Jon, thanks for your kind words---i think all this arguing is good, it brings out the best in us.. so i am not trying to alienate anyone.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Jon Good <email@example.com>
Shaista, just because I don't want to include something IN THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT doesn't mean I don't like it, that I have a problem with it, or that I'm "censoring" anybody.
You know lots of stuff that I don't know. This is what I know. That's all.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:28 AM, shaista husain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On co-optation: what we leave out of this statement allows for co-optation by the right wing. Now is said it--when we speak of multiculturalism it obviously draws a line with the Tea Party who also agree with your anti-corporate stance. Now, please we are drawing lines against co-optation. if you find that you can not agree politically, then by all means... you get the picture.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, shaista husain <email@example.com>
Dear Jon, please go write a book.
This document includes several voices, of which yours is only one part. please don't repeat anything you have already written again.
If you don't like sustainability, have a private argument with Gail about it, if you don't like globalism, talk to someone from abroad. If you don't want multiculturalism, go spend five minutes on Liberty Square. Now, nothing is going to be retracted, if there is something missing ADD by all means. We are not writing our private thoughts you can do that on a blog. Stop censoring.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Winter Siroco <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I do not see how eliminating the second part, that reflects upon us in solidarity and clarifies the international dimension of financial power which stands above governments brings any conflict. Nobody will be puzzled or see any contradiction. We the people, want elevated discourse, no slogans.
The colossal crisis we face today cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican party because both parties constitute this crisis. Both parties are controlled and corrupted by Wall Street. With the connivance of both parties, only the top 1% has profited, at the expense of everyone else. Therefore, the occupation does not endorse their politicians, nor will we allow them to divide us or distort us. We have moved beyond false hopes, submission by eloquent speeches, populist manipulation and recurrent failures. We cannot be bought or sold. We are stronger, we are determined that we can succeed without them. We will create the change the world needs. We The People, know that we are not a singular voice, but we stand together in plurality, from multicultural and diverse (racial, ethnic and sexual) backgrounds, from different walks of life, and with opinions across the political spectrum, we have begun to unite on common ground and fight back against a common enemy -to oust the global financial interests that have bought our governments and hold us hostage to their greed. We claim a sustainable future to be ours.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Jon Good <email@example.com>
Cesar, you're absolutely wrong. All we are trying to say with THIS STATEMENT is "we will not be co-opted by the major parties." Everything else belongs in different statements.
As a writer and editor, crafting words is my trade. I have devoted my working life to the study and practice of clear, effective language. Please believe me when I say this is not just my opinion, but the result of an entire profession's study.
The crisis we face cannot be solved by either the Democratic or the Republican party because both parties constitute this crisis. Both parties are bought and corrupted by Wall Street. Through them, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else. Therefore, the occupation does not endorse their politicians, and will we not allow them to divide us or distort us.
Words are not just words, as everyone's experience using such words are different. Statements for release to the general public must be composed of words with as few competing definitions and potential for idiosyncratic understandings as possible if we want to get a clear message across to the most people.
While it's important that every voice be heard and considered, it is ludicrous to try and incorporate every single person's words into the statement. That's the very definition of "too many cooks spoil the soup".