[Omd] 2nd draft, response

[john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca]

yeah, i agree - both that all your versions were/are great, matt, and also with your additional comments.

i tend to think that this should go out to the list, though, as well as an apology to all on it for their individual emails getting into the public domain / jane's hands. how exactly did that happen, anyhow? if people think that a public response is worth doing (and so far i'm the only one who thinks so who's spoken up), we'll need a strategy to deal with people not wanting to be spammed by jane, at least in terms of a back-and-forth waste of bandwidth thing that we don't want to get into. but i think a public response is necessary for reasons of holdng jane accountable for her actions. ultimately, matt, it's up to you where you send your email of course.

"We who do not seek power, only want the consciences of [the masses]; only those who wish to dominate prefer sheep, the better to lead them. We prefer intelligent workers, even if they are our opponents, to anarchists who are such only in order to follow us like sheep. We want freedom for everybody; we want the masses to make the revolution for the masses. The person who thinks with [their] own brain is to be preferred to the one who blindly approves everything.... Better an error consciously committed and in good faith, than a good action performed in a servile manner."--Errico Malatesta



Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:09:17 -0500
From: joeli.htc at gmail.com
To: mattm-b at resist.ca
CC: omd at lists.resist.ca
Subject: Re: [Omd] 2nd draft, response

I liked your 1st one as well, but this is really good too.
FFJane,

Joeli
On Dec 10, 2010 10:02 AM,  <mattm-b at resist.ca> wrote:

hey,



ok a little calmer now, time for the 2nd draft.



i think this response is just to jane, but that we should send a brief

note reiterating that jane is not and has never been involved with doing

support work for the J18 defendants and that here opinions about the case

are ill-informed, baseless and generally ignorant. also, we should make

sure not to include her in future e-mails.



2nd draft:



hi jane,



we would appreciate it if you would keep your opinions to yourself, or, if

you can't do that, that you, at the very least, refrain from spamming our

e-mail list.



as always, being forced to deal with your antics remains a distraction

from the real and important work of supporting the J18 defendants in the

ways that they have all requested.



you can be sure that any actions that we do take in the future will not

include you and that your opinion will not be solicited.  once again, we

would prefer that you simply keep your opinions to yourself, or failing

that, to at least not bother telling us as a group or as individuals as

your opinions about which course of action we should take are

ill-informed, frivolous and generally ignorant.



as one of the J18 defendants who you "claim" to have been supporting, i

want you to know that i never felt supported by you and that, in fact,

your "support" was not only a distraction but was, in fact, entirely

counter-productive.  your ongoing attempts to comment upon and/or

influence decisions which - i thank god - you had no say in, is not

wanted, and continues to be offensive and a deep waste of our time.



as for some of the specific points and/or allegations that you made:



1) i don't know where you get off calling me a "follower" but i would be

happy, once again, if you keep your opinions to yourself.  i had nothing

to do with the firebombing.  i am, however, entirely capable of reaching

my own conclusions about subjects, issues and so on, and am capable of

deciding for myself how i want(ed) to be supported regarding the attempt

to charge me with arson, and, more generally, what i will do with my

activist time.  i believe that your characterization of em as a "follower"

comes from a) the fact that i have been diagnosed as "schizoaffective"

(which would be a very ableist opinion to hold) and 2) the fact that i

don't agree with you about many subjects.



2) to date, there has never been any evidence that any police officer was

involved with the arson.  there was never any statement or evidence that a

police officer was involved in any of the disclosure, nor did roger ever

say or imply that a police officer was involved in the action.



3) your understanding of the bail proceeding is clearly extremely limited

and based far more on opinion than on fact.



4) a trial would have resulted in roger receiving a much more severe

sentence than he did receive. so, basically, your plan would have meant

that our friend and comrade roger would be spending something like 5 - 7

years in prison instead of 3 1/2.



finally, as a more general point, sensible people choose not to talk about

things which they know nothing about.  we hope that you will see the

wisdom in this and refrain from opining further about the legal situations

of the J18 defendants.



matt for ottawa movement defense



_______________________________________________

Omd mailing list

Omd at lists.resist.ca

https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd



_______________________________________________
Omd mailing list
Omd at lists.resist.ca
https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/omd/attachments/20101210/501ad145/attachment.html>