[Omd] apology/statement

Sat Dec 11 08:05:54 PST 2010

how's this:

=======
Dear member of the OMD list,

Ottawa Movement Defence would like to apologize for publicizing your email
address in a mailout last week.  We accidentally placed the addresses in the
"To" column, as opposed to our typical practice of  using the "Bcc". This
was done in accident and we can assure you that it will not happen again.

While Jane Schraf's comments are deeply troubling, we do not want to engage
her provocations. We stress that Jane is in no way associated with OMD, nor
was she involved in any of the organizing, nor was she present at any of the
court appearances, nor does she have a grasp on many of the facts presented
in court.

Again, we would like to apologize for the security breach. If you have any
further concerns, please contact us.  In Solidarity, OMD.

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Dan Sawyer <sawyerdk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101211/92803bdd/attachment.html>