From:   Justin Wedes <jwedes@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:29:21 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no demands bridging the gap
 

My understanding is that the constitution working group is researching city, state and federal constitution issues, not drafting a constitution for our movement.

 

Is that not the case?

 

-Justin

 

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Snafu <snafu@thething.it> wrote:

 

> It's interesting that the Demands Committee creates so much alarm whereas the Constitution Committee does not even raise an eyebrow. Constitution is strategic, demands are tactical.

>

> Demands do not define a movement, a constitution does.

>

> On 10/11/11 12:45 PM, Marisa Holmes wrote:

>> I agree with Will. We cannot represent the movement as a whole.

>> Also, a demands committee would not represent the NY occupation.

>> Any political statements must go through the GA process.

>> Personally, I'm against having demands at all.

>> We've already adopted principles of solidarity and a declaration.

>> We know what we're about at the NYC GA without "demands"

>>

>> Marisa

>>

>>

>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:41 PM,<guindave@aol.com> wrote:

>>> I'm not sure who is writting it I think thats what they are doing right ?

>>> writting somthing like it ?

>>>

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: Will Gauss<willgauss@gmail.com>

>>> To: september17<september17@googlegroups.com>

>>> Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 11:54 am

>>> Subject: Re: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no

>>> demands bridging the gap

>>>

>>> We are a consensus based group. If a decision is made which does not

>>> include us, I just won't recognize it.

>>>

>>> Sent from my iPhone

>>>

>>> On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:31 AM, David DeGraw<David@AmpedStatus.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> this mysterious "demands committee" needs to have total transparency.

>>> if demands come out of left field there will be a revolt within the revolt.

>>> we are already working hard to deflect all sorts of wacky conspiracy

>>> theories.

>>>> On 10/11/2011 11:16 AM, guindave@aol.com wrote:

>>>>> and yes it worries me for the same reason but what to do now ?

>>>>>

>>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>>> From: guindave<guindave@aol.com>

>>>>> To: september17<september17@googlegroups.com>

>>>>> Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 11:15 am

>>>>> Subject: RE: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who

>>> want no demands bridging the gap

>>>>> They where already there

>>>>>

>>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>>> From: Jackie DiSalvo<jdisalvo@nyc.rr.com>

>>>>> To: september17<september17@googlegroups.com>

>>>>> Sent: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am

>>>>> Subject: RE: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who

>>> want

>>>>> no demands bridging the gap

>>>>>

>>>>> Don't have reporters; they will slant coverage to suit their

>>>>> publication's

>>>>> agenda.

>>>>>

>>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>>> From: september17@googlegroups.com

>>>>> [mailto:september17@googlegroups.com] On

>>>>> Behalf Of guindave@aol.com

>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:47 PM

>>>>> To: september17@googlegroups.com

>>>>> Subject: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no

>>>>> demands bridging the gap

>>>>>

>>>>> I was at the demands committee and tonight (as some one who myself

>>>>> would like something like a demand (perhaps not in those words). They

>>>>> where completely unaware that many at the GA don't want demands I

>>>>> would urge pretty much every one who is interested for and against

>>>>> demands to come to there next meeting Sunday at 2 but with and open

>>>>> mind towards perhaps trying to bridge the gap between those who do

>>> and

>>>>> don't want this and those who are writing the what is it a

>>> constitution

>>>>> ? and those who do to find middle ground. Also there where some

>>>>> reporters there do other working groups have reporters at them ?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >