Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post new topic   Reply to topic

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by lmnop on Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:15 pm

Actually, Ken, I have been banned from voting in the polls on this forum. And the first time I tried to join the group my request was denied. It was only after the second try that I was accepted. Others might not be persistent.

"OWS" stands for Occupy Wallstreet. If you want to Occupy the Internet, maybe call it that instead?

In my understanding, "occupy" means a physical occupation.

Also, of course you would have to bring it to a GA to get approval and everyone on this forum would be welcome to participate in that GA. You can also tweet into the GA.

My main point being, if you are going to be part of the movement, and use the name of a specific branch of that movement, be careful that you are actually representing the voice of that branch of the movement. OWS is located in NYC. Occupy DC is in DC, Occupy Oakland is in Oakland and so on.

If you are from all over, then Occupy the Internet seems like the most accurate. Of course, y'all would have to decide that.

Just have integrity in being what you say you are, is my main point. Are you occupying Wallstreet? Physically?
If not, why are you called OWS? think about it.


lmnop

Posts: 20
Join date: 2011-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by kefranklin on Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:19 pm

Lots of things, all at once. Firstly

>>Actually, Ken, I have been banned from voting in the polls on this forum. And the first time I tried to join the group my request was denied. It was only after the second try that I was accepted. Others might not be persistent.<<

If you are talking to me, my name is Kathleen. I'm not insulted, I'm just not sure if you are talking to me or Ken who is a member here, but not me and I don't think involved in this discussion.

Secondly I don't think anyone has been 'banned' from the polls. I realize the computer spit that word out at you, but if you were banned you wouldn't be here. And you wouldn't have gotten in a second time. We grew SO FAST there were technical glitches. To my knowledge, no one has been banned.

Yes, it would be a shame if we lost anyone over a glitch. We do want committed people who don't give up on the first obstacle.


>>"OWS" stands for Occupy Wallstreet. If you want to Occupy the Internet, maybe call it that instead?<<

The media derided the movement because if there were 100 people in the plaza it stood for 95-100 different things. I reject your premise that you own it, define it and are the law on it. Moving on.


>>Also, of course you would have to bring it to a GA to get approval and everyone on this forum would be welcome to participate in that GA. You can also tweet into the GA.<<

The inference here is WE ARE IN CHARGE. A premise also rejected by, well, the world.


>>My main point being, if you are going to be part of the movement, and use the name of a specific branch of that movement, be careful that you are actually representing the voice of that branch of the movement. OWS is located in NYC. Occupy DC is in DC, Occupy Oakland is in Oakland and so on.<<

Partly true, partly not. Occupy DC, for instance, is an easy nomer for organizing DC based groups. However I don't think they would check with you before leaving the border. Again you posit WE ARE IN CHARGE, again I respond ONLY OF YOURSELVES.


>>Just have integrity in being what you say you are, is my main point. Are you occupying Wallstreet? Physically?
If not, why are you called OWS? think about it. <<

Do you represent America and her interests or your own? Think about it. You would rather see this fail then share well, anything. And that speaks volumes.

As for more on the why call it OWS, that was in my other post.

kefranklin

Posts: 86
Join date: 2011-10-18
Location: VA2

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by BradB on Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:33 pm

you know I was justs reading some of the posts here; https://www.nycga.net/groups/the-99-declaration/

and I was thinking that the petition should not be called "Declaration" in any way... NYCGA already has a "Declaration" right ?
so that does look like co-opting in a way ... right? change the name it will help ... Wink


also, I have spent quite a bit of time reading through and commenting on OccupyWallSt forum...

I think I understand NYCGA pretty well and I am in solidarity with them... take things slowly in terms getting answers from them... if you rush them you will likely get a no.... understand this... the whole concept about this movement is communication, education, and building contituency... that can only be done slowly... right now we might have 20% of the people, the goal is 99% right... that takes time... prove your solidarity .... and all will fall into place... relax.. just keep in contact... and learn from them... and be part of them .... be in solidarity... right?... they imo REALLY REALLY REALLY know what they are doing... Wink

BradB

Posts: 85
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: Wash DC

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by lmnop on Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:01 am

Hey Katherine, have you ever been to a general assembly? It's the core of this movement. If you haven't, I recommend it, it's kind of amazing to see democracy in action.

I am currently able to post on the forum, but every time I try to vote in the poll I get rejected.

You seem to be missing my point altogether. You seem to be set in your mind of what you "think". Your argument doesn't really seem to take in the point I am trying to make here.

Shall I state it again? This is getting rather tedious.

The only reason I am saying anything at all is because this working group, which by the way is not going to be an official working group of the occupy wallstreet or ows or the nycga for much longer, is using the name of an actual living breathing general assembly which currently meets every night at Liberty Park, NYC. A general assembly that this groups moderators constantly malign at the same time as using the name prominently all over their literature. Hypocritical?

The general assembly of NYC of which this group claims to be speaking for, which it absolutely is not speaking for requires a consensus from the new york city general assembly to be part of it.
You are all welcome to be whatever you want to be, but the people in the general assembly of nyc the occupation of wallstreet, located at Liberty Park, on Broadway and Liberty in lower Manhattan about a block away from ground zero, who have been sleeping on the cold cement and getting arrested and pepper sprayed etc, for a month now, Have worked long and hard on this consensus process.

It has resulted in some basic agreements come about by consensus on what it means to be a working group and how to work within this part of the global movement. Namely this NYC part of the Global movement. If this working group, the demands working group or the 99% working group wants to participate in direct democracy in Liberty park with us, then they, ie you or some representatives from this group are required to report back to the general assembly what they are working on in their working group.

I dont know how to spell it out more clearly than that. Surely you can understand why, if the group you are so attached to defending, without really knowing what is going on, apparently, is going to persist in claiming that they are part of the NYCGA, then they damn well be showing their face in NYC at the god blessed general assembly that is meeting there every damn night in the freezing damn cold hashing out every word of every agreed upon declaration. If you think it's easy to get 200 or 300 people to consent on one proposal which everyone cheers spontaneously upon hearing but then doesn't actually consent to, (happened last night on a non co optation declaration/ proposal) How in the hell you think this group is going to reach consensus on this huge document that you are all so feverishly working on without any input to speak of from the actual group you claim to be representing.

My message is simple, really. Stop claiming to represent NYCGA. You do not. This is a totally separate group with a very different agenda. God bless your mission, happy trails, good luck, blessings all around. Change your name and merry on your way with your delegates and executive committees. Just stop claiming to be speaking for an actual body of people, who are working hard to agree on what we stand for as it is without a bunch of people who are not even physically present claiming to be speaking for us. Do you Grok me, sister? Are you catching my drift yet? Comprehende?? Capiche?

It's fine, do what you want, you're autonomous beings. But you are absolutely not part of NYCGA if you dont come here in person and read your 99% declaration, take notes from the people present if it doesnt pass consensus and go back to the drawing board. This is an interactive body, this is what it is and it aint an internet chat room or forum.

If you dont want your hard work to be decided on by other people, than quit calling your shit nycga. Call it something else and do whatever you want to do. You are pretending to be part of something that you have never even been to and the person who formed this group has been to ONCE. And now refuses to go back because he claims some sort of conspiracy erased his damn report from the damn minutes on the same day that there were thousands of people marching all over our city and everything was freaking crazy and so someone lost track of the five minutes of the 3 hour ga where he announced he had formed a working group. I personally was trying to save a kid who was od-ing that night, but that is an entirely different story.

If you only knew what you were talking about. Then you would really know what you are talking about.


peace out.

lmnop

Posts: 20
Join date: 2011-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by idenr on Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:57 am

i am not clear about how things are supposed to work between working groups and the nycga. there is a user group on the nycga.net site that is titled The 99 Declaration. There is a Demands group. A Media group. A People's New Economic Charter group etc. This implies some kind of okayness at least with this group by at a minimum the people running the nycga.net web.

So can anyone tell me how the relationship functions between nycga and working groups? Are there some working groups whose existence and official connection have been consensed and others that haven't been consensed? Does it matter?

idenr

Posts: 21
Join date: 2011-10-18
Age: 52
Location: PA-06

http://www.idenrosenthal.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:25 pm

For what it's worth: The vast majority of people don't really know what exactly is going on with the whole Occupy movement, so for them it's easier to refer to the entire revolution as "Occupy Wall Street" doings. I know that the actual OWS people haven't "approved" of the Declaration as part of their movement, but for better or worse, that IS how people are addressing us. We, and OWS itself, should probably just drop the bickering as to who is doing what.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by lmnop on Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:21 pm

No, sir, I am not confused in the least. I see very clearly what is going on here.

And you, sir, are you the same person, Admin? You are wrong as well. Elected delegates are only ONE way to go.
I believe you are simply being impatient, meaning "you" as in this group, with the process you claim to find brilliant.
Why not trust the process and instead of jumping ahead of it without group consensus, join in the discussion. Many people have already explained ad nauseum on the nycga.cc site why and how on so many levels this plan is flawed.

If you live in Michigan, great, start a general assembly if there is not one already. Work with a group. Get consensus every step of the way. Jumping from local to national before things are done gestating is like ripping a fetus out of a Mother's belly and expecting that baby to thrive. It will die and your premature and unthought out plan will also die without more heads working together on it. Instead of blinding yourself by assuming that our critiques are coming from a territorial or elitist place, why not actually engage in discourse about the very real reasons we are opposed to this plan.

If you really do respect the GA format, if you really do find it incredibly brilliant, than utilize it.

I'm done. I feel I have spoken my piece. I will be at the GA on Sunday, as I am every night. I will be continuing to inform people about this wedge you guys are trying to drive through a very beautiful and hopeful movement.

The urgency to come up with demands is driven by a media based on ADD. We don't have to feed into that.
The media is already showing plenty of intelligent debate based on this movement. I dont have all the answers, no single person does. That's the beauty of it, we are figuring it out together, daily.

If we do trademark a logo, and I hope we do, it will be to protect our movement from being co opted and destroyed by seemingly well intentioned but ill informed people such as yourself. It is not a corporate move. It would be like the union seal of approval. Otherwise, how will people know what is real and what is memorex

There has to be some way to validate that people are speaking for a consensus process and not over riding that with their own agenda, which is, quite frankly what is happening here.

Please don't destroy this movement in it's infancy because you thought you knew better than hundreds of people working hard to give birth to something, the first real chance this country has had in a long time to save ourselves from complete destruction by a government bought and sold on wallstreet.

thanks, as always, for listening. Really listen, please, alot is depending on this.

lmnop

Posts: 20
Join date: 2011-10-18

Back to top Go down

NYC GA on Sunday night

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:03 pm

I am appearing before the NYC General Assembly on Sunday. I appeared on 10-15 and told the about this working group and invited them to join. Michael P

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:34 pm

kefranklin wrote:I agree that the NYGA is the NYGA, just like the Wisconsin GA would be the WIGA.

To have us toil, we offer it up and then THEY vote? So we have no vote? That might be democratic amongst the NYers present but that isn't democratic overall.


There needs to be national coordination. It's here. There's a lot going on in NY. They have their hands full being NY. If they are a movement unto themselves, I hope they do great things.

If they are part of the national OWS sentiment, then there needs to be a clearinghouse and it evolved into here. I imagine if we tried to do it, it would never have worked, but there was no intent. Movements are living, evolving things. It brought us to today.

There was a need - a void - to have a place where everyone, regardless of geography can meet, help, talk, think and vote. It's here and it will be at the Convention.

It's important to note that ANYONE is welcome here, to my knowledge no one has been heckled or poorly treated and the process is transparent and democratic.

That is what anyone would want.

To re-invent this, just so NYGA could say they did it. Well, that's ego. We are on their side. If they aren't with us, so be it. It's the land of freedom.

I agree.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Occupy Wall Street, The Internet?

Post by vze2363v on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:17 am

I am someone who would like to be a part of this, but is absolutely stumped over why we are even having this discussion.

In YahooGroups, someone specifically investigated how this group came to be. Someone from the Internet Group of the actual Occupy Wall Street community in NYC who's name started with a D (I don't have time to go back through all that mess to find it but you are welcome to) formed the working groups on the internet under Occupy Wall Street NYC and this group (The 99% Declaration Working Group) was formed under that umbrella. Michael took that idea and ran with it.

As I suggested on the NYC site, if NYC's intention was to CONTROL the rest of the Occupy movements in the United States, they should not have created the NYC site and asked people to volunteer their time and hard work for groups without the caveat that any ideas or creations must first be authorized by the OWS NYC GA. Volunteering for groups usually means work is going to be done.

Michael made the point somewhere (YahooGroups or here, I can't remember but you are welcome to look it up) indicating:

  1. Work was done on this declaration (that everyone in NYC is so upset about).
  2. He went to the NYC GA and handed out some copies so people would have it as a REFERENCE DOCUMENT when he got up to stand before the NYC GA.
  3. It was voted down by the NYC GA.
  4. Someone from the media got a hold of the original proposition when it was handed out and published it, which became the fracturing point between NYC and everyone else who does believe in it.

I am a little more than concerned that NYC believes it has the right to determine the future for the other 49 states in this country. I DON'T have a problem with them looking at Michael's document and saying they don't want to endorse it -or- have anything to do with it. I have a problem with them saying because they don't want to endorse it no other Occupy movement in the United States has the right to support it. This is what is being portrayed in this thread, that all other Occupy movements DO NOT have the right to support a document that we feel supports our desired outcome. Is that really the way you want to represent OWS NYC? Is that the reputation you want them to have?

I am in the process of trying to hook up with my closest registered group which is 30 minutes away from my house. I have a LOT of physical challenges, am in a hideous amount of pain that I can't take medication for and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make it back home with the amount of gas left in my tank, but I'm going to do it anyhow. I would hate to have to carry the message that OWS NYC has put strict regulations on what Occupy movements can or cannot read - that's too much like burning books. My Occupy movement might have their own declaration they feel strongly about. At least this forum gives them an OPPORTUNITY to be a part of the declaration discussion and add in things that are close to their hearts.

This forum that has been created is the most efficient gathering place I have found out of all the other NYC provided sites on the internet (WordPress is NOT cutting it). The fact that someone is willing to create a conference call to include all the other Occupy movements is not only necessary, but the first time someone has actually CARED enough to include all the other Occupy movements in the discussion.

As far as Occupy the Internet, this cannot be done. The OWS NYC has already taken that group (See Facebook). I, for one, desire a working Occupy the Internet group (not owned by OWS NYC) to allow people such as myself to have a voice, that would be listed on the Occupy Together web site. Unfortunately, all the Occupy the Internet/Online twitter accounts, URLs and Facebook accounts have been taken and are being used for several random things that don't reflect a specific body of users.

There are too many good resources in this forum, too many incredibly talented and smart people who want to see actual change occur. We don't want to have to go through another 4 years of the political status quo, which is probably going to turn into another GOP 4 year reign since Wall Street has put all candidates on notice that they will withdraw all campaign funds of anyone who shows favor to the Occupy Wall Street Movement or any of their ideals. I would hate to think this movement mimics the very 1% we are revolting against, but this is the impression I'm getting from the people representing OWS NYC in this forum.




vze2363v

Posts: 14
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: FL-9

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by padel on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:54 am

I think NYCGA/OWS has articulated their self perceived purpose, and it is really substantially different from what I believe the 99% Declaration (and the national convention) represents. There is a relationship between the efforts, there are parallels. But the objectives are really quite different.

NYCGA/OWS is a demonstration. It is a demonstration against things that participants in the 99% Declaration sympathize with (hopefully, otherwise why would someone participate in the 99%D?). A demonstration, like a civil disobedience movement, has a definable purpose. It is to demonstrate the passion that the people feel. The success of a demonstration is measured by how many people participate, and how long they submit themselves to their self imposed hardships. The success of a demonstration may be measured by the amount of press coverage it gets, but that is directly proportional to the number of people and the self inflicted misery.

Analogies between NYCGA/OWS and events associated with the Arab Spring are greatly exaggerated for the purposes of generating viewer interest and publication sales statistics. The folks in Liberty Square are not remotely in the same boat that the Egyptians in Tahrir Square were in. Or the Libyans, or the Syrians. The end result of the NYCGA/OWS will not resemble the outcome of the Arab Spring episodes. I emphasize this only to make the point that NYCGA/OWS and the OWS actions in other cities have more in common with the Million Man march, the DC Vietnam protests, and the Rally to Restore Sanity than with any modern or historical revolutionary movement. The media doesnt want to admit that because then it wouldnt be as news worthy.

The 99% Declaration and National Convention is not a revolutionary movement. The French had a revolution. It was characterized by the Terror and the Guillotine. The changes that might be brought about by the 99% Declaration and National Convention will not resemble the changes wrought by the French revolution or the American Revolution. Won't happen. This may dissapoint some people, but a mature perusal of the affair will reveal the deeper truth of the matter.

The 99% Declaration and National Convention is a political movement. It's objective is social change, via political action. As evidence I will point to the Declaration, which is a platform, and the convention, which is, well, a convention to select representatives to go to congress or the white house.

This is the real distinction between the 99% Declaration/National Convention, and NYCGA/OWS. They have expressed quite clearly that they want to send a message, not pick candidates for congress or the white house.

As such, participants here should really feel no urge to be accepted by NYCGA/OWS. In reality, if 99% achieves anything, then NYCGA/OWS will be knocking on our door, asking to come in out of the rain. A time will come when it may be appropriate to take the declaration to NYCGA. It is pointless at this time to hope that the General Assembly will adopt the 99% Declaration/national convention as one of their working groups, or that they will adopt a statement of purpose generated by an effort such as this one. The media is salivating for the moment NYCGA/OWS adopts a list of demands, because that will be the moment that real action in the street starts. Demands must be associated with threats. NYCGA/OWS cannot threaten the Wall Street institution by rallying people in the streets of Manhattan. They can only threaten the New York City community. This is also a distinguishing point between NYCGA/OWS and 99% Declaration. We would be wasting our time and hurting our chances of accomplishing anything should we alienate the New York City community (which we should remember consists of a lot of "not large business" job creators in addition to residents at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum).

If we wish to be taken seriously at some point in the future when we have the outline of a declaration, it will be in our best interest to focus on preparing a declaration, and organizing a convention, rather than trying to get recognition from NYCGA.

We share an important philosophy with NYCGA/OWS. WE ARE THE 99%. NYCGA/OWS consists of 99%ers who happen to be camping out in a park in NYC. Our scope is NATIONWIDE (thank you zz top). I recommend that no further effort or angst be expended towards obtaining recognition from NYCGA/OWS. It is thinking in the wrong direction. If we develop a declaration that they feel they can subscribe to, they will formally adopt or endorse it according to their own schedule. If we develop a declaration they dont want to formally subscribe to, we will not have failed, and nothing will be lost. If we dont develop a declaration at all, there will be no point in organizing a convention. So, lets get serious. Lets prepare a declaration that represents the 99%!!!!!!

padel

Posts: 13
Join date: 2011-10-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by lmnop on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:00 pm

yes, please do divest your selves completely with ows and nycga if you can't respect and uphold the consensus model we have for decision making. That means remove your working group from the nycga.cc website and stop making any mention of occupy wallstreet in your online presence.

when you are completely detached from any associations, then and only then will you no longer co opting the movement's energy without relaying the message agreed upon through consensus by the nycga

If your group had any real integrity at all, that is what you would do.

lmnop

Posts: 20
Join date: 2011-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by BradB on Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:14 pm

latest post from the group administrator (Stanley Ford) of the group "The 99 Declaration" on the nycga site, as appointed by the nycga site administrators...

Stanley Ford posted an update in the group The 99 Declaration

"Everyone please, take pause. This is a working group nothing has been decided. This started out as a simple idea, like all great things before it. And it’s author did address the GA on Oct. 15th. We are asking that he be allowed to address the GA again this Sunday. At this point NOTHING has been decided but we encourage all to debate the Declaration and it’s Amendments as a working group. Many National GA’s are on board with forming a Second Constitutional Convention and we need to address the means by which we can have a National General Assembly."

https://www.nycga.net/members/stormkrow/

BradB

Posts: 85
Join date: 2011-10-19
Location: Wash DC

Back to top Go down

Re: Has this Working Group been approved by the GA in NYC?

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:18 pm

lmnop wrote:yes, please do divest your selves completely with ows and nycga if you can't respect and uphold the consensus model we have for decision making. That means remove your working group from the nycga.cc website and stop making any mention of occupy wallstreet in your online presence.

when you are completely detached from any associations, then and only then will you no longer co opting the movement's energy without relaying the message agreed upon through consensus by the nycga

If your group had any real integrity at all, that is what you would do.

Oh give up. We aren't you, you aren't us. We all want change. I am happy to disassociate with the NYCGA if you represent them. Why you, lmnop, have chosen to take such a challenging and negative attitude toward a different approach to a mutual goal is beyond me. We have removed all mention of OWS and NYCGA from both the original website and the original document. If media continues to make mistaken impressions, we can only inform them, not stop them.

Please remember that we do not exist to alienate NYCGA. We do not exist to "co-opt" NYCGA. We exist to create change.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Has the NYCGA been approved by the 99%?

Post by giogo on Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:55 am

lmnop wrote:yes, please do divest your selves completely with ows and nycga if you can't respect and uphold the consensus model we have for decision making. That means remove your working group from the nycga.cc website and stop making any mention of occupy wallstreet in your online presence.

when you are completely detached from any associations, then and only then will you no longer co opting the movement's energy without relaying the message agreed upon through consensus by the nycga

If your group had any real integrity at all, that is what you would do.

To apply the same logic:
"NYCGA should divest themselves completely with the 99% if they can't respect and uphold the model that the 99% have for decision making: electoral, representative democracy (not consensus)."

But obviously this is just sily... nobody has property over the words (be it occupy wall street or 99%) and ultimately what matters is the substance and the effectiveness of what we are trying to make. And, IMO, this effort of declaration and delegation is the best thing so far coming out of OWS: it is national, it has a real effort of achieving representation and effecitve proosals and strategies of implementing them. The folks at the GA should be all about this if they really care about achieving something concrete.

giogo

Posts: 101
Join date: 2011-10-20
Location: WA-08

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum