> For your information, I know of at least one person who
> used the email address you recommended, and who
> eventually received a notice that the question posed was
> not going to be presented to "the list" and would
> therefore not be answered.

Can you provide a copy of said post, or at least of the rejection notice? Not your interpretation of them, but the actual content.

> If IM-SC is not a vehicle for self-publication, driven by
> the contributors and gently shaped by the editors, then
> what is it?

It is, but only within the context of LOCAL NEWS. Get it? Local?

> If IM-SC does not allow those with news and opinions to
> share that material with a wider readership, then what
> good is it?

The good that is SCIMC, is in that it focuses on local events and issues, highlighting them instead of allowing them to drown in a sea of global news and issues like most of the press around here do.

> If someone posts a spam about yak milk in India, and
> someone else posts something relevant to Santa Cruz -- a
> report of local illnesses being blamed on Indian yak
> milk, for example
...
>- then why require the proponents of the amended article
> to argue the case for it remaining unhidden?

We don't require that. We require that they post their content as a seperate article, which is what it deserves anyway because at that point it is no longer merely a comment or addendum to the previous.

Anyway, what you hypothesize is the exception, not the rule.

Too many such articles never have any such additional material added. There was a time when we allowed it all to stay up, and this what we learned. So now they come down, because every moment they remain on the public newswire they occupy precious screen space for which real local news is fighting.

> In my earlier comment, I only hoped that censors would
> use common, er, "cense" in judging local relevance, and
> would take amended comments into account as well as the
> original article when making their decisions.

There's something you don't understand, Im afraid. This is not, primarily, a community bulletin board or discussion forum. It is a news service.

Comment threads are an added bonus, not our raison d'etre. And owing to our layout, screen space is too precious to waste on any article without direct and primary local relevance, regardless of how the discussion might have turned somewhere down the thread.

> Again, I'm just talking about using common sense and fair
> consideration in enforcing the "local content" policy.

So are we, and it is already in use.

> Finally, speaking about common sense, I find it very
> confusing that you are explaining (for the 28th time,
> apparently) a policy that has resulted in many of your
> own comments being hidden along with the original
> articles they extend. Why would you, the fellow who
> explains the policy, spend your time to add comments to
> articles such as "Not One Penny for the War Budget" (item
> #3754), knowing that there is a strong likelihood (if not
> a certainty!) that they and the article will soon be
> hidden, as that article is now?

So that the person who posted it, when they notice it's missing, can have the courtesy of an explanation. The post still exists and can still be read by the author or anyone else who knows it's there, it's just not occupying valuable top-level screen space anymore.

> I (and I would think, many others) post here to explore,
> or at least share, ideas and information with others.

You can be posting because Elvis landed his space ship and told you to post, it doesn't matter. We built and run this site for a reason, and where your content falls outside the scope of our reason (which is, I repeat, news and issues of primarily local significance), you should take your yak's milk to an appropriate venue.

> I do think, however, that inviting those who post well-
> meaning and sincere inquiries about the rules of THIS
> space, to use "the tools that are out there" to create
> their "own space with [their] own rules" is unhelpful.

That's my whole point - if you want to post non-local news somewhere, *we are not here to help you*.

> Remember that ~Bradley, in the original article, advised
> those with a beef to "hit publish, not me." In order for
> that to be more than the equivalent of "let them eat
> cake," those who are being invited to publish must have
> reasonable access..

Apply some of the common sense you invoke. Bradley's was an off-the-cuff comment regarding dialogue vs physical intimidation tactics. That in no way negates established and documented policy.

> Otherwise, publication provides no remedy and no valve to
> let off steam, does it?

WE ARE NOT YOUR SUPPORT GROUP, and this not your private sand box. You want to let off steam? Go play tennis, or chop firewood, or hang out with your friends and vent.

You claim to respect our purpose here, but clearly you do not. You appreciate the site as a resource to use for your own purposes, and wish it to conform to your purposes.

If you truly respected our purpose, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Get your own IMC. Quit trying to hijack ours.

> Suppose that ~Bradley had instead invited the
> intimidating individual (or those of similar mood and
> mind) to go elsewhere and open another website? How
> inflammatory would THAT have been?

Heh.

> I hope you see what I am getting at: an outlet must
> indeed function as an outlet, or backed-up pressure will
> find another path.

YES, PLEASE DO FIND ANOTHER PATH. This is a LOCAL NEWS OUTLET. Not an emotional outlet. Not a Gap outlet. Not a power outlet.

You people just never stop. Same bullshit, different day.
I give up.

> PS: Thanks for the word about the bug, which has indeed
> eaten several of my attempts to comment in the past few
> months -- most discouraging. I hope you get it fixed
> soon.

They can be un-eaten, you know. But if no one brings it to our attention at mailto:imc-sc (at) lists.indymedia.org we're likely not to notice.

-Van