From:   MAd Hatter <progressivechange@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Friday, September 16, 2011 1:28:42 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: can someone tell whoever spoke to the Village Voice
 

Doug, just stop trying to score points on a list serve. Drop it. You

guys screwed up. Life goes on. We will build a movement anyway. Look

at all the great work that people are doing.

 

 

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Drew Hornbein <dhornbein@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree! I think Wikipedia got it right with their fundamental principle:

> assume good faith

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Richard Machado <richardwmach@gmail.com>

> wrote:

>>

>> We all need to seriously hug this out. Because if this one interview leads

>> to the GA being destroyed, we are NOT ready to change the world, and we will

>> not be deserving of that honor. Let's get the ball rolling and Move Forward.

>>

>> Love,

>> Richie

>>

>>

>>

>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Doug Singsen <dougsingsen@gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>>

>>> Neither Will nor I had ever met the journalist (Rebecca Nathanson) who

>>> wrote the piece. She is not an ISO member and I do not know what her

>>> politics are or how close she is politically to the ISO. She is friendly

>>> with another ISO member but I don't know how well they know each other or

>>> how similar their politics are. Your suggestion that Will and Rebecca

>>> conspired to put out a hit piece on anarchists and then cover it up is

>>> inaccurate and inflammatory. Will was misled by Rebecca, regardless of how

>>> experienced she is as a journalist. In fact, as I suggested in my last

>>> email, it was probably precisely her inexperience that led to the

>>> miscommunication, a point you chose to ignore. The fact that the journalist

>>> is a student in no way negates the possibility that she misled Will, whether

>>> intentionally or not.

>>>

>>> Doug

>>>

>>>

>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM, David Graeber <david@anarchisms.org>

>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> It is absolutely the point - especially because the interviewee insisted

>>>> that he'd been mislead and never meant to be quoted criticizing fellow

>>>> members of the GA.

>>>> But in fact what we have here is not a naive activist talking to an

>>>> experienced journalist, but rather one anti-anarchist, ISO-oriented New York

>>>> student activist, talking to another anti-anarchist, ISO-oriented New York

>>>> student activist - one who is not a professional journalist but is on her

>>>> very first Village Voice internship assignment - who then appears on the

>>>> list claiming that the other student activist somehow tricked him into

>>>> stating the ISO position. This seems the very opposite of naivete to me.

>>>> David

>>>>

>>>> PS: in case the screen shot didn't come out, the tweet by the author of

>>>> the piece read:

>>>> beckynathanson

>>>> first post for @VillageVoice! i talked to an occupy wall street

>>>> organizer! (don't worry, he's not an anarchist)

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Doug Singsen wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Whether "exploitation" occurred or not is not really the point. The

>>>> reporter didn't properly explain to Will how she was going to use his

>>>> comments, which contributed in part to how he responded to her. That was

>>>> probably inexperience on her part rather than a conscious intention to

>>>> "exploit" him. Will in turn (and this is where most of the responsibility

>>>> lies) was naive in not understanding that there are things that you do not

>>>> say to the press about other activists.

>>>>

>>>> Doug S

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM, David Graeber <david@anarchisms.org>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Jon Good wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> The person who gave the interview had their inexperience

>>>>> and naivete exploited by the press.

>>>>>

>>>>> really? then how do you explain the fact that the author of the piece,

>>>>> the journalist who supposedly exploited a naive student

>>>>> activist, is herself an NYU student activist on an internship who

>>>>> clearly identifies herself with the very same faction as the student

>>>>> we're all supposed to believe she "exploited"? I checked her name on

>>>>> google and here's what she tweeted to her followers

>>>>> about the interview:

>>>>>

>>>>> <Screen shot 2011-09-16 at 2.04.31 PM.png>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> One day Orlov ate too many ground peas and died. Krylov found out about

>>>> it and he died too. Spiridonov up and died all by himself. Spiridonov's wife

>>>> fell off the cupboard and also died. Spiridonov's children drowned in the

>>>> pond. Spiridonov's grandmother took to drink and hit the road. Mikhailovich

>>>> stopped combing his hair and caught a skin disease. Kruglov drew a picture

>>>> of a woman with a whip in her hand and lost his mind. Perekhrestov received

>>>> four hundred roubles by wire and put on such airs at his office that they

>>>> fired him.

>>>>

>>>> Good people -- but they have to learn to take themselves in hand.

>>>>    Daniil Kharms

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >