FBI Server seisure update

You censor articles or links to articles because they are from the mainstream media. So why not censor this one? OK so it's relevant to the server seizure, but the article that was hidden about what happened inside the G7 Finance meeting was relevant to the G7 Finance protests and yet that was still hidden. Why the arbitrariness and lack of consistence?

nb I'm not actually in favour of censoring this article - my point is that you censor TOO MUCH, not too little.

And how about when you censor things you explain the particular reason for choosing to censor that particular post.

And please don't say "they're not censored - they're just hidden" because how Orwelian is that!

Reply to the comment by anti-censorship.

''You censor articles or links to articles because they are from the mainstream media''
Wrongo! Articles are hidden if they don't adhere to the editorial guideline. Mountains of mainstream articles or links to them have been republished here. But do remember to write an introduction to such a link, as above, otherwise it'll probably be hidden.

The conclusion:

''And please don't say "they're not censored - they're just hidden" because how Orwelian is that!''

Firstly, let me indulge in a little pickiness, before my main thrust. Orwell must be wincing in his grave at your nonsensical inclusion of the conjunction 'because'; although he probably wouldn't have grown a ponytail on account of his name being spelled incorrectly.

You have attempted to say Indymedia misuses language as Orwell showed language could be outrageously misused for propaganda and oppressive purposes. The problem here is that you are misinterpreting language yourself: 'censor' means to delete or change parts of something; and 'hide' means put something out of sight.

Indymedia do not make changes or deletions in postings. If the posting does not conform to the editorial guidelines it is hidden from the main page newswire. A hidden article, and comments, can be read along with all the other articles and comments by clicking the 'view all postings' link. Only a seasoned idiot wouldm't be able to find the complete newswire that includes the hidden postings - it's like hiding yourself by putting hands over the eyes.

So take your hands away from your eyes anti-censorship, and read the editorial guidelines. If you don't agree with them then fair-en-fucking-nough.

The G7 article *was* hidden in error, shit happens :-/

It's here:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/02/304841.html

Also, the best place to raise this stuff is the email list where all the editorial stuff is sorted:

 http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-uk-features

Hiding is a form of censorship. It may not technically be deleting something but it's certainly in the spirit of censorship. By hiding something you are *arguably* deleting it (from the main newswire) and reposting it somewhere where only a small minority of people will look. Arguably that is censorship in the strict technical sense which you have described. But even if that isn't convincing then it is at the very least, in the spirit of censorship, ie censorship to all intents and purposes.

Somehow I don't think Orwel was as linguistically pedantic as you have just been although I dare say he'd like his name spelt better. My use of "because" made perfect sense in a colloquial conversational sense (you'll be telling me not to say "ain't" next). The phrase "how Orwelian is that", technically a question but used to mean "that is very Orwelian, in my opinion". And "because" was used to mean that I believe that the word "hidden" should not be used instead of the word "censored" **because...**. So what I meant was that "I don't think you should say you have hidden something when you have in fact censored it". I expressed the first clause in the above sentence by using the negative imperitive form of the verb, I then used the conjunction 'because' and I expressed the last part of what I wanted to say by using a rhetorical question. If I'd spoken like that in conversation you woudln't have blinked. Now I would not have used language in this way if I were writing an essay. I wasn't writing an essay, I was writing a comment and I chose to write it in colloquial spoken english rather than formal written english, which is quite common behaviour on the internet as a result of chatrooms and stuff. I knew what I meant, and you knew what I meant (even though you didn't agree) so therefore there's nothing wrong with my use of language. It's not the queen's english for sure, but the queen can bugger off in my opinion.

Finally, I would point out that when you hide things you don't explain why. You just say they've contravened the guidelines. Often it's obvious that they have but sometimes it's not so obvious, so a brief account of why you chose to do it would be helpful.

And no it's not that easy to find the hidden posts - it is if you already know where they are, or if you're very much used to finding your way around websites. OK maybe that makes me stupid in your eyes. I bet you can't solve second order ordinary differential equations or read latin. But I don't call you stupid for doing that. (And you probably can do those things, knowing my luck).

Well excuse me, I've had a stressful day. I shouldn't be taking it out on you people, I think Indymedia is a brilliant resource and you're not paid to do all this work. But I do have the right to comment on censorship, or perceived censorship, or whatever it is.

And I stand by the Orwel remark. OK it's not quite the same thing as the ministry of love but any use of euphemisms to describe actions which are even mildly draconian (and whilst it might be justified, censorship is certainly a form of authoritarianism) are a bit dodgy really in my opinion. In fact, I reckon Orwel would have more of a problem with "hidden" than with "because".

Well that's enough pedanticness from both of us anyway. I'm sure we've both got better thigns to do than carry on this argument.

“Anti-censorship” is probably none other than the scapegoat “Roger”, but I must say I back him on this against Humphrey Neutron-Verbler (is that his real name?).

Firstly, there is nothing wrong in writing: “Please don’t say this, because it’s Orwellian and I disapprove of that”. That is essentially what he is saying. If anything is unorthodox in his syntax, it isn’t the word “because”.

Secondly, the hidden articles and comments are so obscure and little frequented, that they amount to a different medium. The items hidden there have been censored from the mainstream Indymedia medium, and confined to obscurity. You might as well say that dissidents banished from Moscow to the Gulag were perfectly free to say what they wanted in the Gulag.

Thirdly, I think Orwell would be sending in a wealth of “Troll” material if he were alive now,
and would no doubt have based a very entertaining novel on the whole Indymedia exercise. He would not be taken in so easily as some of your less independently minded adherents.

But if you don’t agree with Big Brother, that’s fucking fair enough. Big Brother remains in charge, though, and undoubtedly knows best.

I tried to say much the same as "anti-censorship" has just said, but I was censored (NOT hidden , or if so, where is it then ?). "Because" is OK. The hidden articles are virtually a different medium. You might as well say that dissidents banished from Moscow were free to say what they liked in the Gulag. Orwell would find things to criticise in Indymedia, if he was ever allowed to, which is unlikely. I expect this will be "hidden" too, i.e. it will just disappear.

'Trol', what probably happened is that you didn't wasit long enough for the sluggish Indymedia servers to add your comment (let's try to help buying a new one!). No need for the rampant paranoia, there really isn't a secret cabal of censors hovering over the master controls waiting to remove diagreeable posts the second they appear, just people who have a look through what has been posted recently, and hide anything that contravenes the guidelines. The reasons for hiding are explained (or should be), in 'private' on the article themself (visible to the administrators of the site) and publicly by sending a reason to the features list which is publicly archived and which anyone can join. See the left column. There has been a debate about reposts of mainstream articles in the features list recently, and the consensus of those who have to do this unpaid work is that postings on Ind are supposed to be an alternatiev to the mainstream media. Recently the newsire has been clogged by people simply cut-and-pasting stuff. If you see a good article in the media, write an article about what it says, why it's good etc, maybe add links to other articles on the web or on indymedia, and then add the url. This fulfils the remit of Indymedia and would undoubtedly stay on the newswire!

“Troll” salutes the worthy Indymedia operatives and the efforts they make with their rusty hand-cranked equipment. He has found that comments often appear reasonably quickly. But in this case, anybody can see that when he posted “Blair a potential troll” officially at 1.06, the 12.39 “re pickiness” had not yet appeared, and when he posted “Well said” at 1.51, “Blair a potential troll” had not appeared. I think he could be forgiven his supposition that “Blair a potential troll” might have been been hidden, without the Indymedia doctor diagnosing him as having rampant paranoia.

It IS true, a fact often passed over, that comments which are hidden (as opposed to the original article) disappear without trace, so the word “hidden” is not appropriate for them at all. Even now, “Troll” wonders if “Blair a potential troll” was brought out of hiding in an attempt to disprove this and discredit him. Paranoia again, I’m sure.

There's a complex power struggle going on in the US. On the one hand there's a central group grabbing control through powerful legislation and consolidating control of various depts under a single command, and on the other there are various disparate groups in the US, apparently even factions within depts of the judiciary, the FBI, the CIA, etc, fighting back, mostly in limited ways.

I can't keep track of the relationships between all the scattered bits of the US establishment that are resisting the Bush gang. But you do keep hearing stories like this of PATRIOT Acts I and II being challenged in the courts.

It's also encouraging to hear the right-wing press there targetting certain courts and law groups with smears about their patriotic credentials etc: these judges and lawyers must be something of a threat to the White House's plans if the Neocon press have to keep publicly slagging them off.
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86915,00.html
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88072,00.html
'And, they protect terrorists, help illegal aliens and even defend child pornography. Who are these radical judges? Author Mark Levin lays out his case on today's edition of "Your World."'

Remember that this is from the leading news channel in the US, a trusted news source for millions. It's a Murdoch product, also known as "Sky News" over here.

But I digress. Hope you get some answers soon about what happened to your server.

Sharpe incite ''Troll'': to doubt I am using my real name. Did you change your identity to "Roger" after feeling discredited by your paranoid tailspin. Embrace foolish mistakes, cast them down and ride confidently over them.

Although it is very powerful, your Moscow-Gulag analogy obscures the truth, and so is not a good one in this case. Those in Moscow could not access those in the Gulag, but anyone can access the hidden Indy Media Posts, deleted comments aside.

I have had a few comments deleted, and have no problem with it now. I don't believe Indy Media can easily just hide comments. Perhaps they are working on it, or have even fixed it in the latest release. In fact some of the comments above refer to these issues.

Editorial guidelines. Don't say all that alien abduction shit, fascist piss and the like that has been posted here, shouldn't have been hidden, because how Trollofacism bolox is that!

My point about language and words is that accuracy of meaning, and understanding is important - we need to get at the truth. Good grammatical use of Standard English can result in the most deceptive distortion of the truth. If your language gets to the truth it can sweep aside the enemy more powerfully than any weapon, and without violence. It shouldn't matter how it is written or spoken, as long as the true meaning is understood, and it means to represent the truth. S

So much is written and said to justify opinions which are held blindly, or to serve some other purpose, or to realise an end that has nothing to do with the truth of that opinion. Let's lean to start with the truth, and stick to it. Orwell showed in Animal Farm how easily the truth so goes awry then belly up.

For your information my second order partial and ordinary differential equation skills are good, although my Latin is a little rusty. Call me stupid, and you'd be right - we all are sometimes, and in differing ways. It's just some are more consistent and able at being idiots. But we can all contribute in getting to the truth.

-Verbler is missing the point. I “admitted” to being Roger because some officials like to insist that Troll is Roger, so as to discredit me. This is the sort of game they play. “Roger” is their ultimate evil scapegoat, a sort of Alternative Al Qaida . Orwell/Blair would appreciate this.

Whether -Verbler believes it or not, Indymedia can easily just hide comments, and they do, and they disappear completely.

-Verbler’s point about Anti-censorship’s use of English is becoming increasingly obscure. What was written was perfectly clear in meaning to everyone except perhaps -Verbler .
It was -Verbler who complained about the “nonsensical inclusion of the conjunction 'because' ”, but this complaint was absolute rubbish even from a standard grammar point of view.
Now -Verbler is saying: “It shouldn't matter how it is written or spoken, as long as the true meaning is understood” !
“Embrace foolish mistakes, cast them down and ride confidently over them” he says ! He has also changed his identity. Perhaps the second comment really is written by someone else.

There was a little access from Moscow to the people in the Gulag, and the same is true of the wide Indymedia audience and hidden postings, but not hidden comments, which are deader than a dead parrot.

OK then, here's an easy one:

(d^2)y/dx^2 -7dy/dx +4y = 15

y = ???

y(x)=15/4

Einstein only gives the trivial solution:

Y = e^{(7+33^[1/2])*X/2} + e^{(7-33^[1/2])*X/2} + 15/4

Uti us substitutus, et Quad erat demonstrandum.

Sed ille FBI servitorem rapavit .....