seattle indymedia center

So you leftists are for free speech just as long as it's the speech you approve of? What a bunch of hyprocrites! The problem with banning "Hate speech" is that you decide what hate is. Hell the bible is full of anti-gay hate speech why don't you burn it also?

This is a community website, operated by people who are opposed to globalization. They have no more duty to publish your hate speech than you have to publish the press releases of the State of Israel on YOUR websites. Just because the First Amendment permits us to print anything we want, does not mean we have to print anything YOU want to print... we still get to choose what we allow to be published. That's not hypocricy, it's responsibility. And this is an independent NEWS site, not a history site. Nazi ideology is not news, it's discredited HISTORY. Back to the dust bin!

of many kinds, especially old testimat stuff, but that does not mean it should be published on indymedia.

The article by “2 friends” has now been posted 3 times on SIMC, each time receiving supportive comments. (The other posts are at  http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/02/251877.shtml and  http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/251919.shtml.)

But the issue has never been an abstract right to “free speech”. In this society, it’s possession of money that determines who can speak on a mass scale, be it via the corporate news media and press, or a million fancy sites on the Internet. Hence, for those without money (the workers and poor) to have any say in the public discussion requires a determined struggle to not only to pool resources and intellect, but to defend these efforts against disruption and destruction by their class enemies.

The nazis are tools of these enemies who are cynically using the slogan “freedom of speech” to promote an agenda that would violently smash all progressive thought and speech. One only has to look at nukeisrael.com to see this, or at their ecstatic cheering when the police brutally beat and arrest anti-racist protesters, i.e., deny them speech. Meanwhile, the SIMC staff allows these racist lovers of police-statism (plus the Zionists and anti-Semites) to disrupt and destroy Seattle Indymedia as a tool useful to the oppressed.

Freedom is never an abstract question: a question divorced from politics and the question of class power. The question is always “freedom for whom? ”

Since the SIMC staff arrogantly refuses to seriously deal with the issues raised in this thread by placing it in the center column, and making their own comments, I will repost my comment from a few days ago:

********************************************************************************

Enough is enough! Which side are you on??

Used to be that I thought it useful to have an occasional nazi post, i.e., it was a convenient way one could check up on their propaganda methods, public appeals, etc. But no more. If we want to check up on them we can go to THEIR sites. They shouldn’t be allowed to further destroy this site.

Coming in a close second in destroying this site are all the Zionist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim posts. Thus, the guy who spams us about his “shmekele” should go. The imposter Zorro should go. And if the real Zorro is so decayed that he chooses to not figure out the difference between Zionism and Jewish people, he should go. Further, one of the trolls should go. (This question of imposters has been handled so badly that I can’t right now remember which!)

Actually, I know that 2-3 years ago there were already young people abandoning SIMC because of racist posts. Then these were mainly coming from Zionists and anti-Semites. What would they think NOW?

Migrating to PDX Indymedia is only a “last and worst” case solution. Yes, it’s a better site, but it we don’t want to fill it up with a lot of stuff that’s really only of Seattle area interest. The issue is that the SIMC staff has to TAKE A STAND, and ACT! Contrary to liberalism and social democracy, there can be no neutrality in the class struggle. Try it and see what you get---victory for the likes of Hitler, Bush….and even little helpers of the rich like the NW nazis destroying SIMC. The old working-class refrain “which side are you on?” seems applicable to the situation.

Now SIMC may need more help monitoring the newswire, which I assume is a tiring and thankless job. If so, I DON’T think just relying on posting something on Indy., with its fast-dwindling readership, is enough. No, it used to be that people from the staff came out to demonstrations with flyers informing activists of the site, urging them to use it and come to meetings, etc. (In fact their activity is what motivated me to first look at the site.) I think that it’s again time for such action. For, example, if you want more volunteers, come to the March 18 and May Day demonstrations with an appeal to anti-war and left-wing activists. But don’t come trying to justify all the racist garbage, you won’t get many volunteers.

I entirely agree with Ben: THIS THREAD SHOULD BE IN THE CENTER COLUMN!

Would someone give We Mar 2 (or whatever) a copy of the Constitution and have them show me where it defines freedom of speech as an obligation to post hate speech on a cooperative website?

To quote F. Scott Fitzgerald; 'you're so stupid you don't even know you're alive...!'

P.S. Still upset that your 'mass-gathering of five' in Fremont (without any warning so no one knew-or cared-that you would be there) came and went without so much as a whimper?
It's because you are utterly insignificant in the modern world! Events have passed you by...does it burn deep down inside of you? That you can't wear your Halloween costumes and get a rise...even out of Fremont?
That's just sad...

>which I assume is a tiring and thankless job.

That it is. It also garners insults, death threats and black propaganda.

For more about forgeries on Indymedia, see:

 http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1692248


For more about forgery of Angie's name in particular, see:

 http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/25338_comment.php#25340

This talk of forgeries, black propaganda, false flag, etc. is all really besides the point. So are death threats, insults, etc. I don't know who "nessie" is and frankly it doesn't matter.

If you're a "newswire monitor" then simply delete the racist/Nazi/Zionist/schmeckle/blahblahblah bullshit and be done with it. It's not that complicated. All these other issues are secondary and raised in a pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with what most everyone (including some conservatives) can see is a major problem.

The SIMC editoral staff's blatant incompetence has led to SIMC being transformed into an open amplifier for ultra-right propaganda and racist hate speech. This is not acceptable.

Perhaps the SIMC staff believes they can "sit this out" until it "blows over". If so, they're wrong. It's not going to "blow over". The Nazis and their defenders are here to stay--until we kick them out.

They are not here to debate, they are not interested in "dialogue"--they are filthy little tools of the bourgeoisie and they want us dead. Maybe some liberals need to spend less time defending their right to speak and actually start listening to what they're saying. It's not pretty.

Ultimately, there is no point protesting imperialist war and other things stemming from the current capitalist system if you're just going to roll right over and let the bourgeoisie's stormtrooper-wannabees have the full run of our supposedly "alternative" media outlets.

No pasaran!

>This talk of forgeries, black propaganda, false flag, etc. is all really besides the point. So are death threats,

Wrong. They are an integral part of the problem. The appearance of racist propaganda here is a symptom of the problem, but it is not the problem itself. The problem itself is two fold. What Indymedia has is not the problem. What it does not have is the problem. On one hand, Indymedia lacks basic journalistic standards like fact checking, or even spell checking. On the other hand it so lacks political coherence that it allows its enemies to use it against itself. Which is worse, is a a matter of some debate. Either way, there is no place for *any* disinformation. That includes, but is not limited to, forgeries, black propaganda, etc.

Either way, the decision to whether to step up and solve the problem or sit back and let it destroy what we have built, is a political decision.

For more on Indymedia media politics, see:

 http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/13191_comment.php#13230

I agree with you insofar as fascists are not *the* problem but a symtom of capitalist-imperialism's need to expand, expand, expand and the bourgeoisie's desire to hold onto power no matter what it takes.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the things I said were "besides the point" (i.e., besides the principal point at hand) are unimportant. Not by any means.

Yet they've been raised as something of a red herring to avoid dealing with what is some pretty obvious Nazi nonsense. Closer examination and understanding of all these issues is, of course, very important. But none of this should be held up as any reason to avoid dealing with the immediate threat which, if you're a moderator, isn't all that difficult to deal with.

For weeks the Nazis have had the complete run of SIMC with *no action* taken by the SIMC staff. Yes, we should all be very concerned with COINTELPRO dirty tricks--but that's no excuse for liberal inaction.

>they've been raised as something of a red herring to avoid dealing with what is some pretty obvious Nazi nonsense.

Nazis aren't the problem. Nazis are a symptom of the problem, but not the only one. There are a lot of symptoms. The problem is that the editors, for whatever reason, are allowing this site's bandwidth to be used to discredit Indymedia. Indymedia is no less discredited by disinformation than it is by enemy propaganda.

Why are the editors of S-IMC allowing this site's bandwidth to be used to discredit Indymedia? Why are the editors of, to name a few, NC-IMC, Utah-IMC, Pgh-IMC or Indybay allowing their sites to be used to discredit Indymedia? There are only two possible explanations. Either they are doing it on purpose or they are not up to the task of preventing it. Either way, the effect is exactly the same. Either way, Indymedia is discredited. Either way, the rest of us suffer. Either way, if the rest of us do nothing about it, we're as guilty as they are.

Are IMCistas not willing to rise up and take Indymedia back from the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, the warmongers, the profiteers and the apologists for exploitation and ecocide? If not, then how dare you, with a straight face, call yourself activists for Global Justice? If you are not willing to fight for the honor and integrity of the Indymedia network, you are no Global Justice activists. You are frauds and shams. Get over it. Clean up your acts and make IMC a threat again.

more about "Black Propaganda"


How dare nessie claim misuse of IMC

IMC was created to give voice to those who had no means of publishing their political views. there was never any restriction on what if any views could be posted anywhere on IMC. I am hard pressed to believe there is much support to the rantings of this "nessie person" who seem to bring trouble where ever he goes. IN reviewing the Mission Statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


***** Mission Statement

* To encourage a world where globalization is not about homogeneity and exploitation, but rather, about diversity and cooperation.
* To cover local events that are ignored or poorly covered by corporate media.
* To provide edited audio, video, and print stories of the above on the internet for independent media outlets and the general public.
* To facilitate the networking and coordination for the coverage of local events as well as gather information about events to cover.
* To provide links to alternative media, activist, and research groups.
* To seek out and provide coverage underscoring the global nature of people's struggles for social, economic, and environmental justice directly from their perspective.
* To offer community classes for training in internet and media skills.
* To encourage, facilitate, and support the creation of independent news gathering and organizations.


and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

****Principles of Unity: Utah IMC

1. We strive to provide an information infrastructure for people and opinions who do not have access to the airwaves, tools and resources of corporate media. This includes audio, video, photography, internet distribution and any other communication medium.
2. We support local, regional and global struggles against exploitation and oppression.
3. We function as a non-commercial, non-corporate, anti-capitalist collective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nowhere is it stated that one has to be of any political or ethnic backround to post here. or that any one needs this "nessie's" permission.

please copy and repost to ALL corners of IMC

>. . . .infrastructure for people and opinions who do not have access to the airwaves, tools and resources of corporate media.


Indeed we do. But we don't provide for *all* such people and opinions. Neither do we provide for just *any* people and opinions. Nor should we. Nor did we ever say we would. Nor do we intend to. Indymedia isn't for *any and all* people and opinions. Indymedia is for specific kinds of people and opinions.

We are very selective as to which people and opinions have use of IMC's bandwidth. This is one thing on which every single IMC on the planet agrees. Every single IMC on the planet selects which people and opinions have use of its bandwidth. There are no exceptions. Criteria for selecting who has use of the bandwidth vary, but nowhere on earth is there an IMC where just *any and all* people and opinions have use of the bandwidth. It doesn't happen.

Not only is this the way it is, this is the only way it *can* be. It's also the only way it should be, but that's a moot point.

Either way, Indymedia isn't for *any and all* people and opinions. It never has been and it never will be, because it can't be any other way. Rational analysis dictates that we recognize this, the functional paradigm that it is, and always has been. Rational analysis always recognizes the truth.

The truth of the matter is that every IMC has a policy. Some policies are de facto. Others are stated. Some are consistent. Others are inconsistent. Some are coherent. Some are incoherent. Some are good politics. Some are bad politics.

But they are all policies of one sort or another.

No local IMC anywhere lacks a policy. It is the network as a whole that lacks a policy. That's bad politics, very bad politics, very, very bad. Left to fester long enough, it will be the death of Indymedia. In the mean time, it is an open, running sore on the face of the Global Justice Movement.

Sometimes, good politics drive out bad politics. Other times, bad politics drives out good politics. It is never a foregone conclusion. It is always up to the people who are directly involved, whether good politics or bad shall prevail. It is in our hands, which gets driven out.

To fail to drive out bad politics *is* bad politics. To drive out bad politics is good politics. It's as simple as that.

To permit Indymedia bandwidth and resources to be used promote the agenda of fascists, racists, warmongers, misogynists, homophobes, imperialists, colonialists, liars, thieves, and apologists for ecocide and exploitation, etc. is bad politics.

To permit Indymedia bandwidth and resources to be used to distribute spam, gibberish, flame wars, heckling, and the demented raving of disturbed minds, is bad politics.

To permit Indymedia bandwidth and resources to be used for profiteering is bad politics.

To permit Indymedia bandwidth to be made unpleasant and/or difficult to use, is bad politics.

To permit noise to drown out Indymedia's signal is bad politics.

To permit the veracity of Indymedia's content to be undependable, is bad politics.

Most important of all, to fail to drive out bad politics is itself bad politics. It is worse politics, in fact, than all other bad politics put together, because it makes all other bad politics possible. By making them possible, it makes them inevitable.

Bad politics will not drive bad politics out. It ain't gonna happen, no way, no how, not ever. It can't. It wouldn't, even if it could, and it doesn't want to. We must do it ourselves. It's our only option.

If not us, who? If not now, when? IMCistas, rise up. Take Indymedia back from the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, the warmongers, the profiteers and the apologists for exploitation and ecocide. Make IMC a threat again.

more about "Black Propaganda"


How dare nessie claim misuse of IMC

IMC was created to give voice to those who had no means of publishing their political views. there was never any restriction on what if any views could be posted anywhere on IMC. I am hard pressed to believe there is much support to the rantings of this "nessie person" who seem to bring trouble where ever he goes. IN reviewing the Mission Statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


***** Mission Statement

* To encourage a world where globalization is not about homogeneity and exploitation, but rather, about diversity and cooperation.
* To cover local events that are ignored or poorly covered by corporate media.
* To provide edited audio, video, and print stories of the above on the internet for independent media outlets and the general public.
* To facilitate the networking and coordination for the coverage of local events as well as gather information about events to cover.
* To provide links to alternative media, activist, and research groups.
* To seek out and provide coverage underscoring the global nature of people's struggles for social, economic, and environmental justice directly from their perspective.
* To offer community classes for training in internet and media skills.
* To encourage, facilitate, and support the creation of independent news gathering and organizations.

The people who use Indymedia for its intended purpose have a right to not have racist propaganda flung at them while they do. People who want to read racist propaganda can go do it at a racist website. People who want to read racist propaganda aren't welcome here, anyway. Or, if they are, Seattle isn't welcome in Indymedia, or any other decent company, either. Racists are only welcomed by other racists. If you welcome racists, you are one.

Editors, is this a racist site or not? Tell us please. We want to know who we're dealing with. A simple yes or no will suffice. We will take silence for a "yes". Thanks in advance for your honest answer.

I did not write or post this "article". In fact, my only connection to Seattle (living in Canada as I do) is yelling for my beloved Mariners. So unless there is another Angie associated with your particular site, I can well assure you that I've not posted this piece. Ergo (I've always wanted to say that!) a forgery.

You aren't a regular poster in Seattle, so your name means nothing to us here. Angie is a relatively common name, so calling it a forgery is absurd.

Likewise, the name Nessie means nothing to anyone here either. This whole issue is being stirred up by a local (non-Nazi) provocateur named "Ben Seattle". He has a history of attacking Seattle activist groups.

If there have been forgeries, I don't know if he participated or not.

Calling it a forgery would be, indeed, quite foolish as well as absurd if it weren't for the fact that I am a regular poster at SF IMC. Nessie is one of the editors there. I am not going to get into a debate about this. I just thought, in the interests of anyone and everyone, I'd state emphatically that I, Angie, from SF IMC, did not post anything here, much less the piece identified by "Angie" above. People with nothing else to do, and nothing mentally to do it with, have been forging my name all over IMC, so, surprise! There is nothing simple about it whatsoever. Devious and misleading, certainly, but nonetheless not quite absurd. Thank you for your time.

Thanks for the heads up on who Nessie is, and how the name Angie could be misconstrued. Sorry for the over reaction. We've got a few out of control locals (e.g., "Ben Seattle", "Two Friends").... and thinking of how our squabble here could affect people elsewhere.

>We've got a few out of control locals (e.g., "Ben Seattle", "Two Friends")

They're not out of control. Editorial policy here is out of control. "Ben Seattle" and "Two Friends" have merely had the courage to point it out. The editors here should be ashamed of themselves for letting racists post here. It makes all Indymedia look bad. Throw the racists out.

All IMCs have low levels of moderation. To a some extent this is a political decision: most IMCs are run by anarchists who feel uncomfortable in the role of censor. The general feeling is that you don't need a V-chip on your news and commentary.

The other reason there is low moderation is a result of the fact that IMCs are volunteer organizations. Most people who volunteer are interested in reporting news -- not filtering it.

If you were a regular Seattle IMC reader, you would know that the Seattle site isn't dominated by Nazi trolls. In late February the Seattle IMC posted a series of calls to action against the Nazis. Activists began posting the names and home addresses of the Nazis in western Washington state.

In response, the Nazis began flooding the site with some pretty disgusting shit. Some of it was just obscenity. Other postings, like the ones above, actually let people know about the Nazi reaction -- a brief glimpse into the gibberish of a Nazi troll without disrupting the flow of news on the rest of the site. The addresses were posted to piss the Nazis off and leaving a few posts up let people know that it worked: they were really, really, really pissed off. It was also indirect confirmation that the information that had been posted was correct.

Ben Seattle is a Leninist (the ass-licking part of the left). Ben is a boring dolt who shows up around the city giving finger wagging lectures. He has a history of attempting to "fix" various progressive organizations that don't meet his political purity standard. This guy (and the Two Friends) are opportunists who are trying to hijack the Seattle IMC and turn it into a propaganda vehicle where their political V chip is firmly in place. Want to make an announcement about a community issue? It won't appear on the site unless you couch it in the correct revolutionary phrasing. Struggling to organize your work place? Has the boss locked out you and other minimum wage employees when you asked for health benefits? Be careful. If you get help from mainstream unions, Ben won't let you tell the story on the site. Why? Because he thinks mainstream unions are the enemy. Letting them join your picket line means that you have become just another lacky for the Democratic Party.

Be afraid, little children. The Nazis are long gone, but Ben Seattle is still here.

hi folks,

my time is limited so this will be short.

they guy who claims that I am a danger to indymedia and will be censoring your announcements and stories from the newswire is promoting disinformation.

This is the same guy who has made every effort to ban me from posting to this site.

This is the same guy who has impersonated me.

More on this topic (and a place where you can post your comments) can be found here:

What do we need at Seattle Indymedia?newsrefinery.com/indymedia/seattle

* No racist trash on the newswire
* fewer crude, thoughtless and malicious
comments on the newswire
* a higher signal-to-noise ratio
(ie: be more like Portland Indymedia)

* democratic rights for activists to use the
newswire to discuss events and politics
(including the politics of indymedia)

* an editorial collective which is
responsive to community concerns,
accountable to the progressive community
and open to community participation

Ben Seattle
 http://struggle.net/ben

This is a bald faced lie. Many IMCs practice zero tolerance for trolls, racists and disinformation.

For example:

 http://sf.indymedia.org


>Seattle site isn't dominated by Nazi trolls.

Even one is too many. It is immoral to give Nazis a soapbpx.



>Ben is a boring dolt


An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

get your facts straight:

perhaps this is just a semantics debate, but low moderation (to me) indicates that you post, and then editors review the content after it has been posted. low moderation doesn't mean no moderation. however, people and content aren't prescreened. the key is that although objectionable content is removed from the site, there are fewer "rules" about what/who can/can't appear on the site, and the moderators apply the "rules" after the post has gone out.

moderate moderation indicates that some mechanism (a login/password or a human moderator) filters the content before posting. content and the identiy of the poster are prescreened. the "rules" are more restrictive, and the site is structured to enforce those restrictions.

high moderation would mean that every single person and opinion has been blessed by the site owner.

some imc sites censor more than others. people sometimes complain that there is too much censorship in portland or sf. however, even sites like portland and sf aren't requiring people to login to post. as such, i would define those sites as low moderation. since all the imc's that i am aware of have open newswires, i would agree that all imc's have low moderation.

just my 2 cents worth.

i'm sure that someone will want to rage about what an idiot i am... so let the games begin.....

hi Sue,

thanks for your comment. I have a question on which I would like your opinion.

1) In my post above (March 15) the imc editor removed the "http" from my link to:
NewsRefinery.com/indymedia/seattle

and (2) also removed half of the post below it (March 16) which discussed an oversight

that was made by the Portland indymedia group in allowing a statement with forged

signatures to be posted to the newswire.

On another occasion the imc editor removed more than half of the title to a post I made.

And a comment of mine which referenced the link above was removed entirely even though

my comment, and the page to which I was linking, was directly relevant to what was being

discussed (ie: censorship, the need to increase the signal-to-noise ratio at indymedia,

etc).

These changes and deletions were made without any indication to readers that posts were

being modified or altered. Nor do these changes appear to be consistent, as far as I

can determine, with the publicly posted editorial guidelines.

So I am left not knowing if _this_ comment of mine will be deleted (and if so, why) and

I do not know what else I have read that may have been tampered with -- because there is

no clear statement of moderation policy. The unspoken rule appears to be: "do not imply

that the person who runs this site is doing less than a wonderful job and do not link to

any site which implies the same".

I do not consider this to be "low" moderation -- nor do I believe that most progressives

would share your definition.

So I would like your opinion on this (assuming that the moderator of Seattle indymedia

allows this comment of mine to remain here for you to read).

Ben Seattle

What do we need at Seattle Indymedia?
* No racist trash -- fewer crude and malicious comments
* democratic rights for activists to post and comment
* editors who are responsive and accountable to the community
newsrefinery.com/indymedia/seattle

To Ben --

You can't have it both ways. First, you whined that you wanted more moderation. Now that the editors appear to be stepping up and doing just that , and you are whining that your "free speech" is being impinged upon.

Look, you've been trying to start a flame war for a couple weeks now. When that didn't work, you tried to stir up problems for Seattle within the larger IMC community. When that didn't work, you created an anti-Seattle IMC website.

Given all the nasty tricks you've been playing, it isn't surprising that you are looking over your shoulder payback. A cut-off title and links that don't work don't sound particularly omninous. They sound like user errors -- or at worse, database glitches.

Given your history of wild accusations, I wouldn't be surprised if the editors did hide your comment accusing Portland of posting forgeries. They probably didn't want to spread slander about a fellow IMC.

----------------------

To Everyone else:

It's time for the editors to limit these self-referential discussions on process. The focus of the site should be news, not rants by trolls like Ben Seattle. The earlier problems (too little moderation? too many trolls?) seem to have been resolved.

If you want to spend your time counting Leninists dancing on a head of a pin, may I suggest that you do it on one of the other sites owned or controlled by Ben Seattle:

pix.org
struggle.net
www.leninism.org
newsrefinery.com
mediaweapon.com
marxism.org

>perhaps this is just a semantics debate

Wrong. This is a political debate in which semantics are among the ways that certain people are attempting to distract our readers attention from the fact.


>trolls like Ben Seattle.

That's another way. An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.

See:

 http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/subject.htm

Ben is not the issue here. The issue is Nazi propaganda on Indymedia. To even attempt to distract our readers from this is to defend the presence of Nazi propaganda on Indymedia. Why is this person defending the presence of Nazi propaganda on Indymedia? Is this a Nazi speaking? Or is it a Zionist who recognizes that the presence of Nazi propaganda on Indymedia discredits the Palestinians and their supporters who post here?


>high moderation would mean that every single person and opinion has been blessed by the site owner.

This is exactly what is being called for, zero tolerance.

Zero: it's a noun. Look it up.


>even sites like portland and sf aren't requiring people to login to post

It's not necessary. Zero tolerance can be adequately enforced after the fact, as long as the political will to do it is present in the editors. SF-IMC does it. S-IMC could, too. Instead, they choose to publish Nazi propaganda. Why?

The issue here is not how many posts are removed, or how, or when, it's done. The issue here is what *kinds* of posts are removed. Racist propaganda should be removed, every instance, no exception. Anything less is very, very, very bad politics. That's the issue, not semantics, not Ben, and not me, either.

>Given your history of wild accusations, I wouldn't be surprised if the editors did hide your comment accusing Portland of posting forgeries.


It's not a "wild accusation," it's a fact:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/1671143_comment.php#1672316