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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>