[Omd] apology/statement

[Dan Sawyer]

Hi all, 

We really need to get an apology out soon. 

Does anyone have time to write it? I can't until this afternoon

D

On 2010-12-11, at 1:54 AM, mattm-b at resist.ca wrote:

> i agree that an apology is necessary.  i still think that a minimal
> statement would be good.
> 
> at this point, finding a way to prevent jane from spamming our "list"
> would be the best thing...if anyone has suggestions...for example, the Omd
> list could be turned into our public list, and we could go back to just
> e-mailing one another.
> 
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> Someone in OMD sent out an email a couple days ago, the one about the
>> 'suing
>> the cops' workshop, and mistakenly put our contacts in the To line rather
>> than the BCC line. A simple slip up, I'm sure, and not that big a deal.
>> 
>> Matt, you're response to Jane is bang on. Having just read her reply, I
>> can
>> say I'm not surprised that she didn't listen to a thing you said. But I'm
>> really glad you gave it a shot. Not sure what you think next steps might
>> be,
>> but I suggest the best thing is to just not respond any further.
>> 
>> I think we should send out a quick apology over the email list as soon as
>> we
>> can.
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM, <john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> i support what you're proposing, matt. i don't think anyone wants an
>>> email
>>> war, but there's a few things that need clarification.
>>> 
>>> it would still be helpful in hearing from somebody (dan?) about how it
>>> is
>>> that jane was able to send an email to the announcements group.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "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 12:37:49 -0800
>>>> From: mattm-b at resist.ca
>>>> To: omd at lists.resist.ca
>>>> Subject: [Omd] apology/statement
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> i also think we should stay out of a flame war over the "list". i
>>> agree
>>>> that we should apologize/comment very briefly on jane's e-mail, in
>>>> particular to reiterate that she doesn't speak for roger, claude or i,
>>> and
>>>> that she doesn't have her facts right on a number of issues, including
>>> the
>>>> role that francois played in infiltrating the activist community.
>>>> specifically, that as far as we know from the disclosure and from
>>> roger's
>>>> own statements or lack thereof neither he, nor any police officers
>>> were
>>>> involved in the firebombing.
>>>> 
>>>> maybe folks feel that this is tangential to the matter at hand, but
>>> i'd
>>>> rather that francois' actual role in infiltrating the community not be
>>>> confused any more than it already has been by jane and others.
>>>> 
>>>> already sent jane my e-mail - so that ship has sailed...i did sign of
>>>> "matt for ottawa movement defense" which may have been premature...in
>>>> which case i apologize.
>>>> 
>>>> p.s. thanks for the feedback.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Omd mailing list
> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd