Warning: of lies, coup attempts and dangerous behaviour

[axel]

ES:
Hola amigos y compañeros de la revolución babeliana:

Personalmente nunca he sido parte de ninguna "coordinación",ni estoy interesado en serlo. Tampoco soy intérprete .Soy un simple traductor inscrito en la red, un miembro de ella.
Cuando Marcelo le dice a Laurent:
" Frankly, if your view of good faith, transparency and accountability is coherent with the act of accusing people who are working to make this project come true, and making these accusations public before they have a chance to defend themselves"

pienso que Babels no es un tribunal,es una RED horizontal,donde cualquiera ,como yo, puede pedir explicaciones hacia hechos como este, porque no somos empleadores ni jefes, y porque no se trata de un asunto personal. Este asunto afecta a toda la red, nos concierne a todos y por lo tanto tenemos la obligación y el deber de informar.Y eso es una de los principios de las redes,creo yo.Si no es así estoy en el sitio equivocado, vale.
Mi nombre no estaba en los textos del golpe de Estado o del Contramanifiesto, pero como simple y ordinario miembro de la red,si hay personas dentro de la organización de un Foro Social que me representan ,a mí, mi nombre, en mi compromiso individual,estas personas deben ser credibles, "practicantes" de los principios de Babels. Deseo me representen y organicen personas cuya conducta hacia la red nadie pueda poner en duda. Y parece que esto no está siendo así para Caracas.
Como le expresó la compañera Fernanda (que espero algun día conocer), algunos organizadores no han actuado correctamente para con los demás miembros de la lista.
Pienso que todos los miembros que firmaron el famoso golpe(y que esto se interprete como metáfora) son tan responsables como Erica en esta actuación de comprometer la integridad de la red y por lo tanto carecen de autoridad como representantes ante Caracas. Deberían ser mas honestos,admitir que adoptaron fórmulas inadecuadas y enfrentar las consecuencias de sus acciones y solo involucrarse como intérpretes. El fin no justifica los medios.

Deseo expresar mi simpatía a los 3 canadiensesy su punto de vista.Necesitamos contribuciones y representants verdaderos tambien.

Un saludo altermundialista a todos.Otro mundo es posible si somos honestos ,como dice mi presidente.

Nos vemos en Caracas.
Axel.
EN
I don´t belong to any "coordination",I´ve never been part of any of them and I am not interested. I am just a translator, not an interpreter, who is part of the network.
When Marcelo says to Laurent:
"Frankly, if your view of good faith, transparency and accountability is coherent with the act of accusing people who are working to make this project come true, and making these accusations public before they have a chance to defend themselves"
Babels is not a Tribunal. In a horizontal organisation nobody could ask for explanations such this one, because we are not employers, or bosses, and this is not a personal matter. This matter affects the whole network and concerns all of us and all the network deserves to be informed.This is the main point of this matter.
My name was not among the texts (Coup d´Etat or Contramanifiesto), but as an ordinary member, if people responsible for the SF organization represent me, my name, my individual committment, these people must be reliable and faithful to the principles of the network. I want people involved in the SF organisation whose behaviour towards the whole network nobody could put into doubt.
As Fernanda's message expressed, some organisers didn´t act properly towards the other members of the list.
I also think all the Babels members who have signed the Coup d´Etat are also responsible for jeopardizing the network's integrity and they should not be official representatives for Caracas.
It is not only Erica´sresponsibility. They must be honest, admit they have chosen the wrong procedure and suffered the consequences of their acts.They must be responsible about consequences. Just participate as interpreters. The end doesn´t justify the means.

I liked the message from the Canadians,and their view. We need positive contributions, and real representatives also.

Another world is possible if we are honest as Presidente Chavez says.
See you soon in Caracas
Axel

[mnario]

ES / EN

ES - ES - ES (o más bien portuñol)

Axel y tod@s,

Empiezo por el final de tu mensaje. Ojalá nos veremos en Caracas y espero que los debates, las discusiones y todo no sean en vano. Divergencias hay que existir, errores hay que existir, después de todo somos human@s. Y hay mucho que aprender con los errores, pero eso tod@s lo sabemos.

Lo que me asombra en lo del “golpe de Estado” es que sí, me parece realmente que sea una metáfora, pero fue tan repetida en este fórum que me temo que haya realmente un estado aquí. Despues de leer lo que el grupo de Canadá escribió sobre que no hay qué discutir la horizontalidad, voy a tratar de seguir el consejo: no voy a discutir lo que no parece existir.

Lo que me mueve a contestar a ese tópico no es que quiera defender mi “coordinadora” o otro qualquiera, sino seguir con el trabajo que me propuse hacer. No quiero representar a nadie, no quiero que nadie me represente, quiero seguir la propuesta de Babels y hacer mi parte para que un nuevo mundo sea posible. Quiero participar de los proyectos, estoy intentando entrar en grupos de trabajo, pero a veces parece que el equipo que desea tanto el fracaso del proyecto Caracas gana fuerza y aliados. No estoy en contra nadie que publica “alertas” en la red. Estoy por el debate. Estoy por la red. Estoy por Babels y los fóruns sociales. Quiero trabajar con uds. y no quiero coordinar nada y a nadie. Suerte a tod@s.

Marcelo Neves

EN - EN - EN

Axel and y’all,

I’ll start from the end of your message. See you in Caracas, that’s what I hope, and also that the debates and discussions and everything have not been in vain. There should be divergence, there should be mistakes, after all we are all human. And there’s much to learn with mistakes, but this is something we all know.

What amazes me in this whole stuff of “coup d’etat” is that, well, I understand it is a metaphor, but it has been so excessively repeated in this forum that I’m afraid there might be really a state here. After I read from the group of Canada that the horizontalness should not be discussed, I’ve decided to try and follow the advice: I won’t discuss what apparently does not exist.

What moves me to answer to this topic is not that I want to defend my “coordinator” or anyone else, but rather continue with the work that I proposed myself to do. I don’t want to represent anyone, and don’t want anyone to represent me, I want to follow the purposes of Babels and play my role in making this a better world. I want to participate in the projects, I’ve been trying actually to join workgroups, but sometimes it seems like the team that wishes so badly that the whole Caracas project fails is gaining power and allies. I’m not here to oppose to anybody that wants to publish “warnings” in the network. I’m for the debate. I’m for the network. I’m for Babels and the social foruns. I want to work with you all and do not want to be a “coordinator” of anything or anybody. Good luck to you all.

Marcelo Neves

[Dimitri Ekonomides]

Chers amis.

J’essaie de suivre la discussion sur le forum et la mailing liste ; ce n’est pas toujours évident avec des mails en espagnol et/ou portugais. Je suis désolé si certaines informations ne me sont pas parvenues à cause de cela.

L’affaire me paraît terriblement simple que cela ne justifierait pas ce trop d’encre versé !!!

a. Leda Beck et Erica Resende ont la responsabilité d’un acte qui est à l’encontre de la Charte de Babels. Il serait tellement facile de le reconnaître et suivre son chemin. Ca arrive à tous de faire des erreurs voire des transgressions.

b. Il y a une deuxième situation par rapport au HC et l’agence Tory. Désolé mais les arguments avancés par les signataires de la lettre de réprobation ne me convainquent pas du tout au sujet du fait que Erica a finalement agi « dans les règles ».

c. L’utilisation de personnes ( ne serait-ce que de leurs noms ) – Stéph , Julie - pour renforcer sa position est un acte qui relèverait du droit commun ( comme il a déjà été écrit ).

Sur tout cela je n’ai pas trouvé de mot d’explication, encore moins d’excuse.

Au contraire beaucoup d’invectives et d’absence de politesse et de respect élémentaires. ( des exemples ? Post de Erica : Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:13 am, mail de Leda sur la mailing liste le 27 ou 28. , je note aussi le mail de Yan à Maricruz :On 11/27/05 2:41 PM, "Yan Brailowsky).

Aussi des déplacements de la discussion sur d’autres sujets.
Càd: parler du bon travail de Leda et Erica etc. etc. Mais le problème n’était pas l’ensemble de leur travail. Dire qu’elles ont fait du bon travail sans répondre aux questions posées, c’est contourner le problème, c’est créer des impressions « positives » afin d’attirer l’attention ailleurs!!! Et cela a un nom : de la PROPAGANDE, qui est le propre d’un Politburo, du Komintern etc. etc. ;-) (pour rappeler des accusations déjà prononcées à d’autre circonstances dans Babels).
Que m’apporte le texte de réprobation et ses signatures, ou la liste de mails des gens qui expriment leur contentement ? Rien de significatif, ou presque rien, puisque il y a quelques explications sur le HC et l’agences Tory mais lesquelles, comme je l’ai déjà dit , me paraissent assez imprécises.

Au contraire elles apportent des bons sentiments ou plutôt du sentimentalisme. « Mónica et ses copains n'aimaient pas Érica…qu'ils trouvent 'trop bourgeoise" ( Leda Beck 30.11 ) . Merci de l’info ! Je ferai attention puisque je suis un peu bourgeois moi aussi (médecin, fils de médecin). Non , mais ...

C’est émouvant – voire pathétique, désolé d’être dur – mais rien de plus. Ou si. Un air de climat de Congrès qui acclame debout et à l’unanimité le grand Leader ! Quel gâchis !

Ce n’est pas en accumulant des signatures qu’on me fera croire que tout s’est passé dans l’ordre… Je trouve que les signataires, aussi, devraient y penser. C’est noble de vouloir défendre quelqu’un mais pas n’importe comment et pour n’importe quoi. Et, chers amis, je trouve que vous vous exposez un peu trop inutilement.

Il est fort dommage que la ou les personnes qui ont informé du « coup d’état » ne se manifestent pas pour couper court à des discussions stériles du genre « comment avez-vous pu avoir ce mail …atteinte à la vie privée etc. etc. ». Je les invite à le faire. Si elles ne le peuvent pas je suis obligé de le respecter mais je me poserais des questions sur les raisons de rester « caché ». Craignez-vous quelque chose ? Si oui … ben… là c’est grave. Non pas le fait de rester « caché » et d’avoir peur mais le fait que quelqu’un – dans Babels ? – puisse vous inspirer de tels sentiments et vous mener à rester dans l’ombre.

Je trouve positive et élément d’une façon constructive et inclusive d’aborder les choses – même dans des situations aussi problématiques – la proposition de Yan , Laurent etc. que Leda et Erica continuent à travailler au sein de Babels.

On peut se poser des questions sur le fonctionnement de Babels et du Forum et son efficacité. Mais cela doit se faire dans les processus de Babels et du Forum et ne pas agir contre les principes existants. Je ne pense pas non plus que les principes et la Charte sont des choses immuables. Personnellement je m’interroge sur l’efficacité de l’absence de toute représentativité ou voire de vote. Je n’ai pas d’idée arrêtée là-dessus, juste des interrogations que je partage avec vous, en vrac, ici.


P.S.1

Je pense que le « et alii » est mal choisi. Vous êtes six à signer. Et alors ?. Les faits sont assez clairs ; vous n’aviez pas besoin de cet « alii » qui, de surcroît alimente des discussions qui nous éloignent du vrai problème. Pas grave, à mon humble avis, juste inutile.


P.S.2« Due to the recent disqualifying campaign against the competence of the coordination of Babels-Rio Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:26 pm »
Aaah bon ?! C’était où ça ?

« that my reply consist of the debriefing report which was written by two individuals, approved by acclamation in an open meeting »
Staline aussi était acclamé en ovation et à l’hunanimité !!! Et alors ?


Salut à tous

( traduction en grec bientôt )

[Dimitri Ekonomides]

Dear friends,

I am trying to follow the discussion in the forum and in the mailinglist. This is not that ?bvious with mails in Spanish and Portuguese. I am very sorry if some information were not known to me because of this.

This affair seems very simple, that simple that it should not have needed that many writings.

a) Leda Beck and Erica Resende have the responsibility of an act which is against the Babels Charter. It should be so easy to recognize it and to go on. It happens to all to make mistakes or even transgressions.

b) There is a second situation related to the HC and Tory. Sorry but the arguments put forward by the letter of repudiation signatories do not convince me at all concerning the fact that Erica acted according to the "rules".

c) Using persons (even if only their names) - Steph, Julie - to reinforce somebody's position is something that is related with common laws (as it was written)

On all this I did not find one word of explanation, not even one word of e?cuse.

On the contrary many insults, lack of politeness and of elementary respect (examples? ? Erica : Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:13 am, Leda in the mailing list one the 27 or 28. , I am noting also the mail from Yan to Maricruz :On 11/27/05 2:41 PM, "Yan Brailowsky)

Also moving the topic of discussion to other topics.

That is to say: to talk about the good work of Erica and so, and so on. But the issue was not their entire work. Saying that they did good work without answering the questions asked, it is going around the issue, it is creating positive impressions in order to draw attention to some other place !!! And this has a name: PROPAGANDA, which is the nature of a Politburo and a Komintern, and so on ;-) (to just to refer to this accusations already given in other circumstances in Babels).
What is adding the repudiation text and its signatories, or the list of mails which are sending their agreement ? Nothing meaningfull, or nearly nothing, because there are some explanations on the HC and the Tory "affair" which, as I said, seem rather imprecise to me.

On the contrary they are adding good feelings or rather sentimentalism
"Monica and her friends did not like Erica... who they found too 'bourgeoise'" (Leda Beck 30.11) Thanks for the information! I'll be carefull because I am a little bourgeois myseld (doctor, son of doctor)... ;-)

This is moving - pathetic also, I am sorry to be harsh - but nothing more. Or better yes. A Congress climate which is making a standing ovation to the great Leader ! What a pity !

This is not by adding signatures that someone will make me believe that all that happened rightfully... I think also that the signatories themselves should think about this. It is noble to want to defend someone but not with whatever means and for whatever thing.
And, dear firends, I think that you are exposing yourself a little too much and for no reason.

It is very negative that the person or the people who were informed about the "coup d'etat" are not stepping forward to stop radically sterile discussions such as "How could you see this mail ... against privacy and so on". I am inviting them to do so. If they cannot I am obliged to respect this but I'll myself question about the reasons why
remaining "hidden". Are you afraid of something? If yes... then... it is serious. Not the fact to remain "hidden" and to be scared, but the fact that someone -within Babels?- can inspire you such feelings and drive you to stay in the shadow.

I think positive and one element of a constuctive and inclusive manner to approach things - even the most problematic situations, like these - the fact that Yan, Laurent etc. propose that Leda and Erica continue to work within Babels.

One can ask him/herself questions about Babels’ and forum’s functioning and its efficency. But this is to be taken place with the Babels and Forum processes and not in contradiction with already existing principles. I do not think neither that the Charter principles are things that cannot be changed. Personaly I am asking myself questions on the efficience of the absence of any representativity or even of any vote. I have no idea set on this, only questions which I am sharing with you, as a whole package, here.

PS1 - I think that the "and alii" is poorly chosen. You are six to sign.
And so what ? Facts are clear, you did not need this "alii" which, on top of this is feeding discussions which are furthering us from the real issue. Not serious problem, to my humble opinion, only useless.

PS2 - "Due to the recent disqualifying campaign against the competence of the coordination of Babels-Rio Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:26 pm" Oh really ? Where was that ?

"that my reply consist of the debriefing report which was written by two individuals, approved by acclamation in an open meeting" Stalin also was acclamed by standing ovation and unianimously!!! So what????

Cheers

Dimitri Ekonomides

(Greek translation soon)