Deactivate NatGat Loomio Planning Group

Cal, thanks for the clarification. Easy answer, I/O and their guidelines have no relevance here except for those who choose to use them for their own personal reasons. I use the 4 agreements, personally, and see no other reasons for Guidelines and will never hold anyone else to the "rules" or "guidelines" i choose to operate in my reality.

To superimpose "guidelines" (or support the superimposition of I/O 'guidelines' as valid at this point for this group is disingenuous and misleading, at best), that must be followed in an event that is not an "I/O Produced Event" or similar can be seen as a NON-TRANSPARENT heirarchial structure we claim NOT to have in OCCUPY -- which is defined ONLY by the Principles of Solidarity as used by those who are in attendance (even if attendance is not necessarily in the physical, if they are contributing to the group trying to reach and operating together in consensus, i consider that "attendance" -- for instance, Kerry, Chas and Jackie who were on the calls but not in physical, I still are an equal voice to mine in this whole thing, absent the first hand experience on the ground), and in consensus as being collectively identified as "Occupy", "National Gathering" or otherwise.

As for how I see your interactions with Donna -- they are equal in contribution to the issue at hand. Just like the Democrats and the Republicans -- two different modus operendi, same result: finger pointing and blame game, and a system that is not working for the benefit of the whole. Yeah, I tend to like the Dems and their soft touch better too. But sometimes, I like the Repubs and their balls supporting the Constitution.

It takes two to bring together the energy of conflict, the "oppressed" has the same level of responsibility as the "oppressor" in reconciling the conflict. Why do you think we need to "rise" in the "Together We Rise" ???

Just because she yells louder and her emotions are quite evident for everyone to see and witness, whereas your's are not and are extremely subtle and well-developed, does NOT mean that the energy force is not equal. I believe you know that as well as I do, so the way you voiced that comment above surprised me, quite honestly.

If you did as I suggested sometime back in this process, probably around May or June, to listen back to how you engage your hostility towards others, and you still do not understand or see it, I am happy to do that here. Yet, NO, the energy is EQUAL towards one another -- how it is manifested is irrelevant (within the realms of non-violence).

Thoughts expressed either through words spoken or words unspoken have the same impact in relationships to create and perpetuate a non-resolution of the conflict -- especially in a group like this full of VERY sensitive people.

In my experience, all conflicts among those who are really on the same side, stems from the unconscious realm and manifesting in you two for whatever cosmic reasons.

In my eyes and experience, I am witnessing both of you using it to create drama and organize allies and garner support of one person over the other in order to create a hierarchical, competitive rather than consensus-based group. Since that is our societal programming, of course we have it here in this group and its what we are trying to find a way through to bring together consensus and a movement that is better than the drama our reality is creating. IMHO.

"Together we Rise" ... if we are not willing to deal with the possibility and the reality that "I am" both the problem and the solution, we will never be able to include the other on equal standing, and we will never be able to gather support for a movement of more of the same.

and, Carolyn, if this is inter-occupy, why would anyone want to volunteer for this? =) just askin'?

This argument started when Niki-Cal interacted on the call, and the issue of her name was put by Cal, and Donna defended Niki, and so now Cal has twisted it that its Donna's fault.

That is just not so, Sea. The C-D "argument" pre-dates that by several months. I do not have the time to pour through the emails and phone calls at present - at some point, I will and will write up a detailed point by point. (but this has been done over and over - if folks would care to read all that has been written by way of responses).

Yes, often when a dynamic comes up, both parties have some level of contribution, but in this case the magnitude of the respective contributions are extremely lopsided.
How can the following two sets of actions be compared as "equal in contribution"?

Set A (these happened in the early spring):
- Speaking louder than Niki for 2-3 seconds to get her attention.
- Making a sound lasting a fraction of a second (either (a) clearing my throat or a (b) making a sound while considering where to go next, facilitation-wise).
- Ringing the bell on a call in error (hitting the wrong button), at the beginning of one of Donna's shares.
- Not repeating something that Donna said precisely as she said it.
- Making a comment to Sea when talking with him that, IMO, the speakers working group calls would likely be more difficult if Donna joins them.

Set B (occurring after all the things in Set A happened):
- Saying that I single-handedly brought down Occupy Oakland, and making inferences that my men's group stands for something that it doesn't.
- Twisting the wonderful work of people I know to create collaborative tools and processes, as well as my contributions to the Apple world (from 17 years ago), into somehow being bad or destructive.
- Acting in ways that resulted in the speakers working group productivity to come to a grinding halt, including taking more time that the other participants combined, sometimes to soapbox or rant. (May and June)
- Sending a stream of emails for two days to the speakers working group (which most people here haven't ever seen), much of it yelling (in upper case), while three of us were desperately trying to get a schedule done enough that public announcements could be made. (In the span of just 48 hours in mid-June, her emails morphed from (a ) having some difficulty with me doing the things in Set A, to (b ) claiming that I have some intentional timed orchestrated set of torture and mind control tactics, to (c ) proclaiming that "CAL IS THE ENEMY HIDING WITHIN" (uppercase emphasis hers). And then last week, she referred to me as "such an obvious abuser". (Saying that someone has abused them is an extremely serious accusation; nothing I have said to her or about her has been truly damning like that.)
- Acting with such hatred towards me that Jackie, Lisa, and (in part) Brother Carter left the planning effort.
- Warding people away from one of the most solid contributors to this effort, by claiming that I sabotaged her efforts and those of Wm Underbaggage (with whom I had no interaction whatsoever until Thursday evening of the gathering, mainly to learn whether he was going to lead an assembly the first night and to help him find a place to stay), when I and others have tried to support her from time to time.

How can those two sets of things possibly be anywhere near close to equal in magnitude or in impact?

What I write is never to malign people's characters, nor would I say that people are good or bad people. And -- I will comment on specific behaviors and actions that people (including me) do, and the impact that those things have.

I truly haven't been trying to create sides. When, on a call a few weeks ago, Sea said that he was siding with Donna, hearing him say that bothered me, and I was really sad, because I don't see this as being about sides, but rather about getting to the truth of what various people have actually done, and what people are feeling. Those are what matter, not creating escalating factions.
(And Jackie, Sally, and others I know have no difficulty giving me feedback about when I do well and when I do poorly. I wonder whether Donna's cohorts similarly let her know when she's off the mark.)

Even just above when I am clarifying that the the actions and impact are much more severe on the part of one of us, I'm not trying to get anyone to take sides, nor am I making any insinuation about Donna as a person. My intention is to get to clarity of truth. My belief is that being awash in the light of truth is best for all and will ultimately lead to the healing of all. And somewhere along the way is an accountability conversation, though as I said in the last half hour of the last call, I imagine that Donna, and perhaps many other Occupyers, might possibly not like real accountability very much. (I acknowledge and own that that as a conclusion I've made based what I've seen, and am open to learning what's actually true for her.)

As you said on the last call, Elaine, we have to be able to deal with mudslinging -- but, as someone else said, not coming from our own people!

Lastly, I do agree that, until there's an actual dialogue between us, we're probably not going to make much progress. For me and others to feel safe, there must be some basic agreements, which we can discuss at another time.

simple answer: they can’t

SECURITY NOTICE: NO SPYING! THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS PRIVATE AND SUBJECT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH STATES:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Goodbye. I'll be in the SandBox I created when I came to Loomio, because I support the energy it is able to hold. Yet, this dialog is for someone else who know these people better to deal with, I've already done my time in a conflict laden reality. =)