From:   shaista husain <>
Sent time:   Friday, October 21, 2011 8:30:36 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: Proposal on the agenda for tonight's GA

im more concerned about suppressing the conversation of folks NOT on this listserve--
good comrades, if you don't like this thread there are several other threads posted everyday--no one is forcing anyone to read this thread--and apologize for the constant back and forth--part of the annoyance of free inquiry and free speech--too many cooks do not spoil the broth--we are not cooking broth--we are making a wide broad movement--so the more the merrier...

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jon Good <> wrote:
Nobody needs to be "invited" to join the google group. You just go to the web page and sign up.  The link to the web page should be on the GA website soon if it's not there already, and in the meanwhile I keep posting the link to threads about the statement.  The message you got asking you to join was because google prompted me to put email addresses when the group was created, so I put the email addresses of everyone who had posted on the thread.

Our discussion of one specific statement's minutiae on this listserv is suppressing conversation about other topics.  That's not OK.



On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:39 AM, shaista husain <> wrote:
Listen Jon and Rob and Jem, the three of you, plus myself and cesar have been passionate about this discussion. But, let's refrain from talking amongst ourselves please. The reason we want an open platform is for folks to really contribute, like kind of blue, above has just contributed thankfully!!
I don't see this being a real honest examination if we begin a new google group, where others have to be personally "invited" to join the conversation.
I would like a week of broad discussion-and contribution-as much as possible--its never going to be perfect---but that is the only way it may approach some kind of consensus--as close as possible. We can also give a deadline for one week, if we do not come to consensus--then we learned another important lesson and we can move forward with that....yes?

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Jon Good <> wrote: is the place for discussion on the refining of this statement.  There are a lot of people on this listserv who are angry at us and who are have stopped participating in discussion on this list at all because the process of crafting this statement has bombed their inboxes with so much stuff.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, kindofblue <> wrote:
I think the statement currently lacks a little in focus.  I don't know
when you are meeting to discuss this, so I will post a suggested
reformatting here.  I am building off what I think is a great line in
the Sept 29 declaration:

We declare that no true democracy is attainable when the process is
determined by economic power.  Our current two-party system does not
represent the people, as both parties have sided with economic power,
and hence against democracy.  From diverse backgrounds we the people
have united to oust the global financial powers that have bought our
governments and who hold us hostage to their greed.  We call for a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.