[Omd] 2nd draft, response

Fri Dec 10 11:16:06 PST 2010

hey folks,

i think we should really send an apology.  perhaps we can add that Jane is
full of shit, but i think we should not include her in the email.  that will
only provoke another fuckin stupid response and i think that would make our
apology kinda lame since they'd be subjected to another round of bullshit.

if we want to email jane separately, we should do that.  and of course Matt
should send his personal response.

but ultimately, i think we should try to stay out of an email war.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, <john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca> wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101210/7514a5fd/attachment.html>