UK indymedia is effective

Is it fuck

10.12.2003 00:37

It seeks to keep people fighting in the same perpetual ring of main media authenticated lies for ever and a day
The rest gets censored

dh

Ironic

10.12.2003 01:04

Someone called "dh" recently was repeatedly posting up a copy-and-paste from the "main media" Guardian, and we kept moving it off the front page to the unmoderated page:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/282350.html

Can't have been the same dh though, as this one here is dead against us posting up "main media authenticated lies". :-)

In the end someone posted up another 1-line "article", along with another Guardian link:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/282367.html

...but the comment that followed was way too interesting and informative to lose, so it stayed unhidden.

The only way to break out of the "perpetual ring of main media authenticated lies for ever and a day" is for all of us to stop relying on other people to do our journalism for us.

joe

Not me

10.12.2003 01:34

Glad that article stayed up eventually, though the link you give was unfortunately not my handiwork
Full marks to the author
I'm not denying the establishment media throws out the occasional gem which militates against or undermines the general Reuters -UPI- Murdoch- CNN etc mediated crap
My point is that what Indy demands as 'proof' so that articles and assertions are not deemed 'infactual' is only generally available from the controlled media, or other establishment funded sources like the Royal Society.
Reading between lines, observations, following a different logic, can be so easily pounced on - the difference being that lone individuals haven't got the resources that are controlled by the new world order
So we can only poke holes, or grab the occasional revelatory truth that slips out
Cheryl Seal, who seems to have been treated quite sympathetcally elsewhere, though in truth is only another cut and paste, is a case in point

dh

Oh yeah - I missed the point

10.12.2003 01:49

So 'Mark' put the same article up and someone answered with more detailed information. Justification for the article not being hidden in the first place, OBVIOUSLY
Time to learn a little more discernment, I'd have thought

dh

whats the mainstream media got to do with it?

10.12.2003 10:29

I agree with the acedemic pdf doc, political websites do radicalise web surfers. And far more more people participate than with boring old meetings.

for an information society!

discernment

10.12.2003 14:11

It wasn't me who hid your first post, though I did hide your re-posts. If there hadn't been that excellent comment tacked on there, I would have hidden that re-post too, regardless of who is named as the author, dh or mark.

If you want to query why something was hidden, you should mail the uk features list, not just keep re-posting. You can get stuff unhidden by talking to us, if we've made a mistake.

It was me however, who fixed the HTML formatting on Cheryl Seal's post yesterday, if that's what you're referring to. I wasn't aware that she was copy-and-pasting there though: thanks for the heads-up. I will check more carefully in future.

cheers,

IMC bloke

so then dh

10.12.2003 17:09

Then why do you continue to post the same old paranoid bullshit, and if you think that Indymedia "seeks to keep people fighting in the same perpetual ring of main media authenticated lies for ever and a day", why do you bother with it at all? Why not go to some where where such "infomation" is NOT censored?
I can't be arsed to bother with such half baked nonsence, it seems any criticism of a paranoid conspiracy theorist's theory will invite accusations of being an MI5 inflitraitor and other BS.

D. Ickeless

Because

11.12.2003 00:39

I'm not paranoid nor do I bullshit. I much appreciate the IMCs as a resource, and am impressed with the patient replies here from IMC staffers.Forgive my occasional irrascibility
My point about Cheryl Seal's article was not that Cheryl does cut and paste jobs herself - she is a most careful and original commentator, just that somebody's probably copied in her article and signed in her name.
Then again I could be wrong - as I probably was about the lead article
Apologies

dh

UK Indymedia