From:   jemcgloin@verizon.net
Sent time:   Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:00:33 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no demands bridging the gap
 

I didn't even know we adopted the Principles of Solidarity, and I am on the websites and this listserve every day, and at Liberty Park at least once a week.  I know that the NYCGA runs only the NY OWS (by the way the first GAs were in Eur-asia)  I also know that nycga has no authority over the occupywallst,org site, but as a creation of the GA and one of its working groups I hope that the NYCGA has some authority over the nycga.cc  What is the point of having five hour meetings to reach consensus if afterwards everyone goes there own way.  Consensus is supposed to keep all of us autonomous individuals moving in the same direction, no?
Again the NYCGA has to control what ever message we have reached consensus on or we will be "spun" into a ditch.
John
 
 
On 10/11/11, Marisa Holmes<marisaholmes@gmail.com> 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 >