Chuck is not "Anarchy", "Anarchism" or "The Leader of the Anarchists"; we all have names, faces, hopes and desires and we are each responsible for our own actions and equally responsible for the actions of the groups we work within.

That said, because someone has a problem with Chuck, it shouldn't extend to all anarchists; to do so would be to commit a logical fallacy. Conversly, extending commradship to anarchists as an abstraction, appreciated no doubt, still should not be used emotionally to mount an arguement. I understand that it was used to illustrate that there was no ideological bias in actions in this case and that these were not the motives in this case. I just don't want anyone to make these leaps because folks will/do;)

On a side note (the most important part actually because the rest was rambling), the IMC structure is based in anarchist principals. As such, the IMC structure allows for any hierarchies or power inequallities to be easily subverted....it practically begs that you do it. It eschews hierarchical relationships because of its decentralized nature. If you got a problem with it, if you don't like how it's being run or you simply have something to add all you got to do is add your hand. Go to the meetings and become the media. That simple, problem solved.

It's hard work and takes time but real work does and liberty requires real involvement.