[Imc-web] The No "Home" Button, Jack Ryan, etc.

[Mike Lehman]

Paul,
My gut feeling was to have hid them all, but I started to get cold feet 
when Sascha and Peter Miller (via a private mail, but who wasn't aware 
of the "Man in the Box" Syndrome -- a la Jimmy Fallon's SNL Z105 
character, but I digress -- we've been having) raised concerns about my 
getting a little off policy. And, in the absence of clear language, so 
did I, so I let things fizzle out for the most part. And I regret 
responding, instead of simply hiding it, but I was rather stuck by 
having to back off and felt a need to respond that I should have ignored.

Or maybe it's just the Richard Nixon 'Madman' Theory of Editing...

Yeah, we need to get the language settled and consense to it. I'm sure 
the lull is just temporary. I am in support of hiding the mess, but 
maybe we should just let it lay if others are still uncertain about 
things being within policy. I absolutely feel that we should just hide a 
repeat of that series if it should occur again.
Mike Lehman

Paul Bengt Riismandel wrote:
> I'm just getting caught up -- been away last Friday through today.
> 
> I think one of the most problematic things is that every discussion on a
> "controversial" topic turns into a debate on our website policies and
> "censorship."  In some ways that's as damaging to the discourse and as
> much a discouragement as when Jack et al make snide, insulting, sexist
> remarks.
> 
> I think we should simply hide these messages out of hand, even those
> posted by aliases that aren't identified with Jack Ryan -- they are
> off-topic if the original article isn't about website policies. 
> 
> That said, Mike, I think it's really important that none of us post
> responses to whining or complaints about our policies. Just hide them
> and let them be.  If we respond then we say it's OK to turn a thread
> into a debate on our policies, even if it's off-topic. 
> 
> Then, shortly I will post an announcement about our web work meeting to
> the site, and if they want to hijack that thread, fine, since it's
> ostensibly about web policies. But it will also be their opportunity to
> put up or shut up.
> 
> --Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imc-web-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> [mailto:imc-web-bounces at lists.cu.groogroo.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lehman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:36 AM
> To: Sascha Meinrath
> Cc: UCIMC website work
> Subject: Re: [Imc-web] The No "Home" Button, Jack Ryan, etc.
> 
> Sascha,
> I'm pretty uncertain at this point that what is going on with Jack Ryan,
> et al is really debate. I should point out that the Feature acquired a
> group of negative comments within a limited timeframe, ostensibly from
> different posters (yeah, right), and including TWO by NRA4, before I
> took an axe to the whole bunch of 'em. Then I ended up with just ONE
> complaint, from NRA4.
> 
> I guess it comes down to whether we are going to let one person make it
> apepar as if there is some vast rightwing majority of users on the site.
> Most of what was hidden, taken individually, could slide under the
> guidelines. Taken together, the group of comments amounts to an
> intimidating presence that makes the website a very unfriendly place for
> many users, our target audience.
> 
> These people aren't intersted in a debate. "They" (if you can call it
> that) want to replicate the tyranny of the majority. What is going on is
> far closer to, as I put it in my comment to NRA4's plaintive whining,
> nothing more than "a dog marking his turf". My call for some unique and
> new commentary does not preclude this person posting, just letting them
> know that they need to give the repetitive BS (which it all was) a rest.
> Mike Lehman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha at ucimc.org>
> Sent: May 18, 2004 9:54 AM
> To: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> Cc: UCIMC website work <imc-web at ucimc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Imc-web] The No "Home" Button, Jack Ryan, etc.
> 
> On Tue, 18 May 2004, Mike Lehman wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Speaking of problems, the Jack Ryan complex jumped all over our new
>>feature, just as I suspected he/they would. I have mercislessly
> 
> cracked
> 
>>down, as well as leaving a brief response as to how it is. Perhaps I
> 
> am
> 
>>pushing the limits here a bit, but I am simply tired of wading through
>>so much blah, blah-rightwing-blahity, blah, blah. It's all rather
>>pointless and I would like to put a pretty harsh line down here,
> 
> before
> 
>>we have yet another story that is two-thirds repetitive rightwing BS
>>that everyone has heard before, which seem to be the soul point.
> 
> 
> i would probably have left up the information posted by NRA4Freedom -- i
> may not agree with it, but it's the stuff of debate.  i think it's
> important that we allow for the debate to continue on the site while
> taking a firm stand against anything that is directly harassing,
> attacking, etc.  we still need to be able to justify every one of our
> posting decisions and i think NRA4Freedom's rants should probably be
> unhidden.
> 
> --sascha
> 
> 
>>BTW, just a clue to this whole deal perhaps, but last week while doing
>>battle with whomever this is, they ended up with a post to the
> 
> Newswire
> 
>>(in a fit of apparent fury at the crackdown, since they have otherwise
>>stayed judiciously away from that), which was some kind of Ayn Rand
>>whining about being censored by having some papers with their ad in it
>>stolen at some university in Cali -- but this all happened two years
> 
> ago
> 
>>(which I found by googling the cited facts), so what's the
>>point...except Jack Ryan fits right in as a Randist uber-mensch.
>>
>>Mike Lehman
> 
> 
>