Instead of putting a non-news on the newswire, e-mail the collective at  imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org if you see a problem. This will probably be hidden (before everyone starts crying "CENSORSHIP!") as non-news, but I will forward your message on to the features list.

In the past I reposted things I was angry Indy hid, but I no longer bother
So thanks Geronimo for resurecting this, however temporarily.
The thing is that the most of the people using this forum never do more than visit the current headlines
They can't be bothered to trawl the hidden posts or go to these technical places that the IMCers suggest. I'm like that myself - when it's gone -it's gone
So any policing of posts for whatever get-out clause that the editorial guidelines give, non-news - thats a good one - it means that anything that hasn't got a firm action base occurring in 3-D or isn't featured in the current mass media is fictitious
Yet in these interesting times, there are so many things occurring out there and in here that even the most straightforward political activist may need to colour and inform her or his activism
Why on earth censor information that may contain at least some measure of truth
It can only be about keeping the activists in line with the current establishment paradigm

I think it's a good idea if the "show all posts" page was available on the front page, and clearly marked. Then maybe people will not get so pissed of about articles being hidden, although some people are never satisfied.

...why you got a cell tower on every corner
Why spikey little mobile phone masts are popping up everywhere
Even in the most impoverished areas of Africa and in Tibet where only tje Chinese officers possess a cell phone
You want an interelationship?

I have been directed to the 'show all posts' page several times and I still can't remember how to get there.

And why not cry "CENSORSHIP"?! What would you call it? If this was the workings of any mainstream media or the state you would no doubt be at the front of the queue of those crying "CENSORSHIP"!

Up at the top of every page you can see the link for "Editorial Guidelines".

The link for "View All Posts" is in there, right near the top. Easy. You're never more than two clicks away from it.

And while you're on the editorial guidelines page, you could even have a read of it.

If you go to a corporate news site like the BBC, you'll notice that all the latest news stories are NOT on the front page. You often have to go a few clicks down to find them.

Declining to put any and every story right bang on the front page is not censorship. Censorship is when you stop someone from publishing something. Your story IS published is on this site, and you are also free to publish it anywhere else you please. There are thousands of sites on the web that welcome copy & pastes of long, rambling conspiracy junk rants, and links to online order forms for:
"DEVICES THAT JAM ( STOP ) IMPLANTS AND DIRECTED ENERGY!"
since
"THEY ARE ESPECIALLY AFTER YOUNG GIRLS, MAYBE YOUR DAUGHTER!"

Take your pick. Or you could start your own site dedicated to the subject. Indymedia chooses not to host this stuff on the front page. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to demand that someone else gives you a platform.

This piece of non-news will stay up til tonight, 24 hours after you posted it. I don't really know why.

we are the users of this site.

we read, we contribute.

someone else decides what appears and what doesn't.

thats a heirarchy.

the article in question was described by the person who censored it as 'paranoid conspiracy bollocks'. some justification!

this is an opinion - and a pretty unsound one to boot.

I have seen several different subjects refered to in this way over the years, and not only in this place. I remember the same reaction to gm foods, to electromagnetic weapons, to questions over 911 and the bush/bin laden links etc.

we have to play a waiting game while those in CONTROL of what we see, wake up and accept that which becomes more evident each passing day. have we the time?

whilst I admire the efforts put in here - the analysis stinks of bourguios middle class complacency ... and moral cowardness

pretty fed up and unwilling to think nice thoughts about the process and those that run it at the moment - perhaps an entry-ist model of reclaiming debating territory is needed?

for now, I have made the view all posts section as my entry point into imcuk - but it still feels like having to plough through skatebording duck stories to find the news - I want more and won't settle for less

peace

"but it still feels like having to plough through skatebording duck stories to find the news."

That's exactly how some other people feel about having to plough through chemtrails stories and dental implants stories to find the news.

I think it is important that the IMC editorial collective continues to have the power to hide posts, and equally that a 'view all posts' option exists.

Those who wish to destroy Indymedia will flood the newswire with nonsense, including paranoid conspiracy dental implant nonsense in my view. They have done this in the past. Pseudopolitical stories are a great way to drown out real political ones.

I think the judgement of the editorial crew has been pretty sound in the past.

Anyone can help with indymedia, just join up to the lists and have your say. Stop whining about cencorship and calling IMC an hierarchical organisation.

Rather than winge, take action - that is one of the fundamentals of activism.

'an IMC volunteer', interesting that you should cite chemtrails as an example of supposed 'paranoid conspiracy bollocks'. I can only assume that you are either of an age when the aerial phenomenon has been so ubiquitous that you don't know what clear blue skies look like, living somewhere off shore where it is apparently unnecessary to disperse whatever it is that they disperse or have not taken the time (approximately one minute) to learn the difference between a contrail (vapour trail) and a chemtrail. If you did less of the 'dissing' and a little more of the contemplating you would be aware that there is much evidence to support that there is a phenomenon which confounds convention yet nobody in authority is prepared to make comment. As has been said many times, if this was a project for the benefit of mankind (somewhat like GM food!) don't you think that it would be shouted from the rooftops by the powers that be.

I'd also like to put you straight on one thing, you said, 'This piece of non-news will stay up til tonight, 24 hours after you posted it. I don't really know why.' As the poster 'dh' has not been seen in this thread, I assume you are under the impression that I posted it. I didn't. I actually concur with you that much of the linked material is not useful - least of all to the effort to enlighten people in the darkened passageway they are being led down in the name of variously, 'the war on terror', 'anti-paedophilia' or whatever. There are Bio-Chip implants, it would be foolish of you to deny it as the company that is producing them (Verichip) are quite conspicuous. Making them fashionable, as they and others are doing, is just the softener to their inevitable replacement of the forthcoming ID cards.

It seems very laudable to fight globalisation when it involves smashing the windows of Starbucks and exposing the Nike sweatshops, but the more sinister aspects are creeping under our feet. Don't doubt that.

And to late-comer 'Peter Piper' I can only refer you to the words of jackslucid, what you are suggesting is that anything which is not on your (IndyMedia) agenda is not worthy of consideration by anybody. The subject of September 11th (which was by any assessment a monumental event) frequently comes up as an example of 'paranoid conspiracy bollocks' yet an examination of US IMC newswires will show that it is an issue which will not go away and is indeed a movement in its own right. Why? Well, it wasn't the in depth investigation of any mainstream media (I have been told by a TV journalist that there is no way that the subject will even get a mention on British TV) and it was no thanks to the IMC moderators who do their utmost to cripple the issue. No, it was down to open minded people to whom so-called 'paranoid conspiracy bollocks' was worthy of investigation. Those who dismiss the evidence can hardly have considered it. And I don't mean the rantings on the fringes. There are numerous respectable books which have been published but if only one was to be considered it should be 'The New Pearl Harbor' by Professor David Ray Griffin.

I wouldn't waste any time trying to enlighten 'Peter Piper' or anybody like him. But your assertion that these issues should be hidden is no different from the cowardly attitude of journalists who know the truth but dare not speak out for fear of their reputation. There are others (household names) who I know for a fact are on to the September 11th story whose silence is expedite and I respect. Perhaps the issue will persist and one day the truth will emerge into the mainstream sunlight on this and many other issues - but the UK IMC will be shamed by its actions.

This happens all the fucking time. Since it first happened to me I started watching a bit more closely and noticing that perfectly reasonable comments disappear for no apparent reason other than that they take against someone who the hidden hands of Indy obviously like. If you kick up a fuss they'll probably re-post them, eventually, long after the article's gone into the back pages and the fucking point's gone home. With a bitchy comment about "trolls". The other annoying thing that happens is that one of these controllers posts a comment under one name like "JON" but later alters it to "IMC", in the event of such controversy: as if to suggest that the official Indy line is this one, and not that of the alleged "troll". NO FUCKING EXPLANATION EVER COMES FORTH. Just a patronising remark or two about the fact that you might be starting to sound irritated. DAMN FUCKING RIGHT!

Let's have a declaration of policy regarding this, and whenever someone disappears something, they should say who they are and why they've done it.

Disgruntled of Tunbridge fucking Wells.

As someone who puts a lot of time into doing work for Indymedia, I was actually hoping for some intelligent criticism of us when I saw this post in the newswire, so I clicked on it. I think that there are many things we could be doing better. I agree with TA that the view all posts link should be on the front page; hopefully this will happen soon.

However, I've got to say: you people can't possibly be serious about this complaint? The article that was hidden was hidden because it's totally mental. There is no factual evidence in this article - can you name anyone who had a sinister dental implant against his or her will? Or maybe 5,000 out of the alleged 80 million? No, you can't, because it's untrue. So it gets hidden.

If you want to make the View All Posts page your access point to the site, do that. Bookmark this:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/viewallposts.html

Now you can wade through all of the dental implant stories that we get. No one is harmed. No one is censored. It's not difficult. But most people don't want to see these stories as far as I can tell, because they don't want to wade through stories about dental implants and chemtrails, for which there is little evidence, they want to see reporting about issues that actually affect people. There may be a fine line in some cases between a story that might sound a little crazy but may be true anyway, and "stories" which are just paranoid rants.



--------------------------------------------------
"You may be one of the 80 million americans implanted with microchips. Ever been to a dentist, or been in the hospital and had an invasive procedure, if so there is a high probability you have been implanted!. Million of Americans have been murdered already!"
--------------------------------------------------



This is crazy, and it's just the part that's written in full sentences. It takes away from stories about state and corporate torture that *actually does occur*. Stories that can be proven through journalism, with sources, interviews, cross-referencing, fact-checking, etc.



--------------------------------------------------
"Here is given (below) the most generalized definition of the astroid-like hypocycloid as the trajecory of a point P of a rotating with angular velocity "omega1"=1 circle of radius "radius1"=a, with centre of which also being rotating around the origin by the circle of radius "radius2"=1-a , and angular velocity "omega2"=-3, so that"radius1" +"radius2"=1, and "omega2"/"omega1" =-3. Then for coordinates X[t], Y[t] of this point P we have: X[t]=(a)*cos(t)+(1-a)*cos(3*t); Y[t]=(a)*sin(t)-(1-a)*sin(3*t); 1-X[t]^2-Y[t]^2=factor(simplify(expand(1-((a)*cos(t)+(1-a)*cos(3 *t))^2-((a)*sin(t)-(1-a)*sin(3*t))^2)))=16*a*cos(t)^2*(cos(t)-1) *(cos(t)+1)*(-1+a)=16*a*cos(t)^2*(cos(t)^2-1)*(-1+a)=16*a*cos(t) ^2*(sin(t)^2)*(1-a)=FULL SQUARE!=> If Z[t]=4*cos(t)*sin(t)*(a*(1-a))^(1/2), then X[t]^2+Y[t]^2+z[t]^2=1 ;(i.e., For every time t {X[t],Y[t],Z[t]} is on the unit SPHERE!!!). With different values of the parameter a we obtain the whole class of astroid-like hypocycloids with FOUR PARTS. Below is given the Maple 5.4 Text programm for plotting of these trajectories.; >"
--------------------------------------------------



This one is just a waste of everybody's time. I challenge you to offer an explanation of why *this* article should not be hidden. Attempting to explain that may give you an insight into why people think *your* articles should be hidden.



--------------------------------------------------
"What are you, Indymedia? Who are you? You are starting to look very complicit when you censor things which cross your arbitrary line in the sand. If you are an IMC censor, ask yourself where the so-called guidelines came from."
--------------------------------------------------



This is copied and pasted from the viewallposts page, which I clicked on and accessed. The post is not "censored", it is available. In answer to the question, the editorial guidelines came from thousands of hours of discussion between dedicated media activists who want to change the world. Anyone can participate in this discussion. But the general opinion seems to be that we put posts that we think are not directed towards positive social change on a separate page. If you want to have your own site for your own dental implant theory, go to  http://geocities.com and make one, it's easy enough to do. Check your visitation statistics. No one is looking at it? Go figure...

I hope that we will get some substantive criticism, as it would be nice to see how to move Indymedia UK activities to a higher level. But this is not it. Visitation to the site is up, so hopefully we're doing something right, but if anyone wants to make suggestions for improvement or get involved in what we're doing, please email  imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org

JacksLucid has real credibility here-- he's posted lucidly for about two years
Geronimo, since you surfaced a couple months back, you've always smelled troll to me, and frankly I shan't bother bantering to you about clear blue skies (of which we have had plenty in southern England over the last 30 days).

Editorial control is different from censorship. At the moment we have an IMC editorial collective which does an important job of keeping the signal clean of the jamming. The enemies of Indy news would love the newswire to appear as 'news of the weird' to any innocents who came across it.

Here's an idea though: perhaps the already overburdened IMC tech team might think up a way to allow for "open editing", ie. a multiplicity of editorial voices? On the basis of the unedited newswire, one could conceive of a 'lensing' option-- so that one could choose from 'lenses' created by IMC contributors. We could, for example, look at a JacksLucid's window into the newswire based on his flagging of stories on the unedited newswire. The credibility of contributions might give credibility to an editor. Very quickly one would be able to distinguish the rollers from the trollers. Clicking on a button might open up an 'editor choice' window, where various editors might explain their own criteria-- so that IMC newswire would have a system of intra-blogs functioning in and through the newswire?

'yossarian', you evidently don't afford me (or perhaps anybody) the courtesy of reading responses before tearing into them. I find some of your comments offensive. Your dismissal of the very thought of chemtrails is straight from the SWP book 'How to deal with subjects we don't want to talk about'. When you have taken a moment to discover why a chemtrail is different from a contrail perhaps you can then explain why the subject contravenes the IndyMedia guidelines, rather than forcing us to play Josef K wondering which comma in your guidelines disqualifies us.

I think it is absolutely fucking hilarious that you quote from the post about the new yin/yang. When I saw it I knew its time would be short. How it exemplifies the narrow-mindedness of your attitude. It is too complicated for you to understand (and me). If it were published in the New Scientist it might have its readership frothing at the mouth with excitement. It might be the contents of Stephen Hawking's geometry set which is scattered amongst his kitchen utensils. but the point is you rubbished something because you didn't understand it. For that I condemn you. And for that you are guilty of prejudice which I despise.

Peter Piper:

We talked about exactly this option at the last Indymedia UK network meeting, i.e. giving people the ability to look at the newswire through another person's eyes. The difficulty is that the software doesn't really support this option right now - if we had a couple of Java programmers who could put the work into it, there's no technical reason that it couldn't happen, but it'd take time to build it. I don't know of any content management system that supports this kind of option out of the box, and anyway it seems unlikely that we would switch away from Mir (the software running the site currently) as we just switched to Mir about a year ago, and despite a few small bumps, it has been doing a great job and allowed a lot of collaboration to take place.

If you or anybody else knows of any Java programmers who would like to help out, please have them take a look at  http://mir.indymedia.org/ and then email the  imc-uk-tech@lists.indymedia.org email list. We would be happy to have more people on board, we have exactly one Java programmer in imc-uk right now and he does a lot of other stuff (like cleaning the newswire).

Geronimo:

Ok, good to know that you despise me, I'll be real careful in future.

Well, 'Peter Piper', it is interesting that you suspect me of being a 'Troll', a description which has been much banded on here by IMC censors but never defined.

First of all, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe I used the name Geronimo on here until last night, so your assertion that 'since you surfaced a couple months back, you've always smelled troll to me' has a whiff of invention about it. Unfortunately, neither IndyMedia nor Google's search facilities have assisted me in verifying this. I may have posted a comment some time in the past using that name but I have certainly never used it more than once.

But to be accused of being a 'Troll' amuses me because when I have submitted articles under my usual pseudonym, my 'friends' at IndyMedia have often removed 'Troll' comments written about them before I have had chance to read them.

Thanks for substantiating my belief, nicely encapsulated by your pal 'yossarian' (above), that you are mainly prejudiced individuals. Prejudice being a product of fear.

It is promising to see that you can read, 'yossarian'. Pity you can't make sense of the sentence, though. I said,'And for that you are guilty of prejudice which I despise', which means I despise prejudice. If you infer that that means I despise you, perhaps I can recommend a different book to you, 'Eats Shoots and Leaves' by Lynne Truss.

Indymedia continually deletes posts about Marxism 2004. Although it is an SWP-organised event, it is a socialist conference with speakers from all around the world. It got 6,000 visitors a couple of years ago.

If an anarchist group organised something like this, the post would remain on the newswiere. It pisses me off.

Keep up the quality control! I think things here are just about right. IMC volunteers are leaving just about the right amount of Troll, hysterically pro-Israeli government/BNP/psychopath/mental comments and stories to allow the real news to shine through and afford a laugh at some really funny stuff that some people might take seriously. If there was no censorship (read quality control and upholding the Indymedia aims and principles) then this site would be next to useless. Keep up the good work!

"As someone who puts a lot of time into doing work for Indymedia, I was actually hoping for some intelligent criticism of us when I saw this post in the newswire,"

I apologise profusely that we don't all match up to your rigorous intellectual standards .

Having said that, I am not so stupid as to miss when someone is being a 'little condescending.'

Sneering is not the best way of ensuring inclusivity, and some of us were rather hoping to help shape a better world, along with you noble people.

Anyways, enough of that .............

On the article itself, a summary and link would have sufficed. The enormous cut and paste is a breach of editorial guidelines.

It seems to me on the one hand that its unlikely that 80 000 000 Americans have unwittingly had implanted chips foisted on them, but then I think of the War on Terror and I get very confused.......................

have been following the thread-
interesting views the admin have aren't they?

i was thinking of writing a comment based on the work of
leonardo da vinci

i mean what do you suppose the people of the time
made of a plan for a helicopter?

or Hieronymous Boschs paintings...?
or William Burroughs journey into interzone?

the reactions were the same as those fuckwits on indymedia
mind controlled ...immediate response mechanisms

ooooh...weird...
ooooh tin foil hats
ooooh conspiracy...


someone should point out to them that the dope they smoke
no doubt fresh from some lab in amsterdam... is the result of
genetic engineering!!!

[Bill Hicks lives in my left eye]
all the best capt wardrobe

Thanks Krop.
You've hit the nail on the head: if we allowed anybody to publish anything they felt like, as IMC Portugal tried, we'd soon be overwhelmed.

They couldn't believe the flood of posts that were ultra-racist, far-right, fanatical nationalist, stream-of-consciousness poetry, lizard-man conspiracy theories, endless recruiting notices for political parties, etc. Much of it was deliberate "wrecking" comments, from people that didn't like the news they were reading, and wanted to put other readers off. It worked. You could barely see the news for all the absolute crap that their newswire was flooded with.

They took the whole site off-line for a while, feeling very disillusioned. Then they had a long hard think, and came back with a tighter editorial policy, and a better content management system to run it on.

A truly open publishing policy would mean the same thing happening here: endless BNP posts, endless reposts from the neocon press, endless racist flamebait, etc. Is that what you want? Fabulous. Go build a 100% open publishing site of your own then. Let's see how long you stick at running it, and who apart from you feels like reading it.

The "victim culture" evident in some of the comments here is really pretty staggering.

"I condemn this! I despise that!"
"I want more and won't settle for less!"
"I want the names and bank details of anyone who hides any comments!"
"I want the admins to enter into a days-long slanging match with me in the comments section, anytime I object to an article being hidden!"

But they're all far, far too busy to start an Indymedia site of their own, or join an existing Indymedia group to put in their share of the necessary drudge work. Hm, yeah, what a fuckin shame.

As Tom A said above, some people are never satisfied, and I wouldn't dream of even trying to please them all, especially as I volunteer hours every day on newswire admin already. Indymedia UK is excellent, especially the features. People in several countries have told me that they prefer the moderated newswire on Indymedia UK to their local Indymedia's unmoderated wire. So we must be doing something right. :)

Consensus among UK admins was to leave this posting up for 24 hours, even though it's not news.

That was 24 hours ago.

cheers,

Spanner

Another commentator who doesn't bother to read what he criticises.

Either that or he chooses to quote some sentiments quite out of context and then invent some exaggerated comments to swing his spin.

Yes, I said 'I condemn'. I condemn anybody who dismisses something just because they don't understand it.

Yes, I said 'I despise'. I despise prejudice. Funny, I thought that was de rigeur round here.

Yes, somebody said 'I want more and won't settle for less' but did you understand the context?

No, nobody said either:

Your remaining 'quotes' were garbage meant to insult.

As for 'Go build a 100% open publishing site of your own then. Let's see how long you stick at running it, and who apart from you feels like reading it.'

I have and I spend several hours a day working on it. It has 100% open publishing, though I reserve the right to remove anything which I consider inflammatory in the extreme but no I have never felt the need to exercise that right.

It's sad but I feel that IndyMedia UK will end up like Glastonbury. Something which started with the greatest of intentions but ended up in the midst of mediocrity because it tried to cater for conventional needs in an unconventional way and unconventional needs in a conventional way.

As little as I really know about chip implants, it is fairly certain that if the time came some of the commentators on here will willingly roll up their sleeves. Others would hopefully be more audatious.

Is this thread set up to explore issues, or as an exercise in rebuttals and self affirmation for the team?

Cos its pointless if its the latter.

Indymedia uk do a good job, and theres much on the site that is worthwhile, but at times it feels as if people are too fast to jump in and remove stuff, and I think that needs thinking about.

I also think that if the collective truly is open, it needs to be welcoming and to make it possible for people to connect with it...........

My perception is that its not quite there yet.

Yeah, sorry, troll here again. Funny that this whole discussion has been magicked off the fucking wire isn't it? When it was only about halfway down. "Not-news" and full of trolls, eh? I'll be bound. (Don't worry guys; no one's gonna see it but you...)

"Instead of putting a non-news on the newswire, e-mail the collective at  imc-uk-features@lists.indymedia.org if you see a problem. This will probably be hidden (before everyone starts crying "CENSORSHIP!") as non-news, but I will forward your message on to the features list." TA

"Harry" contacted the list - Tabitha answered his queries, Harry had more questions and sent them to Tabitha, Tabitha sent them to the list, Spanner told him to take them off the list, finally Yossarian answered the query and referred Harry to the relevant editorial guidelines.

Harry can not be expected to know how to get the answer, and it appears that there isn't a clearly defined process for dealing with Harry. Talking Zionism with him won't work. Being clear about the ethos of this site, and the editorial guidelines will.

Similarly, with this thread, it was allowed to stay up for 24 jours, and was then pulled, despite the fact that there were still people engaging. I know some of the people engaging on the thread, they are committted activists, who have played a part in some of the centre column stories .

This leads me to conclude that there is a real difficulty in the feedback process, ie there isn't a clear way of feeding back what the problems are.

I think that running an "open-publishing project" on the web is a demanding business, theres millions of users out there, and not all of them understand the central ethos of Indymedia - some of them have very closed agendas, and some of them are indeed "victims who want it handed to them on a plate".

I agree that there needs to be editorial control of the site, I certainly do not want to tune into an endless diet of right-wing racism and SWP diatribes. I'm glad that I don't have to, and I thank the team for that.

"I think it's a good idea if the "show all posts" page was available on the front page, and clearly marked. Then maybe people will not get so pissed of about articles being hidden, although some people are never satisfied." TA

I agree - I know an active IMCista who didn't know how to access the hidden posts - if people wish to look at posts that have been hidden, then it would be helpful if there was an easy an obvious way to do so (clearly I do know, thats why I'm able to post this) - a button on the front page, and voila its very hard to claim censorship.

""but it still feels like having to plough through skatebording duck stories to find the news."

That's exactly how some other people feel about having to plough through chemtrails stories and dental implants stories to find the news.

an IMC volunteer "

Firstly, why the impersonal tag?

Secondly, chemtrails stories, I can't comment on them, because I don't see them - they are news to me - I'd like to make my own mind up on them. They shouldn't just be whacking great C+Ps - but a link and a summary and I can decide whether I want to go there, or not.

"Anyone can help with indymedia, just join up to the lists and have your say. Stop whining about cencorship and calling IMC an hierarchical organisation." fredrico

Rather than winge, take action - that is one of the fundamentals of activism."

Whinging eh? Thats on par with "loony conspiracist theorist" - it closes down debate and just reaffirms the world view of the labeller, making the problem that of the poster.

And if new people come onto the lists, will they be listened to? Or will they get the "Harry treatment" ? I've been on the lists for a few months now - and I have to say that I don't feel that they are a great vehicle for airing concerns - or that people always make an effort to engage with those concerns.

And I've had my wrists slapped, and been spoken down to. I have to keep reminding myself that I am part of the same movement that gave rise to Indymedia, and that I'm not totally stupid, even if I don't understand all the lovely long words that get thrown about......

Which leads onto Yossarians "I was hoping for better....."

To which I have responded above, but it illustrates a bit of the hand-slapping and high handedness that I just described.

And it seems it isn't just me who feels that way.

Please don't give me one of these responses either:
"Ok, good to know that you despise me, I'll be real careful in future."

Its like the whinging, and CT stuff, makes it my problem and shows that you're not engaging with the point that the poster is trying to make.

"Article hidden - IMC volunteer"

And thats the end of it eh, closed down by a nameless person who just points out there role.

:(

There is already a system on the internet that has full open access to all messages, at least 50,000 different categories, fully searchable, not owned by anyone, and uncensored. It is called usenet, or newsgroups. You can even access it via google (spit) if you can't afford 20 dollars or so for a news provider. What is all this web-based indysh*t for anyway?

"geromino" wrote:

> As for 'Go build a 100% open publishing site of your own then.
> Let's see how long you stick at running it, and who apart from you
> feels like reading it.'
>
> I have and I spend several hours a day working on it. It has 100%
> open publishing, though I reserve the right to remove anything
> which I consider inflammatory in the extreme but no I have never
> felt the need to exercise that right.

Oh really... Well here's your "100% open publishing" web site, which you seem oddly reluctant to mention here:
 http://www.flamesong.com/

Front page articles are ALL posted by you. You wield complete control over what appears on the front page.

Your site does have a separate discussion forum:
 http://www.flamesong.com/forum/index.php

And your users can post up to the separate discussion page, once they've registered their name, and you've got about a dozen users registered so far. But can any of these lucky dozen post an article on the front page? No. Can anyone post comments below one of your posted articles? No. Can anyone post anonymously? No.

So how exactly do you figure this amounts to "100% open publishing"?

And I can well believe you've "never felt the need to exercise that right" to hide anything from your site, since the forum only dates back a little less than two months, and there's fuck-all on there so far.