t writes:

"So that it can be censored because it runs counter to liberal ideology? I got tired of that."

Again, as I asked earlier, show me the editorial language that suggests anything about only allowing "liberal" stories. The primary things that are hidden from public view are racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise oppressive comments.

"Indymedia justifies the bias of the corporate press, because the corporate press offers space to those that IMC traditionally denies.

Again, the corporate press claims to be "objective" and fails at that. Indymedia contains the reports of independent folks who research on whatever they want to. As such, there are no claims for "objectivity".

"The same broad accusation can be made of SC-IMC, encouraging the oppression of the general anglo-saxon community, especially of men, the wealthy, land owners, Judeo-Christians, and political conservatives."

Again, SC-IMC is what people post and there is a big difference between challenging a politically and socially dominant individual's or group's privelege and continuing the historical oppression of specific groups.

> Can you link any where in our editorial policy
> that says we "favor liberal and progressive
> angles"?

"The editorial policy is not followed; only invoked to justify after-the-fact the editorial actions of one narrow end of the political spectrum."

You still fail to produce any evidence that suggests SC-IMC's editorial policy only allows for "liberal" contributions. Unless you want to make the argument that its impossible for a right-winger to write an article in a non-oppressive way.
"Free and open discource is forbidden here"

The only discourse forbidden is that of racist, sexist, homophobic and other blatantly oppressive remarks.

SC-IMC is here as a tool for various movements and folks who aren't given access to other spaces. If you want to make oppressive comments, do it elsewhere.