side has their own rationalized victim mentality. But the SF breakaway group is still holding power over the original collective. Until they make ends to end this, like give Indybay the URLs and create a link (acknowledge Indybay's existance), this conflict is just going to go on and on. Somebody needs to step up and end this, and let each collectiv get back to what they do best.

fixed the hawaii link 16.Jan.2004 13:31

pdxtech

Thanks for the heads up.

COINTELPRO 16.Jan.2004 13:43

Bill

COINTELPRO was never statements made publicly, discussed publicly, and proven or disproven publicly.

COINTELPRO was always poison-pen letters, private evidence, accusations made in 'confidence', laundry not washed in public -- indeed never washed, never discussed, never proven.

Those who survived COINTELPRO have often remarked that, if only someobody had said something, the betrayals were so flimsy as to disintegrate upon examination. As indeed they eventually did.

The oppressors' agents work in darkness.


One SF group has made fairly specific statements and accusations, in public, where they can be challenged. They may be false or deluded; however, they have given me the possibility to test their claims. They have also attached their names and reputations to their statements.

Others have, at best, declared that I do not understand; and they have assured that I continue not to understand. For example, "The Facts" posted above at 16.Jan.2004 13:13 does not include any facts not posted in the 'Bay Area' "Open Letter", nor does it address any charges made therein.


Those, who raise the spectre of COINTELPRO against honest inquiry, ask us to put out the light.

Proposal to SFBAY Group to End this Conflict 16.Jan.2004 13:47

sfimc activist

SFIMC has put out a proposal that aims to end this conflict, addresses BOTH SIDES of the conflict's concerns (instead of just one side), and they are doing it through acceptable process means, not spamming every single website and mailing list they can find. I applaud SFIMC for this -- if someone had trashed my name on every single IMC, I don't think I would be so nice in return. Let's hope that SFBAY goes along with this proposal rather than creating more conflict in the global network. As for Portland IMC, I think it is terrible that they would jump to take sides in this without getting all the facts first.

where to go from here 16.Jan.2004 13:53

another imcista

sf-imc person/sfimc activist, we did in fact talk to many people from both sf-imc and indybay and discussed the matter extensively and worked diligantly on this stament. We know all of the facts you pointed out and much more that you've chosen to omit. Of course, point 5 is a baseless accusation, but I'm sure you're just upset with this statement. Don't take it personally, and look for ways in which you can respond to calls of accountability. As most people that have studied power relationships can tell you, once an individual or group has exercised their power over another individual or group talking about what is consensed to after that point is highly questionable. That doesn't mean that the course of action was a bad one, only that we need to have some mechanism from preventing anyone with a server password from locking out everyone else and assuming control of an imc. What's done is done and I for one am not interested in dealing with egos. The question for all sf-imc poeple is how do they want to move forward from here. It seems fairly easy to simply provide a justification for the actions that were taken and present it to the larger community. Perhaps to listen to the concerns that an individual who was involved in assuming control of an imc was also allowed to be his own sponsor in the new-imc process and address them. There is much that can be done and we'll all be that much better for it.

If we all truly want peace, we must start with sustaining the peace within ourselves.

To: pdxtech 16.Jan.2004 14:00

Goober Pee

Thank you for the fix. Glad to see that our Hawaii brothers and sisters are still getting it done. Is there a way for you to spread the message to the other IMCs? I noticed that global has the same problem.

Actions and Consequences 16.Jan.2004 14:09

sfimc activist

Uh, these have been sent out to the lists. This has been discussed ad nauseum for 9 months now. For instance, the server move was a decision made collectively by imc-sf-tech, it was consensed to on that list, with a solild consensus minus one structure. It was all done in the open, on a list with open archives, all still there for anyone to look at. The problem is that SFBAY people want to get their own way even when the fair process we all agreed to doesnt go their way. Dealing with consensus process or any process means that you accept the fairness of it and move on.

As for anything else, there is a reconciliation proposal by SFIMC on the floor. As people who have dealt with this for almost a year now, we want to be done and get back to doing indymedia work. We already are doing that, and Portland coming in out of nowhere, asserting an opinion without knowing everything is nuts and isnt productive to anyone.

You may think you know all the facts, but who did you talk to? For SFIMC, I know you sent 2-3 emails to Gek and that's it. What about the rest of the people in SFIMC? Did you talk with them? What about the people in SFIMC who can't afford to get on email every day, did you talk with them?

The best solution right now is that SFBAY agrees to the proposal outstanding and we can all get on with our lives. Arguing about all this shit all over again is nothing but destructive.

isn't it interesting... 16.Jan.2004 14:12

reader

It's interesting that the sf-imc people don't seem to deny that they effectively hijacked a server. It's good I suppose that they are not resorting to lying, but by their omission it does seem like a serious breach of trust occurred. In any activist organization in which I've worked these issues must always be called out and addressed. People always get defensive but the best thing you can do is keep treating them with respect while staying true to yourself and your principles. I have faith that whatever happens in this resolution it will be for the best. Good luck and best wishes to all.

Portland is against consensus? 16.Jan.2004 14:14

curious

If you "knew all these facts," I'm curious how you can still write what is in your statement. Is Portland IMC against consensus-made decisions?

Server hijacked? 16.Jan.2004 14:24

please

As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated.

These are the facts.

Do people have a problem with process? Would you care to explain why decisions made through accepted process are to be overturned? Is it whoever yells the loudest or spams the most sites who wins? Or does process win?

the validity of consensus 16.Jan.2004 14:28

long time activist

I don't think the point being raised is whether or not consensus was reached, but whether it was valid.

Can consensus be considered valid if one party is wielding power over another?

I can walk into any consensus based group with a gun and have a good chance of gettin gall my ideas consensed to; would those decisions be valid?

Be straight with people sf, did you guys really lock everyone out of the server prior to the split? If yes, than provide your justification. If not explain where the misunderstanding comes from.

Consensus 16.Jan.2004 14:40

sfimc activist

I see, thats easy, consensus is void depending on how people "feel" months afterwards? Please.

Of course, the case could easily be made that SFIMC people felt physically threatened by the power held against them -- in the form of harrassment at their work and home, physical intimidation, etc. Where does that figure in?

And no, no one was "locked out of a server" ... in fact, SFBAY got the database, all the files they need, etc without any intervention from us whatsoever. How is this possible if they were "locked out of the server" with no power whatsoever? Again, its just bullshit being used to create conflict and you Portland IMC people bought it lock, stock and barrel.

That server is wide open with people from all over the world who have root access on it. If anything shady were to happen (which it didnt), any number of lists could be petitioned to rectify it: imc-tech, imc-sysadmin, etc. But the fact is that never happened. They got everything. Any number of people have full root access on that box from all over the world, South America, Europe, etc.

So again, its hard to stomach that anything wrong occurred. Everything was within consensus, with MANY checks and balances available if group consensus was violated, which never happened anyway. Now months later, Portland IMC has an opinion on a hypothetical situation which might have happened in the past which actually didnt?

Amazing.

server hijacking 16.Jan.2004 15:36

me

it is not true that the sf-imc consensed to move the server. when concerns were brought up that our server was to be taken care of by a new sf-active global tech working group thereby removing it from local control, the group was told by gekked that it would not be discussed with the entire collective and it was not the entire collectives decision to make, and that it was only an sf-imc tech working group decision to make.

also, admin access to sf.indymedia.org was taken away from those of us that are now with sfbay-imc *before* we even had a site up and running (contrary to our agreement). and when we posted comments on sf.indymedia.org in protest of what was happening, or trying to explain that the editorial collective that was updating sf.indymedia.org was no longer the same people, our comments were deleted from the site by sf.indymedia.org admins.

More lies 16.Jan.2004 16:51

sfimc activist

1. SFIMC did, in fact, consense to move the server from a donation we had in Oakland, California. It was intended to be moved to Hurricane Electric. Unfortunately, one member of SFBAY decided that the person we were receiving a donation from was "interested" in another member of the group. She then proceeded to harrass this person until she was no longer interested in working with the group. She also instigated this woman's ex who is violent with women to go after her, even going so far as to meet in person with this violent ex.

2. Undeterred by these actions which should exclude someone from participation in Indymedia, the tech group found another place that met the same criteria: it was a free donation at Hurricane Electric.

3. The imc-sf-tech group agreed to this proposal. This proposal was brought to a general meeting, where again it was agreed upon.

Again, these are all facts verifiable by eyewitnesses, meeting notes, and mailing list archives.

Regarding "admin access," yes, we agreed to split the group into two sites. SFBAY had their site online and running, and were using the editorial power they had on our site to put promotional material for themselves on the center column, remove legitimate stories about an important SF election that was happening, etc. We did not have any editorial access on their site. Thus, shortly after SFBAY decided to move ahead with the mediation agreement by locking people out of the space 3 weeks before they were supposed to, and we saw that their site was online, we went ahead and protected our site from further editorial admin abuse by them.

about sfimc activist 16.Jan.2004 17:45

me again

the facts as stated by sfimc activist are not true.

there was concern about having our site on a server that barely anyone in the collective had access to. this was voiced at a meeting. gekked said at the meeting that it wasn't the collectives decision, it was only a decision of the
sf-tech working group.

people that had been admining the sf.indymedia.org site for years had their passwords taken away before the new site was launched, and had any comments they posted to sf.indymedia.org deleted - this is true!!

two members of the sf.indymedia..org group were told they were no longer welcome in the imc space because gekked threatened to take down the network there. the space contains many other groups besides imc that would have been negatively affected by that., therefore the suite manager told the two members that they were not welcome in the space anymore, but they were encouraged to make an appointment with the suite manager to come and pick up their equipment.

Questions for SF Activist 16.Jan.2004 19:51

Seeking Clarification

You noted the following, and I am curious for more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people constitute the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people constitue the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks.

As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated.

mediation solves everything ... not 16.Jan.2004 20:46

former san franciscan, recent indymedia tech

>seriously, folks, let it sit a while and lets see if something can get mediated.

Mediation is not a solution when miscommunication is not the problem.

If the problem is abuse of power, mediation just validates the abuse.

Thanks for sharing.

Power plays are when we shut down our media to hold power over another 17.Jan.2004 01:40

Migratory Bird

The fact that two radio stations were shut down has not been addressed in what I would believe to be a coherant manner by SF IMC.

This is the antithesis of indymedia.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Also the Women's Global was set up to discuss these male power issues within indymedia. I am of course committed to do everything I can to address these issues which I use with poetry. If you go to the discussion page on Global you can read more about this, and yes, they were in part formed to discuss what took place with SF IMC against indybay. Therefore my statement stands uncorrected and I again say

THANK YOU PORTLAND IMC for standing in solidarity with women's global indymedia! Yeah Indymedia rocks and we are doing it right!!!!

SOLIDARITY WITH THE WOMEN OF IMC AND INDYBAY!" 17.Jan.2004 02:49

Oakland AL

INDYBAY should be allowed to run the IMC for san francisco. thus far they have shown they have the ability and the maturity to conduct them selves in an "adult manner" without censoring opinions or any of the other childish pranks that go on there.

Portland, thank you for your help, we need to make a lot of changes down here.

it's not womyn versus men 17.Jan.2004 16:28

SF-IMC female

There seems to be some misconception that the rift between the two IMCs has something to do with sex. I don't think that's it. San Francisco isn't really that redneck a place and I think gender issues are pretty complex in the Bay Area, so where does this crazy train of thought originate? San Francisco, the mythical city where the girls are strong and the men are pretty. Sexism has been gone a while now, the glass ceiling exists moreso in other parts of the orld, so let's talk about the rights of muslim or nigerian women. Claiming sexism to fuel a collective dispute is a second rate agenda, so please drop it. The men of SF-IMC seem to do Ok with both genders, and have references to that effect online in fact. I hate to say it but it seems kind of sissy to whine about being mistreated as a woman, gives the rest of us a bad name. Thanks for considering a critical view.

That wasn't a critical analysis taht was bullshit 17.Jan.2004 17:07

Migratory Bird

Gender is complicated, and others don't respect gender preferences, etc. I understand this, but this is the IMC, not San Francisco, not Portland, this is GLOBAL WOMEN OF THE IMC.

No one claimed sexism. What was said was that a woman was pushed by a man and then taunted that she couldn't call the police to do anything about it. This is a serious charge. As I know the dedicated activists in indybay- you a monikered female from SF, do not have the same resounance within me, and no we don't need to call the police, we don't need to press charges, and yes we will do something about this. Indyemdia is not going to be a haven for men and not women. It will be a haven for trannies, and all people, no matter what gender you align yourself with. No one will be raped, assaulted, or harmed without serious open dialogue and some kind of results coming through.

Your attempt to address only one side of what I said and to make it a silly blanket stement is awful. Hey SF, why did you shut down the radio? Why did you shut down two radio stations?

Was it ego? That probably is to complex for us to understand, I know...

Question for Migratory Bird 17.Jan.2004 17:33

Inquisitor

Migratory Bird: You are either not for real or you aren't following the whole story.

A member of Indybay is a reknowned woman abuser and is currently charged with rape. When things don't go Indybay's way, this person suddenly makes appearances to intimidate women who work with SFIMC. Last year, another person with Indybay met with this person, explained to him that they don't want certain women working with SFIMC, and one of the women had been involved with this abuser. Together, they harrassed and initimidated this woman (who also had 3 children) out of Indymedia. Now, a year later, this person is still charged with rape, still psychotically messes with women, and he's a full-fledged member of Indybay, they allow him to hang out on his IRC channel, and any attempts to suggest that MAYBE this person is intimidating to women in Indymedia, they don't care, they censor these posts on their website, etc.

Where is the concern for women there? There are plenty of gender issues in Indymedia as a whole, but dont think for one second that Indybay doesnt have its share of them. There are at least two people in Indybay who have gone beyond politics and SERIOUSLY attacked women (something a little bit more than talking over someone in a meeting). When its safe and can be used as a process advantage, gender issues are talked about a lot. But when it is serious issues that require serious commitment, like opposing abusers and rapists in the activist community, where is Indybay? Accepting them into their fold. Its disgusting and hypocritical.

The alleged assault incident 17.Jan.2004 17:37

has been called into question--please do not discuss.

It is serious for SF Indybay.org to validate the unfounded rumor of sexual, verbal or physical assault against an individual, when it was not reported to medical or other authorities, but instead used a month after the fact as part of an "open petition" petition submitted surreptiously to the global IMC network, which has this incident and other fraudulent errors. The open letter I refer to the one that was sent to the global network in violation of the anti-defamation confidentiality portion of the mediation agreement. This is all documented online at sf.indymedia.org. About other serious problems with the open letter signed by Indybay, Kevin Keating and Ali have in fact stated publicly that they did not even agree to the use of their names on the open letter, calling the credibility of the whole letter and any other fake signers into question; but I don't want to post all the links over here if you haven't been keeping up on both sides. It's all there on the SF-IMC site, cross referenced to the Portland issue. I don't want to open this can of worms up and get Nessie started again.

Time was of the essence in reproting a serious problem. One version of the tragic incident, where apparently a toe may have been stubbed, is that a teenager stepped on a secret agent's toe but it wasn't bad enough to require a bandaid at the time. He didn't threaten that she would not call the police, as reported in the open letter, he instead asked if blocking his entrance to his office space to use equipment he had a right to use meant that she was police? A little different. But no report of this terrible incident was made to our knowledge at the time, some hyperventilating about how the tech wanted to use the recirder but it was hers! hers! hers! at the time. Had a report to 911 been made, I can pull it up via the Freedom of Information Act -- unless it's classified. But no police report was made on this alleged assault at the time. And no trip to the emergency room required as far as we know, and it was not taped, as far as we know, but a tape may of course emerge later - we are talking audio production here. There are two people at odds in the heat of the negotiations over the split: we have one biased witness, another signer to the open letter from which he hoped to gain by advancing the lie. The story of the incident thus apparently only surfaced in connection with leveraging the early eviction from the physical office, which SF_IMC had until December 31 per the mediation agreement, now also oinline, and the story is again gaining momentum through the "open letter" demand to the global network to further discredit one of the techs, whose name has been published along with the lie, globally.

Come meet the teenager who is so ferocious. He's a real menace to society. He is a major volunteer in the IMC network. He has no real other problems with IMC and is trying to work through this via the appropriate channels.

How does publicizing a weak assault case protect womyn's rights? I don't see that it does, since I work with womyn in real domestic crisis, women who must move to secret homes to avoid real abuse. If you have truly been harrassed or assaulted,stand up and be counted, report the incident at the time it happens when it can be proven, seek help, document and report the incident fully, take immediate action. Don't wait, or your bruise will vanish and you'll a rumor this old, your timeline said December 1, 2003, just looks bad. Did you audio people tape the incident? Can a tape be created?

--A Woman Who Could Have Talked to the Tech at the Time and Worked It Out, Probably

SFBAY Forges At Least Two Signatures to Their "Open Letter" 17.Jan.2004 17:41

interesting

The SFBAY attacks in global are mostly the work of 4-5 vindictive people who have previously threatened to "get revenge through Indymedia" for all sorts of things not having to do with Indymedia. It is unfortunate that people like Portland IMC don't think to consider this is their motivation. For instance, Kevin Keating is a rather famous anarchist-communist writer, involved with the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project, has written countless articles for anarchist and radical left magazines, and a friend to many people in the SFIMC group (and possibly the SFBAY group, I dont know). His name appeared on the letter. You would think that if you were going to sign the name of a minor political celebrity to your letter, you would ask them first, right? Check it out:

I disavow any connection to this letter
by Kevin Keating ( one of the signatures above) Wednesday January 14, 2004 at 07:47 PM
 proletaire2003@yahoo.com

I did not sign this letter, and it was absolute bullshit that this was posted with my name on it. I don't necessarily agree with its version of events; I don't necessarily disagree either. I don't have enough information to go on either way.

I began volenteering with what was then SF-IMC after this conflict had started. Neither side gave me their version of the dispute. I never asked for either sides' version of events, either. I never tried to get involved in this one way or the other. I felt that there was nothing useful that could come from one more person jumping into the fray. My role in the project has been marginal, limited to staffing the space a few hours a week and occasionally posting docs on the web site.

I have ended up siding with the currently-constituted indybay folks, by default , only because they seemed more likely to be able to sustain the project in some viable form resembling what I'd originally volenteered to help out with -- I have no axe to grind with the former tech people who have split from Indybay, and I never agreed to blackball them, or anyone else who has been involved in this. I am not for or against either side in this donnybrook; again, I have next to no information from either side about their version of events. The level of rancor in the dispute seems patently ridiculous to me. I don't have any exaggerated sense of the significance of this project. No mass revolutionary movement is going to jump off from a fucking web site!

I haven't been in contact with the former tech people now making up SF-IMC for some months. I don't give any information from one side to the other. Again , my role in this effort is limited to staffing the space and posting docs on the web site. Signing my name to this, and then posting it like this was, at best, an extremely poor judgement call, especially when it was widely known that a bottom-feeding, carrion-eating hack journalist named Chris Thompson from the East Bay Excuse was out to do a hatchet-job on the project and the dispute arising from it.

---------------------------------------

This provoked another younger, lesser-known activist named Ali to say that he also was put on the letter without his approval:

One more clarification
by Ali Wednesday January 14, 2004 at 08:47 PM

The signature "Ali" was also signed on to the letter by mistake. I have been out of the country for a while and had no involvement with the drafting of the letter. I have been working with indybay.org by "default" similar to kevin keating. Having just moved to the bay area it's hard for me to have any sort of opinion on this issue.

---------------------------------------

So, I wonder what would happen if we contacted the OTHER people on this list of names. Or is it really a very small, isolated clique of jerks who don't give one damn about Indymedia, don't give a damn about making Indymedia better, all they care about is getting revenge for who dated who, who slept with who, who pissed off somebody in an argument three months ago?

Luckily there are IMCs like Portland out here to eat it up. Portland IMC: where is your statement against forging signatures to an Open Letter that is spammed across IMCs far and wide? Where is your statement against using violent women abusers as ways to intimidate activists into doing what you want?

about inquisiter 17.Jan.2004 17:48

me

also, what this person is saying is false. the person they are referring to is not a member of indybay.

there are many other untrue things in their comment, and hypocritical statements, but i won't go into how inaccurate it all is.

there were gender problems in sf-imc when it was one group, and most of the women in the group are now working in indybay.org

"Gender Problems" 17.Jan.2004 18:27

majoritarian

The Indybay folks want you to believe that they are the majority, they cling to the idea that if they can prove a majority, they are "right" somehow.

Allow me to dispell some myths.

First, two women in SFIMC (who are now part of the SFBAY group) went out of their way to prevent at least two women from joining the group who were "allied" with the "enemies" (i.e. anyone who disagreed with their process of bullying people into doing things). One woman of color was scared away because her visa status was jeopardized by the willful anti-security posturing of a woman in the now SFBAY group. Another woman (who has tech skills, photo skills, and is a true asset to indymedia) was quite literally harassed away by an SFBAY person who (as mentioned) collaborated with her abusive ex-boyfriend, tried to inflame him into jealous rages which would mean he would go to this woman's house and mess with her (and this abusive person is now a member of the new SFBAY/Indybay group), and this person made sure that this woman would never try to work with Indymedia again. The worst part is the Indybay person didn't even KNOW this woman, had never even MET her, but maybe now you can get a sense of the deranged power games and bullying that Indybay people use to get their way. You see it again when they spam half-truths over every IMC in the network. You see it again when they spam every mailing list in the IMC network. If you lived in SF, you could see it every day. It is 100% what led to this split: power games, gender power games, and much of it, unfortunately, has nothing to do with politics or coverage, but insane personal crusades. The more I think about it the more I think this shit needs to come out in Global Indymedia.

not a member of indybay? 17.Jan.2004 18:35

funny

| marc (~ marc@vax.hanford.org) (Non profit organization)
| channels : @#sfbay @#ecr
| server : che.indymedia.org (che IMC IRC server)

Why is he always on IRC and always hanging out in only TWO irc channels then? The Indybay (#sfbay) channel which is newly-formed and only has 4-9 people ever in it and the #ecr channel, which is for Indybay's "shoutcast" stream? Why is he at your events? Why is he still being used to threaten and intimidate SFIMC members throughout the process in Global Indymedia? Why was he collaborating and meeting with Indybay people last year to force women out of SFIMC? Why does he have "operator status" in the Indybay IRC channels?

The facts are:
1. Indybay members have harrassed and intimidated women out of SFIMC and that is one of the main reasons for the split that is never talked about.
2. Indybay members used a man with a widely known history of violence against women to do it.
3. There is hard, concrete proof of this.
4. It continues to this day, to this very second, as this person sits in an Indymedia channel, using Indymedia resources, after this long history of violence against women in Indymedia. And its all thanks to Indybay: the home of stalkers and abusers.

So. Are we going to talk about a teenage kid who brushed past some woman who was in his face and trying to kick him out of a space that belonged to him just as much it did her (if not more)?
Or are we going to talk about REAL ISSUES that face women -- violence, rape, harrassment, intimidation, stalking behaviors, and how all of this can be encouraged by other women who obviously have many internalized sexist motivations as some men do?

Yeah I'm for real and you are...? 17.Jan.2004 19:20

Migratory Bird

The Daily Poetry Movement (quick clicks)
author: Migratory Bird
Quick Clicks. You wanted to have a quick page to browse, didn't quite have a chance to read that poem cause you didn't have enough time and you didn't have time to go back and save it? Then save this page to favorites. Now you can have the daily poetry movent for all those specail resistence occasions. Also don't forget to use Haiku Kung Fu for protesting Cheyny! Got chalk ready, poetry printed, got signs to plaster around town, let poetry wake up our beautiful city! Resist! Refuse!
January 5, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277752.shtml
(Bush poetry)
January 4, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277707.shtml
(Gendercide)
January 3, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277644.shtml
(Mumia)
January 2, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277612.shtml
(Lesbianism)
January 1, 2004  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277588.shtml
( linguistic racism)
December 31, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277502.shtml
(revolution X/ free speech/ teacher fired)
December 30, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277464.shtml
(Leonard Peltier)
December 29, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277393.shtml
(animal cruelty and health affects)
December 28, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277369.shtml
(triangle shirtwaist factory fire)
December 27, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277335.shtml
(Media criticism and war journalism)
December 26, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277285.shtml
(comic relief /Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)
December 25, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277244.shtml
(Harry Moore killed on Xmas day for NAACP activity)
December 24, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277118.shtml
(13 month calender)
December 23, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277075.shtml
(My Sharon-uh)
December 22, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277018.shtml
(solstice selections)
December 21, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276957.shtml
(Start of Chanukkah/ Yiddish Anarchists/ Cry Palestine)
December 21, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276965.shtml
(Big Page plus original poems (solstice poem)
December 20, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276905.shtml
(War on Iraq criticisms includes youth poem)
December 19, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276773.shtml
(free labor/slavery/ link to slaves poems)
December 18, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276702.shtml
(Propaganda)
December 17, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276621.shtml
(Gender language/war)
December 16, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276521.shtml
(Oppression)
December 15, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276442.shtml
(Honoring Indymedia/ CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR/ESVM)

December 14, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276409.shtml
(haiku kung fu/ protest signs suggestions)
December 13, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276352.shtml
(Black and queer)
December 12, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276264.shtml
(Freedom)
December 08, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276103.shtml
(Class war)
December 07, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276080.shtml
(transgendered poetry)
December 06, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276043.shtml
(anti shopping)
December 05, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275974.shtml
(genital mutilation)
December 04, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275931.shtml
(pinochet/ school of the Americas)
December 03, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275866.shtml
(poetic terrorism)
December 02, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275774.shtml
(a jewish women writes a poem to a women in Palestine/ Gush-Shalom)
December 01, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275723.shtml
(Archy and Mehitbel/ the disappearance poetry from media)



November 30, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275680.shtml
(Toe'osh: A Laguna Coyote Story/ Leslie Marmon Silko)
November 29, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275647.shtml
(Great local artists/ capitalism criticism)
November 28, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275618.shtml
(Bombs over baghadad)
November 22, 2003  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275307.shtml
(chemical oppression)

SF ers come one, stop your campaign and answer these questions: 17.Jan.2004 19:30

Migratory Bird

OK now that you SFers have deteriotated into the he said/ she said non specific debate that you are known to do how about addressing the real issues:

We could debate all day whether or not his name was retracted from the list or whether or not it was falsified, we can debate nonnamed persons and what they were or were not doing. But that is shit debates meant to distract Portland from it's real statements.


WHY DID YOU CLOSE DOWN THE MEDIA AND WHY ARE YOU HOLDINGH THE SERVER STILL?

misogynist violence, real problem -- website split, imaginary solution 17.Jan.2004 21:31

native san franciscan, disappointed from afar

If there are abusers at "indybay," or at the presumptuously-monikered "SFIMC" group, then the abusers must be expelled. This absurd website split does not solve or even address an abuse problem, if such a problem really exists. Insinuations that anybody with a problem with "SFIMC" may be a "secret agent" are not winning any points with anybody. The larger indymedia world will indeed care which side seems to constitute a majority, which side seems more coherent and less paranoid, and which side is actually running an indymedia project -- as opposed to just keeping a server plugged into a wall somewhere. It won't necessarily matter whether you're mostly "right" if your server and its tinfoil-hatted caretakers become the most embarassing appendage of a ridiculous situation.

server, et al. 17.Jan.2004 21:51

sfimc female tech

We are not holding the server. There was never a server to be held. The server move was talked about, planned, and passed consensus.

It was originally to be moved to a server in rack space provided by me. On the day we were to install the new server, there were problems with the machine. An Indymedia tech and I had taken the server to the colo space (a drive of over an hour in rush hour) so that I could get him in and his name on the access list for that rack. During the install, the machine came up with problems. We worked on it for awhile there, but decided to bring the server back and have other people look at it after attempting for several hours to make it work. We drove back to the city (another hour plus drive) and telephoned the person with whom we would be leaving the server. He was unavailable at the moment to pick it up, so we agreed to meet him in a park when he was done with his tasks. We were waiting in the park when the tech I was with's ex-girlfriend came up. She immediately began to flip out about what we were doing etc. We decided to just go wait in the car. She then proceeded to repeatedly call his and my cell phones for several hours. After that I was harassed daily online and by phone. She collaborated with my at the time boyfriend who was extremely jealous, causing him to begin to flip out on me. Any time I tried to be involved in Indymedia both of them would begin again with the harassing behavior. At one point she even stood up in an Indymedia meeting and begin screaming about me and how I was dating her ex.

I decided to not have anything to do with Indymedia anymore as long as she was there. It was not worth the disruption to my life, or my children's lives. Because there was now no server hosting arrangement, the server was moved to linefeed as an alternative host because the current host was too unstable. This is a matter of record in the tech email archives.

Not only do I have technical skills, and photography skills, but I have extensive community resources that could have been utilized by Indymedia. I had two other girl techs that wanted to work with Indymedia, but after this incident, they decided not to.

Now we have sfbay which has no girl techs, and sfimc which has two (possibly three) girl techs. We have sfbay who is violating the mediation agreement by talking (and lying about) the split with everyone they can get to listen to them, and we have sfimc who continues to uphold the mediation agreement by not discussing it. We have sfbay who is working with a man who has been accused of rape by one woman, with a restraining order against him by another, attaches fake names to their petition, and repeatedly spreads slanderous and libelous statements against sfimc members, and we have sfimc who has remained silent in the face of such statements.

SFIMC has been working on trying to get on with the business of running our site, and working within process to get this resolved, which is why we don't wish to respond to this statement.

SF, Could You Please Answer My Simple Question? 17.Jan.2004 22:21

Still Waiting For an Answer

Sorry to reapeat this post, but either SF people missed it or no one there wants to answer these simple questions for some reason...

You noted the following, and I would like more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people at that time constituted the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people at the time constitued the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks.

"As stated on global mailing lists:
1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
4) The server was moved.
5) Ultimately, the entire SFIMC group had jurisdiction over the server.
6) Any consensed-upon decision was respected by imc-sf-tech, as always.
7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.
8) This was never violated."

xyz 17.Jan.2004 22:35

sfimc

"You noted the following, and I would like more specifics. Could you please list in each of these cases how many people consensed to these decisions? How many people at that time constituted the SFIMC group? How many of them would "work on this project?" How many people at the time constitued the SFIMC Tech group? And how many people constitute the SFBAY IMC? Thanks."

Around 15 people at this meeting- > 1) The entire SFIMC group consensed to move the server.
Around 15 people, same meeting -> 2) The entire SFIMC group consensed that some people would work on this project.
There are 56 people on imc-sf-tech -> 3) The SFIMC Tech group consensed on moving the server, using consensus minus one, with no blocks.
Around 11-12 people at this meeting -> 7) At the 2nd mediation meeting, it was consensed and re-affirmed that imc-sf-tech would respect consensus decisions of the larger group.

Around 5 - 6 techs worked on this project out of a larger tech group of almost 60 people.

? 17.Jan.2004 22:53

Bill

"which is why we don't wish to respond to this statement"

That is rather an unusual statement to append to such a long spew.

to bill 17.Jan.2004 23:24

sfimc female tech

I meant as a group. This was just me stating my experience for the record. :)

-*-snicker-*- 18.Jan.2004 00:21

Bill

Liz used to call that back and fill.

"I decided to not have anything to do with Indymedia anymore as long as she was there."

Yet, here you are. For someone, who is concerned about her safety and the safety of her children, you are horribly careless.

Bill, is it obvious, that SF has launched a disinformation campaign? 18.Jan.2004 00:57

Migratory Bird

Bill, I have been really thinking about this and the more I read these weird posts and fatatous claims I am coming to realize that SF IMC has launched a disinformation campaign against indybay and using Portland as their sounding board for daring to criticize them. There hasn't been one coherant well intentioned thought out response. No one has lovingly and with good intentioned tried to sit down and reason withour collective. Instead we get the old hiss boo shhsshss campaign. I am quite surprised we wern't told to stick a sock in it.

On the other hand we have had Indybay come forward pleading for help from all collectives globally. They have written a well thought out statement. They did stay on topic and tried to stay away from personality issues. They asked simply to have their own site posted. Oh, and for their equipment back. It seems to me that as I have met these dedicated activists in my travels that the least I can do is weigh in and say yep, your good peoples, you took care of me in hairy sticky situations, I know your good people's so I sure hope you get your equipment back and you are able to have a site.

Bill, I hate to say it but I need more facts from them. They ignore my questions, demand my answers and ignore me when I keep asking the same questions. They question my gender affiliation, or my support of women's global indymedia, and then refuse to answer the fundamentals. What are we to do Bill? Continuing in this line of flame throwing and he said/she said and nameless ooh somebody dids is pointless. It is a ruse and one I do not have patience for any longer. Unless they say something that contains content, cohesiveness, and shows humility and forsight then I would suggest that we adhere to the aforementioned plan of backing indybay and shutting SFIMC down until they can collaborate with the global community in a mature fashion.

In Topaz 18.Jan.2004 03:58

Toyo Suyemoto

Can this hard earth break wide
The stiff stillness of snow
And yield me promise that
This is not always so?
Surely, the warmth of sun
Can pierce the earth ice-bound
Until grass comes to life
Outwitting barren ground!

Inbay gets caught with pants down 18.Jan.2004 08:59

Kevin Keating, others, denounce flawed Indybay smear letter

SF-IMC agrees to continue to work through the mediation process as agreed. Although SF-IMC did not seek to make any of the confidential mediation negotiations public, we are forced to respond when our rights are egregiously violated if that might prevent further spread of libelous and damaging statements, to set the record straight. Indybay, on the other hand, went around the mediation process we all openly agreed upon, and began to retroactively create a paper trail which they published on the global IMC network but is locally know to be full of errors,. What I refer to most notably is an "open letter" ostensibly signed by the group, which was later shown to contain fraudulent statements. Please note that SF-IMC was not furnished with a copy of this "open letter" by Indybay, but rather found a copy posted on our site after the fact by someone in the UK who thought we were omitted from the mailing list in error.

The "open letter" feels like a smear campaign because it is such a seriously flawed document that it could lead to someone getting arrested, for rumored drug use when in fact the drug use is medically prescribed, for example, or an assault that sounds more like a misunderstanding, or theft of equipment which was not stolen but mutually purchased, etc. -- and leaks those names globally Some individuals like Kevin and Ali are obviously concerned when they read that enthusiastic and capable techs like Gek and Noah whom they have worked with are now being slandered as criminals, and he is politically savvy enough to see why this may be occurring, and wants no part of it. Kevin and Ali may be afraid of the repercussions of being forced to sign a petition without their permission, a petition which contains serious factual errors and is being publicly challenged. So these two forthright individuals have made it clear that they did not sign the petition as posted to the global IMC network, nor do they agree to the "facts" set forth in it, nor do they agree to its intent of backballing the techs who were forced out of the group and have suffered enough already. This is called a retraction, and is a good idea when legal recourse is being contemplated, so Kevin and Ali are also what you might call "smart."

For those in Portland and others who are not aware of the internal problems, we forgive you. You probably read the "open letter" fabricated by Indybay in violation of the meditiation proceedings, which was used to spam the global IMC network. It was apparently signed by parties who agreed to the confidentiality portion mediation agreement, while the names of other "default" members of Indybay's names were apparently added without their knowledge as in Kevin's case, and in Ali's case at least, while he was outside the country. Specifically, Section 1, (i) of the mediation agreement prohibits "Negative Propaganda," and states that both groups have agreed not to engage in negative propaganda, i.e., "no sabotaging of each other." The open letter, at best, has a number of critics who feel that it was slanted by Indybay to promote their agenda by presenting how they were allegedly wronged without mentioning what or why they may have violated any terms of the agreement themselves, leaving them wide open to challenge. Others strongly feel that publishing the open letter violated the spirit and letter of the mediation which both groups paid for and entered into in good faith. At worst the open letter has captured the attention of the mainstream press, such as Chris Thompson at the East Bay Express, and has been shown to contain serious and malicious statements which were made with the intention of derailing the mediations by prejudicing the global network, which has no actual knowledge of the events described, in hopes of changing the outcome of the mediation. What more could they want?

SF-IMC wishes to make it clear that spamming the global network in violation of the no Negative Propaganda clause of the mediation agreement is not its style. This is offered only to correct mistakes already published due to Indybay's reluctance to do so.

I won't quibble about ceratin minor details which are interesting reading but will cause no long-term ill effect. Let's agree to back off on dangerous charges like server theft, assault, and sexual harrassment before one of our good comrades gets locked up. Let's go back to the table, and see if SF-IMC will give Indbay the blurb on the front page and Indybay can give SF-IMC its press passes, etc., ad nauseum, and we can all move on.

The reason for the cointelpro questions is unfortunately more tabloid thinking but does hold some water: rumors of coke use, assault, and petty theft sound like federal scripting. Residents of the Bay Area, even the local brass, can't get too excited about stories of recreational drug use in downtown SF where these incidents allegedly occurred, minor incidents of pushing called assault don't make the headlines here, nor would they jump to make charges of theft when there is a contract to prove owners. But the feds we understand still do follow in J. Edgar Hoover's sad tradition of starting small unchecked rumors which snowball to start trouble in groups; we also recognize that identifying this trend as an explanation for the smear campaign possibility is risky, and we sincerely hope it proves untrue. We are just saying something fishy is going on, and while we regret the inference that anyone is acting cop-like who has made innocent mistakes through ignorance of the close-knit protective nature of activism, we thought you should know how bad it's gotten.

There's a lot to read up on to get to the truth but the link below contains link to the open letter, a lot of comments posted in response:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479.php

And if you follow all the links, you may die of tedium, but you can find the mediation agreement itself:  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000336.html.

Kristen Gardner is the mediator, but as you notice, she won't comment. Can't in good faith. Peace.

RX for those in Frisco 18.Jan.2004 12:32

Logical Observer

Go find a grassy park overlooking the bay. Sit down and forget yourself and let go of your ego for a while. Empty your thoughts and look at the beautiful world around you. Breathe. Stay there for a good long while, until you can't remember what you came there for. Think about what you want to bring to the world. Smile at people on your way home. Hug someone you love for a long, long time. And remember what love is. Repeat.

The Open Letter 18.Jan.2004 12:58

Lets Discuss

Open Letter to the Global Indymedia Network from SF Bay Area IMC

Introduction

It is with much sadness and urgency that we inform the greater
indymedia community about the ongoing crisis within the San Francisco
Bay Area IMC.

Previously, we had attempted to resolve internal conflicts among group
members by engaging in formal mediation, which ultimately resulted in
an official split of the group into two and a list of specific actions
upon which each side agreed. This letter is being sent out only after
these agreements have not been respected by the new SF IMC collective
that has split from us.

As many of you know, the SF Bay Area IMC had been using both
sf.indymedia.org and indybay.org since its inception. The SF Bay Area
IMC website had been hosted on a linefeed.org server which was operated
by the tech members of our collective.

Conflict

Our IMC has now split into two groups. When a few of the tech members
began to have personal problems with other members of the collective,
these tech members demanded a split of the collective. The resulting
dynamics within the group continued to worsen. It created an
environment that made it difficult to continue working together and
also discouraged potential new people from joining the collective.
While most members of the collective opposed any kind of split, the
aforementioned tech members insisted that they would split anyway,
because they wanted to and because they could.

The tech members who wanted the split also had convinced the rest of
the group to agree to move the site to the linefeed.org server. They
claimed that this was merely a technical issue which would enable the
site to run faster.

The members of the splitting group also began making viscious and false
accusations about other members of the collective. This even went as
far as accusing some members of being security risks and/or police
informants.

The splitting group began to take control of the linefeed.org server
that the SF Bay Area IMC website had been hosted on by kicking off all
other IMC members from access to it. At the same time, they also cut
off access to other local activist websites (such as the Food Not Bombs
News website, liberationradio.net and passionbomb.com) that were being
hosted on their linefeed.org server. These other websites were
affiliated, to greater or lesser degrees, with members of SF Bay Area
IMC with whom the splitting group members were in conflict.

When it was clear that this internal conflict had reached a stalemate,
a neutral professional mediator was hired to conduct a series of
mediation meetings.

The continuation of the internal crisis was effectively preventing the
group from doing their work and was discouraging new people from
wanting to join the group. Most collective members were fed up with
having to deal with this conflict. As a result, during the mediation
process, the rest of the group reluctantly agreed to split the group
and further conceded to the splitting group's demand to give up the
sf.indymedia.org domain to them. Also part of the mediation agreement,
the rest of the group was to keep indybay.org (which at the time still
pointed to sf.indymedia.org) and also to create a new domain of
sfbay.indymedia.org. This new domain was to be used along with
indybay.org once indybay.org was handed over from the splitting group.

The mediation agreement was officially finalized on November 13th,
2003. Since that time, members of the new sf.indymedia group have
backtracked on their agreement in multiple ways. The indybay.org DNS
was supposed to have been handed over by the Monday following the final
mediation meeting, November 17th. But this did not occur until over a
month later, in mid-December. And although this "handing over" has
resulted in indybay.org now pointing to the correct site, they continue
to refuse to hand over the indybay.org domain ownership, which they
still control. Also, immediately after the mediation, they locked out
the group that was now sfbay.indymedia.org (indybay.org) from access to
sf.indymedia.org. In combination, these actions left the rest of the
group without a website for over a month.

During this period, the new sf.indymedia group has been hiding posts of
news stories to the sf.indymedia.org newswire (such as an announcement
about a live streaming coverage of the recent mayoral election by Enemy
Combatant Radio) made by members of the indybay.org group, effectively
censoring the indybay.org group.

The new sf.indymedia group has also refused to place on their website a
link with an explanation about the split, as both groups agreed to do
as part of the mediation agreement. Nevertheless, the indybay.org group
put up the explanation and link immediately after the site was up,
after the DNS switch.

Also, members of the new sf.indymedia group have been engaging in
tactics of doublespeak by accusing members of indybay.org of precisely
the kinds of acts that they themselves have been responsible for, such
as lying, manipulating, and threatening.

In sf.indymedia.org's recent application for status as a new imc that
they submitted to the New IMC Working Group, they stated that their
"supporting groups were too numerous to mention." While we didn't speak
up then, since we had agreed in good faith during mediation not to stop
their new IMC process, we now feel, in light of their actions, that
they should be asked why they failed to list those groups and to show
who really aligns with them. As far as we know, local activists and
groups and members of other IMCs who are finding out about the split do
not support them nor their actions.

List of violations of the mediation agreement by the new
sf.indymedia.org group:

1. The sf.indymedia.org group has refused to put up a blurb and links
about the split as agreed to during mediation.

2. The sf.indymedia.org group failed to switch the DNS for indybay.org
until over a month after the mediation agreement.

3. Before the indybay.org DNS was eventually switched over, a member of
sf.indymedia.org pointed indybay.org to a non-existent IP address,
causing many people to stop using indybay.org.

3. Immediately after the mediation was over, a member of
sf.indymedia.org withdrew half of the money from the imc checking
account, and then refused to negotiate the price for stickers and
t-shirts advertising the sf.indymedia.org web site address. According
to the agreement, the groups would split the money in the bank account
after sfbay was reimbursed for the mutually agreed upon price for the
stickers and t-shirts, and sf.indymedia was reimbursed for pieces of
equipment that sfbay wanted to purchase.

4. The sf.indymedia.org group has deleted the SF-IMC email list and the
Enemy Combatant Radio (ECR) email list without warning, before anyone
had the chance to back up three and a half years of work and contacts
contained in the lists' archives.

5. The sf.indymedia.org group has gone against the agreement by
redirecting aliases to their new email addresses.

List of actions by the new sf.indymedia.org group that violates the
indymedia Principles of Unity

1. Members of the linefeed.org server (which now hosts
sf.indymedia.org, other IMCs and activist websites) have sabotaged
local activist websites hosted by them that were connected to
indybay.org.

2. The sf.indymedia.org group has been repeatedly hiding and deleting
legitimate posts to their newswire by local activists whom they see as
being connected to indybay.org.

The end result of all of this is that techies with positions of power,
and a personal vendetta within an IMC collective, have effectively
hijacked complete control of the website from the rest of the
collective.

We believe that the behaviors displayed by the members of the new
sf.indymedia group/linefeed.org are offensive and unacceptable, and
that they have abused their powers as tech people within the IMC
network to manipulate and bully others to get their way.

Proposed Resolution

We, the undersigned, request the following from the global tech working
group and other IMCs in the network:

1. The ownership of the indybay.org domain should be handed over to the
current members of indybay.org immediately, and

2. sf.indymedia.org should immediately put up texts and links about the
split on their website as they should have already done as part of the
agreement.

If both of the above requests are not met immediately, then we ask that:

1. The new sf.indymedia.org's status as an IMC should be revoked, and

2. The current members of the new sf.indymedia.org should be denied
access and control to the sf.indymedia.org domain, and

3. in the event that the new sf.indymedia.org group should lose control
of their domain, that it be handed over to the current members of
indybay.org instead of being destroyed, since it is an established
community resource, and

4. the money that paid for the mediation should be refunded to the
current members of indybay.org.

We also request that all IMC websites update their links to the San
Francisco Bay Area as  http://www.indybay.org.

We are hereby challenging the legitimacy of the new sf.indymedia.org
group for violating its own Principles of Unity by their abusive and
intimidating behaviors.

We want to stress that we believe this is an urgent, critical matter
that is in the interest of the entire Indymedia network. What has
happened here with the SF Bay Area IMC seems to be quite unprecedented
within the history of the IMC Network, and we hope that we can depend
on the support from all IMCers to help resolve this conflict and
maintain accountability within the indymedia network.

In solidarity,

Sarah Olsen - San Francisco Bay Area IMC, SF Liberation Radio
Lisa Sousa - San Francisco Bay Area IMC, AK Press
Mark Burdett - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Pauline - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Sunny - Enemy Combatant Radio, San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Zachary Ogren - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Wayne Wong - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Peter Maiden - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Karen Martin - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Jino Choi - Revolutionary Anti-authoritarians of Color, SF Bay Area IMC
A. Mark Liiv - Whispered Media
Ali
Dan Mattson - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Pod - Enemy Combatant Radio, Whispered Media
Kevin Keating
Matt Fitt - San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Jeff Taylor - Whispered Media
Lani Riccobuono - Enemy Combatant Radio, San Francisco Bay Area IMC
Lauren A. - San Francisco Bay Area IMC

The San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center collective can be
contacted at sfbay at indymedia.org.

to bill 18.Jan.2004 13:08

sfimc female tech

Bill: to minimize drama, I decided not to work with sfimc before the split. Now that the split has happened, I felt safe in trying to resume a working relationship with the sfimc tech group, and the sfimc community. However immediately, once again, I was the subject of harassing behavior. Instead of doubting my committment to my children, and my decisions, instead you should be asking why this obviously unstable person is continued to be allowed to drive people, and female techs in particular (especially after the recent proposal in imc-women to bring in and train MORE female techs) away from working within the Indymedia community? I speak not only for myself, but also on behalf of the other women driven away (for the record, I am not the only one who tried to work with sfimc and received this kind of treatment. I have spoken with at least two others). This is seriously disturbing. Just because someone's boyfriend broke up with them, does not give then license to harass any female he might possibly come into contact with. Her harassment was part of the reason for the deterioration of my relationship with my exboyfriend (the other reason being that he had rape charges filed against him by a friend of mine while we were dating. Cheating with your SO's friend during a relationship is bad enough, raping a friend of your SO is much much worse)

AAAAH HHAAA HA 18.Jan.2004 13:15

Migratory Bird

"Let's go back to the table, and see if SF-IMC will give Indbay the blurb on the front page and Indybay can give SF-IMC its press passes, etc., ad nauseum, and we can all move on. "


While your letter was well worded it lacked humilty, it hammered on the same tactics, and it showed little forsight or compassion. Hidden between the bullshit and the smear tactics launched from SF IMC we get this little statement.

"YOU BROKE YOUR AGREEMENTS OVER AND OVER UNTIL THEY REOSRTED TO THIS TO GET GLOBAL ATTENTION. "

Really, do you think Portland wants to listen to your "Indy bay attacks more" "no SF has a longer history of gender assault" "but SF Stole," "NO it was INdybay that stole."

These silly accusations are being enflamed in order to create smoke and subterfuge against the real issues. We really would like you to figure out an animicable solution.


I would highly suggest that each collective participates in serious group counseling. Forget mediation. Some of these accusations are extremely serious. They need to be addressed as a collective and then privately. You must heal wounds. Whether or not these were fabricated stories has now become unimportant due to the serious nature of these accusations.

I hope that activist will continue to work together. Until SF can abide by the orginal mediation agreement by giving them their blurbs, presspasses, etc, I suggest that SF is shut down. By refusing the most important terms of the negotiation you have shut down the media. This is not alright I don't care who assaulted who, you must figure that out. We want you to heal each other, please.

I did not mean for this staement to be in quotation marks 18.Jan.2004 13:38

Migratory Bird

YOU BROKE YOUR AGREEMENTS OVER AND OVER UNTIL THEY REOSRTED TO THIS TO GET GLOBAL ATTENTION.


PS. They also call me a creative speller.
PpS Does that mean I am a witch?
PppS Ugh, too many bazooka joe comic strips when I was a kid....

I dunno 18.Jan.2004 15:06

Bill

I can see why you are disturbed.

If my girl-friend were slip-sliding with my buddy, and if she raped him, I would never let any indy-geek come between me and her. I would be putting a lot of quality time into patching up our relationship. To hell with trying to maintain control over a bunch of dweebs who don't want to know me. I can only admire your obsession.

What a mess ! 18.Jan.2004 16:55

thevoiceofjustice

I hope the folks at PDX have learned their lesson over this affair. You guys were snookered royal ! You now have become pawns in a bitter battle. As to who did what to whom I have followed this shit as much as I care to. But from my vantage point most of the hostility and aggression is coming out of Indybay. It was Indybay that initiated these proceedings by mass posting their "letter" to all the Indy sites. This whole episode is a sorry state of affairs. The only way out of this mess is for BOTH sites to be delisted across the ENTIRE Indymedia Network. Then the pressure to resolve this fight must be cranked up on the protagonist big time ! I don't know if its possible but the network should look into the possibility of deregistering the domain-urls of both sites if the conflict is not resolved in a timely matter. And if necessary the network would step in and take control of the SF Site until a just solution can by found.

You are entirely incorrect thevoiceofjustice 18.Jan.2004 17:52

Migratory Bird

When Indybay spoke up they clearly outlined transgressions that had happened that prompted them to speak up. Item #1 in mitigation was that they had their blurb. When they demanded this SF started a smear campaign around the globe. Then the retractions/ you forged my name shit/ rapist la, la, la allegations.

What they did admit through all the boohooing soap opera that commenced about people's personal lives, etc was that they HAD BROKEN MEDIATION but it is now OK becuase indy bay is now talking shit about them on the newswire. This is the most absurd justification for what they have done and I think it is obvious that Portland did the right thing. I hope that instead of engaging in the smear campaign that others are witnessing from SF IMC that indymedia global will intercede and take power away from SF IMC.

Their tactics are abysmal and frankly I am surprised they have shown so little humilty and are on this horrid ego trip. I don't care about your ex's and blah, blah, blah. I care about radio stations being shut down, I care about mediation being broken and then censored when folks say, hey why isn't this happenin', I care about elections not being covered, an election that could have been the most important one in years. When the news deteriates into silly power plays, gossip, antaganism it is time for intercession welcome or not. I am not saying Let's grab our guns and go down to teh indyemdia office. Well take the server and guard the door day and night. This is shit. What I am saying is that SF has broken the process and their biggest defense is that their emissary indybay said something bad about them and that maybe a few names were "forged."

On a more personal note, I hope that you are able to get counseling. It sounds like all of you are having a tremendously bad time. It has been a hard year for all of us. I hope that each and everyone of you will take time to pamper yourselves whether it is a cup of tea, a bubble bath, a yummy cookie, a good book, two hours on the guitar singing, a nice hike in Muir woods, etc...

MigratoryBird are you an agent provaceteur ???? 18.Jan.2004 19:24

thevoiceofjustice

Because with each and every hysterical post you put up here Indybay's credibility sinks further into the mud. I find it hard to believe that responsible members of the Indybay Collective would knowingly permit this to go on. You have resorted to personal attacks and Gender Baiting in your personal crusade. Those will only demean integrity of the collective and exacerbate any attempts to resolve the situation.


Because it is difficult to establish motivations and thus determine who is on what side I call on Global to what ever means are necessary to SHUTDOWN BOTH SITES until this matter is resolved. The repitation of Indymedia is on the line.

You are still incorrect. 18.Jan.2004 20:17

Migratory Bird

It made me smile that you thought that my comments were agent provacateur comments. How silly can you get?

1. SF IMC admits that they did not put the blurb up= broke mediation.
2. Indybay, as you put out, has remained SILENT on Portland Indymedia's actions. They have not officially declared anything.
3. San Francisco has not answered my question=I must draw my own conclusions about their motives.
4. Genderbaiting? Have you bothered to read any of The Daily Poetry Movements? I personally think that the blasting I have recieved on this is a part of the greater smoke and mirrors campaign being launched by SF.
5. I am surprised that you have bought into this emotional quagmire and not stood back to assesss it logically. If Indybay is not responding to these attacks on PDX then who is the group who is doing "negative" publicity?
6. Indybay's site looks great, the news is informative and has great content. It really sets a precendence for excellent news journalism.
7. The aim in Portland is to keep the news going rather than shut it down. Your emotional solution sounds awful. It also doesn't address the issues of the broken mediation tract that forced "indybay" to speak up therefore launching SF's gossip page into the open.
8. I think that Indybay should be applauded for not getting distracted by all of this ( as I have) and for continuing to work hard on the site.
9. I smile to think that you think I am an agent. Yesterdays poetry topic was "CONFLICT RESOLUTION." Please check it out. I do not have a vested interest in this rift, I hope that it is able to heal and that those who need space and time to heal will take it.
10. It is also my advice that due to the culpability of SF IMC, their acknowledgement that they both blocked and prevented Indybay from doing the news, that they disabled not one but two radio stations, and the fact that have launched a large scale scream fest in order to downplay their actions that they should be shut down, mediation should be applied, and group therapy sessions should be implemented. After that it would be nice if we could have one website for the bay area.

Migratory Bird 18.Jan.2004 22:39

Fred

Having a look at just a few of MB's comments so far:

"How silly can you get?"

"I personally think that the blasting I have recieved on this is a part of the greater smoke and mirrors campaign being launched by SF."

"Your emotional solution sounds awful."

"I think that Indybay should be applauded"

"I do not have a vested interest in this rift"

"I hope . . . that indymedia global will intercede and take power away from SF IMC."

"I suggest that SF is shut down."

"SF IMC has launched a disinformation campaign against indybay "

"There hasn't been one coherant well intentioned thought out response"

"This is the most absurd justification for what they have done"

"Their tactics are abysmal"

"I am surprised they have shown so little humilty and are on this horrid ego trip"

"On a more personal note, I hope that you are able to get counseling."

Enough said.

Fred, why don't you answer my questions 18.Jan.2004 22:53

Migratory Bird

Why don't you or indymedia answer the questions?

Fred, Why don't you answer the questions I have posed? 18.Jan.2004 22:57

Migratory Bird

I made 10 points, none of which you addressed. Why don't you use substance and answer the points I made?

Amend: indymedia for SF indymedia.

Another Thing 18.Jan.2004 23:08

Migratory Bird

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278653.shtml

This is todays The Daily Poetry Movement. Please note that it was published last night at 3:00am. I hate to do this circular thing here but I think you mistake any intentions I have had or have in this.

huh 19.Jan.2004 00:39

imc'r elsewhere

I posted an article about the problem of this decision being reposted to various indymedia newswires.

Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like that article is now gone.

Not gone as in the "compost bin", which would be fine--in a later comment to a discussion that went on in comments to it I said I'd understand if that was the way to go--but I mean it's gone as in Deleted.

Am I missing it some place? Because otherwise, just deleting it outright would seem pretty outside the open newswire described in the principles of unity.

I'd appreciate a response on this.

. 19.Jan.2004 00:47

Migratory Bird

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278505.shtml

Not deleted moved to archives, our newswire moves very quickly.

in re: blah blah 19.Jan.2004 09:36

sfimc female tech

Migratory bird:

a) there have been violations of the mediation agreement on both sides. I believe the difference is that our violation (the blurb) is the last thing we have to resolve before we have completed our half of the agreement, we are merely waiting for indybay to finish their (5) outstanding tasks. The domain ownership issue is a smoke and mirrors ploy by them, because the only thing agreed to in the mediation was use of the domain (you will note that the domain www.indybay.org currently points to their site), that domain and another are the private property of individuals not currently involved in sfimc. We can't force people to give up their private property. And honestly, the more indybay makes a big deal out of it, the less inclined those individuals will probably be to give up their belongings.

b) Indybay may be remaining silent on portland's actions, but posting the their "open letter" on every indymedia site was not only a violation of the mediation agreement, but also, I believe, a completely juvenile and shameful tactic. There is a forum for exactly this situation, imc-process. Even if they wanted every imc volunteer to be aware of the situation, there are email lists for every imc out there I believe. The fact that they posted it on the newswires, means they are deploying the "He who screams loudest and longest" tactic. This is not an episode of Survivor: Indymedia where the most popular collective left on the Island gets the prize. Why not just post this to imc-process where it has a chance of being sucessfully resolved? Not to mention the fact that they forged signatures on this document. Why is the fact that they signed people's names who did not agree with this statement not an issue to you? It completely invalidates the points they are trying to make when people whose signatures they added to pad their numbers come out and expose them as lies.

c) I agree that Indybay's site looks great. I think they are doing a wonderful job. No one at sfimc wants them to do badly, we just want our press passes, and to end all this. That is why we have been trying to keep the conversation on imc-process. That is why we are not formally (as a collective) responding to things on various newswires. We don't have time to track down every place an Indybay member posted false accusations and confront them. This is why the "He who screams loudest and longest" tactic works.

d) As for your other comments, what radio stations did sfimc shut down? sfimc has had nothing to do with any radio stations. In fact, it was our operations that were impaired on election night when a member of indybay refused to allow an sfimc reporter to use equipment owned by indymedia to get an election night interview with a mayoral candidate. This caused lots of stress in sfimc as we struggled to find a solution, since we were counting on using that equipment, equipment that we should have had available to us. This was before the split was finalized, when the equipment was still property of both groups. The equipment was not being used for anything else, except to try and damage our ability to report.

e) We are not the ones that initated a screamfest. We are not the ones that posted an "open letter" which has been shown to be filled with lies, half-truths, libelous statements, and forged signatures. And for the most part, we have not responded in the face of such letter, excepting as individuals. We are waiting for this issue to be worked through on imc-process which is the proper venue for this.

And to Bill: I am confused as to the point you are making. I should not believe my friend, who I have known longer and better, because of the fact that he is my boyfriend? I should ignore a history of abuse and take his word that he didn't do it? I don't quite understand. I am concerned with his involvement only insofar as he continues to use this as a venue for harassment. Hopefully when the split is finalized there will be no more interaction. Until then I will ask why Indymedia allows someone like this to work with them at the expense of other volunteers.

(And for the record, I have known that he was working with them for some time, and did not care up until he again begin his harassing behavior and releasing personal confidential information about me. The fact that he is working with them does not matter to me, it's the fact that I am being affected by it)

Integrity 19.Jan.2004 10:38

Bill

Integrity is connected to honesty, not truth.

Truth is one of those impossible metaphysical Ideals about which Plato wrote.

Every individual, and every collective to which he belongs, has a different perspective on the truth of every issue; and those myriad perspective-truths also vary over time.

Honesty rests on reporting accurately one's own truth, with inquiry and respect for the listeners' understandings. The respect most usually involves willingness to revise one's own text/words to promote understanding, and willingness to revise one's own truth to accommodate new evidence.

Integrity in IndyMedia would be honestly reporting one's perception of the facts and accepting questions and criticisms -- and revisions.


It is impossible to be sure (another Ideal) of another person's or group's honesty. However, over time, everybody can, by comparing words with deeds (and often words with words), estimate the honesties of those around them.

Significantly to the present dispute, far more trouble arises from over-estimating honesty than from underestimating.

This is also significant to the present dispute. There are two prinicipal means of testing 'truth' : to compare its implications/predictions with future events; and to seek other peoples' evaluations, ie to publish and ask for (informed, properly argued) opinion. Science, philosophy, practical trades, and even most religions demand both. Abusers and oppressors typically demand both be rejected (or defined into impotence).


Secret truths are lies.
Secret deals are betrayals.

I still dunno 19.Jan.2004 12:02

Bill

Damn! I wish you would keep your story straight. It would be a whole easier for me to argue with it. It would also make it _possible_ to believe you might be telling some sort of truth.

I took

"Her harassment was part of the reason for the deterioration of my relationship with my exboyfriend (the other reason being that he had rape charges filed against him by a friend of mine while we were dating. Cheating with your SO's friend during a relationship is bad enough, raping a friend of your SO is much much worse)" 18.Jan.2004 13:08

to mean that your boy-friend had cheated on you and that he had raped your (female) friend. However, you preferred to blame the destruction of your relationship, with this alleged cheat and rapist, on the interferrence of some woman associated with the SFBay group.

I said that I would prefer to spend my efforts repairing my relationship, instead of wasting my time on SFBay, who do not appear to appreciate your charity. I said also that I admired you, for sacrificing your relationship, to save those ungrateful wretches from said woman.

I was ridiculing your warped values.


Howbeit, you have changed your story. Radically. Now it is the boyfriend, alleged cheat and rapist, who is harrassing you. The woman has vanished, unless it is she whom he raped -- but that would make your story too complicated, again.


Listen! Some advice. Check with your local women's shelter, if you don't believe me. If this man (or woman) really is harrassing you, call the police. Demand protection. These men (or women) are very dangerous. You never know what will push them over the edge.

And stop harrassing SFBay. That only drives their rage. It is not worth your life or your children (unless you are Born Again), to save their souls.

If this is just a stupid slander, stop it before someone gets hurt.

reasonable proposals increase one's credibility, unreasonable ones harm it 19.Jan.2004 16:12

Amedeo Modigliani -- a pdx imcista speaking only for myself

I honestly want to see the foiks in SF, all of them, find a way to settle their conflicts and work together in ONE IMC. If they can't do that, then I'd like to see the TWO IMCs work fairly together somehow, though I can't see any earthly, logical reason how having TWO IMCs serves the community at all. Having said that, two things are crucial to such an undertaking:

1) Refrain from venom and ad hominem.
2) Make reasonable, invective-free proposals for resolving the dispute.

Right now, I see a fairly modest and reasonable sounding proposal coming from SFBAY. I see a quite unreasonable and humiliating proposal from SF. Let readers judge for themselves:

SF Bay proposal:  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000374.html
SF proposal:  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000344.html

The SF proposal demands that the SF Bay group lose face, humiliate themselves, and issue public apologies for actions that don't warrant such an extreme remedy (or at least that they have failed to establish to the satisfaction of most independent observers to warrant such an extreme rermedy) . This is their point (2).

The SF proposal seeks to continue to withhold ownership of the indybay.org and other domain names to the SF Bay group, the group actually dependent on and using those domain names. Already, several presumably disinterested participants on the imc-us-process list have remarked that this seems highly dubious on its face: denying control of a vital resource to an autonomous group which is solely responsible for and dependent on using that resource. This is the SF proposal's point (9).

The SF proposal demands "back" press passes which list a contact name and address of someone affiliated with SF Bay. This is the SF proposal's point (1). The SF Bay contact has stated that this would be inappropriate, as it is HE to whom the authorities will go in the event of accusations of misuse. Being that these are not as vital to the work of SF as the control of their own domain name is to SF Bay, a more reasonable proposal would be to put these press passes into escrow, as SF suggested be done with SF Bay's domain name.

The SF proposal insists on continuing to repudiate their previous agreement to advertise and acknowledge the existence of their new sister IMC (point (8) of their proposal), whereas the SF Bay group has had no problems complying with this provision of their original agreement. This is a key provision, because, unless they do so, it will be hard for people who know only the sf.indymedia.org link to learn of the existence of the other IMC. This is an arbitrary use of power, which SF justifies by "negative propaganda" on the part of SF Bay. This is a very strange and inadequate excuse. Both sides could be said to have engaged in "negative" propaganda, and it is quite unreasonable to expect the larger indymedia community to accept the SF group's claim that it is conclusively the SF Bay group that is solely or principally to be charged with "negative propagandizing." Moreover, two can play at the game of "negative propaganda," whereas only one has been playing at the game of trying to hide the existence of the other. a game that the SF group is especially well empowered to play, since they hold the sf.indymedia.org name, which still is the more widely circulated name, as many imcs have not yet updated their cities lists to reflect the split and acknowledge both groups' existence. And, more generally, beyond being a violation of their agreement to do so, refusing to acknowledge the existence of a sister IMC is extremely unneighborly lacking in the values of solidarity and mutual aid.

Given all the "he said/she said" stuff, it can be very hard for a neutral observer to really figure out the rights and wrongs of the situation. But based on extensive reading of list archives, my analysis is that some of the folks in the SF group went ballistic over various perceived interpersonal outrages done them by certain people in the (now) SF Bay group, and used these as pretexts to use their power in various ways, some of which are clearly contrary to fair play and to the mediation agreement they themselves have now signed. One such violation is the (still outstanding) failure to acknowledge the split and the existence of the other group. Another is the suppression of legitimate and timely newswire articles about the (completely nonrelated) media work of members of the SF Bay group, a suppression which Nessie (a member of the SF group) himself has admitted to. (Nessie admits it in his message to the us-process list, but demands congratulations for his "magnanimity" in unhiding the wrongly hidden content, rather than humbly admitting his own error. See:  http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000337.html)

Once again, I hope folks up there in SF can peaceably resolve their conflicts. And I hope that the honest and fairminded efforts of outsiders to help in this process won't be spurned. But I guess folks like me here in Portland could swear up and down til the crows come home that we are not being put up to this by someone else, are not being taken in by cointelpro, don't have any vested interest in the outcome of the conflict in SF, only want to see the greater good of the community served, etc. Yet there may still be people who choose to make hysterical accusations and spew venom against us and others that they see siding against "their team" and for the "other team."

in re sfimc female tech 19.Jan.2004 17:17

Bill

sfimc female tech -- there have been violations of the mediation agreement on both sides.

There have been claims of violation. Some of which appear to be valid. Some are obviously false or frivolous. There has been far too much garbage-mouth and slander.


sfimc female tech -- I believe the difference is that our violation (the blurb) is the last thing we have to resolve before we have completed our half of the agreement, we are merely waiting for indybay to finish their (5) outstanding tasks.

In the official forum, your group has offered three scenarios. The second and third are nonsense, being open or covert warfare. The first scenario consists of ten claims. People can read them here :

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000344.html

Several make you look real bad. I shall address the press-pass issue below.

Two weeks ago, SFBay stated publicly that they would settle for two claims. Since then, they have been forced to re-assert one which they apparently thought was settled satisfactorily, your group has put one back onto the table, and they have re-asserted one which they had stated they would let go, for a total of five claims:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000374.html

Just my opinion : in an impartial arbitration, SFBay would get everything they ask : the blurb, the two domainnames, the money, their comprommise on the press-passes. Your group would get only SFBay's proposed compromise on the press-pass issue. I predict SFBay will drop one of their claims, making themselves look pretty good.


sfimc female tech -- The domain ownership issue is a smoke and mirrors ploy by them, because the only thing agreed to in the mediation was use of the domain

No, quite the contrary, the domainname, 'indybay.org', is the clearly most valuable thing they wanted in mediation. SFBay have stated as much in public, and furthermore, claim they gave up a lot of other issues to get it. Their actions also show that they value it highly.

The mediated agreement does not say, "use of the domain". It says, "The SF Bay Area IMC will change their DNS to sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org." I doubt that either the NON-techie (all but one) SFBay folks or the mediator held any suspicion that this could mean other than ownership. I doubt that anyone anywhere outside your group would tolerate otherwise.


sfimc female tech -- (you will note that the domain www.indybay.org currently points to their site)

I also note that for a month, in violation of the agreement, it did not. A member of your group pointed it to a nonexistent host, without -- it is claimed -- the knowledge of the rest of your group.

Only in abusive relationships or in dissolute European monarchies, could "their DNS" (or "use", if you wish) mean, "their DNS to use until somebody thinks they need to be punished again".


sfimc female tech -- , that domain and another are the private property of individuals not currently involved in sfimc.

Yet, your group agreed to give them to SFBay.

That suggests to me an unusual lack of integrity.

It also suggests that the mediated agreement is null and void.

And that there would be no point seeking another agreement with your group.


sfimc female tech -- We can't force people to give up their private property. And honestly, the more indybay makes a big deal out of it, the less inclined those individuals will probably be to give up their belongings.

We can refrain from claiming to own something which we do not. We can assist rather than obstruct settling agreements to which we are parties.

Despite your assertion above, the owner of the indybay domain certainly is involved with, if not in, your group. In any case, 'gekked' has stated in the official forum that SFBay would be given their domainname after they fulfill certain conditions.

Aproximately two days before you posted this comment, another sfimc female techie, with children and abusive ex-boyfriend and harrassment problems etc, stated that the putative owner of the radio domainname wished to give it up and was in contact with SFBay.

In either case, as I understand the domain registration regulations, indybay need only pay a lawyer to write a letter or two, asserting their natural rights to the names.


The only outstanding issue is that of the press-passes.

Your group has been demanding that the passes (unqualified) be turned over. Your group has also cited failure to do so as excuse for several unpleasant and unnecessary actions.

The agreement says, "Press Passes [a certain person] will send a clarifying letter to SFPD letting them know that there are 2 groups now. He will send out to int list for approval by Monday."

Apparently, he did so, and was required to visit SFPD in person. Whereupon, he learned SFPD was unhappy, was investigating some allegedly counterfeit or false passes, would not issue more passes, but would not revoke old ones either.

It is reported in the official forum that the person who signed SFPD papers is now with SFBay, that six of the seven passes name reporters who stayed with SFBay, and that the passes belong to SFPD. As you say, "We can't force people to give up their private property."

You group still demands that the passes (plural, otherwise unqualified) be turned over "to us directly, not the SF Police Department". SFBay requests that the "SFPD press passes" remain with "the holders" (that should be defined more carefully) until they expire.

It is possible that the passes will be destroyed or returned to SFPD. In the best case, they will be given to those (six in SFBay, one in your group) whose names appear on them. It very likely that SFBay will send an additional "clarifying letter to SFPD", emphasizing the affiliations of the pass holders.


I have some questions, 'sfimc female tech'.

Are you writing this on behalf of your group? If so, why are you so ignorant of the agreement, of your group's official claims, and of SFBay's official claims?

If you write not on behalf of your group, on whose behalf? And, again, why are you so ignorant of the various documents?


Yes, you may ask. I am a male non-tech. I have no affiliation with any imc collective; although, I post annoyingly precise commentary on imc sites all over the world. It has been many years since I have been in either Frisco or Portlan. I am not, to the best of my knowledge, acquainted with any of the persons involved with or commenting on this issue.

I reserve the right to correct spelling or stupid logical errors.

From Obfuscation to deceit 19.Jan.2004 20:11

thevoiceofjustice

5. I am surprised that you have bought into this emotional quagmire and not stood back to assesss it logically. If Indybay is not responding to these attacks on PDX then who is the group who is doing "negative" publicity?

Who said Indybay wasn' t responding ? The fact of the matter is no one can be sure which authors are affiliated with which side in this spit-ball match. What is abundantly clear is that members of the Indybay site went trolling around the network mass posting their petition in order to illicit support in their battle with SF.


7. The aim in Portland is to keep the news going rather than shut it down. Your emotional solution sounds awful. It also doesn't address the issues of the broken mediation tract that forced "indybay" to speak up therefore launching SF's gossip page into the open.

I never said that Portland should close down this thread though I wish they would have had the foresight to see through the Indybay's ploy and never started it. What I said is that both Indybay's Site and SF IMC should be shutdown until the matter has been resolved. What Indybay said or did when "it spoke up" was to issue a call to all that would listen to 'come join our side' in the fight. That is the behavior of a manipulative juvenile ! The obvious question is if the mediation process broke down or was not honored why wasn' t called issued to address that matter ?


When these type of battles erupt Portland IMC and the rest of the Network should think of welfare of the Network first. These types of battles can only lead to a centralized control structure ,something which most participants do not want. It' s clear that SF IMC and Indybay can't see beyond their own self interest to recognize that fact !

Obfuscation is deceit 19.Jan.2004 20:56

Bill

The 'Open Letter' is SFBays call that the mediated agreement was not honoured.

Central control is necessary only when disputes are kept suppressed and unresolved until too much hurt has accumulated.

Disputes which are honest, and open to the advice of many loving and clever comrades rarely need a resolution imposed by force. Well, actually, force creates a new dispute, usually in addition to rather than instead of the original. Force is never a solution, despite that shiny temptation.


The parties to this dispute were imprudent to try to keep a secret agreement.

The new-imc and process lists were irresponsible not to insist on publication.

voiceofjustice: I don't think so 19.Jan.2004 21:07

Amedeo Modigliani

There is nothing especially unreasonable or "juvenile" in the public statements that the SF bay folks have signed their names to. Your criticisms of them are what is unreasonable, as are the counterproposals put forward by the SF group. What was it that the SF Bay folks did wrong? Fail to keep their mouths shut in the face of what they consider to be egregious violations of an agreement that they feel themselves to be honoring, violations which threaten their ability to continue doing their work effectively? What recourse would you have them employ, now that they have attempted to submit their conflict to mediation, have concluded an agreement, consented to a split, and still haven't gotten satisfaction of their quite modest and reasonable demands from the other party? The SF Bay folks are accused of "defamation," "juvenile behavior," etc. I haven't seen that. You haven't either, because the only statement that is avowedly theirs and signed by them personally is one which is quite measured and focused on seeking remedies to current grievances. There is nothing in it accusing anyone of drug abuse or other wild accusations. To attribute to them as a group any random attacks of this nature that may have been committed by someone else is indefensible, yet this is exactly what some of the SF folks have done, and then used as justification for their own failure to live up to an agreement that they signed. The very failure of the SF group (and you) to address their specific and very reasonable demands in a straightforward way raises questions about your and their seriousness, honesty, and desire to resolve the conflict in a spirit of cooperation.

the facts 19.Jan.2004 23:39

negotiator

What I see happening is that SFIMC sent SFBAY a letter trying to open dialogue on this matter.

SFBAY refused to answer that letter, and instead spammed every IMC with an "open letter" which was quite obviously a one-sided tirade filled with personal attacks and half-truths.

SFIMC then posted a proposal that offered compromise on many issues. As far as I can tell, the most clear violation of the agreement is the detailed paragraph about negative propaganda. Who on here can say that SFBAY has not engaged in serious negative propaganda? Is anyone in Portland or elsewhere fit to judge whether 5% of that open letter is even true?

Then we find out that at least 2 people who signed that open letter didn't even sign it. How many more people didn't sign it but their names appear?

SFBAY has now rejected the compromise proposal, rejected any of the claims of SFIMC of mediation violation, and insisted that they get everything they want and not budge an inch on the items they violated. Many of the things they violated (like locking people out of their space) are never mentioned and cannot be taken back.

If I were SFIMC I would tell these people to go take a flying fuck,,, there is no reason on earth why they should be nice to these people with the chaos and diruption they have caused in the global network.

I blame the shortsighted and quick-to-judge people at Portland and I blame the catty and gossipy jerks at SFBAY for this disgusting display.
I hope SFIMC tells these people to go to hell.

negotiator: I don't think so 20.Jan.2004 01:02

Amedeo Modigliani

Negotiator: you had better do better than that. I took the time to painstakingly read the threads on imc-us-process. I took the time to analyze the proposals of SF point-by-point. You have taken no such pains. Rather, without even so much as clarifying which "letters" and "proposals" you are referring to, by providing links to them, and without addressing any specific points in them, you have labelled me and other folks in portland imc as "quick to judge" and labelled the SF Bay people "catty and gossipy jerks" and their actions a "disgusting display." This doesn't constitute a reasoned response to anything here. In fact, it is so unreasonable that I'm inclined to hide it myself, as I don't think it reflects any interest in dialogue or truth.

facts fictions perceptions dictions 20.Jan.2004 01:19

Bill

If you read their respective proposals, what they have chosen to dispute in public, with their reputations, you will see a very different scene.

I can say that SFBay have not "engaged in serious negative propaganda". More than 5% of SFBay's 'Open Letter' can be proven true merely by examining the two web-sites. SFIMC has admitted, in some instances strongly asserted, much of the rest.

SFBay have not rejected the compromise proposal. There is none. Both groups have consensed and published their claims. Arbitrators have been appointed. I expect they are negotiating as we snipe.

The mediated agreement stipulated that SFIMC would vacate SFBay's premises by Dec 31. They appear to have done so, and removed their chattels. SFIMC have expressed a vehement disinclination to share any kind of space, physical or electronic, with SFBay. I believe they will stay away.

SFIMC does not need any more bad advice.

A point to make about the integrity of the people commenting to this article 20.Jan.2004 01:39

Amedeo Modigliani

Let the following be known to anyone reading these comments:
All of the comments that I have made to this article have used the same pseudonym. However, others who have commented here (and even had the gall to accuse their opponents of "spamming") have not been adhering to such a principle, but have been using different pseudonyms all the time. This doesn't strike me as a tactic worthy of anyone trying for honest debate. (I have this information on the authority of a friend and fellow imc techie here in Portland.)

a slight correction to my last comment 20.Jan.2004 01:52

Amedeo Modigliani

Just a slight correction, in the interests of precision and full disclosure, to my last comment. I made one comment with just "pdx imcista" as author name. But all the remaining 5 comments I made were with the same name as above. Anyone else may feel free to disclose their own records on consistency in author names here as they wish.

Trust 20.Jan.2004 13:25

Bill

Somewhere up there ... 'Integrity', 19.Jan.2004 10:38 ... I wrote, "far more trouble arises from over-estimating honesty than from underestimating."

MB included this, about three-quarters of the way down today's 'Poetry Movement' :

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278764.shtml

No matter how much you love your country, it won't love you back.
No matter how much you believe in the military, it doesn't believe in you.
Your duty is required and your loyalty is expected.
If you scorn these traditions, you'll be branded as dishonorable.
It is a difficult and thankless, and sometimes perilous, commitment fitted only for a few hard and dangerous men. Any who answer the urgent call of drums, and march toward the sound of distant guns, must be willing to die unsung, unwept, and unknown.

-- soldier's lament


It is about trust, believing in the honesty of your country and military. Any estimate is an overestimate. However, your trust is required, at least until your body is broken, bleeding, of no further use to us. And we have ways of making you.

The sentences which I have separated out are clear and unambiguous -- bad cop. Then the rest, good cop, is quite muddled. So, you don't know quite what you being offered : death actually, mixed up with some vague pride. So, you don't know quite what you are agreeing to do : marching, dying again, something about guns far away that we don't need to think about until it is too late.

Look at the adjectives. Notice how they can't commit themselves to you or the unnamed 'it', but shift back and forth, suggesting/creating an impression of identification.

I'm sure the original surrounding text talked about unmentionable peril to Mom and Sis, lawless brute force, strength and freedom, evil degeneracy, god and glory, without ever pointing straight at something you can examine and choose or reject.

Except, it is very explicit that there is urgency and need, if not what and why. And it is very clear what you must do to start, to get caught up, trapped, if not where you will end up.

You must trust us.

We can make you.

Answers from Portland 20.Jan.2004 18:00

san francisco native

I think now we need to hear some answers from Portland IMC people:

1) You have been told and given pointers to evidence that the "abuses" you are talking about were actually consensus decisions made within legitimate process amongst a large number of people (I wonder how many people comprise Portland's "tech team"). Given this, how do you figure you can sit in judgement of such a decision of a local IMC, months after the fact, without really bothering to find out the facts of the situation first? Are you now considering retracting your statement?

2) According to one Portland IMC person here, Portland IMC techs are releasing IP addresses of people commenting here. How will you rectify this abuse of tech power? What will the consequences be of violating this core Indymedia value of privacy? How do you justify keeping IP's in your logs, especially since Global IMC tech has consensed to not keep IPs after the incident in Seattle during the FTAA protests in Quebec? What is the name of the tech who has been releasing private IP addresses to other Portland IMC members?

3) SF-IMC released statements in reply to the "Open Letter," and they released "Myths and Realities About SF Indymedia" which addressed almost all of the concerns of "tech abuses" that you have made a statement about. What is the refutation of that? Did you just ignore what SF-IMC had to say about this? When you were making the decision regarding your statement, what gave you the authority to judge from a handful of emails who was telling the truth?

4) According to SFBAY members, what led up to the Portland IMC statement was extensive telephone contact with one person in the SFBAY group. What attempt did you make to get SF-IMC's side of the story? How many SF-IMC participants did you speak with? Did you have telephone contact with any of them?

Inquiring minds want to know. Certainly, in the spirit of open-ness that you proclaim, we'll get several answers to these questions from the various Portland IMC members who contributed to the decision to release this highly divisive statement.

Answers for "SF native" 20.Jan.2004 19:08

Amedeo Modigliani

1) We have been given to know that the decision to accept a split of the group was made by the majority group under duress, after being presented with a fait accompli. We have observed for ourselves, as anyone can readily verify, that one of the parties is not honoring the terms of the agreement that ratified the split. It is obvious to anyone that SF IMC is not honoring these terms, a fact not denied by the SF IMC group themselves, whereas the claim that SF Bay are not honoring the agreement is not so obvious and highly debatable.

2) We don't "release" IP addresses. We store them temporarily in a log held in RAM for housekeeping purposes (a standard feature available in the current version of the Mir software). This log is wiped clean once a day, and never gets saved to a storage device.

3) Once again, the fact that SF IMC is not honoring the agreement they made with the SF Bay IMC is evident, and they themselves don't deny it. The abuses of which they accuse SF Bay by dint of justifiying their actions are actually much more debatable and open to question. Even if these abuses are real, it remains yet more debatable whether they justify SF IMC's failure to live up to their commitments.

4) I personally haven't interviewed people from either group. I trust the judgment of those fellow IMC volunteers I know who have, all the more so because, after extensive reading of list archives, everything they have told me is consistent with what I have read and seen for myself.

reply 20.Jan.2004 21:12

deva

<<<What I said is that both Indybay's Site and SF IMC should be shutdown until the matter has been resolved.>>>

An indymedia website is more than the property of the individuals - it is a resource that many people uninvolved with this conflict use and depend on. Shutting them down would only interfere more with peoples efforts

Let the conflict be public, let people say what they want to say, but keep it in proportion so that other stories are also heard. In otherwords, let it be public, but don't let it dominate the site(s)

re: Answers from Portland 20.Jan.2004 21:49

disgusted

"Portland IMC techs are releasing IP addresses of people commenting here. How will you rectify this abuse of tech power? What will the consequences be of violating this core Indymedia value of privacy?"

Hmm.. How hypocritical of them to bring this up when it appears that they themselves have done exactly that on the SF IMC site, outing a few different people by their real names in a thread that mostly seems like an attempt by SF IMC to resort to personal smearing campaign against indybay members, much as we see here.

For example, in this post  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671343
the poster of the this post  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671322
is outed.

And in this post  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671605
the poster of this post  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671574
is outed.

And when people complained about this:
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671643
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671776

the responses are saying "something that obviously sounded like him"
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1672461
and from a purpoted "outsider" supporter of SF IMC who has a "a degree as a linguist" who says it's easy to "learn a person's language patterns and thought tendencies and accurately guess their identity from language choices"
 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671804

Sounds very suspicious to me.

still need answers 21.Jan.2004 00:57

sf native

First, SF Indymedia does not store IP addresses nor are we aware of them at any time. This has been the consistent policy since Quebec FTAA, with a few exceptions during heavy "Smash the Left" spam days, and only after gaining consensus of the entire group. The supposed incident in the article linked to here states this policy clearly, and makes clear that people who have worked together for 3 years or more know each other when writing in comments. I find that to be CONSIDERABLY different than a member of Portland IMC openly admitting that a Portland IMC tech looked at the IPs of commenters, analyzed them to identify the commenter, and then communicated that information to people within the group in a divisive argument. So, Portland IMC has openly admitted guilt of violating this core tenet of Indymedia privacy, and I want to know how they are going to rectify this tech abuse.

As for the "answers" ....

"We have been given to know that the decision to accept a split of the group was made by the majority group under duress, after being presented with a fait accompli."

You have been "given to know"? What have you been given -- divine inspiration? Psychic knowledge? Sorry, it takes a lot of work to catch up on 10 months of conflict and 3 years of organizational history to even BEGIN to "know" -- and it isn't something you are GIVEN, it is something you EARN and WORK FOR. Portland IMC should be embarrassed to call itself "investigative journalists" if your idea of that is divine imparted understanding. Not to mention the fact that endless meeting notes, admissions on both sides of the conflict, extensive email list archives (which I don't think you've seen, right?), notes from the mediator and a million other things all point to the obvious truth -- that SF Bay Area IMC consensed to a split. In fact, this was the consensus decision of the 2nd mediation meeting, held at AK Press warehouse. Did you know this? Or did you take the word of one person who is acting outside of even SFBAY's process who didn't attend the mediation meetings, didn't attend ANY sf indymedia meeting in the last 3 years (or ever), etc?

"We have observed for ourselves, as anyone can readily verify, that one of the parties is not honoring the terms of the agreement that ratified the split."

At this point, it is whittled down to the press passes and the negative propaganda / disclosure clause. However, in the past month, it has been allowing SFIMC access to its collectively-held space and holding our equipment hostage, in addition to the still outstanding requirements that SFBAY needs to fulfill. In addition, SFBAY absolutely REFUSED to communicate with us on these issues. Never once did they email the SFIMC group. They did not reply to our requests for communication on these matters. All they did was further violate the agreement by spamming wild accusations about us, affiliated groups like Linefeed and vulnerable people in our group. How many times does this have to be said before someone like you will acknowledge that these items exist?

"We don't "release" IP addresses. We store them temporarily in a log held in RAM for housekeeping purposes (a standard feature available in the current version of the Mir software). This log is wiped clean once a day, and never gets saved to a storage device. "

Again, please see the above paragraph. Still waiting on answers regarding your admission that a Portland IMC tech was analyzing and identifying people via IP logs and then passing along this information, and then YOU passed it around on a public website.

"Once again, the fact that SF IMC is not honoring the agreement they made with the SF Bay IMC is evident, and they themselves don't deny it. The abuses of which they accuse SF Bay by dint of justifiying their actions are actually much more debatable and open to question."

To YOU -- but who are you? You don't live here, you don't work in SF IMC, you haven't been around the last 3 years, you don't really know what is going on, which is evident by the fact that I have to keep correcting you when you get details wrong. It must be nice to sit hundreds of miles away and make a judgement on people and situations you don't understand and haven't bothered to understand, but to the rest of us it is just acting out of ignorance.

"I personally haven't interviewed people from either group. I trust the judgment of those fellow IMC volunteers I know who have, all the more so because, after extensive reading of list archives, everything they have told me is consistent with what I have read and seen for myself."

So, give us information. I know that Portland IMC exchanged two or three emails with one member of SFIMC, and another person talked with a few of them on IRC one night for half an hour or so. What you and I both know is that it is inexcusable that Portland IMC would grandstand with such a statement without having even BOTHERED to contact the SFIMC people on the same level they talked trash with SFBAY people.

Sorry, being a journalist organization -- especially in an activist environment -- requires a level of maturity, skepticism, asking questions, learning before speaking, etc. Portland IMC has failed to do all of those things and it is extremely sad to me.

Portland , thank you for your support! 21.Jan.2004 01:07

Abraham

Portland
thank you for your support! with your help we will one day have an independent news that we can be proud of, untill then keep up the good work

I am sorry but I will have to answer your accusations later I am busy 21.Jan.2004 01:09

Migratory Bird

I will answer your comments. I do not have time now.

sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 04:08

Bill

sf native : First, SF Indymedia does not store IP addresses nor are we aware of them at any time. This has been the consistent policy since Quebec FTAA, with a few exceptions during heavy "Smash the Left" spam days, and only after gaining consensus of the entire group. The supposed incident in the article linked to here states this policy clearly, and makes clear that people who have worked together for 3 years or more know each other when writing in comments.

Bill : I don't believe you. Believing you would be foolish.

sf native : I find that to be CONSIDERABLY different than a member of Portland IMC openly admitting that a Portland IMC tech looked at the IPs of commenters, analyzed them to identify the commenter, and then communicated that information to people within the group in a divisive argument.

Bill : Yes, it is considerably different. However, if you are saying it happened, no, you are lying. If you are implying it happened, no, you are lying. If you are just draging a red-herring around, people will probably think you are lying.

sf native : So, Portland IMC has openly admitted guilt of violating this core tenet of Indymedia privacy, and I want to know how they are going to rectify this tech abuse.

Bill : Your saying that it is different from your pretended purity does not mean that it happened.It did not.

sf native : As for the "answers" ....

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We have been given to know that the decision to accept a split of the group was made by the majority group under duress, after being presented with a fait accompli."

sf native : You have been "given to know"? What have you been given -- divine inspiration? Psychic knowledge?

Bill : SFBay state such in their open letter. gek's public statements in Octobre come close to saying as much.

sf native : Sorry, it takes a lot of work to catch up on 10 months of conflict and 3 years of organizational history to even BEGIN to "know" -- and it isn't something you are GIVEN, it is something you EARN and WORK FOR. Portland IMC should be embarrassed to call itself "investigative journalists" if your idea of that is divine imparted understanding. Not to mention the fact that endless meeting notes, admissions on both sides of the conflict, extensive email list archives (which I don't think you've seen, right?), notes from the mediator and a million other things all point to the obvious truth -- that SF Bay Area IMC consensed to a split. In fact, this was the consensus decision of the 2nd mediation meeting, held at AK Press warehouse. Did you know this? Or did you take the word of one person who is acting outside of even SFBAY's process who didn't attend the mediation meetings, didn't attend ANY sf indymedia meeting in the last 3 years (or ever), etc?

Bill : Nobody says SFBay did not consense to split. SFBay states clearly that they consensed to split.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We have observed for ourselves, as anyone can readily verify, that one of the parties is not honoring the terms of the agreement that ratified the split."

sf native : At this point, it is whittled down to the press passes and the negative propaganda / disclosure clause.

Bill : SFBay makes five claims. SFIMC makes ten claims. Probably six are distinct.
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000374.html
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000344.html

sf native : However, in the past month, it has been allowing SFIMC access to its collectively-held space and holding our equipment hostage, in addition to the still outstanding requirements that SFBAY needs to fulfill. In addition, SFBAY absolutely REFUSED to communicate with us on these issues. Never once did they email the SFIMC group. They did not reply to our requests for communication on these matters. All they did was further violate the agreement by spamming wild accusations about us, affiliated groups like Linefeed and vulnerable people in our group. How many times does this have to be said before someone like you will acknowledge that these items exist?

Bill : According to three or four signed public statements, two of your people went for your equipment in mid-Decembre and didn't bother to take it when they left. Said equipment remained boxed for two weeks or more until the manager of the space, after repeated messages, persuaded someone to remove it. Nobody has challenged these statements. SFIMC's list of claims mentions no equipment.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We don't "release" IP addresses. We store them temporarily in a log held in RAM for housekeeping purposes (a standard feature available in the current version of the Mir software). This log is wiped clean once a day, and never gets saved to a storage device. "

sf native : Again, please see the above paragraph. Still waiting on answers regarding your admission that a Portland IMC tech was analyzing and identifying people via IP logs and then passing along this information, and then YOU passed it around on a public website.

Bill : Do you know that everytime you repeat this lie, you add another false detail?

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "Once again, the fact that SF IMC is not honoring the agreement they made with the SF Bay IMC is evident, and they themselves don't deny it. The abuses of which they accuse SF Bay by dint of justifiying their actions are actually much more debatable and open to question."

sf native : To YOU -- but who are you? You don't live here, you don't work in SF IMC, you haven't been around the last 3 years, you don't really know what is going on, which is evident by the fact that I have to keep correcting you when you get details wrong. It must be nice to sit hundreds of miles away and make a judgement on people and situations you don't understand and haven't bothered to understand, but to the rest of us it is just acting out of ignorance.

Bill : I don't know where Amedeo gets his information. I get mine from SFIMC's official public statements to the IMC process lists. SFIMC (gekked) has publicly stated what Amedeo says. What you and Amedeo and I say or think, though, is meaningless to the official public process. If your representative is misrepresenting you, you had better straighten him out.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "I personally haven't interviewed people from either group. I trust the judgment of those fellow IMC volunteers I know who have, all the more so because, after extensive reading of list archives, everything they have told me is consistent with what I have read and seen for myself."

sf native : So, give us information. I know that Portland IMC exchanged two or three emails with one member of SFIMC, and another person talked with a few of them on IRC one night for half an hour or so. What you and I both know is that it is inexcusable that Portland IMC would grandstand with such a statement without having even BOTHERED to contact the SFIMC people on the same level they talked trash with SFBAY people.

Bill : There is an official process, with public statements, signed by their staters. Whatever settlement is reached will be based on the public process. Anonymous slanders posted here will not be considered. If your group has anything you dare say in public which should be included, you had best straighten out your representative before it is too late.

sf native : Sorry, being a journalist organization -- especially in an activist environment -- requires a level of maturity, skepticism, asking questions, learning before speaking, etc. Portland IMC has failed to do all of those things and it is extremely sad to me.

Bill : Sure.

Bill : If you compare the lists of claims, which I cite above, you will become very sad and (one hopes) embarrassed.

About two and one half weeks ago, SFBay posted an open letter to an IMC process list and on a number of newswires. Since then, their claims have hardly wavered. Indeed SFBay have wisely let their statement speak (mostly) for itself -- and they have obviously devoted time to their site.

On the other hand, a large number of anonymous nyms speaking for SFIMC have showered this site with a barrage of slanders and misrepresentation. 'sf native' is the third nym to tell me that I do not know what is the truth, whilst asserting claims which are easily refuted by signed public statements from his own group, and (this is really silly) claiming the SFBay open letter says things which anybody can see it does not. The situation in the official process lists is somewhat better : statements are signed by consistent names and slander is significantly muted.

If I were a member of the Pdx collective (I'm not), I would follow SFBay's example.

re: sf native 21.Jan.2004 11:51

deva

If you think Portland imc activists statement regarding the sf indy situation foolish, say so, then move on. You can start attacking people in Portland if you wish, and though not unexpected, it does seem a waste of time.

Portland IMC is not an organization as such, and it is certainly not a journalistic organization. The indymedia tech activists provide a website where anyone can be a journalist as they see fit (not as you see fit). The statement made by Portland is not journalism, it is a personal statement from some individuals who regularly collaborate and decided some action was necessary. I understand you think it is a bad choice of action, however, the people here do not.

As for the IP stuff - Portland techies do not give out IP addresses, nor are IP logs kept. If you can provide an example, of where a Portland imc techie has posted your IP address in a public place, then there is something to discuss. Likewise if you can demonstrate where such information was used to post your legal name, or your address, then you can claim some violation of privacy. Obviously none of that has happened... Not to you, nor anyone else. I suggest you pick something else to try and attack with if you are determined to do so.

my two cents worth 21.Jan.2004 12:01

nessie

I'm speaking for myself here, not for SF-IMC.

I find the level of analysis on this subject, especially on this site, and most especially in this thread, to be completely and utterly appalling. Truth, reason and the lessons of history appear to have been cast aside like so much used kleenex. If this thread is in anyway indicative of the degree of political acumen of the Portland activist community, it is little wonder at all that guys like Siewart and McGeachy can their way with you so easily.

You people *really* need to study some history. Start by reading Glick, Churchill and a transcript of the Church Committee Hearings.

A lot of you could also stand a basic refresher course in critical thinking.

Start here:

 http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/logic.html



In the meantime, please bear with me while I address, in no particular order, some of the crap and absurdity that is displayed in this thread.

* * *

>I took the time to painstakingly read the threads on imc-us-process.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. You now have heard a tiny fraction of the story, and not all of it true. You read one page, and the links on it. There are dozens of pages, most with multiple links. All of them put together are still the tip of the iceberg, because most of this struggle is not going on in cyberspace at all. It's going on in the real world, in a place where most of you aren't. That's the part of the struggle you don't know about. It's the big part. The part you do know about, is a little part, a very little part, and only the surface of that.

It is, at best, politically inastute draw conclusions based on surface appearances. In politics, almost nothing is what it appears to be on the surface. If you don't understand this yet, you have some catching up to do.

You also need to learn how to winnow the chaff. If you believe everything you read on the internet, Indymedia is a bunch of spoiled brats from satanist, freemason families, and that I personally fuck sheep, eat babies, and worship the devil, and when that doesn't slack my insatiable thirst for evil, I pass time by pulling the wings off of kittens.

Also, I'm a government agent, a thuggish creep, a Nazi, a Jew, an anti-Jew, and anti-Nazi, a guy named Tom, and deluded. Oh yeah, and my mother killed Christ.

And let's not forget my personal favorite. Believe it or not, according to this, I don't even exist:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1666463_comment.php#1670682


Now you know:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1546540_comment.php#1570562


Who'da thunk it?

Or at least that's what they say on the internet.


>Portland IMC should be embarrassed to call itself "investigative journalists"

Indeed. Portland IMC should also be embarrassed to call itself and activist organization. They are an embarrassment to activists the world over. They make activists look like gullible fools who will believe anything they are told. That in turn makes other activists look stupid by association. Could it be they are doing this on purpose, because their true agenda is not what they claim it to be? Could it be that they are actually out to discredit activists in general, and Indymedia in particular? It would certainly explain their actions, as Occam would agree.



>SFBay state such in their open letter.

That people who claim to be journalists would (1.) accept hearsay as fact , and (2.) pass it on as such, is appalling. For this, if nothing else, Portland IMC should be suspended from the Indymedia network as a direct statement that Indymedia as a whole refuses to permit less than credible journalism to be distributed under its name.

Portland IMC should also be suspended for taking the unilateral action of removing the link to SF-IMC from its front page. Indymedia is a team. We decide these things on a network wide basis. Unless the network consenses to such an action, it is inexcusable behavior, a slap in the face of the entire network.

You people are an embarrassment to Indymedia, to activists everywhere, and to journalism itself.


>According to three or four signed public statements
>public statements, signed by their staters.

There are a number of public statements. Some signatures are those of the people that wrote them. Other signatures were forged. Who but an utter fool would believe anything said by anybody who had been caught red handed forging signatures?


>their claims have hardly wavered.

Keyword: "claims" (It's a noun. Look it up.)



> you had best straighten out your representative before it is too late.

We do not respond to threats, especially threats made by cowards from the safety of the internet. If we did, we'd have shut SF-IMC down long ago, because we receive death threats on a fairly regular basis.



>Although we generally oppose the willy-nilly reposting of content onto multiple sites

This is impossible to take seriously by anyone who has seen the repeated, habitual, network wide spamming of 9/11 conspiracy material by PDX-IMC.


>(tkat) But the SF breakaway group is still holding power over the original collective.

I respect tkat, at least as an activist. I've worked with him for years at Bound Together, and on the Book Fair. His heart is righteous and he means well. But the guy is talking about stuff he knows nothing about here. He wasn't at the meetings. He did not participate in the mediation. He knows only what he has been told. He's not even clear which group it was that is the new group.

When I confronted him on all this, he specifically stated that he didn't want to know any more.

See:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479_comment.php#1672743

(snip)

I am not objective.

(snip)

I don't want to know anymore about this.

(snip)

* * *

Tkat is a stalwart anarchist comrade, dedicated and productive. He shows up when he said he was going to show up, he does what he said he was going to do, he cleans up any mess that he made, and he leaves before people are tired of looking at him. If every anarchist did these four simple things as well and as often as tkat does, our movement would be making a whole lot more progress, a whole lot faster.

That does not, however, make him a competent journalist. Au contrair, he's a piss poor journalist, one of the worst. He repeats hearsay. This is the absolute, number one no-no for journalists. He simply cannot be relied upon as a credible source of information. What he is doing involved in a journalism project at all, escapes me completely. His talents lie elsewhere. He's a very talented DJ, he looks good in a bunny suit, and he knows how to act at a meeting, which is more than I can say about some people whose names we wont mention. But a journalist!?! Gimme a break.

Indymedia is a journalistic endeavor. It's all about journalism. Journalism is its purpose for existing. Without journalistic credibility, it is a useless waste of time for all involved. If you are not going to do credible journalism, you don't belong in Indymedia. Period. When you repeat hearsay, you impugn and discredit the credibility of all Indymedia. When Indymedia permits people like that to speak in its name, in endangers its credibility and with it, it's entire reason to exist.


>Honesty rests on reporting accurately one's own truth,

This is kidthink. "One's own truth" is not *the* truth. "One's own truth" is opinion.

*The* truth is that which can be proven with unimpeachable, empirical evidence. If this basic, fundamental truism is beyond your ken, you have no business being involved in journalism, even peripherally, let alone butting into a dispute with which you are familiar only by hearsay, a lot of it from people who know even less about the situation than tkat does.


>It has been many years since I have been in either Frisco or Portlan. I am not, to the best of my knowledge, acquainted with any of the persons involved with or commenting on this issue.

So you don't know what you're talking about then, do you? Why then, do you persist in talking anyhow? Do you want the world to perceive you as a person who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but insists on talking anyhow? Is that how you want to be known? Why? Explain please. Inquiring minds want to know. Why on earth would anyone be so utterly foolish?


>As most people that have studied power relationships can tell you, once an individual or group has exercised their power over another individual or group talking about what is consensed to after that point is highly questionable

Perhaps you are referring to SFBay physically locking SF-IMC out of the space we shared, or stealing the personal property of one of our members, or seizing the monthly income from the Paypal donation account, or maybe you mean physically preventing one of our members from making use of a piece of equipment that we all helped pay for.

Or are you referring to the forging of people's names, without their knowledge or consent?

Is that what you're talking about when you say "exercise power over"?

Well, is it? Be specific.



>Can consensus be considered valid if one party is wielding power over another?

Both parties wield power here. It's an obvious stand off. Or haven't you been paying attention? Stand off is what this thing is *all* about. If it wasn't a stand off, you never even would have heard about it.

Bottom line here: We are afraid to give up any of the little power we still do have, because don't trust these people not to then immediately screw us over somehow. We expect this of them because they have demonstrated repeatedly that they are not trustworthy people. They lie, they steal, they spam, they forge people's names, they endanger our comrades and our sources, and they talk to the police about us without our consent or our lawyer present. There have even been incidents of stalking. They can't be trusted. We don't trust them, nor should we, nor shall we. Neither should you.




>two members of the sf.indymedia..org group were told they were no longer welcome in the imc space because gekked threatened to take down the network there.

(1.) This is hearsay. It is also a lie. But even if it were true, which it is not, it would still be hearsay. Smart people do not act on hearsay. Smart people act on facts. Portland IMC acts on hearsay. What's that make them?

(2.) The "network" there, was a LAN composed, in part, of components that are the personal property of one SF-IMC member (not gekked). This person was physically locked out and prevented from accessing hos personal property. Legally and morally, that is theft. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he took it as lightly as he did. If it been my personal property that had been stolen, I've have kicked in the door and recovered it, and hurt anybody got in the way.


>gekked

There's a reason why gekked is under attack. To read about it, click here:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671611



>cointelpro is irrelevant

COINTELPRO is not "irrelevant." It is as alive and well today as it was decades ago, when it first came to light. If anything, it is more so. Only the name has changed. To ignore it is, at best, inastute. At worst, it is suicidal.



>Frisco server reported users to the Feds?

"Snitch jacketing": a classic COINTELPRO tactic



>COINTELPRO was never statements made publicly, discussed publicly, and proven or disproven publicly.

(1.) This is simply untrue. Public action against the Panthers, for example, went so far as the distribution of forged leaflets into the Black community. If that's not public, what is?

(2.) Even if it were true, so what? Over the decades since COINTELPRO first came to light, we activists have adapted our tactics, not only to the lessons of the past, but also to advances in technology. Those who seek to repress us could not but have done the same. We are up against some very savvy enemies. We underestimate them at our peril.


>One SF group has . . . attached their names and reputations to their statements.

They have also attached the names of other people, without thier knowledge and against their will. These people have been caught red handed forging people's names! If that alone does make you suspicious, you are failing to display the degree of political acumen that competent activism requires.

Worse, you're ignoring the most basic rule of journalism: Fact check first. Talk second. If and when you can't manage to do that, publish a retraction immediately.

Here's how:

 http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1667964_comment.php#1668143

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1668175_comment.php#1668728



And forgery is not their only offense.

If this:

 http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1667723.php

is to be believed, they either hacked a bunch of Indymedia sites, including our own, signing my name to at least two of the hacks, or they publicly approved of whoever did. Either way, thier behavior is inexcusable


>Insinuations that anybody with a problem with "SFIMC" may be a "secret agent" are not winning any points with anybody.

To ignore the very real, and IMHO very likely, possibility that at least some of Indymedia's current problems, occurring simultaneously across the network, are the result of meddling and manipulation by the powers that be, is to display both shameful historical illiteracy and a degree of political naivete that is, at best, disturbing. What knowledgeable activist would want to endanger themselves and their comrades by associating with people so foolish?

Last year, by its own admission, the government infiltrated Peace Fresno, and bugged the Philly mayors office. It is *inconceivable* that they would do less to Indymedia.

Wake up, Portland. Have you forgotten your own recent history?

If so, brush up here:

 http://projects.is.asu.edu/pipermail/hpn/2001-January/002594.html


>tinfoil-hatted

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. As my old debate coach used to say, it is certain proof that your opponent is out of ammo, out of brains, or, most likely, out of both.


>a women's group tried to simply start a women's working group . . . the discussion about that was quickly preyed on by an old bull from the SF.IMC collective and he quickly played the "cointelpro" card as he always does.

Who? Where? When? Cite your sources. Be specific. Or STFU.



>Those, who raise the spectre of COINTELPRO against honest inquiry, ask us to put out the light.

Discussing this matter in public at all, let alone in detail, only helps Indymedia's enemies. There are some specific aspects of the affair that SF-IMC cannot make public without committing the very same offense that core members of SFBay have done, ie., discussing on insecure channels matters that endanger certain comrades and sources.

This is not a game we're playing here, people. This is a deadly serious matter. This affair is not taking place in a vacuum. There is a war going on all around us. People are dying every day, and worse, much worse. Civil liberties, as we used to know them, are a thing of the past. This is the era of the PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and the holding of "enemy combatants" without habeus corpus. People's freedom, in some cases their very lives, are at risk. People, please, show some political sophistication here. This is not a daytime TV or a middle school social scene we're in. It's a war, and the bad guys are playing for keeps. To imagine it to be otherwise is the thinking of fools.

The split here is an internal Indymedia affair. Both parties to the mediation agreement consensed to keep it that way. One party broke its word immediately. If that alone does make you suspicious of both their motives and their moral character, your naivete precludes your ability to make a rational analysis, or have what you say be taken seriously by anyone with any experience in politics.



>People from both sides should speak up . . . in detail

Excuse me, but to do so too great a detail, in a public venue, would put certain individuals at great risk. Why on earth would you want that to happen? Are you a cop? Cops want that to happen. Why do you want what they want? Do they pay you, or are you just stupid? Who gains when we give them more intelligence than they are already acquiring? Or hadn't that crossed your mind?


>There is too much else going on in the world to waste time with petty disputes between activists.

You are begging the question here. You assume that this is (a.) petty and (b.) between activists. Both these points are, to date at least, far from clear. It is at least equally likely that what is really happening here is that Indymedia is fighting off an invasion by infiltrators. Whether these infiltrators are acting out a personal agenda, or collecting a government paycheck, is less relevant than is how quickly and effectively they are repelled.

No activist organization lacking a coherent, time tested methodology for dealing with infiltrators, can long survive. Infiltrators are a fact of activist life. Not all of them are working for governments. Other organizations also have reason to infiltrate Indymedia. They range from corporate media to neo-fascist militias. A few infiltrators are even working alone.

So I know for a fact it can be done, because I did it. If I can do it, it can be done. It wasn't even hard. It took me all of three meetings. Not many months later, I had a password.

I, personally, infiltrated Indymedia, in part on behalf of my corporate employer at the time, the SF Bay Guardian. My original intent had been to sit through a few meetings, get a feel for the people behind the website, and write an in depth, follow up article to this:

 http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/41.html

and then leave. Instead, I stayed. The rest is history, certain proof that infiltrating Indymedia is a piece of cake.

Fortunately for Indymedia, my motives were and remain, benign. Unfortunately, not everyone who infiltrates an organization like Indymedia has benign motives. Really, they don't. Sorry, I don't like it, either, but it's a fact of activist life. History is *extremely* clear on this point. It must be gotten used to, because it's not going away, at least not anytime soon. If you are active, sooner or later you will see it first hand. The longer you stay active, the more times you'll see it again, and again and again and again. That's how it is being active. If you can't, or won't, deal with it, your safest move is to find another way to pass time. Garden, collect stamps, take up a musical instrument, or something along those lines. Activism isn't for you.

For every action, there is a reaction. In the case of political action, that reaction is repression. It's part of the equation. Factor it in, or suffer the consequences.



>posting the their "open letter" on every indymedia site was not only a violation of the mediation agreement, but also, I believe, a completely juvenile and shameful tactic.

This, too, begs the question. I, too, would like to believe that SFBay's actions can be explained immaturity, ego, jealousy, careerism, etc. But that is by no means clear. Their behavior fits a *classic* pattern. Until I see unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, I personally am going to treat it like it's modern COINTELPRO. And if it turns out later that it wasn't, so what? The effects are exactly the same.

Better to err on the side of caution. When you're out for a walk in the bush, and you see something big and orange coming at you through the grass, you don't hang around to see if it's really a tiger. You get up a tree fast, every time, no exception, and then, and only then, do you figure out if it's really a tiger. Otherwise, sooner or later, you will wind up as tiger turds, and that a fact of bush life.



>If this man (or woman) really is harassing you, call the police. Demand protection.

There's a name for people who rely on the police to protect them. They are called "victims."


And speaking of relying on the police, consider this deplorable incident:


>The SF proposal demands "back" press passes which list a contact name and address of someone affiliated with SF Bay.

It just so happens that I hold one of those press passes. My name is on it, not his. When he was still a part of SF-IMC, he was our liaison with law enforcement re: press passes. After the split, he went outside of process, and behind people's backs, and contacted me personally in an attempt to work out a deal over the passes. I rebuffed him. He then went to the SFPD about it, involving them in our dispute. It's bad enough that SFBay has involved the rest of Indymedia and the corporate press in this dispute. Involving the police is beyond the beyond. It is not acceptable behavior under any circumstances.

Those press passes are not any individual's "private property." They are in SF-IMC's name, not SFBay's. If anyone misuses one, it is SF-IMC, not SFBay, who will suffer the consequences. We are exposed here, not they.

This guy took legal advice from a cop. This is dangerously stupid. Anybody who hangs around with someone that politically inept, is asking for trouble. Worse, he spoke to the SFPD about us, not only without a lawyer present, but without *our* lawyer present. This is intolerable behavior. There is no excuse.

This person has a record of cooperating with the police on the behalf of others, without their knowledge of consent. It's just the kind of person he is. He's done it before. Several months ago, the sheriff of Humboldt accused our correspondent on the ground there of misusing his California Highway Patrol press pass. Without even contacting our correspondent, let alone our lawyers, this liaison person confessed to the CHP on behalf of our correspondent, and gave up our CHP press passes without a fight. We have never gotten them back.

There is a name for people who confess to the police on the behalf of third parties who are not present to defend themselves. Perhaps you know what it is. Think hard now. It'll come to you.



>Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like that article is now gone.

Certain people, once they came under heavy and wide spread criticism for spamming the network with their slanderous, disruptive and unsubstantiated allegations, have apparently pursued a strategy of deception to cover their tracks.

This article, for example, used to be on Portland's front page:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/277978.shtml



And speaking of hiding things, consider this ill informed and slanderous allegation:

>Another is the suppression of legitimate and timely newswire articles about the (completely nonrelated) media work of members of the SF Bay group, a suppression which Nessie (a member of the SF group) himself has admitted to. (Nessie admits it in his message to the us-process list, but demands congratulations for his "magnanimity" in unhiding the wrongly hidden content, rather than humbly admitting his own error.

I was not "admitting" anything. I was bragging. Nor was I in error. I was under no obligation whatsoever to unhide the post in question. I did it because I'm a nice guy, probably too nice, not because they deserved it, and *certainly* not because it was "unrelated."

I first hid the post in question because I couldn't see any reason to supply free advertising for people who had so *very* recently so mistreated one of our members, who had stolen our property, and the personal property of one of our members, slandered us, threatened us, talked to the police about us against our will and without our lawyer present, and repeatedly violated the mediation agreement, which at the time we foolishly believed they had entered into in good faith.

When people treat you like that, you can respond anyway you damn please. It's your life, live it how you want. That's not how I live my life. Unless they're holding a gun on me from too far away to grab, I see no reason whatsoever to take shit from anybody, anywhere, ever, not ECR, not "Otto Nomous", not Amedeo Modigliani, not "bill," not anybody. That includes you, whoever you may be. Capiesc'?

On the rare occassions that I do tolerate such deplorable behavior, it is an eminently commendable act of magnanimous generosity, nothing else, least of all the acting out of an obligation. These people mistreated my friends. So I treated them accordingly. I am under *no* obligation to treat anyone better than they treat my friends. If you feel differently about your friends, you don't deserve to have any.

I also feel no obligation whatsoever to be *polite* to people who stick up for people who mistreat my friends. So if this offends you, so be it. If you're not an asshole, it's not about you. But if the shoe fits, wear it. Either way is fine with me.


>folks like me here in Portland could swear up and down til the crows come home that we are not being put up to this by someone else . . . don't have any vested interest in the outcome of the conflict in SF . . . only want to see the greater good of the community served, etc.

That's what you say. Talk's cheap. We've heard it before.

Since I don't know your ass from Adam's off ox, and since you have failed utterly to demonstrate even the most basic of critical reasoning skills, let alone display a track record for honesty, I have no reason whatsoever to believe you, about this or about anything. Why should I? At the very least, you are operating on the basis of hearsay. Ergo, you are, at the very least, a fool. Ergo, I see no reason to care what you think. The opinion of fools does not impress me. The opinion of fools impresses only other fools. Whatever else I may be, and opinions do vary widely, a fool I am not.

What I am, is a guy who's been active for almost four decades. I'm still alive and still free, and not without reason. I'm also relatively effective an organizer. One all volunteer project I work on has been in continuous operation for 28 years, and another for eight. Both are thriving. So I know more than a little about what it takes to make a thing like this happen. If you want to take what I say seriously, good for you. It's a sign of intelligence. If you don't, that's your problem. I can't make you listen to reason against your will. I can only wish you luck. You're going to need it.


>are not being taken in by cointelpro,

How do your *know* you're not being taken in? Be specific. Cite evidence.

Or STFU.

“I pass time by pulling the wings off of kittens.” 21.Jan.2004 12:24

Rudyard Kipling

And that, best beloved, is why kittens have no wings.

sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 15:25

Bill

sf native : First, SF Indymedia does not store IP addresses nor are we aware of them at any time. This has been the consistent policy since Quebec FTAA, with a few exceptions during heavy "Smash the Left" spam days, and only after gaining consensus of the entire group. The supposed incident in the article linked to here states this policy clearly, and makes clear that people who have worked together for 3 years or more know each other when writing in comments.

Bill : I don't believe you. Believing you would be quite foolish.

sf native : I find that to be CONSIDERABLY different than a member of Portland IMC openly admitting that a Portland IMC tech looked at the IPs of commenters, analyzed them to identify the commenter, and then communicated that information to people within the group in a divisive argument.

Bill : Yes, it is considerably different. However, if you are saying it happened, no, you are lying. If you are implying it happened, no, you are lying. If you are just draging a red-herring around, people will probably think you are lying.

sf native : So, Portland IMC has openly admitted guilt of violating this core tenet of Indymedia privacy, and I want to know how they are going to rectify this tech abuse.

Bill : Your saying that it is different from your pretended purity does not mean that it happened.It did not.

sf native : As for the "answers" ....

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We have been given to know that the decision to accept a split of the group was made by the majority group under duress, after being presented with a fait accompli."

sf native : You have been "given to know"? What have you been given -- divine inspiration? Psychic knowledge?

Bill : SFBay state such in their open letter. gek's public statements in Octobre come close to saying as much.

sf native : Sorry, it takes a lot of work to catch up on 10 months of conflict and 3 years of organizational history to even BEGIN to "know" -- and it isn't something you are GIVEN, it is something you EARN and WORK FOR. Portland IMC should be embarrassed to call itself "investigative journalists" if your idea of that is divine imparted understanding. Not to mention the fact that endless meeting notes, admissions on both sides of the conflict, extensive email list archives (which I don't think you've seen, right?), notes from the mediator and a million other things all point to the obvious truth -- that SF Bay Area IMC consensed to a split. In fact, this was the consensus decision of the 2nd mediation meeting, held at AK Press warehouse. Did you know this? Or did you take the word of one person who is acting outside of even SFBAY's process who didn't attend the mediation meetings, didn't attend ANY sf indymedia meeting in the last 3 years (or ever), etc?

Bill : Nobody says SFBay did not consense to split. SFBay states clearly that they consensed to split. It is dishonest of you to imply that anyone denies it.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We have observed for ourselves, as anyone can readily verify, that one of the parties is not honoring the terms of the agreement that ratified the split."

sf native : At this point, it is whittled down to the press passes and the negative propaganda / disclosure clause.

Bill : SFBay makes five proposals. SFIMC makes ten proposals. Probably six are distinct.
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000374.html
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000344.html

sf native : However, in the past month, it has been allowing SFIMC access to its collectively-held space and holding our equipment hostage, in addition to the still outstanding requirements that SFBAY needs to fulfill. In addition, SFBAY absolutely REFUSED to communicate with us on these issues. Never once did they email the SFIMC group. They did not reply to our requests for communication on these matters. All they did was further violate the agreement by spamming wild accusations about us, affiliated groups like Linefeed and vulnerable people in our group. How many times does this have to be said before someone like you will acknowledge that these items exist?

Bill : According to three or four signed public statements, two of your people went for your equipment in mid-Decembre and didn't bother to take it with them when they left. Said equipment remained boxed for two weeks or more until the manager of the space, after repeated messages, persuaded someone to remove it. Nobody has challenged these statements. SFIMC's list of proposals mentions no equipment.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "We don't "release" IP addresses. We store them temporarily in a log held in RAM for housekeeping purposes (a standard feature available in the current version of the Mir software). This log is wiped clean once a day, and never gets saved to a storage device. "

sf native : Again, please see the above paragraph. Still waiting on answers regarding your admission that a Portland IMC tech was analyzing and identifying people via IP logs and then passing along this information, and then YOU passed it around on a public website.

Bill : Do you know that everytime you repeat this lie, you add another false detail?

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "Once again, the fact that SF IMC is not honoring the agreement they made with the SF Bay IMC is evident, and they themselves don't deny it. The abuses of which they accuse SF Bay by dint of justifiying their actions are actually much more debatable and open to question."

sf native : To YOU -- but who are you? You don't live here, you don't work in SF IMC, you haven't been around the last 3 years, you don't really know what is going on, which is evident by the fact that I have to keep correcting you when you get details wrong. It must be nice to sit hundreds of miles away and make a judgement on people and situations you don't understand and haven't bothered to understand, but to the rest of us it is just acting out of ignorance.

Bill : I don't know where Amedeo gets his information. I get mine from SFIMC's official public statements to the IMC process lists. SFIMC (gekked) has publicly stated what Amedeo says. What you and Amedeo and I say or think, though, is meaningless to the official public process. If your representative is misrepresenting you, you had better straighten him out.

sf native (quoting Amedeo) : "I personally haven't interviewed people from either group. I trust the judgment of those fellow IMC volunteers I know who have, all the more so because, after extensive reading of list archives, everything they have told me is consistent with what I have read and seen for myself."

sf native : So, give us information. I know that Portland IMC exchanged two or three emails with one member of SFIMC, and another person talked with a few of them on IRC one night for half an hour or so. What you and I both know is that it is inexcusable that Portland IMC would grandstand with such a statement without having even BOTHERED to contact the SFIMC people on the same level they talked trash with SFBAY people.

Bill : There is an official process, with public statements, signed by their staters. Whatever settlement is reached will be based on the public process. Anonymous slanders posted here will not be considered. If your group has anything you dare say in public which should be included, you had best straighten out your representative before it is too late.

sf native : Sorry, being a journalist organization -- especially in an activist environment -- requires a level of maturity, skepticism, asking questions, learning before speaking, etc. Portland IMC has failed to do all of those things and it is extremely sad to me.

Bill : Sure.

Bill : If you compare the lists of proposals, which I cite above, you will become very sad and (one hopes) embarrassed.


About two and one half weeks ago, SFBay posted an open letter to an IMC process list and on a number of newswires. Since then, their claims have hardly wavered. Indeed SFBay have wisely let their statement speak (mostly) for itself -- and they have obviously devoted time to their site.

On the other hand, a large number of anonymous nyms speaking for SFIMC have showered this site with a barrage of slanders and misrepresentation. 'sf native' is the third nym to tell me that I do not know what is the truth, whilst asserting claims which are easily refuted by signed public statements from his own group, and (this is really silly) claiming the SFBay open letter says things which anybody can see it does not. The situation in the official process lists is somewhat better : statements are signed by consistent names and slander is significantly muted.

If I were a member of the Pdx collective (I'm not), I would follow SFBay's example.

not winning any points with anybody 21.Jan.2004 17:40

S.F. native (one of several)

What was everybody arguing about again?

>the only real
>unilateral lock-out action remains the lock out of many from among the
>former collective from their emails and access to websites by controlling
>tech entities that have broken off and re-formed using the name SF.IMC
>This first and only real lock-out also prevented other members of the
>former collective from updating or editing the website URL,
>"sf.indymedia.org." So, this action (freezing up access to sf.indymedia,
>preventing people from seeing their emails, and maintaining access-code
>control over the Bay Area IMC sites) remains the only real lock out action
>taken by any from among the group formerly known as the SF.IMC.

Notwithstanding various allegations of violent misogyny -- allegations which are terribly disturbing if true, and equally disturbing for different reasons if false -- the group currently called "indybay," which everybody concedes to be the original S.F. indymedia group, seems to comprise the usual crowd of activist misfits you'll find in indymedia anywhere, and seems to include several of the people who founded indymedia in Seattle in 1999 in the first place. The so-called "sfimc" group is clearly a small collection of patronizing, self-righteous, paranoid assholes. "Nessie" openly admits in a recent comment on this page that he "infiltrated" S.F. Indymedia in return for a corporate paycheck. The reason we're not concerned about this "mediation agreement," or about all the boring details-of-violations-thereof, is that the original S.F. indymedia group should never have had to go into mediation, or make agreements with patronizing, self-righteous, paranoid asshole infiltrator thieves, to get their domain name and website back.

The original S.F. indymedia group should never have been locked out of its server. If a techie minority had irreconcilable issues, then it had an obligation to quit the group and get the fuck out of the way. There should never have been any mediation. An application for a second S.F. indymedia group should never have been approved if it was going to lead to two indymedia websites -- one named "sf" and the other one "sfbay," both based in the City -- especially if "sf.indymedia.org" was then going to languish as a dead site held by a closed group of disgruntled techies out of spite.

That's what everybody was arguing about.

Why repeat yourself? 21.Jan.2004 18:00

just wondering

> sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 04:08
> sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 15:25

Did you think it would make more sense the second time?

More Corrections of the Facts 21.Jan.2004 19:26

sf resident

First of all, the Indybay group is not the "original group" -- to say so belies a need to augment their idiotic behavior with some kind of pissing rights. In fact, the people who comprise the SF-IMC group are most (if not all) of the original members still active in Indymedia locally, people who were at the founding IMC in Seattle, and LA shortly after, and SF shortly after that. Some of the people in Indybay (like Whispered Media people) have been utterly inactive aside from their own personal projects but still claim to "be" SF Indymedia, which is kind of sad. Any of this can be verified from the open mailing list archives available on the internet.

Second, SF-IMC is not a techie minority. Yes, many of them are involved in tech only because they have involved themselves in all levels of local Indymedia from taking photos, to writing stories, to setting up outreach events, etc etc. Any of this can be verified from the open mailing list archives available on the internet.

Third, the "majority" of Indymedia people locally have not gone with Indybay. What has happened is that the Indybay people have psychotically built their organization on an opposition to SF-IMC because they were the ones who initiated this psychotic conflict, they are the ones who perpetuated it, and they are unable to stop participating in it. They care more about vindictiveness than they do about Indymedia or anything else, really. So, without process, without forethought, without anything besides a need to feel like a majority, the SFBAY people have signed up any person they remotely consider a friend to one mailing list. This is not an organization or an Indymedia -- it is, in fact, a gossip list for a fringe group of poltiical scenesters in the East Bay.

Fourth, as for "Nessie," he was employed by the SF Bay Guardian, which has a hell of a lot more lefty and indyjournalism credit than most anyone at Indybay. I realize he is not a techie and thus cannot be smeared with the now-cliched "sf-imc techie" crap, but you'll have to do better than suggesting he is an infiltrator for corporate America. As far as I know, the real minority that can be talked about here is a small minority of East Bay rich kids whose lifestyle "anarchism" is paid for with Mommy & Daddy's money and connections. But hey, if it makes you feel good trashing some life-long motorcycle mechanic-turned-indymedia-journalist, do what you have to do.

the PDX line: balderdash or codswallop? 21.Jan.2004 19:33

nessie

>everybody concedes to be the original S.F. indymedia group,

No, "everybody" does not. This is yet another bald faced lie, presented (not atypically) without a shred of evidence. But then, what else could we expect from a guy who sticks up for forgers?


>seems to comprise the usual crowd of activist misfits you'll find in indymedia anywhere,

That's an insult to every IMCista, everywhere on the globe. "Misfits"!?! How dare you? Have you no shame?

Or maybe you're just projecting. If so, get over it. Just because *your* IMC is infested with misfits, in no way, shape or form means that every IMC is just like yours. Au contrair. If every IMC on the globe were like yours, Indymedia would have collapsed under its own weight long ago. If the level of critical analysis you put into this subject is in any way indicative of your general mental prowess, you folks couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag. Credible journalism is above your skill level. Perhaps you should consider something less demanding, like, oh say ditch digging or carrying a hod. As I guy who has done both at an earlier point in his life, I can assure you that it's something you could handle, even if only just barely. But journalism!?! Give me break. You couldn't get a job at My Weekly Reader.


>The so-called "sfimc" group is clearly a small collection of patronizing, self-righteous, paranoid assholes.

Yeah, right. And we also fuck sheep. This sheep:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1638426_comment.php#1642336


Who else have we heard this stuff from, I mean besides SmashTheLeft, JoJo Gunn, Eric, KOBE HQ, ProtestWarrior and the Freepers? Pleasant company you're in, isn't it?

People are known by the company they keep. Every day, PDX-IMC and SFBay are looking more and more like two peas in a pod.



>"Nessie" openly admits in a recent comment on this page that he "infiltrated" S.F. Indymedia

I wasn't "admitting" to anything. I was bragging about it. Unlike some people around here, I possess the basic skills of investigative journalism. I am, for example, able to converse intelligently with a broad cross section of society, and thus not limited to getting my news only from misfits.

I was also illustrating by example just how absurdly simple it is to infiltrate Indymedia. In fact, almost all of you entered Indymedia in exactly the same way I did. You showed up at a meeting and convinced people to trust you. That's all it takes. Anyone can do it, be they cop, crook or careerist. If the gravity of this lesson escapes you, you really need to go back and brush up on the basics of activism.

Start here:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1666652.php


>their domain name and website back.

It's not their domain name. Period. End of story.


>The original S.F. indymedia group should never have been locked out of its server.

It's not their server. It's somebody else's server, of which they were graciously permitted to make use.


>a techie minority had irreconcilable issues,

It was not a "techie minority." It's a diverse group, the majority of whom are not techies. I know because I was there. Your don't , because you weren't. That's the difference between you and me.

See:

 http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/logic.html



>especially if "sf.indymedia.org" was then going to languish as a dead site

Oh, puh-leeeeeeze.

We get *many* time the traffic that they do. We also get *much* better contributions, from *much* higher quality correspondents.

If you want to read racist spam, reposts from Playboy and idle speculation as to which local politicians like to fist f*ck, then by all means, go read SFBay. You'll be very happy there.

If you want to read hard hitting investigative journalism from around the globe, and insightful analysis by some of the finest minds on the planet, then read SF-IMC.

The choice is yours. Both sites are easily reached. Think of the two combined as a Bay Area news paper. We're the front section. They're the funnies.

BTW, you may also find this interesting:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000380.html

Sorry about that 21.Jan.2004 21:05

Bill

Why repeat yourself? 21.Jan.2004 18:00
just wondering

> sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 04:08
> sf native needs more than answers 21.Jan.2004 15:25

Bill : I thought I had already posted that. But when I checked this afternoon, it was still sitting in my edit buffer, with the word "claim" marked. I checked here and saw nessie's shit and thought I had seen it before... well, I have, several times, but not here. I changed "claim" to "proposal" in a few places, I think I added a sentence, and posted.

Did you think it would make more sense the second time?

Bill : It _is_ more accurate, with "proposal". :)

Bill : If two copies are intolerable (who else would notice?), Pdx may delete the first.

re: More Corrections of the Facts 21.Jan.2004 22:55

first person

"sf resident", do you think referring to "SF IMC" in third person is going to make your assertions more believable?

news from nessie? 21.Jan.2004 23:41

doubter

what news has nessie written in the last several months? He tends to write comments and to fan the flame wars.

A New Voice in the Fray 22.Jan.2004 00:37

Mr. Normal

Hi. I haven't commented on this issue until now, but I _have_ read the relevant imc-us-process archives, as well as extensive reading of postings made to indybay.org and to sf.indymedia.org (and, of course, the entirety of the discussion on this page.)

I'm not posting using my "real" name (neither are you) but I have only posted comments to indymedia sites using this -and only this- nick. I have not used the nick to post to other non-indy sites (that I can recall), nor have I posted comments to indy sites using another nick. (You will, of course, choose to believe this, or not.)

With that said...

I'm feeling really frustrated at the level of hypocrisy (and more) that seems to be coming from the SF-IMC side of this whole discussion. Particularly, I'm referring to "Nessie" and his several other pseudonymous incarnations that he has manufactured for this exchange.

Nessie (when he goes by that name) is very openly affiliated with SF-IMC. He writes fairly well. Or, at least, he writes a LOT. Whether he writes with integrity is for you to decide, though in my personal opinion he does not.

Over the last several years, I've read many, many exchanges and dialogues that he has had on sf.indymedia with various folks of many political persuasions. From my readings, I believe that Nessie has engaged in an ongoing pattern of creating alternative pseudonymous identities. Not merely by using a name other than "Nessie" (so that people will not feel either threatened or impressed with the postings of a known editor of sf.indymedia), but using multiple identities (including "Nessie" usually) in order to ask himself the easy questions, respond to his own points, and generally make it appear as though he has greater numerical support for his ideas than is true. With these, he can quite easily pontificate, usually creating illusionary persons who either (1) agree with him and are impressed with his cogency, or (2) are initially sceptical of his position but are converted after some time, or (3) disagree with him completely, but nonetheless set him up perfectly to make his desired point. The first type appears common; the second, less so, but certainly there; and the frequency of the third is too difficult to determine because there are more than a few folks who unwittingly serve this purpose (and because his writing style necessarily changes to a greater degree than with the others).


WHY DO I BRING THIS UP?

ONE:
Because "Nessie" likes to pontificate about integrity and jounalistic standards, yet appears quite willing to use fraud and deception to "win" his points. In particular, although he has only posted to this discussion as "Nessie" twice(so far) and only today (Jan 21), I strongly suspect that he has been engaging directly in this ongoing dialogue for quite some time, likely posing as at least two (and probably more) other people. The dedicated and perceptive amongst you can go back and decide for yourselves (if you hadn't already come to a similar conclusion).

TWO:
Even if we assume that everything I have said so far is correct, it does not necessarily disprove his arguments. (You don't need _me_ to do that.) However, it does (I hope) rekindle a much-needed sense of rational scepticism that can sometimes be dulled by the onslaught of his lengthy diatribes and multiple personalities.

THREE:
For all of Nessie's stated concern and vigilance about COINTELPRO-style activities (usually as a reason why we should be [selectively] more secretive), he never seems to recognize that one of the most effective results of COINTELPRO was to shatter trust amongst each other. Neutralizing leaders isn't so effective amongst groups that strive to eschew leaders, but getting us to not trust each other is very effective. And eliminating that trust is particularly easy when you have a person who thinks that he is smarter and wiser, yet seems to believe any rumor and innuendo that comes his way as long as it fits with what he wants to believe (i.e., supports his ego).

FOUR:
What really got me incensed was the fact that Nessie posted a similar (though slightly different) message to the imc-us-process list, where he said, in part:

>Portland, too, should be suspended, not for choosing the wrong side,
>which they clearly have, but for choosing sides at all, particularly
>on the basis of hearsay. Their public attempt to palm off hearsay as
>fact discredits the journalistic integrity of every Indymedia across
>the globe. But their greatest offense to the network, and to you
>personally, is that they took the unilateral action of removing from
>their front page the link to SF-IMC. This is not their, or any
>local's, decision to make. Membership in the Indymedia network is the
>product of a collective decision making process. These people have
>violated consensus, thereby breaking their word, to Indymedia and to
>you personally. They have made a mockery of the main thing we all
>hold in common, the mutual agreement to operate by consensus.

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000380.html


Apparently, Nessie believes that the appropriate consequence for an offense
of LESSER magnitude (than removing the link from the front page) is that the
offending group "should be suspended" from the IMC network.

In response, I am compelled to ask:

If an IMC group was to knowingly and intentionally fail/refuse to place a
front page link to another recognized IMC, would that act be the equivalent
of removing such a link?

And if so, what would be the appropriate consequence?


Finally, on a separate but related note:
A little bird (a non-migratory bird) told me that she heard it on the wind that the issue with the SFBay open letter having included a couple names of people who subsequently disavowed signing-on to such a letter was, basically, an unfortunate fuckup. It was the result of a document that was group-edited, online, over the course of a number of days. On the first draft, a number of likely names were placed at the end as a means of example for what people should do (e.g., add the appropriate details to your name if it was already listed, or add your name and details if not already there.) Looking at the final draft that was sent out, you can see that all the listed names have affiliations appended to them except the names of the two people who later disavowed signing. The lack of affiliation should have clued someone in that those two people had not, in fact, actually signed-on to the letter, and the names should have been removed. Obviously, that did not happen and those people were incorrectly included on the list of names. However, I am very doubtful that this occurred intentionally. If it were intentional, not only would it be a serious violation of personal trust, integrity, and individual autonomy, but it would be quite pointless and quickly exposed.

The above paragraph is, by its own admission, double hearsay. That does not mean, however, that it is not true. Please analyze it with appropriate scepticism.

Thank you for your time.

In solidarity,
Mr. Normal

"some life-long motorcycle mechanic-turned-indymedia-journalist" 22.Jan.2004 09:13

nessie (or someone claiming to be him)

It wasn't quite life-long, but it was a long time. It's how I managed to infiltrate the Bay Guardian. Tim, the managing editor used to ride a decrepit old Norton. We met when he was still a reporter. He came to cover a squat eviction. I was on a Triumph. We hit it off immediately. Most of the time I spun wrenches, I didn't do repairs on other people's bikes. I was a recycler. I bought old bikes, fixed them and sold them. Usually, I bought dead bikes and scrambled the parts to make running bikes. But in this guy's case, I made an exception.

I kept his Norton running for years beyond what he could have himself. When he came to realize that I liked to pass time doing library research into parapolitics and secret history, he started paying me to do research for the Guardian. In those days the library still had the old fashioned microfilm readers that made paper copies with this chemical that smelled like cheap roach spray. Yech. After more than a couple of hours, I'd have to stop or throw up. I was paid by the job. Piece work it's called. There weren't any bennies.

Pretty soon he had me doing the grunt level PI style investigation that is the foundation of all authentic journalism. It's not at all like you see on TV. It's more like war or high school, 99% excruciating boredom and 1% sheer terror. Mostly it's endless phone calls and poring over public documents. It's all about eye strain and headaches. The closest I ever came to actual melodrama was getting paid to drink with a computer programmer who had in his possession forensic evidence that implicated some "retired' spooks in the looting of a large corporation. Before I could manage to talk him into handing me a floppy copy, somebody tossed his secretary off a very tall building. Someone also swung by his mother's house in Michigan and told her to say hello for them. He took the hint and went to ground. I was pulled off the case, and that was that.

About that time, the Guardian decided to cash in on this new fangled internet thingie, and started its own BBS. It was a FirstClass Client board. It's a great piece of software, but at that point in history, didn't have a web interface, because there was no real web back then. I was paid a regular salary to do grunt level admin work, and to keep conversations going. During this period, they bought a few article from me for the paper, but I was free lancer, paid on a 1099, and never a salaried reporter.

Then the web came along and put client server BBSes pretty much out of business. The Guardian then experimented for a while with web interfaced BBS that failed. Then they went with the website they have today, and paid me to write a column about the secret history behind the news. I did that for a couple years. Then the bubble here broke and the Guardian found itself in serious financial difficulties. The owner, Bruce, dealt with it by laying off staff. Eight people were laid off the same day that I was. More layoffs came later. Now the Guardian seems to be back on its feet, but I haven't been rehired. I take this to be the result of certain political differences between myself and Bruce, perhaps including some of my work at Indymedia. As the boss, he outranks Tim. So here I am, currently living off my wits, my savings, a fortuitous insurance settlement and odd research jobs for various journalists I know. I've also done a little ghost writing. The pay sucks. But it's OK because I live cheap. My kid's grown and feeds himself, my rent's cheap, I have no car payments, I cook my own food, and I don't like cocaine, so my daily expenses are minimal. That's how I've managed to put so much time into Indymedia.

Before I took up wrenching, I hung sheet rock. I've also painted houses, hung conduit, pulled wire, sanded floors, driven truck, shoveled dog doo, filed papers, flipped burgers, mowed lawns, and played bass in a small time band that went nowhere. We played after hours clubs, drug parties and free in the park. We sucked, big time, and never made more than pin money at it, but we had a really, really good time.

And that's my resume. I am for hire. My rates are reasonable, and on a sliding scale. Feel free to contact me. I can be reached at:

 nessie@sfbg.com

But look, this thread isn't about me. It's about a relatively sophisticated attempt to disrupt and discredit Indymedia, not by attempting to "shatter trust amongst each other" but by using lies, hearsay and absurdly lame excuses to encourage us to trust the wrong people. Trust is not a natural right. Trust must be earned. The sinister cabal at the heart of SFBay has not earned it. Au contrair, they have repeatedly displayed the traits of people only a fool would trust. It's a con job. As with most con jobs, a certain number of fools fell for it.

Oh well, at least it's a news story. It probably wont earn me a Pulitizer, but book contract should be in the offing, and that's something, anyway. I appreciate the contributions y'all are making. I fully intend to give you credit in the introduction. The royalties, however, you're not going to see. I intend to split them with SF-IMC. It's a far more worthy cause.

That is what this thread is about.

If you want to read about me instead, click here:

 http://www.transbay.net/~nessie/Pages/there.html

Otherwise, let's get back to the topic.

Uh, actually, nessie doesn't even exist. 22.Jan.2004 09:14

now you know


ha ha ha 22.Jan.2004 14:11

Bill

I thought they hid posts out of malice.

Obviously, sometimes, out of envy.

A Noisy Type of Silence 22.Jan.2004 14:19

Mr. Normal

Hey, Nessie. That sure was exciting to get the last several decades of your employment history. I guess that proves that you're a real person. But I never suggested otherwise.

However, your failure to address (much less, deny) any of the accusations made against you tends to suggest that those accusations may have some merit, in my opinion.

Cal. Evid. Code 413. In determining what inferences to draw
from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier
of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to
explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in
the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence
relating thereto, if such be the case.

When faced with a direct and open challenge to your honesty and integrity, you respond with a meandering and wholly irrelevant work history. Your attempt to ignore and deflect is obvious and ineffective. And it further bolsters the claim of your lack of integrity.


But that wasn't enough, was it? You had to take it a step further.

If I read you correctly, you actually believe that there is a "sinister cabal at the heart of SFBay" and that these people are "using lies, hearsay and absurdly lame excuses to encourage us to trust" them. Apparently, this amounts to (or is part of) "a relatively sophisticated attempt to disrupt and discredit Indymedia."

Perhaps you meant something else, but I took it to mean that you have decided that the core group within SFBay is actually comprised of agents of the state (e.g., FBI).

If that is, in fact, what you were implying, then I have two thoughts: (1) your paranoia is bordering on mental instability, and (2) those feebs sure have a good looking website!

Who needs paid COINTELPRO agents when Nessie will badjacket activists for free?


And now, Nessie's hypocrisy grows exponentially:

>Oh well, at least it's a news story. It probably wont earn me a Pulitizer,
>but book contract should be in the offing, and that's something, anyway.
>I appreciate the contributions y'all are making. I fully intend to give you
>credit in the introduction. The royalties, however, you're not going to see.

For all the screaming and crying about how sensitive this information is... about how the SFBay people shouldn't have sent an open letter to indymedia, Nessie now admits that he is planning on turning this whole affair into a book he hopes to have published. And he's going to take a lot of his info from these indymedia boards, and make money off of it. Profiting off of Indymedia? Using this story to further your personal career? What was it that you mentioned about careerists?

If you have even the slightest intention of ever writing an article or book about this story (which you most certainly should NOT do) then I am sickened to consider the implication:
IT IS IN YOUR PERSONAL PECUNIARY INTEREST TO MAINTAIN AND AGGRAVATE THIS CONFLICT.
As an otherwise out-of-work no-future journalist, you stand to potentially make a big reputation and a bunch of money off of this conflict. And the bigger, more outrageous it becomes, the greater the likelihood that your planned book will virtually write itself.

Is this why you are so quick to badjacket activists with whom you have sharp disagreements? How many dedicated activists would you sacrifice for the chance to make a filthy buck? The whole network, perhaps?

>It probably wont earn me a Pulitizer...

But that's what you'd like, isn't it? When it really comes down to it, it's all about YOU.



Oh, and one other thing:

If an IMC group was to knowingly and intentionally fail/refuse to place a
front page link to another recognized IMC, would that act be the equivalent
of removing such a link?

And if so, what would be the appropriate consequence?

It's OK, Nessie. You can answer honestly. Just think, if your group got suspended from indymedia, that would probably make for a pretty rich chapter in your book. And you could make some money off of it, too.

This has all taken a much darker turn than I had previously suspected.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong about this.

In Solidarity,
Mr. Normal

new-imc and imc-process pass the buck, imc-us-process drops the ball 22.Jan.2004 20:57

the sinister caballero

[reposted from the imc-us-process list]

Hi

Chrystine here. I'm very sorry to say I have heard nothing from Jay and John and can only take it as an unwillingness to be involved further in the dispute. I'm a bit at a loss what to do next.

Also I have been getting personal e-mails from list members questioning the value of continuing on-going debate as it seems no one is willing or able to step up and help the California indymedias reach resolution. In addition there has been some talk of possibly a need for greater facilitation on this list. In other words, possibly filtering out posts dealing with dispute. Personally Id really hate to see that happen.

For awhile could we ask that members of both SF indymedia and indybay not post to list individually, but only address this list through empowered spokesperson. I think both groups did once say themselves that was what they were going to do, but we have had individual posts from both groups since.

I know John W. encouraged you both to form proposals but he hasn't been heard from since and I believe he was hoping you would take those proposals to someone out-side of the network for arbitration.

Myself, it would seem to be a better route to return to original mediation agreement and work on each step again.Drop whats happened in the recent past and see if with help it could be made to work. Is there absolutely no possibility to come up with funds for more mediation?This time with steps carefully agreed upon on how the final agreement would be implemented, not just time frame. I realize that it would be more money spent.

I hate to end this on such a negative note, but I have studied the archives over and over and one of the reasons its so hard to know what to believe from a distance is because someone isn't telling the truth in more then one instance. It seems only locally could you actually call on witnesses to personally testify what they saw and heard. People can post to lists, but it simply doesn't carry the same weight.

I also feel there is a real possibility that some of the hacks and attacks on sites could be coming from a third party capitalizing on the dispute to cause further dissension and disruption for their own ends.

I'm afraid people dont really see how they can choose sides and as more and more posts come through,more frustration and anger,misplaced perhaps,but real, is going to be directed at both indymedias.

So I propose that both indymedias keep the traffic down by communicating through spokesperson, and list members from other locals post one last time on how you feel and hopefully someone will come up with a better idea then filtering out San Fransisco. I just think at this point no one should be hoping for resolution, mediation or enforcement of either proposal from the indymedia network. I sense that is not going to happen. I hope at least that both indymedias can feel that they had the chance to speak their truth even if no one was able to help them.

All this is,of course, IMHO.
A heartbreaking e-mail to have to write. For The Best, chrystine

Yeah 22.Jan.2004 22:16

Bill

I couldn't believe it, especially not, "I have been getting personal e-mails from list members questioning the value of continuing on-going debate" and "talk of possibly a need for greater facilitation". These folks hound about Bush and Fox.

If Chrystine's post doesn't shame some into action, it announces the beginning of the end of Indymedia, at least in US.

a very interesting statement 23.Jan.2004 03:20

a commentator

[from  http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1666342_comment.php]

Unlike some people, we operate by consensus.
by nessie Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2003 at 1:49 PM

Ownership of the DNS is not going to be turned over until we consense to do so.

I, personally, block consensus until SFBAY meets its *all* of its obligations under the mediation agreement, and the personal property that is being held hostage has been returned.

You people are an embarrasment to the Indymedia movement. Is that your intent, or do you simply not know any better?

a very interesting mis-statement 23.Jan.2004 12:12

Bill

SFIMC along with SFBAY consensed in Novembre to turn over the domainname.

SFBAY has fulfilled their every obligation under the consensed mediation agreement.

SFIMC has failed to turn over two domainnames. SFIMC has failed to publish the "blurb". SFIMC has failed to divide the cash assets according to the agreement.

SFIMC admits all five failures.


The only point of the consensed mediation agreement which remains in SFIMC's list of legitimate claims is the issue of the press passes. The issue is not so simple as SFIMC disingenuously claims.

SFBAY did infact fulfill the terms of the agreement, by contacting the SFPD. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the agreement which foresees SFPD's response -- although a self-identified member of SFIMC has testified here that he knew of an issue which SFPD might use as excuse to obstruct.

The issue of the passes can be fairly resolved. The three simplest solutions are : Return all seven to SFPD. Destroy them. Distribute them to the reporters whose names appear on each.

I recommend that whatever is done, it be done in front of at least three credible witnesses, that SFPD be informed in writing, and that the Indymedia world at large be informed in detail.

All seven passes are in the name of SF-IMC 24.Jan.2004 11:49

obvious solution

Six of them are in the hands of people who are no longer a part of SF-IMC. For these six people to use the cards would be fraud. They should be returned immediately. People who commit forgery cannot be trusted not to also commit fraud.

he he 24.Jan.2004 12:42

Bill

If I were nasty, I would keep my mouth shut.

The passes have other peoples' names on them. You guys are stupid enough to give them to some innocents and promise them that it is legal. The next time the pigs need to make up their monthly quotas, they'll swoop down and arrest six imcistas for showing false ids.


True, forgers can't be trusted. What has that to do with this issue? You aren't trying to slander IndyBay, are you?

That could backfire. I'll be back.

forger 24.Jan.2004 12:57

Bill

Gekked, SFIMC, reported that "just about everyone" in "our group" said, "hell no we aren't turning anyone in."

The meaning is clear. The meaning is not, "hell no nobody here did that."

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-us-process/2004-January/000278.html

BTW 24.Jan.2004 13:24

Bill

The url in my previous comment, 'Forger', also shows SFIMC admitting that IndyBay fulfilled their obligation with respect to the press passes.


Have you forgotten these other issues?

the domain, Indybay.org

the domain, Enemycombatantradio.org

the money

the blurb

That is, of course, only four failures on the part of SFIMC to fulfill their obligations.

If you had not been so eager to ignore SFIMC's obligations, you might have noticed that, and taken the opportunity to pick at a crucial significant nit.

Sources 24.Jan.2004 13:46

pdx indy person

More people were talked to thru email or irc from the sf group than the sfbay group. Most of the info has come from the multiple lists and posts. When these posts inevitably left us with questions, we went to the people to ask them. This was 1 person from SFbay and 2 people(maybe more) from sfimc.

Portland Indymedia is NOT an organisation. We are not journalists in the privelidged, upper class sense of the word. We are autonomous individuals who work collectively to not only enable our own voices to be heard but also that of our community. I demand to be addressed as such. Addressing us only as an organisation or journalists is rude and disrespectful of my right to individuality.

More Press Pass Pissing 24.Jan.2004 14:51

Mr. Normal

>Six of them [press passes] are in the hands of people who are no longer a part of SF-IMC

From what I've been able to discern from all the documentation is:

* Six of the seven holders of SFPD-issued press passes are currently members of the organization to which the passes were issued. The group didn't change and did NOT have to go through New-IMC process in order to be recognized. The group's name morphed in order to reflect their new domain name, indybay.

* While the new group in SF has taken the name previously used by the pre-split group, that does NOT mean that the new group IS the old pre-split group. The press passes were NOT issued to the new group, regardless of the similarities between the old and new names.

* The press passes were issued to Specific Individuals and those individuals were part of the pre-split sf-imc. The fact that their group has changed its name doesn't invalidate their press passes. And the fact that the new group chose to use the old name doesn't give them any valid claim against the pass holders.

* As noted previously, the paperwork for the passes (at the SFPD) was signed by the photo coordinator of the pre-split group. He is still with that group (with its new name, SFBay). The address listed on the paperwork (and, perhaps, the passes?) is the address of the office. The group changed its name after the other folks split-off from it, but it didn't change its office location.

From my perspective, the passes should continue to be used by their legitimate holders, which is probably ALL SEVEN holders.

However, if questions are to be brought up about legitimacy and forgery, then how about asking the one holder in the new group this:

You left the organization you were working with. You no longer work with the person who signed the official documents on your behalf. You no longer work at the office listed on your card (yet, all the other pass holders do). Then, you worked to create a completely new group, taking the name previously used by your former organization (thus giving the false appearance that you were still affiliated with that original group). Does this seem like it might, maybe, perhaps border on fraud?

In Solidarity,
Mr. Normal

>>You left the organization you were working with. 24.Jan.2004 18:44

backwards

not what happened

sfbay is the new group

No, forwards 24.Jan.2004 23:01

Bill

The mediation agreement refers to... well, the new IMC, so new that it does not even have a formal name... the new IMC as getting the domain sf.indymedia.org and needing "to go through new IMC process". It further states, "The SF Bay Area IMC will not block or impede their new IMC application, and the new IMC will be recognized by the SF Bay Area IMC."

In the next paragraph, it says, "The SF Bay Area IMC will change their DNS to sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org. The SF Bay Area IMC will not have to go through new IMC process, since they are remaining the SF Bay Area IMC."

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2004-January/004742.html


The request for Global Indymedia blessing, posted by gekked, clearly refers to SFIMC as the new organization, "San Francisco Bay Area IMC (which will be giving up its old domain to the new San Francisco group, and will start using sfbay.indymedia.org & indybay.org)... and a new San Francisco IMC (sf.indymedia.org)..."

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004633.html


Furthermore, if you check some of the less-active sites, such as Ottawa, Maine, or Tallahassee-RedHills, and even some active sites like Seattle, you will see the cities listed so, "san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca", with s f bay linking to " http://sf.indymedia.org/". Sites with uptodate lists show "san francisco" linking to " http://sf.indymedia.org/". Sites with uptodate lists show "san francisco" linking to " link to sf.indymedia.org.


Are you lying deliberately?
Or are you just saying what sounds good, without bothering to check whether it is true or not?

an understandable mistake 25.Jan.2004 02:13

the sinister caballero

Give him the benefit of the doubt.

It SOUNDS reasonable that the group with the old name would be the old group, and that the group with the new name would be the new group, and that old documents issued to the group with the old name would now belong to the group that now has the old name.

But, because of Byzantine stupidness, none of that is actually true.

This just illustrates what a terrible idea this whole arrangement was in the first place. sf.indymedia.org and the "S.F. IMC" name should be retired, and the new group should have to come up with a new name. And what the hell has this new group accomplished anyway besides causing a lot of confusion and pain? Why should it even be allowed to exist?

fraud fraud fraud 25.Jan.2004 02:31

obvious solution

The new group now calling itself SF-IMC is no longer a part of the group that everybody previously understood to be SF-IMC. For this new group to continue to use this name would be fraud. It should call itself something else immediately.

The mediation agreement 25.Jan.2004 10:00

common law

became null and void the minute SFBay violated it by locking SF-IMC out of the space that the agreement stated both groups would share until December 31. With that move, SFBay put the entire process back to square one. Everything is now back on the table, plus anything else that either side wants to put on the table now. Was this their motive, to first gain a domain name, start their new site, and then prolong the conflict as long as possible, so as to do the greatest amount of harm to Indymedia as a network? How could SF-IMC have been so stupid as to allow themselves to be brow beaten into falling for such a blatant trick? You think they'd have learned by now.

about nessie 25.Jan.2004 10:31

Not nessie

Nessie is a blind fool and an authoritarian fascist at heart. He is not to be trusted.

unclear 25.Jan.2004 10:44

outsider

Did SF-IMC go through the "new IMC" process?

about nessie, etc. 25.Jan.2004 11:40

nessie

>you're a real person. But I never suggested otherwise.

But you did impugn my character. So I thought it fitting to illustrate that, among other things, I am *exactly* the kind of person that Indymedia was originally set up to empower. I'm a working class, street level activist with no formal training in journalism. People like me are what Indymedia is all about.

What's more, I've been around for decades. If I was a jerk, it would have showed up by now. But as anyone whose worked with me, even those who disagree with some of my politics, can tell you, I'm an exemplary activist. I'm hard working, diligent, consistent, persistent, articulate, informed, aware, loyal, fearless, canny and tenacious, street smart, book smart and possessing of tools. I walk it like I talk it and I talk it like it is. I show up on time, do the job, clean up my mess and go home. That's pretty much as good as it gets, at least for a volunteer. if you want more than that, you have to pay. Good volunteers are hard to find and even harder to keep. I'm exactly the kind of volunteer that smart folks want to have on their team. The more volunteers like me we have, the sooner we will win. And as if that weren't enough, I'm even humble about it, an exceeding difficult task in the company of the likes of PDX-IMC. What a bunch of lamers. If they maintain their current level of awareness, and keep doing politics, , they're going to wind up in here:

 http://www.doc.state.or.us/institutions/inst.shtml?osp

And that's if they're lucky. Politics has far worse fates in store for those who fail to pay attention. Ask Fred Hampton.


>However, your failure to address (much less, deny) any of the accusations made against you tends to suggest that those accusations may have some merit, in my opinion.

I'll tell you what. As soon as you come up with some accusations you can back up with evidence, I'll address them. In the meantime, why bother? An accusation presented without evidence refutes itself;.



> I took it to mean that you have decided that the core group within SFBay is actually comprised of agents of the state (e.g., FBI).

Maybe, maybe not. Frankly, I don't know who they're working for. Yeah, it could be the FBI. But it could just as likely be the DHS, the CIA, the DIA, the CHP, the SFPD, the ADL, the JDL, the KKK, the National Alliance, WAR, the Aryan Nations, the Mossad, the Freepers, the ProtestWarriors, or any of our numerous other organized enemies. We have a lot of them. Sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other.

Heck, they may even be working for themselves.

But whoever they're working for, they are not working for Indymedia. They are working against Indymedia, and with some degree of success. Whether or not they are getting paid to do it is irrelevant. Whether or not they are doing it on purpose, is irrelevant. Whether or not they are even aware they are doing it is irrelevant. Either way, they're doing it. Even if they are totally innocent, and merely doing it out of sheer ineptitude, they are still working against Indymedia. That is the problem in a nutshell.

Who, if anyone, is paying them, is of immeasurably less importance than are the effects of thier actions. If this isn't COINTELPRO, it may as well be. The effects are exactly the same. Not only have they tied one of the network's most effective locals in knots for a year, wasting it's time and resources, and dissipating its collective will, but they have also put serious strains on the intricate web of personal and organizational relationships that is the Bay Area activist community. Some of these relationships have taken decades to build up. Some have taken generations. Now they strain under the pressure brought to bear by these people. The cohesiveness of the Bay Area activist community is a tenuous enough thing on a good day. Every individual relationship within it that is strained, puts pressure on the entire web. Dealing with that pressure is a drain on community resources as well as on community psyches.

That's what these people have done to the local community. Then they kicked it up a notch, and elevated the conflict to a Global level, sewing discord in the Indymedia network itself. This could not only have been enormously destructive, it also could easily have made all of Indymedia look very, very lame in front of the entire world at large. The only reason that it has not is that, except for Portland, the rest of Indymedia has demonstrated the common sense and political sophistication to stay out of it, thereby limiting any potential damage to a single geographic locality. For any global organization to have less suss than is necessary to be willing to employ geographic triage, is suicidal.

This isn't about the Bay Area, and it certainly is not about Portland. It's about how well the global network as a whole can deal with what appears, and not just on the surface, to be a concerted attempt to divide and discredit it in a single move, as well as to simultaneously strike a body blow to its technical infrastructure by turning people against two of the most dedicated, creative, productive and hard working of the geeks who make the network possible.

If it is a plan being carried out that we are seeing here, it is difficult to imagine a more effective one. It is a superb plan, as plans like that go, a true work of genius. It is worthy of Richard Held Sr, himself. It's almost worthy of Heydrich.

If it is not a plan being carried out that we are seeing here, it is difficult to imagine what else it might be. It is far too intricate and cohesive to be an unlikely string of coincidences.

Perhaps what we are seeing here is the trail of destruction that one sometimes encounters in the wake of a selfish and ruthless careerist, fucking people over on their way up. It, too, is a familiar pattern. It, too, bears a strong resemblance to current events. And hey, maybe that's what it is.

In one sense, it doesn't really matter, because the very same damage is done. But in another sense, it does matter, because either way we have to deal with it, if we are to survive as a network, and we can do that a whole lot better if we know what exactly it is that we are dealing with. At this point, , we just can't tell for sure what it is, other than that it is a source of damage that must be first isolated, then stopped.

Fortunately, to isolate it, we need only to know is that it needs isolating. Except for a handful of political unsophisticates in Portland, most of us know that. And it would be isolated today, if people in Portland had had the suss to butt out, thereby not only helping to isolate the problem, but avoiding all the embarrassment that they are bringing down upon themselves and upon the entire network by behaving in such a politically naive, and journalistically incompetent, manner in public.

But they didn't. Oh well. Things could be worse. At least we're not being gunned down in the street, at least not yet. Though when it comes to that, it certainly wont be the first time something like that has happened to American activists in my lifetime, and I'm not even really that old.

See:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607707_comment.php#1673656

Worse it could get around here for people like us, much worse. Every day that it doesn't, we have won a small victory. We should be glad of small victories, but we should not let them blind us to our problems. We do have problems. They come, alas, in great variety.

Unfortunately, isolating this particular type of problem is not enough. It must also be stopped. To do that, we are going to have to figure out what's really going on. That is going entail some necessary unpleasantries. We can either get them out of the way now, or we can do it later, after even more damage has accrued.


>your paranoia is bordering on mental instability, and

(1.) An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

(2.) As anyone who actually knows me can tell you, the single most stable element of my psyche is what you call my "paranoia." I prefer to think of it as my being sufficiently wary of danger. I have always been wary of danger. It's the one thing I have never not been. There have been a few times though when, alas, I was not *sufficiently* aware of danger. Never again. I learned my lesson the hard way.

(3.) It's only paranoia if it turns out later that I was wrong, which does happen sometimes, but not very often, and even less often about things like this. I hope that I'm wrong. But I'm not betting the farm on it.

(4.) Your own lack political astuteness borders on what it will take for you to get yourself and your friends into really big trouble some day. Have you learned *nothing* from your own home town's history?

Read this again:

 http://projects.is.asu.edu/pipermail/hpn/2001-January/002594.html

It doesn't seem to have sunken in the first time.



>those feebs sure have a good looking website!

(1.) So does CNN, Jeff Rense and the National Alliance. So what? Are you really stupid enough to judge people, relationships and situations by surface appearances that thin? This isn't about pixels on a screen. This is about human beings, most of whom you've never met. And you think you can tell what they're doing down here by the way that a screen full of pixels relate!?! Give me a break. Engage your brain, fer chrissake. You can do it. At least try. This ain't rocket science, here. This ain't even brain surgery. Learn to tell people from pixels, and soon, or you're never going to be able to figure out life.

(2.) It's not about the website. It's about them.

(3.) The main reason it looks as good as it does is because the bulk of the software was written by the very two techies that SFBay is out to destroy. What does this tell us about SFBay's motivations and their moral character? Why have they launched a pogrom against these two? Who could possibly gain? Hint: it's not Indymedia.



>If an IMC group was to knowingly and intentionally fail/refuse to place a
front page link to another recognized IMC, would that act be the equivalent
of removing such a link?

That's not the issue. The issue is who decides. You say, "Portland decides." Everyone else says, "We all decide." That is the issue.

Until all Indymedia decides otherwise, a link to Portland will remain on SF-IMC's front page. Thereby, SF-IMC fulfills its part of the social contract that binds every local to the network as a whole. This contract is nothing less than our mutual agreement to decide Global issues by consensus. Word is bond. SF-IMC gave our word to Global. We kept it. Portland gave they same word to Global. They did not not keep it. They acted unilaterally, and against consensus, a slap in the face of every IMCista on earth.

It sounds like a real no-brainer to me. Portland made no-no. We didn't. Period. End of story. Duh.


>Who needs paid COINTELPRO agents when Nessie will badjacket activists for free?

These people badjacket themselves quite adequately, all on their own. Their words, and their deeds, speak for themselves. All I'm doing is asking people to not avert their eyes.


>For all the screaming and crying about how sensitive this information is... about how the SFBay people shouldn't have sent an open letter to indymedia, Nessie now admits that he is planning on turning this whole affair into a book he hopes to have published. And he's going to take a lot of his info from these indymedia boards, and make money off of it. Profiting off of Indymedia? Using this story to further your personal career?

I am a worker. Writing is my trade. Surely you are not suggesting that I not be permitted to practice my trade, are you? I ask because if you are, you are engaging in anti-worker propaganda. Perhaps anti-worker propaganda is welcome in Portland, but where I come from, we hide stuff like that whenever it shows up.

Writing is also my art. Surely you are not anti-artist, too, are you?

Where will it end?

Are you also implying that to write about Indymedia, and not tell the whole story, warts and all, is somehow wrong? Does this mean that your own journalism, here on Portland IMC is not completely honest? Do you conceal and obfusticate the parts of the story that fail to make yourselves and your friends look good? If so, you shame not only Portland, but all Indymedia, and indeed the very craft of journalism itself. That you would even suggest such a thing makes it virtually impossible for anyone with a lick of suss to believe anything you ever say about anything whatsoever, ever again. How can you be expected to be telling the whole truth when, by your own admission, you advise others not to do the same.

As for the sensitive stuff, you don't even know what it is, because we haven't told you, and there is no other way you could know. The stuff that has already been released, and as spam no less, is not only not the sensitive stuff, it is also already out of the bag. The damage is done. It's too late. It has even already been picked up by the corporate press, as anyone who pays attention could have easily predicted. When Indymedia breaks good story, the corporate press picks it up. This is far, far from the first time. This actually happens a lot.

Which, of course, raises the obvious question of why this story was broken at all. What motivates people to smear Indymedia in a way virtually certain to be picked up by the corporate media, as well as by the fascist and neo-con blogospheres?

There are only two possible explanations, neither of which are very flattering:

(1.) The actually *wanted* to hurt Indymedia.

(2.) They were too stupid to see that far ahead.

Either way, I don't want to work with them. Why? Because they aren't qualified to work with me. I only work with people who are demonstrably smart and honest enough not to wind up doing more harm than good to me or the project we're working on.

Keyword: "demonstrably"



>What was it that you mentioned about careerists?

See:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479_comment.php#1673712



>IT IS IN YOUR PERSONAL PECUNIARY INTEREST TO MAINTAIN AND AGGRAVATE THIS CONFLICT.

(1.) Shouting is rude.

(2.) You clearly don't understand how the book business works. I've been in the book business for twenty years, so I can at least attempt to pull your coat a little abut it. It is much different than you imagine.

You have failed entirely to factor in time, or the order in which events must occur. Let us say, hypothetically, that I actually wished to sell a book that was solely about this particular aspect of Indymedia's history. Even after it was completed, it would take a minimum of a year to get it to market. I couldn't even begin to write about the affair until well after it was absolutely certain to be over. Once it is over, it is no longer topical, and therefore a much harder sell. The longer it is over, the hard a sell it is. So, if all I was interested was in was making money off this, it would *greatly* behoove me to try to bring it to an end as quickly as possible, and get the book to market while it still had a chance to make some money.

(3.) If all I cared about was the money, I could already have have sold this story, several times over, even if not as a book. I could have easily, for example, sold it to Chris Thompson.

See:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672265

He certainly made a sincere enough effort to find me and make me the offer. He was even clever enough to stalk me as far as two of my personal friends. They both, of course, told him to stuff it. That's what friends are for.

For that matter, I could have bypassed Chris Thompson with a single phone call, and sold the story straight to his editor. For that matter, I could have sold the story to either of the other two local weeklies down here. In fact, now that y'all up there in Portland have butted in, I could probably sell it to the PDXS, if it's still around, or whatever the alternative weekly in Portland is these days.

But I haven't. If you can't figure out on your own what that means, I seriously doubt that having it explained to you would would make it any clearer.

(4.) You don't want to see a book about Indymedia!?! What are you, stupid? Wise up. Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as bad publicity." Say it over and over and over again, until it sinks through your skull.

Every hit piece and every smear job, no matter how vile and slanderous, even that sorry-ass, sophomoric pig slop that Thompson just wrote, is good for Indymedia. And through Indymedia, it is good for the Global Justice Movement as a whole, and therefore for the globe itself, and most of the people on it.

Why?

Because every one of those things spread the name "Indymedia" further afield. The more people read that crap, the more people become curious what this whole Indymedia thing is really about and logon to see for themselves. A percent of them stay, and then tell their friends to check out Indymedia, too. That's how audience grows. Better still, unlike other media, Indymedia has broken down the psycho-social barrier between spectator and spectacle in a number of key areas, and blurred it in the rest. So a certain percent of the audience also becomes part of show. Feed back loops emerge and growth is exponential. Before Seattle there was no Indymedia. At Seattle, Indymedia was one. One became many, and each is now becoming many more. A chain reaction has been set off, and by what? Publicity.

Three things matter in the propagation of memes, publicity, publicity and publicity. All publicity is good. "Bad publicity" is an oxymoron. If you don't understand this basic, 101 level, time tested truism, then you don't understand mass psychology at all, let alone media itself. If you do not understand both mass psychology and media, you can forget about changing the world. It ain't gonna happen. You can *not* do it alone. The world cannot be changed by vanguard formations, at least not in the direction that we want it to change. Only mass action can do that.

For the first time in human history, we have in our hands technology that can enable mass action with the degree of real time unison that true global transformation will require. We proved that last spring, when thirteen million people, with oceans between them, marched against war at the same time. The internet made that possible, and Indymedia was a very big part of it. It didn't stop the invasion, but it did prove the concept. Yeah, huge numbers of people really *can* coordinate their efforts in real time, and Indymedia can help in a big way.

And that is exactly what Indymedia is going to do. But we are going to do it together, as a team, because that's what we said we'd do, and word is bond, and because there *is* no other way. Nothing else will work. Only if Indymedia is able to function as a cohesive unit on a global scale, can it live up to its enormous potential. Fragmented, it is weak. United, it is strong. If IMC locals usurp Global decision making powers, break consensus, and act unilaterally, outside of process, Indymedia will fragment. Then all this building we have done will have been for naught, and humanity will have to start all over again, perhaps not until another generation has passed, perhaps not until longer.

Ergo, global cohesion must supersede local autonomy on all Global matters. Who gets named on the list of locals that each and every IMC on the globe has on its front page, is a Global matter. It is not up to any local decide what goes on that list. We all use the same list. We all decide what is on it.

What goes in the center column, however, is not a Global matter. What goes in the center column is a local matter. It always has been. It has never been a Global matter what goes in the center column of any local. So the matter of the blurb is not a Global matter at all, and should never have been even discussed there, let alone here. It is a local matter, solely between SF-IMC and SFBay. So are all of the rest of the issues in contention between us. It is not Global's concern and they have said so.

It must have caused them some truly agonizing moments as they sussed it all out in their heads. But they persevered in thier resolve to come to the correct decision, and for that we commend them, and laud their acuity. These are smart people. They should be emulated. The advanced sophistication of their political analysis is totally admirable. So is strength of their hearts. It is not many activists, nor even I fear many humans, who not only know what is none of their business, but also have the moral strength that it takes to say so in public.

"It's none of my business," is not something heard every day.

Why not? Because it is not an easy thing to say in public. It is difficult enough for anybody. Some people just can't say it at all, no matter how badly it needs to be said. They need somebody else to say it for them.

So I will:

What goes on between SF-IMC and SFBay is no more the business of Portland IMC than it is of Global. So wise up, show suss, and butt out.

In the meantime, you're just blowing a lot of hot air. You don't even know what you're talking about. You're not even clear on the hearsay.

But you are right about one thing, though:

>it's all about YOU.

You're damn right it is. It is *so* all about me that for all you know for certain, some of these people that you have never met, that you insist upon talking about as if you knew personally, don't even actually exist. For all you know for certain, they are literary characters, my creations, figments of an over active imagination. And for all the rest of the world knows for certain, so are you.

That is the level of verifiable reality we are dealing with here. Learn to tell pixels from people. This isn't real life, This is the internet. If you can't tell the one from the other, you can't tell much of anything else, either, least of all what's actually happening down here in Cali.

Sorry, but there's no polite way to put this. When you stick your nose in somebody else's business, and you don't even know what that business is, the only smart thing to do is to back away slowly and hope that not too many people noticed how foolish you have been.

For their own good, as well as the good of Indymedia as a whole, PDX-IMC needs to become cognizant of this, the second or third most basic principle of all social life, an not just human social life, either. Even hamsters do it. What *is* PDX-IMC, anyway, dumber than hamsters? Time will tell, of course, but from what we can discern from their behavior so far, yes. Yes they are dumber than hamsters. And so is anyone who emulates them. If that's how you care to be perceived by the world, then go right ahead and act like they do. Otherwise, engage your brain first, talk second.



>Nessie is a blind fool and an authoritarian fascist at heart. He is not to be trusted.

Right, and not only that, but my mother killed Christ. I ate the Lindbergh baby, too.

Now let's get back to the topic.

Yes, the new SF-IMC went through the "new IMC" process 25.Jan.2004 12:46

Bill

The "new IMC" process normally requires an existing IMC to sponsor and several stages of documentation, all of which are intended more to assure that the new group knows what they are getting into than prove they are good enough to associate with. The last step asks for approval in reverse : approval is assumed if no IMC blocks.

In the present case, gekked had previously requested a fast-track process, on the grounds that his group do know what they are doing. The existing IMC, SF Bay Area, in effect sponsored the new SF IMC, and officially asked other IMCs not to block.

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004633.html

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004637.html

 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/2003-November/004642.html

Now I understand 25.Jan.2004 13:02

outsider

Quote: "We already contribute two full-time servers with volunteer sysadmin labor, webspace and bandwidth to over 20 IMCs in South America, the Middle East, and throughout the US/Canada."

No wonder the pigs want to crush these guys.

Old name 25.Jan.2004 13:48

Bill

"It SOUNDS reasonable that the group with the old name would be the old group..."

It may actually be so. Nobody has actually said the new group has the old name.

The old cities lists refer to the imc in San Francisco as "san francisco bay area". The mediation agreement does so, too. Gekked refers to the old group as "SF Bay Area IMC" in his Octobre inquiries, and uses similar language in the "new IMC" process.

Many of the documents refer to the 'old IMC' as "San Francisco Bay Area" or something similar when it is a formal designation of the site or of the organization. Designations like "SF IMC" occur frequently in informal usage, as you might expect, but rarely where a formal designation would be expected.


The new SFIMC's official list of proposals includes :

"SFBAY IMC members turn the press passes over to us directly, not the SF Police Department, as we need a guarantee from someone other than SFBAY IMC that they not be used while our organization is potentially responsible."

They do not stated why they might be responsible.

They do not acknowledge that SFBay (IndyBay) might be held responsible.

Indeed, turning the passes over to SFIMC places SFBay in exactly the same position that the former finds intolerable. The individual reporters whose names are on the passes must be even more apprehensive.

SFIMC gives no reason why returning the passes to SFPD, with proper witnessing, would not accomplish their aim completely.


It is necessary to see what is actually written on the passes.

We know that the passes are issued by and belong to SFPD, at least the right to privileges is confered by SFPD.

We know that whatever application forms are filed with SFPD bear the signature of a person who belongs to SFBay IMC; the civic address of the space occupied by SFBay; and quite-likely (if formally accurate) the name of the SFBay organization. We know six of the seven passes are associated, officially by SFPD, with reporters who belong to SFBay.

About the passes themselves, we know little. We know that some people have said the passes bear the names of individuals. We can surmise (otherwise SFIMC has NO case at all) that they bear the name of an organization -- we do not know whether it says, informally 'San Francisco IMC', or formally 'San Francisco Bay Area IMC'.

We also know that SFPD alleges some counterfeit passes exist, or existed -- SFIMC acknowledges as much both in official documents and in anonymous claims.


It would also be interesting to know whether SFIMC would acknowledge that SFBay IMC might have the same concerns regarding potential mischief.

about the passes 25.Jan.2004 19:34

nessie

>They do not stated why they might be responsible.

Because our name is on them.


>They do not acknowledge that SFBay (IndyBay) might be held responsible.

Their name is not on them.



>Indeed, turning the passes over to SFIMC places SFBay in exactly the same position that the former finds intolerable. The individual reporters whose names are on the passes must be even more apprehensive.

OK, then how's this sound? Destroy them. Cut them in half with scissors, scan them and send us a .jpg so we know it has been done? Just a suggestion, my personal, not official.



>SFIMC gives no reason why returning the passes to SFPD, with proper witnessing, would not accomplish their aim completely.

The key word here is "proper" We don't trust SFBay, and we trust the police even less.


>It is necessary to see what is actually written on the passes.

No it's not. We know what's on them. So does SFBay. So do the cops. You don't need to know because it's none of your business. They also contain people real names, which is not only none of your business, it's none of the internet's business. Don't you realize that the very right-wing whackos who keep threatening to kill us are reading this thread right now? Doesn't "need to know" mean *anything* to you?

You don't need to know anything that you haven't been told. You are neither judge nor jury. None of this is your decision. Butt out.


>we do not know whether it says, informally 'San Francisco IMC', or formally 'San Francisco Bay Area IMC'.

It says "SF-IMC," as if that were any of your business.



>We also know that SFPD alleges some counterfeit passes exist, or existed -- SFIMC acknowledges as much both in official documents and in anonymous claims.

SF-IMC acknowledges that the allegation was reported to have been expressed by the SFPD in the course of their interrogation of SFBay's representative. We have no idea what he actually told them.

We do not acknowledge that counterfeit press passes exist, because they don't. What does exist are some perfectly legal, non police issued ID cards that bear a slight, superficial resemblance to the official police issued press passes which they parody. The cop who interrogated SFBay's representative is totally aware that those cards are legal. If they weren't, people would have been arrested with them, long ago, many times over. If SFBay's representative had a lick of street smarts, he would have known that and realized the cop was gaming on him the way cops are taught to do back in cop school.

Never talk to the cops without your lawyer present, ever, no exceptions. There is *nothing* you can say that wont make your position worse except, "I want to see a lawyer." Generally speaking, once you have said it three or four time, the cops will realize that you know what you're doing and back off. If you have any doubts about this, ask a lawyer. Better still, ask a convict.


>It would also be interesting to know whether SFIMC would acknowledge that SFBay IMC might have the same concerns regarding potential mischief.

If they are worried that having press passes in SF-IMC's name exposes them in any way whatsoever, they should get rid of the cards and get new ones under their own organization's name, and not have to worry any more.

The mischief that SF-IMC is most concerned with is not entirely potential. Some of it may already have been done by SFBay's representative when he was being interrogated. We have no idea what he said, because there is no transcript. We assume that he put his foot in our mouth the same way he did when he dealt with the CHP without a lawyer and cost us our CHP press passes.

Did he turn the SFPD against us? We don't know. We have been told that the cops told him they will not renew our cards or issue any new ones to our new correspondents. If this is true, we blame him and we blame SFBay. We'll probably have to engage in a lengthy and expensive legal battle to undo the damage. We are willing to do this because a very important principle is at stake her. This effects far more than just us. There is nothing less at stake here than the legal legitimacy of non corporate media. That's worth fighting for, if we have to. But it will be a drain on our time and resources. It would have been far better to have seen some basic, 101 level street smarts displayed when dealing with the cops. We erred seriously in originally delegating the liaison role to someone without the necessary experience or temperament. Now that error has come home to roost. Learn from our mistake. Don't let this happen to your own group.

indybay & sf.indymedia 25.Jan.2004 23:40

divorce lawyer

The Internet Archive Wayback Machine says,

at  http://web.archive.org/web/*/sf.indymedia.org ,

that as of August 2000 there were two distinct websites. The links labeled "San Francisco Bay Area, US" and "San Francisco, US" went different places and delivered different pages. That version of "indybay" had meetings at the Long Haul and listed Stephen Dunifer's phone number. That version of "sf.indymedia" didn't seem to have any local contact info at all.

By late October and early November the sites looked like the same site on different days. Presumably they were the same site. The exact same dates aren't available in the archive for the different domain names. The browser window title is "SF Bay Area Independent Media Center," and the single entry in the cities list is for "San Francisco." In early 2001 the cities.inc entry expanded to "San Francisco Bay," and then in late 2001 to "San Francisco Bay Area," which became the longest entry in the list and the only one to wrap to two lines.

Sticking "Bay Area" at the end always seemed redundant to me. The City named itself after the bay in the first place, not vice versa. The Boston IMC wouldn't call itself the "Boston Metro Area IMC," would it, even if all its members lived in Cambridge and Somerville?

wrong 25.Jan.2004 23:48

farmer brown

>You don't need to know anything that you haven't been told. You
>are neither judge nor jury. None of this is your decision. Butt out.

The group currently calling itself "SFIMC" is not inherently entitled to the sf.indymedia.org subdomain. If its members are mistreating other indymedia people on an ongoing basis, that's all of our business. Abusers always demand the privacy necessary to continue their nasty business. That doesn't mean they deserve any.

if I was a jerk ... 25.Jan.2004 23:59

commentator

>If I was a jerk, it would have showed up by now.

Don't worry, it's quite clear to everyone, even from this far away. Even your own comrades are eager to dissuade global observers from judging your group based on your personal behavior.

the benefit of the doubt 26.Jan.2004 00:06

doubting thomas

>It is not up to any local decide what goes on that list. We all use the same list.

Perhaps Mr. Nessie is simply unaware that his group's site is, in fact, not using the same list as everybody else. His group's site is using an old list that, perhaps merely coincidentally, fails to acknowledge the existence of separate "S.F." and "S.F. Bay Area" indymedia projects, and fails to link to indybay.org at all, unlike the global list that, according to Mr. Nessie, everybody MUST use, NO MATTER WHAT.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 26.Jan.2004 00:10

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

>(2.) As anyone who actually knows me can tell you, the single
>most stable element of my psyche is what you call my "paranoia."

Thanks, divorce lawyer 26.Jan.2004 03:13

Bill

It looks like they had both domains, pretty much from the beginning.

I would guess that in the summer of 2000, they were switching over from the original 'cat@lyst' indymedia software to 'sf-active'. It seems the name grew from SF, to SF Bay, to SF Bay Area, as their perceived neighbourhood grew.

The June 2003 pages are significant.

The 'donate' page says, ''Make your check payable to "San Francisco Bay Area IMC"...'', indicating a bank account with that formal name.

The notice at the bottom of most pages says, ''[copyright symbol] 2000-2003 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF IMC.'', indicating again that the formal name was "San Francisco Bay Area ...", and that "SF IMC" was used informally.


I guess we must wait until the end of the current round of mediation/arbitration to find out for sure.

If you don't like our editorial policy, go somewhere else. 26.Jan.2004 16:53

nessie

Try SFBay. They don't seem to mind racist spam, reposts from Playboy and idle speculation as to which local politicians most enjoy fisting. Or maybe you'd prefer Portland-IMC, where hearsay is given equal rank with verified facts. There are dozens and dozens of IMC around the globe. Go find one you like, and hang out there.

If you are not a member of SF-IMC or SFBay, our conflict is:

(1.) beyond your understanding because you don't know all the facts, and

(2.) none of your business. Butt out.

exhausting the benefit of the doubt 26.Jan.2004 20:00

doubting thomas

In case you missed it the first time:

>It is not up to any local decide what goes on that list. We all use the same list.

Perhaps Mr. Nessie is simply unaware [although this is less and less plausible] that his group's site is, in fact, not using the same list as everybody else. His group's site is using an old list that, perhaps merely coincidentally, fails to acknowledge the existence of separate "S.F." and "S.F. Bay Area" indymedia projects, and fails to link to indybay.org at all, unlike the global list that, according to Mr. Nessie, everybody MUST use, NO MATTER WHAT.

beyond our understanding 26.Jan.2004 20:27

doubting thomas

According to the Indymedia Network Membership Criteria at  http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/MembershipCriteria :

>Each IMC and Global Working Group is expected to:
...
>b. Have a committed membership substantial enough to sustain a functional IMC,
>c. Have open and public meetings (no one group can have exclusionary "ownership" of an IMC),

The new S.F. group seems to have been created specifically in order to subvert criteria b & c. The links labeled "make media" and "participate" at sf.indymedia.org go to legacy pages that were obviously meant to plug people into the other group -- they mention the space at the Redstone Building, the old mailing lists, etc. The new group's only known website editor says this is nobody's business but, er, his.

Cut the crap. 27.Jan.2004 00:41

nessie

We have a committed membership substantial enough to sustain a functional IMC.

At the moment, there are four of us doing editorial work. You know my name because I talk about it. You don't know the other people's names because they don't. If they wanted you to know who they were, you'd know. And for what it's worth, you don't know who I am, either. You only know my name, and not even the one I was born with. A tiny handful of you know the one a said I was born with. Most of you don't even know that. But so what? Our names aren't important. Only our work matters. This isn't about individuals. It's about the collective.

We have always had open and public meetings. We also always had closed private meetings. So does every IMC. If they didn't, they couldn't exist. Not every working group can meet with the same level of openness. Admin and sysop work, of necessity, must be done in a secure environment. If, for example, passwords got out, our site would be destroyed by its enemies immediatly. It wouldn't last ten minutes. So would yours, so would any IMC. This is the nature of the political situation here on the planet today. We know it. You know it too. So do our readers. So cut the crap. You're not fooling anyone.

What you also know, as does anyone who scrolls back up the page to see, is that what I actually said was none of your business was not the current state of our software, but the dispute between SF-IMC and SFBay. And it isn't. Global agrees that it isn't, so get with the program, and butt out. And stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form. But hey, what else can we expect from forgers, thieves, liars and their friends.

Well, this, for one thing:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284428.html

and this, for another:

 http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1667723.php

From people that do things like this, only fools expect the truth.

As for the legacy software, it is being dealt with. Our entire front page has been completely redesigned to be faster loading, better looking and easier to use. As soon as the bugs have all been worked out, we'll roll it out with great fanfare. This would happen a whole lot faster if assholes like you would stop distracting us and wasting our time. But then, maybe that's you're getting paid to do. It would certainly explain the extraordinary amount of time you put into it. Is that it? Are you getting paid? How much? And if not, why are you working so hard at it? Do you get some sort of sick, twisted kick out of hurting Indymedia? If so, what's that make you?

Hint: comrades it ain't.

Deal 27.Jan.2004 01:36

Bill

I doubt that anybody is sticking a gun up your nose.

Stop wasting time here. Do something useful, like patch up your site, or consider how you might repair the horrible reputation you are building for yourself.

"useful"? 27.Jan.2004 03:59

just wondering


shrug 27.Jan.2004 05:19

Bill

If you choose to come here, you look silly,
calling us assholes,
and claiming we make you do it.

That's the theme that runs through this whole sorry story
beginning in Octobre with gek's whine in new-imc
all the way through to your inability to stay away from Portland imc :

when things don't turn out the way you wish,

you blame your failure on someone else.

Take some responsibility for your own behaviour.
If you think your time spent on pointless slander is wasted,
take your self and your time, and waste them elsewhere.

the end 27.Jan.2004 10:00

Not Nessie

<<<If I was a jerk, it would have showed up by now.>>>

Many people have known for quite some time. In your case, it may take a few more decades before you realize that you are a jerk

in reply to nessie 27.Jan.2004 11:48

deva

a local has every right to question a global decision

the global list New-IMC itself recognizes that the approval of SF-IMC was questionable and would do things differently

a local has every right to question a global decision, even after the fact

consensus does not mean you browbeat everyone in a room into agreement and then everyone is forevermore obliged to that decision. The spirit of consensus indicates that those concerned will be happy with the decision the next day, and the one following. If you agreed to something yesterday, but today have changed your mind, then the spirit of consensus indicates that people should listen to your changed thoughts and be fully open to change accordingly.

a local has every right to question a global decision...

especially in light of the actual situation where there is no real global entity. It is something of an illusion. There are a handful of people on a given global list, representing a few local imc's. There were likely fewer people on the New-IMC list involved in the approval of SF-IMC than were at the last PDX-IMC meeting. No offense to the hardworking people on global lists, but for you to represent the global decision making as some sort of network wide consensus is a joke. That you seek to chastise PDX for not abiding by a dubious fast tracked decision spearheaded by Gekked is also a joke. That you seem to think that decision is then mandatory for every local to unquestioningly accept is disturbingly authoritarian.

I have been on numerous global lists, and both know and respect quite few people who contribute there. However, the idea of true network wide consensus decision-making is more fantasy than reality. There is no reliable, defined, consensed upon global process. Everyone is winging it. This is all fine with me. I have no interest in a global decision making process that has any authority over local autonomy.

It appears from your comments that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, a liar etc. Also, when it comes down to it, you tell people who disagree to fuck off, and that you are just going to do what you are going to do. In that case, just go to it. Nobody in Portland wants or is seeking power over what happens in SF. People made a statement, that is it. If you think everyone up here is a fool or a liar, go right on thinking that. In the big scheme of things, it just does not matter. There is lots of work to do and SF is not an ongoing topic of discussion at PDX meetings. At some point the statement and decision will be revisited. Let's see what happens.

nessie is an asshole 27.Jan.2004 19:35

belaboring the obvious

also, the sky is often blue, and water is usually wet

Nessie the debater, the journalist and the activist. 27.Jan.2004 19:36

Profrv aKa proffr

Well having some experiences with Nessie I will make some brief observations. 1) He does not like debate, probably for good reason ie. he sucks at it.
2) As a journalist he makes a good debater. See his 'story' on Venezuela with fellow meglo-maniac, Al Gioraldo.
3) As an activist he is so unbelievably bad it is comical. He provides endless unsustantiated paranoia, extremely bad and dangerous 'technical' and 'security' adviice and makes anarchy and anarchists look foolish if they are foolishly all judged by experiences with him. Quad anon might support me in this observation based on emperical experience and whats in the archives. Nessie exulted in my arrest and computer seizure then alternated that disgusting display with ongoing smear and libel that a) I was possibly never arrested anyway and that I was still and agent of some sort. He has stated that his experiences with one person swayed him to one side of this split well that has to be my attitude also from a distance and not knowing all the facts. If Nessie is on one side of this then I would be seriously concerned about that side. yrs etc.
 profrv@nospam.nex.com.au

My Comments 27.Jan.2004 19:44

San Francisco Media Activist

I have been a media activist in San Francisco for 25 years. Today I received the link to this page and have read all the comments. I am taken aback by what I see here.

Here are my observations:

1) Portland IMC shows extreme ignorance and arrogance for taking such a bold position on a topic that they most certainly could not have full information about. To suggest that they have enough info to officially call for what amounts to a split in the global network is absurd -- what is clear is that the mediation agreement produced two NEW imc's, but the arrangement was worked out during the mediation to have SF-IMC apply as a new group through New IMC.

In fact, the proposal was that both groups would apply to new imc, it was also proposed that the groups would have more cogent geographical divisions, but exactly two individuals in the Indybay group hijacked that effort. As a result, we have a strange setup which SF-IMC should not be blamed for. When I look at SFBAY and SF-IMC, what I see is an even division of the old group, one group which has a sensible geographic location (San Francisco) and a second group which seems immature in their attempt to grandstand as the entire Bay Area (when, as everyone knows, it is mostly representative of the "East Bay Scene" -- of course, LOCAL people know this, not people from Portland, who may or may not even know what the East Bay is ... do you?). Both sites use a website design which was created by Gekked. Both sites use software which was created by Gekked during an emergency situation for Los Angeles IMC and developed over the years by the SF-IMC tech group in conjunction with an amazing group of people from around the world, a project which was sustained entirely by the efforts of people from the SF-IMC group.

2) Portland IMC's membership in Indymedia should be voided and the domain name portland.indymedia.org should no longer be pointed at their website. Here's why: The application to New IMC was consensed on by everyone, over many meetings. There was a lot of time between the meetings for people to think about what they were doing. There are countless emails which show that EVERYONE agreed this is what would happen. There are messages in global IMC from the new Indybay group which endorse this plan 100%. There is a very clear process for New IMC, and it was followed to the letter. Anyone from Portland IMC could have raised an objection then -- they didn't. Anyone from Portland IMC could have raised an objection when the application then went to imc-process. They didn't. And why? Because it was the consensus of everyone involved to move ahead like this. And, to Deva, I agree that global process must be kept to a minimum. However, there ARE minimums that are required. It took a minor flamewar to get the New IMC process we have now, which is absolutely needed to prevent a return to the ways Indymedia originally worked -- which was a small cabal of people decided who was and wasn't a new IMC. Which is why people (including, for instance, Gekked from SF-IMC) fought to create a new process to stop the tech cabal, fought to have transparency, and worked to set up the New IMC structure. It is a global process and it DOES represent network-wide consensus. New IMC is one of the few places where transparency and process is needed, and it is critical that that process is followed. If Portland IMC will not follow this, then they need to step outside of the network immediately, and I believe that without a correction in their statement, people from around the world need to insist that Portland IMC step outside of the indymedia network and they can no longer have portland.indymedia.org domain name pointed at them. It is not up to Portland to create a schism in the network. Not only is Portland IMC rejecting what minimal process Indymedia does have on a global level, but they are threatening to create the foundations for a split which would ripple across the world. No single IMC should be allowed to create such a dangerous situation and threaten Indymedia, ESPECIALLY in this circumstance since Portland is ignorantly acting on limited information.

3) This "Bill" person is not worth arguing with. I can hardly follow what he is saying and I don't believe that he is here to make a legitimate argument.

4) I am seriously concerned with Indybay's abusive behavior which threatens to derail consensus (or any) process. They are, in fact, bullyists when it comes to consensus. They have discovered that trash-talking is one of the most effective ways to hijack consensus when immature activists are involved (for instance, Portland IMC who has chosen to make a stand on hearsay and a few day's investigation of a year-long conflict). More than just spamming websites and making unsubstantiated accusations about people, I am very concerned with Indybay's tendency to use security-sensitive information to make attacks (something which has happened at an unbelievable rate locally, although they have wisely not done this in the global network yet since I think they would be more instantly called out on it), their tendency to use threats of violence (for example, their threat to "meet you in a back alley" or their use of unstable and violent individuals as intimidation). The situation where Indybay has allowed a known woman abuser, a man who is charged with sexual assault and rape, a man who has restraining orders against him from many women, etc, to be allowed to intimidate SF-IMC members on Indymedia resources (IRC) is 100% unacceptable. It is a 100% fact that members of Indybay have flat-out threatened and intimidated SF-IMC members and collaborated with this man to make it worse. Unlike Indybay, SF-IMC has a diverse group of mostly working class people, including many people with families, children, etc. That it has become acceptable for Indybay to not only bully SF-IMC on websites and mailing lists, but to extend their membership to violent stalkers and allow these people to use Indymedia as a weapon is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who is concerned with consensus process, transparency, and building an organization that is distinct from the psychotic insitutions of corporate America should be taking a stand against this stuff -- not endorsing it. Changing a password on a server or whatever SF-IMC is accused of is NOTHING compared to the very real-world intimidation and violence being exhibited by Indybay here. Where is Portland IMC's statement on this? Its incredible that no one here can even say that is WRONG or must be investigated or something must happen, etc.

Now, as far as I know, SF-IMC has said that they will give up any domain immediately as soon as Indybay meets what is required of them (i.e. severing the press pass connection to SF-IMC). Portland IMC has allowed Indybay to go public with a pretty amazing statement: "We don't want to negotiate, we don't care what anyone else thinks is fair, we don't care what was decided during mediation, we want what we want and fuck you." And Portland IMC has said: "yes, Indybay's interpretation of a mediation agreement which was clarified on a list we've never seen is correct." Amazing!

For what it is worth, I have my own autonomy and I work every day, all day with media activists from all over the west coast. And I will be telling each and every one of them about Portland IMC's default voiding of their membership in Indymedia. If Indymedia were under COINTELPRO attack (which I don't see why we wouldn't be), Portland IMC would be the weak link. Any cop or right-wing group paying attention knows that now. All the agents have to do is call someone from Portland IMC up on the phone, talk their ear off, and a week later Portland will create the situation for a network-wide split. Portland IMC, take my advice: you are operating in a unique part of the country, you have your own JTTF to worry about. Take a lesson from the past. Right now, you are the weak link in a network which has proven itself to be wiser than you are individually.

what happens 27.Jan.2004 19:53

tick tick tick tick

>Let's see what happens.

Nothing is likely to happen unless the SFBAIMC gets a lot more assertive with its complaints, or unless the indymedia network perceives somehow that the two-headed monster in S.F. is problem that needs to be fixed. More likely is nothing will happen. Ness & Gek gamed the system and got what they wanted. As far as they're concerned, SFBAIMC can go fuck itself, and so can the rest of us. "Butt out."

nessie is history's greatest monster 27.Jan.2004 20:52

now you know

And that's his good side:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1674159_comment.php#1674186

But this isn't about nessie. This is about Portland:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479_comment.php#1674238

ho hum 27.Jan.2004 21:29

commentator

From  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479_comment.php#1674238 --

>I have been a media activist in San Francisco for 25 years. Today I received the link
>to this page and have read all the comments. I am taken aback by what I see here.

Nessie's trying to convince us that he's several different people again. Many of the comments on that page are by him, under several different names. Lots of people do that, but Nessie insists on lying about it and expects nobody to notice.

Remove both SF "IMC"s from the network. 27.Jan.2004 22:20

The way forward

They are a burden on the system, I have even seen posts where members of the SF crowd have suggested Portland be removed!

Toss BOTH their asses out into the cold, let them fight it out locally.

It does not seem it will be a gret loss to the network as a whole, in fact it will be like cutting off a cancerous little toe to save the life of the whole body.

REMOVE SAN FRANCISCO!!!!!!!!!

blah blah blah 27.Jan.2004 22:39

blah blah blah blah blah

From  http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1672479_comment.php#1674238 --

>Portland IMC ... officially [calls] for ... a split in the global network.

Whatever you say, dude.

>2) Portland IMC's membership in Indymedia should be voided and the domain
>name portland.indymedia.org should no longer be pointed at their website.

The shady characters in the new S.F. group are used to being able to get other people to shut up by threatening them. It worked with SFBAIMC. That's how the new group got through the new-imc process in the first place. Now they're trying the same tactic on Portland Indymedia. It's not working, because Portland Indymedia is not actually paying attention to this nonsense. If the new S.F. group OFFICIALLY called for Portland's expulsion, that might get some attention from a lot of people, but probably not the kind of attention the new S.F. group really wants.

>Here's why: The application to New IMC was consensed on by everyone, over many meetings.

The SFBAIMC agreed not to raise concerns about this application because they foolishly assumed the new group would later live up to its reciprocal commitments. The proposal to new-imc hadn't noted this entanglement with a local mediation agreement. This is called fraud by omission.

Nessie (who's not fooling anybody about how many people he is) apparently loses his train of thought at this point, and never gets around to explicitly stating his doctrine that no IMC local may omit any entry in the "official" cities.inc list, on pain of expulsion. Of course, his new S.F. group, which has taken over the old S.F. website at sf.indymedia.org, is not using the official cities.inc list either. This is one of SFBAIMC's main complaints in the first place.

PARANOIA: Off-Topic, Yet Relevant 28.Jan.2004 04:26

Mr. Normal

Nessie:
>the single most stable element of my psyche is what you call my "paranoia."


Please consider the following, which I offer not as a joke, nor some sort of debater's low-blow.

As I read and re-read the various lengthy posts from the-individual-who-sometimes-writes-as-Nessie, I noted the persistance of numerous, disconcerting themes. I then compared these themes to generally accepted phsychiatric diagnoses of various mental disorders and illnesses.

The statements below describe elements of Paranoid Personality Disorder. As you read, ask yourself whether these remind you of anyone in particular around here.

 http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/paranoid.htm

*The essential feature of the paranoid personality disorder (PPD) is a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others; the motives of others are interpreted as malevolent. The suspiciousness may be expressed by overt argumentativeness, recurrent complaining, or hostile aloofness. While individuals with a paranoid personality disorder may appear "e;cold,"e; objective, and rational, they more frequently display hostile, stubborn, and sarcastic affect.

* However, the range of dysfunction within the diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder is sufficient to allow many of these individuals to be sufficiently interpersonally functional to preserve relatively cohesive relationships. Many individuals with PPD can function well enough to avoid coming to the attention of professionals (Fenigstein, 1996, pp. 245-252).

* Kantor (1992, pp. 113-119) suggests that individuals with PPD exhibit six core beliefs (which would necessarily influence how they view themselves): [1] Disaster is on the horizon (a continuing sense of foreboding). [2] The world is full of enemies. [3] Accidents are doubtful; negative events are initiated by others with hostile intent. [4] All events relate to self. [5] Individuals with PPD are never to blame or guilty (others are). [6] Individuals with PPD are different from the rest of humanity, often with pretensions of having unique awareness or insight.

* The DSM-IV (1994, p. 635) notes that individuals with PPD are generally difficult to get along with and have consistent trouble within relationships. They are distrustful and hostile; their interpersonal behavior may involve overt argumentativeness, complaining, or aloofness. They can be guarded, secretive, or devious; they appear to lack tender feelings and engage in stubborn and sarcastic exchanges with others. It can be difficult to elicit the behaviors suggestive of PPD from individuals in treatment. PPD characteristics tend to be manifested in interpersonal conflicts with close or significant others, e.g. spouses, supervisors, colleagues, and relatives (Joseph, 1997, p. 31).

* Individuals with PPD tend to provoke hostility in others. They engage in "hair trigger" responses to trivial behavior from others (Kantor, 1992, p. 118). Matano and Locke (1995, p. 62) suggest that these individuals repeatedly enact guarded and domineering interpersonal patterns. Meissner (1994, pp. 221-223) describes people with PPD as distrustful, secretive, and isolative; they will direct hate and rage at those who betray or disappoint them. They are concerned with the issues of power and powerlessness and fear domination. They are inordinately quick to take offense, slow to forgive, and ever willing to counterattack (Fenigstein, 1996, pp. 245-246). They want to get even (Kantor, 1992, p. 118). Individuals with PPD struggle with anger, resentment, vindictiveness, and hostility. They live in fear of harm and malevolence from others and maintain extraordinary vigilance. Accordingly, the more disturbed they are, the more dangerous they are (McWilliams, 1994, p. 207).

* The rigidity of beliefs found in individuals with PPD isolates them from corrective environmental feedback; they are vulnerable to increasing distortion of reality, hypersensitivity to misinterpreted events, and an inflated view of self that results in tumultuous struggles with others who are bewildered by the entire situation.

* They may feel they have been deeply and irreversibly injured by others even when there is little objective evidence that this is the case (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 634).

* They expect the worst of others and are, accordingly, apprehensive, suspicious, uncompromising, and argumentative. They are on guard against a hostile world (Oldham, 1990, p. 167).

* Individuals with PPD are reluctant to confide in others because they fear the information will be used against them

* These individuals counterattack when they feel threatened. Consequently, they are inclined to be litigious and involved in legal disputes (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 635).

* Individuals with PPD will fight "the good fight" no matter what the cost may be. They will welcome opportunities to force others (particularly those in power) to admit they have been wrong. They will accept negative consequences that arise from their own actions as further proof that those around them are malicious and corrupt.

* They are inclined to criticize and devalue others -- while any criticism of them is unacceptable. They are often seen as energetic, ambitious, hard-working, and competent. They tend to be intelligent and intellectual as well as hostile, stubborn, and rigid. They are inclined to be inflexible and unwilling to compromise. They have an excessive need to be self-sufficient along with an exaggerated sense of their own self-importance (Meissner, 1994, pp. 220-221).

* Millon (1996, p. 701) describes people with PPD as always on guard, mobilized, and ready for threat. They are edgy, tense, abrasive, irritable, distant, and vigilant. However, while individuals with PPD anticipate betrayal and deceit from others, they may well be deceptive, hostile, disloyal, and malicious themselves (Beck, 1990, p. 100).

* The PPD style is to displace responsibility from self to others via an inclination to project and to blame. They also tend to understand problems in terms of external circumstances, forces, events, persons, etc. rather than in terms of internal difficulties, problems, or limitations. They will scan the environment for minimal clues that validate their preconceived ideas (Meissner, 1994, pp. 220-221).

* These individuals actively disown undesirable personal traits and motives by projecting them onto or attributing them to others. Even while people with PPD avoid awareness of their own unattractive behaviors and characteristics, they remain extraordinarily alert to, and hypercritical of, similar features in others (Millon & Davis, 1996, p. 702).

* Individuals with PPD maintain their sense of balance, internal and external, through rigid adherence to an inelastic set of defenses and methods of need gratification. Either extreme or unanticipated stress can precipitate a crisis that appears, to others, out of proportion to the situation at hand (Millon & Davis, 1996, p. 702).

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal, 28.Jan.2004 12:59

nessie

and it's only paranoia if it turns out later I was wrong. To speculate beforehand is premature.

Funny thing about DSM... 28.Jan.2004 16:11

Psychologist

The funny thing about those kinds of descriptions (as in the PPD one) is that elements of these descriptions can be found in many people. In fact, a common thing to happen amongst psychology students is that as they read each personality disorder, they identify with it and begin to think that they "have" that personality disorder. The truth is that personality disorders are only diagnosed after an in-depth examination of a person by a mental health professional.

Now, what personality disorders are displayed by someone who rushes across the internet to troll someone as having a personality disorder? One wonders.

Of course he's paranoid! 28.Jan.2004 23:11

Michael Garibaldi


let nessie do your thinking for you 29.Jan.2004 00:40

Rainbow

I find it funny that not only does nessie dictating what is "free speech" in san francisco-IMC but he seems to be branching out and dictating what is "free speech" to SFbay-IMC, and now we find nessie on the soap box dictating what Portland should think.

one needs only view nessies censoring of posts and bashing of posters to see why nessie is despised on his resident imc. indeed it is moderators like nessie that have made the split a reality.

"nessie is despised" 29.Jan.2004 01:11

just wondering

You mean this guy?

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671804

(snip)

Like Nessie, for example: after reading the Bay Guardian for years, I can pick Nessie out from a mile away on almost any topic, including but not limited to COINTELPRO, because he writes like a professional, using all the tools of the trade, in command of all the bells and whistles, offering information and entertainment simultaneously: important topics, clever phrasing, variations to wake you up, repetitions to calm you do, confirm and reiterate, which stick in your mind. With references: he footnotes like a pro, giving you the link to prove a point. But he's kind, overall, not malicious, and you can see he loves editing and writing, and doesn't want to muzzle the competition -- he's up for the challenge. I think he comes across as gallant and generous in his characterizations, which relegate almost everyone to the student-of-life status unless you really really piss him off on a philosophical issue. He saves his big guns for the Big Meanies, which he's been pointing out for years. He's already made his mark, and he sounds mature, confident in his knowledge, and not afraid to retract, backtrack, or rephrase. But that's just Nessie. That's why this person who he states foments splits in groups worries me: it would not surprise me if he was on to something.

(snip)

. . . we have world-class editors at SF IMC. They apparently do not delete damaging personal remarks, but deal with them transparently while the audience looks on, addressing the tedious comments one by one, with calm authority, without stooping to the gutter tactics of SF Indybay wannabes.

(snip)

And in spite of it all, he remains humble. 29.Jan.2004 01:14

How does he do it?

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1671917

(snip)

"variations . . . repetitions . . . gallant and generous" etc.
by nessie Tuesday January 13, 2004 at 01:49 AM

Thanks. I try. Sometimes I succeed. And while I am wrong sometimes, it's not very often, and even less often about stuff like this. But that, alone, doesn't mean that I'm right. Nor does it mean that you should, or that I expect you to, simply take my word about this, or about anything. Au contrair.

It is never politically astute to take any single individual's word about anything, especially about politics, and most especially about hearsay about politics. This is a fact of life. But dont take my word for it. Find out for yourself.

(snip)

"sorry-ass, sophomoric pig slop" 29.Jan.2004 01:22

Shakespeare

Oooooh, good line. I'm stealing that one for my next play.

Nessie: History's Greatest Monster 29.Jan.2004 01:28

and toothsome, too


Paranoids. 29.Jan.2004 01:43

They're off the deep end, the lot of them.


Toothsome!?! 29.Jan.2004 01:59

not


you freaks have had enough fun at mt expence! 21.Feb.2004 00:48

nessie

playtime is over boys and girls time to grow up and pertend you have a life

* snicker * 26.Feb.2004 09:12

Freak

Toothsome!?! 29.Jan.2004 01:59
not

you freaks have had enough fun at mt expence! 21.Feb.2004 00:48
nessie

stay off my turf! 27.Feb.2004 00:21

Nessie

you little freaks may think it is funny to post harassing messages about me but that shows the limited intellect that runs Portland. none of you are welcome at my sight, you morons can stay here and play with each other for the rest of time for all I care! I am way too busy to worry about this crap

some one has their underware in a knot ! 27.Feb.2004 01:25

willie

you are just a little full of your self aren't you
incase you didn't know the world doesn't revolve around you

in the words of the one of the editors (nessie) 06.Mar.2004 01:09

repost

The newswire does not "champion free speech."
by one of the editors Friday January 30, 2004 at 09:55 AM



Don't confuse this place with usenet. Indymedia exists to provide an alternative to the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex. It's fans and lackeys like "Go To" have plenty of places to go read the lies and distortions that support their sick, evil beliefs and vile, despicable forces of darkness that benefit from them.

Speech is free. This website is not. It requires a great deal of time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money, just to exist at all. We who make the place possible refuse to allow our time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money to be hijacked by our enemies and used to provide a soapbox for them to use to promote their evil agendas. To do so would be for us to willingly submit to enslavement.

No, we wont do that.

These miscreants are lucky we let them appear here at all, let alone in a part of the site where the naive might mistake them for us. But do they even thank us? Do they put out the time, energy, skills, talent, effort and money it takes to produce a site of their own? Hardly. Instead, they whine like little children who can't reach the cookie jar. When that doesn't work, they throw tantrums. That's the kind of people they are.

shrug 09.Mar.2004 01:51

pedant

Liars cannot imagine anyone telling truth when a lie is possible.

nessie does not understand people with principles.

S/F IMC seeks personal info on posters 04.Sep.2004 15:48

mother truth

S/F IMC seeks personal info on posters
the management at s/f imc is no longer satisfied with giving your ip's to
the authorities now they want your name, address and other personal information to go along with it. s/f imc who has long been suspected of giving ip addresses of readers and protest organizers to the authorities is now considering having posters &readers filling out personal information forms to get access to s/f imc as part of their new format,what will become of this information? your guess is as good as mine. given the current state of affairs in the management policies
at this sight we can only conclude that the personal information collected will not be private for very long. we can see from the onset how this will lead to police tracking of dialog on the sight. this by it's self would compromise security of the posters through out IMC .