From:   rob hollander <lesrrd@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:33:59 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: Hypocrisy
 

I agree with Jon.

I don't like internal accusations or efforts to remove. It's counter to the spirit of an open movement. Sends a bad message internally and externally. It should be enough to direct people to the Deadfish blog and let them figure it out what's up with Deadfish.

Deadfish: if you remove your blog, then you should be removed from this list. But as long as that blog is there for all of us to see, I'd call Deadfish at worst a gadfly, at best food for thought.


On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree.  They can still read our stuff, because it's public, and their baiting is actually producing a wealth of good answers to the common questions of morons, and they provide challenges that it's shown we can easily overcome.


On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:15 AM, grimwomyn <grimwomyn@gmail.com> wrote:
seconded


On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Thadeaus <thadeaus@gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of how people feel about this issue I think it's important
that deadfish520@gmail.com be removed from this list considering how
openly hostile they are to this movement -
http://deadfish520.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/#!/Scipio_Nasica

Thanks

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Will Gauss <willgauss@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben & Jerry's
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which corporations are the ones that don't abuse the system? Do they
> actually exist or is the idea of the "good corporation" just a myth?
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sebastian Fernandez Giraldo
> <sfernan@ncsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> To echo guindave, Gabriel, and Aaron, some of us are not against every
>> corporation, just against the ones that abuse the system to gain an
>> advantage and provide little or no contribution to society. We are also
>> working towards making the production of these goods and services more
>> sustainable. So no, using iPhones etc is not against what we are trying to
>> do.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Aaron Gemmill <gemmill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> one important way for industrial economy to advance would be a radical
>>> shift toward sustainable production. there are many obstacles to this, but
>>> science isn't one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:23 PM, gail zawacki <witsendnj@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's based on science.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, J.A. Myerson <jesse.myerson@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an unbelievably reactionary position to take.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, gail zawacki <witsendnj@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles, I have a suspicion that "advanced industrial economy that is
>>>>>> sustainable" involves an oxymoron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Charles <chcreinhardt@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do not be Luddites. We want an advanced industrial economy. We just
>>>>>>> want it to be ever more democratic and sustainable, until we have the
>>>>>>> kind of modern society that actually has a chance of prosperous
>>>>>>> survival, rather than what we have now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 11:34 am, Harrison Schultz <schuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Woah, this article about the Adbusters largest private donor
>>>>>>> > - stockbroker backer Robert S. Halper supports my point.  It seems
>>>>>>> > as if
>>>>>>> > members of the 1%, class traitors, god bless them have been helping
>>>>>>> > us all
>>>>>>> > along...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-an...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > H.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Harrison Schultz
>>>>>>> > <schuh...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > I agree with the sentiments about using the tools of the system
>>>>>>> > > against the
>>>>>>> > > system and this is in fact what I've been attempting to do since
>>>>>>> > > before day
>>>>>>> > > one of this movement, as this leak and deliberate
>>>>>>> > > misinterpretation of a
>>>>>>> > > personal email I sent Micah White will verify...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > >http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occulist-occupy-wall-street-organiz...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > I would point out as someone who works in the
>>>>>>> > > marketing/advertising
>>>>>>> > > industry while supporting this movement that many of the most
>>>>>>> > > scathing and
>>>>>>> > > damning critiques of the system come from individuals who
>>>>>>> > > actually work
>>>>>>> > > within the system.  I've met several radicals specifically within
>>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > advertising industry who repress their beliefs just enough in
>>>>>>> > > order to work
>>>>>>> > > and support their families.  I've met plenty of business leaders,
>>>>>>> > > although
>>>>>>> > > not necessarily anyone from the 1%, who support what we are doing
>>>>>>> > > such as my
>>>>>>> > > current boss and mentor as well as my former mentor who has
>>>>>>> > > actually taken
>>>>>>> > > the time to visit me at camp several times now.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > The traditional battle lines between labor and capital no longer
>>>>>>> > > apply.  If
>>>>>>> > > we are serious about facilitating an actual revolution which I
>>>>>>> > > know we all
>>>>>>> > > are then I would argue that it is vital to seize the most cutting
>>>>>>> > > edge means
>>>>>>> > > of production especially if they happen to have been developed in
>>>>>>> > > some cases
>>>>>>> > > by truly amoral corporations.  I think it's also important not to
>>>>>>> > > alienate,
>>>>>>> > > but to ally ourselves with our supporters from the business
>>>>>>> > > world.  I
>>>>>>> > > further believe along those same lines that it's important for
>>>>>>> > > those of us
>>>>>>> > > who are able to do so to actually earn and "occupy" key positions
>>>>>>> > > and exert
>>>>>>> > > our influence precisely within those companies we would most like
>>>>>>> > > to see
>>>>>>> > > transformed if not obliterated because I believe that it's naive
>>>>>>> > > and wishful
>>>>>>> > > to assume that they'll change themselves as a direct result of
>>>>>>> > > any of our
>>>>>>> > > resentful rantings.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > Hypocrisy is only a problem for puritans not for revolutionaries.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > In solidarity,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > Harrison
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Jon Good
>>>>>>> > > <therealjong...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > >> Sparkles to that, Lauren. It's another insidious thing
>>>>>>> > >> corporations
>>>>>>> > >> do, having a fictional entity take credit for the work of actual
>>>>>>> > >> people.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Lauren <celli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > >> > I'll also note that cellular and wireless communications are
>>>>>>> > >> > pretty
>>>>>>> > >> > damn essential to areas with limited physical infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> J.A. Myerson
>>>>> http://www.jamyerson.com
>>>>> 347.688.0241
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> aarongemmill.com
>>> tomorrownowforever.com
>>> robotpedagogue.com
>>> aarongemmill.tumblr.com
>>
>
>





--
Rob Hollander
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10
NYC, 10009
212-228-6152

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >