It’s interesting to observe folks build a strawman with an initial intent to inflate it, just so that they may easilly tear it apart. It’s not so interesting when those who create such a construct begin to believe in it themselves.

This is currently happening on the mod list on Indymedia.ie.

It is claimed (falsely) that folks like myself wish to have a media site that is basically unmoderated, that tolerates abuse - of those who post and presumably of those who are the subject of articles etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth as far as I’m concerned, with one exception. That exception is dependent upon the subject of the article one writes. If the author writes a piece about some social evil under his or her own name, he or she should be able to define and describe the arbiters of this social evil, in appropriate and truthful terms. That is the passionate telling of truth. That would be to use indymedia for activism. I remember, a couple of years back, in some article or other, that a topic arose that asked that the function of Indymedia be defined. There was one answer that struck a chord with me, given by Redjade. He said simply, that Indymedia was a tool for activists - a simple concept that extrapolates wildly as one considers it. I’ve always written on Indymedia under my own name and have always been quick to describe what I consider to be social ills, in exactly the terms that I saw them. This included describing those whom I considered responsible, in appropriate terms. I never held back and was quite willing to accept any consequence of this - with one exception. That exception was that I was not willing to accept posters, mostly anonymously, turning the whole post into an attack on myself, some unrelated person or purpose. Not that I was afraid of being attacked mind you, simply because it completely detracted from both the content and the purpose of the article. It was my experience, that most, if not all of the articles I wrote within the last couple of years, were destroyed and ruined because such littering was allowed to remain within my work. Mostly when I decided to respond to these attacks, after first requesting the help of moderators (which was ignored unless I was complaining about posts in articles I hadn’t written) was when the mods decided to act, which facilitated them in painting me as a troublemaker and as someone who liked to argue, just for the sake of argument. I do like to argue, it’s true. But I only like an argument when it takes place in a search for the truth.

When one takes an issue to the list to resolve it, one is mostly wasting one’s time. At least this was my experience. The word democracy is used much, but is rarely in evidence. It is the same with fairness. One line answers, to complex issues are the norm and for the most part, these one line answers translate into: “Go fuck yourself, that’s your answer and that’s the solution to your problem.” That’s the democracy and that’s the fairness. I’ve had some civil discourse on the list too, I’d be lying if I said otherwise and I do have a lot of respect for certain mods, especially some who’ve long since left. Overall, my experience has been very negative and for the most part, most discussions, simply facilitated certain mods trying to establish their imaginary superiority.

This imaginary superiority is no more evident than in the banning of Michelle Clarke, for being under par. A quick glance at the list on any given day establishes that Michelle Clarke’s writing credentials are far superior than most of those who chose to impose judgement upon her. All the more incredible when one considers her disability. After having been called on their ignorance and having it slapped in their faces (a few times), Michelle was reinstated, with no meaningful and public apology. Undeterred, the self appointed judges have begun a policy of ripping most of Michelle’s input from the site as soon as it is noticed. In other words, the ban wasn’t really lifted at all. The overt cruelty is numbing.

I hear that Michelle is quite ill currently. I wish her well.

Michelle is a true activist. She cares deeply about her fellow man and takes an active roll in making society a more caring place. She’s a passionate teller of truth and she’s been silenced by those who consider themselves the sole and proper arbiters of truth. Mostly she’s accused of either ‘incoherent rambling’ or indulging in conspiracy theories. She doesn’t ramble incoherently and for the record: conspiracy theories do not violate the guidelines.

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I’d not attempt to ban them. I’d approach this problem from a completely different angle. I’d allow peer review to sort out conspiracy theories (so long as the reviewers confined themselves to the theory and not the theoriser). Each time a similar theory appeared, I’d lock the thread, cut all posts including the article and replace all with a link to the initial one which would have the article and comments pasted into it, where the debate could go on forever and not interfere with the current newswire. Conspiracy theories appearing as comments in articles, I’d cut and paste into the appropriate conspiracy theory article. These actions could be simply listed on the “latest comments” page. This whole issue can be solved without hassle by initiating a policy of inclusion. The exclusion policy (that’s not in the guidelines) is akin to the merrygoround stopping and picking up passengers for the next circular ride.

Unfortunately, the list is currently all about strawmen and attempting desperately to breath life into them like some possesed Baron Von Frankenstein.

The fork they speak of creating has long been in Indymedia already - lodged in the jugular.

The not so Solomon-like Chekov recently proposed to cut the baby in half, eventhough he’s the only mother claiming ownership.

The ‘baby’ is of course Indymedia.ie

It’ll be funny should they decide to chop the baby in two, to observe who it is they believe is going to act as the second mother and negotiate for half of the resulting corpse.

Thus far, Chekov’s proposal, has for the most part, only facilitated the usual idiots (including himself) having a rant about those they see as lesser beings. I’ve come in for some criticism too, eventhough I was minding my own business and hoping to have nothing more to do with the fascists. Chekov has wrongly posted that I was banned. The truth of the matter is, that I left Indymedia.ie of my own volition, having grown sick and tired of the childlike Stasi. I have pointed this out to the list and Chekov, thus far, has yet to correct his error. Maybe he believes his fantasy?

Who knows?

More to the point, who cares?

Not me. I’ll not be claiming any dead baby and wont be having a relationship of any type with its mother. Life’s way too short.

Anthony, complaining about the effort it takes to pen his thoughts (reading them is where the effort begins, in my opinion) has taken the time to substantially say nothing, other than insult those who wish to have nothing to do with him (my good self included). Very constructive stuff - would suggest that he give up the thinking - it’s well below standard and is mostly conspiracy theory stuff anyway. Good thing for him his drivel isn’t moderated on the list.

Ah well, I’ll leave it at that for now. Will start copying and pasting any further untruths, slanders, etc. about myself if and when more appear. And I’ll put answer to them here in full, where I can have my say and where I’ll give any of the fascists their say too. It’ll be a case of put up or shut up, as opposed to just ’shut up’ like you’d get on the list.

Edward Lorenz Has Died

The Father of Chaos is dead

Chaos

MIT Professor Edward Lorenz the father of Chaos theory has died at the age of 90.

In simplicity there is complexity and vice versa.

Concepts like ‘wiggle room’ were turned into scientific theory.

Here was a man who once said: “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?”

Ever notice the difference between 0.506 and 0.506127? Lorenz did, and the concept that slight variations in initial starting conditions of processes, produced non deterministic results regarding long-term predictions in phenomena like the weather, in direct contradiction to basic conventions in physics.

Lorenz died in his home in Cambridge Massachusetts a few short hours ago.

Like his own theories he is now pure chaos, his entropy has increased beyond where we can calculate it.

Ever the quiet, man he often had to be cajoled into making his presence felt. His work thunders beyond any words this shy man would have dared to utter.

Chaos has ramifications for everything: science, art, music, medicine and even love.

Lorenz caused: “one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton,” according to the folks who awarded him the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic sciences.

As Lorenz’s ideas, born in the 60’s, travelled through the 70’s in a chaotic fashion, he brought about a massive change in established thinking. Freeman Dyson, world famous physicist described his ideas as being “like an electric shock.” Even simple systems like a simple pendulum were shown to be something that wasn’t understood in the least or indeed, in the most.

Random regularity describes patterns that are orderly in space but not in time and vice versa, orderly in time but not in space and vice versa, fractaline, or that have steady states or oscillating states. Random regularity or pattern formation, has become a whole branch of physics unto itself.

Keeping himself to himself to a very large degree, we shall never know what he was really like. We can but guess and that’s as it should be.

Evermore, the world will be indebted to this great mind and great man.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hg_rmizUIH-FQqnSDV3S…7RGG0

As promised earlier, I am publishing so-called correspondance, on a supposedly open list, with the moderators on Indymedia Ireland, regarding my last article, which was hidden. I posted three emails in total, two of which, the editors have decided are not up for public consumption. That’s tough, I’ve decided that they are for public consumption. My first email was posted on 17/4/2008 at 11.26am. It didn’t arrive to the list until after the topic had been opened up for “discussion,” by Terence who hadn’t spotted my posting of the words “Michelle Clarke,” within my article.

I wonder, is it too much to ask:

i. What editorial action is referred to in my piece that was hidden
for: “Commenting on editorial actions.”?

ii. What comment did I made about this so-called and alleged
editorial action?

Many regards,
Seán Ryan.

Terence, a moderator, replied to my query after having posted a similar query himself. This was after it had been pointed out to him that my article had contained the banned phrase “Michelle Clarke.” I use the term “reply,” very lightly, as it deals with neither of the questions I posed, he instead presumes to lecture me.

Sean,
I was a bit slow to notice, but you really were taking the piss with the
Lorenz story.

Regarding Michelle Clarke, I don’t think there is any point adding any
more flames to the fire because myself and Mark are attempting to resolve
the issue privately and until the outcome of that is sorted I think it is
best that everyone await the outcome until further notice.

rgds
Terence

Terence’s idea of “resolving” this issue involves himself and another moderator contacting the banned Michelle Clarke and explaining to her that her three month ban is to become a permanent ban and that she would be better served if she started a blog, somewhere else, anywhere else.

Next we have a series of posts, initiated by Terence after he noticed that my Article had been hidden. I’d already posted my query by the time Terence posted his, but mine didn’t make it to the list until this particular thread had all but run its course. As can be seen, this particular thread was used to demean myself and belittle my efforts.

First we have the query of the hide by Terence:

Oscailt 3.1 Automatic Notification
> Date   : Thursday, Apr 17 2008, 11:14am
> Action   : hide story 87217 performed by Ronan
> Reason   : Commenting on editorial actions.
>> — Story 87217 —
> Title   : Edward Lorenz Has Died
> Subtitle   :
>

Why was this story hidden as there was nothing in the story relating to
editorial actions. I presume it was a mistake and it was the comments
which were supposed to have been hidden, as it is the comments which are
BB chat and the 2nd comment is commenting on editorial actions.

rgds
Terence

Next we have the reply penned by Chekov:

Terry, the story was an elaborate ruse in which the author cunningly
inserted a hidden message in emboldened text.

I thought it was reminiscent of the falun gong or tibetan buddhist monks
in China whose voices are so crushed by the jackboot of Chinese state
power that they are limited to clandestine symbolic communications.
Sadly, even this clandestine signal was crushed by the IMC editorial stasi.

Chekov

Anthony then spells it out once again, in case Terence failed to comprehend Chekov:

Hi Terence,

I just read that notification mail and for a second wondered what the
editorial comment was. I then noticed the use of the <strong> element at
the start of each paragraph. I find it strange that people will go to
such lengths in order to make a vague and meaningless attack on the
moderation group rather than to put a similar effort into making a
coherent case and rational case for their point of view on the open lists.

Subtle digs, impersonations and vague, snide and sarcastic comments seem
to be preferred over honest, rational discussion by those who disagree
with the actions of members of the moderation group.

Anthony
(One of the Indymedia Ireland Internet Collective)

The final published letter to this particular thread is from Terence who has finally gotten the message:

Anthony,
Thanks for that. I just noticed it now. Yes, I can see they went to a lot
of trouble.

-rgds
Terence

In Terence’s mind, I’m now firmly established as “they.” I suppose it must seem less cowardly to consider that the “good fight” is being fought against an evil legion rather than a solitary individual.

Now for the two emails that never made it out of the holding pen.

The first was in reply to Chekov, the ringleader of the clique that has subverted and perverted Indymedia Ireland. Please note, that in the future, if I refer to the moderators at Indymedia Ireland as the “stasi,” I’m only quoting Chekov’s informative description of his clique. Here’s the first of my two censored emails:

“Terry, the story was an elaborate ruse in which the author cunningly inserted a hidden message in emboldened text.
I thought it was reminiscent of the falun gong or tibetan buddhist monks in China whose voices are so crushed by the jackboot of Chinese state power that they are limited to clandestine symbolic communications. Sadly, even this clandestine signal was crushed by the IMC editorial stasi.

Chekov”

What hidden message? Any chance of pointing out how this ‘hidden message’ violated the guidelines?

My second email exposes the hypocrisy of the Indymedia moderator clique. It does this mostly because it was stopped from appearing on the list, thus verifying and adding weight to its contents. Here it is:

“Hi Terence,

I just read that notification mail and for a second wondered what the editorial comment was. I then noticed the use of the <strong> element at the start of each paragraph. I find it strange that people will go to such lengths in order to make a vague and meaningless attack on the moderation group rather than to put a similar effort into making a coherent case and rational case for their point of view on the open lists.

Subtle digs, impersonations and vague, snide and sarcastic comments seem to be preferred over honest, rational discussion by those who disagree with the actions of members of the moderation group.

Anthony”

In great fairness to you Anthony. I’ve been shut down with regard to “making a coherent case and rational case for their point of view on the open lists.”

My mail has been moderated for more than a year now and I’m actively prevented from taking part in such a discussion as you lament. Anything I have to say regarding any topic on this list is never current due to the delay caused by the effort to deny me making a coherent and rational case in anything approaching a current fashion.

With regard to my article: Not even the Gods are immune from criticism, regardless as to how the Gods view it. Funnily enough, only someone with a guilty conscience would see my article as a vague and meaningless attack. “Michelle Clarke,” is not a banned phrase on Indy, yet. I suggest you put it into the Guidelines that nobody may utter this phrase, should you or anyone else disagree. My article broke no guideline whatsoever and yet it was pulled. Why should anyone offer this collective a rational and coherent argument about actions rooted in incoherence and irrationality and indeed stupidity?

It should be pointed out that not all of the moderators are a part of the controlling clique. They’d get shouted down if they dared to raise their heads. As did the moderator who in the first place, raised the point that banning Michelle Clarke was unfair.

The Beginning

As a longtime Contributer to the Indymedia Ireland project, I’ve become unhappy and have decided to withold my input. This leaves me in a spot as I’m used to looking for new stories and publishing them. I’m currently looking for elsewhere to host my efforts and in the meantime, this blog will act as a halfway house. Here’s a list of all my articles on Indymedia: My Articles

It was a case of the straw breaking the camel’s back that forced me to review my relationship with Indymedia Ireland. The straw itself was where a lady who’d suffered a brain injury some years back had been banned, mostly because, it was argued, that her contributions were not up to standard. What standard, I ask myself. And who defines it?

Iosaf, a longtime contributer and excellent writer, ultimately suffered a three month ban, as he wouldn’t let the issue drop. I published an article with the lady’s name running down the lefthand side of the article, the first letter of each paragraph boldened to spell her name. My article was hidden. Apparently, this lady’s name is now a banned phrase on Indymedia Ireland too. I wrote three emails to the collective, one of them to complain about the hide and to ask for a substantiated reason and the other two to answer to posts from the moderators to the list in support of the hide. My initial email got through and got a smarmy and mindless reply from one of the editors, without so much as an attempt to put answer to my questions. The other two never got out of the holding pen and are still missing from the supposedly open list. I’ll be publishing excerpts from the list over the next few days, including my two posts that are currently missing.

Watching the watchers