----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Atinsky" <bryan at indymedia.org.il> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: The Lerner Affair
> > Simple, really...Why should ANSWER be the be all end all
> > for deciding who speaks and who doesn't.
>
> An important point is that, even though ANSWER may have been the ones to
> initiate the rally, this should only have a minor influence on the
question
> of whose rally it is.
>
> A usual excuse is: "We set this up, we got the permits, if you don't like,
> go and have your own rally"
>
> There can't and shouldn't be a multiple of separate demonstrations going
on
> in the same location, each one having exclusive control over the
> content...in the end much fewer numbers would turn up to any of the
> demonstrations.
Bryan, you should be arguing against Sawicky, not against ANSWER. Please acquaint yourself with the facts about February 15/16. In this case UFPJ issued the initial call for the action, NOT ANSWER. There is now a bloc of 4 coalitions doing the action. You would presumably think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. ANSWER thinks it's a good thing. Sawicky thinks it's a bad thing - that UFPJ should have said 'this is our rally, go and have your own.'
Lou