I've come to the only logical conclusion here, and that is that these people are some sort of theatre group putting on an incredibly long and drawn out play. There is no way that these people are seriously that dumb. I can't allow myself to believe it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
I think the mere fact that they assumed the document was a hoax says all you need to know about these guys. They simply do not trust the government, so working on a solution will never happen.
Think about it, they believed that the city would manufacture a court document, forge a judges signature, call the media all under the guise that it was real. You simply cannot deal rationally with people who think this way.
__________________
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
I've read your blog. No you haven't said the kind of nasty things your husband says, you've only used the words of some of us in a selective way and mocked them as a lead up to recommending his blog. I read his squatter-be-gone post too. It was very funny in a sick way. Recommending the post isn't the same as writing it but it certainly does amount to endorsing and encouraging antagonistic sentiments. Therefore no person who is part of this movement has much reason to trust or welcome you.
For the record, I am the person on fb who first made the distinction between you and your husband and for what it's worth, I meant it and I did benefit from your brief time there in that I learned something I didn't know. I was encouraged by your comment to the effect of "I'm more supportive than you think." If your intentions were benign then I'm sorry you got the boot. Judging by your use of screenshots of that page, I'm not so sure they were.
We don't do everything by consensus. If we did, not much would get done.
When non-supporters visit the blog I engage them. I try to learn from them. I agree and disagree with the privacy settings on the FB page, because on the one hand I have found dialogue with non-supporters very useful and enlightening on both sides. On the other hand not everyone has the patience I have to deal constantly with disrespect. Again. There is a difference between one person's right to speak and another's willingness to host their words. This is why there are two FB pages. The other is open to anyone, as you know because you post there. Then we have the blog, which is also open to anyone. On the blog I have been accused of censorship because I delete the occasional extremely hateful comment. But no one is ever banned from reading or commenting there. Come on down if you want to talk occupy.
I've read your blog. No you haven't said the kind of nasty things your husband says, you've only used the words of some of us in a selective way and mocked them as a lead up to recommending his blog. I read his squatter-be-gone post too. It was very funny in a sick way. Recommending the post isn't the same as writing it but it certainly does amount to endorsing and encouraging antagonistic sentiments. Therefore no person who is part of this movement has much reason to trust or welcome you.
For the record, I am the person on fb who first made the distinction between you and your husband and for what it's worth, I meant it and I did benefit from your brief time there in that I learned something I didn't know. I was encouraged by your comment to the effect of "I'm more supportive than you think." If your intentions were benign then I'm sorry you got the boot. Judging by your use of screenshots of that page, I'm not so sure they were.
We don't do everything by consensus. If we did, not much would get done.
When non-supporters visit the blog I engage them. I try to learn from them. I agree and disagree with the privacy settings on the FB page, because on the one hand I have found dialogue with non-supporters very useful and enlightening on both sides. On the other hand not everyone has the patience I have to deal constantly with disrespect. Again. There is a difference between one person's right to speak and another's willingness to host their words. This is why there are two FB pages. The other is open to anyone, as you know because you post there. Then we have the blog, which is also open to anyone. On the blog I have been accused of censorship because I delete the occasional extremely hateful comment. But no one is ever banned from reading or commenting there. Come on down if you want to talk occupy.
tl;dr, but it looks like OccupyPillcrows was a success! ¶
I've read your blog. No you haven't said the kind of nasty things your husband says, you've only used the words of some of us in a selective way and mocked them as a lead up to recommending his blog. I read his squatter-be-gone post too. It was very funny in a sick way. Recommending the post isn't the same as writing it but it certainly does amount to endorsing and encouraging antagonistic sentiments. Therefore no person who is part of this movement has much reason to trust or welcome you.
How was it selective, when the posts that she put up are being supplied by one of the members of that facebook page?
And its hard to trust a movement that claims openness but is secretive, claims to respect the ideas and discussions with others yet locks thingslike its webpage forum and its facebook, and declares its own media blackout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idnami
For the record, I am the person on fb who first made the distinction between you and your husband and for what it's worth, I meant it and I did benefit from your brief time there in that I learned something I didn't know. I was encouraged by your comment to the effect of "I'm more supportive than you think." If your intentions were benign then I'm sorry you got the boot. Judging by your use of screenshots of that page, I'm not so sure they were.
We don't do everything by consensus. If we did, not much would get done.
While I wouldn't really class FL's actions as benign, I would almost class them as a counter protest, and a fairly efficient way to present a more complete picture of the occupy movement.
As to the bolded, I think this was a key problem when you consider that the Occupy movement in Calgary managed to turn a large chunk of this city against the movement, and turned something that could have been sympathetic based on the OWS movement and made it incredibly unsympathetic.
The movement actually had the city sending out feelers to negotiate and through the movements greed, a heavy portion of strategic stupidity, and arrogance (I'd like to put fire to this offer) you even pissed off a mayor who was literally giving you all of the space and freedom that you wanted, and now you've got nothing.
In terms of things getting done, from an interested outsiders point of view, I really don't think that OC accomplished anything of merit besides turning people off of the local occupy movement, but it wasn't just Calgary, it was literally all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idnami
When non-supporters visit the blog I engage them. I try to learn from them. I agree and disagree with the privacy settings on the FB page, because on the one hand I have found dialogue with non-supporters very useful and enlightening on both sides. On the other hand not everyone has the patience I have to deal constantly with disrespect. Again. There is a difference between one person's right to speak and another's willingness to host their words. This is why there are two FB pages. The other is open to anyone, as you know because you post there. Then we have the blog, which is also open to anyone. On the blog I have been accused of censorship because I delete the occasional extremely hateful comment. But no one is ever banned from reading or commenting there. Come on down if you want to talk occupy.
The funny thing is that I don't see Cory or Jane editing their comments section, or locking them down, and they've gotten some pretty insulting comments thrown thier way. Even stating that you have two facebook pages one that's open for the rif raf and one that's for the people that agree and support the movement basically its made the movement look like its either trying to hide something, or that at its heart the members of OC are fairly elitist, and that's the wrong message.
By trying to fight the Cory's and Jane's of the world in this manner, by locking things down instead of engaging in a civilized debates that promote the OC movement, you've literally given the Janes and Cory's the moral high ground in the debate.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Enough is enough. What a joke and a farce this entire thing is.
Tear it down, move on. If these people only dedicated half the energy towards making a real difference in the world.... rather they act like entitled children unhappy with the rules the parents have laid down. News Flash how can you stand for something that no one can even come to a general agreement on?
None of these occupiers are victims. Frankly, this farce has taken time away from by-law, police and city hall that could be put to much better use.
Whiny babies. At first this little stunt was a minor annoyance, but now you are taking up actual time of the people my tax money pays.
Out of nearly 600 comments on various posts I've chucked about 25. Again, free speech doesn't mean you get to be abusive. If you cant to better than a stream of obscenities you better come back and try again because it'll be gone by the time you do. Hell, at least put a genuine message into the obscenities. I also don't allow spam.
If you look at some of the comments in there many of them are extremely confrontational and not respectful at all, but they get to stand because they express a genuine point of view. I don't even pre-moderate.
We individual participants also close the curtains before we undress and have private conversations on issues as well as public ones. Defending human rights does not mean we give up all privacy.
The Following User Says Thank You to idnami For This Useful Post:
I've read your blog. No you haven't said the kind of nasty things your husband says, you've only used the words of some of us in a selective way and mocked them as a lead up to recommending his blog. I read his squatter-be-gone post too. It was very funny in a sick way. Recommending the post isn't the same as writing it but it certainly does amount to endorsing and encouraging antagonistic sentiments. Therefore no person who is part of this movement has much reason to trust or welcome you.For the record, I am the person on fb who first made the distinction between you and your husband and for what it's worth, I meant it and I did benefit from your brief time there in that I learned something I didn't know. I was encouraged by your comment to the effect of "I'm more supportive than you think." If your intentions were benign then I'm sorry you got the boot. Judging by your use of screenshots of that page, I'm not so sure they were.
We don't do everything by consensus. If we did, not much would get done.
When non-supporters visit the blog I engage them. I try to learn from them. I agree and disagree with the privacy settings on the FB page, because on the one hand I have found dialogue with non-supporters very useful and enlightening on both sides. On the other hand not everyone has the patience I have to deal constantly with disrespect. Again. There is a difference between one person's right to speak and another's willingness to host their words. This is why there are two FB pages. The other is open to anyone, as you know because you post there. Then we have the blog, which is also open to anyone. On the blog I have been accused of censorship because I delete the occasional extremely hateful comment. But no one is ever banned from reading or commenting there. Come on down if you want to talk occupy.
Thank you for admitting that; I've never called them squatters, I've never accused anyone of being an unemployed bum and I've never called them hippies.
Cory and I promote each others blogs all the time. I promote other blogs and articles via Twitter, Facebook and sometimes here. I don't necessarily agree with all of them.
And yes, you did acknowledge that Cory and I are two different people. Frankly though your movement could learn a thing or two from both of us.
In Cory's case, he developed an opinion early on and then gathered the evidence to support his position.
Lesson:
- know your message.
- stay on message.
- provide evidence.
In my case, I sat back for some time and observed. You will note I didn't blog for a month, from Nov 1 to Dec 2. My approach was to expose what the people of occupy were really thinking. I simply started sharing the groups thoughts.
Lesson:
- realize everything you say (type) is permanent.
- if you claim to be open and accountable, demonstrate it.
- don't feed the trolls. (me)
I think your group also needs to realize how hard it is to start a "movement".
Cory and I have thousands of followers between our blogs and Twitter because we have been at it for years. That doesn't happen in a few short weeks and it certainly won't happen if you are inconsistent in your message or don't even know what it is in the first place.
As for censoring comments on your own blog, I fully agree with that. It's yours, its one of your tools to control your message. I too delete comments that contain vulgarities or are outright defamation. I allow contrary views, IMO that is the only way to keep a dialogue going and interest up.
People debate ideas, you will never win over the person you are debating with; the ones you are trying to win over are your viewers. Viewers weigh the value of the comments and make their decisions based on who makes a stronger case. One of the reasons I don't much care for anonymous commenters.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to First Lady For This Useful Post:
Thank you for admitting that; I've never called them squatters, I've never accused anyone of being an unemployed bum and I've never called them hippies.
Cory and I promote each others blogs all the time. I promote other blogs and articles via Twitter, Facebook and sometimes here. I don't necessarily agree with all of them.
And yes, you did acknowledge that Cory and I are two different people. Frankly though your movement could learn a thing or two from both of us.
In Cory's case, he developed an opinion early on and then gathered the evidence to support his position.
Lesson:
- know your message.
- stay on message.
- provide evidence.
In my case, I sat back for some time and observed. You will note I didn't blog for a month, from Nov 1 to Dec 2. My approach was to expose what the people of occupy were really thinking. I simply started sharing the groups thoughts.
Lesson:
- realize everything you say (type) is permanent.
- if you claim to be open and accountable, demonstrate it.
- don't feed the trolls. (me)
I think your group also needs to realize how hard it is to start a "movement".
Cory and I have thousands of followers between our blogs and Twitter because we have been at it for years. That doesn't happen in a few short weeks and it certainly won't happen if you are inconsistent in your message or don't even know what it is in the first place.
As for censoring comments on your own blog, I fully agree with that. It's yours, its one of your tools to control your message. I too delete comments that contain vulgarities or are outright defamation. I allow contrary views, IMO that is the only way to keep a dialogue going and interest up.
People debate ideas, you will never win over the person you are debating with; the ones you are trying to win over are your viewers. Viewers weigh the value of the comments and make their decisions based on who makes a stronger case. One of the reasons I don't much care for anonymous commenters.
That last paragraph is really insightful actually. Something good to keep in mind.
I think I find it easier to deal with dissent because, though I am deeply committed to certain ideas, I don't get emotional when these ideas are challenged. I mean some people are incredibly frustrating to try to communicate with and it can be hard to hold back from expressing that. But I used to write for a multi author blog focused on religious beliefs. Try THAT for emotional.
So Jane, I will say that I don't appreciate your publicizing screen shots of private conversations and I'd really like it if you wouldn't do that. I will also say that there is something to learn from everyone and I learn something every time I talk to you. I do value your advice. Thanks.
So Jane, I will say that I don't appreciate your publicizing screen shots of private conversations and I'd really like it if you wouldn't do that.
You have over 200 members in there, thinking that those are "private" conversations is unrealistic. Someone else found my email and I'm now getting info from two people.
Two who have asked that the page be switched back to public.
I suspect I will be done after Friday,
Quote:
I will also say that there is something to learn from everyone and I learn something every time I talk to you. I do value your advice. Thanks.
The best example I can remember off the top of my head is the high incidence of rare cancers in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. Dr John O'Connor has been investigated for "causing undue alarm" for linking these health issues to oil sands activity upstream and subsequent pollution of the river. He's been cleared of that accusation.
