At 09:07 PM 10/25/2011, // ravi wrote:
>On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Dennis Claxton wrote:
> >
> >> Michael and others who have been there, is it really coming down to this?
> >>
> >>
> http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2011/10/end-of-occupywallstreet-conflict-over-drummers.html
> >
>
>
>Michael,
>
>thank you for the report. Hopefully it will have a remedial effect on FUD
>(within this list, but also, if it okay with you I would like to post it -
>with attribution to you - on my blog; which doesn't have a lot of readers,
>but if I link to Dean's post etc, it will hopefully get picked up by the
>Googles and serve its purpose).
>
> —ravi
>
>
> > Okay, I just got back from the park and 60 Wall (which is the hive of
> the working groups) and this was clearly a non-issue. Nobody mentioned
> it and everyone is still working with timelines extending into the
> indefinite future. I was a little embarassed to ask, to be honest, it
> was so obviously an exaggerated rumor. But when asked, the general
> answer was the same: the GA/drum circle conflict has been there since the
> beginning, and conflict and negotiation with the neighbors and city
> officials has been there since the beginning. Nothing's changed or come
> to crisis. On the contrary, things have recently gotten substantially
> better on both fronts precisely because the drummers are drumming
> substantially less now. So the conflict will continue, and hopefully
> continue to improve. No one was worried. People getting mad or feeling
> agreements were reneged is just considered SOP when there's a
> conflict. It always leads to another meeting.
> >
> > And speaking of conflicts -- or lack thereof -- the Demand working
> group met today with the Facilitation working group, the one that sets
> the agenda for the nightly general assembly. They couldn't have been
> nicer or more efficient. We asked if we could propose it and they said sure.
> >
> > So rumors that this would somehow get strangled in its cradle behind
> the scenes seem entirely ungrounded. To judge by this meeting, I don't
> see how it would such smothering would be even possible, this committee
> seems so transparent and rational and non-judgmental. It looks at this
> point as if the whole idea was either a misunderstanding or a bluff or both.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)