From:   jemcgloin@verizon.net
Sent time:   Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:48:15 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: Re: Re: [september17discuss] Demands committee and those who want no demands bridging the gap
 

Like I said, I am only there about once a week also.  I try to influence the debate from a distance.  I have to trust the people that are there to make good decisions, and so far they have done very well.  No one has to follow the consensus reached on the ground, but the GA is on the ground running the occupation there in real time.  If everyone just does what ever they feel like, why is there a GA?  I almost got consensus on a one demand one week before the occupation was begun.  It was blocked, and i understood why, and I excepted the consensus.  The movement is bigger than the NYCGA and Liberty Plaza, and there were many other squares before us, but the NYCGA is its own entity and has to make its own decisions and I would suggest that those of us involved  try to follow the consensus.  There is true power there.
And if you can't get to Liberty square start a GA in your neighborhood or online.  I am trying to get all the activists on Staten Island together, so they work together instead of apart.  They may or may not form a GA, but I am hoping they get inspiration from what has happened on the ground in Liberty Plaza.
 Thanks John
 
On 10/11/11, Jason Jones<surplus@notanalternative.net> wrote:
I'm trying to stay out of this but I find it so infuriating that there should be one group whose "concensus" is supposed to represent everyone who wants to support this occupation. It's ridiculous to think that that groups decision can represent all those who aren't there! What about all the people who have jobs who can't attend? What about the people who don't have $ for the subway or live outside of the city? They are as pissed off as everyone who has the luxury of attending the GA meetings. I'm fine with any select group coming to a set of demands and putting it forward to join in a mass collective expression. But please, your particular decision, no matter how "democratic" will never speak for everyone. While you speak the language of "equality" be careful your not acts are not that of dictators.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:47 PM, <jemcgloin@verizon.net> wrote:
Obviously (I hope) working groups cannot put out demands without the consensus of the GA. But, the GA is the official consensus decision maker, and only the people that happen to be there when consensus is reached have a say.  I just happened to show up the day we reached consensus on the Declaration of the Occupation, which I had never heard of before that night.  I recognize anyone's right to do what they think is right, but if we do not follow any decision made by the GA, we will fall apart.
I do think there should be more work on the part of these demands groups to reach out to everyone and try to reach the broadest consensus possible.
John
 
On 10/11/11, Will Gauss<willgauss@gmail.com> wrote:
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 >