<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br>In the 9/11 Truth movement becausewe have widely divergent knowledge bases, interests, <br>agendas, standards of evidence, and priorities of values, we often have bitter disagreements <br>about effective strategies, associations, and style. Many of us have a somewhat paranoid <br>world view, many of us take on more work than we can do perfectly, and charges that some <br>of us are infiltrating saboteurs are easily leveled and difficult to settle.<br><br>Experienced truth movement activists have widely accepted the principle that in conflicts we <br>should focus on discussing counter-productive behaviors, and not on public psychoanalysis or <br>speculations on the motivations of our adversaries, which can get into circular recriminations <br>accomplishing nothing but disruption and ill will. If we never arrive at a consensus about the <br>proper psychiatric diagnosis of Joe Schmoe and we will never have proof that he is or is not <br>paid by the DHS to disrupt us, debating these only wastes time and distracts from the <br>important question of identifying and squelching counterproductive behaviors and activities. <br>At best we gain only the understanding that Joe Schmoe is bad news--and we already knew <br>that. At worst we squander energy and out of sheer fatigue stampede into snitch-jacketing <br>and embittering a useful ally.<br><br>Our experience with disruption leads us to set aside motivations and focus instead on whether <br>the behaviors help us or hurt us. Why discuss personalities if the behaviors have already <br>been identified as harmful? Debating behavior brings us to principles guiding all of us in <br>effective cooperation in serving the goals of the movement.<br><br>An excellent statement of guidelines is posted here:<br><br><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Tahoma " size="2"><a href="http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3227">http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3227</a></font><br><br>Here's the section on disruptors:<br><br><span class="postbody"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Dealing with destructive and divisive behavior</span></span>
<br>
<br>
1) Identify and critique behavior that is harmful to the movement (i.e.
speculative theories without evidence and <br>activists who engage in
disruptive behavior, divisive incidents, etc). Challenge leaders who
unreasonably continue <br>to support and tolerate such damaging behavior.
<br>
<br>
2) Refuse to debate solidly debunked theories by simply referencing
responsible websites, articles, and blogs <br>which have already refuted
such claims
<br>
<br>
3) Discourage unnecessary and unproductive antagonism (i.e. infighting,
personal attacks, gossip, etc.) that <br>wastes time and causes
divisiveness.
<br>
<br>
4) Avoid the divisive labeling of individuals and groups.(i.e. shill, agent etc)
<br>
<br>
5) Be aware and vigilant concerning the presence of agent provocateurs
within the movement. Do not engage <br>in witch hunts or unsubstantiated
accusations. Treat those who continually, and despite consultation, act
in word<br>and deed in the manner of agent provocateurs, as such. While
these people can rarely be proven to be agents, <br>they should be treated
as counterproductive and untrustworthy. Such groups and individuals
should not be<br>engaged in unproductive ways, such as aggression,
name-calling, personal attacks, etc. Instead, the substance <br>of their
destructive behavior should be detailed, after which they should be
avoided when possible. If appropriate,<br>exclusionary action (banning from
forums or groups, removal of links from websites, cancellation of
speaking <br>engagements etc.) or in extreme cases legal action should be
taken.
<br>
<br>
6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or
damaging behavior simply because the<br>individuals or groups in question
maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact
<br> that someone may “have done good work in the past” is never a valid
excuse to tolerate damaging participation <br>in the present. The movement
must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity.
<br>
<br>
In Summary: It is in our experience that group unity is not achieved by
ignoring divisiveness. It is achieved <br>through civil critique and a
constructive response to the disruptive behavior.
<br>
</span><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br> <br><br><br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:23:18 -0800<br>From: rainbeaufriend@yahoo.com<br>To: sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org; j.m.doyle@sbcglobal.net<br>CC: sanda@greens.org<br>Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic<br><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font:inherit" valign="top">In my opinion the main reason American Greens are deathly afraid of the centralization the having one Fuhrer is because many fear the Mike Feinstein or another similar Narcissistic Personality Disordered individual like Mike would do to the national party what he has done to the California Green Party. Since Sanda is an enabler of Mike she probably would be very okay with that. I would not. If we ever choose to have co-spokespeople it must be more than one with limited power and never to be Mike Feinstein. He is too power hungry and too anti-Green values to ever entrust that way, and even now he should be removed and banned from ALL leadership positions given the insanity he has imposed on the party consistently over many years.<BR>
http://JillStein.org<BR>
Drew<BR>
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android<BR>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss</div> </div></body>
</html>