Operation FREE SPEECH Deleted from Portland Indymedia

[The principles only require protecting the security/anonymity of users. But, pdx imc has always gone much further in terms of not handing over information when asked for it, although there is no more specific statement by pdx imc beyond the principles.]

Exactly.   And criticising a non profit for deceiving the public backed up with facts IS NOT an ad hominem.

OTOH spamming the wire with articles filled with lies about Lynn Fitch for doing her job IS. 

Would you like the links? 

"criticising a non profit for deceiving the public backed up with facts IS NOT an ad hominem."

That is correct. However, that is not at all what the article in question here did (as described sentence by sentence in the previous comment showing ad hominem against "vampires, cult, this, that, and the other" over and over again in almost every sentence).

Taking one for the team(swear I'm flashingbackto 2008):  assaulting the wall of text!   BANZAI!!!!!!

"But it was 404'd.  Plz don't argue.  It's lame.  We KNOW it was 404'd. "

It was 404'd.  That was never claimed.  What was said is that the article is in the compost NOW.  As was also said, it was moved by one workerbee to compost bin NOW b/c the post does violate the policy, but does not violate it in a way that needs to be 404'd.  Isn't this what the thread here wanted?  Or is there another agenda?


"Nice goal post move.  Saying infighting clearly implies factions inside an org.  It's like you don't know what words mean...ad hominem, now infighting..."

Just ad hominem.  Infighting does imply factions inside an org.  Does infighting imply factions outside of an org fighting each other?  Hard to believe infighting means something other than people inside something fighting each other, but language is subject to interpretation.    But, for now, there is "Contentious rivalry or disagreement among members of a group or organization."  www.thefreedictionary.com/infighting


"Please present your proof these arguments all come from folks within and only folks within KBOO.  By extension you assume I am from inside KBOO. Please prove this.   You don't seem to understand a non profit serves the public. And an informed public should have a say.  Also you're trying to re-re-define infighting.  Gak."

The argument is that "This article and MANY (not ALL) seem to clearly come from folks WITHIN KBOO..."  No one is making any assumptions about YOU.  YOU are not the subject of any of the arguments.  "You" is also not relevant to the editorial policy w/r/t to a non-profit serving the public.  The only subject of the arguments is the editorial policy and the article referenced in the beginning of this post.  It seems like the reply technique is to question the integrity and motives of the poster, rather attack the arguments.   If there is some evidence that certain comments or articles have been posted by the public, show that evidence rather than question the motives of the person citing conflicting evidence.

No matter how one looks at it, KBOO is an activist organization, and, at a baseline, attacks against even an organization of working activists is against the policy.  The fact that any article that does those kind of attacks (especially using vitriol) stays up, WHICH THEY HAVE, says that the workerbees think that the arguments of the dissenters should be honored.  But, if there are dissenters here, the method of responding to workerbees here is sure not effective.


"And yet there's time to send a volunteer to engage this forum.  You must not have been a volunteer for very long if you really have no idea where this material is.  Maybe you should LURK MOAR.  Or do a search of the satire site savekboofromsavekboo.blogspot.com/
Hell, go to Mitchell's site. But hey, I'll just go over to PIMC and browse where you can watch my visiting traffic and isp.....wait.
Nice try."

Volunteers have different roles at different times.  "You" is irrelevant, but nice try.  It is not personal and no one at pdx imc is going to watch your traffic or try to hurt you in any way.  The techs, although some have been doing internet security work for 20 years and could do any of that evil stuff, instead, serve to protect anonymity and privacy.  Same thing with the lawyers involved, rather than use those skills to show authorities who is attacking the site or sue people who abuse the site, the lawyers work actively to find ways to protect the privacy of users to the site.  It is just a strange argument to accuse indymedia, which has one of the best policies and records of privacy of that kind of thing.  It is just misinformed.

"As I read it, it's emerging slang to describe people so involved with promoting the power group's vision they've lost the ability to think critically. See, Paulbot.  I wouldn't describe any random KBOO member like this, but people excusing the most outrageous and criminal behavior(phishing anyone?) certainly deserve it. "

Ok.  So, "kbot" is the way the "dissenting" faction refers to "the cult" faction?

"You seem awfully sure.  How would you know?   Unless you're splitting hairs between a bee, administrator and moderator. 
But that would be disingenuous..."

Again with the "you, you, you"....  It would be better, in reply, to just show evidence (specific instances, first-hand knowledge, etc.) that some workerbee has this knowledge and has used it for a bad purpose.  Why should the reply have to prove the negative?  If there is proof, not just a bare accusation, that a workerbee is doing something bad, SHOW IT.  Just throwing out a name and saying, "so there!" does not show anything at all.


"Now I refer you to this thread on the assumption you are misinformed and/or misled:"


Interesting.  The post describes mind controlling behavior and some characteristics of groups that implement it.  Then it says, "KBOO, while not yet a full blown destructive cult, has enough symptoms to be worrying. the "Inner Party" more than qualifies as a micro cult."  Ok.  So, WHY does KBOO have these symptoms?  Show evidence that some or all of these things exist at KBOO.   For example, "KBOO has "1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability" BECAUSE on 8/12/2013 a decision was made to do X by only one person when many other people wanted to do Y.  Even though X was done and should trigger an investigation into why X was done without other people's input, on 8/20/2013 no investigation had yet begun and, therefore, there was no accountability.  Further, there has been no public outcry or reduction in donations as result.  The documents showing the 8/12/2013 decision can be found here and the documents showing that no investigation has begun can be found here."

In short, the dissenting arguments (which this link seems to be) are likely very important to be heard and need to be discussed by the community, but the WAY in which the dissenters are making those arguments are not serving them well.  If the other side is doing that, same is true.  But, the other side is not attacking the workerbees.


"PS:  Notice how no one's deleting your stuff?  Think about that."

Yes. No one is deleting the posts, but the admin has every right to do that on this website to set whatever policy is appropriate.  In fact, this website would be the perfect place for the KBOO discussion since ad hominem seems to be, not only allowed, but encouraged.