Indymedia and the rts affair

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 10, 2003 16:59

YOU can join indymedia as an editor, a videographer, a writer, an audio recorder. YOU can decided what happens. How is that a monopoly? There may be some point hidden in your complaint but you're not helping to make it by throwing about terms like "monopoly" that are obviously inaccurate.

There are issues with indymedia or any other journalist being treated as "friendly" media in a demonstration/direct-action situation the solution is easy: mask up.

Even if indymedia members act out of the best of motives video evidence can be seized on the foot of a court order as it can from _anybody_.

If people turn over video or photos to indymedia and surrender _their_ control and decision making to other people (in this case very good people) then they can't complain when those people act on their beliefs and intiative.

by silo Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:18

what Phuq hedd said.

by pete ranks Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:25

well its a red fish, perhaps a red herring?

by Daithi - -1 of IMC Ireland- Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:30

I hope you don't use that kind of approach to the truth when you are in court defending yourself. Not one single piece of footage is owned by Indymedia (in terms of tapes or copyright). That's right. Your entire screed is premised on Indymedia as some sort of monolithic organisation with a hidden vault of all our monopolised coverage.

What you have posted here is completely untrue. Any material is the property of the person who filmed or recorded it; Indymedia has no power and will never attempt to dictate to anyone what they do with their footage. Our organisational structure means that it would be impossible for anyone to even ask the collective to act in a particular way.

If you could produce any evidence of any deal cut by Indymedia then your claims might perhaps mean something; but I can assure you that no such evidence exists, for no such deal exists. You have made an allegation that you cannot sustain and in doing so you are doing deliberate damage to a group of people who do their best to provide a free and open website. We never get it right all the time and will respond to genuine (i.e. non-fictional) criticisms. Try checking your facts before throwing around pathetic allegations of wrongdoing.

by D.S Mick Houlihan - shannon guarda/army barracks Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:35

great to see the boys sent down from galway and mayo are doing there bit,the internet trainning is really paying off now pat.

by Dan Mon Feb 10, 2003 19:14

"Are cops allowed to write on the website?"

That's a very strange question from someone who is more than likely a cop. The answer is obvious, anyone is allowed to write on the website subject to the editorial guidelines (no cross-posting, hatemail, etc). The computer cannot sniff out cops and ban their flaming messages yet but canny heads can spot one a mile away and expose 'em and their damned lies!

by Le Fish Mon Feb 10, 2003 20:20

Daithi, from your authoritative and defensive tine it is easy to see the indymedia in you. Perhaps some sort of editor. I'm afraid that you are very mistaken I attended a meeting at which there was an indymedia representative. During this meeting in the teachers club it was clearly laid out that indymedia had collected all available coverage of the rts event, it was then made clear that this information would be strictly looked after and given only to those who indymedia deemed suitable. Answer me a few questions if you get the chance, can anybody get hold of all the unedited footage relating to the events of May 6th? My understanding is that you have to be the right sort of guy to get it and answer me this, what does that make? I suppose there are various interpretations but the only one that makes any sense is that indymedia through its agents has taken a de facto monopoly on the coverage and it is only released under conditions laid out by indymedia. Is that free and open?

By the by I do not care who owns. Who on earth would? Footage is all about access and indymedia control access. Why don't you toddle along and ask some of your esteemed 'good guys' a few of these questions. Ask them if the footage was passed on to the Garda complaints board. Ask them if they came to an agreement with the police to protect those charged, sounds like a deal to me. How about you go get your facts straight and come back to me.

You say that 'we certainly don't get it right all the time' but you should as all you do is tell the truth. If you do that you can't get it wrong. If you take on other things then you can and will. If you look at these criticisms is an open an honest way you can bring indymedia back to the core that is its life blood, impartiality, freedom, and honesty.

On the other comments I’m with silo Phuq Heed should be ignored, and I am not a cop. I just think that everyone has an equal right to access information from a free source like indymedia.

by Fred - Hemp Mon Feb 10, 2003 20:31

All deserve access if that what you say indymedia is.

Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.

and it says this shit on every single page. You ain't as free as me. Passionate my ass.

by iosaf Mon Feb 10, 2003 21:21

Public order does not mean Public safety.
oh & Autonomy begins with Self.
Public order professionals arent Public safety professionals so shouldnt try and use jargon and terminology that dont suit them.

by C. Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:56

On the evening of the 6th May the indymedia website started to carry eye witness reports of Gardai beating the remnants of the crowd from the reclaim the streets party earlier that day. Over the next couple of days we saw the spin of an aggressive, rioting mob only being quelled by the brave actions of our peace guardians defeated by an idea - independent media.

People who had attended the event showed the footage they had shot - first through the indymedia network and then through broadcast television. To support the defence of those who had been charged by the guardai with resisting their beating, an effort was made to collect as much material as possible - for the sole purpose of use in defence cases. This was the reason people gave footage they had shot to anybody else. I was at the meeting 'le fish' mentioned - and i wasn't the person who collected footage or shot any - but this was what was repeatedly stated - footage will be collected to defend the people charged with public order defences.

Since that time the issue of the CCTV footage has vanished from the media radar, guards are refusing to recognise each other on film and are in the courts trying to avoid prosecution for the crimes which are plain to see on the footage filmed by members of the public that day. Now 'le fish', with a degree of eloquence surprising from a templemore graduate, wants to raid the Indymedia vaults and throw light on what happened that day.

There are no IMC vaults.

There is no IMC footage.

We already know what happened.

If I film something, I decide what happens to that. My daughters birthday snaps are not going onto the internet for anybody to use, i feel no obligation to feed the voyeurism of blooper shows and I can decide to only show people my footage in a context I agree with. If someone asks me for a copy, I will ask them what it's for. I expect them to respect that.

It's good to see that le fish holds the indymedia ideals in such high regard. But maybe (s)he should find out what they are about, how it works and why people use the name before he tells people what it is about and what responsibilities indymedia has.

But the comment on silo / phuq hedd shows how little attention le fish pays to what anybody else says or thinks.

by Red Fish McGregor - Your Ma Tue Feb 11, 2003 13:55

Let me just start by asking C how can I both be a graduate of templemore and have attended the meeting in the teachers club? Either I graduated and turned to a life of petty crime, or I was undercover. Ohh I was I was the guy with the Australian accent and the dreads, no wait a second I was you I must of been there is no other explanation.

Eloquence is not reserved for those middle class members of anarcho-syndicalist movements that profess to hold dear the virtues that I have spoken of. I know for a fact that many of those, if not all, that sit on the IMC are anarchists and if you aren't going to have democracy for all why bother. It appears that most people however will leave any sort of consistent position in order to slant those with a serious point to make. The train of thought in the responses to my original argument are all the same, he's a cop he must be so he doesn't deserve access to the material that indymedia definitely holds. How so, if I am a cop and I am being wrongly charged does indymedia not have a responsibility to aid me in my case so that the truth be told. Is that not what they are all about. If I were a cop and went to jail without the benefit of defence material that could have proved my innocence, let it be on the backs of those that seek to pervert the course of justice.

Anyway what is the basic line of argument, I protested on may 6th and was arrested and charged. I now stand in court and defend myself I am innocent I know that because I broke no law and I believe that I will be acquitted as I have sufficient evidence to show that I broke no law. What everyone else must be saying is that we do not want those people who did break the law to be charged. Wait a second I thought that it was a purely peaceful protest or so I was led to believe by the posting on this website or is that just spin of your own. If you have nothing to be afraid of why not give the cops licence to defend themselves.

And C your point about pictures is moot as if one of your daughters snaps could be used to prove my innocence I would expect you to at least let me look at them. I'm not advocating disclosure of all personal information but just that justice be done in the name of truth and impartiality.

My comments towards Phuq Head and silo were perhaps a little rash possibly a symptom of my frustration at none of the issues I raise being taken head on.

by C. - Int. Anarchist Cabal, IMC subsection, Irish battalion Tue Feb 11, 2003 14:41

"how can I both be a graduate of templemore and have attended the meeting in the teachers club? Either I graduated and turned to a life of petty crime, or I was undercover"

It's good to know that all those attending that meeting were petty criminals. Given that the Irish army had to be sent in to protect the american military from "guy with the Australian accent and the dreads" I' d say petty criminal is a bit of an insult. Possibly the barristers / solicitors / journalists and kids with arms still in plaster from the effects of cops batons may all feel insulted that the only way to be in that room was as a petty criminal or an undercover cop. Me - I'm petty, look at me talking to you. A criminal?

"I know for a fact that many of those, if not all, that sit on the IMC are anarchists and if you aren't going to have democracy for all why bother." OK, big mix up here.
Repeat until comprehended :Theres nowhere to sit.
Already in this thread you've met a labour member who is accused (the crime of it) of being indymedia. and the democracy bit I don't understand at all - maybe you could explain? or maybe not.

The rest of the second paragraph is not much better - Indymedia "definitely holds" the material that will exonerate this cop ( or not cop depending on the clause) despite everybody who has anything to do with indymedia saying this is not true.

But once the charges of 'perverting the course of justice' have been made we get the great statement:

"Wait a second I thought that it was a purely peaceful protest or so I was led to believe by the posting on this website or is that just spin of your own."

You see, if you had been there, if you were an RTS'er that was being charged there'd be no thinking about it. This website wouldn't lead you to believe anything because you would have seen with your own eyes that this was a party, good natured and peaceful (until the arrival of the blue bloc).

Maybe IMC is full of anarchists.
Maybe Le Fish is in search of freedom, justice and impartiality.
Maybe we need a campaign in support of the guards who have been charged defending dublin from parties and banners and kids.

Course, maybe this is all just a waste of time to distract me and any readers from doing something more productive.

Reckon so ... Bye. See you on Saturday. I'll be carrying a hammer - what will you be wearing?

by Le fish Tue Feb 11, 2003 16:27

You really can't focus on the issues can you? I was being quite clearly flippant and it does nobody any good discussing flippant remarks. I was just wondering how you could have it both ways. I am a petty criminal, or maybe a freedom fighter it's up to you to give me my designation. Sorry for insulting you over your dreadlocked buddy. He obviously believes what he says and is consistent and that I can respect. You however are advocating prejudice and inconsistency and that I cannot respect.

There is a organisational core that operate the indymedia website they are effectively a council as they set editorial policy and decide what is front page material. Anarchists believe in radical democracy so I wondered where the consistency was in relation to my original point.

I was at rts, I was arrested, I appeared in court only 3 weeks ago and will be returning. I am not a guard. My point at the end was this if you are committed to openness and then don't release material you must be hiding something. Now as far as I was concerned there was very limited protester violence almost none, so in that case there is no reason to have this inconsistency in place. Tackle the issues sonny not little sidelines.

You may be carrying a hammer but I’ll be wearing your ma up to my elbows, and I might wear you sister as a hat. Lowers the tone nicely.

by kitty-kat Tue Feb 11, 2003 16:30

you (blue) lads are really going to have to start doing your homework. it's too pathetic!!! I can't help but enjoy watching you squirm though.
C.-it's not a complete waste of time, i find it amusing, bless, they try so hard!!

At the RTS Defence meeting in the teachers club it was made painfully clear at that meeting to all of us petty criminals (hee hee) that the footage be collected for DEFENSE purposes. it was recommended by the solicitor present, whose name i'm SURE you know, what with you having been there and all... and was PUT to those who bothered to turn up and no one had a problem with it. not a boo outta you...

by Blisset -1 of IMC Ireland- Tue Feb 11, 2003 18:24

And nice to see you've calmed down no more threating to stab people in the eye and piss on your corpse as you did to an IMCer in a previous thread.

I'm not sure which is worse your grasp of law or your grasp of what a monopoly is.

For starts the accusation that Indymedia holding back footage will

"those officers who will stand in court and defend themselves without the benefit of this information, which is so free. Now I think there is a clear contradiction here."

Okay heres a thing called disclosure, the prosecution has to let the Gardaí see the video footage, in fact the high horse you got on is because of a previous article where their defense asked for more time to view the footage. Not that it will do them much good seeing as they can't recognise anybody on it already. So thats one of your lies dismissed.

As for monopoly, infortunately it's very intrue. For starts those pesky RTE Interactive kids have kept their footage out of our nefarious grasp, damn them. The footage gathered by us, was in general shot by students, and given to us freely, we promised to consult the person who shot the footage. Ask them what they wanted to do with.

If we hadn't gone to the trouble of finding them it's doubtful their footage would have helped anyone, two of them confessed to having no idea what to do with the footage, but wanted to help, people arrested or injuried.

Why wasn't it given to the cops in the first place. Hmm well lets see; in Sept '01 and Oct. '01 two Indymedia journalists where arrested and charged for simply filming police violence. After two lengthy court cases (held at their own expense we can't afford legal aid for them) they were both aquited. In one case the two arresting officers blantantly lied and added an assault charge againist the cameraman. This was also dismissed. At the RTS in May one Indymedia journalist was dragged thirty feet by two Gardaí and another was assaulted and had his camera damaged by a Gardaí. Now call us spiteful but when the investigation asked to hand over the footage, we told them to f**k off and get a warrant. We assumed they would.

As for a deal again your grasp of law is remarkably slim, the footage was handed over to the complaints board. Again before doing so, the camera people were spoken to. One declined to co-operate, they had friends facing charges and wanted no contact with the police, in any form. Another didn't feel safe if they were to testify againist Gardaí and wanted to remain anonymous, and didn't wish to give footage over. This was respected, hardly a sinister monpoly now is it?

The Gardaí Complaints Board only investigates charges againist Gardaí no deal was struck. The GCB can't press charges againist members of the public. So no deal was made, because the people who recieved the tapes weren't capable of striking that deal. So quit your fucking lying about a deal.

When the Police asked for the footage, we refused in protest over the manner in which the investigation was being run; and told them to get a warrant. This is our legal right. But hey you'd know this because you researched your wild allegations.

As for your suggestion that Indymedia should give out the footage freely for all to see. Y'know we did. Remember those neat clips you saw on the web? As for handing out the footage to any interest gawkered. I hate to break it to you, but we neither have the time, energy or resources to churn out hours of VHS's to all and sundry. Sorry. And this sinister and clique commitee that met and decided these rules behind closed doors? We meet openingly and publically anyone can particapte. Our next meeting is on Saturday at twelve in the Ha'penny in.

Your accusation that this is the behaviour of a monopoly is crap. The people who shot everything were asked before it was given to anyone. It was given out freely to anyone who needed it as part of their case.

Onto your complaints the Indymedia are sticking their noses in where they don't belong getting involved with legal defenses. There is a fine tradtion and history of journalists helping people find justice and prove innocence. The superb work of Panaroma and World in Action, on issues such as the Gilford 4 or the Birmingham 6, or the more recent investigation in loyalist paramiltaries and RUC/British Miltary colusion. I'm not saying what we're doing is as grand or important, I'm just saying it's nothing to be ashamed of and nothing that other journalists and news organisations do. Take a look a sf.indymedia.org and look at the way they've reported and championed the legal case of two earth first activist falsly accused of planting a bomb.

But see you would know all this because you spent time speaking to us about this, and finding out what was going on, oh no wait you didn't.

I'm not responding to this ridiclous thread again, if you have something to say, you should attend saturdays meeting, and say it.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Feb 11, 2003 18:34

QUOTE:
There is a organisational core that operate the indymedia website they are effectively a council as they set editorial policy and decide what is front page material. Anarchists believe in radical democracy so I wondered where the consistency was in relation to my original point.

ANSWER:Look, it's been explained to you again and again both by the patient people in this thread and by the website itself (go read the Open Publishing link and the About information) that anyone can join indymedia at any level of involvement that they want. It's completely democratic. You make bizarre dogmatic statements about "monopoly" and "effectively a council" that show that you are so divorced from the facts of the situation that you are either trolling or else _absolutely_ ignorant of any knowledge relating to indymedia. You reinforce this impression of being a complete bullshitter when you regale us with your perverted account of RTS. What you've demonstrated to everyone reading this is that you are just flapping your lips and retailing lies. I don't believe that you're a cop, I think that you're a sloppy and stupid journalist.

QUOTE: Anarchists believe in radical democracy so I wondered where the consistency was in relation to my original point.

ANSWER: Nice of you to let them know what they believe in. Exactly what do you mean by "radical democracy?". How are there different types of democracy? Surely there's either rule of and by the people which is democracy or else there are perversions of it which have to be qualified by epithets like "representative" or "parliamentary"?

The reason that everyone thinks that you're a cop trying to muddy the waters for your criminal colleagues that assaulted the people that you're supposed to protect is that you don't seem to have grasped the basic facts about anything: the vicious assault by the debased thugs dishounouring their uniform, the nature of the IMC collective or the nature of democracy.

by Billy the Fish Tue Feb 11, 2003 20:40

Alright let me start by clearing something up I never threatened to stab anybody and piss on their corpse. If you checked those facts, which you hold so dear, you would find that I asked why this individual cared so much about those who would stab him or her in the eye and piss on their corpse. I however am under no illusions about that individual caring for me.

This is definitely the best response indymedia has come out with to date. Well you've all had a pop. Firstly I understand clearly what disclosure means but only evidence that is used by the prosecution is due for disclosure other evidence which could be beneficial to the defence may legally never see the light of day. That is up to the prosecution.

So you do have all the footage that has been gathered up from willing sources, and you do decide for whatever reasons (time, resources) whom and under what conditions you give it out. Basically you control access through mediation with the owners. You don't give it out to all those that ask some have to get subpoenas even if they are using it to attempt to prove their innocence. You say you do this out of spite because individuals belonging to the same organisation mistreated you and your associates, I hate to use an analogy but if a milkman fucked my wife I wouldn’t blame them all. That is the totalizing that people of anarchist pretensions most hate, one is not all.

It was given out freely to anyone who needed it as part of their case. It was given out freely to anyone who needed it as part of their case.

Sorry such a good quote, had to be said twice.

You then use examples of other successful journalistic interventions to justify this one, this disgusts me in the pit of my stomach. The fucking arrogance, you are not playing say the world here buddy it's real life. Take the Gilford four or for that matter the Birmingham six the press were in the front row baying like dogs for blood. Now how do you put yourself on the side of good and justice? How do you know? It's simplistic reasoning which follows the basic line of 'we must be good' and that's it. Bullshit for all you know you could be the ones putting innocent cops behind bars. Perhaps it is the baying for blood kicked off by indymedia (I have already been informed that you 'broke' the story) with their open hatred for the police force that will result is justice not being done.

Would one of you define a deal please I understand that a deal is an exchange of goods that has conditions attached. Is this not what happened did you not give the complaints board footage which can be used in prosecution in return for the legal guarantee that the footage could not be used against the protesters. You did.

I continually get dogmatic responses all I am looking for is a guarantee of openness to all and a stop to indymedia which as you point out again and again is not equipped to enter into the legal field to stay out.

Kitty Kat

I'm sure you looked at what went before but maybe it didn't get through. The solicitor present at the meeting represents me. I don't care about the insinuations but try to understand if you are looking to form an open media source you can't start putting restriction on who you hand over information too or else it's not open. I was there and I said nothing as my opinion was formative during that period and I choose not to speak out until January 23rd I think when it was made apparent to me that IMC had decided in its wisdom to hand over footage to the GCB which just highlighted the selective openness that is indymedia. Sorry for not being more prompt.

Phuq Hedd

I haven't lied yet; you just don’t understand the words you use. It's not completely Democratic as nothing can ever be there is a day to day running which requires decisions that could never be voted on. Maybe that's small cheese but if me and 'my mates from templemore' walk nicely into your meeting on Saturday what credential do we need to vote? Can we vote in decisions straight off the bat? I understand that there are only about 10 regular attendees to IMC meeting now if me and 11 mates turn up and we all have uploaded a piece of footage then are allowed to vote to stop indymedia Ireland. I don't think so. Think a little son.

The second point is only classic, and you'd only find the truly right on saying anything of the sort. Words at least according to a wide body of analytic thinkers are signifiers they are by common consent what they mean. So democracy does not mean an anarcho-syndicalist collective it means a parliamentary democracy. I have to differentiate when I am using it in a sense apart from the typical sense and I believe one of the favourite continental formulations for anarchism is to use the prefix 'radical'. I am not however telling them what they believe in I am merely reporting what they say and their literature proclaims. Where I do agree is that people have dishonoured their uniform, not a sentiment I thought I would see on this website. I think you mates might ship you on this one however, I think they would affirm that the police can only act in this way as they are the armed wing of the capitalist state who are there to do that and only that.

I think you shot yourself in the foot and couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, you probably have a Mickey attached to your forehead as well.

by Blisset Tue Feb 11, 2003 21:31

"Alright let me start by clearing something up I never threatened to stab anybody and piss on their corpse. If you checked those facts, which you hold so dear, you would find that I asked why this individual cared so much about those who would stab him or her in the eye and piss on their corpse. I however am under no illusions about that individual caring for me."

And you are under the illusion that you are more clued in to peoples feelings for us. Kinda arrogant aren't you?

"So you do have all the footage that has been gathered up from willing sources, and you do decide for whatever reasons (time, resources) whom and under what conditions you give it out. Basically you control access through mediation with the owners. You don't give it out to all those that ask some have to get subpoenas even if they are using it to attempt to prove their innocence."

For starts no Gardaí have asked Indymedia for footage as part of their defense. If they needed the footage as part of a legal defense they couldn't just take it from the Pearse St investigation, thats illegal. So you're asking about a hypothetical situation.

"You say you do this out of spite because individuals belonging to the same organisation mistreated you and your associates, I hate to use an analogy but if a milkman fucked my wife I wouldn’t blame them all. That is the totalizing that people of anarchist pretensions most hate, one is not all."

For starts we don't do it out of spite, to quote you "pardon me for being flippant". That is also an appalling analogy. For starts all those officers were based in Pearse St. And secondly the milkman trashed our gear assaulted our journalists, then did things like arrest and imprison people and create false charges (people being charged with drunk and disorderly while being refused a breath/blood/urine test) Assaulting people in the cells.
Setting up an investigation in that very station which will investigate both police and those facing charges? Can you say conflict of interest? Also seeing as officers on this investigation already had mispresented themselves (pretending to be from the GCB), you can see how we could be skeptical about this. The final point is this, we honestly expected to be served with a warrant for footage, and were taken aback when we were. We were trying to make a point of protest over the manner and organisation of the internal inquiry.

Again whats your problem here? Seriously cause I cannot figure it out. We gathered footage used it in manner in accordance with the person who shot it. You accuse of starting a monopoly. We disagree and you now claim that it's unfair we hold it back from anyone.

If the person who shot the footage was unwilling to give it to the Gardaí should we have handed it over againist their will? Aside from anything else, it would not have been valid evidence.

Onto the danger of an innocent Gardaí getting charged. Are you aware how complex and serious the investigation againist them was? How serious it is to charge a Gardaí with assault, and how definte the GCB had to be before they made these charges. No you're not.

The Gilford four bit. For starts fuck off, we've given a great deal of time on this and don't see it as a game, don't dare suggest we're casual about about this. And yes many members of the press went baying for blood, but others took time and examined the facts, and drew their own conclusions. Quit instantly tarring us as a bunch of cop hating bastards, eager to see any cop go down. There are good and bad journalists.

"It was given out freely to anyone who needed it as part of their case. It was given out freely to anyone who needed it as part of their case.
Sorry such a good quote, had to be said twice."

Seeing as you're not listening it's forced us to repeat ourselves.

"Perhaps it is the baying for blood kicked off by indymedia (I have already been informed that you 'broke' the story) with their open hatred for the police force that will result is justice not being done. "

Jesus you do enjoy revisionist history don't you? How were we baying for blood. Indymedia refuted the Gardaí line (remember how they described the scene as anti Globalisation protests running amuck, thankfully Gardaí kept order and no one was injured seriously with 22 arrested) that was what they said, we had evidence which proved different. Did you watch the rampant back peddling from the Gardaí in the days following. Do you think if it weren't for all this media furor that they'd be any prosecutions?

Do you really think they would have fought hard for justice if the video footage hadn't disagreed with their line? This wasn't "open hatred" this was anger at a Police force using unnecessary violence and then pretending they'd done nothing wrong.

"Would one of you define a deal please I understand that a deal is an exchange of goods that has conditions attached. Is this not what happened did you not give the complaints board footage which can be used in prosecution in return for the legal guarantee that the footage could not be used against the protesters. You did."

Look muppet, read this slowly and then read this again.

THERE WAS NO LEGAL GUARANTEE. Do you Understand? The GCB couldn't guarantee that. It's impossible you thick shite. They haven't the authority, they're not even shagging Gardaí. Now kindly shut the fuck up.

"I continually get dogmatic responses all I am looking for is a guarantee of openness to all and a stop to indymedia which as you point out again and again is not equipped to enter into the legal field to stay out."

And we get dogma from you. We've demostrated how decisions are open and invited you to particapte, what more of a guarantee do you need? Quit your bleating.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Feb 11, 2003 23:15

QUOTE:
I haven't lied yet; you just don’t understand the words you use.

ANSWER:
don't you mean the "radical continental signifiers" that I use? Jaysus you're awful edumacated! You have accused indymedia of being a "monopoly" and if you don't understand by now that that's a lie then you're welcome to give the mickey on my forehead a great big slurp.

Your weird preconceptions about indymedia, it's operation and the ideologies of those involved have been clearly answered. If you wish to continue to insist in the face of all the evidence that black-is-white then you are welcome to deploy your sophomoric "debating" "skills" in a vacuum.

by Blisset Sun Feb 16, 2003 23:55

Noticed how you didn't bother your arse to turn up to the IMC meeting.

Whats the matter?