From:   jemcgloin@verizon.net
Sent time:   Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02:53 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no demands bridging the gap
 

I am actually alarmed to find out we are making a constitution.  It seems extremely premature.  I am alarmed that the demands committees are extremely hard to find and that the constitution committee also seems to be operating in the dark.
 
 
On 10/11/11, 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 >